[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20221-20223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 CONFERENCE REPORT FOR ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2001

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this year's energy and water 
appropriations bill is very critical, particularly at a time when our 
Nation is facing rising gas and energy prices, national security 
disasters at federal facilities, and massive backlogs to complete 
multimillion projects for water infrastructure. That is why I am 
utterly disappointed that the final agreement for this bill blatantly 
disregards these national priorities in favor of special interests 
giveaways.
  Mr. President, approving the annual budget is among our most serious 
responsibilities. We are the trustees of billions of taxpayer dollars, 
and we should evaluate every spending decision with great deliberation 
and without prejudice.
  Unfortunately, each year, I am constantly amazed how the 
appropriators find new ways to violate budget policy. Appropriators 
have employed every sidestepping method in the book to circumvent 
Senate rules and common budget principles that are supposed to strictly 
guide the appropriations process. The excessive fodder and trickery 
have never been greater, resulting in the shameless waste of millions 
of taxpayer dollars. This final report is no exception.
  This year's final agreement for the energy and water appropriations 
bill is only a minor reflection of the previous Senate-passed bill.
  A grand total of $1.2 billion is added in pork-barrel spending, a 
figure that is three times the amount from the Senate-passed bill and 
about $400 million more than the amount of last year's total. I have 
twenty-one pages of pork-barrel spending found in this report.
  An additional $214 million is provided for designated ``emergency'' 
spending.
  The latest epidemic here as we approach the appropriations issue, in 
order to avoid any budget restraints that may be remaining--and there 
are few--is the designation of ``emergency spending.''
  Explicit directives are included for favorable consideration of 
special interest projects; and more than 30 policy riders are added in 
to conveniently sidestep a fair and deliberative legislative review.
  I rise today to tell my colleagues that I object.
  I object to the $1.2 billion in directed earmarks for special 
interest projects in this bill. I object to sidestepping the 
legislative process by attaching erroneous riders to an appropriations 
bill. I object to speeding through appropriations bills without 
adequate review by all Members. I object to the callous fashion which 
we disregard our national interests in favor of pet projects.
  Some of my colleagues have said that the pork doesn't really matter 
much in these spending bills because it's not a lot of money. But, Mr. 
President, adding billions more in pork barrel spending is a lot of 
money to me and to the millions of American taxpayers who are footing 
the bill for this spending free-for-all.
  While America's attention has been focused on the Olympic games in 
Sydney, Australia, our constituents back home may be interested to know 
that a gold medal performance is taking place in their own government. 
If gold medals were awarded for pork-barrel spending, then the budget 
negotiators would all be gleaming in gold from their award-winning 
spending spree.
  However, I doubt many Americans would be appreciative if they knew 
that this spending spree will be at their expense with money that 
should be set aside to provide tax relief to American families, shore 
up Social Security and Medicare, or pay down the federal debt.
  The figures speak for themselves. Again, this year's grand pork total 
is close to $400 million more than the amount from last year's bill and 
more than three times the amount included in the recent Senate passed 
bill.
  Unless I am grievously mistaken, I was under the distinct and very 
clear understanding that the purpose of Senate-House appropriations 
conferences are to resolve differences only between the two versions 
and make tough decisions to determine what stays in the final 
agreement. As a rule, no new spending could be added.
  The rules are flung out the window once again. The overall total 
budget for this year's conference agreement has been fattened up by as 
much as $2 billion more than the House bill, and about a billion more 
than both the amount included in the Senate-passed bill and the amount 
requested by the administration.
  Let me give this to you straight. You have a certain amount passed by 
the Senate and a certain amount by the House. They are supposed to go 
to conference and reconcile their differences. Instead of that, we add 
billions of dollars in conference, and neither Senate nor House 
Members, nor members of the Appropriations Committee have a voice or a 
vote. That is disgraceful--disgraceful.
  Each year, appropriators employ new spending tricks to avoid sticking 
to allocations in the budget resolution. It has become quite clear that 
these closed-door conferences, which no other Member can participate in 
or have any voting privileges, is simply another opportunity for 
members to take another trip to the trough to add in millions 
previously unconsidered for individual member projects.
  What was described earlier in the Senate this year as a ``modest'' 
bill has now become a largesse take-home prize for many Members. 
Numerous earmarks are provided for such projects that, while on its own 
merit may not be objectionable, were not included in the budget request 
or tacked on without any review by either the Senate or the House.
  For example, within this final agreement, nearly 250 earmarks are 
added for individual Army Corps projects which are clearly not included 
in the budget request, and, more than 150 Army Corps projects were 
given additional amounts about the budget request.
  The inconsistency between the administration's request, which is 
responsible for carrying out these projects, and the views of the 
appropriators on just how much funding should be dedicated to a 
project, is troubling. As a result, various other projects that may be 
equally deserving or higher in priority do not receive an appropriate 
amount of funding, or none at all.
  This year's budget for Army Corps has been inflated to $4.5 billion 
in funding for local projects. Yet, we have no way of knowing whether, 
at best, all or part of this $4.5 billion should have been spent on 
different projects with greater national need or, at worst, should not 
have been spent at all. There's no doubt we should end the practice of 
earmarking projects for funding based on political clout and focus our 
resources in a more practical way, instead, on those areas with the 
greatest need nation-wide.
  Other earmarks are rampant in this bill that appear that are clearly 
demonstrative of wasteful spending at the expense of taxpayers:
  An earmark of $20 million was added in during conference, without 
previous

