responsibility was to the country as a whole, not to their privileged well-connected, well-knowing few that help them come up here. we have a problem, and the problem isn't earmarks. the problem is the confidence of the american people. they see the conflicts of interest. -- associated with earmarks. it is not wrong to want to help your state. it is not wrong to go through an authorizing process where your colleagues can actually see it. it is wrong to hide something in a bill that benefits you and the well-heeled few without it being shown in light to the american people. and if we're to solve the major problems that are in front of this country over the next two or three years -- and they're the largest we've ever seen -- they are the the biggest problems that we've ever seen in

this country -- we have to restore the confidence of the american people. utilization utilization of an earmark is not our prerogative, it's our pleasure. and we claim a power that we have, in fact, created. we do direct where the money goes but we should never do it with a conflict of interest that benefits just those that we represent from our state or just those that help us become u.s. senators. and all you have to do is look at campaign contributions and earmarks. and there's a stinky little secret associated with that. the correlation is close to one. that's not something this body should embrace, should tolerate

or should stand for. the american people expect us to be transparent, above board, doing the best right thing for the country as a whole. the real process is, is that the appropriations committees ignore authorizing committees. $380 billion a year in discretionary funds are appropriated every year that are unauthorized. and with that rebuff to the authorizing committees, they also put in any earmarks that they want or any other member wants. esit's time that stops. it's time we reearn the trust of the american people. with that i'd yield to my colleague, the senator from arizona, senator mccain. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i want to thank senator coburn and i also would like to express my

appreciation to senator mccaskill and senator udall for joining in this very important amendment. and as the senator from oklahoma mentioned, this issue has been debated many times on the floor of the senate. there has been efforts to repeal certain most egregious earmarks. the bridge to nowhere in alaska was one of those that became more famous than others. and i have to say to my colleagues, i have seen with my own eyes -- and i say this with great regret -- the influence of money, the contributions in the shaping of legislation. and i have seen that come in the form of earmarks.

one of the individuals that i admired a great deal, former member of the house of representatives, now resides in federal prison because of earmarking. another member of congress recently got out of prison. it was earmarking. i just saw that the former majority leader of the united states house of representatives was convicted in court in texas and earmarking played a major role, the system of rewards for campaign contributions was an important factor in that conviction. so for many years, i have been coming to this floor to express my frustration with this corrupt practice. it's been a lonely fight and hasn't won me many friends in

this body and i understand that, but i'd also like to point out that my criticisms have not been directed just for the other side of of the aisle. earmarking is a bipartisan disease and it requires a bipartisan cure. after so many years in the trenches to eliminate this practice, i am pleased that the american people are demanding that we stop this practice. as my colleagues know, earlier this month, the senate republican caucus unanimously adopted a nonbinding resolution to put in place a two-year earmark moratorium. i applaud my fellow republicans in the senate who join our republican colleagues in the house in sending a message to the american people that we heard them loud and clear in the election of november 2, that

we'll get spending under control and we will start by eliminating the corrupt practice of earmarking. now, mr. president, i had a lot of communications and relations with and attended even tea party rallies across my state. there's very little doubt that a real revote is going on out there. i can't call it a revolution because i don't know how long it's going to last. i don't know how it's going to be channeled. i don't know exactly where this movement will go. but i do know that it involved millions of americans who had never been involved in the political process before because of their anger and frustration over our practices here, and

they believe that earmarking is a corrupt practice. they believe that their tax dollars should not be earmarked in the middle of the night without any authorization, without hearings. the senator from oklahoma just pointed out, $380 billion in earmarks. and some of those earmarks are worthy. if they are worthy, then they should be authorized. so what's happened here? what we have seen in the last 30 years or so is an incredible shift into the hands -- from the hands of many to the decisions of a few. we don't do authorization bills anymore. we don't do an authorization bill for foreign operations. we don't do an authorization bill for all of these other functions of government, for which there are requirements.

because what do we do? we stuff them all into the appropriations bills. and then the appropriations -- members of the appropriations committee make decisions that are far-reaching in their consequences, incredibly billions of dollars without the authorizing committees carrying out their proper role of examination, scrutiny and approval. the way the system is supposed to work and did for a couple a hundred years is projects, programs, whatever they are, are authorized, then the appropriators appropriate the certain dollars that they feel necessary to make this authorization most effective and efficient. so we don't authorize anymore. we only appropriate.

