Senator McCaskill Supports Moratorium on Earmarks

Missouri senator speaks on Senate floor ahead of amendment vote

March 13, 2008 -- WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill spoke on the Senate floor about an amendment she is co-sponsoring with Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) that would create a one-year moratorium on all congressional earmarks. McCaskill believes that federal funding is essential to local and state projects but, as a former auditor, feels that earmarking is not a fiscally responsible or fair way to distribute funds. Instead, tax dollars should be awarded to local projects through a competitive, merit-based process. The provision is an amendment to the Congressional Budget Resolution and is expected to receive a vote later today.

McCaskill’s Speech
Madam President, I'd like to speak a few minutes about the amendment that I have co-sponsored with Senator DeMint concerning the earmarking process in Congress.

You know, it's very unusual that a problem is as bipartisan as this problem. Spending public money is something we should take very seriously. It's one of the most important things we do. We all have to remember it's not our money. This spending of public money should be done on merit. It should be done on a cost-benefit basis. It should be done based on getting the most bang for our buck. Spending public money should not be based on your political party. It should not be based on what state you come from, should not be based on which committee you're assigned to, and it should certainly not be based on how politically vulnerable you might be in the next election.

If you look at the numbers in terms of, for example, the minority members of the House of Representatives that represent primarily African-American districts, it is, frankly, hard to explain why they get less in earmarking money than even the Republican members of the House. Why is that? Many of them are in politically safe seats. In other words, what happens around here is sometimes you get more money if everybody thinks you need to be able to spend more money because that will help you get reelected.

Well, that's a goofy way to spend public money. It's not the way we should be spending public money. Many of these projects that are funded are great projects. Many of them I support. But the distribution is not done on merit.

And I have heard over and over again the arguments about the power of the purse and that somehow if we don't do earmarking, that we are ceding congressional authority to the executive branch. Well, Madam President, with all due respect, for 200 years, we did just fine without earmarking. I don't recall President Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson or FDR or LBJ saying that it was essential for the balance of power in our constitutional form of government to make sure that individual members of Congress have the ability to personally decide how to spend public money. And so I think the idea that this practice, which really just started in the 1980's -- late 1980's and really didn't become an art form until the last five or six years – I think it's kind of a hallow argument to say somehow this building is going to shake and lightning is going to strike and our power is going to dissipate.

We're debating this week all the power we have as the power of the purse, as reflected in our budget amendments and as reflected in appropriations. We continue to make the decisions and we'll always continue to make the decisions about the priorities of the way our government should spend its money. That is the way the Constitution was designed.

And finally, there are practices that continue to occur that hurt many states and hurt many citizens in terms of the way that we are sacrificing the formula grants and the competitive grants in order to fund earmarks. We give haircut after haircut after haircut to our formula grants and to our other grants. If you look at the Byrne grants, if you look at the violence against women grants, if you look at the COPS program, all of these were based on merit. I know because I used to apply for them when I was a prosecutor. They have been cut and cut and cut while earmarks have gone up and up and up. We are still airdropping. We are continuing to fund private companies for projects not even requested by the government.

It’s time for – as I would say to my kids when they were young – it's time for a time-out. We need take a deep breath, see if we can't take another try at public reform. See if we can't spend the money based on merit, getting the best money for the dollar, not based on the power of the individual member or who you know. Thank you, Madam President.

Source: Senator Claire McCaskill

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •    •