BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3475, which I have introduced. As I have stated several times already, the amendment is very simple. It would place a moratorium on all earmarks in years in which there is a deficit. I am joined in this effort by my good friend from Indiana, Senator Bayh, and I again thank him for his leadership and courage on this issue.
Last year, I reminded my colleagues about the current fiscal situation. I think it is important to again review the facts. The Treasury Department, a week ago, announced the government racked up a record-high monthly deficit of $220.9 billion. We now have a deficit of over $1.4 trillion and a debt of $12.5 trillion, and unemployment remains at close to 10 percent. The list goes on and on.
On Tuesday, the Senate rejected an amendment offered by Senator DeMint. This amendment called for a moratorium on all earmarks for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. There wasn't anything earth-shattering about that amendment. It wouldn't have shaken the foundations of our democracy. It is simply the political equivalent of calling a timeout. Yet, sadly, 68 Senators voted against this modest proposal, including 15 from my own party.
So I have no illusions about the outcome of this amendment. I have been around here long enough to see what goes on. But it doesn't mean I will quit fighting, nor does it mean the American people will quit fighting to eliminate the waste and abuse of this system, and indeed the corruption that is part of this earmarking.
I have listened to the arguments some of my colleagues continue to state; that eliminating the earmarks isn't necessary because they account for such a small part of our annual budget. Is that a reason to continue this practice?
I am aware that earmarks consume a small percentage of a budget measured in the trillions, but given the seriousness of our current situation and the problems that are confronting American families who wake up every morning wondering if they are going to lose their job or their house, or if they will still be able to afford their children's education, it is deeply offensive to them. It is deeply offensive that we in Congress can't exercise some fiscal discipline. It is all the more offensive given that we have had in recent times all the evidence we should require to understand that earmarks are so closely tied to acts of official corruption.
In a report entitled ``Why Earmarks Matter,'' the Heritage Foundation wrote:
They Invite Corruption: Congress does have a proper role in determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for Federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select exactly who receives government grants invites corruption. Instead of entering a competitive application process within a Federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments have become hooked on the earmark process for funding improvement projects.
They Encourage Spending: While there may not be a causal relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved each year tracks closely with growth in Federal spending.
They Distort Priorities: Many earmarks do not add new spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by States into specific projects favored by an individual member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of Transportation for that year. So if Nevada had wanted to spend that money fixing a highway and rapidly expanding Las Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck.
On March 17, a Roll Call editorial, ``Earmark Action,'' stated the following:
Even though they represent just a small fraction of Federal spending, earmarks have accounted for an outsized proportion of Congressional embarrassment over recent years, so we are pleased to see House Democrats and Republicans moving to limit them. But until the Senate goes along, or until President Barack Obama determines to veto earmarks when they come his way, the spectacle of special interest spending won't stop--nor, with it, the public's suspicion that many earmark projects are bought with campaign contributions.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial from Roll Call from which I just quoted.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. The reason I add those to the Record is because it isn't just my opinion, it is the opinion of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and many other periodicals to this effect.
Also, we perhaps in the Congress might pay attention to the fact that a poll in the last couple of days shows a 17-percent approval of Congress. Our approval ratings are at an all-time low. There are a variety of reasons. It isn't all because of earmarks. It is because of the economic situation, it is because of the frustration, it is because of the belief by many Americans that we are not responsive to their problems and challenges they face, which are unprecedented in these days, especially when we are spending $1 million to rehabilitate a bathhouse at Hot Springs, AR, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative, $250,000 for turf grass research, $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina, $2 million for the Vulcan monument in Alabama or $556,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute.
Some may argue these are small amounts of money. But Americans don't understand when they can't stay in their homes or educate their kids or they can't keep their jobs, why Congress continues to engage in this practice.
Let me just say, in the interest of full disclosure, this problem was exacerbated when Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress. The Wall Street Journal says:
The reluctance to change is rooted in the Congressional belief that earmarks are the main guarantee of incumbency. Earmarks were relatively rare until the rise of the Tom DeLay Republicans in the late 1990s. By 2005, the high-water mark of the earmark craze, both parties had linked arms to add 13,500 pet projects to spending bills. Legislators crow about their largesse and use it to land campaign money from earmark recipients. This cash-for-votes mentality has become a symbol of everything Americans hate about Washington. The recent decision by the House ethics committee to put aside allegations that seven House Members awarded earmarks in order to secure campaign donations was another sign that Congress wasn't serious about changing this culture of special favors.
So I think, Madam President, we could take a major step in the direction of restoring confidence in us if we would just stop using the earmark process until the deficit is erased. I urge my colleagues to consider this proposal and to reconsider their opposition to it.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT