Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007

Floor Speech

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 02, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the last 20 years, I have found myself in a lonely fight against earmarks and porkbarrel spending year after year. I have come to the floor and read list after list of the ridiculous items we are spending money on, hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change.

I was encouraged in January, when this body passed by 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reform. I thought at last we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, the victory was short-lived.

One of my happier days, I will admit, was when Dr. Coburn was elected to the Senate in 2004. There is no better advocate of earmark reform; no one more consistent in standing firm to fight the worthy fight against wasteful spending, and I am proud to call him my friend.

I would like to commend my friend, Senator DeMint, and Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, and others for joining our effort. Sadly, I say to my friends, that given the very watered-down earmark provisions contained in the measure brought to us by the majority, our good fight clearly will have to continue.

Not only does this bill do far too little to rein in wasteful spending, it has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelming in January. It provides little more than lip service, unless, of course, you happen to be a committee chairman of the majority leader.

Under this majority-written bill, with no input from the Republicans, this bill will, unless you hold one of the top positions, you will now wield even more power, even more power with your porkbarrel pen.

Let me be clear. The ethics and lobbying reform bill has some good provisions which I strongly support: A ban on gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists or groups, although, if you want to get a free meal, count it as a campaign contribution. But, anyway, increased disclosure is welcome reform.

But the bill before us fixes only part of the problem and does not go to the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem that has bred the corruption is the earmark process. We all know that as my friend, Dr. Coburn, has said from time to time, it is the gateway drug to corruption--it is the gateway drug to corruption. I do not throw around the word ``corruption'' lightly. But there
are former Members of Congress in jail. There are investigations going on right now, and you can trace it all back to the influence of money which has corrupted a process which then allows money, our tax dollars, to be given to special interests or even accrue to the benefit of the author of the earmarks.

We come to the floor a lot and talk about a lot of the earmarking. Some of them are fun to talk about, but they make you sad: $225,000 for a historic wagon museum in Utah; $1 million for a DNA study of bears in Montana; $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

You notice all these earmarks are geographically designated so there will be no mistake that that money might go someplace else other than where it had been intended by the appropriator.

One of my favorites is the $37 million over 4 years to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to promote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries. So how does this board spend the money so generously? I have a picture I will not show. Well, they spent $500,000 of your tax dollars to paint a giant salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines 747, and nicknamed it the "Salmon Forty Salmon.''

So the fact is, we are not going at the heart of the problem. Let me quote from yesterday's Wall Street Journal that says it even better than I can:

Our favorite switcheroo: Under the previous Senate reform, the Senate parliamentarian would have determined whether a bill complied with earmark disclosure rules. Under Mr. Reid's new version, the current majority leader, that is, Mr. Reid himself, will decide if a bill is in compliance. When was the last time a Majority Party Leader declared one of his own bills out of order?

I have only been here 20 years, but I have never seen it. I do not think you are going to see it in the future. So while under this new version of the bill earmarks should be disclosed in theory, the fact remains that only the committee chair or the majority leader or his designee can police it.

If they say all the earmarks are identified, we take it as gospel. Our only option is to appeal the ruling of the chair that a certification was made. Of course, that is business as usual, requiring 60 votes.

The new version does retain the requirement that bills and conference reports be available 48 hours before a vote, but the searchable database is no longer a requirement when it comes to conference reports; conference reports, where we have seen inserted some of the most egregious porkbarrel projects in this system as it exists today.

Of course, conveniently the bill was modified between its release Monday morning and another version Monday afternoon. It was a modification to the benefit of the business-as-usual crowd. It would now require a 60-vote threshold to appeal the ruling of the chair, compared to a mere majority vote under the version released a few hours earlier.

Let's be clear. Sixty Members are not going to overrule the majority leader. Fact. Business as usual. Business as usual.

I am a bit saddened, too, because there was an opportunity here. There is enough outrage and anger out there amongst the American people that they are demanding reform. They are not demanding an increase from 1 year to 2 years for disclosure; they are not demanding about meals, they are demanding we fix the earmark process which has led to corruption. We have taken a pass. I regret it very much.

I predict to you now the earmarking and porkbarrel spending will creep back into the process sooner rather than later, and we will not regain the confidence of the American people.

I wish to thank again my colleagues, both Senators from South Carolina, the Senator from Oklahoma, and others who have fought sometimes a lonely fight to try to clean up this mess.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from South Carolina.

Source