[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 23 (Monday, February 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1225-H1236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LINE-ITEM VETO ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 55 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2.
{time} 1445
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2), to give the President line-item veto authority over
appropriation Acts and targeted tax benefits in revenue Acts, with Mr.
Hobson (chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Friday, February 3, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] had been disposed of and the bill was open for
amendment at any point.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, February 3, 1995, only
the following further amendments, if offered, will be considered:
An amendment by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] debatable for 1
hour;
An amendment by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]
debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] debatable
for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] debatable for
30 minutes;
An amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Slaughter] debatable for 1 hour; and
An amendment in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] debatable for 1 hour.
No amendment to the specified amendments are in order. Debate on each
amendment will be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent of the amendment.
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request
for a recorded vote on any amendment.
The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not
be less than 15 minutes.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] rise?
amendment offered by mr. orton
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Orton: At the end of section 4,
add the following new paragraph:
(5) The term ``discretionary budget authority'' includes
authority to enter into contracts under which the United
States is obligated to make outlays, the budget authority for
which is not provided in advance by appropriations Acts.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the unanimous consent request,
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] will be recognized for 30 minutes
and a Member opposed will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the gentleman please state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that we understood
the rule the Chair read in its entirety. It was also our understanding,
I believe the gentleman would agree, there would be no secondary
amendments offered on votes that were going to be held and amendments
that were going to be held for rolling; is that a correct assumption?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, no secondary amendments are
in order.
Mr. GOSS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I am a Member who has supported the line-item veto
since before being elected to Congress. This is not a partisan issue,
and the line-item veto did not begin with the Contract With America.
Many Members on both sides of the aisle support the line-item veto and
many new Members have come to the floor of the House today to support
the line-item veto.
I would ask those new Members especially to carefully consider the
amendment which I now offer. It will be very difficult to explain a
``no'' vote against this amendment which does not weaken but
strengthens the President's line-item veto.
The purpose of H.R. 2, the line-item veto, is to single out specific
projects of pork barrel spending which are tacked on to larger
billions. In fact, last Friday Chairman Clinger, in accepting the Obey
amendment said that the purpose of the bill was to ``get at pork
wherever and whenever it may occur.'' My amendment does that in a very
simple and straightforward manner. It states, ``the term discretionary
budget authority includes authority to enter into contracts under which
the United States is obligated to make outlays, the budget authority
for which is not provided in advance by appropriations Acts.''
{time} 1450
The most visible type of pork-barrel spending are the earmarked
projects tucked neatly into large appropriation bills. H.R. 2 will
subject this type of pork to line-item veto.
We are also aware of targeted tax expenditures wherein a limited
group of taxpayers get a special deduction or credit. H.R. 2 will
subject some of this pork to line-item veto.
However, there is a third type of pork which H.R. 2 does not reach
without my amendment. It is direct spending which is not appropriated
in advance but, rather, is obligated under contract authority. The most
common types of contract authority spending are transportation projects
authorized by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee which are
not appropriated but, rather, spent directly from the trust funds.
Most funding under the Federal Aid Highways Program goes out to the
States by formula based upon total highway miles, transportation tax
revenues, et cetera. This spending is included in the annual 602(b)
caps, and the Appropriation Committee limits the total amount which can
be expended under such contract authority.
However, the Transportation Committee also earmarks certain
demonstration projects. Demonstration projects are not subject to
appropriations limitations but are subject to the
[[Page H1226]] spending caps. Therefore, and this is critical, any
dollar spent on a demonstration project is a dollar which cannot be
given to the States under the general formula law. Demonstration
projects are priorities set by Washington, DC, while projects funded
under the general formula are priorities set by State and local
governments.
In a ``Dear Colleague'' letter opposing my amendment, last Friday it
was suggested that contract authority is spent from trust funds and
does not contribute to the deficit. Therefore, it should not be subject
to the line-item veto. I would suggest this is ridiculous.
Should we be any less concerned over wasteful spending from the trust
funds than we are wasteful spending from the general Treasury? Cutting
wasteful spending could result in better spending or reducing taxes.
H.R. 2 was designed for precisely this sort of spending. There were
hundreds of demonstration projects in the 1991 ISTEA bill which totaled
over $6 billion. Here is what President Bush said about it:
The authorization levels in the bill are excessive. H.R.
3566 earmarks $1.2 billion for 27 projects on 20 priority
corridors and $3.8 billion for 460 other highway
demonstration projects which could ultimately cost over $23
billion. Many of them are not the highest State priorities
and would not survive the normal process of selection on
their merits. More than three-quarters of the mass transit
new start projects earmarked by the bill either failed to
meet basic cost-effectiveness criteria or lack sufficient
information for meaningful evaluation.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell], known for his work on the
pork busters coalition, said,
I cannot support this version of reauthorization, because
it contains 455 highway demonstration projects totaling $5
billion. These projects are given contractual authority for
the next six years creating what amounts to a pork
entitlement program. Secretary of Transportation Samuel
Skinner has recommended a veto of the bill because of these
demonstration projects.
The majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], said that
this bill again spends, first, on where it is needed in the parochial
interest, special interests, in the local interest, what they call
pork-barrel spending.
The chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Kasich], filed an amendment to H.R. 2 in the Record which would do
the same thing as my amendment, extend line-item veto to contract
authority. I am not aware whether or not he will offer his amendment. I
hope he will. I would support it.
Of the 1991 ISTEA bill, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] said,
``This bill includes $4.9 billion in demonstration projects that I feel
should not be included in this bill.''
Mr. Chairman, the American people are sick and tired of this place.
They are sick and tired of perks. They are sick and tired of
demonstration projects. They are tired of pork, and we have got to
clean it up.
The other people that are getting the shaft in this bill are the
American taxpayers who are sick and tired of pork.
The gentlemen from Indiana [Mr. Burton] listed project after project
which he suggested were ridiculous saying, ``The fact of the matter is
there are 455 pet projects in this bill. Now, not all of them could be
considered pork-barrel projects, but much of it, much of it is.''
Mr. Chairman I wish to speak just for a moment about a matter of
great concern. It is very sensitive and I raise it for only one
purpose, to demonstrate why this amendment should be adopted.
I want to share with my colleagues a telephone call which I received
from a mayor in my district last Friday. The mayor called to question
my amendment and expressed concern over funding for a highway project
in the city. The mayor states that the staff of the chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], had let it be known that
they are looking at transportation projects in my district, and if I
offered this amendment, there will be retaliation. It was suggested
that we would neither get any further contract authority nor
authorization for appropriations for future funding of projects in my
district.
The only difference between appropriated spending, which H.R. 2
covers, and contract authority, which H.R. 2 does not cover, is the
committee which hands our the pork.
I understand why members of the Committee on Appropriations would
oppose line-item veto, and I understand why members of the Committee on
Transportation would oppose my amendment.
Contract authority for direct spending which can be given to Members
to reward proper voting or taken away to punish Members is exactly the
kind of spending the line-item veto is designed to cover, and I urge
adoption of my amendment.
The Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment should be overwhelmingly
defeated for four reasons. First of all, it is very poorly drafted.
There are unintended consequences which could flow from this if it were
to be adopted. This amendment does not simply reach to projects.
Rather, entire highway programs could be canceled by any President. A
President could decide to wipe out a rural highway program, not a
particular project, but an entire program. He could decide to wipe out
an entire urban funding program, not a specific urban project, but a
whole urban program. So it is poorly drafted and it should be defeated
for that reason alone.
