Press Conference With Senator Russell Feingold; Senator John McCain; And Rep. Paul Ryan

Press Conference

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Good morning. Senator Feingold, and I am very pleased to be here with John McCain and Paul Ryan, to announce our reintroduction of the line-item veto bill.

Obviously, I've worked with John on many issues, best known on campaign finance reform. But John's always been my leader on this issue of the line-item veto. When I came to the United States Senate, I already, even as a Democrat, had said I believe the president should have some form of a line-item veto. I don't support every form of it, but I believe it's a very important reform.

And then John McCain's the guy who got the bill through the Congress, got it all the way to the president, and got it to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the court struck down that version of it. But he has been the leader on the Congress on this issue, and obviously it's an enormous help to us that he wants to take such an important role in trying to get this done.

Now, Paul Ryan and I have known each other for a long time. We both grew up in Jamesville, Wisconsin. And we both see fiscal matters very similarly when it come to things like earmarks, although we don't agree on everything.

And one of the real pleasures is that as we talked about this, we were able to come up in the last Congress with an agreement on an approach to this issue that we could propose on a bipartisan basis and hope that we could actually get enacted and that would actually pass constitutional muster.

Now, we're both from Janesville, Wisconsin. Our fathers worked in the same building and were friends. So John, the only thing we ask is that this be known as the "Janesville Line-Item Veto" if it becomes the law of the land.

This bill is about the need to stop wasteful earmarks, especially in this time of economic crisis. And if Congress won't restrain itself, the president should be able to try. Now, we're hearing all the arguments: "Oh, this doesn't involve so much money." Where I'm from, the amount of money that's involved in these many earmarks, which is illustrated right here, is real money.

The other thing I'm hearing more and more, frankly, especially from my Democratic colleagues is, you know, "These earmarks are the reason we are sent here. This is what we're supposed to do." Well, this crowd works pretty hard and we don't do them. And we don't think that's the core of the job of a senator or a congressman. In fact, I don't know what you guys are hearing, but the amount of passion I'm hearing in support of earmarks is something I would think would be reserved for getting Osama bin Laden or the genocide in Darfur. There's almost a teary-eyed defense, which is a further sign to me that there's something rotten here, that it's out of control and that they're feeling the pressure.

Now, I think we've made progress on this issue. The fact is, in the last Congress, we made sure that the earmarks had to be identified by people so it's out in the open. And the fact is that under the stimulus bill, according to the definition that we use in this legislation, there were no earmarks. And so that is something I'd like to see done on the omnibus bill as well.

This bill that we're proposing today allows the president to propose some earmarks to be rescinded and sent back to Congress to be voted on separately. Now, the critical thing is in our legislation, they can't just put the bill that the president's proposed in committee. There is a requirement that it has to be voted on and within a set time frame. The Senate and the House can choose to fund the earmark package or, better yet, they can just rescind the funding as per the president's proposal. If either house votes against rescinding by a simple majority, the projects are funded.

So the reason we think this will be constitutional is that Congress has to basically pass these cuts to the earmarks in both houses and the president has to sign it.

That gets at the problem that the Supreme Court had with the other bill.

So you can argue that this is really an expedited rescission bill. But because the public understands this as a form of a line- item veto, we'd prefer to refer to it that way.

If the bill were the law of the land, our president, President Obama, wouldn't have to choose between signing or vetoing this omnibus bill. He could clean it up. He could clean up these things. And we wouldn't be in the sort of Hobson's-choice position of saying either/or. That would be a great contribution to the process.

With consideration of the omnibus and the upcoming focus on the budget being involved, this bill couldn't be timelier. I've heard John talking on the floor about the fact there are some 8,500 or 9,000 earmarks in this huge piece of legislation. And each page doesn't represent just one earmark. It often involves a bunch of earmarks. So that's truly incredible. One estimate I've seen suggests that this involves some $7 billion for these earmarks alone. Again, that's real money.

The members of Congress like to talk the talk on earmarks and fiscal discipline. It's time to walk the walk. And we have a president whose press secretary said he'd like to take something like this for a test drive. We'd like to give him that opportunity.

Senator McCain?