that is wrong, and that really puts so much power in the hands of a very few members of this body, and inevitably it leads to corruption. inevitably. you know, the heritage foundation wrote a report that i would urge my colleagues to read and it's entitled -- quote -- "why earmarks matter." the first point they make is -- quote -- "they invite corruption. congress does have a proper role in determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for federal grant programs. however, allowing lawmakers to select exactly who receives government grants invites corruption." i'm quoting from the heritage foundation. "instead of entering a competitive application process

within a federal agency, grant seekers now often have to hire a lobbyist to win the earmark auction. encouraged by lobbyists who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments have become hooked on the earmark process for funding improvement projec projects." there are small towns in my state that feel obligated to hire a lobbyist to get an earmark here through the appropriations committee. they should not have to do that. they should not be spending thousands and thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for a lobbyist to come here to get an earmark. they should have their desires and their needs and their requirements considered on an equal basis with everybody else's, not only in their state but in this country. but now they believe that the only way that they will get

their pork or their project done is through the hiring of a lobbyist. they encourage spending, the heritage foundation goes on. "while there may not be a causal relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved each year tracks closely with growth in federal spending." then the heritage foundation goes to say -- quote -- "they distort priorities. many earmarks do not add new spending by themselves but instead redirect funds already slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by states into specific projects favored by an individual member. so, for example, if a member of the nevada delegation succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle trail in elko in 2005, then that $2 million

would be taken out of the $254 million allocated to the nevada department of transportation for that year. so if nevada had wanted to spend that money fixing a highway and rapidly ex-- in rapidly expanding las vegas, thanks to the earmark they would be out of luck." so what we do is we deprive the governors and the legislators from setting the priorities that they feel are the priorities for their states. and all too often, the earmark is not what the state or the local citizenry are -- local, state or town or county needs as their priorities, because they are decided with the influence of lobbyists here in washington. and i say, with all due respect to the appropriators, they don't know the needs of the -- of my state like i know the needs and not nearly as much as the

mayors, the city councils, the governors and our legislature knows. let them make the decision where these -- where these moneys should be spent, not on a bike path instead of improving a highway. so, mr. president, i could go on and on. i come down here year after year and i look at the -- at the pork-barrel projects and the earmarks and we discuss the ones that are the most egregious and then i'm amused and entertained by members who come down and defend many of these absolutely unneeded and unnecessary projects. and i won't go into them and many of my favorites at this time because i know that my colleagues are waiting to speak. but i would ask my colleagues to understand the voice of the people of this country. i just read today that there was

more seats changed -- were gained by the republican party than in any election since 1938. since 1938, there has not been such a political upheaval in this country. and that's not because our constituents have now fallen in love with republicans. that's not the case. what the message is, that all of our constituents are tired of the way republicans and democrats conduct their business in washington and have frivolously and outrageously spending their hard-earned tax dollars. and they believe -- and they believe that we're not doing right by them, that we're not careful stewards of their tax dollars, that we are engaging in practices that need to stop, that have disconnected us from

the american people. we need to connect again with the american people. i'm going to hear the arguments it's only a few dollars, not much money, we don't trust the federal government to do it. i've heard all of those arguments year after year after year, and i have watched year after year after year the earmarks go up and up and up. and i have seen the corruption. senator dorgan and i had hearings in the indian affairs committee about a guy named jack abramoff and we saw firsthand the effects of unscrupulous lobbyists and the millions and millions of dollars that they got in earmarks as a result of their corrupt influence. there are many jack ambramoffs in this town, they just haven't gotten famous. mr. president, i want to thank

senator coburn, senator udall, senator mccaskill and others who will support this amendment. and as i said 20-some years ago, we'll keep coming back and back and back to the floor of this body until we clean up this practice and restore the confidence and faith of the american people and the people that send us here to do their work, not our work. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, i rise this evening -- a senator: i ask unanimous consent request? mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- mr. coburn: i ask unanimous consent that after the chairman of the appropriation committee speaks, that we alternate back and forth. we are going to plan to turn in a bunch of our time -- to yield back a bunch of our time and i would suggest that senator udall be given eight minutes after the chairman of the appropriation committee and following him,

senator lemieux with an intervening statement from the other side followed by senator mccaskill for 10 and senator inhofe for 15 minutes. alternating back and forth. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coburn: thank you. mr. inouye: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: mr. president, i rise this evening to speak against the coburn amendment, which imposes the moratorium on congressional initiatives for the next three years. mr. president, our founding fathers bestowed upon the congress the authority to ensure that the people's representatives would make the final decisions upon spending, not the executive branch. they lived under monarchy in which the power of the purse resided with the executive and

they had no desire to repeat that experience. in short, our founding fathers did not want another king. they wanted a president. but a president whose power would be held firmly in check by co-equal congress. none of us should be surprised that president obama has expressed his opposition to earmarks. earmarks would serve to strengthen the executive branch of government by empowering the president to make decisions that the constitution wisely places in the hands of congress. this is the exact same reason presidents clinton and bush sought the -- fought the line-item veto during their presidencies. as i've said many times before, the people of hawaii did not elect me to serve as a rubber stamp for any administration.

