Mr. President, I oppose the DeMint amendment to impose a year-long moratorium on congressionally directed spending projects, popularly known as earmarks, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Rather than finding real solutions to a…
Mr. President, I oppose the DeMint amendment to impose a year-long moratorium on congressionally directed spending projects, popularly known as earmarks, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Rather than finding real solutions to a weakening economy and American dollar, the growing debt and job losses, and the fact that millions of Americans are losing their homes, the Senate is being asked to bow to political posturing by turning to the already much debated issue of earmarks.
Discretionary spending in the Federal budget continues to be a decreasing share of the overall budget, and appropriations provisions initiated in the Congress amount to only a sliver of that. Meanwhile, the President, and many in Congress who talk so much about earmarks, seem to find no inconsistency as they push Congress every few months to approve tens of billions of additional dollars to be sent to Iraq. An analysis by two prominent economists, published last Sunday in The Washington Post, forecast that the overall, budget and off-budget cost of the Iraq war eventually will exceed an incredible one trillion dollars. And unlike the regular appropriations bills, the periodic Iraq spending bills are off the budget altogether--they go directly onto the national debt, waiting there to be paid by our children and grandchildren.
Funny thing, but the President never bothers to point out to his audiences that these Iraq spending bills dwarf congressionally led appropriations items. Nor does he point out that regular appropriations bills are paid for, whereas his budget proposals for Iraq are not. Nor does he point out that by far the majority of earmarks suggested for appropriations bills are requested by the President, not by Congress. In Vermont, and in many of our States, we would call that kind of illogic about earmarks ``the old bait and switch.''
As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I take seriously my responsibility to help craft a responsible budget for the Federal Government, and I know from long experience in working with my colleagues that this sense of responsibility is felt throughout the committee. Each of the annual appropriations bills forged by the Appropriations Committee and its 13 subcommittees comes in at or under the amount allocated under the budget process, and they often come in below the departmental amounts recommended by the President. For instance, the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill that we brought to the Senate Floor last year for this fiscal year was $2 billion below the President's request.
Long ago I became used to seeing sensational headlines about spending priorities that are authored by Congress instead of by the executive branch. Lists are drawn up that label every line item, every program and every project not explicitly proposed by the President as ``pork- barrel spending''--regardless of their merit, need or importance to communities nationwide.
The Constitution confers the power of the purse to Congress, not to the President. As elected representatives from diverse districts, we each are closer to the needs of our states and communities than are the unelected staffers in White House's budget office. We also have an obligation to be responsive to our constituents' priorities.
As a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, I often advocate for projects that benefit Vermont and feel strongly that the carefully drawn initiatives that I have worked to secure have improved my State's infrastructure, economy and quality of life. Over the years I have secured funds to improve community wastewater systems, roads and bridges, strengthen public safety, and build affordable housing. These address real needs that often are unknown or overlooked by the federal bureaucracy. Similarly, I work each year to shape and address other priorities that are ignored in presidential budget requests, on issues ranging from developing safer antipersonnel landmines, or helping to save the lives of the poorest of the poor from preventable death or disease. Attempts to ban earmarks would limit the ability to address these and other issues.
The alternative would be to leave all spending decisions up to the executive branch, which--when given no direction by Congress--can descend into political favoritism, feasibility and retribution when it comes to choosing whose states receive Federal funding. That would also lessen accountability.
In 2007 the Democratic-led Congress added unprecedented transparency and accountability to the earmark process. More than ever before, we are now committed to openness and accountability. Projects receiving funds in fiscal year 2008 are identified by member,
amount, purpose and location. Those who make funding requests must certify that they have no financial interest in their earmarks and those letters are posted online. Never before has it been as simple for the public, for outside groups, for journalists or for Members of Congress themselves to see the spending their elected officials are advocating.
Earmark opponents mislead when they say that congressional earmarks are given no scrutiny or oversight. Actually, the money is not just handed to an award recipient, but rather carefully vetted by the appropriate federal agency to make sure the intended award recipient and project qualify under that specific program's regulations. There is an assistance agreement between the federal agency administering the grant and the award recipient on the amount of funding and a plan for how exactly those funds will be spent.
DeMint amendment proponents will tell you that earmarks tripled in number over the last decade, but they neglect to say that President Bush signed those earmarks into law. They also do not mention that the tripling in earmarks occurred under prior Republican-led Congresses. In fact, fiscal year 2008 congressional earmarks dropped significantly, with overall earmark costs cut by $14.9 billion, or 51 percent, compared with the earmarks contained in the Republican appropriations bills of 2 years ago.
A 51-percent reduction in earmark costs, total transparency and total disclosure--I could have sworn that is what earmark opponents advocated when we considered and passed the ethics bill last year.
Another thing earmark opponents do not widely broadcast is that presidents, including the current one, are champions in the earmarking process. President Bush stuffs his budgets with billions and billions for his designated projects. In fact, the President directs 20 times as much spending to special projects than Congress does. Look through the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill or the fiscal year 2009 budget proposal and you will see page after page of special projects amounting to billions of dollars, all requested by the President. With the reforms that the Democratic-led Congress put in place last year, congressional earmarks now receive far, far more public scrutiny than do the President's.
The amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina fails to include a moratorium on Presidential earmarks. If we are bent on doing away with congressional earmarks, then we should apply the same rules to earmarks requested by the President.
Lastly, I am struck by the tunnel vision of several of this amendment's backers who have been stalwart supporters of the biggest earmark of all: The blank checks written for hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars for the war in Iraq.
The proponents of this amendment claim that they want to get our Nation's checkbook in order, but what they do not say is that congressional earmarks are already paid for--the money is there to be spent, as prioritized by the appropriations bills. They are ready and willing to support the President's request to Congress for billions in emergency funding to continue the war in Iraq. Those dollars do not score against the budget, so the White House can advance the fiction that the President is being fiscally responsible at the same time that he piles on the debt for future generations.
Democracy depends on openness and accountability in government. Last year, the new Congress moved promptly to improve accountability by dramatically reducing earmark costs, and implementing a system of total transparency and total disclosure. We would be making a mistake to impose a rash and unnecessary moratorium on congressional earmarks. We will be shirking our constitutional responsibility by ceding the power of the purse to the executive branch. I will vote no on the DeMint amendment, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, the well publicized naturalization backlog that the administration has allowed to build up over the last year threatens not just to deprive hundreds of thousands of people the right to participate in the upcoming Federal elections, but it has undermined the legitimate expectations of those who have followed the law that their government will function as it is intended.
The related issue of a backlog at the FBI in completing security name checks in connection with naturalization applications not only contributes to these delays, but undermines the very purpose of the security check itself. If a security name check is pending for as long as three years, the result is that either someone who should not be in the United States is languishing unaccounted for, or that someone who should be approved is caught in a bureaucratic gridlock. Neither result is acceptable.
Our amendment gives Congress the flexibility to legislate a solution in relation to the backlogs at both the FBI and USCIS if the administration is unable to resolve this situation. Whether it is necessary to give more resources or additional authority to these agencies, it is becoming apparent that Congress may need to intervene. The administration's efforts thus far to address this issue are too little too late. Many in Congress have been rightly concerned about this situation in light of the serious security questions it raises, and we should not tolerate the vulnerabilities we are left with. What was a foreseeable situation was not foreseen. It is disappointing that for all of the administration's rhetoric in support of fair and realistic immigration reform, it has allowed this to happen. Those individuals who have come lawfully to the United States and who have proven their commitment through hard work, perseverance, and responsibility deserve better. I urge all Senators to join us in support of this amendment.
Amendment No. 4245
Mr. President, I will support the Senate budget resolution brought to the Senate by the Budget Committee and Chairman Conrad. This budget continues the long process that the new Congress started last year to restore fiscal responsibility and order to our Federal budget. I commend Chairman Conrad and his colleagues on the Budget Committee for producing a responsible budget resolution that strives to meet the real needs of the American people and to optimize our Nation's most pressing challenges and opportunities.
As we debate the budget, it is important to recall how we got to this point. When he took office in January of 2001, President Bush inherited a record Federal budget surplus. Instead of steering the country on a prudent course that would have helped prepare for the retirement of the baby boomers, supported the aspirations of working families, met the pressing needs of those who are struggling, and paid down our large national debt, the President immediately pushed through more than $1 trillion in tax cuts aimed at the wealthiest Americans and corporations.
Since then, the Bush administration has pursued fiscal policies of recklessness and squander that have short-circuited the priorities of hard-working families, children and seniors. For the Bush administration, investments in health care, education, housing, the anticrime and antidrug work of our law enforcement community, our first responders, and the rising home heating costs of those who can least afford them have taken a back seat to a costly, misguided and mismanaged war in Iraq and to the administration's disastrous fiscal policies here at home.
Now that a worsening housing slump, high gas prices and dampened consumer confidence have caused jitters throughout our Nation's financial markets--leading to continued job losses and weaker-than- expected retail sales--the President's continued fiscal mismanagement has hamstrung the government's ability to provide needed investments in programs that will help hard-working American families weather the financial storm.
We cannot continue on the path of fiscal irresponsibility the current administration has set, by holding to a course that will cost more than $3 trillion in Iraq and ignoring the needs of our most important domestic programs. As far as the White House is concerned, anything goes when it comes to spending in Iraq, while the real priorities of the American people have been forced farther and farther back in the line.
With the budget plans of the past 2 years, the new Congress has ended the days of rubberstamping the President's budget, and the process has begun of shifting our country in a new direction that will be better for hard-working Americans everywhere. By strengthening our economy, creating jobs, investing in our infrastructure, increasing our energy independence and supporting our military veterans and first responders, the Senate's budget plan puts the concerns of the working Americans front and center. Moreover, by carefully targeting and reallocating resources, the budget resolution would return us to Federal budget surpluses in 2012 and 2013 and accomplish this without raising new taxes.