Posted by
Magnum, J.D. on Friday, July 20, 2007 4:06:42 PM
I know the Bar Exam looms within the next week, but I figure I can take a quick break to make this post.
Over the past couple days I've surfed over to C-SPAN and I have to say that I have some new "heroes" in Congress now.
Jeb Hensarling of Texas,
Jeff Flake of Arizona,
John Campbell of California, and
Patrick McHenry of North Carolina are waging a modern day Battle of Thermopylae against earmarks in the appropriations bills that are being considered by the House.
Campbell is currently (12:45 p.m. ET) on the floor offering amendments that will strike earmarks for various educational institutions. The first one I witnessed was an amendment to strike an earmark for the
Andre Agassi charter school in Las Vegas. Rep. Campbell spent at least a full minute of his time explaining that he was fully aware that the school was doing a good work in providing college prep to under-served communities. Nonetheless, Congressman Campbell expressed the belief that it's not the place of Congress to make charitable donations. The money that's being earmarked is not Congress' money; it belongs to the taxpayers. So, despite the charitable purpose that the school plays, it's not the place of Congress to be funding them.
Naturally the sponsor of the earmark, Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada rose to oppose the amendment. She then spent the bulk of her time singing the praises of the school. She had absolutely nothing to say to respond to the substance of Congressman Campbell's reasons for opposing the earmark. Was she listening while Campbell was talking? It sure didn't seem like it. Campbell makes the point: the school is doing well, but it's not our place to fund it with taxpayer money. The sponsors of these earmarks (both Republicans and Democrats) don't seem to get that.
Next, Campbell offers an amendment to strike an earmark that would fund a school in New York that would be named after Congressman Charles Rangel. He pointed out that naming a public work after a sitting member of Congress is a direct violation of the
House Rules (See House Rule 21.6 designation of public works).
What was Rangel's response? It was something like this: "I've been here for 38 years, how long have you been here? Besides, if I didn't let them put my name on it then they wouldn't have raised all that money." Another Congressman (whose name I didn't catch) asked Rangel if we would consent to simply having his name removed from the school. His response? Nope. How does Rangel expect anyone to believe he just wants the school to get the funds if he won't agree to take his name off of the earmark. Inexplicable.
One more thing from Jeff Flake and then it's back to the Federal Rules of Evidence for me. Before offering one of his amendments he stopped to comment on the exchange between Rangel and Campbell. The analogy he made was this: earmarks are essentially "no-bid" contracts. Why should Congress be propping up endeavors that can't cut through private funding? I thought the analogy was neat considering all of the carping over Halliburton et al that have been given "no-bid" contracts over the past years.
We'll see where this whole earmarks thing goes. I don't think that it's actually going to lead to any kind of change in fiscal policy in the near future. Both parties strictly adhere to the old tax and spend adage. Nevertheless, I think what these Congressmen are doing is good. I'm certain none of them or their staff will see this, but I offer a hearty "Keep up the good work!" anyway.
UPDATE:
You can get some of the story straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, if you go to Congressman Campbell's blog and
read his post (you might have to scroll up or down as I'm still figuring out comments, links and trackbacks). I'm sure he can do a better job of describing what's going on than I can.