[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3497-H3538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRUTH IN BUDGETING ACT
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 396
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 842) to provide off-budget treatment for the
Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed two hours equally divided among and controlled by the
chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on the
Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure now printed in the bill. Each section of the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting
Act. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally
between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on the Budget.
The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in
the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides
that each section be considered as read.
This rule allows for priority in recognition to Members who have
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their
consideration, and it provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress in 1963, I was privileged
to serve on the House Public Works Committee. The name has changed, but
the important agenda of the committee and the dedication and hard work
put forth by the members of the committee over the ears has not
diminished.
I've long supported efforts to take the four transportation trust
funds off budget, and I commend chairman Bud Shuster and ranking member
Jim Oberstar for finally giving the House an opportunity to debate and
vote on this issue.
We'll hear a great deal of discussion about this bill today, and
arguments will be made that these trust funds should not be exempted
from budget cuts in attempts to balance the budget. But Congress made a
commitment to use the proceeds of transportation user fees solely for
transportation purposes. Presently, there is over $30 billion in the
four transportation trust funds--money that could be and should be used
to improve our highways, airports, harbors, and inland waterways. The
public is no longer being fooled by using these funds to mask the true
size of the Federal deficit. It's way past time to honor our commitment
and release these funds to improve our Nation's transportation
infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and I urge my
colleagues to vote for this open rule and to support passage of this
important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the
Record:
[[Page H3498]]
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 15, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 60 59
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 26 25
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 16 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 102 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 15, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-100; A:
Revitalization. 227-127 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Resolution...... A: 223-182 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 229-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
[[Page H3499]]
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands.....
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H.Con. Res. 122.. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96)
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96)
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Quillen] for yielding the customary half hour of debate time, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, although many of us believe that the so-called Truth in
Budgeting Act that would be made in order by this rule is an
irresponsible piece of legislation, we have no objections to the rule
itself. It is the first open rule the House has considered this year,
and we commend the majority for bringing this controversial legislation
to the House floor in this manner.
We also commend the majority for providing an extra hour of general
debate time--for a total of 2 hours--and allowing the chairmen and
ranking minority members of the two committees of jurisdiction to
control one-half hour of debate time each. That provision of time is
adequate and fair for a measure that has been reported favorably by one
committee of jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and adversely by the other, the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, proponents of this legislation make a good case that we
need to increase spending for our Nation's transportation
infrastructure. Many of our highways, airports, mass transit systems,
and ports are in serious need of repair, modernizing, and expansion;
and our failure to spend an adequate amount on these projects is
costing our Nation dearly in terms of lower productivity. However,
moving four transportation trust funds off budget, and out from under
the discretionary spending caps, as H.R. 842 would do, is not the
appropriate way to solve this problem.
By freeing transportation spending from the budget constraints that
are currently imposed on all discretionary spending programs, it is
likely that transportation spending will increase by about $20 to $21
billion over the next 5 years. But to compensate for that extra
spending, Congress would have to increase the deficit by that amount,
or make deeper cuts in other discretionary programs.
We may well decide that we want to spend an extra $20 billion on
transportation projects over the next 5 years. But if we do, we should
make that decision with full awareness of the consequences of such
action for other Federal programs, and for our efforts to reduce
Federal deficits.
However, if transportation spending is given the preferential
budgetary treatment provided by H.R. 842, we would no longer determine
the appropriate amount to spend on transportation projects in the
context of our decisions on all other Federal spending; we would no
longer be forced to make the necessary tradeoffs that we currently have
to make whenever spending is increased for any program.
Furthermore, if special budgetary treatment is given to
transportation spending, advocates of other programs that are funded by
dedicated revenues will demand the same treatment. And there are nearly
160 other trust funds, and hundreds of similar special accounts, within
the Federal budget. This bill could be the first step toward a
fracturing of the Federal budget that would make the work of managing
the spending of our Federal dollars, and determining the size of the
Federal budget, far more complicated and difficult than it already is.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on a faulty premise--that we
are raising more revenues dedicated to transportation than we are
spending on transportation projects and therefore, those revenues mask
the true size of the deficit. In truth, in 12 of the past 15 years,
spending from the transportation trust funds has exceeded the amount of
revenues received. The surpluses in the trust funds that currently
exist result largely from interest that has been credited to the funds
on balances that accrued many years ago.
Mr. Speaker, to repeat: We have no objection to the rule, since it is
an open rule that will allow for a full debate on H.R. 842. But we
strongly urge Members to reject the bill itself.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], a very valuable member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus,
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding time to me.
I rise in support of this good open rule. But I must say to my
colleagues that I am perplexed that we are bringing this pleasure to
the floor. I, of course, do have enormous respect for Chairman Shuster
and his colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure who believe they are doing the right thing for the
transportation infrastructure of our Nation with this bill. But I and
others cannot agree with their conclusion because of our commitment to
the higher goal of controlling Government spending.
Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago Americans were reminded in an extremely
personal way of the extent to which Government feeds upon our families'
budgets. Americans are working several hours each day just to fulfill
their overall tax burdens now, and yet the Federal Government still
cannot make ends meet. Despite concerted efforts to shrink Government
spending, we remain nearly $5.5 trillion in debt. That is trillion.
Given the fact that we spend over $200 billion every year just in
interest to service that debt, it is obviously incumbent upon us to
handle with care the process by which we consider and make all our
spending decisions, and that is why I cannot support the bill before us
today.
Not 2 days after tax filing and not 2 weeks after the President
signed into law the historic line-item veto to increase control over
our Federal budget, this House is now considering a measure to weaken
our hold on spending and make it likely that Government will spend
more, not less, in the future. This bill, although very well
intentioned and pleasantly titled, has the effect of shielding one type
of Federal spending from all budget controls that would currently
apply, and I would say that includes the line-item veto we worked so
hard to get.
Although the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure went to
great lengths in its committee report to ensure Members that taking the
four transportation trust funds off budget would not in and of itself
lead to greater spending, the report went on
[[Page H3500]]
to make the increase for greater transportation spending in the future.
We can be fairly confident that moving these funds beyond the reach of
budgetary controls will lead to more spending and more obligation by
the American taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, many Members feel, as I do, that our budget process is
in need of comprehensive reform, precisely because we do not have
effective spending controls and incentives to save rather than spend.
In my view, H.R. 842 takes us in the wrong direction and weakens
spending controls and boosts the incentive to spend. I have long
championed users' fees, enterprise funds and other creative ways to
fairly and reasonably raise revenues for necessary Government
expenditures, but putting transportation in a special privileged budget
category, I believe, is the wrong way to go.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I am sure the gentleman would not intentionally mislead the body.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would not.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that the line-item veto
did not apply here. The line-item veto by the President does apply and
the President would be able to exercise the line-item veto, which is
simply one of the many spending constraints that would be retained if
this legislation is passed.
{time} 1145
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the chairman's assurance
on that. Our reading of the bill did not include that assurance. I am
pleased to have that assurance that the line-item veto will apply, and
I think it will necessarily preclude an amendment that otherwise would
have been made. So that is good news.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule, and I
rise in support today, in strong support, of H.R. 842. This bill is
called the Truth in Budgeting Act for a reason. It is commonsense
legislation that will take the four transportation trust funds off
budget.
Think about it. Every time we go to the gas pump, we are paying into
the Highway Trust Fund. Every time we fly on an airline, on a
commercial flight, we are paying into the Aviation Trust Fund. These
are user fees that are supposed to be used for improvements for our
roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, to widen congested
highways, improve safety, and expand airport capacity.
In my own district these are the kind of funds that should be used to
widen the Morris Bridge in my hometown from two to four lanes, to
construct a south suburban airport to improve aviation capacity in the
Chicago area, and they could also be used for quick replacement of the
outdated, antiquated, 30-year-old equipment at our air traffic control
systems.
Today I have with me a vacuum tube that is used in our computers in
our air traffic control system. They need to be replaced. This
legislation is a safety issue, as well.
Americans believe that when they are paying their user fees or gas
taxes or ticket taxes, that they are going to be used for
transportation purposes. Well, unfortunately, for accounting purposes
these trust funds have been used to mask the deficit, and because of
that my own State in the last 5 years has lost $260 million in trust
funds that would have gone to improve transportation.
As we know, when we improve transportation, we create jobs. That is
why groups like the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau,
organized labor, the Conference of State Legislatures, the League of
Cities and many others are supporting the truth in budgeting bill.
This legislation will create jobs. In fact, economists say that for
every $1 billion in transportation spending you create 42,000 good
paying jobs. This legislation is good for workers, it is good for good-
paying jobs, it is good for working families. It is a tax fairness
issue, as well, Mr. Speaker.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on final
passage.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one-half minute.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first open rule to be considered by the
House this session, and we are happy to support it. However, we do want
to point out that 72 percent of the legislation considered this session
has not even been reported from committee. In fact, 11 of 16 measures
brought up this session have been unreported.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following
information:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a None.
Package. closed rule on H.R. 1
within the closed
rule.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted over
Democratic objection
in the Committee of
the Whole to limit
debate on section 4;
Pre-printing gets
preference.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only 2R; 4D.
certain substitutes;
PQ.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; N/A.
Scheduling. considered in House
no amendments.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
gets preference.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Act of 1995. gets preference.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Reform Act of gets preference.
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Incarceration Act Time Cap on
of 1995. amendments.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Deportation gets preference;
Improvement Act. Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Law Enforcement Time Cap on
Block Grants. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Revitalization Time Cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; PQ2.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive; brought N/A.
Habeas. up under UC with a 6
hr. time cap on
amendments.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed; Put on None.
Suspension Calendar
over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Extend the Health order only the
Insurance Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Waives all points of
Self-Employed. order; Contains self-
executing provision;
PQ.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding substitute.
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Moratorium. Time Cap on
amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Time Cap on
amendments.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. 1D.
Protection Act. time cap on
amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print
their amendments in
the Record prior to
the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and
budget act points of
order as well as
points of order
concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill
against the committee
substitute used as
base text.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. 1D.
Litigation Reform time cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; Makes in
order the Wyden
amendment and waives
germaneness against
it.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. N/A.
Accountability time cap on
Act of 1995. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform order only 15 germane
Act. amendments and denies
64 germane amendments
from being
considered; PQ.
[[Page H3501]]
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations nonemergency 1159 and
and Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in
order only pre-
printed amendments
that include offsets
within the same
chapter (deeper cuts
in programs already
cut); waives points
of order against
three amendments;
waives cl 2 of rule
XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
substitute; waives cl
2(e) od rule XXI
against the
amendments in the
Record; 10 hr time
cap on amendments. 30
minutes debate on
each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R
order only 4
amendments considered
under a ``Queen of
the Hill'' procedure
and denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31
perfecting amendments
and two substitutes;
Denies 130 germane
amendments from being
considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self 1D.
America Tax Executes language
Relief Act of that makes tax cuts
1995. contingent on the
adoption of a
balanced budget plan
and strikes section
3006. Makes in order
only one substitute.
Waives all points of
order against the
bill, substitute made
in order as original
text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill;
makes H.R. 1391 in
order as original
text; makes in order
only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the
bill at any time.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of
rule XXI against the
committee substitute.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing N/A.
gets preference;
waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of
the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster
substitute as first
order of business.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in 3D; 1R.
order 4 substitutes
under regular order;
Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on
5/17/95; waives all
points of order
against substitutes
and concurrent
resolution; suspends
application of Rule
XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language; PQ.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of amendments to be
1995. printed in the Record
prior to their
consideration; 10 hr.
time cap; waives cl
2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill's
consideration; Also
waives sections
302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a)
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee amendment
in order as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the amendment;
amendment
consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m.
on May 25, 1995. Self-
executes provision
which removes section
2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act order only the Bipartisan.
FY 1996. amendments printed in
the report; waives
all points of order
against the bill,
substitute and
amendments printed in
the report. Gives the
Chairman en bloc
authority. Self-
executes a provision
which strikes section
807 of the bill;
provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr.
Clinger to offer a
modification of his
amendment with the
concurrence of Ms.
Collins; PQ.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Construction cl. 6 of rule XXI
Appropriations; against the bill; 1
FY 1996. hr. general debate;
Uses House passed
budget numbers as
threshold for
spending amounts
pending passage of
Budget; PQ.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. order only 11 Bipartisan.
amendments; waives
sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Budget
Act against the bill
and cl. 2 and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill. All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 5(b), and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Gilman
amendments as first
order of business;
waives all points of
order against the
amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as
original text; waives
cl. 2 of rule XXI
against the
amendments printed in
the report. Pre-
printing gets
priority (Hall)
(Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ); PQ.
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill;
makes in order the
Shuster amendment as
the first order of
business; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; if adopted
it will be considered
as original text. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one N/A.
Amendment to hour of general
Permit Congress debate and one motion
and States to to recommit with or
Prohibit the without instructions;
Physical if there are
Desecration of instructions, the MO
the American Flag. is debatable for 1
hr; PQ.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
for consideration of
the bill in the
House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations
Committee to offer
one amendment which
is unamendable;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; PQ.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
Appropriations. for further
consideration of the
bill; makes in order
only the four
amendments printed in
the rules report (20
min. each). Waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions
in the Committee of
the Whole; Provides
for an automatic rise
and report following
the disposition of
the amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act and cl
2 and cl 6 of rule
XXI; provides that
the bill be read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f), 306 and
308(a) of the Budget
Act; waives clauses 2
and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; provides
that the bill be read
by title; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment
and makes NEA funding
subject to House
passed authorization;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against the
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 N/A.
Appropriations. and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
that the bill be read
by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order
of business, if
adopted the amendment
will be considered as
base text (10 min.);
Pre-printing gets
priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations. for the further
consideration of the
bill; allows only
amendments pre-
printed before July
14th to be
considered; limits
motions to rise.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
the bill be read by
title; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides N/A.
for China. for consideration in
the House of H.R.
2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).
Waives certain
provisions of the
Trade Act.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f N/A.
Appropriations. rule XIII and section
401 (a) of the CBA
against consideration
of the bill; waives
cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against
provisions in the
bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all
points of order
against the amendment
(Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be
read by title; Pre-
printing gets
priority; PQ. *RULE
AMENDED*.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order N/A.
North Slope Oil. the Resources
Committee amendment
in the nature of a
substitute as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides a
Senate hook-up with
S. 395.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Pre-
printing gets
priority; provides
the bill be read by
title..
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Provides
that the amendment in
part 1 of the report
is the first
business, if adopted
it will be considered
as base text (30
min.); waives all
points of order
against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
that the bill be read
by title.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours ID.
U.S. Arms Embargo of general debate;
on Bosnia. Makes in order an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee (1 hr); If
motion to recommit
has instructions it
can only be offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 2(l)(6) of rule XI
and section 306 of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; self-
executes a strike of
sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the
Budget Committee; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
[[Page H3502]]
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. sec. 302(f) of the partisan.
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; Makes in order
the Commerce
Committee amendment
as original text and
waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
against the
amendment; Makes in
order the Bliely
amendment (30 min.)
as the first order of
business, if adopted
it will be original
text; makes in order
only the amendments
printed in the report
and waives all points
of order against the
amendments; provides
a Senate hook-up with
S. 652.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that N/A.
Appropriations the first order of
Act. business will be the
managers amendments
(10 min.), if adopted
they will be
considered as base
text; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against certain
amendments printed in
the report; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title; PQ.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open; 2 hr of gen. N/A.
Targeted debate. makes in
Investments. order the committee
substitute as
original text.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Authorization. sections 302(f),
308(a) and 401(b) of
the Budget Act. Makes
in order the
committee substitute
as modified by Govt.
Reform amend
(striking sec. 505)
and an amendment
striking title VII.
Cl 7 of rule XVI and
cl 5(a) of rule XXI
are waived against
the substitute.
Sections 302(f) and
401(b) of the CBA are
also waived against
the substitute.
Amendments must also
be pre-printed in the
Congressional record.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Lock Box. rule XVI against the
committee substitute
made in order as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open; waives sections N/A.
Acquisition 302(f) and 308(a) of
Reform Act of the Budget Act
1995. against consideration
of the bill; bill
will be read by
title; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open; waives section N/A.
Reform Workforce 302(f) and 401(b) of
Development and the Budget Act
Literacy Programs against the
Act (CAREERS). substitute made in
order as original
text (H.R. 2332), cl.
5(a) of rule XXI is
also waived against
the substitute.
provides for
consideration of the
managers amendment
(10 min.) If adopted,
it is considered as
base text.
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open; waives section N/A.
System 302(f) of the Budget
Designation Act Act against
of 1995. consideration of the
bill; Makes H.R. 2349
in order as original
text; waives section
302(f) of the Budget
Act against the
substitute; provides
for the consideration
of a managers
amendment (10 min.)
If adopted, it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive; waives cl 2R/2D
Democratic 2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI
Solidarity Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order H.R. 2347 as
base text; waives cl
7 of rule XVI against
the substitute; Makes
Hamilton amendment
the first amendment
to be considered (1
hr). Makes in order
only amendments
printed in the report.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open; waives cl N/A.
Employees and 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
managers Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order the committee
amendment as original
text; Pre-printing
get priority.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Certain committee amendment
Injunctions. as original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Space Station committee amendment
Authorization Act as original text; pre-
of 1995. printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed; Provides for ..............
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open; self-executes a N/A.
Science provision striking
Authorization Act section 304(b)(3) of
of 1995. the bill (Commerce
Committee request);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Certain 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Sentencing against the bill's
Guideline consideration; makes
Amendments. in order the text of
the Senate bill S.
1254 as original
text; Makes in order
only a Conyers
substitute; provides
a senate hook-up
after adoption.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive; waives 1D
Preservation Act. all points of order
against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the text of
H.R. 2485 as original
text; waives all
points of order
against H.R. 2485;
makes in order only
an amendment offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes); PQ.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations for consideration of
Bill. the bill in the House.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive; makes in 1D
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget order H.R. 2517 as
Reconciliation original text; waives
Social Security all pints of order
Earnings Test against the bill;
Reform. Makes in order only
H.R. 2530 as an
amendment only if
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes); PQ.
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive; waives N/A
Appropriations FY all points of order
1996. against the bill's
consideration; Makes
in order the Walsh
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 2 and
6 of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Bonilla,
Gunderson and
Hostettler amendments
(30 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; debate on
any further
amendments is limited
to 30 min. each.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed; Provides for N/A
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive; Provides 5R
in the Statutory for the immediate
Debt Limit. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee; self-
executes 4 amendments
in the rule; Solomon,
Medicare Coverage of
Certain Anti-Cancer
Drug Treatments,
Habeas Corpus Reform,
Chrysler (MI); makes
in order the Walker
amend (40 min.) on
regulatory reform.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open; waives section ..............
302(f) and section
308(a).
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of a
motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed; provides for N/A.
in the Statutory the immediate
Limit on the consideration of a
Public Debt. motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed; provides for 2R
Reform. consideration of the
bill in the House; 30
min. of debate; makes
in order the Burton
amendment and the
Gingrich en bloc
amendment (30 min.
each); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; Gingrich
is only in order if
Burton fails or is
not offered.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Disclosure Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. against the bill's
consideration; waives
all points of order
against the Istook
and McIntosh
amendments.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Funds for Bosnia all points of order
Deployment. against the bill's
consideration;
provides one motion
to amend if offered
by the Minority
Leader or designee (1
hr non-amendable);
motion to recommit
which may have
instructions only if
offered by Minority
Leader or his
designee; if Minority
Leader motion is not
offered debate time
will be extended by 1
hr.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open; waives all N/A.
Privatization Act points of order
of 1995. against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the
Transportation
substitute modified
by the amend in the
report; Bill read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the
substitute; makes in
order a managers
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open; makes in order N/A.
Act of 1995. the committee
substitute as
original text; makes
in order a managers
amendment which if
adopted is considered
as original text (20
min.) unamendable;
pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed; provides for N/A.
Trust Funds. the adoption of the
Ways & Means
amendment printed in
the report. 1 hr. of
general debate; PQ.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open; waives cl N/A.
Management Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. and sections 302(f)
and 311(a) of the
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration. Makes
in order the
Resources substitute
as base text and
waives cl 7 of rule
XVI and sections
302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; makes
in order a managers'
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min)..
H. Res. 304.................... Providing for N/A Closed; makes in order 1D; 2R
Debate and three resolutions;
Consideration of H.R. 2770 (Dorman),
Three Measures H. Res. 302 (Buyer),
Relating to U.S. and H. Res. 306
Troop Deployments (Gephardt); 1 hour of
in Bosnia. debate on each..
H. Res. 309.................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed; provides 2 N/A.
Resolution. hours of general
debate in the House;
PQ.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open; pre-printing N/A.
Radioactive Waste gets priority.
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed; consideration N/A.
and National in the House; self-
Wildlife Refuge executes Young
Systems Freedom amendment.
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed; provides to N/A.
extension of take the bill from
nondiscriminatory the Speaker's table
treatment (MFN) with the Senate
to the products amendment, and
of Bulgaria. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed; provides to N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/ take from the
establishing Speaker's table H.J.
procedures making Res. 134 with the
the transmission Senate amendment and
of the continuing concur with the
resolution H.J. Senate amendment with
Res. 134. an amendment (H. Con.
Res. 131) which is
self-executed in the
rule. The rule
provides further that
the bill shall not be
sent back to the
Senate until the
Senate agrees to the
provisions of H. Con.
Res. 131. ** NR; PQ.
[[Page H3503]]
H.R. 1358...................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed; provides to N/A.
National Marine take the bill from
Fisheries Service the Speakers table
Laboratory at with the Senate
Gloucester, amendment, and
Massachusetts. consider in the house
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous quesetion is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed; ** NR; PQ..... N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive; waives 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition all points of order Bipartisan.
Program. against the bill; 2
hrs of general
debate; makes in
order a committee
substitute as
original text and
waives all points of
order against the
substitute; makes in
order only the 16
amends printed in the
report and waives all
points of order
against the
amendments;
circumvents unfunded
mandates law;
Chairman has en bloc
authority for amends
in report (20 min.)
on each en bloc; PQ.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; makes in N/A.
& Review Act of order the Hyde
1995. substitute printed in
the Record as
original text; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI
against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority; vacates the
House action on S.
219 and provides to
take the bill from
the Speakers table
and consider the
Senate bill; allows
Chrmn. Clinger a
motion to strike all
after the enacting
clause of the Senate
bill and insert the
text of H.R. 994 as
passed by the House
(1 hr) debate; waives
germaneness against
the motion; provides
if the motion is
adopted that it is in
order for the House
to insist on its
amendments and
request a conference.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule; gives one N/A.
Continuing Full motion to recommit,
Investment of which if it contains
Social security instructions, may
and Other Federal only if offered by
Funds in the Minority Leader
Obligations of or his designee. **
the United States. NR.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive; self- 2D/2R.
Downpayment executes CBO language
Toward a Balanced regarding contingency
Budget. funds in section 2 of
the rule; makes in
order only the
amendments printed in
the report; Lowey (20
min), Istook (20
min), Crapo (20 min),
Obey (1 hr); waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; give one
motion to recommit,
which if contains
instructions, may
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive; makes in 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and order only the Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act amendments printed in
of 1996. the report; waives
all points of orer
against the
amendments; gives
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) on enblocs;
provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 735.
** NR.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive; waives 12D; 19R; 1
and National all points of order Bipartisan.
Interest Act of against the bill and
1995. amendments in the
report except for
those arising under
sec. 425(a) of the
Budget Act (unfunded
mandates); 2 hrs. of
general debate on the
bill; makes in order
the committee
substitute as base
text; makes in order
only the amends in
the report; gives the
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) of debate on
the en blocs; self-
executes the Smith
(TX) amendment re:
employee verification
program; PQ.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed; provides for N/A.
continuing the consideration of
appropriations the CR in the House
for FY 1996. and gives one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader;
the rule also waives
cl 4(b) of rule XI
against the
following: an omnibus
appropriations bill,
another CR, a bill
extending the debt
limit. ** NR.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed; self-executes N/A
Enforcement and an amendment;
Second Amendment provides one motion
Restoration Act to recommit which may
of 1996. contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed; provides for N/A
America the consideration of
Advancement Act the bill in the
of 1996. House; self-executes
an amendment in the
Rules report; waives
all points of order,
except sec.
425(a)(unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the bill's
consideration; orders
the PQ except 1 hr.
of general debate
between the Chairman
and Ranking Member of
Ways and Means; one
Archer amendment (10
min.); one motion to
recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
Provides a Senate
hookup if the Senate
passes S. 4 by March
30, 1996. **NR.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive: 2 hrs. of N/A
Coverage general debate (45
Availability and min. split by Ways
Affordability Act and Means) (45 split
of 1996. by Commerce) (30
split by Economic and
Educational
Opportunities); self-
executes H.R. 3160 as
modified by the
amendment in the
Rules report as
original text; waives
all points of order,
except sec. 425(a)
(unfunded mandates)
of the CBA; makes in
order a Democratic
substitute (1 hr.)
waives all points of
order, except sec.
425(a) (unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the
amendment; one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
waives cl 5(c) of
Rule XXI (requiring 3/
5 vote on any tax
increase) on votes on
the bill, amendments
or conference reports.
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive; provides ID
Constitutional for consideration of
Amendment. the bill in the
House; 3 hrs of
general debate; Makes
in order H.J. Res.
169 as original text;
allows for an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or
his designee (1 hr)
** NR.
H.R. 842....................... Truth in Budgeting H. Res. 396 Open; 2 hrs. of N/A
Act. general debate; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 94% restrictive; 6% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 65% restrictive; 35%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which
can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed
rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This
definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules
Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to bring H.R.
842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, to the House floor. It is time that
the full House take action on this issue, and this open rule would
allow such a debate to take place.
The Truth in Budgeting Act would simply take four trust funds off
budget: the Highway Trust Fund, the Aviation Trust Fund, the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. These are
dedicated user funds which can only be used for infrastructure
investment.
For those concerned that H.R. 842 will somehow allow infrastructure
spending to grow unrestrained, I would point out that the legislation
establishes automatic spending safeguards. Identical to the safeguard
already contained in the Highway Trust Fund, H.R. 842 will ensure that
the remaining trust funds are deficit proof and operate on a pay-as-
you-go basis.
The Secretaries of Transportation and Treasury Department will have
to review the Aviation Trust Fund annually to determine if expected
receipts will cover the authorized aviation expenditures. If the trust
fund does not cover unfunded aviation authorizations, then those
authorizations must be reduced on a pro rata basis until the shortfall
is covered.
The Army and Treasury Secretaries will review the Inland Waterways
and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds in the same manner.
For over 20 years now the spending from these trust funds has been
capped in order to make the Federal deficit look smaller. This has
allowed Congress and the administration to hold back funds from
infrastructure development and instead spend additional money on social
programs. While many of these programs have merit, they should not be
paid for by holding back money from these trust funds.
My colleagues on the other side of this issue say by taking the trust
funds off budget we will increase the deficit, and I would remind them
again that by law these trust funds can only be used for transportation
purposes, and if the trust funds are being used to pay for social
programs or other programs, then we have got to find an alternative way
to fund those programs or we must cut them back and restrain the growth
in spending.
Mr. Speaker, this is first and foremost a tax honesty issue. As my
colleagues know, every time a motorist buys gasoline or a traveler buys
an airline ticket, taxes are paid into the highway and aviation trust
funds. Congress imposed these taxes with the assurance that the
collected funds would be spent for infrastructure improvements and
infrastructure improvements only.
Most people in our Nation take our infrastructure for granted. We are
very fortunate to have the resources and the planning needed to create
a first-class system or a class system. But much remains to be done,
and much deterioration is in our infrastructure. The cost of upkeep and
maintenance alone runs very high. So it is essential that we take these
trust funds off budget.
Currently, the Department of Transportation estimates that the
backlog of needs for our Nation's highways and bridges totals $315
billion. Simply
[[Page H3504]]
maintaining our current transit system is estimated to cost $8 billion
annually for the next 20 years, and according to airport groups,
airport investment needs are $10 billion a year.
As I said, the issue is truly one of honesty. In the President's
first year in office he was interviewed by a reporter in my district in
Arkansas, and my district happens to be the largest metropolitan area
in the United States without an interstate highway. We are working on
it, but that kind of need is so essential across this country, and the
President was asked the question, ``What can you do, Mr. President, to
insure the construction of this highway needed in my district?''
His response was, ``The most important thing this administration can
do is to take the highway trust funds off budget.''
I do not know what his position is on this today, but he was
absolutely right when he made that statement. The most important thing
we can do for building the infrastructure of this country is to take
these funds off budget and be honest with the American people about the
needs we face and the need that we have in the deficit. Let us be
honest with the American people, lets be fair with them, by taking
these trust funds off budget.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to House Resolution
396 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 842.
{time} 1154
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.
842) to provide off-budget treatment for the Highway Trust Fund, the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Kasich], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each control
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Even our
vaunted Interstate System is filled with potholes. Our Air Traffic
Control System is blacking out. We still have vacuum tube computers
running the Air Traffic Control System. Across America we need to
invest in infrastructure. Indeed, travel on our highways is growing at
a compound rate of 3 percent a year; trucking, as we move into the next
century, will see a 28-percent increase in travel on our highways. We
will experience, as we move into the next century, a billion people
traveling commercially in aviation a year, and it was only 230 million
traveling just 15 years ago.
We need to invest in infrastructure. But that is not the most
important reason why we should pass this legislation today. The reason
that we should pass this legislation today, the most important reason,
is because we need to keep faith with the American people, we need to
have honest budgeting, we need to put the trust back in the trust fund,
and that is what happened originally.
We hear a lot about the Contract With America this year, and I
certainly think it is important, and many do, but the original Contract
With America was a contract that Dwight Eisenhower and the Congress
made in 1956. They said to the American people, ``We're going to charge
a gas tax when you drive up to the pump, and we're going to put that
gas tax in the trust fund, a highway trust fund, and we're going to
spend that user tax to improve your highways,'' and then later on they
said, ``We're going to create an aviation trust fund, and when you get
on an airplane you're going to pay a 10-percent ticket tax, and we're
going to take your 10-percent ticket tax, your user tax, for getting on
that airplane, and we're going to put that in an aviation trust fund,
and under the law that money won't be able to be spent for anything
except to improve our aviation system, our airports, our runways, our
terminals, our air traffic control system, so we can have a safe
system.''
Mr. Chairman, that is the way the highway trust fund and the aviation
trust fund and the other trust funds worked until 1969, when Lyndon
Johnson had a bright idea, trying to figure out how to mask the size of
the deficit. He realized that while it is true under the law, this
money cannot be spent in these trust funds for anything other than
their highway, aviation purposes. If we do not spend the money, if we
let the balances build up, then we can mask the size, we can hide the
size, we can distort the size of the true general fund deficit. And so
he created the so-called unified budget, and once that was done, over
the years both Democratic and Republican Presidents have used this
gimmick to distort and hide the size of the true general fund deficit.
What has happened as a result of it? Today there is over $30 billion
in balances in the transportation trusts funds, transportation trust
funds which, by the way, are different from many other trust funds in
Washington in that they are totally user financed.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that back in 1964,
before the unified budget, the American people were asked, ``Do you
have confidence that your government generally will try to do the right
thing, your Federal Government,'' and 76 percent of the American people
said, ``Yes,'' and today, when asked that same question, ``Do you have
confidence that your Federal Government generally tries to do the right
thing,'' only 19 percent of the American people say yes.
{time} 1200
I submit to you that exhibit A is the way these transportation trust
funds have been distorted and manipulated and used, so we have not kept
faith with the American people.
Indeed, the Speaker of the House has said many times that we should
either spend this money, these user taxes, for the purpose for which
they were created, or if we do not have the needs, we should reduce the
tax. Indeed, that is exactly right. I do not think there is anybody in
this Chamber who would say we do not have the needs. Indeed, the user
fees are the fairest form of taxation there is, because the person who
benefits is the person who pays.
There are a couple of myths which have been floating around which
should be answered. The first is that, well, the revenue that has come
into the trust funds, the transportation trust funds over the years,
has really equalled or even exceeded the amount that has been spent.
That is only half the story, because what our colleagues who make these
arguments do not tell us is that they are not counting the interest
that has gone in on the balances in these trust funds.
Think about that for a minute. There is a minor little insignificant
thing called the law of the land, which says if the Treasury borrows
from a trust fund it has to pay interest. So for those who would argue
do not count the interest, I would suggest, first of all, it is the law
of the land; but secondly, if we do not want to count the interest in
the trust funds, then we had better be very, very careful, because
nearly 50 percent of the reserves in the Social Security trust fund is
based on interest. Are we going to tell the American people we are not
going to count the interest, the legal interest that is accruing in the
Social Security trust fund? No, the interest under the law must be
counted.
Further, Mr. Chairman, we are told that if this legislation passes
today, it will remove all controls and we will simply be able to go out
and spend whatever we want to spend on all these projects.
Mr. Chairman, simply, factually, that is not true. First, the
Committee on Appropriations retains all of the jurisdiction that it now
has, and can set
[[Page H3505]]
the obligational limits, that is, the ceiling, on how much can be spent
every year. Further, the line-item veto that the President has does
apply, and that can be used.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, under the law not a penny can
be spent from these transportation trust funds unless the money is
there to pay the bill. These transportation trust funds are deficit-
proof. Would that our other programs here in Washington were as
deficit-proof as these transportation trust funds. If they were, we
would not have a deficit.
So there are very substantial restraints and spending controls which
exist if this legislation is passed. Yes, if we build America's
infrastructure, for every $1 billion spent, 42,000 real jobs are
created. Yes, if we spend the money to build America's infrastructure,
we increase productivity in America, we save lives, we stimulate
economic growth.
The Department of Transportation, in a recent study analyzing
economic growth in America over the past quarter of a century, says
that fully 25 percent of the economic growth, the increase in
productivity in America, is attributable to building infrastructure.
So, indeed, for all these reasons we should vigorously support this
legislation today, not only because the needs are there, but because it
is fair, it is right, it is just, it is the honest way to deal with the
American people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SHUSTER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, how will the various committees be
recognized?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was planning to rotate among the committees.
Mr. SHUSTER. We are not doing 1 hour per committee?
The CHAIRMAN. It is the intention of the Chair to rotate among those
Members who seek recognition.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Science, in opposition to the bill.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to say that my colleague, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the committee,
is in fact someone who works very, very hard to preserve the Nation's
infrastructure, and should be congratulated for the work that he does
in terms of trying to make certain that the resources provided to the
Nation's infrastructure are in fact adequate, and do in fact reflect
the needs of a Nation that is expanding into our future.
My opposition to the bill that he has before us today has nothing to
do with the commitment that he has shown over the years to that
particular goal. I am concerned, however, about just exactly how this
revenue balance moves forward.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has just described the situation.
That is, that the people who propose this bill want to spend not only
the revenues that come in for the trust fund, but also want to spend
the accumulated interest over a period of years, because they feel as
though that interest is money that ought to be kept in place for
improving the infrastructure of the country.
All of that is fine, except that it is all fungible. We just had the
Director of the CBO before the Committee on the Budget. She explained
that over the past several years, the amount of money flowing into the
Treasury to pay for highways has been equalled by the amount of money
flowing out of the Treasury to pay for highways. So they have remained
in relative balance over a period of some years.
What this bill says is, oh, but in addition, we want the money in
interest. Understand, the interest payments we are talking about here
are not new money for the Government, they are taxpayers' money as
well. It is, again, the same taxpayers' money. Therefore, the money,
the $19 billion of interest that seeks to be spent under this bill is
$19 billion of discretionary money that will have to be taken out of
somewhere else in discretionary accounts.
So, if in fact you are going to do this, and you are going to achieve
what the committee seeks to achieve with this bill, you are going to
have to take it away from other spending. You are going to have to take
it away from other things which are vital to the country, such as
spending money on the research and development to take us to the
economy of the future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the initial purpose of the highway trust fund when it
was crafted in 1956 was to finance the national system of interstate
and defense highways, the world's largest infrastructure project and
one of the marvels of engineering of the world, and was based upon the
idea that we needed a dedicated revenue stream to finance projects that
would take a long time to design, engineer, acquire right-of-way for
the roadway to be built upon, and then to construct that roadway. So
the framers of the Interstate Highway System Program conceived a
dedicated revenue stream to be financed by a tax upon the users of the
system, all those people who drive cars and trucks, and a tax upon fuel
was agreed upon.
It was also agreed in that initial legislation that this fund should
be held in trust for the purpose for which it was intended, and that it
should be deficit-proof, as the chairman of the committee has already
expressed.
It has been an enormously successful program. We have spent $120
billion on the Interstate Highway Program. It represents 1 percent of
the Nation's highway mileage. It carries 26 percent of the Nation's
highway traffic. That represented last year 990 billion miles traveled
on just the Interstate Highway System alone.
But over time, the idea of retaining some of the moneys from that
trust fund and not spending them became very popular with the executive
branch. Every dollar of tax revenue from the highway users tax is
invested in U.S. Treasury notes. Those Treasury notes, like the World
War II bonds, bear interest. The buyer of those bonds gets the
principal plus the interest.
That was the idea that we applied in the highway trust fund, that
revenues from the highway user tax on fuel would be invested in
Treasury notes, which would bear interest, and which interest would go
into the highway trust fund. In contrast to what our previous speaker
said, the fact is this is not just free money, this is money owed to
the highway fund. It is money owed to the users of the system by all
taxpayers, by the Federal Government for the use of those dollars.
So over time, Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that the executive
branch has withheld not only interest, but the principal that has been
paid in by highway users into the highway trust fund, and conveniently
kept it in the unified budget account to make the deficit look less
than it really is.
Mr. Chairman, what we want to do is to free all of the transportation
trust funds from the artificial and unnecessary constraints of the
budget process and allow those funds to be used and invested to reverse
the deterioration of our Nation's infrastructure. This is not adding to
the deficit, it is a deficit-neutral step that we take here. We urge
everybody to support our legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the rare times I find myself
on the opposite side of an issue with my good friend, the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
Mr. Chairman, I wish I could tell the House that Santa Claus was
here, but Santa Claus is not here. The reality is that if one is trying
to achieve a certain deficit target or trying to balance a budget
within a specified period of time and one spends more on something, you
have to spend less on something else. Those are the simple facts.
I like highways. Appropriate expenditures on highways are an
important investment in this country. Appropriate expenditures on
airports are an important investment in this country. Appropriate
expenditures on transit are an important expenditure and investment in
this country. But we have to make those judgments in relationship to
the other choices we have to make.
[[Page H3506]]
I also happen to think that money spent on research and development
is important, that investment in education is important, that
investment in our housing supply and housing availability in this
country is important. All of those are going to suffer if this proposal
passes today, and the assumption is that somehow billions of new
dollars appear to be expended. Those others inevitably have to suffer,
because those are the choices we have to make every year in Congress.
There is no free pot of money there, available, that has no impact on
deficits, no impact on other expenditures. If this passes, if there is
additional money spent on those programs beyond projection, something
else has to come down. It is the simple fact.
What about the inner workings of these plans? Highways; when did this
accumulation of surplus occur? In the 1960's, and in the 1970's. The
fact is, since 1981 we have spent $18 billion more on highways than the
receipts and the tax receipts of that fund; $3 billion more than total
receipts, $3 billion more than total receipts, taxes, and interest.
One of the interesting things I discovered, and I have an amendment
filed, and I do not know that I will offer it today, but I discovered
to my amazement that the rate of interest credited to the highway trust
fund is between 1 percent to 3 percent higher than the equivalent yield
on a 1-year Treasury bill. Somehow, the drafters of this bill and of
this law managed to get very lucrative interest rates credited to their
account.
What about some of the other workings of some of these specific
funds? The airport trust fund, we think it pays for aviation. The
reality is that over the years, one of the fundamental reasons they
have a surplus is that we have used the general revenue fund to
subsidize the operations of FAA. Every study I have seen would indicate
that about 85 percent of operations of the FAA should be tied or should
come from the trust fund if they really paid their accurate share.
Maybe 15 percent of it could be credited to defense and other
governmental use of the airways. In reality, it has been about 50
percent of the operations that are paid for from the trust fund. If it
would have paid its actual share, no surplus would exist.
{time} 1215
What about in recent years? Since 1981 we have spent more than excise
taxes and interest on the highway trust fund. Has that changed in the
last couple of years? No. 1994, 1995, we have spent more than interest
and current revenues on highways. So this is a fund that has not been
mistreated. This involves sort of this wish that somehow this pot of
free money exists that somehow can be made available and not impact
anyone else. I would hope the House would reject that argument and say
that these funds are part of the overall budget strategy involved in
the dynamic debate every year of how we set our priorities. There is
one way we do that and that is by rejecting this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
neighbor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the Truth in Budgeting Act is nothing more than an act
of keeping faith with the American people. It allows the transportation
trust funds to do what they were originally intended to do.
The fact that we have to debate and vote on this bill is--I think--an
admission that Congress has in recent years deceived the American
taxpayer. When past Congresses first created these trust funds, several
promises were made that were reflected in the original statutes. One
was that Federal excise tax receipts would be dedicated to building and
maintaining these transportation assets and that these activities would
be self-sustaining. Another was that no general fund revenues would be
used to support these programs. And a third was that activities funded
by the trust funds could not run a deficit.
During the intervening years, these promises have been abrogated. Now
trust funds are constrained--they're prevented from spending out at the
same rate they take in revenues. And that is simply wrong. We have been
practicing a grand scheme of deceit with the users of highways,
airports, and inland waterways--meaning virtually everyone.
And believe me, there has been a price paid for this deceit:
congestion, pollution, and higher costs for goods and services.
Many in this Congress have made great hay about not burdening future
generations with the excesses of current and past spending practices. I
maintain that the Truth in Budgeting Act is very much in the same vein.
We have the money to build more capacity now, but we're not spending
it, even in the face of growing highway and airport congestion. And if
you project out over the next 7 years the growing balance in the trust
funds should this legislation not be enacted, the backlog of work will
grow tremendously. Do not punish future generations even more than we
already have--vote to support H.R. 842.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
Before I get into it, I want to pay my respect to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee who has been so diligent in trying to solve this deficit.
Also to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] who has been a warrior and
his staff that have made all the difference. The fact is that if Bob
Dole has any sense, he will pick one of the three Johns as his Vice
President--Jack Kemp, John McCain, or John Kasich. All would be good
for our ticket. John has been a warrior, and to even be dealing with
this bill now wipes out many of the things that he has been trying to
do.
What we are dealing with today is money, power, and pork. Remember
those words: Money, power, and pork.
Remember the words from Simon and Garfunkel's song ``The Boxer'',
where it goes on, ``I am just a poor boy though my story's seldom
told.''
He ends by saying, ``A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards
the rest.''
Many in this body are hearing what you want to hear and disregarding
the rest. More money has gone out to transportation than was in the
trust fund. More money in the last 12 or 15 years has gone out than was
in the trust fund. So many people are disregarding what they do not
want to hear.
This bill presents and protects sand and gravel and cement. Then it
says to those who are elderly with Alzheimer's disease, ``We're not
going to protect you.''
``You may have cancer and you may be worried about cancer research,
but we're not going to protect you.''
``You may be worried about education, but we're not going to protect
you.''
``We're going to protect sand and gravel and cement and tar and
pitch.''
What about the 160 other trust funds? The Endeavor Teacher Trust
Fund. ``Who cares about the teachers?''
The Radiation Exposure Trust Fund. ``We don't care if you've been
involved in radiation. Who cares?''
The Civil Service Trust Fund. ``Who cares about that?'' And on and on
and on.
Look what the experts have said. Alan Greenspan, what he said about
this and others will go into detail. Paul Volcker, what he said; Herb
Stein, what he said; Michael Boskins, what he said; what all of the
people have said. ``This is not a good idea.''
What have some of the groups and newspapers said? The Concord
Coalition has said, ``Passage of this legislation would severely
jeopardize the chances of balancing the Federal budget.''
The National Taxpayers Union has said, ``Placing these trust funds
off-budget is nothing less than a ploy to increase spending.'' This
Congress should not be involved in a ploy to increase spending.
The Citizens Against Government Waste says, ``The Truth-in-Budgeting
Act sounds great to the public, but it's simply a ruse to increase the
$5 trillion debt.''
[[Page H3507]]
The Americans for Tax Reform is opposed to it, the Committee for a
Responsible Federal Budget, the Citizens for a Sound Economy. You name
it and they are opposed to it. The New York Times, the Washington Post,
the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and you go on and on and
they are opposed to this. This is a very bad bill. But for the main
reason, for this side, I will not talk to this side but for our side,
we have died and fought for a balanced budget. John Kasich, the
Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, and others have
done everything they can for a balanced budget. If we pass this, we
will never have a balanced budget in your life in this Congress. You
will never ever see a balanced budget in this Congress. There is no two
ways about it. Because you are not going to have the guts to cut
Alzheimer's, you are not going to want to go after Social Security, you
are not going to want to cut the radiation fund, you are not going to
want to go after defense, you are not going to want to go after crime,
and therefore we will never ever have a balanced budget in our lifetime
in this Congress.
The American people should know that. This vote today will determine
whether or not we will ever have a balanced budget.
So in closing, let me talk about three words and maybe throw in one
other word. What are we talking about today? We are talking about
money. This town knows what money is. Members know what money is. We
are talking about money. We are also talking about power. We are
talking about power, raw power. And we are talking about something that
this body says it does not like but it is sadly addicted to it, and
that is pork. And lastly one other thing we are talking about. We are
talking about fear. I sense there is fear in the body today. I sense in
the hearts of some of the Members that I have talked to, there is fear.
They really would rather not be where they are but yet there is a sense
of fear.
Let me just close with a quote from Robert Kennedy that has always
meant a lot to me. It is from his Capetown speech in 1966 in Capetown,
South Africa, when he was speaking to the students, and this is what he
said. He talked about fear and men and women in leadership being timid.
I will close with this. I quote from Robert Kennedy, Capetown, 1966.
He said:
Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their
fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their
society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in
battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential,
vital quality of those who seek to change a world which
yields most painfully to change.
I strongly urge the defeat of this so we can validate what the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Sabo] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] have done.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 842 and efforts to move
transportation trust funds off-budget.
This issue has certainly engendered extensive debate and controversy
and even a coalition of special interests and lobbying groups formed to
promote taking the trust funds off-budget using the slogan that we have
to ``put trust back into the trust fund.''
If only we could have directed the enormous energy, time, and talent
focused on this issue to address broader--and frankly, much more
important--transportation issues. I believe the coalition efforts are
misdirected. Trust is not at issue.
If only we could have harnessed the zeal with which many have
approached the trust fund issue and directed it to what I believe are
greater issues in setting highway and transportation policy.
If only we could debate the highway funding formulas now in place,
which dole out highway funds to States using 1980 census figures. Why
are we relying on decade-and-a-half old population figures? If there is
unfairness in highway transportation today, the on-off budget trust
fund issue isn't it.
If only we could debate the whole issue of the Federal gasoline tax
which many would argue should be turned back to the States which can
better determine their individual needs, getting Uncle Sam out of the
highway program.
If only. But we are where we are and today we will vote on this issue
which has been simmering for over a year.
There are a few facts to keep in mind when considering this issue:
First, while balances may remain in transportation trust funds, these
funds are already obligated. The cash balances in the trust funds do
not represent unspent gas taxes. The highway program is a reimbursable
program--lines of credit are provided to State agencies to plan and
construct highways. Then, 3 or 4 years later, the States seek
reimbursements from the trust fund to pay those bills. That's why the
cash balances do not represent a surplus. These balances are like your
checking account balance after you have deposited your paycheck but
before your home mortgage and car payment checks have cleared the bank.
Like your home mortgage and car payment, commitments have already been
made against the balances in the trust fund. In fact, commitments have
already been made in excess of the current cash balance by over $30
billion. In other words, if we were to stop collecting the gas tax at
the end of this year, the trust fund would have a deficit of over $30
billion. How would we deal with this deficit? I don't think we could.
Not only that, highway funding has substantially exceeded trust fund
tax receipts. In 12 of the past 15 years, highway trust fund spending
exceeded tax revenues. That means that the amount of money the
Government spends on transportation has exceeded the amount of money
provided for transportation spending from dedicated trust fund taxes.
But the trust fund is not the only source of transportation spending.
Not only are transportation trust funds tapped for roads and bridges,
the general fund is also being used to pay for transportation programs.
How much money are we spending on transportation? According to the
Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 1995, general treasury
funds provided more than $12 billion for transportation programs above
and beyond funds provided from transportation trust funds. According to
CRS, the general fund figure does not include Maritime Administration,
Federal Maritime Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Department
of Defense spending on transportation programs, all of which also tap
into the general fund to pay for transportation projects.
Second, while transportation is vital to the economic well-being of
our country, there are other issues vying for priority status. There
are many important programs demanding critical funding.
A third and possibly most important point: This issue is about
reining in the Federal deficit and balancing the budget. Congress has
had a very difficult time making the tough choices necessary to move
toward a balanced budget. We still have a long way to go to meet our
deficit reduction goals, and many more tough choices to make.
How much more difficult will these choices be if we have to find an
additional $30 billion in cuts--$30 billion--that's the additional cuts
we will have to make if transportation trust funds are moved off-
budget. If transportation spending gets special treatment, we will have
to find $30 billion in cuts in discretionary spending in other parts of
the budget.
Are you prepared to cut Alzheimer's research funding? Cancer
research? Research on other life threatening diseases? Veterans' health
care? Head Start? Crime prevention? Education? Job training?
Environmental protection and cleanup programs? National defense? These
are the kinds of spending programs that would face cuts--potentially
significant cuts--if transportation spending is treated as an
entitlement subject to preferential budgetary treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe Congress or the American people want
to subject these critical programs to even further cuts. Nor do I
believe Congress or the American people are prepared to accept
additional taxes which would be necessary to pay for increased
transportation spending if offsetting cuts elsewhere in the Federal
budget are not made. Are you prepared to vote ``yes'' for a tax
increase?
When we are concerned about providing adequate funding to provide
basic health care, education programs, protection for our country's
natural resources, when we are working to provide safe streets and
neighborhoods, and a sound and secure financial future for ourselves,
our children and grandchildren, it is not the time to single out
transportation and insulate it from these tough choices. I would also
point out that there are some 160 other dedicated trust funds currently
part of the unified budget. What if we move all of the trust funds off-
budget and establish each and every one of them as an entitlement
subject to preferential treatment. What makes these trust funds
different from the transportation trust funds?
Sand, gravel, asphalt, and concrete. Are these more important than
the Black Lung trust fund? Are the transportation trust funds a higher
national priority than the Endeavor Teacher Fellowship trust fund, the
Radiation Exposure Compensation trust fund, the Civil Service
Retirement trust fund, the Federal Employees Life Insurance trust fund,
or the Rail Industry Pension fund?
[[Page H3508]]
As important as transportation is, we have to balance transportation
needs with all the other programs supported by the working men and
women who are taxpayers. This country, all Americans, are in this
together and we have to balance all the priorities and all the needs of
all the people.
Another point: H.R. 842 will erode the checks and balances between
the authorizing committees and the tax and appropriations committees.
This bill will provide one committee with extraordinary ability to
obligate U.S. taxpayers to long-term spending commitments. As Members
know, there is constant pressure from the legislative committees to
spend more and more money on their particular programs. This makes
sense but there must be built-in controls in the budget process to
counteract this natural advocacy.
Despite what the bill's proponents say, H.R. 842 will obviate the
need for action by the Appropriations Committee and will eliminate
annual controls in the budget process to set priorities. Make no
mistake about it. By moving transportation trust funds off-budget, H.R.
842 virtually eliminates the checks and balances that the congressional
committee structure now provides for transportation and the other
Federal spending programs.
Proponents of H.R. 842 say that not a penny will be spent without the
approval of the Appropriations Committee. That sounds good, but in
reality, this is false. If H.R. 842 does not change the role of the
Appropriations Committee, why are we going through this debate?
There has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue, so to
get an objective view, I wrote to several dozen experts on the Federal
budgetary process and transportation spending and asked their opinions
on the status of transportation funds. I contacted economists,
transportation, Government, and public policy analysts; professors;
current and former officials of the General Accounting Office,
Congressional Budget Office, and Office of Management and Budget;
current and former members of the Federal Reserve Board; and current
and former members of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.
The response has been clear and unequivocal: These experts--
representing the entire spectrum of social, economic, budgetary, and
transportation thinking and representing both Republican and Democratic
administrations alike--say keep the transportation trust funds as part
of the unified budget. Do not make the changes we are talking about
today.
Mr. Chairman, I brought with me copies of these experts' views and
ask that they be submitted for the record. Their views--and their
unanimity--leave little doubt. Moving transportation trust funds off-
budget does not represent sound fiscal policy or budgetary treatment.
I'd like to share a few thoughts from these experts.
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, warns:
[M]oving some spending categories off-budget would lead to
fragmentation of the budgeting process and would detract from
the unified budget as an indicator of the Government's fiscal
operations and hence of the impact of the U.S. budget on
credit markets and the economy. Moreover, it would weaken the
ability of the Congress to prioritize and control spending
effectively.
Mr. Greenspan concludes that:
[M]oving programs off-budget raises the risk that resource
tradeoffs would become obscured and could engender cynicism
in financial markets and the public at large about the
commitment and ability of the Government to control Federal
spending.
Mr. Greenspan's views are echoed by Paul Volcker, former Chairman of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, who states:
[T]he present practice of including the transportation
trust funds in the unified budget should be continued. I am
reinforced in that conclusion by the fact that nothing in the
unified budget prevents the Congress and the administration
from reaching a decision to maintain highway spending (or any
other spending) at a particular level it deems a priority
matter. Trust fund accounting within the unified budget may *
* * be helpful in reaching that decision.
Herbert Stein, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research and previously a member of the Presidential
Council of Economic Advisors, also opposes moving trust funds off-
budget, noting:
I would not favor moving the trust funds off the budget. We
want to have a comprehensive measure of the Federal
Government's fiscal activities.
One thought from Michael Boskin, currently a professor and senior
fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and previously a
member of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors. He said:
I believe it is likely that moving one popular spending
program primarily financed by earmarked revenues off-budget
would lead to a stampede first of other trust funds off-
budget and then all other spending programs seeking to be
funded with earmarked revenue sources. This would quickly
render sensible tax and budget policy impossible.
Mr. Chairman, let me share jsut two more. G. William Miller endorses:
I do not believe a case has been made for excluding the
transportation trust funds. From my experience as Secretary
of the Treasury and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, I would strongly recommend that you
retain the present treatment of the transportation trust
funds so that there is no opportunity for losing
accountability or setting precedents for further off-balance
sheet structures.
The Congressional Budget Office opposes moving transportation trust
funds off-budget, too. According to James L. Blum, deputy director of
CBO:
[T]he Federal budget should be comprehensive. Setting
selected programs aside, and looking at only the remainder,
can distort budget decisionmaking. Giving the transportation
trust funds a favored footing shifts the onus of deficit
reduction to other programs that lack this protected status.
Sound decisionmaking, in contrast, demands that spending and
revenue proposals be evaluated on their merits and not on
their budgetary status.
I think these experts express the critical issues best. A unified
budget--which includes transportation trust funds--is essential to
maintaining accountability and control over the Federal budget and
Government spending. Moreover, a unified budget is necessary to allow
Congress to make the difficult decisions on our budget in the fairest
possible way. Creating another entitlement that is off the table is not
fair. Nor is it the way to get a balanced budget.
The experts agree that H.R. 842 is bad legislation.
The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman and
ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the chairman and ranking
member of the House Appropriations Committee, and others oppose this
legislation.
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Concord Coalition, Heritage Foundation,
National Taxpayers' Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against
Government Waste, and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget are
among the taxpayer watchdogs groups opposing H.R. 842.
The Wall Street Journal, Washington, Post, New York Times, and the
Journal of Commerce oppose H.R. 842.
Mr. Chairman, when such diverse interests agree, it's surely time to
take note.
H.R. 842 will make balancing the budget nearly impossible. Every
fiscal conservative in the Congress--including those Members who signed
onto the bill before knowing its full effect on spending--should look
carefully at what CBO, GAO, OMB, taxpayer watchdog groups and a
unanimous chorus of economists say about H.R. 842.
H.R. 842 is a bad bill. It files in the face of fiscal responsibility
and budgetary restraint. It represents unsound public policy. It
represents unfair attempts to bestow a preferential status upon one
type of government spending at the expense of every other type of
discretionary spending. It will either doom efforts to balance the
Federal budget or it will force all other programs not granted
sacrosanct status to absorb still more cuts to keep us on track to
balance the budget. H.R. 842 would set transportation spending above
all other types of domestic spending--above crime prevention, Head
Start, veterans' medical care, education, and environmental programs.
This Congress came to Washington to balance the budget, to clear the
budget debate of smoke and mirrors. Today's vote on H.R. 842 isn't a
fight about trust funds or promises. It isn't a fight between
authorizing and appropriating committees. It is a vote over priorities.
It is a vote to test our resolve, to see if we as Republicans and
Democrats are serious about balancing the budget.
If you are serious about cutting spending, vote ``no.''
If you are serious about balancing the budget, vote ``no.''
Enactment of H.R. 842 would break faith with sound economic policy
and would cede control over the Federal budget and transportation
spending to special interests. H.R. 842 should be defeated.
The choice is clear--vote ``no'' on H.R. 842.
Johns Hopkins University,
Institute for Policy Studies,
Baltimore, MD, September 21, 1995.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing in response to your
letter of August 23, 1995 to express my opposition to moving
transportation trust funds off-budget. Thus, I would not
support Congressman Shuster's legislation which would move
four transportation trust funds off-budget. I think this
would set a dangerous precedent which would have serious
long-term implications for the nation's fiscal health as
other user fee supported activities rush to be moved off-
budget.
[[Page H3509]]
I would like to respond directly to the three main points
raised in your letter. First, I agree with those opposed to
moving the transportation trust funds off-budget that a
unified budget is essential to maintaining accountability and
control over the federal budget and government's claim on
private resources. The unified federal budget has received
bipartisan support since 1969. It describes the aggregate
economic activity and health of the federal government.
Receipts and expenditures are detailed in one comprehensive
package, providing decision makers and citizens valuable
information on the government's activity and claim on
national income. Fragmenting the budget presentation only
obfuscates the federal role in the economy and is totally
inconsistent with efforts to reinvent government and improve
its legitimacy with voters and citizens.
Second, the fact that these trust funds are financed from
user fees is totally irrelevant to whether they should be
moved off-budget. User fees are not synonymous with earmarked
funds. User fees are proxies for prices which are necessary
to provide suppliers of a service with information about the
demand for specific services. Unfortunately, however, in the
case of the transportation trust funds, user fees are
generally poor price proxies because they do not accurately
reflect the total cost of providing transportation services.
In any event, you obtain the rationing affect of prices,
irrespective of decisions about how to allocate the revenues
generated from those user fees. From an economic efficiency
perspective, the two are not linked.
In addition, earmarking of revenues is generally not a
desirable budgetary practice because it limits policy makers
flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and
priorities.
Third, it is not clear how much more spending that nation
needs on individual transportation modes. The demand for
transportation services is a derived demand which depends on
demographic, economic and international trends beyond the
control of policy makers in the U.S. Policy makers need to
understand those trends and the implications they have for
the demand for transportation services in the U.S. The
limited resources available for transportation purposes
should then be allocated in a manner which addresses the
nation's transportation needs as influenced by those trends.
