The most ethical Congress in history...
...just voted to not reprimand unethical behavior. Surprised?
The article typically does not explain why Rep Rogers was trying to strike the earmark from Murtha. This is why;
House Defeats Bid to Reprimand Murtha
May 22 07:27 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.
Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.
The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans' motion to reprimand Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Iraq war foe and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Two Democrats—Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jim Cooper of Tennessee—voted against killing the motion. One Republican—Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania—voted for the motion to table, or kill, the proposed reprimand.
Blumenauer said in a statement that he voted against killing the motion because the issue "deserved debate or a referral to the Ethics Committee."
"If former Republican House leader Tom DeLay of Texas "had been accused of threatening a Democrat on the House floor, I would expect the same," Blumenauer said.
Murtha, known for his gruff manner and fondness for pork barrel projects, did not dispute claims that he charged across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.
Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark—a targeted spending item—for a drug intelligence center in Murtha's district.
In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, "you will not get any earmarks now and forever." Rogers, backed by House GOP leaders, said Murtha's threat violated congressional ethics rules.
In conversations with colleagues and reporters, Democrats played down the incident. Murtha is known for blowing off steam, they said, and his comments to Rogers were too vague to constitute a genuine violation of ethics rules.
"It's time to put on your long pants and grow up," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said in an interview when asked how Democrats would respond.
Still, several Democrats said some party members found it distasteful to vote to protect Murtha.
When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January, they vowed to reform the practice of placing earmarks in spending bills. Members seeking earmarks would have to identify themselves and their intentions in time for staffers to review the items, leaders said.
Republicans said the vote showed Democrats' hypocrisy.
House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement: "The Democrats' decision not to reprimand Congressman Murtha for violating the very ethics rules put in place by this Congress in January represents yet another broken promise by the new majority.
"It sends a message to the American people that our ethics rules are meaningless, and that it is okay for members of Congress to be threatened and intimidated when they try to crack down on wasteful spending."
The article typically does not explain why Rep Rogers was trying to strike the earmark from Murtha. This is why;
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) submitted an earmark certification letter for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) May 1, more than five weeks after the Intelligence Committee's deadline and the day before the panel marked up its authorization bill, according to copies of the letter and the notice of the deadline sent to the entire committee.
Murtha addressed the letter only to Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), not Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the panel's ranking member. Hoekstra has said he was not given a copy--an apparent violation of House rules. All earmarks must be disclosed in writing to both the chairman and ranking member.
House Republicans have accused Democrats of trying to sneak the project into the fiscal 2008 intelligence authorization bill's approved list of earmarks as a way to insulate it from being targeted for removal on the House floor, a charge Democrats deny.
"There was a process put in place to handle earmarks," one staffer asserted. "It happened before Murtha's letter even came here."
Powered by ScribeFire.
Comments
Post a Comment