[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8001-S8005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 172--HONORING THE LIFE OF MEDIA REPORTING GIANT DAVID
BRINKLEY, AND EXPRESSING THE DEEPEST CONDOLENCES OF THE SENATE TO HIS
FAMILY ON HIS DEATH
Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mrs. Dole) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 172
Whereas the Senate has learned with sadness of the death of
David Brinkley;
Whereas David Brinkley, born in Wilmington, NC, greatly
distinguished himself as a newspaper reporter, radio
correspondent, and television correspondent;
Whereas David Brinkley attended the University of North
Carolina and served in the North Carolina National Guard;
Whereas David Brinkley's first job in Washington was
covering the White House in 1943 for NBC as a radio reporter;
Whereas David Brinkley co-anchored ``The Huntley-Brinkley
Report,'' along with Chet
[[Page S8002]]
Huntley, which was widely popular during the 1960's;
Whereas David Brinkley hosted ``This Week with David
Brinkley'' for fifteen years and it was the number one Sunday
program when he retired in 1996;
Whereas David Brinkley covered eleven presidents, four
wars, 22 political conventions, a moon landing and three
assassinations;
Whereas David Brinkley wrote three books, won ten Emmy
awards, six Peabody Awards, and in 1992, the Presidential
Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor;
Whereas David Brinkley is considered by many to be the
premier broadcast journalist of his time;
Whereas David Brinkley was well known for his wry sense of
humor, fundamental decency, gentlemanly charm, and his one-
of-a-kind writing style will forever be remembered by his
friends, colleagues, and the countless members of the
television audience he touched week to week over his more
than fifty year career: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) pay tribute to the outstanding career of David Brinkley
(2) expresses its deepest condolences to his family; and
(3) directs the Secretary of the Senate to direct an
enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of David
Brinkley.
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 173--TO 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 (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Feingold)
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee
on Rules and Administration:
S. Res. 173
Be it Resolved, That paragraph 1 of Rule XVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:
``1. (a) On a point of order made by any Senator:
``(1) No new or general legislation nor any unauthorized
appropriation may be included in any general appropriation
bill.
``(2) No amendment may be received to any general
appropriation bill the effect of which will be to add an
unauthorized appropriation to the bill.
``(3) No new or general legislation nor any unauthorized
appropriation, new matter, or nongermane matter may be
included in any conference report on a general appropriation
bill.
``(4) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any
amendment between the Houses, or any amendment thereto, in
relation to a general appropriation bill.
``(b)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1)
against a Senate bill is sustained, then--
``(A) the new or general legislation or unauthorized
appropriation shall be struck from the bill; and
``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated
necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from
the bill shall be made and the allocation of discretionary
budgetary resources allocated under section 302(a)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(2)) shall
be reduced accordingly.
``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1) against
an Act of the House of Representatives is sustained, then an
amendment to the House bill is deemed to have been adopted
that--
``(A) strikes the new or general legislation or
unauthorized appropriation from the bill; and
``(B) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts
appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the
matter struck from the bill and reduces the allocation of
discretionary budgetary resources allocated under section
302(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(2)) accordingly.
``(c) If the point of order against an amendment under
subparagraph (a)(2) is sustained, then the amendment shall be
out of order and may not be considered.
``(d) If the point of order against a conference report
under subparagraph (a)(3) is sustained, then--
``(1) the new or general legislation, unauthorized
appropriation, new matter, or nongermane matter in such
conference report shall be deemed to have been struck;
``(2) any modification of total amounts appropriated
necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck shall
be deemed to have been made and the allocation of
discretionary budgetary resources allocated under section
302(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(2)) shall be deemed to be reduced accordingly;
``(3) when all other points of order under this paragraph
have been disposed of--
``(A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the
House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the
House, and concur with a further amendment, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report not deemed to have been struck (together
with any modification of total amounts appropriated and
reduction in the allocation of discretionary budgetary
resources allocated under section 302(a)(2) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(2)) deemed
to have been made);
``(B) the question shall be debatable; and
``(C) no further amendment shall be in order; and
``(4) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill
and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the
House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.