This may or may not be consistent with a policy of earmarking
specific user fees for expenditures on the individual
transportation mode that generated those revenues.
In an era of serious budget constraints at all levels of
government, it is critical that policy makers have the
flexibility necessary to respond to the changing
transportation needs of the country. Thus, Congress may want
to investigate new ways of applying transportation trust fund
revenues to meet these changing needs. For example, the
nation's transit needs have changed considerably since 1956
when the Highway Trust Fund was initiated. Perhaps it is time
for the federal government to consider a single
transportation trust fund, with resources pooled from various
user fees, so that funds could be distributed to meet
America's diverse transportation needs in a more efficient
manner. This is the approach taken by the Maryland State
Department of Transportation and it is consistent with the
increased flexibility and selectivity in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. Maybe the federal
government has more to learn in this area from the
experimentation taking place in the states.
It is entirely appropriate in my view to rethink the model
of transportation finance developed over the past fifty
years. Proper investment in diverse transportation modes will
yield greater productivity and long-term economic strength.
Restructuring the federal budget process by moving
transportation trust funds off-budget, however, is neither
necessary, appropriate nor desirable.
Sincerely,
Michael Bell,
Principal Research Scientist.
____
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, January 26, 1996.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: This letter is in response to your
request for additional comments as to whether the
transportation trust funds should remain part of the unified
budget. My views are fully expressed in my previous letter,
dated September 28, 1995, and I have nothing to add at this
time.
I will simply reaffirm the main point stated in that
letter: the federal budget should be comprehensive. Setting
selected programs aside--that is, taking them ``off-
budget''--can distort budget decisionmaking. For example,
giving the transportation trust funds a favored footing
shifts the onus of deficit reduction to other programs that
lack this protected status. In contrast, sound decisionmaking
demands that spending and revenue proposals be evaluated on
their merits and not on their budgetary status.
I have attached a copy of my earlier letter, which contains
a more complete discussion of the possible consequences of
designating certain programs as off-budget. I hope this
information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum,
Deputy Director.
Attachment.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman: This is in response to your letter of
September 20, 1995, asking for my views on whether the
federal transportation trust funds should remain a part of
the unified budget.
In short, I believe that the federal budget should be
comprehensive. Setting selected programs aside, and looking
at only the remainder, can distort budget decisionmaking.
Giving the transportation trust funds a favored footing
shifts the onus of deficit reduction to other programs that
lack this protected status. Sound decisionmaking, in
contrast, demands that spending and revenue proposals be
evaluated on their merits and not on their budgetary status.
The extent to which taking the transportation trust funds
off-budget would distort budget decisionmaking depends on
what budgetary procedures and controls would apply to them
under their new status. This is not at all clear. For
example, each of the three entities currently designated as
off-budget--the Postal Service, Social Security, and Medicare
hospital insurance--is treated differently under the rules
and procedures of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the
Budget Act) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (the Balanced Budget Act). The Postal
Service is exempt from both of these acts, although federal
payments to the Postal Service or payments from the Postal
Service to the federal government are subject to both sets of
rules. Legislation affecting Social Security benefits or
revenues is not subject to the pay-as-you-go procedures of
the Balanced Budget Act or to the Budget Act constraints that
apply to other programs. There are, however, special rules
that govern consideration of such legislation in the House
and the Senate. In addition, discretionary Social Security
administrative costs are subject to the statutory caps that
limit total discretionary spending (and to any sequestration
that would be triggered if the caps are exceeded) and to the
allocations of discretionary spending that enforce spending
decisions set forth in the annual Congressional budget
resolution. Despite its official off-budget status, the
Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is not afforded any
special treatment under either the Budget Act or the Balanced
Budget Act (there is a limit on the sequestration percentage
that would apply to Medicare, but there are similar limits or
exemptions for many on-budget programs).
I assume the proponents of a proposal to move the
transportation trust funds off-budget view the funds as self-
financing entities that should be subject only to internal
financing constraints. Under the existing budgetary rules,
the receipts going into the trust funds and the spending from
the trust funds are controlled by separate budgetary
procedures. All outlays from the trust funds are counted as
discretionary spending controlled by the caps set by the
Balanced Budget Act and the allocations made pursuant to the
annual budget resolution, while changes to governmental
receipts are subject to the separate pay-as-you-go mechanism
and the revenue floor set by the budget resolution. Under
these procedures, legislated increases in trust fund receipts
cannot be used to offset increased spending. Giving the
transportation trust funds off-budget status might allow such
offsets. Furthermore, if trust fund spending were exempt from
the caps that apply to other discretionary spending, the
Congress could approve additional spending without providing
offsets--presumably as long as there were adequate balances
in the first funds. This might create a closer long-term
match between the income to the trust funds and the spending
from the funds, which some would view as a more equitable
outcome.
The arguments against giving these programs off-budget
status involve a different view of federal trust funds. Under
this view, which is held by the Congressional Budget Office,
the transportation trust funds are simply an accounting
mechanism, and spending on programs financed by trust funds
should not be given a special status. Taxpayers' dollars are
most effectively used if decisions about spending for
transportation and other programs are made on the basis of
the relative benefits to be derived, not on the basis of
available earmarked revenues. For example, the Congress might
decide that more money should be spent on certain
transportation activities than is generated by the earmarked
revenues--as it already does in the case of Federal Aviation
Administration operations. At the same time, decisions about
taxes should take into account factors beyond the level of
spending on highways or other transportation programs. In
1990 and 1993, for example, the Congress increased fuel tax
rates for deficit reduction purposes, placing part of the
additional revenues into the general fund of the Treasury.
Fuel taxes could also be considered a way of charging users
for polluting the air.
I hope this analysis is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum,
Deputy Director,
____
[[Page H3510]]
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, October 6, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Transportation Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: This note responds to your request for my
suggestions concerning whether the federal transportation
trust fund should remain a part of the unified budget. I
strongly oppose moving the transportation trust fund off-
budget.
Many would argue that transportation trust funds collected
from transportation ``user fees'' should be used only for
transportation spending and should be removed from the
unified budget to ensure that occurs. I believe it is likely
that moving one popular spending program primarily financed
by ear-marked revenues off-budget would lead to a stampede
first of other trust funds off-budget and then all other
spending programs seeking to be funded with ear-marked
revenue sources. This would quickly render sensible tax and
budget policy impossible.
I strongly side with those who, in this instance, support a
unified budget as a (however imperfect) vehicle for
maintaining accountability and control, as you put it in your
cover note. I also believe that it is desirable to have
everything the Government does reflected in one place, as the
unified budget imperfectly attempts to do. This is the only
way one can begin to hope that a sensible discussion of the
trade-offs among budget priorities can occur.
I might add that while I am sure it is upsetting that not
all of the transportation trust funds are currently being
applied to transportation outlays, it is my understanding of
the history over the last twenty years that highway account
outlays have substantially exceeded trust fund tax receipts.
More generally, CBO estimates that if one were to take all
activities which have some trust fund financing and ask the
question ``what is the net effect on the deficit of the
revenues and outlays on those programs,'' the answer, perhaps
surprisingly, is that general fund revenues fund major
portions of activities that are partially and/or heavily
financed by trust fund revenues. Thus, from another
perspective the general treasury is ``subsidizing'' overall
trust fund activity. Whether one should view the glass as
half-empty or half-full I leave aside. My point here is only
that it would be unwise to open a Pandora's box by moving
transportation trust funds off-budget.
While there are many problems with the existing unified
budget--by far the most important of which is the lack of
serious accrual accounting--I believe that despite the
concerns of people paying the user fees (we in California,
myself included, drive a lot and thus pay lots of federal
gasoline taxes), or those wishing to spend additional
resources on transportation, the transportation trust fund
should remain part of the unified budget. It would risk a
serious accountability and control problem if Congress opens
a Pandora's box of trust fund escape from budgetary
discipline.
I hope these remarks are useful to you as you debate this
and related issues. Best personal wishes.
Cordially,
Michael J. Boskin.
____
Rutgers,
Camden, NJ, September 5, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representative, Washington,
DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: In response to your letter of August
23, I am happy to send this answer to your question about
whether the federal transportation trust funds, particularly
the highway trust fund, should be taken ``off-budget.''
I must say that I agree with both James R. Miller and Alice
Rivlen in strongly opposing the removal of the trust funds
from the unified federal budget.
As a political scientist specializing in transportation
policy, I have been researching and writing about the issue
of the trust fund approach to highway and transportation
funding for fifteen years. Taking the trust funds off budget
represents just the latest in a long line of unjustified
claims for special treatment for one particular type of
revenue and expenditure. It reflects, not good government or
good public finance, but the political strength of special
interests, mainly the highway lobby.
The federal highway trust fund (and its state level
cousins) has always been a bit of a fraud, designed to
convince the public that their modest pennies per gallon
highway taxes were paying all the costs of the road system.
Overwhelming evidence has accumulated that this is not the
case, and that at least forty percent of total highway
construction, maintenance, and operations costs are
subsidized by the general taxpayers.
The other unjustified contention is that it would be a
``breech of contract'' to ``divert'' motor fuel tax revenues
to non-highway uses. This claim for special privilege for
``highway user fees'' has caused no end of mischief. The
United States still has a long way to go before it reaches
the point of being able to compare and evaluate investments
of scarce public moneys across modes and between
transportation and other uses that our major trading partners
attained decades ago.
In my book, ``Miles To Go; European and American
Transportation Policies'' (MIT Press), I recount how the
British finally put paid to the notion that motor taxes
deserved special treatment. When Winston Churchill was
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Minister) in 1926-27,
he began to take money from the Road Fund that Lloyd George
had created in 1909 with a parliamentary promise to spend the
proceeds from taxes on cars and petrol on roads. When
motorists groups such as the Royal Automobile Club accused
Churchill of ``raiding'' the road Fund like a pirate, he
thundered back:
``Whoever said that motorists were to contribute nothing
for all time to the general revenue of the country. . .?
Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed;
racehorses may be taxed; possession of armorial bearings and
manservants may be taxed--and the yield devoted to the
general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all
time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to
roads. Obviously this is all nonsense. Whoever said that,
whatever the yield of these taxes, and whatever the poverty
of the country, we were to build roads, and nothing but
roads, from this yield? We might have to cripple our Trade by
increased taxation of income; we might even be unable to pay
for the upkeep of our Fleet. But never mind, whatever
happens, the whole yield of the taxes on motors must be spent
on roads . . . Such contentions are absurd, and constitute at
once an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon
common sense.''
It would be nice to see an American politician rise to his
``finest hour'' with this kind of challenge to entrenched
interests.
In recent years the trend has been to move away from the
inflexibility and the special treatment of rigid single mode
trust funds. Granting off budget status would be a step
backward. I strongly urge you to resist this effort, and I
would be happy to provide you with further information and
arguments if you so desire.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Dunn, Jr.,
Associate Professor.
____
National Center for
Policy Analysis,
Dallas, TX, October 6, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: Thanks for your kind letter of September 26th.
I don't know that my advice is technical enough to be
included as part of your record, but I would say this:
In eight years as Governor, I fought very hard to keep all
funds on budget and avoid setting up the many little pockets
of privilege that separate budget items create for various
interests. Once you have your own source of funds, you are
not nearly as accountable to the Congress, nor is the
Congress able to properly supervise the expenditures of the
country.
The best way to handle finances is to have all the money
come into a single place and then be appropriated out again
through Congressional action. The transportation trust fund
is one example, but there are legions of others in
Washington, as you well know.
I think that keeping funds on budget is the better choice
to make.
Sincerely,
Pete du Pont.
____
The University of Iowa,
September 6, 1995.
The Honorable Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your request, I am
writing to offer my thoughts on the issue of moving the
Highway Trust Fund off budget. As you are very well aware,
there are reasonably compelling arguments for and against
doing so. I will briefly assess these arguments and provide
my conclusions.
In principle, the efficacy of a separate, off-budget
Highway Trust Fund is largely based on two points:
In its pure form, the so-called pay-as-you-go concept means
that users of the Nation's highway system should defray its
entire cost, and they should be assured that their user fees
will go to providing the services for which they are paying.
Moving the Highway Trust Fund off budget helps moderate the
illusion that the Nation's deficit is less than actually is
the case, if the Trust Fund's receipts exceed expenditures in
a given year. The GAO report you sent suggests that this
``masking'' does occur in some years but not that many.
The main reasons for keeping the Highway Trust Fund and
other trust funds part of the unified budget are:
It helps enable revenue generated from all sources to be
allocated among the activities of government. Trade-offs
among competing programs can be treated more explicity as the
Nation's priorities are explored.
The overall magnitude of government spending, and hence the
draw away from the private sector, can be more readily
comprehended by decision makers and citizens alike. This, of
course, facilitates debate on the appropriate scale of
government activity.
Conceptually, fees paid by users of the Nation's highways
can be thought of as just another revenue source. As you
probably know, in Great Britain less than half of the highway
user fees actually are spent on the highway system. There is
not theoretical reason
[[Page H3511]]
why highway user revenue or any other user revenue must be
spent on the activity from which it is drawn. This point is
significant because, as Alice Rivlin says, trust fund revenue
accounts for about one-third of the total.
Whether or not to move the Highway Trust Fund off budget is
in the end a political decision that unfortunately cannot be
guided much by economic theory. It seems to me that the key
points surrounding this decision are:
Treating the Highway Trust Fund as a separate account would
enable a stable level of well-defined resources to be
available for reinvestment in the Nation's highway system
(and in ground transportation more generally). According to
the Congressional Budget Office, the backlog of highway
system resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction (4R) needs has grown to a level such that an
annual reinvestment of over $27 billion would be required to
eliminate this backlog. Oftentimes, 4R projects lack the
political appeal of new of new construction, but reductions
in the highway system performance will pose an increasing
threat to the Nation's economy.
If the political will exists, the same or even a greater
level of expenditures on transportation infrastructure is
possible through a unified budget. As noted earlier and in
the GAO document you sent, in recent years more has been
spent for this purpose than has been paid by highway users
(drawing down the Trust Fund's balance). I do not have a good
sense of how likely Congress is to make transportation
infrastructure a relatively high priority in its budgeting
process during the coming years. Simply stated, a unified
budget poses an opportunity and possibly a risk to
transportation. Past indications are that this risk is
normal, other than the deficit-reduction draw on the motor
fuel tax of recent years.
The wisdom of using Highway Trust Fund resources for non-
transportation purposes is in part dependent on the
desirability of motor fuel and use taxes as revenue-
generating mechanisms. Neither is seriously regressive, the
administrative costs associated with them are nominal, and
the fuel tax is comparatively invisible. To the extent that
it is visible, the fuel tax contributes to fuel conservation.
If fuel taxes were raised significantly, marginal changes in
industrial location and choice of transportation mode could
occur.
Using the argument of transportation investment as a means
for strengthening the Nation's economic competitiveness is a
double-edged sword. If individual projects or at least
clusters of projects are selected on the basis of benefits to
society exceeding costs, transportation investment can indeed
strengthen competitiveness. But if projects are selected as
demonstration projects and on other non-scientific bases,
then the funds spent on transportation are much less certain
to foster long-term growth. In my opinion, the process of
determining how available Highway Trust Fund resources should
be spent is more important an issue than whether or not to
move the Trust Fund off budget.
Thank you for asking me to comment on this important policy
issue. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
David J. Forkenbrock,
Professor and Director.
____
Board of Governors,
Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC, October 31, 1995.
The Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of myself and the other
members of the Board, I am pleased to respond to your letter
of September 26 requesting comment on proposals to move the
transportation trust funds off-budget. As a general matter,
it has been the practice of the Board not to take positions
on the details of the individual tax and spending issues that
are before the Congress. However, the shifting of certain
spending categories off-budget raises some broader concerns,
with implications for discipline and control over federal
outlays. Notably, moving some spending categories off-budget
would lead to fragmentation of the budgeting process and
would detract from the unified budget as an indicator of the
government's fiscal operations and hence of the impact of the
U.S. budget on credit markets and the economy. Moreover, it
could weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and
control spending effectively.
As the letters from OMB Director Rivlin and former-OMB
Director Miller make clear, responsible budgeting requires a
comprehensive framework for setting priorities and assessing
competing claims on national resources. The unified budget,
as commonly presented to include the social security trust
funds, combines all fiscal transactions in one place. It thus
helps policymakers and the public understand the trade-offs
among government programs, and between public and private
spending. Moreover, as the focal point of the budget process,
it places individual programs on a more comparable footing as
they compete for federal funding and thus helps the President
and the Congress to resolve competing demands on the nation's
resources. Moving programs off-budget raises the risk that
resource trade-offs would become obscured and could engender
cynicism in financial markets and the public at large about
the commitment and ability of the government to control
federal spending.
We hope these comments are helpful in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Alan Greenspan.
____
Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA, October 2, 1995.
The Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: Thank you for your letter of
September 26 on the treatment of transportation trust funds
in the budgetary process. I entirely agree with Alice Rivlin
and James Miller that these trust funds should be considered
as part of the unified budget. In fact, I cannot see the case
for having a separate status for these trust funds nor for a
policy of keeping them in balance over time.
Perhaps I may add that the heavy emphasis on gasoline taxes
for the financing of highways is misplaced in my view. In
many cases, especially for major rural roads, tolls are a
more appropriate user fee. I also fail to understand why
gasoline taxes could not be raised above the level used for
highway construction and related expenditures.
Finally, I have long felt that the federal government plays
too large a role in transportation. The primary
responsibility should be left with the states.
Yours sincerely,
Hendrik S. Houthakker.
____
Birmingham-Southern College,
Birmingham, AL, October 16, 1995.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wolf: In my personal opinion, the proposal to
move the transportation trust funds off-budget, as provided
for in H.R. 842 would not be in the public interest. Here is
why I think so.
Every effort should be made to enable interested and
informed citizens to readily see and understand the extent
and cost of the federal government's involvement in the
affairs of the country. The task is already most difficult,
if not impossible. Taking this well known and proper function
of interstate transportation and removing it from budget
totals makes an overall view even more difficult.
Our present practice of contingent credit enhancement by
various federal programs has exposed the government to
enormous possible future costs with little control of the
risks. The recent debacle of the savings and loan industry
and the costs of funding the Resolution Trust Corporation is
a too vivid example. No one knows where the next such problem
may arise. Nor can the Congress or the public measure the
benefits of such programs with their possible costs.
Our repeated practice of regulating the use of private
resources so as to meet public or even political goals
continues to hide or disguise an enormous indirect tax borne
by everyone. Moreover we have no way in which to measure
either the costs or the benefits of this form of indirect
taxation. But we all know the real costs are there.
When one looks at the extent of present obscure and
indirect federal involvement, I think we will be better
served to keep all possible programs on-budget and highly
visible. The present earmarking of highway funds is not a
reason to remove them from the unified budget.
Sincerely,
Philip C. Jackson, Jr.,
Adjunct Professor.
____
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Cambridge, MA, September 8, 1995.
Congressman Frank Wolf,
Cannon Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: In response to your letter of August
23, 1995 requesting my thoughts about the debate over the
fate of transportation trust funds, I offer the following
comments:
The Need for a Unified Budget: I tend to agree with
analyses offered by OMB, GAO, and former OMB Director James
Miller. Sound budgeting principals require a unified budget
particularly in an era when deficit reduction is clearly the
primary challenge facing the Congress and the executive
branch. In this vein, I am particularly struck by GAO's
assessment that efforts to take the trust funds off budget
are driven primarily by ``fear of future budget constraints
not actual past restrictions on spending.'' As Congress and
the executive branch make the difficult decisions required to
balance the budget, all sources of spending and revenue
should be on the table.
Meeting Investment Needs: Moving transportation trust funds
off budget might increase short-term spending on
transportation. However, it is not at all clear that such
spending would be in the national interest. To begin with,
there is little credible evidence that the nation is
underinvesting in transportation infrastructure. Rather, most
available evidence suggests that by picking up the
[[Page H3512]]
bulk of the cost of many projects, the current system
encourages inefficient decisionmaking at the state and local
level and that redesigning current programs would provide
more than enough money to meet current needs. (See, for
example, work by both Edward Gramlich, Jack Tatorn, George
Peterson, or Clifford Winston).
Encouraging Poor Decisionmaking: If taking transportation
trust funds off-budget increases available federal funds,
then problems in the current system are likely to worsen.
There would, for example, be more demonstration projects.
Moreover, moving transportation trust funds off budget could
exacerbate tensions between so-called donor and recipient
states. While both demonstration projects and funding
disparities have some grounding in legitimate questions of
public policy and in the logrolling necessary to keep the
legislative process moving, difficult fiscal times demand
that Congress exercise more, not less, control over such
activities.
Recovering All Costs: If, for political reasons, trust
funds are moved off-budget, Congress and the executive branch
should seriously consider expanding the scope of programs
funded by those programs. At minimum this suggests that some
transit aid now provided from the general fund ought to be
shifted to the Highway Trust Fund's Transit Account. More
broadly, many (but not all) economists argue that when all
externalities (such as policing, damage from air pollution,
and costs created by accidents) are factored in, highway user
fees do not cover the full costs created by highway users.
This suggests that shifting trust funds off budget might be
combined with an expansion of activities funded by those
programs.
Seizing the Opportunity: The current budget fights offer
policymakers such as yourself a rare opportunity to rethink
the fundamental design of all federal programs. Moving the
trust funds off budget would merely continue (and likely
exacerbate) many well-recognized problems with the current
federal-aid system and make it even harder to accomplish
Congress' overarching goal of balancing the budget in seven
years. It is, therefore, a step that should not be taken
lightly and, if it is taken at all, one that should be linked
to key structural reforms.
I hope these comments are useful.
Sincerely,
David Luberoff,
Assistant Director.
____
Sherman J. Maisel Associates,
San Francisco, CA, October 20, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter
of October 13, 1995, requesting my views on the issue of
moving the transportation trust funds off-budget.
I believe that it is important that we retain a unified
budget that includes all trust funds. A key concept of the
Federal budget is that it measures and reflects the total
impact of the Government's receipts and expenditures on the
economy.
In the past, the failure to obtain a measure of the
Government's total effect on economic activity led to many
untoward experiences. This was a key reason for adopting and
maintaining the unified budget.
Action now to remove the trust funds and destroy the
concept of a unified budget would directly contravene all of
the efforts Congress is making through the Reconciliation
bill to improve the economic effect of the Government on the
economy.
Sincerely,
Sherman J. Maisel,
Former Governor of the
Federal Reserve System.
____
G. William Miller & Co., Inc.,
Washington, DC, October 18, 1995.
Re Transportation Trust Fund.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
House of Representatives,
Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: Many thanks for your letter of October 13
inviting me to express my views on the proposal for moving
the transportation trust funds out of the unified budget.
The introduction of the unified budget came about after
careful bipartisan study and support. Any decision to depart
from or modify the system should be approached with great
caution, and an exclusion of any trust fund from the unified
budget should be done only if there is overwhelming
demonstration that this would better serve the nation's
budgetary process. I do not believe a case has been made for
excluding the transportation trust funds. From my experience
as Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, I would strongly
recommend that you retain the present treatment of the
transportation trust funds so that there is no opportunity
for losing accountability or setting precedents for further
off-balance sheet structures.
You have received persuasive analyses from the General
Accounting Office and from present and former heads of OMB. I
will not go over the ground again, but do concur in the
recommendations you received. I will point out, however, that
the two points made by GAO-namely, masking and need for
capital budgeting--can be solved in ways other than excluding
trust funds from the unified budget. It would certainly be
possible to present the unified budget on a fund account
basis, so there would be transparency for all trust funds. It
is also feasible to divide the present cash budget into a
system of operating expenses and capital expenditures. These
changes do not require removing any of the trust funds from
the budget.
Your leadership can be very helpful in maintaining a strong
system of budget accountability.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Bill.
____
Palo Alto, CA,
October 1, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In a letter of September 26, you
requested my views on whether the transportation trust fund
should remain a part of the unified budget. I agree with Jim
Miller and Alice Rivlin that it should.
As most economists would agree, the overall budget
allocates the amount of resources diverted from private hands
to uses determined by the government; it also establishes the
deficit, which subtracts from total savings in the United
States and thus means either higher interest rates or the
importation of more capital. Whether the transportation
budget is officially included in the unified budget changes
neither spending nor the deficit. In other words, defining
the transportation budget as on or off budget is meaningless
unless its status results in more government spending of
higher tax receipts and thus in the size of government
outlays and in the deficit. The proponents of moving the
transportation trust fund off budget hope to be able to
justify greater spending on transportation as a consequence.
Unless offset elsewhere, this would boost both government
spending and increase the size of the deficit.
I understand that proponents of moving the trust fund off
budget view the gas tax as a users' fee that pays for
transportation infrastructure. Although not an unreasonable
argument, it ignores the major issues, the size of government
and the budget deficit. It is the Congress's responsibility
to determine the size of the government, a matter which
should not be subject to the vagaries of the gasoline tax.
Congress should also set priorities for the spending of
taxpayers' funds, no matter what their source.
A surplus in the trust fund can provide a useful counter to
some who would like to boost taxes on the transportation
industries, ostensibly for environmental purposes. Since
environmentalists often contend that the auto is being
subsidized, the surplus in the trust fund helps offset that
argument. They sometimes contend that motor vehicles have
externalities that imply larger costs for society than are
included in the normal outlays on highways. To the extent
that this is true, running a surplus in the trust fund may in
part counterbalance that externality.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas Gale Moore.
____
Brown University,
Providence, RI, September 29, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing in response to your
letter of 26 September 1995 inviting my views on whether
federal transportation trust funds should be taken off
budget.
In analyzing most economic issues relating to the federal
budget, economists ignore the distinction between on-budget
and off-budget revenues and expenditures. That is, economists
work with total revenues and total outlays, often using the
definitions in the national income and product accounts.
Congressional decisions to remove certain activities from the
unified budget will have little or no effect on economists'
analysis of fiscal policy issues.
There is much to recommend the practice of financing
certain activities that benefit particular individuals and/or
firms with taxes and fees on those particular activities. The
``user-pays'' principle often promotes efficiency and equity;
segregated accounts promote matching particular revenues with
particular outlays. There is no necessary connection,
however, between this principle and the overall accounting
for federal outlays and revenues. No matter what the budget
concepts, at the end of the day Congress will require an
overall accounting to total revenues and total outlays,
whether by including everything in ``the'' budget or by
adding together on-budget and off-budget activities.
What the off-budget issue is really about is a policy
debate on how to finance a particular activity and how to use
revenues raised from a particular source. Taking an activity
off-budget reflects a decision to support that activity by
the earmarked revenues only, and to raise the earmarked taxes
if the outlays on this activity are to rise. Conversely,
revenues from the earmarked sources are to be used for the
specified activities only, and not for general governmental
purposes. An off-budget highway trust fund most definitely
should not mean that we will spend on highways without regard
to whether the highways are needed or not. What such a fund
should mean is that revenues above
[[Page H3513]]
those needed will be returned to the taxpayers through a cut
in the gasoline tax.
The on-off budget issue is complicated by the current
system of budgetary caps. Congress enacted these caps in an
effort to impose more spending discipline on itself, and I
believe that the caps have been useful in this regard. If the
highway trust fund, or any other activity, is taken off
budget to reflect a policy commitment to maintain a
segregated accounting of earmarked revenues and particular
outlays, then I strongly recommend that the activities
nevertheless continue to be subject to the same caps process
as before. That is, these activities should continue to be
counted as on-budget for purposes of the caps calculations.
Any other treatment is an open invitation to remove one item
after another from budget discipline; that is sure to be a
distracting, confusing, and counterproductive debate at this
difficult time of dealing with major (and long overdue)
revisions in the federal budget.
Sincerely,
William Poole.
____
Chestertown, MD,
September 30, 1995.
Congressman Frank R. Wolf,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Wolf: Because the result would be to hide the full
magnitude of the flows of money into and out of the coffers
of the federal government, a result that would seriously
handicap the analyst in following what is happening in our
economy, I hope that your committee will do all it can to
prevent the transportation trust funds from being moved
``off-budget.'' The reasons for keeping these funds ``on
budget'' have been correctly and adequately spelled out in
the responses to your committee by James Miller and Alice
Rivlin, and I am glad to associate myself with their views.
Respectfully yours,
Raymond J. Saulnier,
Chr., CEA, 1956-61.
____
The Brookings Institution,
Governmental Studies Program,
Washington, DC, August 25, 1995.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, House Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to proposals
that would remove the transportation trust funds from the
federal budget. I share the view that the unified budget
should be preserved to ensure effective use of the budget as
an instrument of fiscal policy and strong spending control.
There is no right time for giving the transportation funds
off-budget status, but now would surely be the wrong time.
Doing so would undermine Congress's commitment to balance the
budget and control federal spending. It would convey the
message that the budget can be balanced on paper by excluding
expenditures that are given preferred status. It would also
convey the message that some programs can go on a spending
spree while others are constrained by tight budget rules.
The greatest damage from taking these funds off budget
would likely occur if a balanced budget requirement were
placed in the Constitution. The balanced budget amendment
approved by the House earlier this year provides that in any
fiscal year, the outlays of the United States government
shall not exceed the receipts of the United States
government. It is important to note that this language would
cover the receipts and outlays of the federal government,
even those that were excluded from the budget. What this
means is that once a balanced budget rule is operative, there
will be a strong incentive to go a step further and remove
transportation spending from the government by creating new
entities such as government-sponsored enterprises or public
authorities. If this were to occur, congressional and
presidential control of trust funds would be greatly
weakened.
The argument for off-budget transportation trust funds is
often made in terms of the need to upgrade the nation's
infrastructure. I am not convinced that the United States has
seriously underinvested in transportation, but I do believe
that the appropriate means of addressing this problem would
be a capital budget rather than off-budget of off-government
status. A capital budget would preserve the unified budget
while providing better information on the condition of roads,
airports, and other transportation assets.
Please call me if you want to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Allen Schick,
Visiting Fellow.
