[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 5612]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 9, 2008

  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by Members of 
both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However, earmarks are 
hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if 
not most, of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple 
steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. 
While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the 
process by which Members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my 
colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are 
a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of 
the problem is an out-of-control Federal budget. I am also concerned 
that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the 
separation of powers by eroding Congress's constitutional role in 
determining how Federal funds are spent.
  Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not 
increase Federal spending. Earmarks are added to appropriations 
legislation after the total funding levels have been agreed on. 
Therefore, earmarks simply allocate Federal money that Congress has 
already agreed should be spent. Thus, adding or subtracting earmarks 
from legislation does not increase or reduce Federal spending by even 
one penny.
  Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing 
to reduce Federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as 
a distraction from the real issue--the need to reduce the size of 
government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach 
to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of 
powers by encouraging the President to issue an Executive order 
authorizing Federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed 
in committee reports.
  Since the President's Executive order would not reduce Federal 
spending, the practical result of such an Executive order would be to 
transfer power over the determination of how Federal funds are spent 
from Congress to unelected Federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are 
generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected 
officials such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect 
of limiting taxpayers' ability to influence the ways the Federal 
Government spends tax dollars.
  Madam Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the 
powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the 
branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the 
Federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of 
government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of the 
lawmaking and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. 
Whenever the President blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to 
how Federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional 
separation of powers.
  Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to 
the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. 
Madam Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is 
somehow illegitimate for Members of Congress to control the 
disbursement of Federal funds in their district is that Congress should 
only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the 
President for him to allocate to the Federal Government as he sees fit.
  Madam Speaker, all Members should support efforts to bring greater 
transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow 
earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main 
priority--restricting Federal spending by returning the Government to 
its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow 
the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our 
constitutional authority to control the Federal budget.

                          ____________________