[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 15 (Thursday, February 9, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S980-S981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Ensign, Mr. Graham, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, and Mr. 
        Cornyn):
  S. 2265. A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers' 
dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last Congress I introduced a rules change 
proposal to allow points of order to be raised against unauthorized 
appropriations and policy riders in appropriations bills and conference 
reports in an effort to reign in wasteful pork barrel spending. Today I 
am introducing a modified version of that proposal. I am pleased to be 
joined in this bipartisan effort today by Senators Feingold, Coburn, 
Bayh, Sununu, Graham, Ensign, DeMint, and Kyl.
  According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service, in 
1994, there were 4,126 Congressional earmarks added to the annual 
appropriations bills. In 2005, there were 15,877 earmarks, the largest 
number yet, that's an increase of nearly 300 percent! The level of 
funding associated with those earmarks has more than doubled from $23.2 
billion in fiscal year 1994 to $47.4 billion in fiscal year 2005.
  Our bill, entitled the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, would establish a 
new procedure under Rule XVI, modeled in part after the Byrd Rule, 
which would allow a 60-vote point of order to be raised against 
specific provisions that contain unauthorized appropriations, including 
earmarks, as well as unauthorized policy changes in appropriations 
bills and conference reports. Of importance is that successful points 
of order would not kill a conference report, but the targeted 
provisions would be deemed removed from the conference report, and the 
measure would be sent back for concurrence by the House.
  To ensure that Members are given enough time to review appropriations 
bills, our proposal would also require that conference reports be 
available at least 48 hours prior to floor consideration. It also 
prohibits the consideration of a conference report if it includes 
matter outside the scope of conference.
  Additionally, our bill includes the provisions of S. 1495, the 
Obligation of Funds Transparency Act, which Senator Corburn and I 
introduced last July, to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating 
funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional 
reports, which are unamendable.
  To promote transparency, our bill requires that any earmarks included 
in a bill be disclosed fully in the bill's accompanying report, along 
with the name of the Member who requested the earmark and its essential 
governmental purpose. Additionally, our bill would require recipients 
of Federal dollars to disclose any amounts that the recipient expends 
on registered lobbyists.
  In summary, this proposed rules change, if adopted, would allow any 
member to raise a point of order in an effort to extract objectionable 
unauthorized provisions from the appropriations process. Our goal is to 
reform the current system by empowering all members with a tool to rid 
appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and 
legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of 
the legislative process.
  I would like to highlight just a few examples of recent earmarks, 
many of which clearly do not belong in the measures that they were 
included:
  From the Defense Conference Report for FY 2006: $500,000 to teach 
science to grade-school students in Pennsylvania. $900,000 for 
``Memorial Day'' out of the Army Operations and Maintenance account. 
$4.4 million for a Technology Center in Missouri. $1 million to a Civil 
War Center in Richmond, Virginia. $850,000 for an education center and 
public park in Des Moines, Iowa. $2 million for a public park in San 
Francisco. $500,000 for the Arctic Winter Games, an international 
athletic competition held this year in Alaska. $1.5 million for an 
aviation museum in Seattle, $1.35 million for an aviation museum in 
Hawaii, $1 million for a museum in Pennsylvania, and $3 million for the 
museum at Fort Belvoir. There's also $1.5 million for restoring the 
Battleship Texas. Funding for farm conservation. A provision protecting 
jobs in Hawaii and Alaska. A provision transferring as a direct lump 
sum payment to the University of Alaska the unobligated and unexpended 
balances appropriated to the United States-Canada Railroad Commission. 
And, of course, the ANWR provisions.
  From the FY06 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill Conference Report 
Statement of Managers: $500,000 for the Burpee Museum of Natural 
History in Illinois. $500,000 for Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic 
vegetation research. $600,000 to study fish passage in Mud Mountain, 
Washington. $3 million to study the beneficial uses of dredged material 
for Morehead City, North Carolina. $1.25 million for the Sacred Falls 
demonstration project in Hawaii. $2 million for the Desert Research 
Institute, Nevada. $3.5 million for the Iroquois Bio-Energy Consortium 
Ethanol Project, Indiana. $500,000 for the Washington State Ferries 
Biodiesel Demonstration Project, WA. $1 million for the Canola-based 
Automotive Oil R&D, PA. $1 million for the Mt. Wachusett Community 
College Wind Project, MA. $7 million for the Arctic Energy Office, 
Alaska.
