Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate regarding about the ethics and lobbying reform bill. The remarks as prepared for delivery are below.

“Mr. President, over the past 20 years, I have often found myself in a somewhat lonely fight against earmarks and wasteful pork barrel spending.  Year after year I have come to the floor and read list after list of the ridiculous items we=re spending money on - hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change.  And year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip pork barrel projects from spending bills - usually only getting a handful of votes each time.  Finally, I was encouraged in January when this body passed, by a vote of 96-2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained real, meaningful earmark reform.  I thought that, at last, we would finally enact some effective reforms.  Unfortunately, that victory was short lived.      

“One of my happier days, I’ll admit, was when Dr. Coburn was elected to the United States Senate in 2004.  There is no better advocate of earmark reform, no one more consistent in standing firm to fight the worthy fight against wasteful spending, and I am proud to call him my friend.  I=d also like to commend Senators DeMint, Graham and others for joining our effort.  Sadly, I say to my friends that given the very watered down earmark provisions contained in the measure brought to us by the Majority, our good fight clearly will have to continue.  Not only does this bill do far too little to reign in wasteful spending - it has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelmingly in January.  It provides little more than lip service, unless of course you happen to be a Committee Chairman or the Majority Leader.  Under this majority-written bill, if you are lucky enough to hold one of those top positions, you will now yield even more power with your pork-barrel pen. 

“Mr. President, let me be clear, the ethics and lobbying reform bill before us today contains some good provisions which I strongly support.  A ban on gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists or groups that employ lobbyists is long overdue.  The increased disclosure requirements are also a welcome reform.

“But the bill before us fixes only part of the problem.  Why were the earmark reform provisions contained in the bill we passed in January, again by a vote of 96-2, completely gutted from this version of the bill?  To say that they needed to be changed in order for the House to agree just doesn’t fly here - there was no excuse for changing those provisions - they applied only to the senate.  Just six short months ago every one of my Democrat colleagues who voted supported a bill containing comprehensive earmark reforms - and now they=re gone.  What changed?  Why now do we have a bill before us with virtually none of the meaningful earmark reforms we overwhelmingly adopted such a short time ago?

“I’ll tell you what happened, Mr. President - and it should come as no surprise to anyone. By earmarking scarce federal funds on teapot museums and bear DNA studies and bridges to nowhere, Congress has proven who they represent and who they are working for and it=s not the American taxpayer.  In the eyes of the American people - we represent no one but the special interests.  Whether it be catfish farmers in the south or blueberry farmers in the north or big Pharmaceutical companies with high-paid lobbyists here in Washington - big-money special interests have a stranglehold on this town - that=s why those earmark reform provisions are gone - and the American people know it.  Just look at Congressional approval ratings.  A recent CBS/NYT survey showed Congress with an approval rating of just 26%.  That=s abysmal - and we deserve it. 

“By ignoring the need for serious earmark reforms in this bill, we act like a doctor who is treating a patient with a broken arm, a broken leg and cancer.  We=re fixing the broken arm, and we=re fixing the broken leg, but the cancer remains and we=re doing nothing to treat it.      

“Earmarks, Mr. President, are like a cancer.  Left unchecked, they have grown out of control - increasing by nearly 400% since 1994.  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.

 “The corruption which stems from the practice of earmarking has resulted in current and former Members of both the House and Senate either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison.  Let=s be clear - it wasn’t inadequate lobbyist disclosure requirements which led Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in bribes in exchange for doling out $70 - $80 million of the taxpayer=s funds to a defense contractor.  It was his ability to freely earmark taxpayer funds without question.   

 “We cannot allow this to continue.  We are squandering a golden opportunity to prove to the American public that we will end this wasteful practice once and for all.  If we are really committed to addressing comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform in a meaningful and effective way, we must include meaningful earmark reform provisions in this legislative package.  The process is clearly broken when each year Congress continues to earmark billions and billions of taxpayers dollars, sometimes with little or almost no knowledge about the specifics of those earmarks by most of the members of this body. 

“Mr. President, my colleagues are all too familiar with my pork scrubs of the appropriations bills and my willingness to stand on this floor to inform the public of just how the Congress is spending their hard earned tax dollars.  Yet despite my efforts, the growth in earmarked funding in appropriations bills during the past 12 years has been staggering. 

