Congress Continues to Abuse Emergency Appropriations Process

By Elizabeth Moody

April 24, 2006

Introduction

The concept of emergency spending bills emerged from the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. The act allows for “two new budget control processes: a set of caps on annually appropriated spending, and a “pay-as-you-go” or “PAYGO” process for entitlements and taxes.”[1] These appropriations are meant for situations of sudden or disastrous events that concern national safety or security.

These emergency spending bills have outgrown their initial purpose. Federal spending has surged through these legislative vehicles, notably, growing by $55.2 billion from FY 2004 to FY 2005.[2] “[F]or years now, Congress has abused its power in funding emergency spending bills, and their number and size have drastically increased in the last 20 years,” states Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute.[3]

The current supplemental focuses on aid for hurricane relief and the war on terror. The supplemental (H.R. 4939) key components are as follows[4]:

Title I: Global War on Terror Supplemental Appropriations

Title II: Further Hurricane Disaster Relief and Recovery

Title III: Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance

Title IV: Drought Emergency Assistance

Title V: Port Security Advancements

Title VI: Pandemic Flu

Title VII: General Provisions and Technical Corrections

The FY 2006 supplemental, however, is just another example of out of control spending in Congress.

House Supplemental Plan

The House plan provides $91.94 billion for the supplemental.[5] This is just below the President’s request of $92 billion. While the House appears to have complied with the President’s plan, here is what they actually did:

The House exceeded the President’s request on several programs, including[6]:

• Defense Procurement - $ 1.28 billion above President’s request
• R&D, Test & Evaluation - $220 million above President’s request
• Peacekeeping (contributions to international organizations) - $60 million above President’s request
• Coast Guard - $25 million above President’s request
• Customs and Border Protection - $2 million above President’s request

The House appropriated $66 million for programs outside of the President’s request.[7]

• $10 million for the Democracy Fund
• $36 million for International Broadcasting Activities
• $20 million for the Forest Service (debris clean-up)

Additionally, the Republican Study Committee notes:

• A shift of $750 million in LIHEAP funding (which has been suggested as an inappropriate move of funds that will lead to more spending).
• An allocation of $5 million for outreach in Iran “to expand diplomacy to the country.”[8]

These additional spending appropriations are non-emergency allocations that misconstrue the purpose of the bill.

House conservatives like Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) oppose this supplemental: “The House repeatedly waives the rules to spend money, but they hardly ever waive the rules to save money.”[9]

Senate Supplemental Plan

The Senate’s supplemental total “$14,253,522,000 over the President’s request and $14,526,526,000 more than the House allowance.”[10]

Of these appropriations, the greatest increases in spending over the President’s initial request include:[11]

• $27,126,662 - Title II: Further Hurricane Disaster Relief and Recovery
• $3,944,000 - Title III: Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance
• $2,300,000 - Title VI: Pandemic Flu

According to the Heritage Foundation’s April 17th report, the plan would spend a total $92 billion for emergency needs, with another $14 billion tacked on for non-emergency purposes.[12]

Some of the largest non-emergency appropriations include: “$4 billion for farm bailouts, which comes on top of the $25 billion that will be spend this year on farm subsidies, even as farm income reaches the near-record highs [, and] $700 million to re-route a rail like several miles away, reportedly to help private developers build casinos nearby its present location.”[13]

The supplemental also allocates funds for educational institutions with “$1,500,000 for the Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies [and] $1,100,000 for the University of Arkansas’ Research and Technology Park leading the list education projects.”[14]

Senate Conservatives, whom oppose the supplemental, argue that the unnecessary appropriations only hurt America’s efforts to fight the war on terror and Gulf Coast’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina and Rita.

Senator Tom Coburn on the supplemental: “I hope the Senate uses common sense and puts true emergency needs ahead of the special interest requests of developers.  The citizens of the Gulf Coast and taxpayers across America expect nothing less.”[15]

The scope and purpose of the emergency supplemental is being compromised and further demonstrates a lack of fiscal discipline.

Works Cited

“Appropriations Policy Brief: H.R. 4939 – Global War on Terror and Hurricane Relief Supplemental for FY06." Republican Study Committee. March 15, 2006.

“Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.” Wikipedia.

“Coburn Expresses Concern about Pork Projects in Emergency Supplemental Bill.” Office of Senator Tom Coburn. April 7, 2006.

de Rugy, Veronique. “The ‘Emergency’ Loophole.” American Enterprise Institute, April 19, 2006.

“Hensarling Statement on the Rule for H.R. 4939.” Office of Congressman Jeb Hensarling. March 15, 2006.

Riedl, Brian M. and Acosta Fraser, Alison. "The Senate's Deadly Sin: Larding Up Emergency Appropriations." The Heritage Foundation. April 17, 2006.

“Senate Report 109-230: Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes." Library of Congress.

“The Money Monitor.” Republican Study Committee. March 13-17, 2006.