[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 654-655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         BUDGET PROCESS REFORM

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to sponsor three bills 
designed to improve the way Congress spends Americans' hard-earned 
dollars.
  First, Senator Domenici and I and others are co-sponsoring 
legislation requiring Congress to adopt a biennial budget process. 
Second, Senator Kyl and I are introducing a resolution to establish a 
60-vote point of order against any item in any appropriations measure 
that provides more than $1 million for any program, project, or 
activity which is not specifically authorized in a law other than an 
appropriations act. Third, Senator Kyl and I are introducing a 
resolution to establish a privileged, non-debatable motion to proceed 
to any appropriations measure after June 30 of any year.
  As anyone who has followed Congress over the years knows, budget 
process reform is not new. It is often the subject of heated political 
debate. It has spawned numerous vigorous floor debates and been the 
subject of much controversy. Unfortunately, little in the way of 
substantive reform has ever been accomplished. Surely, after our 
experience with the fiscal year 1999 budget process, most in Congress 
would agree that budget process reform is an idea whose time has 
finally come. The time for rhetoric has passed, and the time for 
overall substantive reforms is here.
  The power of the purse is vested in the Congress. However, the 
obligation to control the purse does not mean Congress do so with 
impunity or with disregard for the greater good of the Nation.
  Since I came to Congress, I have spent a great deal of my time 
considering matters related to the budget. As critical as I have been 
of the Congressional budget process over the past 16 years, the 
monstrosity of a spending bill we passed last year took my outrage to 
new heights. This bill clearly illustrates that our budget process is 
flawed. If we had adequate controls on the budget process, the fiscal 
year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill would never have occurred.
  The second session of the 105th Congress convened on January 27 and 
adjourned on October 21, 1998--a total of 266 calendar days in which 
Congress completed work on only 4 of the 13 regular appropriations 
bills that keep the federal government open and functioning. Yet it 
took us just 24 hours to debate and pass a 4,000-page, 40-pound, non-
amendable, budget-busting omnibus appropriations bill that provided 
more than half-a trillion dollars to fund 10 Cabinet-level federal 
departments for the fiscal year that started 21 days prior.
  The bill exceeded the budget ceiling by $20 billion for what is 
euphemistically called emergency spending, much of which is really 
everyday, garden-variety, special interest, pork-barrel spending 
projects. Sadly, these projects are paid for by robbing billions from 
the budget surplus. This bill made a mockery of the Congress' role in 
fiscal matters. It was and still is a betrayal of our responsibility to 
spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely and enact laws and policies that 
reflect the best interests of all Americans, rather than the special 
interests of a few.

[[Page 655]]

  I voted against the omnibus appropriations bill, as did many of our 
colleagues. But the bill passed, and is now law. This bill became law 
because Congress was forced to either adopt this bill, or face another 
government shutdown. In a sense, Congress was once again held hostage 
by the prospect of experiencing another government shutdown.
  Sadly, for most years, the Federal budget is passed in one fell swoop 
through one monster bill. Appropriations committees, charged with 
passing separate legislation to pay for each portion of the Government, 
disregard their deadlines and lump all Government spending in one 
mammoth bill. Failure to pass such a behemoth would result in a 
complete shutdown of all Government agencies and chaos among recipients 
of Government benefits. We have been held hostage in this manner, in 
the past, and will be again in the future if meaningful comprehensive 
budget process reforms are not adopted promptly.
  We cannot mortgage away our future generations' prosperity by 
spending wastefully today. Budget process is key to maintaining fiscal 
responsibility. Our more than ever increasing $5 trillion national debt 
and the fiscal nightmare of the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations 
bill indicate that Congress must change the way it conducts the budget 
process.
  We can ill afford to permit an inadequate budget process to squander 
away our first budget surplus in decades. According to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, our national debt is now $5.52 trillion. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal year 1998, the 
federal government paid more than $244 billion in net interest, or some 
$668 million every day. These numbers are facts. The facts are scary--
$668 million every day to pay for the interest on our national debt. 
The more we spend on interest, the less we have to spend for other 
vital goods and services.
  This must stop. The only way to stop wasting almost a quarter of a 
trillion dollars a year is to pay down our national debt and ensure we 
do not squander this opportunity by instituting budget process reforms.
  Our founding fathers saw the importance of avoiding debt and wasteful 
spending. The framers assumed that each generation would pay its own 
bills, and Thomas Jefferson stated:

       I place economy among the first and most important of 
     republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of 
     dangers to be feared.

