[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 84 (Wednesday, June 6, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3505-H3513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MOTIONS TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                     EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

  Mr. FLAKE. I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Flake moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed 
     to recede from disagreement with the provision contained in 
     the matter proposed to be inserted as section 104(c)(1)(B) of 
     title 23, United States Code, by section 1105 of the Senate 
     amendment that reads as follows: ``for each State, the amount 
     of combined apportionments for the programs shall not be less 
     than 95 percent of the estimated tax payments attributable to 
     highway users in the State paid into the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) in the most recent 
     fiscal year for which data are available''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This motion is simple: it simply ensures that the minimum rate of 
return for any State under any new highway reauthorization is 95 
percent.
  As I'm sure everyone is aware, every gallon of gas sold in your State 
provides money to the highway trust fund via the Federal gas tax. Trust 
fund money is then dispersed back to the States using very complex 
mathematical formulas that are determined with each surface 
transportation reauthorization. A reoccurring issue is the debate 
surrounding Federal transportation policy. It's been the historic 
disparity by which a number of States have received less back in 
funding than they have invested in the highway trust fund through the 
gas tax. For years, these donor States have fought for more equity and 
a higher minimum rate of return to ensure that they recoup as large a 
slice of their own gas tax dollars as possible.
  This motion would increase the minimum rate of return to 95 percent, 
as passed in the Senate-MAP 21 bill. With the influx of general fund 
moneys to backfill the highway trust fund over the past couple of 
years, this donor/donee State issue has been a bit blurred, but the 
issue going forward can't be ignored.
  This is not a partisan issue, I should mention. It's simply an issue 
of fairness. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion and 
just tell the conferees to not agree to anything that gives States less 
than 95 cents on the dollar for what they pay in. As we know, for years 
and years, there's been this disparity. States like Arizona, 
California, Texas, and Florida, are donor States. Under SAFETEA-LU, the 
minimum rate of return is just 92 cents. These are growing States. Why 
in the world are we giving a dollar and getting 92 cents back?
  This disparity has existed for a long time for a number of reasons. 
One of the primary reasons has been the existence of earmarks along the 
way whereby Members of donor State delegations were convinced to go 
ahead and accept a lower rate of return for their State in exchange for 
moneys to spend however they wanted with regard to earmarks. And that 
has not been a good trade for most donor States.
  When you add up all the Members of the House of Representatives who 
represent donor States, it's over 300. So we can all ban together as 
donor States and say we're not going to sign off on anything that gives 
us less than 95 cents on the dollar.
  Now we all recognize there are reasons why certain States with very 
small populations and very big infrastructure needs might receive more 
than the dollar that they put in. But there is no excuse to, in 
perpetuity, treat States like Arizona and others to a smaller rate of 
return year after year after year.

                              {time}  1510

  It is simply not right. This is simply telling the conferees, agree 
at least to what the Senate is doing. I should note that we're going to 
conference in the House with the extension of SAFETEA-LU which is 92 
cents on the dollar. We're saying just take it up to 95.
  So that's what this motion is about. I would urge my colleagues to 
agree to it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3506]]

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct conferees offered by Mr. Flake, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This motion directs the transportation reauthorization conferees to 
agree to a provision contained in the Senate bill increasing the 
guaranteed minimum percentage rate of return that each State receives 
in Federal aid highway formula funding from 92 percent to 95 percent of 
payments in the highway trust fund collected through gas tax 
contributions in that State.
  This is the same old donor/donee argument that we've been having for 
years, but it is becoming even more ridiculous now that all States are, 
in effect, donee States. Frankly, I'm not quite sure what the realistic 
impact of a 95 percent minimum guarantee would be at this point.
  For several years, general fund revenue has been filling the gap 
between what the highway trust fund can support and current funding 
levels, so now every State gets back more from the program than the 
amount of gas taxes collected in that State. In effect, every State is 
a donee State. In fact, under SAFETEA-LU, under the current formula 
which guarantees 92 percent, Mr. Flake mentioned Texas. Texas gets back 
$1.03 for every dollar it puts in. California, $1.19 for every dollar 
it puts in. There is no State that gets back less than a dollar for a 
dollar. So increasing the guarantee from 92 to 95 percent, frankly, I 
don't understand the point of it.
  The Senate bill continues to fund the program through nongas tax-
related revenue. Unless my colleagues are proposing to raise the gas 
tax, and I don't think they are, this motion is, frankly, meaningless.
  But the idea behind the motion is wrong in any event. It is highly 
irresponsible to pick out and insist upon one factor that affects the 
overall funding distribution to the States without a complete picture 
of how the programs will be funded and apportioned. The Senate did 
raise the minimum percentage to 95 percent, but within an overall 
framework that required that each State get the same percentage of 
funds it got in the last year of SAFETEA-LU. In the Senate bill, all 
States were held harmless.
  The motion to instruct does not insist on adopting the Senate's 
funding structure. It cherry-picks one factor to benefit certain States 
at the expense of others. I would caution against anyone voting for 
something that affects how much transportation funding will go to your 
State without knowing what the ultimate impact will be.
  We know that House Republicans would like a different formula than 
what's in the Senate bill since they took a different approach in H.R. 
7. Depending on how the final bill is structured and what the ultimate 
funding levels are for the program, raising the minimum to 95 percent 
could conceivably result in steep cuts to certain States.
  In TEA 21 and SAFETEA-LU, the last two transportation bills we had, 
we opposed raising the minimum percentage, but ultimately we could live 
with it because the overall funding levels were increased and States 
were held harmless; and even though some States got a lower percentage 
of the funding than they would have gotten without increasing the 
minimum guarantee, they got more money because the pie was bigger. Each 
State got an increase in funding, just not as big an increase as some 
others. Increased funding is highly unlikely in this environment, so 
this type of motion, although probably meaningless in the long run 
because every State gets more than 100 percent right now, is 
potentially dangerous.

