Mike Levin: “I opposed the Ensign amendment on earmarks because I believe that it would have done more to hide earmarks than to…”

“I opposed the Ensign amendment on earmarks because I believe that it would have done more to hide earmarks than to expose them. Under the bill before the Senate, an earmark is defined as a provision, that specifies a non-Federal entity to receive assistance and the amount of that assistance. The Ensign amendment would have revised the language to include assistance provided to any entity, whether Federal or non-Federal. Every item of discretionary spending is directed to some entity. Most is directed to Federal entities, such as funding provided to the Department of Justice, the Department of State, or the Department of Defense, all of which are Federal entities. As I read the Ensign amendment, it would have categorized every item of Federal discretionary spending as an earmark. That would make the term meaningless. It would also hide the real earmarks in a huge list of routine funding provisions that none of us consider to be earmarks. The amendment is simply too broadly drawn, and that is why I opposed it.”