[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 170 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8479-H8484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FULL UTILIZATION OF THE HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND ACT

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2440) to provide for the use of funds in the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund for the purposes for which the funds were 
collected and to ensure that funds credited to the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund are used to support navigation, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2440

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Full Utilization of the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act''.

     SEC. 2. USE OF HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND TO SUPPORT 
                   NAVIGATION.

       Section 210 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2238) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``authorization of 
     appropriations'' and inserting ``funding for navigation''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
     Amounts made available from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     under this section or section 9505 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 shall be made available in accordance with 
     section 251(b)(2)(H) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.

     SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (26 U.S.C. 9505 note; 106 Stat. 4851) is amended--

[[Page H8480]]

       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and annually thereafter,'' and inserting 
     ``and annually thereafter concurrent with the submission of 
     the President's annual budget request to Congress,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Public Works and Transportation'' and 
     inserting ``Transportation and Infrastructure''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) A description of the expected expenditures from the 
     trust fund to meet the needs of navigation for the fiscal 
     year of the budget request.''.

     SEC. 4. HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND DISCRETIONARY SPENDING 
                   LIMIT ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--
       ``(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution making 
     appropriations for a fiscal year is enacted that specifies an 
     amount for harbor maintenance activities, then the 
     adjustments for that fiscal year shall be the total of such 
     amount in that Act for such purpose for that fiscal year, but 
     may not exceed the total amount within the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund under subsection (a) of section 9505 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on the last day of the fiscal 
     year that is two years prior to that fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--The adjustment under clause (i) with 
     respect to an amount made available for harbor maintenance 
     activities may only be made if such amount--

       ``(I) is derived solely from funds in such Trust Fund; and
       ``(II) is made available for expenditures described under 
     subsection (c) of such section 9505.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2440, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a long time coming. Ronald Reagan worked 
with the Democratic Congress and passed a tax, a tax paid by every 
American, Americans in Arkansas and every other State. Every time you 
buy an imported good that came through a container into our country, 
you pay a minuscule sales tax. Most Americans don't know that, but 
Congress is well aware of it. And for decades, Congress has been 
stealing that money.
  The money was intended to maintain our harbors and our ports, 
critical to a maritime nation, critical to our competitiveness in the 
world economy. And our ports are in pathetic condition around the 
Nation.
  As we hear so much about our crumbling infrastructure, the surface 
bill that I am working on--our wastewater, our drinking water--we don't 
have any money. Well, here we have the money. We actually have the 
money. We have taken it from the American people. They have paid that 
tax, but Congress is stealing it and not applying it to harbors.
  This has been a bipartisan problem over the years. It was Republicans 
and Democrats who created this program, and it has been Democratic 
administrations and Republican administrations that have been diverting 
these needed funds.
  On a daily basis, our largest ports have only about 38 percent of 
their authorized capacity. That means longer lines of ships out to sea 
and more costs in the movement of goods and particularly for our 
exports.
  I will note that this bill is strongly supported by the Senator from 
Alabama, Senator Shelby, and Senator Shelby supports it because of the 
need to export from his State. And guess what? A bunch of those exports 
come from the State of Arkansas.
  Why would someone from that State where half of their soybean crop is 
exported, where they have $3.1 billion in agricultural exports, be 
opposed to more efficiently moving their goods out of the country and 
adding costs to their farmers? I don't understand.
  But there are some people inland who think ports don't affect them. 
Ports affect every single American every day. Goods that are imported 
cost more when our harbors aren't dredged properly. And our trade 
deficit grows when we are not competitive in the world economy.
  I started working on this 23 years ago with a guy named Bud Shuster. 
His son, Bill Shuster, succeeded him as chairman of that committee over 
the last 6 years before we took back over the House. Twice we moved 
that bill out of the committee unanimously, including provisions to 
spend the harbor maintenance tax on harbor maintenance.
  Now, that is a radical idea to some people inside the beltway in 
Washington, D.C., people who just have their focus right here in 
Washington. They are not focused on the Nation, the needs of the 
Nation, the needs of their farmers, the needs of others who are 
exporting and importing goods, about a great maritime Nation that is 
falling behind, that isn't going to be ready to accept the largest new 
ships because we don't have the money to dredge the harbors.
  Well, we have the money. $10 billion of it is sitting over in the 
Treasury, but there are those here who do not want to spend that money 
on its lawful purpose. They will say, oh, my God, it breaks the budget 
caps. Really? The budget caps?
  The deficit this year was $397 billion higher than when President 
Obama left office. Now, who has been in charge the last 2 years? Who 
wrote those budgets to put us up to nearly $1 trillion? And now we are 
going to say we can't afford to dredge our harbors, that we should just 
shut them down.
  Shut them down. Let them silt in. Let the jetties decay. No, we can't 
afford it.
  We can afford it. This is one place with bipartisan support where we 
can meet our infrastructure needs without raising a new tax on the 
American people.
  This administration actually had some concern about the underspending 
of the tax and the diversion of the money to the Treasury, so the 
President's budget proposed to cut the tax instead of dealing with our 
harbors and saying let's spend the money. But that was written by Mick 
Mulvaney, the President's Chief of Staff, and OMB.

                              {time}  1515

  The President himself, when I was in a meeting with him discussing 
infrastructure and I said, ``We have $10 billion, Mr. President, 
sitting in the bank ready to be spent on infrastructure needs at our 
ports,'' he turned to Larry Kudlow and he says, ``Spend that money.''
  That is where the President stands. That is where Senator Shelby 
stands. He has been trying to get it into any and every bill moving 
into the Senate. Every one of these budget deals, he is trying to get 
it in.
  So here today we are going to hear arguments that we can't afford to 
spend the taxes that have been taken from the American people on the 
purpose for which it was intended. I do not agree with that argument.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2019.
     Hon. Peter A. DeFazio,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman DeFazio: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 2440, the Full Utilization of 
     the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act. H.R. 2440 contains 
     provisions that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Budget. However, the committee agrees to 
     waive formal consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on the Budget takes this action with the 
     mutual understanding that we do not waive any jurisdiction 
     over the subject matter contained in this or similar 
     legislation, and the committee will be appropriately 
     consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation 
     moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues 
     within our jurisdiction. The committee also reserves the 
     right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference 
     convened on this legislation or similar legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made.
       In particular, the committee should be involved in any 
     discussions regarding creation of adjustments to 
     discretionary spending limits and how they relate to the 
     appropriate level for overall discretionary spending limits.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding,

[[Page H8481]]

     and I ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this 
     matter be included in the committee report on H.R. 2440 and 
     in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of 
     H.R. 2440.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                     John Yarmuth,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2019.
     Hon. John Yarmuth,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Yarmuth: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2440, the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund Act. I appreciate your decision to waive formal 
     consideration of the bill.
       I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid 
     jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important 
     legislation, and I further agree that by forgoing formal 
     consideration of the bill, the Committee on the Budget is not 
     waiving any jurisdiction over any relevant subject matter. 
     Additionally, I will support the appointment of conferees 
     from the Committee on the Budget should a House-Senate 
     conference be convened on this legislation. Finally, this 
     exchange of letters will be included in the Congressional 
     Record should the bill be considered on the floor.
       Thank you again and I look forward to continuing to work 
     collaboratively with the Committee on the Budget on this 
     important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A. DeFazio,
                                                            Chair.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, to no surprise of my 
friend from Oregon. Let me help him a little bit with how I give 
opposition in context.
  As the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is not 
possible for me just to consider how we are going to get soybeans out 
of Arkansas as the sole limiting factor on how we budget. It is 
important, it is important to my producers, but at the end of the day, 
we are $23 trillion in debt. The deficit this year, to add to that $23 
trillion, is expected to approach $1 trillion. H.R. 2440 would disrupt 
the recently enacted budget agreement.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that we did months of negotiation on some 
agreement to keep the government open and operating. This body 
established discretionary spending caps for the next 2 years with the 
passage of the bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. The bill before us today 
breaches that law; it increases that deficit.
  So my question is: What was the point of us going through that 
arduous process of negotiating a bipartisan, bicameral agreement with 
the President so that, just 3 months later, we could shoot a $10 
billion hole in it?
  This bill would increase the deficit by up to $10 billion, which I 
believe is unacceptable, given our fiscal condition.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual deficit this 
year will be $1 trillion, adding to the already $23 trillion in debt.
  Now, let me be clear. I acknowledge that there are structural 
budgetary challenges associated with the harbor maintenance trust fund. 
They need to be fixed. I think everyone agrees that this is not fair 
that our shippers are required to pay a tax for harbor maintenance but 
then the funds can't be spent on the very service they are supposed to 
provide. That, we can agree on.
  The work that is done on our ports is critical to both American jobs 
and the economy. We need to fix the flaws in the maintenance trust fund 
to ensure this essential work can be done; however, this bill is not 
the answer. It is not a long-term solution. It is just a quick fix.
  I would like to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to 
assess not only the harbor maintenance trust fund, but also all 
government trust funds to evaluate their funding mechanisms to ensure 
they make sense and operate as intended.
  H.R. 2440 is merely an effort to spend more money without offsets, 
bust the caps, resulting in an increase to the deficit of about $10 
billion.
  There is also a determined opposition in the United States Senate. 
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Enzi and I have released the following 
joint statement in opposition to H.R. 2440. It reads:

