[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3538-H3547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRUTH IN BUDGETING ACT
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
amendment offered by mr. minge
Mr. MINGE. 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. Minge: At the end of Section 2
insert the following:
(c) Prohibition on Earmarking of Highway Trust Fund
Amounts.--Subsection (a) shall no longer apply with respect
to the Highway Trust Fund after the last day of any fiscal
year in which amounts are made available for obligation from
the Highway Trust Fund for any highway construction
[[Page H3539]]
project or activity that is specifically designated in a
Federal law, a report of a committee accompanying a bill
enacted into law, or a joint explanatory statement of
conferees accompanying a conference report, as determined by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Royce].
{time} 1500
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment is
supported by both supporters and opponents of H.R. 842. Indeed, the
authors of the amendment include both proponents and opponents of the
bill, as well as those who are as yet undecided. But very simply put,
Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that if the highway trust fund is
placed off-budget, there will be no earmarks for specific projects. If
earmarks occur, the fund comes back on budget.
Why is this amendment important? Because this bill, H.R. 842, this
underlying bill, would have the effect of exempting highway trust fund
spending from all budgetary controls, including discretionary caps,
pay-go rules, and 602(b) allocations. If we are going to give highway
funds special protection from budget rules, then it is reasonable to
hold highway funding to a high standard of accountability, and that
means no earmarking.
Highway users who pay into the trust fund deserve to have those funds
expended in the most efficient and fair manner possible. Earmarking
disadvantages everyone in every project not on the list, and projects
should be judged on their individual merits, not on patronage.
This amendment guards against pork barreling and protects the
integrity of the highway trust fund. Supporters and opponents of the
bill should all agree on that point. By way of demonstration, I just
want to remind the Members that in 1991, in the highway demonstration
projects, 30 percent of those funds went to West Virginia. West
Virginia is .7 percent of the population. In 1992, 30 percent went to
West Virginia. In 1993, we had one-third of all highway demonstration
project dollars going to West Virginia; in 1994, $54 million, which
amounted to 43 percent of the highway demonstration dollars; and in
1995, the fiscal year past, Members know the story. West Virginia for
two projects got 52 percent of the Senate's money, or 21 percent of the
Nation's highway money for demonstration projects.
Mr. Chairman, while the people of western Virginia are fine people,
in my view this is unfair, unjust, inequitable. Some might call it
highway robbery. Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge all of the Members
to vote for the amendment. It is supported by Citizens Against
Government Waste.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of debate both
today and during this session about the problems that we have faced in
this institution with earmarking, with demonstration projects, and
abuses of this part of the process.
I certainly respect what the chairman of this committee has attempted
to do in regulating and limiting inappropriate earmarks and
demonstration projects. I also wish to pay tribute to the Committee on
Appropriations, and the work of the honorable chairman of the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and the guidance he has provided
this Chamber in stopping the demonstration highway earmarking process.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to confirm that if the
highway trust fund indeed goes off-budget, we no longer engage in this
practice. Instead, what we are doing is, we are collecting funds, we
are remitting the funds to the States on a formula basis, and the
States are then allocating these funds for projects as the States
establish their priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that some people have problems with the way
the States function, but I think the day has come when we need to say
to the States, ``We repose in you a certain level of trust and
confidence, and if you abuse that confidence we will hold you to a
higher standard,'' not that we will attempt to determine on our own
here in Washington how funds ought to be micromanaged around the
country.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to avoid that temptation and
to still comply with the goals that are motivating this basic bill,
which is to make these funds available for public highway projects
throughout this Nation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, there are several reasons why this amendment should be
defeated. First, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would have the effect of
preventing these trust funds from ever coming off budget, because it
goes far beyond what it is purported to do. Let me explain. The
amendment places the highway trust fund back on budget if any funds are
made available for any highway construction project or activity that is
specifically designated.
As the gentleman knows, funds for highway construction projects and
activities were made available in ISTEA for fiscal 1997. Thus, this
amendment would automatically return the trust funds on budget forever
when the fiscal 1997 transportation appropriation bill passes. It is
not our bill, it is not our bill which would cause this to kick in.
Second, a return to on-budget treatment is not only triggered by
funds made available for highway projects, but also by funds being made
available for virtually any purpose under the Federal Aid Highway
Program. These include such basic programs as interstate maintenance,
the National Highway System, emergency relief, ferry boat construction,
rail-highway grade crossings, innovative financing/toll pilot programs,
Orange County's private toll roads, among many others.
This provision would also return the trust funds on budget due to
action made in bills reported in the past by other committees, other
than this Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. If this
amendment were adopted, then another committee could prevent these
trust funds from ever coming off budget simply by making funds
available for any highway construction purpose in any appropriations
bill, for example.
Fourth, the amendment singles out highway construction for special
treatment among all types of transportation trust fund spending. Every
year there are numerous earmarks for transit projects. In fact, there
were over 130 transit earmarks in the fiscal 1996 transportation
appropriations bill. There were also over 20 earmarks in that same bill
which would not be prohibited by this amendment.
Finally, this amendment is completely unnecessary. Every dollar in
the highway trust fund spending is subject to the recently enacted
line-item veto. Congress will have ample authority to review any
highway authorization bills that make highway trust funds available if
such bill is passed, and indeed beyond that, the President could use
his line-item veto.
