[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2206-2209]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BIPARTISAN EARMARK REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the need for earmark reform should be an issue 
that we can all agree upon, a bipartisan agreement. As reported last 
week, Congress' approval rating fell to just 22 percent. Will the House 
sit idly by patting each other on the back as this issue continues to 
grow and be one that the American people care deeply about?
  Quite frankly, the effort in the House to bring a level of 
transparency in the earmark process, as good as it may appear, has yet 
to satisfy the American people. As a first step to restoring confidence 
in the earmark system, Congressman Jack Kingston, a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Zack Wamp, a member of the committee, and 
myself have introduced H. Con. Res. 263, which calls for a joint select 
committee to review the earmark process, and it places a moratorium on 
all earmarks while the panel undertakes its work.
  Congress holds the power of the purse, and, quite frankly, I don't 
believe the American people really want us to cede that authority to 
the executive branch. Under the Constitution, that is the job of the 
congressional branch. And while I believe that the majority of earmarks 
are for purposes which help people, those Members who oppose earmarks 
have made some legitimate claims, and they have to be addressed.
  There have been positive earmarks to fight gangs, to fight the 
violent MS 13 gangs. We created an office of gang intelligence in the 
FBI to track the gang movement across the country, and there is a 
growing problem with regard to gangs.
  The Iraq Study Group was an earmark, and that helped bring about 
fresh eyes on the target, if you will, bringing former Secretary of 
State Jim Baker and former cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee 
Hamilton, along with Ed Meese, former Attorney General of the Reagan 
administration whose son is on the staff with General Petraeus over in 
Iraq, and people like Chuck Robb who is a former marine and Governor 
and Senator who fought in Vietnam. So it brought together a group of 
people to take a look at that, and 61 of the 70-some recommendations of 
the Iraq Study Group have been adopted now, and that basically was an 
earmark.
  I also was told that the work that Dr. Francis Collins has done, and 
I may be wrong on this, but Dr. Collins has received the gold medal. He 
is the one who has mapped the human genome system. And there are people 
alive today because of the work that Dr. Collins has done. Dr. Collins 
will map those genes whereby we know that some individual with a 
certain gene may get a certain condition and now they can deal with 
that to save their life. So there have been some very positive ones.
  But I think it is important to acknowledge that the Members who have 
opposed earmarks have made some legitimate claims, and they deserve 
that we look at those claims and address those claims.
  The joint select committee on earmark reform, which is called for in 
the bill, would be comprised of 16 members, Mr. Speaker, evenly split 
between the House and the Senate, because whatever we do, the House and 
the Senate have to be together, also, between Republicans and 
Democrats. And I think the American people are thirsty. They are 
thirsty for some bipartisan activity out of this Congress. So we will 
come together, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to form 
this committee.
  The panel would examine the way the earmarks are included in 
authorizing bills, which has not been done, appropriation bills. And to 
the credit of the committee, there has been some work done on the 
appropriations. Also, tax and tariff measures. Also, what has not been 
done very well, executive branch earmarks would also be studied. I want 
to stress that again, because I think the Congress has ignored some of 
this and I think the general public doesn't understand, but this panel 
would also, Mr. Speaker, look at executive branch earmarks, reviewing 
earmarks in all bills considered by Congress. All bills is really the 
key.
  The House, during this period of time, should place a moratorium on 
all

[[Page 2207]]

earmarks until the joint select committee has finished its work and we 
are able to put into place a rule system that restores the confidence 
of Americans that legislation is not loaded up with hidden special 
interests or wasteful spending. It would restore honesty, integrity, 
and openness to the process that everyone would feel very confident 
because the ground rules would have been agreed to by everyone. The 
American public would see how this was done.
  I strongly support the earmark reform, including listing names of 
sponsors on earmarks or specific line item spending. But the rules, Mr. 
Speaker, must apply an equal standard to all legislation, 
appropriations, as well as authorizing and tax bills and disclosing 
earmark sponsors. It must be across the board in every bill, but it 
also must be a process of indisputable integrity and probity that is 
honest and authentic, and one in which the American people have 
absolute trust. That is the key. It has to be a process, Mr. Speaker, 
in which the American people have absolute trust.