“According to data gathered by CRS, there were 4,126 earmarks in 1994.  In 2005, there were 15,877B again, an increase of nearly 400 percent.   There was a little good news for 2006 solely because the Labor HHS appropriations bill was approved with almost no earmarks, an amazing feat given that there were over 3,000 earmarks in the previous year=s bill.  Yet despite this first reduction in 12 years, it doesn=t change the fact that the largest number of earmarks have still occurred in recent fiscal years -- 2004, 2005, and 2006.  Sadly, the best thing the 109^th Congress did for the American taxpayers was fail to do our jobs and pass the annual appropriations measures.  Instead, we ended up passing a clean Continuing Resolution in February to fund the government through the end of this fiscal year, essentially free of new earmarks.  A remarkable, and likely one time, accomplishment. 

“In regard to the level of wasted funding associated with those earmarks, it increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in FY 2006.  Remarkably, it rose by 34 percent from 2005 to 2006, even though the number of earmarks decreased!  Earmarked dollars have doubled just since 2000, and more than tripled in the last 10 years.  This is wrong and disgraceful and we urgently need to make some changes in the process around here.  Unfortunately, the bill before us will do little to fix this broken process. 

“Recently in the House of Representatives, when another member questioned the necessity of one of his earmarked projects, a Congressman raged at the idea of someone challenging what he described as Amy money, my money.@  Therein lies the problem, Mr. President.  Too many Members of Congress view taxpayers’ funds as their own.  And they feel free to spend it as they see fit, with no oversight and, often, no shame.  Look at some of the things we’ve funded over the years:

$                    $225,000 for an Historic Wagon Museum in Utah

$                    $1 million for a DNA study of bears in Montana

$                    $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio

$                    $220,000 for blueberry research at the University of Maine

$                    $3 million for an animal waste management research facility in Kentucky

$                    $170,000 for blackbird management in Kansas

$                    $196,000 for geese control in New York

$                    $50,000 for feral hog control in Missouri

$                    $90,000 for the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Fort Worth, Texas

$                    $200,000 for an American White Pelican survey

$                    $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii

$                    $13 million for a ewe lamb retention program

$                    $500,000 to study flight attendant fatigue

$                    $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Pennsylvania and New York

$                    $3 million for the production of a documentary about Alaska. 

$                    $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative

$                    $500,000 for a Teapot museum in North Carolina

$                    $1.1 million to research the use of Alaskan salmon in baby food

$                    $25 million for a fish hatchery in Montana

$                    $16 million for Adisplay cases and interactive displays@ at the National Distance Running Hall of Fame in Utica, New York.

$                    $37 million over four years to the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board to Apromote and develop fishery products and research pertaining to American fisheries.@  So how exactly does this Board spend the money Congress so generously earmarks every year?  Well, they spent $500,000 of it to paint a giant salmon on the side of an Alaska Airlines 747 - and nicknamed it the ASalmon Forty Salmon.@ 

 “And we wonder why our approval rating stands at 26%.

 “Unfortunately, I could go on and on with examples of wasteful earmarks that have been approved by Congress.  I really hoped that we had finally learned our lesson about the corruption that earmarking breeds with the convictions of Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney.  But we haven=t.  What will it take?

 “Yes, some good has come from the Abramoff scandal, and the ethics and lobbying provisions in this bill are sound and overdue.  But, in the end, they are meaningless if we don=t put an end to a system that opened the door for the criminal activities of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, and whoever is next to fall.  If we pass this bill without the earmark provisions we agreed to at the beginning of the year, then we=ve failed the American people - yet again.  Time and time again leaders of both parties have stood up and promised to change the way things operate in Washington, particularly when it comes to how we spend taxpayers dollars, and time and time again we fail to change anything.

 “So, let=s talk about the earmark reforms contained in the Senate-passed bill, again, which passed in January by a vote of 96-2, and compare them to what is included in the version we have before us today.  First, let me be clear.  The Senate-passed provisions were modest, but they provided the most fundamental reforms I had witnessed in my time here.  Under that bill, earmarks were not prohibited, which frankly, would be my ideal.  But the Senate-passed bill did ensure earmarks were fully disclosed and if they weren=t, the bill could not be considered.  And the Senate-passed version required that legislation be made available 48 hours before a vote and that any associated earmarks be in a searchable data base that the public could access.  The Senate-passed bill prohibited out of scope provisions and earmarks from being air-dropped in conference, and allowed for Points of Order to be raised against specific items in conference reports that could be stricken from the conference reports without killing the entire measure.  This is something I have advocated for years, and have introduced proposals to provide this ability since 2003.  The Senate-passed version also made it clear that if a provision was stricken from a conference report on a Point of Order, any associated money was also removed with it.  After all, the goal behind earmark reform is to reign in wasteful spending.           

