Right Now
The Senate Armed Services Committee is voluntarily applying the earmark disclosure requirements but NOT the conflict of interest provisions contained within S. 1, the lobbying reform bill.
While the letter clearly states a member “should” include the transparency requirements of S. 1 when requesting an earmark, it merely notes S. 1 requires a certification that members or their spouses have no “pecuniary interest.” The letter does not state that the committee would require those requesting earmarks in the absence of the enactment of S. 1 provide such a certification.
This is further proof any “voluntary” approaches to earmark reform by committees will not work and only a Senate Rules change that applies the reforms (approved unanimously by the Senate earlier this year) to all senators, all committees and all earmarks which will bring transparency and accountability to Washington’s pork-barrel habits.
While the letter clearly states a member “should” include the transparency requirements of S. 1 when requesting an earmark, it merely notes S. 1 requires a certification that members or their spouses have no “pecuniary interest.” The letter does not state that the committee would require those requesting earmarks in the absence of the enactment of S. 1 provide such a certification.
This is further proof any “voluntary” approaches to earmark reform by committees will not work and only a Senate Rules change that applies the reforms (approved unanimously by the Senate earlier this year) to all senators, all committees and all earmarks which will bring transparency and accountability to Washington’s pork-barrel habits.