Rather than being satisfied with this procedure, Mr. Chairman, this
amendment would vest OMB with line-item veto authority. For all of
these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to resoundingly defeat this
amendment.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there were two amendments printed in the
Record. One of them was broader. I would like to make sure we are
talking about the same amendment. There is nothing in this one that
deals with transit funds.
Mr. SHUSTER. That is correct. That is exactly the point I am making
to the gentleman. There is nothing here that deals with transit funds,
which is only one of the many reasons this amendment should be
defeated.
Mr. MINGE. But something that would happen with respect to transit
funds would not be a highway project, unless it was a specific highway
project. Therefore, it would not trigger the reaction that the
gentleman is attributing to the amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. What is good for highways ought to be good for transit.
Mr. MINGE. We would like to deal with transit as well, but as we
understand the process within the Department of Transportation, the
transit trust fund is handled in quite a different fashion.
Mr. SHUSTER. No, it is not. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the
gentleman that the transit account is part of the highway trust fund,
and indeed is handled as the highway funds are handled as well.
[[Page H3540]]
Mr. MINGE. We understand they have a priority system in the
Department of Transportation for the transit trust fund. Is that
correct?
Mr. SHUSTER. I am sure this Congress does not want to accede to a
particular administration; what procedures they may deem wise to use,
we may think they are very unwise, so we are not about to turn over to
the bureaucrats downtown some procedure which they say they use for
transit.
Mr. MINGE. Would the gentleman agree, then, that we should exclude
transit because it is not adequately covered at the Department of
Transportation?
Mr. SHUSTER. I agree that for many reasons that I have outlined here,
that this amendment should be defeated.
Mr. MINGE. We appreciate it, because we did exclude transit for some
of the reasons you have mentioned. That should win the gentleman's
support for this.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman has sent
our committee a request for a project which we have here, so I find it
a bit amusing that the gentleman would now take this position when
indeed we have in our possession a letter from the gentleman asking us
to fund a special project for him.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the killer amendments devised by
those who are not in accord with the purpose of taking trust funds off
budget. In fact, even some who have originally signed on as sponsor of
the bill obviously had second thoughts later on and said they do not
want to support this concept, and now they find ways to undermine it,
cut it and gut it.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that the trust funds would no
longer be off budget if at any time a highway project was specifically
mentioned in a bill or a committee report.
What this means in plain English is that the Committee on
Appropriations can kill off-budget status for the highway-aviation-
waterway trust funds simply by earmarking a project in a bill or a law,
in a committee report or in a bill that ultimately becomes law. This
hands over to the Committee on Appropriations the total power over the
trust funds and their status. What a crazy thing to do.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman refers to demonstration projects and says
he wants to stop pork barreling, and our colleague, the gentleman
from California, the gentleman who spoke previously, also talks about
pork barrelling. I am not quite sure what they mean by ``pork barrel.''
It usually carries the implication of an individually designated
project or fund without merit. That usually is an argument from the
perspective of the Speaker. What is meritorious in one district may not
be meritorious to a person in another district.
If I may have the attention of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Royce], is he familiar with the Hacienda Boulevard project? Does the
gentleman recall writing to our committee about the merits of the
Hacienda Boulevard project? We agreed with the gentleman that it had
merit in the 103d Congress, on both sides of the aisle. We thought it
was a very meritorious project. We were prepared to support it.
The gentleman is supporting now a provision of law that would gut the
ability to help the gentleman achieve a laudatory, necessary, and
important purpose that he feels significant for his district, as for my
colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, who also has appealed to our
committee in the past on the merits of need in his district.
We are prepared to support those needs, and we have done in the past.
Now they come along and say, oh, sorry, we were only kidding. We did
not mean it. We are going to give authority to kill the ability of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to help Members respond
to transportation needs that are not being met by their State.
In effect, we hand over authority over Federal funds, over tax
dollars that we vote for in this body, to States, and let State
governments and State highway departments earmark the designate and
specify and determine where those dollars are going to go. That is not
pork barreling? That is not individual designating? That is fair?
The reason we get bombarded, we Members of this Body get bombarded by
our constituents, is that those very State governments are not
responding to the needs of highway users in our respective districts.
That is why we went through a very elaborate process of joining with
State highway departments and the Federal Highway Administration to set
up criteria, 17 criteria, by which we would judge whether a project is
meritorious or not and ought to be included in a national piece of
legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps what I hear the gentleman saying
is that there are those who think that if we designate worthy projects
here, that is a terrible thing, but if we shovel the money back to the
States, then there are angels in heaven in the State government who
makes these dispassionate, objective decisions as to how to spend the
money. Politics, that terrible, crass work, politics, never enters into
a decision when the States decide how to spend the money that we send
to them.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman is quite right. Actually, the dollars
that leave here that go to the State government, and they are sprinkled
with holy water and they are absolved of all sin. That is sheer
nonsense. If Members believe that, I have some swampland out in
Minnesota I would like to sell them.
Mr. Chairman, this is a killer amendment. It is foolish. It ought not
to be adopted. We should roundly defeat it.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to many things that were just
said, and I to a certain degree, find some of them offensive. Let me
just explain why. I do support this bill, and I think that the tax
dollars that are collected from gasoline taxes should be spent back out
on highway projects; but I also support the fact that the people in the
State of Wisconsin have a right to receive the tax dollars that they
pay into this system back in the State of Wisconsin.