Further, it should be defeated, second, because highway and aviation
programs already have spending controls. They are among the few
programs around this place which are deficit proof. In fact, the
Secretary of the Treasury must certify every year that the money is
going to be there to pay for the programs or the money cannot be spent.
That is the second reason why this should be defeated.
And, third, this amendment should be defeated because it saves no
money. The law clearly says that the money from those trust funds not
spent will remain in the trust funds. So the only thing that can be
done is it can be reallocated by some faceless, nameless bureaucrats or
it can be left in the trust fund to build up a surplus, and then the
American people, who paid their gas tax and paid in their airline
ticket tax, will not get the benefit of those trust funds.
And, fourth, rather than targeting this kind of a spending program
which is a pay-as-you-go program, we should be working to have more
programs like this in the House.
My good friend mentions projects in his own district and a mayor
calling him. Well, I am a little surprised. I am told the gentleman has
five projects which were in ISTEA, and if he is so opposed to projects,
then I would think that he would not want his community to benefit from
these projects. If these projects are terrible pork-barrel projects,
then I think he would step forward and say, ``They should not be in my
district.''
So for all of these reasons, we should overwhelmingly defeat this
amendment.
And, finally, let me point out that this amendment does not touch any
of the projects to which the gentleman referred to. It only will touch
the future, and as I have said before, and I will emphasize again, any
Member of Congress who comes before our committee with a project, a
high-priority project for his State or his district, must have a letter
from the Secretary of Transportation of his State endorsing the
project.
These projects must be worthwhile projects, and if they are not, we
will not permit them to go forward.
So for all of those reasons, for the protection we have provided and
for the overwhelming reason that this amendment goes far beyond
individual projects, for all of those reasons, this amendment should be
overwhelmingly defeated.
{time} 1500
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Shuster] has expired.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to ask the gentleman
a question.
[[Page H1227]] Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
yield, I would be happy to respond.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman tell me from which
funding the Bud Shuster Highway in Pennsylvania, which runs parallel
to----
Mr. SHUSTER. I am delighted; yes, I will be happy to answer.
Mr. ORTON. It is my time--which runs parallel to the Pennsylvania
Turnpike, and runs a four-lane highway through a town of 1,700 people;
is that from contract authority? Was that from the general formula
funding that the State determined? Or where did that funding come from?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for an answer?
Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I presume he is referring to Route 220.
That came from contract authority as a high-priority project. It has
been in operation for 5 years, and in the past the old highway
experienced six fatalities a year, and since that new highway has been
built, there have been zero fatalities.
On top of that, 53 businesses have been located, and 4,000 jobs have
been created. These are the kinds of projects we need in this country;
more of them, not less of them.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has
expired.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this Member, nor other
Members I know supporting this amendment, do not question whether the
projects which are funded are valid projects, good safety projects, or
et cetera. The question is:
This is authority which a chairman, or a ranking member or members of
one committee, can choose where to spend this money in their own
districts or in other districts, and it is not being selected by the
States. It is not subjects to the same criteria----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has
expired.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah for a variety of reasons.
First, the amendment includes contract authority within the
definition of ``discretionary budget authority.'' In a letter to
Members of the House, Mr. Orton has cited only spending from the
aviation and highway trust funds as examples of programs his amendment
would cover. But what other programs might be affected? We really do
not know what the effect of this amendment might be.
Second, it is important to note that rescinding aviation or highway
trust fund dollars does not result in any real savings. Instead, these
funds would simply languish in the trust funds since, by law, these
funds which have been collected from the users of our highway and
aviation systems may not be used for any purpose other than
transportation. In addition, these programs are deficit-proof since
outlays are restricted to the amount of receipts taken in. Those
interested in deficit reduction should look elsewhere in our budget.
Third, Members should be aware that this amendment does not simply
affect highway projects--in fact, entire highway programs where funds
are provided in multi-billion-dollar lump sums and distributed to
States by formula would be subject to rescission. One of the major
purposes in establishing the highway trust fund almost 40 years ago,
was to provided to the States assurances that they could rely with some
certainty on the level of Federal highway funding which would be
received over the years. This is essential for administering an
efficient highway program where each project involves literally years
of study, planning, design, engineering and construction. If States
could never be certain which programs might be rescinded at any given
time in the future--perhaps interstate maintenance or the National
Highway System Program or others--the effect on State programs would be
devastating.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the chairman and ranking
Democrat of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee as well the
chairman of the Rules Committee are all opposed to this amendment. The
rest of the membership should be as well, and I urge a ``no'' vote on
the Orton amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], my
friend, would not want to misstate the facts. The facts are, when he
says that a chairman and a ranking member can do this, that is baloney.
A ranking member and a chairman first must get it through the
subcommittee, must get it through the full committee; our committee, 61
members, the largest committee in the House; and then must come to the
floor, and this Congress must vote in favor of that legislation, or it
will not pass.
So, it is very misleading, and I am sure my good friend does not
intentionally mean to do that, to suggest that two Members can make
this happen.
Mr. ORTON. They, however, cannot vote item by item.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed. Just 4 days ago, the House
Republican leadership effectively killed the Skelton amendment which
would have exempted major national defense programs from the line-item
veto. By opposing the Skelton amendment just last Thursday and opposing
the Orton amendment today, Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of
this House and everyone who follows it is saying this: ``It's OK for a
President to be able to veto strategic missile defense, and the B-2
bomber, and the F-22, the C-17, the V-22 helicopter. It's OK to veto
military pay increases. But it's not OK to be able to veto a bridge, or
a road, or pork-barrel highway projects if you call them demonstration
projects.''
The Republican leadership is saying, ``We won't fight to protect
major defense programs, but we will go the wall to protect pork-barrel
projects and highways if you just call them demonstration programs.''
Mr. Chairman, any Member who voted against the Skelton amendment on
Thursday, an amendment that would have protected national defense,
should think twice before opposing this amendment today.
I say to my colleagues, ``If you believe in a strong national
defense, if you have a military base in your district or defense jobs
in your district, I wish you good luck in trying to explain to your
constituents why you voted today to protect bridges and roads but voted
just last Thursday, 4 days ago, not to protect national defense from
the line-item veto.''
Mr. Chairman, I think most Americans will be shocked to find out that
the Contract of America now says that highway pork is more important
than national defense. Our motto ``Don't Tread on Me'' has taken on a
new meaning. It means now a President can veto defense, but cannot veto
highway pork. For years, for years, my Republican colleagues have
attacked Democratic pork. Now, less than 30 days into this new session,
are we seeing the beginning of new Republican pork? It might have a
different label on it, but it has got the same fat level as the old
pork, and it surely is just as well going to clog the arteries of our
taxpayers' pockets.
When new Republican Members of Congress were elected by saying there
would be no sacred cows in the Federal budget, surely the American
people did not think sacred cows would be replaced by sacred pork. As
one retired Republican Member said not too long ago, to paraphrase,
``Members, you can't hate pork but keep protecting the bacon.''
Vote no on pork. Vote ``yes'' on the Orton amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
minority leader, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment
which would threaten our Nation's vital infrastructure programs. Our
Nation's budget problems are not caused by excessive spending on
highways, transportation, and airports. These programs, as has been
stated, are financed through self-supporting trust funds and, by law,
cannot spend more than they take in. If anything, we should spend more
on our Nation's infrastructure needs, not less.
