[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, next week the House will most likely take up 
the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This is not an 
argument for or against the balanced budget amendment. I have supported 
versions of it in the past. It is an argument, though, an appeal that 
this House consider the role of investment in many of the economic 
decisions that it must make in the upcoming months, investment 
particularly in our public infrastructure. Because many have said that 
they feel that there needs to be a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution because the Federal Government ought to have to balance 
its budget like families do. That is a fair analogy. Families do 
balance their budgets. But we also know that families borrow because 
there are certain things that they know they need and they consider 
capital investment.
  We all, most of us at least, borrow to buy or build a home. Very few 
of us can afford to lay out in one year what it costs for this kind of 
investment. So we figure into our monthly budgets at home how much we 
have to take out in debt service, in that mortgage payment. That is 
reflected in our family budget.
  We usually borrow for a car. Very few of us, particularly with 
today's prices, can afford a car, to pay for it cash on the barrel 
head.
  We borrow for probably the most important investment that a family 
will make, and that is the family's children's education. We know that 
that is the ticket to success for families in this country. And so 
American families borrow for that. So there is borrowing that occurs 
for the mortgage, for the car, for the college education. We know that 
we get into trouble if we borrow for consumption, to borrow to go to 
the grocery store, borrow to buy the toys, borrow to go to a game, for 
instance, borrow for leisure or recreation. So what families do is they 
put together their family budget with their basic expenses and then 
they put together as well in that budget the debt service to, against 
the debt service to cover the cost that they have to borrow for long-
term capital expenditures.
  I wish the Federal budget did that. It does not. What the Federal 
budget does instead is to not recognize that one dollar is not the same 
as another dollar. The Federal budget does not make a difference 
between the dollars spent for infrastructure for a road or bridge and 
the dollars spent in immediate consumption. And so what I have urged, 
and many others, last year, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] and I cosponsored a bill that would permit capital budgeting 
for physical infrastructure for the Federal Government.
  My hope is that in the discussion of the balanced budget amendment 
and in the discussion of the various economic moves, economic policies 
that this country will adopt, in the discussion of budget policy, that 
we recognize this key role in investment. The fact of the matter is 
that this country has seen a decline in public infrastructure 
investment and correspondingly has seen a decline or a flat line at 
least in productivity increases.
  A chart I saw yesterday was quite illustrative. Of the seven major 
industrial nations in this world, the United States trailed in 
productivity gains over the past decade and yet also trailed in 
investment in our public infrastructure as a percentage of gross 
domestic product.
  In other words, the more a country has put into their public 
infrastructure, their roads, their bridges and so on, the more they 
gained in productivity increase, almost direct correlation.
  It makes sense, but it also is being borne out now by statistics. And 
so that this is a necessary factor.
  Some argue you do not need a capital budget for the Federal 
Government because physical construction, roads and bridges and so on, 
is such a small part of the budget. That is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 
It is that because we have made it that way. And one reason is because 
our accounting system does not reward investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman agree, for those of 
us who have served in State legislatures, who have served on county 
councils, who have dealt with budgets at the local level and the State 
level, that members of county councils, boards of supervisors, State 
legislators are used to dealing with a capital budget and an operating 
budget.
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for making the point. He is 
absolutely correct. In my understanding, every State has a form of 
capital budget, every county, every State and local government, of 
course, as well as every business.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman further agree, for the 
enlightenment of those who may be listening in or observing our 
proceedings and trying to very sincerely take into account the 
implications of the balanced budget, that in their own local districts, 
in their own local areas, that over the years, whether through revenue-
sharing programs or grant programs, demonstration programs.
  Mr. WISE. I think I agree, but our time is up.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________