When we permit projects to be earmarked, those projects that are
earmarked take away from the overall kitty that is available to be
redistributed in a fair manner to the people in the State of Wisconsin.
So I support this amendment strongly, and I rise to support this
amendment. I support the bill, but I do not want to see earmarks in the
bill. The only way that I can see to eliminate the practice of pork
barrel spending or earmarking things in the bill is to make sure this
amendment actually goes through.
We do not have to look very far. The Almanac of American Politics
noted that out of $6.1 billion, with a b, made available for ISTEA
projects, one State received over $930 million. One district in that
State received $300 million. That is not fair to the State of Wisconsin
and it is not fair to the other States around this country.
The purpose of this amendment is to make sure this money gets
distributed in a fair, well-thought-out manner around the country and
people in States like the State of Wisconsin receive their fair share
of the amount of money back.
The part that I disagree with adamantly is that people that are
rising that support this bill would somehow have some other meaning. I
support this amendment, and I support this amendment because I believe
it is in the best interests for the future of this country and the
manner in which we distribute these funds.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was not here in the
previous Congress or the Congress previous to that, when we went
through a very elaborate process in our committee on both sides of the
aisle to determine the merits of projects.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, is that the Congress
where 30 percent plus of this money was allocated to one State
consistently, year after year after year?
{time} 1515
That is what this new Congress is all about, is stopping that kind of
practice.
[[Page H3541]]
Mr. OBERSTAR. That is simply not true.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEUMANN. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. I am advised that in the last ISTEA legislation we did,
that Wisconsin was adjusted near the end, and it came out very well. So
I am not sure what the gentleman's direct concern is here, but
certainly in the future in agreeing with this amendment which he
wholeheartedly supports, we will be glad to exempt Wisconsin.
Mr. NEUMANN. We would certainly hope that in the future years we make
sure that Wisconsin receives a dollar back for every dollar sent in,
and that would solve a vast majority of the problems that we have.
Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if he is talking
about highway funding formulas then, I believe that is properly
addressed when our committee reauthorizes ISTEA at the proper time.
Mr. NEUMANN. We look forward to that redistribution back to the State
of Wisconsin. I would conclude my comments by reiterating that I do
support the overall bill, and in theory I support what is being said
here, that the tax dollars that are collected at the gas pump from the
gasoline users should be spent to build highways and should be
reallocated in this manner.
What I do not think should happen is that that money should be pork
barreled into certain districts. When we put it into certain districts,
it is not available in the general kitty to be reallocated in the
general well-thought-out manner that the formula would indicate.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about here the Truth in Budgeting
Act. I would submit that that label perhaps should apply to amendments
as well, and that we ought to say we are for truth in amendments as
well, and I would like to advance some criteria in just a moment for
what truth in the amendment process should be about.
But let me say to the gentleman from Minnesota, one of the cosponsors
of this amendment, very similar to remarks I made earlier in this
debate addressed to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, that is, these Members who get up and talk about
earmarking projects, talk about pork-barrel projects and proceed to
label themselves as pork-busters, knowing the way the press loves to
headline and loves to pay such Members attention, I would remind the
gentleman, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], our
distinguished full committee chairman, has already done, and I am sure
he is already aware of letters that he has written our committee
requesting projects in the past.
Evidently these projects under the current amendment and under the
debate that is being conducted are termed bad and thrown out for
political purposes, the money is thrown out for political purposes, but
the pending amendment that the gentleman offers should indeed be shown
for what it is.
Under the truth in amendments criteria that I would advance, Mr.
Chairman, I would say must reveal first the startling transformation
that has occurred in the sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. There is a highway project in Minnesota which I
am sure he is aware. It is a good project. It is called trunk highway
212.
In 1994 the gentleman wrote to me in my then capacity as chairman of
the Surface Transportation Subcommittee requesting an earmark of $12
million for this particular project. We were able to help the
gentleman, maybe not to the full extent to which he was requesting, but
nevertheless in that letter the gentleman from Minnesota noted that the
project had already received two other congressional earmarks, both in
ISTEA and in the fiscal 1992 appropriation bill.
I think it is strange today that the sponsor of this so-called pork-
buster amendment now finds the earmarking of money for highway projects
so onerous. But be that as it may, there is a more important reason for
opposing this amendment, and that is simply the fact that it makes no
sense.
The gentleman notes in his April 16 ``Dear Colleague'' in support of
this amendment that if the trust funds were taken off-budget, highway
demonstration projects will be completely exempt from obligation
limitations. The truth is that today under the existing process, ISTEA
demonstration projects are exempt from the obligation limits set in the
appropriation bills. They are exempt from the obligation limits today.
So, therefore, the pending amendment makes no sense and I would urge
its defeat.
I would say also in response to the gentleman from California, in his
earlier rendition of what he termed highway robbery and appropriations
of money that have come to West Virginia, my home State, for highway
demonstration projects, I am not entirely clear but I believe some of
those moneys to which he was referring are out of general revenues, and
that is not what we are talking about in this particular legislation
today at all. Yes, West Virginia received those projects, yes, we
deserved them, but, no, they would not be affected by this particular
amendment. They would not be affected by this particular legislation
that we are considering because those were revenues that were
appropriated out of general funds of the United States, not highway
trust funds.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. This is not the place to fight that battle. The place to
fight this battle is when we bring ISTEA to the floor for
reauthorization. I am sure there will be a bloody battle, in our
committee and on the floor, over the whole question not only of special
projects but of the formula which is used to apportion the money to the
States. That is the place to fight this battle.