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you, Russ. And can I say what a pleasure it is to be with you again. Senator Feingold and I may have some philosophical disagreements about the role of government, and perhaps on a -- some issues such as Iraq, but I know of no one in the United States Senate that I would rather work with on issues of reform and being -- and having government responsible to the people.

And Senator Feingold and Congressman Ryan, I think, represent what Wisconsin has represented for a long time to America, and that's good, transparent, honest government. And so I -- it's a pleasure for me to be with the twins who were separated at birth -- (laughter) -- in Janesville, Wisconsin.

I do also agree with Senator Feingold: The passion associated with the defense of these earmarks is truly remarkable. And I think it really shows the depth to which this corrupt practice has penetrated the Congress of the United States.

And I don't use the word "corruption" lightly. We have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison, who engaged in this pork barrel and earmarking practice to the point where they -- it became corruption. We have the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee having been convicted in federal court. We have one of the top aides on the Appropriations Committee was just indicted for corrupt practices and receiving favors in return for actions on the appropriations bill.

So I'm not engaging in idle or reckless rhetoric when I say that it is corruption. There's 14 items in this bill that were identified as being inserted by an outfit -- I believe it's called PMA -- that have been raided by the FBI, shut down, and are under active investigation, and yet they were able to get several millions of dollars of earmarks into this bill. Is that what the American people expect? I don't think so.

And it's been reported by some that I was, quote, "angry." I'm not nearly as angry as my constituents are. I'm going to tell you my constituents are really angry when they see this kind of corruption taking place with the misuse and corruption of their tax dollars that they've worked so hard for. Yeah, they're angry. And I'm hearing from them by the thousands on this bill. And those of you that haven't had a chance to watch what we've been twittering, please do so. We have several top 10 lists.

So I want to point out -- Senator Feingold described the process of this legislation. We want to get around the Supreme Court decision that ruled the last line-item veto unconstitutional. We have consulted a broad array of constitutional authority -- people who are authorities on the Constitution, who tell us that this is indeed, even though it's not exactly a line-item veto, it's a rescission bill that is constitutional.

So, is it going to be hard to get this passed? Yes. But I believe that the American people voted for change last November. They want not only change in the executive branch, but they want a change in the legislative branch in the way that we do business.

Again, I can't tell you what a pleasure it is for me over the years to have had the opportunity of working with Senator Feingold, who I consider one of the finest members of the United States Senate.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Just before Paul talks, I just want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with Paul in developing this. He is extremely easy to work with. Communication is great. And of course he's a very key member of the House for a variety of reasons, in particular, as relates to this, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.

REP. RYAN: Thank you, Russ.

You know, Russ and I -- our families have been friends for three generations. We grew up in the same neighborhood. We're from the same hometown. We went to the same high school.

SEN. FEINGOLD: But not the same year.

REP. RYAN: But not the same year. (Laughter.) Russ is MUCH older than I am. (Laughter.)

But we have talked about this, just on the airplane back and forth from Wisconsin, about the need to clean this mess up.

Look, neither party has cornered the market on virtue when it comes to spending. And just take a look at this. Look at this. We got 9,000 earmarks the House passed last week, $7.7 billion. Four thousand of those earmarks are from Republicans. So it's not as if one party is doing this well and one party's not. Both parties have contributed to the mess we have.

We believe that this bill will pass constitutional muster. We believe because this bill keeps the power in the hands of Congress, where we execute the power of the purse, this is a constitutional thing.

So what does this achieve? Some critics will say: Well, this won't achieve that much savings -- $7.7 billion in a $410 billion bill.

If you can't get the small waste right, how are you ever going to tackle the large fiscal challenges in this country?

Our goal is to embarrass the pork out of Washington. And by giving the president and the Congress this tool, we can help bring sunshine to this murky process and embarrass pork-barrel spending out of these packages.

We think the president wants this. We just have to get through the forces here in Congress that like the status quo. And unfortunately, there are forces from both sides of the aisle that like this kind of status quo. Swine odor research might be important to somebody, but when we have a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, it's probably not the best use of taxpayer dollars. There are lists and lists and lists of items in this bill that if they actually stood up to a vote, if actually members of Congress had to vote on these things individually, they probably wouldn't stand the test of time.

