[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3497-H3538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         TRUTH IN BUDGETING ACT

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 396

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 842) to provide off-budget treatment for the 
     Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed two hours equally divided among and controlled by the 
     chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on the 
     Budget. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting 
Act. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally 
between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on the Budget.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in 
the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides 
that each section be considered as read.
  This rule allows for priority in recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their 
consideration, and it provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress in 1963, I was privileged 
to serve on the House Public Works Committee. The name has changed, but 
the important agenda of the committee and the dedication and hard work 
put forth by the members of the committee over the ears has not 
diminished.
  I've long supported efforts to take the four transportation trust 
funds off budget, and I commend chairman Bud Shuster and ranking member 
Jim Oberstar for finally giving the House an opportunity to debate and 
vote on this issue.
  We'll hear a great deal of discussion about this bill today, and 
arguments will be made that these trust funds should not be exempted 
from budget cuts in attempts to balance the budget. But Congress made a 
commitment to use the proceeds of transportation user fees solely for 
transportation purposes. Presently, there is over $30 billion in the 
four transportation trust funds--money that could be and should be used 
to improve our highways, airports, harbors, and inland waterways. The 
public is no longer being fooled by using these funds to mask the true 
size of the Federal deficit. It's way past time to honor our commitment 
and release these funds to improve our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this open rule and to support passage of this 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the 
Record:

[[Page H3498]]



  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                             [As of April 15, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 60                 59
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 26                 25
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 16                 16
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                102                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                             [As of April 15, 1996]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                14/95).         
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Resolution......  A: 223-182 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                16/95).         
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 229-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            

[[Page H3499]]

                                                                                                                
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
                                                                                                30/95).         
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
                                                                                                6/95).          
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....                   
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H.Con. Res. 122..  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
                                                                        Refuge.                                 
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
                                                                                                7/96).          
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/21/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
                                                                                                96).            
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
                                                                                                96)             
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
                                                                                                96)             
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Quillen] for yielding the customary half hour of debate time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, although many of us believe that the so-called Truth in 
Budgeting Act that would be made in order by this rule is an 
irresponsible piece of legislation, we have no objections to the rule 
itself. It is the first open rule the House has considered this year, 
and we commend the majority for bringing this controversial legislation 
to the House floor in this manner.
  We also commend the majority for providing an extra hour of general 
debate time--for a total of 2 hours--and allowing the chairmen and 
ranking minority members of the two committees of jurisdiction to 
control one-half hour of debate time each. That provision of time is 
adequate and fair for a measure that has been reported favorably by one 
committee of jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, and adversely by the other, the Budget Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, proponents of this legislation make a good case that we 
need to increase spending for our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure. Many of our highways, airports, mass transit systems, 
and ports are in serious need of repair, modernizing, and expansion; 
and our failure to spend an adequate amount on these projects is 
costing our Nation dearly in terms of lower productivity. However, 
moving four transportation trust funds off budget, and out from under 
the discretionary spending caps, as H.R. 842 would do, is not the 
appropriate way to solve this problem.
  By freeing transportation spending from the budget constraints that 
are currently imposed on all discretionary spending programs, it is 
likely that transportation spending will increase by about $20 to $21 
billion over the next 5 years. But to compensate for that extra 
spending, Congress would have to increase the deficit by that amount, 
or make deeper cuts in other discretionary programs.
  We may well decide that we want to spend an extra $20 billion on 
transportation projects over the next 5 years. But if we do, we should 
make that decision with full awareness of the consequences of such 
action for other Federal programs, and for our efforts to reduce 
Federal deficits.
  However, if transportation spending is given the preferential 
budgetary treatment provided by H.R. 842, we would no longer determine 
the appropriate amount to spend on transportation projects in the 
context of our decisions on all other Federal spending; we would no 
longer be forced to make the necessary tradeoffs that we currently have 
to make whenever spending is increased for any program.
  Furthermore, if special budgetary treatment is given to 
transportation spending, advocates of other programs that are funded by 
dedicated revenues will demand the same treatment. And there are nearly 
160 other trust funds, and hundreds of similar special accounts, within 
the Federal budget. This bill could be the first step toward a 
fracturing of the Federal budget that would make the work of managing 
the spending of our Federal dollars, and determining the size of the 
Federal budget, far more complicated and difficult than it already is.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on a faulty premise--that we 
are raising more revenues dedicated to transportation than we are 
spending on transportation projects and therefore, those revenues mask 
the true size of the deficit. In truth, in 12 of the past 15 years, 
spending from the transportation trust funds has exceeded the amount of 
revenues received. The surpluses in the trust funds that currently 
exist result largely from interest that has been credited to the funds 
on balances that accrued many years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat: We have no objection to the rule, since it is 
an open rule that will allow for a full debate on H.R. 842. But we 
strongly urge Members to reject the bill itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], a very valuable member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus, 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of this good open rule. But I must say to my 
colleagues that I am perplexed that we are bringing this pleasure to 
the floor. I, of course, do have enormous respect for Chairman Shuster 
and his colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure who believe they are doing the right thing for the 
transportation infrastructure of our Nation with this bill. But I and 
others cannot agree with their conclusion because of our commitment to 
the higher goal of controlling Government spending.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago Americans were reminded in an extremely 
personal way of the extent to which Government feeds upon our families' 
budgets. Americans are working several hours each day just to fulfill 
their overall tax burdens now, and yet the Federal Government still 
cannot make ends meet. Despite concerted efforts to shrink Government 
spending, we remain nearly $5.5 trillion in debt. That is trillion. 
Given the fact that we spend over $200 billion every year just in 
interest to service that debt, it is obviously incumbent upon us to 
handle with care the process by which we consider and make all our 
spending decisions, and that is why I cannot support the bill before us 
today.
  Not 2 days after tax filing and not 2 weeks after the President 
signed into law the historic line-item veto to increase control over 
our Federal budget, this House is now considering a measure to weaken 
our hold on spending and make it likely that Government will spend 
more, not less, in the future. This bill, although very well 
intentioned and pleasantly titled, has the effect of shielding one type 
of Federal spending from all budget controls that would currently 
apply, and I would say that includes the line-item veto we worked so 
hard to get.
  Although the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure went to 
great lengths in its committee report to ensure Members that taking the 
four transportation trust funds off budget would not in and of itself 
lead to greater spending, the report went on

[[Page H3500]]

to make the increase for greater transportation spending in the future. 
We can be fairly confident that moving these funds beyond the reach of 
budgetary controls will lead to more spending and more obligation by 
the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, many Members feel, as I do, that our budget process is 
in need of comprehensive reform, precisely because we do not have 
effective spending controls and incentives to save rather than spend. 
In my view, H.R. 842 takes us in the wrong direction and weakens 
spending controls and boosts the incentive to spend. I have long 
championed users' fees, enterprise funds and other creative ways to 
fairly and reasonably raise revenues for necessary Government 
expenditures, but putting transportation in a special privileged budget 
category, I believe, is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I am sure the gentleman would not intentionally mislead the body.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would not.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that the line-item veto 
did not apply here. The line-item veto by the President does apply and 
the President would be able to exercise the line-item veto, which is 
simply one of the many spending constraints that would be retained if 
this legislation is passed.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the chairman's assurance 
on that. Our reading of the bill did not include that assurance. I am 
pleased to have that assurance that the line-item veto will apply, and 
I think it will necessarily preclude an amendment that otherwise would 
have been made. So that is good news.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule, and I 
rise in support today, in strong support, of H.R. 842. This bill is 
called the Truth in Budgeting Act for a reason. It is commonsense 
legislation that will take the four transportation trust funds off 
budget.
  Think about it. Every time we go to the gas pump, we are paying into 
the Highway Trust Fund. Every time we fly on an airline, on a 
commercial flight, we are paying into the Aviation Trust Fund. These 
are user fees that are supposed to be used for improvements for our 
roads, our bridges, our ports, our airports, to widen congested 
highways, improve safety, and expand airport capacity.
  In my own district these are the kind of funds that should be used to 
widen the Morris Bridge in my hometown from two to four lanes, to 
construct a south suburban airport to improve aviation capacity in the 
Chicago area, and they could also be used for quick replacement of the 
outdated, antiquated, 30-year-old equipment at our air traffic control 
systems.
  Today I have with me a vacuum tube that is used in our computers in 
our air traffic control system. They need to be replaced. This 
legislation is a safety issue, as well.
  Americans believe that when they are paying their user fees or gas 
taxes or ticket taxes, that they are going to be used for 
transportation purposes. Well, unfortunately, for accounting purposes 
these trust funds have been used to mask the deficit, and because of 
that my own State in the last 5 years has lost $260 million in trust 
funds that would have gone to improve transportation.
  As we know, when we improve transportation, we create jobs. That is 
why groups like the NFIB, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, 
organized labor, the Conference of State Legislatures, the League of 
Cities and many others are supporting the truth in budgeting bill.
  This legislation will create jobs. In fact, economists say that for 
every $1 billion in transportation spending you create 42,000 good 
paying jobs. This legislation is good for workers, it is good for good-
paying jobs, it is good for working families. It is a tax fairness 
issue, as well, Mr. Speaker.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on final 
passage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself one-half minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first open rule to be considered by the 
House this session, and we are happy to support it. However, we do want 
to point out that 72 percent of the legislation considered this session 
has not even been reported from committee. In fact, 11 of 16 measures 
brought up this session have been unreported.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following 
information:

                FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed; contained a              None.
                                  Package.                                 closed rule on H.R. 1                
                                                                           within the closed                    
                                                                           rule.                                
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive; Motion               N/A.
                                                                           adopted over                         
                                                                           Democratic objection                 
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole to limit                   
                                                                           debate on section 4;                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           preference.                          
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive; only              2R; 4D.
                                                                           certain substitutes;                 
                                                                           PQ.                                  
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive;                      N/A.
                                  Scheduling.                              considered in House                  
                                                                           no amendments.                       
H.R. 101.......................  To transfer a       H. Res. 51           Open..................            N/A.
                                  parcel of land to                                                             
                                  the Taos Pueblo                                                               
                                  Indians of New                                                                
                                  Mexico.                                                                       
H.R. 400.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 52           Open..................            N/A.
                                  exchange of lands                                                             
                                  within Gates of                                                               
                                  the Arctic                                                                    
                                  National Park                                                                 
                                  Preserve.                                                                     
H.R. 440.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 53           Open..................            N/A.
                                  conveyance of                                                                 
                                  lands to certain                                                              
                                  individuals in                                                                
                                  Butte County,                                                                 
                                  California.                                                                   
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference.                     
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             gets preference.                     
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 60           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                            gets preference.                     
                                  1995.                                                                         
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                        Time Cap on                          
                                  of 1995.                                 amendments.                          
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open; Pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Deportation                              gets preference;                     
                                  Improvement Act.                         Contains self-                       
                                                                           executing provision.                 
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                          Time Cap on                          
                                  Block Grants.                            amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Revitalization                           Time Cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference; PQ2.                     
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive; brought              N/A.
                                  Habeas.                                  up under UC with a 6                 
                                                                           hr. time cap on                      
                                                                           amendments.                          
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed; Put on                   None.
                                                                           Suspension Calendar                  
                                                                           over Democratic                      
                                                                           objection.                           
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Extend the Health                        order only the                       
                                  Insurance                                Gibbons amendment;                   
                                  Deduction for the                        Waives all points of                 
                                  Self-Employed.                           order; Contains self-                
                                                                           executing provision;                 
                                                                           PQ.                                  
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive; makes in              1D.
                                  Supplemental/                            order only the Obey                  
                                  Rescinding                               substitute.                          
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
                                  Authority.                                                                    
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                  Moratorium.                              Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive; 10 hr.               N/A.
                                                                           Time Cap on                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Flexibility.                                                                  
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive; 12 hr.                1D.
                                  Protection Act.                          time cap on                          
                                                                           amendments; Requires                 
                                                                           Members to pre-print                 
                                                                           their amendments in                  
                                                                           the Record prior to                  
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration for                    
                                                                           amendment, waives                    
                                                                           germaneness and                      
                                                                           budget act points of                 
                                                                           order as well as                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           concerning                           
                                                                           appropriating on a                   
                                                                           legislative bill                     
                                                                           against the committee                
                                                                           substitute used as                   
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive; 8 hr.                 1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                        time cap on                          
                                  Act.                                     amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference; Makes in                 
                                                                           order the Wyden                      
                                                                           amendment and waives                 
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           it.                                  
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive; 7 hr.                N/A.
                                  Accountability                           time cap on                          
                                  Act of 1995.                             amendments; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           preference.                          
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive; makes in          8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                         order only 15 germane                
                                  Act.                                     amendments and denies                
                                                                           64 germane amendments                
                                                                           from being                           
                                                                           considered; PQ.                      

[[Page H3501]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive; Combines             N/A.
                                  Supplemental                             emergency H.R. 1158 &                
                                  Appropriations                           nonemergency 1159 and                
                                  and Rescissions.                         strikes the abortion                 
                                                                           provision; makes in                  
                                                                           order only pre-                      
                                                                           printed amendments                   
                                                                           that include offsets                 
                                                                           within the same                      
                                                                           chapter (deeper cuts                 
                                                                           in programs already                  
                                                                           cut); waives points                  
                                                                           of order against                     
                                                                           three amendments;                    
                                                                           waives cl 2 of rule                  
                                                                           XXI against the bill,                
                                                                           cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of                
                                                                           rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           substitute; waives cl                
                                                                           2(e) od rule XXI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments in the                    
                                                                           Record; 10 hr time                   
                                                                           cap on amendments. 30                
                                                                           minutes debate on                    
                                                                           each amendment.                      
H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive; Makes in           1D; 3R
                                                                           order only 4                         
                                                                           amendments considered                
                                                                           under a ``Queen of                   
                                                                           the Hill'' procedure                 
                                                                           and denies 21 germane                
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered.                          
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive; Makes in         5D; 26R.
                                                                           order only 31                        
                                                                           perfecting amendments                
                                                                           and two substitutes;                 
                                                                           Denies 130 germane                   
                                                                           amendments from being                
                                                                           considered; The                      
                                                                           substitutes are to be                
                                                                           considered under a                   
                                                                           ``Queen of the Hill''                
                                                                           procedure; All points                
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive; Self                  1D.
                                  America Tax                              Executes language                    
                                  Relief Act of                            that makes tax cuts                  
                                  1995.                                    contingent on the                    
                                                                           adoption of a                        
                                                                           balanced budget plan                 
                                                                           and strikes section                  
                                                                           3006. Makes in order                 
                                                                           only one substitute.                 
                                                                           Waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           bill, substitute made                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text and Gephardt                    
                                                                           substitute.                          
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive; waives cl             1D.
                                  Extension.                               2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes H.R. 1391 in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the Dingell                     
                                                                           substitute; allows                   
                                                                           Commerce Committee to                
                                                                           file a report on the                 
                                                                           bill at any time.                    
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act.                                                                          
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee substitute;                
                                                                           waives cl 5(a) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute.                
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                                                           gets preference;                     
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f) and 602(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act                       
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI, cl                 
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI and                 
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Makes in                 
                                                                           order Shuster                        
                                                                           substitute as first                  
                                                                           order of business.                   
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
                                  Hatchery                                                                      
                                  Production                                                                    
                                  Facility.                                                                     
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive; Makes in          3D; 1R.
                                                                           order 4 substitutes                  
                                                                           under regular order;                 
                                                                           Gephardt, Neumann/                   
                                                                           Solomon, Payne/Owens,                
                                                                           President's Budget if                
                                                                           printed in Record on                 
                                                                           5/17/95; waives all                  
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against substitutes                  
                                                                           and concurrent                       
                                                                           resolution; suspends                 
                                                                           application of Rule                  
                                                                           XLIX with respect to                 
                                                                           the resolution; self-                
                                                                           executes Agriculture                 
                                                                           language; PQ.                        
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive; Requires             N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                         amendments to be                     
                                  1995.                                    printed in the Record                
                                                                           prior to their                       
                                                                           consideration; 10 hr.                
                                                                           time cap; waives cl                  
                                                                           2(1)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Also                  
                                                                           waives sections                      
                                                                           302(f), 303(a),                      
                                                                           308(a) and 402(a)                    
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration and the                
                                                                           committee amendment                  
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives cl 5(a)                 
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the amendment;                       
                                                                           amendment                            
                                                                           consideration is                     
                                                                           closed at 2:30 p.m.                  
                                                                           on May 25, 1995. Self-               
                                                                           executes provision                   
                                                                           which removes section                
                                                                           2210 from the bill.                  
                                                                           This was done at the                 
                                                                           request of the Budget                
                                                                           Committee.                           
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive; Makes in      36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization Act                        order only the            Bipartisan.
                                  FY 1996.                                 amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill,                    
                                                                           substitute and                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Gives the                
                                                                           Chairman en bloc                     
                                                                           authority. Self-                     
                                                                           executes a provision                 
                                                                           which strikes section                
                                                                           807 of the bill;                     
                                                                           provides for an                      
                                                                           additional 30 min. of                
                                                                           debate on Nunn-Lugar                 
                                                                           section; Allows Mr.                  
                                                                           Clinger to offer a                   
                                                                           modification of his                  
                                                                           amendment with the                   
                                                                           concurrence of Ms.                   
                                                                           Collins; PQ.                         
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Construction                             cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                  Appropriations;                          against the bill; 1                  
                                  FY 1996.                                 hr. general debate;                  
                                                                           Uses House passed                    
                                                                           budget numbers as                    
                                                                           threshold for                        
                                                                           spending amounts                     
                                                                           pending passage of                   
                                                                           Budget; PQ.                          
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive; Makes in        5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                          order only 11             Bipartisan.
                                                                           amendments; waives                   
                                                                           sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the bill                 
                                                                           and cl. 2 and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill. All points                 
                                                                           of order are waived                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; PQ.                      
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open; waives cl. 2,               N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 5(b), and cl. 6                  
                                                                           of rule XXI against                  
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Gilman                     
                                                                           amendments as first                  
                                                                           order of business;                   
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendments; if                       
                                                                           adopted they will be                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl. 2 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority (Hall)                      
                                                                           (Menendez) (Goss)                    
                                                                           (Smith, NJ); PQ.                     
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against the bill;                    
                                                                           makes in order the                   
                                                                           Shuster amendment as                 
                                                                           the first order of                   
                                                                           business; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; if adopted                
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as original text. Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed; provides one              N/A.
                                  Amendment to                             hour of general                      
                                  Permit Congress                          debate and one motion                
                                  and States to                            to recommit with or                  
                                  Prohibit the                             without instructions;                
                                  Physical                                 if there are                         
                                  Desecration of                           instructions, the MO                 
                                  the American Flag.                       is debatable for 1                   
                                                                           hr; PQ.                              
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                                                           for consideration of                 
                                                                           the bill in the                      
                                                                           House; Permits the                   
                                                                           Chairman of the                      
                                                                           Appropriations                       
                                                                           Committee to offer                   
                                                                           one amendment which                  
                                                                           is unamendable;                      
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment; PQ.                       
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive; Provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for further                          
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the four                        
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the rules report (20                 
                                                                           min. each). Waives                   
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Prohibits                
                                                                           intervening motions                  
                                                                           in the Committee of                  
                                                                           the Whole; Provides                  
                                                                           for an automatic rise                
                                                                           and report following                 
                                                                           the disposition of                   
                                                                           the amendments; PQ.                  
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act and cl                
                                                                           2 and cl 6 of rule                   
                                                                           XXI; provides that                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; self-                     
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment;                 
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority; PQ.                   
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H. Res. 187          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          302(f), 306 and                      
                                                                           308(a) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act; waives clauses 2                
                                                                           and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Tauzin                   
                                                                           amendment; provides                  
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; self-                      
                                                                           executes Budget                      
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           and makes NEA funding                
                                                                           subject to House                     
                                                                           passed authorization;                
                                                                           waives cl 2(e) of                    
                                                                           rule XXI against the                 
                                                                           amendments to the                    
                                                                           bill; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority; PQ.                   
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open; waives clauses 2            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          and 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title; Makes Skeen                
                                                                           amendment first order                
                                                                           of business, if                      
                                                                           adopted the amendment                
                                                                           will be considered as                
                                                                           base text (10 min.);                 
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority; PQ.                        
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          for the further                      
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; allows only                    
                                                                           amendments pre-                      
                                                                           printed before July                  
                                                                           14th to be                           
                                                                           considered; limits                   
                                                                           motions to rise.                     
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; Pre-printing                  
                                                                           gets priority; PQ.                   
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  for China.                               for consideration in                 
                                                                           the House of H.R.                    
                                                                           2058 (90 min.) And                   
                                                                           H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).                 
                                                                           Waives certain                       
                                                                           provisions of the                    
                                                                           Trade Act.                           
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open; waives cl. 3 0f             N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          rule XIII and section                
                                                                           401 (a) of the CBA                   
                                                                           against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; waives                  
                                                                           cl. 6 and cl. 2 of                   
                                                                           rule XXI against                     
                                                                           provisions in the                    
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Clinger/Solomon                  
                                                                           amendment waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the amendment                
                                                                           (Line Item Veto);                    
                                                                           provides the bill be                 
                                                                           read by title; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; PQ. *RULE                  
                                                                           AMENDED*.                            
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open; Makes in order              N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                         the Resources                        
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           in the nature of a                   
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides a                 
                                                                           Senate hook-up with                  
                                                                           S. 395.                              
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Pre-                       
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title..                              
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open; waives cl. 2 and            N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          cl. 6 of rule XXI                    
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; Provides                   
                                                                           that the amendment in                
                                                                           part 1 of the report                 
                                                                           is the first                         
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be considered                
                                                                           as base text (30                     
                                                                           min.); waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the Klug and                 
                                                                           Davis amendments; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           that the bill be read                
                                                                           by title.                            
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive; 3 hours               ID.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                        of general debate;                   
                                  on Bosnia.                               Makes in order an                    
                                                                           amendment to be                      
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee (1 hr); If                  
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           has instructions it                  
                                                                           can only be offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee.                
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Appropriations.                          2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                                                           and section 306 of                   
                                                                           the Congressional                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; self-                      
                                                                           executes a strike of                 
                                                                           sections 8021 and                    
                                                                           8024 of the bill as                  
                                                                           requested by the                     
                                                                           Budget Committee; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title.                               

[[Page H3502]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive; waives        2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                 sec. 302(f) of the          partisan.
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes in order                 
                                                                           the Commerce                         
                                                                           Committee amendment                  
                                                                           as original text and                 
                                                                           waives sec. 302(f) of                
                                                                           the Budget Act and                   
                                                                           cl. 5(a) of rule XXI                 
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Makes in                  
                                                                           order the Bliely                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min.)                  
                                                                           as the first order of                
                                                                           business, if adopted                 
                                                                           it will be original                  
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the amendments                  
                                                                           printed in the report                
                                                                           and waives all points                
                                                                           of order against the                 
                                                                           amendments; provides                 
                                                                           a Senate hook-up with                
                                                                           S. 652.                              
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open; Provides that               N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           the first order of                   
                                  Act.                                     business will be the                 
                                                                           managers amendments                  
                                                                           (10 min.), if adopted                
                                                                           they will be                         
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl. 2                   
                                                                           and cl. 6 of rule XXI                
                                                                           against provisions in                
                                                                           the bill; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against certain                      
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; Provides                   
                                                                           the bill be read by                  
                                                                           title; PQ.                           
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open; 2 hr of gen.                N/A.
                                  Targeted                                 debate. makes in                     
                                  Investments.                             order the committee                  
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text.                       
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive; waives               N/A.
                                  Authorization.                           sections 302(f),                     
                                                                           308(a) and 401(b) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act. Makes                
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           as modified by Govt.                 
                                                                           Reform amend                         
                                                                           (striking sec. 505)                  
                                                                           and an amendment                     
                                                                           striking title VII.                  
                                                                           Cl 7 of rule XVI and                 
                                                                           cl 5(a) of rule XXI                  
                                                                           are waived against                   
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Sections 302(f) and                  
                                                                           401(b) of the CBA are                
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           Amendments must also                 
                                                                           be pre-printed in the                
                                                                           Congressional record.                
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open; waives cl 7 of              N/A.
                                  Lock Box.                                rule XVI against the                 
                                                                           committee substitute                 
                                                                           made in order as                     
                                                                           original text; Pre-                  
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open; waives sections             N/A.
                                  Acquisition                              302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                  Reform Act of                            the Budget Act                       
                                  1995.                                    against consideration                
                                                                           of the bill; bill                    
                                                                           will be read by                      
                                                                           title; waives cl 5(a)                
                                                                           of rule XXI and                      
                                                                           section 302(f) of the                
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute. Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open; waives section              N/A.
                                  Reform Workforce                         302(f) and 401(b) of                 
                                  Development and                          the Budget Act                       
                                  Literacy Programs                        against the                          
                                  Act (CAREERS).                           substitute made in                   
                                                                           order as original                    
                                                                           text (H.R. 2332), cl.                
                                                                           5(a) of rule XXI is                  
                                                                           also waived against                  
                                                                           the substitute.                      
                                                                           provides for                         
                                                                           consideration of the                 
                                                                           managers amendment                   
                                                                           (10 min.) If adopted,                
                                                                           it is considered as                  
                                                                           base text.                           
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open; waives section              N/A.
                                  System                                   302(f) of the Budget                 
                                  Designation Act                          Act against                          
                                  of 1995.                                 consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill; Makes H.R. 2349                
                                                                           in order as original                 
                                                                           text; waives section                 
                                                                           302(f) of the Budget                 
                                                                           Act against the                      
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           for the consideration                
                                                                           of a managers                        
                                                                           amendment (10 min.)                  
                                                                           If adopted, it is                    
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           gets priority; PQ.                   
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive; waives cl           2R/2D
                                  Democratic                               2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Solidarity Act of                        against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order H.R. 2347 as                   
                                                                           base text; waives cl                 
                                                                           7 of rule XVI against                
                                                                           the substitute; Makes                
                                                                           Hamilton amendment                   
                                                                           the first amendment                  
                                                                           to be considered (1                  
                                                                           hr). Makes in order                  
                                                                           only amendments                      
                                                                           printed in the report.               
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open; waives cl                   N/A.
                                  Employees and                            2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI                
                                  managers Act of                          against consideration                
                                  1995.                                    of the bill; makes in                
                                                                           order the committee                  
                                                                           amendment as original                
                                                                           text; Pre-printing                   
                                                                           get priority.                        
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open; makes in order a            N/A.
                                  Certain                                  committee amendment                  
                                  Injunctions.                             as original text; Pre-               
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open; makes in order a            N/A.
                                  Space Station                            committee amendment                  
                                  Authorization Act                        as original text; pre-               
                                  of 1995.                                 printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed; Provides for    ..............
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open; self-executes a             N/A.
                                  Science                                  provision striking                   
                                  Authorization Act                        section 304(b)(3) of                 
                                  of 1995.                                 the bill (Commerce                   
                                                                           Committee request);                  
                                                                           Pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive; waives cl              1D
                                  Certain                                  2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI                
                                  Sentencing                               against the bill's                   
                                  Guideline                                consideration; makes                 
                                  Amendments.                              in order the text of                 
                                                                           the Senate bill S.                   
                                                                           1254 as original                     
                                                                           text; Makes in order                 
                                                                           only a Conyers                       
                                                                           substitute; provides                 
                                                                           a senate hook-up                     
                                                                           after adoption.                      
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive; waives                 1D
                                  Preservation Act.                        all points of order                  
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the text of                 
                                                                           H.R. 2485 as original                
                                                                           text; waives all                     
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against H.R. 2485;                   
                                                                           makes in order only                  
                                                                           an amendment offered                 
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or a designee;                
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes); PQ.                  
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive; provides             N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           for consideration of                 
                                  Bill.                                    the bill in the House.               
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive; makes in               1D
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                   order H.R. 2517 as                   
                                  Reconciliation                           original text; waives                
                                  Social Security                          all pints of order                   
                                  Earnings Test                            against the bill;                    
                                  Reform.                                  Makes in order only                  
                                                                           H.R. 2530 as an                      
                                                                           amendment only if                    
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or a                 
                                                                           designee; waives all                 
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; waives cl                 
                                                                           5 of rule                 
                                                                           XXI (\3/5\                           
                                                                           requirement on votes                 
                                                                           raising taxes); PQ.                  
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive; waives                N/A
                                  Appropriations FY                        all points of order                  
                                  1996.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; Makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walsh                   
                                                                           amendment as the                     
                                                                           first order of                       
                                                                           business (10 min.);                  
                                                                           if adopted it is                     
                                                                           considered as base                   
                                                                           text; waives cl 2 and                
                                                                           6 of rule XXI against                
                                                                           the bill; makes in                   
                                                                           order the Bonilla,                   
                                                                           Gunderson and                        
                                                                           Hostettler amendments                
                                                                           (30 min.); waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; debate on                
                                                                           any further                          
                                                                           amendments is limited                
                                                                           to 30 min. each.                     
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed; Provides for               N/A
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee.                       
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive; Provides               5R
                                  in the Statutory                         for the immediate                    
                                  Debt Limit.                              consideration of the                 
                                                                           CR; one motion to                    
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           have instructions                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or a designee; self-                 
                                                                           executes 4 amendments                
                                                                           in the rule; Solomon,                
                                                                           Medicare Coverage of                 
                                                                           Certain Anti-Cancer                  
                                                                           Drug Treatments,                     
                                                                           Habeas Corpus Reform,                
                                                                           Chrysler (MI); makes                 
                                                                           in order the Walker                  
                                                                           amend (40 min.) on                   
                                                                           regulatory reform.                   
H.R. 2539......................  ICC Termination...  H. Res. 259          Open; waives section    ..............
                                                                           302(f) and section                   
                                                                           308(a).                              
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 261          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  Appropriations                           the immediate                        
                                  for FY 1996.                             consideration of a                   
                                                                           motion by the                        
                                                                           Majority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designees to                     
                                                                           dispose of the Senate                
                                                                           amendments (1hr).                    
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 262          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  in the Statutory                         the immediate                        
                                  Limit on the                             consideration of a                   
                                  Public Debt.                             motion by the                        
                                                                           Majority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designees to                     
                                                                           dispose of the Senate                
                                                                           amendments (1hr).                    
H. Res. 250....................  House Gift Rule     H. Res. 268          Closed; provides for                2R
                                  Reform.                                  consideration of the                 
                                                                           bill in the House; 30                
                                                                           min. of debate; makes                
                                                                           in order the Burton                  
                                                                           amendment and the                    
                                                                           Gingrich en bloc                     
                                                                           amendment (30 min.                   
                                                                           each); waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; Gingrich                 
                                                                           is only in order if                  
                                                                           Burton fails or is                   
                                                                           not offered.                         
H.R. 2564......................  Lobbying            H. Res. 269          Open; waives cl.                  N/A.
                                  Disclosure Act of                        2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                  1995.                                    against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; waives                
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the Istook                   
                                                                           and McIntosh                         
                                                                           amendments.                          
H.R. 2606......................  Prohibition on      H. Res. 273          Restrictive; waives               N/A.
                                  Funds for Bosnia                         all points of order                  
                                  Deployment.                              against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration;                       
                                                                           provides one motion                  
                                                                           to amend if offered                  
                                                                           by the Minority                      
                                                                           Leader or designee (1                
                                                                           hr non-amendable);                   
                                                                           motion to recommit                   
                                                                           which may have                       
                                                                           instructions only if                 
                                                                           offered by Minority                  
                                                                           Leader or his                        
                                                                           designee; if Minority                
                                                                           Leader motion is not                 
                                                                           offered debate time                  
                                                                           will be extended by 1                
                                                                           hr.                                  
H.R. 1788......................  Amtrak Reform and   H. Res. 289          Open; waives all                  N/A.
                                  Privatization Act                        points of order                      
                                  of 1995.                                 against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; makes                 
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           Transportation                       
                                                                           substitute modified                  
                                                                           by the amend in the                  
                                                                           report; Bill read by                 
                                                                           title; waives all                    
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           substitute; makes in                 
                                                                           order a managers                     
                                                                           amend as the first                   
                                                                           order of business, if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered base text                 
                                                                           (10 min.); waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; Pre-                      
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 1350......................  Maritime Security   H. Res. 287          Open; makes in order              N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                             the committee                        
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text; makes                 
                                                                           in order a managers                  
                                                                           amendment which if                   
                                                                           adopted is considered                
                                                                           as original text (20                 
                                                                           min.) unamendable;                   
                                                                           pre-printing gets                    
                                                                           priority.                            
H.R. 2621......................  To Protect Federal  H. Res. 293          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  Trust Funds.                             the adoption of the                  
                                                                           Ways & Means                         
                                                                           amendment printed in                 
                                                                           the report. 1 hr. of                 
                                                                           general debate; PQ.                  
H.R. 1745......................  Utah Public Lands   H. Res. 303          Open; waives cl                   N/A.
                                  Management Act of                        2(l)(6) of rule XI                   
                                  1995.                                    and sections 302(f)                  
                                                                           and 311(a) of the                    
                                                                           Budget Act against                   
                                                                           the bill's                           
                                                                           consideration. Makes                 
                                                                           in order the                         
                                                                           Resources substitute                 
                                                                           as base text and                     
                                                                           waives cl 7 of rule                  
                                                                           XVI and sections                     
                                                                           302(f) and 308(a) of                 
                                                                           the Budget Act; makes                
                                                                           in order a managers'                 
                                                                           amend as the first                   
                                                                           order of business, if                
                                                                           adopted it is                        
                                                                           considered base text                 
                                                                           (10 min)..                           
H. Res. 304....................  Providing for       N/A                  Closed; makes in order          1D; 2R
                                  Debate and                               three resolutions;                   
                                  Consideration of                         H.R. 2770 (Dorman),                  
                                  Three Measures                           H. Res. 302 (Buyer),                 
                                  Relating to U.S.                         and H. Res. 306                      
                                  Troop Deployments                        (Gephardt); 1 hour of                
                                  in Bosnia.                               debate on each..                     
H. Res. 309....................  Revised Budget      H. Res. 309          Closed; provides 2                N/A.
                                  Resolution.                              hours of general                     
                                                                           debate in the House;                 
                                                                           PQ.                                  
H.R. 558.......................  Texas Low-Level     H. Res. 313          Open; pre-printing                N/A.
                                  Radioactive Waste                        gets priority.                       
                                  Disposal Compact                                                              
                                  Consent Act.                                                                  
H.R. 2677......................  The National Parks  H. Res. 323          Closed; consideration             N/A.
                                  and National                             in the House; self-                  
                                  Wildlife Refuge                          executes Young                       
                                  Systems Freedom                          amendment.                           
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
                                   PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION                                   
                                                                                                                
