JacobG18
11-30-2010, 03:12 PM
Thirty-nine senators voted Tuesday in support of a three-year moratorium on appropriations earmarks, the strongest showing ever by opponents of the current process and a potential game changer in the year-end budget debate.
Seven Democrats backed the proposal, and the party leadership will have to decide now whether to strip out or weaken draft language in an omnibus spending bill that currently sets aside billions of dollars for home-state projects. (See: Senate Dems Debate Earmark Ban)
The massive bill already represents a serious bipartisan effort to reach a compromise by cutting up to $26 billion from President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget. And with nearly 40 senators supporting the moratorium, the Appropriations Committee leadership faces the threat of endless delays if some accommodation is not reached. (See: Billions at Stake With Earmark Vote)
“I’ve just decided now is the time to put earmarks aside, and there are better ways to appropriate,” said Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, one of the Democrats who had previously supported the practice but now favors a moratorium. “I like the idea of a nonbinding approach. I know there has been a lot of work put into the earmark process this year, and I want to be respectful of senators who operate in a thoughtful manner. I’ve just come to the conclusion that we spend way too much time on pet projects, and it makes it easier to vote for big bloated appropriations bills.”
In private conversations, such steps are not being ruled out, and the combination of budget cuts and no binding legislative earmarks would be a sea change from where Congress stood just months ago. But with fiscal deadlines fast approaching — and the continuing election-year acrimony — it’s not clear the parties are prepared to grasp the potential deal before them.
Tuesday’s 56-39 vote on the moratorium contrasts with one last March in the Senate defeating a similar ban by a larger margin: 68-29.
Since November’s elections, the Senate Republican Conference has embraced a two-year moratorium beginning in the next Congress. Tuesday’s amendment, offered by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, ups the ante by including this budget year and is very much in line with the thinking of incoming House Speaker John Boehner. (See: GOP Backs Earmarks Ban in Vote)
Coburn had hoped to get to 40 and was hurt by the defections of eight Republicans, many prominent on the Appropriations Committee. But the House GOP leadership has been unyielding thus far and, with the Democratic defections, hopes to put pressure on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to accept a temporary ban.
In a recent private meeting, Boehner warned Reid, a longtime veteran of the appropriations process, that he would not accept any earmarks in the 2011 spending bills, according to several sources familiar with that discussion.
The Senate vote came shortly before a scheduled White House meeting of the president with House and Senate leaders, including Reid and Boehner, on the remaining agenda this year. The fate of middle-class tax cuts has received more attention, but Obama also has a big stake in a deal that will put the 2011 appropriations battles to rest. (See: GOP Leaders and Obama Finally Meet)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45724.html#ixzz16noTui62
Seven Democrats backed the proposal, and the party leadership will have to decide now whether to strip out or weaken draft language in an omnibus spending bill that currently sets aside billions of dollars for home-state projects. (See: Senate Dems Debate Earmark Ban)
The massive bill already represents a serious bipartisan effort to reach a compromise by cutting up to $26 billion from President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget. And with nearly 40 senators supporting the moratorium, the Appropriations Committee leadership faces the threat of endless delays if some accommodation is not reached. (See: Billions at Stake With Earmark Vote)
“I’ve just decided now is the time to put earmarks aside, and there are better ways to appropriate,” said Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, one of the Democrats who had previously supported the practice but now favors a moratorium. “I like the idea of a nonbinding approach. I know there has been a lot of work put into the earmark process this year, and I want to be respectful of senators who operate in a thoughtful manner. I’ve just come to the conclusion that we spend way too much time on pet projects, and it makes it easier to vote for big bloated appropriations bills.”
In private conversations, such steps are not being ruled out, and the combination of budget cuts and no binding legislative earmarks would be a sea change from where Congress stood just months ago. But with fiscal deadlines fast approaching — and the continuing election-year acrimony — it’s not clear the parties are prepared to grasp the potential deal before them.
Tuesday’s 56-39 vote on the moratorium contrasts with one last March in the Senate defeating a similar ban by a larger margin: 68-29.
Since November’s elections, the Senate Republican Conference has embraced a two-year moratorium beginning in the next Congress. Tuesday’s amendment, offered by Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, ups the ante by including this budget year and is very much in line with the thinking of incoming House Speaker John Boehner. (See: GOP Backs Earmarks Ban in Vote)
Coburn had hoped to get to 40 and was hurt by the defections of eight Republicans, many prominent on the Appropriations Committee. But the House GOP leadership has been unyielding thus far and, with the Democratic defections, hopes to put pressure on Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to accept a temporary ban.
In a recent private meeting, Boehner warned Reid, a longtime veteran of the appropriations process, that he would not accept any earmarks in the 2011 spending bills, according to several sources familiar with that discussion.
The Senate vote came shortly before a scheduled White House meeting of the president with House and Senate leaders, including Reid and Boehner, on the remaining agenda this year. The fate of middle-class tax cuts has received more attention, but Obama also has a big stake in a deal that will put the 2011 appropriations battles to rest. (See: GOP Leaders and Obama Finally Meet)
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45724.html#ixzz16noTui62