[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 71 (Monday, April 26, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2189-S2190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Congressional Spending

  Madam President, I rise today to address the need for Congress to 
restore one of its constitutional powers, the power of the purse.
  My family arrived in Vermont in the 19th century to work in the 
granite quarries in Barre. Later, my parents ran a printing business 
right across from the Vermont State House in Montpelier where I grew 
up.
  I stayed in Vermont for college, only traveling 45 minutes up the 
road to Saint Michael's College where I received an excellent 
education. After earning my law degree at Georgetown, I returned home 
to Vermont to serve as the State's attorney for Chittenden County.
  As Vermont's senior Senator, serving the last 46 years, I speak with 
community leaders, dairy farmers, small business owners, and Vermonters 
across the State every day. My staff in Vermont and DC dedicate 
themselves to doing the same. Before the pandemic, Marcelle and I would 
stop to chat with people in the grocery store, at the gas station, or 
in our favorite bakery in my hometown of Middlesex. We miss being able 
to do this during these times of social distancing, and are looking 
forward to the day when we can return to those in-person chats and 
visits.
  Needless to say, I am a lifelong Vermonter, and I know my State very 
well. I have a deep understanding of Vermont's communities, Vermonters, 
and their needs.
  But for the past decade, I have had to fight for them here in 
Washington with my hands tied behind my back. Every Member of this 
Chamber has their hands tied, because we ceded the power of the purse 
to unelected bureaucrats here in Washington when we instituted a ban on 
congressionally directed spending. As a result, instead of being able 
to direct even a fraction of the tax dollars we collect from our hard 
working constituents back into their communities, we turned these 
decisions over to the executive branch.
  These unelected officials are dedicated public servants to be sure, 
but they cannot possibly understand the needs of our communities to the 
extent that Senators do. To them, a new community center is nothing 
more than a line item on a spreadsheet. To us, we know the potential 
such a community center can unlock because we have spoken to the 
organizers who want to build it. We have heard their plans for new 
programs to provide children with afterschool opportunities, offer job 
training programs to the recently unemployed, or provide a social space 
for the community to gather.
  A grant for the historic preservation of a rural downtown is just one 
of thousands of applications that may be considered by employees at the 
National Park Service. But I know what that money can do in the hands 
of dedicated community advocates, someone like my late, dear friend 
Paul Bruhn at the Preservation Trust of Vermont. Paul saw the potential 
of historic preservation of rural downtown spaces to support small 
businesses and preserve the fabric of Vermont, but there is no reason 
the National Park Service employees would know what a visionary he was 
or how much just a little bit of Federal support could be stretched to 
help revitalize a community.
  Senators of this Chamber were forced to push for these worthwhile 
efforts by advocating to unelected officials to support projects in 
towns these officials have never visited run by passionate community 
leaders they have never met.
  The practice previously referred to as ``earmarking'' was not without 
abuse, and some particularly high profile examples of that abuse. But 
today, 65 percent of Congress was elected after the ban in 2011 and 
only know the practice for its ugly headlines, not the great benefit it 
can bring to our communities and our society.
  We can still see the benefit from projects previously funded through 
congressionally directed spending in communities around the country and 
in successful national programs today. The research that led to the 
Human Genome Project unlocking our genetic code was originally funded 
through congressionally directed spending. The WIC program was as well. 
In Vermont, congressionally directed spending has helped build 
affordable housing, rehabilitate our downtowns, and promote community 
and economic development throughout the State.
  This is not a new concept. Congress passed the first bill containing 
an earmark in 1790, 231 years ago. The Cape Henry lighthouse guided 
boats to safety for almost 100 years, and it stands today. It is the 
fourth oldest lighthouse in the United States, and has been listed on 
the U.S. National Register of Historic Places and designated as a 
National Historic Landmark. It is a destination for tourists still 
today.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pointed to 
congressionally directed spending as the source of our country's 
increasing national debt, but this is not the case. This spending 
rarely exceeded 1 percent of all discretionary spending, and 
discretionary spending is only one-third of all Federal spending. So, 
approximately 1 percent of one-third of all Federal spending was 
congressionally directed. As noted by the New York Times, this is 
little more than a rounding error when considering the entire Federal 
budget of the United States of America.
  Congressionally directed spending was never a source of new money 
that was tacked onto appropriations bills. These projects had to fit 
under our budgetary caps, caps that were agreed to on a bipartisan 
basis. After more than a decade, it is clear that banning 
congressionally directed spending did not decrease Federal spending or 
our national debt, and that is because it was not the cause of our 
debt. All the ban did was remove a very effective tool for Members to 
advance important projects in their States.
  The late and former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Robert C. Byrd, once said that the subject of congressionally 
directed spending ``broaches the most serious of Constitutional 
questions . . . [w]ho shall control expenditures from the public 
treasuries--the unaccountable bureaucrats in the Executive Branch or 
the representatives of the people?''
  Article I, section 9 of the Constitution says: ``No money shall be 
drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriations made by 
law.'' Congress holds the power of the purse. By banning the practice 
of congressionally directed spending, Congress ceded this power to the 
executive branch, and I believe it has hurt our ability to pass 
appropriations bills into law.
  Vice Chairman Shelby and I work hard to incorporate the 
recommendations and priorities of all 100 Senators into our annual 
appropriations bills. We have worked hard to return the appropriations 
process to regular order, and we are making progress. Passing our 
annual appropriations bills is one of the most important jobs we do. 
The funding these bills provide impacts every corner of every State, 
from highway dollars to healthcare centers. But without the ability to 
influence where

[[Page S2190]]

the funds are spent, Members seem to have lost incentive to debate 
these bills. That is one of the reasons why we constantly face the 
threat of a government shutdown each fiscal year or that are forced to 
package these bills into an omnibus in a take-it-or-leave it form. This 
is no way to govern. Members must have a stake in these bills.
  In 2007, we instituted major reforms for accountability and 
transparency to the process of congressionally directed spending. We 
had to certify that neither we nor any member of our immediate family 
would financially benefit from the requests we made. And we required 
each earmark to be clearly identified in the committee and conference 
reports. These reforms brought new transparency to the process, and I 
fully supported them. These rules remain in place today in rule XLIV of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate.
  Today I am announcing that the Senate Appropriations Committee will 
again accept requests for congressionally directed spending items on a 
bipartisan basis, and we will do so in a manner that promotes 
transparency and accountability. In addition to adhering to rule XLIV 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, we will put a 1-percent cap on all 
congressionally directed spending items and ban congressionally 
directed spending items to for-profit entities.
  We will require Senators to make their requests public on their 
websites, and we will make public any items that are actually funded in 
the appropriations bills. The Senate Appropriations Committee will also 
ask GAO to audit a sample of enacted congressionally directed spending 
items in order to increase accountability for the projects that are 
funded and to restore the trust of the American people in this process.
  Congress holds the power of the purse. We should use it responsibly 
and transparently to address the needs of our communities.
  I want to thank the distinguished majority leader for putting 
Samantha Power on the agenda this week. I think she is extraordinarily 
well qualified, and I look forward to voting for her.
  Madam President, I see my distinguished colleague on the floor.
  I yield the floor.