On the recordFebruary 2, 2012
first of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be heard. I agree with what the author, Senator Toomey, is trying to do in terms of what most people think of as an earmark. The problem is this: You can vote for this if you are voting for and are against all earmarks as it is defined. It depends on how you do it. In the House, it is defined, under their rules, and it has been defined here as any type of appropriation or authorization. I would suggest to you, if you get the Constitution and look up article I, section 9, it says that is what we are supposed to be doing here. So if I knew that my next amendment would pass, which defines an earmark as an appropriation that has not been authorized, which I know Senator Toomey and several others agree would be a good idea, then I would be wholeheartedly in support of this. So obviously we should have had that vote first. So I would vote against this even though I agree with what they are trying to do. But my next amendment is going to be the one that is necessary. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. This amendment has a 60-vote threshold. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
