[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 177 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14430-S14431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           BUSINESS AS USUAL

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few moments this 
morning talking about the business as usual in Washington.
  As a nearly 60-year-old male baby boomer, I believe we face some of 
the most serious challenges we have ever faced as a nation, and 
certainly in my lifetime. The challenges are going to continue to grow 
unless Congress changes how it works, how it does business, and starts 
setting priorities. The last election was about change. We heard a lot 
of great promises, and I think they were well-intentioned. But let's 
look at what has happened.
  After the last election, we were told we would have an earmark 
moratorium until we had a real reform process that was in place. We do 
not have a reform process; we have a faint claim for a reform process. 
Instead, we have seen thousands--the average is 2,000 earmarks per 
bill. The American people were told that the earmark process would be 
more transparent. Yet we have seen Congress backtrack on that at every 
opportunity.
  The earmark reform has really been a triumph of ``business as 
usual.'' The original Senate version of S. 1 required Senators to 
publicly disclose the following within 48 hours of the committee 
receiving the information: the earmark recipient, the earmark's 
purpose, certification that neither they nor their spouse would 
directly benefit from the earmark. Now, what is in the real language? 
The real language was secretly changed. It no longer requires public 
disclosure of who is going to get the earmark or the earmark's purpose. 
That is the Senate's rules.
  You know, there is a foundational principle; that is, you cannot have 
accountability in anything unless you have transparency. What we have 
is obfuscation of transparency.
  We don't want the American people to see who is going to get an 
earmark or what its purpose is. Thankfully, we passed the transparency 
and accountability act that starts this January so the American people 
are going to see it anyway, except they are going to unfortunately have 
to see it after the fact.
  Yesterday my office learned of another attack against transparency. 
The just-released conference report for the Transportation-HUD spending 
bill contains an earmark provision that attempts to prohibit the White 
House from releasing publicly its budget justifications. When they send 
up their budget, they send the reasons for why they want that money 
spent in certain ways. I worked last year to make sure that OMB agreed 
that the American people were entitled to see the justification for why 
they would want to spend money in certain areas. The appropriations 
process doesn't want that to be public. Why should it not be public? 
Why should we not want to know why the administration wants to spend 
certain money in certain ways and their reasoning and justification?
  There is a reason why this was added. This was added so the 
authorizing committees won't have the same information the 
appropriations committees have. We are not supposed to be appropriating 
anything that isn't authorized, yet we continue to do so. This is a 
commonsense approach to make transparent to the American public as well 
as the rest of the Members of this body the justification and reasoning 
of the administration.
  I agree, the broken promises we have seen have contributed to the 11-
percent favorability rating of Congress. It isn't a Republican or 
Democratic issue. No Americans want their leaders to say one thing and 
then do another. The American people are tired of hearing the same 
defenses of the earmark favor factor. They didn't work when Republicans 
were in control, and they will not work today.
  Let's talk about that for a minute. The earmark system exists to 
serve politicians, not local communities. Members earmark funds rather 
than advocate for grants because they want the political credit for 
spending money. Earmarks oftentimes are worthwhile, but the system 
under which they are propagated is not. Earmarks are the gateway drug 
to overspending, one of the No. 1 issues for which the American people 
have a problem with Congress. Our problem is, we refuse to make the 
tough choices families have to make every day, every week within their 
own budgets. Consequently, we now have this last week surpassed $9 
trillion on the debt. We have $79 trillion worth of unfunded liability 
which is going to cause us to break the chain of heritage of this 
country. That heritage is one of sacrifice where one generation works 
hard, makes sacrifices to create at least the same or hopefully better 
opportunities for those generations to come.
  We have heard complaints that it is illegitimate to single out or 
strike an earmark with an amendment. It is not our money. It is the 
American people's money. What is scandalous is how few of the special 
interest projects are ever challenged on the floor. Only one-tenth of 1 
percent of the more than 60,000 earmarks passed since 1998 have ever 
received a vote. Where is the accountability with that? Where is the 
transparency?
  Finally, we hear Senators complain that it is partisan to strike 
individual earmarks. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been 
going after this process for a decade. No one has gone after more 
Republican earmarks than I. Plus, if you don't like my amendments, I 
ask the body to offer some of their own. I would appreciate the help. 
In spite of a lot of grand talk about earmark reform, we haven't seen 
anyone on the other side of the aisle attempt to strike an individual 
earmark. Does that mean all these projects are worthwhile? Is there not 
a single earmark in the 32,000 requests this year that should not be 
debated on the floor of the Senate?
  The conference report on the Transportation-HUD bill includes a 
number of questionable earmarks, some of which I will try to eliminate 
when the bill comes through the Senate.
  We developed a new rule that one can't earmark in conference. Yet in 
the new conference report on the Transportation-HUD bill, 18 new 
earmarks were air dropped, new earmarks violating the rules the Senate 
just set up. We can't help ourselves. Such earmarks as an international 
resource center, the Coffeyville Community Enhancement Foundation, 
Minihaha Park development, buses, upgrades to airports, may be good 
things to do, but are they good things to do when the projected budget 
deficit is around $300 billion? Are these the priorities we should 
have?
  I won't spend a whole lot more time on this issue today, but I can 
tell my colleagues that the American people

[[Page S14431]]

are fed up with this process, not just the process of earmarking but 
the lack of accountability and the absolute lack of transparency when 
it comes to how we make priorities in spending their money, not ours, 
every year. I think preserving Social Security, fixing Medicare to 
where it is available for those after the baby boom generation, solving 
our budget deficit today might be greater priorities. The real balance 
is between us and our grandchildren, and we lack the courage to make 
the hard choices now because it impacts our political careers. We have 
taken our eye off the ball. The ball is what about the future of the 
country? What about the opportunity for those who follow us? What about 
the liberty and freedom they are going to have or not have as a 
consequence of us ducking the hard choices today?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe we have 4 minutes remaining, 
if I may inquire of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent to speak for a total of 8 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________