[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18180-18181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about my opposition 
to an amendment that is going to be offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma to eliminate congressionally designated projects.
  For me, the job has always been about the people, and the best ideas 
do come from the people. As I have traveled around the State of 
Maryland, whether to worksites or roundtables or unfettered, uncensored 
conversations in diners, I listen to the people. What they tell me is 
that they are mad at Washington because when all is said and done, more 
gets said than gets done. Families are stretched and stressed, and they 
want a government that is on their side. They want a strong economy, a 
safer country, and a government that is as frugal and thrifty as they 
are. People want us to focus on a constitutionally based government.
  I support the people because I feel the same way. I do think we have 
to

[[Page 18181]]

 focus on building a strong economy. We do have to focus on being a 
more frugal government. However, I say to my colleagues, getting rid of 
congressionally designated projects is really a false journey to be on. 
If we eliminate every congressionally designated project--otherwise 
known as earmarks--we won't do anything to reduce the deficit because 
congressionally designated projects are less than one-half of 1 percent 
of total Federal spending. What it will do, however, is make it harder 
to meet compelling human and community needs many of us hear about from 
our constituents. Without these congressionally designated projects, 
often their needs will be cast aside by a big government or a big 
bureaucracy.
  I believe we need to fight for real deficit reduction, and the way we 
do it is to look at the recommendations of the various commissions that 
are being put forward, whether it is Simpson-Bowles or Domenici-Rivlin 
or others.
  What I do think is that we also should maintain our constitutional 
prerogatives of fighting for our constituents and fighting by being 
able to put special projects into the Federal checkbook.
  I have been clearly on the side of reform. We have had many requests 
for earmarks in my Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science. I got $3 
billion worth of requests, including $580 million for police officer 
technology. Another $980 million came for fighting crime, drugs, and 
gangs through enforcement, prevention, and intervention. Also, we got 
$220 million worth of requests in science and in education. We cannot 
fund those at those levels. In fact, we severely reduced them and 
stayed within what we think are acceptable limits. So we need the local 
communities to keep our communities safe, to educate our children in 
science and technology, and make sure we keep our police officers safe 
with earmarks of $3 billion.
  There have been abuses of congressionally designated projects. That 
is why I support reform, and the leadership is focused on reform. In 
2007, new Senate rules began to require full disclosure of these 
projects. In 2009, Senator Inouye insisted on more significant reforms: 
Every project must be posted by Senators on their Web site. Every 
project must be less than 1 percent of the discretionary budget.
  Today, congressionally designated projects--otherwise known as 
earmarks--are 50 percent below what they were when the Republicans 
controlled the Congress. Mr. President, I emphasize that under 
Democratic leadership, we reduced earmarks by 50 percent below what 
they were in 2006, and we made the process open and transparent. I 
think this is very important.
  In the Commerce-Justice bill, I instituted my own reforms. I even 
went a step further. I established criteria that met community needs 
and must be supported by a viable organization, and it must have 
matching funds.
  I have also fought and led the subcommittee in a more aggressive 
reform effort. I provided robust funding to inspectors general to be 
the watchdogs of the agencies. I am the first Senator on an 
appropriations subcommittee to insist that the inspector general 
testify at every one of my subcommittee hearings of an agency on issues 
relating to waste and abuse.
  I established an early warning system on cost overruns, and then I 
reduced overhead by 10 percent by getting rid of lavish banquets and 
conferences and also cutting the amount that could be spent on 
tchotchke giveaways at the conferences they did have. That might sound 
like a small thing, but, my gosh, getting an inspector general there, 
we found all kinds of things under every rock where another couple 
million were hidden and we worked to get rid of that. We also got rid 
of things such as the $4 meatball or $66 for bagels for one person at a 
Department of Justice breakfast. So we said: Let's get rid of the 
folly, let's get rid of the fraud, let's into get into a more frugal 
atmosphere, and we were able to do this.
  I would hope we could institutionalize these reforms. There are 
reforms we could put in place that are common sense, but it would 
enable colleagues to exercise their constitutional prerogative of not 
letting big bureaucracies and big government determine the destiny of 
our communities. I am always going to fight for Maryland. I am not here 
to defend earmarks, but I am here to defend my ability to help 
Maryland. So I oppose Coburn.
  Coburn would have a moratorium for 3 years on appropriations bills, 
authorizing bills and tax bills. I oppose it because I do not think, 
first of all, it will reduce the Federal deficit; secondly, it takes 
away my constitutional power--the power of the purse that was given to 
Congress--to be able to help my constituents; and lastly but most of 
all, I wish to have every tool at my disposal to make sure big 
bureaucracies don't forget the little people who pay the taxes. So I 
hope we defeat Coburn.
  At the same time, what I want to be able to do is stand on the side 
of reform. I can assure my colleagues, if Coburn is defeated, I will do 
everything in the institution to follow the leadership already 
established by Senator Inouye--a real reformer--to further reform our 
process. Let's get rid of abuse, but let's not give away our ability to 
stand and fight for our constituents.
  Let me close by giving a couple examples. The Port of Baltimore 
provides over 1,000 jobs. I want to be ready when those big ships come 
through the Panama Canal, so I have a dredging earmark in that makes my 
port fit for duty for the 21st century.
  I also have another earmark in for Ocean City beach replenishment, 
which we have already done. It protects millions of dollars of real 
estate along Maryland's coast, where we generate over $10 billion in 
tourism.
  I have also funded small projects but big in the hearts of my 
constituents, such as helping with the building of a children's 
hospice. Imagine having a child so sick they require hospice care. The 
least America can do and the least the Senate can do is to partner with 
families, the local government, and people at great institutions, such 
as hospice, to make sure children at the end stage of life have a place 
to be.
  So do I fight for congressional projects? You bet I do. Has it made a 
difference in the lives and economy of Maryland? You bet it does. So we 
can have this moratorium, but I will predict we will be back 15 months 
from now to reinstate it. I say: Let's keep it, let's reform it, let's 
have a stronger economy, safer communities, and a more frugal 
government.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to first acknowledge the Senator 
from Maryland and to say I appreciate her work in reforming the system 
of congressionally initiated projects.
  I also wished to mention, before I get to my main topic today, which 
is the expiration of the volumetric ethanol excise tax, the important 
vote we are having this evening on food safety. As the Chair knows, 
coming from the State of Minnesota, we had three people who died during 
the last foodborne illness tragedy--the salmonella in peanut butter 
episode. One of those individuals included Shirley Ulmer, mother of 
Jeff Ulmer, who has worked so hard to get this bill passed, and we are 
hopeful we have finally gotten the votes to improve our food safety 
system, which hasn't been improved since the 1930s. Clearly, we have 
seen a lot of changes to our food supply since then, and so this is 
long overdue.

                          ____________________