H.R. 1643......................  To authorize the    H. Res. 334          Closed; provides to               N/A.
                                  extension of                             take the bill from                   
                                  nondiscriminatory                        the Speaker's table                  
                                  treatment (MFN)                          with the Senate                      
                                  to the products                          amendment, and                       
                                  of Bulgaria.                             consider in the House                
                                                                           the motion printed in                
                                                                           the Rules Committee                  
                                                                           report; 1 hr. of                     
                                                                           general debate;                      
                                                                           previous question is                 
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           ordered. ** NR; PQ.                  
H.J. Res. 134..................  Making continuing   H. Res. 336          Closed; provides to               N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131...............   appropriations/                          take from the                        
                                  establishing                             Speaker's table H.J.                 
                                  procedures making                        Res. 134 with the                    
                                  the transmission                         Senate amendment and                 
                                  of the continuing                        concur with the                      
                                  resolution H.J.                          Senate amendment with                
                                  Res. 134.                                an amendment (H. Con.                
                                                                           Res. 131) which is                   
                                                                           self-executed in the                 
                                                                           rule. The rule                       
                                                                           provides further that                
                                                                           the bill shall not be                
                                                                           sent back to the                     
                                                                           Senate until the                     
                                                                           Senate agrees to the                 
                                                                           provisions of H. Con.                
                                                                           Res. 131. ** NR; PQ.                 

[[Page H3503]]

                                                                                                                
H.R. 1358......................  Conveyance of       H. Res. 338          Closed; provides to               N/A.
                                  National Marine                          take the bill from                   
                                  Fisheries Service                        the Speakers table                   
                                  Laboratory at                            with the Senate                      
                                  Gloucester,                              amendment, and                       
                                  Massachusetts.                           consider in the house                
                                                                           the motion printed in                
                                                                           the Rules Committee                  
                                                                           report; 1 hr. of                     
                                                                           general debate;                      
                                                                           previous quesetion is                
                                                                           considered as                        
                                                                           ordered. ** NR; PQ.                  
H.R. 2924......................  Social Security     H. Res. 355          Closed; ** NR; PQ.....            N/A.
                                  Guarantee Act.                                                                
H.R. 2854......................  The Agricultural    H. Res. 366          Restrictive; waives          5D; 9R; 2
                                  Market Transition                        all points of order       Bipartisan.
                                  Program.                                 against the bill; 2                  
                                                                           hrs of general                       
                                                                           debate; makes in                     
                                                                           order a committee                    
                                                                           substitute as                        
                                                                           original text and                    
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order against the                    
                                                                           substitute; makes in                 
                                                                           order only the 16                    
                                                                           amends printed in the                
                                                                           report and waives all                
                                                                           points of order                      
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments;                          
                                                                           circumvents unfunded                 
                                                                           mandates law;                        
                                                                           Chairman has en bloc                 
                                                                           authority for amends                 
                                                                           in report (20 min.)                  
                                                                           on each en bloc; PQ.                 
H.R. 994.......................  Regulatory Sunset   H. Res. 368          Open rule; makes in               N/A.
                                  & Review Act of                          order the Hyde                       
                                  1995.                                    substitute printed in                
                                                                           the Record as                        
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           cl 7 of rule XVI                     
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           substitute; Pre-                     
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority; vacates the                
                                                                           House action on S.                   
                                                                           219 and provides to                  
                                                                           take the bill from                   
                                                                           the Speakers table                   
                                                                           and consider the                     
                                                                           Senate bill; allows                  
                                                                           Chrmn. Clinger a                     
                                                                           motion to strike all                 
                                                                           after the enacting                   
                                                                           clause of the Senate                 
                                                                           bill and insert the                  
                                                                           text of H.R. 994 as                  
                                                                           passed by the House                  
                                                                           (1 hr) debate; waives                
                                                                           germaneness against                  
                                                                           the motion; provides                 
                                                                           if the motion is                     
                                                                           adopted that it is in                
                                                                           order for the House                  
                                                                           to insist on its                     
                                                                           amendments and                       
                                                                           request a conference.                
H.R. 3021......................  To Guarantee the    H. Res. 371          Closed rule; gives one            N/A.
                                  Continuing Full                          motion to recommit,                  
                                  Investment of                            which if it contains                 
                                  Social security                          instructions, may                    
                                  and Other Federal                        only if offered by                   
                                  Funds in                                 the Minority Leader                  
                                  Obligations of                           or his designee. **                  
                                  the United States.                       NR.                                  
H.R. 3019......................  A Further           H. Res. 372          Restrictive; self-              2D/2R.
                                  Downpayment                              executes CBO language                
                                  Toward a Balanced                        regarding contingency                
                                  Budget.                                  funds in section 2 of                
                                                                           the rule; makes in                   
                                                                           order only the                       
                                                                           amendments printed in                
                                                                           the report; Lowey (20                
                                                                           min), Istook (20                     
                                                                           min), Crapo (20 min),                
                                                                           Obey (1 hr); waives                  
                                                                           all points of order                  
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; give one                 
                                                                           motion to recommit,                  
                                                                           which if contains                    
                                                                           instructions, may                    
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee. **                  
                                                                           NR.                                  
H.R. 2703......................  The Effective       H. Res. 380          Restrictive; makes in        6D; 7R; 4
                                  Death Penalty and                        order only the            Bipartisan.
                                  Public Safety Act                        amendments printed in                
                                  of 1996.                                 the report; waives                   
                                                                           all points of orer                   
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendments; gives                    
                                                                           Judiciary Chairman en                
                                                                           bloc authority (20                   
                                                                           min.) on enblocs;                    
                                                                           provides a Senate                    
                                                                           hook-up with S. 735.                 
                                                                           ** NR.                               
H.R. 2202......................  The Immigration     H. Res. 384          Restrictive; waives        12D; 19R; 1
                                  and National                             all points of order       Bipartisan.
                                  Interest Act of                          against the bill and                 
                                  1995.                                    amendments in the                    
                                                                           report except for                    
                                                                           those arising under                  
                                                                           sec. 425(a) of the                   
                                                                           Budget Act (unfunded                 
                                                                           mandates); 2 hrs. of                 
                                                                           general debate on the                
                                                                           bill; makes in order                 
                                                                           the committee                        
                                                                           substitute as base                   
                                                                           text; makes in order                 
                                                                           only the amends in                   
                                                                           the report; gives the                
                                                                           Judiciary Chairman en                
                                                                           bloc authority (20                   
                                                                           min.) of debate on                   
                                                                           the en blocs; self-                  
                                                                           executes the Smith                   
                                                                           (TX) amendment re:                   
                                                                           employee verification                
                                                                           program; PQ.                         
H.J. Res. 165..................  Making further      H. Res. 386          Closed; provides for              N/A.
                                  continuing                               the consideration of                 
                                  appropriations                           the CR in the House                  
                                  for FY 1996.                             and gives one motion                 
                                                                           to recommit which may                
                                                                           contain instructions                 
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader;                 
                                                                           the rule also waives                 
                                                                           cl 4(b) of rule XI                   
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           following: an omnibus                
                                                                           appropriations bill,                 
                                                                           another CR, a bill                   
                                                                           extending the debt                   
                                                                           limit. ** NR.                        
H.R. 125.......................  The Gun Crime       H. Res. 388          Closed; self-executes              N/A
                                  Enforcement and                          an amendment;                        
                                  Second Amendment                         provides one motion                  
                                  Restoration Act                          to recommit which may                
                                  of 1996.                                 contain instructions                 
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee. **                  
                                                                           NR.                                  
H.R. 3136......................  The Contract With   H. Res. 391          Closed; provides for               N/A
                                  America                                  the consideration of                 
                                  Advancement Act                          the bill in the                      
                                  of 1996.                                 House; self-executes                 
                                                                           an amendment in the                  
                                                                           Rules report; waives                 
                                                                           all points of order,                 
                                                                           except sec.                          
                                                                           425(a)(unfunded                      
                                                                           mandates) of the CBA,                
                                                                           against the bill's                   
                                                                           consideration; orders                
                                                                           the PQ except 1 hr.                  
                                                                           of general debate                    
                                                                           between the Chairman                 
                                                                           and Ranking Member of                
                                                                           Ways and Means; one                  
                                                                           Archer amendment (10                 
                                                                           min.); one motion to                 
                                                                           recommit which may                   
                                                                           contain instructions                 
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee;                     
                                                                           Provides a Senate                    
                                                                           hookup if the Senate                 
                                                                           passes S. 4 by March                 
                                                                           30, 1996. **NR.                      
H.R. 3103......................  The Health          H. Res. 392          Restrictive: 2 hrs. of             N/A
                                  Coverage                                 general debate (45                   
                                  Availability and                         min. split by Ways                   
                                  Affordability Act                        and Means) (45 split                 
                                  of 1996.                                 by Commerce) (30                     
                                                                           split by Economic and                
                                                                           Educational                          
                                                                           Opportunities); self-                
                                                                           executes H.R. 3160 as                
                                                                           modified by the                      
                                                                           amendment in the                     
                                                                           Rules report as                      
                                                                           original text; waives                
                                                                           all points of order,                 
                                                                           except sec. 425(a)                   
                                                                           (unfunded mandates)                  
                                                                           of the CBA; makes in                 
                                                                           order a Democratic                   
                                                                           substitute (1 hr.)                   
                                                                           waives all points of                 
                                                                           order, except sec.                   
                                                                           425(a) (unfunded                     
                                                                           mandates) of the CBA,                
                                                                           against the                          
                                                                           amendment; one motion                
                                                                           to recommit which may                
                                                                           contain instructions                 
                                                                           only if offered by                   
                                                                           the Minority Leader                  
                                                                           or his designee;                     
                                                                           waives cl 5(c) of                    
                                                                           Rule XXI (requiring 3/               
                                                                           5 vote on any tax                    
                                                                           increase) on votes on                
                                                                           the bill, amendments                 
                                                                           or conference reports.               
H.J. Res. 159..................  Tax Limitation      H. Res. 395          Restrictive; provides               ID
                                  Constitutional                           for consideration of                 
                                  Amendment.                               the bill in the                      
                                                                           House; 3 hrs of                      
                                                                           general debate; Makes                
                                                                           in order H.J. Res.                   
                                                                           169 as original text;                
                                                                           allows for an                        
                                                                           amendment to be                      
                                                                           offered by the                       
                                                                           Minority Leader or                   
                                                                           his designee (1 hr)                  
                                                                           ** NR.                               
H.R. 842.......................  Truth in Budgeting  H. Res. 396          Open; 2 hrs. of                    N/A
                                  Act.                                     general debate; Pre-                 
                                                                           printing gets                        
                                                                           priority.                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All 
  legislation 2d Session, 94% restrictive; 6% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 65% restrictive; 35%   
  open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented    
  standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
  was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which 
  can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed    
  rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This       
  definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules      
  Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.                                                      


  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to bring H.R. 
842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, to the House floor. It is time that 
the full House take action on this issue, and this open rule would 
allow such a debate to take place.
  The Truth in Budgeting Act would simply take four trust funds off 
budget: the Highway Trust Fund, the Aviation Trust Fund, the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. These are 
dedicated user funds which can only be used for infrastructure 
investment.
  For those concerned that H.R. 842 will somehow allow infrastructure 
spending to grow unrestrained, I would point out that the legislation 
establishes automatic spending safeguards. Identical to the safeguard 
already contained in the Highway Trust Fund, H.R. 842 will ensure that 
the remaining trust funds are deficit proof and operate on a pay-as-
you-go basis.
  The Secretaries of Transportation and Treasury Department will have 
to review the Aviation Trust Fund annually to determine if expected 
receipts will cover the authorized aviation expenditures. If the trust 
fund does not cover unfunded aviation authorizations, then those 
authorizations must be reduced on a pro rata basis until the shortfall 
is covered.
  The Army and Treasury Secretaries will review the Inland Waterways 
and Harbor Maintenance Trust Funds in the same manner.
  For over 20 years now the spending from these trust funds has been 
capped in order to make the Federal deficit look smaller. This has 
allowed Congress and the administration to hold back funds from 
infrastructure development and instead spend additional money on social 
programs. While many of these programs have merit, they should not be 
paid for by holding back money from these trust funds.
  My colleagues on the other side of this issue say by taking the trust 
funds off budget we will increase the deficit, and I would remind them 
again that by law these trust funds can only be used for transportation 
purposes, and if the trust funds are being used to pay for social 
programs or other programs, then we have got to find an alternative way 
to fund those programs or we must cut them back and restrain the growth 
in spending.
  Mr. Speaker, this is first and foremost a tax honesty issue. As my 
colleagues know, every time a motorist buys gasoline or a traveler buys 
an airline ticket, taxes are paid into the highway and aviation trust 
funds. Congress imposed these taxes with the assurance that the 
collected funds would be spent for infrastructure improvements and 
infrastructure improvements only.
  Most people in our Nation take our infrastructure for granted. We are 
very fortunate to have the resources and the planning needed to create 
a first-class system or a class system. But much remains to be done, 
and much deterioration is in our infrastructure. The cost of upkeep and 
maintenance alone runs very high. So it is essential that we take these 
trust funds off budget.
  Currently, the Department of Transportation estimates that the 
backlog of needs for our Nation's highways and bridges totals $315 
billion. Simply

[[Page H3504]]

maintaining our current transit system is estimated to cost $8 billion 
annually for the next 20 years, and according to airport groups, 
airport investment needs are $10 billion a year.
  As I said, the issue is truly one of honesty. In the President's 
first year in office he was interviewed by a reporter in my district in 
Arkansas, and my district happens to be the largest metropolitan area 
in the United States without an interstate highway. We are working on 
it, but that kind of need is so essential across this country, and the 
President was asked the question, ``What can you do, Mr. President, to 
insure the construction of this highway needed in my district?''
  His response was, ``The most important thing this administration can 
do is to take the highway trust funds off budget.''
  I do not know what his position is on this today, but he was 
absolutely right when he made that statement. The most important thing 
we can do for building the infrastructure of this country is to take 
these funds off budget and be honest with the American people about the 
needs we face and the need that we have in the deficit. Let us be 
honest with the American people, lets be fair with them, by taking 
these trust funds off budget.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Pursuant to House Resolution 
396 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 842.

                              {time}  1154


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
842) to provide off-budget treatment for the Highway Trust Fund, the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the 
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, with Mr. Dreier in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich], and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] will each control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. Even our 
vaunted Interstate System is filled with potholes. Our Air Traffic 
Control System is blacking out. We still have vacuum tube computers 
running the Air Traffic Control System. Across America we need to 
invest in infrastructure. Indeed, travel on our highways is growing at 
a compound rate of 3 percent a year; trucking, as we move into the next 
century, will see a 28-percent increase in travel on our highways. We 
will experience, as we move into the next century, a billion people 
traveling commercially in aviation a year, and it was only 230 million 
traveling just 15 years ago.
  We need to invest in infrastructure. But that is not the most 
important reason why we should pass this legislation today. The reason 
that we should pass this legislation today, the most important reason, 
is because we need to keep faith with the American people, we need to 
have honest budgeting, we need to put the trust back in the trust fund, 
and that is what happened originally.
  We hear a lot about the Contract With America this year, and I 
certainly think it is important, and many do, but the original Contract 
With America was a contract that Dwight Eisenhower and the Congress 
made in 1956. They said to the American people, ``We're going to charge 
a gas tax when you drive up to the pump, and we're going to put that 
gas tax in the trust fund, a highway trust fund, and we're going to 
spend that user tax to improve your highways,'' and then later on they 
said, ``We're going to create an aviation trust fund, and when you get 
on an airplane you're going to pay a 10-percent ticket tax, and we're 
going to take your 10-percent ticket tax, your user tax, for getting on 
that airplane, and we're going to put that in an aviation trust fund, 
and under the law that money won't be able to be spent for anything 
except to improve our aviation system, our airports, our runways, our 
terminals, our air traffic control system, so we can have a safe 
system.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is the way the highway trust fund and the aviation 
trust fund and the other trust funds worked until 1969, when Lyndon 
Johnson had a bright idea, trying to figure out how to mask the size of 
the deficit. He realized that while it is true under the law, this 
money cannot be spent in these trust funds for anything other than 
their highway, aviation purposes. If we do not spend the money, if we 
let the balances build up, then we can mask the size, we can hide the 
size, we can distort the size of the true general fund deficit. And so 
he created the so-called unified budget, and once that was done, over 
the years both Democratic and Republican Presidents have used this 
gimmick to distort and hide the size of the true general fund deficit.
  What has happened as a result of it? Today there is over $30 billion 
in balances in the transportation trusts funds, transportation trust 
funds which, by the way, are different from many other trust funds in 
Washington in that they are totally user financed.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my colleagues that back in 1964, 
before the unified budget, the American people were asked, ``Do you 
have confidence that your government generally will try to do the right 
thing, your Federal Government,'' and 76 percent of the American people 
said, ``Yes,'' and today, when asked that same question, ``Do you have 
confidence that your Federal Government generally tries to do the right 
thing,'' only 19 percent of the American people say yes.

                              {time}  1200

  I submit to you that exhibit A is the way these transportation trust 
funds have been distorted and manipulated and used, so we have not kept 
faith with the American people.
  Indeed, the Speaker of the House has said many times that we should 
either spend this money, these user taxes, for the purpose for which 
they were created, or if we do not have the needs, we should reduce the 
tax. Indeed, that is exactly right. I do not think there is anybody in 
this Chamber who would say we do not have the needs. Indeed, the user 
fees are the fairest form of taxation there is, because the person who 
benefits is the person who pays.
  There are a couple of myths which have been floating around which 
should be answered. The first is that, well, the revenue that has come 
into the trust funds, the transportation trust funds over the years, 
has really equalled or even exceeded the amount that has been spent. 
That is only half the story, because what our colleagues who make these 
arguments do not tell us is that they are not counting the interest 
that has gone in on the balances in these trust funds.
  Think about that for a minute. There is a minor little insignificant 
thing called the law of the land, which says if the Treasury borrows 
from a trust fund it has to pay interest. So for those who would argue 
do not count the interest, I would suggest, first of all, it is the law 
of the land; but secondly, if we do not want to count the interest in 
the trust funds, then we had better be very, very careful, because 
nearly 50 percent of the reserves in the Social Security trust fund is 
based on interest. Are we going to tell the American people we are not 
going to count the interest, the legal interest that is accruing in the 
Social Security trust fund? No, the interest under the law must be 
counted.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, we are told that if this legislation passes 
today, it will remove all controls and we will simply be able to go out 
and spend whatever we want to spend on all these projects.
  Mr. Chairman, simply, factually, that is not true. First, the 
Committee on Appropriations retains all of the jurisdiction that it now 
has, and can set

[[Page H3505]]

the obligational limits, that is, the ceiling, on how much can be spent 
every year. Further, the line-item veto that the President has does 
apply, and that can be used.
  Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, under the law not a penny can 
be spent from these transportation trust funds unless the money is 
there to pay the bill. These transportation trust funds are deficit-
proof. Would that our other programs here in Washington were as 
deficit-proof as these transportation trust funds. If they were, we 
would not have a deficit.
  So there are very substantial restraints and spending controls which 
exist if this legislation is passed. Yes, if we build America's 
infrastructure, for every $1 billion spent, 42,000 real jobs are 
created. Yes, if we spend the money to build America's infrastructure, 
we increase productivity in America, we save lives, we stimulate 
economic growth.
  The Department of Transportation, in a recent study analyzing 
economic growth in America over the past quarter of a century, says 
that fully 25 percent of the economic growth, the increase in 
productivity in America, is attributable to building infrastructure. 
So, indeed, for all these reasons we should vigorously support this 
legislation today, not only because the needs are there, but because it 
is fair, it is right, it is just, it is the honest way to deal with the 
American people. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, how will the various committees be 
recognized?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was planning to rotate among the committees.
  Mr. SHUSTER. We are not doing 1 hour per committee?
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the intention of the Chair to rotate among those 
Members who seek recognition.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Science, in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to say that my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the committee, 
is in fact someone who works very, very hard to preserve the Nation's 
infrastructure, and should be congratulated for the work that he does 
in terms of trying to make certain that the resources provided to the 
Nation's infrastructure are in fact adequate, and do in fact reflect 
the needs of a Nation that is expanding into our future.
  My opposition to the bill that he has before us today has nothing to 
do with the commitment that he has shown over the years to that 
particular goal. I am concerned, however, about just exactly how this 
revenue balance moves forward.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has just described the situation. 
That is, that the people who propose this bill want to spend not only 
the revenues that come in for the trust fund, but also want to spend 
the accumulated interest over a period of years, because they feel as 
though that interest is money that ought to be kept in place for 
improving the infrastructure of the country.
  All of that is fine, except that it is all fungible. We just had the 
Director of the CBO before the Committee on the Budget. She explained 
that over the past several years, the amount of money flowing into the 
Treasury to pay for highways has been equalled by the amount of money 
flowing out of the Treasury to pay for highways. So they have remained 
in relative balance over a period of some years.
  What this bill says is, oh, but in addition, we want the money in 
interest. Understand, the interest payments we are talking about here 
are not new money for the Government, they are taxpayers' money as 
well. It is, again, the same taxpayers' money. Therefore, the money, 
the $19 billion of interest that seeks to be spent under this bill is 
$19 billion of discretionary money that will have to be taken out of 
somewhere else in discretionary accounts.
  So, if in fact you are going to do this, and you are going to achieve 
what the committee seeks to achieve with this bill, you are going to 
have to take it away from other spending. You are going to have to take 
it away from other things which are vital to the country, such as 
spending money on the research and development to take us to the 
economy of the future.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the initial purpose of the highway trust fund when it 
was crafted in 1956 was to finance the national system of interstate 
and defense highways, the world's largest infrastructure project and 
one of the marvels of engineering of the world, and was based upon the 
idea that we needed a dedicated revenue stream to finance projects that 
would take a long time to design, engineer, acquire right-of-way for 
the roadway to be built upon, and then to construct that roadway. So 
the framers of the Interstate Highway System Program conceived a 
dedicated revenue stream to be financed by a tax upon the users of the 
system, all those people who drive cars and trucks, and a tax upon fuel 
was agreed upon.
  It was also agreed in that initial legislation that this fund should 
be held in trust for the purpose for which it was intended, and that it 
should be deficit-proof, as the chairman of the committee has already 
expressed.
  It has been an enormously successful program. We have spent $120 
billion on the Interstate Highway Program. It represents 1 percent of 
the Nation's highway mileage. It carries 26 percent of the Nation's 
highway traffic. That represented last year 990 billion miles traveled 
on just the Interstate Highway System alone.
  But over time, the idea of retaining some of the moneys from that 
trust fund and not spending them became very popular with the executive 
branch. Every dollar of tax revenue from the highway users tax is 
invested in U.S. Treasury notes. Those Treasury notes, like the World 
War II bonds, bear interest. The buyer of those bonds gets the 
principal plus the interest.
  That was the idea that we applied in the highway trust fund, that 
revenues from the highway user tax on fuel would be invested in 
Treasury notes, which would bear interest, and which interest would go 
into the highway trust fund. In contrast to what our previous speaker 
said, the fact is this is not just free money, this is money owed to 
the highway fund. It is money owed to the users of the system by all 
taxpayers, by the Federal Government for the use of those dollars.
  So over time, Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that the executive 
branch has withheld not only interest, but the principal that has been 
paid in by highway users into the highway trust fund, and conveniently 
kept it in the unified budget account to make the deficit look less 
than it really is.

  Mr. Chairman, what we want to do is to free all of the transportation 
trust funds from the artificial and unnecessary constraints of the 
budget process and allow those funds to be used and invested to reverse 
the deterioration of our Nation's infrastructure. This is not adding to 
the deficit, it is a deficit-neutral step that we take here. We urge 
everybody to support our legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the rare times I find myself 
on the opposite side of an issue with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. Chairman, I wish I could tell the House that Santa Claus was 
here, but Santa Claus is not here. The reality is that if one is trying 
to achieve a certain deficit target or trying to balance a budget 
within a specified period of time and one spends more on something, you 
have to spend less on something else. Those are the simple facts.
  I like highways. Appropriate expenditures on highways are an 
important investment in this country. Appropriate expenditures on 
airports are an important investment in this country. Appropriate 
expenditures on transit are an important expenditure and investment in 
this country. But we have to make those judgments in relationship to 
the other choices we have to make.

