• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Rep. Doug Lamborn

This Speakout has not been edited.

Less than one year ago, Democrats campaigned and won on promises to create a more open and accountable legislative process in Washington. Has our new majority had a change of heart? Did they support earmark reform and transparency only because it sounded good at the time? I certainly hope not.

While Republicans were still in the majority, they implemented key earmark reforms that required all earmarks in all tax, appropriations, and authorizing bills to be open to full disclosure. At the time, Democrats running for office said Republicans had lost the trust of the American people and these measures were too little too late. However, once these Democrats took control, they did away with these Republican earmark reforms, and their demands for transparency and openness abruptly ceased.

Like many Americans, I assumed Democrats with their new majority would, with my full agreement, "adopt rules that make the system…transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other members can see what is being done." This was promised by Democrat Leader Steny Hoyer just two weeks after the 2006 election. Thus, in June, when Chairman David Obey announced that earmarks would be slipped into appropriations bills after the bill had been passed, my Republican colleagues and I were surprised and outraged.

Republicans then fought strenuously for American taxpayers, arguing that they are entitled to know how every penny of their hard-earned tax dollars is being used. Under increasingly critical public pressure, the Democrat leadership finally relented and determined that earmarks would be included in some appropriations bills. However, they still refuse to bring earmarks within tax and authorizing bills up for public scrutiny.

Republicans have continued to demand that this level of transparency be brought to every earmark request in every bill-whether it is authorizing, tax, or appropriations-as was the case at the end of 109th Congress. It is my firm belief that two elements of reform must be met. These are that each earmark must be transparent as to who requested it and that each earmark must be subject to debate. Some earmarks may be justified, if they address a legitimate national interest such as defense. It is also better when they come out of money already authorized, as opposed to creating a new program out of thin air. But this cannot be discerned without debate.

Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership has not agreed to this type of reform. Nor has it permitted a vote on Republican Leader John Boehner's House Resolution 479, which would make all earmark requests open to challenge and debate on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Last week Republicans filed a discharge petition, which I signed, in an effort to bring H.Res. 479 to the House floor for a vote. The petition currently has 160 signatures; it requires 58 more signatures to compel a vote. Openness and accountability are not partisan issues. I encourage my colleagues across the aisle to actively participate in this effort to create a culture of honesty and fiscal responsibility on Capitol Hill. I know that many of the Democrats elected last fall sincerely believe, as I do, that federal spending is out of control. Like me, they ran for office because they wanted to do something about it.

Every day, as I walk through the halls of Congress I see signs posted outside the offices of members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of fiscally conservative Democrats in the House, which read "Today the U.S. National Debt Is: $8,994,000,000,000" and "Your Share is:29,000." Nonetheless, many have voted to increase federal spending by billions and done nothing to reform the earmark process. The American people made it clear that they do not tolerate hypocrisy, and currently, less than 12% of the public approves of the job Congress is doing. The time has come for the Democrats to uphold their campaign promises and join the Republicans who are fighting for transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.

Doug Lamborn (www.lamborn.house.gov) represents Colorado's 5th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

READER COMMENTS

"Republicans who are fighting for transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility." I love it I needed that laugh. Thank you.

lets see Bushy boy vetoes 35bil for children's health care. yet needs 300bil to continue to furnish health care for ALL Iraqis. among other things.

now thats fiscal responsibility!!! biggest debt ever!!!
ity took 6 years for bush to accumulate as much debt as our government has had in the last 225 years!!!
oh stop your killing me.

I would know where Mr. Lamborn vacationed during the Vietnam WAr. He could also tell me about Bush/Alito (UCMJ-felons, AWOL, deserters, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge). They perjured, falsified, and forged their military draft documents. By the way, since Lamborn represents the "belt-buckle" of the Bible-belt, maybe he will investigate (Lim(P)baugh) the military service draft records of Mitt Romney. When NAM broke-out, Mitt broke for his Mormon mission. His pappy was a Nixon cabinet member. Black Muslims Elijah and his son, Wallace D. Muhammad, were sentenced to 3 years in federal prison each, when they "sought" a religious draft deferment. I think Mitt owes black folks 3 years in federal prison. There's that "sulphur" GOP smell, again. Maybe Bush, Alito, and Mitt, can all fit into SupeMAx.

