Speeches
|
|
Print this page |
Criticizes Year-End Spending Blitz
October 26, 2000
Washington, DC -- U.S. Senator John McCain today criticized members of Congress forpacking tens of billions of dollars in pork barrel spending and special interest projects in a "year-end spending blitz" in the following statement delivered on the Senate floor:
"Mr. President, with the doors of the 106th Congress about to close, I wanted to read some headlines from newspapers across the United States commenting on our work:
"Congress' Pork Roast"
The News and Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)
"Imaginary Numbers Game: Congress Pork-Barrel Is Eroding The Surplus"
The Record (Bergen County, New Jersey)
"Congress Rolls Out The Pork Barrel Election, Surplus Bring Free Spending"
The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville)
"Costly Delay: Politics Prompts Capitol Hill Feeding Frenzy"
Telegram & Gazette (Worcester, Massachusetts)
"Bellying Up To A Pork Barrel"
The Christian Science Monitor
"Dollars Flying In Congress' Flurry Of Final Spending"
USA Today
"Congress Has Last-Minute Pork Feast"
Chattanooga Times
"Spending Bill Fat With Pork: Both Parties Engaged In Budget-Busting Spree"
The Houston Chronicle
"Mr. President, I'm saddened by these headlines because of the damage such words do the reputation of our governmental institutions. But I'm also angered by them. Why? Because we are deliberately, of our own free will, spending the surplus and jeopardizing future prosperity.
"With this year-end spending blitz, Congress and the president have blown away the last remaining vestiges of fiscal discipline that, for a brief, very brief moment in time, had put the brakes on the spending frenzies that all too often engulfed our Capitol and contributed to our huge national debt, which stands today at $5.7 trillion.
"Tens of billions in pork barrel and special interest spending have been packed into these
appropriations bills, as well as numerous provisions pushed by Capitol Hill lobbyists that the American public will not know about until after these bills become law. In fact, Dan Morgan of the Washington Post aptly characterized this well-coordinated, last minute lobbying offensive as 'high noon at Gucci Gulch.' I regard such a spectacle as demeaning to our government.
"Predictably, Mr. President, all of this maneuvering and horse trading has been conducted behind closed doors, away from the public eye, bypassing a process whereby all of my elected colleagues could evaluate the merit of each budget item."The big winner in this budget ritual is not the American people, but bigger government and bigger bank accounts for special interests.
"As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, 'Facts are stubborn things.' And the facts swirling around the fiscal year 2001 budget are disheartening to anyone who believes in smaller government, fiscal restraint, and in the responsibility of elected officials to do everything possible to ensure prosperity for our children and grandchildren.
"A few months ago, Republicans outlined our spending plans calling for about $600 billion in so-called discretionary spending-that is, spending on programs other than Social Security, Medicare, and interest on our $5.7 trillion debt. The President's budget requested about $623 billion in discretionary spending.
"But the unsavory mix of members adding billions upon billions more in special interest
spending-in what the Associated Press described as a 'a bipartisan spending bazaar'-- combined with a president determined to squeeze as many taxpayer dollars as possible as the price for letting everyone go home led to a 'compromise' only Washington could love. In the end, bidding up the final spending tally in the range of $640 to $650 billion, give or take a few billion.
"But this explosion of spending doesn't seem to bother the White House. Just last week I was amused to read the words of the President's chief of staff who said in a speech that at the end of this budget process 'we will have a budget that's fiscally responsible.'
"It's a mind-boggling comment, Mr. President, at odds with the facts.
"For the fiscal year 2001, we have already spent at least $30 billion past the discretionary spending limits set by the budget resolution for this year. When all is said and done and all the bills have been properly reviewed, we could have very well spent up to $50 billion more than the budget resolution cap for this year. What is going on here?
"Mr. President, the Congress has not always acted this way. As a matter of fact, in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, when we still had deficits, the Congress spent less money than the actual budget caps allowed under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997, which set spending limits for fiscal years 1997 through 2002.
"But since the era of surpluses began in 1999, the Congress and the president have taken this to mean they now have a license to spend freely and irresponsibly without any adherence to limits. In fact, a recent CATO Institute study of congressional budget habits found that from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2000 domestic spending grew by more than 14 percent in real terms.
