Hearings of the House Committee on Rules
on Points of Order That Guarantee Spending Levels
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing today on the effects of legislated points of order which guarantee minimum levels of spending. My Committee has been deeply involved in this issue, especially last year in the TEA-21 highway authorization bill, so I appreciate the opportunity to offer the Appropriations Committee's views.
Mr. Chairman, as an institutional tool, the Rules of the House which relate to floor consideration exist to provide structure to floor debate. The application of these rules should consider policy, macroeconomic, and fiscal decisions which are in effect at the time a particular bill is being debated. The rules provide structure to ensure fairness and organization to what would otherwise be a chaotic process in this large body. But of equal importance is the fact that they provide flexibility for Congress to allow or block amendments based upon the unique legislative conditions at the time the bill is to be considered. This flexibility allows Congress to respond quickly to changing situations in order to keep the legislative calendar moving forward.
This flexibility is bargained away in points of order such as the one in TEA-21, which not only provided higher levels of spending for highway and transit systems, but used the rules of the House to enforce that decision – over each of the next five years -- by making any change to the funding levels subject to a point of order in the House. The fact that this was a "surprise" provision dropped into a 500-page bill in the last minutes of the conference should make us wonder whether it received the scrutiny we should expect from policy changes, and whether many Members even knew it existed when they voted on the huge package.
This point of order makes it virtually impossible for Congress to amend the spending levels in TEA-21. Not only does it take away the rights of other committees, it takes away the right of ordinary Members to offer amendments to these funding levels. You might say that Congress decided on these funding levels in 1998 after delicate negotiations, and should not reopen the issue. But the decision to reopen the issue should be left open to subsequent Congresses to decide, and not bargained away by conference committees which quite logically would like to see the House Rules used as police at the door, to turn away anyone who wants to go inside their bill and make changes to it. But I ask you, why should a new Member in the year 2001 not have the right under the rules to offer an amendment to legislation which passed before he or she entered Congress? Why should the leadership of the House, considering changing budget needs, not have the right under the rules to offer amendments to that legislation?
The rules should structure amendments as a bill is being considered on the floor. If a majority of the House is unhappy with the rule, they can vote it down. But the rules should not be amended in authorizing legislation to bar any of us from seeking to improve existing legislation through the amending process. We all know that big, multiyear authorization bills can be produced in big conference reports which are voted on with little scrutiny by the junior House member. Yet the rules exist not to protect or enforce the Members of conference committees – or even the leadership. They exist to protect the rights and prerogatives of every Member of the House, to sit on Committees, to offer amendments, et cetera. By changing the House rules through legislation, this right is taken away. It signifies the triumph of powerful Committee Members at the expense of all of us, and therefore represents the worst kind of institutional policy.
As a matter of course, this Committee should move against any committee of the House that seeks to write – or rewrite – the rules of the House. It is sole responsibility and jurisdiction of this Committee to write the Rules of the House, none other. These rules should be adopted by the House at the outset of each Congress and they should not legislated or enacted into permanent law during a session of Congress.
Over the past several years, limited federal spending and a robust economy have enabled this Congress to achieve the first balanced budget in a generation. Part of that success has been the spending caps which have imposed fiscal discipline upon the Congress and the President. These spending caps have forced all of us to make difficult choices and to prioritize federal spending. Now, however, that task has been further complicated as firewalls secured by points of order are in place for the highway and transit programs and are proposed for aviation programs too. These firewalls and points of order guarantee a minimum level of spending and take a sizable amount of spending off the top – thus requiring further reductions in other areas of federal spending and limiting the Congress' ability to set priorities. Appropriations for these programs are essentially mandatory programs within the discretionary caps. Surely, transportation – the building of roads, transit systems and airports, and the maintenance and acquisition of the nation's air traffic control system – are worthy and justified federal expenditures, but transportation is no more worthy than education, national defense, housing and health research, and should compete for resources in the annual budget process. Yet transportation programs, through firewalls and points of order, are elevated and provided a protected status in the budget process.
And finally Mr. Chairman, I would point out that Republicans have always stood for limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government. Why are we Republicans even debating the value of points of order which only serve to lock in more federal funding? These so-called "guaranteed spending" points of order are just that – they guarantee spending. Think about that – they guarantee spending, at increased levels, over many years of an authorization bill. Is that what Republicans want to be known for? I think not.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I will be glad to answer any questions you or the other Members may have.
