Lott proposes pork disclosure Bill

[Guest SavageRulz]

Monday, Feb. 27, 2006 10:46 p.m. EST

Sen. Lott Drafts 'Pork Disclosure' Bill

 

A key Senate Republican circulated draft legislation Monday night to make it harder for members of Congress to earmark federal money for pet projects and require greater disclosure of lobbyist contacts with lawmakers.

 

The measure, a response to the corruption scandal that erupted earlier this year, also requires senators who accept "meals or refreshment" from lobbyists to disclose the value on their official government Web site.

 

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the author of the bill, called a hearing to review it Tuesday before the Rules Committee, which he chairs.

 

There was no indication how much support the measure would command, or whether any Democrats would swing behind it.

 

It appeared to be less stringent in some areas than legislation outlined recently by Democrats in both the Senate and House. It also fell short of proposals endorsed by Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has long favored curbs on earmarking funds.

Lott's office did not formally release the draft bill. The Associated Press obtained a copy.

 

The committee meeting Tuesday would mark the first time a panel in either house convened to review legislation on an issue that took on heightened importance in the wake of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's plea bargain in federal court.

 

The Republican lobbyist admitted guilt in January in a sprawling corruption investigation, saying he had provided lavish trips, golf outings, meals and more to public officials "in exchange for a series of official acts."

 

Democrats swiftly said the development was proof of a "culture of corruption" among Republicans. GOP leaders vowed that election-year reform legislation would soon follow.

 

Lott's proposal calls for earmarks to be disclosed, along with the name of the sponsoring lawmaker, 24 hours before debate can be held on the legislation that contains them. It defines an earmark as any provision that directs federal assistance to a "non-federal entity."

It was not clear what impact it would have on the widespread practice of lawmakers directing funds to federal projects in their home states or districts.

 

The legislation also permits senators to accept meals or refreshments within limits. They would be required to disclose the fact, along with the value of the food, within 15 days.

 

Senators traveling aboard chartered aircraft would be required to file a report with the Senate disclosing the owner of the plane and the names of other passengers. Members of Congress frequently travel aboard corporate jets owned by companies that are seeking passage of legislation.

 

Unlike a suggestion by McCain, Lott's draft does not require senators to reimburse the owner of the plane for the costs of the charter.

 

Current rules require reimbursement for the cost of a first-class ticket on a passenger airline, often far less than the cost of a charter.

 

Other provisions in Lott's bill would retain a one-year moratorium before former lawmakers can begin lobbying, and generally bar former members of Congress who become lobbyists from access to the Senate floor.

 

The House approved a rules change earlier this year to keep lawmakers-turned-lobbyists from the House floor as well as the House gym.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Democrats swiftly said the development was proof of a "culture of corruption" among Republicans.

Oh, why bother, it's too easy

[SuperJerk 0]

Democrats swiftly said the development was proof of a "culture of corruption" among Republicans.

Oh, why bother, it's too easy

The Democrats are correct. There IS a culture of corrupton amongst the Republicans. What they failed to mention is that the culture just isn't limited to the Republicans, but their own party.

[EricMM 0]

Which is what makes their claims and complaints ridiculous, and why I don't vote for them.

 

At least the 3rd parties haven't had time to get lobbyists yet, that would give us about a two week period of relative honesty...

[SuperJerk 0]

I don't have a problem voting for Democrats because I agree with them on most of the issues. I voted for Nader, and look where that got us.

[EricMM 0]

Did your state lose to Bush by such a narrow margin?

 

I could see voting for a dem in the primaries, but Kerry was just a terrible candidate.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The Republicans have way more ethics/corruption issues right now than the Dems. See Abramoff, Jack and Delay, Tom.

 

Of course, that's probably because they are the ones in power (see the 1990s).

[SuperJerk 0]

I could see voting for a dem in the primaries, but Kerry was just a terrible candidate.

Being a good candidate and being a good president aren't the same thing. In Kerry's case we'll never know how he'd have been as president, but I have no problem realizing the only thing his terrible campaign actually told us was that his manager was a moron.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, exactly. Everything about Kerry's campaign was basically bungled from the get go, and they never bothere to fix anything.