Tbone....
I notice you said not a word about the idea of doing something about earmarks.
Guess you find it much easier to just slam the messenger, and totally ignore the message.
SO what say you Tbone?
Doesn't the earmark process anger you, just a little bit? Or are you confident that you are going to benefit from an earmark or two, and would hate to lose what you might be getting?
BTW, what makes anyone think that 47 pages of legal gobbledygook if "good"? Seems to me that the more words it takes to explain how you can or can't do something, the more chances there are for things to slip through. Or, worse IMO, more chances for some damn court to "interpret" what was meant.
An awful lot of democrats ran on the 'promise' of more open government.
Promises, yeah, right.

If Dougie is serious about working in a bipartisan manner (doubtful, he more liekely just wants to be a finger-pointer) he should learn that the opposition is the DEMOCRATIC party.

One termer.

SUPRISE, SUPRISE: EARMARK THIS:

By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is exactly how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag. Get ready for the Democrat's $1 trillion tax hike!

And all that on top of Hillary's mega-billion dollar socialized medicine, Hillary's multi-billion dollar retirement proposal, 27 tax hike proposals coming from Gov. Ritter and an alphabet full--from A to Z--of tax hikes from Mayor Hick!

Well, if you voted for change, then that's exactly what you are going to get. You are going to get change, plenty of change, more change than you planned for--a pocket full of change, mostly nickles and dimes, and nothing else! The Democrats are about to turn your piggy-bank into a Virginia ham--and YOU haven't been invited to dinner!

TAX HIKE...TAX HIKE...TAX HIKE...TAX HIKE!

Deomcrats are blocking earmark reform? WTF is this d-bag talking about?

"Republicans then fought strenuously for American taxpayers"

Oh really? Is that what no-bid and cost plus contracts for your campaign donors are all about? Fighting for the taxpayer? GMAFB.

"Republicans have continued to demand that this level of transparency "

Oh really? Is that why Don Young (R-AL) actually CHANGED an earmark once a bill had passed? Is that what "transparency" is all about? He is now under investigation, and word is he might not run for re-election becuase of his rampant earmarking. Is he fighting for the taxpayer, Doug? IS this what you call transparency, Doug?

And what exactly would you call S.1, then? Has the house voted on this measure? Would you vote in favor, Doug? I'm sure you're aware that S.1 (not sure what the house bill is) requires all earmarks to have the sponsor's name attached, and that all earmarks must be reviewable for a minimum of 48 hours prior to voting, and that any earmark can be debated. So I would assume you would be in favor, since you're "fightin' fer the taxpayer!"

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1enr.txt.pdf

BTW, Douggie, its the democratic party, not democrat. This is a pathetic article, just more mudslinging and name-calling. Some leadership you're showing there, Doug. GMAFB.

Doug, if you feel so strongly about HR 479, why aren't you a co-sponsor? And the whopping 10 minutes it allocates for debating earmarks? Laughable. S.1 provides for an hour of debate. Not to mention, HR 479 is ONLY about earmarks - hell, the whole resolution is one paragraph long. S.1 is 47 pages of lobbying, earmark, travel, and gift reform.

Please. HR 479 is a worthless resolution which will do nothing for th' 'merican taxpayer.

I applaud the principals stated here. Unfortunately, thanks to Republicans and now reinforced by Democrats, the public has lost any hope of fiscal responsibility in government. The only remaining hope for taxpayers seems to be in governmental gridlock - keep them fighting so much nothing gets passed! The ultimate gridlock would result from electing the most hated woman in America to the presidency; nothing would get passed and the Republicans would take the majority of Congress in the next election. Radical, hate-based feminism would be largely silenced as their endorsed candidate would be president, eliminating all excuses for their hate. Hardly a utopian result, but four to eight years of continuing resolution would be better than expanding government at the rate it has been since Reagan left office!

POST A COMMENT

• Denver's rec center system is broken; bigger and fewer would be better
• Democrats still blocking earmark reform
• The system failed Neveah Gallegos
• Freedom to speak, not to avoid offense
• Keep good oral care in mind when health-system reforms are considered
• GUEST COLUMN: Testing tune-up/Fixes can make CSAPs even more valuable
• Churchill's clouded comeback
• Golden out of bounds in billing people for rescues