 “Now, let=s compare all that to the new version presented to us this week.  First, instead of preventing a bill from being considered if earmarks aren=t identified in the accompanying report, this version only applies to preventing Aa vote on a motion to proceed to a measure@ Aunless the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction or the Majority Leader, or his or her designee, certifies@ that all earmarks in the bill or accompanying report have been identified and publicly available.  Now, what=s wrong with that?  Well, nothing if you are the committee chair or the Majority Leader or the designee.  But if you are a Senator wishing to exercise your rights under the Rules, this new rule basically gives you no rights.  There is little consequence as to whether the so-called certification is accurate or a farce.  Instead of taking your case to the Senate Parliamentarian, whose only job now with respect to this provision will be to say whether or not a certification was provided, you will have to take it up with the Majority leaderBor his designee.   I wonder if the Majority Leader would name me or Dr. Coburn to be his designee?  Doubtful.

 “Let me read a quote from yesterday=s Wall Street Journal, which says it even better:   

‘Our favorite switcheroo: Under the previous Senate reform, the Senate parliamentarian would have determined whether a bill complied with earmark disclosure rules. Under Mr. Reid's new version, the current Majority Leader, that is Mr. Reid himself, will decide if a bill is in compliance. When was the last time a Majority Party Leader declared one of his own bills out of order?’

 “So, while under this new version of the bill, earmarks should be disclosed in theory, the fact remains that only the Committee chair, the Majority Leader, or his designee can police it.  If they say all of the earmarks are identified, we are to take it as gospel.  Our only option is to appeal the ruling of the Chair that a certification was made. 

 “Conveniently, the bill was modified between its release Monday morning and another version Monday afternoon.  Not surprising, it was a modification to the benefit of the Abusiness as usual@ crowd.  It now would require a 60 vote threshold to appeal the ruling of the Chair compared to a mere majority vote under the version released a few hours earlier.  Let=s be clear - sixty Members are not going to overrule the Majority Leader.  Business as usual, Mr. President, business as usual.

 “The new version does retain the requirement that bills and conference reports be available 48 hours before a vote, but the searchable database is no longer a requirement when it comes to conference reports - the time when it would be of most value to Senators, staff and - most importantly - members of the public who want to review the final version of a measure to see exactly how their money is being spent.   

“As I mentioned, the Senate-passed version included provisions to allow Points of Order to be raised against out of scope items and earmarks added to conference reports.  While the new version retains that requirement in part, it gutted the most important feature, which was to ensure that any related funding that was associated with the stricken item also be removed from the measure. As a result, the provision does nothing to promote fiscal responsibility.  Sure, we might be successful at stripping a bridge earmark from a state, but the money will still be in the bill.  And I can assure you it will be spent.  Why the majority who wrote this bill thinks that is a responsible thing to allow is something they will have to explain.

 “Mr. President, we, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public=s faith and confidence in Congress.  An informed citizenry is essential to a thriving democracy.  And, a democratic government operates best in the disinfecting light of the public eye.  By seriously addressing the corrupting influence of earmarks, this bill could go so much further in allowing Members to legislate with the imperative that our government must be free from corrupting influences, both real and perceived.  We must act now to ensure that the erosion we see today in the public=s confidence in Congress does not become a collapse of confidence.  We can, and we must, do more in this bill to end the practice of earmarking.  

 “Mr. President, in his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on the spending he believed to be excessive.  His words then are all the more powerful in today=s out of control environment: 

 ‘As we peer into society's future,’ he said, ‘we - you and I, and our government - must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.’

 “And yet, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk precisely that B becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.  I wonder what President Eisenhower would think of this mess.  But, then, perhaps others have contemplated the same question.  After all, the Defense Appropriations bill we passed in December 2005 included a $1.7 million unauthorized, unrequested earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other than . . . Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

 “I yield the floor.”

###