[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 30 (Friday, February 16, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CONGRESS MUST CO-SIGN ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, February 16, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I am today introducing a bill 
to require focused, careful consideration and separate Congressional 
approval of a form of back-door spending that could leave the taxpayers 
exposed to serious financial liability.
  It is cosponsored by our colleagues Mr. Walz, Mr. Flake, Ms. 
McCollum, Ms. Maloney, Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 
Kline, Ms. Musgrave and Mr. Miller of Florida. I greatly appreciate 
their assistance and support.
  The bill, entitled the ``Congress Must Co-Sign Act'' deals with 
proposals to have the Department of Transportation lend a billion 
dollars--or more--for any one purpose.
  It would require greater transparency regarding such loans and a 
separate Congressional vote to approve each such loan, even if it had 
received preliminary approval either on its own or as part of a larger 
measure.
  The purpose is to increase Congressional accountability and to reduce 
the chance the taxpayers will find themselves stuck with the bill if 
the lender should default on one of these loans.
  The bill would require the Secretary of Transportation to provide 
Congress advance written notice at least 60 days before any Department 
of Transportation funds can be used to make a loan in an amount greater 
than $1 billion. This notice would have to include information about 
the purpose, the authority and the terms and conditions of the loan.
  And the bill would require that after receiving the notice, Congress 
would have to pass legislation approving the loan before the 
Transportation Department could go forward and lend the money.
  This is not just a theoretical matter--one such mega-loan is now 
being processed within the Administration. And that fact illustrates 
the need to broaden the focus in the debate about ``earmarks'' and 
special tax breaks. We in Congress need to take a harder look not just 
at direct spending and the indirect spending through the tax code, but 
also at backdoor spending through the lending of taxpayer dollars.
  In all these areas, there is a need for greater transparency and 
accountability. That's why I have introduced H.R. 595, the 
``Stimulating Leadership in Controlling Expenditures''--or ``SLICE''--
Act, to enact a constitutionally sound version of a line-item veto for 
individual spending items.
  It's also why I have introduced H.R. 905, the Commission on Unfair 
Tax Breaks and Subsidies--or ``CUTS''--Act, which would provide another 
way to require action to increase equity and accountability in the 
federal budget.
  And that is why I am introducing this bill today--not because I am 
convinced that the pending loan, or some similar loans in the future, 
would not be appropriate, but because I think it's essential that a 
decision to approve such a mega-loan should be made in a careful, 
deliberate way with full discussion of the merits and potential risks 
and a separate vote here in the Congress. At the end of the day, I 
might vote to approve the pending loan or some other loan of that type, 
or I might conclude that the potential costs outweigh the likely 
benefits. My purpose is not to prejudge the result, but to require a 
better, more open way of making a decision.
  The federal budget remains awash in a sea of red ink and we are 
continuing to add to the Nation's towering pile of debt. People in 
Colorado and across the country expect greater transparency and 
accountability from their elected officials and our decisions on 
spending. This bill would take an important step in that direction and 
I think it deserves the support of all our colleagues.

                          ____________________