0.0.0.0 10579 8168 En febrero de 2006, Barack Obama, en su calidad de senador estadounidense, introdujo un <A id=link_0 title=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2261 href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2261">proyecto de ley </A>que buscaba prohibir la odiosa práctica parlamentaria conocida como "<A id=link_1 title=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks">Earmarks</A>". Nadie le hizo caso y la ley fue a parar al basurero. 1 2007-12-09T22:31:12Z 2007-12-09T22:26:00Z 67698 2008-01-14T20:40:23Z el-intento-barack-obama 2007-12-09T22:31:12Z 1 1 El intento de Barack Obama 2008-01-14T20:40:24Z 0.0.0.0 10579 8168 Para quienes resulte interesante los pormenores del lobby corporativo en Estados Unidos, le recomiendo visitar la página de <A id=link_0 title=http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx">The Center for Public Integrity</A>. Este "watchdog" periodístico tiene una sección dedicada a investigar el mundo del lobby. Tiene reportaje muy interesantes, entre los que sobresale el de la industria armamentística. En esa listan destacan empresas de muy triste fama como Dyncorp o Blackwater, los nuevos mercenarios corporativos. <A id=link_1 title=http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&amp;type=18 href="http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&amp;type=18">Dyncorp</A> es una cosa fuera de serie, es la hija preferida del Pentágono y la Casa Blanca. Entrenar a la policía en Afghanistán, esparcir herbicida (fabricado por Mosanto, otro personaje del lobby) por la selva colombiana o darle mantenimiento al armamento militar en Irak. No importa, Dyncorp puede. Siempre que de por medio haya un jugoso cheque girado contra la cuenta corriente que mantienes el buen Joe Sixpack (americano promedio) con sus impuestos. 0 2007-12-09T22:03:18Z 2007-12-09T21:48:00Z 67690 the-center-for-public-integrity 2007-12-09T22:03:18Z 1 1 The Center for Public Integrity 2007-12-09T22:03:18Z 0.0.0.0 10579 8168 <A id=link_0 title=http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ href="http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/"></A>La relación entre la economía de los Estados Unidos y la indsutria militar constituye uno de los temas más polémicos del debate público, sobretodo a partir del 11-S. Sin embargo, dada la complejidad del tema, son pocos lo que tienen tiempo para comprender en su real magnitud la relación existente entre el gobierno, la industria militar y la economía nacional en Washington. Para aquelllos de ustedes interesados en el tema no se pueden perder el documental <A id=link_1 title=http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ href="http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/">Why We Fight</A>, de Eugene Jarecki, del cual podrán ver un breve adelanto online. Con relación al tema de nuestro block, verán la relación entre el lobby corporativa de la industria militar y los legisladores federales. Funciona más o menos así. Yo, industria local, que empleo a gran parte del distrito electoral de legislador X, presiono para que ese parlamentario logre asiganciones presupuestarias del rubro defensa en contratos adjudicados a mi. El legislador X, que no quiere perder el voto de mis empleados, hará lo que sea por incluir un "<A id=link_2 title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking">earmark"</A> por el que se asignen recursos a mis contratos. Vean el documental. 0 2007-12-06T18:41:08Z 2007-12-06T18:29:00Z 66546 del-dinero-guerra-lobby-y-otros-demonios 2007-12-06T18:41:08Z 1 1 Del dinero, la guerra, el lobby y otros demonios 2007-12-06T18:41:08Z 0.0.0.0 10579 8168 <SPAN class=mw-headline><H1 class=firstHeading>Earmarks</H1><!-- begin bodyContent --><DIV id=bodyContent><STYLE type=text/css>@import url(http://www.sourcewatch.org/skins/common/congresspedia.css);</style> "<B>Earmarking</B>" is the term used to refer to a provision in legislation that directs funds to be spent on specific projects. Typically, legislators seek to insert earmarks which direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district. This differs from the appropriation of money to a particular government agency, for in these cases the appropriate executive department can exercise discretion as to where and how the funds are spent. The use of earmarks in the <A title="U.S. Congress" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Congress">U.S. Congress</A> has expanded significantly over the past thirty years, and is presently the focus of much controversy. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.research.umich.edu/policies/earmarkpolicyQA.html href="http://www.research.umich.edu/policies/earmarkpolicyQA.html" rel=nofollow>[1]</A> <TABLE class=toc id=toc summary=Contents><TBODY><TR><TD><DIV id=toctitle><H2>Contents</H2><SPAN class=toctoggle>[<A class=internal id=togglelink href="javascript:toggleToc()">hide</A>]</SPAN></DIV><UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#History_of_earmarking"><SPAN class=tocnumber>1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>History of earmarking</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#The_earmarking_process_today"><SPAN class=tocnumber>2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>The earmarking process today</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Perceived_unfairness"><SPAN class=tocnumber>3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Perceived unfairness</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Support_and_opposition_for_earmarking"><SPAN class=tocnumber>4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Support and opposition for earmarking</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Earmark_reform_legislation"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Earmark reform legislation</SPAN></A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Senate_legislation"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Senate legislation</SPAN></A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI class=toclevel-3><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Legislative_Transparency_and_Accountability_Act_of_2006"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.1.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-3><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.1.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-3><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Senate_rules_change"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.1.3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Senate rules change</SPAN></A> </LI></UL><LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#House_legislation"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>House legislation</SPAN></A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI class=toclevel-3><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Lobbying_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-3><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Amendment_to_the_Federal_Financial_Assistance_Management_Improvement_Act_of_1999"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Amendment to the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-3><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#House_rules_change"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>House rules change</SPAN></A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI class=toclevel-4><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Proposed_amendment"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.3.