The American people know the dismal state of our highways, subways,
and bridges. They drive on them every day. Many of our bridges are more
than
[[Page H1228]] 50 years old, and of course some have actually
collapsed while motorists were driving on them.
The greatest expansion on our Nation's road network was begun more
than 40 years ago in one of the greatest demonstrations of Government
working on behalf of the people and promoting the market and private
sector through the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's, and delays
due to our Nation's infrastructure problems cost American businesses
more than $100 billion a year. We could help the working men and women
of this country, and we can help our commerce by spending what is
needed to make sure that our roads, our bridges, our highways, our
transportation systems, our airports, meet the standards that are
necessary to make this economy, a free market economy, grow.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Budget.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, Members, I rise in support of this amendment,
maybe for reasons different than others. I do it for the sake of
consistency, not for the sake of pork versus goodness, or whatever else
may be talked about today. But the reality is the base bill today
transfers incredible power to the President to modify spending
decisions by the Congress, and the President, with the support of one-
third of the Congress, can maintain those decisions. When the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] says that a President might be able to
wipe out a highway program, he is right, but that also applies to a
whole host of other worthwhile expenditures.
Why have one covered and the other exempt? I know of no good reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I am not one----
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. SABO. Let me finish a minute. I am not one who talks about pork.
I think there is good cause at times for demo projects. I do not
condemn them. I have been involved with them. Sometimes they are
contract authority, sometimes they are authorized and appropriated
money. I have got a couple right now that are partially one, partially
the other. The authorized part would be subject to line-item veto; the
contract authority would not. There is absolutely no reason for the
distinction.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield on that point
since he mentioned my name?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman because the gentleman is right in
what he says in terms of the ability of the President with the support
of one-third of the Congress to wipe out a whole program, but that
would also include education programs, legal aid, a variety of other
things.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman used my name.
The difference is this is out of a trust fund. This is contract
authority. There can be no deficit spending. That is the distinction
here, and that is why this amendment should be overwhelmingly defeated.
Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, all expenditures by the
Federal Government go into making up what our outlays are each year.
{time} 1510
We have hundreds of trust funds in the Federal budget. If we said
every one of them was exempt, we would be talking about tiny portions
of the budget. The reality is that if our judgment is to pass this base
bill, it should apply to appropriated dollars, it should apply to
contract authority, frankly it should apply to new or expanded
entitlement authority, and it should also apply to tax expenditures and
tax cuts.
If we really wanted to have a fair bill, it would be in toto. There
is no reason for the sake of consistency to say that it should apply to
appropriated dollars which would be going to good programs, maybe bad
programs, maybe some in between, and the same with the contract
authority--lots of good programs, some maybe not so good--but what we
are saying in this bill is we want to subject those kinds of
expenditures to the scrutiny of the President, who can prevail if one-
third of the House or the Senate will stay with him.
Mr. Chairman, for consistency's sake, let us have it apply uniformly.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], a member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Orton amendment to the Line-Item
Veto Act.
The line-item veto is, as many Members of this House have stated, an
idea whose time has come. The American people have reached their
boiling point over unnecessary and wasteful Federal spending; $10
million here, $20 million there of special interest spending have added
billions to our national debt over the years. No part of discretionary
spending should be off-limits to the line-item veto.
The Orton amendment, however, shoots at the wrong target.
Discretionary transportation spending is already on the table and will
be scrutinized under the line-item veto. The President will be able to
wield his veto knife against special interest transportation spending
that comes at the expense of veterans, children, the elderly, or other
important highway projects.
However, no money would be saved under the Orton proposal. Program
transportation funding is allocated from money in the highway or
aviation trust funds, and spending for these purposes is the only
allowable purpose for these funds. Thus, a Presidential veto of
contract authority spending would merely send money back to the trust
funds.
Rather than sending money back to the Treasury, these contract
authority funds would continue to collect in the trust fund. Adding the
Orton amendment to the line-item veto bill would be giving the
President a deficit-masking tool, not a budget cutting tool.
This amendment would move us in exactly the wrong direction. I know
that my colleague from Utah has been an advocate for fiscal
responsibility in this House, but this amendment is simply off-the-
mark. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Orton amendment and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to speak in response
to the gentleman's statement.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure my friend and colleague would not want to
misspeak or misrepresent the facts. In fact, discretionary spending for
transportation programs includes the contract authority spending. It
does come under the 602(b) allocations. It is all part of discretionary
spending, only this part would not be subject to the veto. That is the
difference.
I would also suggest to the gentleman that under the current language
of the line-item veto, H.R. 2, any amount which is vetoed by the
President goes back into the appropriation cycle to be reallocated
among other programs. Without a deficit reduction trust fund, it does
not lower the deficit either.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm].
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Orton amendment
for the same reason that the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] a
moment ago did, and that is for the sake of consistency.
Having been involved in the line-item veto and being opposed to
giving any President one-third plus one minority override on any of the
issues, and then working gradually to this point, I come to the
expedited rescission process in which I am perfectly willing to give
any President 50 percent plus one line-item veto over any project in
the 17th District of Texas.
Having listened to the arguments of the appropriators for years
opposing either line-item veto or modified rescission for getting into
the decisions that the appropriators make and then listening to the
members of the Committee on Ways and Means make the various all-
substantial and very good arguments as to why the President should not
get involved in tax matters, and now listening to the Public Works
Committee giving all the very valid reasons why this should not be
applied
[[Page H1229]] to public works, I come to the same basic conclusion,
and that is why we will be offering our amendments later this afternoon
to strengthen H.R. 2 to allow the President to go into any bill at any
time, whether it is contract authority, tax authority, or spending
authority, and to make an independent judgment as to whether or not
that project is as good as we might have believed it to be when we came
to the Public Works Committee and asked in this case for contract
authority. I am perfectly willing to do that, and if we are going to do
it for one, I think we should do it for all.
We have heard the statement made that the trust funds are somehow
different. They are not different, Mr. Chairman. Trust funds come from
taxes that are in fact paid by the American people for the purposes for
which we pay them into the trust fund.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend they are user fees. It
is not a general tax paid by all Americans, but rather by the traveling
public who buys a gallon of gasoline or pays a ticket tax. They are
user fees, and, therefore, they are fundamentally different from other
taxes.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and say they are not
fundamentally different because they are user fees, because the users
have the right to believe those funds are being expended in the most
efficient way possible. Therefore, the argument we make, I think, is
extremely valid.
What we are saying today in H.R. 2, and hopefully as amended, with
all the amendments added, is that we all agree the basic thrust we want
to see is that the President of the United States have the right to go
into appropriation bills, Ways and Means tax bills, and now Public
Works bills, and if he has a different opinion, then we shall have to
vote up or down on the floor on those individual projects.
This is what the argument is about. As I say, in my particular
feeling, I get nervous about one-third plus one, but I do not get
nervous about a 50 percent plus one independent judgment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the former chairman and now
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate our colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] leading the committee on this
issue, as well as my very fine colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I rise in very, very strong opposition
to the Orton amendment.
I think there are two things that bother me about the discussion that
is going on. One is that there is no recognition whatsoever about the
user taxes that are being generated right now through a gasoline or a
ticket tax, and they are treating those dollars the same as general tax
revenues.
There is no tax for a V-22, a C-17, or for defense in general, but
there is a dedicated fund, a highway trust fund or an aviation fund
that has revenue coming either from a ticket tax on passengers on
airlines or on the gasoline and diesel tax from the users of the
highway system.
