[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2767-S2773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 522. A bill to resolve the claims of the Bering Straits Native 
Corporation and the State of Alaska to land adjacent to Salmon Lake in 
the State of Alaska and to provide for the conveyance to the Bering 
Straits Native Corporation of certain other public land in partial 
satisfaction of the land entitlement of the Corporation under the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak to a bill that I am 
introducing today to resolve a land conveyance dispute in Northwest 
Alaska, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act.
  Shortly after Alaska became a State in 1959, Alaska selected lands 
near Salmon Lake, a major fishery resource in the Bering Straits Region 
of Northwest Alaska. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act to resolve aboriginal land claims throughout the 49th 
State. In that act Congress created 12 regional Native corporations in 
state, providing the corporations with $966 million and the right to 
select 44 million acres of land in return for giving up claims to their 
traditional lands in Alaska. The land and money was to go to make the 
corporations profitable to provide benefits to their shareholders, the 
native inhabitants of Alaska. The Bering Straits Native Corporation, 
one of those 12 regional corporations, promptly selected lands in the 
Salmon Lake region overlapping state selections, because the lake and 
the waters upstream and downstream from the lake spawn and

[[Page S2768]]

contain fisheries resources of significance to Alaska Natives and also 
offer land suitable for a variety of recreational activities.
  For the past 38 years there have been conflicts over the conveyances, 
delaying land from going to the corporation, harming the economic and 
cultural benefits of the corporation to Native shareholders, and 
complicating land and wildlife management issues between federal 
agencies and the State of Alaska. Starting in 1994, but accelerating in 
1997, talks began among the State, Federal agencies and native 
corporations and towns in the region, located north of Nome--Salmon 
Lake itself is located 38 miles north of Nome--to reach a consensus on 
land uses in the region. Those talks reached agreement on June 1, 2007 
with a resolution that satisfied all parties. This seemingly non-
controversial legislation will implement the new land management regime 
in the area and finally complete the conveyance of ANCSA lands to the 
Bering Straits Native Corporation--giving the corporation title after 
surveys to the last of the 145,728 acres it was promised by Section 14 
(h)(8) of ANCSA nearly four decades ago.
  By this bill the Corporation will gain conveyance to 1,009 acres in 
the Salmon Lake area, 6,132 acres at Windy Cove, northwest of Salmon 
Lake, and 7,504 acres at Imuruk Basin, on the north shore of Imuruk 
Basin, a water body north of Windy Cove. In return the Corporation 
relinquishes rights to another 3,084 acres at Salmon Lake to the 
federal government, the government then giving part of the land to the 
State of Alaska for it to maintain a key airstrip in the area. The 
Federal Bureau of Land Management also retains ownership and 
administration of a 9-acre campground at the outlet of Salmon Lake, 
which provides road accessible public camping opportunities from the 
Nome-Teller Highway. The agreement also retains public access to BLM 
managed lands in the Kigluaik Mountain Range.
  The bill fully protects recreation and subsistence uses in the area, 
while providing the Corporation with access to recreational-tourism 
sites of importance to its shareholders and which might some day 
produce revenues for the Corporation. The agreement has prompted no 
known environmental group concerns and seems to be the classic ``win-
win-win'' solution that all sides should be congratulated for crafting. 
The key, however, is for Congress to ratify the land conveyance changes 
by 2011, when the agreement ratification window closes.
  Passage of this act is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the 
Alaska Lands Conveyance Acceleration Act that this body passed 5 years 
ago that was intended to help settle all outstanding land conveyance 
issues by 2009--the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood. In Alaska 
where controversy abounds over land use, this is a hard-fought 
compromise agreement that seemingly satisfies all parties and makes 
good sense for all concerned. I hope this body can ratify this bill 
swiftly and move it to the House of Representatives for its concurrence 
and eventual signing by the President. The bill is important for 
residents of Nome who utilize the area and for all Alaska Natives who 
live in the Bering Straits Region.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 524. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of 
certain proposed rescissions of budget authority; to the Committee on 
the Budget.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again offer this 
measure, the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 
2009 with my colleague from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member of the House 
Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. I have worked with Congressman 
Ryan on this issue for the last two years. He and I belong to different 
political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least 
two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding 
respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility.
  I am also delighted to be joined by my colleague, the senior Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing the Congressional 
Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009. Senator McCain has been 
one of the preeminent champions of earmark reform, and I have been 
pleased to work with him in fighting this abuse over the last two 
decades.
  The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President 
specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, 
including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new 
authority would sunset at the end of 2014, ensuring that Congress will 
have a chance to review its use in two different presidential terms 
before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line-
item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of 
the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current 
law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional 
earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed 
cancellations.
  There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals 
offered in the past several years. But the measure we propose today is 
unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line-
item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely 
earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the 
examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were 
congressional earmarks.
  When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto 
authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are 
congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item 
veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting 
the President this new authority.
  That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with 
new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to 
as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions 
of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house 
has agreed in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 
the 110th Congress.
  Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. By one 
estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. 
While some in Congress may wish to dismiss this issue, this year a 
single bill, the omnibus appropriations bill we are considering in the 
Senate, has by one count over eight thousand earmarks that cost over $7 
billion. That is just one bill. We haven't even begun the 
appropriations process for the coming i cal year.
  There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful 
spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the 
President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like 
Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the 
President this additional tool.
  Under our proposal, wasteful spending does not have anywhere to hide. 
It is out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a 
chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin.
  The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a 
process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are 
trying to get at with this legislation.
  President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the 
entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step 
of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a 
large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract 
earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the 
bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly 
insisted it be free of earmarks.
  I was pleased to hear reports that President Obama looks forward to 
giving the line item veto a ``test drive.'' I very much hope that with 
this bill we can give him that opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 524

