[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1804-S1806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EMERGENCY SPENDING CONTROL ACT OF 1995

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to join with my good friend, the Senator 
from Arizona, Senator McCain, to discuss the measure we recently 
introduced, the Emergency Spending Control Act of 1995.
  I want to just first relate how Senator McCain and I came to work 
together on this.
  After the election, of course, the results were not particularly 
happy for those of us in the minority party at this point, but the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], even though he is now in the 
majority, was kind enough to call and say he wanted to work together on 
a number of reform items during the 104th Congress and that he wanted 
to do so on a bipartisan basis.
  We talked about the revolving door issue, the issue of Members of 
Congress and staff leaving this institution and going to work for some 
of the interests that they have worked with and regulated in the past. 
We talked about the gift ban legislation. We also talked about the 
issue of what happens sometimes when we have a piece of emergency 
spending, a disaster bill, that comes before us and sometimes things 
are added to those bills that have very little to do with the disaster 
and sometimes have very little at all to do with what is being 
addressed.
  So the Senator from Arizona and I decided to join together and 
introduce a piece of legislation that would limit the abuse of the 
emergency legislation. I am happy to say we also have some good 
bipartisan support in the form of cosponsorship by the Senator from 
Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum]; the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein]; 
and the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell].
  The goal of our bill is simple. It is to limit the consideration of 
nonemergency matters in emergency legislation.
  Mr. President, I think this is the right time for this legislation 
for many reasons but especially for two. The first is, of course, that 
once again we have the tragic reality of yet another disaster in this 
country, in particular in the State of California. This time it is 
floods, and there is a possibility of another bill arising out of the 
sympathy and concern and need to help the people of California.
  Let me be clear. Even though this legislation is about preventing 
abuses on these disaster bills, my feelings and concerns for those who 
have suffered from that disaster are very real, and I know that is true 
of the Senator from Arizona and everyone who is involved in this 
legislation.
   [[Page S1805]] This follows after bills that have had to do with 
California earthquakes, floods in the Midwest, hurricanes, fires, 
droughts, you name it. We have had a terrible rash of these disasters 
in this country so there could, unfortunately, be more vehicles coming 
through the Congress that would allow the attachment of extraneous 
matter to this must-pass type of legislation.
  So that is one reason. The other is, this is a very good time to 
bring this up because what we are discussing here in the Chamber, is 
the balanced budget amendment, the fact that we have got to find a way, 
whether we agree with the balanced budget amendment or not we have got 
to find a way to clean up our budget process here. And the balanced 
budget amendment is one approach. There are other examples of where the 
American people have seen what they believe to be an abuse of process, 
the insertion of pork items into pieces of legislation. That means 
money being spent that probably would not have been approved by the 
majority of Members if they were subjected to a separate vote and held 
up to the plain light of day.
  So I think it is very important, in looking at the need to achieve a 
balanced budget and ways to do this, we find a way to stop this 
practice of funding some of these questionable items. Whether it be the 
Lawrence Welk thing or the tea-tasting board, these are the things 
that, even though they might not amount to a whole lot of money, stick 
in the craw of the American people as symbols of perhaps a fear that 
the folks out here are not always keeping their eye on the ball and 
worrying about the tax dollars they have to work so hard to raise and 
send to the Federal Government.
  It is these types of things that wind up on the prime time type of 
shows, these types of things that cause other pieces of legislation 
that would otherwise be worthy types of legislation to get names like 
``Christmas trees'' or ``gravy train,'' and this becomes particularly 
unpleasant when the purpose of legislation is to show the compassion of 
the Federal Government, in particular the American people, for those 
who have suffered horrible unnatural disasters in their States.
  So these are good reasons to bring this legislation forward at this 
time. The provisions of the bill limit emergency spending solely to 
emergencies by establishing a new point of order. The point of order 
lies against nonemergency matters if they are not rescissions of budget 
authority or reductions in direct spending. A point of order would 
apply to any emergency bill that contains a non-emergency measure or 
any amendment to an emergency measure or a conference report that adds 
nonemergency matters to the emergency measure.
  Mr. President, there are also additional enforcement mechanisms. We 
prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from adjusting the caps on 
discretionary spending or from adjusting the sequester process for 
direct spending for any emergency appropriations bill if that bill 
includes the type of extraneous items that we have been discussing.
  Mr. President, those are the main provisions of the Emergency 
Spending Act. I think they are timely also because of the progress that 
has been made in the last couple of years in reducing the Federal 
deficit by almost half, by almost $100 billion. It is encouraging but 
unfinished progress that has been made that has come from a willingness 
to identify and follow through on making specific spending cuts and 
certain revenue increases. I realize that simply creating a point of 
order is not going to be sufficient to help us make the hard choices 
out here that we have to make in order to balance the budget. I would 
