Rhetoric - Earmarks

= Rhetoric Around Earmarks =

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker of the House

 * The earmark ban has made it tough on members and leadership to get bigger pieces of legislation done, but Speaker John Boehner said the ban is a "positive step in the right direction" in the revamping of Congress. "you know we've been through 16 months now with not one earmark. It's made my job a lot more difficult in terms of how to pass important legislation because there's no grease," he said on CNN's "State of the Union." Politico, No earmarks? GOP freshman face dilemma, 5/1/2012
 * Speaker Boehner says he's been successful in changing the House for the better despite not having legislative goodies like earmarks to help the process. "I've got no -- no grease," the Ohio Republican said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." Politico, Boehner: Job more difficult without earmarks, 4/29/2012
 * "Earmarks have become a symbol of a dysfunctional Congress and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington for too long. Next week the House Republican Conference, including all of our newly elected Members, will vote on a measure that would impose an immediate ban on earmarks at the start of the 112th Congress. We welcome President Obama's remarks on earmark reform, and we call upon him to urge Congressional Democrats to hold a vote next week on a similar measure. Furthermore, if the President is committed to real earmark reform, he could demonstrate that immediately by agreeing to veto any spending measure this year or next that includes earmarks. Washington has failed to prioritize the way that taxpayer dollars are spent, and shutting down the earmark process is a good first step to begin righting the ship." Statement by Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, 11/12/2010

Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC)

 * "There's no question that the lack of earmarks makes it more difficult to pass legislation, and that's probably a good thing," said Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC). "With an abundance of earmarks, more people are happy, but the American people get a bigger bill. The truth is while lawmaking is more painful and slower-moving without earmarks, it's probably in the best interest of our country for the long term." Politico, No earkmarks? GOP freshman face dillema, 5/1/2012.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), House Majority Leader

 * "Earmarks have become a symbol of a dysfunctional Congress and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington for too long. Next week the House Republican Conference, including all of our newly elected Members, will vote on a measure that would impose an immediate ban on earmarks at the start of the 112th Congress. We welcome President Obama's remarks on earmark reform, and we call upon him to urge Congressional Democrats to hold a vote next week on a similar measure. Furthermore, if the President is committed to real earmark reform, he could demonstrate that immediately by agreeing to veto any spending measure this year or next that includes earmarks. Washington has failed to prioritize the way that taxpayer dollars are spent, and shutting down the earmark process is a good first step to begin righting the ship." Statement by Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, 11/12/2010

Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH)

 * Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH), an appropriator who led an unsuccessful push to clarify the definition of an earmark under House rules when the GOP voted to adopt the earmark ban in November, said he think's there is a "legitimate debate" looming about what an earmark is; the Ohio Republican said the current definition isinadequate. "Everybody's decided they're going to run against earmarks, without necessarily knowing what an earmark is...I think you can say earmarks are bad, as long as we know what an earmark is, and I don't think we're there yet," Said LaTourette, who is close to Speaker Boehner. Roll Call, Members Rethink Earmark Ban, 3/15/2011

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)

 * Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, an Appropriations cardinal, said she also wants to take another look at the earmark definition, arguing that districts such as hers really need the funding. "The way we level the playing field is by having Member-directed projects," the Missouri Republican said. "A lot of my little communities don't have the ability to do competitive grants; they can't afford to hire somebody to do the applications, and they don't know how to do them themselves." Roll Call, Members Rethink Earmark Ban, 3/15/2011.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)

 * Recently, the House GOP Conference greeted Rep. Mike Rogers with applause when he said during a meetign on the transportation bill that it was time to end the ban. National Journal, House GOP Wistful for Days of Earmarks, 5/14/2012
 * "What I would like to see happen is a situation where we can't advocate for private company and for-profit [companies]. But if it's a state, county, or local government in our district, we should be able to advocate for a project that is beyond the scope of what they can do and need federal partnership. I think you are going to see a lot of members advocating for [that arrangement]. Because right now we are prohibited from advocating for anything for our states...I don't think you are going to hear a lot about it between now and the election because the word 'earmark' is what changed these things, and what we're talking about is advocacy, not parochial gigs for specific companies...constitutionally, the power to appropriate is the Congress's. We have given it over to the administration. Earmarks have not stopped. They've just been done by the administration now, and they are being done in all Democrat districts." The Hill, Republicans taking aim at earmark ban, 5/18/2012

'''Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Many seasoned appropriators, meanwhile, barely bother to hide their frustration with the moratorium. Officially, of course, they back it: Jennifer Hing, spokesman for House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, said recently that "we're going to stay far away from this; it's not our fight." Rogers "will enforce the current earmark ban to the greatest extent of his ability, and that's the committee's position." National Journal, House GOP Wistful for Days of Earmarks, 5/14/2012

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX)