  I'm sure that Mr. Flake and others will say it is the principle of 
the matter, that those who contribute to the program deserve to benefit 
from it at the same level. But if that is the principle, why then do 
they just look at the gas tax? If you truly believe in the principle of 
user pays, why shouldn't that same theory apply to all revenue that 
goes into the program? And why apply it just to the highway program?
  For example, my State of New York contributes much more to the 
Federal Government every year than it receives back in Federal 
expenditures. We have a huge balance of deficit with the Federal 
Government, and yet the one area where we get more back is the gasoline 
tax, and so that should be abolished?
  This is not about equity. This is about gaming the system by applying 
this principle to one aspect of one program to benefit certain States 
at the expense of others. And if you follow the logic through, what 
these donor arguments are really saying is that each State should get a 
dollar back for every dollar it puts into the Federal system. If so, 
why do we have a Federal Government at all? I'm sure some of my 
colleagues would be happy to have no Federal role in transportation and 
devolve it completely to the States, but that is not yet the policy of 
the United States Congress, and I would caution my colleagues about 
going too far down that road.
  The fair thing to do is to spend Federal funds where they are needed. 
And by the way, one of things that the current formula has done is to 
say that if a State invests a lot of its own money in efficiency--New 
York, for example, has a spent billions of dollars of its own money 
building up a mass transit system. Because of that, we are very energy 
efficient. We use far less gasoline per capita than other States 
because we have a mass transit system. That helps the country. It 
reduces the amount of petroleum that we have to import. And for that, a 
State that does that should be punished by getting a smaller percentage 
of highway funds because it invested in mass transit? That doesn't make 
sense. We should be encouraging States to invest in energy efficiency.
  The fair thing to do is to spend Federal funds where they're needed. 
We have a national transportation system that benefits everybody. These 
kinds of debates are illogical and divisive, especially when it has no 
practical impact at all because every State is now a donee State. Our 
time would be better spent working together to draft a bill that 
benefits all States. If the purpose of this bill is to create jobs and 
spur economic growth, we should ensure that all States benefit.
  And by the way, we have, this year, a House bill that didn't go 
anywhere. The Senate passed a real transportation bill. The House only 
passed a 90-day extension because the Republicans couldn't agree among 
themselves on a bill. But the bill that they have and they're trying to 
use as the basis of a conference committee--which they cannot do 
legally--air-drops into the conference committee a lot of poison pills 
that will make sure that no comprehensive bill is adopted. It air-drops 
into the conference committee a provision that says that hazmat 
provisions should not apply to certain transportation workers. It air-
drops into the bill a completely unrelated provision about the XL 
pipeline that has nothing to do with the transportation bill.
  If we care about employment, we should pass the Senate bill and we 
shouldn't get involved in side debates over provisions that would be 
unfair if they could be implemented, like this one, but in any event, 
cannot be implemented; because to say that every State should get back 
at least as much as it puts in when every State, in fact, is getting 
back more than it puts in has no practical impact. And I don't 
understand why we are wasting our time, frankly, debating a provision 
and motion to instruct conferees on something that may cause some 
controversy but really will have no practical impact, will affect no 
dollars, will direct no dollars to any State or away from any other 
State at all.
  We should be debating how to finance the overall bill. We should be 
debating how to get more funding for highways, for mass transit, how to 
get our construction workers back to work in this construction season 
to reduce the unemployment rate in this country. That is what we should 
be acting on instead of wasting our time debating entirely theoretical 
questions that have no practical import whatsoever and that are 
philosophically wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. It is an amusing discussion what is a side issue or a 
theoretical issue with no practical application. Sounds just like 
someone who comes from a State that receives more than a dollar for the 
dollar they kick in, and that's exactly the case here. It may seem like 
a side issue or a theoretical issue to somebody else, but it is a very 
real issue if you come from a donor State.

[[Page H3507]]

  I suppose by the same argument, when I got here, I think the rate of 
return was 89 cents. We managed to get it up to 92. That hasn't been 
theoretical. That's very real dollars that come back to a State that 
put more in than they are getting back.
  So you can strip away everything you just heard and realize that the 
argument to keep the disparity going is coming from someone who comes 
from a donee State, a State that is receiving more than they're putting 
in.

