[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8959-S8960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Coburn):
  S. 1495. A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds 
for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along 
with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The 
Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal 
agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in 
congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in 
unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.
  As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of 
law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and 
reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports 
with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and 
wasteful pork barrel projects.
  According to information compiled from the Congressional Research 
Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in 
fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 
240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 
billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of 
earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of 
control.
  At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller 
General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our 
present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax 
increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. 
If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more 
than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to 
balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and 
difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more 
onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will 
have.''
  Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future 
generations of Americans?
  Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the 
challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this 
situation will require difficult choices and that the future 
performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes 
will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or 
raising

[[Page S8960]]

financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best 
to address the competing claims.''
  It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. 
Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist 
agree--we are in real trouble.
  We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if 
we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be 
thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are 
going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not 
fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills 
with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special 
interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to 
tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a 
pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer.
  Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the 
Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial 
burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, 
woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, 
which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is 
often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, 
instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only 
succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and 
much, much more expensive.
  The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and 
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, 
``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government 
can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 
years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts 
to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising 
health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and 
Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the 
time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three 
programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 
percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.
  Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings 
about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this 
manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated 
that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, 
``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and 
Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's 
economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say 
that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the 
United States, current spending policies will probably be financially 
unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal 
debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the 
economy.''
  Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is 
that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, 
unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special 
interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they 
shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important legislation.
                                 ______