       The bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased spending 
     caps for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, was enacted less than 3 
     months ago. Instead of prioritizing additional funding for 
     harbor maintenance activities under this agreement, H.R. 2440 
     would further increase spending by as much as $10 billion 
     over the next 2 years. This approach is irresponsible. It 
     would not provide a lasting solution. With annual deficits in 
     excess of $1 trillion for the foreseeable future, Congress 
     should be focused on reducing the deficit rather than 
     increasing it.

  Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 2440 is fiscally irresponsible, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, ``So we can't do it now. We would like to do it another 
time.'' I have heard that on the floor for the last 6 years when we did 
the Water Resources Development Act that came bipartisan and unanimous 
out of the Transportation Committee when the Republicans chaired it and 
this year when I chaired it, bipartisan out of the committee. ``We will 
fix it later, because the technical Budget Act is going to be violated 
and the caps are going to be violated.''
  Well, I would observe that I believe the gentleman was here and the 
gentleman voted for the tax cuts. And in that, when Obama left office, 
we had a deficit of $587 billion. This year, it is $984 billion due to, 
principally, the tax cuts.
  So waive all the rules when it comes to cutting taxes, but when it 
comes to taking a tax--and it isn't just collected from the shippers. 
Every American pays more for every imported good that comes through a 
port, with the intention, in a bill signed by Ronald Reagan, that that 
money would be spent to maintain those harbors.
  As I pointed out, this has been a bipartisan problem: Clinton, Bush, 
Obama, all of them. And even the budgets proposed by Mick Mulvaney in 
the name of the President would further cut harbor maintenance. So we 
would continue to collect the tax from the American people for harbor 
maintenance and continue to divert it over here.
  How can you increase the deficit in any rational world when you are 
spending taxes that have already been collected, that are deposited in 
the Treasury of the United States and can only be spent on harbor 
maintenance, and you are not spending them? That is increasing the 
deficit? Seriously? Oh, come on.
  Now, I would note that, in a rare moment, we have a list here of 70 
organizations who support this legislation, including the Association 
of General Contractors of America, who are going to key-vote this 
issue. They realize how critical this is for the future of the American 
economy, a great maritime nation. The Association of General 
Contractors will key-vote this issue.
  We also have the National Grain and Feed Association and a long list 
of others on here who support this.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of supporters of H.R. 
2440.