``(e)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(4)
against a Senate amendment is sustained, then--
``(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from
the amendment;
``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated
necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from
the amendment shall be made and the allocation of
discretionary budgetary resources allocated under section
302(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(2)) shall be reduced accordingly; and
``(C) after all other points of order under this paragraph
have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider
the amendment as so modified.
``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(4) against
a House amendment is sustained, then--
``(A) an amendment to the House amendment is deemed to have
been adopted that--
``(i) strikes the new or general legislation or
unauthorized appropriation from the House amendment; and
``(ii) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts
appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the
matter struck from the House amendment and reduces the
allocation of discretionary budgetary resources allocated
under section 302(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 (2 U.S.C. 633(a)(2)) accordingly; and
``(B) after all other points of order under this paragraph
have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider
the question of whether to concur with further amendment.
``(f) The disposition of a point of order made under any
other paragraph of this Rule, or under any other Standing
Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does
not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under
subparagraph (a) with respect to the same matter.
``(g) A point of order under subparagraph (a) may be waived
only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is
taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect
to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer
shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
``(h) Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it
shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of
order that several provisions of a general appropriation
bill, a conference report on a general appropriation bill, or
an amendment between the Houses on a general appropriation
bill violate subparagraph (a). The Presiding Officer may
sustain the point of order as to some or all of the
provisions against which the Senator raised the point of
order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of
order as to some or all of the provisions against which the
Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions
against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of
order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph.
Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order,
any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in
accordance with subparagraph (g), as it applies to some or
all of the provisions against which the point of order was
raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance
with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the
Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator
may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a
point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions
on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
``(i) Notwithstanding any provision of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), no point of order
provided for under that Act shall lie against the striking of
any matter, the modification of total amounts to reflect the
deletion of matter struck, or the reduction of an allocation
of discretionary budgetary resources allocated under section
302(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C.
633(a)(2)) to reflect the deletion of matter struck (or to
the bill, amendment, or conference report as affected by such
striking, modification, or reduction) pursuant to a point of
order under this paragraph.
``(j) For purposes of this paragraph:
``(1)(A) The term `unauthorized appropriation' means an
appropriation--
``(i) not specifically authorized by law or Treaty
stipulation (unless the appropriation
[[Page S8003]]
has been specifically authorized by an Act or resolution
previously passed by the Senate during the same session or
proposed in pursuance of an estimate submitted in accordance
with law); or
``(ii) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically
authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically
authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the
Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an
estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be
appropriated.
``(B) An appropriation is not specifically authorized if it
is restricted or directed to, or authorized to be obligated
or expended for the benefit of, an identifiable person,
program, project, entity, or jurisdiction by earmarking or
other specification, whether by name or description, in a
manner that--
``(i) discriminates against other persons, programs,
projects, entities, or jurisdictions similarly situated that
would be eligible, but for the restriction, direction, or
authorization, for the amount appropriated; or
``(ii) is so restricted, directed, or authorized that it
applies only to a single identifiable person, program,
project, entity, or jurisdiction,
unless the identifiable person, program, project, entity, or
jurisdiction to which the restriction, direction, or
authorization applies is described or otherwise clearly
identified in a law or Treaty stipulation (or an Act or
resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same
session or in the estimate submitted in accordance with law)
that specifically provides for the restriction, direction, or
authorization of appropriation for such person, program,
project, entity, or jurisdiction.
``(2) The term `new or general legislation' has the meaning
given that term when it is used in paragraph 2 of this Rule.
``(3) The terms `new matter' and `nongermane matter' have
the same meaning as when those terms are used in Rule
XXVIII.''.
SEC. 2. STATEMENT REGARDING EFFECT OF REPORT LANGUAGE.