[[Page 20222]]

consideration by either the House or Senate, for an unauthorized 
project in California, the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration project. 
Certainly, I have no objections to restoring the ecological health of 
the Bay Delta area, however, any amount of funding for unauthorized 
projects flies in the face of comments by the managers who pledged not 
to fund unauthorized projects.
  Also, $400,000 is earmarked for aquatic weed control in Lake 
Champlain, Vermont. This particular earmark has resurfaced in 
appropriations bills for at least the past three years and it appears a 
bit preposterous that we continually fund a project such as this on an 
annual basis which has nebulous impacts on our nation's energy and 
security needs.
  An earmark of $800,000 is provided to continue work on ``a detailed 
project report'' for a project in Buchanan County, Virginia. Government 
spending is truly getting out of control if nearly a million dollars is 
necessary simply to compile a report.
  Another earmark of $250,000 is included for a `study' of drainage 
problems in the Winchester, Kentucky area. Granted, I do not object to 
trying to fix any water problems facing any local community, but is a 
quarter of a million really necessary to only study the problem and not 
fix it?
  More padded spending includes $150,000 to determine what the 
``federal interest'' is for a project in southeastern Pennsylvania. Why 
is $150,000 necessary to determine if the federal government should 
care about a specific project? Dozens of earmarks like this one, in the 
hundreds of thousands each, are riddled throughout this conference 
report without any explanation as to why such high amounts of funding 
are justifiable.
  Among the worst pork in this bill are earmarks that will benefit the 
ethanol industry, a fiscal boondoggle industry that already reaps 
substantial benefits from existing federal subsidies at the expense of 
taxpayers. It is a blatant insult to taxpayers to ask them to 
supplement the ethanol industry even more by spending $600,000 for 
ethanol production at the University of Louisville, and $2,000,000 for 
the design and construction of a demonstration facility for regional 
biomass ethanol manufacturing in southeast Alaska.
  My colleagues will note that each of these earmarks have a specific 
geographic location or institution associated with them. Is there 
another organization besides the one proposed in southeast Alaska that 
could design and construct a demonstration facility for regional 
biomass ethanol manufacturing?
  A similar earmark of $2 million is included for this specific Alaskan 
ethanol manufacturing facility in the Interior appropriations bill this 
year. So they have $4 million for one specific spot without any 
authorization and without any discussion.
  There is $4.5 million for the removal of aquatic growth in Florida, 
which is about $1.2 million higher than the budget request;
  An additional $250,000 for the Texas Investigations Program, for 
which no explanation is provided as to what constitutes an 
``investigations'' program;
  $2,000,000 for the multi-year demonstration of an underground mining 
locomotive and an earth loader powered by hydrogen in Nevada;
  And, $3,000,000 to establish a program the University of Nevada-Las 
Vegas for Department-wide management of electronic records.
  Get this, all of my colleageus who have a college or university in 
their State: $3 million at the University of Nevada Las Vegas for 
department-wide management of electronic records;
  $2,000,000 for the Discovery Science Center in Orange County, 
California;
  $2,000,000 for the Livingston Digital Millennium Center at Tulane 
University; and
  $2,000,000 for modernization upgrades at the University of South 
Carolina.
  How are any of these earmarks directly related to the national 
security and energy interests of our nation?
  Also, the tactic of using the ``emergency funding'' stigma returns 
strongly in this bill. I am very disappointed to see that the 
Appalachian Regional Commission will not only be funded again this 
year, but it is also the recipient of an ``emergency appropriation'' of 
$11 million.
  My dear friends, the Appalachian Commission was established as a 