     Supporters of H.R. 2440, the ``Full Utilization of the Harbor 
                      Maintenance Trust Fund Act''

                      (Updated: October 28, 2019)

       American Association of Port Authorities, American 
     Association of State Highway, Transportation Officials, 
     American Great Lakes Ports Association, American Petroleum 
     Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, Associated 
     General Contractors of America, Association of Equipment 
     Manufacturers, Big River Coalition, Boat U.S., Cedar Bayou 
     (Texas) Navigation District, Columbia River Bar Pilots, 
     Columbia River Pilots, Columbia River Steamship Operators 
     Association, Dredging Contractors of America, Florida Ports 
     Council, Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition, Gulf Ports 
     Association.
       High Line Grain Growers, International Liquid Terminals 
     Association, Lake Carriers' Association, National Association 
     of Manufacturers, National Association of Waterfront 
     Employers, National Conference of State Legislatures, 
     National Grain and Feed Association, National Marine 
     Manufacturers Association, New York Shipping Association, The 
     Northwest Seaport Alliance (NWSA), Oregon Coastal Caucus, 
     Oregon Public Ports Association, Pacific Northwest Waterways 
     Association, Port of Alsea, OR; Port of Arlington, OR; Port 
     of Astoria, OR; Port of Bandon, OR; Port of Brookings Harbor, 
     OR.
       Port of Cascade Locks, OR; Port of Chinook, OR; Port of 
     Cleveland, OH; Port of Columbia County, OR; Port of Coos Bay, 
     OR; Port of Corpus Christi, TX; Port of Depot Bay, OR; Port 
     of Garibaldi, OR; Port of Gold Beach, OR; Port of Hood River, 
     OR; Port of Ilwaco, OR; Port Isabel-San Benito Navigation 
     District, TX; Port of Kalama, WA; Port

[[Page H8482]]

