March 15, 2008
Byrd Votes 'Nay' On Earmark 'Reform' Legislation, Gives Rationale for Congressional Earmarks
Editor's Note: Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, just out of the hospital, voted “nay” on “earmark reform” Thursday, March 13 on the Senate floor. This is his statement entered into the Congressional Record.
In his essay on “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell laments the abuse of speech by political leaders. He notes how certain words are so vague in meaning that they can be twisted and distorted into something they are not. What is entirely altruistic, he argues, can be made to seem repugnant and avaricious.
One such Orwellian word that has found its way into our political lexicon is “earmark.” This poor, wretched, maligned word has had scorn heaped upon it. It has been equated with corruption and invoked to describe dastardly, behind-the-scenes machinations –- sometimes real, but mostly imagined.
President Bush has enthusiastically embraced this Orwellian line. In his State of the Union address, the President asked the Congress to reduce Congressional earmarks by half and threatened to veto any bill that does not comply. He instructed executive agencies to ignore Congressional guidance on earmarks for FY 2009. Let the executive agencies make the spending decisions, his argument goes.
Certainly the White House budget office would like us to do that. I don’t expect officials from that office to understand the critical needs of the communities we represent. They do not meet with our constituencies. They do not know our states and their people. They do not see what we see. An earmark may be "pork" to some political chatter box on television, but it could be an economic lifeline for a community. It may be a road that has fallen into dangerous disrepair or a bridge that is on the verge of collapse.
An earmark is an economic need that many times falls between the cracks of the Washington bureaucracy. When that happens, the people we represent cannot call some unelected bureaucrat in the White House budget office. They cannot get a Cabinet Secretary on the line. When they need help, they come to us, their elected representatives. These are the working people in our society. Their priorities may be considered unimportant by some, but it’s our job to make sure critical needs in our states are addressed.
Some earmarked spending has proven to be a tremendous asset to this country. Children’s Hospital, here in the District of Colombia, which has served over five million critically-ill children, was built with earmarked funds. Human genome research was initiated by an earmark sponsored by our colleague Senator Domenici. The WIC program, which has provided essential nutrition to 150 million women, infants, and children, was started as an earmark. The Predator unmanned aircraft, which has been so effective in the Global War on Terror, was built with an earmark.
The amendment before the Senate today fails to acknowledge the existence of these achievements. The amendment does not recognize that Members of Congress know the needs of the people they represent better than unelected bureaucrats at the White House budget office. The idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful executive bureaucracy is more trustworthy than the elected representatives of the people when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars challenges the most basic tenet of our political system.
Frankly, the effort to demonize earmarks is a ruse; it is a feint; it is an effort to distract Americans from horrendous budget deficits which have mushroomed under President Bush. When President Bush took office, this nation had just completed four straight years of budget surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the surplus between 2002 and 2011 would be $5.6 trillion. Now, according to the White House’s own budget documents, we are facing $2.7 trillion of debt over those same ten years.
During the Bush Presidency, our government will have experienced the five largest annual deficits in the history of the Republic. The author of this amendment would like Americans to think that these deficits were caused by earmarks. What poppycock. If anyone thinks they can eliminate the $400 billion deficit by eliminating earmarks, they need to take a refresher course in arithmetic.
In Fiscal Year 2008, the total cost of the Bush tax cuts will be $252 billion – 21 times the amount of earmark spending in question. In Fiscal Year 2008, the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers will be almost $70 billion – six times the amount of spending in question. In Fiscal Year 2008, special interest tax favors will cost $1 trillion – 83 times the amount of spending in question. Corporate tax hand-outs will cost $91 billion – over 76 times the amount of spending in question. The level of Congressional earmarks is one-fiftieth of what this country has exhausted on the war in Iraq.
I implore my colleagues to look at the facts. Last year, the President proposed almost 2,000 earmarks, totaling more than $22 billion. Earmarks exploded under the Bush Administration, including presidential earmarks for cattle fever ticks, fruit flies, and light brown apple moths. When President Bush signed the highway bill in 2005, it contained over 6,000 earmarks, fifty percent more earmarks than all the previous highway bills combined.
In the past year, it was the Congress that took the initiative to limit earmarks. In 2007, we had a moratorium on earmarks until rules could be enacted that would add transparency to the process of earmarking funds. Last year, Congress enacted new rules that added unprecedented transparency and accountability to the process of earmarking funds. These were needed.
Adding transparency and accountability to the earmarking process is responsible. Reducing the level of earmarks below the levels approved by President Bush for FY 2005, is responsible. We have already taken these steps. But pretending that we can save money by eliminating earmarks is pure folly. It is poppycock. It is also bad policy. The Constitution gives the power over the purse to Congress. That is the most effective way to check an irresponsible President of either party. Congress must not cede decisions about how the taxpayers’ money should be spent.
It’s simply ridiculous to criticize Federal investments in local and state communities without having visited the neighborhoods that will benefit, without talking with the people who live there, and without understanding the local planning that is involved. The earmark is the safety net under blind formulas. It brings local concerns of average people into the funding process. A Republic cannot address its needs based on formulas and the educated guesses of bureaucrats. The earmark ushers judgment, compassion, need, humanity, decency, and common sense into the budget process. Certainly our bloated, bureaucratic federal government could use a whole lot more of all of those virtues.
I urge a "No" vote on the amendment.
