[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.

                          ____________________