Mr. RAHALL. The distinguished chairman is entirely accurate. That is
the format in which we should make that battle and also, in addition to
that, we should not be trying to blur the distinction here between
general revenues and highway trust fund moneys, either. If the
gentleman has a problem with the appropriation process, then let us
take that battle to the Committee on Appropriations and battle it out
during the appropriation process.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MINGE. I do not believe the gentleman received a letter from me
in the 104th Congress requesting any funds for highway projects.
Mr. RAHALL. 103d Congress. If I misspoke, I stand corrected.
Mr. MINGE. And it would be correct to say that in the 104th Congress
some of the rules changed, and we no longer had demonstration projects,
so that we were not subject to this type of request from our
constituents and, as a consequence, the process here in the House
changed and we sort of cleaned up our act a little, if you will.
Mr. RAHALL. I know the gentleman is trying to relate his
transformation to a possible transformation in the House rules, but we
have not had a highway bill this year.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
Mr. Chairman, the title of the pending legislation is the ``Truth in
Budgeting Act.''
I would submit that we should apply that label to amendments as well.
Truth in amendments.
The gentleman from Minnesota has labeled himself a porkbuster. I have
two ``Dear Colleague'' letters signed by the gentleman in which he
berates so-called porkbarrel highway demonstration projects.
These types of projects are, in his view, apparently bad and as such,
the pending amendment would make taking the transportation trust funds
off-budget contingent upon there being no further earmarking of funds
for a particular project.
Under the Truth in Amendments criteria I am advancing, I find that I
must reveal there has been a startling transformation in the gentleman
from Minnesota's views as they relate to earmarking of projects.
There is a highway project in Minnesota, and I am sure it is a good
project, called ``Trunk Highway 212''.
Now, in 1994, the gentleman wrote to me in my then capacity as
chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, requesting that I
earmark $12 million for that project.
[[Page H3542]]
In that letter, the gentleman noted that the project had already
received two other Congressional earmarks: in ISTEA and in the fiscal
year 1992 appropriation bill.
Let it suffice to say that I find it passingly strange that today,
the sponsor of this so-called porkbuster amendment, now finds the
earmarking of funds for highway projects so onerous.
Be that as it may, there is one major reason to vote against this
amendment.
It makes little to no sense.
The gentleman notes in his April 16 ``Dear Colleague'' that if the
trust funds are taken off-budget, highway demonstration projects will
be completely exempt from obligation limitations.
My colleagues, the truth is that today, under the existing, process,
ISTEA demonstration projects are exempt from the obligation limitations
set in the appropriation bill.
They are exempt from the obligations limitations today.
So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the pending amendment.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, we have a great opportunity today to effectively
continue the work that was just described, of eliminating these highway
demonstration projects. As I understand it, highway demonstration
projects were first designed to demonstrate new road construction
techniques. Now they simply demonstrate the Members' ability to bring
home the bacon to the district. That is what a demonstration project is
all about.
The gentleman from West Virginia has made some point about others
requesting demonstration projects. Let me, I guess, establish my
credentials on that point.
In 1993, immediately upon being elected to this Congress, I said I
would not support a demonstration project in my own district. It
created quite a stir, because this is not what Members of Congress are
supposed to do. They are supposed to seek the bacon for their district
and bring it home. That is how they get reelected, so the story went.
Well, I opposed demonstration projects. I said I would not go to
Congress. I said, ``If you're choosing somebody to go on a looting
mission for one's friends,'' as George Will has said, ``pick somebody
else, not me. And if you want to, throw me out after 2 years.''
What happened? People in my district said, ``That's right, Bob. No
more demonstration projects. It's a lousy way to do government.'' What
else did they say? Look at this, interesting thing. George Bush said no
demonstration projects until he got into some trouble with reelection.
Then Bill Clinton says no to demonstration projects. What do you make
of it? President Bush and President Clinton agreeing, no demonstration
projects.
So our honorable chairman of the committee over here has taken that
action, and I am very excited about that. We need to do it right here.
We need to make sure that in this bill we have a fail-safe, so if the
committee starts spending demonstration money, it goes back on-budget.
It is a nice accountability feature.
I think it would make a whole lot of sense to do that right now in
this bill so that we make sure that we do not lapse into that old
behavior of demonstration projects being clearly designed to win
Members reelection. That is what this is all about, and that is why we
have got to eliminate these demonstration projects.
The point was made earlier, it goes to holy water, the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] said, when it goes to the State. I do not know
about the holy water, but I do know this. If it goes to Columbia, SC,
as a lump of money, in Columbia, SC, we are a relatively small State,
we can figure out how to spend it. In 2\1/2\ hours you can get from
Columbia to anywhere in South Carolina on the road system we have, and
you can determine what the priorities are.
If I am given carte blanche to come here and be the demonstration
project king, what happens is I start earmarking for my own district,
and what happens to Jim Clyburn's district or John Spratt's district or
Floyd Spence's district? It gets all irrational. It gets into complete
politics way removed from the situation.
Columbia has no holy water but it is a small State. We can figure it
out as a family. We want to send it back there freely, fairly and then
let the State divide it up. That is the way it was designed.
Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. NEUMANN. Listening to the gentleman, the phrase ``trust but
verify'' comes to mind, that we trust the procedure that has been
initiated in this Congress will continue and this is very simply a
verification that what we have started, to make government cleaner and
better for the American people, will continue. ``Trust but verify''
just keeps coming to my mind as I listen to the gentleman.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. It says something about the SALT
treaties and all that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If ever there were
a man of integrity in this body, it is the gentleman from South
Carolina, and if ever there were a gentleman who could do heavy lifting
for his district, it is this champion weight lifter who is at the
microphone over there.
I am glad to hear that the gentleman has such great confidence in his
State government to distribute funds equitably and fairly. I say to the
gentleman, I cannot get anywhere in my district in 2\1/2\ hours. It is
too big.
But there is nothing, in all seriousness, in this legislation that
refers to earmarking or designating. That is an issue that will be
taken up the next time we have an authorization bill. Furthermore, the
language of the gentleman from Minnesota would invite earmarking by the
Committee on Appropriations for the simple purpose of killing off-
budget status of the highway trust fund.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. This amendment goes far beyond the issue of special
projects. If we want to fight about special projects, ISTEA is the
place to do that, not here. But this goes far beyond that. For example,
if interstate maintenance, the national highway system, bridge, the
ferry boat construction, if any one of these categories were included,
it would kick in this amendment. Is that the gentleman's understanding,
as well?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes.
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. If I may reclaim my time, if that were
to happen, let us assume the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation decided to do such a thing. I would imagine it would be
a fairly uncomfortable position and an unenviable position for them to
be in, having taken a position against demonstration projects. It would
be a rather awkward position.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I do not think it is going to
pass. I hope it passes. But what we ought to be doing, and maybe this
would be the prelude to next year, is we ought to just take a
percentage of the 18.5 cent gasoline tax and turn it back to the
States, because I think they know better about where the money ought to
be spent than frankly we do in Congress. And when you have a problem in
that individual State, then you go defeat that Governor or you change
their legislature or you do something.
What the gentleman from Wisconsin was saying was a fact. The great
State, my neighbor State of West Virginia, in that 1 year got 47
percent of all the highway demo money out of the Committee on
Appropriations. Forty-seven percent.
There are three wonderful, and I like the gentlemen very much, three
good Members of Congress and two outstanding Senators. Let me just say
that for the record. I have great respect for Senator Byrd. I think he
is a good person, a decent person. But the fact remains that that State
has three Representatives, got 47 percent of the money and the rest of
the country got 53 percent. Texas got nothing. Florida got nothing.
California got nothing.
We in the Committee on Appropriations made a decision that was
supported on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, that we
would
[[Page H3543]]
do away with highway demo projects. Some people thought when I got to
be chairman of the committee that we would just do everything for my
State, and I said, ``That's not why we're here, and we're going to do
away with it,'' because I had watched the way that demonstration
projects were determined. It was if you voted a certain way, if you did
a certain thing. So I thought it was a good idea, and I thought the
Minge amendment and the gentleman from California have a good idea. We
should be changing the formula. Right now we are disbursing the money
on 1980 census data, when the world has changed in 1996 in California
and South Carolina. And the gentleman from South Carolina, your State
gets 87 percent. You do worse than any other State.
{time} 1530
So this is a good amendment. Hopefully it will not pit the two
committees together. Some people said, ``You are here because you have
a jurisdictional issue.'' Let me say, if the highway trust fund is
taken off budget and it passes the House and the Senate and is signed
by the President, I am going to get out of this committee. It will be a
joke. It will be a waste. It will be a fraud.
Second, even if this does not pass, I do not want to be chairman of
the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations
for the rest of my life. I sit publicly in hearings. I may ask the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], ``Hey, put me on another
committee.'' Put me on the Committee on Foreign Operations. I can do
other things other than transportation. So it is not a jurisdictional
thing.
I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for the
effective work here, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]
for the effective work here, but this amendment makes sense.
Nobody should abuse this amendment, make it look like a stupid
amendment. It is a good amendment, and I think it is a way the Congress
ought to go. Let us reduce the gasoline tax; let us let the States run
it. Whatever we keep at the Federal level, let us change on a formula
based on census and fairness.
Last, let us not hold anyone accountable who may vote the wrong way
because they voted their conscience.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman from
Virginia, what was that pledge he made if this became law?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I said if this bill
becomes law and is signed by the President, I would step down as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, because I think it
would be a fraud to be there.
Mr. RAHALL. I just wanted to hear it repeated.
Mr. WOLF. Is the gentleman looking forward to that date to take my
place, my friend? Although West Virginia has lost a little bit under
the change with regard to that, the gentleman was not involved in those
other things. It came from the other body.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, would
the gentleman clarify in this particular Member's mind his distinction
between highway demonstration projects and earmarking?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, a highway demonstration project is the State,
and we have found out many times the State does not want the money, but
the Congress gives them the money for whatever reasons, and you can
fill in the blank what those reasons are. After the money ends, the
State stops building it.
We had the GAO look at it, and many of these highway demonstration
projects were never completed because the States did not want it. Once
they get the money, they use the money, once they run out, they end it.
I would like to give back to the States whereby the Governor of the
States can make the decision, and not the handful of people up here
based on the fact you like the way the guy voted, or he did not offend
you, or whatever the case may be.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, in ISTEA, when I
chaired the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, with the complete
cooperation of the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Petri, and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, chairman of the full
committee, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, or then
Chairman Mineta, we developed a set of criteria by which projects had
to answer, a long list of questions. One of those questions at the very
top was about whether the State supported the project or not. We did
not put a project into ISTEA without full 100-percent written testimony
from the States that they supported such projects.