  Earmark reform must be bipartisan. It must be an issue on which both 
political parties can come together so that every Member of Congress 
can know what is in there, the American people can know it. And I am 
hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle will join this effort 
and support the Kingston-Wamp-Wolf earmark reform bill.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity after we do that, because 
I know most Americans are concerned about the spending with regard to 
the Federal debt and the deficit. I have a bill with Congressman 
Cooper, again, a bipartisan bill, and again, it is good to see, we have 
to work across the aisle. It is called the Cooper-Wolf bill, Mr. 
Speaker, and what it does, it sets up a national commission of eight 
Republicans and eight Democrats, and I would tell Members that there 
are 70 Members plus on the bill, roughly 30 Democratic Members and 40 
Republican Members. I must say, Congressman Hoyer gave a very powerful 
speech at the Press Club several months ago endorsing this concept. On 
the bill, we have Congressman Boehner, the minority leader. We have 
Congressman Blunt, the minority whip. We have people on both sides of 
the aisle of all political viewpoints from every part of the country. 
And what it does, Mr. Speaker, it puts everything on the table.

                              {time}  1715

  It puts Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax policy on the 
table. It has the support of the Heritage Foundation and Brookings. 
Alice Rivlin, head of the Office of Management and Budget in the 
Clinton administration, supports it. We have the support of some of the 
more thoughtful think-tanks, such as Brookings. A lot of different 
groups. We have had favorable editorials and comments from David Broder 
from The Washington Post, David Brooks from The New York Times, and 
Robert Samuelson, who writes a column for The Washington Post. Also we 
have had editorials in papers like the Tennesseean and the Richmond 
Times Dispatch and papers like that.
  What it would basically do, it would have this national commission of 
eight Republicans and eight Democrats to go around the country having a 
conversation with the American people. They would listen to the 
American people. Then they would hold public hearings in every Federal 
Reserve district in the Nation. So they are required to go everywhere.
  Interestingly enough, the Brookings Foundation and Heritage, along 
with David Walker of the Government Accountability Office, are now 
doing this in what they call ``wake-up tours,'' where they are going 
out around the Nation to tell the American people of the danger, the 
fiscal danger, the financial danger, that awaits this Nation if we do 
nothing about this spending and the debt and the deficit.
  Congressman Cooper knows so much about this. I wish he was with me 
here today. But I respect his knowledge and understanding and his work 
on the Budget Committee.
  But, Mr. Speaker, David Walker said, and I will insert it in the 
Congressional Record, I have sent it out to some Members of the House, 
David Walker said there was a tsunami, a financial tsunami off the 
coast waiting to come in and overcome and overtake this country.
  As the father of five children, if our children were on the beach and 
someone said there was a tsunami off the coast of New Jersey or the 
North Carolina coast or the Maryland coast, we would as parents want to 
do everything we can to help our kids. So for our children and for our 
grandchildren, we have an obligation to deal with this problem.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also a moral issue. In the Ten 
Commandments it says: ``Thou shall not steal,'' and for one generation 
to be living off the next generation is in essence stealing.
  With all the support that we have, the bipartisan support, again, a 
lot of good Members on both sides of the aisle, I am hopeful that there 
can be a way that we can bring this bill up and vote on it in this 
session.
  So with the earmark bill that I spoke about earlier which deals with 
a fundamental problem that the Congress has to deal with, and with this 
bill, we can have a renaissance in this Nation, create jobs and make a 
tremendous difference. So I just hope that we can pass both of these 
bills in this Congress.
  I see my friend from Tennessee, and I will yield to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank Frank Wolf for a distinguished career 
of public service. We honored the life of Tom Lantos today here in 
Congress, but Frank Wolf is the same kind of person as Tom Lantos in 
terms of always caring about what is right, what is just, human rights 
anywhere and everywhere in the world that need our attention in the 
greatest Nation in the history of the world. Frank Wolf is one of the 
people here that I look to always for the integrity on decisions that 
are controversial, that are impassioned. He seems to have a level-
headed approach that honors the Constitution, honors what is right.