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Byrd Votes 'Nay' On Earmark 'Reform' Legislation, Gives Rationale for Congressional Earmarks
Editor's Note: Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, just out of the hospital, voted “nay” on “earmark reform” Thursday, March 13 on the Senate floor. This is his statement entered into the Congressional Record.
In his essay on “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell laments the abuse of speech by political leaders. He notes how certain words are so vague in meaning that they can be twisted and distorted into something they are not. What is entirely altruistic, he argues, can be made to seem repugnant and avaricious.
One such Orwellian word that has found its way into our political lexicon is “earmark.” This poor, wretched, maligned word has had scorn heaped upon it. It has been equated with corruption and invoked to describe dastardly, behind-the-scenes machinations –- sometimes real, but mostly imagined.
President Bush has enthusiastically embraced this Orwellian line. In his State of the Union address, the President asked the Congress to reduce Congressional earmarks by half and threatened to veto any bill that does not comply. He instructed executive agencies to ignore Congressional guidance on earmarks for FY 2009. Let the executive agencies make the spending decisions, his argument goes.
Certainly the White House budget office would like us to do that. I don’t expect officials from that office to understand the critical needs of the communities we represent. They do not meet with our constituencies. They do not know our states and their people. They do not see what we see. An earmark may be "pork" to some political chatter box on television, but it could be an economic lifeline for a community. It may be a road that has fallen into dangerous disrepair or a bridge that is on the verge of collapse.
An earmark is an economic need that many times falls between the cracks of the Washington bureaucracy. When that happens, the people we represent cannot call some unelected bureaucrat in the White House budget office. They cannot get a Cabinet Secretary on the line. When they need help, they come to us, their elected representatives. These are the working people in our society. Their priorities may be considered unimportant by some, but it’s our job to make sure critical needs in our states are addressed.
Some earmarked spending has proven to be a tremendous asset to this country. Children’s Hospital, here in the District of Colombia, which has served over five million critically-ill children, was built with earmarked funds. Human genome research was initiated by an earmark sponsored by our colleague Senator Domenici. The WIC program, which has provided essential nutrition to 150 million women, infants, and children, was started as an earmark. The Predator unmanned aircraft, which has been so effective in the Global War on Terror, was built with an earmark.
The amendment before the Senate today fails to acknowledge the existence of these achievements. The amendment does not recognize that Members of Congress know the needs of the people they represent better than unelected bureaucrats at the White House budget office. The idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful executive bureaucracy is more trustworthy than the elected representatives of the people when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars challenges the most basic tenet of our political system.
Frankly, the effort to demonize earmarks is a ruse; it is a feint; it is an effort to distract Americans from horrendous budget deficits which have mushroomed under President Bush. When President Bush took office, this nation had just completed four straight years of budget surpluses. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the surplus between 2002 and 2011 would be $5.6 trillion. Now, according to the White House’s own budget documents, we are facing $2.7 trillion of debt over those same ten years.
During the Bush Presidency, our government will have experienced the five largest annual deficits in the history of the Republic. The author of this amendment would like Americans to think that these deficits were caused by earmarks. What poppycock. If anyone thinks they can eliminate the $400 billion deficit by eliminating earmarks, they need to take a refresher course in arithmetic.
In Fiscal Year 2008, the total cost of the Bush tax cuts will be $252 billion – 21 times the amount of earmark spending in question. In Fiscal Year 2008, the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of taxpayers will be almost $70 billion – six times the amount of spending in question. In Fiscal Year 2008, special interest tax favors will cost $1 trillion – 83 times the amount of spending in question. Corporate tax hand-outs will cost $91 billion – over 76 times the amount of spending in question. The level of Congressional earmarks is one-fiftieth of what this country has exhausted on the war in Iraq.
I implore my colleagues to look at the facts. Last year, the President proposed almost 2,000 earmarks, totaling more than $22 billion. Earmarks exploded under the Bush Administration, including presidential earmarks for cattle fever ticks, fruit flies, and light brown apple moths. When President Bush signed the highway bill in 2005, it contained over 6,000 earmarks, fifty percent more earmarks than all the previous highway bills combined.
In the past year, it was the Congress that took the initiative to limit earmarks. In 2007, we had a moratorium on earmarks until rules could be enacted that would add transparency to the process of earmarking funds. Last year, Congress enacted new rules that added unprecedented transparency and accountability to the process of earmarking funds. These were needed.
Adding transparency and accountability to the earmarking process is responsible. Reducing the level of earmarks below the levels approved by President Bush for FY 2005, is responsible. We have already taken these steps. But pretending that we can save money by eliminating earmarks is pure folly. It is poppycock. It is also bad policy. The Constitution gives the power over the purse to Congress. That is the most effective way to check an irresponsible President of either party. Congress must not cede decisions about how the taxpayers’ money should be spent.
It’s simply ridiculous to criticize Federal investments in local and state communities without having visited the neighborhoods that will benefit, without talking with the people who live there, and without understanding the local planning that is involved. The earmark is the safety net under blind formulas. It brings local concerns of average people into the funding process. A Republic cannot address its needs based on formulas and the educated guesses of bureaucrats. The earmark ushers judgment, compassion, need, humanity, decency, and common sense into the budget process. Certainly our bloated, bureaucratic federal government could use a whole lot more of all of those virtues.
I urge a "No" vote on the amendment.
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