As I said earlier, these projects were scrutinized, scrubbed, and
there was not a one put in there without State support, not without
State support.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what happens is though
the States say ``If I am going to get it, I will take it.'' Even my own
State said we are against these projects, but if everyone else is doing
it, can you do it.
So I think it is better that it fits into the overall State's plan. I
think the Governor is the best one to determine it and the money ought
to go back on a systematic formula.
There are good and decent people on both sides. I am not questioning
anybody for the way they do this. I think the amendment makes sense,
and I ask strong support for the amendment. I am not going to hold my
breath until it passes, but it would be a good thing.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been a strong supporter
of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge rehabilitation. The gentleman understands
that under the language of the amendment of the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge] that any project or activity that is specifically
designated in Federal law, that the Woodrow Wilson Bridge would
specifically be stricken?
Mr. WOLF. The difference is, I would tell the gentleman, the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge is the only bridge owned by the Federal Government.
Mr. OBERSTAR. It would still be stricken.
Mr. WOLF. It is in a totally different capacity. The Federal
Government and Federal Highway Administration has come up to your
committee and said that is their responsibility.
Mr. OBERSTAR. It would still be stricken by this language.
Mr. WOLF. It is a different situation, because it is a federally
owned bridge.
Mr. OBERSTAR. It is still in the trust fund.
Mr. WOLF. I urge support of the amendment.
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members to avoid personal
reference to Members of the Senate.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, yes, we are trying to change the process here so that
it is done in the future proportionately on the basis of fuel taxes
paid in by the various States and not affected by earmarking. It is
because earmarking favors Sates with Members on key committees and
communities with the resources to hire Washington advocates at the
expense of other States and localities.
State transportation departments, in my view, and State legislatures
are in a much closer position of being closer to the people to
determine which highway projects are most deserving of funding than
Congress. This is my view. Although individual Members may be
knowledgeable about projects in their district or State, Congress as a
whole is not in a position to make decisions about the merits of
individual projects across the country.
Lastly, the process of earmarking funds for demonstration projects
encourages the use of transportation funds for high profile politically
popular new construction projects at the expense of the less visible
but more important repair and maintenance projects.
So I urge and an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
[[Page H3544]]
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also point out,
complimenting the gentleman on his remarks, that we have remarkably
capable committee leadership in the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and many other committees in this Congress. I submit
that if some States are not responsibly allocating the Federal funds
that come through, that our committees have oversight jurisdiction. It
provides us with an opportunity to watch what the States are doing, to
correct it with legislative response immediately, if that is what is
necessary.
But this is a function that we can play very well, oversight. We have
a national vision. But it is very difficult for us to provide the local
supervision and the local decisionmaking that is so important in
allocating funds between communities, even within our respective
districts.
I would also point out that I, and I expect almost every other
Member, have from time to time requested a project. I and many other
Members have had communities in our districts request support for
specific projects. As long as the game plan in Congress is to have
demonstration projects or earmarks, it is very difficult to represent
an area without playing the game.
I am not here to say that the gentleman from West Virginia or the
gentleman from Pennsylvania or my colleague from Minnesota has done
anything untoward. I am simply saying, let us engage in the oversight
function. Let us not engage in the business where we each beseech the
other for some local project and try to evaluate what is going on in
each others' districts.
This is an extremely difficult task to perform from Washington. I
certainly compliment the gentleman from West Virginia or South Carolina
on his resolution to avoid that type of temptation. I know that is a
stronger temptation than almost anyone else in this body has been able
to withstand.
In closing, I would like to urge the Members of this body to support
the amendment. We see this as an opportunity to improve the functioning
of our institution and to avoid some of the criticism which
unfortunately from time to time has brought our institution into
disrepute in the Nation's press.
This, I submit, is a way for America, for the Congress, to improve
our function, and to improve the way that we handle the important task
of allocating Federal funds.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am here in vigorous opposition to this amendment. I
think if you listen to the debate, you focus in on highway
demonstration projects. I agree with much of what the gentleman from
Wisconsin says and the gentleman from South Carolina. There are too
many pork barrel projects. There are too many demonstration projects.
But this amendment does not address highway demonstration projects.
That is not what this amendment is about.
What this amendment does do is it would gut this legislation. That is
why I am opposed to it. This legislation would assure that when people
in our States pull up to the gas pump and they pay 18.5 cents a gallon
in Federal taxes, which they believe will go to transportation
projects, that when that money comes up here, all 18.5 cents goes back.
It is not dipped in and taken out and spent on projects that are 1
million years and 1 million miles away from highway projects.
The gentleman from Wisconsin and I agree that this legislation before
us is good. This amendment has a good sound to it, and I compliment the
gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing it. But when I read it, I
realized that it is not what he, I believe, even intended. Because what
it would do in fact, I am concerned about these Canadian trailers,
where you put three of them together, and a truck can haul trailers
longer than a 10-story building. I want to stop that.
But this bill says that if we spend any money to address highway
activities, if we try to stop these tractor-trailer trucks longer than
a 10-story building, that we cannot do it, because we are obligating
money for highway activities, and it goes out the window.