temporary commission in 1965. Somehow this year it needs to be the 
recipient of $11 million for ``emergency appropriations.'' My curiosity 
is aroused as to what the emergency is at the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. This commission was established as a temporary commission 
in 1965, but has managed to hook itself into the annual appropriations 
spending spree to extend its so-called temporary life to 35 years. This 
program singles out one region for special economic development grants 
when the rest of the nation has to rely on their share of community 
development block grant and loans.
  Certainly, the Appalachian region does not have a monopoly on poor, 
depressed communities in need of assistance. I know that in my own 
state, despite the high standard of living enjoyed in many areas, some 
communities are extremely poor and have long been without running water 
or sanitation. It would be more cost-beneficial to provide direct 
assistance to impacted communities, again based on national priority, 
rather than spending millions each year for a commission which may have 
outlived its purpose.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that I do not object to these projects 
based on their merit nor do I intend to belittle the importance of 
specific projects to local communities. However, it is no surprise that 
many of these earmarks are included for political glamour rather than 
practical purposes. Members can go back to their districts to rally in 
public parades, trying to win favor by bringing home the bacon.
  The House of Representatives passed this conference report last 
Friday by a majority margin, despite the fact that most of the voting 
Members did not have adequate time, if any at all, to review the 
contents of this report. This is another appalling demonstration to the 
American public of the egregious violation of one of our most sacred 
duties--ensuring the proper use of taxpayer dollars. How can we make 
sound policy and budget decisions with this type of budget steam-
rolling?
  I know I speak for many hardworking Americans when I express my hope 
for reform in the way the Congress conducts the business of the people 
so that we might reclaim the faith and confidence of those we are sworn 
to serve. Yet, we are mired in another yearly ritual of budget chaos. 
Sadly, the only message that we send to the American public is that our 
budgetary process is at an all-time low.
  Unfortunately, this may be only a foreboding of what is to come at 
this end of year final budget negotiations. The end-of-year rush to 
complete the fiscal year 2001 budget is outpaced only by the rush to 
drain the taxpayers' pockets and deplete the budget surplus.
  At the end of the day, special interests win and the taxpayers lose. 
It's a broken record that the American people are tired of listening 
to.
  I will vote against this bill and any other appropriations bill that 
so flagrantly disregards our fiscal responsibility and violates the 
trust of the American people.
  Today's Wall Street Journal article by David Rogers is a very 
enlightening one, in case some of my colleagues and friends have not 
read it.

       In the scramble to wrap up budget negotiations, Congress 
     could overshoot the Republicans' spending target for this 
     fiscal year by $35 billion to $45 billion.
       The willingness to spend reflects a new synergy between 
     President Clinton, eager to cement his legacy, and the GOP 
     leadership, increasingly worried about losing seats in 
     November and more disposed to use government dollars to shore 
     up candidates. While the largest increases are in areas 
     popular with voters--education, medical and science research, 
     land conservation, veterans' care and the military--the 
     bargaining invites pork-barrel politics on a grand scale, 
     with top Republicans leading the way.
       Just this weekend, for example, a bidding war escalated 
     over highway and transit projects that are part of the 
     transportation budget to be negotiated this week. House 
     Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the door by asking 
     to add legislative language to expedite the distribution of 
     about $850 million for Chicago-area transit projects. While 
     the Hastert amendment