  So here we are again working together. Jack Kingston and Frank Wolf 
and I, as long-standing Members of the Appropriations Committee, know 
that this is a problem. This abuse of earmarks has created clearly the 
need for sweeping reforms of this process. But I think that we need to 
do it the right way instead of the wrong way.
  One of the things I like about John McCain is that he doesn't pander 
to people based on whatever might be popular for the moment. The right 
approach to this particular problem with congressional earmarking in 
2008 is to step back and establish a bipartisan, bicameral select 
committee to overhaul the process in its entirety.
  I say that because any kind of a ban that is temporary or only for an 
individual is not lasting. So if you pledge to say no earmarks, well, 
for how long and who all is affected, and how about the Senate, how 
about the House, how about the executive branch, how about everybody 
else? Because unless it is a systemic change, it is not a permanent 
change; it is not a real change. It is a political posture. Therefore, 
we should be careful not to pander on this issue, but truly seek 
change. I think that is what this does.
  This select committee, what is a select committee? Well, Congress has 
this provision so that that committee can rise above the other 
committees. It has subpoena power. It has tremendous authority. It is 
unusual. But it is a committee set up to reform a system like this.
  Now, a lot of people don't realize that article I, section 9 of the 
United States Constitution clearly says that Congress shall appropriate 
the money. We need also look at history and realize over the last 40 
years there is a continuing separation of powers under way where the 
executive branch pulls and pulls more and more authority from the 
legislative branch.
  One of the things that this select committee would allow us to do is 
over a 6-month period of time, with five public hearings, have a 
national debate

[[Page 2208]]

about what is the Congress' role, what is the executive branch's role, 
both under the Constitution and in reality.
  Just 2 weeks ago, February 1, the President's budget request came 
over. Actually, it was February 4. But when it came over, it was full 
of specific requests for specific programs which are an earmark. They 
are earmarks. So one of the first things we need to do with this select 
committee is define what is an earmark, because right now it is not 
clear as to what is and is not an earmark.
  For instance, is it an earmark for a Member of Congress to request an 
increase in a specific account at the National Institutes of Health? If 
it is the National Institutes of Health and you believe that it should 
be increased and you are a Member of the United States Congress, and 
under article I, section 9 you have the authority to appropriate money, 
that should not be an earmark. But I have got news for you. A lot of 
things right now classified as an earmark should not be an earmark. It 
should be programmatic in nature; it should be looked at in a different 
way.
  So this whole system needs an overhaul, and that select committee can 
get to that without people claiming turf protection or feeling like you 
are stepping on their toes, and then they can come back with these 
recommendations that would have the force of law and truly change this 
whole process without the legislative branch retreating from its 
constitutional responsibility or just ceding more and more authority to 
the executive branch, many times to people at the Office of Management 
and Budget, OMB, that submits these budget requests, who are neither 
elected nor educated enough on these issues to actually make these 
recommendations. That why it is important for elected representatives 
to do this in a very responsible way. The select committee is exactly 
that approach, the responsible way to do this.
  It is comprehensive in nature. As Representative Wolf said, it 
doesn't just apply to the Appropriations Committee. It applies to 
authorization committees, tax and trade and tariff bills, the executive 
branch requests, the whole gambit of direction of funding of 
appropriated dollars. And the whole thing needs to be reformed.
  I will give you an example. The Bridge to Nowhere request is one of 
the most egregious earmarks that we can point to, and it did not come 
through the Appropriations Committee. It was in fact an authorization 
bill from the Transportation Committee. That is gas tax dollars that 
every 5 years the Congress directs to this projects or that projects or 
this priority or that priority, and in fact that Bridge to Nowhere was 
an authorization bill. So you can wipe out all the earmarks on 
appropriations; and if that is allowed to continue, the most egregious 
abuse we can point to continues.
