[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.
____________________