[[Page H3506]]

  I also happen to think that money spent on research and development 
is important, that investment in education is important, that 
investment in our housing supply and housing availability in this 
country is important. All of those are going to suffer if this proposal 
passes today, and the assumption is that somehow billions of new 
dollars appear to be expended. Those others inevitably have to suffer, 
because those are the choices we have to make every year in Congress. 
There is no free pot of money there, available, that has no impact on 
deficits, no impact on other expenditures. If this passes, if there is 
additional money spent on those programs beyond projection, something 
else has to come down. It is the simple fact.
  What about the inner workings of these plans? Highways; when did this 
accumulation of surplus occur? In the 1960's, and in the 1970's. The 
fact is, since 1981 we have spent $18 billion more on highways than the 
receipts and the tax receipts of that fund; $3 billion more than total 
receipts, $3 billion more than total receipts, taxes, and interest.
  One of the interesting things I discovered, and I have an amendment 
filed, and I do not know that I will offer it today, but I discovered 
to my amazement that the rate of interest credited to the highway trust 
fund is between 1 percent to 3 percent higher than the equivalent yield 
on a 1-year Treasury bill. Somehow, the drafters of this bill and of 
this law managed to get very lucrative interest rates credited to their 
account.
  What about some of the other workings of some of these specific 
funds? The airport trust fund, we think it pays for aviation. The 
reality is that over the years, one of the fundamental reasons they 
have a surplus is that we have used the general revenue fund to 
subsidize the operations of FAA. Every study I have seen would indicate 
that about 85 percent of operations of the FAA should be tied or should 
come from the trust fund if they really paid their accurate share. 
Maybe 15 percent of it could be credited to defense and other 
governmental use of the airways. In reality, it has been about 50 
percent of the operations that are paid for from the trust fund. If it 
would have paid its actual share, no surplus would exist.

                              {time}  1215

  What about in recent years? Since 1981 we have spent more than excise 
taxes and interest on the highway trust fund. Has that changed in the 
last couple of years? No. 1994, 1995, we have spent more than interest 
and current revenues on highways. So this is a fund that has not been 
mistreated. This involves sort of this wish that somehow this pot of 
free money exists that somehow can be made available and not impact 
anyone else. I would hope the House would reject that argument and say 
that these funds are part of the overall budget strategy involved in 
the dynamic debate every year of how we set our priorities. There is 
one way we do that and that is by rejecting this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and 
neighbor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Truth in Budgeting Act is nothing more than an act 
of keeping faith with the American people. It allows the transportation 
trust funds to do what they were originally intended to do.
  The fact that we have to debate and vote on this bill is--I think--an 
admission that Congress has in recent years deceived the American 
taxpayer. When past Congresses first created these trust funds, several 
promises were made that were reflected in the original statutes. One 
was that Federal excise tax receipts would be dedicated to building and 
maintaining these transportation assets and that these activities would 
be self-sustaining. Another was that no general fund revenues would be 
used to support these programs. And a third was that activities funded 
by the trust funds could not run a deficit.
  During the intervening years, these promises have been abrogated. Now 
trust funds are constrained--they're prevented from spending out at the 
same rate they take in revenues. And that is simply wrong. We have been 
practicing a grand scheme of deceit with the users of highways, 
airports, and inland waterways--meaning virtually everyone.
  And believe me, there has been a price paid for this deceit: 
congestion, pollution, and higher costs for goods and services.
  Many in this Congress have made great hay about not burdening future 
generations with the excesses of current and past spending practices. I 
maintain that the Truth in Budgeting Act is very much in the same vein. 
We have the money to build more capacity now, but we're not spending 
it, even in the face of growing highway and airport congestion. And if 
you project out over the next 7 years the growing balance in the trust 
funds should this legislation not be enacted, the backlog of work will 
grow tremendously. Do not punish future generations even more than we 
already have--vote to support H.R. 842.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. 
Before I get into it, I want to pay my respect to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee who has been so diligent in trying to solve this deficit. 
Also to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] who has been a warrior and 
his staff that have made all the difference. The fact is that if Bob 
Dole has any sense, he will pick one of the three Johns as his Vice 
President--Jack Kemp, John McCain, or John Kasich. All would be good 
for our ticket. John has been a warrior, and to even be dealing with 
this bill now wipes out many of the things that he has been trying to 
do.
  What we are dealing with today is money, power, and pork. Remember 
those words: Money, power, and pork.
  Remember the words from Simon and Garfunkel's song ``The Boxer'', 
where it goes on, ``I am just a poor boy though my story's seldom 
told.''
  He ends by saying, ``A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards 
the rest.''
  Many in this body are hearing what you want to hear and disregarding 
the rest. More money has gone out to transportation than was in the 
trust fund. More money in the last 12 or 15 years has gone out than was 
in the trust fund. So many people are disregarding what they do not 
want to hear.
  This bill presents and protects sand and gravel and cement. Then it 
says to those who are elderly with Alzheimer's disease, ``We're not 
going to protect you.''
  ``You may have cancer and you may be worried about cancer research, 
but we're not going to protect you.''
  ``You may be worried about education, but we're not going to protect 
you.''
  ``We're going to protect sand and gravel and cement and tar and 
pitch.''
  What about the 160 other trust funds? The Endeavor Teacher Trust 
Fund. ``Who cares about the teachers?''
  The Radiation Exposure Trust Fund. ``We don't care if you've been 
involved in radiation. Who cares?''
  The Civil Service Trust Fund. ``Who cares about that?'' And on and on 
and on.
  Look what the experts have said. Alan Greenspan, what he said about 
this and others will go into detail. Paul Volcker, what he said; Herb 
Stein, what he said; Michael Boskins, what he said; what all of the 
people have said. ``This is not a good idea.''
  What have some of the groups and newspapers said? The Concord 
Coalition has said, ``Passage of this legislation would severely 
jeopardize the chances of balancing the Federal budget.''
  The National Taxpayers Union has said, ``Placing these trust funds 
off-budget is nothing less than a ploy to increase spending.'' This 
Congress should not be involved in a ploy to increase spending.
  The Citizens Against Government Waste says, ``The Truth-in-Budgeting 
Act sounds great to the public, but it's simply a ruse to increase the 
$5 trillion debt.''

[[Page H3507]]

  The Americans for Tax Reform is opposed to it, the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget, the Citizens for a Sound Economy. You name 
it and they are opposed to it. The New York Times, the Washington Post, 
the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, and you go on and on and 
they are opposed to this. This is a very bad bill. But for the main 
reason, for this side, I will not talk to this side but for our side, 
we have died and fought for a balanced budget. John Kasich, the 
Speaker, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, and others have 
done everything they can for a balanced budget. If we pass this, we 
will never have a balanced budget in your life in this Congress. You 
will never ever see a balanced budget in this Congress. There is no two 
ways about it. Because you are not going to have the guts to cut 
Alzheimer's, you are not going to want to go after Social Security, you 
are not going to want to cut the radiation fund, you are not going to 
want to go after defense, you are not going to want to go after crime, 
and therefore we will never ever have a balanced budget in our lifetime 
in this Congress.
  The American people should know that. This vote today will determine 
whether or not we will ever have a balanced budget.
  So in closing, let me talk about three words and maybe throw in one 
other word. What are we talking about today? We are talking about 
money. This town knows what money is. Members know what money is. We 
are talking about money. We are also talking about power. We are 
talking about power, raw power. And we are talking about something that 
this body says it does not like but it is sadly addicted to it, and 
that is pork. And lastly one other thing we are talking about. We are 
talking about fear. I sense there is fear in the body today. I sense in 
the hearts of some of the Members that I have talked to, there is fear. 
They really would rather not be where they are but yet there is a sense 
of fear.
  Let me just close with a quote from Robert Kennedy that has always 
meant a lot to me. It is from his Capetown speech in 1966 in Capetown, 
South Africa, when he was speaking to the students, and this is what he 
said. He talked about fear and men and women in leadership being timid. 
I will close with this. I quote from Robert Kennedy, Capetown, 1966.
  He said:

       Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their 
     fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their 
     society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in 
     battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, 
     vital quality of those who seek to change a world which 
     yields most painfully to change.

  I strongly urge the defeat of this so we can validate what the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Sabo] and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 842 and efforts to move 
transportation trust funds off-budget.
  This issue has certainly engendered extensive debate and controversy 
and even a coalition of special interests and lobbying groups formed to 
promote taking the trust funds off-budget using the slogan that we have 
to ``put trust back into the trust fund.''
  If only we could have directed the enormous energy, time, and talent 
focused on this issue to address broader--and frankly, much more 
important--transportation issues. I believe the coalition efforts are 
misdirected. Trust is not at issue.
  If only we could have harnessed the zeal with which many have 
approached the trust fund issue and directed it to what I believe are 
greater issues in setting highway and transportation policy.
  If only we could debate the highway funding formulas now in place, 
which dole out highway funds to States using 1980 census figures. Why 
are we relying on decade-and-a-half old population figures? If there is 
unfairness in highway transportation today, the on-off budget trust 
fund issue isn't it.
  If only we could debate the whole issue of the Federal gasoline tax 
which many would argue should be turned back to the States which can 
better determine their individual needs, getting Uncle Sam out of the 
highway program.
  If only. But we are where we are and today we will vote on this issue 
which has been simmering for over a year.
  There are a few facts to keep in mind when considering this issue:
  First, while balances may remain in transportation trust funds, these 
funds are already obligated. The cash balances in the trust funds do 
not represent unspent gas taxes. The highway program is a reimbursable 
program--lines of credit are provided to State agencies to plan and 
construct highways. Then, 3 or 4 years later, the States seek 
reimbursements from the trust fund to pay those bills. That's why the 
cash balances do not represent a surplus. These balances are like your 
checking account balance after you have deposited your paycheck but 
before your home mortgage and car payment checks have cleared the bank. 
Like your home mortgage and car payment, commitments have already been 
made against the balances in the trust fund. In fact, commitments have 
already been made in excess of the current cash balance by over $30 
billion. In other words, if we were to stop collecting the gas tax at 
the end of this year, the trust fund would have a deficit of over $30 
billion. How would we deal with this deficit? I don't think we could.
  Not only that, highway funding has substantially exceeded trust fund 
tax receipts. In 12 of the past 15 years, highway trust fund spending 
exceeded tax revenues. That means that the amount of money the 
Government spends on transportation has exceeded the amount of money 
provided for transportation spending from dedicated trust fund taxes.
  But the trust fund is not the only source of transportation spending. 
Not only are transportation trust funds tapped for roads and bridges, 
the general fund is also being used to pay for transportation programs.
  How much money are we spending on transportation? According to the 
Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 1995, general treasury 
funds provided more than $12 billion for transportation programs above 
and beyond funds provided from transportation trust funds. According to 
CRS, the general fund figure does not include Maritime Administration, 
Federal Maritime Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Department 
of Defense spending on transportation programs, all of which also tap 
into the general fund to pay for transportation projects.
  Second, while transportation is vital to the economic well-being of 
our country, there are other issues vying for priority status. There 
are many important programs demanding critical funding.
  A third and possibly most important point: This issue is about 
reining in the Federal deficit and balancing the budget. Congress has 
had a very difficult time making the tough choices necessary to move 
toward a balanced budget. We still have a long way to go to meet our 
deficit reduction goals, and many more tough choices to make.
  How much more difficult will these choices be if we have to find an 
additional $30 billion in cuts--$30 billion--that's the additional cuts 
we will have to make if transportation trust funds are moved off-
budget. If transportation spending gets special treatment, we will have 
to find $30 billion in cuts in discretionary spending in other parts of 
the budget.
  Are you prepared to cut Alzheimer's research funding? Cancer 
research? Research on other life threatening diseases? Veterans' health 
care? Head Start? Crime prevention? Education? Job training? 
Environmental protection and cleanup programs? National defense? These 
are the kinds of spending programs that would face cuts--potentially 
significant cuts--if transportation spending is treated as an 
entitlement subject to preferential budgetary treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe Congress or the American people want 
to subject these critical programs to even further cuts. Nor do I 
believe Congress or the American people are prepared to accept 
additional taxes which would be necessary to pay for increased 
transportation spending if offsetting cuts elsewhere in the Federal 
budget are not made. Are you prepared to vote ``yes'' for a tax 
increase?
  When we are concerned about providing adequate funding to provide 
basic health care, education programs, protection for our country's 
natural resources, when we are working to provide safe streets and 
neighborhoods, and a sound and secure financial future for ourselves, 
our children and grandchildren, it is not the time to single out 
transportation and insulate it from these tough choices. I would also 
point out that there are some 160 other dedicated trust funds currently 
part of the unified budget. What if we move all of the trust funds off-
budget and establish each and every one of them as an entitlement 
subject to preferential treatment. What makes these trust funds 
different from the transportation trust funds?
  Sand, gravel, asphalt, and concrete. Are these more important than 
the Black Lung trust fund? Are the transportation trust funds a higher 
national priority than the Endeavor Teacher Fellowship trust fund, the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation trust fund, the Civil Service 
Retirement trust fund, the Federal Employees Life Insurance trust fund, 
or the Rail Industry Pension fund?

[[Page H3508]]

  As important as transportation is, we have to balance transportation 
needs with all the other programs supported by the working men and 
women who are taxpayers. This country, all Americans, are in this 
together and we have to balance all the priorities and all the needs of 
all the people.
  Another point: H.R. 842 will erode the checks and balances between 
the authorizing committees and the tax and appropriations committees. 
This bill will provide one committee with extraordinary ability to 
obligate U.S. taxpayers to long-term spending commitments. As Members 
know, there is constant pressure from the legislative committees to 
spend more and more money on their particular programs. This makes 
sense but there must be built-in controls in the budget process to 
counteract this natural advocacy.
  Despite what the bill's proponents say, H.R. 842 will obviate the 
need for action by the Appropriations Committee and will eliminate 
annual controls in the budget process to set priorities. Make no 
mistake about it. By moving transportation trust funds off-budget, H.R. 
842 virtually eliminates the checks and balances that the congressional 
committee structure now provides for transportation and the other 
Federal spending programs.

  Proponents of H.R. 842 say that not a penny will be spent without the 
approval of the Appropriations Committee. That sounds good, but in 
reality, this is false. If H.R. 842 does not change the role of the 
Appropriations Committee, why are we going through this debate?
  There has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue, so to 
get an objective view, I wrote to several dozen experts on the Federal 
budgetary process and transportation spending and asked their opinions 
on the status of transportation funds. I contacted economists, 
transportation, Government, and public policy analysts; professors; 
current and former officials of the General Accounting Office, 
Congressional Budget Office, and Office of Management and Budget; 
current and former members of the Federal Reserve Board; and current 
and former members of the President's Council of Economic Advisors.
  The response has been clear and unequivocal: These experts--
representing the entire spectrum of social, economic, budgetary, and 
transportation thinking and representing both Republican and Democratic 
administrations alike--say keep the transportation trust funds as part 
of the unified budget. Do not make the changes we are talking about 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I brought with me copies of these experts' views and 
ask that they be submitted for the record. Their views--and their 
unanimity--leave little doubt. Moving transportation trust funds off-
budget does not represent sound fiscal policy or budgetary treatment.
  I'd like to share a few thoughts from these experts.
  Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal 
Reserve System, warns:

       [M]oving some spending categories off-budget would lead to 
     fragmentation of the budgeting process and would detract from 
     the unified budget as an indicator of the Government's fiscal 
     operations and hence of the impact of the U.S. budget on 
     credit markets and the economy. Moreover, it would weaken the 
     ability of the Congress to prioritize and control spending 
     effectively.

  Mr. Greenspan concludes that:

       [M]oving programs off-budget raises the risk that resource 
     tradeoffs would become obscured and could engender cynicism 
     in financial markets and the public at large about the 
     commitment and ability of the Government to control Federal 
     spending.

  Mr. Greenspan's views are echoed by Paul Volcker, former Chairman of 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, who states:

       [T]he present practice of including the transportation 
     trust funds in the unified budget should be continued. I am 
     reinforced in that conclusion by the fact that nothing in the 
     unified budget prevents the Congress and the administration 
     from reaching a decision to maintain highway spending (or any 
     other spending) at a particular level it deems a priority 
     matter. Trust fund accounting within the unified budget may * 
     * * be helpful in reaching that decision.

  Herbert Stein, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for 
Public Policy Research and previously a member of the Presidential 
Council of Economic Advisors, also opposes moving trust funds off-
budget, noting:

       I would not favor moving the trust funds off the budget. We 
     want to have a comprehensive measure of the Federal 
     Government's fiscal activities.

  One thought from Michael Boskin, currently a professor and senior 
fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and previously a 
member of the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors. He said:

       I believe it is likely that moving one popular spending 
     program primarily financed by earmarked revenues off-budget 
     would lead to a stampede first of other trust funds off-
     budget and then all other spending programs seeking to be 
     funded with earmarked revenue sources. This would quickly 
     render sensible tax and budget policy impossible.

  Mr. Chairman, let me share jsut two more. G. William Miller endorses:

       I do not believe a case has been made for excluding the 
     transportation trust funds. From my experience as Secretary 
     of the Treasury and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System, I would strongly recommend that you 
     retain the present treatment of the transportation trust 
     funds so that there is no opportunity for losing 
     accountability or setting precedents for further off-balance 
     sheet structures.

  The Congressional Budget Office opposes moving transportation trust 
funds off-budget, too. According to James L. Blum, deputy director of 
CBO:

       [T]he Federal budget should be comprehensive. Setting 
     selected programs aside, and looking at only the remainder, 
     can distort budget decisionmaking. Giving the transportation 
     trust funds a favored footing shifts the onus of deficit 
     reduction to other programs that lack this protected status. 
     Sound decisionmaking, in contrast, demands that spending and 
     revenue proposals be evaluated on their merits and not on 
     their budgetary status.

  I think these experts express the critical issues best. A unified 
budget--which includes transportation trust funds--is essential to 
maintaining accountability and control over the Federal budget and 
Government spending. Moreover, a unified budget is necessary to allow 
Congress to make the difficult decisions on our budget in the fairest 
possible way. Creating another entitlement that is off the table is not 
fair. Nor is it the way to get a balanced budget.
  The experts agree that H.R. 842 is bad legislation.
  The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman and 
ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the chairman and ranking 
member of the House Appropriations Committee, and others oppose this 
legislation.
  Citizens for a Sound Economy, Concord Coalition, Heritage Foundation, 
National Taxpayers' Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Citizens Against 
Government Waste, and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget are 
among the taxpayer watchdogs groups opposing H.R. 842.
  The Wall Street Journal, Washington, Post, New York Times, and the 
Journal of Commerce oppose H.R. 842.
  Mr. Chairman, when such diverse interests agree, it's surely time to 
take note.
  H.R. 842 will make balancing the budget nearly impossible. Every 
fiscal conservative in the Congress--including those Members who signed 
onto the bill before knowing its full effect on spending--should look 
carefully at what CBO, GAO, OMB, taxpayer watchdog groups and a 
unanimous chorus of economists say about H.R. 842.
  H.R. 842 is a bad bill. It files in the face of fiscal responsibility 
and budgetary restraint. It represents unsound public policy. It 
represents unfair attempts to bestow a preferential status upon one 
type of government spending at the expense of every other type of 
discretionary spending. It will either doom efforts to balance the 
Federal budget or it will force all other programs not granted 
sacrosanct status to absorb still more cuts to keep us on track to 
balance the budget. H.R. 842 would set transportation spending above 
all other types of domestic spending--above crime prevention, Head 
Start, veterans' medical care, education, and environmental programs.
  This Congress came to Washington to balance the budget, to clear the 
budget debate of smoke and mirrors. Today's vote on H.R. 842 isn't a 
fight about trust funds or promises. It isn't a fight between 
authorizing and appropriating committees. It is a vote over priorities. 
It is a vote to test our resolve, to see if we as Republicans and 
Democrats are serious about balancing the budget.
  If you are serious about cutting spending, vote ``no.''
  If you are serious about balancing the budget, vote ``no.''
  Enactment of H.R. 842 would break faith with sound economic policy 
and would cede control over the Federal budget and transportation 
spending to special interests. H.R. 842 should be defeated.
  The choice is clear--vote ``no'' on H.R. 842.
                                         Johns Hopkins University,


                                 Institute for Policy Studies,

                                Baltimore, MD, September 21, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing in response to your 
     letter of August 23, 1995 to express my opposition to moving 
     transportation trust funds off-budget. Thus, I would not 
     support Congressman Shuster's legislation which would move 
     four transportation trust funds off-budget. I think this 
     would set a dangerous precedent which would have serious 
     long-term implications for the nation's fiscal health as 
     other user fee supported activities rush to be moved off-
     budget.

[[Page H3509]]

       I would like to respond directly to the three main points 
     raised in your letter. First, I agree with those opposed to 
     moving the transportation trust funds off-budget that a 
     unified budget is essential to maintaining accountability and 
     control over the federal budget and government's claim on 
     private resources. The unified federal budget has received 
     bipartisan support since 1969. It describes the aggregate 
     economic activity and health of the federal government. 
     Receipts and expenditures are detailed in one comprehensive 
     package, providing decision makers and citizens valuable 
     information on the government's activity and claim on 
     national income. Fragmenting the budget presentation only 
     obfuscates the federal role in the economy and is totally 
     inconsistent with efforts to reinvent government and improve 
     its legitimacy with voters and citizens.
       Second, the fact that these trust funds are financed from 
     user fees is totally irrelevant to whether they should be 
     moved off-budget. User fees are not synonymous with earmarked 
     funds. User fees are proxies for prices which are necessary 
     to provide suppliers of a service with information about the 
     demand for specific services. Unfortunately, however, in the 
     case of the transportation trust funds, user fees are 
     generally poor price proxies because they do not accurately 
     reflect the total cost of providing transportation services. 
     In any event, you obtain the rationing affect of prices, 
     irrespective of decisions about how to allocate the revenues 
     generated from those user fees. From an economic efficiency 
     perspective, the two are not linked.
       In addition, earmarking of revenues is generally not a 
     desirable budgetary practice because it limits policy makers 
     flexibility to respond to changing circumstances and 
     priorities.
       Third, it is not clear how much more spending that nation 
     needs on individual transportation modes. The demand for 
     transportation services is a derived demand which depends on 
     demographic, economic and international trends beyond the 
     control of policy makers in the U.S. Policy makers need to 
     understand those trends and the implications they have for 
     the demand for transportation services in the U.S. The 
     limited resources available for transportation purposes 
     should then be allocated in a manner which addresses the 
     nation's transportation needs as influenced by those trends. 
     This may or may not be consistent with a policy of earmarking 
     specific user fees for expenditures on the individual 
     transportation mode that generated those revenues.
       In an era of serious budget constraints at all levels of 
     government, it is critical that policy makers have the 
     flexibility necessary to respond to the changing 
     transportation needs of the country. Thus, Congress may want 
     to investigate new ways of applying transportation trust fund 
     revenues to meet these changing needs. For example, the 
     nation's transit needs have changed considerably since 1956 
     when the Highway Trust Fund was initiated. Perhaps it is time 
     for the federal government to consider a single 
     transportation trust fund, with resources pooled from various 
     user fees, so that funds could be distributed to meet 
     America's diverse transportation needs in a more efficient 
     manner. This is the approach taken by the Maryland State 
     Department of Transportation and it is consistent with the 
     increased flexibility and selectivity in the Intermodal 
     Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act. Maybe the federal 
     government has more to learn in this area from the 
     experimentation taking place in the states.
       It is entirely appropriate in my view to rethink the model 
     of transportation finance developed over the past fifty 
     years. Proper investment in diverse transportation modes will 
     yield greater productivity and long-term economic strength. 
     Restructuring the federal budget process by moving 
     transportation trust funds off-budget, however, is neither 
     necessary, appropriate nor desirable.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Michael Bell,
     Principal Research Scientist.
                                                                    ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 1996.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: This letter is in response to your 
     request for additional comments as to whether the 
     transportation trust funds should remain part of the unified 
     budget. My views are fully expressed in my previous letter, 
     dated September 28, 1995, and I have nothing to add at this 
     time.
       I will simply reaffirm the main point stated in that 
     letter: the federal budget should be comprehensive. Setting 
     selected programs aside--that is, taking them ``off-
     budget''--can distort budget decisionmaking. For example, 
     giving the transportation trust funds a favored footing 
     shifts the onus of deficit reduction to other programs that 
     lack this protected status. In contrast, sound decisionmaking 
     demands that spending and revenue proposals be evaluated on 
     their merits and not on their budgetary status.
       I have attached a copy of my earlier letter, which contains 
     a more complete discussion of the possible consequences of 
     designating certain programs as off-budget. I hope this 
     information is helpful to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James L. Blum,
                                                  Deputy Director.
     Attachment.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                               Washington, DC, September 28, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman: This is in response to your letter of 
     September 20, 1995, asking for my views on whether the 
     federal transportation trust funds should remain a part of 
     the unified budget.
       In short, I believe that the federal budget should be 
     comprehensive. Setting selected programs aside, and looking 
     at only the remainder, can distort budget decisionmaking. 
     Giving the transportation trust funds a favored footing 
     shifts the onus of deficit reduction to other programs that 
     lack this protected status. Sound decisionmaking, in 
     contrast, demands that spending and revenue proposals be 
     evaluated on their merits and not on their budgetary status.
       The extent to which taking the transportation trust funds 
     off-budget would distort budget decisionmaking depends on 
     what budgetary procedures and controls would apply to them 
     under their new status. This is not at all clear. For 
     example, each of the three entities currently designated as 
     off-budget--the Postal Service, Social Security, and Medicare 
     hospital insurance--is treated differently under the rules 
     and procedures of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the 
     Budget Act) and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (the Balanced Budget Act). The Postal 
     Service is exempt from both of these acts, although federal 
     payments to the Postal Service or payments from the Postal 
     Service to the federal government are subject to both sets of 
     rules. Legislation affecting Social Security benefits or 
     revenues is not subject to the pay-as-you-go procedures of 
     the Balanced Budget Act or to the Budget Act constraints that 
     apply to other programs. There are, however, special rules 
     that govern consideration of such legislation in the House 
     and the Senate. In addition, discretionary Social Security 
     administrative costs are subject to the statutory caps that 
     limit total discretionary spending (and to any sequestration 
     that would be triggered if the caps are exceeded) and to the 
     allocations of discretionary spending that enforce spending 
     decisions set forth in the annual Congressional budget 
     resolution. Despite its official off-budget status, the 
     Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is not afforded any 
     special treatment under either the Budget Act or the Balanced 
     Budget Act (there is a limit on the sequestration percentage 
     that would apply to Medicare, but there are similar limits or 
     exemptions for many on-budget programs).
       I assume the proponents of a proposal to move the 
     transportation trust funds off-budget view the funds as self-
     financing entities that should be subject only to internal 
     financing constraints. Under the existing budgetary rules, 
     the receipts going into the trust funds and the spending from 
     the trust funds are controlled by separate budgetary 
     procedures. All outlays from the trust funds are counted as 
     discretionary spending controlled by the caps set by the 
     Balanced Budget Act and the allocations made pursuant to the 
     annual budget resolution, while changes to governmental 
     receipts are subject to the separate pay-as-you-go mechanism 
     and the revenue floor set by the budget resolution. Under 
     these procedures, legislated increases in trust fund receipts 
     cannot be used to offset increased spending. Giving the 
     transportation trust funds off-budget status might allow such 
     offsets. Furthermore, if trust fund spending were exempt from 
     the caps that apply to other discretionary spending, the 
     Congress could approve additional spending without providing 
     offsets--presumably as long as there were adequate balances 
     in the first funds. This might create a closer long-term 
     match between the income to the trust funds and the spending 
     from the funds, which some would view as a more equitable 
     outcome.
       The arguments against giving these programs off-budget 
     status involve a different view of federal trust funds. Under 
     this view, which is held by the Congressional Budget Office, 
     the transportation trust funds are simply an accounting 
     mechanism, and spending on programs financed by trust funds 
     should not be given a special status. Taxpayers' dollars are 
     most effectively used if decisions about spending for 
     transportation and other programs are made on the basis of 
     the relative benefits to be derived, not on the basis of 
     available earmarked revenues. For example, the Congress might 
     decide that more money should be spent on certain 
     transportation activities than is generated by the earmarked 
     revenues--as it already does in the case of Federal Aviation 
     Administration operations. At the same time, decisions about 
     taxes should take into account factors beyond the level of 
     spending on highways or other transportation programs. In 
     1990 and 1993, for example, the Congress increased fuel tax 
     rates for deficit reduction purposes, placing part of the 
     additional revenues into the general fund of the Treasury. 
     Fuel taxes could also be considered a way of charging users 
     for polluting the air.
       I hope this analysis is helpful to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James L. Blum,
     Deputy Director,
                                                                    ____


[[Page H3510]]