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S2769]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Accountability 
     and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO.

       (a) In General.--Title X of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is 
     amended by striking all of part B (except for sections 1016 
     and 1013, which are redesignated as sections 1019 and 1020, 
     respectively) and part C and inserting the following:

                  ``Part B--Legislative Line-Item Veto


                       ``line item veto authority

       ``Sec. 1011.  (a) Proposed Cancellations.--Within 30 
     calendar days after the enactment of any bill or joint 
     resolution containing any congressional earmark or providing 
     any limited tariff benefit or targeted tax benefit, the 
     President may propose, in the manner provided in subsection 
     (b), the repeal of the congressional earmark or the 
     cancellation of any limited tariff benefit or targeted tax 
     benefit. If the 30 calendar-day period expires during a 
     period where either House of Congress stands adjourned sine 
     die at the end of Congress or for a period greater than 30 
     calendar days, the President may propose a cancellation under 
     this section and transmit a special message under subsection 
     (b) on the first calendar day of session following such a 
     period of adjournment.
       ``(b) Transmittal of Special Message.--
       ``(1) Special message.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President may transmit to the 
     Congress a special message proposing to repeal any 
     congressional earmarks or to cancel any limited tariff 
     benefits or targeted tax benefits.
       ``(B) Contents of special message.--Each special message 
     shall specify, with respect to the congressional earmarks, 
     limited tariff benefits, or targeted tax benefits to be 
     repealed or canceled--
       ``(i) the congressional earmark that the President proposes 
     to repeal or the limited tariff benefit or the targeted tax 
     benefit that the President proposes be canceled;
       ``(ii) the specific project or governmental functions 
     involved;
       ``(iii) the reasons why such congressional earmark should 
     be repealed or such limited tariff benefit or targeted tax 
     benefit should be canceled;
       ``(iv) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated 
     fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect 
     on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed 
     repeal or cancellation;
       ``(v) to the maximum extent practicable, all facts, 
     circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon 
     the proposed repeal or cancellation and the decision to 
     propose the repeal or cancellation, and the estimated effect 
     of the proposed repeal or cancellation upon the objects, 
     purposes, or programs for which the congressional earmark, 
     limited tariff benefit, or the targeted tax benefit is 
     provided;
       ``(vi) a numbered list of repeals and cancellations to be 
     included in an approval bill that, if enacted, would repeal 
     congressional earmarks and cancel limited tariff benefits or 
     targeted tax benefits proposed in that special message; and
       ``(vii) if the special message is transmitted subsequent to 
     or at the same time as another special message, a detailed 
     explanation why the proposed repeals or cancellations are not 
     substantially similar to any other proposed repeal or 
     cancellation in such other message.
       ``(C) Duplicative proposals prohibited.--The President may 
     not propose to repeal or cancel the same or substantially 
     similar congressional earmark, limited tariff benefit, or 
     targeted tax benefit more than one time under this Act.
       ``(D) Maximum number of special messages.--The President 
     may not transmit to the Congress more than one special 
     message under this subsection related to any bill or joint 
     resolution described in subsection (a), but may transmit not 
     more than 2 special messages for any omnibus budget 
     reconciliation or appropriation measure.
       ``(2) Enactment of approval bill.--
       ``(A) Deficit reduction.--Congressional earmarks, limited 
     tariff benefits, or targeted tax benefits which are repealed 
     or canceled pursuant to enactment of a bill as provided under 
     this section shall be dedicated only to reducing the deficit 
     or increasing the surplus.
       ``(B) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of 
     enactment of an approval bill as provided under this section, 
     the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and 
     aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the repeal or 
     cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report 
     revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as 
     appropriate.
       ``(C) Adjustments to statutory limits.--After enactment of 
     an approval bill as provided under this section, the Office 
     of Management and Budget shall revise applicable limits under 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as appropriate.
       ``(D) Trust funds and special funds.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), nothing in this part shall be construed to 
     require or allow the deposit of amounts derived from a trust 
     fund or special fund which are canceled pursuant to enactment 
     of a bill as provided under this section to any other fund.