There is another thing that is starting to bother me, and that is
that there is no distinction between a dollar spent for operations and
a dollar spent on capital items. A dollar spent on capital items is an
investment that brings back or generates economic growth and other
kinds of activities.
Those who have advocated a line-item veto have argued that if we are
going to get serious about deficit spending, we have to have this
tool--the line-item veto--to bring spending down.
This amendment would extend the line-item veto to contract authority
programs, which is to say the trust fund supported aspects of the
highway, transit, and airport programs.
But all this contract authority spending is fully supported by
dedicated revenues into the trust funds. This is all spending which
does not contribute one dime to the deficit. These are the ultimate in
pay-as-you-go programs. This is what we want more of the Federal budget
to look like.
Whether you think the line-item veto is a good idea or not with
respect to most Federal spending, it just makes no sense with regard to
contract authority. Our contract authority programs already are
prohibited by law from contributing to the deficit. That's iron-clad
protection against deficit spending. You might say that with regard to
the contract authority programs, we already have the balanced budget
amendment in pace. A line-item veto on contract authority is not needed
and makes no sense.
If this amendment were adopted, entire programs could be reduce or
eliminated, even though they are now entirely pay-as-you-to. The
programs we are talking about are key to our States, our communities,
and our businesses. I'm talking about programs like the interstate
construction program, the interstate maintenance program, the National
Highway System, the minimum allocation, the congestion mitigation
program, and a variety of other highway, transit, airport, and safety
programs, all of which are 100 percent fund supported. Any of these
programs could be reduced or eliminated in their entirety by the line-
item veto, even though we were already taxing our constituents more
than enough to fully fund these programs through the trust funds.
This is ultimately an issue of truth in taxing. When we approved
these trust fund taxes, and when most of our constituents agreed to
support these trust fund taxes, it was the promise that these monies
could and would be spent on needed transportation improvements. That's
what the trust in trust funds is all about. If we now create a
situation where the taxes will go on being collected, but the line-item
veto can be used to block spending those taxes back out as promised, we
will have fundamentally broken trust with our constituents, and that
would be profoundly wrong.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
{time} 1520
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Condit].
(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revised and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. The measure we are
debating today, the line-item veto, attempts to put some control over
Federal spending. The line-item veto as drafted in H.R. 2 controls
appropriation spending. The line-item veto as drafted in H.R. 2 applies
to targeted tax benefits. The line-item veto as drafted in H.R. 2 does
not apply to contract authority, that is, Federal trust funds such as
the Federal highway and airport trust funds.
Why should the line-item veto apply to appropriations funding and
funding from the tax fund, but not apply to spending from the Federal
trust fund? As the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], has already pointed
out, the highway reauthorization bill, what we call ISTEA, contains
numerous highway demonstration projects that were nothing but pork-
barrel projects in the districts of powerful Members.
Mr. Chairman, if we are to have an effective line-item veto, it must
apply to all forms of Federal spending. Without the Orton amendment, a
good portion of Federal pork-barrel spending will be off limits. That
is unfair and unwise and unworkable.
We need to have this be applicable to all spending here. We need to
make sure that we are able to scrutinize every bit of Federal spending,
and the Orton amendment will ensure us we have the opportunity to do
that.
We have an obligation, if we are going to pass this line-item veto,
to make sure it works and works in a fair fashion. I would urge all my
colleagues, my colleagues on the Democratic side, my colleagues on the
Republican side, who absolutely know that this is fair and right, You
have been here before, even your own colleagues have proposed this, and
it is a fair amendment, and we ought to pass it.
[[Page H1230]]
Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2, I rise in strong
support of the line-item veto.
Since the early 1980's, our national debt has soared. The national
debt expands by $1 trillion every 4 years. The debt has skyrocketed to
such an extent that interest payments on the debt are one of the
largest items in the Federal budget. Something must be done to change
course.
Before coming to the floor, I was up in my office watching the debate
and I have to tell you that I have a hard time understanding what some
have said about H.R. 2. Many of the opponents of the line-item veto
have criticized this bill because they believe that it gives too much
power to the President. Even though I disagree, I can understand this
argument. But others have said
that our Nation has survived tougher times than we find ourselves in
today without having to upset the constitutional balance between the
executive and the legislative branches. It is this argument that I do
not understand. Do the Members of this body realize that we have a $4.6
trillion debt? Do the Members of the body realize that we are getting
closer and closer to financial insolvency every day? Do the Members of
this body realize that future generations will have to pay 82 percent
of their income in taxes because we have left them with this terrible
debt? From the comments on the floor today I am not sure.
I firmly believe that if we do not take decisive and dramatic action
to reduce and eliminate our wasteful spending habits, we will condemn
our children and grandchildren to pay for our excesses. As a father and
a grandfather, I can tell you that this would be wrong and unfair.
For these reasons, I am a strong supporter of a pure line-item veto.
The current budget process is woefully inadequate in this regard. It is
true that the President can propose budget rescissions. However, we in
Congress can thwart the will of the President and allow pork barrel
spending to be spent by simply ignoring the President's rescission
requests.
H.R. 2 will fundamentally change this process by requiring us to
consider the President's rescissions. But most importantly, H.R. 2 will
require us to muster a two-thirds vote to restore a spending program
that the President has targeted for elimination. It is this two-thirds
requirement that distinguishes H.R. 2 as the true line-item veto.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the line-item veto is a commonsense issue.
President Clinton supports it. Forty-three State Governors have this
authority. And most importantly, the American people believe that we
should give it to the President.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 18
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment. While I do
not doubt the sincerity of the motives of the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
Orton], I know firsthand how harmful enactment of this amendment could
be to a section of the country, southwestern Pennsylvania, struggling
to overcome the economic upheavals of the 1980's and the early 1990's.
For the past 25 years, citizens of my southwestern Pennsylvania
district have struggled to win approval and funding for a road called
the Mon-Fayette Expressway. Like the playing field in the movie ``Field
of Dreams,'' they hope if this highway is built, businesses and jobs
will follow.
udies all around the world have indicated a strong correlation between
highway and infrastructure development and economic development. I
served for 15 years as a member of the southwestern Pennsylvania
Regional Planning Commission, where I served as chairman of the planned
policy committee which had the responsibility of fulfilling the
obligations under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the 1991
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.Passage of the Orton
amendment would allow this President or some other President to reach
into a bill, and, with the stroke of a pen, wipe out this highway. I do
not think that is right.
While I support the concept of the line-item veto, I must say that
the trust fund programs targeted by the Orton amendment are not part of
the problem this legislation is trying to solve.
The highway trust fund that will hopefully be used one day to fund
the Mon-Fayette Expressway is totally financed, as some of my
colleagues said earlier, by gasoline taxes, paid by motorists and
truckers across this country. For every 1 penny, there is $1 billion
going into that plan. So I ask Members on the Republican side and the
Democratic side to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], a member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and ranking member on
the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and
appreciate his leadership, as well as the leadership of our Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and our ranking member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Mineta].
Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in opposition to the spending
amendment. I could perhaps understand the rationale for its
introduction if its author were a new Member of the majority party. But
I am rather dumbfounded by the rationale of its current author,
considering his background and his work in the past with our Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The gentleman certainly comes to
this debate with no clean hands, protest notwithstanding.