                                          Stanford University,

                                    Stanford, CA, October 6, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Transportation Subcommittee, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: This note responds to your request for my 
     suggestions concerning whether the federal transportation 
     trust fund should remain a part of the unified budget. I 
     strongly oppose moving the transportation trust fund off-
     budget.
       Many would argue that transportation trust funds collected 
     from transportation ``user fees'' should be used only for 
     transportation spending and should be removed from the 
     unified budget to ensure that occurs. I believe it is likely 
     that moving one popular spending program primarily financed 
     by ear-marked revenues off-budget would lead to a stampede 
     first of other trust funds off-budget and then all other 
     spending programs seeking to be funded with ear-marked 
     revenue sources. This would quickly render sensible tax and 
     budget policy impossible.
       I strongly side with those who, in this instance, support a 
     unified budget as a (however imperfect) vehicle for 
     maintaining accountability and control, as you put it in your 
     cover note. I also believe that it is desirable to have 
     everything the Government does reflected in one place, as the 
     unified budget imperfectly attempts to do. This is the only 
     way one can begin to hope that a sensible discussion of the 
     trade-offs among budget priorities can occur.
       I might add that while I am sure it is upsetting that not 
     all of the transportation trust funds are currently being 
     applied to transportation outlays, it is my understanding of 
     the history over the last twenty years that highway account 
     outlays have substantially exceeded trust fund tax receipts.
       More generally, CBO estimates that if one were to take all 
     activities which have some trust fund financing and ask the 
     question ``what is the net effect on the deficit of the 
     revenues and outlays on those programs,'' the answer, perhaps 
     surprisingly, is that general fund revenues fund major 
     portions of activities that are partially and/or heavily 
     financed by trust fund revenues. Thus, from another 
     perspective the general treasury is ``subsidizing'' overall 
     trust fund activity. Whether one should view the glass as 
     half-empty or half-full I leave aside. My point here is only 
     that it would be unwise to open a Pandora's box by moving 
     transportation trust funds off-budget.
       While there are many problems with the existing unified 
     budget--by far the most important of which is the lack of 
     serious accrual accounting--I believe that despite the 
     concerns of people paying the user fees (we in California, 
     myself included, drive a lot and thus pay lots of federal 
     gasoline taxes), or those wishing to spend additional 
     resources on transportation, the transportation trust fund 
     should remain part of the unified budget. It would risk a 
     serious accountability and control problem if Congress opens 
     a Pandora's box of trust fund escape from budgetary 
     discipline.
       I hope these remarks are useful to you as you debate this 
     and related issues. Best personal wishes.
           Cordially,
     Michael J. Boskin.
                                                                    ____



                                                      Rutgers,

                                    Camden, NJ, September 5, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. House of Representative, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: In response to your letter of August 
     23, I am happy to send this answer to your question about 
     whether the federal transportation trust funds, particularly 
     the highway trust fund, should be taken ``off-budget.''
       I must say that I agree with both James R. Miller and Alice 
     Rivlen in strongly opposing the removal of the trust funds 
     from the unified federal budget.
       As a political scientist specializing in transportation 
     policy, I have been researching and writing about the issue 
     of the trust fund approach to highway and transportation 
     funding for fifteen years. Taking the trust funds off budget 
     represents just the latest in a long line of unjustified 
     claims for special treatment for one particular type of 
     revenue and expenditure. It reflects, not good government or 
     good public finance, but the political strength of special 
     interests, mainly the highway lobby.
       The federal highway trust fund (and its state level 
     cousins) has always been a bit of a fraud, designed to 
     convince the public that their modest pennies per gallon 
     highway taxes were paying all the costs of the road system. 
     Overwhelming evidence has accumulated that this is not the 
     case, and that at least forty percent of total highway 
     construction, maintenance, and operations costs are 
     subsidized by the general taxpayers.
       The other unjustified contention is that it would be a 
     ``breech of contract'' to ``divert'' motor fuel tax revenues 
     to non-highway uses. This claim for special privilege for 
     ``highway user fees'' has caused no end of mischief. The 
     United States still has a long way to go before it reaches 
     the point of being able to compare and evaluate investments 
     of scarce public moneys across modes and between 
     transportation and other uses that our major trading partners 
     attained decades ago.
       In my book, ``Miles To Go; European and American 
     Transportation Policies'' (MIT Press), I recount how the 
     British finally put paid to the notion that motor taxes 
     deserved special treatment. When Winston Churchill was 
     Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Minister) in 1926-27, 
     he began to take money from the Road Fund that Lloyd George 
     had created in 1909 with a parliamentary promise to spend the 
     proceeds from taxes on cars and petrol on roads. When 
     motorists groups such as the Royal Automobile Club accused 
     Churchill of ``raiding'' the road Fund like a pirate, he 
     thundered back:
       ``Whoever said that motorists were to contribute nothing 
     for all time to the general revenue of the country. . .? 
     Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; 
     racehorses may be taxed; possession of armorial bearings and 
     manservants may be taxed--and the yield devoted to the 
     general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all 
     time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to 
     roads. Obviously this is all nonsense. Whoever said that, 
     whatever the yield of these taxes, and whatever the poverty 
     of the country, we were to build roads, and nothing but 
     roads, from this yield? We might have to cripple our Trade by 
     increased taxation of income; we might even be unable to pay 
     for the upkeep of our Fleet. But never mind, whatever 
     happens, the whole yield of the taxes on motors must be spent 
     on roads . . . Such contentions are absurd, and constitute at 
     once an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon 
     common sense.''
       It would be nice to see an American politician rise to his 
     ``finest hour'' with this kind of challenge to entrenched 
     interests.
       In recent years the trend has been to move away from the 
     inflexibility and the special treatment of rigid single mode 
     trust funds. Granting off budget status would be a step 
     backward. I strongly urge you to resist this effort, and I 
     would be happy to provide you with further information and 
     arguments if you so desire.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               James A. Dunn, Jr.,
     Associate Professor.
                                                                    ____

                                               National Center for


                                              Policy Analysis,

                                      Dallas, TX, October 6, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: Thanks for your kind letter of September 26th.
       I don't know that my advice is technical enough to be 
     included as part of your record, but I would say this:
       In eight years as Governor, I fought very hard to keep all 
     funds on budget and avoid setting up the many little pockets 
     of privilege that separate budget items create for various 
     interests. Once you have your own source of funds, you are 
     not nearly as accountable to the Congress, nor is the 
     Congress able to properly supervise the expenditures of the 
     country.
       The best way to handle finances is to have all the money 
     come into a single place and then be appropriated out again 
     through Congressional action. The transportation trust fund 
     is one example, but there are legions of others in 
     Washington, as you well know.
       I think that keeping funds on budget is the better choice 
     to make.
           Sincerely,
     Pete du Pont.
                                                                    ____



                                       The University of Iowa,

                                                September 6, 1995.
     The Honorable Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,
     Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your request, I am 
     writing to offer my thoughts on the issue of moving the 
     Highway Trust Fund off budget. As you are very well aware, 
     there are reasonably compelling arguments for and against 
     doing so. I will briefly assess these arguments and provide 
     my conclusions.
       In principle, the efficacy of a separate, off-budget 
     Highway Trust Fund is largely based on two points:
       In its pure form, the so-called pay-as-you-go concept means 
     that users of the Nation's highway system should defray its 
     entire cost, and they should be assured that their user fees 
     will go to providing the services for which they are paying.
       Moving the Highway Trust Fund off budget helps moderate the 
     illusion that the Nation's deficit is less than actually is 
     the case, if the Trust Fund's receipts exceed expenditures in 
     a given year. The GAO report you sent suggests that this 
     ``masking'' does occur in some years but not that many.
       The main reasons for keeping the Highway Trust Fund and 
     other trust funds part of the unified budget are:
       It helps enable revenue generated from all sources to be 
     allocated among the activities of government. Trade-offs 
     among competing programs can be treated more explicity as the 
     Nation's priorities are explored.
       The overall magnitude of government spending, and hence the 
     draw away from the private sector, can be more readily 
     comprehended by decision makers and citizens alike. This, of 
     course, facilitates debate on the appropriate scale of 
     government activity.
       Conceptually, fees paid by users of the Nation's highways 
     can be thought of as just another revenue source. As you 
     probably know, in Great Britain less than half of the highway 
     user fees actually are spent on the highway system. There is 
     not theoretical reason

[[Page H3511]]

     why highway user revenue or any other user revenue must be 
     spent on the activity from which it is drawn. This point is 
     significant because, as Alice Rivlin says, trust fund revenue 
     accounts for about one-third of the total.
       Whether or not to move the Highway Trust Fund off budget is 
     in the end a political decision that unfortunately cannot be 
     guided much by economic theory. It seems to me that the key 
     points surrounding this decision are:
       Treating the Highway Trust Fund as a separate account would 
     enable a stable level of well-defined resources to be 
     available for reinvestment in the Nation's highway system 
     (and in ground transportation more generally). According to 
     the Congressional Budget Office, the backlog of highway 
     system resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and 
     reconstruction (4R) needs has grown to a level such that an 
     annual reinvestment of over $27 billion would be required to 
     eliminate this backlog. Oftentimes, 4R projects lack the 
     political appeal of new of new construction, but reductions 
     in the highway system performance will pose an increasing 
     threat to the Nation's economy.
       If the political will exists, the same or even a greater 
     level of expenditures on transportation infrastructure is 
     possible through a unified budget. As noted earlier and in 
     the GAO document you sent, in recent years more has been 
     spent for this purpose than has been paid by highway users 
     (drawing down the Trust Fund's balance). I do not have a good 
     sense of how likely Congress is to make transportation 
     infrastructure a relatively high priority in its budgeting 
     process during the coming years. Simply stated, a unified 
     budget poses an opportunity and possibly a risk to 
     transportation. Past indications are that this risk is 
     normal, other than the deficit-reduction draw on the motor 
     fuel tax of recent years.
       The wisdom of using Highway Trust Fund resources for non-
     transportation purposes is in part dependent on the 
     desirability of motor fuel and use taxes as revenue-
     generating mechanisms. Neither is seriously regressive, the 
     administrative costs associated with them are nominal, and 
     the fuel tax is comparatively invisible. To the extent that 
     it is visible, the fuel tax contributes to fuel conservation. 
     If fuel taxes were raised significantly, marginal changes in 
     industrial location and choice of transportation mode could 
     occur.
       Using the argument of transportation investment as a means 
     for strengthening the Nation's economic competitiveness is a 
     double-edged sword. If individual projects or at least 
     clusters of projects are selected on the basis of benefits to 
     society exceeding costs, transportation investment can indeed 
     strengthen competitiveness. But if projects are selected as 
     demonstration projects and on other non-scientific bases, 
     then the funds spent on transportation are much less certain 
     to foster long-term growth. In my opinion, the process of 
     determining how available Highway Trust Fund resources should 
     be spent is more important an issue than whether or not to 
     move the Trust Fund off budget.
       Thank you for asking me to comment on this important policy 
     issue. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel 
     free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                             David J. Forkenbrock,
     Professor and Director.
                                                                    ____

                                               Board of Governors,


                                       Federal Reserve System,

                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 1995.
     The Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of myself and the other 
     members of the Board, I am pleased to respond to your letter 
     of September 26 requesting comment on proposals to move the 
     transportation trust funds off-budget. As a general matter, 
     it has been the practice of the Board not to take positions 
     on the details of the individual tax and spending issues that 
     are before the Congress. However, the shifting of certain 
     spending categories off-budget raises some broader concerns, 
     with implications for discipline and control over federal 
     outlays. Notably, moving some spending categories off-budget 
     would lead to fragmentation of the budgeting process and 
     would detract from the unified budget as an indicator of the 
     government's fiscal operations and hence of the impact of the 
     U.S. budget on credit markets and the economy. Moreover, it 
     could weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and 
     control spending effectively.
       As the letters from OMB Director Rivlin and former-OMB 
     Director Miller make clear, responsible budgeting requires a 
     comprehensive framework for setting priorities and assessing 
     competing claims on national resources. The unified budget, 
     as commonly presented to include the social security trust 
     funds, combines all fiscal transactions in one place. It thus 
     helps policymakers and the public understand the trade-offs 
     among government programs, and between public and private 
     spending. Moreover, as the focal point of the budget process, 
     it places individual programs on a more comparable footing as 
     they compete for federal funding and thus helps the President 
     and the Congress to resolve competing demands on the nation's 
     resources. Moving programs off-budget raises the risk that 
     resource trade-offs would become obscured and could engender 
     cynicism in financial markets and the public at large about 
     the commitment and ability of the government to control 
     federal spending.
       We hope these comments are helpful in your deliberations.
           Sincerely,
     Alan Greenspan.
                                                                    ____



                                           Harvard University,

                                   Cambridge, MA, October 2, 1995.
     The Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: Thank you for your letter of 
     September 26 on the treatment of transportation trust funds 
     in the budgetary process. I entirely agree with Alice Rivlin 
     and James Miller that these trust funds should be considered 
     as part of the unified budget. In fact, I cannot see the case 
     for having a separate status for these trust funds nor for a 
     policy of keeping them in balance over time.
       Perhaps I may add that the heavy emphasis on gasoline taxes 
     for the financing of highways is misplaced in my view. In 
     many cases, especially for major rural roads, tolls are a 
     more appropriate user fee. I also fail to understand why 
     gasoline taxes could not be raised above the level used for 
     highway construction and related expenditures.
       Finally, I have long felt that the federal government plays 
     too large a role in transportation. The primary 
     responsibility should be left with the states.
           Yours sincerely,
     Hendrik S. Houthakker.
                                                                    ____



                                  Birmingham-Southern College,

                                 Birmingham, AL, October 16, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wolf: In my personal opinion, the proposal to 
     move the transportation trust funds off-budget, as provided 
     for in H.R. 842 would not be in the public interest. Here is 
     why I think so.
       Every effort should be made to enable interested and 
     informed citizens to readily see and understand the extent 
     and cost of the federal government's involvement in the 
     affairs of the country. The task is already most difficult, 
     if not impossible. Taking this well known and proper function 
     of interstate transportation and removing it from budget 
     totals makes an overall view even more difficult.
       Our present practice of contingent credit enhancement by 
     various federal programs has exposed the government to 
     enormous possible future costs with little control of the 
     risks. The recent debacle of the savings and loan industry 
     and the costs of funding the Resolution Trust Corporation is 
     a too vivid example. No one knows where the next such problem 
     may arise. Nor can the Congress or the public measure the 
     benefits of such programs with their possible costs.
       Our repeated practice of regulating the use of private 
     resources so as to meet public or even political goals 
     continues to hide or disguise an enormous indirect tax borne 
     by everyone. Moreover we have no way in which to measure 
     either the costs or the benefits of this form of indirect 
     taxation. But we all know the real costs are there.
       When one looks at the extent of present obscure and 
     indirect federal involvement, I think we will be better 
     served to keep all possible programs on-budget and highly 
     visible. The present earmarking of highway funds is not a 
     reason to remove them from the unified budget.
           Sincerely,
                                           Philip C. Jackson, Jr.,
     Adjunct Professor.
                                                                    ____

         Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
                                 Cambridge, MA, September 8, 1995.
     Congressman Frank Wolf,
     Cannon Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: In response to your letter of August 
     23, 1995 requesting my thoughts about the debate over the 
     fate of transportation trust funds, I offer the following 
     comments:
       The Need for a Unified Budget: I tend to agree with 
     analyses offered by OMB, GAO, and former OMB Director James 
     Miller. Sound budgeting principals require a unified budget 
     particularly in an era when deficit reduction is clearly the 
     primary challenge facing the Congress and the executive 
     branch. In this vein, I am particularly struck by GAO's 
     assessment that efforts to take the trust funds off budget 
     are driven primarily by ``fear of future budget constraints 
     not actual past restrictions on spending.'' As Congress and 
     the executive branch make the difficult decisions required to 
     balance the budget, all sources of spending and revenue 
     should be on the table.
       Meeting Investment Needs: Moving transportation trust funds 
     off budget might increase short-term spending on 
     transportation. However, it is not at all clear that such 
     spending would be in the national interest. To begin with, 
     there is little credible evidence that the nation is 
     underinvesting in transportation infrastructure. Rather, most 
     available evidence suggests that by picking up the

[[Page H3512]]

     bulk of the cost of many projects, the current system 
     encourages inefficient decisionmaking at the state and local 
     level and that redesigning current programs would provide 
     more than enough money to meet current needs. (See, for 
     example, work by both Edward Gramlich, Jack Tatorn, George 
     Peterson, or Clifford Winston).
       Encouraging Poor Decisionmaking: If taking transportation 
     trust funds off-budget increases available federal funds, 
     then problems in the current system are likely to worsen. 
     There would, for example, be more demonstration projects. 
     Moreover, moving transportation trust funds off budget could 
     exacerbate tensions between so-called donor and recipient 
     states. While both demonstration projects and funding 
     disparities have some grounding in legitimate questions of 
     public policy and in the logrolling necessary to keep the 
     legislative process moving, difficult fiscal times demand 
     that Congress exercise more, not less, control over such 
     activities.
       Recovering All Costs: If, for political reasons, trust 
     funds are moved off-budget, Congress and the executive branch 
     should seriously consider expanding the scope of programs 
     funded by those programs. At minimum this suggests that some 
     transit aid now provided from the general fund ought to be 
     shifted to the Highway Trust Fund's Transit Account. More 
     broadly, many (but not all) economists argue that when all 
     externalities (such as policing, damage from air pollution, 
     and costs created by accidents) are factored in, highway user 
     fees do not cover the full costs created by highway users. 
     This suggests that shifting trust funds off budget might be 
     combined with an expansion of activities funded by those 
     programs.
       Seizing the Opportunity: The current budget fights offer 
     policymakers such as yourself a rare opportunity to rethink 
     the fundamental design of all federal programs. Moving the 
     trust funds off budget would merely continue (and likely 
     exacerbate) many well-recognized problems with the current 
     federal-aid system and make it even harder to accomplish 
     Congress' overarching goal of balancing the budget in seven 
     years. It is, therefore, a step that should not be taken 
     lightly and, if it is taken at all, one that should be linked 
     to key structural reforms.
       I hope these comments are useful.
           Sincerely,
                                                   David Luberoff,
     Assistant Director.
                                                                    ____



                                 Sherman J. Maisel Associates,

                              San Francisco, CA, October 20, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter 
     of October 13, 1995, requesting my views on the issue of 
     moving the transportation trust funds off-budget.
       I believe that it is important that we retain a unified 
     budget that includes all trust funds. A key concept of the 
     Federal budget is that it measures and reflects the total 
     impact of the Government's receipts and expenditures on the 
     economy.
       In the past, the failure to obtain a measure of the 
     Government's total effect on economic activity led to many 
     untoward experiences. This was a key reason for adopting and 
     maintaining the unified budget.
       Action now to remove the trust funds and destroy the 
     concept of a unified budget would directly contravene all of 
     the efforts Congress is making through the Reconciliation 
     bill to improve the economic effect of the Government on the 
     economy.
           Sincerely,

                                            Sherman J. Maisel,

                                            Former Governor of the
     Federal Reserve System.
                                                                    ____



                                G. William Miller & Co., Inc.,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 1995.
     Re Transportation Trust Fund.

     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     House of Representatives,
     Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: Many thanks for your letter of October 13 
     inviting me to express my views on the proposal for moving 
     the transportation trust funds out of the unified budget.
       The introduction of the unified budget came about after 
     careful bipartisan study and support. Any decision to depart 
     from or modify the system should be approached with great 
     caution, and an exclusion of any trust fund from the unified 
     budget should be done only if there is overwhelming 
     demonstration that this would better serve the nation's 
     budgetary process. I do not believe a case has been made for 
     excluding the transportation trust funds. From my experience 
     as Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System, I would strongly 
     recommend that you retain the present treatment of the 
     transportation trust funds so that there is no opportunity 
     for losing accountability or setting precedents for further 
     off-balance sheet structures.
       You have received persuasive analyses from the General 
     Accounting Office and from present and former heads of OMB. I 
     will not go over the ground again, but do concur in the 
     recommendations you received. I will point out, however, that 
     the two points made by GAO-namely, masking and need for 
     capital budgeting--can be solved in ways other than excluding 
     trust funds from the unified budget. It would certainly be 
     possible to present the unified budget on a fund account 
     basis, so there would be transparency for all trust funds. It 
     is also feasible to divide the present cash budget into a 
     system of operating expenses and capital expenditures. These 
     changes do not require removing any of the trust funds from 
     the budget.
       Your leadership can be very helpful in maintaining a strong 
     system of budget accountability.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
     Bill.
                                                                    ____



                                                Palo Alto, CA,

                                                  October 1, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In a letter of September 26, you 
     requested my views on whether the transportation trust fund 
     should remain a part of the unified budget. I agree with Jim 
     Miller and Alice Rivlin that it should.
       As most economists would agree, the overall budget 
     allocates the amount of resources diverted from private hands 
     to uses determined by the government; it also establishes the 
     deficit, which subtracts from total savings in the United 
     States and thus means either higher interest rates or the 
     importation of more capital. Whether the transportation 
     budget is officially included in the unified budget changes 
     neither spending nor the deficit. In other words, defining 
     the transportation budget as on or off budget is meaningless 
     unless its status results in more government spending of 
     higher tax receipts and thus in the size of government 
     outlays and in the deficit. The proponents of moving the 
     transportation trust fund off budget hope to be able to 
     justify greater spending on transportation as a consequence. 
     Unless offset elsewhere, this would boost both government 
     spending and increase the size of the deficit.
       I understand that proponents of moving the trust fund off 
     budget view the gas tax as a users' fee that pays for 
     transportation infrastructure. Although not an unreasonable 
     argument, it ignores the major issues, the size of government 
     and the budget deficit. It is the Congress's responsibility 
     to determine the size of the government, a matter which 
     should not be subject to the vagaries of the gasoline tax. 
     Congress should also set priorities for the spending of 
     taxpayers' funds, no matter what their source.
       A surplus in the trust fund can provide a useful counter to 
     some who would like to boost taxes on the transportation 
     industries, ostensibly for environmental purposes. Since 
     environmentalists often contend that the auto is being 
     subsidized, the surplus in the trust fund helps offset that 
     argument. They sometimes contend that motor vehicles have 
     externalities that imply larger costs for society than are 
     included in the normal outlays on highways. To the extent 
     that this is true, running a surplus in the trust fund may in 
     part counterbalance that externality.
           Sincerely yours,
     Thomas Gale Moore.
                                                                    ____



                                             Brown University,

                               Providence, RI, September 29, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I am writing in response to your 
     letter of 26 September 1995 inviting my views on whether 
     federal transportation trust funds should be taken off 
     budget.
       In analyzing most economic issues relating to the federal 
     budget, economists ignore the distinction between on-budget 
     and off-budget revenues and expenditures. That is, economists 
     work with total revenues and total outlays, often using the 
     definitions in the national income and product accounts. 
     Congressional decisions to remove certain activities from the 
     unified budget will have little or no effect on economists' 
     analysis of fiscal policy issues.
       There is much to recommend the practice of financing 
     certain activities that benefit particular individuals and/or 
     firms with taxes and fees on those particular activities. The 
     ``user-pays'' principle often promotes efficiency and equity; 
     segregated accounts promote matching particular revenues with 
     particular outlays. There is no necessary connection, 
     however, between this principle and the overall accounting 
     for federal outlays and revenues. No matter what the budget 
     concepts, at the end of the day Congress will require an 
     overall accounting to total revenues and total outlays, 
     whether by including everything in ``the'' budget or by 
     adding together on-budget and off-budget activities.
       What the off-budget issue is really about is a policy 
     debate on how to finance a particular activity and how to use 
     revenues raised from a particular source. Taking an activity 
     off-budget reflects a decision to support that activity by 
     the earmarked revenues only, and to raise the earmarked taxes 
     if the outlays on this activity are to rise. Conversely, 
     revenues from the earmarked sources are to be used for the 
     specified activities only, and not for general governmental 
     purposes. An off-budget highway trust fund most definitely 
     should not mean that we will spend on highways without regard 
     to whether the highways are needed or not. What such a fund 
     should mean is that revenues above

[[Page H3513]]

     those needed will be returned to the taxpayers through a cut 
     in the gasoline tax.
       The on-off budget issue is complicated by the current 
     system of budgetary caps. Congress enacted these caps in an 
     effort to impose more spending discipline on itself, and I 
     believe that the caps have been useful in this regard. If the 
     highway trust fund, or any other activity, is taken off 
     budget to reflect a policy commitment to maintain a 
     segregated accounting of earmarked revenues and particular 
     outlays, then I strongly recommend that the activities 
     nevertheless continue to be subject to the same caps process 
     as before. That is, these activities should continue to be 
     counted as on-budget for purposes of the caps calculations. 
     Any other treatment is an open invitation to remove one item 
     after another from budget discipline; that is sure to be a 
     distracting, confusing, and counterproductive debate at this 
     difficult time of dealing with major (and long overdue) 
     revisions in the federal budget.
           Sincerely,
     William Poole.
                                                                    ____



                                              Chestertown, MD,

                                               September 30, 1995.
     Congressman Frank R. Wolf,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Wolf: Because the result would be to hide the full 
     magnitude of the flows of money into and out of the coffers 
     of the federal government, a result that would seriously 
     handicap the analyst in following what is happening in our 
     economy, I hope that your committee will do all it can to 
     prevent the transportation trust funds from being moved 
     ``off-budget.'' The reasons for keeping these funds ``on 
     budget'' have been correctly and adequately spelled out in 
     the responses to your committee by James Miller and Alice 
     Rivlin, and I am glad to associate myself with their views.
           Respectfully yours,
                                              Raymond J. Saulnier,
     Chr., CEA, 1956-61.
                                                                    ____

                                        The Brookings Institution,


                                 Governmental Studies Program,

                                  Washington, DC, August 25, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, House Committee on 
         Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to proposals 
     that would remove the transportation trust funds from the 
     federal budget. I share the view that the unified budget 
     should be preserved to ensure effective use of the budget as 
     an instrument of fiscal policy and strong spending control.
       There is no right time for giving the transportation funds 
     off-budget status, but now would surely be the wrong time. 
     Doing so would undermine Congress's commitment to balance the 
     budget and control federal spending. It would convey the 
     message that the budget can be balanced on paper by excluding 
     expenditures that are given preferred status. It would also 
     convey the message that some programs can go on a spending 
     spree while others are constrained by tight budget rules.
       The greatest damage from taking these funds off budget 
     would likely occur if a balanced budget requirement were 
     placed in the Constitution. The balanced budget amendment 
     approved by the House earlier this year provides that in any 
     fiscal year, the outlays of the United States government 
     shall not exceed the receipts of the United States 
     government. It is important to note that this language would 
     cover the receipts and outlays of the federal government, 
     even those that were excluded from the budget. What this 
     means is that once a balanced budget rule is operative, there 
     will be a strong incentive to go a step further and remove 
     transportation spending from the government by creating new 
     entities such as government-sponsored enterprises or public 
     authorities. If this were to occur, congressional and 
     presidential control of trust funds would be greatly 
     weakened.
       The argument for off-budget transportation trust funds is 
     often made in terms of the need to upgrade the nation's 
     infrastructure. I am not convinced that the United States has 
     seriously underinvested in transportation, but I do believe 
     that the appropriate means of addressing this problem would 
     be a capital budget rather than off-budget of off-government 
     status. A capital budget would preserve the unified budget 
     while providing better information on the condition of roads, 
     airports, and other transportation assets.
       Please call me if you want to discuss this matter further.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Allen Schick,
     Visiting Fellow.
                                                                    ____

                                     American Enterprise Institute


                                   for Public Policy Research,

                               Washington, DC, September 26, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I am replying to your letter of 
     September 12, 1995 about the transportation trust fund. I 
     would not favor moving the trust funds off the budget. We 
     want to have a comprehensive measure of the Federal 
     government's fiscal activities. Keeping the transportation 
     trust fund in the budget does not preclude any rules you may 
     want to adopt about requiring that all receipts of the trust 
     fund be spent for transportation, in every single year or 
     over any specified number of years.
           Sincerely yours,
     Herbert Stein.
                                                                    ____



                                    James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.,

                                   New York, NY, October 18, 1995.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: I am responding to your letter of October 13 
     asking for my view on the budgetary treatment of Federal 
     transportation trust funds. I am glad to respond briefly to a 
     question that has been reviewed frequently over the years and 
     to which a succession of Administrations and most Congresses 
     have, explicitly or implicitly, taken a consistent position.
       At the start, I should point out that while your inquiry is 
     specifically about transportation trust funds, a distinction 
     between those funds and others would be difficult to sustain. 
     That is one important consideration in my conclusion that the 
     current treatment of including the transportation trust funds 
     in the unified budget remains appropriate.
       Obviously, conflicting considerations arise in determining 
     appropriate budgetary treatment for trust funds. On the one 
     hand, the decision to establish a trust fund may reflect a 
     considered decision at a point in time to maintain designated 
     spending in an amount related to specific revenues. Arguably, 
     the designated spending may have particular attributes--for 
     ``investment'' or for ``social purposes''--that Congress may 
     wish protected from cyclical or other budgetary exigencies. 
     Moreover, an argument can be made that building up surpluses 
     in the trust accounts, with the surpluses invested in 
     government securities, tends to shield other spending from 
     appropriate budgetary discipline. That is, of course, a 
     consideration with respect to the large social security trust 
     funds.
       On the other hand, principles of administration and 
     budgeting demand regular review and control of the full range 
     of Government spending, balancing one priority against 
     another. At the same time, effective fiscal policy forces 
     consideration of the totality of spending in relation to 
     revenues.
       These latter considerations strike me as persuasive in 
     reaching my conclusion that the present practice of including 
     the transportation trust funds in the unified budget should 
     be continued. I am reinforced in that conclusion by the fact 
     that nothing in the unified budget prevents the Congress and 
     the Administration from reaching a decision to maintain 
     highway spending (or any other spending) at a particular 
     level it deems a priority matter. Trust fund accounting 
     within the unified budget may in some instances be helpful in 
     reaching that decision.
       To repeat I conclude that the Congress should maintain the 
     present unified budget treatment, as both present and former 
     Budget Directors have urged in writing you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Paul A. Volcker,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                    James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.,

                                   New York, NY, February 1, 1996.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Frank: I have reread my letter of October 18 on the 
     transportation trust fund issue and really have no further 
     thoughts. I realize moving some or all of the trust funds 
     (particularly social security) off budget might well lend 
     even further force to the urgency of our budgetary problem. 
     That is a powerful argument right now, but I think longer run 
     considerations of effective budgeting and of consistency over 
     time should prevail.
       I appreciate your interest.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Paul A. Volcker,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                     University of California,

                               Los Angeles, CA, September 4, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Wolf: I am responding to your letter of August 
     23rd, in which you were kind enough to solicit my views on 
     the question of whether or not the transportation trust fund 
     should be moved ``off budget.'' I have reviewed the materials 
     included with your letter, and had already given a great deal 
     of thought to this important question.
       I believe that the highway trust fund should remain part of 
     the unified budget. I support the maintenance of a separate 
     trust fund into which highway user fees are deposited, and 
     from which major highway related expenses of the federal 
     government are paid. Maintenance of the integrity of the 
     trust fund surely does not, however, require that it be taken 
     ``off budget.'' Full accounting of federal income and 
     expenditures can be maintained by showing the trust fund as a 
     separate account within the larger federal budget.
       I oppose the use of trust fund revenues to ``mask'' a 
     general fund deficit. We have enormous transportation needs 
     in the United States, and it would be unfortunate if 
     earmarked transportation funds were held unspent in the trust 
     fund just to create the appearance that the federal deficit 
     is thereby being reduced. This problem can also be addressed 
     by properly accounting for the trust fund as a separate 
     category within the unified budget, however, and does not 
     require that the trust fund be removed from the unified 
     budget.

[[Page H3514]]

       From the materials which you forwarded to me, it would 
     appear that my position is essentially identical to that 
     taken by the Office of Management and Budget and the General 
     Accounting Office. I encourage you to take a strong position 
     of leadership on this important matter. The highway trust 
     fund should both be kept ``on budget'' and should be 
     protected from efforts to use it to ``mask'' the federal 
     deficit.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Martin Wachs,
     Director, Institute of Transportation Studies.
                                                                    ____

                                              Center for the Study


                                         of American Business,

                                   St. Louis, MO, October 5, 1995.
     Hon. Frank P. Wolf,
     U.S. Congress,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your letter of 
     September 26, 1995, with regard to the transportation trust 
     funds. I believe they should stay in the budget so that the 
     budget review process remains comprehensive and an effective 
     way for Congress to exercise the power of the purse.
       This was the position that, as an adviser, I urged the 
     Commission on Budget Concepts to adopt several decades ago in 
     developing the concept of the unified budget. The 
     transportation taxes are revenues of the federal government; 
     the transportation outlays are expenditures of the federal 
     government. This is the basic justification for putting these 
     funds into the federal budget.
       The alternative--to keep them separate from the budget--
     shields these programs from being reviewed in the context of 
     national priorities. That would be bad budgeting.
       Best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                Murray Weidenbaum,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                    The Brookings Institution,

                                  Washington, DC, August 25, 1995.
     Congressman Frank Wolf,
     Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: I am responding to your letter of 
     August 23, 1995 soliciting my views on the appropriateness of 
     moving transportation trust funds off-budget. I should first 
     tell you that I am not an expert on the budget process or the 
     federal transportation budget. My field of specialization is 
     transportation economics and my thoughts about your inquiry 
     reflect that perspective.
       That said, I think the issue you are concerned with is 
     secondary to the important question to be asked about 
     transportation spending. The important question is whether 
     federal transportation spending is efficient? Based on the 
     available evidence the answer appears to be no! Auto pricing 
     ignores congestion, bus and rail prices are too low (below 
     marginal cost), bus and rail service is inefficient and load 
     factors are too low, bus and rail operations are inefficient, 
     and so on. These problems are not the result of whether trust 
     funds are on-budget. They are the result of poor 
     transportation management at all levels of government. Prices 
     must reflect marginal costs, service must reflect cost-
     benefit tradeoffs, and inefficiencies must be purged from 
     operations. In this environment, there would be no need for 
     trust funds. Indeed, the issue of whether a transportation 
     system makes money would be irrelevant because its viability 
     would be justified on social welfare considerations.
       Current policy, which relies on the gas tax and trust 
     funds, invites political debate instead of thwarting it. In 
     short, my advice is to change your perspective on 
     transportation spending by focussing on how to make it more 
     efficient. The budgetary issue is largely irrelevant to that 
     goal.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Clifford Winston,
                                                    Senior Fellow.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We have heard some interesting theater and dramatics, but the fact is 
that taking trust funds off-budget will not cause one dime of cuts in 
other discretionary programs. It only means that in the future, 
additional cuts in trust fund programs do not count toward spending 
targets such as discretionary caps or 602(b) allocations. Let us get 
down to reality and fact and talk reasonably.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Lipinski].
  (Mr. LIPINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the Truth-in-
Budgeting Act, to take the four transportation trust funds off budget.
  This bill is really quite simple. If you support jobs, investment, 
and keeping faith with the American people, then you support H.R. 842. 
That's all there is to it.
  Every day, Americans who fly or drive contribute through user fees to 
the transportation trust funds. They do so in order to finance the 
public infrastructure which they utilize as they travel. If they don't 
drive, they aren't asked to contribute to road projects. If they don't 
fly, we don't expect them to finance air traffic control operations or 
airport improvements. The systems are designed to be user financed--
those who use them pay for them.
  But unless the trust funds are off-budget, the American people who 
pay for infrastructure investment aren't getting all they pay for. The 
balances in the four trust funds continue to grow, while infrastructure 
needs across this Nation go unmet.
  I support infrastructure investment in the United States because it 
spurs economic growth and creates good jobs. The fact is that 
transportation represents 17 percent of the American economy. Since 
1950, one-fourth of America's improvement in productivity is due to 
transportation investment.
  But for me, the most important issue is jobs. Every $1 billion spent 
on infrastructure creates 42,000 good high-wage jobs. That's why the 
Laborers International Union of North America supports this 
legislation, and why you should too.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, I see every day the impact of our underfunded air traffic 
control system. There are reports almost every week of an outage of 
some kind at an air traffic control facility in this country. The 
equipment is old and needs to be replaced.
  The FAA predicts that U.S. domestic passenger enplanements will grow 
from 530 million in 1995 to nearly 800 million in 2005. We are 
constantly looking to find the funds to meet tomorrow's needs. The best 
place to start is with the balance sitting in the aviation trust fund.
  Mr. Chairman, this afternoon's vote is about keeping faith with the 
American people. The American people pay their gas tax and ticket tax 
to finance investment in our critical infrastructure. That's what the 
trust funds are meant to be used for.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to support H.R. 842 
and keep faith with the people who sent us here.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, to kind of cut through the heavy air here 
today, where we have had some pretty high drama and a great sense of 
emotion, let me say from the freshmen perspective that 44 out of 74 of 
the freshman Republicans, I would argue the most ardent budget 
balancers to come here in a long time, have signed on in support of 
taking the transportation trust funds off-budget. You can in fact 
balance the Federal budget and return these user fees to the people who 
paid them. We see it as a matter of principle, and the principle is to 
the Federal Government: Don't take the money from users if you don't 
need it, if you don't need to spend it. Don't take it. Don't store up 
these trust funds and not put the money back for the use and from the 
people that you took it. That is the matter of principle. We would like 
to kind of draw a line in the sand on this issue and this is an 
important issue and it puts and invests the money back into our economy 
which we desperately need. These are user fees from roads, airports, 
harbors. Put them back to use. Support H.R. 842.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that the gentleman from 
Ohio, John Kasich, the Republican chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, the gentleman from Minnesota, Martin Sabo, the Democratic 
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from 
Louisiana, Bob Livingston, the Republican chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and yours truly, the ranking Democrat on the Committee 
on Appropriations, are all strongly asking that you vote against this 
proposition.

[[Page H3515]]

  Now, there is, I suppose, a high probability that even though all 
four of us agree, we are wrong, but I would respectfully suggest that 
if anyone is truly interested in achieving a balanced budget, over any 
time frame, whether it is 7 years, 5 years, you name it, that there is 
no way that you can in conscience vote for this bill.
  Let me simply explain what I mean. Right now both parties have told 
the country that we are willing to balance the budget over a 7-year 
time frame. Yet what we are now being asked to do is to say to one huge 
segment of the budget--namely, the transportation portion of the 
budget--``Well, fellows, we are going to set you aside. Not only are 
you going to have a dedicated revenue source, but in addition to that 
special status, we are going to give you the ability to spend unlimited 
amounts of money, irrespective of the squeeze on any other portion of 
the budget.''
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is exactly right. What you are 
talking about if this bill passes is the requirement that you cut other 
portions of the budget over 7 years by an additional $50 billion, or 
else recognize that the deficit is going to increase by $50 billion. 
That is the hard-nosed fiscal reality.
  Now, I take a back seat to no one, to no one, in my support for 
highway construction. Since my days in the legislature and through my 
days here, I have consistently and strongly supported adequate funding 
for highways. I have supported providing the funding to pay for that 
highway construction as well, in my own State legislature as well as 
here. I have fought to see to it that my own State ends its long-term 
status as a donor State.
  In 1992, I led a successful fight in this House to break the defense 
``firewalls'' in order to fully fund ISTEA with offsets from the 
military budget. I make no apology for that. I think that was the right 
thing to do for the country.
  But I do not support saying that transportation must be considered 
sacrosanct while that requires further reductions in education, further 
reductions in mental health and veterans programs, further reductions 
in environmental protection enforcement, further reductions in job 
training, and do not kid yourself, that is exactly what this 
proposition requires.
  Now, it is technically true that this bill in and of itself does not 
do that. But when you plug this bill into the context of existing law 
and into the context of the promise of both parties to provide a 
balanced budget over 7 years, then you are fooling somebody or you are 
smoking something that is not legal if you are telling people that this 
bill is not going to result in a squeeze on other high priority 
programs.
  What we are really talking about is whether or not we are going to 
give one committee the ability to write a blank check for programs 
under their jurisdiction, regardless of the impact on any other 
committee and regardless of the impact on any other program or any 
other population group in this country. That is morally wrong, it is 
fiscally wrong, it is economically wrong, it is procedurally wrong, and 
you ought not to do it.
  I would urge you not to speak out of both sides of your mouth. I 
would urge you to never again come to this floor and say that you are 
voting for a balanced budget and say that you are for fiscal 
responsibility and austerity, if in the next breath you are voting to 
allow the transportation budget to go off budget and to spend at any 
rate they want, regardless of the impact on other programs.
  It is a question here of what you regard as your top priority. I do 
not regard that as my top priority. I think we need a balanced approach 
to spending and this bill does not give it to us.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  I rise to join my colleagues in opposing H.R. 842. While I commend 
the bill's proponents for trying to address the Nation's infrastructure 
needs, I do not believe that this bill will accomplish that objective.
  I have listened to many voices on this issue and the ones who have 
rung among the clearest have been national leaders such as Warren 
Rudman who has said that, ``Designating transportation trust funds as 
off-budget would further erode the integrity of the budget as a tool 
for fiscal accountability.''
  Former OMB Director Jim Miller says, ``Off-budget status would * * * 
hide a major portion of federal spending from annual budget scrutiny.''
  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker says, ``* * * principles 
of administration and budgeting demand regular review and control of 
the full range of Government spending, balancing one priority against 
another. At the same time, effective fiscal policy forces consideration 
of the totality of spending in relation to revenues.''
  Perhaps the voice that rings the clearest for me is that of the Ohio 
Department of Transportation that has been at the forefront of studying 
the current system of transportation funding and making recommendations 
for change. ODOT has concluded that it is not necessary to take the 
trust funds off budget in order to return more money to the States.
  The Ohio plan recognizes that since 1976 expenditures from the trust 
fund have exceeded revenues and that the balance in the fund resulted 
from interfund borrowing. The Ohio plan proposes that a major portion 
of fuel taxes each State pays into the trust fund be turned back to 
that State, including the fuel taxes now going toward deficit 
reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at the Ohio plan and that 
we use its concepts as a basis for devising a new system for highway 
funding--a system reached by consensus between authorizers, 
appropriators, and the Budget Committee.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of this 
legislation, but I cannot. I cannot, notwithstanding its surface 
appeal. We would all agree that trust funds ought to be used for a 
trust purpose. But that is not the debate that is before us today. The 
debate that is before us has to begin with where we are, and where we 
are is that we have not managed these funds in the fashion we told the 
American people we would. In point of fact, we said we would not use 
general fund monies for this purpose, and we have, and this is not a 
debate about misuse of trust funds.
  The chart I have put up makes this case fairly clear. Since 1980, 
total spending for highways from the trust fund we have brought in $214 
billion, we have interest of $21 billion, we have spent a total of $235 
billion. But we have added in general funds funding $63 billion on top 
of the trust fund spending of $228 billion, so we have spent a total of 
$291 billion.
  The point is, for those Americans out there paying revenue taxes, gas 
taxes, other types of taxes, into these funds, please understand, this 
is not a debate about the misuse of those funds. We have used more than 
we have promised. But it is a debate about the budget control. If we 
enact this legislation, it will make it almost impossible to balance 
the Federal budget. That has to be our first priority. I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, when American motorists purchase gasoline 
or travelers purchase airline tickets and pay the Federal tax, they 
expect that the revenue collected by the Federal Government will go 
toward transportation system upgrades.
  After all, that was the agreement the Federal Government had with the 
American people when the gasoline, aviation, and other transportation 
taxes were implemented.
  For example, motorists paid into the highway trust fund with the 
expectation that they would receive highway improvements.
  However, the transportation trust funds were merged into the general 
budget as part of an effort to hide the true costs of the Vietnam war.
  It is precisely this sort of broken contract between the Government 
and the American citizenry that has led so many people to become 
understandably cynical about their Government and its leaders.
  It is our duty to make certain that the moneys collected through the 
gasoline and other transportation taxes are used for the intended 
purposes.
  The Truth in Budgeting Act, before Congress today will help us meet 
that obligation. Simply put, it is a tax fairness bill designed to 
ensure that transportation taxes go to pay for transportation 
improvements.

[[Page H3516]]

  Currently, there is in excess of $30 billion in unspent balances in 
these trust funds, and under the administration's budget these balances 
could grow to $77 billion by 2002. That is money that should be used 
for such projects as repairing roads, building bridges, and improving 
air transportation systems.
  The use of these funds in this way improves not only our 
transportation system, but would provide literally hundreds of 
thousands of well-paying jobs--a true win-win situation.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this ``Truth in Budgeting'' bill is about 
restoring the public trust. My dictionary defines trust as ``the 
confident reliance on the integrity, honesty, veracity of another.'' 
The ``confidence, or obligation reposed in a person that he will fully 
apply the property according to such confidence.''
  I believe it is time--indeed past time--that we put trust back in the 
trust funds.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this debate is a classic congressional 
debate. I think there is rhetorical overkill on both sides. The future 
of Western Civilization does not hang in the balance depending on the 
outcome of this vote. I do not have any great statement to quote, but 
let me quote one of my favorite entertainers, Woody Allen, who once 
said in an address to graduates, ``We are at the crossroads. One road 
leads to hopelessness and despair; the other to total extinction.''
  Let us pray that we have the wisdom to choose wisely. We are not 
faced with that predicament. Here is what we are faced with, plain and 
simple: We impose taxes on the American people, excise taxes, dedicated 
taxes. We say, for example, to the airline traveler, we are going to 
tax your airline ticket purchase and we are going to use the funds we 
raise to improve the airports, to improve aviation safety.
  I think that is a pretty good contract. I think we ought to use the 
money for the intended purpose. And if we do not, we ought to cut the 
tax out.
  But let us not kid the people. Let us be honest with them. Let us use 
the money for the intended purpose or cut the tax.
  As the chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, 
I have witnessed firsthand the growing abuse of the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund now has a balance in excess of $650 million and the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund has over $300 million sitting dormant.
  Hundreds of millions of dollars have been collected from shippers to 
improve the quality of America's ports and we should be using these 
revenues for their intended purposes. If you care about our Nation's 
global competitiveness, if you care about improving the environmental 
quality and safety of America's harbors and rivers you should support 
the Truth in Budgeting Act.
  In many of America's leading ports we have an astounding backlog of 
dredging and environmental projects that are not being done while we 
sit on over $1 billion in trust fund revenues. A study of the 
transportation infrastructure needs on our major rivers has identified 
over $3 billion in needs by the year 2000. If you represent 
constituents along the Missouri, Mississippi, Hudson, Ohio, or 
Tennessee Rivers you should support the Truth in Budgeting Act.
  Freeing these trust funds for their intended uses sends a powerful 
message to the American people--we are setting aside the ``smoke and 
mirrors'', and we are serious about using their hard-earned tax dollars 
to improve the safety of our waterways and the efficiency of our 
navigation infrastructure.
  These trust funds are built on taxes intended to improve the economic 
and environmental quality of our Nation's rivers and harbors and it is 
time we use these trust funds for these uses.
  Support the Truth in Budgeting Act--the truth will set you free.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, the issue before us today is one of the 
perennial budget questions of our time--whether to unravel the unified 
budget methods that have worked well since the 1960s and consider the 
Transportation Trust Funds off budget. Like my Appropriations Committee 
colleagues speaking before me, I believe moving the Transportation 
Trust Funds off budget would result in an irresponsible budgeting 
process that would jeopardize many of our most cherished programs, 
including Medicare, Medicaid, education, and environmental protection 
programs. So, I am here to urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 842.
  Let me state from the outset that as the ranking minority member of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I am a strong 
supporter of maintaining and enhancing the Transportation Trust Funds. 
I believe our Nation must continue to invest an appropriate amount into 
transportation infrastructure projects in order to keep our economy 
strong and growing and prosperous. The Transportation Trust Funds are 
the primary vehicles which enable us to fulfill this responsibility, so 
we must act to keep them in good working order.
  However, I am convinced that moving the Trust Funds off budget would 
cause much more harm than good. While I can easily understand and 
sympathize with the desire to invest more money into transportation 
projects, I believe moving the Transportation Trust Funds off budget 
would greatly confuse the budgeting process; create enormous pressures 
to either cut non-trust-fund programs further, increase spending on 
trust-fund programs more, or raise taxes; and that it will set a number 
dangerous of precedents. Allow me to detail a few of these problems for 
you.
  First, the unified budgeting method is critical for assisting the 
Congress and the President in deciding how to treat all revenues and 
expenditures in a coherent manner. It is essential to bring together 
all Federal income and expenses in a unified way to avoid the problem 
of considering some programs in a vacuum. It is important to recognize 
that any Federal activity affects our Nation's economy as a whole. 
Clearly, the Transportation Trust Funds qualify as affecting our 
economy significantly. And because of their large economic impact, 
considering them separately from other accounts which affects economic 
activity would complicate and distort Federal economic considerations. 
In my mind it is far better to have all components of our economic 
strategy in plain view and as part of a unified whole in order to make 
decisions easier and more coherent, and to provide flexibility to the 
Congress.
  Second, moving the trust funds off budget would needlessly further 
complicate and confuse the budget process. Considering transportation 
programs apart from all of the rest of the budget would mean adding 
another dimension to the process. Congress should not do this. Instead, 
we should avoid creating additional complications and restrictions on 
the legislative branch. In this way, we can fulfill our basic duty to 
at least do no further harm when crafting a budget.
  Third, moving the trust funds off budget would lead to demands to 
move all other trust funds off budget--and perhaps rightly so. We 
should not fool ourselves into believing that this would not happen; we 
have plenty of legislative history to know it would. If the 
Transportation Trust Funds were taken off budget, it would be difficult 
to justify not doing the same with every other trust fund. We would be 
asked the following legitimate questions: Why are the transportation 
trust funds special? Why don't all other trust funds get the same 
preferential treatment? These questions can't be answered fairly 
without either placing Congress in the predicament of having to pick 
winners and losers among trust fund programs, or being forced to move 
all trust funds off budget with all of the severe headaches that would 
create for us.
  Fourth, if, for reasons of fairness, all trust funds were moved off 
budget, I predict there would be greatly increased pressure to spend 
more money. In addition to using currently available surpluses for 
existing programs, I have no doubt many interests would create new 
needs for additional spending of trust fund surpluses, whether those 
needs were really as pressing as might

[[Page H3517]]

be the case in other functions of our Government. I can also foresee 
pressure by interest groups to create more trust funds for favorite 
programs which currently don't have their own separate funding sources 
in order to insulate them from further budget cuts. In these times of 
fiscal austerity, it makes no sense to increase spending pressures and 
make the deficit larger.

  Fifth, I am not convinced that moving the Transportation Trust Funds 
off budget would result in more expenditures for transportation 
projects. It seems fair and accurate to say that the interest payments 
from the Treasury to the trust funds have helped to increase the amount 
of surplus. While it can be argued that the interest payments are only 
fair returns for borrowing against the trust funds, they have also 
enabled greater spending from the trust funds than would have been 
possible without borrowing and then repaying with interest. So, moving 
the trust funds off budget and foregoing future interest payments may 
not really enhance transportation expenditures.
  Sixth, removing the trust funds from the unified budget would result 
in decreased funding for transportation projects that receive their 
funding from general revenues. Not using the surpluses in the 
Transportation Trust Funds to calculate the amount of overall available 
funds means that spending levels for other programs have to be cut. In 
the case of transportation projects, we would be pitting some types of 
transportation needs against others. If we are truly concerned about 
building a solid transportation infrastructure, why would we want to 
play favorites and possibly secure the funding for some types of 
projects and not others?
  We should also keep in mind that the unified budget does not prevent 
Congress from spending more on transportation projects if it chooses to 
do so. The Congress has all the authority it needs to authorize and 
appropriate more funds for transportation projects or other national 
priorities any time it wants. The only requirements for spending more 
are to be convinced of a genuine need and then to follow through with 
the appropriate legislation.
  Finally, let me say that the experience of my home State of Texas 
shows that moving transportation funds off budget doesn't insulate that 
money from use for other purposes. Even though article 8, section 7(a) 
of the Texas State constitution clearly and specifically states that 
all State taxes on motor fuels collected to finance transportation 
projects must be spent on transportation projects, money from the off 
budget transportation funds have been used for other programs. For 
example, transportation fund money has been used to purchase land to 
build prisons. Now, the transportation department holds the title to 
this land, so in theory it is still a transportation department asset. 
But, the actual use of the land to build a prison has little to do with 
fulfilling transportation needs. Similarly, the supposedly protected 
State transportation fund has been used to finance the construction and 
maintenance of parking lots for State mental health agency facilities. 
In my mind, neither of these examples fulfill transportation needs in 
the State of Texas.
  Perhaps the most significant breach of security for the off budget 
Texas transportation fund took place during the 1980's. The State's 
general revenue fund was running low, so an arrangement was made to 
borrow $280 million from the transportation fund. The payback provision 
of the agreement included the payment of interest, but because of the 
State's ability to repay the loan quicker than originally anticipated, 
no interest was actually paid to the transportation fund for the time 
its money was used. So much for a secure off-budget transportation 
fund.
  In summary, Mr. Chairman, while I am a strong believer in the need to 
fund transportation projects to the greatest extent possible, moving 
the Transportation Trust Funds off-budget would unravel the unified 
budget process and make it more difficult to make proper decisions on 
economic matters. It would also needlessly further complicate the 
budget process, lead to demands to move other trust funds off-budget 
which would increase spending at the time we are trying to balance the 
budget, and probably not increase funding of transportation projects 
overall. And, as I have described to the House, the experience of my 
home State of Texas strongly suggests that moving trust funds off-
budget doesn't really make them more secure. For all of these many 
reasons I urge the House not to endorse H.R. 842 by voting against this 
well-intended, but misguided legislation.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the very distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Arizona for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to fully appreciate what we are about today. 
The fact is that we will never eliminate the deficit if we give some 
programs exalted, protective status in the budget process requiring 
those less fortunate to shoulder heavier cuts than they currently do 
and making them compete with one another while those exalted programs 
simply are beyond reach. But that is what we will do.
  We are effectively going to take $30 billion a year out of the 
nondefense discretionary pot and just put it beyond reach. Some would 
say, well, it goes into a trust fund; it is off budget. It is not off 
budget. It goes into that amorphous great big blue section on this 
chart that I have used before. It is a pie chart of the 1996 Federal 
budget. It becomes part of the uncontrollable portion of the pie, 
entitlements, which are in blue, plus interest on the debt.
  Two-thirds of the budget is uncontrollable. One-third of the budget 
is discretionary. Half of that is defense, the other hald is the 
nondefense cost of running Government. We are going to take $30 billion 
out of that nondefense discretionary budget and add it into the blue 
section or out in the atmosphere where we will help all those wonderful 
contractors who want to build roads. We will make everybody else 
compete for their hard-earned dollars or the dollars that the American 
taxpayers throw at them. In doing so there will be less opportunity for 
other well-meaning programs, be they health programs, education 
programs, or the like, to be funded.
  In fact, before the Committee on the Budget, Federal budget expert 
Allen Schick testified the general fund would be the residual fund for 
weak claimants who do not have sufficient clout to get earmarked 
revenue, their own trust funds, off budget protection, and exemption 
from budget enforcement rules and other controls. He says, if there is 
any truth in budgeting, it is that all spending must compete for scarce 
resources; not that there are protected enclaves and double standards.
  But we will make a protected enclave of Federal highway spending. 
Back-door spending in entitlements have already reduced the domestic 
discretionary share of the Federal budget, and those are my words, not 
Mr. Schick's, reduced the domestic discretionary share of the Federal 
budget to just 17 percent next year.
  Now we are talking about gutting what is left, taking 12 percent of 
that, some $30 billion in outlays, money that will be spent immediately 
year after year, and declaring it off budget for the purposes of 
deficit reduction.
  I just hope that every fiscally conservative Member of the body, 
including those who signed on to the off budget bill before knowing its 
effect on spending, fully appreciates what is happening and will 
examine what the CBO and the GAO and others say about the effects. It 
is devastating.
  We are significantly trimming, trimming the nondefense discretionary 
budget, so much so that for the first time in modern history, instead 
of going up year after year after year in nondefense expenditures, we 
are going down year after year. This Congress, since January 1, 1995, 
has had tremendous effect on reversing the ever-increasing growth of 
nondefense spending. But this bill comes along and wants to take $30 
billion out of what is left in nondefense discretionary and spend it on 
highways.
  And, yes, we have seen those ads, radio, television, newspapers, the 
pro-