I am concerned about those four teenagers that died in Talladega
County, AL, a few months ago at a grade crossing. I would like to
address that. Several of us in this body are looking to make grade
crossings safer. We would like to commit money to this activity. But it
is a highway activity, and with this amendment, it goes out the window.
All someone would have to do that wanted to stop dedicated highway
funds from highway projects, all they would have to do is slip
something into our bill which was an activity, and it is out the
window. So I vigorously oppose this amendment.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. DUNCAN. I just want to comment to the gentleman from Alabama, I
certainly agree with the points he is making. I might make a couple of
comments in addition.
Any highway project at any time probably has been called pork by
somebody. So we almost have a choice of doing no highway construction
at all in the country or doing projects that possibly somebody, some
small minority someplace, is going to call pork. But we have got to do
this construction.
All of this legislation we deal with, whatever subject it involves,
it has to get specific in many different ways. But we run the risk if
this amendment passes that if we get specific in highway legislation
from now on, it would put this money back on budget and it would start
being used for all these other things, foreign aid and everything else,
instead of being used for highway construction and the purposes for
which it was designated, which is what the American people want.
So I rise in opposition and join the gentleman from Alabama in his
opposition to this amendment.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in conclusion, I want
to warn the Members of this body, if you are concerned about those
triple trailers, which in negotiations they are trying to turn loose on
our highways, and they will kill our senior citizens, and if you are
concerned about these string of trailers, if you want to do something
about them, that is a highway activity. Read this amendment.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I accept
the gentleman's points. I rise in opposition to this amendment as well,
and I accept the points the gentleman has made.
I additionally want to say on behalf of Alabama that we have worked
very constructively with this committee, with the chairman of the
committee, the ranking member of the committee. We have dotted every i,
crossed every t. That first question we answered was, our State in
support of a specific project? We from the Alabama delegation worked
with a delegation with the committee.
So I think many misunderstand this process and misunderstand what we
have to do in order to look after certain projects in the State. I just
think this is a bad way to accomplish what the sponsors of this
amendment want to accomplish, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will simply close by
saying read the amendment. It not only says highway construction
projects, it says any highway activity, totally tying our hands to
address important safety issues.
{time} 1545
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 298, not voting 5, as follows:
[[Page H3545]]
[Roll No. 121]
AYES--129
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Bilbray
Boehner
Bonilla
Brownback
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Coleman
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Everett
Foglietta
Foley
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Inglis
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Leach
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
Meehan
Meyers
Miller (FL)
Minge
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Packard
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Walker
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Wolf
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--298
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spence
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--5
Fattah
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Nadler
Neal
Wilson
{time} 1606
Messrs. BURTON of Indiana, RUSH, CONDIT, KINGSTON, LaFALCE, CREMEANS,
DOOLITTLE, and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. JONES, BILBRAY, BURR, DIXON, EVERETT, and Ms. PILOSI, Ms.
HARMAN, and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman,I rise in support of the Truth in Budgeting
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the Truth in
Budgeting Act and commend its sponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster] for his bringing this important measure to the floor.
H.R. 842 transfers the highway, aviation, inland waterways and harbor
maintenance trust funds off budget and provides that trust fund
balances will not be used in calculations by the Congressional Budget
Office regarding the Federal budget.
This bill guarantees that transportation taxes such as, that taxes
that our constituents pay when they fill up their gas tank or when they
buy an airline ticket are used for their stated purpose, to improve and
reinforce our country's transportation infrastructure. Currently cash
balances in the transportation trust funds total $30 billion. It is
wrong that this funding is being used to mask portions of our Nation's
budget deficit as opposed to upgrading our country's transportation
infrastructure.
H.R. 842 is a positive step toward ensuring that our highways and
airports get the help they need. According to the Congressional Budget
Office this is an action that is budget neutral.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support this
worthy legislation.
amendment offered by mr. royce
Mr. ROYCE. 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. Royce:
Page 3, line 10, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Notwithstanding''.
Page 4, after line 14, insert the following:
(b) Prohibition on Earmarking of Highway Trust Fund
Amounts.--Subsection (a) shall no longer apply with respect
to the Highway Trust Fund after the last day of any fiscal
year in which amounts are made available for obligation from
the Highway Trust Fund for any highway construction project
or activity that is specifically designated in a Federal law,
a report of a committee accompanying a bill enacted into law,
or a joint explanatory statement of conferees accompanying a
conference report, as determined by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to comply with
the spirit of the bill by providing for a complete segregation of
highway trust funds and general funds. If the Highway Trust Fund is to
be dedicated strictly to transportation programs, then the general fund
should be dedicated exclusively to nontransportation programs. That is
what this amendment does.
This principle should be supported by both supporters and opponents
of H.R. 824, and I would just share with my colleagues that taking the
transportation trust funds off budget will effectively reduce the
amount of discretionary funds available under the discretionary
spending limits for nontransportation programs. Allowing transportation
projects that should be funded through the trust funds to receive
general revenues in addition to trust fund revenues will further
exacerbate the squeeze on all other discretionary spending.
It is unfair to both allow transportation programs to be funded off
budget outside of the discretionary caps and also receive funds from
general revenues.
I urge an aye vote on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes that the incorrect amendment has
been designated.
The Clerk will report the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce].