                ``procedures for expedited consideration

       ``Sec. 1012.  (a) Expedited Consideration.--
       ``(1) In general.--The majority leader or minority leader 
     of each House or his designee shall (by request) introduce an 
     approval bill as defined in section 1017 not later than the 
     third day of session of that House after the date of receipt 
     of a special message transmitted to the Congress under 
     section 1011(b). If the bill is not introduced as provided in 
     the preceding sentence in either House, then, on the fourth 
     day of session of that House after the date of receipt of the 
     special message, any Member of that House may introduce the 
     bill.
       ``(2) Consideration in the house of representatives.--
       ``(A) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House 
     of Representatives to which an approval bill is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     the seventh legislative day after the date of its 
     introduction. If a committee fails to report the bill within 
     that period or the House has adopted a concurrent resolution 
     providing for adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, 
     such committee shall be automatically discharged from further 
     consideration of the bill and it shall be placed on the 
     appropriate calendar.
       ``(B) Proceeding to consideration.--After an approval bill 
     is reported by or discharged from committee or the House has 
     adopted a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment 
     sine die at the end of a Congress, it shall be in order to 
     move to proceed to consider the approval bill in the House. 
     Such a motion shall be in order only at a time designated by 
     the Speaker in the legislative schedule within two 
     legislative days after the day on which the proponent 
     announces his intention to offer the motion. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed with respect to that special message. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       ``(C) Consideration.--The approval bill shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against an approval bill and 
     against its consideration are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on an approval bill to its 
     passage without intervening motion except five hours of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent and one motion to limit debate on the bill. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote on passage of the bill shall not be in 
     order.
       ``(D) Senate bill.--An approval bill received from the 
     Senate shall not be referred to committee.
       ``(3) Consideration in the senate.--
       ``(A) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the Senate 
     to which an approval bill is referred shall report it to the 
     Senate without amendment not later than the seventh 
     legislative day after the date of its introduction. If a 
     committee fails to report the bill within that period or the 
     Senate has adopted a concurrent resolution providing for 
     adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, such committee 
     shall be automatically discharged from further consideration 
     of the bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate 
     calendar.
       ``(B) Motion to proceed to consideration.--After an 
     approval bill is reported by or discharged from committee or 
     the Senate has adopted a concurrent resolution providing for 
     adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, it shall be in 
     order to move to proceed to consider the approval bill in the 
     Senate. A motion to proceed to the consideration of a bill 
     under this subsection in the Senate shall not be debatable. 
     It shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by 
     which the motion to proceed is agreed to or disagreed to.
       ``(C) Limits on debate.--Debate in the Senate on a bill 
     under this subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals 
     in connection therewith (including debate pursuant to 
     subparagraph (D)), shall not exceed 10 hours, equally divided 
     and controlled in the usual form.
       ``(D) Appeals.--Debate in the Senate on any debatable 
     motion or appeal in connection with a bill under this 
     subsection shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be 
     equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
       ``(E) Motion to limit debate.--A motion in the Senate to 
     further limit debate on a bill under this subsection is not 
     debatable.
       ``(F) Motion to recommit.--A motion to recommit a bill 
     under this subsection is not in order.
       ``(G) Consideration of the house bill.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the Senate has received the House 
     companion bill to the bill introduced in the Senate prior to 
     a vote under subparagraph (C), then the Senate may consider, 
     and the vote under subparagraph (C) may occur on, the House 
     companion bill.
       ``(ii) Procedure after vote on senate bill.--If the Senate 
     votes, pursuant to subparagraph (C), on the bill introduced 
     in the Senate, then immediately following that vote, or upon 
     receipt of the House companion bill, the House bill shall be 
     deemed to be considered, read the third time, and the vote on 
     passage of the Senate bill shall be considered to be the vote 
     on the bill received from the House.
       ``(b) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to 
     strike a provision from, a bill considered under this section

[[Page S2770]]

     shall be in order in either the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives.


