Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
Floor Speech
OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 -- (Senate - March 02, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two amendments that I have filed at the desk to H.R. 1105 be called up and made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. INOUYE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President. If I might speak to one or both of these amendments, one in particular right now that I would like to reference, let me start by saying that H.R. 1105, which is under consideration now by the Senate, is yet another voluminous document, not unlike the stimulus bill we considered a couple of weeks ago. This one actually is 1,122 pages long and represents over $400 billion of spending by our Government. The fact that it is this long and represents several hundred million dollars per page here of spending would suggest that it ought to be legislation that is given a lot of consideration in the Senate, on which many amendments can be offered and different points of view expressed. It would appear that process is going to be short-circuited on this bill and that we are not going to have the opportunity to offer amendments to it.
With regard to the general bill itself, I would simply point out what a number of my colleagues already have; that is, this appropriations bill, although having passed a trillion-dollar stimulus bill a couple of weeks ago, still represents over an 8-percent increase over the previous year's level.
So 2009, fiscal year 2009, which we are currently in, this is work that did not get completed last year by September 30, which is the end of the fiscal year. So we passed a continuing resolution that expires on March 6; therefore, the reason we have to be before the Senate trying to pass nine appropriations bills that were not completed in the form of this 1,122-page Omnibus appropriations bill. But an 8.3-percent increase over the same nine appropriations bills that were passed last fiscal year, after having already passed over $1 trillion in the stimulus bill, much of which will be directed to the agencies that will receive the plussed-up funding under this bill. But over 8 percent is more than twice the rate of inflation. So having passed a trillion-dollar stimulus bill, we are now coming on the heels of that and taking up a piece of legislation that is going to increase Federal spending by over 8 percent over last year's spending level.
That would suggest that this is something we ought to take a little time with because many of the agencies that are funded under this appropriations bill already received huge infusions of new funding in the stimulus bill. The Labor, Health, and Human Services-Education bill, along with the stimulus bill, and the funding that is included in this bill, will receive a 99-percent increase in funding over last year. There is another appropriations account that will get a 150-percent increase over last year's appropriated level. These are gargantuan increases in funding.
It would seem to me that we ought to at least be able to bring this appropriations bill in at last year's level. There is going to be an amendment, perhaps one already offered by Senator McCain, to extend the continuing resolution which would save taxpayers over $32 billion because that would represent the 8.3-percent increase that is included in this bill on top of all the additional funding that many of these agencies are going to receive as a result of the stimulus bill.
I regret the fact that the majority is not going to allow us to offer amendments to this bill. It would appear they want to move this quickly. I can see the rationale for that, when you are spending this amount of money in this short of a time period. The more the American people have an opportunity to see what is in it, the more concerned and the more resistance would build and you would see a tremendous at-the-grassroots level movement to try and stop this kind of spending spree we have seen in Washington. I would hope the process will be opened whereby Members on both sides can offer amendments to this bill that can be considered and perhaps voted on and maybe even bring some fiscal sanity to it by getting us back into a form that actually would save the American taxpayers a significant amount of money, after we have just asked the American taxpayers and our children and grandchildren to fund a stimulus bill to the tune of over $1 trillion with interest and much more than that, over $3 trillion, if much of the spending in that bill is continued and not terminated in the 2-year period for which it was intended.
I wanted to speak to an amendment that I have filed at the desk and asked to have made pending, which was objected to by the majority--again, an indication of how amendments are going to go on this piece of legislation. I offer this amendment because last week 87 Members of the Senate voted to uphold our first amendment rights by supporting a statutory prohibition of the so-called fairness doctrine. This amendment was accepted as part of the DC voting rights bill, which is currently awaiting action by the House of Representatives.
My concern is that once the House considers this bill, whenever it may be that the Senate and House versions get conferenced together, that provision will no longer be part of the final DC voting rights bill. I am hopeful the DeMint amendment is retained in the final version of the DC Voting Rights Act, but I am fearful it will be stripped out behind closed doors.
I filed an amendment at the desk to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would prohibit the FCC from using any funds to reinstate the fairness doctrine during the remainder of fiscal year 2009. If this amendment is accepted to the omnibus bill, the 87 Senators who last week supported this prohibition will have assurances that the fairness doctrine will not be reinstated for the remainder of this year, regardless of whether the DeMint amendment remains part of the DC voting rights legislation.
By way of background, many of my colleagues heard this discussion last week, but the so-called fairness doctrine has a long and infamous history. The FCC promulgated the fairness doctrine in 1949 to ensure that contrasting viewpoints would be presented on radio and television. In 1985, the FCC began repealing the doctrine after concluding that it actually had the opposite effect. They concluded then what we all know today: that the fairness doctrine resulted in broadcasters limiting coverage of controversial issues of public importance. Recently, many on the left have advocated reinstating the doctrine, arguing that broadcasters, including talk radio, should present both sides of any issue because they use the public airwaves. However, recent calls to reinstate the fairness doctrine fail to take into account several considerations.
The first is, in reality the fairness doctrine resulted in less, not more, broadcasting of issues of importance to the public. Because airing controversial issues subjected broadcasters to regulatory burdens and potentially severe liabilities, they simply made the rational choice not to air any such content at all.
Second, the number of radio and TV stations and the development of newer broadcast media such as cable and satellite TV and satellite radio have grown dramatically in the past 50 years. In 1949, there were 51 television and about 2,500 radio stations. In 1985, there were 1,200 television and 9,800 radio stations. Today there are nearly 1,800 television and nearly 14,000 radio stations. There is simply no scarcity to justify content regulation like the fairness doctrine.
The third observation is that the development of new media, social networking, and access to the Internet has changed media forever. Supporters of government-mandated balance either ignore the multiple new sources of media or reveal their true intention, which is to regulate content of all forms of communication and ultimately stifle certain viewpoints on certain media such as talk radio.
The fourth observation I would make is this: Broadcast content is driven by consumer demand. Consumers of media show whether they are being served well by broadcasters when they choose either to tune in or turn off the programming that is being offered. The fairness doctrine runs counter to individual choice and freedom to choose what we listen to or see on the air or read on the Internet. The fairness doctrine should not be reinstated.
Last week, the Senate acted in a strong bipartisan manner in opposition to the fairness doctrine. What I am asking the Senate to do is to consider one additional measure to ensure that our first amendment rights are protected and that consumers have the freedom to choose what they see and hear over our airwaves. This amendment ensures that the FCC does not use any resources to reinstate the fairness doctrine through the end of the fiscal year until a more permanent solution can be reached through a statutory prohibition.
It is a very straightforward amendment and one that follows along the lines of the debate held last week. I wish I was confident that the prohibition on reinstatement of the fairness doctrine that was included last week in the DC voting rights bill would be retained in the conference with the House. I have reason to believe that will be stripped out, and this is one additional way in which this body can weigh in and ensure that the fairness doctrine is not reinstated, not put back into effect, and that American consumers have the freedom to choose what they want to see and what they want to hear over our airwaves.
I hope at some point I will be able to get it pending, to perhaps have a vote on it. It would be unfortunate on a bill of this consequence and magnitude, when, again, we are talking about 1,122 pages of this legislation, all of which is spending another $400-some billion--$410 billion or thereabouts in additional spending on top of the $1 trillion stimulus passed a couple weeks ago--that we would have an opportunity at least to offer amendments, to debate amendments, to get amendments voted on, and this is one that I would like to have a vote on. It would certainly be my sincere hope that the majority at some point would open the door to those of us on both sides who would like to have amendments voted on which, frankly, could improve the bill. There will be others that will be offered and, hopefully, considered which will get at the overall size and cost of the bill which, as an 8.3-percent increase over last year's appropriated level, last year's spending level, a $32 billion increase over last year's level, is an enormous amount of money in light of all the spending that is going on around here.
I might mention as well, that is the largest 1-year hike in annual appropriated spending since the Carter administration. What we are talking about is 8 percent, over 8 percent, more than twice the rate of inflation, but also the largest 1-year hike in annual appropriated spending since the Carter administration. That is, again, on the heels of $1 trillion spent a couple of weeks earlier, much of which was directed at these very same agencies of Government that will receive funding under this 1,122-page bill.
We need to open this process. We need to be able to offer amendments. We need to get amendments voted on. It would certainly be my hope that would be the case.
I have one other amendment which I will speak to perhaps tomorrow which would move some money from one account to another to fund something that was a very important priority the Congress established last year during the PEPFAR debate. I offered, along with Senators Dorgan and Kyl, Senator Clinton and a number of others, an amendment that carved a couple billion out of that $50 billion authorization for needs on Native American reservations; specifically directed to law enforcement, which is a security issue; to health care, which is something that is desperately lacking on many reservations; and at water development--all critical needs and all important priorities and things we ought to be concerned with.
I would move money from another account in this bill to actually provide funding for the authorization that Congress created as part of the PEPFAR bill a year ago. This ought to be a priority for the Congress. We are talking about spending this amount of money and funding all these various accounts and agencies. We certainly ought to find room to fund some of the priorities that were created as a result of the PEPFAR legislation.
I will be offering that amendment as well and will also be requesting that it be made pending and that we have an opportunity to vote on it. It would seem to me that many of the other amendments that Members on our side would like to offer, as well as Members on the other side would like to offer, ought to be able to be put before the Senate and voted upon in an attempt to try to make this bill stronger and better. We all have different ideas about how to make this a better bill. I hope the majority will allow us to do that.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I will simply ask, through the Chair, if I might: The leader talked about being able to offer amendments. I have filed a couple amendments. Is there some point at which--you mentioned the one amendment you have an agreement on now that will be voted on tomorrow--where other amendments will be able to be made pending and voted on, that Members will be able to get their amendments actually--
Mr. REID. The answer, through the Chair to my friend from South Dakota, is, yes, we are going to try to get to as many amendments as we can. With a bill as complex as this, we cannot stack up endless amendments, so we are going to have to work out a process where if we stack amendments, they will have to be few in number. And ``few'' is in the eye of the beholder. But the answer to the Senator's question: There is no reason that I know of--I do not know the subject matter of the Senator's amendment or amendments--but I have no reason to believe that we should not be able to get to his amendment.
Mr. THUNE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. REID. The point I am trying to make is, we are not trying to avoid voting on tough amendments. I have outlined to you some pretty difficult amendments. Dr. Coburn did not think up his amendments riding the subway over from his office in one of the office buildings. A lot of thought has gone into his amendments, and they are very difficult amendments. I would like to avoid them, but I do not see any reason how I can do that. So in answer: I repeat, there will be time for amendments. It is just a question of when there will be enough time. Certainly tomorrow. And I hope we can work through these on Wednesday and have a better feel where we need to go.
Mr. THUNE. Through the Chair, I thank the leader for his answer. And I will be available. Mine are filed, and I would love to get them actually up.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source