____
American Enterprise Institute
for Public Policy Research,
Washington, DC, September 26, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: I am replying to your letter of
September 12, 1995 about the transportation trust fund. I
would not favor moving the trust funds off the budget. We
want to have a comprehensive measure of the Federal
government's fiscal activities. Keeping the transportation
trust fund in the budget does not preclude any rules you may
want to adopt about requiring that all receipts of the trust
fund be spent for transportation, in every single year or
over any specified number of years.
Sincerely yours,
Herbert Stein.
____
James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.,
New York, NY, October 18, 1995.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: I am responding to your letter of October 13
asking for my view on the budgetary treatment of Federal
transportation trust funds. I am glad to respond briefly to a
question that has been reviewed frequently over the years and
to which a succession of Administrations and most Congresses
have, explicitly or implicitly, taken a consistent position.
At the start, I should point out that while your inquiry is
specifically about transportation trust funds, a distinction
between those funds and others would be difficult to sustain.
That is one important consideration in my conclusion that the
current treatment of including the transportation trust funds
in the unified budget remains appropriate.
Obviously, conflicting considerations arise in determining
appropriate budgetary treatment for trust funds. On the one
hand, the decision to establish a trust fund may reflect a
considered decision at a point in time to maintain designated
spending in an amount related to specific revenues. Arguably,
the designated spending may have particular attributes--for
``investment'' or for ``social purposes''--that Congress may
wish protected from cyclical or other budgetary exigencies.
Moreover, an argument can be made that building up surpluses
in the trust accounts, with the surpluses invested in
government securities, tends to shield other spending from
appropriate budgetary discipline. That is, of course, a
consideration with respect to the large social security trust
funds.
On the other hand, principles of administration and
budgeting demand regular review and control of the full range
of Government spending, balancing one priority against
another. At the same time, effective fiscal policy forces
consideration of the totality of spending in relation to
revenues.
These latter considerations strike me as persuasive in
reaching my conclusion that the present practice of including
the transportation trust funds in the unified budget should
be continued. I am reinforced in that conclusion by the fact
that nothing in the unified budget prevents the Congress and
the Administration from reaching a decision to maintain
highway spending (or any other spending) at a particular
level it deems a priority matter. Trust fund accounting
within the unified budget may in some instances be helpful in
reaching that decision.
To repeat I conclude that the Congress should maintain the
present unified budget treatment, as both present and former
Budget Directors have urged in writing you.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Volcker,
Chairman.
____
James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.,
New York, NY, February 1, 1996.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: I have reread my letter of October 18 on the
transportation trust fund issue and really have no further
thoughts. I realize moving some or all of the trust funds
(particularly social security) off budget might well lend
even further force to the urgency of our budgetary problem.
That is a powerful argument right now, but I think longer run
considerations of effective budgeting and of consistency over
time should prevail.
I appreciate your interest.
Sincerely,
Paul A. Volcker,
Chairman.
____
University of California,
Los Angeles, CA, September 4, 1995.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Wolf: I am responding to your letter of August
23rd, in which you were kind enough to solicit my views on
the question of whether or not the transportation trust fund
should be moved ``off budget.'' I have reviewed the materials
included with your letter, and had already given a great deal
of thought to this important question.
I believe that the highway trust fund should remain part of
the unified budget. I support the maintenance of a separate
trust fund into which highway user fees are deposited, and
from which major highway related expenses of the federal
government are paid. Maintenance of the integrity of the
trust fund surely does not, however, require that it be taken
``off budget.'' Full accounting of federal income and
expenditures can be maintained by showing the trust fund as a
separate account within the larger federal budget.
I oppose the use of trust fund revenues to ``mask'' a
general fund deficit. We have enormous transportation needs
in the United States, and it would be unfortunate if
earmarked transportation funds were held unspent in the trust
fund just to create the appearance that the federal deficit
is thereby being reduced. This problem can also be addressed
by properly accounting for the trust fund as a separate
category within the unified budget, however, and does not
require that the trust fund be removed from the unified
budget.
[[Page H3514]]
From the materials which you forwarded to me, it would
appear that my position is essentially identical to that
taken by the Office of Management and Budget and the General
Accounting Office. I encourage you to take a strong position
of leadership on this important matter. The highway trust
fund should both be kept ``on budget'' and should be
protected from efforts to use it to ``mask'' the federal
deficit.
Sincerely,
Martin Wachs,
Director, Institute of Transportation Studies.
____
Center for the Study
of American Business,
St. Louis, MO, October 5, 1995.
Hon. Frank P. Wolf,
U.S. Congress,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of
September 26, 1995, with regard to the transportation trust
funds. I believe they should stay in the budget so that the
budget review process remains comprehensive and an effective
way for Congress to exercise the power of the purse.
This was the position that, as an adviser, I urged the
Commission on Budget Concepts to adopt several decades ago in
developing the concept of the unified budget. The
transportation taxes are revenues of the federal government;
the transportation outlays are expenditures of the federal
government. This is the basic justification for putting these
funds into the federal budget.
The alternative--to keep them separate from the budget--
shields these programs from being reviewed in the context of
national priorities. That would be bad budgeting.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Murray Weidenbaum,
Chairman.
____
The Brookings Institution,
Washington, DC, August 25, 1995.
Congressman Frank Wolf,
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: I am responding to your letter of
August 23, 1995 soliciting my views on the appropriateness of
moving transportation trust funds off-budget. I should first
tell you that I am not an expert on the budget process or the
federal transportation budget. My field of specialization is
transportation economics and my thoughts about your inquiry
reflect that perspective.
That said, I think the issue you are concerned with is
secondary to the important question to be asked about
transportation spending. The important question is whether
federal transportation spending is efficient? Based on the
available evidence the answer appears to be no! Auto pricing
ignores congestion, bus and rail prices are too low (below
marginal cost), bus and rail service is inefficient and load
factors are too low, bus and rail operations are inefficient,
and so on. These problems are not the result of whether trust
funds are on-budget. They are the result of poor
transportation management at all levels of government. Prices
must reflect marginal costs, service must reflect cost-
benefit tradeoffs, and inefficiencies must be purged from
operations. In this environment, there would be no need for
trust funds. Indeed, the issue of whether a transportation
system makes money would be irrelevant because its viability
would be justified on social welfare considerations.
Current policy, which relies on the gas tax and trust
funds, invites political debate instead of thwarting it. In
short, my advice is to change your perspective on
transportation spending by focussing on how to make it more
efficient. The budgetary issue is largely irrelevant to that
goal.
Sincerely,
Clifford Winston,
Senior Fellow.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
We have heard some interesting theater and dramatics, but the fact is
that taking trust funds off-budget will not cause one dime of cuts in
other discretionary programs. It only means that in the future,
additional cuts in trust fund programs do not count toward spending
targets such as discretionary caps or 602(b) allocations. Let us get
down to reality and fact and talk reasonably.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Lipinski].
(Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the Truth-in-
Budgeting Act, to take the four transportation trust funds off budget.
This bill is really quite simple. If you support jobs, investment,
and keeping faith with the American people, then you support H.R. 842.
That's all there is to it.
Every day, Americans who fly or drive contribute through user fees to
the transportation trust funds. They do so in order to finance the
public infrastructure which they utilize as they travel. If they don't
drive, they aren't asked to contribute to road projects. If they don't
fly, we don't expect them to finance air traffic control operations or
airport improvements. The systems are designed to be user financed--
those who use them pay for them.
But unless the trust funds are off-budget, the American people who
pay for infrastructure investment aren't getting all they pay for. The
balances in the four trust funds continue to grow, while infrastructure
needs across this Nation go unmet.
I support infrastructure investment in the United States because it
spurs economic growth and creates good jobs. The fact is that
transportation represents 17 percent of the American economy. Since
1950, one-fourth of America's improvement in productivity is due to
transportation investment.
But for me, the most important issue is jobs. Every $1 billion spent
on infrastructure creates 42,000 good high-wage jobs. That's why the
Laborers International Union of North America supports this
legislation, and why you should too.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on
Aviation, I see every day the impact of our underfunded air traffic
control system. There are reports almost every week of an outage of
some kind at an air traffic control facility in this country. The
equipment is old and needs to be replaced.
The FAA predicts that U.S. domestic passenger enplanements will grow
from 530 million in 1995 to nearly 800 million in 2005. We are
constantly looking to find the funds to meet tomorrow's needs. The best
place to start is with the balance sitting in the aviation trust fund.
Mr. Chairman, this afternoon's vote is about keeping faith with the
American people. The American people pay their gas tax and ticket tax
to finance investment in our critical infrastructure. That's what the
trust funds are meant to be used for.
Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to support H.R. 842
and keep faith with the people who sent us here.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, to kind of cut through the heavy air here
today, where we have had some pretty high drama and a great sense of
emotion, let me say from the freshmen perspective that 44 out of 74 of
the freshman Republicans, I would argue the most ardent budget
balancers to come here in a long time, have signed on in support of
taking the transportation trust funds off-budget. You can in fact
balance the Federal budget and return these user fees to the people who
paid them. We see it as a matter of principle, and the principle is to
the Federal Government: Don't take the money from users if you don't
need it, if you don't need to spend it. Don't take it. Don't store up
these trust funds and not put the money back for the use and from the
people that you took it. That is the matter of principle. We would like
to kind of draw a line in the sand on this issue and this is an
important issue and it puts and invests the money back into our economy
which we desperately need. These are user fees from roads, airports,
harbors. Put them back to use. Support H.R. 842.
{time} 1230
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that the gentleman from
Ohio, John Kasich, the Republican chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, the gentleman from Minnesota, Martin Sabo, the Democratic
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from
Louisiana, Bob Livingston, the Republican chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, and yours truly, the ranking Democrat on the Committee
on Appropriations, are all strongly asking that you vote against this
proposition.
[[Page H3515]]
Now, there is, I suppose, a high probability that even though all
four of us agree, we are wrong, but I would respectfully suggest that
if anyone is truly interested in achieving a balanced budget, over any
time frame, whether it is 7 years, 5 years, you name it, that there is
no way that you can in conscience vote for this bill.
Let me simply explain what I mean. Right now both parties have told
the country that we are willing to balance the budget over a 7-year
time frame. Yet what we are now being asked to do is to say to one huge
segment of the budget--namely, the transportation portion of the
budget--``Well, fellows, we are going to set you aside. Not only are
you going to have a dedicated revenue source, but in addition to that
special status, we are going to give you the ability to spend unlimited
amounts of money, irrespective of the squeeze on any other portion of
the budget.''
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is exactly right. What you are
talking about if this bill passes is the requirement that you cut other
portions of the budget over 7 years by an additional $50 billion, or
else recognize that the deficit is going to increase by $50 billion.
That is the hard-nosed fiscal reality.
Now, I take a back seat to no one, to no one, in my support for
highway construction. Since my days in the legislature and through my
days here, I have consistently and strongly supported adequate funding
for highways. I have supported providing the funding to pay for that
highway construction as well, in my own State legislature as well as
here. I have fought to see to it that my own State ends its long-term
status as a donor State.
In 1992, I led a successful fight in this House to break the defense
``firewalls'' in order to fully fund ISTEA with offsets from the
military budget. I make no apology for that. I think that was the right
thing to do for the country.
But I do not support saying that transportation must be considered
sacrosanct while that requires further reductions in education, further
reductions in mental health and veterans programs, further reductions
in environmental protection enforcement, further reductions in job
training, and do not kid yourself, that is exactly what this
proposition requires.
Now, it is technically true that this bill in and of itself does not
do that. But when you plug this bill into the context of existing law
and into the context of the promise of both parties to provide a
balanced budget over 7 years, then you are fooling somebody or you are
smoking something that is not legal if you are telling people that this
bill is not going to result in a squeeze on other high priority
programs.
What we are really talking about is whether or not we are going to
give one committee the ability to write a blank check for programs
under their jurisdiction, regardless of the impact on any other
committee and regardless of the impact on any other program or any
other population group in this country. That is morally wrong, it is
fiscally wrong, it is economically wrong, it is procedurally wrong, and
you ought not to do it.
I would urge you not to speak out of both sides of your mouth. I
would urge you to never again come to this floor and say that you are
voting for a balanced budget and say that you are for fiscal
responsibility and austerity, if in the next breath you are voting to
allow the transportation budget to go off budget and to spend at any
rate they want, regardless of the impact on other programs.
It is a question here of what you regard as your top priority. I do
not regard that as my top priority. I think we need a balanced approach
to spending and this bill does not give it to us.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
I rise to join my colleagues in opposing H.R. 842. While I commend
the bill's proponents for trying to address the Nation's infrastructure
needs, I do not believe that this bill will accomplish that objective.
I have listened to many voices on this issue and the ones who have
rung among the clearest have been national leaders such as Warren
Rudman who has said that, ``Designating transportation trust funds as
off-budget would further erode the integrity of the budget as a tool
for fiscal accountability.''
Former OMB Director Jim Miller says, ``Off-budget status would * * *
hide a major portion of federal spending from annual budget scrutiny.''
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker says, ``* * * principles
of administration and budgeting demand regular review and control of
the full range of Government spending, balancing one priority against
another. At the same time, effective fiscal policy forces consideration
of the totality of spending in relation to revenues.''
Perhaps the voice that rings the clearest for me is that of the Ohio
Department of Transportation that has been at the forefront of studying
the current system of transportation funding and making recommendations
for change. ODOT has concluded that it is not necessary to take the
trust funds off budget in order to return more money to the States.
The Ohio plan recognizes that since 1976 expenditures from the trust
fund have exceeded revenues and that the balance in the fund resulted
from interfund borrowing. The Ohio plan proposes that a major portion
of fuel taxes each State pays into the trust fund be turned back to
that State, including the fuel taxes now going toward deficit
reduction.
I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at the Ohio plan and that
we use its concepts as a basis for devising a new system for highway
funding--a system reached by consensus between authorizers,
appropriators, and the Budget Committee.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of this
legislation, but I cannot. I cannot, notwithstanding its surface
appeal. We would all agree that trust funds ought to be used for a
trust purpose. But that is not the debate that is before us today. The
debate that is before us has to begin with where we are, and where we
are is that we have not managed these funds in the fashion we told the
American people we would. In point of fact, we said we would not use
general fund monies for this purpose, and we have, and this is not a
debate about misuse of trust funds.
The chart I have put up makes this case fairly clear. Since 1980,
total spending for highways from the trust fund we have brought in $214
billion, we have interest of $21 billion, we have spent a total of $235
billion. But we have added in general funds funding $63 billion on top
of the trust fund spending of $228 billion, so we have spent a total of
$291 billion.
The point is, for those Americans out there paying revenue taxes, gas
taxes, other types of taxes, into these funds, please understand, this
is not a debate about the misuse of those funds. We have used more than
we have promised. But it is a debate about the budget control. If we
enact this legislation, it will make it almost impossible to balance
the Federal budget. That has to be our first priority. I urge a ``no''
vote.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, when American motorists purchase gasoline
or travelers purchase airline tickets and pay the Federal tax, they
expect that the revenue collected by the Federal Government will go
toward transportation system upgrades.
After all, that was the agreement the Federal Government had with the
American people when the gasoline, aviation, and other transportation
taxes were implemented.
For example, motorists paid into the highway trust fund with the
expectation that they would receive highway improvements.
However, the transportation trust funds were merged into the general
budget as part of an effort to hide the true costs of the Vietnam war.
It is precisely this sort of broken contract between the Government
and the American citizenry that has led so many people to become
understandably cynical about their Government and its leaders.
It is our duty to make certain that the moneys collected through the
gasoline and other transportation taxes are used for the intended
purposes.
The Truth in Budgeting Act, before Congress today will help us meet
that obligation. Simply put, it is a tax fairness bill designed to
ensure that transportation taxes go to pay for transportation
improvements.
[[Page H3516]]
Currently, there is in excess of $30 billion in unspent balances in
these trust funds, and under the administration's budget these balances
could grow to $77 billion by 2002. That is money that should be used
for such projects as repairing roads, building bridges, and improving
air transportation systems.
The use of these funds in this way improves not only our
transportation system, but would provide literally hundreds of
thousands of well-paying jobs--a true win-win situation.
Ladies and gentlemen, this ``Truth in Budgeting'' bill is about
restoring the public trust. My dictionary defines trust as ``the
confident reliance on the integrity, honesty, veracity of another.''
The ``confidence, or obligation reposed in a person that he will fully
apply the property according to such confidence.''
I believe it is time--indeed past time--that we put trust back in the
trust funds.
I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this debate is a classic congressional
debate. I think there is rhetorical overkill on both sides. The future
of Western Civilization does not hang in the balance depending on the
outcome of this vote. I do not have any great statement to quote, but
let me quote one of my favorite entertainers, Woody Allen, who once
said in an address to graduates, ``We are at the crossroads. One road
leads to hopelessness and despair; the other to total extinction.''
Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose wisely. We are not
faced with that predicament. Here is what we are faced with, plain and
simple: We impose taxes on the American people, excise taxes, dedicated
taxes. We say, for example, to the airline traveler, we are going to
tax your airline ticket purchase and we are going to use the funds we
raise to improve the airports, to improve aviation safety.
I think that is a pretty good contract. I think we ought to use the
money for the intended purpose. And if we do not, we ought to cut the
tax out.
But let us not kid the people. Let us be honest with them. Let us use
the money for the intended purpose or cut the tax.
As the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,
I have witnessed firsthand the growing abuse of the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund now has a balance in excess of $650 million and the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund has over $300 million sitting dormant.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been collected from shippers to
improve the quality of America's ports and we should be using these
revenues for their intended purposes. If you care about our Nation's
global competitiveness, if you care about improving the environmental
quality and safety of America's harbors and rivers you should support
the Truth in Budgeting Act.
In many of America's leading ports we have an astounding backlog of
dredging and environmental projects that are not being done while we
sit on over $1 billion in trust fund revenues. A study of the
transportation infrastructure needs on our major rivers has identified
over $3 billion in needs by the year 2000. If you represent
constituents along the Missouri, Mississippi, Hudson, Ohio, or
Tennessee Rivers you should support the Truth in Budgeting Act.
Freeing these trust funds for their intended uses sends a powerful
message to the American people--we are setting aside the ``smoke and
mirrors'', and we are serious about using their hard-earned tax dollars
to improve the safety of our waterways and the efficiency of our
navigation infrastructure.
These trust funds are built on taxes intended to improve the economic
and environmental quality of our Nation's rivers and harbors and it is
time we use these trust funds for these uses.
Support the Truth in Budgeting Act--the truth will set you free.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Coleman].
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, the issue before us today is one of the
perennial budget questions of our time--whether to unravel the unified
budget methods that have worked well since the 1960s and consider the
Transportation Trust Funds off budget. Like my Appropriations Committee
colleagues speaking before me, I believe moving the Transportation
Trust Funds off budget would result in an irresponsible budgeting
process that would jeopardize many of our most cherished programs,
including Medicare, Medicaid, education, and environmental protection
programs. So, I am here to urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 842.
Let me state from the outset that as the ranking minority member of
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I am a strong
supporter of maintaining and enhancing the Transportation Trust Funds.
I believe our Nation must continue to invest an appropriate amount into
transportation infrastructure projects in order to keep our economy
strong and growing and prosperous. The Transportation Trust Funds are
the primary vehicles which enable us to fulfill this responsibility, so
we must act to keep them in good working order.
However, I am convinced that moving the Trust Funds off budget would
cause much more harm than good. While I can easily understand and
sympathize with the desire to invest more money into transportation
projects, I believe moving the Transportation Trust Funds off budget
would greatly confuse the budgeting process; create enormous pressures
to either cut non-trust-fund programs further, increase spending on
trust-fund programs more, or raise taxes; and that it will set a number
dangerous of precedents. Allow me to detail a few of these problems for
you.
First, the unified budgeting method is critical for assisting the
Congress and the President in deciding how to treat all revenues and
expenditures in a coherent manner. It is essential to bring together
all Federal income and expenses in a unified way to avoid the problem
of considering some programs in a vacuum. It is important to recognize
that any Federal activity affects our Nation's economy as a whole.
Clearly, the Transportation Trust Funds qualify as affecting our
economy significantly. And because of their large economic impact,
considering them separately from other accounts which affects economic
activity would complicate and distort Federal economic considerations.
In my mind it is far better to have all components of our economic
strategy in plain view and as part of a unified whole in order to make
decisions easier and more coherent, and to provide flexibility to the
Congress.
Second, moving the trust funds off budget would needlessly further
complicate and confuse the budget process. Considering transportation
programs apart from all of the rest of the budget would mean adding
another dimension to the process. Congress should not do this. Instead,
we should avoid creating additional complications and restrictions on
the legislative branch. In this way, we can fulfill our basic duty to
at least do no further harm when crafting a budget.
Third, moving the trust funds off budget would lead to demands to
move all other trust funds off budget--and perhaps rightly so. We
should not fool ourselves into believing that this would not happen; we
have plenty of legislative history to know it would. If the
Transportation Trust Funds were taken off budget, it would be difficult
to justify not doing the same with every other trust fund. We would be
asked the following legitimate questions: Why are the transportation
trust funds special? Why don't all other trust funds get the same
preferential treatment? These questions can't be answered fairly
without either placing Congress in the predicament of having to pick
winners and losers among trust fund programs, or being forced to move
all trust funds off budget with all of the severe headaches that would
create for us.
Fourth, if, for reasons of fairness, all trust funds were moved off
budget, I predict there would be greatly increased pressure to spend
more money. In addition to using currently available surpluses for
existing programs, I have no doubt many interests would create new
needs for additional spending of trust fund surpluses, whether those
needs were really as pressing as might
[[Page H3517]]
be the case in other functions of our Government. I can also foresee
pressure by interest groups to create more trust funds for favorite
programs which currently don't have their own separate funding sources
in order to insulate them from further budget cuts. In these times of
fiscal austerity, it makes no sense to increase spending pressures and
make the deficit larger.
Fifth, I am not convinced that moving the Transportation Trust Funds
off budget would result in more expenditures for transportation
projects. It seems fair and accurate to say that the interest payments
from the Treasury to the trust funds have helped to increase the amount
of surplus. While it can be argued that the interest payments are only
fair returns for borrowing against the trust funds, they have also
enabled greater spending from the trust funds than would have been
possible without borrowing and then repaying with interest. So, moving
the trust funds off budget and foregoing future interest payments may
not really enhance transportation expenditures.
Sixth, removing the trust funds from the unified budget would result
in decreased funding for transportation projects that receive their
funding from general revenues. Not using the surpluses in the
Transportation Trust Funds to calculate the amount of overall available
funds means that spending levels for other programs have to be cut. In
the case of transportation projects, we would be pitting some types of
transportation needs against others. If we are truly concerned about
building a solid transportation infrastructure, why would we want to
play favorites and possibly secure the funding for some types of
projects and not others?
We should also keep in mind that the unified budget does not prevent
Congress from spending more on transportation projects if it chooses to
do so. The Congress has all the authority it needs to authorize and
appropriate more funds for transportation projects or other national
priorities any time it wants. The only requirements for spending more
are to be convinced of a genuine need and then to follow through with
the appropriate legislation.
Finally, let me say that the experience of my home State of Texas
shows that moving transportation funds off budget doesn't insulate that
money from use for other purposes. Even though article 8, section 7(a)
of the Texas State constitution clearly and specifically states that
all State taxes on motor fuels collected to finance transportation
projects must be spent on transportation projects, money from the off
budget transportation funds have been used for other programs. For
example, transportation fund money has been used to purchase land to
build prisons. Now, the transportation department holds the title to
this land, so in theory it is still a transportation department asset.
But, the actual use of the land to build a prison has little to do with
fulfilling transportation needs. Similarly, the supposedly protected
State transportation fund has been used to finance the construction and
maintenance of parking lots for State mental health agency facilities.
In my mind, neither of these examples fulfill transportation needs in
the State of Texas.
Perhaps the most significant breach of security for the off budget
Texas transportation fund took place during the 1980's. The State's
general revenue fund was running low, so an arrangement was made to
borrow $280 million from the transportation fund. The payback provision
of the agreement included the payment of interest, but because of the
State's ability to repay the loan quicker than originally anticipated,
no interest was actually paid to the transportation fund for the time
its money was used. So much for a secure off-budget transportation
fund.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, while I am a strong believer in the need to
fund transportation projects to the greatest extent possible, moving
the Transportation Trust Funds off-budget would unravel the unified
budget process and make it more difficult to make proper decisions on
economic matters. It would also needlessly further complicate the
budget process, lead to demands to move other trust funds off-budget
which would increase spending at the time we are trying to balance the
budget, and probably not increase funding of transportation projects
overall. And, as I have described to the House, the experience of my
home State of Texas strongly suggests that moving trust funds off-
budget doesn't really make them more secure. For all of these many
reasons I urge the House not to endorse H.R. 842 by voting against this
well-intended, but misguided legislation.
{time} 1245
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the very distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Arizona for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we have to fully appreciate what we are about today.
The fact is that we will never eliminate the deficit if we give some
programs exalted, protective status in the budget process requiring
those less fortunate to shoulder heavier cuts than they currently do
and making them compete with one another while those exalted programs
simply are beyond reach. But that is what we will do.
We are effectively going to take $30 billion a year out of the
nondefense discretionary pot and just put it beyond reach. Some would
say, well, it goes into a trust fund; it is off budget. It is not off
budget. It goes into that amorphous great big blue section on this
chart that I have used before. It is a pie chart of the 1996 Federal
budget. It becomes part of the uncontrollable portion of the pie,
entitlements, which are in blue, plus interest on the debt.
Two-thirds of the budget is uncontrollable. One-third of the budget
is discretionary. Half of that is defense, the other hald is the
nondefense cost of running Government. We are going to take $30 billion
out of that nondefense discretionary budget and add it into the blue
section or out in the atmosphere where we will help all those wonderful
contractors who want to build roads. We will make everybody else
compete for their hard-earned dollars or the dollars that the American
taxpayers throw at them. In doing so there will be less opportunity for
other well-meaning programs, be they health programs, education
programs, or the like, to be funded.
In fact, before the Committee on the Budget, Federal budget expert
Allen Schick testified the general fund would be the residual fund for
weak claimants who do not have sufficient clout to get earmarked
revenue, their own trust funds, off budget protection, and exemption
from budget enforcement rules and other controls. He says, if there is
any truth in budgeting, it is that all spending must compete for scarce
resources; not that there are protected enclaves and double standards.
But we will make a protected enclave of Federal highway spending.
Back-door spending in entitlements have already reduced the domestic
discretionary share of the Federal budget, and those are my words, not
Mr. Schick's, reduced the domestic discretionary share of the Federal
budget to just 17 percent next year.
Now we are talking about gutting what is left, taking 12 percent of
that, some $30 billion in outlays, money that will be spent immediately
year after year, and declaring it off budget for the purposes of
deficit reduction.
I just hope that every fiscally conservative Member of the body,
including those who signed on to the off budget bill before knowing its
effect on spending, fully appreciates what is happening and will
examine what the CBO and the GAO and others say about the effects. It
is devastating.
We are significantly trimming, trimming the nondefense discretionary
budget, so much so that for the first time in modern history, instead
of going up year after year after year in nondefense expenditures, we
are going down year after year. This Congress, since January 1, 1995,
has had tremendous effect on reversing the ever-increasing growth of
nondefense spending. But this bill comes along and wants to take $30
billion out of what is left in nondefense discretionary and spend it on
highways.
And, yes, we have seen those ads, radio, television, newspapers, the
pro-
[[Page H3518]]
special interest lobbyists, and they are all related to dealing with
highways and airports and such things. Oh, they have a lot of them.
They are all for it because it is money in their pocket. It is free
money. But notice who is against it. The Committee on the Budget, the
Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Appropriations, the
Office of Management and Budget, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the
Concord Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers
Union, the Taxpayers For Common Sense, the Citizens Against Government
Waste, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Alan Greenspan,
Federal Reserve Board. Those are the people whose job it is to look at
whether or not we are actually meaning what we say when we are trying
to cut the Federal budget, cut spending, and stop the pork barrel.
But here we are, despite all the rhetoric, right back at the pork
barrel. I urge Members who are serious about what we have been saying
for the last couple of years to vote against this measure. It is
wrongheaded. It is the wrong thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, despite all the rhetoric, Members should see this bill
for what it really is, a plain, old-fashioned power grab instigated by
one committee of this body.
Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and
before them the Public Works Committee, stand united in pushing off
budget, and with them stand the highway and airport construction
lobbyists and State highway agencies. Against this formidable group
always stands the Budget and Appropriations Committees.
We will never eliminate the deficit if we give some programs an
exalted, protected status in the budget process, requiring those less
fortunate to shoulder heavier cuts year after year.
If we start splitting up the Federal budget into off-budget fiefdoms
that are outside the appropriations process, we are setting a terrible
precedent. In testimony before the Budget Committee, Federal budget
expert Allen Schick said that if trust funds started to go off-budget,
``the general fund would be the residual funds for weak claimants who
do not have sufficient clout to get earmarked revenue, their own trust
funds, off budget protection, and exemption from budget enforcement
rules and other controls.''
He went on to say ``If there is any truth in budgeting, it is that
all spending must compete for scarce resources--not that there are
protected enclaves and double standards.''
Mr. Chairman, backdoor spending and entitlements have already reduced
the domestic discretionary share of the Federal budget to just 17
percent next year. Now we're talking about gutting what's left, by
taking 12 percent of the remainder and declaring it off budget for the
purposes of deficit reduction. I hope every fiscally conservative
Members of this body, including those who signed onto the off-budget
bill before knowing its effect on spending, will look carefully at what
CBO, GAO and others say about its effects.
If this bill becomes law:
Aviation safety would be undermined, according to the Secretary of
Transportation;
Other domestic and defense programs would suffer up to $50 billion in
additional cuts, according to OMB; and
Other trust funds will surely seek similar protection from future
budget reductions, and we won't have a leg to stand on.
