[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9426-S9428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Abraham and Mr. Gramm):
  S. 1182. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 to limit consideration of nonemergency matters in 
emergency legislation and permit matter that is extraneous to 
emergencies to be stricken as provided in the Byrd rule; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of 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

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will end a common abuse of the budget process in the Congress: the 
attachment of nonemergency provisions to emergency spending bills. 
Senator Abraham and Senator Gramm are also original sponsors of this 
legislation.
  At a time when Congress and the President have come together and 
agreed on a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002, I believe it 
is appropriate that we now seek to ensure that

[[Page S9427]]

all future spending decisions be fully weighed and considered before 
the tax dollars of hard-working Americans are spent. We must ensure 
that the costs and benefits of a proposal are thoroughly reviewed 
through our carefully structured budget process--not allowed to be 
pushed through the Congress with minimal debate and consideration. The 
legislation I am introducing today would address one of the ways in 
which spending programs are pushed through Congress with minimal budget 
scrutiny: the attachment of nonemergency provisions to emergency 
spending bills.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues know, emergency spending bills have 
been afforded special treatment because of the unique problems they 
address. While the annual budget and appropriations process typically 
takes months to complete, emergency spending legislation often receives 
special, accelerated consideration that can lead to its adoption in 
days or weeks. This expedited treatment is understandable: When a 
flood, earthquake, or other natural disaster imperils the lives and 
safety of the American people, Congress and the President should be 
ready and able to respond quickly.
  We have even made special exceptions for emergency spending bills 
within our budgetary rules to ensure that disasters and other 
emergencies are quickly addressed. While we generally require that new 
spending be offset to ensure the deficit is not increased, we allow 
this requirement to be waived if the moneys are being spent on an 
emergency item. In addition, we waive our annual budgetary spending 
caps if the moneys are being spent to address an emergency or disaster.
  Because of their expedited treatment and budgetary exceptions, 
emergency spending bills have become a magnet for nonemergency items. 
Rather than subject a proposal to the regular budget and appropriations 
process, provisions are often attached to emergency spending bills that 
are moving through Congress on a virtual fast track.
  Although nonemergency items in an emergency spending bill are still 
subject to the annual spending caps, no offset is required if such 
spending would be below the annual limit. Furthermore, even if a 
nonemergency item is offset in an emergency spending bill, the 
expedited consideration of that legislation often does not allow for a 
thorough analysis in the broader context of the budget. Rather than 
subjecting the nonemergency spending provision to the same scrutiny as 
other programs in the budget and weighing its merits accordingly, 
Congress is forced to make a rapid decision. Delaying the process and 
carefully weighing these nonemergency items would also mean risking the 
timely delivery of assistance to those who have been affected by an 
emergency or disaster. Such a delay is simply not acceptable.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would eliminate this 
problem and this practice by ensuring that all nonemergency spending 
items are subject to the same budget scrutiny and same budgetary rules. 
If my legislation is adopted, emergency spending bills would no longer 
be a convenient vehicle for spending money on nonemergency items. 
Rather, emergency spending bills would be just that: emergency spending 
bills--not Christmas trees with other goodies and presents tucked 
beneath them.
  Under my bill, nonemergency provisions in an emergency or disaster 
spending bill would be subject to a new three-fifths majority point of 
order. If a nonemergency item is included in an emergency spending bill 
or related conference report--or is contained in an amendment that is 
being offered to such a bill--this new point of order could be raised 
by any Member, and a three-fifths majority vote would be required to 
waive it.
  I believe the Members of this body are familiar with the Byrd rule 
and its impact on the reconciliation process, and my new provision 
would be administered in much the same way. The only difference would 
be that while the Byrd rule applies to budget reconciliation bills, 
this rule would apply to emergency spending bills.
  Mr. President, we must no longer allow nonemergency items to be 
attached to emergency spending bills. We have created an expedited 
process for considering emergency spending bills for very sound 
reasons--but providing a vehicle for nonemergency items to be rushed 
through Congress was not one of them.
  As we work toward a balanced budget in the year 2002, I would urge 
that Congress and the President carefully weigh the merits of every 
spending program and make priorities accordingly. My legislation would 
help us achieve this objective by ensuring that nonemergency items are 
not rushed through Congress while riding on the back of emergency 
spending bills. I urge that my colleagues join me in this effort and 
support this legislation.

                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 474

  At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Nevada [Mr. 
Reid] was added as a cosponsor of S. 474, a bill to amend sections 1081 
and 1084 of title 18, United States Code.


                                 S. 617

  At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from Idaho 
[Mr. Kempthorne], the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], and the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] were added as cosponsors of S. 
617, a bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to require that 
imported meat, and meat food products containing imported meat, bear a 
label identifying the country of origin.


                                 S. 766

  At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from New York 
[Mr. Moynihan] was added as a cosponsor of S. 766, a bill to require 
equitable coverage of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, and 
contraceptive services under health plans.


                                 S. 834

  At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from California 
[Mrs. Boxer] was added as a cosponsor of S. 834, a bill to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to ensure adequate research and education 
regarding the drug DES.


                                 S. 852

  At the request of Mr. Lott, the names of the Senator from New Mexico 
[Mr. Bingaman] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] were added 
as cosponsors of S. 852, a bill to establish nationally uniform 
requirements regarding the titling and registration of salvage, 
nonrepairable, and rebuilt vehicles.


                                S. 1141

  At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Missouri 
[Mr. Ashcroft] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1141, a bill to amend the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992 to take into account newly developed 
renewable energy-based fuels and to equalize alternative fuel vehicle 
acquisition incentives to increase the flexibility of controlled fleet 
owners and operators, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1173

  At the request of Mr. Warner, the name of the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Campbell] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1173, a bill to authorize 
funds for construction of highways, for highway safety programs, and 
for mass transit programs, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1178

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
1178, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend the 
visa waiver pilot program, and for other purposes.


                         Senate Resolution 116

  At the request of Mr. Levin, the names of the Senator from Hawaii 
[Mr. Inouye] and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar] were added as 
cosponsors of Senate Resolution 116, a resolution designating November 
15, 1997, and November 15, 1998, as ``America Recycles Day.''


                         Senate Resolution 121

  At the request of Mr. Specter, the names of the Senator from Arkansas 
[Mr. Hutchinson], the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], the Senator 
from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], the 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], 
and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] were added as cosponsors of 
Senate Resolution 121, a resolution urging the discontinuance of 
financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority unles and until the 
Palestinian Authority demonstrates a 100-percent maximum effort to 
curtail terrorism.

[[Page S9428]]



                          ____________________