[[Page H3518]]

special interest lobbyists, and they are all related to dealing with 
highways and airports and such things. Oh, they have a lot of them. 
They are all for it because it is money in their pocket. It is free 
money. But notice who is against it. The Committee on the Budget, the 
Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Appropriations, the 
Office of Management and Budget, the Citizens for a Sound Economy, the 
Concord Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers 
Union, the Taxpayers For Common Sense, the Citizens Against Government 
Waste, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Alan Greenspan, 
Federal Reserve Board. Those are the people whose job it is to look at 
whether or not we are actually meaning what we say when we are trying 
to cut the Federal budget, cut spending, and stop the pork barrel.
  But here we are, despite all the rhetoric, right back at the pork 
barrel. I urge Members who are serious about what we have been saying 
for the last couple of years to vote against this measure. It is 
wrongheaded. It is the wrong thing to do.
  Mr. Chairman, despite all the rhetoric, Members should see this bill 
for what it really is, a plain, old-fashioned power grab instigated by 
one committee of this body.
  Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and 
before them the Public Works Committee, stand united in pushing off 
budget, and with them stand the highway and airport construction 
lobbyists and State highway agencies. Against this formidable group 
always stands the Budget and Appropriations Committees.
  We will never eliminate the deficit if we give some programs an 
exalted, protected status in the budget process, requiring those less 
fortunate to shoulder heavier cuts year after year.
  If we start splitting up the Federal budget into off-budget fiefdoms 
that are outside the appropriations process, we are setting a terrible 
precedent. In testimony before the Budget Committee, Federal budget 
expert Allen Schick said that if trust funds started to go off-budget, 
``the general fund would be the residual funds for weak claimants who 
do not have sufficient clout to get earmarked revenue, their own trust 
funds, off budget protection, and exemption from budget enforcement 
rules and other controls.''
  He went on to say ``If there is any truth in budgeting, it is that 
all spending must compete for scarce resources--not that there are 
protected enclaves and double standards.''
  Mr. Chairman, backdoor spending and entitlements have already reduced 
the domestic discretionary share of the Federal budget to just 17 
percent next year. Now we're talking about gutting what's left, by 
taking 12 percent of the remainder and declaring it off budget for the 
purposes of deficit reduction. I hope every fiscally conservative 
Members of this body, including those who signed onto the off-budget 
bill before knowing its effect on spending, will look carefully at what 
CBO, GAO and others say about its effects.
  If this bill becomes law:
  Aviation safety would be undermined, according to the Secretary of 
Transportation;
  Other domestic and defense programs would suffer up to $50 billion in 
additional cuts, according to OMB; and
  Other trust funds will surely seek similar protection from future 
budget reductions, and we won't have a leg to stand on.
  If this body were now to pass off budget, it would tell the American 
people we are willing to hide some expenditures from the budget; that 
we are willing to suffer further reductions in defense and social 
programs in order to provide continuous, permanent increases for 
highways, mass transit systems, and airport construction programs. This 
is not a fair and balanced budget plan, Mr. Chairman.
  We weren't sent here to engage in budget shell games. We were put in 
control to eliminate our crippling deficit--a goal this very bad bill 
would make much harder. This bill is wrong because it would increase 
spending at just the wrong time in our Nation's history; it 
fundamentally alters the balance of power among committees of this 
Congress; and it panders to the special interests and lobbyists.
  Finally, if you vote ``aye,'' don't talk to me about the need to cut 
the budget. I strong urge Members to vote ``no'' on final passage.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Filner].
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this important 
legislation to take the transportation trust funds off-budget. 
Historically, investment in transportation infrastructure has helped 
countries achieve and maintain world power status. Similarly, it has 
been our own commitment to infrastructure investment has been 
responsible for creating the most advanced and efficient economy in the 
history of the world.
  In the past, it was this financial commitment to America's 
infrastructure that completed the transcontinental railroad, built the 
Interstate Highway System, and created world class airports and 
harbors. However, we all know that funding for future projects is 
increasingly difficult to secure today. And as a result, our ability to 
maintain, improve and build highways, roads, harbors, railways and 
airports is severely hampered--and commerce, transportation and 
recreation are all adversely restricted. We cannot continue this 
neglect and we must provide an opportunity to guarantee a sound 
financial future to both maintain and develop America's infrastructure 
needs.
  Pumping gas and paying the Federal gas tax of 18.3 cents per gallon 
is probably the most common link the average American has with the 
Federal Government on a daily basis. Most of the money from this tax 
flows into the highway trust fund and has helped finance such San Diego 
highways as Interstates 8 and 15.
  My own district has several infrastructure projects that are of 
national significance and need funding. Re-establishment of the San 
Diego & Arizona Eastern Railroad--the ``Jobs Train''--and completion of 
State Route 905 and Interstate 15 would all facilitate the increase of 
international trade expected from our Nation's new Federal trade 
policy. Yet because transportation trust funds are not being spent for 
their intended use, these nationally important projects must compete 
for fewer available dollars and are viewed as pork for my congressional 
district. Transportation funding choices should not be between projects 
that mitigate congestion and pollution, increase safety or implement 
trade policy--these are all worthy projects.
  We must release the trust fund surpluses from their budget bondage 
and stop this Federal game of Mask the Deficit. The existence of these 
surpluses only reinforces the public's belief that they are not getting 
an honest return for the taxes they pay to Washington.
  This issue is not only about tax fairness, it's also about jobs and 
about economic productivity. Since the 1950's, as much as 25 percent of 
America's productivity growth can be credited to improvements in our 
transportation infrastructure. Recent Department of Transportation 
studies show that every $1 billion invested in highway construction and 
enhancements yields 42,000 high-wage jobs. Similarly, work to complete 
SR 905 and I-15 in San Diego and to re-establish the Jobs Train would 
create thousands of jobs.
  The more that infrastructure spending is curtailed, the higher the 
yearly trust funds surplus grows. The higher that surplus goes, the 
more it offsets deficit spending in other general fund programs. It's a 
$31 billion bonanza, and it's a fraud!
  For me, the Truth in Budgeting Act is about keeping faith with my 
constituents in San Diego--people who pay into these funds and expect 
their tax dollars to be spent on building and maintaining the world's 
premier transportation system. The people of America--and the people of 
San Diego--deserve to see their transportation dollars at work building 
and maintaining highways, railroads, airports, and harbors.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I was a civil engineer prior to becoming a Congressman. 
I understand how important the transportation system is to our economy. 
I know that without a strong transportation system we cannot sustain a 
prosperous economy. That is why our Congress approved a gas tax over 40 
years ago. The idea was simple: Collect a gas tax and spend that money 
to build and maintain our infrastructure.
  The system worked fine in the past because all the money went to 
transportation projects. But now what happens? Highway projects get 12 
cents out

[[Page H3519]]

of 18\1/2\ cents of the Federal gas tax; the rest goes to social 
programs. It has been gutted. The highway trust fund money has been 
gutted all this time.
  We need this infrastructure badly, I will tell the Members. Remember, 
these are not taxes, these are user fees. These are not taxes. The 
money should not be spent on social programs, it should be spent on the 
highway system. that is why our bridges are in bad shape. Twenty-five 
percent of our bridges are in bad shape and are not safe. No wonder 
why.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in my capacity as the ranking 
Democratic member on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to give my 
colleagues 6.8 billion reasons why they should vote for H.R. 842, the 
Truth in Budgeting Act.
  This, 6.8 billion, my colleagues, is the amount of highway and 
transit money the States have been shortchanged over the life of ISTEA 
to date.
  The following chart shows these losses by State, 1992-96:

                 HIGHWAY FUNDING LOST BY STATE, 1992-96                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            FY92-96     
                        States                             difference   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..............................................       $114,340,767
Alaska...............................................         89,763,732
Arizona..............................................         88,638,840
Arkansas.............................................         71,238,983
California...........................................        610,578,554
Colorado.............................................         86,443,852
Connecticut..........................................        143,579,955
Delaware.............................................         30,171,803
District of Columbia.................................         39,333,139
Florida..............................................        241,309,719
Georgia..............................................        182,211,005
Hawaii...............................................         53,676,740
Idaho................................................         48,737,851
Illinois.............................................        255,571,470
Indiana..............................................        135,427,278
Iowa.................................................         87,340,504
Kansas...............................................         83,069,151
Kentucky.............................................        100,474,056
Louisiana............................................        106,457,783
Maine................................................         36,512,958
Maryland.............................................        119,912,708
Massachusetts........................................        387,512,184
Michigan.............................................        180,464,385
Minnesota............................................        104,962,453
Mississippi..........................................         77,345,390
Missouri.............................................        147,406,231
Montana..............................................         69,282,108
Nebraska.............................................         59,194,272
Nevada...............................................         43,941,993
New Hampshire........................................         35,149,613
New Jersey...........................................        208,863,217
New Mexico...........................................         76,499,357
New York.............................................        389,884,664
North Carolina.......................................        166,409,550
North Dakota.........................................         44,939,034
Ohio.................................................        242,935,031
Oklahoma.............................................         92,883,484
Oregon...............................................         85,194,850
Pennsylvania.........................................        312,864,880
Rhode Island.........................................         43,667,425
South Carolina.......................................         85,828,138
South Dakota.........................................         49,538,589
Tennessee............................................        139,565,180
Texas................................................        431,378,542
Utah.................................................         54,759,515
Vermont..............................................         32,204,791
Virginia.............................................        145,108,424
Washington...........................................        133,368,435
West Virginia........................................         68,087,322
Wisconsin............................................        123,104,240
Wyoming..............................................         47,996,810
Puerto Rico..........................................         33,650,675
Territories..........................................          2,184,372
                                                      ------------------
      Total..........................................      6,840,886,002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway              
  Administration.                                                       

  This is the amount of spending out of the highway trust fund, 
authorized to be obligated for needed highway and transit projects 
across the Nation, that has not been spent due to arbitrary obligation 
limitations placed on the trust fund in the annual appropriations 
bills.
  Now, this is not to say that the highway trust fund could not have 
sustained an additional expenditure of $6.8 billion.
  No, indeed.
  There is an estimated balance of nearly $21 billion in the highway 
trust fund--$11 billion in the highway account and $10 billion in the 
transit account.
  And let us be clear: This money is not general revenue. It is 
comprised of the Federal tax on motor fuels, paid for by highway users, 
and dedicated for transportation improvements.
  Who, here, in this body, can say that the regions which they 
represent do not need additional transportation improvements, that they 
could not use some of that $6.8 billion that was duly authorized but 
instead is lying idle in some government trust fund.
  I look to the California delegation: You have been shortchanged by 
$610.6 million.
  To the Florida delegation: $241 million.
  Ohio: $242 million.
  Virginia: $145 million.
  And my own State of West Virginia: $68 million.
  The list goes on and on.
  So I would say to my colleagues, vote to take the transportation 
trust funds off-budget.
  Let us restore faith with the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate we continue to hear allegations 
that one of the motivations of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for promoting the pending legislation is that it would, in 
some unexplained fashion, remove any constraints on so-called pork 
barrel projects.
  The distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Transportation in particular likes to make a big deal out of the 
fact that he refuses to earmark funds for highway demonstration 
projects.
  He even advised House Members not to even try to present testimony 
before his subcommittee about specific highway projects.
  Oh, how holier than thou.
  And the press eats it up, showering him with praise for not engaging 
in so-called pork barrel projects.
  Well, my colleagues, the facts show otherwise.
  Let's see. I suppose earmarking $4 million in ITS funds for the 
Capital Beltway in the current fiscal year appropriations bill does not 
represent an earmark.
  No, of course not!
  I suppose that earmarking almost $41 million for 20 ITS projects in 
that bill is not really earmarking, now is it?
  And I suppose that earmarking 100% of the section 3 bus money, to the 
tune of $333 million, for 81--count 'em--81 specific projects is not 
really earmarking funds at all.
  Or what about the section 3 new starts; $80 million here, $130 
million there. This isn't really earmarking, is it?
  No, I suppose it's just chump change.
  Ah, but these were not highway demonstration projects, were they?
  No, apparently only earmarking funds for highway projects is bad.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, if it walks like an earmark, if it quacks like an 
earmark--it is an earmark and subject to the same pork barrel label 
highway demonstration projects are often alleged to be.
  I raise this because when we hear the next holier than thou--self-
righteous--pronouncements from the House Appropriations Committee 
against our efforts to take the highway trust fund off budget, be 
advised:
  They are living in a glass house and should not be throwing any 
stones at the authorizing committee.
  Let me be clear.
  I strongly believe in the right of the Congress to earmark funds for 
specific transportation projects. We used good criteria when 
considering highway projects during the NHS bill last Congress.
  Circumstances change. Nothing remains static.
  And the fact of the matter is that sometimes a State needs a little 
bit more help with a transportation project over and beyond its normal 
funding apportionment.
  But, please, do not give me this bunk that earmarking discretionary 
program funds for ITS and transit projects is not really earmarking.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I respectfully submit: Who is afraid of the 
big bad wolf?
  Not this gentleman from West Virginia and neither should this House.
  I rest my case.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Let us talk about truth in budgeting. This country is $4.9 trillion 
in debt, rapidly moving to $5.5 trillion in debt. That is truth in 
budgeting. This is an effort by one group to grab dollars, to grab turf 
and to expand its power. What do we need in 1996? We need people to 
step up, to be part of the solution, not to walk away and be part of 
the problem. What is reality?
  This bill is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This 
bill represents the effort of one group to get into its lifeboat, its 
own small lifeboat. Some may call the special interest group or this 
group of special interests selfish. I do not know if it is selfish. I 
do know it is wrong. A number of groups agree, the National Taxpayers' 
Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord Coalition, 
the Citizens for a Sound Economy.
  We do not need another entitlement. We do need a Congress willing to 
make

[[Page H3520]]

tough decisions to protect future generations and to stand up to 
special interest groups.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank all the gentlemen here in charge 
of the time for the excellent work they have been doing.
  Mr. Chairman, like others, I support needed investments in our 
transportation system. The First District of Connecticut relies on its 
roads, bridges, and airports to be its economic and commercial links to 
the rest of the country and the world.
  But while we may have nearly endless transportation needs, we don't 
have an endless supply of tax money. And although transportation must 
be a top priority, there are tough choices to be made about where our 
limited funding goes. Taking these trust funds off-budget shelters them 
from those hard decisions.
  In 12 of the last 15 years, we have spent more from the trust funds 
than taxpayers put in. Taking them off-budget will tilt the playing 
field even more toward transportation, at the expense of other 
priorities and at the expense of deficit reduction.
  Calling the trust funds off-budget does nothing to change the reality 
that our budget is out of balance. In fact, this bill would put us $20 
billion more in the red over 5 years.
  I urge my colleagues to support fiscal responsibility and oppose H.R. 
842.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. 
From my background of 8 years in local government, 11 years in State 
government dealing with balanced budgets every year, I rise to support 
this bill and urge its passage. I recognize the original purpose of 
taking these funds and putting them on the budget was to hide the 
deficit during the Vietnam war, and for some years it served that 
purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I also recognize that now we do not perform that 
practice anymore. We do not try to use these funds to hide the deficit. 
At the same time, the public is angry. They still perceive this money 
as being diverted to other purposes. They still perceive this as being 
used to mask the deficit, and we have to get away from that perception 
or it is going to hurt our efforts to build a transportation 
infrastructure in this country.
  I urge that we now do what is right, we do what is fair, that we take 
the trust funds off budget, that we use them for the purpose they are 
intended for, that we pass this bill and we restore the trust in the 
trust fund.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me begin by saying 
congratulations to my colleagues. We do not hear too often this kind of 
policy debate that completely crosses party lines and really is on a 
policy issue. I think everyone is to be commended for really getting 
into this policy debate here.
  Let me make it clear where I stand on this. I do rise in strong 
opposition to the so-called Truth in Budgeting Act, H.R. 842. The title 
of it certainly sounds great, but the fact of the matter is it is a 
device for increasing the already huge $5 trillion national debt that 
we have. The title of it is misleading and the result is it is going to 
be very costly.
  It does something that we already do too much, and that is have a 
shell game, with that chart that we saw here earlier by the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations with over half of all Federal spending 
off budget. This simply moves another piece of it off budget so it is 
not amenable to the changes that Congress would make through the 
appropriation process each year. It is a shell game. We call it taking 
it off budget, but in plain English, it means the spending is going to 
be exempt from the rules that apply to other Federal spending. In 
essence, we are creating yet another new entitlement program that just 
grows and grows without regard to the already overblown Federal 
deficit. The result would be that transportation simply does not get 
the same scrutiny as education, defense, a lot of our national parks do 
when it comes to prioritizing and controlling Federal spending.
  Because of that, I think it is inevitable that this kind of spending 
rises ever faster. To balance the budget, then all other parts of the 
budget have to take an even harder hit, that is, the increasingly 
shrinking part of the discretionary pie of spending, so we have to 
increase taxes. And I think we all know that is not acceptable.
  The fact of the matter is that Washington has spent more from the 
highway trust fund than it has received in earmarked tax in 12 of the 
last 15 years. In 1994 alone, the Federal Government collected $18 
billion into the trust fund but it spent $22 billion on trust fund 
programs. The real issue here is whether or not we should be returning 
these programs to the States anyhow, whether we should set the 
standards and return them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
legislation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Mascara].
  (Mr. MASCARA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MASCARA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  During the Eisenhower administration, the Federal Government forged a 
compact with the American public, pledging to its citizens that in 
exchange for a gasoline tax a transportation trust fund would be 
established. The money generated by the tax was to be used strictly for 
transportation and infrastructure development. Forty years later, 
Americans continue to uphold their end of the bargain. Americans pay 
18.4 cents Federal tax on every gallon of gas they purchase and a 10-
percent excise tax on all airline tickets. Last year alone, these taxes 
added up to nearly $30 billion.
  I find it simply inexcusable that the Government refuses to release 
these funds at a time when our Nation's infrastructure is crumbling. It 
is estimated that more than $300 billion is needed to remedy our unmet 
transportation and infrastructure needs.
  By failing to use these funds for their intended purpose, the Federal 
Government has broken its promise and violated the principles that are 
central to the notion of a trust fund--the term ``trust fund'' in this 
case is a true oxymoron.
  As a former Washington County, PA, commissioner, I witnessed first-
hand the vital role a strong and viable transportation system plays in 
stimulating our Nation's economy. The Monfayette Expressway in my 
district is a classic example of this premise. Studies around the world 
have shown a strong correlation between infrastructure development and 
sustained economic growth.
  It is simply unfair for the Federal Government to limit economic 
development opportunities by hoarding the transportation trust funds to 
mask the Federal deficit.
  Today, Congress has an opportunity to fulfill the agreement that was 
established between the Federal Government and the American people in 
the 1950's. I support Chairman Shuster and ranking member Oberstar's 
efforts to return these trust funds to their rightful owners--the 
American people. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote 
for the Truth in Budgeting Act, H.R. 842.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from the Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer].
  (Mr. FRAZER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this legislation, H.R. 
842, I understand the importance of investing in our infrastructure. On 
September 15 of last year, the U.s. Virgin Islands was devastated by 
Hurricane Marilyn.
  Today we are still trying to repair the economy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to inform the manager that the time of 
the gentleman from the Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer] will be taken from 
the time of the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is recognized for a 
unanimous-consent request, not for the time.

[[Page H3521]]

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, is it true that the gentleman may put his 
entire speech in the Record?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's statement may be entered into the 
Record under the unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, am I being made to understand that it is 
less than 1 minute that I requested, that I merely submit for the 
Record?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Minnesota wishes to recognize the 
gentleman for 1 minute.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
Virgin Islands [Mr. Frazer].
  Mr. FRAZER. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the Territory of the 
Virgin Islands does not have a vote in this institution, but it seems 
as though the proceedings are becoming so that the Territory of the 
Virgin Islands does not even need to be represented in this 
institution.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and ranking member Mr. 
Oberstar for bringing H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act to the 
floor.
  As a cosponsor to this legislation I understand the importance of 
investing in our infrastructure. On September 15, 1995, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands was devastated by Hurricane Marilyn. Today, we are still trying 
to rebuild our economy. The first step in rebuilding our economy is our 
infrastructure. The airports, highways, and ports in the Virgin Islands 
are the keys to our economic prosperity.
  The economy of the Virgin Islands is based on tourism. In order for 
our economy to grow, we must have a strong infrastructure. Our airports 
and highways must be fully operational and functional so that they can 
generate the revenue which will create jobs and funding for 
infrastructure development. Constituents pay to use these services and 
they are entitled to receive a benefit.
  The aviation trust fund allotment for the Virgin Islands in 1994 
represented $3 million. A reduction in funding for the Virgin Islands 
would have a negative impact on our ability to rebuild our economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842, so 
that we can use these funds to rebuild our infrastructure.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 842. 
I refer to the bill by number rather than name because I feel this 
legislation promotes anything but truth in budgeting, at least if that 
budgeting is supposed to be aimed in the direction of balance. In fact, 
this bill would reduce controls on Federal spending, the exact opposite 
of what we should be doing as we work toward a balanced budget.
  Next week the Budget Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, is 
scheduled to begin the process of putting together the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 1997. This process will require many tough 
choices as priorities are set among worthy programs. All programs will 
be required to make sacrifices in the effort to achieve a balanced 
budget by 2002. My guess is that not a single program will receive the 
full amount of funding that its advocates would like. But essentially 
all programs will be together in the same boat, competing for priority 
status as we seek to determine how best to allocate the revenues coming 
into the U.S. Treasury.
  This bill is an effort to circumvent this process for one segment of 
the budget. The debate today is really about whether the transportation 
trust funds should be exempted from the priority-setting process that 
tests every other program. A vote for this bill says that spending on 
transportation programs automatically should receive a higher priority 
than every other program of the Federal Government.
  We have heard good augments today about the value of investing in our 
national infrastructure. I agree with much of what was said but I 
disagree with the venue. This debate should be heard in the midst of 
augments about the value of every other program, not standing alone 
without programmatic competition for numerous hours on the House floor.
  We're talking about much more than the simple bookkeeping activity of 
moving the trust funds onto a different side of the ledger. The real 
impact of the bill is in removing trust funds from the statutory budget 
enforcement mechanisms and, to a lesser extent, the congressional 
budget process. Currently, spending from the trust funds is subject to 
the discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go rules. The 
discretionary caps have been quite successful in controlling 
discretionary spending and have played a major role in the significant 
deficit reduction we've witnessed in the past 4 years.
  In my opinion, we should be expanding the spending caps to cover all 
programs, not reducing the number of programs subject to the caps as 
this bill seeks to do for transportation spending. Spending form the 
trust funds would have greater protection than any other spending 
program. Even Social Security spending is subject to pay-as-you-go 
rules.

  During the debate Monday evening regarding the tax limitation 
constitutional amendment, there was a lot of rhetoric about the need to 
control Federal spending. I cannot understand how any Member who voted 
to amend the Constitution on Monday evening, or for that matter any 
Member who claims to care about deficit reduction, can vote for a bill 
that will make it much easier for Congress to increase spending without 
accountability.
  The Director of the Congressional Budget Office stated that if trust 
fund spending was exempted from budgetary controls ``transportation 
spending could increase significantly.'' The General Accounting Office 
made a similar point: ``Whatever the immediate effect on the deficit, 
exempting one type of spending from the Budget Enforcement Act makes it 
likely that such spending will increase over time.'' Similarly, the 
reserved Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that taking trust funds off-
budget ``could weaken the ability of the Congress to prioritize and 
control spending * * * [and] could engender cynicism in financial 
markets and the public at large about the commitment and ability of 
government to control Federal spending.''
  This year, much ado has been made about differences in scoring 
between the CBO and the OMB, but the two are in agreement about this 
issue. They both have estimated that this bill would allow 
transportation spending to increase by $20 billion above an inflated 
baseline and $40 billion above 1995 levels over the next 5 years. I 
know that the drafters of this legislation claim that the bill is 
deficit neutral but they are not the referees who score Federal 
spending; CBO and OMB are the two entities we count on to do that job. 
At a time when programs for education, health, senior citizens, youth 
jobs, scientific research and so many other important programs are 
being cut or given increases well below inflation, I have a hard time 
justifying a $40 billion increase straight out of the gate for 
transportation spending.
  Finally, granting special status to the trust funds will undermine 
the principle of shared discipline which is so critical to building 
consensus for reaching a balanced budget. Supporters of all other 
Federal programs, understandably, will be far less willing to accept 
cutbacks in their own programs if transportation, or any other 
specially anointed program, is exempt from sharing the burden. The 
credibility of the process will be severely undermined by the contrast 
of transportation spending receiving a full inflation increase plus as 
much as $20 billion beyond inflationary increases while other programs 
losing in actual dollar terms.
  H.R. 842 also will make it more difficult to implement a deficit 
enforcement mechanism along the lines of the one included in the 
Coalition budget by exempting trust fund spending from sequestration. 
One of the weaknesses that led to the failure of Gramm-Rudman was that 
it exempted a large number of programs from sequestration, thereby 
reducing the number of people who have a stake in reducing the deficit. 
Taking the trust funds off budget would mean that the transportation 
industry would not have a stake in ensuring that a balanced budget plan 
works, because they would not be affected by its failure.
  If you are serious about controlling Government spending, if you 
believe in the importance of a fair budget process, if there are other 
Federal programs

[[Page H3522]]

that you rank at least of equal importance with transportation 
programs, then vote against this bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Truth 
in Budgeting Act.
  This bill will accomplish three goals.
  First, it will restore honesty with the American taxpayer. The 
transportation trust funds are comprised of user fees--taxes paid by 
transportation users with the express understanding that their 
collection will be used to finance transportation improvements. To have 
these funds as part of the budget, masking the deficit, and not spent 
on transportation needs is simply not fair.
  Second, the bill will spur economic growth. Transportation represents 
17 percent of the American economy. Transportation improvements benefit 
us all and the use of these surplus funds will go a long way toward 
providing a boost for America's economy.
  Third, every single State will benefit in increased transportation 
funds from enactment of this bill. Had the transportation trust funds 
been off budget since 1991, my State of Florida alone would have 
received an additional $241 million. As a donor State to begin with, 
this amount would help offset our significant transportation needs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and return fairness to 
these user fees.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which 
is critical to the future of our transportation systems.
  According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, nearly 25 percent 
of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally 
obsolete, and over 30 percent of our interstate pavement is in poor or 
mediocre condition.
  The average fleet age for our transit buses is greater than the 
useful life of those vehicles.
  And yet, because of obligation limitations imposed in annual 
appropriations bills, the ISTEA highway program has been under funded 
by $6.8 billion over the past 5 years. Let me be clear, this $6.8 
billion was fully budgeted for and could have been supported by the 
highway trust fund. Each Member can look at this table here on the 
floor and clearly see the funding his or her State has lost.
  This is $6.8 billion of contract authority--accounted for and 
contained in the budget resolution--which States have not been allowed 
to use for transportation improvements.
  The Surface Transportation Subcommittee is now beginning the process 
of reauthorizing ISTEA. The future budget authority provided and the 
size of the program will be a determining factor in the type of 
transportation program we can enact to lead us into the 21st century.
  This is a simple fact of life. We must be able to spend the gas taxes 
we collect on our future transportation program or we will be severely 
limited in the flexibility and creativity necessary to address today's 
transportation needs. For example, like more than a majority of House 
Members, I represent a donor State and want to revise the current 
outdated and inequitable formulas.
  But, this will be hard to do, if not impossible to do, with a 
shrinking program--a program funded entirely by user fees that may be 
cut by as much as 40 percent according to some budget projections. This 
vote is important to the ISTEA reauthorization.
  Don't be scared off by exaggerated claims make by opponents of this 
bill. There is no general fund subsidy of the highway trust fund.
  The vast majority of general fund transportation spending that 
opponents have cited is from the now-defunct revenue sharing program, 
the community development block grant program, spending by 
nontransportation agencies, and other specific programs approved by the 
Appropriations Committee that are totally separate from and hardly 
relevant to the highway trust fund, the Federal-aid highway program, 
and this debate today.
  In fact, it's the other way around--limitations on trust fund 
spending have subsidized other general fund spending.
  This bill is not a budget buster and it will not automatically 
increase the deficit by some $30 billion as some have claimed. 
Appropriate controls and Congressional authority remain in place. But 
H.R. 842 will go a long way toward ensuring that, in the future, the 
user fees and taxes we have imposed on the traveling public and which 
are paid so dutifully by them day in and day out, will be spent for 
their intended and lawful purpose. Not to do so is dishonest and unfair 
to the American public.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842--it's the right thing to do.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding this time to me.
  I rise in opposition to this bill, not because I oppose spending the 
trust fund obligations for the purpose for which they were incurred. In 
fact, I would favor legislation that would mandate that the trust funds 
be expended for that very purpose, that would prohibit expenditures 
from the general fund, that would require us to raise the user fees if 
we need to spend more money. I am all in favor of that, but that is not 
what this bill does.
  We have limitations placed upon the budget process for one purpose. 
The whole Budget Act of 1974 that we are operating under was placed 
there for one purpose, to put fiscal restraints in place so that we 
would have to make all of the decisions within the same context of a 
budget.
  The purpose for the line-item veto was to allow the President to say 
here is certain spending that ought not to be spent. There is one area 
of spending that is exempt from the line-item veto. It is contract 
authority from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure so 
that they can designate money that has to be spent that cannot be 
vetoed by the President under line-item veto.
  Now, what this bill attempts to do is remove all of that spending 
from the Committee on Transportation's authority, to remove it from the 
budget process so that there are no other fiscal restrictions or 
restraints that would require us to consider all spending within one 
specific decisionmaking process.
  That is bad fiscal policy, it is bad budget policy; I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against it, and I will submit into the Record a 
letter from the Citizens Against Government Waste explaining why this 
is a bad bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, it is always a little bit frustrating when 
we come to a vote on a bill like this, that we wonder whether people 
who are going to be voting on this, or their staff, are paying 
attention. Well, I guess, without a rollcall or anything like that, we 
just rely on the fact that those wonderful staff people have their eyes 
focused on this chart and what the impact is of this legislation.
  Now, this highway trust fund was established in, I believe, 1956, and 
what we have done is we have added up cumulatively all the money that 
has ever been collected from taxpayers in highway taxes to pay for 
roads. We added it all up from 1956 to 1996. The total amount of money 
collected in highway gasoline taxes to pay for highways totals $214 
billion. Now, we added to that that interest that we owe from just the 
highway section, and that adds up to $21 billion, for a grand total, 
and think of this as some kind of a telethon, a grand total of what we 
have raised since 1956, of $235 billion from our taxpayers in fuel tax 
to fix our roads.
  Let me stress that number again: $235 billion total collected, plus 
interest.
  Trust fund spending has been $228 billion. In other words, my 
colleagues, we collected $214 billion in gas tax money to fix the 
roads. But consistent with everything else we do in this town, and 
unlike what families do, instead of spending $214 billion on fixing 
roads, we spent $228 billion, and then when we add to that the money 
beyond the trust fund money, that is another $63 billion, another $63 
billion, for a grand total, a grand total since 1956, of $291 billion. 
We have collected and had interest that cumulates $235 billion, and we 
have spent $291 billion on highways.
  Now, anyway, and I have got limited time and we got a whole lot of 
debate going, let me just do this thought. The simple fact is, as my 
colleagues know, the argument here, the argument in this body, is 
somehow the people have been cheated, somehow they have paid a lot of 
money in gas taxes, and they have not got the roads fixed for the money 
they paid. Well, that is not

[[Page H3523]]

true. Frankly, what we have done is, we have one more time gone into 
the piggy bank of our children. We have gone into their piggy bank to 
have more money spent on roads.
  Now, it should be equal. It is not equal. We have overspent on 
highways from what we were dedicating revenue to fix roads with. It is 
not complicated.
  Now, if my colleagues want to take this thing off budget, let me just 
give them the bottom-line impact. To everybody in this Chamber:
  If you spend any of this accumulated interest, then what you are 
doing is you got to do one of two things. You are either going to raise 
the deficit, which means you got to borrow more money and increase the 
national debt, or you got to cut some other program. It is not a 
confusing, complicated deal. It is one or the other. Now, under the 
current situation, if you want to spend more on roads, and I am not 
opposed to doing that because roads is infrastructure, and if the roads 
are not determined by pure politics, they can generally help the 
economy. But I do not think we ought to put roads above anything else.
  I mean we can develop a supercomputerized system, as individual 
instruction for our children using computer technology. Frankly, that 
is more effective to me than just making roads a priority.
  Look, the reason why we are coming to the floor and what contractors 
think and what a lot of people think is, as my colleagues know, we did 
not spend all the money we took in, that we got this shoebox full of 
cash. We got this shoebox full of cash to build all these roads, and 
the simple fact of the matter is we ``ain't'' got no shoebox. We do not 
have any cash in the back drawer. This involves borrowing. It involves 
our children. That is what it involves.