If this body were now to pass off budget, it would tell the American
people we are willing to hide some expenditures from the budget; that
we are willing to suffer further reductions in defense and social
programs in order to provide continuous, permanent increases for
highways, mass transit systems, and airport construction programs. This
is not a fair and balanced budget plan, Mr. Chairman.
We weren't sent here to engage in budget shell games. We were put in
control to eliminate our crippling deficit--a goal this very bad bill
would make much harder. This bill is wrong because it would increase
spending at just the wrong time in our Nation's history; it
fundamentally alters the balance of power among committees of this
Congress; and it panders to the special interests and lobbyists.
Finally, if you vote ``aye,'' don't talk to me about the need to cut
the budget. I strong urge Members to vote ``no'' on final passage.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Filner].
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important
legislation to take the transportation trust funds off-budget.
Historically, investment in transportation infrastructure has helped
countries achieve and maintain world power status. Similarly, it has
been our own commitment to infrastructure investment has been
responsible for creating the most advanced and efficient economy in the
history of the world.
In the past, it was this financial commitment to America's
infrastructure that completed the transcontinental railroad, built the
Interstate Highway System, and created world class airports and
harbors. However, we all know that funding for future projects is
increasingly difficult to secure today. And as a result, our ability to
maintain, improve and build highways, roads, harbors, railways and
airports is severely hampered--and commerce, transportation and
recreation are all adversely restricted. We cannot continue this
neglect and we must provide an opportunity to guarantee a sound
financial future to both maintain and develop America's infrastructure
needs.
Pumping gas and paying the Federal gas tax of 18.3 cents per gallon
is probably the most common link the average American has with the
Federal Government on a daily basis. Most of the money from this tax
flows into the highway trust fund and has helped finance such San Diego
highways as Interstates 8 and 15.
My own district has several infrastructure projects that are of
national significance and need funding. Re-establishment of the San
Diego & Arizona Eastern Railroad--the ``Jobs Train''--and completion of
State Route 905 and Interstate 15 would all facilitate the increase of
international trade expected from our Nation's new Federal trade
policy. Yet because transportation trust funds are not being spent for
their intended use, these nationally important projects must compete
for fewer available dollars and are viewed as pork for my congressional
district. Transportation funding choices should not be between projects
that mitigate congestion and pollution, increase safety or implement
trade policy--these are all worthy projects.
We must release the trust fund surpluses from their budget bondage
and stop this Federal game of Mask the Deficit. The existence of these
surpluses only reinforces the public's belief that they are not getting
an honest return for the taxes they pay to Washington.
This issue is not only about tax fairness, it's also about jobs and
about economic productivity. Since the 1950's, as much as 25 percent of
America's productivity growth can be credited to improvements in our
transportation infrastructure. Recent Department of Transportation
studies show that every $1 billion invested in highway construction and
enhancements yields 42,000 high-wage jobs. Similarly, work to complete
SR 905 and I-15 in San Diego and to re-establish the Jobs Train would
create thousands of jobs.
The more that infrastructure spending is curtailed, the higher the
yearly trust funds surplus grows. The higher that surplus goes, the
more it offsets deficit spending in other general fund programs. It's a
$31 billion bonanza, and it's a fraud!
For me, the Truth in Budgeting Act is about keeping faith with my
constituents in San Diego--people who pay into these funds and expect
their tax dollars to be spent on building and maintaining the world's
premier transportation system. The people of America--and the people of
San Diego--deserve to see their transportation dollars at work building
and maintaining highways, railroads, airports, and harbors.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
(Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I was a civil engineer prior to becoming a Congressman.
I understand how important the transportation system is to our economy.
I know that without a strong transportation system we cannot sustain a
prosperous economy. That is why our Congress approved a gas tax over 40
years ago. The idea was simple: Collect a gas tax and spend that money
to build and maintain our infrastructure.
The system worked fine in the past because all the money went to
transportation projects. But now what happens? Highway projects get 12
cents out
[[Page H3519]]
of 18\1/2\ cents of the Federal gas tax; the rest goes to social
programs. It has been gutted. The highway trust fund money has been
gutted all this time.
We need this infrastructure badly, I will tell the Members. Remember,
these are not taxes, these are user fees. These are not taxes. The
money should not be spent on social programs, it should be spent on the
highway system. that is why our bridges are in bad shape. Twenty-five
percent of our bridges are in bad shape and are not safe. No wonder
why.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in my capacity as the ranking
Democratic member on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to give my
colleagues 6.8 billion reasons why they should vote for H.R. 842, the
Truth in Budgeting Act.
This, 6.8 billion, my colleagues, is the amount of highway and
transit money the States have been shortchanged over the life of ISTEA
to date.
The following chart shows these losses by State, 1992-96:
HIGHWAY FUNDING LOST BY STATE, 1992-96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY92-96
States difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.............................................. $114,340,767
Alaska............................................... 89,763,732
Arizona.............................................. 88,638,840
Arkansas............................................. 71,238,983
California........................................... 610,578,554
Colorado............................................. 86,443,852
Connecticut.......................................... 143,579,955
Delaware............................................. 30,171,803
District of Columbia................................. 39,333,139
Florida.............................................. 241,309,719
Georgia.............................................. 182,211,005
Hawaii............................................... 53,676,740
Idaho................................................ 48,737,851
Illinois............................................. 255,571,470
Indiana.............................................. 135,427,278
Iowa................................................. 87,340,504
Kansas............................................... 83,069,151
Kentucky............................................. 100,474,056
Louisiana............................................ 106,457,783
Maine................................................ 36,512,958
Maryland............................................. 119,912,708
Massachusetts........................................ 387,512,184
Michigan............................................. 180,464,385
Minnesota............................................ 104,962,453
Mississippi.......................................... 77,345,390
Missouri............................................. 147,406,231
Montana.............................................. 69,282,108
Nebraska............................................. 59,194,272
Nevada............................................... 43,941,993
New Hampshire........................................ 35,149,613
New Jersey........................................... 208,863,217
New Mexico........................................... 76,499,357
New York............................................. 389,884,664
North Carolina....................................... 166,409,550
North Dakota......................................... 44,939,034
Ohio................................................. 242,935,031
Oklahoma............................................. 92,883,484
Oregon............................................... 85,194,850
Pennsylvania......................................... 312,864,880
Rhode Island......................................... 43,667,425
South Carolina....................................... 85,828,138
South Dakota......................................... 49,538,589
Tennessee............................................ 139,565,180
Texas................................................ 431,378,542
Utah................................................. 54,759,515
Vermont.............................................. 32,204,791
Virginia............................................. 145,108,424
Washington........................................... 133,368,435
West Virginia........................................ 68,087,322
Wisconsin............................................ 123,104,240
Wyoming.............................................. 47,996,810
Puerto Rico.......................................... 33,650,675
Territories.......................................... 2,184,372
------------------
Total.......................................... 6,840,886,002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
This is the amount of spending out of the highway trust fund,
authorized to be obligated for needed highway and transit projects
across the Nation, that has not been spent due to arbitrary obligation
limitations placed on the trust fund in the annual appropriations
bills.
Now, this is not to say that the highway trust fund could not have
sustained an additional expenditure of $6.8 billion.
No, indeed.
There is an estimated balance of nearly $21 billion in the highway
trust fund--$11 billion in the highway account and $10 billion in the
transit account.
And let us be clear: This money is not general revenue. It is
comprised of the Federal tax on motor fuels, paid for by highway users,
and dedicated for transportation improvements.
Who, here, in this body, can say that the regions which they
represent do not need additional transportation improvements, that they
could not use some of that $6.8 billion that was duly authorized but
instead is lying idle in some government trust fund.
I look to the California delegation: You have been shortchanged by
$610.6 million.
To the Florida delegation: $241 million.
Ohio: $242 million.
Virginia: $145 million.
And my own State of West Virginia: $68 million.
The list goes on and on.
So I would say to my colleagues, vote to take the transportation
trust funds off-budget.
Let us restore faith with the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate we continue to hear allegations
that one of the motivations of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for promoting the pending legislation is that it would, in
some unexplained fashion, remove any constraints on so-called pork
barrel projects.
The distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation in particular likes to make a big deal out of the
fact that he refuses to earmark funds for highway demonstration
projects.
He even advised House Members not to even try to present testimony
before his subcommittee about specific highway projects.
Oh, how holier than thou.
And the press eats it up, showering him with praise for not engaging
in so-called pork barrel projects.
Well, my colleagues, the facts show otherwise.
Let's see. I suppose earmarking $4 million in ITS funds for the
Capital Beltway in the current fiscal year appropriations bill does not
represent an earmark.
No, of course not!
I suppose that earmarking almost $41 million for 20 ITS projects in
that bill is not really earmarking, now is it?
And I suppose that earmarking 100% of the section 3 bus money, to the
tune of $333 million, for 81--count 'em--81 specific projects is not
really earmarking funds at all.
Or what about the section 3 new starts; $80 million here, $130
million there. This isn't really earmarking, is it?
No, I suppose it's just chump change.
Ah, but these were not highway demonstration projects, were they?
No, apparently only earmarking funds for highway projects is bad.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if it walks like an earmark, if it quacks like an
earmark--it is an earmark and subject to the same pork barrel label
highway demonstration projects are often alleged to be.
I raise this because when we hear the next holier than thou--self-
righteous--pronouncements from the House Appropriations Committee
against our efforts to take the highway trust fund off budget, be
advised:
They are living in a glass house and should not be throwing any
stones at the authorizing committee.
Let me be clear.
I strongly believe in the right of the Congress to earmark funds for
specific transportation projects. We used good criteria when
considering highway projects during the NHS bill last Congress.
Circumstances change. Nothing remains static.
And the fact of the matter is that sometimes a State needs a little
bit more help with a transportation project over and beyond its normal
funding apportionment.
But, please, do not give me this bunk that earmarking discretionary
program funds for ITS and transit projects is not really earmarking.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I respectfully submit: Who is afraid of the
big bad wolf?
Not this gentleman from West Virginia and neither should this House.
I rest my case.
{time} 1300
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Let us talk about truth in budgeting. This country is $4.9 trillion
in debt, rapidly moving to $5.5 trillion in debt. That is truth in
budgeting. This is an effort by one group to grab dollars, to grab turf
and to expand its power. What do we need in 1996? We need people to
step up, to be part of the solution, not to walk away and be part of
the problem. What is reality?
This bill is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This
bill represents the effort of one group to get into its lifeboat, its
own small lifeboat. Some may call the special interest group or this
group of special interests selfish. I do not know if it is selfish. I
do know it is wrong. A number of groups agree, the National Taxpayers'
Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord Coalition,
the Citizens for a Sound Economy.
We do not need another entitlement. We do need a Congress willing to
make
[[Page H3520]]
tough decisions to protect future generations and to stand up to
special interest groups.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank all the gentlemen here in charge
of the time for the excellent work they have been doing.
Mr. Chairman, like others, I support needed investments in our
transportation system. The First District of Connecticut relies on its
roads, bridges, and airports to be its economic and commercial links to
the rest of the country and the world.
But while we may have nearly endless transportation needs, we don't
have an endless supply of tax money. And although transportation must
be a top priority, there are tough choices to be made about where our
limited funding goes. Taking these trust funds off-budget shelters them
from those hard decisions.
In 12 of the last 15 years, we have spent more from the trust funds
than taxpayers put in. Taking them off-budget will tilt the playing
field even more toward transportation, at the expense of other
priorities and at the expense of deficit reduction.
Calling the trust funds off-budget does nothing to change the reality
that our budget is out of balance. In fact, this bill would put us $20
billion more in the red over 5 years.
I urge my colleagues to support fiscal responsibility and oppose H.R.
842.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
From my background of 8 years in local government, 11 years in State
government dealing with balanced budgets every year, I rise to support
this bill and urge its passage. I recognize the original purpose of
taking these funds and putting them on the budget was to hide the
deficit during the Vietnam war, and for some years it served that
purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I also recognize that now we do not perform that
practice anymore. We do not try to use these funds to hide the deficit.
At the same time, the public is angry. They still perceive this money
as being diverted to other purposes. They still perceive this as being
used to mask the deficit, and we have to get away from that perception
or it is going to hurt our efforts to build a transportation
infrastructure in this country.
I urge that we now do what is right, we do what is fair, that we take
the trust funds off budget, that we use them for the purpose they are
intended for, that we pass this bill and we restore the trust in the
trust fund.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me begin by saying
congratulations to my colleagues. We do not hear too often this kind of
policy debate that completely crosses party lines and really is on a
policy issue. I think everyone is to be commended for really getting
into this policy debate here.
Let me make it clear where I stand on this. I do rise in strong
opposition to the so-called Truth in Budgeting Act, H.R. 842. The title
of it certainly sounds great, but the fact of the matter is it is a
device for increasing the already huge $5 trillion national debt that
we have. The title of it is misleading and the result is it is going to
be very costly.
It does something that we already do too much, and that is have a
shell game, with that chart that we saw here earlier by the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations with over half of all Federal spending
off budget. This simply moves another piece of it off budget so it is
not amenable to the changes that Congress would make through the
appropriation process each year. It is a shell game. We call it taking
it off budget, but in plain English, it means the spending is going to
be exempt from the rules that apply to other Federal spending. In
essence, we are creating yet another new entitlement program that just
grows and grows without regard to the already overblown Federal
deficit. The result would be that transportation simply does not get
the same scrutiny as education, defense, a lot of our national parks do
when it comes to prioritizing and controlling Federal spending.
Because of that, I think it is inevitable that this kind of spending
rises ever faster. To balance the budget, then all other parts of the
budget have to take an even harder hit, that is, the increasingly
shrinking part of the discretionary pie of spending, so we have to
increase taxes. And I think we all know that is not acceptable.
The fact of the matter is that Washington has spent more from the
highway trust fund than it has received in earmarked tax in 12 of the
last 15 years. In 1994 alone, the Federal Government collected $18
billion into the trust fund but it spent $22 billion on trust fund
programs. The real issue here is whether or not we should be returning
these programs to the States anyhow, whether we should set the
standards and return them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this
legislation.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
(Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
During the Eisenhower administration, the Federal Government forged a
compact with the American public, pledging to its citizens that in
exchange for a gasoline tax a transportation trust fund would be
established. The money generated by the tax was to be used strictly for
transportation and infrastructure development. Forty years later,
Americans continue to uphold their end of the bargain. Americans pay
18.4 cents Federal tax on every gallon of gas they purchase and a 10-
percent excise tax on all airline tickets. Last year alone, these taxes
added up to nearly $30 billion.
I find it simply inexcusable that the Government refuses to release
these funds at a time when our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. It
is estimated that more than $300 billion is needed to remedy our unmet
transportation and infrastructure needs.
By failing to use these funds for their intended purpose, the Federal
Government has broken its promise and violated the principles that are
central to the notion of a trust fund--the term ``trust fund'' in this
case is a true oxymoron.
As a former Washington County, PA, commissioner, I witnessed first-
hand the vital role a strong and viable transportation system plays in
stimulating our Nation's economy. The Monfayette Expressway in my
district is a classic example of this premise. Studies around the world
have shown a strong correlation between infrastructure development and
sustained economic growth.
It is simply unfair for the Federal Government to limit economic
development opportunities by hoarding the transportation trust funds to
mask the Federal deficit.
Today, Congress has an opportunity to fulfill the agreement that was
established between the Federal Government and the American people in
the 1950's. I support Chairman Shuster and ranking member Oberstar's
efforts to return these trust funds to their rightful owners--the
American people. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote
for the Truth in Budgeting Act, H.R. 842.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from the Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer].
(Mr. FRAZER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this legislation, H.R.
842, I understand the importance of investing in our infrastructure. On
September 15 of last year, the U.s. Virgin Islands was devastated by
Hurricane Marilyn.
Today we are still trying to repair the economy.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the manager that the time of
the gentleman from the Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer] will be taken from
the time of the gentleman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is recognized for a
unanimous-consent request, not for the time.
[[Page H3521]]
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, is it true that the gentleman may put his
entire speech in the Record?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's statement may be entered into the
Record under the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, am I being made to understand that it is
less than 1 minute that I requested, that I merely submit for the
Record?
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Minnesota wishes to recognize the
gentleman for 1 minute.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer].
Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the Territory of the
Virgin Islands does not have a vote in this institution, but it seems
as though the proceedings are becoming so that the Territory of the
Virgin Islands does not even need to be represented in this
institution.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and ranking member Mr.
Oberstar for bringing H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act to the
floor.
As a cosponsor to this legislation I understand the importance of
investing in our infrastructure. On September 15, 1995, the U.S. Virgin
Islands was devastated by Hurricane Marilyn. Today, we are still trying
to rebuild our economy. The first step in rebuilding our economy is our
infrastructure. The airports, highways, and ports in the Virgin Islands
are the keys to our economic prosperity.
The economy of the Virgin Islands is based on tourism. In order for
our economy to grow, we must have a strong infrastructure. Our airports
and highways must be fully operational and functional so that they can
generate the revenue which will create jobs and funding for
infrastructure development. Constituents pay to use these services and
they are entitled to receive a benefit.
The aviation trust fund allotment for the Virgin Islands in 1994
represented $3 million. A reduction in funding for the Virgin Islands
would have a negative impact on our ability to rebuild our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842, so
that we can use these funds to rebuild our infrastructure.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 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 strong opposition to H.R. 842.
I refer to the bill by number rather than name because I feel this
legislation promotes anything but truth in budgeting, at least if that
budgeting is supposed to be aimed in the direction of balance. In fact,
this bill would reduce controls on Federal spending, the exact opposite
of what we should be doing as we work toward a balanced budget.
Next week the Budget Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, is
scheduled to begin the process of putting together the budget
resolution for fiscal year 1997. This process will require many tough
choices as priorities are set among worthy programs. All programs will
be required to make sacrifices in the effort to achieve a balanced
budget by 2002. My guess is that not a single program will receive the
full amount of funding that its advocates would like. But essentially
all programs will be together in the same boat, competing for priority
status as we seek to determine how best to allocate the revenues coming
into the U.S. Treasury.
This bill is an effort to circumvent this process for one segment of
the budget. The debate today is really about whether the transportation
trust funds should be exempted from the priority-setting process that
tests every other program. A vote for this bill says that spending on
transportation programs automatically should receive a higher priority
than every other program of the Federal Government.
We have heard good augments today about the value of investing in our
national infrastructure. I agree with much of what was said but I
disagree with the venue. This debate should be heard in the midst of
augments about the value of every other program, not standing alone
without programmatic competition for numerous hours on the House floor.
We're talking about much more than the simple bookkeeping activity of
moving the trust funds onto a different side of the ledger. The real
impact of the bill is in removing trust funds from the statutory budget
enforcement mechanisms and, to a lesser extent, the congressional
budget process. Currently, spending from the trust funds is subject to
the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go rules. The
discretionary caps have been quite successful in controlling
discretionary spending and have played a major role in the significant
deficit reduction we've witnessed in the past 4 years.
In my opinion, we should be expanding the spending caps to cover all
programs, not reducing the number of programs subject to the caps as
this bill seeks to do for transportation spending. Spending form the
trust funds would have greater protection than any other spending
program. Even Social Security spending is subject to pay-as-you-go
rules.
During the debate Monday evening regarding the tax limitation
constitutional amendment, there was a lot of rhetoric about the need to
control Federal spending. I cannot understand how any Member who voted
to amend the Constitution on Monday evening, or for that matter any
Member who claims to care about deficit reduction, can vote for a bill
that will make it much easier for Congress to increase spending without
accountability.
The Director of the Congressional Budget Office stated that if trust
fund spending was exempted from budgetary controls ``transportation
spending could increase significantly.'' The General Accounting Office
made a similar point: ``Whatever the immediate effect on the deficit,
exempting one type of spending from the Budget Enforcement Act makes it
likely that such spending will increase over time.'' Similarly, the
reserved Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that taking trust funds off-
budget ``could weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and
control spending * * * [and] could engender cynicism in financial
markets and the public at large about the commitment and ability of
government to control Federal spending.''
This year, much ado has been made about differences in scoring
between the CBO and the OMB, but the two are in agreement about this
issue. They both have estimated that this bill would allow
transportation spending to increase by $20 billion above an inflated
baseline and $40 billion above 1995 levels over the next 5 years. I
know that the drafters of this legislation claim that the bill is
deficit neutral but they are not the referees who score Federal
spending; CBO and OMB are the two entities we count on to do that job.
At a time when programs for education, health, senior citizens, youth
jobs, scientific research and so many other important programs are
being cut or given increases well below inflation, I have a hard time
justifying a $40 billion increase straight out of the gate for
transportation spending.
Finally, granting special status to the trust funds will undermine
the principle of shared discipline which is so critical to building
consensus for reaching a balanced budget. Supporters of all other
Federal programs, understandably, will be far less willing to accept
cutbacks in their own programs if transportation, or any other
specially anointed program, is exempt from sharing the burden. The
credibility of the process will be severely undermined by the contrast
of transportation spending receiving a full inflation increase plus as
much as $20 billion beyond inflationary increases while other programs
losing in actual dollar terms.
H.R. 842 also will make it more difficult to implement a deficit
enforcement mechanism along the lines of the one included in the
Coalition budget by exempting trust fund spending from sequestration.
One of the weaknesses that led to the failure of Gramm-Rudman was that
it exempted a large number of programs from sequestration, thereby
reducing the number of people who have a stake in reducing the deficit.
Taking the trust funds off budget would mean that the transportation
industry would not have a stake in ensuring that a balanced budget plan
works, because they would not be affected by its failure.
If you are serious about controlling Government spending, if you
believe in the importance of a fair budget process, if there are other
Federal programs
[[Page H3522]]
that you rank at least of equal importance with transportation
programs, then vote against this bill.
{time} 1315
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
(Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Truth
in Budgeting Act.
This bill will accomplish three goals.
First, it will restore honesty with the American taxpayer. The
transportation trust funds are comprised of user fees--taxes paid by
transportation users with the express understanding that their
collection will be used to finance transportation improvements. To have
these funds as part of the budget, masking the deficit, and not spent
on transportation needs is simply not fair.
Second, the bill will spur economic growth. Transportation represents
17 percent of the American economy. Transportation improvements benefit
us all and the use of these surplus funds will go a long way toward
providing a boost for America's economy.
Third, every single State will benefit in increased transportation
funds from enactment of this bill. Had the transportation trust funds
been off budget since 1991, my State of Florida alone would have
received an additional $241 million. As a donor State to begin with,
this amount would help offset our significant transportation needs.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and return fairness to
these user fees.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which
is critical to the future of our transportation systems.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, nearly 25 percent
of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally
obsolete, and over 30 percent of our interstate pavement is in poor or
mediocre condition.
The average fleet age for our transit buses is greater than the
useful life of those vehicles.
And yet, because of obligation limitations imposed in annual
appropriations bills, the ISTEA highway program has been under funded
by $6.8 billion over the past 5 years. Let me be clear, this $6.8
billion was fully budgeted for and could have been supported by the
highway trust fund. Each Member can look at this table here on the
floor and clearly see the funding his or her State has lost.
This is $6.8 billion of contract authority--accounted for and
contained in the budget resolution--which States have not been allowed
to use for transportation improvements.
The Surface Transportation Subcommittee is now beginning the process
of reauthorizing ISTEA. The future budget authority provided and the
size of the program will be a determining factor in the type of
transportation program we can enact to lead us into the 21st century.
This is a simple fact of life. We must be able to spend the gas taxes
we collect on our future transportation program or we will be severely
limited in the flexibility and creativity necessary to address today's
transportation needs. For example, like more than a majority of House
Members, I represent a donor State and want to revise the current
outdated and inequitable formulas.
But, this will be hard to do, if not impossible to do, with a
shrinking program--a program funded entirely by user fees that may be
cut by as much as 40 percent according to some budget projections. This
vote is important to the ISTEA reauthorization.
Don't be scared off by exaggerated claims make by opponents of this
bill. There is no general fund subsidy of the highway trust fund.
The vast majority of general fund transportation spending that
opponents have cited is from the now-defunct revenue sharing program,
the community development block grant program, spending by
nontransportation agencies, and other specific programs approved by the
Appropriations Committee that are totally separate from and hardly
relevant to the highway trust fund, the Federal-aid highway program,
and this debate today.
In fact, it's the other way around--limitations on trust fund
spending have subsidized other general fund spending.
This bill is not a budget buster and it will not automatically
increase the deficit by some $30 billion as some have claimed.
Appropriate controls and Congressional authority remain in place. But
H.R. 842 will go a long way toward ensuring that, in the future, the
user fees and taxes we have imposed on the traveling public and which
are paid so dutifully by them day in and day out, will be spent for
their intended and lawful purpose. Not to do so is dishonest and unfair
to the American public.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842--it's the right thing to do.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Orton].
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding this time to me.
I rise in opposition to this bill, not because I oppose spending the
trust fund obligations for the purpose for which they were incurred. In
fact, I would favor legislation that would mandate that the trust funds
be expended for that very purpose, that would prohibit expenditures
from the general fund, that would require us to raise the user fees if
we need to spend more money. I am all in favor of that, but that is not
what this bill does.
We have limitations placed upon the budget process for one purpose.
The whole Budget Act of 1974 that we are operating under was placed
there for one purpose, to put fiscal restraints in place so that we
would have to make all of the decisions within the same context of a
budget.
The purpose for the line-item veto was to allow the President to say
here is certain spending that ought not to be spent. There is one area
of spending that is exempt from the line-item veto. It is contract
authority from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure so
that they can designate money that has to be spent that cannot be
vetoed by the President under line-item veto.
Now, what this bill attempts to do is remove all of that spending
from the Committee on Transportation's authority, to remove it from the
budget process so that there are no other fiscal restrictions or
restraints that would require us to consider all spending within one
specific decisionmaking process.
That is bad fiscal policy, it is bad budget policy; I would urge my
colleagues to vote against it, and I will submit into the Record a
letter from the Citizens Against Government Waste explaining why this
is a bad bill.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, it is always a little bit frustrating when
we come to a vote on a bill like this, that we wonder whether people
who are going to be voting on this, or their staff, are paying
attention. Well, I guess, without a rollcall or anything like that, we
just rely on the fact that those wonderful staff people have their eyes
focused on this chart and what the impact is of this legislation.
Now, this highway trust fund was established in, I believe, 1956, and
what we have done is we have added up cumulatively all the money that
has ever been collected from taxpayers in highway taxes to pay for
roads. We added it all up from 1956 to 1996. The total amount of money
collected in highway gasoline taxes to pay for highways totals $214
billion. Now, we added to that that interest that we owe from just the
highway section, and that adds up to $21 billion, for a grand total,
and think of this as some kind of a telethon, a grand total of what we
have raised since 1956, of $235 billion from our taxpayers in fuel tax
to fix our roads.
Let me stress that number again: $235 billion total collected, plus
interest.
Trust fund spending has been $228 billion. In other words, my
colleagues, we collected $214 billion in gas tax money to fix the
roads. But consistent with everything else we do in this town, and
unlike what families do, instead of spending $214 billion on fixing
roads, we spent $228 billion, and then when we add to that the money
beyond the trust fund money, that is another $63 billion, another $63
billion, for a grand total, a grand total since 1956, of $291 billion.
We have collected and had interest that cumulates $235 billion, and we
have spent $291 billion on highways.
Now, anyway, and I have got limited time and we got a whole lot of
debate going, let me just do this thought. The simple fact is, as my
colleagues know, the argument here, the argument in this body, is
somehow the people have been cheated, somehow they have paid a lot of
money in gas taxes, and they have not got the roads fixed for the money
they paid. Well, that is not
[[Page H3523]]
true. Frankly, what we have done is, we have one more time gone into
the piggy bank of our children. We have gone into their piggy bank to
have more money spent on roads.
Now, it should be equal. It is not equal. We have overspent on
highways from what we were dedicating revenue to fix roads with. It is
not complicated.
Now, if my colleagues want to take this thing off budget, let me just
give them the bottom-line impact. To everybody in this Chamber:
If you spend any of this accumulated interest, then what you are
doing is you got to do one of two things. You are either going to raise
the deficit, which means you got to borrow more money and increase the
national debt, or you got to cut some other program. It is not a
confusing, complicated deal. It is one or the other. Now, under the
current situation, if you want to spend more on roads, and I am not
opposed to doing that because roads is infrastructure, and if the roads
are not determined by pure politics, they can generally help the
economy. But I do not think we ought to put roads above anything else.
I mean we can develop a supercomputerized system, as individual
instruction for our children using computer technology. Frankly, that
is more effective to me than just making roads a priority.
Look, the reason why we are coming to the floor and what contractors
think and what a lot of people think is, as my colleagues know, we did
not spend all the money we took in, that we got this shoebox full of
cash. We got this shoebox full of cash to build all these roads, and
the simple fact of the matter is we ``ain't'' got no shoebox. We do not
have any cash in the back drawer. This involves borrowing. It involves
our children. That is what it involves.
So I say to my colleagues, if they want to come to the floor and pull
this off budget, fine. They can vote that way. They can vote that way,
and just understand the consequences: We either are going to have to
borrow more money and drive up the deficit or we are going to have to
cut other programs which we struggle to avoid doing in this Chamber,
create tougher priorities.
So, I mean, I give a lot of credit to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. I have never seen anybody more tenacious on an issue. He
believes in this program, and I respect him for it. It is not a
personal fight with anybody in this Chamber. It really is a matter of
whether we are going to get our fiscal house in order and not put one
priority ahead of another in times when we have got to choose or raise
the national debt.
So I would urge my colleagues to keep our plan on schedule, and the
gentleman from Virginia said this will be the end of balanced budgets.
I am not going to be that gloomy here today. But it certainly makes our
job more difficult. Do not support this bill, reject it.
{time} 1330
Do not support this bill. Reject it. We can continue to have robust
highway spending if we deem that to be a top priority, but keep this
total spending within the decision-making that we all make in this
Congress. But no one should come here thinking that somehow we have
cash.