     of Long Beach, CA; Port of Los Angeles, CA; Port of Morgan 
     City, LA; Port of Morrow, OR; Port of Nehalem, OR.
       Port of Newport, OR; Port of Oakland, CA; Port of Portland, 
     OR; Port of Port Orford, OR; Port of Seattle, WA; Port of 
     Skagit, WA; Port of Siuslaw, OR; Port of The Dalles, OR; Port 
     of Toledo, OR; Port of Umatilla, OR; Port of Umpqua, OR; Port 
     of Whitman County, WA; Portland Cement Association; Texas 
     Ports Association; Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO, 
     United Grain Co., WA; United States Maritime Alliance.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. So, we can talk a lot about making a major investment in 
infrastructure. We have been hung up on how are we going to pay for 
service, transportation; 47,000 bridges need repair or replacement; 40 
percent of the National Highway System is deteriorated to the point we 
have to rebuild it, not just recoat it; and there is a $100 billion 
backlog in transit just to bring it up to a state of good repair.
  Those are just the needs in surface. Then you go to wastewater. Then 
you go to airports. Then you go to drinking water.
  But guess what? For every single one of those things, we are going to 
have to raise revenues one way or another.
  But this one thing, the need to invest in our harbors, we have the 
money. It is sitting in the bank, and we are being told, because of the 
budget caps, it can't be spent. Seriously?
  The President himself said, when I was there, ``Spend that money.'' 
So if we get the bill through the House, if they don't derail it and it 
gets through the Senate, the President will sign it, plain and simple.
  This is common sense outside the beltway, but just budget weirdness 
inside.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, in our process, it is not as simple as ``just spend the 
money.'' It has to go through a process. We call it the appropriations 
process, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware of it, having served on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Here is the deal: The budget agreement is indifferent as to the 
source of that money, whether it is a harbor maintenance trust fund 
issue or whether it is spending that is borrowed from China or from the 
international bond market. It is indifferent to it. It goes through the 
same process.
  This blows a $10 billion hole in the deficit that is just 3 months 
away from the agreement that we had 3 months ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Stewart), my friend and my colleague on the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise with my friend, Mr. 
Womack, to speak in opposition to H.R. 2440, the Full Utilization of 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act.
  And why? Because that is a fair thing to say. If you are going to 
impose something, tell us why, because this bill would break the 
spending caps that this body agreed to just a few months ago.
  Now, this is laughably unacceptable.
  I also need to point out, and I know this is going to shock many 
people, that the budget caps we agreed to were hardly a model of fiscal 
discipline. Quite the contrary, they were very liberal, very generous.
  Now, look, I have no problem with this particular funding. I want to 
be clear on that. I have no problem with this particular funding. It 
may be a very wise use of taxpayers' money, but if it is true, then 
have the courage to stand up and say: ``This is how we are going to 
fund it. This is how we are going to pay for it.''
  Adjustments to the agreed spending caps adversely impact our ability 
to monitor discretionary spending by allowing funding to come outside 
of the caps rather than within the base budget.
  Again, while it may be true that this trust fund needs to be fixed, 
this is not the way to address the issue, by adding nearly $10 billion 
to what is a $22.5 trillion deficit. For our children and our 
grandchildren, this is not the way to move forward.
  Now, I want to mention one other final and, experience would show, 
certainly, a reasonable fear, and that is this: H.R. 2440 sets a 
dangerous precedent for other programs looking to operate also outside 
of the spending caps. If we bust the caps for this, then what other 
reasonable programs must we fund outside of the budget caps?
  Everyone has a special program they want to fund. Everyone has got a 
sacred cow that they want to fund. Sadly, there are no more cows in 
Heaven, because all the sacred cows are down here in Congress trying to 
find a way to be funded.
  We must remain defiant toward adding onto our already existing and, 
as it has been pointed out, including by our friend in the opposition, 
existential threat from runaway spending. I stand in opposition to 
that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) 
would just stand there for a moment, I will yield him some time for a 
colloquy.
  Name another program with a dedicated tax where we are diverting the 
money over to the Treasury instead of spending it on a well-documented 
need. Just name another program where we do that.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to research that for the 
gentleman. There may be some.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would research that. He can't name one.
  Mr. Speaker, we are taking this money. It is a sales tax. The 
American people are paying it. It is like some of you live in sales tax 
States. I don't live in a sales tax State, but my people are still 
paying this sales tax on imported goods, and they expect the money, as 
Ronald Reagan signed that bill, to be spent on maintaining our harbors. 
And I can list the needs in my harbors that aren't being met today 
because the Corps of Engineers are underfunded. But we are hearing, 
``We can't do this.'' And the other argument here is: This busts the 
caps and it breaks the agreement.
  No. All of this money which has been taken from the American people 
and deposited in the Treasury is subject to appropriation. So it gives 
discretion to the appropriators to determine whether or not we will 
finally honor our compact with the American people and spend the harbor 
maintenance tax on harbor maintenance, not on illusory deficit 
reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to address the gentleman's 
question.
  There are a number of different areas where we actually collect 
money. The LWCF is one of those. $900 million a year comes from oil 
producers. It is supposed to be spent on something, but it goes back to 
the Treasury.
  So if we went into a colloquy back and forth, I will be glad to do 
that with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  That being said, Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate. The ranking 
member is exactly right. This is the only place you can exceed an 
unlimited budget by $10 billion.
  We have agreed to something, and all of a sudden what happens is now 
they start to push back. They start to push back because you know what? 
This priority wasn't included in the budget caps deal.
  It is amazing that my colleague opposite now is, all of a sudden, 
becoming a fiscal conservative. So I will give him an honorary 
invitation to join the Freedom Caucus.

                              {time}  1530

  It is amazing how fiscally conservative some of the Members opposite 
get when it comes to some special project that they want to overlook.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say, the truth here today is that not only 
do we need to be fiscally responsible for the American taxpayer, but we 
need to start showing some fiscal restraints here in this body. 
Eventually, you run out of other people's money, and I think that day 
is now.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from the gentleman. 
He is right that we are underspending the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, but it is not a tax assessed individually on the American people 
as a sales tax. It is fees paid by the oil and gas industry, which you 
can say: Oh, they are having to pay a fee to use Federal land,