say, though, Mr. President, that those points of order and the other 
rules we have and the rules that we have imposed upon ourselves in 
terms of caps are some of the effective things that buttress the 
efforts to identify specific spending cuts.
  In terms of the progress in the last 2 years, I think we can very 
honestly say that we made a downpayment on reducing the Federal 
deficit, but we have a lot more ground to cover. The rules do help stop 
it, but no particular procedure, statute or even a constitutional 
amendment can replace specific policy action, making the hard choices 
that we must. I think this new point of order can assist us, at least, 
when it comes to emergency legislation.
  The reason I rise on this issue and on this particular bill is that 
it is these exceptions that cause the people to feel we are not serious 
about everything we do here.
  I am also worried that if we do not go forward with cleaning up the 
process by which emergency legislation is considered, in the end it is 
possible people will not look kindly on the idea of having emergency 
legislation at all--just let people fend for themselves in these places 
if there is a possibility this will be used to circumvent the fiscal 
discipline that is needed.
  What I do suggest is emergency legislation that has to recognize the 
urgency but not allow the circumventing of the normal budget process. 
There are two ways that this process has been circumvented in the past. 
One way is to declare something an emergency and then have it attached 
to the emergency bill. That is possible. You do not have to have it be 
the same set of circumstances or the same natural disaster. If an 
emergency designation is made, these bills can be put together. The 
other possibility is the adding of explicit nonemergency items to 
emergency legislation to get expedited consideration.
  Mr. President, our bill does not take care of the first problem. It 
does not take care of the problem where somebody has actually declared 
an emergency that may not, in fact, be a real emergency. And I think 
that is something we have to look at in the future.
  Last year, on the California earthquake bill, I recall the Department 
of Defense managed to call an emergency a $1.2 million expenditure that 
was supposed to be for peacekeeping operations, ongoing, continuing 
peacekeeping operations that we knew about for the operations in 
Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Haiti. Unfortunately, in my view, that was 
designated an emergency and suddenly attached to the California 
earthquake bill. And even though I tried to stop it with an amendment, 
that amendment was rejected, in part, out of fear that somehow this 
would derail the California earthquake bill. So I think this is a 
problem. I think it needs to be addressed. But at this point the 
problem that I think we can actually address correctly is to establish 
new rules when it comes to attaching specifically nonemergency items to 
emergency legislation.
  Mr. President, let us look at the California earthquake bill. What 
was it originally set up to do? Well, it had $7.8 billion for the L.A. 
earthquake. It had $1.2 billion for the peacekeeping missions which I 
just mentioned and which I think should not have been in there. It had 
$436 million for the Midwest floods and $315 million as a result of the 
continuing problems from the 1989 California earthquake.
  Mr. President, that was the status as the bill came into the 
Congress. But by the time it left, these additional extraneous items 
had been tossed on to the California earthquake bill: A $1.4 million 
expenditure to fight potato fungus, a $2.3 million item to give the FDA 
people pay raises, $14.4 million for the National Park Service, $12.4 
million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $10 million for a new Amtrak 
station in New York, $20 million for a fingerprinting lab, $500,000 for 
the U.S. Trade Representative's travel office, and finally $5.2 million 
for the Bureau of Public Debt.
  All of this was thrown onto and became part of the gravy train pulled 
by the California earthquake bill. Under current law, if these 
nonemergency items are on a bill and they are still under the spending 
caps, then the legislation can go forward. And that is exactly what 
happened. In the case of the California earthquake bill, the caps had 
actually been reached but the rescissions had been used, a group of 
rescissions had been used essentially to offset the cost of these 
additional items. That, I suppose you could say, is paying for what you 
want to do.
  But, the fact is, those rescissions could have been much better used 
to reduce our Federal deficit, to do a little bit about the problem we 
are going to be talking about so much here in the next couple of weeks 
on the floor of the Senate. How do we specifically find ways to 
eliminate the Federal deficit? So this process was an unfortunate one. 
[[Page S1806]] These items, of course, could have been considered 
separately in an appropriate appropriations bill and in a more honest 
and direct manner.
  So this issue of emergency spending and preventing nonemergency items 
from being attached to emergency spending is part and parcel of the 
overall goal of budgetary sanity and the goal of stopping the abuse 
that so many Americans like to call putting pork into bills.
  I think it could also help make sure that our bills that have to do 
with disasters have some credibility as they go through the process. 
They should not be the subject of laughter or derision or prime time 
shows. The disaster bills should be the expressions of the American 
people's compassion for those who have been unlucky and subject to 
disasters that they had nothing to do with creating.
  This identical legislation passed the House, the other House, last 
session, the 103d Congress, on a bipartisan vote as a substitute 
amendment, 322 to 99, and then finally, as amended, 406 to 6.
  I now urge my colleagues to join me and the Senator from Arizona, in 
supporting this measure. As we engage in this very intense debate on 
the balanced budget amendment, let us at least join together on a 
bipartisan basis to get rid of the abuses that have to do with 
emergency legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
an editorial from The Washington Post dated August 22, 1994, on this 
type of legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. --

