[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6721-S6722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FISCAL YEAR 1999 ENERGY/WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in favor of this bill, the 
FY 1999 Energy/Water Appropriations bill. There is much to support in 
the bill.
  In particular, it provides essential resources to preserve and 
maintain our nation's waterways, support safe and efficient cleanup of 
nuclear waste, and promote more constructive utilization of our energy 
resources. And while the bill increases spending for these items over 
last year's level, the overall spending provided in this bill is more 
than $350 million less than the amount requested by the Administration.
  However, as elected officials, we bear no greater responsibility than 
to ensure that the American people's hard-earned tax dollars are 
utilized in the most prudent fashion for essential government functions 
and services. Open and fair consideration of federal expenditures is 
the cornerstone of maintaining public confidence in their government.
  I fully realize the daunting task faced by the Appropriations 
Committee in allocating limited funds among diverse, competing 
interests and priorities. Yet I am disappointed when the decisions on 
priorities reflect not national priorities, but parochial and political 
priorities.
  As we begin the appropriations season with consideration of the FY 
1999 Energy/Water Appropriations bill, I am once again astounded at the 
volume and creativity of the shortcuts that the Congress uses to 
circumvent the normal, merit-based review of spending decisions.
  This bill includes over $920 million for hundreds of earmarks in both 
bill and report language. These are earmarks for projects that are 
unrequested, unauthorized, and location-specific, and that have not 
been considered in the appropriate merit-based review process. It also 
contains earmarks for vaguely stated projects for which only a cursory 
explanation, or none at all, is provided to the Senate.
  Mr. President, I prepared a list of objectionable provisions in this 
bill, which totalled 19 pages. This list is available on my website at 
http://www.senate.gov/mccain.
  Let me take just a moment to bring to my colleagues' attention some 
of the most egregious provisions in this legislation:
  An earmark of an additional $3.9 million for maintaining outdoor 
recreation facilities at Ponce de Leon, Florida. It is somewhat hard to 
imagine what types of facilities in a single location require nearly $4 
million in maintenance per year.
  An earmark of $200,000 for feasibility studies along the Alabama 
River below the Claiborne Lock and Dam to determine measures necessary 
to improve the navigation channel in order for projects along the river 
to realize their full economic potential.
  Certainly, it would be unfortunate if the businesses located along 
this stretch of the Alabama River were hindered in any way from 
economic success by virtue of the condition of the navigation channel. 
However, would it not be reasonable to expect those businesses and 
local communities to contribute at least to studying possible 
improvements to enhance their operations?
  An earmark of $8 million to initiate a general reevaluation report to 
determine the feasibility of further deepening the Miami Harbor Channel 
in Florida and providing reimbursement to local sponsors. Mind you, 
this is not $8 million to deepen the channel--it is simply to study the 
feasibility of deepening the channel. And this $8 million is not 
necessarily the full amount that will be required to complete that 
study and, of course, to reimburse local sponsors of the project.
  An earmark of an additional $5 million in the flood control account 
for construction at the Louisiana State Penitentiary. Unfortunately, 
the committee report sheds no light on what type of construction is 
involved, nor does it provide any justification for an increase of $5 
million above a request of just $400,000.
  An additional $2.3 million earmarked in a line item entitled 
``Project modification for improvement of the environment'' for the 
Lower Hamm Creek, Washington, restoration project. This seems to be a 
start-to-finish sort of add-on; the report language states this funding 
is to be used to ``complete plans and specifications, and initiate and 
complete construction'' of the project. Let's hope there is not another 
add-on next year.
  An earmarked add-on of $5 million for the Alaska Power 
Administration, for which no funding was requested. This entity is in 
the process of being sold to the State of Alaska, but this bill 
requires the taxpayers to spend $5 million, in addition to the $2.5 
million already spent, to repair or replace a cable prior to the sale.
  And finally, with all due respect to my colleague from Alaska, the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I must question the earmark 
of $20 million to establish a new commission, called the Denali 
Commission. This commission is established to prepare a comprehensive 
plan to spur Alaska's economic growth. I have several concerns about 
this supposedly temporary commission. Why are all Americans required to 
contribute to the preparation of this study, which will benefit only 
Alaska? Will this commission follow the same costly footsteps as the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, which

[[Page S6722]]

was established as a temporary entity and, 30 years later, will receive 
$67 million more from taxpayers across America?
  Mr. President, this is the kind of behind-the-scenes sidestepping of 
the checks and balances on federal spending that continues to undermine 
the public's trust in their elected officials. The practice of 
earmarking projects based on parochial, rather than national, interests 
is one of the principal reasons the public holds the Congress in low 
esteem.
  Ironically, Mr. President, the Committee admonishes the 
Administration for ``inappropriate uses of appropriations'' in its 
report language. Yet, this bill endorses, in fact, mandates 
inappropriate spending to the tune of $920 million.
  I had thought that we were making positive progress in eliminating 
wasteful and unnecessary spending from the legislative process. 
Unfortunately, the earmarks and set-asides in this bill greatly exceed 
the level in last year's Energy/Water Appropriations bill. Last year, 
the Senate earmarked $312 million in its version of the bill. This bill 
earmarks $920 million, which is nearly three times the amount of 
earmarks in last year's bill.
  Mr. President, is it any wonder that Americans continue to express a 
sense of cynicism about government?
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in 
both Houses to work harder to curb our habit of funneling resources to 
provincial ventures. Serving the public good must continue to be our 
mandate, and we can only live up to that charge by keeping the process 
free of unfair and unnecessary spending that further burdens the 
American taxpayer.

                          ____________________