Jim Inhofe: “the reason I proposed the previous amendment is because it would do something about the runaway spending and the deficit…”

“the reason I proposed the previous amendment is because it would do something about the runaway spending and the deficit we have. It would have had the effect of reducing just under $1 trillion in a 10-year period. This doesn't work. I know everyone thinks they want to jump on the bandwagon on earmark reform, but there is not any earmark that if you kill it, it saves one nickel. To me, it is deceptive to the public. For those people on this side of the aisle, I would only say that if you want to give President Obama that much more money to deal with, this is your opportunity to do it, because if you kill an earmark, it goes back into the bureaucracy and that is where he will have the choice. The other night when we had the 102 earmarks that the ``Sean Hannity Show'' talked about, not one was a congressional earmark. So I don't think the votes are going to change but, nonetheless, nothing will be saved by this. I yield back the remainder of my time.”