This is what we spent, 291. This is what we collected, 235. No one
should think that we have underspent or taken our highway money and
used it for something else. It just simply is not true. Let us be
honest with the public on the way in which we add our numbers up.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the distinguished gentleman, it is
very true, if you go back in history, there was substantial general
fund money spent on highways and other transportation projects. CDBG
grants were spent, revenue sharing was spent. All of this is true, back
in history. It also, interestingly, indicates how important
transportation is to local communities. Nevertheless, nobody disputes
that.
But Mr. Chairman, facts are stubborn things. Does anybody in this
body dispute the cold, hard fact that there is over $30 billion in the
transportation trust funds today? Nobody disputes it. It is a fact.
That is the balance in the trust fund. We should spend that money in a
rational, careful way.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to the argument of our good friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. It would strike me that if one followed
that logic, one should say that I think there is a surplus today in the
Medicare fund, and we should spend it all today and it would not impact
the deficit. That would be about the same logic.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on what the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] was saying, to make this point. In 12
of the past 15 years, the highway trust fund expended more than it
collected in dedicated taxes. In 12 of the years since that trust
fund's inception in 1956, the highway trust fund expended more than it
collected in both dedicated taxes and interest paid into the trust fund
from the general fund.
I repeat that. In 12 years since 1956, it expended more than it
collected in both taxes and interest. We are not saying do not spend
money on highways. I believe in spending money on highways. I am a
strong supporter of that. But count it, just like you count everything
else in the budget.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is exactly correct. We have had
a very large excess expenditure above revenues out of this fund, and
people ought to recognize that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman
for yielding time to me, and commend him and our outstanding chairman
of the subcommittee for the great work they have done in bringing this
bill to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, today is our opportunity to restore honesty and truth
to the Federal budget by voting to take the transportation trust funds
off budget.
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar deserve high praise for
their outstanding efforts to bring this bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to me that we would ask the American
people to pay taxes for these transportation trust funds and then not
use the money.
These are dedicated funds that should be used for their intended
purpose--the improvement of our Nation's transportation system.
Sitting on these dedicated funds which cannot be spent for anything
else is simply a fraud on the American people.
We have been lying to the American people by telling them to pay
their gas taxes and airline ticket taxes for an improved transportation
system and then not investing the money in transportation.
In Philadelphia, we are faced with a vital need to rebuild Interstate
95, our key commuter and freight route that is used by 150,000 vehicles
a day.
In the last month, I-95 has been closed and then restricted because
of a fire that damaged the structure.
We have had massive traffic jams that have lasted the entire day,
disrupted the surrounding neighborhoods, and produced chaos throughout
the area.
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation planned to invest $2
billion to make I-95 the highway of the 21st century.
Just this year, the Penndot plan was reduced to a $176 million
resurfacing that will not solve our traffic problems and must be redone
in 5 years.
By not investing the money in the trust funds, Washington is telling
America's drivers who are sitting in traffic jams to get used to it.
It makes no sense to have a $20 billion balance in the highway trust
fund--including $312 million for investment in Pennsylvania--when the
money should be used for the reconstruction of I-95 and the many other
roads throughout Pennsylvania that badly need improvement.
A vote against H.R. 842 is a vote against using this money to
reconstruct I-95 and the many roads like it.
It may be a vote to fund other programs but it is a vote against
reconstructing I-95.
In Philadelphia, our transit system, Septa, is an absolutely key part
of our regional transportation system, carrying more than 1 million
passengers each weekday.
Without Septa, we would have more traffic congestion requiring more
roads and more parking facilities.
[[Page H3524]]
Right now, Septa is in trouble. Septa needs more money for upgrading
track, stations, and equipment.
The entire Philadelphia region loses if Septa is allowed to continue
on a downward spiral.
An improved, modernized Septa system benefits everybody in the
region.
At the same time we have allowed a $9.6 billion cash balance to build
up in the transit account--money that our Nation's transit systems
desperately need.
A vote against H.R. 842 is a vote against using this money to help
Septa and other transit systems. It is a vote against transit.
It may be a vote to support some other program but it is a vote
against transit.
Philadelphia international airport has been trying to get funds to
build a new commuter runway that will increase capacity by 40 percent.
Annual operating delays at Philadelphia cost airlines more than $70
million in wasted fuel and labor costs.
At the same time, however, we have allowed a balance of $11 billion
to grow in the aviation trust fund.
A vote against H.R. 842 is a vote against funding projects such as
the Philadelphia commuter runway.
It may be a vote to use the transportation trust funds for some other
program but it is a vote against airport projects.
The inland waterways trust fund and harbor maintenance trust fund are
also crucial elements of this bill.
The Nation's ports handle more than 1 billion tons of cargo annually,
including 95 percent of our international trade.
Many ports are in a crisis today because of the need to expand
capacity to meet new trade demands. It is estimated that $600 million
will be needed for ports during the next 5 years to keep pace with the
growth of commerce.
The outdated and antiquated locks and dams of our inland waterway
system hinder shipments and require additional investment.
More than 40 percent of the locks are more than 50 years old and one
is 150 years old.
Mr. Chairman, a vote for H.R. 842 is a vote for honesty in budgeting
and for investment in economic growth.
We have told the American people to pay their money for
transportation. Not spending the money is fraud.
Our long-term transportation needs are important enough to take the
trust funds off budget and increase our investment. Each $1 billion of
investment in infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs.
We should take the trust funds off budget and use the money the
American people have already paid.
Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago, we took the Social Security trust fund off
budget. This is the exact same situation.
Let's put trust back in the transportation trust funds and pass H.R.
842.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, by passing this legislation, we will be moving smartly
from fuel tax fudging to truth in budgeting. How many of the Members
would dare to stand at their gas pump and to tell each one of your
constituents after you shake his or her hand, do you know that part of
the tax that you are paying with each gallon of gas is going toward
payment of welfare costs, toward foreign aid? Because that is the
result of not spending their fuel tax for the dedicated purpose, just
the opposite of what the opponents of this legislation are saying.
The opponents are saying that if we go through with this plan as
envisioned by this bill, we will be robbing our social programs of
moneys. That means they must be paying for them now through the fuel
tax that they are paying. Is that not the obvious, logical conclusion?
Truth in budgeting means that the American people, to whom we owe full
faith and credit, have a right to expect that their fuel tax goes for
nothing but highways.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
(Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me, and I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the
chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the Truth in
Budgeting Act and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership of our committee, Chairman Bud
Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, for introducing this
legislation to take the transportation trust fund off budget. I want to
share with my colleagues why I cosponsored this bill.
President Eisenhower was a visionary when he created the highway
trust fund in 1956. He knew that by creating a new trust fund where
those who benefit from the transportation program pay for the program,
a steady, dependable stream of revenue would ensue. For many years the
trust fund worked as promised: motorists paid into the fund and in
return they received highway construction and transportation
improvements.
But when Congress created a unified budget in 1968, the word trust
was removed from the highway trust fund. I looked up the word trust in
Webster's Dictionary, and this is what it says: trust is a dependence
on something future or reliance on future payment. Webster's also
defines trust as: to commit or place in one's care or keeping.
Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that after I read those definitions it
became clear to me that the word trust in highway trust fund has no
meaning.
Why do I say that? Because over time the Government has collected but
withheld and diverted nearly $31 billion in trust fund dollars. This is
money that should have been going to our Nation's infrastructure.
Americans have faithfully supported the concept of a highway trust
fund by dutifully paying their gasoline tax for 40 years. What have
they received in return? 176,000 miles of American highways in mediocre
to poor condition. Severe road congestion on 30 percent of our Nation's
major roads. A $290 billion backlog of bridge repair work.
Polls show that 72 percent of the American people believe the motor
fuel fee is the fairest way to finance highway improvements. They want
their money to go toward protecting our investment in our Nation's
infrastructure. But this shell game being played with the moneys in the
highway trust fund has only delayed this badly needed investment and
helped fuel the prevailing cynical attitudes people have toward their
elected officials and Government.
Let's stop the charade and pass H.R. 842.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842,
introduced by the very capable chairman of the Transportation
Committee.
I do not want to repeat many of the comments that have already been
made here today. But let me say that this, Mr. Chairman, our Nation
needs this legislation.
No one disputes the fact that we need to spend more than we presently
are to repair, maintain, upgrade, and improve our Nation's highway and
aviation systems.
I have been very fortunate to serve as the chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee for 16 months now, so I will speak to the serious needs in
our Nation's aviation and air traffic control system. Air passenger
traffic is going to double in the next 10 years, from over 500 million
a year now to almost 1 billion 10 years from now.
I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this House, so
I have been very frugal in what and how we spend the taxes that are
sent here from hardworking Americans.
Mr. Chairman, as it has been said earlier, this issue is a question
of fairness to the taxpayer.
It is a question of whether or not we should keep our commitment with
the people who pay taxes, to this Federal Government, every single day
of the year.
Every time a person gets on a plane. He or she pays taxes. Every time
a person puts gas in their car, he or she pays taxes.
Many years ago, Congress established a policy, a pact, with the
American people. If you pay these taxes, we here in Congress will turn
around and spend them on repairing our
[[Page H3525]]
highways and bridges and we will update our antiquated air traffic
control equipment.
Mr. Chairman, the aviation trust fund was established in 1970 to help
bring our air traffic control system up to speed. But as we all have
seen this has just not been the case.
Last year, air traffic control centers suffered more blank radar
scopes, dead radios, downed computers, and failed power systems than in
any previous year.
This 30-year-old equipment causes airplanes to be delayed and
certainly shakes public confidence in the safety of flying.
There have been air traffic computer failures at FAA centers near
Chicago, Dallas, Cleveland, New York, Pittsburgh, Boston, Atlanta,
Houston, Oakland, and Miami.
In fact, just a few weeks ago the FAA issued a coast-to-coast
grounding for aircraft going to Pittsburgh airport because of an
outage.
While these outages have been occurring more and more frequently, the
aviation trust fund has taken in billions, at least $5 billion last
year alone, not including the $1 billion in interest.
At the end of the last fiscal year, the aviation trust fund has a
cash balance of nearly $11 billion.
This enormous balance has not accumulated because of any sound policy
reason but rather as an accounting gimmick to help hide the size of the
Federal budget deficit.
Mr. Chairman, experts have testified before the Aviation Subcommittee
that airport needs over the next 5 years will total $50 billion.
The FAA expects that air travel will increase from over 500 million
passengers today, to well over 800 million by the year 2005. This is a
56 percent increase in air travel.
And, the FAA has reported that 23 airports across the Nation exceed
20,000 hours of delay per year.
Unless significant capacity improvements are made, the FAA expects
that by the year 2002, 33 airports will experience delays of 20,000
hours or more, costing millions of dollars annually.
In 1995, the aviation trust fund took in $6 billion. The
Administration has projected that the aviation trust fund, under
current law, will take in $9.2 billion in 2002, a 46 percent increase.
Mr. Chairman, I believe Americans are paying too much already in
taxes today.
Moreover, I have never voted for a tax increase since I have had the
privilege of serving in this body.
However, in my opinion, if we are not going to spend the taxes we
collect for the purpose of which they were intended, then we should
return the money to the people.
We must take the transportation trust fund off-budget so that we can
spend the aviation taxes to improve the safety of the air traffic
control system.
We must pass H.R. 842 today and not wait until a tragic aviation
accident embarrasses Congress into taking action.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, why is it the
trust fund only pays 50 percent of FAA operating costs, when all the
studies show that 85 percent is related to civilian air travel? Has
not, in effect, general revenue substantially subsidized the operation
of FAA over the last several years?
Mr. DUNCAN. To some extent, yes. That is correct, I would say to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is that 75 percent of the
overall budget of the FAA is funded out of the trust fund revenues.
There is an additional amount that is paid out of general revenues from
the DOD budget to account for air traffic control services to the
military, and some people, some folks at OMB, account for the operating
budget of FAA in a different way in saying that the operating budget,
salaries and expenses are 50 percent. But that is an irrelevant
argument.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if we listen to the opponents of this
particular bill, we would think that Dwight David Eisenhower was the
father of pork in America. Ike was not a pork barrel President, and
this is not just truth in budgeting, this is a truth in financing,
truth in borrowing.
I should have offered an amendment calling for an investigation into
congressional borrowing from trust funds. These user fees are taxes.
The American people pay taxes to fix their roads. The money going to
this account is already going for other services. It is not true. This
a good bill.
Let us talk about this. Maybe we should take the Committee on
Appropriations and keep them on budget and take the trust funds off.
H.R. 842 does not say these matters still do not go through
appropriation. They are still subject to appropriation. The trouble
with America today is that everybody has their hands on trust funds.
They should all have their own boards of directors. No one should be
able to touch them. That Social Security trust fund is financing a
debt, and we are not getting the truth on the deficit or the national
debt.
There is no justification to use highway money for anything else.
There is no justification to keep America second rate. This money has
an intended purpose. There is a tax; not a user fee, a tax. That tax,
Mr. Chairman, is directed towards maintaining our infrastructure,
fixing our roads, and the appropriators still have a say.
The trouble is, if we are going to get some truth out of the whole
budgeting process, tell us the truth of the national debt, tell us the
truth of the deficit. You have been trying to mask it with this trust
fund for too long. Open it up, use it for what it was intended.
Anything else is hypocrisy and maybe against the law. Damn it, I wish I
had offered that investigation amendment. I yield back the balance of
these taxes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon ].
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, and
commend Chairman Shuster for the work he has done to bring this bill to
the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, legislation to
separate the four transportation trust funds from the unified Federal
Budget. Before being elected to Congress, I served on a city council
and listened to many residents who were concerned about funding basic
infrastructure needs. These same citizens are under the mistaken
impression that the money they spend every day on gasoline excise taxes
will be used to improve roads, bridges, airports, and waterways across
the country.
It is simply wrong to use the revenue dedicated to these trust funds
for anything other than their original purpose--and we can act today to
correct this matter. There are billions of dollars of unmet
infrastructure needs in the United States and the sad thing is that we
already have the money to pay for these projects--only it is not being
spent. The cost to the taxpayer and our Nation to rebuild these roads
will only increase if we continue to delay taking the four
transportation trust funds off budget. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about some facts. Since 1981, we
have spent more than we have collected in receipts and interest in
these funds. The way we measure the deficit is expenditures versus
revenue. In 1994 and 1995, the expenditures from the highway trust fund
have exceeded total revenue. The same is true in the airport trust
fund. They are not subsidizing the balance of the budget.
{time} 1345
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would make the comment to the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and others who have been
promoting a balanced budget that if we take these off-budget and use
them for their purpose, we would actually be saving money, that we
would not be spending in excess. That would answer their question. But
I rise in strong support of this. I commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, and the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] for the leadership that they have exhibited
over the last several months and years, I would add. This bill is a
product of their tremendous efforts to restore fairness and
accountability and we must have accountability in the transportation
budgeting. In 1994 in my
[[Page H3526]]
home State of Illinois, the gas tax amounted to $663 million. It is
imperative that these trust funds be used for essential improvements
and repairs to our infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, it is time that our highways and airports receive the
funding they deserve and this can only be done by moving the trust
funds off-budget. Keeping the trust funds as part of the unified budget
has had a severe impact on my home State of Illinois and the other
States in the country.
I urge my colleagues to support honesty and fairness in the budgeting
process and support this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
Ms. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting
Act. For more than 40 years Americans have been contributing to
transportation trust funds designed to ensure a safe, efficient, and
reliable transportation infrastructure.
Since 1969, these trust funds have been included as part of the
unified budget for the purpose of masking the extent of our deficit
spending. The budget chairman's chart revealed what's been spent--but
no mention of the unmet needs of this Nation. In my State of Missouri,
we have more than $1.7 billion in unmet highway needs, including 261
lane miles of 4-lane highway needs, and 136 bridges in need of major
repair or replacement.
Mr. Chairman, balancing the budget was a priority when I campaigned
for Congress, and I have worked hard to reach that goal. But in our
quest for a balanced budget, it makes no sense to let our
infrastructure fall into disrepair. Each year we will find ourselves in
a greater dilemma if we refuse to seriously address our many
transportation needs today.
The Truth in Budgeting Act will remove the transportation trust funds
from the artificial constraints that prevent needed money from being
released. It will allow for greater investment in our Nation's future,
and reward the American people's commitment to a strong transportation
infrastructure.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 842.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
(Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the
Truth in Budgeting Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this much needed
legislation, because I believe it reflects a strong commitment to
improving and maintaining our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
Very simply, H.R. 842 will take the four Federal transportation trust
funds out of the unified budget. This is the same budgetary treatment
given the Social Security and U.S. Postal Service trust funds, and it
is the right thing to do. Every day, millions of tax dollars are
collected through the sale of motor fuel and airline tickets. These
taxes are designed to build and maintain our transportation
infrastructure system. Unfortunately, because the trust funds are part
of the unified budget, their positive balances have been wrongly used
to mask deficit spending.
Mr. Chairman, our continued investment in highways, airports,
waterways and ports is of critical importance to the 19th Congressional
District of Illinois. Taking the four transportation trust funds off
budget is a fair way to ensure that tax dollars collected to improve
and maintain our transportation infrasture, are used for that purpose.
I urge my colleagues to join with me, and the other 224 cosponsors of
H.R. 842, in supporting this important legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I support the Truth in Budgeting Act.
You may ask why? I would like to give one example.
Federal highway transportation funds were designated to expand the
Niblick Bridge in Paso Robles, within my district. The funds were
appropriated, yet they could not be used immediately because an
environmental impact statement needed to be conducted before the
construction of the bridge could commence.
Hundreds of thousands of State and local dollars had been invested in
repairing the bridge and conducting the mandated environmental reports
to comply with regulations to build the bridge. This took time. In
fact, 4 years to be exact. Because all the moneys could not be used
immediately, the budgeters wanted to rescind these unprotected dollars
to mask the deficit rather than use them for their intended use, which
is to repair and strengthen our existing transportation infrastructure
within the United States.
Well, I believe that if you collect a tax for a specific purpose,
then, by golly, you should use it for that specific purpose. So for
that reason, I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Truth in
Budgeting Act.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard, I believe, some really
interesting and creative accounting here with the chart from the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the ranking member. They
would have us believe that, over time and currently, that we are
spending more than we collect in dedicated taxes to maintain the
transportation infrastructure of our country, and they are most
interested in balancing the budget and keeping the books straight.
If that were true, then I am confused as to why the Committee on the
Budget chairman and the ranking member are not supporting this bill. If
it is true that we are now subsidizing these trust funds, I am willing
to live with reality. Let us only spend the dedicated taxes that we
take in that are levied on the people of the United States, in gas
taxes and in ticket taxes and other taxes that support this
infrastructure. Let us only spend that.
I am willing to live with that. Are they? No, they are not, because
in fact they are taking money out the back door to defray other
expenses of the Federal Government. They are borrowing every penny that
is accumulated in the trust fund balance, and it has been spent and
replaced by IOU's.
It is also interesting to me that in a Congress that is interested in
growth and investment, that we do not have a little more discussion
from some of those in opposition about what it means to spend money
that is invested. If you spend money in a bridge, a highway, in mass
transit, that money will provide economic benefits for decades to come.
Yet we treat that the same as money spent for a one-time expenditure of
something consumable and thrown away by the Federal Government. Does
that make any sense? It makes no sense whatsoever.
These funds are raised to be invested to improve the transportation
and infrastructure of this country, and no one in this body can tell me
or any other Member who is informed that we have met those needs, with
bridges falling into the rivers and highways in disrepair and mass
transit going unbuilt. We need to get these funds off-budget
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
(Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the
Truth in Budgeting Act.
Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation for many reasons because I
believe that the infrastructure of our Nation is vital to our economic
viability. This is true, and it is backed up by statistics that say
that more than 40 percent of highway use is by businesses and small
businesses alone.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard from small businesses in my district that
are currently paying the largest taxes. They are also the largest job
producing segment in my district and in districts all across the
country. They make the largest contribution, small businesses do, to
these funds, and they want to make sure that these trust funds are
restricted and they are not used for other things than they are
intended for.
I have heard from a constituent in my district, Melvin Rupp, a small
business owner. If those in opposition to this legislation think that
the people back home do not know what it is about, then they are sorely
mistaken. Mr. Rupp and others in my district have urged me to do what
is right, to protect these funds for their intended
[[Page H3527]]
use, to stop using these funds for masking the deficit and to support a
real balanced budget.
I ask strong support for H.R. 842, and thank our chairman and ranking
member for the work they have done on it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity
and rise in support of this bill.
The reason is, when you look at a rural district like I have in
northwest Iowa and the tremendous infrastructure demands that we have
in an agricultural area, our roads are crumbling. In the last 5 years
the State of Iowa has been denied about $87 million that could have
gone into roads and bridges, to build infrastructure, because we have
decided to spend those dollars someplace else.
I am as conservative as anyone on the floor here as far as trying to
balance the budget. If I thought that this was part of the problem, I
would not be supporting this. But, in fact, our problem as far as the
budget is our addiction to spending more money in social programs and
consuming for today and not investing in the future.
What this is all about is putting dollars that are paid by users to
go into infrastructure, to go into roads, to try and maintain our
economy and to create jobs. I support this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
842, the Truth in Budgeting Act. This is a measure that will affect
every American who buys gasoline in his or her car or buys airline
tickets. Americans currently pay an 18.4-cent tax on gasoline and a 10-
percent tax on airline tickets. This money, approximately $80 million a
day, is placed into the transportation trust fund and is supposed to be
used to pay for urgently needed infrastructure such as maintenance of
our highways. Instead, the Federal Government for years has been
hoarding much of this tax money and using it to mask the true size of
the deficit. This means the Federal Government is essentially stealing
from Americans each time they travel.
What does this all mean to Ohio drivers? The Ohio Department of
Transportation estimates that Ohio sends about $1 billion in Federal
gas taxes to Washington annually. Unfortunately, the State gets back
only about $600 million of that money. Of the remaining millions, $345
million is used to hide the size of the deficit while the rest of the
money disappears into what ODOT calls a bureaucratic black hole inside
the Beltway.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support and passage of H.R. 842.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman, as manager, is entitled to close debate.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this proposal. This
issue, Mr. Chairman, ultimately comes down to congressional
accountability and integrity. If Congress removes the transportation
trust funds from the budget and therefore budget scrutiny, it will set
forth a dangerous precedent for the other 160 trust funds under Federal
jurisdiction. The progress was made in last year's budget for funding
the Pell grants, veterans health care and housing improvements for our
military families would be at risk if the transportation trust funds
were taken off-budget. If we take this action, where are these cuts
going to come from?
Appropriations are not Houdini. If you tie our hands and drop us in a
pool, do not expect us to get our heads above water.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I often hear the refrain which I agree with that you
ought to treat the Federal budget like you do your family budget, your
business budget, maybe even your State or county government budget. I
happen to believe in that maxim and I believe in another maxim. You
ought to get what you pay for. And if you pay a dedicated tax, you
ought to get what it is dedicated to. And if you pay 18.4 cents at the
gas pump for roads and bridges and maintenance and construction, you
ought to get 18.4 cents worth of roads and bridges and construction. So
that is one essential reason that this is such a crucial vote today.
There is another reason. I want to deal with those who say, ``If you
take this off-budget, then it hurts other areas of the discretionary
budget.'' Well, there is one thing that Republicans and Democrats agree
on and that is the need for growth. There is one thing that
unfortunately neither the Republican nor Democratic budget has in it,
and that is adequate growth. The best I have seen is a 2.5-percent
increase every year. The worst is 2.3-percent and neither one is a
growth budget. This is growth. The only way you grow is to invest in
your country, in your stock, in your physical infrastructure--your
roads, your bridges, your water systems, your sewer systems, your
airports, your locks and dams. that is how you grow. It has also been
documented that building infrastructure also improves productivity,
another key to growth. So if you want to grow and we want to make sure
that there is adequate money in that budget for all the programs that
are so important, you have to support growth. That means you have to
support investment. That means you have to support this bill because
this does guarantee the investment that is so important.
{time} 1400
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, 1\1/2\ minutes is not very long.
Let me tell you my version of why this is not a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, everybody is for using the gas tax receipts that go
into the trust fund for the purpose of highway construction. I am for
that. Let me make it very clear. Every cent raised in gas taxes has
been spent for highway construction since it was first started in 1956.
Let me tell you my version of what the argument is really about.
During the Vietnam war, we transferred some of the highway trust fund
money for the war effort. That has now accumulated over the years
additional interest, which is technically part of the trust fund. That
interest now represents a cash balance of $19 billion. This is the
issue. The authorizing committee would like to now have the authority
to spend that additional $19 billion that has been accumulated in
interest.
Let me tell you very briefly why that is not fair. Since 1956, we
have spent approximately $41 billion out of the general fund for road
and highway construction. We have spent approximately $41 billion out
of the general fund for the construction of mass transit. We have
authorized those amounts. That is why the cash balance has in fact
already been spent. There should be a tradeoff. The $19 billion should
not now be spent to shortchange other spending of the Federal
Government and really disrupt our opportunity to balance the budget.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have heard now in the course of this
rather lengthy debate from all the bogeymen with their scare arguments
about unrestrained spending on transportation projects. The face is
that there is restraint. It is written into the highway trust fund
language, has been since the beginning in 1956, that this fund is
antideficit, that it cannot run a deficit. It has not, and it will not.
But in addition to that, there is additional restraint or further
restraint from the Office of Management and Budget, which must review
and put its stamp of approval on highway funding requests from the
Department of Transportation. There is review by the
[[Page H3528]]
White House. There is review by the Committee on the Budget. There is
review by the Committee on Appropriations. And there will continue to
be, under this legislation.
The second argument about interest, you just heard a discourse a
moment ago from our good friend from Michigan about interest. Would any
of the members of the Committee on Appropriations, would any Member of
this body argue that the Federal Government should not pay interest to
purchasers of U.S. Treasury securities? Should we not have paid
interest on war bonds for World War II or World War I? Should we not
pay interest to those domestic and foreign interests that buy U.S.
Treasury notes, that in fact underwrite our deficit? Should we welch to
those who buy U.S. Treasury notes, not pay interest to them?
No, of course not. Nor should we welch on those highway users and
aviation users and waterway users whose tax dollars are used to
purchase U.S. Treasury securities and on which interest is owed.
That is what we are talking about here, fairness.
Then, finally, from various Members, that old pork-barrel nostrum,
tired old argument, dragged out every time they run out of steam on the
merits of the issues. The fact is, this is a fairness issue. People
agreed to be taxed to build highways and bridges, to build runways at
airports, to deepen our waterways and our ports. It was Abraham Lincoln
who first said if you do not have a tax to build a waterway, you will
never get the revenue out of that waterway to build this Nation, in
1848 as a Member of this body.
This is a basic fairness issue. You agree to be taxed for a benefit
to be derived, and that is what this legislation is all about.
general importance of taking transportation trust funds off-budget
Trust fund: Dedicated revenue stream--freeing the Transportation
Trust Funds from the artificial and unnecessary constraints of the
budget process will allow those desperately needed funds to reverse the
deterioration of the Nation's infrastructure; and
Improved infrastructure will create jobs and increase the
productivity and efficiency of our industries, thereby enhancing the
United States position in this fiercely competitive global economy.
decline in infrastructure investment
Infrastructure investment as a percentage of the gross domestic
product [GDP] fell from 1.2 percent in 1980 to 0.8 percent in 1995;
Infrastructure spending as a percentage of Federal spending declined
over the past 30 years from a high of 6.3 percent in 1965 to 2.8
percent in 1994;
Infrastructure spending from 1981 to 1992 fell by $12 billion from
$43.9 billion in 1980 to $31.9 billion by 1992, in constant dollars;
At the same time, our economic competitors have been devoting
substantial resources to their long-term investments: Japan is spending
$3 trillion over 10 years to improve its infrastructure; Germany is
investing nearly $2 trillion in infrastructure to fully integrate its
eastern states into Europe's most powerful economy; and even Taiwan is
proposing to spend more than $100 billion over 5 years to improve and
expand its infrastructure;
Overall, the U.S. ranks 55th in the world in infrastructure spending,
based on 1993 statistics; and
Our lack of investment is affecting our Nation's ability to compete--
from 1979 to 1989, the United States productivity growth rate was only
35 percent of the average of other industrialized countries.
real life consequences of decline in infrastructure investment
Our failure to develop our transportation infrastructure has had
serious, real-life consequences;
Commuters waste 2 billion hours annually sitting in traffic because
of freeway delays--costing our economy $45 billion per year in wasted
fuel and lost productivity in our Nation's 50 largest cities alone;
Fifteen locks on the inland waterway system average more than 3 hours
of delay per barge ton because of antiquated and outdated locks and
dams;
Projected growth will also occur under the budget proposals of the
Republican Congress. In fact, that was the case with the budget
resolution the Budget Committee brought to the House floor last year;
Taking the Transportation Trust Funds off budget would not add to the
deficit; and
In scoring H.R. 842, CBO said, ``By itself, taking programs off-
budget does not change total spending or revenue estimates for
Congressional score keeping purposes.''
Uniqueness of Transportation Trust Funds
They are wholly self-financed by the user;
They have dedicated revenue sources;
They are self-supporting, operating on a pay-as-you-go basis;
They are deficit-proof, with expenditures limited to receipts
They invest in infrastructure capital programs; and
They finance long-range construction programs, which benefit from
certainty in funding.
