[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2770-S2775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

  SENATE RESOLUTION 63--TO AMEND THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE TO 
      ENSURE THAT ALL CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS IN 
 APPROPRIATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION FALL UNDER THE OVERSIGHT 
  AND TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS OF S. 1, THE HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN 
                         GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mrs. McCASKILL (for herself and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration:

                               S. Res. 63

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Further Transparency.--Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules 
     of the Senate is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``13.(a) All congressionally directed spending items shall 
     be included in the text of an appropriations or authorization 
     bill and any conference report related to that appropriations 
     or authorization bill.
       ``(b) Not later than 48 hours after the request, each 
     request for a congressionally directed spending item for an 
     appropriations or authorization bill made by a Senator shall 
     be posted on the Senator's web site. The posting of the 
     request for a congressionally directed spending item shall 
     include the name and location of the specifically intended 
     recipient, the purpose of the congressionally directed 
     spending item, and the dollar amount requested. If there is 
     no specifically intended recipient, the posting shall include 
     the intended location of the activity, the purpose of the 
     congressionally directed spending item, and the dollar amount 
     requested.
       ``(c) It shall not be in order to consider an 
     appropriations or authorization bill, amendment, or 
     conference report if it contains a congressionally directed 
     spending item for a private for-profit or non profit 
     entity.''.
       (b) Clarifying Application to Conference Reports.--
     Paragraph 8 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking subparagraph (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) A Senator may raise a point of order against one or 
     more provisions of a conference report if they constitute a 
     congressionally directed spending item that was not included 
     in the measure originally committed to the conferees by 
     either House. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of 
     order as to some or all of the congressionally directed 
     spending items against which the Senator raised the point of 
     order.''; and
       (2) striking subparagraph (e).
       (c) Requiring Full Searchability.--Paragraph 3(a)(2) of 
     rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by 
     inserting ``in an searchable format'' after ``available''.
       (d) Supermajority Requirement.--Paragraph 10 of rule XLIV 
     of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by striking 
     ``or 3'' and inserting ``3, or 13''.
       (e) Availability by the Committee of Jurisdiction.--
     Paragraph 6(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) With respect to each congressionally directed 
     spending item requested by a Senator, each committee of 
     jurisdiction shall make available for public inspection on 
     the Internet the written statements and certifications under 
     subparagraph (a) not later than 48 hours after receipt of 
     such statements and certifications.''.

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I disagree with earmarks. I disagree 
with the process. Although we have made great strides in reforming 
earmarks, I do think there are further steps we need to take.
  Today, I have introduced a resolution, a Senate resolution, with the 
senior Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall, to bring even more 
transparency to this process. Basically, this resolution requires all 
requests to be posted on committee Web sites and the Member's Web site 
within 48 hours of request. It requires all information in the request 
letter be listed online, including location, purpose, and cost. This is 
not presently required. It requires electronically searchable text of 
all bills and conference reports, and it strengthens the ability to 
remove earmarks by a point of order.
  There are some loopholes that we, I think inadvertently, created when 
we did S. 1 early in my first year as a Senator.
  This resolution will require earmarks to be in the bill text. I 
discovered that there were some airdropped earmarks in a bill. Because 
they were in a managers' statement, the point of order was not 
possible. So this requires all the earmarks to be in the bill text, 
which will subject them to the rules. It applies the airdrop point of 
order to the authorization bills in addition to the appropriations 
bills, and it further limits earmarks to public projects only.
  In this time, I do not believe we can afford to be earmarking in the 
private sector or anywhere other than the public sector as we struggle 
with our deficits and our spending.
  But I really rose today not to speak so much about the resolution I 
have introduced today but more to speak a little bit about how confused 
I have been over the last few weeks by many of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. While we have a lot of work to do in regard to 
earmarks, I congratulate my party because we have created transparency. 
We now know who is earmarking, and because of that we now know that 
earmarking has nothing to do with party. Yes, there are thousands of 
earmarks in this bill by Democrats, but there are thousand of earmarks 
in this bill by Republicans.
  Earmarking is not about party. Earmarking is about power. This is 
about whether you have the power to get an earmark, and power depends 
on various things when it comes to earmarking. It depends on what 
committee you are on. It depends on whether you are an appropriator. It 
depends on your seniority. It depends on whether you have a tough 
election fight. It depends, to some extent, on whether you are in the 
minority party or in the majority party because the split is 60-40 
right now. Sixty percent of the earmarks--it is kind of an unwritten 
rule--go to the majority party and 40 percent go to the minority party. 
It was the other way around when the Democrats were not in power. That 
doesn't seem to me to be a very logical way to spend public money. It 
should be about the merit of the project. It should be about cost-
benefit.
  There are many people making the argument that we should not let 
bureaucrats decide. Congress has had the power of the purse for over 
200 years. Congress has been directing spending in this country for 
over 200 years.
  Earmarks are a new creation. The first earmarking started in the 
1970s, that ability to make a solitary, lonely decision as to where 
money is going to be directed. In fact, in 1991, there were only 541 
earmarks, and at the height of earmarking, under President Bush and 
under a Republican-controlled Congress, there was $27 billion in 
earmarks. In fact, the number of earmarks has been cut in half under 
the leadership of my party.
  This notion that bureaucrats are doing the decisionmaking is wrong--
we have the power to tell the bureaucrats how to spend the money. We 
can tell them it is formula grants. We can tell them it is competitive 
grants. In fact, that is what we do for 99 percent of the budget. We 
tell the executive branch how to spend the money. It is now only for 1 
percent that we decided we cannot tell the bureaucrats how to spend the 
money, so this notion that somehow we need to do earmarks because the 
bureaucrats are going to run amok--I don't get it.
  In fact, most earmarks skim money off other programs. You can look at 
the history of the Byrne grants. They have gone down over the last 8 or 
9 years. Now we are increasing them--which is great. Byrne grants are 
competitive at the local level. But what happened while the Byrne 
grants were going down? In the same time, earmarks were going up. There 
is a connection.
  When money is skimmed off the formula for highways, that is just more 
local projects that the local people want to build that are not built 
because a Senator or Congressman knows better.
  Now, here is the weird part about this. This is what I want to focus 
on today: my friends on the other side of the aisle. I listened while 
podiums were pounded about wasteful spending during the debate on the 
stimulus bill, during the debate on the economic recovery bill. I 
watched as my friends across the aisle took to the airwaves and gave 
many different speeches about wasteful spending in the stimulus bill.
  Let me quote some of the things they said:

       Pet programs. Honey pot for whatever you need. A porkulus 
     bill. Wasteful spending. Pet projects. Earmarks. Earmarks. 
     Earmarks. An orgy of spending.


[[Page S2774]]


  That was what they said about the stimulus bill, when, in reality, 
there were no earmarks in the stimulus bill. Everything that was spent 
in the stimulus bill was either competitive grants or formula funding.
  Now, here is the weird part. They went on and on and on during the 
stimulus bill about earmarking. No fewer than 17 different Senators 
stood, and with absolute righteous indignation, talked about the pet 
projects in the stimulus bill. Guess what? Every single one of them has 
earmarks in this bill. One member of Republican leadership said:

       That is the problem with earmarks. All Senators are equal, 
     except some Senators are more equal than others when it comes 
     to slipping things in bills.

  Every single member of the Republican leadership has earmarks in this 
bill. Every single one of them. Every single one of those people 
rejected the stimulus that was one of the largest tax cuts in American 
history, but had no earmarks, because supposedly they were so upset 
about wasteful spending.
  Those very same Senators have earmarks in this bill, such as the 
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. The Interstate Shellfish 
Sanitation Conference, beaver management, parking lots, all brought to 
you by the very same people who called out wasteful spending in the 
President's economic recovery bill.
  If you do not take my word for it, check out the Taxpayers For Common 
Sense Web site. According to their statistics, 6 of the top 10 
earmarkers in this bill are my friends on the other side of the aisle. 
In fact, the Republican leader has twice as many solo earmark dollars 
in this bill than the Democratic leader.
  America, do not be fooled. Earmarking is an equal opportunity 
activity. It is a bad habit. The minority party is taking full 
advantage of it. Do not take anyone seriously who says one thing and 
does another. That is the worst sin of all. Any parent knows one basic 
rule: The example you set is way more important than anything you say.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
McCaskill-Udall resolution on earmark reform, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of this legislation so ably authored by my 
colleague, Senator McCaskill. I have appreciated the opportunity to 
work with her in developing this bill, which is designed to strengthen 
transparency and accountability in the way Congress authorizes and 
appropriates Federal dollars.
  If there was ever a time in our history when we needed to reassure 
the American people that Congress understands the need for reform and 
integrity in the process of authorizing and appropriating Federal 
funds, it is now. It is today. As our economy continues a deep slide 
into recession, we have found it necessary to stimulate recovery with 
historic levels of public spending.
  Now, the American people expect us to act with speed but not haste. 
They also expect Federal spending will reflect critical national 
priorities and broader public purpose. Most of all, they expect 
Congress to pass funding bills in ways that ensure wise use of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Those are the purposes of this legislation. It is not just about 
preventing the abuse of so-called congressional earmarks, it is, 
rather, about reassuring the American people that their dollars and the 
debt future generations will incur as a result of our spending will be 
debated in the sunshine of public scrutiny.
  In short, this bill is about restoring integrity to a legislative 
process that has, for a number of reasons, gone off track. It is about 
restoring public confidence in the legislative branch. Now, I say this 
without casting any aspersions on the motive of my colleagues in this 
institution or my former colleagues in the other body. Most of us have 
sought earmarks for our States and our districts because of a sincere 
desire to help our constituents and support worthy projects.
  Along the way, however, the public has lost confidence in the 
integrity of this process. Although there have been too many ``bridges 
to nowhere,'' the problem is as much about the process that yields 
these earmarks. They are tucked into spending bills without an 