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Spending Control 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Emergency Appropriations.--Section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``However, OMB shall not adjust any discretionary spending 
     limit under this clause for any statute that designates 
     appropriations as emergency requirements if that statute 
     contains an appropriation for any other matter, event, or 
     occurrence, but that statute may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority.''.
       (b) Emergency Legislation.--Section 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``However, 
     OMB shall not designate any such amounts of new budget 
     authority, outlays, or receipts as emergency requirements in 
     the report required under subsection (d) if that statute 
     contains any other provisions that are not so designated, but 
     that statute may contain provisions that reduce direct 
     spending.''.
       (c) New Point of Order.--Title IV of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                 ``point of order regarding emergencies

       ``Sec. 408. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, containing an emergency designation for purposes of 
     section 251(b)(2)(D) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 if it also provides an 
     appropriation or direct spending for any other item or 
     contains any other matter, but that bill or joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority or reductions of direct spending, or that 
     amendment may reduce amounts for that emergency.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 407 the following new item:

``Sec. 408. Point of order regarding emergencies.''.

                                                                    ____
               [From the Washington Post, Aug. 22, 1994]

                            Emergencies Only

       The House voted 322 to 99 the other day in favor of a new 
     budget rule that's a good idea. The Senate should concur in 
     it. If not, the House leadership should find some other way 
     of putting it into effect, for Congress's own good.
       The revolutionary notion is that emergency appropriations 
     bills should be limited to * * *  emergencies. There tends to 
     be at least one of these bills almost every year. They are 
     used not just to provide emergency funds, but often as 
     vehicles for funding lesser projects of a much more ordinary 
     kind. What better place for a little something for the folks 
     back home than in the fine print of a bill intended to rescue 
     a region from a natural disaster? Who would sink so low as to 
     complain about a minor extra favor in a bill with as generous 
     a purpose as that?
       The emergencies-only rule--no hitchhikers in the 
     ambulance--is one of a series that have been proposed by 
     Reps. Charles Stenholm, Tim Penny and John Kasich to tighten 
     up the budget process. We've opposed some of the other 
     changes. This one is called for.
       For the sake of the spending that matters, Congress ought 
     to learn to lay off the pork. You see the bad effects of 
     doing otherwise, of lapsing into self-indulgence, all the 
     time. The crime bill is only the latest example of a measure 
     in which critics have been able to use questionable spending 
     to tar and hold up constructive spending as well.
       In fact, the amount of pork in the budget each year is 
     greatly exaggerated--and of course what seems to one man to 
     be pork may genuinely seem to another to be spending for an 
     essential public purpose. There's no magic line. But there is 
     some line--and some things seem to be pretty clearly on the 
     porky side of it. Those are the things that people remember, 
     the indefensible examples that come to typify all spending. 
     If only they'd cut out the pork, the public is led to 
     believe, there wouldn't be a deficit. It isn't true, and some 
     of the greatest critics of pork are also among the greatest 
     porkers on the side--but that doesn't matter.
       The spenders ought to clean up their act. In this case, the 
     anti-spenders are helping to point the way. The leadership 
     should disarm them by doing as they suggest. Emergencies-only 
     in emergency bills makes sense.
     

                          ____________________