 * But at a Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee markup of a fiscal 2013 spending bill last week, subcommittee Chairman John Culberson at one point referred to the "temporary" earmark ban with scorn, complaining that it was difficult to direct money to specific military construction projects. National Journal, House GOP Wistful for Days of Earmarks, 5/14/2012
 * "In light of new security threats to our country and our allies, expansion of [the Foreign Materials Exploitation Lab] is desperately needed now. And because of the earmark ban, I can't more it...it's just nuts...This is an evolving conversation...This was designed as a temporary ban, and I'm only talking about infrastructure for national security purposes or critical infrastructure. For example, flood control or transportation, that's critical public infrastructure, which we have no conflict of interest, no personal interest of any kind and is utterly transparent." The Hill, Republicans Taking Aim at Earmark Ban, 5/18/2012

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)

 * "Americans want Congress to shut down the earmark favor factory," DeMint, a prominent voice of the tea party, said in a statement last week. "Instead of spending time chasing money for pet projects, lawmakers will be able to focus on balancing the budget, reforming the tax code, and repealing the costly health care takeover." Washington Post, Coalition of Senators challenges GOP on earmarks, 11/13/2010.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Minority Leader

 * Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and other earmark defenders, who say that banning the prectice would not actually decrease the budget, have been canvassing the caucus in recent days, lining up votes against Demint's moratorium. "The problem is, it doesn't save any money," McConnell said last week..."What we really need to do is to concentrate on reducing spending and reducing debt. And this debate doesn't save any money, which is why it is kind of exasperating to some of us who really want to cut spending." Washington Post, Coalition of senators challenges GOP on earmarks, 11/13/2010.
 * Ending earmarks would give the Obama administration a "blank check" on deciding where to spend federal money, McConnell said recently. In the past, lawmakers have defended earmarks by arguing that elected officials, rather than bureaucrats, should decide where public money is spent. "You could eliminate every congressional earmark and you would save no money," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation. "It's really an argument about discretion." LA Times, Obama and Republicans find common ground on 'earmarks'.
 * "Make no mistake, I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don't apologize for them," McConnell said. "But, there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused Americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and the out-of-control spending that every Republican in Washington is determined to fight. And unless people like me show the American people that we're willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and reign in government." Washington Post, In sudden reversal, GOP leader McConnell will back ban on earmarks, 11/16/2010

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)

 * Sen. Daniel Inoute (D-HI), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said earmarks are an "important part of the constitutional duty of Congress and they have been vital to fortifying the physical, social, and economic infrastructure of my home state of Hawaii and the nation." Washington Post, Coalition of senators challenges GOP on earmarks, 11/13/2010

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

 * "The American people have sent a clear message that it is time for this body to make hard choices and live within our means," Coburn said in a statement. "Imposing a moratorium on earmarks is an important step that will - as a matter of symblo and substance - begin a new era of sobriety in Washington. America did just fine for 200 years without earmarks, and Congress will do just fine without them." Washington Post, In sudden reversal, GOP leader McConnell will back ban on earmarks, 11/16/2010.

Sen James Inhofe (R-OK)

 * Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), another big supporter of earmarks, said in an interview that banning earmarks "gives cover for big-spending members of Congress to look conservative. They start demagoguing the earmark thing and everybody goes, 'oh, they must be conservative'...every time you kill an earmark, it would transfer whatever that amount of money is to the president...in Oklahoma, if I'm not taking care of the needs of Oklahoma...Obama's not going to do it. He doesn't even know where Oklahoma is. And people in South Carolina and Oklahoma, they pay taxes too." Washington Post, Coalition of senators challenges GOP on earmarks, 11/13/2010

President Barack Obama (D)

 * "These principles begin with a simple concept: Earmarks must have a legitimate and worthy public purpose. Earmarks that members do seek must be aired on those members' websites in advance, so the public and the press can examine them and judge their merits for themselves. Each earmark must be open to scrutiny at public hearings, where members will have to justify their expense to the taxpayer. Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions that we've already seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools, and police stations, and fire departments. When somebody is allocating money to those public entities, there's some confidence that there's going to be a public purpose. When they are given to private entities, you've got potential problems. You know, when you give it to public companies -- public entities like fire departments, and if they are seeking taxpayer dollars, then I think all of us can feel some comfort that the state or municipality that's benefitting is doing so because it's going to trickle down and help the people in that communicty. When they're private entities, then I believe that have to be evaulated with a higher level of scrutiny. Furthermore, it should go without saying that an earmark must never be traded for political favors. And finally, if my administration evaulates an earmark and determines that it has no legitimate public purpose, then we will see to eliminate it, and we'll work with Congress to do so." Statement by President Obama, 3/11/2009
 * "I agree with those Republican and Democratic members of Congress who've recently said that, in these challenging days, we can't afford what are called 'earmarks'," Obama said. "We can't afford 'Bridges to Nowhere,' like the one that was planned a few years back in Alaska." LA Times, Obama and Republicans find common ground on 'earmarks', 11/14/2010

Relevant Links

 * Republicans Quietly Flirt With Earmarks After Getting Little Done Without Them - National Journal, 5/7/2012