As most of us know, the airport, highway, and transit projects are
financed through the trust funds supported by users fees, as has been
repeated during this debate. This is entirely different from last
week's debate on exempting defense from the line-item veto. Defense has
no dedicated user financed trust fund.
Expenditures from these highway trust funds are achieved through
contract authority contained in authorizing bills under our
jurisdiction on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Our
highway and aviation programs are already covered by spending controls.
I repeat, they are already covered by spending controls. Annually our
appropriators impose obligation limitations on transportation contract
authority which in turn controls outlays for these programs.
Second, rescissions of highway and aviation contract authority will
not save any money. By law the funds not expended from these trust
funds remain in the trust fund and may not be used for any other
purposes. These are dedicated funds, derived from user fees.
{time} 1530
We ought to be putting more trust into these highway trust funds, not
detracting from the trust in these highway trust funds
This is about truth in taxing, Mr. Chairman, using the people's money
for what they believe the money is going toward when they pay that fee
at the gas pump or buy that airline ticket. It is what they truly
believe their money is going for, improved airports and security at our
airports, improved highways.
This is about truth in taxing, putting trust back into these highway
trust funds, being honest with the American taxpayer about where his or
her money is going, not into some black hole in Washington known as
deficit reduction, for which they may never see any positive results.
These trust funds are deficit proof. By law, by the Byrd amendment,
they cannot spend more money than they take in. They should not,
therefore, be target for deficit reduction.
Road building in our respective States is a jobs issue as well. When
we build roads, we provide jobs in both the short term and in the long
term.
And finally, enactment of this amendment would cause havoc in our
transportation programs. State and transportation contractors have no
assurance that once a project is initiated, the funds necessary for its
completion would be there. There would be no smooth flow of funds to
our States to conduct transportation policy and build projects with any
amount of certitude.
Who can conduct a transportation and road building project like that?
And talk about unfunded mandates. If
[[Page H1231]] the President vetoes an entire highway safety program
or the national highway system program, who is going to build these
projects in the States, these lifelines to many a community? Obviously
States are going to have to pick up the tab themselves. Talk about
unfunded mandates.
This is not the type of way, this is not the manner in which we
should be conducting transportation policy in this country, especially
as we look into the 21st century and try to adopt a new and sound
policy of intermodalism.
I tell my colleagues that this vote will send an important message,
not individually, I might add, but collectively, to this body and to
the world as we begin writing a transportation policy this year.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], a very prominent member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him
on the dignified manner in which he has conducted the debate from his
position as chairman.
The Orton amendment strikes at two of the Federal programs that have
been the most successful, the most universally accepted and which are
deficit free and do not contribute to deficit and by their very
constitution and establishment cannot run a deficit and never have and
never will.
Contract authority, which is the underlying principle of the aviation
trust fund, and the highway trust fund were invented in 1956, with the
establishment of the highway user tax because the founders of the
interstate highway program realized that we needed a dedicated revenue
stream, one that States could count upon year after year to build these
projects that took years to design and engineer and years more to
construct and to complete. We cannot complete a bridge or a highway
from one day to the next, from one fiscal year to the next. It takes
several, years and that is why they established the principle of
contract authority to make sure that there would be this dedicated
revenue stream to complete these projects after their initiation. And
then the same concept was adopted in the 1970's with establishment of
the aviation trust fund and the airline ticket tax which finances our
airport improvement program.
We specifically, in the airport improvement program, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and I worked together on this for years, kept
individually designated projects out. But that did not stop States from
designating one project having more significance than another. And the
same with the highway program. States made choices as to where those
dedicated revenues are going to go. They make choices of one project
over another. State legislatures make those decisions. Governors make
those decisions. We, too, are the people's elected representatives. And
we have a responsibility to the people that elect us and who pay their
taxes into the highway trust fund and who expect that dedicated revenue
stream to operate.
Now, under this amendment, the president would have the authority to
abolish the contract authority itself. The money then could not be
spent on any other purpose. It would not be spent on highways or
airports. It would just sit there and build up surplus to offset the
deficit and make the President's program, whichever President that
happened to be, look better.
I do not think we want that. I do not think our people sent us here
to just be a rubber stamp for a President. We are not a rubber stamp
Congress. We have the responsibility to represent, and that is to
represent the people who sent us here, to stand for something, and that
something is a highway trust fund that has built the finest system of
highways that is the envy of other countries in the world and the
finest network of airports that is the envy of other countries in the
world. And we should not undermine it by adopting this provision, I
hate to dignify it with that term, that would undermine the very
purpose of building infrastructure, serving the economy of this
country, serving the needs of transportation and movement of people and
goods throughout America.
Defeat the Orton amendment.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to suggest that
the President, under H.R. 2, could also veto the entire funding for the
Central Intelligence Agency. I do not know why he would do that, or the
transportation funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah for
yielding time to me.
There is an old country song that goes, ``I was country when country
wasn't cool.''
I was for the line-item veto long before being for the line-item veto
was cool, and those who support the line-item veto, who believe that it
really ought to work in this country to enforce congressional will
power, to stop deficit spending, and stop pork-barrel projects, ought
to be for the line-item veto in its purest form, ought to make sure we
exempt no discretionary spending that is deficit spending from this
bill.
I joined many of my colleagues in voting to make sure we did not
exempt military spending, defense spending from this bill, and I am
amazed today that we are debating whether to leave an exemption for
highway funding in this bill. How can we be consistently for the line-
item veto and all it means for us to enforce the balanced budget and to
end deficit spending, to stand up, as I did and others did, against
exempting defense spending from this bill, and then be for exempting
highways and bridges?
Well, my colleagues know there is a little log-rolling goes on once
in a while. I am not saying highways and bridges are not important, any
more than I thought defense was not pretty important for our country.
But when we start exempting things that are discretionary spending from
the line-item veto, designed to stop deficit spending in our country,
we are on a slippery slope, rather, that I think destroys the whole
purpose of the line-item veto.
Those in America who believed in that contract provision are going to
be sadly surprised when they wake up tomorrow morning and find out we
adopted a bill that leaves out highway funding as an item for the line-
item veto when we would not leave out defense spending. They are going
to be sadly surprised that some Members who support the line-item veto
do not really support it in all its purposes.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I again inquire as to the amount of
time remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 8
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a principal, prime cosponsor of this
legislation and a member of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.
{time} 1540
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton]. While I
am sure that gentleman's intentions are of the highest order in
offering his amendment, this is simply a bad idea which will have dire
unintended consequences.
The line-item veto is a tool that allows for the surgical removal of
wasteful spending items from large spending and tax bills. The whole
idea behind this device is to save money. However, the gentleman's
amendment has zero potential to save even one dime.
Contract authority allows for money to be spent from trust funds. If
a contract authority item is vetoed out of an authorizing bill, the
money would go back into the trust fund, where it would simply continue
to sit. There would be no saving associated with such a move.
The whole matter of trust funds has become the focus of much
discussion and debate in the Congress. There is certainly no clear
consensus on whether and how these funds should be spent down.
There are two schools of thought. Some would like to see the trust
funds stockpiled to match the size of our Federal deficit. Others feel
these funds should be spent on the types of things for which they are
intended.
[[Page H1232]] Mr. Chairman, this is neither the time nor the place
to conduct the next round in this debate. As we work to reduce our
debt, we also have to make sure our transportation infrastructure is
modernized through prudent investments.