Taking the Trust Funds Off-Budget does not mean we would lose control
of spending
Taking the Transportation Trust Funds off-budget also does not alter
the current authorization and appropriations process;
According to CBO, ``The likelihood and amount of potential increase--
in transportation investments--are very uncertain because they depend
upon the future actions of both the authorizing and appropriations
committees;''
Under H.R. 842, the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
the Treasury would review Aviation, Inland Waterways and Harbor
Maintenance Fund spending annually and reduce proportionately for any
trust fund in which projected revenues would exceed authorizations;
That review is similar to the so-called Byrd amendment in the highway
program which insures that the Highway Trust Fund can never operate in
a deficit;
All Transportation Trust Fund expenditures would be limited to
receipts and subject to authorizations legislated by both Houses and
signed into law; and
The Appropriations Committee could still continue to include an
annual obligation ceiling on transportation programs to control
spending further.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I am completely opposed to this amendment
because it is such horrible, horrible policy. It misses the fundamental
point of how we raise money, of how we tax and why we tax and what the
circumstances are for taxation.
The fact is, why do we tax gas? Sure, there is some connection
between the tax that is raised and spending on the roads. But we tax
gas because we can tax gas, because we are able to tax gas, the same
way that we tax tobacco and alcohol and income and tariffs on goods
that come into this country. It fundamentally misses the whole point.
Once you go into this kind of a policy, you are running down a slippery
slope that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
This is just terrible, terrible policy. Do we take all of the money
that we tax alcohol and tobacco with and put it into the BATF? I do not
think so. Do we take all of the money that we use taxing goods that
come into this country under tariffs and use it to fund the customs
agency? No.
This notion, and maybe what this means is we should not have had a
trust fund in the first place. I will grant you that. But the idea that
somehow this is separate and that it ought to be absolutely dedicated
only to one thing just completely misses the fundamental model of
taxation, the fundamental model of why we do this in the first place.
When you understand that, then you understand that this whole bogey
about interest and we should be paying interest on this phony trust
fund that does not exist becomes a nonargument completely.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I expect, like in all of these debates, certain things
are overstated on both sides. But the reality is, again, there is
simply no Santa Claus, no little secret pool of money, that someone can
spend that does not impact deficits.
Deficits on a year-to-year basis are based on revenue coming in and
outlays going out. The reality is, I listened to the advocates of this
proposal, and it sounds like there is going to be a lot more money to
spend on highways, but it is not going to cost anything. I do not know
where the money is coming from.
The reality is that since 1981 we have spent more on highways that
the total collected from the gas tax, even adding in that very generous
interest allocation to the highway trust fund.
The reality is that in current years, 1994, 1995, we are spending
more than what we are getting in gas tax, more than what the trust fund
is getting in this very generous interest allocation to the trust fund.
So the gas tax is not subsidizing anything else.
The question is whether we should take some of this surplus in this
fund, which accumulated in the seventies, peaked in 1979, and start
spending that now beyond current revenues, beyond
[[Page H3529]]
interest, at a point in time we are trying to move to get our Federal
budget balance of revenues and outlays in order.
The advocates say now we are going to do it. We are going to give
this program priority over everything else, and if this goes up, the
balance of funds coming down, something else has to be cut deeper. That
is just simply the reality, if you want to hit a deficit target or try
to get in balance.
If you do not want to hit a deficit target year by year, or if you do
not want to be in balance within 6 or 7 years, or 5 or 8, whatever one
has in mind, then you can do this. But if you have a deficit target in
mind, this is a dollar-for-dollar trade-off with other priorities.
So I think we make a mistake when we set up these little kingdoms,
removed from the normal budget process, that say you can go ahead and
do what you like; removed from all the other arguments, the give-and-
take of the legislative process, in setting our priorities on a year-
to-year basis.
It is not going to be the end of the world, but it is just a foolish
step to take at this point in time, so I would hope the House would
defeat this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, one of the distinguished
leaders of the Committee on the Budget.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 1\3/4\
minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, there are arguments on both sides. It is not
so cut and dry that it is so obvious to all of us. But while some call
this the Truth in Budgeting Act, and they are right to call it that,
there would be some truth in budgeting, I would call it the Unbalanced
Budget Act of 1996, or, frankly, the pork barrel bill of 1996, because
what it means is we are going to provide $50 billion more and make it
available to people who want to spend on roads and bridges.
There is an opportunity cost. If you spend $50 billion more here, you
have to do something to compensate. Are we going to cut defense? No.
Are we going to raise taxes? Out of the question. So what it means is
there will be, in my judgment, continued deficits to the tune of $50
billion.
Mr. Speaker, the Concord Coalition says, ``Passage of this
legislation would severely jeopardize the chances of balancing the
Federal budget and would be detrimental to the budget process.''
The National Taxpayers Union says, ``Placing these trust funds off
budget is nothing less than a ploy to increase spending.''
The Citizens Against Government Waste say, ``The Truth in Budgeting
Act sounds great to the public, but it is simply a ruse to increase the
$5 trillion national debt.''
The Americans for Tax Reform say, ``American taxpayers want real
reform of the budget process and not business as usual. They are
depending on you to lead the fight in protecting the American taxpayers
from the special interests who are trying to escape the scrutiny of
fiscal responsibility.''
The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget says, ``Proponents of
H.R. 842 want to make some spending invisible, pretend that it pays for
itself, and thus insulate favored programs from regular review and
scrutiny.''
Citizens for a Sound Economy say, ``Shielding the transportation
trusts from fiscal scrutiny and accountability perpetuates pork-barrel
spending and works counter to all efforts to reduce the deficit control
government standing.''
This is happening under our Republican watch? We are going to all
this to happen, when we have purported to want to balance the budget by
the year 2002.
In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this is a dead end, and I hope we reject
it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is entitled to close
debate and is recognized for 7 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, many of the speakers today who have
expressed their opposition to this legislation have said time-and-time
again that if this passes, it would be more difficult to balance the
budget.
Let us think about that for a minute. I would suggest that that is a
clear, implicit, admission that their intention is to continue to use
these transportation trust funds to mask the size of the deficit.
Now, nobody has had the courage really to stand up and say that
directly, to say, yes, we want to use these transportation trust funds
to mask the size of the general fund deficit, but that is the only
logical inference one can draw. That is implicit in their statement.
They apparently think it is right. Many think it is wrong. Some 224
Members of this body, a majority, have cosponsored this legislation.
My good friend talked about Republicans. Republicans historically in
the past have voted, over 60 percent of Republicans, in favor of taking
these transportation trust funds off budget, because they see this not
only as a financial issue, but as an issue of honesty in government.
Indeed, many of us believe that it is wrong to tell the American
people we are going to take your gas tax or we are going to take your
airplane ticket tax, promise you we are going to use it for
transportation improvements, and then instead not spend the money and
use it to mask the size of the general fund deficit.
My good friend from Ohio said there is no difference between these
trust fund taxes, these user taxes, and general taxes. He is certainly
entitled to his point of view. However, that is not really what we are
debating today.
Over the years this Congress has said the trust funds are different.
Why would we call them trust funds if they were not any different? They
are different because, in our case here today, these user fees are paid
for and a promise is made they will be spent for the purpose intended.
Facts are stubborn things, and we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric
and even a little bit of myth here today.
{time} 1415
We have heard, quote, more money has come in to the trust fund than
has gone out. That is interesting. Is there or is there not a $30
billion balance in the trust fund? Does anybody dispute it? Right there
on the chart are the balances from the Treasury Department. Does
anybody here dispute there is a $30 billion balance in the
transportation trust funds? Well, I think not, because that is a fact.
Facts are stubborn things.
We have heard that if this passes we will have a blank check for
spending. We have heard that spending will be uncontrolled. We have
heard this is a Santa Claus. Well, I would suggest that Pinnochio is a
more accurate comparison, because this Government has played Pinnochio,
lying to the American people and saying that if they pay their gas tax
that we will spend it in transportation; pay your aviation ticket tax
and we will spend it, and then we have not spent it. A $30 billion
balance.
Indeed, we have also heard that the line item veto will not apply
here. Well, we have said and I have said in the debate very clearly
that the line item veto does apply. However, there seems to be some
dispute over that, so I will offer an amendment to make it very clear
that the line-item veto does apply. So this is unprotected? Unprotected
with a line item veto?
But that is not all, Mr. Chairman. Does anybody dispute the fact that
if this passes the Committee on Appropriations still has the
jurisdiction and the authority to set the obligational ceiling? I have
heard nobody disagree with that. I would expect nobody would because it
is a fact. Facts are stubbon things, and the fact is if this passes,
the Committee on Appropriations will continue to have the authority to
set the ceiling on what can be spent each year.
We have even heard this referred to as an entitlement. Well, facts
are stubborn things. It is not an entitlement. That is a fact. This is
subject to annual control. The annual control of the Committee on
Appropriations, the annual control of the President in his line-item
veto.
So, indeed, facts are stubborn things, and there are substantial
controls, perhaps the most important of which is, under the law you
cannot spend a penny out of these trust funds unless the money is there
to pay the bills. This program, these transportation programs are
deficit proof.
Oh, if we only had other programs like this that would be deficit
proof, then, indeed, we would not have the massive deficit that we
have.
[[Page H3530]]
We have also heard that the interest technically, technically, is
being counted here. Well, I guess it is a small technicality. It is
called the law of the land, which says if an individual buys a
Government bond they get interest on it. And so the Treasury
Department, under the law, must pay that interest.
Indeed, the Social Security trust fund, in its reserves, nearly 50
percent of the reserves in the Social Security trust fund is based on
interest. Are we going to tell the American people, aha, we are not
really going to count the interest in the Social Security trust fund.
Of course not. And let us be equally fair here. Obviously, under the
law, the interest must be counted.
We have heard about the so-called special interests that support
this. Well, I guess there are 260 million special interests called the
American people who will benefit from better highways and better
airports, but there are some other special interests. The National
Federation of Independent Businesses, the Small Business Legislative
Council, the American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, the Air Traffic
Controllers, who care about safety. And we all better care about safety
and spend some more money to make our air traffic control system safe.
Women First. On and on the list goes.
But let me share with you some other so-called special interests. The
National Association of Counties across America. Is that a special
interest? The National Conference of State Legislatures. Is that a
special interest? The National League of Cities, where our people live
in urban areas. Is that a special interest? No. Many, many, many
Americans strongly support this because we need fairness, we need
honesty in budgeting and we need to live up to our promises to the
American people.
And let me also emphasize in closing that while we have heard the
argument what about the other trust funds, the transportation trust
funds are the only trust funds that are totally user financed, that are
deficit proof, that are not entitlements but annually controlled. These
are, indeed, different, and for that reason we should vigorously
support this legislation.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Truth in Budgeting
Act of 1996 and in opposition to Mr. Minge's amendment ending off-
budget status of the trust fund if there is funding for transportation
projects from general revenue.
Initially, the creation of the transportation trust funds assured our
state and local governments a steady, dependable stream of Federal
assistance necessary in undertaking long-term projects. Those who
benefited from the transportation programs paid for the program.
Today, inclusion of these trust funds in the unified Federal budget
has resulted in enormous surpluses--moneys which are desperately needed
for improvements to our Nation's transportation systems.
Specifically, I must oppose Mr. Minge's amendment. It provides off-
budget status would cease if any general funds are spent on the
construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of highways or grants-in-
aid for airports or for aviation-related facilities, equipment, and
research engineering.
This amendment is too broad as it would cover any highway or aviation
general-fund spending. For example, if a law coming from a committee,
or a report accompanying a law coming from a committee provides general
funds for any highway or aviation program, the off-budget status of the
transportation trust funds would end.
On the issue of general funds, let me give a few examples: if there
were general funds appropriated through EDA or DOD that could be used
for highway purposes, then under the amendment the trust funds would no
longer be off-budget. Even if there were general funds appropriated for
highway or aviation research and development that too would put the
trust fund back on-budget.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who supports H.R. 842 should oppose this
amendment.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842,
legislation which will restore honesty and integrity in the manner in
which we utilize the transportation trust funds.
H.R. 842 will remove the four transportation trust funds--the highway
trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, the inland waterways
trust fund, and the harbor maintenance trust fund--from the totals of
the budget submitted by the President and the congressional budget.
In other words, the bill takes these trust funds off budget and puts
a stop to the time-worn practice of using them to mask the size of the
deficit.
The legislation should be adopted for a number of reasons, Mr.
Chairman. Investment in infrastructure means jobs for American
companies and American workers. Improved infrastructure also translates
into a more productive economy, and boosts our competitiveness in the
world market.
The most important reason to pass H.R. 842, however, is trust. Every
time a motorist fills up at the gas pump, they do so with the
understanding that the Federal gas taxes they are paying will be
invested in new and improved roads, bridges, transit systems, and other
needed infrastructure improvements. By failing to use these moneys for
their intended purpose we are, in effect, violating that trust.
This failure to live up to the public trust comes at a price, as
well. It is estimated that New York has lost nearly $390 million
between the years of 1992 and 1996 due to the failure to fully fund the
program at authorized levels.
Let's keep our promise to the American people, Mr. Chairman, and use
the trust fund moneys for the purpose for which they were intended--
developing and improving the Nation's roadways, airways, and waterways.
Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 842, the Truth in
Budgeting Act, I rise today to urge my colleagues to view this
legislation not solely as a transportation issue, but as an issue on
tax fairness.
The Truth in Budgeting Act would move our Federal transportation
trust funds off budget, separate from the Federal unified budget.
Currently, with these funds ``on-budget'' the surpluses are used to
mask a portion of our true budget deficit which prevents these funds
from being used in the manner they were intended. During this time of
severe budgetary pressure, it is critical for State and local
governments to receive general funding support, and should benefit
equitable from the transportation taxes-user fees they send to
Washington to be used for transportation purposes.
As I have the privilege to represent the 18th Congressional District
of Pennsylvania, I can most assuredly tell you that my constituents are
concerned about funding for vital transportation projects in the
southwestern part of our State. Many of you are probably familiar with
the equipment problems the towers at the Pittsburgh International
Airport have been experiencing. Along with the FAA Revitalization Act,
H.R. 2276, this bill will help to ensure that such incidents of grave
public and transportation safety will receive the urgent response they
demand.
The Truth in Budgeting Act would also enhance our communitys'
abilities to plan important infrastructure investments and complete
transportation projects. A community's mobility is a measure of its
quality of life and the competitiveness of its economy. The efficient,
cost effective movement of people and goods is vital for individuals
and for the businesses that contribute and bolster our Nation's
economy. The decline of the industrial corridor of southwestern
Pennsylvania in the 1980's has been well documented. The loss of
employment opportunities effected nearly one-half million people from
the Mon Valley. A decade later, there remains a significant amount of
work to be done to combat this economic devastation.
The Mon Valley Expressway would for the first time provide this
region physical and economic access to Pittsburgh. I am confident that
the Mon Valley Expressway will prove to be as much of an infrastructure
and economic success as I-279, and the East and West Parkways. We
cannot afford to not complete economically rejuvenating projects such
as the Mon Valley Expressway.
As an advocate of capital budgeting and economic development, I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, the
Truth in Budgeting Act. Strong and persuasive arguments have been
presented on both sides of the transportation trust funds off budget
issue. However, I believe the overriding issue is that the American
public should receive $1 worth of value for every dollar of dedicated
user taxes for transportation improvements collected by the Federal
Government and that such funds should not be used to mask the size of
the Federal deficit. This is not a debate about balancing the budget,
it is a debate about honesty in government! If all of the specific
transportation user taxes are not going to be used for transportation
improvements, then the amount of user taxes collected for the trust
funds should be reduced.
Let's be clear about the debate today. The Budget and Appropriations
Committees object to moving the dedicated transportation trust funds
off budget because they will lose the ability to apply the unexpended
balances in the trust funds back against other total discretionary
spending levels in the budget--thereby keeping spending in other budget
functions under the legal spending caps. They argue that removing the
trust funds from the unified budget will result in more pork barrel
spending, drastic cuts in other discretionary programs, and make it
impossible to balance the budget.
[[Page H3531]]
The truth is most of the funds paid out of the transportation trust
funds are disbursed to States through established formulas. The
Appropriations Committee can always choose not to fund pork barrel
highway demonstration projects. The president will have line-item veto
authority starting in 1997. Appropriators and budgeteers are playing
shell games when they apply paper excesses in one government account
back against real borrowing for real deficit spending in other areas of
the budget. Finally, collecting taxes for a dedicated purpose, and then
using the taxes to support other unrelated spending is dishonest and
not fiscally responsible, and it is certainly not the right way to
balance the budget!
Testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
from all segments of the transportation community, leave no doubt that
the demands upon our Nation's existing transportation infrastructure
are going to increase significantly over the next decade. Since our
Nation's transportation infrastructure is already under funded, it
stands to reason that this disparity will only continue to grow under
the current arrangement. This situation is particularly damaging to
States like Illinois, which pays more in taxes than it receives in
benefits. When the total appropriated amount is reduced it is donor
States, like Illinois, Michigan, New York, and California that are hurt
the most, because they must wait until other States are paid their
guaranteed allotments before their greater needs are funded. Placing
the transportation trust funds off budget is the best way to correct
this funding disparity, and why not? The taxpayers of these donor
States are already paying for it!
In closing, I want to urge my colleagues to accept the premise, if
Congress is going to mandate dedicated transportation user taxes, then
Congress has a responsibility to ensure the public that these taxes are
being used for their intended purpose--not to hide other deficit
spending. The condition of our Nation's transportation infrastructure
is critical to our Nation's economic health, let's protect the
transportation trust funds. Vote aye on H.R. 842.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of H.R. 842, the
Truth in Budgeting Act which would restore our Nation's transportation
trust funds to their original purpose of serving the people. This bill
would also restore the trust of the American taxpayer who has
contributed billions of dollars in taxes and user fees to maintain this
country's transportation infrastructure.
We have certainly abused this trust by allowing our Nation's roads,
trains, airways, and waterways to deteriorate. Our transportation
infrastructure is in desperate need of the money that will be freed by
removing the trust fund off budget. According to a recent Department of
Transportation report, approximately 30 percent of the interstate
pavement on our highways is in poor condition. In fact, there are about
$360 billion in unmet highway and bridge needs in this country.
Because of fiscal constraints, the Centennial Bridge in Rock Island
County, IL, has fallen into severe disrepair. However, if these trust
fund dollars are released for the purposes intended, the bridge
authority will be able to make infrastructural improvements needed to
keep this major crossing of the Mississippi River safe and viable for
years to come.
I also share the outrage of many of my constituents about last year's
drastic cuts in transit funding. Hard-working Americans have paid their
fair share to help maintain healthy mass transit systems. Mass transit
is the lifeblood of our cities and our suburban and rural communities.
It provides a way to work for millions of middle- and low-income
Americans. We cannot continue to jeopardize their livelihoods by using
these transit dollars for other unintended purposes.
We cannot continue to use the billions of dollars accrued in the
transportation trust funds used to mask the true size of the deficit at
the expense of deteriorating roads, bridges, and tunnels, and failing
bus terminals and airports. The American people have suffered long
enough. The time has come to allow these funds to rejuvenate our
decaying infrastructure. We need to maintain a safe, efficient, and
cost effective transportation infrastructure.
This vote presents us the opportunity to meet critical highway and
transit needs with honesty and accountability. I urge my colleagues to
restore the faith the American people have given us by supporting this
Truth In Budgeting Act.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the
Truth in Budgeting Act, because it does just that: it requires Congress
to be truthful with the American people about where their money is
going. We have made reducing the Federal deficit a major theme of this
Congress, and yet some want to continue to use the transportation trust
fund to hide the true size of the deficit. Ladies and gentlemen, that
is smoke and mirrors, plain and simple. We must be consistent with our
approach to tackling this country's fiscal problems. We cannot
simultaneously talk about cutting the deficit and eliminating unneeded
programs and yet continue to engage in a policy that does not honestly
address the true size and nature of our deficit. This Congress needs to
be truthful with the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we have been persistent and determined in our attempts
to balance the budget because we know that our current spending
patterns are taking away from future generations. The same issue
applies here. Money set aside for the transportation trust fund should
be used for transportation and infrastructure projects that will
benefit our children and grandchildren. This money should not be
subject to the political whims of the day because it is, quite
literally, an investment in this Nation's future. By taking this fund
off-budget we are ensuring that the money necessary to maintain and
expand our current national transportation system will be available as
this country moves into the 21st century. My home State of Missouri
continues to fall behind in its infrastructure needs. It is imperative
that as Missouri and other States expand their markets abroad and
increase their exports that we maintain our vast network of highways,
railways, ports, and airports.
Experts from around the country have told us that investment in our
transportation system is a key ingredient to America's competitiveness
and economic vitality in the next century. However, the 1995 budget
resolution reduces transportation spending by 20 percent by the year
2002, precisely the time when our Nation will be in need of major
infrastructure repairs. In fact, the Department of Transportation
estimates that this country needs to invest an average of $74 billion
annually over the next 20 years on transportation projects--that is
double what was spent in 1994! Whether or not everyone agrees with
these figures, the facts are obvious enough: the United States needs
serious investment in our transportation system in the coming decades,
and an off-budget trust fund ensures that we have the money that is
necessary.
Mr. Speaker, this trust fund is made up entirely from user fees. It
is very obvious that those fees should go to pay for infrastructure
repairs and nothing else. That is what a user fee is for--to maintain
and expand the services that require the fee. To spend it on anything
other than what it is intended for is bad policy and downright
dishonest, and I reject the notion that we can just take this money and
use it as general revenue.
Mr. Speaker, for the safety of our children and to promote the
economic growth of our country, we must ensure that the Nation's
infrastructure and transportation system is not allowed to decay and
collapse. That is why I urge my colleagues to be truthful with the
American people and support the Truth in Budgeting Act.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for
the bill, H.R. 842. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I
believe taking the self-financed trust funds off budget is not only
appropriate but necessary.
Currently, the accumulated cash balanced of the highway trust fund,
the airport and airways trust fund, the harbor maintenance trust fund
and the inland waterways trust fund exceeds $30 billion and will reach
as high as $77 billion by the year 2002. When these trust funds were
credited, the users who contributed to the funds believed their taxes
would go toward necessary improvements and maintenance of the Nation's
transportation system. Because of the direct connection between the tax
imposed and the benefit derived from improvements in transportation
infrastructure, taxpayers strongly support the payment of
transportation user fees. This support will not continue to exist if
the trust funds continue to be used to make the Federal deficit appear
smaller.
Taking the transportation trust funds off budget will restore faith
with the taxpayers. But this issue is not only about tax fairness, it's
also about jobs and economic productivity. Every dollar spent in
highway, transit and aviation construction improves a nationwide system
upon which the people and commerce of the United States depend. Our
transportation system continues to be our Government's best investment.
Since the 1950's, as much as 25 percent of America's productivity
growth can be credited to infrastructure improvements. For example,
recent Department of Transportation studies show that every $1 billion
invested in highway construction and enhancements yields 42,000 good
high-wage jobs.
These are among the reasons why I am supporting H.R. 842 and why I
will work for passage of this important legislation.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act. This legislation is
critical to the viability of the Nation's highway program and to
ensuring tax fairness.
The transportation trust funds were created with a special obligation
between Congress and transportation users--that these user fees
[[Page H3532]]
would be used to construct, rebuild and maintain our Nation's
transportation infrastructure. Currently highway users contribute over
$5 billion annually toward deficit reduction. Further reductions in
spending from this program will increase trust fund balances and ignore
the commitments made to taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, while budgetary manipulation restrains investment,
America's transportation needs continue to grow. The Department of
Transportation recently reported that just to maintain current
conditions would require an annual investment of $44.8 billion for
highways, $5.1 billion for bridges and $7.3 billion for transit
systems. Actual 1993 outlays for these purposes were $34.8 billion by
all levels of government. Airport needs alone are estimated at $10
billion annually. It is argued that transportation should make a
contribution to reducing the deficit. The truth is, that since 1990
transportation users already have contributed more than $30 billion to
deficit reduction through diversion of part of the Federal motor fuels
tax to the general fund. Both congressional and administration budget
plans would result in transportation spending reductions and increases
in trust fund balances to offset the deficit.
Mr. Chairman, concerns have been expressed about the impact on the
deficit and other programs of taking the transportation trust funds off
budget. These concerns are unfounded. Removal of the trust funds from
the unified budget itself will not increase the deficit, will not
mandate cuts in other programs, will not restrict the Appropriations
Committee's ability to set transportation spending levels. In a written
cost estimate the Congressional Budget Office has ruled that taking the
trust funds off budget would not result in any change to the deficit.
Mr. Chairman, by passing this bill, Congress will retain its pivotal
role in setting spending and policy priorities in transportation.
Mr. Chairman, it is necessary only to drive to work these days to be
reminded that America's transportation infrastructure needs some heavy
duty work. The winter's lingering potholes and the traffic jams are
only part of the evidence that not enough is being done to improve the
Nation's mobility. It is time to make the situation right and surely
not allowing more and more deterioration. But making it right means
allowing the balances in the trust funds to be spent down in a
responsible manner. It means helping to meet the billions of dollars in
unmet needs on highways, bridges, transit systems and airports.
Mr. Chairman, without this legislation it is likely that the balances
in the trust funds will continue to increase and there will be fewer
resources available for the Nation's transportation infrastructure. The
transportation trust funds must be removed from the unified budget so
that we can keep our commitments to the highway users and to future
generations. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 842 the Truth in
Budgeting Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 842,
which would take the transportation trust funds off-budget, thereby
giving them special status so the rules that apply to almost all other
portions of the budget would not apply.
I certainly appreciate the important role the Federal Government
plays in maintaining Federal highways and helping States to build and
repair State and local roads, highways, bridges and mass transit
projects. I also understand the concerns of States whose citizens
contribute more in taxes to the trust funds than they receive back in
transportation assistance from the Federal Government.
While at one time I supported this proposal, I now believe that
taking the trust funds off-budget is not the most responsible or
appropriate solution to the transportation funding problem. I also
believe it would cause a budgetary nightmare that would make our
efforts to balance the Federal budget--already a Herculean task that we
have yet to complete--virtually impossible.
Rather than having some States receive less than their fair share
back from the highway trust fund, we should reform the structure by
which the Federal Government collects taxes and returns money back to
the States for transportation projects. If a State were allowed to keep
the money, it would be better able to plan and execute highway
construction and upkeep.
The main problem with H.R. 842 is the impact it would have on our
efforts to balance the Federal budget. Balancing the budget must be our
highest priority. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated
that taking the trust funds off-budget would increase the Federal
budget deficit by more than $20 billion over the next 5 years. That
means we would need to find an additional $20 billion in order to
balance the budget. Where would the $20 billion in cuts come from?
Education? Environmental protection? Medical research?
The Federal Government has spent $6 billion more on transportation
projects than it has collected in gas taxes since the creation of the
highway trust fund in 1957. The $19 billion surplus everyone talks does
not exist in any form other than an accounting entry at the Department
of the Treasury.
Because of my overriding concern about the impact this legislation
would have on our efforts to balance the Federal budget, I must vote
against this bill.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842,
the Truth in Budgeting Act, which would take the Federal transportation
trust funds off-budget. I want to commend the chairman of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bud Shuster, and the
distinguished ranking member of the committee, Jim Oberstar, for their
perserverence in getting this important legislation to the House floor.
H.R. 842 takes the highway, aviation, inland waterways, and harbor
maintenance trust funds off budget. As one of the bill's original
cosponsors I urge all of my colleagues to look past the ``sky is
falling'' rhetoric of some of its opponents and support the bill.
The four transportation trust funds have proven to be an effective
way to raise the necessary revenue to pay for many of the varied
transportation needs of the country. Unfortunately, the vast revenues
generated by the trust funds have been used to mask the true size of
the Federal deficit.
Some have argued today--and they've bolstered their arguments with
testimonials from some of the Nation's leading economic experts, the
same experts, by the way, who brought us NAFTA and GATT, that the
transportation trust funds should make a contribution to reducing the
deficit. The fact is, since 1990 transportation users already have
contributed more than $30 billion to deficit reduction through the
diversion of part of the Federal motor fuels tax to the general fund.
There is a huge surplus in the trust funds--surpluses that are
projected to grow by leaps and bounds in the years ahead. Under the
President's most recent budget plan, the highway trust fund alone would
make the third largest contribution to deficit reduction--only Medicare
and Medicaid would be cut more.
Let's put this in perspective. According to the Alliance for Truth in
Transportation Budgeting, from fiscal years 1996 to 2002, the balances
in the highway trust fund will almost triple from $21 billion to $60
billion--an increase of $39 billion. The $39 billion increase will be
used on spending in the rest of the Government--these are funds that
are supposed to be used only for transportation purposes. There is no
justification to collect transportation user fees for the purpose of
hiding Government spending in other areas.
This is what today's debate is all about. Are we going to continue
diverting the bulk of the balances in the transportation trust funds to
shield the true size of the Federal budget deficit, or are we going to
spend the revenues generated by the trust funds on their intended
purpose? If we don't pass this bill, then we should be honest with the
American people and do away with the trust funds and simply call the
transportation user fees what they really are: taxes.
The current transportation and infrastructure needs of the country
are indeed staggering. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates
the backlog of needs for our Nation's highways and bridges totals $315
billion. Airport investment needs are estimated at $10 billion a year,
while it will cost an estimated $8 billion a year simply to maintain
the Nation's transit systems.
Even if we spent all of the money generated every year by the
transportation trust funds we would not be able to meet all of this
Nation's transportation needs.
And H.R. 842 would not result in all of the money in the trust funds
being spent every year. Under H.R. 842, spending from the trust funds
would still have to go through the normal appropriations process.
Congress would still have a final say on how much is spent on
transportation.
But H.R. 842 will preserve the fiscal integrity of the trust funds by
ensuring that the revenue is spent on transportation projects and not
used to mask the size of the federal deficit.
Would H.R. 842 result in more Federal spending on transportation
projects? Yes it would, and I say bravo. Keep in mind that this
spending is not deficit spending--it is spending that will already have
been paid for through the transportation user fees. H.R. 842 will
ensure, for the first time, that these user fees are exactly that and
not simply another tax that goes in the black hole known as the general
fund.
