[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 178 (Thursday, November 17, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8545-H8546]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        JUST SAY NO TO EARMARKS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, the announcement of  Mike Garcia's 
election makes it official: The American people have entrusted 
Republicans with the House majority.
  They do so at a time of unprecedented fiscal peril for our country: 
40-year high inflation, economic recession, and an approaching debt 
crisis, all driven by the most reckless spending in our Nation's 
history. History is screaming this warning at us: nations that bankrupt 
themselves aren't around very long.
  Republicans must reclaim the mantle of fiscal integrity and fiscal 
responsibility, and we should start by renouncing the tawdry, corrupt, 
and irresponsible practice of congressional earmarks, in which 
individual Congressmen direct spending to pet projects in their 
districts or grants to favored supporters, bypassing merit-driven 
competition.
  I have proposed to the House Republican Conference a rule forbidding 
congressional earmarks and expect a vote on it when we return after 
Thanksgiving.
  Earmark supporters argue that the power of the purse rests with 
Congress; therefore, its elected Members, and not unelected 
bureaucrats, should make these decisions.
  Well, no, not exactly. Representatives are supposed to be biased 
toward their districts; that is why Congress is designed to act 
collectively. Ever since Magna Carta, it has been a settled principle 
of good governance that the power to appropriate funds should be 
separated from the power to spend them.
  This is at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers: 
Congress appropriates funds but cannot spend them; and the President 
spends funds but cannot appropriate them. This is the single most 
important protection we have against political corruption and pork 
barrel spending. Earmarks undermine this principle, and it is no 
coincidence that most of the congressional scandals over the years have 
involved earmarks.
  A local company produces a product the Pentagon neither needs nor 
wants. So what to do? Well, it simply ingratiates itself with the local 
Congressman and has him tell the Pentagon what it needs and who will 
provide it. Then it rewards him lavishly at election time and repeats.
  Worthy projects, in open competitive bidding, do not need earmarks; 
they rise or fall on their merits. And if there is such a thing as a 
``good'' earmark, the price to be paid is all the bad ones. That is a 
high price indeed.
  Just the last omnibus spending bill in March included nearly 5,000 
congressional earmarks totaling $9 billion for some of the most 
egregious examples of waste in the Federal budget: feral swine 
management in Arkansas, a national atomic testing museum in Las Vegas, 
a sheep experiment station in Idaho.
  Now, Members can and should advocate for their districts, and make 
the case for projects they deem worthy of the money that Congress has 
appropriated. The problem with earmarks is blurring these two rules and 
having Members both advocate and decide.
  Now, many say they don't trust this President and his deputies to 
administer these funds appropriately and evenhandedly, and I agree. But 
if you don't trust the President to administer the funds that we 
appropriate, then don't give him the money, period.
  We hear that earmarks simply assure that local governments get a fair 
break. No, what they actually do is turn the Federal budget into a grab 
bag for local pork spending by the most powerful Members in Congress; 
and they undermine the central tenet of federalism: that local projects 
should be financed by local communities and Federal spending reserved 
for the Nation's general welfare.
  When a local government proposes an earmark, what is it saying? It is 
saying the project is so low on its priority list it doesn't dare spend 
its own taxpayers' money. But it is perfectly happy to have taxpayers 
in other communities foot the bill.
  The result is a long list of dubious projects that rob St. Petersburg 
to pay

[[Page H8546]]

St. Paul for projects that St. Petersburg doesn't benefit from, and St. 
Paul doesn't deem worthy enough to spend its own money on.
  Finally, it is said that earmarks can ``grease'' legislation by 
buying off the votes of individual Members. Add a few local projects 
for that Member, and suddenly a bill he would never vote for on its 
merits becomes a local imperative overriding his sound judgment. But 
explain to me, how is that a good thing?
  Our new majority needs to make a dramatic, concrete, and credible 
statement that business as usual in Washington is over. Is there a more 
powerful statement we can make than to swear off this wasteful and 
corrupting practice of congressional earmarking?

                          ____________________