                   ``presidential deferral authority

       ``Sec. 1013.  (a) Temporary Presidential Authority To 
     Withhold Congressional Earmarks.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the same time as the President 
     transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to 
     section 1011(b), the President may direct that any 
     congressional earmark to be repealed in that special message 
     shall not be made available for obligation for a period of 45 
     calendar days of continuous session of the Congress after the 
     date on which the President transmits the special message to 
     the Congress.
       ``(2) Early availability.--The President shall make any 
     congressional earmark deferred pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     available at a time earlier than the time specified by the 
     President if the President determines that continuation of 
     the deferral would not further the purposes of this Act.
       ``(b) Temporary Presidential Authority To Suspend a Limited 
     Tariff Benefit.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the same time as the President 
     transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to 
     section 1011(b), the President may suspend the implementation 
     of any limited tariff benefit proposed to be canceled in that 
     special message for a period of 45 calendar days of 
     continuous session of the Congress after the date on which 
     the President transmits the special message to the Congress.
       ``(2) Early availability.--The President shall terminate 
     the suspension of any limited tariff benefit at a time 
     earlier than the time specified by the President if the 
     President determines that continuation of the suspension 
     would not further the purposes of this Act.
       ``(c) Temporary Presidential Authority To Suspend a 
     Targeted Tax Benefit.--
       ``(1) In general.--At the same time as the President 
     transmits to the Congress a special message pursuant to 
     section 1011(b), the President may suspend the implementation 
     of any targeted tax benefit proposed to be repealed in that 
     special message for a period of 45 calendar days of 
     continuous session of the Congress after the date on which 
     the President transmits the special message to the Congress.
       ``(2) Early availability.--The President shall terminate 
     the suspension of any targeted tax benefit at a time earlier 
     than the time specified by the President if the President 
     determines that continuation of the suspension would not 
     further the purposes of this Act.


               ``identification of targeted tax benefits

       ``Sec. 1014.  (a) Statement.--The chairman of the Committee 
     on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the 
     chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate acting 
     jointly (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the 
     `chairmen') shall review any revenue or reconciliation bill 
     or joint resolution which includes any amendment to the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is being prepared for 
     filing by a committee of conference of the two Houses, and 
     shall identify whether such bill or joint resolution contains 
     any targeted tax benefits. The chairmen shall provide to the 
     committee of conference a statement identifying any such 
     targeted tax benefits or declaring that the bill or joint 
     resolution does not contain any targeted tax benefits. Any 
     such statement shall be made available to any Member of 
     Congress by the chairmen immediately upon request.
       ``(b) Statement Included in Legislation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other rule of the 
     House of Representatives or any rule or precedent of the 
     Senate, any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint 
     resolution which includes any amendment to the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 reported by a committee of conference of 
     the two Houses may include, as a separate section of such 
     bill or joint resolution, the information contained in the 
     statement of the chairmen, but only in the manner set forth 
     in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Applicability.--The separate section permitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall read as follows: `Section 1021 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
     shall ______ apply to ________.', with the blank spaces being 
     filled in with--
       ``(A) in any case in which the chairmen identify targeted 
     tax benefits in the statement required under subsection (a), 
     the word `only' in the first blank space and a list of all of 
     the specific provisions of the bill or joint resolution in 
     the second blank space; or
       ``(B) in any case in which the chairmen declare that there 
     are no targeted tax benefits in the statement required under 
     subsection (a), the word `not' in the first blank space and 
     the phrase `any provision of this Act' in the second blank 
     space.
       ``(c) Identification in Revenue Estimate.--With respect to 
     any revenue or reconciliation bill or joint resolution with 
     respect to which the chairmen provide a statement under 
     subsection (a), the Joint Committee on Taxation shall--
       ``(1) in the case of a statement described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A), list the targeted tax benefits in any revenue 
     estimate prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation for any 
     conference report which accompanies such bill or joint 
     resolution, or
       ``(2) in the case of a statement described in 13 subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), indicate in such revenue estimate that no 
     provision in such bill or joint resolution has been 
     identified as a targeted tax benefit.
       ``(d) President's Authority.--If any revenue or 
     reconciliation bill or joint resolution is signed into law--
       ``(1) with a separate section described in subsection 
     (b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in 
     this section only with respect to any targeted tax benefit in 
     that law, if any, identified in such separate section; or
       ``(2) without a separate section described in subsection 
     (b)(2), then the President may use the authority granted in 
     this section with respect to any targeted tax benefit in that 
     law.


