Shadegg Demands Democrats Disclose Earmarks

Democrat Attempt To Hide Earmarks Inconsistent With Their Campaign Promises.

Congressman Shadegg delivered the following statement on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives last night during debate on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill:

"It seems to me we are in some danger of forgetting what we are here about. We are here about the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina. I rise in strong support of that amendment because it would restrain the excessive spending in this bill."

But it's more important that we talk about what we are really here about. What we are really here about is the people's business. What we are really here about is how we spend their money."

What brings us here tonight, in the middle of the night, is that the majority has proposed a procedure for handling earmarks which is inconsistent with what you told the American people. It is indefensible, and it cannot stand. You can recognize that. You can accept that fact tonight and change that procedure."

I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I admire his energy, his tenacity and his passion. I understand that he believes he has proposed a fair system. I understand that he has just recited for us a history lesson about how earmarks were handled in the past."

But I would suggest to you that time moves on. The American people now understand earmarks in a way they did not understand. The American people understand earmarks, and they understand this process, and they cannot be fooled. You cannot take the process for disclosing earmarks and make those earmarks public after the bill has been debated."There is not a constituent of yours that believes that makes sense. The American people understand that some people in this body believe earmarks are very good, and some people in this body believe earmarks can be very bad and very corrupt. "

They are in unanimity on one point, and that is, they want to know what's in those earmarks. That means those earmarks have to be debated on this floor."

Now, I understand that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee believes that he can just vet them, and he can post them in August, but that obviates the most important part of this process. We do not engage in this process by adding language to bills, critical language to bill language that the American people don't get to see or know about after debate has occurred."

We didn't tell the American people that we would make the process open this year, that we would disclose every earmark and allow every earmark to be debated, because we don't run the place. You run the place. You're in the majority."

The majority party told America that these earmarks would be openly revealed, and that means they have to be debated. It doesn't matter. You can relent now, or you can go on and defend this practice through the press tomorrow and tell them that you want secrecy. You do not want a Member over here to be able to debate an individual earmark. You do not want that earmark revealed to the public today."

You want to put its being revealed off to some point later, when no Member can raise it or object to it, but the American people get it. The history lesson is nothing more than a history lesson."

Earmarks in this body must now be disclosed because the Speaker said she would disclose them. That's all we are asking for. We are asking that they be disclosed so the American people can see them, so that our constituents can see them, and so on this floor we can debate them and discuss them. The good ones will pass, and the ones that are corrupt or inappropriate will fail."