  You need a comprehensive and systemic approach to this, and that is 
why we have had consensus developing in our conference on the 
Republican side for basically a timeout, a moratorium: 6 months, no 
earmarks, hold up the trains, let's stop and do this right. But do it 
responsibly. Don't just willy-nilly say we are going to do this for 
political purposes or that for political purposes, or we are going to 
grandstand or pander. No, we are going to do this the way that people 
50 years from now can look back and study the record and say, they put 
the institution and its congressional prerogatives and responsibilities 
above the passions of the moment, and they recognized that some people 
abused it and that needed to be cleaned up and reformed and changed, 
but they did not give the people down the street at the executive 
branch more and more authority and violate the separation of powers 
under the Constitution of the United States.
  This is an important principle as we go forward on how to truly have 
a systemic approach to clean this mess up. But it needs change. Anybody 
who thinks that this system stands the ``smell test'' in America is 
wrong. It needs to change, and we are trying to change it from this 
place because that is the responsible thing to do. People have abused 
it.
  I would argue that the last election in 2006 was lost by our party in 
large part because of these abuses of earmarks, on authorization, tax, 
trade, energy bills and appropriations, and we could use an overhaul, a 
statutory framework that the House and the Senate would both have to 
adhere to. The public is demanding it.
  So some self-imposed thing is not going to bring about systemic 
change. Systemic change is what this institution needs, change that 
will still be here 10 years from now, not just for the next election. 
This shouldn't be political; it should be bipartisan.
  Just this week, one of the leading Democrats here in the House 
basically called for the same thing. He said we ought to have a 
moratorium; we ought to have a timeout and we need to overhaul this 
practice. His name is Henry Waxman. I talked to him today. I don't want 
to put words in his mouth. But I was encouraged that one of the leading 
Democrats said the same thing, basically: We need to have a 
comprehensive reform of this process known as earmarking.
  But I believe step one is to define it, what is and what is not an 
earmark, and then go forward. Things that are existing by law that have 
been around for a long period of time should not be an earmark.
  Another thing we need to do is separate the ability of people to have 
a cottage industry through lobbying for earmarks. That, frankly, makes 
everybody in Washington look bad. It erodes the public trust over a 
period of time.
  There are times where someone advocating for you for a specific cause 
in this country is necessary, and that is called lobbying. Today 
lobbying has a bad name. If I was a lobbyist I would want these reforms 
so that my reputation is not tarnished. Just like we appropriators, 
Wolf, Kingston, Wamp, Kirk, Culberson, Weldon, Goode and others that 
have helped us with this cause, we don't want our integrity tarnished 
by the people who abused this prerogative under the Constitution.
  They are the ones, just like the local law enforcement guy who takes 
a bribe, all police officers are not like that, and all Members of 
Congress are not going to do what these people did. Thankfully, the 
people that have violated our trust are either under investigation or 
they are already gone or some of them are in jail. But the system needs 
to be cleaned up so that they cannot do that again. That is what hasn't 
happened. Frankly, there are some people in this institution who are 
kind of arrogant about this, saying that it ought to continue and that 
there is no reason for reform. But that is not true either.
  So we have got to meet in a rational, logical way. That is why the 
select committee approach is the right approach. I am very, very proud 
to stand with Representatives Wolf and Kingston and others in support 
of this approach, and we will have a moratorium on earmarks until we 
make the needed changes to begin to restore the public trust and uphold 
the honor and the dignity that should be associated with our fulfilling 
our responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. His comments are very good. I think 
it really needs to be bipartisan and it needs to be institutionalized, 
and it needs to be done in such a way that the American people have 
confidence.
  I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), also a 
member of the Appropriations Committee.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman for yielding and join this group of 
what we might call apostate appropriators who are leading the reform 
cause, because I think we all agree that the current system was broken 
under Republican leaders and broken under Democratic leaders.
  I believe that we should not tax the American people more than 
necessary, that taxpayer monies should be spent wisely, and that 
Congress should use its power to cut waste to keep taxes low. Many 
congressional earmarks are a waste of the taxpayers' money.