  Yet we are content to burden every child born in this century with a 
$5.5 trillion debt.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that we will have an $80 
billion surplus for fiscal year 1999. But we are not protecting the 
budget surplus to save social security. We are not protecting the 
budget surplus to pay down our debt. Nor are we spending tax dollars 
cautiously to insure that funds are available to allow Congress to pass 
broad-based middle-class tax relief. Why? Because our current budget 
process is flawed. It is easily manipulated to appropriate funds for 
locality-specific parochial interests, as opposed to the national 
interests. Paying down the debt, saving social security, and broad-
based middle-class tax relief would benefit all Americans. Yet we 
continue to ignore these priority needs when we approve monstrosities 
like the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill.
  The problem is the current budget process. It allows the politics of 
the moment to take precedence over larger long-term issues which impact 
the Nation as a whole. The legislation I am co-sponsoring, and the 
reforms I am introducing will address the ills in the current budget 
process.
  First, the biennial budgeting legislation drafted by Senator Domenici 
will radically change the way Congress passes a Federal budget. This 
legislation will require the President to submit and the Congress to 
enact two-year authorization and appropriations bills. Biennial 
budgeting would allow us to focus attention on fiscal matters during 
the first full year of a Congress, then turn to other pressing matters 
of national policy the second year. Two-year budgets would also provide 
needed predictability and stability for government agencies and 
programs.
  Biennial budgeting will not solve all our budget process woes, and it 
will not automatically solve the serious problems posed by the 
increased demand on entitlement programs as the next generation begins 
to retire. However, what a biennial budget can do is to give us time 
for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as 
conducting oversight and long-range planning. The legislation that we 
are introducing today will ensure that time for oversight and long-
range planning is set aside.
  I am also sponsoring 3 procedural changes governing the Senate's 
budget process. I am introducing a resolution in the Senate to amend 
our procedures to establish a 60-vote point of order against any item 
in an appropriations measure that provides more than $1 million for any 
program, project, or activity which is not already specifically 
authorized in a law other than an appropriations act. This is the 
system of checks and balances that is envisioned in the law, and I 
believe the Senate should adhere to this necessary fiscal restraint. To 
do anything less makes a mockery of the authorization process. If we do 
not do this, and we continue to use appropriations bills to do all our 
authorizing business, why even have authorizing committees?
  I am also introducing a resolution in the Senate to make a motion to 
proceed to any appropriations measure after June 30 a privileged 
motion. The Budget Act establishes June 30 as the date by which the 
House is expected to complete action on all the appropriations 
measures. By eliminating the need to debate, file cloture, and vote on 
a motion to proceed to appropriations measures after that date, the 
Senate could save a full week's time, and could instead spend that time 
working on the bill itself.
  Also, I am sponsor of Senate Resolution 4, introduced on January 6, 
1999, which restores the point of order preventing Senators from 
attaching legislative ``riders'' to appropriations measures.
  This measure will go a long way toward preventing gridlock over 
policy matters in spending bills.
  These procedural changes would, in my view, go a long way toward 
restoring openness, fairness, and public input in the process of 
spending the taxpayers' dollars. We would be able to pass budgets in 
the normal process, rather than budget by brinkmanship.
  These budget reform proposals are not a political exercise. These 
reforms are long-overdue and real. It is my intention to work with the 
leadership to move this legislation quickly. It is very important we 
act before the appropriations season begins in earnest.
  To do nothing to reform our budget process is far more dangerous than 
to try and not succeed. Budget process reform must be adopted to insure 
that we do not waste the opportunity to start shaving away at our 
massive national debt. The system is set up to have checks and 
balances. Lately, we have drifted from this process. Congress must 
adopt meaningful budget process reform this year, or risk further 
fiscal monstrosities like the fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations 
bill.
  Clearly, the process by which we spend Americans' hard-earned dollars 
is flawed and needs to be changed. I hope my colleagues will 
acknowledge the obvious, and push for comprehensive budget process 
reform at the earliest opportunity.

                          ____________________