WASHINGTON, D.C. – Standing up against bad federal spending habits once again, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today offered an amendment related to her quest to reform the earmarking process that has taken over Washington. Her amendment to remove earmarks and restore competitive grant funding to the ‘Save America’s Treasures’ program in the Interior Appropriations Bill for FY2010 was forced to be set aside when a procedural maneuver employed by the Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee passed by a vote of 72-26.  A substantial portion of the funds for this program were earmarked for a select few states, leaving significantly less money for competition among other states.

 

McCaskill spoke on the Senate floor about her amendment and how the earmarking process keeps states like Missouri from having access to competitive and formula grant funding.

 

 

“This money is not growing on a secret tree somewhere that we're harvesting. It is coming out of programs,” McCaskill said. “They're coming out of budgets. And one of the things that I found most troubling is that many of these earmarks are coming out of competitive grant programs or formula grant programs.

 

McCaskill cited two additional programs in the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations bill last week as further examples of how Congress has taken over a fund designated for competitive or formula based grant programs with earmarks for states with senators who hold the right positions on the appropriations committee to cherry pick for their pet projects.

 

­­­ McCaskill believes that federal grants and loans are a positive alternative to earmarks, which in the past have frequently had too little accountability.  Competitive merit and need based federal grants and low-interest government loans bring federal assistance to Missouri in an honest and fiscally responsible manner.

The full text of McCaskill’s floor speech is below.

 

 

The amendment that I’m offering speaks to what I see is a fundamentally flawed process to our appropriations in Congress. I am in the minority in this body as it relates to the subject of earmarks. I realize that I am one of very few party and a few more but not a whole lot on the other side of the aisle that do not participate in the earmarking process.

 

My amendment really is calling into attention, I hope, how this process is flawed and why we need change the process. There are many problems with the process, but two of them I'm going to speak briefly today. One is [that] the process is fundamentally unfair. It's rather mysterious how much money gets set aside for earmarks, and who does this and where it happens. It's even more mysterious as to how the decision is made as to how the earmarks are distributed among the members. I would point out that in looking at the appropriations bills that we've handled so far, it's very clear that the process is heavily weighted towards the members that serve as appropriators. I get that. That’s part of the culture that has grown around earmarking. That is, if you're an appropriator, you're entitled to get more. I'm not sure that's a good way to spend public money, but I think it's important to point out that that is the process. 50% of all the earmarks in this bill are going to the members of the committee.

 

Last week, it was even more egregious. I don't think most members realized that when we voted on the transportation bill last week (THUD), the transportation, housing and urban development. In the transportation part of the bill, there was $1.6 billion in earmarks. Over 50 percent of that money went to four members' four states. So, out of 50 states, four states got more than half of all the money. Well, when I tell that to people in Missouri, they go, “Huh? How does that happen? How can that happen?” And I frankly don't have a very good answer for them.

 

The other problem I'd like to call to the attention of my colleagues today is not just the process as it relates to how earmarks are distributed, but where these earmarks come from. This money is not growing on a secret tree somewhere that we're harvesting. It is coming out of programs. They're coming out of budgets. And one of the things that I found most troubling is that many of these earmarks are coming out of competitive grant programs or formula grant programs.

 

Now, a formula is a formula because there's a way that is predictable about how the money is distributed based on the size of the state, based on population, depending on the program, based on geography. But it's a formula everybody understands. Taking money out of a formula fund to earmark takes it from a predictable process based on merit to a very unpredictable process based on who you are. The same thing with competitive grant programs. Competitive grant programs are ones where merit is supposed to rule the day, based on criteria set forth. The amendment that I will offer basically wipes out the earmarks in one of these competitive grant programs. The program I'm referring to is a great program. It's called "Save America's Treasures." It was created by executive order 1998. It’s a public-private partnership. There are specific criteria as to what a project has to have in order to qualify for this money: $20 million.

 

Now, this is a small example. I admit, as we keep talking about bending the cost curve. But this just a great example of what I'm talking because it began as a competitive program and it has begun to morph into something other than a competitive program because now half of the money this year will be earmarked, leaving only $10 million for a competitive program. So if your state doesn't get an earmark, either in the House or in the Senate in the bill, then the chances of your state getting any of the money out of this program have been cut in half. It is only $10 million for the whole country for these grants which are to restore America's treasures, historic treasures across the country. That's a problem.

 

Now, is this an isolated problem?

          

No. No. In fairness to this subcommittee, this is a little problem compared to some of the other competitive grant programs that have been raided for earmarking. The hijacking of public money for earmarking from the competitive grant bus is going on everywhere and let me give you another couple of examples.

 

Last week when we did the transportation, housing and urban development appropriation, there were two good examples. They are programs that began to provide competition to valued programs across the country. The first one is the Neighborhood Initiative, and that is at HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Department. In1998, Congress created this department. Now, the interesting thing is it was created to help people that were doing welfare-to-work projects -- great intentions, great program. Ironically, HUD began granting these awards to people based on the competitive criterion this Congress had given them. Congress passes the program, funds the program and tells HUD these are the competitive basis on which you should make these grants.  

 

There were no earmarks in 1998 after Congress created the program. Beginning in 2001, however, every dime in this program under the Neighborhood Initiative program has gone to earmarks. Once again, a competitive merit process morphs over into a completely earmarked process.

 

Now, how about another example of a program?

          

The Economic Development Initiative, also in HUD, Congress introduced the program in 1994. Once again, a congressional program. Funds were to be awarded competitively, and for the first couple of years, they were. EDI funds were awarded competitively. Congress started earmarking the account beginning in 1998. By 2001, the entire account was earmarked. So Congress began it as a good idea, said do it competitively. By 2001, competition was gone. Ironically, the statute that sets out the criteria for competitive EDI is still on the books. It's still in the law, but we no longer follow it because there's been a decision to morph that competitive program into an earmarked program.

 

I just think that competition is a good thing, and this isn't about a bureaucrat somewhere sprinkling fairy dust and supplementing their judgment for the judgment of Congress. The examples I have given were programs that were designed to be competitive and in two of three instances, they were designed to be competitive by Congress itself, and somehow, they have morphed over into a pecking order of priorities based on someone's seniority or the committee they serve on or even if they're in some political trouble. It seems like to me a goofy way to spend money, especially the public's money.

 

So I would ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. All it does is restore the program to a competitive basis and allow every state to compete on the same basis for the money in that competitive program. And when the time is right, I will call up the amendment once the rules allow me to do so. And I yield the floor. Thank you.

 

###