                              {time}  1520

  As I mentioned in my opening remarks, because we are backfilling, 
that line is blurred. Everybody is getting back more than they kicked 
in because the general fund is kicking it in. That won't always be the 
case; that better not always be the case. We can't afford for that to 
always be the case.
  So when we go back to the highway trust fund used as it was intended 
to be used, then it's not theoretical at all for a donor State to 
require--and the gentleman keeps mentioning get a dollar for dollar. We 
aren't saying a dollar for dollar, we're saying 95 cents on the dollar.
  Now, the gentleman says what's the purpose of the Federal Government? 
Many of us have introduced legislation to say that what should be sent 
to Washington should be what is required to maintain the interstate 
highway system, the purpose for which the gas tax was put in place to 
begin with. But 18 cents a gallon doesn't need to be sent back because 
so much of it is sent simply by formula back to the States. And when it 
does come back to the States, it's encumbered with things like Davis-
Beacon requirements, other set-asides, mandates and stipulations that 
drive up the cost of construction projects in every State. And so what 
was a dollar you sent to Washington spends like about 70 cents once it 
comes back, and you don't even get that dollar you sent to Washington.
  So the gentleman's point about let's refigure how we do this is well 
taken. And I've introduced legislation, as have several of my 
colleagues, to do just that, turn back proposals to ensure that, yes, 
we still send money to Washington to take care of and to refurbish and 
to replace and to restructure that which is truly interstate. The 
interstate highway system is a wonderful thing, but to just send it to 
Washington to be rewarded with only part of it being sent back, and 
that part of it that is sent back encumbered with so many stipulations 
and mandates that it spends a lot less than a dollar isn't right. So 
the gentleman makes a good point, and I hope that he would join with 
many of us in the legislation to do just that.
  In the meantime, let's at least send a signal to the conferees. We 
all know that these motions to instruct are not binding. All they are 
is a signal from the House to act in a certain way when you get into 
conference. What we're saying here, and I think the message should be 
from the more than 300 Members of this body who represent donor States, 
is let's be treated a little more fairly here. That's all we're asking.
  So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume at 
the moment.
  Mr. Speaker, again, there is no donee State. Arizona, over the last 4 
years or 5 years, got $1.07 for every dollar they put in. There is no 
such thing as a donee State anymore.
  Now, it is true, as Mr. Flake says, that that is because we are 
supplementing the gasoline tax with general funds to maintain the 
highway program, to maintain the mass transit program. He says that it 
better not continue. Well, we have only several choices:
  Number one, we can raise the gasoline tax. I might support that. I 
think most Members of this House probably wouldn't. I'm sure Mr. Flake 
wouldn't support raising the gasoline tax.
  Two, we can fund our transportation system at a totally inadequate 
level and watch that system deteriorate and watch our country become 
less competitive with other countries, which is what we're doing now.
  Three--and the fact is that we funded the last bill at $286 billion, 
SAFETEA-LU. When the Secretary of Transportation under President Bush 
said that we needed at least $375 billion for that time period just to 
keep the system at a system of reasonable repair and reasonable 
efficiency, never mind major new construction. But we did that because 
President Bush said no raising the highway taxes and no funding from 
the general fund, and no use of other revenues.
  If we keep doing that, if we try to maintain the system only on the 
gasoline tax and don't raise the gasoline tax, then that's a declining 
revenue base. It's declining for two reasons: one, because of 
inflation, everything costs more and the same amount of money buys 
less. And, number two, we're becoming more energy efficient. We want to 
become more energy efficient; we want to use less gasoline. And since 
the gasoline tax is a per-gallon tax, not a percentage, if you use less 
gasoline, there's less revenue. So you're going to have less revenue 
every year, and inflation is not going to be negative--it's going to be 
something--how do you maintain your system? You don't. So we either 
have to raise the gasoline tax, or we have to bring in some other 
source of revenue or else watch the entire transportation system of 
this country deteriorate and eventually collapse.
  So we cannot stop supplementing the gasoline tax for transportation 
maintenance unless we raise the gasoline tax. Those are our choices: 
raise the tax or bring in other revenues, as we have been doing on an 
ad hoc basis for the last couple of years. We can't stop doing that 
without raising the gasoline tax or seeing the slow decline and 
eventual collapse of our transportation system. So we're not going to 
do that--I hope we're not going to do that. If we don't do that, this 
motion to instruct is completely meaningless because there's going to 
be no such thing as a donee State--as a donor State, every State gets 
more than it puts in.
  And by the way, let's talk about what it means to put in. The 
question is how much gasoline taxes are collected in one State and how 
much is spent on transportation in that State. There is no principle of 
equity that says they should match. There is no principle of equity 
which says that you should get at least as much, or even 95 cents, or 
any particular percentage of the amount of gasoline taxes collected in 
your State, because there are a lot of other factors.
  It may be that some States, because they are bigger, perhaps, need 
more money spent on highways because there's more distances. It may be 
that some States have invested a lot of money in mass transit and 
therefore are more energy efficient and therefore generate less 
gasoline tax revenue, but that helps the country. They shouldn't be 
penalized for that.
  There are a lot of different factors that go into this. And to simply 
say each State should get back the amount that was collected in a 
gasoline tax is wrong, especially when you consider that there are 
plenty of--why should this one account be the only one? As I said, New 
York State annually says--and I'm quoting New York because I happen to 
know the figure because it's my State--New York State annually sends to 
the Federal Government between $14 billion and $18 billion more in 
taxes of all kinds than is spent in New York.
  Senator Moynihan used to put out that report every year. Is that a 
terrible thing? Well, some people think it is, it's unfair--New York 
ought to pay less taxes, other States ought to pay more taxes. But the 
fact is we have a Federal Union. Taxes ought to be raised where they 
can be raised most equitably and efficiently and the spending ought to 
be done where the spending is necessary. That's what one country means. 
That's why we're one country and Europe isn't.
  So the motion to instruct is wrong theoretically. It does not 
contribute to equity. And it is totally irrelevant for the foreseeable 
future because there is no State that would be affected by this in any 
way as long as the gasoline tax is not supporting the entire 
transportation system, which it is not now or in the foreseeable 
future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  I think we are talking in circles here. The bottom line is those who 
are receiving more than dollar for dollar, once the general fund 
revenue is not supplanting or supplementing what is taken in by the gas 
tax, those who are

[[Page H3508]]

receiving more than a dollar are going to argue to keep the current 
disparity in place. But those of us who represent donor States are 
going to want a better return. That's the bottom line. That's what this 
argument is about.
  And so the more than 300 Members who represent donor States who will 
be coming to this floor soon to vote on this motion, that's all they 
need to remember: let's send a signal to the conferees to give us a 
better shake and to treat us more fairly.
  The gentleman mentions our decaying infrastructure and whatever else 
around the country, and it is abysmal to look and see what's happening. 
But you've got to understand from the perspective of a Representative 
of taxpayers from Arizona who are receiving only 92 cents on the dollar 
that they kick in, why in the world would they tell me, their 
Representative, yeah, go raise the Federal gas tax, we enjoy getting 92 
cents on the dollar and we'd like to get less of that. Instead, if 
Arizona was to impose an additional--raise their own gas tax, they get 
to keep dollar for dollar everything. Plus, it's not encumbered with 
Davis-Bacon requirements and all the other set-asides which raise the 
cost of construction projects.
  And so if the gentleman is wondering why there is resistance around 
the country to raising the Federal gas tax, that's it. People look at 
this disparity and say: Why should we continue to do that? We're 
funding somebody else, or we're funding these inequities. So this is 
what this boils down to: if you're from a donor State, then you're 
going to be saying, hey, let's instruct the conferees to give us a 
better deal than we've had.