opportunity to debate or consider their merits or even their true 
authors.
  This bill brings important reform to the earmark process. First, it 
requires that all earmarks be included in the text of bills rather than 
a separate ``statement of managers'' that is not technically part of 
the bill text. Previously legislation allows Senators to strip out 
earmarks from bill text only, not from the statement of managers.
  This reform will result in greater transparency because it will make 
it possible for any earmark to be stripped out of the bill. Second, the 
bill requires that all earmarks requested by a Senator be posted on a 
Senator's Web site within 48 hours after the request. It also requires 
committees to post on their Web sites all information that Senators are 
required to submit about an earmark request, including the name of the 
proposed recipient, the location, purpose, and financial certification 
from Senators certifying they have no financial interest in that 
project and all within 48 hours of receiving that request.
  This reform, in short, offers a check against the information that 
Senators post on their own Web sites and provides fuller transparency 
by requiring this information to be compiled in a central location. 
Citizens know how to use the Web, and it has increasingly become a 
watchdog tool for Government. Instead of shrinking from it, I believe 
we should embrace this technology to inform our constituents and, yes, 
invite their comment and even criticism.
  Third, this bill prohibits earmarks from private or nonprofit 
entities. By limiting earmark requests to the public sector, we avoid 
the risk of inadvertently helping a campaign donor or mixing a private 
gain with a public purpose. An earmark to help our communities ought to 
be community based and community supported. There ought to be a public 
benefit that is recognized in a way that is accountable to public 
decisionmakers.
  Fourth, this bill prevents earmarks from mysteriously surfacing in 
conference negotiations on authorization bills. Previous legislation 
already prohibits this air dropping of earmarks in conference 
negotiations on appropriations bills, but this reform would broaden 
that proposition to include authorization bills, which are often 
considered to be blueprints for the annual funding bills.
  Let me be clear. I admire the hard work of our committee chairs and 
their staffs, and my experience in both Chambers has led me to the 
conclusion that great effort is made to ensure integrity and 
accountability in spending bills. Important, and often very complex 
bills, can be undermined in the public eye when individual earmarks are 
not carefully scrutinized. We can all agree that it often takes only 
one bad apple to spoil even the best barrel, and this provision is 
designed to keep out the bad apples.
  Fifth, the bill requires that all appropriations and authorization 
conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours 
before they can be considered by the full Senate. This reform will help 
the public and Congress identify earmarks that were added during the 
conference in appropriations bills that can be thousands of pages long.
  In conclusion, I believe we can begin the important work of restoring 
public confidence in the way Congress legislates if we continue on the 
path we began in 2007, with earmark and ethics reform. This bill closes 
loopholes in the law we passed in 2007, and strengthens accountability, 
transparency, and integrity.
  Now, there are some who would argue for abolishing all earmarks, 
including those supporting governmental entities. I have to tell you, I 
think that may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 
At a time of economic crisis, I believe it is important for Senators to 
have the tools that can direct Federal funding to job-creating projects 
in their home States.
  For those of us who are not fortunate enough to be appropriators, the 
opportunity to offer carefully considered earmarks is important. I have 
not come to the conclusion that all earmarks are bad; in fact, it is 
the process of their consideration and inclusion that needs reform.
  Along with a constitutional line item veto and other reform measures, 
I believe that, in fact I know, we can construct a path of reform that 
is both fiscally responsible and in keeping with the highest ethical 
standards.

[[Page S2775]]



                          ____________________