Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009

Mr. President, I am honored to once again be joining my friend, colleague, and partner in reform, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act. Additionally, I would like to thank Republican Paul Ryan from Wisconsin for introducing this legislation in the House of Representatives. I applaud my two colleagues from Wisconsin for their leadership on this important issue.

Our bill does a number of things. First, it provides the President with a constitutional line item veto authority. This legislation would ensure timely consideration of earmark rescission requests by the President, which must be submitted to Congress within 30 calendar days of signing a bill into law. It gives the House and Senate 12 legislative days to act after the President sends a rescission. It respects and preserves Congress's constitutional responsibilities, as it requires both the House and Senate to pass a rescission request before it can become law. This bill limits the number of rescission requests per bill to guard against gridlock in Congress due to multiple rescission proposals. Finally, it sunsets at the end of 2014 in order to review how the authority is working after the administration has had the opportunity to work with Congress to employ this tool to control spending and to determine if it should be renewed.

Why do we need to grant the President a line-item veto authority? Currently the Senate is debating a pork-filled $410 billion, 2,967 page Omnibus appropriations bill to fund the Federal Government through the second half of the fiscal year. Not surprising, the measure is chock full of over 9,000 unnecessary and wasteful earmarks. We need serious reform and we need it now--this Omnibus appropriations bill is a perfect example of what is wrong with this system.

Here are some examples of the earmarks contained in the omnibus legislation:

$1.7 million for pig odor research in Iowa; $2 million for the promotion of astronomy in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York; $650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi; $1 million for mormon cricket control in Utah; $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas; $870,000 for a wolf breeding facilities in North Carolina and Washington, $300,000 for the Montana World Trade Center; $1.7M ``for a honey bee factory'' in Weslaco, TX; $951,500 for Sustainable Las Vegas; $143,000 for Nevada Humanities to develop and expand an online encyclopedia; $475,000 to build a parking garage in Provo City, Utah; $200,000 for a tattoo removal violence outreach program in the LA area; $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Honolulu, Hawaii; $100,000 for the regional robotics training center in Union, SC; $1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass; $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West in Los Angeles, CA; $143,000 to teach art energy; $100,000 for the Central Nebraska World Trade Center; $951,500 for the Oregon Solar Highway; $819,000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, WY; $209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA; $400,000 for copper wire theft prevention efforts; $250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations; $238,000 for the Alaska PTA; $150,000 for a rodeo museum in South Dakota; $47,500 to remodel and expand a playground in Ottawa, IL; $285,000 for the Discovery Center of Idaho in Boise, ID; $632,000 for the Hungry Horse Project; $380,000 for a recreation and fairground area in Kotzebue, AK; $118,750 for a building to house an aircraft display in Rantoul, IL; $380,000 to revitalize downtown Aliceville, AL; $380,000 for lighthouses in Maine; $190,000 to build a Living Science Museum in New Orleans, LA; $7,100,000 for the conservation and recovery of endangered Hawaiian sea turtle populations; $900,000 for fish management; $150,000 for lobster research; $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York; $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service Project, CT; $238,000 for Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra for curriculum development; $95,000 for Hawaii Public Radio; $95,000 for the state of New Mexico to find a dental school location; $143,000 for the Dayton Society of Natural History in Dayton, OH; $190,000 for the Guam Public Library; $143,000 for the Historic Jazz Foundation in Kansas City, MO; $3,806,000 for a Sun Grant Initiative in South Dakota; $59,000 for Dismal Swamp and Dismal Swamp Canal in Virginia; and $950,000 for a Convention Center in Myrtle Beach, SC;

This waste is outrageous, and the President should veto this omnibus spending bill. The process is clearly broken, and the American public deserves better.

We need to curtail earmarks, not just disclose them. Again, the examples I have just mentioned are earmarks that are among the over 9,000 contained in the omnibus legislation currently

being considered in the Senate--so it is clear that the lobbying and ethics reform bill that was enacted in August 2007 has done nothing to curb this process--even though it continues to be touted for its ``tough'' and ``historic'' earmark reform provisions.