                              {time}  1530

  Ninety-two is better than the 89 we were getting a while ago, but 
let's at least take it to 95. That's pretty reasonable here. That's all 
we're asking with this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the argument sounds reasonable, and I have 
no doubt it's going to pass because there are a lot more people here 
from so-called donor States than from donee States, and people are 
going to vote purely on that basis, many of them are. Many people are. 
But it's not equitable. If it were equitable, why don't we apply the 
same principle to other things? Why don't we say that the taxes that 
some States pay for the agriculture program should be reduced because, 
after all, not all States get the same amount of money in the wheat 
subsidy. Some States get a lot more back for agricultural assistance 
than the applicable part of their taxes.
  I remember an argument on the floor a number of years ago in which we 
were debating, I think, funding for the National Endowment for the 
Arts, and Mr. Burton of Indiana was orating against the NEA, and he 
said it's wrong for this reason and that reason and the other reason. 
And anyway, he said, all the money goes to New York and Los Angeles.
  And I got up and I said, you know, Mr. Burton, I'm shocked to 
discover that New York City, with 8.5 million people, doesn't get a 
penny of the wheat subsidy. How fair is that?
  The fact is we don't grow wheat in New York, and the fact is that 
money should be distributed--and I'm not opposed to the wheat subsidy. 
It may be--I'm not an expert on the farm program, but it may be that 
farm States need it, and it may be that other States need other things. 
But we should spend Federal money where it's needed, and we should tax 
it where we can tax it efficiently and equitably. And the two may not 
have the same relationship to each other. And if you start establishing 
this principle that you have to get at least back as much as you put in 
on this thing, in this case, transportation, why not on everything 
else?
  And then you'd say, well, it's very unfair that a given State sends 
more to Washington than it gets back at all. Well, some States do. New 
York does, other States do. Other States get back more than they send 
to Washington, but that's the point of a Federal union.
  So simply to say on any given area that we send--our State sends more 
to Washington or more taxes collected than we get back does not 
demonstrate inequity or equity. There may be good reasons for that. And 
you may want to make an argument that overall the State has a balance 
of payments deficit with the Federal Government, but there may be good 
reasons for that, too.
  When many of these formulas were set up, the educational formula, for 
instance, a lot of States send more money to Washington that gets paid 
back in education, and then they get it back. Other States are the 
other way around, because when the allocation formulas were set up, it 
was deliberately decided that richer States should subsidize poorer 
States. And I'm not sure that was wrong. But the fact is that's the way 
a Federal union operates. And if you want to say a Federal union 
shouldn't operate that way and we should start saying that it's unfair, 
then you're questioning the entire basis of our Constitution, and 
frankly, there's no equity in that, especially when you limit it to one 
subject, to one area.
  Again, what we ought to be debating is not this very interesting 
theory, theoretical thing which has no application in the real world 
because there is no such thing as a donor State right now and it won't 
have any real impact at all, because every State will still get the 
same amount of money under the bill.

  But this highway bill has been in conference for 6 weeks. Last 
Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor reported that more than 2.2 
million construction and manufacturing workers remain out of work, and 
we're in the height of the summer construction season. The highway bill 
has been in conference for 6 weeks and the conferees, of whom I'm one, 
are now wasting precious time as House Republicans are working to air-
drop poison pill provisions that never passed the House into the 
conference report. Without further congressional action, highway and 
transit investments will entirely shut down at the end of the month.
  Why are we wasting time here on this theoretical motion to instruct, 
which has no practical consequences whatsoever, when the conferees are 
being faced by Republican poison pills eliminating occupational safety 
and health protection for hazmat workers, eliminating dedicated funding 
for transportation enhancement projects, expanding truck weights to 
destroy our highways faster? That's what's holding up a highway and 
transportation bill that will get 2 million people back to work. That's 
what we ought to be saying. Let's move this bill instead of wasting our 
time on entirely theoretical questions like this one.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Again, we're having an argument from somebody who represents a State 
that's getting a lot more than they kick in, and that's the bottom 
line. To relate this highway user fee, and it's not a pure user fee 
because we're kicking money back in from the general fund. But it was 
meant to be a user fee. To relate that to funding for the arts or 
whatever is completely an apples and oranges argument. And the notion 
that because one State receives more in agriculture subsidies than 
another, some of us don't like those subsidies at all, and we can have 
that argument on another day.
  But we're talking about the highway trust fund here. It's a trust 
fund that is theoretically supposed to give the States roughly what 
they put in. Now, like I said, I haven't made the argument at all that 
every State gets 100 percent of what they put in. The gentleman may 
have made that argument, but I haven't. What I'm saying is right now 
the minimum guarantee is 92 cents on the dollar. Can't we just get it 
to 95? Is that unreasonable?
  If the gentleman says that the whole concept of this Federal union is 
that States share, I understand that, but does that mean that one State 
should only get 10 percent of what it kicks in? Of course not.
  There's a figure at which, a point at which some States, like my own, 
say, you know, we've been getting 89 cents or 92 cents for decades 
here. At some point, let's do a little better. And Arizona's not the 
only State that feels that way.
  So again, I would ask those of us who are coming to vote on this 
later on, check with your offices if you aren't aware and say, Are we a 
donor State or not?
  Is there a minimum guarantee, 92 cents? Isn't it reasonable that that

[[Page H3509]]

