Senate Floor Statement on Proposed Earmark Amendment

Mr. President, Senator Coburn has proposed an amendment to the badly needed food safety legislation now before the Senate that seeks to end congressionally directed spending, or earmarks. Senator Coburn described his amendment as an attempt to get spending under control. But it fails the test of accomplishing that goal, and fails to meet Congress’ constitutional obligation to exercise the power of the purse.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States places the power of federal spending in the Congress, the branch of government most directly connected to the people.

The power of the purse is great, and therefore accountability for the exercise of that power should be great as well. Our greater responsiveness in Congress to immediate public needs is essential. If the Coburn amendment passes, we would be barred from bringing that judgment to bear on some of the most pressing issues of the day. Instead, the Executive Branch – which is, in practice, the most bureaucratic and least responsive branch – would control these decisions.

For example, under Senator Coburn’s proposal, only the Executive Branch would have the power to initiate funding for disaster relief. Measures to appropriate funds in response to disasters would be prohibited because they would dedicate funding to specific locations. So, had this measure been in place when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Congress would have been powerless to react. Similarly, had this restriction been in place when a Mississippi River bridge collapsed in Minnesota in 2007, Congress could not have appropriated the $195 million it set aside for repair and reconstruction.

This measure also would prevent members from addressing the urgent needs of our communities. I and other members from Great Lakes states have urged the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to address the growing threat that Asian carp will make their way from the Mississippi River watershed into the Great Lakes. These invasive species of fish would devastate the lakes, doing enormous harm to our states’ economies. So long as the Army Corps continues to underfund this important work, only the action of Congress can prevent an economic disaster.

I would argue that each of these expenditures is important and necessary. But the wisdom or folly of these decisions lies in the merits of the projects themselves, not in the manner by which they were funded. Allowing the Congress to make these decisions allows the voters to judge them on their own merits, to reward their representatives when they make wise choices, and to render judgment in the voting booth when they do not.

Senator Coburn is rightly concerned about the long-term fiscal condition of the government. But it has been repeatedly pointed out, despite the fiction surrounding this issue, that this amendment would do nothing to improve our fiscal situation. Year after year, Congress works within the top line of budgets submitted by the President, readjusting priorities without increasing total spending. For this reason, the Coburn amendment would not reduce spending levels; it would simply shift greater authority for deciding how money is spent from the Legislative Branch to the Executive.

There are two ways to close our fiscal gap. We can reduce spending. Or we can increase revenue. Banning congressionally directed spending does neither. It would create the impression that we have taken a step toward fiscal responsibility, without making any of the difficult choices that reducing the deficit will require. I applaud Senator Coburn’s desire to address our debt. But this measure fails to do so, and in the process abdicates our constitutional responsibilities. So I will oppose this amendment and urge our colleagues to do the same.