"Now, for the fiscal year 2001, the spending has erupted to at least $33 billion above the spending cap set by the budget resolution, consuming nearly one-third of fiscal year 2001's projected on-budget surplus, and we still have several appropriations bills yet to be signed by the president. Once the dust settles, it is possible that for fiscal year 2001, total discretionary spending could very well approach $100 billion over the budget caps set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
"Mr. President, our continuing fiscal irresponsibility is threatening to consume a substantial portion of the projected on-budget surpluses before they are actually realized. Do any of my colleagues genuinely believe we'll actually spend less next year?
"According to a Congressional Budget Office report released this month, even if we were to save all of today's projected surpluses, we still face the possibility of an uncertain long-term fiscal future as the aging of our population and, thanks to the wonders of modem medicine, the lengthening of our life spans lead to surging entitlement costs.
"The CBO projects that the three main entitlement programs-Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid-will rise from roughly 7.5 percent of GDP today to 17 percent by the year 2040 absent structural reforms. One line in particular in the report should grab the attention of my colleagues. It reads: 'Projections of future economic growth and fiscal imbalances are quite sensitive to assumptions about what policy makers will do with the budget surpluses that are projected to arise over the next decade.'
"Remember, today's official budget surplus projections assume discretionary spending will grow for the next ten years at the rate of inflation, which makes the conclusion of a recent Concord Coalition report even more alarming. The report warns 'that if discretionary spending continues to grow at the same rate it has in recent years, two-thirds of the projected 10-year non-Social Security surplus would disappear.' This would translate into a reduction of the non-Social Security surplus by $1.4 trillion.
"While the White House was the chief engineer pushing the spending bonanza, my party, yet again, let pass a golden opportunity to showcase our fiscal discipline and resolute devotion to debt reduction. We could have supported spending bills with no hard-earned taxpayers' spent at the behest of individual lawmakers without authorization and adequate congressional review. But we didn't.
"Mr. President, as we arrive at the close of this Congress, we must look to the next Congress and indeed to the next President to address many of the pressing problems that plague our nation. The real question that faces us is whether we will end the Washington partisan gridlock and achieve results for the American people on a range of critical issues such as prescription drugs, HMO reform, social security reform and military reform.
"I strongly submit that to break the gridlock that cripples Washington, we must break the
stranglehold of the special interests on our political process.
"For example, we have been trying for nearly two years to get a decent Health Care Bill of
Rights passed into law. The purpose of this legislation is to provide every American who is caught in a squeeze play between employers, HMOs and their doctor with some basic rights designed to ensure they get the quality health care they have paid for, and deserve. Yet, the trial lawyers and the health care industry lobby have succeeded in derailing any hope of reaching a meaningful compromise. And so Americans will go on suffering at the hands of a health care bureaucracy who's decisions are often guided more by the bottom line, than the best interests of the patient.
"We must have courage to say "no" to the special interests who pay the soft money fee to gain access to the high political councils while the average taxpayer is left out in the cold.
"But it won't be easy breaking our addiction to soft money.
"Roll Call newspaper reports that in a recent survey of 300 senior corporate executives conducted by the Tarrance Group, 'Nearly three-quarters said pressure is placed on business leaders to make large political donations, and half of the executives said their colleagues 'fear adverse consequences for themselves or their industry if they turn down requests' from contributions.' And 79 percent say the campaign finance system is 'broken and should be reformed.'
"Such pressure for campaign contributions seems to be paying dividends. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 1992, soft money accounted for 18 percent of the political parties' overall fundraising. Today, that figure has more than doubled to '40 percent of everything the parties raise.'
"Mr. President, we're going in the wrong direction and it's undermining our democracy.
"That is why I pledge to bring campaign finance reform to the Senate floor when the Senate convenes next year. Let me be clear. No matter which party prevails in November, our democracy will be the loser unless we clean up our political process. Without real change in how we conduct our politics, cynicism will prevail and continue to eat away at our public square-fueling even lower voter turn out and turning more and more Americans away from public service.
"Mr. President, this is too high a price to pay. That is why I am committed to clean up the budget process and the way we fund campaigns. Please join me in this crusade."
###
|