should be brought up to 95 cents? Is it reasonable for a State, in 
perpetuity, to be shorted like that? And I don't think it is.
  I don't think there's any constitutional justification or theoretic 
justification or anything. It's just an issue of fairness here. That's 
all we're asking.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to 
yield back as soon as the gentleman is.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I'll just say one thing. I think we've beaten this dead horse about 
as much as we can.
  Is 95 percent reasonable? It's unreasonable, in my opinion; 92 
percent is unreasonable; 89 percent is unreasonable. There ought to be 
no such figure because money should be allocated where needed and 
should be raised where it can best be raised on the questions of 
equity, efficiency, et cetera.
  And I'll give you one other example. Certain States have coastlines. 
The gulf coast has a lot of hurricanes. We spend a lot of money there. 
Should we say, well, gee, we don't have as many hurricanes. We 
shouldn't spend that percentage of our tax money on hurricane relief in 
the gulf.
  We don't say that because we're one country. We don't say that we 
shouldn't spend money on relief to States that have other natural 
disasters because we don't have those kinds of natural disasters.
  As a general principle, money should be raised, and there's no 
difference because you say it's a user fee. All taxes, in some sense, 
are a user fee. They're the price for civilization, as Mark Twain said.
  And maybe you shouldn't have gasoline taxes. You should finance it 
some other way. That's a whole different discussion.
  Yes, as I said before, I'm quite well aware that people are going to 
come here. They're going to vote, and they're just going to look at are 
they a theoretical donor State or a theoretical donee State and they're 
going to vote on that basis, even though no one is, in fact, a donee 
State right now because everybody gets more than they put in. And this 
will have no practical effect, but some day it might.
  But the fact is that there is no reason to pick the highways as 
against everything else. Some States contribute a lot more in Federal 
taxes than they get back in Federal money, others don't. My State does. 
We don't say it's unfair. We don't say we've got to change the formula.
  Maybe specific formulas ought to be changed for various reasons. 
There are all kinds of reasons for all the formulas. There's a 
different formula for agriculture, a different formula for education, 
different formula for everything. They have all kinds of different 
justifications and different histories. To pick out this one area and 
say this one area, but no other, has to be 95 percent, why not 75 
percent? or 92 percent? It's been going up every time we pass a bill. 
We think it's beyond fair.
  To pick out one particular area and say there's got to be an 
equivalence or a relationship between how much money comes in and how 
much goes out or from where it comes in and goes out, whereas we don't 
do that in the rest of Federal budget, that's not equitable.
  And I wish we were spending our time now not on this theoretical 
discussion--theoretical because it has no practical implication, as I 
said before, because it will not, in fact, affect any State or any 
dollars--instead of dealing with the fact that the Republicans are 
holding up a bill by parachuting poison pills into the conference 
discussion, that's what we ought to be about.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. FLAKE. This has been an interesting discussion. It went about how 
I thought it would.
  Those of us who are donor States want a little fairer shake. That's 
all we're asking. So, to those coming to the floor, check and see where 
your State falls. You'll find that most of you coming to the floor to 
vote are from a donor State, a State that's giving more than it's 
getting. All we're asking for is a fairer shake here. We're not looking 
to solve all the world's problems in all other areas. There are a lot 
of other formulas that should be changed as well, but right now we're 
dealing with this one. Let's ensure that those who fill up their cars 
and spend 18 cents every time they put a gallon in get a little more of 
that back. That's what this is about.
  I urge the adoption of the motion, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct the conferees 
on the transportation conference bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Doggett moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be 
     instructed to recede from disagreement with the provisions 
     contained in section 100201 of the Senate amendment (relating 
     to stop tax haven abuse--authorizing special measures against 
     foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, and others 
     that significantly impede United States tax enforcement).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Grimm) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This transportation conference bill is appropriately focused on the 
transportation systems, on improving them and sustaining them across 
our country. But there is one important provision of this measure, as 
approved by the United States Senate, that deals with transportation 
networks of a different type. Those are the secret networks that lead 
to the exporting of jobs and of revenues that ought to be used in the 
financing of the operations of the essential services and national 
defense of our country.
  This motion is very narrow, very directed. Since that particular 
provision concerning ``stop tax haven abuse'' was not included in the 
House bill, it simply instructs the conferees to recede to the version 
approved by the Senate. This is an important provision. It is a 
provision that will authorize special measures against foreign 
governments and financial institutions. Here is the key language of the 
amendment as adopted by the Senate: ``that significantly impede U.S. 
tax enforcement.''
  This provision will be just one more tool that is available for the 
Treasury to address what some have estimated is as much as $100 billion 
a year that is drained from the United States Treasury as a result of 
offshore tax abuses. These abuses not only undermine public confidence 
in our tax system from all the many law-abiding taxpayers, both 
business and individual taxpayers, but the effect of these abuses is 
that the deficit is raised and that more of the tax burden is shifted 
to individual taxpayers and to small businesses that don't have the 
fancy accountants and attorneys and financial institutions to aid them 
in hiding their revenues.
  As we continue debating how best to deal with our debt and our 
deficits, I believe that a fundamental principle that should apply is 
that, before we ask individual taxpayers or business taxpayers to pay 
additional taxes, we ought to ensure, for those who have abused the 
system and have avoided paying their fair share of taxes, that we have 
the enforcement tools to see that they fulfill their responsibilities.
  I always find it extremely difficult to explain to a mechanic in San 
Marcos or to a small restaurant owner in San Antonio why it is that 
they have to pay a greater proportion--a higher rate--on their taxes 
than some of these multinationals that manage to shift their revenues 
offshore because some bankers or accountants are able to use these tax 
haven banks to hide the accounts in some remote jurisdiction.

[[Page H3510]]

  Over the years, I've fought against this kind of abuse. It took a 
decade, but finally, a couple of years ago, I was successful in getting 
the Economic Substance Doctrine included in other legislation and 
approved in order to strike down phony transactions that were for no 
purpose other than that of tax avoidance. I have other legislation that 
I've offered that deals with schemes that other corporations use to 
siphon off much-needed tax revenue and jobs out of the United States. 
It is a big problem that does not have any one legislative solution, 
but the measure before us that would be encouraged by this motion to 
instruct does provide one tool that would be very useful.
  We know that some foreign banks have peddled a wide array of offshore 
tax shelters, offering to set up paper firms and accounts in places 
like Switzerland, Panama, and the British Virgin Islands. Indeed, in 
2009, the United States sued Swiss Financial Services and the banking 
firm UBS to force the disclosure of the thousands of undeclared assets 
of Americans that were being held in secret accounts abroad.
  Just to get an inkling of how big this problem is, Mr. Speaker and 
colleagues, I will note that at this one bank, at this one Swiss bank, 
it admitted to $18 billion in undeclared assets of American clients 
that could well be taxable. This has cost the United States Treasury 
billions of dollars over the years, and this was just one bank in one 
country. Although a settlement was eventually achieved, I don't think 
we got all of the tax revenues back that we ought to have gotten back. 
This is really just an indication of how rampant this problem is and 
how necessary a provision of this type pending in the conference really 
is.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my colleague's passion, and I understand this is a very 
serious and important matter.
  Leaving aside the goals of the underlying section of the Senate 
version of the bill, I think it's extremely important to say that this 
effort is a distraction from the job at hand, which is to pass a 
transportation bill. I say again: the job at hand is to pass a 
transportation bill that is going to keep this country's vital 
transportation system resilient, robust, and a future contributor to 
economic growth.
  I think it's unfortunate, but it is too often that in Congress 
efforts are made to slip in extraneous sections into bills that have 
nothing to do with the issue at hand, regardless of their merits. In 
this case, the section in question is a tax bill. I say again: it's a 
tax bill, and it's written into a section of existing law under the 
sole jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee, which in turn is 
being considered in, of all things, a highway bill.
  This is why the American people think that there is insanity going 
on. This is merely an attempt to paper over spending without actually 
finding the money to pay for it. This is not how our constituents 
expect us to do business, Mr. Speaker. This proposal could--and it 
should come--before both the Ways and Means and Financial Services 
Committees, where it would get the very serious consideration that it 
deserves.
  The business of this Congress can and must be that of tackling our 
country's enormous fiscal challenges and getting American workers back 
into productive jobs. The best way we as Congress can do that is by 
focusing on the tasks at hand instead of distracting ourselves, and we 
distract ourselves constantly with issues unrelated to our Nation's 
pressing infrastructure needs.

                              {time}  1550

  When it's time to consider tax law and specifically tax evasion, I'm 
confident that the Congress will do the right thing. However, this 
transportation bill is not the right venue for this discussion.
  It's important to note that this is a nonbinding procedural vote. A 
vote for or against this motion does not impact the outcome of the 
conference negotiations. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on this motion to instruct.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  A distraction? A billion dollar distraction. We get a billion dollars 
more transportation out of this measure available for all of the 
States, if we approve this section, which the Senate has adopted.
  A distraction? Tell that to the cleaning crew that pays a higher rate 
of taxes when they clean the corporate board room than the corporation 
does because of these secret tax havens. I think this goes to the core 
of our responsibilities. And, yes, these powerful lobby groups that 
line up their limousines outside the Capitol here, they manage to block 
consideration in these committees, but this Motion brings this 
important matter directly to the floor for action.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Moore), who serves on the Financial Services Committee and understands 
how urgent it is to address this problem.
  Ms. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. I am so pleased to join you here 
today to support this motion to instruct.
  I was, of course, one of the original cosponsors of the Stop Tax 
Haven Abuse Act, which provides the authority for the Treasury to take 
action against foreign governments and financial institutions that 
significantly impede U.S. tax enforcement. Treasury already has similar 
authority to combat money laundering, so the infrastructure and the 
know-how already exist.
  Congress has an opportunity in this transportation bill to transport 
this very important debt reduction initiative into our proceedings here 
today. It will stop sophisticated tax avoidance schemes that add to the 
national debt and ultimately the burden for that debt that honest 
taxpayers must bear and are concerned with.
  In my home State of Wisconsin, it's estimated that every single 
honest taxpayer in Wisconsin paid an extra $372 in taxes in 2011 to 
make up from the revenue lost from corporations, criminals, and wealthy 
individuals utilizing illegal tax-avoidance schemes. These numbers are 
even more offensive for Wisconsin small businesses that pay an 
additional $2,165 due to these abuses of the Tax Code.
  That may not seem like a lot of money to anyone--$372--but you 
multiply that by taxpayers and by 50 States, and according to a GAO 
study, that turns out to be $100 billion. That's a really nice piece of 
change.
  I have heard this Congress often harp on the percentages and the 
numbers of United States taxpayers who are so very low income that they 
have no tax liability, people who make $10,000, $11,000 a year, and are 
so poor that they have no tax liability. Yet 83 of 100 publicly traded 
companies have one of these offshore tax havens and avoid $100 billion 
in tax payments. Compare that with someone trying to get an earned 
income tax credit.
  I've heard from Republicans that this is not germane to the bill. I 
hope you'll remember that when you put some gun provision in every bill 
that comes around or some effort to minimize and take away a woman's 
right to reproductive health in one of your bills, which uses 
transportation for all of those kind of initiatives.
  This is an opportunity to act on the deficit--$100 billion is not 
small change--and to stand up for taxpayers. It is not spending, as the 
gentleman has indicated that it is. All it is is not levying a new tax. 
It's not spending; it's not imposing additional burdens. It just 
empowers our Treasury to stop tax-avoidance schemes.
  Again, thank you so much for this opportunity. I hope my colleagues 
will stand up for honest taxpayers and support this measure.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 21 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 27 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I want to even the time, and perhaps there is someone 
else in the House that actually opposes this motion. I want to allow 
them time to speak. So I would continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRIMM. I am ready to close whenever the gentleman is ready to 
close, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Then, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

[[Page H3511]]

  Apparently, there is no other Member who is willing to come out and 
defend these abusive tax shelters. That says a whole lot about the 
merits of this motion and how essential it is to adopt it.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Peters).
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative 
Doggett's motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4348.
  This is a commonsense measure that would direct the surface 
transportation bill conferees to preserve an amendment offered by 
Senator Carl Levin and agreed to by a voice vote. This provision is 
pulled from the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act legislation which I'm very 
proud to have cosponsored and strongly support. The amendment will give 
the Treasury the power to go after tax cheats by taking action against 
foreign governments or banks that significantly impede U.S. tax 
enforcement.
  Michigan's working families and small businesses already pay their 
fair share in taxes, and they deserve a more just Tax Code. That starts 
with making sure that we close the tax gap and crack down on tax 
cheats.
  It's estimated that corporations and the wealthiest Americans avoid 
paying $100 billion per year by exploiting offshore tax shelters, and 
it's time that we closed these loopholes. When multinational 
corporations and the very wealthy abuse the Tax Code to shelter their 
funds overseas, hardworking Americans and small business owners are 
left to pick up the tab. These same multinational companies and wealthy 
individuals enjoy taking advantage of American infrastructure and 
markets, but they don't come close to paying their fair share in taxes.
  Senator Levin's amendment and Representative Doggett's motion to 
instruct represent a significant step in the right direction. This 
measure has real teeth. And by enabling the Treasury to bar U.S. banks 
from honoring credit cards issued by institutions harboring tax cheats, 
we can gain leverage over these institutions and tax havens.
  Based on the $100 billion tax gap that we see every year, the average 
tax filer in Michigan is now paying over $300 in additional taxes each 
and every year, and the average small Michigan business is paying over 
$1,500 in additional taxes. This is simply unacceptable, and it must be 
stopped.
  I'm committed to continuing the fight for tax policies that put 
middle class and working Americans first, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Doggett motion to instruct.
  Mr. GRIMM. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas has 
anymore speakers.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, we do.
  I would like to inquire if the gentleman from New York has anyone to 
defend opposition to this measure.
  Mr. GRIMM. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a truly amazing debate. The motion is a narrow 
one asking that the House simply join with Republicans and Democrats in 
the United States Senate to include within this transportation bill a 
provision that will yield about an additional billion dollars for the 
repair of bridges, for the construction of transportation systems 
around the country.