  So I say to my colleagues, if they want to come to the floor and pull 
this off budget, fine. They can vote that way. They can vote that way, 
and just understand the consequences: We either are going to have to 
borrow more money and drive up the deficit or we are going to have to 
cut other programs which we struggle to avoid doing in this Chamber, 
create tougher priorities.
  So, I mean, I give a lot of credit to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. I have never seen anybody more tenacious on an issue. He 
believes in this program, and I respect him for it. It is not a 
personal fight with anybody in this Chamber. It really is a matter of 
whether we are going to get our fiscal house in order and not put one 
priority ahead of another in times when we have got to choose or raise 
the national debt.
  So I would urge my colleagues to keep our plan on schedule, and the 
gentleman from Virginia said this will be the end of balanced budgets. 
I am not going to be that gloomy here today. But it certainly makes our 
job more difficult. Do not support this bill, reject it.

                              {time}  1330

  Do not support this bill. Reject it. We can continue to have robust 
highway spending if we deem that to be a top priority, but keep this 
total spending within the decision-making that we all make in this 
Congress. But no one should come here thinking that somehow we have 
cash.
  This is what we spent, 291. This is what we collected, 235. No one 
should think that we have underspent or taken our highway money and 
used it for something else. It just simply is not true. Let us be 
honest with the public on the way in which we add our numbers up.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the distinguished gentleman, it is 
very true, if you go back in history, there was substantial general 
fund money spent on highways and other transportation projects. CDBG 
grants were spent, revenue sharing was spent. All of this is true, back 
in history. It also, interestingly, indicates how important 
transportation is to local communities. Nevertheless, nobody disputes 
that.
  But Mr. Chairman, facts are stubborn things. Does anybody in this 
body dispute the cold, hard fact that there is over $30 billion in the 
transportation trust funds today? Nobody disputes it. It is a fact. 
That is the balance in the trust fund. We should spend that money in a 
rational, careful way.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I listened to the argument of our good friend, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania. It would strike me that if one followed 
that logic, one should say that I think there is a surplus today in the 
Medicare fund, and we should spend it all today and it would not impact 
the deficit. That would be about the same logic.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on what the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] was saying, to make this point. In 12 
of the past 15 years, the highway trust fund expended more than it 
collected in dedicated taxes. In 12 of the years since that trust 
fund's inception in 1956, the highway trust fund expended more than it 
collected in both dedicated taxes and interest paid into the trust fund 
from the general fund.
  I repeat that. In 12 years since 1956, it expended more than it 
collected in both taxes and interest. We are not saying do not spend 
money on highways. I believe in spending money on highways. I am a 
strong supporter of that. But count it, just like you count everything 
else in the budget.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is exactly correct. We have had 
a very large excess expenditure above revenues out of this fund, and 
people ought to recognize that.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
for yielding time to me, and commend him and our outstanding chairman 
of the subcommittee for the great work they have done in bringing this 
bill to the floor today.
  Mr. Chairman, today is our opportunity to restore honesty and truth 
to the Federal budget by voting to take the transportation trust funds 
off budget.
  Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Oberstar deserve high praise for 
their outstanding efforts to bring this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes no sense to me that we would ask the American 
people to pay taxes for these transportation trust funds and then not 
use the money.
  These are dedicated funds that should be used for their intended 
purpose--the improvement of our Nation's transportation system.
  Sitting on these dedicated funds which cannot be spent for anything 
else is simply a fraud on the American people.
  We have been lying to the American people by telling them to pay 
their gas taxes and airline ticket taxes for an improved transportation 
system and then not investing the money in transportation.
  In Philadelphia, we are faced with a vital need to rebuild Interstate 
95, our key commuter and freight route that is used by 150,000 vehicles 
a day.
  In the last month, I-95 has been closed and then restricted because 
of a fire that damaged the structure.
  We have had massive traffic jams that have lasted the entire day, 
disrupted the surrounding neighborhoods, and produced chaos throughout 
the area.
  The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation planned to invest $2 
billion to make I-95 the highway of the 21st century.
  Just this year, the Penndot plan was reduced to a $176 million 
resurfacing that will not solve our traffic problems and must be redone 
in 5 years.
  By not investing the money in the trust funds, Washington is telling 
America's drivers who are sitting in traffic jams to get used to it.
  It makes no sense to have a $20 billion balance in the highway trust 
fund--including $312 million for investment in Pennsylvania--when the 
money should be used for the reconstruction of I-95 and the many other 
roads throughout Pennsylvania that badly need improvement.
  A vote against H.R. 842 is a vote against using this money to 
reconstruct I-95 and the many roads like it.
  It may be a vote to fund other programs but it is a vote against 
reconstructing I-95.
  In Philadelphia, our transit system, Septa, is an absolutely key part 
of our regional transportation system, carrying more than 1 million 
passengers each weekday.
  Without Septa, we would have more traffic congestion requiring more 
roads and more parking facilities.

[[Page H3524]]

  Right now, Septa is in trouble. Septa needs more money for upgrading 
track, stations, and equipment.
  The entire Philadelphia region loses if Septa is allowed to continue 
on a downward spiral.
  An improved, modernized Septa system benefits everybody in the 
region.
  At the same time we have allowed a $9.6 billion cash balance to build 
up in the transit account--money that our Nation's transit systems 
desperately need.
  A vote against H.R. 842 is a vote against using this money to help 
Septa and other transit systems. It is a vote against transit.
  It may be a vote to support some other program but it is a vote 
against transit.
  Philadelphia international airport has been trying to get funds to 
build a new commuter runway that will increase capacity by 40 percent.
  Annual operating delays at Philadelphia cost airlines more than $70 
million in wasted fuel and labor costs.
  At the same time, however, we have allowed a balance of $11 billion 
to grow in the aviation trust fund.
  A vote against H.R. 842 is a vote against funding projects such as 
the Philadelphia commuter runway.
  It may be a vote to use the transportation trust funds for some other 
program but it is a vote against airport projects.
  The inland waterways trust fund and harbor maintenance trust fund are 
also crucial elements of this bill.
  The Nation's ports handle more than 1 billion tons of cargo annually, 
including 95 percent of our international trade.
  Many ports are in a crisis today because of the need to expand 
capacity to meet new trade demands. It is estimated that $600 million 
will be needed for ports during the next 5 years to keep pace with the 
growth of commerce.
  The outdated and antiquated locks and dams of our inland waterway 
system hinder shipments and require additional investment.
  More than 40 percent of the locks are more than 50 years old and one 
is 150 years old.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote for H.R. 842 is a vote for honesty in budgeting 
and for investment in economic growth.
  We have told the American people to pay their money for 
transportation. Not spending the money is fraud.
  Our long-term transportation needs are important enough to take the 
trust funds off budget and increase our investment. Each $1 billion of 
investment in infrastructure creates 42,000 jobs.
  We should take the trust funds off budget and use the money the 
American people have already paid.
  Mr. Chairman, 6 years ago, we took the Social Security trust fund off 
budget. This is the exact same situation.
  Let's put trust back in the transportation trust funds and pass H.R. 
842.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing this legislation, we will be moving smartly 
from fuel tax fudging to truth in budgeting. How many of the Members 
would dare to stand at their gas pump and to tell each one of your 
constituents after you shake his or her hand, do you know that part of 
the tax that you are paying with each gallon of gas is going toward 
payment of welfare costs, toward foreign aid? Because that is the 
result of not spending their fuel tax for the dedicated purpose, just 
the opposite of what the opponents of this legislation are saying.
  The opponents are saying that if we go through with this plan as 
envisioned by this bill, we will be robbing our social programs of 
moneys. That means they must be paying for them now through the fuel 
tax that they are paying. Is that not the obvious, logical conclusion? 
Truth in budgeting means that the American people, to whom we owe full 
faith and credit, have a right to expect that their fuel tax goes for 
nothing but highways.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the Truth in 
Budgeting Act and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my 
remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the leadership of our committee, Chairman Bud 
Shuster and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, for introducing this 
legislation to take the transportation trust fund off budget. I want to 
share with my colleagues why I cosponsored this bill.
  President Eisenhower was a visionary when he created the highway 
trust fund in 1956. He knew that by creating a new trust fund where 
those who benefit from the transportation program pay for the program, 
a steady, dependable stream of revenue would ensue. For many years the 
trust fund worked as promised: motorists paid into the fund and in 
return they received highway construction and transportation 
improvements.
  But when Congress created a unified budget in 1968, the word trust 
was removed from the highway trust fund. I looked up the word trust in 
Webster's Dictionary, and this is what it says: trust is a dependence 
on something future or reliance on future payment. Webster's also 
defines trust as: to commit or place in one's care or keeping.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that after I read those definitions it 
became clear to me that the word trust in highway trust fund has no 
meaning.
  Why do I say that? Because over time the Government has collected but 
withheld and diverted nearly $31 billion in trust fund dollars. This is 
money that should have been going to our Nation's infrastructure.
  Americans have faithfully supported the concept of a highway trust 
fund by dutifully paying their gasoline tax for 40 years. What have 
they received in return? 176,000 miles of American highways in mediocre 
to poor condition. Severe road congestion on 30 percent of our Nation's 
major roads. A $290 billion backlog of bridge repair work.
  Polls show that 72 percent of the American people believe the motor 
fuel fee is the fairest way to finance highway improvements. They want 
their money to go toward protecting our investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure. But this shell game being played with the moneys in the 
highway trust fund has only delayed this badly needed investment and 
helped fuel the prevailing cynical attitudes people have toward their 
elected officials and Government.
  Let's stop the charade and pass H.R. 842.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, 
introduced by the very capable chairman of the Transportation 
Committee.
  I do not want to repeat many of the comments that have already been 
made here today. But let me say that this, Mr. Chairman, our Nation 
needs this legislation.
  No one disputes the fact that we need to spend more than we presently 
are to repair, maintain, upgrade, and improve our Nation's highway and 
aviation systems.
  I have been very fortunate to serve as the chairman of the Aviation 
Subcommittee for 16 months now, so I will speak to the serious needs in 
our Nation's aviation and air traffic control system. Air passenger 
traffic is going to double in the next 10 years, from over 500 million 
a year now to almost 1 billion 10 years from now.
  I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this House, so 
I have been very frugal in what and how we spend the taxes that are 
sent here from hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, as it has been said earlier, this issue is a question 
of fairness to the taxpayer.
  It is a question of whether or not we should keep our commitment with 
the people who pay taxes, to this Federal Government, every single day 
of the year.
  Every time a person gets on a plane. He or she pays taxes. Every time 
a person puts gas in their car, he or she pays taxes.
  Many years ago, Congress established a policy, a pact, with the 
American people. If you pay these taxes, we here in Congress will turn 
around and spend them on repairing our

[[Page H3525]]

highways and bridges and we will update our antiquated air traffic 
control equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, the aviation trust fund was established in 1970 to help 
bring our air traffic control system up to speed. But as we all have 
seen this has just not been the case.
  Last year, air traffic control centers suffered more blank radar 
scopes, dead radios, downed computers, and failed power systems than in 
any previous year.
  This 30-year-old equipment causes airplanes to be delayed and 
certainly shakes public confidence in the safety of flying.
  There have been air traffic computer failures at FAA centers near 
Chicago, Dallas, Cleveland, New York, Pittsburgh, Boston, Atlanta, 
Houston, Oakland, and Miami.
  In fact, just a few weeks ago the FAA issued a coast-to-coast 
grounding for aircraft going to Pittsburgh airport because of an 
outage.
  While these outages have been occurring more and more frequently, the 
aviation trust fund has taken in billions, at least $5 billion last 
year alone, not including the $1 billion in interest.
  At the end of the last fiscal year, the aviation trust fund has a 
cash balance of nearly $11 billion.
  This enormous balance has not accumulated because of any sound policy 
reason but rather as an accounting gimmick to help hide the size of the 
Federal budget deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, experts have testified before the Aviation Subcommittee 
that airport needs over the next 5 years will total $50 billion.
  The FAA expects that air travel will increase from over 500 million 
passengers today, to well over 800 million by the year 2005. This is a 
56 percent increase in air travel.
  And, the FAA has reported that 23 airports across the Nation exceed 
20,000 hours of delay per year.
  Unless significant capacity improvements are made, the FAA expects 
that by the year 2002, 33 airports will experience delays of 20,000 
hours or more, costing millions of dollars annually.
  In 1995, the aviation trust fund took in $6 billion. The 
Administration has projected that the aviation trust fund, under 
current law, will take in $9.2 billion in 2002, a 46 percent increase.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe Americans are paying too much already in 
taxes today.
  Moreover, I have never voted for a tax increase since I have had the 
privilege of serving in this body.
  However, in my opinion, if we are not going to spend the taxes we 
collect for the purpose of which they were intended, then we should 
return the money to the people.
  We must take the transportation trust fund off-budget so that we can 
spend the aviation taxes to improve the safety of the air traffic 
control system.
  We must pass H.R. 842 today and not wait until a tragic aviation 
accident embarrasses Congress into taking action.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, why is it the 
trust fund only pays 50 percent of FAA operating costs, when all the 
studies show that 85 percent is related to civilian air travel? Has 
not, in effect, general revenue substantially subsidized the operation 
of FAA over the last several years?
  Mr. DUNCAN. To some extent, yes. That is correct, I would say to the 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is that 75 percent of the 
overall budget of the FAA is funded out of the trust fund revenues. 
There is an additional amount that is paid out of general revenues from 
the DOD budget to account for air traffic control services to the 
military, and some people, some folks at OMB, account for the operating 
budget of FAA in a different way in saying that the operating budget, 
salaries and expenses are 50 percent. But that is an irrelevant 
argument.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if we listen to the opponents of this 
particular bill, we would think that Dwight David Eisenhower was the 
father of pork in America. Ike was not a pork barrel President, and 
this is not just truth in budgeting, this is a truth in financing, 
truth in borrowing.
  I should have offered an amendment calling for an investigation into 
congressional borrowing from trust funds. These user fees are taxes. 
The American people pay taxes to fix their roads. The money going to 
this account is already going for other services. It is not true. This 
a good bill.
  Let us talk about this. Maybe we should take the Committee on 
Appropriations and keep them on budget and take the trust funds off. 
H.R. 842 does not say these matters still do not go through 
appropriation. They are still subject to appropriation. The trouble 
with America today is that everybody has their hands on trust funds. 
They should all have their own boards of directors. No one should be 
able to touch them. That Social Security trust fund is financing a 
debt, and we are not getting the truth on the deficit or the national 
debt.
  There is no justification to use highway money for anything else. 
There is no justification to keep America second rate. This money has 
an intended purpose. There is a tax; not a user fee, a tax. That tax, 
Mr. Chairman, is directed towards maintaining our infrastructure, 
fixing our roads, and the appropriators still have a say.
  The trouble is, if we are going to get some truth out of the whole 
budgeting process, tell us the truth of the national debt, tell us the 
truth of the deficit. You have been trying to mask it with this trust 
fund for too long. Open it up, use it for what it was intended. 
Anything else is hypocrisy and maybe against the law. Damn it, I wish I 
had offered that investigation amendment. I yield back the balance of 
these taxes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon ].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, and 
commend Chairman Shuster for the work he has done to bring this bill to 
the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, legislation to 
separate the four transportation trust funds from the unified Federal 
Budget. Before being elected to Congress, I served on a city council 
and listened to many residents who were concerned about funding basic 
infrastructure needs. These same citizens are under the mistaken 
impression that the money they spend every day on gasoline excise taxes 
will be used to improve roads, bridges, airports, and waterways across 
the country.
  It is simply wrong to use the revenue dedicated to these trust funds 
for anything other than their original purpose--and we can act today to 
correct this matter. There are billions of dollars of unmet 
infrastructure needs in the United States and the sad thing is that we 
already have the money to pay for these projects--only it is not being 
spent. The cost to the taxpayer and our Nation to rebuild these roads 
will only increase if we continue to delay taking the four 
transportation trust funds off budget. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be straight about some facts. Since 1981, we 
have spent more than we have collected in receipts and interest in 
these funds. The way we measure the deficit is expenditures versus 
revenue. In 1994 and 1995, the expenditures from the highway trust fund 
have exceeded total revenue. The same is true in the airport trust 
fund. They are not subsidizing the balance of the budget.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would make the comment to the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and others who have been 
promoting a balanced budget that if we take these off-budget and use 
them for their purpose, we would actually be saving money, that we 
would not be spending in excess. That would answer their question. But 
I rise in strong support of this. I commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, and the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] for the leadership that they have exhibited 
over the last several months and years, I would add. This bill is a 
product of their tremendous efforts to restore fairness and 
accountability and we must have accountability in the transportation 
budgeting. In 1994 in my

[[Page H3526]]

home State of Illinois, the gas tax amounted to $663 million. It is 
imperative that these trust funds be used for essential improvements 
and repairs to our infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time that our highways and airports receive the 
funding they deserve and this can only be done by moving the trust 
funds off-budget. Keeping the trust funds as part of the unified budget 
has had a severe impact on my home State of Illinois and the other 
States in the country.
  I urge my colleagues to support honesty and fairness in the budgeting 
process and support this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting 
Act. For more than 40 years Americans have been contributing to 
transportation trust funds designed to ensure a safe, efficient, and 
reliable transportation infrastructure.
  Since 1969, these trust funds have been included as part of the 
unified budget for the purpose of masking the extent of our deficit 
spending. The budget chairman's chart revealed what's been spent--but 
no mention of the unmet needs of this Nation. In my State of Missouri, 
we have more than $1.7 billion in unmet highway needs, including 261 
lane miles of 4-lane highway needs, and 136 bridges in need of major 
repair or replacement.
  Mr. Chairman, balancing the budget was a priority when I campaigned 
for Congress, and I have worked hard to reach that goal. But in our 
quest for a balanced budget, it makes no sense to let our 
infrastructure fall into disrepair. Each year we will find ourselves in 
a greater dilemma if we refuse to seriously address our many 
transportation needs today.
  The Truth in Budgeting Act will remove the transportation trust funds 
from the artificial constraints that prevent needed money from being 
released. It will allow for greater investment in our Nation's future, 
and reward the American people's commitment to a strong transportation 
infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 842.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the 
Truth in Budgeting Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this much needed 
legislation, because I believe it reflects a strong commitment to 
improving and maintaining our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  Very simply, H.R. 842 will take the four Federal transportation trust 
funds out of the unified budget. This is the same budgetary treatment 
given the Social Security and U.S. Postal Service trust funds, and it 
is the right thing to do. Every day, millions of tax dollars are 
collected through the sale of motor fuel and airline tickets. These 
taxes are designed to build and maintain our transportation 
infrastructure system. Unfortunately, because the trust funds are part 
of the unified budget, their positive balances have been wrongly used 
to mask deficit spending.
  Mr. Chairman, our continued investment in highways, airports, 
waterways and ports is of critical importance to the 19th Congressional 
District of Illinois. Taking the four transportation trust funds off 
budget is a fair way to ensure that tax dollars collected to improve 
and maintain our transportation infrasture, are used for that purpose. 
I urge my colleagues to join with me, and the other 224 cosponsors of 
H.R. 842, in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Mrs. Seastrand].
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I support the Truth in Budgeting Act. 
You may ask why? I would like to give one example.
  Federal highway transportation funds were designated to expand the 
Niblick Bridge in Paso Robles, within my district. The funds were 
appropriated, yet they could not be used immediately because an 
environmental impact statement needed to be conducted before the 
construction of the bridge could commence.
  Hundreds of thousands of State and local dollars had been invested in 
repairing the bridge and conducting the mandated environmental reports 
to comply with regulations to build the bridge. This took time. In 
fact, 4 years to be exact. Because all the moneys could not be used 
immediately, the budgeters wanted to rescind these unprotected dollars 
to mask the deficit rather than use them for their intended use, which 
is to repair and strengthen our existing transportation infrastructure 
within the United States.
  Well, I believe that if you collect a tax for a specific purpose, 
then, by golly, you should use it for that specific purpose. So for 
that reason, I urge my colleagues to strongly support the Truth in 
Budgeting Act.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard, I believe, some really 
interesting and creative accounting here with the chart from the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the ranking member. They 
would have us believe that, over time and currently, that we are 
spending more than we collect in dedicated taxes to maintain the 
transportation infrastructure of our country, and they are most 
interested in balancing the budget and keeping the books straight.
  If that were true, then I am confused as to why the Committee on the 
Budget chairman and the ranking member are not supporting this bill. If 
it is true that we are now subsidizing these trust funds, I am willing 
to live with reality. Let us only spend the dedicated taxes that we 
take in that are levied on the people of the United States, in gas 
taxes and in ticket taxes and other taxes that support this 
infrastructure. Let us only spend that.
  I am willing to live with that. Are they? No, they are not, because 
in fact they are taking money out the back door to defray other 
expenses of the Federal Government. They are borrowing every penny that 
is accumulated in the trust fund balance, and it has been spent and 
replaced by IOU's.
  It is also interesting to me that in a Congress that is interested in 
growth and investment, that we do not have a little more discussion 
from some of those in opposition about what it means to spend money 
that is invested. If you spend money in a bridge, a highway, in mass 
transit, that money will provide economic benefits for decades to come. 
Yet we treat that the same as money spent for a one-time expenditure of 
something consumable and thrown away by the Federal Government. Does 
that make any sense? It makes no sense whatsoever.
  These funds are raised to be invested to improve the transportation 
and infrastructure of this country, and no one in this body can tell me 
or any other Member who is informed that we have met those needs, with 
bridges falling into the rivers and highways in disrepair and mass 
transit going unbuilt. We need to get these funds off-budget
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn].
  (Mr. QUINN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the 
Truth in Budgeting Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation for many reasons because I 
believe that the infrastructure of our Nation is vital to our economic 
viability. This is true, and it is backed up by statistics that say 
that more than 40 percent of highway use is by businesses and small 
businesses alone.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard from small businesses in my district that 
are currently paying the largest taxes. They are also the largest job 
producing segment in my district and in districts all across the 
country. They make the largest contribution, small businesses do, to 
these funds, and they want to make sure that these trust funds are 
restricted and they are not used for other things than they are 
intended for.
  I have heard from a constituent in my district, Melvin Rupp, a small 
business owner. If those in opposition to this legislation think that 
the people back home do not know what it is about, then they are sorely 
mistaken. Mr. Rupp and others in my district have urged me to do what 
is right, to protect these funds for their intended

[[Page H3527]]

use, to stop using these funds for masking the deficit and to support a 
real balanced budget.
  I ask strong support for H.R. 842, and thank our chairman and ranking 
member for the work they have done on it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity 
and rise in support of this bill.
  The reason is, when you look at a rural district like I have in 
northwest Iowa and the tremendous infrastructure demands that we have 
in an agricultural area, our roads are crumbling. In the last 5 years 
the State of Iowa has been denied about $87 million that could have 
gone into roads and bridges, to build infrastructure, because we have 
decided to spend those dollars someplace else.
  I am as conservative as anyone on the floor here as far as trying to 
balance the budget. If I thought that this was part of the problem, I 
would not be supporting this. But, in fact, our problem as far as the 
budget is our addiction to spending more money in social programs and 
consuming for today and not investing in the future.
  What this is all about is putting dollars that are paid by users to 
go into infrastructure, to go into roads, to try and maintain our 
economy and to create jobs. I support this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
  (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
842, the Truth in Budgeting Act. This is a measure that will affect 
every American who buys gasoline in his or her car or buys airline 
tickets. Americans currently pay an 18.4-cent tax on gasoline and a 10-
percent tax on airline tickets. This money, approximately $80 million a 
day, is placed into the transportation trust fund and is supposed to be 
used to pay for urgently needed infrastructure such as maintenance of 
our highways. Instead, the Federal Government for years has been 
hoarding much of this tax money and using it to mask the true size of 
the deficit. This means the Federal Government is essentially stealing 
from Americans each time they travel.
  What does this all mean to Ohio drivers? The Ohio Department of 
Transportation estimates that Ohio sends about $1 billion in Federal 
gas taxes to Washington annually. Unfortunately, the State gets back 
only about $600 million of that money. Of the remaining millions, $345 
million is used to hide the size of the deficit while the rest of the 
money disappears into what ODOT calls a bureaucratic black hole inside 
the Beltway.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support and passage of H.R. 842.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman, as manager, is entitled to close debate.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this proposal. This 
issue, Mr. Chairman, ultimately comes down to congressional 
accountability and integrity. If Congress removes the transportation 
trust funds from the budget and therefore budget scrutiny, it will set 
forth a dangerous precedent for the other 160 trust funds under Federal 
jurisdiction. The progress was made in last year's budget for funding 
the Pell grants, veterans health care and housing improvements for our 
military families would be at risk if the transportation trust funds 
were taken off-budget. If we take this action, where are these cuts 
going to come from?
  Appropriations are not Houdini. If you tie our hands and drop us in a 
pool, do not expect us to get our heads above water.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I often hear the refrain which I agree with that you 
ought to treat the Federal budget like you do your family budget, your 
business budget, maybe even your State or county government budget. I 
happen to believe in that maxim and I believe in another maxim. You 
ought to get what you pay for. And if you pay a dedicated tax, you 
ought to get what it is dedicated to. And if you pay 18.4 cents at the 
gas pump for roads and bridges and maintenance and construction, you 
ought to get 18.4 cents worth of roads and bridges and construction. So 
that is one essential reason that this is such a crucial vote today.
  There is another reason. I want to deal with those who say, ``If you 
take this off-budget, then it hurts other areas of the discretionary 
budget.'' Well, there is one thing that Republicans and Democrats agree 
on and that is the need for growth. There is one thing that 
unfortunately neither the Republican nor Democratic budget has in it, 
and that is adequate growth. The best I have seen is a 2.5-percent 
increase every year. The worst is 2.3-percent and neither one is a 
growth budget. This is growth. The only way you grow is to invest in 
your country, in your stock, in your physical infrastructure--your 
roads, your bridges, your water systems, your sewer systems, your 
airports, your locks and dams. that is how you grow. It has also been 
documented that building infrastructure also improves productivity, 
another key to growth. So if you want to grow and we want to make sure 
that there is adequate money in that budget for all the programs that 
are so important, you have to support growth. That means you have to 
support investment. That means you have to support this bill because 
this does guarantee the investment that is so important.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, 1\1/2\ minutes is not very long. 
Let me tell you my version of why this is not a good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody is for using the gas tax receipts that go 
into the trust fund for the purpose of highway construction. I am for 
that. Let me make it very clear. Every cent raised in gas taxes has 
been spent for highway construction since it was first started in 1956.
  Let me tell you my version of what the argument is really about. 
During the Vietnam war, we transferred some of the highway trust fund 
money for the war effort. That has now accumulated over the years 
additional interest, which is technically part of the trust fund. That 
interest now represents a cash balance of $19 billion. This is the 
issue. The authorizing committee would like to now have the authority 
to spend that additional $19 billion that has been accumulated in 
interest.
  Let me tell you very briefly why that is not fair. Since 1956, we 
have spent approximately $41 billion out of the general fund for road 
and highway construction. We have spent approximately $41 billion out 
of the general fund for the construction of mass transit. We have 
authorized those amounts. That is why the cash balance has in fact 
already been spent. There should be a tradeoff. The $19 billion should 
not now be spent to shortchange other spending of the Federal 
Government and really disrupt our opportunity to balance the budget.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we have heard now in the course of this 
rather lengthy debate from all the bogeymen with their scare arguments 
about unrestrained spending on transportation projects. The face is 
that there is restraint. It is written into the highway trust fund 
language, has been since the beginning in 1956, that this fund is 
antideficit, that it cannot run a deficit. It has not, and it will not.
  But in addition to that, there is additional restraint or further 
restraint from the Office of Management and Budget, which must review 
and put its stamp of approval on highway funding requests from the 
Department of Transportation. There is review by the

[[Page H3528]]

White House. There is review by the Committee on the Budget. There is 
review by the Committee on Appropriations. And there will continue to 
be, under this legislation.
  The second argument about interest, you just heard a discourse a 
moment ago from our good friend from Michigan about interest. Would any 
of the members of the Committee on Appropriations, would any Member of 
this body argue that the Federal Government should not pay interest to 
purchasers of U.S. Treasury securities? Should we not have paid 
interest on war bonds for World War II or World War I? Should we not 
pay interest to those domestic and foreign interests that buy U.S. 
Treasury notes, that in fact underwrite our deficit? Should we welch to 
those who buy U.S. Treasury notes, not pay interest to them?
  No, of course not. Nor should we welch on those highway users and 
aviation users and waterway users whose tax dollars are used to 
purchase U.S. Treasury securities and on which interest is owed.
  That is what we are talking about here, fairness.
  Then, finally, from various Members, that old pork-barrel nostrum, 
tired old argument, dragged out every time they run out of steam on the 
merits of the issues. The fact is, this is a fairness issue. People 
agreed to be taxed to build highways and bridges, to build runways at 
airports, to deepen our waterways and our ports. It was Abraham Lincoln 
who first said if you do not have a tax to build a waterway, you will 
never get the revenue out of that waterway to build this Nation, in 
1848 as a Member of this body.
  This is a basic fairness issue. You agree to be taxed for a benefit 
to be derived, and that is what this legislation is all about.


   general importance of taking transportation trust funds off-budget

  Trust fund: Dedicated revenue stream--freeing the Transportation 
Trust Funds from the artificial and unnecessary constraints of the 
budget process will allow those desperately needed funds to reverse the 
deterioration of the Nation's infrastructure; and
  Improved infrastructure will create jobs and increase the 
productivity and efficiency of our industries, thereby enhancing the 
United States position in this fiercely competitive global economy.


                  decline in infrastructure investment

  Infrastructure investment as a percentage of the gross domestic 
product [GDP] fell from 1.2 percent in 1980 to 0.8 percent in 1995;
  Infrastructure spending as a percentage of Federal spending declined 
over the past 30 years from a high of 6.3 percent in 1965 to 2.8 
percent in 1994;
  Infrastructure spending from 1981 to 1992 fell by $12 billion from 
$43.9 billion in 1980 to $31.9 billion by 1992, in constant dollars;
  At the same time, our economic competitors have been devoting 
substantial resources to their long-term investments: Japan is spending 
$3 trillion over 10 years to improve its infrastructure; Germany is 
investing nearly $2 trillion in infrastructure to fully integrate its 
eastern states into Europe's most powerful economy; and even Taiwan is 
proposing to spend more than $100 billion over 5 years to improve and 
expand its infrastructure;
  Overall, the U.S. ranks 55th in the world in infrastructure spending, 
based on 1993 statistics; and
  Our lack of investment is affecting our Nation's ability to compete--
from 1979 to 1989, the United States productivity growth rate was only 
35 percent of the average of other industrialized countries.


     real life consequences of decline in infrastructure investment

  Our failure to develop our transportation infrastructure has had 
serious, real-life consequences;
  Commuters waste 2 billion hours annually sitting in traffic because 
of freeway delays--costing our economy $45 billion per year in wasted 
fuel and lost productivity in our Nation's 50 largest cities alone;
  Fifteen locks on the inland waterway system average more than 3 hours 
of delay per barge ton because of antiquated and outdated locks and 
dams;
  Projected growth will also occur under the budget proposals of the 
Republican Congress. In fact, that was the case with the budget 
resolution the Budget Committee brought to the House floor last year;
  Taking the Transportation Trust Funds off budget would not add to the 
deficit; and
  In scoring H.R. 842, CBO said, ``By itself, taking programs off-
budget does not change total spending or revenue estimates for 
Congressional score keeping purposes.''