[[Page H8483]]

to take and extract a resource. Therefore, it is not quite the same 
thing.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Oregon is suggesting 
that we do not pay for that fee in the ultimate gas tax that we--you 
know, he is the chairman of the Transportation Committee. As anybody 
knows, he would know that it is embedded in part of that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Federal gas and 
diesel tax hasn't changed since 1993, so the American people are not 
paying for that. The price of oil goes up and down according to 
speculation and wars and conflicts and all sorts of other things. But 
the fact is that is a fee paid by the oil companies that might or might 
not come out of their profits and goes into a fund, which is being 
underspent.
  To be consistent, I fully support and have supported fully expending 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund on a permanent program, on its 
intended and legislated purpose, and that is the same thing here.
  But this is, again, a little different. Anybody, today, who bought a 
good that came into a port in the United States of America in a 
container is paying a very small sales tax increment on that good on a 
bill signed by Ronald Reagan. That money is supposed to be spent to 
maintain our harbors.
  Our harbors are silting in. Jetties are falling apart. We can't 
accommodate, in some harbors that want to accommodate them, the new 
largest class of ships in the world.
  The most efficient way to move goods is on water. The least carbon-
intensive way is to move goods on water. But we are impeding that by 
not spending this tax for the purpose for which it was intended and 
which is legislated in law. That is all we are asking to do here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I reserve the 
right to close.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, it is 
not hard to understand why things in this body don't ever get done.
  Here is the deal. There are a lot of truths that are being spoken 
here. We do have a debt that is completely out of control. There is no 
question about it.
  The gentleman from Arkansas, the gentleman from North Carolina, and 
the gentleman from Utah are exactly right: $23 trillion we are leaving 
to our children and our grandchildren. It is outrageous.
  But my friend from Oregon is also accurate in that we are charging a 
fee for a purpose that is being diverted. It is not right.
  Mr. Speaker, if I ran a not-for-profit and decided that I was going 
to collect funds from the public, and I said I was collecting them for 
the purpose of providing healthcare to someone who needed it, and I 
decided to take those funds and spend them somewhere else, there is a 
word for that in the private sector. It is called embezzling, and 
people go to jail for it. In Congress, we call it budgeting, and it is 
wrong.
  Let me go back and just summarize this. Absolutely, we need to have a 
balanced budget. I would support it every single day. I support Members 
of Congress not being paid until we have one. This needs to be in the 
budget caps. But this has been a discussion that has been going on for 
years and years and years.
  As my friend from Oregon indicated, having a paper balance of $9 
billion or $10 billion--and it is not like we don't have a need. We 
have channels that are shoaling up that we put draft restrictions on. 
We are not at the depths we need to be at to meet the new trends in 
shipping.
  So, yes, I am concerned about the debt, and I want to make sure we 
address this. But this has been going on for far too long, that these 
dollars have been diverted or embezzled.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill because we have to figure 
this out and figure out how to get it up under the budget cap where it 
belongs.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, with the numbers we are facing--trillion-
dollar deficits and $23 trillion in debt--what is another $10 billion?
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Congress needs to start making the 
tough decisions. The responsibility is at our feet. It is in Article I 
of the Constitution, that same Constitution we all took an oath to in 
January. And I am not talking about tough decisions regarding the 
harbor maintenance trust fund by itself. I am talking about a lot of 
programs, all programs, mandatory spending programs.
  And an inconvenient truth, Mr. Speaker, is this: As a percentage of 
our economy, mandatory spending is going higher. Discretionary 
spending, the money we are talking about today, is getting lower.
  I wish my friend from Oregon would bring the same passion to the 
floor that he brings on the harbor maintenance trust fund to actually 
righting the ship on spending in the country as a whole to include 
solutions to the mandatory spending programs that continue to skyrocket 
totally unchecked by the Congress.

  I want more money for education. I want more money for science and 
healthcare. And I want more money for harbor maintenance. I have 
backlogs in my own district. But it needs to be prioritized.
  This discussion should have taken place 3 months ago. In fact, it 
did. There were other issues addressed in the negotiation for the 
budget caps that we operate under today.
  May I remind my friend from Oregon that we had a long talk about the 
Census. It made it in. We discussed harbor maintenance. We discussed VA 
MISSION, Mr. Speaker, and that was in excess of $20 billion. But, 
somehow, we were able to get it beneath the caps.
  At the end of the day, only one of those negotiating topics actually 
made it into the discussion. So now here we are, expected to relitigate 
the other cap adjustments.
  What other types of spending will folks want to give special 
privilege to? Proponents are saying we don't get what we want so let's 
just bust the caps. That is a dangerous precedent. It should never be 
considered in the same context as overseas contingency and disaster 
spending, which we all know operate above the caps.
  It would behoove us to take note of organizations that have expertise 
in the state of our Nation's fiscal well-being and their opinion.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National 
Taxpayers Union that says, among other things, in urging a ``no'' vote 
on the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act, the 
Congress of the United States should be asking for healthier trust 
funds, not weakening those trust funds.


