Submitted Resolutions: Senate Resolution 173
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS: SENATE RESOLUTION 173TO AMEND RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE WITH RESPECT TO NEW OR GENERAL LEGISLATION AND UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS IN GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND NEW OR GENERAL LEGISLATION, UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS, NEW MATTER, OR NONGERMANE MATTER IN CONFERENCE REPORTS ON APPROPRIATIONS ACTS, AND UNAUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS IN AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE HOUSES RELATING TO SUCH ACTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today is a resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to give every Member the ability to raise points of order in objection to unauthorized appropriations or locality-specific earmarks that would circumvent the authorizing or competitive award process. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators KYL, SESSIONS, and FEINGOLD.
Specifically, the resolution would establish a new procedure, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, which would allow a point of order to be raised against any new or general legislation or unauthorized appropriations, including earmarks, in any general appropriations bills or amendments to general appropriations bills. It also would allow a point of order to be raised against any new or general legislation or unauthorized appropriations, new matter, or nongermane matter in any appropriations conference reports, and against unauthorized appropriations in amendments between the Houses.
Unless a point of order is waived by the affirmative vote of 60 votes, the unauthorized provision would be extracted from the measure, and the overall cost of the bill would be reduced by the corresponding amount. Furthermore, if a point of order is sustained against a provision in a conference report, that provision also would be stricken. The legislative process would continue, however, and the legislation would revert to a nonamendable Senate amendment, which would be the conference agreement without the objectionable material, and the measure could then be sent back to the House.
The proposed rules change also includes two exemptions to points of order that currently apply to amendments to appropriations bills under rule XVI: appropriations that had been included in the President's budget request or would be authorized by a bill already passed by the Senate during that session of Congress. Such appropriations would not be subject to points of order under the proposed rules change.
Finally, as my colleagues know, the reports accompanying appropriations bills and the statements of managers that accompany conference reports are chock full of unauthorized appropriations and site-specific earmarks, typically far exceeding those in the bill language. There has been a growing tendency over the years for these reports to be viewed by Federal agencies as statutory directives. The fact is, of course, the Appropriations Committee reports and statements of managers are advisory only. Unless a device for curtailing such earmarking in report language is also implemented, the new rule could be rendered almost meaningless. Therefore, under our proposal, it would not be in order to consider an appropriations bill or conference report if the accompanying documents include unauthorized or earmarked items.
The proposal would not be self-enforcing but, rather, it would allow any Member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized provisions. Our goal is to reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, porkbarrel projects, and legislative policy riders.
For many years, I have worked to call attention to the wasteful practice of congressional earmarking whereby parochial interests are placed above national interests. Unfortunately, congressional earmarks have continued to rise year after year. In fact, according to information compiled from the CRS, the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994, to 10,540 in fiscal year 2002. That is an increase of over 150 percent. And for the year 2003, the increase in number, from our preliminary estimates, is somewhere around 1,300 earmarks.
Our current economic situation and our vital national security concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal spending.
By the way, the earmarked funds have gone up a commensurate amount from $26.8 billion in fiscal year 1994, to $44.6 billion earmarked in 2002. I think what this chart shows is as important as the earmarks, given the fact that we are now up close to $50 billion in earmarked funds in our appropriations bills.
And this chart does not include the number of fundamental policy changes that are made in the appropriations process because they cannot get through the authorizing process, which is the proper process. And they, many timesas in a case that I will mention in a few minutesoften cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers. Language included in the Department of Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 is a classic example. There were no funds earmarked in that bill that would show up here. It did show up as one policy change.
What it did do, in the Defense appropriations bill, is it granted a legal monopoly for American Classic Voyages to operate as the only U.S.-flagged operator among the Hawaiian Islands. After receiving the monopoly, American Classic Voyages secured a $1.1 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Maritime Administration's title XI loan guarantee program for the construction of two passenger vessels known as Project America.
Project America's subsequent failure 4 years later resulted in the U.S. Maritime Administration paying out $187.3 million of the taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan default and recovering only $2 million from the sale.
I am not alone in the opinion that the earmarking process has reached the breaking point. Consider the administration's recently submitted proposal to reauthorize the multiyear highway transit and safety programs which will expire in September 30, 2003. Interestingly, that proposal, entitled the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003, SAFETEA, proposes to largely eliminate discretionary programs that currently exist under the Department's authority.
Why is that? One would think the Secretary of Transportation would be advocating the growth of discretionary programs so that he can award Federal grants for projects based on a meritorious selection process.
But over the years, such discretion has been assumed by the appropriators during the annual transportation appropriations process and all but nullified any role on the part of the Secretary and his ability to award discretionary grants.
Transportation Secretary Mineta, in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, stated:
SAFETEA eliminates most discretionary highway grant programs and makes these funds available under the core formula highway grants programs. States and localities have tremendous flexibility and certainty of funding under the core programs. Unfortunately, Congressional earmarking has frustrated the intent of most of these discretionary programs, making it harder for States and localities to think strategically about their own transportation problems.
To further illustrate the enormity of the earmarking situation, my colleagues need only consider the transportation earmarking that has occurred during the past 5 years. According to the Department of Transportation inspector general, Congress appropriated $18 billion in discretionary funding for highway transit and aviation discretionary programs during fiscal years 1998 through 2002. Of that amount, $11 billion or 60 percent was earmarked by Congress.