Thus, these expenditures are key to future economic growth, and thus
key to future Government revenues. If Members want to see our debt
explode, watch as our economy declines, as our transportation
infrastructure declines, and we are unable to move goods and consumers
in an effective way.
Our goal with this legislation, Mr. Chairman, is to save money and to
reduce the amount of waste that taxpayers have to pay for each year.
This amendment does absolutely nothing toward that goal, Mr. Chairman.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this misguided amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Baker], a very valued member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of
protecting pork in highway infrastructure bills. This is a question of
protecting the highway fund, paid for by motorists into a trust fund
which cannot be overspent and which is earmarked for highway and rail
projects. At last accounting, the highway trust fund had involuntarily
loaned to the general fund $13 billion for cash flow for that $210
billion deficit this year.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the line-item veto, bringing
deficit spending in line, does not exist in the highway trust funds
which are already in line. Indeed, both the Bush budget debacle of 1990
and the Clinton tax increase of 1993 robbed the gas taxpayers of over
an additional $6.5 billion a year, which will not build rail or road
projects, which was, rather, sent to the Bermuda Triangle known as the
general fund budget balancing act.
No more transportation funds to the general fund. Vote no on this
amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Orton
amendment to H.R. 2. Although I support efforts to cut excessive
Federal spending, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah
could have a devastating effect on our Nation's transportation system.
The Federal Government supports investment in our Nation's
infrastructure because it is a critical need beyond the scope of any
individual State. The aviation and highway trust funds are designed to
ensure that transportation needs are consistently met throughout the
country. The trust funds are simply the wrong target for this effort.
Mr. Chairman, highway and aviation programs are already covered by
spending controls. Each year, the Appropriations Committee sets
obligation limitations on transportation contract authority. These
limitations in turn control outlays from the programs. Contract
authority, like any funding appropriated by Congress, is simply a piece
of the pie--not a lifetime supply of pie.
In addition, rescissions of highway and aviation contract authority
will not actually save any money. Because of the importance of
transportation funding, the law clearly establishes that funds from the
transportation trust funds cannot be used for any other purpose--even
deficit reduction.
The transportation trust funds are the wrong target for deficit
reduction. By law, they cannot spend more than they take in. Rather
than trying to slash them, we should be looking to the aviation and
highway trust funds as a model for other programs. Every Federal
program should pay for itself as these trust funds do and not
contribute to the deficit.
Under this amendment, all the aviation and highway grant programs
could be in jeopardy of rescission by the President. Nearly all high-
way and aviation funds are statutorily provided in multibillion dollar
blocks of formula distributed funds. The President might only have the
option of eliminating an entire program in order to reach a particular
project. Surely we do not wish to advocate that. That would be cutting
off your nose to spite your face.
The bottom line is that this amendment is a really bad idea. Its
impact would be devastating for transportation programs--as well as any
nontransportation programs which use contract authority. We can cut
spending and given the President a line-item veto today, but we cannot
pass this amendment. Although it may be well-intentioned, the impact on
the Nation's transportation system is intolerable. Vote ``no'' on the
Orton amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would include under the definition of
``discretionary budget authority'' in the bill the concept of
``contract authority.''
This runs contrary to all existing definitions under the Budget Act
which clearly distinguishes between discretionary budget authority and
contract authority.
This exercise reminds me of a riddle Abraham Lincoln used to pose: If
you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?
While many would answer, five, Lincoln responded that the answer is
still four because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
By the same token, calling contract authority ``discretionary budget
authority'' doesn't make it so. Contract authority is the authority
given to agencies to enter into contracts. It does not obligate the
money to be spent and therefore does not involve discretionary
appropriations.
If we begin to give the President the authority to selectively item
veto what is in effect enacted, authorization language, we are raising
serious constitutional questions, and we are going against the grain of
this bill as it is currently drafted.
We have already agreed by way of language in the bill and the report
that we are talking about allowing the President to reduce or eliminate
dollar amounts in appropriations bills. And we have explicitly adopted
language to ensure that the President cannot eliminate legislative
language.
According to testimony last month of Walter Dellinger, Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of
Justice, the pending line-item veto bill does not raise constitutional
questions because, in his words, ``The President would merely be
authorized to decline to expend certain appropriated funds, not alter
or repeal an enacted law.''
To permit the President to sign a law containing contractual
authority, then turn around and propose to cancel it by way of the
line-item veto process, goes contrary to the lawmaking process of the
Constitution.
In the words of the Department of Justice testimony, it violates the
``specific textual requirement of Article I, section 7 of the
Constitution governing the manner in which laws are made'' because it
``amends a duly enacted law which is inconsistent with Article I,
section 7.''
Mr. Chairman, we have already adopted an amendment that provides for
an expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of this act.
I would hate to see us jeopardize the constitutionality of the bill
as it now stands by inserting a clear red flag in the form of
permitting the President to cancel duly enacted contractual,
legislative language in a manner other than through the normal
lawmaking-veto process established by the Constitution.
I therefore urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], a long time sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, I, too, rise in strong opposition to
the Orton amendment.
The amendment blurs the Budget Act's clear distinction between
mandatory and discretionary funding. Proponents of the measure today
have said we must be consistent, that we must vote for the line-item
veto and not have any exceptions. The exceptions that we talk about
this afternoon, however, make a clear distinction how that money is
raised.
This is a trust fund, a dedicated trust fund where residents and
constituents that I represent do not want to see their money and their
tax dollars go to Washington and be put in the rest of the black hole
where their money goes, and never see a return. A dedicated trust fund
like this gets a bang for their buck. They know it is going to be used
for highway or aviation programs. That is certain. They know it will
not be put in with all the rest of the money where those Washington
tricks are played.
I urge all my colleagues to vote no on the Orton amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 4
[[Page H1233]] minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah [Mr.
Orton] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that
these user fees, as they are being called, just a couple of years ago
in the President's budget when they raised gas taxes, were ranted and
railed against as gasoline taxes against the people. Now they are user
fees.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Orton amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear from the start that the issue is
not whether or not projects being built with contract authority are
good ones or bad ones. That is beside the point. Some of them are good
and some of them are bad, no doubt.
The question simply, to me, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not we are
going to treat all spending the same when it comes to making spending
vulnerable to the President's ability to review it. Mr. Chairman, the
issue is simply why should contract authority be exempt when money
spent through direct appropriations is not exempt from the President's
review?
As the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, I stood
on this floor last week and offered an amendment which was accepted by
this committee which enabled the President to review every single
project approved for fiscal 1995 in the appropriations process.
I happen to think most of those projects are perfectly defensible. I
happen to think that most of the projects that are financed by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under contract authority
are perfectly defensible. However, that is not the question.
I also think that we can make the same argument with respect to
deficit reduction on appropriated earmarks that the gentleman has made
with respect to contract authority. It is alleged that because we do
not add to the deficit, because this represents trust fund spending,
therefore, these projects ought to be exempt.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out not a single appropriation earmark
adds to the deficit, either, because each of the appropriation
subcommittees comes to the floor within a budget ceiling. They cannot
exceed it. That means if we provide an earmark, those dollars come from
other projects that would otherwise be funded.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in both cases the issue is not whether
the spending adds to the deficit. The issue is whether or not, if an
occasional project is acutely embarrassing, whether the President ought
to have the right to reach that project or not.
Mr. Chairman, I say if we are going to require each and every project
in the appropriations process to be subject to presidential review,
then we ought to do the same thing for contract authority.