                                     National Taxpayers Union,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 2019.
       NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 2440, 
     the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     Act. This legislation would lead to higher federal spending, 
     exempt the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from 
     discretionary caps, and potentially draw down the $9 billion 
     surplus in the HMTF. Lawmakers should oppose this proposal, 
     and pursue legislation that strengthens caps on discretionary 
     spending rather than weakening them.
       H.R. 2440 would add the HMTF to a special, narrow group of 
     spending categories that are exempt from Budget Control Act 
     (BCA) caps. Currently, that list is limited to emergency and 
     overseas contingency operations (OCO) spending, disaster 
     relief, continuing disability reviews and redeterminations, 
     health care fraud and abuse control, reemployment services 
     and eligibility assessments, and wildfire suppression. 
     Despite the pending expiration of BCA caps on discretionary 
     spending, the bill's supporters have failed to make the case 
     that HMTF belongs in the same category of exempt spending as 
     disaster relief and OCO.
       CBO has scored H.R. 2440 as having no impact on direct 
     spending, revenues, or the deficit, but this is a misleading 
     analysis. As NTU Foundation pointed out in June, the sponsors 
     of the legislation ``wrote that it would provide for an 
     additional $34 billion in funds for harbors. Despite the 
     obvious motivation to use HMTF as a vehicle for spending 
     hikes, CBO's zero score reflects a myopic reading of the 
     bill.'' This intention is also made clear in the House 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report on H.R. 
     2440, which states, ``[t]his change would enable the 
     investment of approximately $34 billion over the next decade 
     from the HMTF for the intended purpose of maintaining 
     Federally-authorized harbors.''

[[Page H8484]]

       Policymakers should want strong surpluses in taxpayer-
     backed trust funds. At a time when the Social Security and 
     Medicare Part A trust funds are facing insolvency, Congress 
     should not be passing legislation that strains one of 
     America's healthier trust funds. If lawmakers want to spend a 
     higher portion of HMTF' s annual revenues, they should do so 
     by having harbor maintenance needs compete with other 
     priorities considered by Congress each year, rather than 
     carving out a caps exemption for HMTF. Passing this 
     legislation will only encourage special interests to seek 
     additional exemptions for their priorities.
       NTU strongly urges Representatives to oppose H.R. 2440 in 
     its current form.
       Roll call votes on H.R. 2440 will be included in our annual 
     Rating of Congress and a ``NO'' vote will be considered the 
     pro-taxpayer position.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an old saying, and my dad, 
who grew up on a Yellow County, Arkansas, farm says it to me often. He 
says: Son, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.
  Mr. Speaker, if we pass H.R. 2440, we will have added yet another 
shovel full of deficit to our Nation's fiscal situation. I urge a 
``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said he wants healthy trust funds. Well, 
we got a heck of a healthful trust fund when it comes to harbor 
maintenance, but we also have a massive deficit in harbor maintenance.
  We are projecting that we are going to need an extra $15.8 billion 
between now and just 2020 to meet the demands of larger and heavier 
ships that are going to come through the Panama Canal and come here. 
How are we going to meet that? Well, we could spend the harbor 
maintenance trust fund on harbor maintenance, but, no, it wasn't part 
of the budget caps.
  Go out and tell that to people who are dependent upon getting their 
goods in and out of the Nation's ports and say: Oh, well. Sorry. We 
can't do that jetty. We can't dredge that harbor because we can't spend 
the money that we took from you and put in the bank, even though the 
need is not being met.
  I don't think that is a real winning subject outside the beltway. But 
inside the beltway, it resonates with certain people.
  Again, I am pleased to hear from the National Taxpayers Union. The 
Association of General Contractors will key vote this issue.
  This is a program created during the Reagan administration, signed by 
Ronald Reagan. The money has been diverted by both Democratic 
Presidents and Republican Presidents for years. It is time to stop 
doing that.
  This President expressed personally to me, in a meeting, that he 
wants to stop diverting that money. Mick Mulvaney, following the line 
of arguing we are having here, keeps trying to cut the spending on 
harbor maintenance so they can divert more of the tax paid by the 
American people to create illusory deficit reduction by putting the 
money in the bank.
  How does that reduce the deficit? It doesn't reduce the deficit. It 
doesn't.
  In the real world, it is the Budget Act and its definitions that we 
are talking about here, not the real needs of the American people, not 
the real needs of the American ports, not the real needs of our 
shippers, and not the real needs of our exporters. That is what we are 
talking about here today.
  We can hear tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. ``We 
will get to it some other time.'' Twenty-three years ago, I started 
working on this with Republican Chairman Bud Shuster--23 years, a 
quarter of a century.
  This is something we can do for the American people. The President 
ran on providing trillions of dollars of infrastructure investment. So 
far, all the budgets written by Mick Mulvaney and that hench-person he 
has over at OMB now actually have proposed reductions in transportation 
spending and have proposed reductions in harbor maintenance, even 
though we have a dedicated tax that can pay for it.
  In any sensible world, we would take the dedicated tax and spend it 
on its lawful purpose, and the only lawful purpose is to get into our 
ports and rebuild the jetties and dredge for the larger ships that are 
coming to America so we can be more competitive as a maritime nation 
and maybe reduce the trade deficit.
  There was a lot of discussion about the deficit. Again, I would just 
recall that the deficit is up almost $400 billion in 2 years--2 years 
during which the Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the 
White House.