                      ``treatment of cancellations

       ``Sec. 1015.  The repeal of any congressional earmark or 
     cancellation of any limited tariff benefit or targeted tax 
     benefit shall take effect only upon enactment of the 
     applicable approval bill. If an approval bill is not enacted 
     into law before the end of the applicable period under 
     section 1013, then all proposed repeals and cancellations 
     contained in that bill shall be null and void and any such 
     congressional earmark, limited tariff benefit, or targeted 
     tax benefit shall be effective as of the original date 
     provided in the law to which the proposed repeals or 
     cancellations applied.


                    ``reports by comptroller general

       ``Sec. 1016.  With respect to each special message under 
     this part, the Comptroller General shall issue to the 
     Congress a report determining whether any congressional 
     earmark is not repealed or limited tariff benefit or targeted 
     tax benefit continues to be suspended after the deferral 
     authority set forth in section 1013 of the President has 
     expired.


                             ``definitions

       ``Sec. 1017.  As used in this part:
       ``(1) Appropriation law.--The term `appropriation law' 
     means an Act referred to in section 105 of title 1, United 
     States Code, including any general or special appropriation 
     Act, or any Act making supplemental, deficiency, or 
     continuing appropriations, that has been signed into law 
     pursuant to Article I, section 7, of the Constitution of the 
     United States.
       ``(2) Approval bill.--The term `approval bill' means a bill 
     or joint resolution which only approves proposed repeals of 
     congressional earmarks or cancellations of limited tariff 
     benefits or targeted tax benefits in a special message 
     transmitted by the President under this part and--
       ``(A) the title of which is as follows: `A bill approving 
     the proposed repeals and cancellations transmitted by the 
     President on ___', the blank space being filled in with the 
     date of transmission of the relevant special message and the 
     public law number to which the message relates;
       ``(B) which does not have a preamble; and
       ``(C) which provides only the following after the enacting 
     clause: `That the Congress approves of proposed repeals and 
     cancellations ___', the blank space being filled in with a 
     list of the repeals and cancellations contained in the 
     President's special message, `as transmitted by the President 
     in a special message on ____', the blank space being filled 
     in with the appropriate date, `regarding ____.', the blank 
     space being filled in with the public law number to which the 
     special message relates;
       ``(D) which only includes proposed repeals and 
     cancellations that are estimated by CBO to meet the 
     definition of congressional earmark or limited tariff 
     benefits, or that are identified as targeted tax benefits 
     pursuant to section 1014; and
       ``(E) if no CBO estimate is available, then the entire list 
     of legislative provisions proposed by the President is 
     inserted in the second blank space in subparagraph (C).
       ``(3) Calendar day.--The term `calendar day' means a 
     standard 24-hour period beginning at midnight.
       ``(4) Cancel or cancellation.--The terms `cancel' or 
     `cancellation' means to prevent--
       ``(A) a limited tariff benefit from having legal force or 
     effect, and to make any necessary, conforming statutory 
     change to ensure that such limited tariff benefit is not 
     implemented; or
       ``(B) a targeted tax benefit from having legal force or 
     effect, and to make any necessary, conforming statutory 
     change to ensure that such targeted tax benefit is not 
     implemented and that any budgetary resources are 
     appropriately canceled.
       ``(5) CBO.--The term `CBO' means the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       ``(6) Congressional earmark.--The term `congressional 
     earmark' means a provision or report language included 
     primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or 
     recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
     authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 
     a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or 
     other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a 
     specific State, locality or Congressional district, other 
     than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or 
     competitive award process.
       ``(7) Entity.--As used in paragraph (6), the term `entity' 
     includes a private business, State, territory or locality, or 
     Federal entity.
       ``(8) Limited tariff benefit.--The term `limited tariff 
     benefit' means any provision of law that modifies the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner 
     that benefits 10 or fewer entities (as defined in paragraph 
     (12)(B)).

