[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 16, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. JIM KOLBE

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 15, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union has under consideration the bill (H.R. 1000) to 
     amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs 
     of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1000.
  Although I support the reauthorization of the FAA and the Airport 
Improvement Program, I find the manipulation of the current budget 
structure in this bill detrimental to the fiscally sound budget process 
the Republicans have been fighting for, and have achieved, as the 
majority party.
  Why do we want to take a step backwards, back to when this House was 
governed by a tax and spend policy, in a misguided attempt to 
drastically inflate a federal agency's budget?
  Where is the Republican agenda--the agenda to make the federal 
government smaller, leaner, more efficient?
  It is disappointing to see the bill come before the House today under 
the slogan of ``unlocking the Aviation Trust Fund.'' Federal trust 
funds are not your run-of-the-mill trust fund that can be compared to a 
family or business trust fund. These federal trust funds are 
authorizations for appropriations, and this has always been the intent 
since their creation.
  But, don't take my word for it. Let me quote a CRS report:

       Whatever their intended purposes, federal trust funds are 
     basically record-keeping devices that account for the 
     spending authority available for certain programs. Although 
     frequently thought of as holding financial assets, they do 
     not.

  I repeat: trust funds do not hold financial assets; there is not 
money in them.
  The report goes on to say:

       Simply stated, as long as a trust fund has a balance, the 
     Treasury Department has authority to keep issuing checks for 
     the program, but balances do not provide the treasury with 
     the cash to cover these checks.

  So if it's the right policy to take trust funds off-budget, where is 
the cash going to come from to cover the checks written on the trust 
fund balances? Are we going to cut funding for our schools, for law 
enforcement, for environmental programs, for our Veterans? Are we going 
to increase the debt, raise taxes? I hope not.
  And we are not talking about a few dollars. There are over 100 
federal trust funds, and this bill deals with only one. But, at the end 
of FY1997, these trust funds had a combined ``virtual balance'' of 
$1.520 trillion--that's one and a half trillion dollars! If we are 
going to unlock our trust funds because this money was intended for 
specific purposes, we need to find $1\1/2\ trillion to put real money 
into these funds.
  In addition, we simply cannot govern a nation by compartmentalizing 
our budget through dedicated funding streams. Revenue streams must be 
spent on the nation's priorities as a whole. You can't run a business 
by restricting cash flows to expenses directly attributable to their 
related sales. Can GM effectively compete in the world market if the 
money they received from selling shock absorbers couldn't be used for 
maintenance of brake manufacturing equipment? No. GM can't, and neither 
can the federal government.
  We need to take a step back and understand where this road leads us. 
I understand the supporters of this measure see guaranteed money every 
year. Wouldn't this be nice if everyone had a guaranteed stream of cash 
flowing into their coffers every October First? But, that is not the 
way to run a fiscally responsible government.
  Republicans have governed our nation's tax dollars with restraint and 
have given the taxpayer some of this money back with tax cuts. Let's 
not sabotage 4 and a half years of work. We should be looking at ways 
of streamlining federal agencies, not bloating their budgets by 
creating a mandatory account and increasing the taxes for this account.

                          ____________________