                              {time}  1545

  I think it had something to do with a tax cut, $3 trillion. Didn't 
hear much about budget caps or deficit concerns.
  Oh, wait a minute. It is going to pay for itself. It was going to 
raise revenues. It didn't raise revenues. Revenues didn't get raised. 
And, oh, by the way, it didn't pay for itself.
  So I would hope that Members here will realize that the vast number 
of Americans--I bet if you went out and polled them, saying, ``You are 
paying a little tax here for harbor maintenance, and it is being 
deposited in the Treasury to make the deficit look smaller; do you 
think that is a good idea?'' I think that would be one thing that 
people on both sides of the aisle, all across America would say, no, 
spend the money on our ports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2440, the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act.
  First, I want to recognize the leadership of my Chairman, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for his leadership on this issue 
and shepherding H.R. 2440 through the legislative process. His tenacity 
on this issue is one of the main reasons why we are here today, and 
will, hopefully be successful in moving this bill through the House.
  I also want to thank the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves); the Subcommittee Ranking Member, 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman); and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, (Mr. Kelly) for their support of this legislation as 
original cosponsors.
  H.R. 2440 authorizes a discretionary cap adjustment for the full-
utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund by the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (Corps). This change would enable the investment of 
approximately $34 billion over the next decade from the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund for the intended purpose of maintaining 
Federally-authorized harbors. This will allow the Corps to dredge all 
Federal harbors to their constructed widths and depths.
  In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a user 
fee by taxing importers and domestic shippers at our harbors in order 
to pay for the maintenance of our harbors. The problem is that the 
trust fund collects more revenue than the President's Budget requests 
and Congress has appropriated to maintain our harbors.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Harbor 
Maintenance Trust Fund will collect an additional $24.5 billion in new 
revenue over the next decade but federal appropriations from the trust 
fund will only be $19.4 billion. This discrepancy is in addition to the 
estimated $9.3 billion in previously collected but unspent revenue.
  During the Subcommittee's hearing on April 10th, representatives from 
ports both big and small all agreed that Congress must fully spend the 
trust fund on harbor needs. H.R. 2440 would provide this authority to 
spend the $24.5 billion in new revenue as intended on harbor 
maintenance.
  As we pass this responsible budgeting bill today, I also look forward 
to working with my colleagues as we move forward with a Water Resources 
Development Act this Congress to address inequities in how these funds 
are spent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2440, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. WOMACK. 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 motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________