  These Energy and Water projects that I just mentioned are just a few 
examples of report language earmarks, none of which are subject to an 
amendment to strike.
  From the FY 2002 and 2003 Defense Appropriations Conference Reports: 
During conference negotiations on the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, unprecedented language was 
inserted into the final bill to allow the U.S. Air Force to lease 100 
Boeing 767 commercial aircraft and convert them to tankers. The total 
cost to taxpayers, about $30 billion.
  However, Congress did not authorize these provisions in the Act, or 
in any other bill for that matter. In fact, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee was not even advised of this effort by the Air Force 
Secretary during consideration of the authorization measure. Moreover, 
these aircraft were not in the President's budget, the joint chiefs' 
unfunded priority list, or the pentagon's long range defense budget. 
Additionally, the purportedly compelling need for these aircraft (which 
the air force repeatedly cited for having taxpayers pay $6 billion more 
for leasing these tankers than they would if the air force simply 
bought them outright) was, and continues to be, wholly unsupported by 
any serious study or analysis of alternatives.
  Nonetheless, legislative language was again included in the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to modify 
the previous year's bill language on the Boeing 767 tankers. And, once 
again, the sweeping changes in procurement policy was made by the 
Appropriators without the input of the authorizing committee.
  Ultimately, it was discovered that the Air Force broke a number of 
Federal budgetary and leasing rules; that the lease terms were fiscally 
irresponsible; that this deal would have set a horrible precedent for 
the procurement of major defense systems; and that folks at the Air 
Force conspired with Boeing to break the law to make this deal happen 
in the first instance. Mr. President, with some people, as a result, 
not only losing their jobs, but also serving time in jail, I think all 
of my colleagues know what an egregious mistake this turned out to be.
  From Supplemental for War on Terror Conference Report (April 2005): A 
provision directing the Secretary of the Interior to analyze the 
viability of a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in Rio 
Grande Valley, TX.
  A provision stating that the $40 million set forth in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 for construction of a Port of 
Philadelphia marine cargo terminal ``be used solely for the 
construction by and for a Philadelphia-based company.''

[[Page S981]]

  From the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report: The 
conference report 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 Norwegian Cruise Lines in the Hawaii 
cruise trade. Interestingly, this provision stems from another earmark 
in 1998 that went awry.
  The fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense Appropriation Bill 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, MARAD, 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 over $187.3 
million of the American taxpayers' money to cover the project's loan 
default, and recovering only $2 million from the sale of some of the 
construction materials and parts. It is one hull and miscellaneous 
parts from these never-completed ships which cost the taxpayers nearly 
$200 million which are now going to be used in a foreign shipyard for 
building the Norwegian Cruise ships that will operate in Hawaii under 
this latest special interest provision.
  The conference report included an agriculture policy change to make 
catfish producers eligible for payments under the livestock 
compensation program, even though hog, poultry, and horse producers are 
not eligible.
  Despite the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had 
implemented new organic food standards after lengthy negotiations, 
language was added to the conference report to permit livestock 
producers to certify and label meat products as ``organic'' even if the 
animals had not been fed organic grain. Without any consideration or 
debate, this last-minute rider was added to override these standards. 
Interestingly, a few months later, the Congress approved legislation as 
part of the War supplemental to repeal this provision and restore the 
prior organic food labeling standards.
  Obviously, I could go on and on and on citing examples of 
unauthorized earmarks and policy riders in appropriations bills. But I 
think you've got the picture. And I hope that we have finally reached 
the point that we are going to do something to reform this very broken 
system of legislating.
  Our current economic situation and our vital national security 
concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal 
spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national 
priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed.
  In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected on 
the spending he believed to be excessive. His words then are all the 
more powerful in today's out of control environment: ``As we peer into 
society's future,'' he said, ``we--you and I, and our government--must 
avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease 
and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage 
the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also 
of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive 
for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of 
tomorrow.''
  And yet, if we cannot change, if we will not change, we risk 
precisely that--becoming the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. I wonder 
what President Eisenhower would think of this mess. But, then, perhaps 
others have contemplated the same question. After all, the Defense 
Appropriations bill we passed in December included a $1.7 million 
earmark for a memorial on the National Mall that would honor none other 
than * * * Dwight D. Eisenhower.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______