To me the issue is not whether these projects add to the economy or
not. I suspect most of them do, just as most of the appropriated
earmarks do. The issue is not whether or not these projects are useful.
Most of them probably are.
The issue is whether or not we are going to exempt one kind of
spending from presidential review when we are subjecting all other
kinds to that review. And it seems to me, especially when we recognize
that in any fiscal year the amount of money being provided under
contract authority is at least four to five times as large as that
being provided under appropriations, that we ought not to exempt the
kind of spending which is four and five times as large as the
appropriated direct spending which was made subject to this review just
last week. I would urge a vote for the Orton amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] a member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I am probably one of the most fiscally
conservative Members of this body. I am a strong supporter of the
legislation before us to provide the President with a line-item veto
authority. However, quite frankly, I do not think that this particular
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] really
deserves our support at this point.
The reason is, first of all, while his intent may be good and sound
good, the policy, in fact, is bad policy. We could have some serious
unintended consequences by instituting this legislation.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, the rescission of highway and
aviation contract authority will not save any money. By law, funds that
are not expended from these trust funds remain in the trust fund, and
may not be used for any other purpose, so we are not saving any money
with adoption of this amendment.
Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to also
oppose it when it come before the House.
{time} 1550
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] have said it better than I could.
This is not a question of pork. Any qualified projects will stand the
scrutiny of the line-item veto and, in fact, will survive. The question
is, why should we be treating spending under an appropriations bill any
different than treating spending under a transportation bill? Should we
be any less concerned about earmarked spending from gas tax trust funds
than we are from general revenues?
I would just suggest some quotes from some of my colleagues during
this debate on H.R. 2. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]
said that we have rejected the argument about whether to exempt
spending from the judiciary and said that ``no program rose to this
level where it should be exempted from consideration.''
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said, ``And we should not
exempt anybody.''
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] said, ``If there is belt
tightening, it is everywhere.''
The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute] said, ``If we start
exempting all of these areas, we are going to run into real problems.''
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said, ``If we are going to
exempt defense, then it is hypocritical not to exempt child issues. We
do not need to be exempting any one program from another.''
Mr. Chairman, the critical point: Money that is vetoed under
appropriation bills does not reduce the deficit. It goes back and is
subject to the same 602(b) allocations and is reallocated among other
appropriated spending. Spending under contract authority which would be
vetoed would not reduce the deficit. It would go back into the trust
fund and would therefore be eligible to be spent through the general
formula funding.
In ISTEA we funded a little over $100 billion of spending from the
trust funds under the general formula. We funded about $6 billion in
demonstration programs. Those demonstration programs, some of them are
very, very good. Some of them may not be so good.
If we want to give the President the authority to look into
appropriation bills, to circle out those items that are embarrassing,
that are wasteful, that should not be spent, why on Earth should we not
allow the President to look into contract authority authorized by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to do the same thing? To
look at those projects, demonstration projects, most of which are good
and valid projects, but to circle out those items which are
embarrassing, which should not be spent, which cannot be justified.
How can we say simply because this money is raised from a gasoline
tax and is in a trust fund to be spent only for transportation projects
that we do not have to be concerned about how wisely those
transportation funds are spent?
We are not trying to attack the transportation trust fund program or
to stop funding for transportation programs. What we are saying is the
President ought to be able to look at how wisely we are spending those
transportation trust funds, and it is not any
[[Page H1234]] less responsible of us to look at appropriations versus
transportation contract authority.
I would urge adoption of my amendment.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss] to respond.
Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, it is true I did say that
if there is belt tightening, it should be shared by all. But I would
like to point out, H.R. 2 talks about discretionary budget and talks
about numbers. It does not talk about policy because as so many have
articulately expressed, we are concerned about shifting the balance of
power.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield briefly to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] to respond to another matter that was
raised.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me the
time.
My friend from Utah made the allegation that a member of my staff
called the mayor of Provo, UT, to pressure him to get him to withdraw
this amendment.
I have not only talked to my staff, I have just gotten off the phone
from talking to the office of the mayor of Provo, UT. No one from my
staff spoke to the mayor of Provo, UT.
I am sure my good friend in the heat of the moment made an honest
mistake, but I would simply like the record to reflect that.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me so that I can
at least answer or respond?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. ORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I did not make an allegation that they called the mayor
of Provo, UT. If you will read the Record, it is clear what I said, and
the information came from various lobbying sources who lobbied this
city in behalf of a mayor in my district, and the comments were made to
the lobbyist.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe I am
also speaking on behalf of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon],
chairman of the Committee on Rules, in opposing this amendment.
I think one of the things that has been sort of part of this whole
debate is the suggestion at least that there are many, many projects
out there that may not be worthy and that the President should be given
an opportunity to look into those and deal with them in this veto. But
I think it needs to be pointed out that when we are talking about trust
funds here, 96 percent of those funds go to the States, directly to the
States. They are distributed by formula, they are not earmarked, and
that is the overwhelming amount of the money that is involved in these
trust funds, come from us to the States. Only about 3 to 4 percent for
very high-priority projects and ones that have been carefully vetted,
all of which have been approved by the State departments of
transportation, are approved by the State DOT's before they are
approved, before they are funded. I think it is distorting the debate a
bit to suggest that there are massive numbers of projects the President
might want to reach.
The other item I would just respond to is the transportation trust
funds presently have or have had a cash surplus of $33 billion. One of
the suggestions the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
had over the years is that that has been used to mask, to hide the
deficit, to make the deficit look better, and to make the general fund
look better. It has been a smoke-and-mirrors device that has been used
over the years because the trust funds cannot spend more than they take
in. I think we do not need to contribute to this problem by providing a
veto of contract authority.
Mr. Chairman, rescissions of highway and aviation trust authority are
not going to save any money. I think that is the bottom line. This is a
deficit reduction provision. The Orton amendment will do nothing to
reduce the deficit. I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there is only one good reason to provide line-item veto
authority to the President--to reduce the deficit. Providing a line-
item veto just for the sake or doing so would be an example of Congress
cutting off our nose to spite our face. The amendment before us, while
well-intentioned does exactly that.
Contract authority comes out of trust funds which are fenced off for
explicit transportation purposes. If the President were to line-item
veto a highway project or an airport grant, it would have no impact on
the deficit. It would merely require that a given amount of money sit
unused in the trust fund until the next fiscal year.
Our transportation trust funds represent a user fee to our highway
and airway travelers. They pay for improvements to the Federal
transportation infrastructure through taxes levied on fuel and airline
tickets. The expenditure of this money is the Government fulfilling a
contract with these travelers. If we instead use this money for deficit
reduction, we will have turned an ostensible user fee into a tax,
changing the rules in the middle of the game.
As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the language of the
bill requires a Presidential finding that his veto of the line item
would reduce the deficit. Although I am not an expert on this, I would
wonder how the President could make such a finding when the line-item
in question was contract authority.
Mr. Chairman, a line-item veto for contract authority makes no sense.
It doesn't save any money and it doesn't reduce the deficit. Let's
defeat the Orton amendment and preserve the integrity of the
transportation trust funds.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Orton amendment
but in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 2.
As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, I have introduced line-item
veto legislation almost identical to H.R. 2 on the first day of every
Congress since I was elected in 1988.
I think it is fair to say that there are not many Members of this
House who support giving the President true line-item veto authority
more strongly than I do.
But Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed very specifically at the
aviation trust fund and the highway trust fund, which were created with
the understanding that the money they contained would be used
exclusively for aviation and highway projects.
The ultimate goal of this amendment appears to be to get at the money
in these trust funds so that it can be used for nontransportation
purposes, which violates the very concept of a trust fund.
I strongly believe that these funds should be off-budget and should
be used for the purpose for which they were created, namely to fund
various airport and highway improvement projects and to strengthen our
overall transportation system.
When these trust funds were originally established, it was made clear
that the money they contained would be set aside for such projects.
If we are going to turn around and violate that pledge, then we
should just be honest and stop referring to them as trust funds at all.
Mr. Chairman, the money that is in these trust funds comes from fees
that are paid by the users of our Nation's airlines and highways.
I believe that this money should continue to be used for the types of
improvement projects that we have promised these users it will be used
for.
At a time when use of our airlines is increasing rapidly each year
and use of our highways is at an all time high and still climbing, it
does not make sense to make an end run around these funds.
If this amendment is approved, we will end up hurting our
transportation system at the very time that we should be doing
everything we can to make it stronger.
Mr. Chairman, there is almost no one in this House who is more
fiscally conservative than I am or who has voted to cut spending more
often than I have.
But I must oppose this targeted attack on our aviation and highway
trust funds and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Orton
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, February
3, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Utah [Mr. Orton] will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
[[Page H1235]] amendment offered by ms. waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Waters: The first sentence of
paragraph (3) of section 4 is amended by inserting ``or which
the President determines would yield at least 20 percent of
its benefit to the top 1 percent of income earners'' before
the period.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House, the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a
Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today is about fairness. I
am trying to bring a measure of accountability to this process.
Mr. Chairman, we all know the impression of how law is made in
Congress. Many people believe special interests have too much influence
and that the rich are getting their way with too many politicians.
{time} 1600
Unfortunately, this impression is often too close to reality. My
amendment would give the President the authority to veto any provision
which gives the lion's share of benefits to the rich.
Make no mistake about it, my amendment makes this bill stronger. My
amendment would increase the chance that H.R. 2 would reduce the
deficit.
Specifically, my amendment would change the definition of targeted
tax benefit in the bill to include any tax benefit which would accrue
more than 50 percent of its benefit to the top 10 percent of income
earners. As I said, this is only fair and this is common sense.
Anyone looking at this legislation, or listening to us debate it, may
concede that a targeted tax benefit should include one that goes mainly
to the wealthy. This amendment goes to the heart of the legislation. We
know from the pollsters who have brought us all of this information
about the Contract With America that a majority of Americans support
the line-item veto, but the important question is why? The answer is
because the American people believe that special interests and
corporate America exert too much influence on our spending and revenue
decisions.
My amendment would merely bring any tax break which
disproportionately benefits the rich under the provisions of the line-
item veto. It would not prohibit Congress from passing such a tax
break, it would not require the President to veto such a tax break, it
would simply give the President, Democrat or Republican, the option of
striking such a regressive, narrow tax break from a bill.
My amendment would not change the procedure of the bill in any way.
The President, through the Office of Management and Budget, would make
a determination of the beneficiaries of the tax legislation we send
him. Under my amendment, if it is determined that any tax change would
severely disproportionately benefit the rich, the President would be
given the option of vetoing that portion of it.
The majority of Americans are tired of struggling to make ends meet
while they see the economic elite get more and more from Government.
While economic factors in the past 20 years have exacerbated the trend
toward inequality, tax policy has made matters worse.
Since 1977, the effective tax rate for the top one-fifth of wage
earners went from 27.2 to 26.8 percent, a net reduction of $450 in tax
liability. For the top 5 percent, the effective tax rate has dropped
from 30.6 to 28.3 percent, which translates into a $5,311 tax cut.
Finally, the top 1 percent, those earning over $675,000 per year, have
seen a reduction in their tax rate from 35.5 percent down to 29.3
percent, the equivalent of nearly $42,000 in net tax reduction.
Amazingly, in the same time period the after-tax income of the
families in the top 1 percent of income has increased from 7.3 percent
of all U.S. earnings to 12.3 percent. This has taken place at the same
time as the income of the bottom four-fifths has declined. It is no
wonder that despite the economic recovery, most Americans still feel
quite insecure and they think the Government is not on their side.
These trends have caused Americans to distrust Washington. The tax
policies enacted here in the past 15 years are a direct contributor to
this mistrust.
The bill before us, as currently drafted, is just too narrow. The
targeted tax benefit only includes those tax breaks which affect 100 or
fewer entities. While I agree that any tax benefit which benefits as
few entities as this certainly qualifies as a targeted tax benefit, a
broader definition better serves Congress, the President, and most
importantly, the American people.Words, symbols, and definitions are
important when public officials communicate to the people. Any tax
break in which half the revenue would go to the top 10 percent of
income earners in this country is a targeted tax benefit. It only makes
common sense.
I do not know how many tax breaks would fall into the category I am
proposing today, but that is not important. What is important is that
we set a standard. It is important that American taxpayers know that
any tax provision which benefits the rich, excessively, will be
carefully--not carelessly--considered by the President and Congress.
Without my amendment I am afraid we are not doing all that we can to
protect American taxpayers from special breaks for the wealthy and
well-connected.
Let us send a powerful message to the American people today. Let us
show them that the days of corporate influence, the days where rich
people can pick the pockets of the Federal Treasury are over. Let us
make it a little more difficult for the wealthy to get more than their
fair share.
In conclusion, I appeal to my colleagues who support the bill before
us to adopt this amendment. It strengthens the underlying legislation.
This amendment would help reduce the budget deficit. My amendment could
save billions in taxpayer money.
So please, before Members vote, think about the budgetary
consequences of what I am proposing, and at the time that we do vote I
am asking my colleagues for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from California because she
is well known for the efforts that she has exerted over the years to
bring greater equity, I think, to the Federal Government and deserves
commendation for that. But I think I was a little surprised by this
amendment which, in my view, would create some unexpected perhaps, and
unnecessary tensions where none existed before. I think we have to
focus on what the very limited provisions in this bill, in H.R. 2, is
designed to get at.
We have had in the past, we are all familiar with where there have
been egregious examples of abuse in allowing certain tax advantages to
be written into the legislation which benefit a very few, very few fat
cats, if you will, or others, and this provision is designed to attack
that very narrow problem. There should not be an effort, I think, in
this bill to basically determine tax policy, and I think that is what
the gentlewoman's amendment would do. It would really broaden very
dramatically the scope of what we are proposing in this bill which is
very narrowly to focus it, rifle shot it, I guess, instead of a shotgun
approach to this issue saying yes, the President should be able to
identify those outrageous examples of tax preferences that are given.
Whether it is wine makers in California or whoever it might be, this is
an effort to say the President should have an opportunity to deal with
those kinds of examples, and eliminate them.
But to broaden it to the extent that the gentlewoman has, and I
understand what she is trying to do, but I think she is basically
giving the President an ability to second-guess Congress on policy
matters by vetoing out entire
[[Page H1236]] tax provisions out of the code. I think that goes
beyond.
So I think because the gentlewoman's amendment creates a previously
unforeseen differential, and that is what is really involved, and
because it obscures the purpose of H.R. 2, which is to ensure the
ability to assure everyone pays his fair share, this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, should be defeated.
Mr. Chairman. I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the
House may receive a message from the President.
____________________