[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9279-9280]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when the Senate debated this bill a few 
weeks ago, I asked my colleagues a simple question. What is the purpose 
of an emergency appropriations bill? The purpose, it seems to me, is to 
fund unexpected priorities--emergencies that simply cannot wait for the 
normal budget process. The conference report largely fulfills that 
purpose. It covers unexpected costs associated with the war on terror, 
tsunami relief, and national security priorities, including funding for 
our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly support funding 
in these areas.
  But that is not all it does, Mr. President. This conference report 
has also served as a magnet for non-emergency spending and includes a 
host of earmarks. Let me be clear: I support this conference report 
because of the critical resources it provides for our troops and for 
our other emergency priorities, including tsunami relief. But at the 
same time I am deeply disturbed that the Congress isn't exhibiting 
restraint. Knowing that this conference report was a ``must pass'' 
piece of legislation, we have once again loaded it with unrelated 
provisions. Let me remind my colleagues that we are experiencing 
enormous budget deficits. At some point, we will have to embrace some 
degree of fiscal responsibility.
  We should start with this emergency supplemental. The scope of 
emergency appropriations has traditionally been limited, and for good 
reason. We already have a proper budget and appropriations process. We 
don't need another. The proper process is supposed to allow Congress to 
meet Federal responsibilities while closely monitoring the effect our 
spending has on the budget deficit and the national debt. But 
appropriations that are designated as ``emergency'' do not count 
against the discretionary budget ceilings that we ourselves set. They 
add to costs incurred by the government and cause the current budget 
deficit to grow. With enactment of this measure, supplemental military 
spending alone since September 11, 2001, will top $200 billion. I am 
not questioning funding the war on terror; but I am questioning the 
unnecessary add-ons.
  With respect to the substance of this conference report, I am pleased 
that it will provide the necessary resources to our troops as well as 
additional funds for our homeland security needs. It increases veterans 
benefit levels and expands eligibility, and provides higher benefits to 
family members of those killed in military service. This foreign 
affairs provisions of the conference report are remarkably, and 
commendably, free of pork. As one who supports ensuring that every 
taxpayer dollar counts, I commend my colleagues for their restraint in 
this area while meeting the President's request for funding for the 
victims of the South East Asian tsunami.
  Unfortunately, this conference report also includes some unnecessary 
provisions, examples of which I will give in just a moment. I fully 
recognize that it isn't only the fault of the appropriators that the 
Congress has been forced into this new pattern of adopting emergency 
appropriations measures. Overly partisan politics has largely prevented 
us from following the regular legislative order, and that fact must 
change.
  I would ask my colleagues whether they believe the following 
examples--just a select few from this conference report--constitute 
``emergency spending'': $2,000,000 to upgrade the chemistry 
laboratories at Drew University in New Jersey. According to its 
website, Drew University has a total enrollment of 2,600 students, 
operates with a $200,000,000 endowment, and draws more National Merit 
Scholars than many other top liberal arts colleges in the nation. A 
prestigious institution indeed, but I see no way in which funding for 
its chemistry labs is a critical national spending emergency; $500,000 
for the Oral History of

[[Page 9280]]

the Negotiated Settlement project at the University of Nevada-Reno; 
$2,000,000 to continue funding for the Southeast Regional Cooling, 
Heating and Power and Biofuel Application Center in Mississippi; 
$4,000,000 to payoff debt at the Fire Sciences Academy in Elko, Nevada; 
and $2,000,000 for the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences in 
Michigan.
  Additionally, notwithstanding Senate rules against legislating on an 
appropriations bill, the legislation before us today contains plenty of 
policy-related, non-appropriations language. For example: The 
conference report directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow oil 
and gas exploration underneath the Gulf Island National Seashore, a 
protected National Park in Mississippi. This changes current Federal 
policy disallowing such exploration; a line-item in the conference 
resolution blocks the EPA from revising how it collects fees for the 
registration of pesticides. For several years, similar language has 
been routinely added to VA-HUD/EPA appropriations legislation. Now this 
provision has found a new home in the emergency spending bill; it 
authorizes the Bureau or Reclamation to study the viability of 
establishing a sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Rio 
Grande River; it directs the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the 
Indiana Harbor and Canal disposal project; and California lawmakers 
have seen to it that this bill provides funds for San Gabriel Basin 
restoration.
  Mr. President, we simply must start making some very tough decisions 
around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. Let's 
be clear about what we are doing. The Government is running a deficit 
because it is spending more than it takes in. So each one of the 
earmarks in this bill, we are borrowing money--and saddling future 
generations of Americans with unnecessary debt. If we had no choice but 
to act in this way, this might be, a understandable, temporary method 
of budgeting. But the fact is that we do have a choice.
  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 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 watch-dog agency and the Nation's chief economist 
agree--we are in real trouble.
  Dire predictions, and what are we doing about it? Are we restraining 
our spending? No, of course not. We are at it again, finding new and 
ever more creative ways to funnel money to the special interests. We 
have to face the facts. Congress cannot continue to spend taxpayer 
dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to 
wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people 
deserve better.

                          ____________________