Let me just offer a few specific examples of recent earmarks: From the war supplemental appropriations conference report, $110 million for modernization of the Agriculture Research Service, and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Facilities near Ames, IA. That was from a war supplemental appropriations conference report, specifically for the war in Iraq and homeland security. From the 2003 omnibus appropriations conference report, $1 million for a bear DNA sampling study in Montana; $280,000 for asparagus technology and production in Washington; $220,000 to research future foods in Illinois; $10 million for a seafood marketing program in Alaska; $250,000 for research on the interaction of grapefruit juice and drugs; $50,000 to combat feral hogs in Missouri; $2 million for the Biomass Gasification Research Facility in Birmingham, AL; $500,000 for the gasification of switchgrass in Iowa; $1 million for the National Agriculture-Based Industrial Lubricants Center in Iowa; and $202,500 to continue rehabilitation of the former Alaska Pulp Company mill site in Sitka, AK.
I usually make a lot of fun and jokes about these things, but it is getting out of hand. It is really getting out of hand. When we are looking at a $400 billion deficit this year, can we afford $1 million for a bear DNA sampling study in Montana?
The conference report also included an agricultural policy change to make catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock compensation program even though hog, poultry, or horse producers are not eligible.
Further, the conference agreement contained provisions which allow a subsidiary of the Malaysian-owned Norwegian Cruise Lines the exclusive right to operate several large foreign-built cruise vessels in the domestic cruise trade. This provides an unfair competitive advantage to a foreign company at the expense of all other cruise ship operators and creates a de facto monopoly for NCL in the Hawaiian cruise trade.
From the fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations conference report, nearly $1 billion in highway program funding authorized to be distributed to the States by formula at the discretion of the Secretary was instead, for the first time, redirected and earmarked for projects such as $1.5 million for the Big South Fork Scenic Railroad enhancement project in Kentucky; $2 million for a public exhibition on "America's Transportation Stories" in Michigan; and $3 million for the Odyssey Maritime Project, a museum, in Washington. That was out of highway funds.
The National Corridor Planning & Development & Corridor Border Infrastructure Program was authorized at $140 million. But the appropriators provided an additional $333.6 million over the authorized level for a total of $492.2 million in funding. The conferees then earmarked 100 percent of the funding for 123 projects in 38 States. Earmarks included, surprisingly, $54 million for three projects in West Virginia; $43 million for 18 projects in Kentucky; $34.5 million for seven projects in Mississippi; $34 million for five projects in Washington; and $27 million for six projects in Alabama. Twelve States received zero funding under any program: Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming.
I could go on citing examples of arbitrary earmarks. I will refrain for now. But something has to be done to put a halt to the alarming increase in earmarking.
I went over the rules changes and what they meant, but I would just like to give a most recent example. An issue that has arisen which is of great concern to many Americans is the issue of media concentration. We have had several hearings in the Commerce Committee. We had the FCC Commissioners up before the committee after they made a ruling. It has probably aroused more interest than any other issue ever before the Federal Communications Commission, certainly in recent memory.
Seven hundred fifty thousand Americans contacted the FCC on this issue of media concentration. The issue is difficult. It is complex. We have had many hearings on it. Over time, I have become convinced that this issue is a serious one. I believe there are serious problems with radio concentration. I am not sure what the answer is and exactly how we go about addressing the issue of both vertical and horizontal concentration, cross-ownership of newspapers, and television stations and cable stations and radio stations. But the committee will continue to explore it.
Last week, three of my colleagues from the Senate held a press conference: My dear friend Senator Hollings, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, former chairman; Senator Stevens of Alaska, second ranking member of the committee; and Senator Lott, a very distinguished member of the committee. At the time, they said they were introducing legislation to freeze the ownership at 35 percent which would then counteract and repeal the rule raising media concentration levels to 45 percent by FCC.
The only reason I mention this is immediately in answer to the first question, they said: If we don't get it through the committee, we can always put it on an appropriations bill. That was the comment made.
Mr. President, that is not the right way to do business on a major fundamental policy change, to tack it on as one line, as was described by Senator Hollings, that we can always just zero out the funding. That is not the way we should be doing business.
This issue should be decided by all 100 Senators on the floor of the Senate. I am not saying the sponsors of the legislation are wrong. But this has to do with billions of dollars in acquisitions, or nonacquisitions, with fundamental changes within the media. The answer was, well, we will put it on an appropriations bill if we cannot get it through committee. The committee will be marking it up on Thursday. I don't know if it will get to the floor. That is up to the majority leader but, more importantly up to my colleagues who may put holds on it.
These are serious issues that impact greatly the United States of America, and they are being decided on appropriations bills, stuck in without even so much as a hearing many times. I will be on the floor many times on this issue because it is a long way from us being able to remove this power from the Appropriations Committee and put it back into the authorizing committees where it belongs.
Finally, some of the proudest and most intense and enjoyable moments of my political career have been as chairman of the Commerce Committee. I believe the Commerce Committee is well suited to address these issues. I believe the Commerce Committee is well suited to authorize major programs and address major policy challenges that confront the Nation, whether it is commerce, science, transportation, information technology, telecommunications, aviation, or all of the other issues. I don't think they should be decided by the Appropriations Committee, as far as policy is concerned. As far as the amounts of money are concerned, that is their job. I pretend to have no ambitions on that issue.
We have to get this out-of-controland I mean totally out-of-controlsituation under control. The situation has been dramatically exacerbated by the fact that we are now looking, in sheer whole numbers, at the highest deficits in the history of this country. As far as a percent of GNP, they are not the highest, but we are talking about at least $400 billion this year.
We are about toI am happy to saypass a Medicare prescription drug program that will cost about $400 billion or more over a 10-year period. We are looking at Social Security and Medicare. We cannot afford this high cost anymore. I believe the chairman of the Rules Committee will be holding a hearing on this issue. I don't believe it would get through the Rules Committee, but I am very grateful to Senator Lott that he would allow a hearing on this issue. But I do not intend to give up on it. We will be discussing it and debating it for a long time.
My constituentsand every Americando not expect us to act in this fashion, which in many cases is totally irresponsible.
I yield the floor.