handing over the power of the purse to the executive branch would turn the constitution on its head. so i must admit, mr. president, i find it puzzling that some republicans who want to grant all authority over spending to any president, but especially a democratic president. and make no mistake, that is exactly what this amendment would do. we have heard numerous misleading arguments from 0 opponents of earmarks, but several in particular seem to be repeated again and again. i cannot allow the misinformation or misrepresentation to go unanswered. first and foremost, opponents falsely claim that earmarks contribute to the deficit. perhaps the strongest proponent of this argument is the junior senator from south carolina who

stated the following in a fundraising letter he sent out in october, and i quote -- "i'm not willing to bankrupt my country for earmarks." fine statement. this is but one example of the many times over the past year in which so-called deficit hawks have falsely asserted that earmarks are the root cause of our nation's fiscal problems. this is especially galling when you consider that many of these same individuals supported the policies that led directly to the current budget crisis. in the interest of setting the record straight, and as chairman of the senate appropriations committee, i feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that eliminating earmarks would do

virtually nothing to balance the federal budget. this is a cynical attempt to distract the american people from the serious challenges before us and nothing more. the numbers clearly demonstrate just how misleading the arguments of earmark opponents really are. according to the most recent congressional budget office estimate, federal spending for fiscal year 2010 totals abou about $3.5 trillion and revenues for that year total abou about $2.2 trillion resulting in a deficit of $1.3 trillion. congressional initiatives make up less than one half of 1% of the total federal spending. if we expect this proposal to eliminate all earmarks and take the second necessary step of actually applying the savings to deficit reduction, the total

deficit for the united states would still be $1.3 billion -- trillion. if opponents were serious about eliminating the deficit and paying down the national debt, they would offer specific plan for cutting $1.2 trillion in spending or for increasing revenues. instead they choose to mislead the american people by implying that we can balance the budget by cutting a tiny tractio tine n of federal spending. calling for the elimination of congressional earmarks is a legitimate, philosophical position to take, although not one which i agree. however, to suggest that earmarks are the cause of our deficit of $1.3 trillion is irresponsible. adding to this misleading rhetoric allegations that

congressionally directed spending is inherently corrupt, a practice that is hidden from the public eye. that allegation is simply false. we all recognize that practices of the previous majorities led to significant abuse of the system -- abuses of the system. however, mr. president, since we recaptured the congress in 2006, democrats have instituted a series of major reforms that now hold members accountable and have made earmarking more transparent than ever. that is the law. i would ask any of my colleagues, can anyone name another part of the federal budget? and let me remind my colleagues that we're talking about less than 1 half of 1% of the budget that is subject to more scrutiny

than earmarks? the appropriation committee requires every member to post his or her request for 30 days prior to the committee's consideration of the relevant appropriations bill. the committee requires every member to submit a letter that he or she does not have a pecuniary interest for which the funding is being requested. the committee's website requires a link to every single member request. these are all reforms that were implemented when the democrats took control of the senate and the house. to pretend and suggest that earmarks are being doled out in a business as usual manner reflected of previous congresses is flat out misleading. reforms have been made that

allow great projects that provide benefits to the nation and to individual states and districts to be funded while ensuring that the abuses of the early and mid-2000's are a thing of the past. there can be no doubt that we've entered an age of real transparency when it comes to earmarks. moreover, mr. president, each and every earmark that comes before the senate today is listed in the committee reports so that all members are able to identify them and know exactly what they're voting on. and, of course, the internet makes all earmark requests available to the press and to the public. the internet also makes all campaign contributions over $200 equally accessible. so where is the so-called

corruption? where are the secret deals? i'd like to know about them. further, i would remind my colleagues that in the 2010 funding for earmarks it's less than one half of the $32 billion in earmarks provided in 2006. mr. president, i've spent considerable time refuting the misinformation being spread by those who oppose to congressionally directed spending initiatives. and if i may, i'd like to highlight a few examples of why the practice of earmark is necessary. as chairman of the defense appropriation subcommittee, i've witnessed the benefits of earmarks firsthand over many years. i've previously discussed the benefits to our troops and our nation of the predator drone,

the pilotless drone that is able to pick up enemy sites without endangering our troops. and i pointed out to the new managers that quickly stop bleeding and serious wounds that have saved countless lives of soldiers fighting in iraq and afganistan. mr. president, these are earmarks. let me now turn to other areas of the federal budget. i will start by reminding my colleagues that one of the most successful programs for low-income women an infants started out as an earmark. in the 1969 agricultural appropriations bill, congress earmarked funds for new -- for a new program called w.i.c., w-i-c, to provide critical nutrition to low-income women, faints, and children -- infants and children. over the past 41 years this

program provided nutritional assistance to 150 million women, infants, and children, making a critical contribution to the health of the nation. a vital program that has provided much-needed assistance through millions and it came into existence as an earmark. in 1969 and 1970, congress earmarked $25 million for children's hospital in washington, d.c., despite the objections to and the veto by the president. that funding resulted in what we know today as the children's national medical center. children's hospital has become a national and international leader in neonatal and pediatric care, providing the health care to over five million children since its doors opened.

again, i note that this was an idea, an earmark erected by congress and vetoed by the president. in 1987 congress earmarked funds at the request of senator domenici for mapping the human gene. this project became known as the human genome project. this research has led to completely new strategies for disease prevention and treatment including discoveries of dramatic new methods of identifying and treating breast, ovarian and colon cancers. no one disputes that these advances will save many, many lives. and they all began with the earmark. this was a project that