[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S915-S916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        APPROPRIATIONS EARMARKS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on October 23, 2007, Senator DeMint and I

[[Page S916]]

had a debate in the Senate on Senator DeMint's amendment to strike $3.7 
million in grants in the Appropriations bill for Labor, Health and 
Human Services and Education with $2.2 million going to the AFL-CIO 
Appalachian Council and $1.5 million to the AFL-CIO Working for America 
Institute. This funding applied to job-training programs covering some 
11 States and the District of Columbia.
  During the course of the debate, Senator DeMint made the following 
statement:

       This amendment is part of an effort to clear up what a lot 
     of us have called the culture of corruption over the last 
     several years. A lot of this has come from Americans 
     connecting the dots between the earmarks that we give to our 
     favorite causes back home and many of the campaign 
     contributions and political support that we get back here in 
     Congress. While motivations are generally good, at best the 
     appearance of what is going on here has alarmed the American 
     people.

  When I outlined my reasons for supporting these grants, Senator 
DeMint replied:

       I agree with all the purposes the Senator stated, all of 
     the ideas of getting teenagers to work in Philadelphia. All 
     of those things are good. I am not taking argument with any 
     of them. If the AFL-CIO is the best source to deliver these 
     services, there should not be any problem with this at all. 
     All we are asking is to make this a competitive grant so that 
     we can have criteria and accountability in a system so that 
     what we want to accomplish will actually get accomplished.

  Senator DeMint's amendment was rejected on a 60-34 vote.
  After the floor debate and vote were over, Senator DeMint and I 
discussed the issues in the debate. Senator DeMint stated that he was 
not suggesting any corrupt practice or inappropriate conduct by me, but 
only that it was preferable to use the funds for competitive bids. 
Senator DeMint and I agreed that it would be useful to correct any 
misimpressions by having this colloquy for the Record.
  Mr. DeMINT. Senator Specter has correctly stated the conversation 
which we had after the floor debate and we agreed it would be useful to 
have this discussion to clear up the record. As I told Senator Specter 
privately and now state publicly, I was in no way suggesting that his 
support for these programs resulted from campaign contributions or 
political support. My reference to the ``culture of corruption'' was 
not intended to suggest that there was any corruption involved in this 
matter. In my statement, I was specific in not suggesting inappropriate 
motivations when I said ``motivations are generally good.'' I was also 
careful to focus on the ``appearance'' and not the reality by noting it 
``has alarmed the American people.'' As many know, my objection to 
earmarks has to do with the system itself, not the people who 
participate in it. While Senator Specter and I naturally have 
differences on issues of public policy, which is to be expected in an 
institution like the Senate, I have worked with him during my tenure in 
the Senate of more than 3 years and do not question his integrity.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank Senator DeMint for his candid and forceful 
statements which I think clear the record.

                          ____________________