                              {time}  1600

  It will do so not by raising taxes or the tax rate on anyone, not 
even by closing one of the many outrageous loopholes that exist in our 
tax law that allow some to gain advantage because of the power of their 
lobbyists and their accountants to write special provisions into the 
law and then exploit those provisions. No, it doesn't do any of that. 
It simply gives a tool to our law enforcement to enforce existing laws 
and to say that you cannot violate the law. Here is a way for the 
Treasury Department to enforce the laws effectively.
  As the gentlewoman from Wisconsin pointed out, there is an 
infrastructure in place upon which this amendment properly builds and 
which Senator Carl Levin, who is the author of this amendment to the 
Transportation bill, and who has been a national leader in fighting tax 
abuse, built on by drawing this provision from legislation that he and 
I have filed independent of this bill, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act.
  Special law enforcement provisions are granted by the PATRIOT Act 
with respect to money-laundering concerns. If the Secretary of the 
Treasury finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a 
foreign government or a financial institution is involved in money 
laundering, the Secretary may impose special measures. That's exactly 
what this provision would do now for those that are involved in 
substantial tax abuse.
  This particular PATRIOT Act provision has been used sparingly by the 
Treasury. It has not been abused. It was used, for example, against the 
country of Burma. It has been used to stop financial firms for 
laundering funds through the United States financial system. Other 
times, the Treasury has pinpointed its measures against a single 
problem financial institution to stop laundered funds from entering the 
United States.
  The Stop Tax Haven Abuse provision that is included in this 
transportation bill and, which is now under consideration by the 
conference would empower the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same 
types of tools it currently has to deal with those that significantly 
impede U.S. tax enforcement.
  In addition to the existing measures available, it would also give 
the Treasury the authority to block U.S. banks from honoring credit or 
debit cards from foreign entities that are primarily money-laundering 
concerns or that significantly hamper U.S. tax enforcement. Because of 
these sanctions, the Treasury will have an added tool needed to end 
offshore tax abuses that allow tax cheats to profit at the expense of 
honest taxpayers.
  The amendment would confer discretionary authority upon the Treasury. 
The Treasury does not have to use this authority; but it has a new 
tool, when needed, to address these abuses. These special measures 
offer the Treasury necessary flexibility in dealing with tax dodgers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GRIMM. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I would observe how extraordinary it is that there are those just 
like these secret accounts held in abusive places abroad, there are 
those in the wings of the Capitol that oppose this measure and don't 
want to end tax abuse, but they are unwilling to come to this floor and 
speak about it. One person who is willing to come to the floor to speak 
about it is the victorious Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. I am honored to 
have him join me. He has worked with me in the House Ways and Means 
Committee to speak against this type of abuse.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. I think that this is a very important amendment. We 
talked about reining in tax cheats, and that's what we're talking about 
here. Given the relationship between offshore tax avoidance--and we've 
seen chapter and verse of how people avoid taxes--I want everybody in 
this room to understand when they avoid taxes, that means those who pay 
taxes have to pay more to make up the difference. We're talking here 
about a billion dollars to help tackle the Nation's deficit and debt if 
we follow up on the specifics of this legislation.
  We have tax avoidance, and I don't think anybody supports tax 
avoidance unless you like being taxed more yourself. Tax evasion, the 
actual attempts to avoid paying specific taxes--in other words, you 
know what the law is--evasion is a very conscious act, whether it's 
done by an individual or a business.
  Money laundering, we have heard that phrase, which is referred to 
many practices and activities, that's serious business.
  As my brother from Staten Island remembers, the FBI looks into a lot 
of money laundering. You worked for the FBI and did a stellar job. 
Money laundering is critical. When money is laundered, the average 
American gets hurt and the specific connection is very, very ominous.
  This is a natural fit, Mr. Speaker, to combat financial crime.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

[[Page H3512]]

  Mr. PASCRELL. Treasury could prohibit U.S. banks from accepting wire 
transfers or honoring credit cards from banks found to significantly 
hinder U.S. tax enforcement. We all support, I would hope, in this 
body, enforcement of the tax law. As much as we have derided the IRS 
and its efficiencies and proficiencies, think if we had fewer people in 
the IRS overseeing these transfers. I don't recommend that; I don't 
recommend that at all.
  This amendment will give the Treasury greater power to fight against 
offshore tax havens and tax cheats. The counter-argument, my friend, 
through the Speaker, from New York, I want you to pay particular 
attention to this. This is my final point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. You can say you're giving the government more power. 
Why are we so frightened to give oversight to government? This is what 
got us into a big jam in the last 20 years when there was very little 
oversight over financial transactions.
  We need to have more power for the Federal Government to fight 
against offshore tax havens and tax cheats because the bottom line is, 
if we don't, then more of the burden is placed upon us.
  Mr. GRIMM. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I would hope that everyone would support this motion 
to instruct because I think you probably know that nothing annoys 
American taxpayers more than the notion that offshore tax havens is a 
place for tax cheats to go so that they don't have to pay their taxes 
that normal Americans, everyday Americans, have to pay to the 
government.
  This amendment will give the Treasury greater power to fight against 
offshore tax havens and tax cheats, that will allow the Treasury 
Department to take a range of measures against foreign governments and 
financial institutions that significantly stand in the way of U.S. tax 
enforcement.
  These special measures already exist for Treasury in combating money 
laundering by foreign governments and banks, money that could be used 
to finance terrorist activities. Now Treasury will have greater power 
to investigate offshore tax abusers and tax abuses and crack down on 
offenders and banks that aid them.
  For example, Treasury could prohibit U.S. banks from accepting wire 
transfers or honoring credit cards from banks found to significantly 
hinder U.S. tax enforcement.