  I authored the amendment to kill the Bridge to Nowhere. It was a 
difficult

[[Page 2209]]

choice, taking on a very powerful Member of Congress who had the 
ability, in some eyes, to delete all transportation funding for my own 
district. But I looked at this project, it was an earmark not by the 
Appropriations Committee but by the Transportation Committee, to build 
a $320 million structure slightly shorter than the Golden Gate Bridge, 
slightly taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, 
population 8,000, with Gravina Island, population 50. Gravina Island 
has no paved roads, no restaurants, and no stores. It was clear that 
this was an extravagant expenditure of money by the United States 
taxpayers to benefit a very, very few number of Americans.
  It was also disturbing about how this project was handled, as so many 
other low quality earmarks are done: air-dropped without consideration 
by the House or Senate floors; no potential to amend or kill this 
project by Senators or Members of Congress; added to a conference 
report, that is a final bill, at the last minute where everyone is only 
given one vote, ``yes'' or ``no,'' on the complete package and not able 
to reach in and delete funding for a low quality project.
  Our battle, after the Kirk Amendment passed, was a long one, but 
finally the Governor of Alaska relented. And thanks to public outrage, 
thanks to congressional scrutiny, thanks to concerned Americans around 
this country, the Bridge to Nowhere will not be built.
  But we have seen so many other projects which do not pass even a 
laugh test among American taxpayers. For example, a new earmark, I 
understand, for the Berkeley school system would create French gourmet 
menus for school lunches, clearly something that does not even pass the 
laugh test here on the House floor among Republicans or Democrats.
  Also, we have seen these earmarks for Monuments to Me. I think it is 
perfectly appropriate when we see a proud public structure funded by 
the taxpayers to be named after one of our national heroes, to be named 
after a great American, or just great humanitarian from history, but 
not for sitting politicians who currently hold public office. I am 
worried that, for example, throughout West Virginia we have many 
Senator Byrd centers. It seems like almost a large part of the State is 
now named after a sitting Member of Congress, who comes with feet of 
clay, someone who can have great, great attributes and great 
detriments, and someone who really should be judged by history before 
we name great public works after them.
  Our reforms talk about ending funding for these Monuments to Me. It 
calls for an increased level of, I think, appropriate humility in what 
we fund. In the past, like many of my colleagues, I have requested 
earmarks because I have been struck by critical needs in my district. 
But increasingly, in order to get funding for small projects in your 
district, you are asked to support funding for large projects in other 
people's districts, for Bridges to Nowhere, for more Monuments to Me, 
for things that are, quite frankly, not defensible for the public fisc 
and for the taxpayers' expenditure. I think we have to recognize that 
some of these earmarks will simply lead directly to higher taxes for 
the American people and for programs which do not reflect an 
appropriate decision by the government to remove funding from an 
individual taxpayer to provide for these projects.
  That is why I back this moratorium that we have come forward with and 
I back the Kingston-Wolf reforms, because I think it is a recognition 
by members of the Appropriations Committee that the system is broken; 
that the public's confidence in how this money is spent is not there; 
that Republicans and Democrats should join together to fix it; that the 
power of the purse is rightly put by the Constitution in the Congress. 
But it has to be a power that is respected. It has to be a power in 
which judgment is leveled and which the burden of proof is against 
spending the taxpayers' funds so that always we have a feeling towards 
the bottom line of balancing the budget and making sure the tax burden 
on the American people is as low as possible.
  That is why I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman 
from Virginia for having this Special Order and hope that this 
legislation can pick up bipartisan steam and be adopted by the American 
people. They get it, but some of the elected representatives of the 
American people here still don't get it, and their voices need to be 
heard.
  I yield back to my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. And in closing, unless the gentleman 
has any other comments, I would say this needs to be bipartisan. It is 
H. Con. Res. 263. I believe it will pass the House. I think it is 
inevitable that it will pass the House. We have to come together. I 
acknowledge there have been some sincere efforts made, and I think we 
come together and institutionalize this with regard to this select 
committee.
  So I want to thank both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kingston who 
could not be here, and the other Members who have put this together and 
say it needs to be done bipartisan. We have to do it so the American 
people can say, ``Well done. It really makes sense.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________