[[Page S2771]]

       ``(9) OMB.--The term `OMB' means the Director of the Office 
     of Management and Budget.
       ``(10) Omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure.--
     The term `omnibus reconciliation or appropriation measure' 
     means--
       ``(A) in the case of a reconciliation bill, any such bill 
     that is reported to its House by the Committee on the Budget; 
     or
       ``(B) in the case of an appropriation measure, any such 
     measure that provides appropriations for programs, projects, 
     or activities falling within 2 or more section 302(b) 
     suballocations.
       ``(11) Targeted tax benefit.--The term `targeted tax 
     benefit' means--
       ``(A) any revenue provision that--
       ``(i) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, 
     or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of 
     beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
       ``(ii) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform 
     in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of 
     such provision; or
       ``(B) any Federal tax provision which provides one 
     beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a 
     change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.


                              ``expiration

       ``Sec. 1018.  This title shall have no force or effect on 
     or after December 31, 2014''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``1017'' and inserting 
     ``1012''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``section 1017'' and 
     inserting ``section 1012''.
       (b) Analysis by Congressional Budget Office.--Section 402 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by 
     inserting ``(a)'' after ``402.'' and by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(b) Upon the receipt of a special message under section 
     1011 proposing to repeal any congressional earmark, the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare an 
     estimate of the savings in budget authority or outlays 
     resulting from such proposed repeal relative to the most 
     recent levels calculated consistent with the methodology used 
     to calculate a baseline under section 257 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and included 
     with a budget submission under section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, and transmit such estimate to the 
     chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) Section 1(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (2) Section 1022(c) of such Act (as redesignated) is 
     amended is amended by striking ``rescinded or that is to be 
     reserved'' and insert ``canceled'' and by striking ``1012'' 
     and inserting ``1011''.
       (3) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in 
     section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by deleting the contents for 
     parts B and C of title X and inserting the following:

                  ``Part B--Legislative Line-Item Veto

``Sec. 1011. Line item veto authority.
``Sec. 1012. Procedures for expedited consideration.
``Sec. 1013. Presidential deferral authority.
``Sec. 1014. Identification of targeted tax benefits.
``Sec. 1015. Treatment of cancellations.
``Sec. 1016. Reports by comptroller general.
``Sec. 1017. Definitions.
``Sec. 1018. Expiration.
``Sec. 1019. Suits by Comptroller General.
``Sec. 1020. Proposed Deferrals of budget authority.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     take effect on the date of its enactment and apply only to 
     any congressional earmark, limited tariff benefit, or 
     targeted tax benefit provided in an Act enacted on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ABUSE OF PROPOSED REPEALS AND 
                   CANCELLATIONS.