As Senator McCain mentioned, we have people in jail from Congress for engaging in the corrupt practice of earmarking. Not all earmarks are corrupt, of course, but when you have a system that's out of control, when you have members of Congress in jail because of influence peddling, selling earmarks, there's something wrong with this system.

And so we believe this brings a tool of sunshine, a tool of accountability and some just plain old common sense back to the way we spend taxpayer dollars.

This should not be a Republican or a Democrat issue. This should be a good government issue. That's why it's such a real pleasure of mine, to join with my friend from Janesville and our friend from Arizona, to do this together.

Thank you.

SEN. MCCAIN: Could I just mention one other thing, Russ?

I was surprised over the weekend to see comments, made by the president's budget director and chief of staff, saying this is last year's business. If it's last year's business, then the bill would have been signed into law, if it passes, by President Bush.

This is this year's business. This is this year's spending. This is this year's pork barrel projects. This is this year. And to somehow set an example, by signing this into law, that you are accepting business as usual, for this year, obviously is not what the president campaigned on.

The president campaigned by saying that we would do everything we could, to curtail and eliminate earmark spending. And the first spending bill that he signs, into law, it's a routine appropriations bill, will be full of pork barrel projects. That's not the signal to send the Congress or the American people.

Q (Off mike.) Has the administration made it harder for you to do that than you expected? (Off mike.)

SEN. MCCAIN: No. I'm going down to the White House right now, as soon as we finish this press conference, to be with the president on acquisition reform. Senator Levin and I have introduced legislation. We had a hearing yesterday. We will be working on it.

We're working on Iraq. There will be -- I'm the, as I said, loyal opposition. And both words, I think, are operative. I want to work with the president, where we can. And I have on several issues. And we will this morning on acquisition reform. One thing that we are all in agreement on, cost overruns are absolutely, completely run amok.

And so, but does it make it harder for me? Not particularly. But I think it makes it harder for the president, because that quote that he said, we need earmark reform, and when I'm president, I will go line-by-line, to make sure that we're not spending money unwisely. You go line-by-line, this bill, you cannot come to any conclusion but we're spending money unwisely.

Q Senator Feingold, one of your colleagues, Senator Bayh wrote an op-ed in the journal this morning, saying he's going to vote against the pending omnibus, because it's simply too much money. You know, one -- it was one thing to support the budget last year when the deficit was only $400 billion. Now it's going to be at least triple that. What are your feelings about this bill?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I'm going to vote against it. I'm not voting -- I'm not voting for this. I don't -- I've typically not voted for omnibus bills because they always end up like this. And, you know, the president should veto it. It should be -- it should be sent over there. The president should veto it. He should say -- he should say, look, I asked for a stimulus bill that had no earmarks in it -- and it did not, based on the definition we're using in this bill. I would like him to ask for the same standard of this and we should go back and do exactly what John just said: clean it up, send it back to him right away.

Q Do you think the bill is in trouble -- (off mike)?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I don't know for sure. I know that every effort will be made to pass it, but I am proud that some of the Democrats that I've talked to are raising questions as well as Republicans.

SEN. MCCAIN: I think that I also mentioned 40 percent of the pork barrel items in this bill are Republican items. We had seven Republicans vote against trying to eliminate -- you know, move back to last year's spending level. This is a bipartisan disease.

Q Can you guys explain the difference from the -- sort of from the first -- (off mike) -- in '06? (Off mike.)

SEN. FEINGOLD: I'll let Paul go into the details of that, because I believe he was a supporter of that. Let me just say that this is a narrower bill that is focused only on earmarks as defined.

REP. RYAN: That's right.

SEN. FEINGOLD: The larger bill that I was not comfortable with -- that Bush sent over -- I was concerned would get into areas of general policy in a way that would trouble me. But I know Paul has a --

REP. RYAN: No, that's why we --

SEN. FEINGOLD: -- slightly different take on it.

REP. RYAN: That basically accomplishes it. The bill that President Bush sent, you could argue, I think successfully, that it goes into authorizing areas.

It goes into actually rewriting the intent of Congress, rather than going after wasteful discretionary spending programs.

And so this is limited to going after those wasteful line-item spending programs, and it doesn't give the president a tool to virtually rewrite the intent of Congress with macro-authorizing bills.

SEN. FEINGOLD: Thank you very much.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thanks very much.

Source