Perhaps even more troubling than the number of earmarks is to whom and how some of this funding is being directed. Contained within the Omnibus appropriations legislation are 14 earmarks, totaling nearly $9.7 million, directed to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm recently forced to close their doors after being raided last November by the FBI for suspicious campaign donation practices. That firm remains under investigation today. I have long spoken of a broken appropriations process, vulnerable to corruption and abuse, and the allegations against the PMA Group and some Members of Congress stand as a testament to the urgent need for reform. It is wholly inappropriate for Congress to allow these provisions to move forward while their principal sponsor is under Federal investigation. Together with my colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, we offered an amendment to strip these earmarks from the omnibus. If our amendment fails we will effectively be giving our tacit approval to the abuses we have repeatedly declared our intention to eliminate.

Six months ago, in a debate in Oxford, MS, President Obama stated that ``We need earmark reform, and when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.'' I fully agree. All one needs to do is read the Omnibus appropriations bill pending before the Senate to know that we need serious, comprehensive earmark reform and we need to grant the President a constitutional line-item veto authority so that he can go line by line through these bloated, earmark filled appropriations bills and send rescission requests to Congress.

Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed. We have entered the second year of a recession. Record numbers of homeowners face foreclosure. The national unemployment rate stands at 7.2%--the highest in 16 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost their jobs in the last 4 months of 2008. Additionally, we learned just Friday that the GDP sank 6.2 percent in the last quarter of 2008--far worse even than what was expected--with the economy contracting by the fastest pace in a quarter century.

Even when faced with these tremendous difficulties, Congress's appetite for pork seems bigger than ever. When are people going to wake up and truly grasp the seriousness of the economic situation confronting us? We cannot afford, literally, to continue to operate under the same Washington status quo.

Let's consider some cold, hard facts: current national debt: $10.7 trillion; 2009 projected deficit: $1.2 trillion; total cost of the economic stimulus enacted two weeks ago: $1.124 trillion; ($789 billion plus interest; TARP I and II: $700 billion; TARP III: $250 billion-$750 billion, or more; President's Budget Request for 2010: $3.6 trillion.

I was encouraged in January 2007 when the Senate passed, by a vote of 96 to 2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reforms. I thought that, at last, we would finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was short lived. In August 2007, we were presented with a bill containing very watered down earmark provisions and doing far too little to rein in wasteful earmarks and porkbarrel spending. We can change that and enact reforms that will help to restore the faith and confidence of the American people in their elected representatives--and passing this bill should be the first step we take.

Again, the bill we are introducing today will ensure timely congressional consideration of earmark rescission requests by the President. This will enable the President to propose the removal of wasteful earmarks from legislation that arrives on his desk for signature and send these earmarks back to Congress for expedited votes on whether or not to rescind funding; give the House and Senate 12 legislative days after the President sends a rescission request to Congress to bring a rescission bill to consideration on the floor of the full House and Senate; respect and preserve Congress's constitutional responsibilities, as it requires both the House and Senate to pass a rescission request before it can become law. If either the House or Senate votes against a rescission by a simple majority, it is not enacted; require the President to submit earmark rescission requests to Congress within 30 calendar days of signing a bill into law; limit the number of rescission requests per bill, to guard against gridlock in Congress due to multiple rescission proposals. Under this legislation, the President can propose one rescission package per ordinary bill, or two rescission packages for omnibus legislation. Each rescission package may include multiple earmarks; sunset at the end of 2014, providing a President this tool to control spending over the portions of two different Presidential terms. The sunset provision would give Congress the ability to review this legislation and decide whether to renew it.

As my colleagues are well aware, for years I have been coming to the Senate floor to read list after list of the ridiculous items we have spent money on--hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. And year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip porkbarrel projects from spending bills--usually only getting a handful of votes each time. Earmarks are like a cancer. Left unchecked, they have grown out of control. And just as cancer destroys tissue and vital organs, the corruption associated with the process of earmarking is destroying what is vital to our strength as a Nation, that is, the faith and trust of the American people in their elected representatives and in the institutions of their Government.