       It is the sense of Congress no President or any executive 
     branch official should condition the inclusion or exclusion 
     or threaten to condition the inclusion or exclusion of any 
     proposed repeal or cancellation in any special message under 
     this section upon any vote cast or to be cast by any Member 
     of either House of Congress.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am honored to once again be joining my 
friend, colleague, and partner in reform, Senator Feingold, in 
introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act. 
Additionally, I would like to thank Republican Paul Ryan from Wisconsin 
for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives. I 
applaud my two colleagues from Wisconsin for their leadership on this 
important issue.
  Our bill does a number of things. First, it provides the President 
with a constitutional line item veto authority. This legislation would 
ensure timely consideration of earmark rescission requests by the 
President, which must be submitted to Congress within 30 calendar days 
of signing a bill into law. It gives the House and Senate 12 
legislative days to act after the President sends a rescission. It 
respects and preserves Congress's constitutional responsibilities, as 
it requires both the House and Senate to pass a rescission request 
before it can become law. This bill limits the number of rescission 
requests per bill to guard against gridlock in Congress due to multiple 
rescission proposals. Finally, it sunsets at the end of 2014 in order 
to review how the authority is working after the administration has had 
the opportunity to work with Congress to employ this tool to control 
spending and to determine if it should be renewed.
  Why do we need to grant the President a line-item veto authority? 
Currently the Senate is debating a pork-filled $410 billion, 2,967 page 
Omnibus appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government through the 
second half of the fiscal year. Not surprising, the measure is chock 
full of over 9,000 unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. We need serious 
reform and we need it now--this Omnibus appropriations bill is a 
perfect example of what is wrong with this system.
  Here are some examples of the earmarks contained in the omnibus 
legislation:
  $1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million for the 
promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in 
New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New 
York; $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi; 
$1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah; $332,000 for the design 
and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas; $870,000 for 
a wolf breeding facilities in North Carolina and Washington, $300,000 
for the Montana World Trade Center; $1.7M ``for a honey bee factory'' 
in Weslaco, TX; $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas; $143,000 for Nevada 
Humanities to develop and expand an online encyclopedia; $475,000 to 
build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah; $200,000 for a tattoo 
removal violence outreach program in the LA area; $238,000 for the 
Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, Hawaii; $100,000 for the 
regional robotics training center in Union, SC; $1,427,250 for genetic 
improvements of switchgrass; $167,000 for the Autry National Center for 
the American West in Los Angeles, CA; $143,000 to teach art energy; 
$100,000 for the Central Nebraska World Trade Center; $951,500 for the 
Oregon Solar Highway; $819,000 for catfish genetics research in 
Alabama; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY; 
$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA; $400,000 
for copper wire theft prevention efforts; $250,000 to enhance research 
on Ice Seal populations; $238,000 for the Alaska PTA; $150,000 for a 
rodeo museum in South Dakota; $47,500 to remodel and expand a 
playground in Ottawa, IL; $285,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho in 
Boise, ID; $632,000 for the Hungry Horse Project; $380,000 for a 
recreation and fairground area in Kotzebue, AK; $118,750 for a building 
to house an aircraft display in Rantoul, IL; $380,000 to revitalize 
downtown Aliceville, AL; $380,000 for lighthouses in Maine; $190,000 to 
build a Living Science Museum in New Orleans, LA; $7,100,000 for the 
conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea turtle 
populations; $900,000 for fish management; $150,000 for lobster 
research; $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York; $1.9 million 
for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service Project, CT; $238,000 for 
Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra for curriculum development; $95,000 for 
Hawaii Public Radio; $95,000 for the state of New Mexico to find a 
dental school location; $143,000 for the Dayton Society of Natural 
History in Dayton, OH; $190,000 for the Guam Public Library; $143,000 
for the Historic Jazz Foundation in Kansas City, MO; $3,806,000 for a 
Sun Grant Initiative in South Dakota; $59,000 for Dismal Swamp and 
Dismal Swamp Canal in Virginia; and $950,000 for a Convention Center in 
Myrtle Beach, SC;
  This waste is outrageous, and the President should veto this omnibus 
spending bill. The process is clearly broken, and the American public 
deserves better.
  We need to curtail earmarks, not just disclose them. Again, the 
examples I have just mentioned are earmarks that are among the over 
9,000 contained in the omnibus legislation currently

[[Page S2772]]

being considered in the Senate--so it is clear that the lobbying and 
ethics reform bill that was enacted in August 2007 has done nothing to 
curb this process--even though it continues to be touted for its 
``tough'' and ``historic'' earmark reform provisions.

