On the recordNovember 30, 2010
I rise today in opposition to the Coburn-McCaskill amendment, which would impose a 3-year moratorium on earmarks. This amendment is a direct attack on the authority vested in the Congress to determine how Federal funds are spent, despite the fact that this power is clearly established in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. I, for one, take great exception to this attack. It would set a dangerous precedent, in my view, to simply turn over a blank check to the executive branch and undermine the power that the Constitution grants Congress. What if an administration is not focused on the needs of a particular State, perhaps because that State didn't vote for that President? For years I have fought for funding of flood control in Sacramento. Sacramento is one of the most endangered cities in the country when it comes to catastrophic risk of flooding. Neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have requested sufficient funding for the flood control improvements that will protect lives and property in that community. As the Senator elected to represent the people behind those levees, shouldn't I be able to fight for the funding, whether or not the President agrees? I was elected by the people of California to represent the needs of California. And the people of Sacramento certainly believe they need flood control. This is my duty as a Senator. Isn't that why we have a Congress?