Paragraph 7 of Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate
is amended by adding at the end ``It shall not be in order to
proceed to the consideration of a general appropriation bill
if the report on that bill contains matter that requires or
permits the obligation or expenditure of any amount
appropriated in that bill for the benefit of an identifiable
person, program, project, entity, or jurisdiction by
earmarking or other specification, whether by name or
description, in a manner that--
``(A) discriminates against other persons, programs,
projects, entities, or jurisdictions similarly situated that
would be eligible, but for the requirement or permission, for
the amount appropriated; or
``(B) it applies only to a single identifiable person,
program, project, entity, or jurisdiction,
unless the identifiable person, program, project, entity, or
jurisdiction is described or otherwise clearly identified in
a law or Treaty stipulation (or an Act or resolution
previously passed by the Senate during the same session or in
the estimate submitted in accordance with law).''.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT REGARDING EFFECT OF JOINT EXPLANATORY
STATEMENT LANGUAGE.
Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The'' in paragraph 1 and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph 7, the''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``7. It shall not be in order to proceed to the
consideration of a conference report on a general
appropriations bill if the joint explanatory statement
contains matter that requires or permits the obligation or
expenditure of any amount appropriated in that bill for the
benefit of an identifiable person, program, project, entity,
or jurisdiction by earmarking or other specification, whether
by name or description, in a manner that--
``(A) discriminates against other persons, programs,
projects, entities, or jurisdictions similarly situated that
would be eligible, but for the restriction or direction, for
the amount appropriated; or
``(B) is so restricted or directed that it applies only to
a single identifiable person, program, project, entity, or
jurisdiction,
unless the identifiable person, program, project, entity, or
jurisdiction to which the restriction or direction applies is
described or otherwise clearly identified in a law or Treaty
stipulation (or an Act or resolution previously passed by the
Senate during the same session or in the estimate submitted
in accordance with law).''.
SEC. 4. READING OF CONFERENCE REPORT AND JOINT EXPLANATORY
STATEMENT.
(a) Vitiating the Standing Order of the Senate Regarding
the Reading of Conference Reports.--The Standing Order of the
Senate regarding the reading of conference reports
established by the second sentence of section 903 of Division
A of Appendix D--H.R. 5666 of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 2763A-198) is vitiated.
(b) Reading of Joint Explanatory Statement.--There is
established, as a Standing Order of the Senate, that the
presentation of a conference report includes the presentation
of the joint explanatory statement of the conferees required
by paragraph 4 of Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the
Senate, and that a demand for the reading of the joint
explanatory statement be subject to the same rules,
precedents, and procedures as apply to a demand for the
reading of the conference report.
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
[[Page S8004]]
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 times--as in a case that I will mention in a few minutes--
often 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
[[Page S8005]]
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-control--and I mean totally out-of-
control--situation 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 to--I am happy to say--pass 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 constituents--and every American--do not expect us to act in this
fashion, which in many cases is totally irresponsible.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Act, Rule 21 of the
House of Representatives, and Rule 16 of the Senate are all designed to
establish a balance between authorizing legislation and appropriations
bills that would allow Congress to consider authorizing legislation in
a timely and thoughtful manner, and prevent the year-ending
appropriations process from degenerating into a venue for policymaking
and provincialism.
Yet, according to CBO, over the past several years, the total amount
of unauthorized appropriations has ranged between about $90 billion and
$120 billion annually, and since 1998, the number of earmarks has risen
by 150 percent to 10,540, which cost $44.6 billion in 2002 alone. This
trend has made a mockery of our institutional arrangement and beckons
us to take action to fix the system.
The bill introduced today is not perfect, but it recognizes the
deficiencies in current procedure and represents an earnest and
thoughtful attempt to correct them. It would improve Rule 16 to close
the loophole that currently insulates Senate appropriations committee-
reported bills containing unauthorized appropriations and legislative
language from points of order, while preserving the Senate's ``defense
of germaneness'' to amend legislative language in House-passed
appropriations bills.
It would also preserve balance between the Houses by allowing any
Senator to raise a point of order against unauthorized appropriations
included in a House-passed appropriations bill, conference report, or
amendment between Houses. Finally, the bill attempts to regulate the
practice of using committee or conference report language to earmark
funds.
We have a problem; I think that much is clear. If other Members of
this chamber do not agree with specific provisions of this bill, I ask
that they offer constructive suggestions as to how best to breathe life
back into Rule 16 and the institutional balance between authorization
and appropriations. In the midst of the War on Terrorism and projected
budget deficits, it would be an abrogation of our role as elected
officials to allow the status quo to persist.
____________________