  Perhaps even more troubling than the number of earmarks is to whom 
and how some of this funding is being directed. Contained within the 
Omnibus appropriations legislation are 14 earmarks, totaling nearly 
$9.7 million, directed to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm 
recently forced to close their doors after being raided last November 
by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation practices. That firm 
remains under investigation today. I have long spoken of a broken 
appropriations process, vulnerable to corruption and abuse, and the 
allegations against the PMA Group and some Members of Congress stand as 
a testament to the urgent need for reform. It is wholly inappropriate 
for Congress to allow these provisions to move forward while their 
principal sponsor is under Federal investigation. Together with my 
colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, we offered an amendment to strip 
these earmarks from the omnibus. If our amendment fails we will 
effectively be giving our tacit approval to the abuses we have 
repeatedly declared our intention to eliminate.
  Six months ago, in a debate in Oxford, MS, President Obama stated 
that ``We need earmark reform, and when I'm president, I will go line 
by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.'' I fully 
agree. All one needs to do is read the Omnibus appropriations bill 
pending before the Senate to know that we need serious, comprehensive 
earmark reform and we need to grant the President a constitutional 
line-item veto authority so that he can go line by line through these 
bloated, earmark filled appropriations bills and send rescission 
requests to Congress.
  Our current economic situation and our vital national security 
concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal 
spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national 
priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed. We 
have entered the second year of a recession. Record numbers of 
homeowners face foreclosure. The national unemployment rate stands at 
7.2%--the highest in 16 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost 
their jobs in the last 4 months of 2008. Additionally, we learned just 
Friday that the GDP sank 6.2 percent in the last quarter of 2008--far 
worse even than what was expected--with the economy contracting by the 
fastest pace in a quarter century.
  Even when faced with these tremendous difficulties, Congress's 
appetite for pork seems bigger than ever. When are people going to wake 
up and truly grasp the seriousness of the economic situation 
confronting us? We cannot afford, literally, to continue to operate 
under the same Washington status quo.
  Let's consider some cold, hard facts: current national debt: $10.7 
trillion; 2009 projected deficit: $1.2 trillion; total cost of the 
economic stimulus enacted two weeks ago: $1.124 trillion; ($789 billion 
plus interest; TARP I and II: $700 billion; TARP III: $250 billion-$750 
billion, or more; President's Budget Request for 2010: $3.6 trillion.
  I was encouraged in January 2007 when the Senate passed, by a vote of 
96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, 
meaningful earmark reforms. I thought that, at last, we would finally 
enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short 
lived. In August 2007, we were presented with a bill containing very 
watered down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in 
wasteful earmarks and porkbarrel spending. We can change that and enact 
reforms that will help to restore the faith and confidence of the 
American people in their elected representatives--and passing this bill 
should be the first step we take.
  Again, the bill we are introducing today will ensure timely 
congressional consideration of earmark rescission requests by the 
President. This will enable the President to propose the removal of 
wasteful earmarks from legislation that arrives on his desk for 
signature and send these earmarks back to Congress for expedited votes 
on whether or not to rescind funding; give the House and Senate 12 
legislative days after the President sends a rescission request to 
Congress to bring a rescission bill to consideration on the floor of 
the full House and Senate; respect and preserve Congress's 
constitutional responsibilities, as it requires both the House and 
Senate to pass a rescission request before it can become law. If either 
the House or Senate votes against a rescission by a simple majority, it 
is not enacted; require the President to submit earmark rescission 
requests to Congress within 30 calendar days of signing a bill into 
law; limit the number of rescission requests per bill, to guard against 
gridlock in Congress due to multiple rescission proposals. Under this 
legislation, the President can propose one rescission package per 
ordinary bill, or two rescission packages for omnibus legislation. Each 
rescission package may include multiple earmarks; sunset at the end of 
2014, providing a President this tool to control spending over the 
portions of two different Presidential terms. The sunset provision 
would give Congress the ability to review this legislation and decide 
whether to renew it.
  As my colleagues are well aware, for years I have been coming to the 
Senate floor to read list after list of the ridiculous items we have 
spent money on--hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. And 
year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip 
porkbarrel projects from spending bills--usually only getting a handful 
of votes each time. Earmarks are like a cancer. Left unchecked, they 
have grown out of control. And just as cancer destroys tissue and vital 
organs, the corruption associated with the process of earmarking is 
destroying what is vital to our strength as a Nation, that is, the 
faith and trust of the American people in their elected representatives 
and in the institutions of their Government.
  We must keep in mind that even strong line-item veto authority will 
not solve all of our fiscal problems. We also desperately need to 
reform our earmarking process and our lobbying practices--and we must 
remember that it is ultimately Congress's responsibility to control 
spending. However, granting the President the authority to propose 
rescissions that then must be approved by the Congress would go a long 
way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional 
waste and special interest pork. I look forward to the Senate's 
consideration of this legislation. It is abundantly clear that the time 
has come for us to eliminate the corrupt, wasteful practice of 
earmarking.
  In his final State of the Union Address, President Reagan stood for 
the last time before both Houses of Congress and asked for line-item 
veto authority for future Presidents. On that evening, the President 
had with him three pieces of legislation: an appropriations bill that 
was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a budget reconciliation 
bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 pounds; and a continuing 
resolution that was 1,057 pages long and weighed 14 pounds. President 
Reagan slammed down on the lectern the 43 pounds of paper and ink, 
which represented $1 trillion worth of spending. He did so to emphasize 
the magnitude of wasteful spending in the bills--spending that the 
President could not stop unless he was willing to veto each piece of 
legislation in its entirety. In the case of the continuing resolution, 
that would have meant that the Federal government would shut down.
  More than 20 years later we are in exactly the same situation we were 
in when President Reagan said to Congress, ``Let's help ensure our 
future of prosperity by giving the President a tool that, though I will 
not get to use it, is one I know future Presidents of either party must 
have. Give the President the same authority that 43 Governors use in 
their States: the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare 
away the waste, and enforce budget discipline. Let's approve the line-
item veto.''
  The time has come to heed Ronald Reagan's call for line-item veto 
authority.

[[Page S2773]]



                          ____________________