[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.

                          ____________________