[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Page 9772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                EARMARKS

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, with all of the recent talk of 
earmarks, I want to share an op-ed that I wrote for the Nashville 
Tennessean and appeared in that paper on May 19 about the importance of 
asking Congress to fund Tennessee projects. Following is the text of 
that article:

       In 2007, the Corps of Engineers told me that two big flood 
     control dams on the Cumberland River system were near 
     failure. I asked for and Congress approved $120 million to 
     begin repairing Center Hill and Wolf Creek Dams.
       During the recent flood, these repairs kept water levels 
     higher behind these dams, which in turn kept millions of 
     gallons out of the Cumberland River. According to the Corps, 
     if Wolf Creek Dam had failed, flooding in Nashville would 
     have been 4 feet higher. My $120 million appropriation 
     request was called an ``earmark.''
       Here is another ``earmark.'' In 2003, 40 Clarksville 
     community leaders visited me in Washington. They and the 
     commander of the 101st Airborne, GEN David Petraeus, wanted 
     new housing for soldiers returning from Iraq. This was their 
     top priority, but the money was not in President George W. 
     Bush's budget. Over 3 years, I asked for $196 million. 
     Congress approved. By 2007, when the most-deployed troops in 
     America came home, new housing was ready.
       Some say abolishing such earmarks will help solve 
     Washington's out-of-control spending. I say this is a hoax, 
     for two reasons:
       1. Abolishing earmarks doesn't reduce the Federal debt one 
     penny. If I ask for a Tennessee project and Congress 
     approves, other spending in the budget is reduced by an equal 
     amount. This debate over earmarks is a sideshow. The main 
     show is the Democratic budget that would double the Federal 
     debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. The way to control 
     Federal spending is, first, to limit growth of discretionary 
     spending to 2 percent a year--40 percent of the budget--and, 
     second, to slow down automatic entitlement spending--most of 
     the rest of the budget. Earmarks total 1 percent of all 
     spending--and, again, earmarks add zero to total spending.
       2. Under article I of the U.S. Constitution, only 
     Congress--not the President--appropriates funds. When 
     Tennesseans come to see me about making Center Hill and Wolf 
     Creek Dams safe or improving housing at Fort Campbell, my job 
     is not to give them President Obama's telephone number.
       Some appropriations are vital.
       Then, you might ask, why all the fuss? Because some Members 
     of Congress have abused earmarks. Some ask for silly ones. 
     Some ask for too many. Two were convicted of taking campaign 
     contributions in exchange for recommending projects. Perhaps 
     a senator is more likely to vote for a bill that includes his 
     or her appropriations amendment--but this can be said about 
     any amendment to any bill.
       My view is that if you have a couple of bad acts on the 
     Grand Ole Opry, you don't cancel the Opry, you cancel the 
     acts. That is why some Congressmen lose elections and some 
     are in jail. That is why Congress ended middle-of-the-night 
     earmarks and even required its Members to attest that 
     appropriations do not benefit them or their families. That is 
     why 2 years ago I voted for a 1-year moratorium on earmarks 
     to encourage more reforms. Now I am cosponsoring Senator Tom 
     Coburn's legislation to put all earmarks on one Web site to 
     make them easier to find. Tennessee projects already are on 
     my Web site.
       Some specific appropriations are vital to our State, and to 
     our country. The Human Genome Project was an earmark. The 
     Manhattan Project that won World War II was an earmark.
       It might be easier for me to say, ``OK, no more earmarks.'' 
     Then I wouldn't have to explain them in articles like this. 
     But how would I explain to Clarksvillians why soldiers 
     returning from Iraq didn't get new housing or to Nashvillians 
     why the water was 4 feet higher during the flood? Make no 
     mistake: If I had not asked, there would not have been enough 
     Federal money for that housing or to repair those dams.
       Just last week, the President asked for specific 
     appropriations for the gulf coast oilspill, but not for 
     flooding in 52 Tennessee counties. I did ask, and the Senate 
     Committee approved. I did not want Washington to overlook the 
     worst natural disaster since the president took office just 
     because Tennesseans are cleaning up and helping one another 
     instead of complaining and looting. Sometimes the job I was 
     elected to do includes asking Congress to fund worthwhile 
     Tennessee projects.

                          ____________________