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Proposed amendment</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-4><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Alternative_rules_change"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.3.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Alternative rules change</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-4><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Vote"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.3.3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Vote</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-4><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Opposition"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5.2.3.4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Opposition</SPAN></A> </LI></UL></LI></UL></LI></UL><LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Executive_branch_changes"><SPAN class=tocnumber>6</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Executive branch changes</SPAN></A> <UL><LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Controversial_earmarking_practices_in_Congress"><SPAN class=tocnumber>6.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Controversial earmarking practices in Congress</SPAN></A> </LI></UL><LI class=toclevel-1><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Articles_and_resources"><SPAN class=tocnumber>7</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Articles and resources</SPAN></A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Related_SourceWatch_articles"><SPAN class=tocnumber>7.1</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Related SourceWatch articles</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Sources"><SPAN class=tocnumber>7.2</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>Sources</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#External_resources"><SPAN class=tocnumber>7.3</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>External resources</SPAN></A> <LI class=toclevel-2><A href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#External_articles"><SPAN class=tocnumber>7.4</SPAN> <SPAN class=toctext>External articles</SPAN></A> </LI></UL></LI></UL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } </SCRIPT><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: History of earmarking" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=History_of_earmarking></A><H1>History of earmarking</H1>While many lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader <A title="Harry Reid" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_Reid">Harry Reid</A> (D-Nev.), have proclaimed that earmarking has been common since the founding of America, recent research has indicated otherwise. The idea of directing federal money to specific local projects originally came from Rep. <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun" rel=nofollow>John Calhoun</A> (D-S.C.) when he proposed the Bonus Bill of 1817 to construct highways linking the East and South of the United States to its Western frontier. At the time, these projects were referred to as "internal improvements." Calhoun wanted to use the earnings bonus from the Second Bank of the United States specifically for this program, arguing that the General Welfare and Post Roads clauses of the <A title="US Constitution" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=US_Constitution">US Constitution</A> called for it. President <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe" rel=nofollow>James Monroe</A> vetoed the bill as unconstitutional. He explained his reasoning in the following message: <I>Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.</I> Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog organization, has argued that widespread earmarking is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. The organization cites the evolution of earmarks since the 1970s. The 1970 Defense Appropriations Bill had a dozen earmarks; the 1980 bill had 62; and by 2005, the defense bill included 2,671. Among the earmarks in the 2005 bill was money to eradicate brown tree snakes in Guam. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049 href="http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049" rel=nofollow>[2]</A> Similar increases are seen in the history of the Transportation Appropriations Bill. When President <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_eisenhower" rel=nofollow>Dwight Eisenhower</A> proposed the first national highway bill in the 1950s, there were two projects singled out for specific funding. In August 2005, when Congress passed a six year, $286.4 billion Transportation Bill, there were 6,371 earmarks, ranging from $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, New York to $3 million for dust control mitigation on Arkansas’ rural roads. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049 href="http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049" rel=nofollow>[3]</A> In all, there were roughly 15,000 congressional earmarks in 2005 at a total cost of $47 billion. <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: The earmarking process today" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=The_earmarking_process_today></A><H1>The earmarking process today</H1>On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen. In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire <A title="U.S. House of Representatives" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._House_of_Representatives">U.S. House of Representatives</A> or <A title="U.S. Senate" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Senate">U.S. Senate</A> during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling" rel=nofollow>logrolling</A>, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of <A title="Citizens Against Government Waste" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Citizens_Against_Government_Waste">Citizens Against Government Waste</A>, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase. When passed legislation reaches the president’s desk, a similar problem arises. Not wishing to stall the budgetary process or risk a public relations backlash for rejecting a bill for transportation or defense appropriations, presidents are often forced to sign bills loaded with earmarks. Many presidents, including <A title="Bill Clinton" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton">Bill Clinton</A> and <A title="George W. Bush" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush">George W. Bush</A> have advocated a <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto" rel=nofollow>line-item veto</A>, whereby the president is able to veto specific spending projects in appropriations bills without vetoing the entire bill. While Congress has historically opposed this expansion of executive power, it did grant it in 1996 with the <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996" rel=nofollow>Line Item Veto Act of 1996</A>. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by Clinton. In February 1998, however, a federal district judge ruled that the law was in violation of the <A title="US Constitution" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=US_Constitution">US Constitution</A>. This ruling was affirmed in June 1998 by the U.S. <A title="Supreme Court" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court">Supreme Court</A> in the case <A class="external text" title=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York" rel=nofollow><I>Clinton v. City of New York.</I></A> <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Perceived unfairness" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=3">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Perceived_unfairness></A><H1>Perceived unfairness</H1>Many individuals and groups consider earmarks to be inherently unfair. Rather than directing funds to the most-deserving projects, many believe the ability of an earmark to make it onto a bill depends on the seniority and power of the member advocating it. One commonly cited example is West Virginia. The state often comes out near the top of all states for earmarked higher-education funds. In 2000, Wheeling Jesuit University received $7 million for the Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center. Another $2 million was awarded to the school's Erma Ora Byrd Center for Educational Enterprises. Sen. <A title="Robert Byrd" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Byrd">Robert Byrd</A> (D-W.Va.) was then (and remains) the U.S. senator with the longest seniority (serving since 1959). In addition, many credited the power of Sen. <A title="Ted Stevens" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ted_Stevens">Ted Stevens</A> (R-Alaska) to an earmark which directed $223 million to the building of a bridge in Alaska from the remote town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) to the more remote island of Gravina (population 50). Critics dubbed this project the "Bridge to Nowhere." <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar01/game.cfm href="http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar01/game.cfm" rel=nofollow>[4]</A> <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Support and opposition for earmarking" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=4">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Support_and_opposition_for_earmarking></A><H1>Support and opposition for earmarking</H1>Members of Congress have come out both for and against earmarking in the past. In 2001, Rep. <A title="Alan Mollohan" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Mollohan">Alan Mollohan</A> (D-W.Va.) argued that politicians know better than federal agencies how to properly spend money for higher education. He stated, “Nobody knows their constituents or their academic institutions or their programs better than the members of the House or the Senate who represent these organizations...We are in a better position to evaluate the merits of these programs than any executive agency." In addition, Rep. <A title="Mike Simpson" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mike_Simpson">Mike Simpson</A> (R-Idaho) and Sen. <A title="Larry Craig" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Larry_Craig">Larry Craig</A> (R-Idaho) issued a joint report in 2006 supporting the continued use of earmarks. They argued that in 2005, for example, earmarks were very beneficial for Idahoans. They built a new wastewater infrastructure in Bonners Ferry, supported jobs at the Idaho National Laboratory, improved housing for families at Mountain Home Air Force Base, and expanded course offerings at Boise State University. Without earmarking, in their mind, these projects would not have been possible. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.house.gov/simpson/earnest_earmarks.shtml href="http://www.house.gov/simpson/earnest_earmarks.shtml" rel=nofollow>[5]</A> Many politicians, particularly fiscal-conservatives, have come out against the expanded use of earmarking. Sen. <A title="Tom Coburn" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Coburn">Tom Coburn</A> (R-Okla.), for example, has called earmarking a “gateway drug” for a spending addiction. House Rep. <A title="Jeff Flake" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeff_Flake">Jeff Flake</A> (R-Ariz.) has launched a similar crusade against earmarks. On June 20, 2006, he even attempted to strip an earmark inserted by House Speaker <A title="Dennis Hastert" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Hastert">Dennis Hastert</A> (R-Ill.) which is set to provide $2.5 million for the Illinois Technology Transistion Center. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062106/news4.html href="http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062106/news4.html" rel=nofollow>[6]</A> Flake also criticized an earmark of Rep. <A title="Jerry Lewis" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jerry_Lewis">Jerry Lewis</A> (R-Calif.) which set aside $250,000 for a public swimming pool in Benning, California. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/06/19/201669.html href="http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2006/06/19/201669.html" rel=nofollow>[7]</A> On July 8, 2006, Flake attempted to strip a $250,000 appropriation for the Science Museum of Virginia. He stated, "I would note that the museum will soon open a traveling exhibit on candy, sponsored by the Jelly Belly Candy Co...It does not sound like much research to me." <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&amp;s=1045855935264&amp;c=MGArticle&amp;cid=1149189030037&amp;path=!news!politics href="http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&amp;s=1045855935264&amp;c=MGArticle&amp;cid=1149189030037&amp;path=!news!politics" rel=nofollow>[8]</A> Each of Flake’s attempts failed. <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Earmark reform legislation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=5">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Earmark_reform_legislation></A><H1>Earmark reform legislation</H1>One of the most common criticisms regarding earmarking is that the process lacks transparency. As noted above, lawmakers are able to (and often do) insert earmarks during the conference phase of legislation, once debate has ceased. In addition, members of Congress may introduce earmarks anonymously, making it difficult for constituents to follow the actions of his/her legislator. In 2006, both the <A title=House href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House">House</A> and <A title=Senate href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate">Senate</A> considered legislation which many argued would make the process more transparent. <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Senate legislation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=6">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Senate_legislation></A><H2>Senate legislation</H2><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=7">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Legislative_Transparency_and_Accountability_Act_of_2006></A><H3>Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006</H3>On March 29, the Senate passed the <A class=new title="Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Legislative_Transparency_and_Accountability_Act_of_2006&amp;action=edit">Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006</A> by a vote of 90-8. The bill requires that: <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI>All Senate bills or conference reports include a list of all earmarks in the measure. <LI>Members of Congress who propose an earmark be identified. <LI>Earmark proposals be accompanied by an explanation of its essential government purpose. <LI>All bills or conference reports, including the list of earmarks, be available to the Senate and to the general public on the Internet for at least 24 hours before its consideration. <LI>Senators be given the right to try to remove earmarks from any bill that moves onto the floor. An earmark could be removed from legislation with the support of sixty senators (without striking down the entire bill). <A class="external autonumber" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02349: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02349:" rel=nofollow>[9]</A> </LI></UL>Despite these changes, many felt as though the legislation was not strong enough. Critics cited a provision in the bill which deemed that no disclosure was necessary for money to be spent by federal agencies. Some estimates say that as many as forty-percent of earmarks are delivered through this medium. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/30/senate_oks_new_rules_on_lobbyists/?page=2 href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/30/senate_oks_new_rules_on_lobbyists/?page=2" rel=nofollow>[10]</A> <TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 325px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align={{{Align}}}><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #faf6ed"><DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; BORDER-BOTTOM: #fad67d 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #faecc8; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 85%"><FONT size=1>Senate record vote: </FONT><A class="external text" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02349: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02349:" rel=nofollow><FONT size=1>To provide greater transparency</FONT></A></SPAN></DIV><DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">March 29, 2006 Passed, 90-8, <A class="external text" title=http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/82/ href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/2/votes/82/" rel=nofollow>view details</A> Dem: 39-3 in favor, GOP: 50-5 in favor, Ind: 1 in favor </DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=8">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act></A><H3>Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act</H3>On April 6, Sens. <A title="Tom Coburn" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Coburn">Tom Coburn</A> (R-Okla.), <A title="Barack Obama" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama">Barack Obama</A> (D-Ill.), <A title="Tom Carper" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Carper">Tom Carper</A> (D-Del.), and <A title="John McCain" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_McCain">John McCain</A> (R-Ariz.) introduced a stricter bill, named the <A title="Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act">Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act</A> (S.2590), which would require the <A title="Office of Management and Budget" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Management_and_Budget">Office of Management and Budget</A> to create a searchable database of all government-appropriated funds and its' recipients. Specifically, the database would include: <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI>The name of the entity receiving federal funds. <LI>The amount of any federal funds that the entity had received in each of the last 10 fiscal years. <LI>An itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action. <LI>The location of the entity and primary location of performance, including the city, state, congressional district, and country. <LI>A unique identifier for each such entity and parent entity, should the entity be owned by another entity. <LI>Any other relevant information. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02590: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.02590:" rel=nofollow>[11]</A> </LI></UL>On July 27, 2006, the <A title="Senate Committee on Homeland Security &amp; Governmental Affairs" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_Committee_on_Homeland_Security_%26_Governmental_Affairs">Senate Committee on Homeland Security &amp; Governmental Affairs</A> unanimously approved the bill. After it was stalled by unanimous holds for over a month, the bill passed by a <A class="external text" title=http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm" rel=nofollow>voice vote</A> on September 7, 2006. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/1133 href="http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/1133" rel=nofollow>[12]</A> Six days later, the <A title=House href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House">House</A> passed it as well. (See <A title="Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act">Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act</A>) <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Senate rules change" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=9">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Senate_rules_change></A><H3>Senate rules change</H3>After it became clear that the House and Senate could not agree on broad ethics reform legislation in 2006, both chambers sought to amend their own rules to require better transparency. The House passed a rules change on September 14 (<A title=Earmarks href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#House_rules_change">see below</A>). The Senate, however, was unable to pass a change by this point. On September 18, a Senate leadership aide said that Senate leaders would not accept a change unless <A title="Senate Committee on Rules and Administration" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Senate_Committee_on_Rules_and_Administration">Senate Rules Committee</A> Chairman <A title="Trent Lott" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Trent_Lott">Trent Lott</A> (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member <A title="Christopher Dodd" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Dodd">Christopher Dodd</A> (D-Conn.) could come up with a measure that would easily be passed by the chamber. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_27/news/14991-1.html href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_27/news/14991-1.html" rel=nofollow>[13]</A> <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: House legislation" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=10">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=House_legislation></A><H2>House legislation</H2><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=11">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Lobbying_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act></A><H3>Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act</H3>On May 3, 2006, the House passed the <A class=new title="Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lobbying_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006&amp;action=edit">Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006</A> by a vote of 217-213. The bill, which was largely focused at lobbying reform, was in many ways similar to the Senate version passed in March 2006 (see <A title=Earmarks href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Legislative_Transparency_and_Accountability_Act">above</A>). It requires that all bills advanced to the floor by the <A title="House Committee on Appropriations" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_Committee_on_Appropriations">House Committee on Appropriations</A> include a list of earmarks within the bill, as well as the name of any member who submitted a request to the committee for an earmark. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060503-112134-8689r.htm href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060503-112134-8689r.htm" rel=nofollow>[14]</A> As was the case with the Senate bill, many Democrats and anti-earmark conservatives argued the bill was too weak, and actively sought a provision which would require all earmarks to face a vote on the House. Their attempts were unsuccessful. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060503-112134-8689r.htm href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060503-112134-8689r.htm" rel=nofollow>[15]</A> Ultimately, the House and Senate were unable to reconcile the differences between their respective bills, largely due to limits set on independent campaign organizations known as <A title="527 committee" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=527_committee">527</A> groups in the House version. Many senators opposed the measure, which the House insisted upon. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html" rel=nofollow>[16]</A> <TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 325px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align={{{Align}}}><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f1f5fc"><DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; BORDER-BOTTOM: #abd5f5 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d0e5f5; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 85%"><FONT size=1>House record vote: </FONT><A class="external text" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.4975: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.4975:" rel=nofollow><FONT size=1>To provide greater transparency</FONT></A></SPAN></DIV><DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">May 3, 2006 Passed, 217-213, <A class="external text" title=http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/119/ href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/119/" rel=nofollow>view details</A> Dem: 8-192 opposed, GOP: 209-20 in favor, Ind: 1 opposed </DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Amendment to the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=12">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Amendment_to_the_Federal_Financial_Assistance_Management_Improvement_Act_of_1999></A><H3>Amendment to the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999</H3>On June 21, 2006, the <A title=House href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House">House</A> passed a bill which would amend the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 by a <A class="external text" title=http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm href="http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/voice_vote.htm" rel=nofollow>voice vote</A>. Specifically, it would establish a public database on the Internet to track federal grants. The director of the <A title="Office of Management and Budget" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Management_and_Budget">Office of Management and Budget</A> would be directed to work with other agencies to ensure that the information was available to the public on a single web site within 30 days of the grant being awarded. The site would include the following for each grant: <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.fcw.com/article92824-04-03-06-Web href="http://www.fcw.com/article92824-04-03-06-Web" rel=nofollow>[17]</A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI>The name of the grantee and sub-grantees who have received the award <LI>An itemized breakdown of that assistance by agency and program source <LI>All awards a grantee has received for the past 10 years <LI>A list of dates and amounts of federal financial assistance awards to the grantee <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.fcw.com/article92824-04-03-06-Web href="http://www.fcw.com/article92824-04-03-06-Web" rel=nofollow>[18]</A> </LI></UL>The bill was criticized by some for failing to require disclosure of government contracts as well as grants. Ultimately, the House passed <A title="Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act">S.2590</A> (see <A title=Earmarks href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act">above</A>) which expanded the requirement to include both. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/p03s02-uspo.html href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/p03s02-uspo.html" rel=nofollow>[19]</A> <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: House rules change" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=13">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=House_rules_change></A><H3>House rules change</H3>After it became clear to House leadership that differences on broader ethics reform legislation could not be reconciled with the Senate, it sought to change its internal rules to reform the earmarking process. A rule change sponsored by Rep. <A title="David Dreier" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Dreier">David Dreier</A> (R-Calif.), chairman of the <A title="House Committee on Rules" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_Committee_on_Rules">House Committee on Rules</A>, was introduced which would effectively require that all earmarks and their sponsors be disclosed in every House bill. <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Proposed amendment" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=14">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Proposed_amendment></A><H4>Proposed amendment</H4>Before the bill was debated on September 14, 2006, Reps. <A title="Rahm Emanuel" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rahm_Emanuel">Rahm Emanuel</A> (D-Ill.) and <A title="Chris Van Hollen" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chris_Van_Hollen">Chris Van Hollen</A> (D-Md.) sought to have an amendment added which would include a prohibition on earmarks to any organization employing a spouse, family member, or former employee of the sponsor. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0906/091206cdpm1.htm href="http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0906/091206cdpm1.htm" rel=nofollow>[20]</A> The measure was never considered on the House floor. <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Alternative rules change" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=15">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Alternative_rules_change></A><H4>Alternative rules change</H4>On September 13, 2006, Rep. <A title="Dennis Moore" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Moore">Dennis Moore</A> (D-Kan.) introduced an alternative rules change measure (<A class="external text" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008:" rel=nofollow>H.R. 1008</A>) which would amend <A title="House Rule XXII - House and Senate relations" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_Rule_XXII_-_House_and_Senate_relations">Rule XXI</A> of the <A title="U.S. House of Representatives" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._House_of_Representatives">House</A> requiring that all earmarks: <A class="external autonumber" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008:" rel=nofollow>[21]</A> <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI>Be accompanied by a written request sent to the chairman and ranking member of the committee of primary jurisdiction at least seven days before such an earmark, or bill including it, is scheduled to be voted on by the committee or by the House. <LI>Include in their requests the name of the member sponsoring it, the name and address of its intended recipient, its purpose, and a statement of whether the member sponsoring the earmark has a financial interest in it or in its intended recipient. <LI>Are made available to the public through the website of the applicable committee (at least 48 hours before a conference report is issued). <A class="external autonumber" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008:" rel=nofollow>[22]</A> </LI></UL>Despite having 17 co-sponsors in the House, Moore's measure was referred to the <A title="House Committee on Rules" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_Committee_on_Rules">House Committee on Rules</A> and was not considered before the chamber voted on the rules change proposed by Dreier. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE01008:" rel=nofollow>[23]</A> <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Vote" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=16">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Vote></A><H4>Vote</H4>On September 14, the Dreier-sponsored rules change was approved by a vote of 245-171. The provisions in the change were effective only until the end of 2006, although future Congresses could choose to renew the change. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html" rel=nofollow>[24]</A> <TABLE style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 325px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align={{{Align}}}><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #000000 1px solid; VERTICAL-ALIGN: top; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #000000 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f1f5fc"><DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; BORDER-BOTTOM: #abd5f5 1px solid; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d0e5f5; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 85%"><FONT size=1>House record vote: </FONT><A class="external text" title=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.1003: href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.res.1003:" rel=nofollow><FONT size=1>To reform the earmarking process in the House</FONT></A></SPAN></DIV><DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.5em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.5em; FONT-SIZE: 80%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">September 14, 2006 Passed, 245-171, <A class="external text" title=http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/449/ href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/449/" rel=nofollow>view details</A> Dem: 45-147 opposed, GOP: 199-24 in favor, Ind: 1 in favor </DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Opposition" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=17">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Opposition></A><H4>Opposition</H4>Many Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that it was too weak. Rep. <A title="Louise Slaughter" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Louise_Slaughter">Louise Slaughter</A> (D-N.Y.) called it “shameful” and “a sham.” Rep. <A title="David Obey" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Obey">David Obey</A> (D-Wis.) referred to the change as a “trivial pursuit,” saying it would do little to alter federal spending while preventing broader reform of federal ethics laws from being pursued. The rule change was also opposed by several <A title=Republican href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Republican">Republican</A> members of the <A title="House Appropriations Committee" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=House_Appropriations_Committee">House Appropriations Committee</A>, including Chairman <A title="Jerry Lewis" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jerry_Lewis">Jerry Lewis</A> (R-Calif.), who argued that the change would have a disproportionately negative impact on them. <A class="external autonumber" title=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html" rel=nofollow>[25]</A> (See <A title="Transparency in the U.S. Congress" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Transparency_in_the_U.S._Congress">Transparency in the U.S. Congress</A>) <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Executive branch changes" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=18">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Executive_branch_changes></A><H1>Executive branch changes</H1>On February 28, 2007, the <A title="Office