Will spending $700 million to move a perfectly-functioning rail line a couple of miles for the benefit of private casino developers help win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about $500 million to repair a shipyard and $2.3 billion for avian flu preparedness, on top of the $3.8 billion already appropriated? Congress and the White House think so. These expenditures are part of the $109 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill recently passed by the U.S. Senate.

Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy

President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the supplemental bill, and for the future of America we should hope he makes good on that threat. But considering that the bill adds $17 billion to his already excessive war and hurricane relief spending package, don't rush to buy stock in veto pen inkwell-makers. (Bush also vowed to veto the 2004 highway bill, which he subsequently signed.)

Politicians are crying crocodile tears about deficit spending, but their actions demonstrate that they remain addicted to big government. The same Republican Congress that has expanded federal spending by 45 percent since Fiscal Year 2001, more than doubled education spending, and enacted the insanely expensive agriculture, highway, energy and prescription drug bills, continues to binge on our tax dollars. But instead of doing it through the regular appropriations process, the Republicans are hiding behind yet another "emergency" supplemental bill.

Under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, emergency bills are given special exceptions from budgetary rules designed to restrain spending. For instance, these requests lack the usual level of detail used to justify the federal government's annual budget request, making accountability more difficult. Also, supplemental funding is left out of the deficit projections that accompany the annual budget.

Although there are no limitations on the amount or type of spending that can be designated an emergency requirement, there has historically been an understanding that emergencies are: 1) sudden, urgent, unforeseen, and temporary; and 2) pose a threat to life, property, or national security.

Not anymore. For years now, Congress has abused its power in funding emergency spending bills. But things have gotten much worse since Republicans won control at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Except for a sharp spike in 1991 to fund the first Gulf War, supplemental appropriations remained at roughly 1 percent of new discretionary spending throughout most of the 1990s. After 1998, supplemental appropriations began to rise as the federal budget began running surpluses. But in those days, the United States still enjoyed the benefits of a divided government. Now, one-party rule renders the nation helpless before Washington's insatiable hunger.

After 2002, and after Republicans conveniently let expire the few budget rules meant to constrain their behavior, supplemental spending exploded. As a consequence, in FY2005, supplemental appropriations represented 16.7 percent of new discretionary spending and reached an all time high of $160.4 billion (up from $6.4 billion in FY1990, when supplementals accounted for 0.9 percent of new discretionary spending).

Of course, the White House deserves most of the blame. The Bush administration has used supplementals to hide the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years in, the Iraq war can hardly be called an emergency or an unpredictable event. This is especially true since one of the largest expenditures goes to the salaries and benefits of Army National Guard personnel and reservists called to active duty. And yet each year, President George W. Bush presents his budget to Congress leaving out all war costs, knowing that he will be able to secure the funding later through the supplemental process.

Understandably, both the administration and Congress are addicted to the fiction of the "emergency" loophole. These bills have become a magnet for pork and other projects that wouldn't be funded on their own merits. No politician wants to vote against emergency aid money aimed at supporting U.S. troops in Iraq or helping victims of the devastated Gulf region. And because the President--especially President Bush--will usually sign emergency bills without blinking at their cost, many wasteful non-emergency spending items go through at taxpayers' expense.

For instance, the Senate bill contains $1.1 billion for private fisheries on top of tens of billions in disaster-relief funds that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Small Business Administration are already paying to that industry. It also includes $345 million to subsidize "volunteer" work through Americorps and a $594 million add-on for highway projects unrelated to the Gulf Coast (some of them are in Hawaii and California).

The bill also includes $91 million to fund 156 pork projects, most of which are not even to be spent in Iraq or in the Gulf Region. Here are some examples:

• $1,000,000 for the Bring Back Broad Street Initiative, Mobile, AL;
• $1,000,000 for the Mississippi Film Enterprise Zone;
• $500,000 for the Mitchell Memorial Library for the digitization of special collections;
• $2,000,000 for a web portal for the Virginia Community College system;
• $400,000 for the Pappajohn Higher Education Center in Des Moines, Iowa;
• $820,000 for the Central Michigan University Center for Applied Research and Technology;
• $1,100,000 for the University of Arkansas' Research and Technology Park.

Of course, this waste is not specific to this particular bill. Congress just can't help itself. And the White House has failed to lead Congress in the right direction and to put national rather than parochial interests first. Until that changes, Congress and the President will look us in the eyes and claim that $3.9 million for farm and rancher subsidies or $500,000 for the Mississippi Children's Museum definitely qualify as emergency spending.

Véronique de Rugy is a resident fellow at AEI.