One final note. If any of you are concerned that H.R. 842 will put a
squeeze on other needed Federal programs, let me remind Members of two
key points:
[[Page H3533]]
First, transportation spending would still have to be approved by the
Appropriations Committee; and
Second, 42,000 jobs are created in America for every $1 billion
invested in Federal transportation projects.
The bottom line is, Congress will never balance the Federal budget
unless the American economy continues to grow. Unless the Congress
takes action now to make the needed investments in our Nation's
infrastructure, our economy will wilt on the vine, we will continue to
lose jobs, and America will cease to be the economic leader of the
world.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the entire
leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for being
so diligent in bringing the issue of investment in our Nation's
infrastructure to the attention of the American people. You should be
commended for all of your efforts in getting this bill to the floor for
a vote, despite the strong opposition of H.R. 842 by powerful Members
of the House.
As a cosponsor of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, I believe
that moving the trust funds off budget is vital to ensuring that we
will be able to meet the vast infrastructure needs of our Nation's
transportation systems, provide adequate funding for the National
Highway System, and ensure that ISTEA is fully funded.
The current, documented, unmet transportation infrastructure needs of
our Nation are enormous. Those needs are $212 billion to fix 265,000
miles of highways which are below acceptable engineering standards; $78
billion to fix 238,000 bridges which are rated as structurally
deficient; and $80 billion in public wastewater treatment facility
needs.
I represent Florida's Third Congressional District which includes
four interstate highways, two international airports, eight regional or
commuter airports, a major seaport, and a river used extensively for
intrastate commerce.
Every year, I assist these Florida transportation facilities in
getting Federal dollars. But there is never enough money to meet all of
their needs. I would like to enter into the Record a letter that I just
received from the FAA talking about severely limited AIP funds and
denying a funding request from the Gainesville Regional Airport. The
city of Gainesville's airport is not the only airport affected by the
AIP funding situation. Of the Nation's top 100 airports, 23 are
incredibly congested, and would use additional funds for expansion
purposes.
We would be able to address some of these transportation needs if the
transportation trust funds are moved off budget. The four
transportation trust funds, highway trust fund, aviation trust fund,
inland waterways trust fund, and the harbor maintenance trust fund are
unique in that they are wholly user financed, invest in transportation
infrastructure, and are deficit proof. Taking highway trust funds off
budget frees up $1.1 billion for ISTEA spending.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this good bill which will
ensure that taxes paid by the American people for more roads, expanded
transit systems, safer bridges, updated equipment for our air traffic
control centers, adequate number of Coast Guard stations, and for many
other transportation purposes are used for those purposes.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration,
Washington, DC, April 5, 1996.
Hon. Corrine Brown,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Brown: Administrator Hinson has asked me
to respond to your letter supporting a request for Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding to reimburse the city of
Gainesville for expenses involved in acquiring property
through inverse condemnation.
The city of Gainesville's request for fiscal year (FY) 1996
noise discretionary funds was considered carefully. Because
of severely limited AIP funds, including those funds
designated for noise compatibility and planning, we rely
strongly on our priority-rating system to select projects for
funding. This rating system considers the type of work and
the activity level of the airport when assigning the
priorities. Unfortunately, based on its priority, we do not
have sufficient funding to approve a grant for Gainesville's
noise project at this time.
I assure you that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
will continue to work with the city to provide reimbursement
for the land acquisition already completed. Toward that end,
we will retain the city's grant application on file for
future consideration as funds become available. We are
hopeful that reauthorization of the AIP beyond FY 1996 will
provide adequate funding and allow us to carry out these
intentions.
The FAA continues to support the Gainesville Regional
Airport through AIP entitlement funds. A current year project
has been approved totaling $1.66 million in Federal funds to
continue the expansion and renovation of the terminal
building.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. A.
Bradley Mims, Assistant Administrator for Government and
Industry Affairs, at 202-267-3277.
Sincerely,
James H. Washington,
Acting Associate Administrator for Airports.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall
be considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is considered as
having been read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Truth in Budgeting Act''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to
amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I request to
know why we would be doing it this way. There are only five sections.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, for the
convenience of the Members.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to consider the
gentleman's request in the future, but until we consult, I do object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Are there amendments to section 1?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, AIRPORT
AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND, INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST
FUND, AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts
and disbursements of the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund--
(1) shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays,
receipts, or deficit for surplus for purposes of--
(A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President,
(B) the congressional budget (including allocations of
budget authority and outlays provided therein), or
(C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985; and
(2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation
imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget
outlays) of the United States Government.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?
Amendment Offered by Mr. SHUSTER.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 3, line 10, insert
``except the Line Item Veto Act of 1996'' before the comma.
Mr. SHUSTER. During the debate on the rule, Mr. Chairman, some
concern was expressed as to whether the Line-Item Veto Act would apply
to trust fund spending if this bill passes. We believe it will, and it
certainly is our intent that it apply. However, because this question
has been raised, I want to make it crystal clear that this is one more
of the protections that exist in this legislation and, indeed, this
amendment clarifies it, and I offer it on behalf of myself and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], to clarify the fact that the line-
item veto does apply. This amendment removes any ambiguity.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, before stating opposition to the amendment, I would
like to inquire about some further explanation of the amendment, and I
may not actually oppose the amendment. I have not had an opportunity to
see the wording of the amendment.
My inquiry to the chairman would be if it is the intent of this
amendment to
[[Page H3534]]
apply the line-item veto provisions as signed by the President to all
expenditures of the trust fund, which would include contract authority
as well?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, just as it applies to
anything else.
Mr. ORTON. And so, then, contract authority spending by the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure would be subject to line-item
veto?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
that is the way it is today and that is the way it would be under our
legislation. The answer is yes.
Mr. ORTON. Only above baseline.
Mr. SHUSTER. It applies just the way the bill currently applies.
Mr. ORTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is my concern, because as the
gentleman will recall, during the debate of the line-item veto bill I
rose to propose an amendment to the line-item veto bill, to apply the
line-item veto to contract authority as well. The proponent of the
amendment rose and vehemently opposed my amendment. My amendment
failed.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that the
conference report includes all discretionary spending, including
contract authority and, therefore, this would apply.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear the gentleman's
interpretation of that. That, I think, clarifies, and if, in fact, that
is an accurate interpretation, that this would apply to all spending
from the trust fund, including all contract authority, not just an
amount above the baseline.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that it
applies the same way the existing law applies today. The gentleman's
amendment offered some months ago failed in this body.
Mr. ORTON. But, Mr. Chairman, I would ask if it is the gentleman's
interpretation that all contract authority would----
Mr. SHUSTER. No, Mr. Chairman, it is my interpretation that this
applies just exactly the way the law applies today.
Mr. ORTON. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying that
this does not apply to contract authority spending.
Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, it does apply to contract authority in the same way
that is applied under the current law.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a question whether the current law
does apply to contract authority, which is the issue I am raising, and
that is why I wish for the chairman to be on record.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am told by our counsel it does apply to
contract authority.
Mr. ORTON. That is the point I wish to make. And if, in fact, as the
gentleman has indicated, Mr. Chairman, that the line-item veto would,
not only under current law but under his amendment, apply line-item
veto to all contract authority, then I would favor the amendment and
urge its adoption.
Mr. SHUSTER. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. I would say to my friend
that it applies to contract authority in the same way that the current
law applies to contract authority, which, indeed, is above the
baseline.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman to amend his
amendment to expand it so that, in fact, it would apply to all contract
authority?
Mr. SHUSTER. No, I would not because we have offered this to have it
apply exactly as the current law applies.
Mr. ORTON. Then, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I take back the balance of my
time and I would simply make the point that if the gentleman is not
willing to expand his amendment to make it absolutely clear that the
line-item veto applies to all contract authority spending by the
committee, then, in fact, the argument that was raised during the
debate on the rule is, in fact, applicable.
Because there is a concern that there may be spending that is not
covered by line-item veto; that, in fact, that spending may continue to
be simply pork barrel spending; it may continue to be authorized under
this legislation, so that a committee of Congress can directly
authorize contract expenditures, which neither come within the fiscal
restraints of the budget act nor comes within the fiscal restraints of
the line-item veto, thereby completely avoiding and evading any type of
fiscal restraint on that spending.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment as it stands; would
encourage the gentleman to expand the amendment to make it clear that
the line-item veto does, in fact, apply to all contract spending by the
committee, authorized by the committee; and if, in fact, he would do
that, I would support the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for
it.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the gentleman is trying to rewrite the line-item veto law. I am
informed what we have done here goes as far as we can go within this
legislation. It would not be germane for us to attempt to rewrite the
line-item veto law in this legislation. So we are simply offering this
to conform with the line-item veto law, which is now the law of the
land.
{time} 1430
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am simply suggesting that if needed the
committee chairman wished to avoid all criticism of this bill as not
pertaining under line-item veto, then in fact he could seek to waive
the germaneness requirement under unanimous consent, could in fact ask
to have that amended expanded.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman can assure me that by doing so I would
remove all criticism from this bill, I would certainly seriously
consider doing that, but I do not think that is a reality. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ORTON. Reclaiming my time, I think it will remove criticism from
the amendment and in fact eliminate one of the objections that many
people have had to this particular bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be on the floor for the full discussion
of the line-item veto. The chairman of the committee and I had a bit of
a dialog about it this morning during the rule, and we came down to the
conclusion that we were not sure whether we were clear on whether or
not the legislation before us would or would not be subject to the
line-item veto. In the interest of clarity, we wanted to make
absolutely certain that this legislation was subject to the line-item
veto as passed by the Congress, as signed by the President into law,
and that, I believe, is the purpose of the chairman's amendment.
I certainly support what the chairman is trying to accomplish, if it
is as I believe, to clarify that this legislation will be subject to
the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which is the way I read the one-line
amendment that he has proposed.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make this legislation
subject to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, the answer is yes.
Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that that was the
clarification that we were all seeking with regard to the line item
veto, and I think that to go any further than that, to try and somehow
now amend the line item veto, would of course not only be inappropriate
but nongermane and beyond the scope and so forth.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious, how could this bill not
have the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 apply to it.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding from the
Parliamentarian, the need for this amendment follows this reason. The
main reason the
[[Page H3535]]
trust fund bill is now exempt from the Line Item Veto Act is that the
President can only exercise the line-item veto if he certifies that
cancellation of the item will reduce the deficit. Since the trust fund
bill would remove disbursements for purposes of calculating the
deficit, the President would be prevented from exercising a veto
authority absent compliance with the deficit reduction standard.
I am happy to yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Now I understand why the gentleman may need this amendment,
because of that language. Do I also understand that the Line Item Veto
Act does not apply to contract authority in the same fashion as it
applies to other discretionary spending?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak for the Line Item Veto
Act. The Line Item Veto Act speaks for itself. As the gentleman knows,
we did discretionary authority, new entitlements and targeted tax
benefits in line-item veto. So to the extent what we are talking about
falls into those areas under the act as written, the answer would be
yes.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the Line Item Veto Act,
that its application to contract authority is much more limited than it
is to discretionary spending as exists in appropriation bills from year
to year. Is that accurate?
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I am not sure that it is. Again, I
think that I should refer the gentleman to the act the way it is
written. I believe it refers to contract authority, and I believe that
the proper way to respond to the question is to refer the gentleman to
the act. There may be some parliamentary interpretation.
Mr. SABO. I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is it his
understanding that the Line Item Veto Act pertains to contract
authority in the same fashion as it does to discretionary appropriated
spending or is it a more limited application?
Mr. GOSS. Since the time is mine, I would be very happy to yield to
the gentleman if he wishes me to. But I will tell the gentleman that
what he is asking is contract authority and direct spending questions
are covered already in the act.
Mr. SABO. But I am just curious, to what degree the line-item veto is
different for the direct spending of contract authority versus that of
appropriated discretionary funds.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, all I can tell the gentleman is, it is our
intention and our belief that in fact what we are doing here is saying
that the line-item veto shall apply as it applies in the current line-
item veto law. If the gentleman has questions about the nuances of that
law, this gentleman is not prepared to answer them.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, contract authority is not
discretionary. It is direct spending, and direct spending is covered
but it is not discretionary. I am sorry, that is the way it is.
I yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is my understanding that the application of line-item veto to
contract authority is much more limited than it is to any discretionary
appropriated funds, and that in fact that it only applies to increases
in baseline spending.
Mr. GOSS. My time is finished. I am not sure the gentleman's
interpretation is correct. But the gentleman is entitled to his
interpretation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute is as follows:
SEC. 3. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF AIRPORT
AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Chapter 471 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 47131 as section 47132; and
(2) by inserting after section 47130 the following new
section:
``Sec. 47131. Safeguards against deficit spending
``(a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net
Aviation Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the
Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, shall estimate--
``(1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the
unfunded aviation authorizations at the close of the first
fiscal year that begins after that March 31 and
``(2) the net aviation receipts at the close of such fiscal
year.
``(b) Procedure if Excess unfunded Aviation
Authorizations.--If the Secretary determines for any fiscal
year that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) exceeds
the amount described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary
shall determine the amount of such excess.
``(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded
Authorizations Exceed Receipts.--
``(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary
determines that there is an excess referred to in subsection
(b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the
percentage which--
``(A) such excess, is of
``(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the
next fiscal year.
``(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary
determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount
authorized to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by such
percentage.
``(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
``(1) Adjustment of authorizations.--If, after a reduction
has been made under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary
determines that the amount described in subsection (a)(1)
does not exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or
that the excess referred to in subsection (b) is less than
the amount previously determined, each amount authorized to
be appropriated that was reduced under subsection (c)(2)
shall be increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the
Secretary determines that it may be so increased without
causing the amount described in subsection (a)(1) to exceed
the amount described in subsection (a)(2) (but not by more
than the amount of the reduction).
``(2) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts
made available for apportionment by paragraph (1).
``(3) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned under
paragraph (2) shall remain available for the period for which
they would be available if such apportionment took effect
with the fiscal year in which they are apportioned under
paragraph (2).
``(e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any
determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be
reported by the Secretary to Congress.
``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions apply:
``(1) Net aviation receipts.--The term `net aviation
receipts' means, with respect to any period the excess of--
``(A) the receipts (including interest) of the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund during such period, over
``(B) the amounts to be transferred during such period from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under section 9502(d) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other than paragraph (1)
thereof).
``(2) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term `unfunded
aviation authorization' means, at any time, the excess (if
any) of--
``(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which has not been
appropriated, over
``(B) the amount available in the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund at such time to make such appropriation (after all other
unliquidated obligations at such time which are payable from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund have been liquidated).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 of
title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking
``47131. Annual report.''
and inserting the following:
``47131. Safeguards against deficit spending.
``47132. Annual report.''.
SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF THE INLAND
WATERWAYS TRUST FUND AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE
TRUST FUND.
(A) Estimates of Unfunded Inland Waterways Authorizations
and Net Inland Waterways Receipts.--Not later than March 31
of each year, the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Treasury, shall estimate--
(1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the
unfunded inland waterways authorizations and unfunded harbor
maintenance authorizations at the close of the first fiscal
year that begins after that March 31; and
(2) the net inland waterways receipts and net harbor
maintenance receipts at the close of such fiscal year.
(b) Procedure If Excess Unfunded Inland Waterways
Authorizations.--If the Secretary of the Army determines with
respect to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund for any fiscal year that the amount
described in subsection (a)(1)
[[Page H3536]]
exceeds the amount described in subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary shall determine the amount of such excess.
(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations
Exceed Receipts.--
(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary of the
Army determines that there is an excess referred to in
subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary of the Army
shall determine the percentage which--
(A) such excess, is of
(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, as the case may be, for the next
fiscal year.
(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary of the
Army determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount
authorized to be appropriated from the Trust Fund for the
next fiscal year shall be reduced by such percentage.
(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--If, after
an adjustment has been made under subsection (c)(2), the
Secretary of the Army determines with respect to the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not
exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or that the
excess referred to in subsection (b) with respect to the
Trust Fund is less than the amount previously determined,
each amount authorized to be appropriated that was reduced
under subsection (c)(2) with respect to the Trust Fund shall
be increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the
Secretary of the Army determines that it may be so increased
without causing the amount described in subsection (a)(1) to
exceed with respect to the Trust Fund the amount described in
subsection (a)(2) (but not by more than the amount of the
reduction).
(e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any
determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be
reported by the Secretary of the Army to Congress.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section the
following definitions apply:
(1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term ``Airport and
Airway Trust Fund'' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(2) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--The term ``Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund'' means the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund established by section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
(3) Highway trust fund.--The term ``Highway Trust Fund''
means the Highway Trust Fund established by section 9503 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(4) Inland waterways trust fund.--The term ``Inland
Waterways Trust Fund'' means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
established by section 9506 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(5) Net harbor maintenance receipts.--The term ``net harbor
maintenance receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the
receipts (including interest) of the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund during such period.
(6) Net inland waterways receipts.--The term ``net inland
waterways receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the
receipts (including interest) of the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund during such period.
(7) Unfunded inland waterways authorizations.--The term
``unfunded inland waterways authorizations'' means, at any
time, the excess (if any) of--
(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund which has not been appropriated,
over
(B) the amount available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
at such time to make such appropriations.
(8) Unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations.--The term
``unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations'' means, at any
time, the excess (if any) of--
(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund which has not been
appropriated, over
(B) the amount available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund at such time to make such appropriations.
SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.
This Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall
apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute?
amendment offered by mr. oberstar
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
Page 3, line 10, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and insert
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding''.
Page 4, after line 14, insert the following new subsection:
(b) Limitation on Interest Paid to Trust Funds.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 9602(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``The amount of interest credited
to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Highway Trust Fund,
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, or the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund for any fiscal year shall not exceed the amount of
interest which would be credited to such Fund if such
interest were determined at the average interest rate on 52-
week Treasury securities sold to the public during such
fiscal year.''
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to fiscal years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we had during the time of general debate
extensive discussion about the role of interest paid on revenues from
the highway trust fund that are collected at the pump and then used by
the Treasury Department to purchase Treasury notes, as happens with all
trust funds in the Federal Government. As I said in my remarks, my
closing remarks, would anyone reasonably expect the Federal Government
not to honor its obligation to pay interest on Treasury bonds, on our
World War I bonds, on World War II bonds, on other securities of the
Treasury Department that are purchased by U.S. citizens, by foreign
interests, by foreign governments, which buy in great numbers Treasury
securities which underwrite the deficit? No, of course not, not
expected. So with the trust funds.
Mr. Chairman, those trust funds are used to purchase Treasury
securities, and interest is required to be paid. Under current law, the
interest earned by the highway trust fund is the average of all
interest paid on the public debt. That average runs about 6.6 percent.
The amendment I offer proposes to limit the interest earned on
highway trust fund dollars in an amount equal to the rate on a 1-year
Federal Treasury note. That number is about 5 percent, just a little
above, 5.1 percent.
The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the amount of interest
earned by the transportation trust funds, thereby reducing the ever-
increasing balance that has accumulated over a period of several years.
Now, this is an amendment that I offer for myself, for the Chairman,
with whom I have consulted in the preparation of this amendment. This
is, again, a demonstration on our part of our good faith to limit in
the future the growth of this trust fund and to gradually reduce that
amount, not take that surplus all at once off budget, but gradually
reduce it over a period of time. To help do that, we propose this
limitation on the interest rate because over a period of time, the
trust fund is being long-range dollars, have benefited from the longer
term interest rate on Treasury securities. So in the spirit of fairness
and comity I propose that we make this change.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to my Chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this has indeed been
worked out with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], Members on our side, and I think
it is a fair approach and I support it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding, and he
has a good amendment, we should pass it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 12, after
line 22, insert the following:
SEC. 5. APPROPRIATION OF INTEREST EARNINGS OF HIGHWAY TRUST
FUND.
(a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to offset
the approximately $82,000,000,000 that has been appropriated
[[Page H3537]]
from the general fund of the Treasury for Federal-aid highway
and mass transit construction projects.
(b) Appropriation of Interest Earnings.--On September 30,
1996, there is hereby appropriated from the Highway Trust
Fund to the general fund of the Treasury an amount equal to
the aggregate amounts of interest credited to the Highway
Trust Fund before such date.
Page 13, line 1, strike ``5'' and insert ``6''.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment until we know what the amendment is.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is amendment No. 8 printed
on page H3489, amendment on page 12 after line 22.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object until we
have an opportunity to examine the amendment to see whether it is
germane.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of
order against the amendment.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes into
account the problem of the accumulated interest that is now in the
highway trust fund in the amount of $19 billion. Again, the question
is, should Congress, in past general fund appropriations for highway
purposes, so designate that it was trust fund money rather than the
general fund? General fund expenditures since 1956, when we started the
highway trust fund, have exceeded $38 billion. The estimate is
someplace between $38 billion and $40 billion. This is general fund
appropriations for highway purposes that were not designated to come
out of the trust fund.
So what we have been doing over the years is spending more and more
money out of the general fund, at the same time we were spending every
cent that came in from the highway gas tax. So it is reasonable, I am
suggesting to my colleagues, to consider that money that has been spent
out of the general fund an offset to the $19 billion now owed to the
trust fund by the general fund. The accumulated interest on some of the
trust fund money diverted in the 1960's is the question in this taking
off-budget debate. Some have suggested that that $19 billion is the
property of the trust fund and therefore should be spent for roads. I
am suggesting that because of the fact that we have now spent
approximately $40 billion out of the general fund for roads, an
additional $40 billion out of the general funds for mass transit, that
it is reasonable to consider those expenditures as an offset to the
interest that has been accumulating which represents approximately $19
billion. This amendment negates that $19 billion.
{time} 1445
I understand that my colleague from Pennsylvania is going to pursue
his point of order that this amendment is not germane. It is
technically not germane, and, therefore, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan to withdraw his amendment?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Smith] is withdrawn.
amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. 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 Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 8, lines
10 and 11, strike ``the receipts and disbursements of'' and
insert the following: ``the amounts that after the date of
the enactment of this Act are received by or disbursed
from''.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this
amendment until we have an opportunity to examine it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania withdraws his point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This amendment deals with the same issue. A
lot of the concern about taking the Highway Trust Fund off budget is
that the additional moneys that have now accumulated in interest and
indebtedness from the Highway Trust Fund, in the amount of $20 billion,
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, amounting to additional $11 billion
would be spent, thereby taking money away from other programs. This
would result in one of two scenarios: Either we borrow more money or we
reduce expenditures in other areas.
This amendment provides that the only funds coming off budget would
be funds being received into those trust funds from this coming
September forward. So what it does is it reserves and keeps on budget
the so-called cash account or the accumulated interest and other
assumed debt that now exists. It is my suggestion that that is
reasonable because this body needs to deal with the question of whether
or not those funds have already been paid back. It is my suggestion
that, because there has been approximately $40 billion coming out of
the general fund for highway construction, because of the fact that
there has been another $40 billion coming out of the general fund for
mass transit, that we have adequately paid back those funds. Therefore,
at this time it seems reasonable that we not transfer these funds off
budget and we amend this bill accordingly.
The question of taking the highway trust fund off budget or
continuing to expend these moneys under current procedures misses the
point of what our ultimate goal should be. I would hope that we all
agree that our goal is to spend transportation money from the States in
the most effective and efficient way and accommodate the transportation
needs of each State.
Detouring gas tax funds through the Federal Government to be returned
after paying Federal administration costs is not effective or
efficient. Allowing politicians in power to get more than their fair
share is not effective or efficient. Not only do we use up vast sums in
administration and manipulate funding for political purposes but we
send the remaining funds back to the States with Federal regulations
and mandates such as the Davis-Bacon Act that add billions of dollars
of increased costs to highway and mass transit construction. Gabriel
Roth who wrote ``Roads in a Market Economy'' suggests that a State
would have to get back 150% of what it sent to Washington in order to
break even because of these Federal mandates. That means that there are
only 10 States in the Nation that get back enough from Washington to
equal what could be accomplished if the gas tax money stayed in the
State to begin with.
If we agree that we want the most efficient use of the available
funds for transportation, then I suggest that we leave these funds at
the State level in the first place. The Federal Government should
retain only funding to provide a transition for those States that are
currently benefiting and for transportation safety. Each State would
then levy the gas tax locally in order to fund its own transportation
system. This would end the process of sending State money to Washington
to have some of it drained off in administration, some of it
redistributed, and then be forced to beg to get the remainder.
This suggestion is not new. The concept of returning responsibilities
to the States has been at the forefront of the welfare debate. Senator
Mack of Florida has been a leader on this issue on the Senate side. The
Heritage Foundation suggested devolution of the highway program to the
States in a report last year. The support for this concept is building.
We should not shy away from examining from time to time each of our
Federal programs and see if conditions still warrant the program at
all, and if they do, should another level of government be responsible.
Having served in local and State government before coming to Congress,
I can say that the benefit of the doubt should lie with the government
closest to the people. We should not be afraid to examine the proper
role of the various level of governments in the highway program. I
believe that once one looks into the transportation system in detail,
the arguments support a smaller Federal role and a greater State and
local role.
This body should vote against this bill that would simply move the
inefficient way we expend dollars for transportation infrastructure
from one committee to another and truly take the highway trust fund off
budget by devolving the responsibility and revenue base back to our
States and communities.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
There are several reasons why this amendment should be defeated. It
is a
[[Page H3538]]
killer amendment which really has the effect of prohibiting any
spending of the accumulated balances in any of the trust funds.
Now, if we believe that it is fundamentally wrong to have a $30
billion balance, money paid in there by the users, and are now saying
that it can never be spent, that is just fundamentally wrong. There are
other ways to deal with this, more appropriate ways, and indeed the
Committee on Appropriations which sets the annual ceiling. If our
legislation passes today, the Committee on Appropriations will still
set the annual ceiling, and that is the place to make that decision.
But to say today that none of the $30 billion that has accumulated can
ever be spent is just fundamentally wrong. This would artificially
cordon off that nearly $30 billion in accumulated balances and hold
them hostage.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. But it is not a question of them not being
allowed to be spent. It is a question of them being spent in the same
way that it has been spent since the existence of the trust fund in
1956.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that is what the
amendment does. What the amendment does is say you cannot spend it.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No, it just does not take them off budget.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it does not take them off budget, and the
fundamental issue here is that these should be taken off budget. This
gets to the heart of the question. Indeed these are user fees paid in
there. They should be taken off budget.
But I would be quick to emphasize that limits should be set on what
can be spent, and those limits are what should be set by the
authorizers and by the appropriators, and in fact for the past year we
have been saying we want to sit down with the appropriators and the
budgeteers in order to negotiate a compromise on this kind of an issue,
but unfortunately they were never willing to sit down and negotiate
with us. So now to come at the last minute with a proposal I think,
while I would not want to say it lacks good faith, although others have
said that, nevertheless I think that this should be defeated and we
should set these limits through the normal process of the authorizing
and appropriating committees.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
This amendment is like so many others that look benign but have a
poison pill attached. Clearly, this amendment undercuts a vitally
important purpose of this legislation, which is to enable the Congress
to spend down in a phased and fiscally responsible manner the $30
billion in surplus built up in the highway trust funds and the aviation
and the other trust funds.
The $30 billion of surplus that we have been debating about all
afternoon, the gentleman would say, oh, sorry, we are not going to
spend the surplus, we can just spend what comes in on an annual basis.
That is what this debate is all about, about withholding funds and
building up these accumulated surpluses that then are sued to mask the
deficit.
These surpluses should be off budget with the trust fund. The
surpluses have accumulated because of failure to spend the user taxes
we agreed to be taxed for that we have agreeably paid for the purpose
of building highways and bridges and airports and deepening our
waterways and improving our navigation channels. As budgetary
conditions permit, the surplus should be devoted to their intended
purpose.
The surpluses will not be spent down overnight, as we have repeatedly
said in the course of this afternoon's debate. The bill does not exempt
funds or the surpluses from the authorization or the appropriation
process. We will have complete control over whether and when the
surpluses are drawn down. In fact, over the past year the gentleman for
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has been working diligently with the
Committee on Appropriations and Committee on the Budget leadership to
try to work out a plan under which the spend down would occur. It can
be done; we have done so in the past in the aviation bill of 1990, the
AIP reauthorization bill.
We worked out a very fine accommodation of reasonable accommodation
with the Committee on Appropriations, the transportation appropriation
subcommittee, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of
Transportation, the Committee on Ways and Means, under which agreement
over a period of time, the very complex adjustment, we would draw down
the surplus built up in the aviation trust fund, those moneys to be
invested in airport runways and taxiways and parking aprons that were
needed to relieve congestion at the Nation's airports, and it worked.
That money was not all drawn down overnight in one big fell swoop;
gradually over a period of time. Unfortunately, now the surpluses have
begun to build up again.
So take the trust funds off budget, the surplus will be spent down in
a reasonable and responsible fashion under accommodations between our
committee and the Committee on Appropriations, working with the
Committee on the Budget as well. We do not need this amendment. This
really is a killer amendment. It ought to be defeated and ought to be
unmasked for what it is: an attempt to gut the bill.
Defeat the Smith amendment.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to emphasize what the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure said. If my colleagues
vote for the Smith amendment, they kill the bill. This is a killer
amendment. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] does not like this
bill. So in the option that he has been given he has offered his
amendment to simply kill the bill.
We know the purpose of the bill is to take trust funds off budget and
permit Congress to set whatever levels of spending it deems
appropriate. In the Truth in Budgeting Act this amendment would not
allow Congress to determine what trust funds support the aviation and
highway system needed.
So I want to support what the ranking member said and advise Members
to defeat this amendment because it, in fact, will kill the bill.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and with that I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith] to respond to some of the points made.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, by not having
the so-called cash reserve or the accumulated interest transferred and
taken off budget means it will be spent exactly how the total trust
fund has been spent since it was first started in 1956. So it is not a
question of not spending the money, it is a question of that $30
billion coming under the caps and being spent in such a way through the
budget process and the appropriation process as it has always been
spent.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
____________________