of Management and Budget" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Management_and_Budget">Office of Management and Budget</A> (OMB) requested detailed earmark information from federal agencies. The OMB stated that it would begin posting "all earmarks identified by federal agencies in fiscal year 2005 appropriations bills" on its website. <SUP class=reference id=_ref-0><A title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#_note-0">[1]</A></SUP> <DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Controversial earmarking practices in Congress" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=19">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Controversial_earmarking_practices_in_Congress></A><H2>Controversial earmarking practices in Congress</H2>Click on the name of the following members of the <A title="U.S. Congress" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Congress">U.S. Congress</A> to read their respective earmark controversies. <UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI>Sen. <A title="Conrad Burns" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conrad_Burns#Telecom:_Revolving_Door">Conrad Burns</A> (R-Mont.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Ken Calvert" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ken_Calvert#Earmarks">Ken Calvert</A> (R-Calif.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Dennis Hastert" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Hastert#Failure_to_disclose_real_estate_trust">Dennis Hastert</A> (R-Illinois) <LI>Rep. <A title="Duncan Hunter" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Duncan_Hunter#Earmarks">Duncan Hunter</A> (R-Calif.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Jerry Lewis" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jerry_Lewis#Earmarks">Jerry Lewis</A> (R-Calif.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Alan Mollohan" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Mollohan#Personal_finance_and_earmark_inquiry.3B_Mollohan_steps_down_from_ethics_committee_temporarily">Alan Mollohan</A> (D-W.Va.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Jim Moran" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jim_Moran#Earmarks">Jim Moran</A> (D-Va.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Nancy Pelosi" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nancy_Pelosi#Earmarks_and_.22pork.22">Nancy Pelosi</A> (D-Calif.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Mike Pence" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mike_Pence#Earmarks">Mike Pence</A> (R-Ind.) <LI>Sen. <A title="Ted Stevens" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ted_Stevens#Alaska_Pork">Ted Stevens</A> (R-Alaska) <LI>Rep. <A title="Charles Taylor" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Taylor#Earmarks_for_non-profit_group">Charles Taylor</A> (R-N.C.) <LI>Rep. <A title="Don Young" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Don_Young#Gravina_Island_Bridge">Don Young</A> (R-Alaska) </LI></UL><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Articles and resources" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=20">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Articles_and_resources></A><H1>Articles and resources</H1><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Related SourceWatch articles" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=21">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Related_SourceWatch_articles></A><H2>Related SourceWatch articles</H2><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: Sources" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=22">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=Sources></A><H2>Sources</H2><OL class=references><LI id=_note-0><A title="" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks#_ref-0">↑</A> <A class="external text" title=http://thehill.com/the-executive/omb-to-post-all-earmarks-on-website-2007-03-08.html href="http://thehill.com/the-executive/omb-to-post-all-earmarks-on-website-2007-03-08.html" rel=nofollow>"OMB to post all earmarks on website,"</A> <I>The Hill</I>, March 9, 2007.</LI></OL><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: External resources" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=23">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=External_resources></A><H2>External resources</H2><UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.thomas.gov href="http://www.thomas.gov/" rel=nofollow>THOMAS</A> <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/ href="http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/" rel=nofollow>Sunlight Foundation</A> <LI><A class="external text" title=http://web.mit.edu/osp/www/earmarks.htm href="http://web.mit.edu/osp/www/earmarks.htm" rel=nofollow>Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) policy to decline funds stemming from congressional earmarks</A>. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.EndingEarmarksExpress.com href="http://www.endingearmarksexpress.com/" rel=nofollow>Ending Earmarks Express</A> <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.cagw.org/ href="http://www.cagw.org/" rel=nofollow>Citizens Against Government Waste</A> <LI><A class="external text" title=http://porkbusters.org/ href="http://porkbusters.org/" rel=nofollow>Porkbusters</A> <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.americansforprosperity.org/ href="http://www.americansforprosperity.org/" rel=nofollow>Americans for Prosperity</A> <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.freerepublic.com/ href="http://www.freerepublic.com/" rel=nofollow>Free Republic</A> </LI></UL><DIV class=editsection style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">[<A title="Edit section: External articles" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks&amp;action=edit&amp;section=24">edit</A>]</DIV><A name=External_articles></A><H2>External articles</H2><UL lastCheckbox="null"><LI>Dan McGraw, <A class="external text" title=http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar01/game.cfm href="http://www.prism-magazine.org/mar01/game.cfm" rel=nofollow>"Playing the Game,"</A> <I>Prism Magazine,</I> March, 2001. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.research.umich.edu/policies/earmarkpolicyQA.html href="http://www.research.umich.edu/policies/earmarkpolicyQA.html" rel=nofollow>"Q&amp;A Concerning the University of Michigan Policy on Peer Review and Congressional Earmarking,"</A> <I>University of Michigan,</I> October 29, 2002. <LI>Sandy Streeter, <A class="external text" title=http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data/2004/upl-meta-crs-7096/98-518_2004Dec07.pdf href="http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs//data/2004/upl-meta-crs-7096/98-518_2004Dec07.pdf" rel=nofollow>"Earmarks and Limitations in Appropriation Bills,"</A> <I>Congressional Research Service,</I> December 7, 2004. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006 href="http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2006" rel=nofollow>"Congressional Pig Book,"</A> <I>Citizens Against Government Waste</I> (CAGW), 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049, href="http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1049," rel=nofollow>"A History of Earmarks (or rather, the lack thereof),"</A> <I>Americans for Prosperity,</I> 2006. <LI>Larry Craig and Mike Simpson, <A class="external text" title=http://www.house.gov/simpson/earnest_earmarks.shtml href="http://www.house.gov/simpson/earnest_earmarks.shtml" rel=nofollow>"Earnest Earmarks,"</A> <I>U.S. House of Representatives,</I> 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/concepts.pdf href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/concepts.pdf" rel=nofollow>"The Budget System and Concepts,"</A> <I>Office of Management and Budget</I> (OMB), January 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/m012606.pdf href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/m012606.pdf" rel=nofollow>"Earmarks in Appropriations Acts,"</A> <I>Congressional Research Service</I> (CRS), January 26, 2006. <LI>Carl Hulse, <A class="external text" title=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08earmarks.html href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08earmarks.html" rel=nofollow>"Lawmakers Seeking Curbs on Special Spending Requests,"</A> <I>New York Times</I>, February 8, 2006. <LI>Matthew Weigelt, <A class="external text" title=http://www.fcw.com/article92824-04-03-06-Web href="http://www.fcw.com/article92824-04-03-06-Web" rel=nofollow>"Legislation would put grant info on Web,"</A> <I>FCW.com,</I> April 3, 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/opinion/23Sun1.html href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/opinion/23Sun1.html" rel=nofollow>"Son of the Bridge to Nowhere,"</A> <I>New York Times,</I> April 23, 2006. <LI>Tim Holden, <A class="external text" title=http://www.pennlive.com/letters/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1146043246229560.xml&amp;coll=1 href="http://www.pennlive.com/letters/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1146043246229560.xml&amp;coll=1" rel=nofollow>"Funding better decided by local officials,"</A> <I>PA Patriot News,</I> April 26, 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.pjstar.com/stories/042606/REG_B9L2ACHU.010.shtml href="http://www.pjstar.com/stories/042606/REG_B9L2ACHU.010.shtml" rel=nofollow>"Nothing secret or sinister about earmarks,"</A> <I>Peoria Journal Star,</I> April 26, 2006. <LI>Tom Finnigan, <A class="external text" title=http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/PorkFinal.pdf href="http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/PorkFinal.pdf" rel=nofollow>"All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed Reforms,"</A> May 3, 2006. <LI>Charles Hurt, <A class="external text" title=http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060503-112134-8689r.htm href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060503-112134-8689r.htm" rel=nofollow>"House passes limited reform of earmark process,"</A> <I>Washington Times,</I> May 4, 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=961&amp;Itemid=2 href="http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=961&amp;Itemid=2" rel=nofollow>"Dr. Coburn Votes Against Pork,"</A> <I>Tulsa Today</I>, May 6, 2006. <LI>George Watson, <A class="external text" title=http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_3933904 href="http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_3933904" rel=nofollow>"Banning pool aid provokes ripples,"</A> <I>San Bernardino Sun</I>, June 14, 2006. <LI>Jonathan Allen, <A class="external text" title=http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062106/news4.html href="http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062106/news4.html" rel=nofollow>"Flake strikes at earmark of Hastert’s,"</A> <I>The Hill,</I> June 21, 2006. <LI>Ronald D. Utt, <A class="external text" title=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16075 href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16075" rel=nofollow>"The Biggest Pork-Barrel Earmark in History?"</A> <I>Human Events Online</I>, July 17, 2006. <LI>Gail Russell Chaddock, <A class="external text" title=http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/p03s02-uspo.html href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/p03s02-uspo.html" rel=nofollow>"A move to lift the veil on US spending,"</A> <I>The Christian Science Monitor,</I> July 20, 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16223 href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16223" rel=nofollow>"Egregious Earmark of the Week: $300,000 for Bovine Genetics in Maryland,"</A> <I>Human Events Online</I>, July 28, 2006. <LI>Henry Lamb, <A class="external text" title=http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51282 href="http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51282" rel=nofollow>"Super-Corridor to oblivion,"</A> <I>WorldNetDaily</I>, July 29, 2006. <LI><A class="external text" title=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687546/posts href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1687546/posts" rel=nofollow>"Secret Hold Put On Bill Allowing You To See Where Congress Spends Your Money,"</A> <I>Free Republic,</I> August 21, 2006. <LI>Peter Kahn, <A class="external text" title=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0906/091206cdpm1.htm href="http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0906/091206cdpm1.htm" rel=nofollow>"Democrats seek to expand GOP earmark overhaul,"</A> <I>GovExec.com</I>, September 12, 2006. <LI>Paul Kiel, <A class="external text" title=http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001516.php href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001516.php" rel=nofollow>"Pork Database Bill Passes House,"</A> <I>TPMMuckraker.com,</I> September 14, 2006. <LI>David D. Kirkpatrick, <A class="external text" title=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/washington/14earmarks.html?ref=washington href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/washington/14earmarks.html?ref=washington" rel=nofollow>"Despite Pledges, Congress Clings to Pet Projects,"</A> <I>New York Times,</I> September 13, 2006. <LI>Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, <A class="external text" title=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401674.html" rel=nofollow>"House Votes To Disclose Earmarks,"</A> <I>Washington Post,</I> September 15, 2006. <LI>Tory Newmyer and Kate Ackley, <A class="external text" title=http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_27/news/14991-1.html href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_27/news/14991-1.html" rel=nofollow>"Senate Struggles on Earmarks,"</A> <I>Roll Call,</I> September 18, 2006. </LI></UL></DIV></SPAN> 0 2007-11-24T13:09:26Z 2007-11-24T13:03:00Z 61403 earmarks-segun-wikipedia 2007-11-24T13:09:26Z 1 1 Earmarks según Wikipedia 2008-09-10T11:50:12Z