We must keep in mind that even strong line-item veto authority will not solve all of our fiscal problems. We also desperately need to reform our earmarking process and our lobbying practices--and we must remember that it is ultimately Congress's responsibility to control spending. However, granting the President the authority to propose rescissions that then must be approved by the Congress would go a long way toward restoring credibility to a system ravaged by congressional waste and special interest pork. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of this legislation. It is abundantly clear that the time has come for us to eliminate the corrupt, wasteful practice of earmarking.

In his final State of the Union Address, President Reagan stood for the last time before both Houses of Congress and asked for line-item veto authority for future Presidents. On that evening, the President had with him three pieces of legislation: an appropriations bill that was 1,053 pages long and weighed 14 pounds; a budget reconciliation bill that was 1,186 pages long and weighed 15 pounds; and a continuing resolution that was 1,057 pages long and weighed 14 pounds. President Reagan slammed down on the lectern the 43 pounds of paper and ink, which represented $1 trillion worth of spending. He did so to emphasize the magnitude of wasteful spending in the bills--spending that the President could not stop unless he was willing to veto each piece of legislation in its entirety. In the case of the continuing resolution, that would have meant that the Federal government would shut down.

More than 20 years later we are in exactly the same situation we were in when President Reagan said to Congress, ``Let's help ensure our future of prosperity by giving the President a tool that, though I will not get to use it, is one I know future Presidents of either party must have. Give the President the same authority that 43 Governors use in their States: the right to reach into massive appropriation bills, pare away the waste, and enforce budget discipline. Let's approve the line- item veto.''

The time has come to heed Ronald Reagan's call for line-item veto authority.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again offer this measure, the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009 with my colleague from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. I have worked with Congressman Ryan on this issue for the last two years. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility.

I am also delighted to be joined by my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009. Senator McCain has been one of the preeminent champions of earmark reform, and I have been pleased to work with him in fighting this abuse over the last two decades.

The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new authority would sunset at the end of 2014, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use in two different presidential terms before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line- item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed cancellations.

There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals offered in the past several years. But the measure we propose today is unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line- item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks.

When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house has agreed in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the 110th Congress.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. While some in Congress may wish to dismiss this issue, this year a single bill, the omnibus appropriations bill we are considering in the Senate, has by one count over eight thousand earmarks that cost over $7 billion. That is just one bill. We haven't even begun the appropriations process for the coming i cal year.

There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool.

Under our proposal, wasteful spending does not have anywhere to hide. It is out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin.

The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are trying to get at with this legislation.

President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks.

I was pleased to hear reports that President Obama looks forward to giving the line item veto a ``test drive.'' I very much hope that with this bill we can give him that opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again offer this measure, the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009 with my colleague from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. I have worked with Congressman Ryan on this issue for the last two years. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, WI, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility.

I am also delighted to be joined by my colleague, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing the Congressional Accountability and Line-Item Veto Act of 2009. Senator McCain has been one of the preeminent champions of earmark reform, and I have been pleased to work with him in fighting this abuse over the last two decades.

The measure we are each introducing today would grant the President specific authority to rescind or cancel congressional earmarks, including earmarked spending, tax breaks, and tariff benefits. This new authority would sunset at the end of 2014, ensuring that Congress will have a chance to review its use in two different presidential terms before considering whether or not to extend it. While not a true line- item veto bill, our measure provides for fast-track consideration of the President's proposed cancellation of earmarks. Thus, unlike current law, it ensures that for the specific category of congressional earmarks, the President will get an up or down vote on his proposed cancellations.

There have been a number of so-called line-item veto proposals offered in the past several years. But the measure we propose today is unique in that it specifically targets the very items that every line- item veto proponent cites when promoting a particular measure, namely earmarks. When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks.