                              {time}  1610

  Treasury can impose conditions on foreign banks and prohibit them 
from opening or maintaining bank accounts within the United States that 
are significantly standing in the way of U.S. tax enforcement. Enacting 
this amendment makes our tax system fairer and helps reduce the 
deficit.
  This is a commonsense amendment that could raise nearly $1 billion to 
help tackle the Nation's deficit and debt. The provision ends offshore 
tax abuses without raising any taxes, without creating any new 
obligations for Americans, and without amending the Tax Code. We need 
to crack down on foreign governments and foreign banks that help 
privileged individuals and corporations dodge taxes while the rest of 
Americans have to shoulder the extra tax burden. This amendment does 
that.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 9\1/2\ minutes, 
and the gentleman from New York has 27 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Does the gentleman from New York anticipate that he will 
have any further speakers this afternoon?
  Mr. GRIMM. We have no more speakers. I'm prepared to close.
  Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman is ready to close, I will use the 
balance of my time. I believe I have the right to close on the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIMM. I would like to emphasize my friend from New Jersey 
mentioned how money laundering is a very serious matter. Everyone here 
had a lot of passion. There's no question tax evasion and the things we 
spoke about here today are of the utmost importance and are extremely 
serious. I agree. And that's why I stand today in opposition, because 
the committees of jurisdiction should be given the opportunity and the 
respect to hear these arguments and to look and make sure that 
everything is done procedurally correct. This is such a serious matter 
that I believe it warrants being in order.
  Again, I want to emphasize that I'm not here to debate the merits. 
I'm simply here to say that we have two committees of jurisdiction, two 
very good committees, one of which I sit on: The Financial Services 
Committee and Ways and Means. They should have the opportunity to do 
their jobs. And I think that's what the American people and our 
constituents demand of us. I believe that in this case, because it is 
so serious and because it involves very serious amounts of money, money 
laundering and tax evasion and so on, that regular order should be 
demanded.
  With that, again, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on this motion to instruct and stick with the process of regular order 
and give the committees of jurisdiction the proper respect they deserve 
so this can have the full hearings necessary and all take place in 
debate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate there's only one 
thing that both sides agree upon, and that is that this transportation 
bill ought to move forward, and move forward expeditiously.
  This transportation bill has not moved forward expeditiously because 
of obstruction here in the House. It should have become law long ago--
months ago, perhaps years ago--so that we could deal with the 
infrastructure problems in this country and deal with the jobs that 
could be created by doing the hard work of building things that we need 
in order to strengthen our economy and improve job growth in the 
private sector. That's where the agreement begins and that's where the 
agreement ends, because the basic position of the gentleman in coming 
to oppose this motion is to present no argument, on the merits, as to 
why this provision that the Senate has already adopted, with Republican 
and Democratic Senate support combined, should not become law.
  Let me tell you a little of the perspective I bring to this.
  About 10 days ago, I went one business to another across San Antonio. 
I was at a tire shop. They put on wheels, tires, rims on cars and 
pickups. It's hot, dirty work. They struggle to make a living. They 
work long hours. They work odd hours. They're not air-conditioned. 
They've got to deal with local regulations, government at all levels, 
pay their taxes, meet their payroll, take care of their sick workers.
  I was down the street from there at a tamale factory. A woman had a 
great idea and expanded it so that she's selling tamales all over 
America, and they're great. It was a good way to begin the day to eat 
some of her tamales.
  Those folks are working hard to make a living and they're like some 
of the folks with Startup America, the small tech companies that I have 
represented in Austin, and now increasingly in San Antonio, that have 
an idea. One group I talked to, their office was at a local coffee shop 
until they were asked to leave. They sat there with their computers. 
They came up with an idea, and now they have multiple employees in a 
new startup.
  Why is it that those kind of businesses, whether it's putting on tire 
rims on a pickup truck or a startup tech company, ought to have to pay 
a higher rate of taxes than some company that can afford to link up 
with a foreign bank and a big CPA firm and hide their revenues in a 
bank in Switzerland or in Panama or in the Cayman Islands?
  It cries out that this Congress would correct that injustice. And the 
fact that that injustice is not being corrected by this Congress tells 
us so much about the broader problems that we have here in Washington. 
If you just watched the last hour of this debate, you should be aware 
of people that linger around this Capitol whispering in

[[Page H3513]]

the corridors, hiding in the shadows, coming out only at campaign time, 
when now, under the campaign rules, they can pour unlimited amounts of 
secret corporate money into their favorite candidate, and they decide 
that we haven't had enough process on this issue.
  Let me tell you, it took 10 years to get a small provision added 
through the Ways and Means Committee to simply say you can't go out and 
do a transaction simply for the purpose of dodging taxes; it has to 
have some actual ``economic substance.'' Ten years in which some 
avoided paying their fair share because of an unjustified loophole.
  My little company down there in San Antonio that changes tires all 
day, they've probably never been to Switzerland, much less considered 
hiring a bank in Switzerland to help them hide their revenues that they 
worked so hard to earn and which some of these companies involved in 
these abusive transactions just consider to be rather routine.
  You say, well, this is just academic; surely people can't get away 
with this stuff. Let me tell you what they're getting away with.
  I pointed out already that with regard to one bank in Switzerland, 
UBS, they finally had to disclose $18 billion--that's billion with a 
B--$18 billion of assets of United States citizens sitting there in 
hidden accounts in that bank. There were some 50,000 such accounts that 
UBS had to disclose. Eventually, they had to pay over $700 million in 
fines. But they're not the only bank that is involved. Currently, the 
Treasury has under investigation 11 Swiss banks. There's one bank that 
is under Federal indictment.
  This is not an academic problem. It's academic only to those who talk 
about process instead of solutions. We have a serious problem that 
undermines the confidence in our government and in our system of tax 
collection.
  Why should somebody who's out there struggling at that tire rim 
company or that tech startup or just a working family that's out there 
trying to make ends meet with two people, some working overtime, some 
working the night shift in order to provide the food and fiber that 
their family needs to survive, why should they have to comply with our 
tax laws when you have these kind of companies that could afford the 
special treatment, that can afford the lobbyists to block measures like 
this engaged in abuse?
  So today I would say to you that there is an opportunity for this 
House to make itself clear on this issue. Yes, we want to move a 
transportation bill. And while Republicans have told us we can have 
transportation without really paying for it, we have a measure adopted 
by the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis, that will provide us a 
billion dollars more of the transportation we need.
  But we not only get that additional transportation, we have an 
opportunity today to make our position clear to all of the people of 
America:
  Do you stand on the side of preventing abuse, do you stand on the 
side of equity and fairness to all American taxpayers, or do you want 
special treatment? Do you want the few, the privileged, to continue to 
enjoy the privilege of the connivance that goes on between some of 
these folks and their lobbyists and their accountants and their high-
powered lawyers to get advantages that most Americans don't have or 
want?

                              {time}  1620

  As far as I'm concerned, almost no matter what the topic is on this 
floor of this House, that's the basic issue involved: whether there 
will be equity and fairness that gives Americans confidence in this 
system of government, in this democracy, or whether it again and again 
will be subverted--and in this case, with one Member coming to offer an 
objection to the motion, not because the matter doesn't have merit, but 
because it hadn't been studied enough. We have studied this problem to 
death. It cries out for an answer today, and this motion is a narrow 
way of answering it.
  It won't solve all of the problems. There will still be ways that 
these special interests will find to dodge and avoid their fair share 
of taxes. But it will close one abuse. It will give our law enforcement 
authorities one more tool to deal with criminal tax evasion. I believe 
we ought to adopt this very narrow measure and write it into the laws 
of the United States. Send this bill that has been lingering for so 
long to the President to be signed, and include in it the fact that 
this Congress did at least one little thing to address the inequities, 
the special privileges and advantages that the few enjoy here in 
Washington. Say ``no'' to unjustified privileges, and ``yes'' to prompt 
action on this transportation bill, and include that $1 billion of 
additional transportation revenues.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to instruct and to do it 
promptly today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________