[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 50 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3675-S3676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 647. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impeachment 
Control Act of 1974 to limit consideration of nonemergency matters in 
emergency legislation; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee 
on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 
1977, as modified by the order of April 11, 1986, with instructions 
that if one committee reports, the other committee have 30 days to 
report or be discharged.


               THE EMERGENCY SPENDING CONTROL ACT OF 1997

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce a 
measure designed to limit consideration of non-emergency matters in 
emergency legislation. This bill, S. 647, the Emergency Spending 
Control Act of 1997, passed the Senate during the last Congress as part 
of the Senate's version of the line-item veto act, though it was later 
dropped in conference. Identical language passed the other body during 
the 103d Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, first as a 
substitute amendment by a vote of 322 to 99, and then, as amended, by a 
vote of 406 to 6.
  Mr. President, the support this measure has received in both Houses 
is a reflection of the keen awareness Members have of the abuses of the 
emergency appropriations process that have taken place. This measure 
helps address one aspect of that abuse by limiting emergency spending 
bills solely to emergencies by establishing a new point of order 
against nonemergency matters, other than rescissions of budget 
authority or reductions in direct spending, in any bill that contains 
an emergency measure, or an amendment to an emergency measure, or a 
conference report that contains an emergency measure.
  As an additional enforcement mechanism, the legislation adds further 
protection by prohibiting the Office of Management and Budget from 
adjusting the caps on discretionary spending, or from adjusting the 
sequester process for direct spending and receipts measures, for any 
emergency appropriations bill if the bill includes extraneous items 
other than rescissions of budget authority or reductions in direct 
spending.
  Mr. President, though this proposal relates to shoring up our budget 
rules, I want to stress that the rules themselves do not solve the 
deficit problem. No rule can--whether it is a procedural rule of the 
Senate, a statute, or a constitutional amendment. The only way we will 
balance the budget is through specific spending cuts and exercising 
fiscal restraint.
  However, we have made some progress over the past 4 years, and that 
progress, as well as the continued work we need to do, can be sustained 
through the budget rules we impose on ourselves by ensuring the 
sacrifices that have been made, and that we will ask in the future, 
will not be hollow or futile.
  The rules that have been developed over the past twenty years have 
proven useful in this regard, though it bears repeating that the 
deficit has begun to come down only as a result of our willingness to 
vote for tough measures.
  In general, the rules require that new spending, whether through 
direct spending, tax expenditures, or discretionary programs, be offset 
with spending cuts or revenue increases. However, the rules provide for 
exceptions in the event of true emergencies.
  The deliberate review through the federal budget process, weighing 
one priority against another, may not permit a timely response to an 
international crisis, a natural disaster, or some other emergency. We 
do not ask that earthquake victims find a funding source before we send 
them aid. But that should not, even in dire circumstances, be read to 
imply we must not find ways to pay for emergencies, rather than simply 
add their costs to the deficit.
  But, Mr. President, the emergency exception to our budget rules, 
designed to expedite a response to an urgent need, has become a 
loophole, abused by those trying to circumvent the scrutiny of the 
budget process, in particular, by adding non-emergency matters to 
emergency legislation that is receiving special, accelerated 
consideration.

[[Page S3676]]

  Mr. President, the measure I introduce today targets that abuse by 
helping to keep emergency measures clean of extraneous matters on which 
there is no emergency designation.
  When the appropriations bill to provide relief for the Los Angeles 
earthquake was introduced in the 103rd Congress, it initially did four 
things: provided $7.8 billion for the Los Angeles quake, $1.2 billion 
for the Department of Defense peacekeeping operations; $436 million for 
Midwest flood relief, and $315 million more for the 1989 California 
earthquake.
  But, Mr. President, by the time the Los Angeles earthquake bill 
became law, it also provided $1.4 million to fight potato fungus, $2.3 
million for FDA 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, $40 million for the space 
shuttle, $20 million for a fingerprint lab, $500,000 for United States 
Trade Representative travel office, and $5.2 million for the Bureau of 
Public Debt.
  Though non-emergency matters attached to emergency bills are still 
subject to the spending caps established in the concurrent budget 
resolution, as long as total spending remains under those caps, these 
unrelated spending matters are not required to be offset with spending 
cuts. In the case of the LA earthquake bill, because the caps had been 
reached the new spending was offset by rescissions, but those 
rescissions might otherwise have been used for deficit reduction. 
Moreover, by using emergency appropriations bills as a vehicle, these 
extraneous proposals avoid the examination through which legislative 
proposals must go to justify Federal spending. If there is truly a need 
to shift funds to these programs, an alternative vehicle--a regular 
supplemental appropriations bill, not an emergency spending bill --
should be used.
  The measure I am introducing today will restrict that kind of misuse 
of the emergency appropriations process. Adding non-emergency, 
extraneous matters to emergency appropriations not only is an attempt 
to avoid the legitimate scrutiny of our normal budget process, it can 
also jeopardize our ability to provide relief to those who are 
suffering from the disaster to which we are responding.
  Just as importantly, adding superfluous material to emergency 
appropriations bills degrades those budget rules on which we rely to 
impose fiscal discipline, and that only encourages further erosion of 
our efforts to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. President, as I noted earlier, this legislation has passed both 
Houses in recent years--in the Senate during the 104th Congress as the 
amendment I offered to the Line Item Veto Act, and in the other body, 
during the 103rd Congress, by a vote of 406 to 6. I urge my colleagues 
to join in this effort to pass this measure through both Houses during 
this Congress, and help end this abusive practice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 647

       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 1997''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Emergency Appropriations.--Secton 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.''.
                                 ______