[[Page H3546]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Royce:
At the end of section 2, insert the following:
``(c) Prohibition on Funding Transportation Programs From
General Revenue.--Subsection (a) shall no longer be effective
after the last day of a fiscal year in which any amounts were
made available from the general fund of the Treasury of the
United States for construction, rehabilitation and
maintenance of highways, except for highways under the direct
supervision of a department or agency of the federal
government, as determined by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget.''
{time} 1615
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a well-intentioned amendment, but the
consequences of it go far, far beyond what is apparent.
Stop and consider, if $1 from the general fund is spent on a highway,
then the whole highway trust fund budget is thrown out. Consider, if my
colleagues have a flood in their district, if they have an earthquake
in their State and FEMA comes in and FEMA spends $1 to repair the
highway from the earthquake or the flood, then this amendment kicks in.
If money goes to my colleagues' local community block grant
development, we no longer have any control over that money; and my
colleagues' local CDBG decides to spend some of that money on a
highway, then this amendment kicks in. If money goes to my colleagues'
State or their local community development district, and they decide to
spend $1 on a highway, then this amendment kicks in.
So this goes far, far beyond, and for that reason I would urge its
defeat.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, effectively, this amendment does the same
thing as the amendment we just voted on. Effectively it is the same old
thing.
Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. It is even worse in the sense that they spend $1,
FEMA spends $1 on a flood on an emergency. They spend $1 out there in
Oklahoma City near the building that was blown up to fix up the street,
and this kicks in. It really does not make much sense.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Again I point out to all the supporters of the
Appalachian Regional Commission program and Economic Development
Administration program, $1 of those moneys going to a highway project
kills off-budget status for the highway trust fund.
Mr. SHUSTER. Right.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to say that either we
have a highway trust fund that is off budget, that is dedicated to and
used to fund the highway projects in the various States around this
country, or we do it on the budget; and if we are going to mix general
fund moneys for highway purposes with trust fund monies for highway
purposes, we altogether too easily can engage in a shell game and the
accounting is going to be frustrated.
So the purpose of this amendment is very simple. We are not saying
that we should not use funds in the trust fund for highway purposes, we
are not trying to eliminate the earmarking, the demonstration projects,
such as was considered in the previous vote. We are simply saying let
us have it one way or the other.
If we have a disaster, and if there are highway repairs to be made,
finance the highway repairs out of the trust fund. If the trust fund is
not adequate, we can look at the gasoline tax again.
But this is not an attempt to frustrate the bill. We have spoken with
the appropriators. The appropriations subcommittee that has
jurisdiction over transportation projects has assured us that they are
not interested in somehow delving into this matter and trying to force
upon this Chamber some small measure which would end up putting the
trust fund back on budget.
I submit that the leadership of the committee, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, is extremely capable. They will know
when other committees are attempting to usurp their authority. They
will identify this, they will report it to the body, and we can deal
with it appropriately.
This is a situation where we are simply trying to say that we need to
bring integrity to the accounting process and have the funds within the
trust fund and off budget or on budget entirely.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Research
Service, over $38 billion has been spent from the general revenue on
highway projects since the highway trust fund was created in 1957.
These general funds have effectively masked the true cost of Federal
highway spending. If these funds had been charged to the highway trust
fund, arguably there would not be a surplus.
So this bill that we are going to vote on creates a firewall that
would prevent gas tax revenues dedicated to the trust fund from being
used for any programs outside the highway trust fund; very well. Then
this amendment would create a corresponding firewall preventing
transportation projects from being funded by general revenues.
I ask for my colleagues' ``aye'' vote.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because
it prohibits general fund expenditures on transportation.
This is not fair because gas taxes pay billions of dollars into the
general fund each year.
gas tax
If you are not going to allow general fund expenditures for highway
projects, then you should send all of the gas tax money to the trust
fund.
But that doesn't happen now:
Take the 18.4-cent Federal gas tax: 6.8 cents for social programs/
deficit reduction, 2.5 cents for mass transit, 0.1 cents for leaking
underground storage tanks and only 12 cents for highways.
Over 30 percent of the gas tax goes to deficit reduction already.
This money should go to the trust fund.
aviation
The aviation trust fund is paid for by a 10-percent ticket tax.
This was created to pay for airport capital improvements.
That means airports, new towers, and runways.
The trust fund was not originally designated to pay for FAA
operations.
That was always supposed to come out of the general fund.
But over the years, we've taken money out of the trust fund to pay
for part of the FAA's operations.
Right now, the trust fund pays for about 70 percent of FAA
operations.
If this amendment passes, then we would have to raise the ticket tax.
Perhaps if the sponsor would be willing to send all the gas taxes to
the trust fund then I would support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
If there are no further amendments, the question is on the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Barrett of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to the House Resolution 396, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
[[Page H3547]]
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284,
noes 143, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 122]
AYES--284
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOES--143
Archer
Armey
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burr
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clayton
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Cox
Cunningham
Davis
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Eshoo
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Goss
Hall (OH)
Hancock
Hayworth
Hefner
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Houghton
Hoyer
Inglis
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Lazio
Levin
Livingston
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McDade
McInnis
Meehan
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Orton
Packard
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Roemer
Rogers
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walker
Watt (NC)
Waxman
White
Wolf
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--5
Jackson-Lee (TX)
McCrery
Nadler
Rangel
Wilson
{time} 1640
Mr. STOKES and Mr. SPENCE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. VUCANOVICH and Ms. DUNN of Washington changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________