When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

That is exactly what our bill does. It provides the President with new expedited rescission authority--what has been commonly referred to as a line-item veto--to cancel congressional earmarks. The definitions of earmarks that we use are the very definitions upon which each house has agreed in passing the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in the 110th Congress.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. By one estimate, in 2004 alone more than $50 billion in earmarks were passed. While some in Congress may wish to dismiss this issue, this year a single bill, the omnibus appropriations bill we are considering in the Senate, has by one count over eight thousand earmarks that cost over $7 billion. That is just one bill. We haven't even begun the appropriations process for the coming i cal year.

There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year, and while I have opposed granting the President line-item veto authority to effectively reshape programs like Medicare and Medicaid, for this specific category, I support giving the President this additional tool.

Under our proposal, wasteful spending does not have anywhere to hide. It is out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin.

The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that's what we are trying to get at with this legislation.

President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks.

I was pleased to hear reports that President Obama looks forward to giving the line item veto a ``test drive.'' I very much hope that with this bill we can give him that opportunity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to a bill that I am introducing today to resolve a land conveyance dispute in Northwest Alaska, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act.

Shortly after Alaska became a State in 1959, Alaska selected lands near Salmon Lake, a major fishery resource in the Bering Straits Region of Northwest Alaska. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to resolve aboriginal land claims throughout the 49th State. In that act Congress created 12 regional Native corporations in state, providing the corporations with $966 million and the right to select 44 million acres of land in return for giving up claims to their traditional lands in Alaska. The land and money was to go to make the corporations profitable to provide benefits to their shareholders, the native inhabitants of Alaska. The Bering Straits Native Corporation, one of those 12 regional corporations, promptly selected lands in the Salmon Lake region overlapping state selections, because the lake and the waters upstream and downstream from the lake spawn and

contain fisheries resources of significance to Alaska Natives and also offer land suitable for a variety of recreational activities.

For the past 38 years there have been conflicts over the conveyances, delaying land from going to the corporation, harming the economic and cultural benefits of the corporation to Native shareholders, and complicating land and wildlife management issues between federal agencies and the State of Alaska. Starting in 1994, but accelerating in 1997, talks began among the State, Federal agencies and native corporations and towns in the region, located north of Nome--Salmon Lake itself is located 38 miles north of Nome--to reach a consensus on land uses in the region. Those talks reached agreement on June 1, 2007 with a resolution that satisfied all parties. This seemingly non- controversial legislation will implement the new land management regime in the area and finally complete the conveyance of ANCSA lands to the Bering Straits Native Corporation--giving the corporation title after surveys to the last of the 145,728 acres it was promised by Section 14 (h)(8) of ANCSA nearly four decades ago.

By this bill the Corporation will gain conveyance to 1,009 acres in the Salmon Lake area, 6,132 acres at Windy Cove, northwest of Salmon Lake, and 7,504 acres at Imuruk Basin, on the north shore of Imuruk Basin, a water body north of Windy Cove. In return the Corporation relinquishes rights to another 3,084 acres at Salmon Lake to the federal government, the government then giving part of the land to the State of Alaska for it to maintain a key airstrip in the area. The Federal Bureau of Land Management also retains ownership and administration of a 9-acre campground at the outlet of Salmon Lake, which provides road accessible public camping opportunities from the Nome-Teller Highway. The agreement also retains public access to BLM managed lands in the Kigluaik Mountain Range.

The bill fully protects recreation and subsistence uses in the area, while providing the Corporation with access to recreational-tourism sites of importance to its shareholders and which might some day produce revenues for the Corporation. The agreement has prompted no known environmental group concerns and seems to be the classic ``win- win-win'' solution that all sides should be congratulated for crafting. The key, however, is for Congress to ratify the land conveyance changes by 2011, when the agreement ratification window closes.

Passage of this act is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the Alaska Lands Conveyance Acceleration Act that this body passed 5 years ago that was intended to help settle all outstanding land conveyance issues by 2009--the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood. In Alaska where controversy abounds over land use, this is a hard-fought compromise agreement that seemingly satisfies all parties and makes good sense for all concerned. I hope this body can ratify this bill swiftly and move it to the House of Representatives for its concurrence and eventual signing by the President. The bill is important for residents of Nome who utilize the area and for all Alaska Natives who live in the Bering Straits Region.