[[Page 20223]]

     wouldn't add directly to next year's costs, it became an 
     excuse for others to pile on.
       The Virginia delegation jumped in early, winning the 
     promise of $600 million to help pay for a bridge over the 
     Potomac River. By late Friday night, dozens of projects for 
     both political parties were being added. House Transportation 
     Committee Chairman Bud Shuster laid claim to millions for his 
     home state of Pennsylvania. Mississippi, home of Senate 
     Majority Leader Trent Lott, is in the running for funds in 
     the range of $100 million. In all, the price tag for the 
     extras tops $1.6 billion.
       The whole enterprise, which could yet collapse under its 
     own weight, dramatizes a breakdown in discipline in these 
     last weeks before the November elections. In the spring, the 
     GOP set a spending cap of $600 billion for the fiscal year 
     that began yesterday--a number that was never considered 
     realistic politically.
       After devoting long summer nights to debating cuts from Mr. 
     Clinton's $626 billion budget, Republicans will end up 
     appropriating significantly more than that. If total 
     appropriations rise to between $635 billion and $645 billion 
     or even higher, as the numbers indicate, the ripple effect 
     will pare surplus estimates by hundreds of billions of 
     dollars over the next 10 years.

  I cannot overemphasize the importance of this. We have the rosy 
scenario of a multitrillion dollar surplus in the years ahead, and if 
we keep spending this kind of money, everybody knows that the surplus 
will disappear. There is an open and honest debate as to whether we 
should have tax cuts or whether we should save Social Security, 
Medicare, or pay down the debt. We are not going to be able to do any 
of it if we are spending this kind of money. I was told by a Member not 
long ago that if we agree to what is presently the overspending in this 
budget, it could mean as much as $430 billion out of the surplus in the 
next few years.

       Both an $18.9 billion natural-resources bill and a $23.6 
     billion measure that funds energy and water programs are 
     expected to be sent to the White House, and the 
     transportation bill soon could follow. The Republican 
     leadership believes it has reached a compromise to free up 
     the measure funding the Treasury and the operations of the 
     White House and Capitol.
       That still leaves the heart of the domestic budget--massive 
     bills funding education, health, housing and environmental 
     programs. Negotiations on those bills are hovering near or 
     even above the president's spending requests.
       The natural-resources bill agreed to last week illustrates 
     the steady cost escalation: The $18.9 billion price tag is 
     about $4 billion over the bill passed by the House in June.
       In a landmark commitment to conservation, the legislation 
     would devote as much as $12 billion during the next six 
     years, mainly to buy lands and wildlife habitat threatened by 
     development. As the annual commitment grows from $1.6 billion 
     to $2.4 billion in 2006, more and more dollars would go for 
     sorely needed maintenance work in the nation's parks.
  Regarding the national parks, that is something with which I don't 
disagree.
  I have suggested from time to time when my colleagues say there is 
nothing we can do because the President has the leverage over us in 
order to shut down the Government for which we would get the blame, if 
just once, with one appropriations bill, just one, we could send to the 
President a bill that doesn't have a single earmark, have a single 
legislative rider on it, then we would go into negotiations of the 
issue with the President with clean hands. When we add billions in pork 
barrel spending on our appropriations bills and then go into 
negotiations with the President, there is no difference except in 
priorities. It is wrong.
  I have been spending a lot of time campaigning around the country for 
candidates for the House and for the Senate, and for our candidate for 
President, my party's candidate for President and Vice President of the 
United States. I can tell my colleagues, clearly the American people 
have it figured out. They don't like it. They want this practice to 
stop. They want us to fulfill a promise we made in 1994 when we asked 
them and they gave us the majorities in both Houses of Congress.
  Mr. President, this appropriations pork barreling has got to stop. I 
intend to come to the floor with every bill, and if it keeps on, I will 
then take additional measures. We all know what is coming up: The train 
wreck. If it is as much as $45 billion more then our original $600 
billion spending cap, I am not sure how such action is justified.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________