John Ensign: “It would allow for the designation to continue. I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, this amendment does not…”

“It would allow for the designation to continue. I would say to the Senator from Mississippi, this amendment does not affect the point of order in the bill. I apologize if I was unclear on that. This amendment affects the requirement that Senators be given a report that identifies which members have requested which earmarks. It requires that all earmarks be included in that report. That is all this amendment is doing. We want Members, if they are going to request earmarks and redirect spending, to be identified. If they want to direct spending to go to their State, they should be willing to be identified. This is a simple sunshine provision. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for a second I will discuss again what the amendment is. It requires that all earmarks included in a bill or conference report should be clearly listed--the sponsor identified, explanation, et cetera. I fully support the intent of that requirement. However, the underlying definition of the earmark is only ``non-Federal'' at this time. The point the Senator from Nevada is trying to make in the amendment, there are plenty of Federal pork barrel projects, if I may be so blunt. Let me give an example. The Army Corps of Engineers is clearly a Federal entity.…”