                Uniqueness of Transportation Trust Funds

  They are wholly self-financed by the user;
  They have dedicated revenue sources;
  They are self-supporting, operating on a pay-as-you-go basis;
  They are deficit-proof, with expenditures limited to receipts
  They invest in infrastructure capital programs; and
  They finance long-range construction programs, which benefit from 
certainty in funding.


 Taking the Trust Funds Off-Budget does not mean we would lose control 
                              of spending

  Taking the Transportation Trust Funds off-budget also does not alter 
the current authorization and appropriations process;
  According to CBO, ``The likelihood and amount of potential increase--
in transportation investments--are very uncertain because they depend 
upon the future actions of both the authorizing and appropriations 
committees;''
  Under H.R. 842, the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of 
the Treasury would review Aviation, Inland Waterways and Harbor 
Maintenance Fund spending annually and reduce proportionately for any 
trust fund in which projected revenues would exceed authorizations;
  That review is similar to the so-called Byrd amendment in the highway 
program which insures that the Highway Trust Fund can never operate in 
a deficit;
  All Transportation Trust Fund expenditures would be limited to 
receipts and subject to authorizations legislated by both Houses and 
signed into law; and
  The Appropriations Committee could still continue to include an 
annual obligation ceiling on transportation programs to control 
spending further.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I am completely opposed to this amendment 
because it is such horrible, horrible policy. It misses the fundamental 
point of how we raise money, of how we tax and why we tax and what the 
circumstances are for taxation.
  The fact is, why do we tax gas? Sure, there is some connection 
between the tax that is raised and spending on the roads. But we tax 
gas because we can tax gas, because we are able to tax gas, the same 
way that we tax tobacco and alcohol and income and tariffs on goods 
that come into this country. It fundamentally misses the whole point. 
Once you go into this kind of a policy, you are running down a slippery 
slope that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
  This is just terrible, terrible policy. Do we take all of the money 
that we tax alcohol and tobacco with and put it into the BATF? I do not 
think so. Do we take all of the money that we use taxing goods that 
come into this country under tariffs and use it to fund the customs 
agency? No.
  This notion, and maybe what this means is we should not have had a 
trust fund in the first place. I will grant you that. But the idea that 
somehow this is separate and that it ought to be absolutely dedicated 
only to one thing just completely misses the fundamental model of 
taxation, the fundamental model of why we do this in the first place. 
When you understand that, then you understand that this whole bogey 
about interest and we should be paying interest on this phony trust 
fund that does not exist becomes a nonargument completely.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I expect, like in all of these debates, certain things 
are overstated on both sides. But the reality is, again, there is 
simply no Santa Claus, no little secret pool of money, that someone can 
spend that does not impact deficits.
  Deficits on a year-to-year basis are based on revenue coming in and 
outlays going out. The reality is, I listened to the advocates of this 
proposal, and it sounds like there is going to be a lot more money to 
spend on highways, but it is not going to cost anything. I do not know 
where the money is coming from.
  The reality is that since 1981 we have spent more on highways that 
the total collected from the gas tax, even adding in that very generous 
interest allocation to the highway trust fund.
  The reality is that in current years, 1994, 1995, we are spending 
more than what we are getting in gas tax, more than what the trust fund 
is getting in this very generous interest allocation to the trust fund. 
So the gas tax is not subsidizing anything else.
  The question is whether we should take some of this surplus in this 
fund, which accumulated in the seventies, peaked in 1979, and start 
spending that now beyond current revenues, beyond

[[Page H3529]]

interest, at a point in time we are trying to move to get our Federal 
budget balance of revenues and outlays in order.

  The advocates say now we are going to do it. We are going to give 
this program priority over everything else, and if this goes up, the 
balance of funds coming down, something else has to be cut deeper. That 
is just simply the reality, if you want to hit a deficit target or try 
to get in balance.
  If you do not want to hit a deficit target year by year, or if you do 
not want to be in balance within 6 or 7 years, or 5 or 8, whatever one 
has in mind, then you can do this. But if you have a deficit target in 
mind, this is a dollar-for-dollar trade-off with other priorities.
  So I think we make a mistake when we set up these little kingdoms, 
removed from the normal budget process, that say you can go ahead and 
do what you like; removed from all the other arguments, the give-and-
take of the legislative process, in setting our priorities on a year-
to-year basis.
  It is not going to be the end of the world, but it is just a foolish 
step to take at this point in time, so I would hope the House would 
defeat this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, one of the distinguished 
leaders of the Committee on the Budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 1\3/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, there are arguments on both sides. It is not 
so cut and dry that it is so obvious to all of us. But while some call 
this the Truth in Budgeting Act, and they are right to call it that, 
there would be some truth in budgeting, I would call it the Unbalanced 
Budget Act of 1996, or, frankly, the pork barrel bill of 1996, because 
what it means is we are going to provide $50 billion more and make it 
available to people who want to spend on roads and bridges.
  There is an opportunity cost. If you spend $50 billion more here, you 
have to do something to compensate. Are we going to cut defense? No. 
Are we going to raise taxes? Out of the question. So what it means is 
there will be, in my judgment, continued deficits to the tune of $50 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the Concord Coalition says, ``Passage of this 
legislation would severely jeopardize the chances of balancing the 
Federal budget and would be detrimental to the budget process.''
  The National Taxpayers Union says, ``Placing these trust funds off 
budget is nothing less than a ploy to increase spending.''
  The Citizens Against Government Waste say, ``The Truth in Budgeting 
Act sounds great to the public, but it is simply a ruse to increase the 
$5 trillion national debt.''
  The Americans for Tax Reform say, ``American taxpayers want real 
reform of the budget process and not business as usual. They are 
depending on you to lead the fight in protecting the American taxpayers 
from the special interests who are trying to escape the scrutiny of 
fiscal responsibility.''
  The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget says, ``Proponents of 
H.R. 842 want to make some spending invisible, pretend that it pays for 
itself, and thus insulate favored programs from regular review and 
scrutiny.''
  Citizens for a Sound Economy say, ``Shielding the transportation 
trusts from fiscal scrutiny and accountability perpetuates pork-barrel 
spending and works counter to all efforts to reduce the deficit control 
government standing.''
  This is happening under our Republican watch? We are going to all 
this to happen, when we have purported to want to balance the budget by 
the year 2002.
  In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, this is a dead end, and I hope we reject 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is entitled to close 
debate and is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, many of the speakers today who have 
expressed their opposition to this legislation have said time-and-time 
again that if this passes, it would be more difficult to balance the 
budget.
  Let us think about that for a minute. I would suggest that that is a 
clear, implicit, admission that their intention is to continue to use 
these transportation trust funds to mask the size of the deficit.
  Now, nobody has had the courage really to stand up and say that 
directly, to say, yes, we want to use these transportation trust funds 
to mask the size of the general fund deficit, but that is the only 
logical inference one can draw. That is implicit in their statement. 
They apparently think it is right. Many think it is wrong. Some 224 
Members of this body, a majority, have cosponsored this legislation.
  My good friend talked about Republicans. Republicans historically in 
the past have voted, over 60 percent of Republicans, in favor of taking 
these transportation trust funds off budget, because they see this not 
only as a financial issue, but as an issue of honesty in government.
  Indeed, many of us believe that it is wrong to tell the American 
people we are going to take your gas tax or we are going to take your 
airplane ticket tax, promise you we are going to use it for 
transportation improvements, and then instead not spend the money and 
use it to mask the size of the general fund deficit.
  My good friend from Ohio said there is no difference between these 
trust fund taxes, these user taxes, and general taxes. He is certainly 
entitled to his point of view. However, that is not really what we are 
debating today.
  Over the years this Congress has said the trust funds are different. 
Why would we call them trust funds if they were not any different? They 
are different because, in our case here today, these user fees are paid 
for and a promise is made they will be spent for the purpose intended.
  Facts are stubborn things, and we have heard an awful lot of rhetoric 
and even a little bit of myth here today.

                              {time}  1415

  We have heard, quote, more money has come in to the trust fund than 
has gone out. That is interesting. Is there or is there not a $30 
billion balance in the trust fund? Does anybody dispute it? Right there 
on the chart are the balances from the Treasury Department. Does 
anybody here dispute there is a $30 billion balance in the 
transportation trust funds? Well, I think not, because that is a fact. 
Facts are stubborn things.
  We have heard that if this passes we will have a blank check for 
spending. We have heard that spending will be uncontrolled. We have 
heard this is a Santa Claus. Well, I would suggest that Pinnochio is a 
more accurate comparison, because this Government has played Pinnochio, 
lying to the American people and saying that if they pay their gas tax 
that we will spend it in transportation; pay your aviation ticket tax 
and we will spend it, and then we have not spent it. A $30 billion 
balance.
  Indeed, we have also heard that the line item veto will not apply 
here. Well, we have said and I have said in the debate very clearly 
that the line item veto does apply. However, there seems to be some 
dispute over that, so I will offer an amendment to make it very clear 
that the line-item veto does apply. So this is unprotected? Unprotected 
with a line item veto?

  But that is not all, Mr. Chairman. Does anybody dispute the fact that 
if this passes the Committee on Appropriations still has the 
jurisdiction and the authority to set the obligational ceiling? I have 
heard nobody disagree with that. I would expect nobody would because it 
is a fact. Facts are stubbon things, and the fact is if this passes, 
the Committee on Appropriations will continue to have the authority to 
set the ceiling on what can be spent each year.
  We have even heard this referred to as an entitlement. Well, facts 
are stubborn things. It is not an entitlement. That is a fact. This is 
subject to annual control. The annual control of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the annual control of the President in his line-item 
veto.
  So, indeed, facts are stubborn things, and there are substantial 
controls, perhaps the most important of which is, under the law you 
cannot spend a penny out of these trust funds unless the money is there 
to pay the bills. This program, these transportation programs are 
deficit proof.
  Oh, if we only had other programs like this that would be deficit 
proof, then, indeed, we would not have the massive deficit that we 
have.

[[Page H3530]]

  We have also heard that the interest technically, technically, is 
being counted here. Well, I guess it is a small technicality. It is 
called the law of the land, which says if an individual buys a 
Government bond they get interest on it. And so the Treasury 
Department, under the law, must pay that interest.
  Indeed, the Social Security trust fund, in its reserves, nearly 50 
percent of the reserves in the Social Security trust fund is based on 
interest. Are we going to tell the American people, aha, we are not 
really going to count the interest in the Social Security trust fund. 
Of course not. And let us be equally fair here. Obviously, under the 
law, the interest must be counted.
  We have heard about the so-called special interests that support 
this. Well, I guess there are 260 million special interests called the 
American people who will benefit from better highways and better 
airports, but there are some other special interests. The National 
Federation of Independent Businesses, the Small Business Legislative 
Council, the American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, the Air Traffic 
Controllers, who care about safety. And we all better care about safety 
and spend some more money to make our air traffic control system safe. 
Women First. On and on the list goes.
  But let me share with you some other so-called special interests. The 
National Association of Counties across America. Is that a special 
interest? The National Conference of State Legislatures. Is that a 
special interest? The National League of Cities, where our people live 
in urban areas. Is that a special interest? No. Many, many, many 
Americans strongly support this because we need fairness, we need 
honesty in budgeting and we need to live up to our promises to the 
American people.
  And let me also emphasize in closing that while we have heard the 
argument what about the other trust funds, the transportation trust 
funds are the only trust funds that are totally user financed, that are 
deficit proof, that are not entitlements but annually controlled. These 
are, indeed, different, and for that reason we should vigorously 
support this legislation.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Truth in Budgeting 
Act of 1996 and in opposition to Mr. Minge's amendment ending off-
budget status of the trust fund if there is funding for transportation 
projects from general revenue.
  Initially, the creation of the transportation trust funds assured our 
state and local governments a steady, dependable stream of Federal 
assistance necessary in undertaking long-term projects. Those who 
benefited from the transportation programs paid for the program.
  Today, inclusion of these trust funds in the unified Federal budget 
has resulted in enormous surpluses--moneys which are desperately needed 
for improvements to our Nation's transportation systems.
  Specifically, I must oppose Mr. Minge's amendment. It provides off-
budget status would cease if any general funds are spent on the 
construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of highways or grants-in-
aid for airports or for aviation-related facilities, equipment, and 
research engineering.
  This amendment is too broad as it would cover any highway or aviation 
general-fund spending. For example, if a law coming from a committee, 
or a report accompanying a law coming from a committee provides general 
funds for any highway or aviation program, the off-budget status of the 
transportation trust funds would end.
  On the issue of general funds, let me give a few examples: if there 
were general funds appropriated through EDA or DOD that could be used 
for highway purposes, then under the amendment the trust funds would no 
longer be off-budget. Even if there were general funds appropriated for 
highway or aviation research and development that too would put the 
trust fund back on-budget.
  Mr. Chairman, anyone who supports H.R. 842 should oppose this 
amendment.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, 
legislation which will restore honesty and integrity in the manner in 
which we utilize the transportation trust funds.
  H.R. 842 will remove the four transportation trust funds--the highway 
trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, the inland waterways 
trust fund, and the harbor maintenance trust fund--from the totals of 
the budget submitted by the President and the congressional budget.
  In other words, the bill takes these trust funds off budget and puts 
a stop to the time-worn practice of using them to mask the size of the 
deficit.
  The legislation should be adopted for a number of reasons, Mr. 
Chairman. Investment in infrastructure means jobs for American 
companies and American workers. Improved infrastructure also translates 
into a more productive economy, and boosts our competitiveness in the 
world market.
  The most important reason to pass H.R. 842, however, is trust. Every 
time a motorist fills up at the gas pump, they do so with the 
understanding that the Federal gas taxes they are paying will be 
invested in new and improved roads, bridges, transit systems, and other 
needed infrastructure improvements. By failing to use these moneys for 
their intended purpose we are, in effect, violating that trust.
  This failure to live up to the public trust comes at a price, as 
well. It is estimated that New York has lost nearly $390 million 
between the years of 1992 and 1996 due to the failure to fully fund the 
program at authorized levels.
  Let's keep our promise to the American people, Mr. Chairman, and use 
the trust fund moneys for the purpose for which they were intended--
developing and improving the Nation's roadways, airways, and waterways.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 842, the Truth in 
Budgeting Act, I rise today to urge my colleagues to view this 
legislation not solely as a transportation issue, but as an issue on 
tax fairness.
  The Truth in Budgeting Act would move our Federal transportation 
trust funds off budget, separate from the Federal unified budget. 
Currently, with these funds ``on-budget'' the surpluses are used to 
mask a portion of our true budget deficit which prevents these funds 
from being used in the manner they were intended. During this time of 
severe budgetary pressure, it is critical for State and local 
governments to receive general funding support, and should benefit 
equitable from the transportation taxes-user fees they send to 
Washington to be used for transportation purposes.
  As I have the privilege to represent the 18th Congressional District 
of Pennsylvania, I can most assuredly tell you that my constituents are 
concerned about funding for vital transportation projects in the 
southwestern part of our State. Many of you are probably familiar with 
the equipment problems the towers at the Pittsburgh International 
Airport have been experiencing. Along with the FAA Revitalization Act, 
H.R. 2276, this bill will help to ensure that such incidents of grave 
public and transportation safety will receive the urgent response they 
demand.
  The Truth in Budgeting Act would also enhance our communitys' 
abilities to plan important infrastructure investments and complete 
transportation projects. A community's mobility is a measure of its 
quality of life and the competitiveness of its economy. The efficient, 
cost effective movement of people and goods is vital for individuals 
and for the businesses that contribute and bolster our Nation's 
economy. The decline of the industrial corridor of southwestern 
Pennsylvania in the 1980's has been well documented. The loss of 
employment opportunities effected nearly one-half million people from 
the Mon Valley. A decade later, there remains a significant amount of 
work to be done to combat this economic devastation.
  The Mon Valley Expressway would for the first time provide this 
region physical and economic access to Pittsburgh. I am confident that 
the Mon Valley Expressway will prove to be as much of an infrastructure 
and economic success as I-279, and the East and West Parkways. We 
cannot afford to not complete economically rejuvenating projects such 
as the Mon Valley Expressway.
  As an advocate of capital budgeting and economic development, I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 842, the 
Truth in Budgeting Act. Strong and persuasive arguments have been 
presented on both sides of the transportation trust funds off budget 
issue. However, I believe the overriding issue is that the American 
public should receive $1 worth of value for every dollar of dedicated 
user taxes for transportation improvements collected by the Federal 
Government and that such funds should not be used to mask the size of 
the Federal deficit. This is not a debate about balancing the budget, 
it is a debate about honesty in government! If all of the specific 
transportation user taxes are not going to be used for transportation 
improvements, then the amount of user taxes collected for the trust 
funds should be reduced.
  Let's be clear about the debate today. The Budget and Appropriations 
Committees object to moving the dedicated transportation trust funds 
off budget because they will lose the ability to apply the unexpended 
balances in the trust funds back against other total discretionary 
spending levels in the budget--thereby keeping spending in other budget 
functions under the legal spending caps. They argue that removing the 
trust funds from the unified budget will result in more pork barrel 
spending, drastic cuts in other discretionary programs, and make it 
impossible to balance the budget.

[[Page H3531]]

  The truth is most of the funds paid out of the transportation trust 
funds are disbursed to States through established formulas. The 
Appropriations Committee can always choose not to fund pork barrel 
highway demonstration projects. The president will have line-item veto 
authority starting in 1997. Appropriators and budgeteers are playing 
shell games when they apply paper excesses in one government account 
back against real borrowing for real deficit spending in other areas of 
the budget. Finally, collecting taxes for a dedicated purpose, and then 
using the taxes to support other unrelated spending is dishonest and 
not fiscally responsible, and it is certainly not the right way to 
balance the budget!
  Testimony before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
from all segments of the transportation community, leave no doubt that 
the demands upon our Nation's existing transportation infrastructure 
are going to increase significantly over the next decade. Since our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure is already under funded, it 
stands to reason that this disparity will only continue to grow under 
the current arrangement. This situation is particularly damaging to 
States like Illinois, which pays more in taxes than it receives in 
benefits. When the total appropriated amount is reduced it is donor 
States, like Illinois, Michigan, New York, and California that are hurt 
the most, because they must wait until other States are paid their 
guaranteed allotments before their greater needs are funded. Placing 
the transportation trust funds off budget is the best way to correct 
this funding disparity, and why not? The taxpayers of these donor 
States are already paying for it!
  In closing, I want to urge my colleagues to accept the premise, if 
Congress is going to mandate dedicated transportation user taxes, then 
Congress has a responsibility to ensure the public that these taxes are 
being used for their intended purpose--not to hide other deficit 
spending. The condition of our Nation's transportation infrastructure 
is critical to our Nation's economic health, let's protect the 
transportation trust funds. Vote aye on H.R. 842.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of H.R. 842, the 
Truth in Budgeting Act which would restore our Nation's transportation 
trust funds to their original purpose of serving the people. This bill 
would also restore the trust of the American taxpayer who has 
contributed billions of dollars in taxes and user fees to maintain this 
country's transportation infrastructure.
  We have certainly abused this trust by allowing our Nation's roads, 
trains, airways, and waterways to deteriorate. Our transportation 
infrastructure is in desperate need of the money that will be freed by 
removing the trust fund off budget. According to a recent Department of 
Transportation report, approximately 30 percent of the interstate 
pavement on our highways is in poor condition. In fact, there are about 
$360 billion in unmet highway and bridge needs in this country.
  Because of fiscal constraints, the Centennial Bridge in Rock Island 
County, IL, has fallen into severe disrepair. However, if these trust 
fund dollars are released for the purposes intended, the bridge 
authority will be able to make infrastructural improvements needed to 
keep this major crossing of the Mississippi River safe and viable for 
years to come.
  I also share the outrage of many of my constituents about last year's 
drastic cuts in transit funding. Hard-working Americans have paid their 
fair share to help maintain healthy mass transit systems. Mass transit 
is the lifeblood of our cities and our suburban and rural communities. 
It provides a way to work for millions of middle- and low-income 
Americans. We cannot continue to jeopardize their livelihoods by using 
these transit dollars for other unintended purposes.
  We cannot continue to use the billions of dollars accrued in the 
transportation trust funds used to mask the true size of the deficit at 
the expense of deteriorating roads, bridges, and tunnels, and failing 
bus terminals and airports. The American people have suffered long 
enough. The time has come to allow these funds to rejuvenate our 
decaying infrastructure. We need to maintain a safe, efficient, and 
cost effective transportation infrastructure.
  This vote presents us the opportunity to meet critical highway and 
transit needs with honesty and accountability. I urge my colleagues to 
restore the faith the American people have given us by supporting this 
Truth In Budgeting Act.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, the 
Truth in Budgeting Act, because it does just that: it requires Congress 
to be truthful with the American people about where their money is 
going. We have made reducing the Federal deficit a major theme of this 
Congress, and yet some want to continue to use the transportation trust 
fund to hide the true size of the deficit. Ladies and gentlemen, that 
is smoke and mirrors, plain and simple. We must be consistent with our 
approach to tackling this country's fiscal problems. We cannot 
simultaneously talk about cutting the deficit and eliminating unneeded 
programs and yet continue to engage in a policy that does not honestly 
address the true size and nature of our deficit. This Congress needs to 
be truthful with the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been persistent and determined in our attempts 
to balance the budget because we know that our current spending 
patterns are taking away from future generations. The same issue 
applies here. Money set aside for the transportation trust fund should 
be used for transportation and infrastructure projects that will 
benefit our children and grandchildren. This money should not be 
subject to the political whims of the day because it is, quite 
literally, an investment in this Nation's future. By taking this fund 
off-budget we are ensuring that the money necessary to maintain and 
expand our current national transportation system will be available as 
this country moves into the 21st century. My home State of Missouri 
continues to fall behind in its infrastructure needs. It is imperative 
that as Missouri and other States expand their markets abroad and 
increase their exports that we maintain our vast network of highways, 
railways, ports, and airports.
  Experts from around the country have told us that investment in our 
transportation system is a key ingredient to America's competitiveness 
and economic vitality in the next century. However, the 1995 budget 
resolution reduces transportation spending by 20 percent by the year 
2002, precisely the time when our Nation will be in need of major 
infrastructure repairs. In fact, the Department of Transportation 
estimates that this country needs to invest an average of $74 billion 
annually over the next 20 years on transportation projects--that is 
double what was spent in 1994! Whether or not everyone agrees with 
these figures, the facts are obvious enough: the United States needs 
serious investment in our transportation system in the coming decades, 
and an off-budget trust fund ensures that we have the money that is 
necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, this trust fund is made up entirely from user fees. It 
is very obvious that those fees should go to pay for infrastructure 
repairs and nothing else. That is what a user fee is for--to maintain 
and expand the services that require the fee. To spend it on anything 
other than what it is intended for is bad policy and downright 
dishonest, and I reject the notion that we can just take this money and 
use it as general revenue.
  Mr. Speaker, for the safety of our children and to promote the 
economic growth of our country, we must ensure that the Nation's 
infrastructure and transportation system is not allowed to decay and 
collapse. That is why I urge my colleagues to be truthful with the 
American people and support the Truth in Budgeting Act.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for 
the bill, H.R. 842. As a cosponsor of this important legislation, I 
believe taking the self-financed trust funds off budget is not only 
appropriate but necessary.
  Currently, the accumulated cash balanced of the highway trust fund, 
the airport and airways trust fund, the harbor maintenance trust fund 
and the inland waterways trust fund exceeds $30 billion and will reach 
as high as $77 billion by the year 2002. When these trust funds were 
credited, the users who contributed to the funds believed their taxes 
would go toward necessary improvements and maintenance of the Nation's 
transportation system. Because of the direct connection between the tax 
imposed and the benefit derived from improvements in transportation 
infrastructure, taxpayers strongly support the payment of 
transportation user fees. This support will not continue to exist if 
the trust funds continue to be used to make the Federal deficit appear 
smaller.
  Taking the transportation trust funds off budget will restore faith 
with the taxpayers. But this issue is not only about tax fairness, it's 
also about jobs and economic productivity. Every dollar spent in 
highway, transit and aviation construction improves a nationwide system 
upon which the people and commerce of the United States depend. Our 
transportation system continues to be our Government's best investment. 
Since the 1950's, as much as 25 percent of America's productivity 
growth can be credited to infrastructure improvements. For example, 
recent Department of Transportation studies show that every $1 billion 
invested in highway construction and enhancements yields 42,000 good 
high-wage jobs.
  These are among the reasons why I am supporting H.R. 842 and why I 
will work for passage of this important legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act. This legislation is 
critical to the viability of the Nation's highway program and to 
ensuring tax fairness.
  The transportation trust funds were created with a special obligation 
between Congress and transportation users--that these user fees

[[Page H3532]]

would be used to construct, rebuild and maintain our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. Currently highway users contribute over 
$5 billion annually toward deficit reduction. Further reductions in 
spending from this program will increase trust fund balances and ignore 
the commitments made to taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, while budgetary manipulation restrains investment, 
America's transportation needs continue to grow. The Department of 
Transportation recently reported that just to maintain current 
conditions would require an annual investment of $44.8 billion for 
highways, $5.1 billion for bridges and $7.3 billion for transit 
systems. Actual 1993 outlays for these purposes were $34.8 billion by 
all levels of government. Airport needs alone are estimated at $10 
billion annually. It is argued that transportation should make a 
contribution to reducing the deficit. The truth is, that since 1990 
transportation users already have contributed more than $30 billion to 
deficit reduction through diversion of part of the Federal motor fuels 
tax to the general fund. Both congressional and administration budget 
plans would result in transportation spending reductions and increases 
in trust fund balances to offset the deficit.
  Mr. Chairman, concerns have been expressed about the impact on the 
deficit and other programs of taking the transportation trust funds off 
budget. These concerns are unfounded. Removal of the trust funds from 
the unified budget itself will not increase the deficit, will not 
mandate cuts in other programs, will not restrict the Appropriations 
Committee's ability to set transportation spending levels. In a written 
cost estimate the Congressional Budget Office has ruled that taking the 
trust funds off budget would not result in any change to the deficit. 
Mr. Chairman, by passing this bill, Congress will retain its pivotal 
role in setting spending and policy priorities in transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is necessary only to drive to work these days to be 
reminded that America's transportation infrastructure needs some heavy 
duty work. The winter's lingering potholes and the traffic jams are 
only part of the evidence that not enough is being done to improve the 
Nation's mobility. It is time to make the situation right and surely 
not allowing more and more deterioration. But making it right means 
allowing the balances in the trust funds to be spent down in a 
responsible manner. It means helping to meet the billions of dollars in 
unmet needs on highways, bridges, transit systems and airports.
  Mr. Chairman, without this legislation it is likely that the balances 
in the trust funds will continue to increase and there will be fewer 
resources available for the Nation's transportation infrastructure. The 
transportation trust funds must be removed from the unified budget so 
that we can keep our commitments to the highway users and to future 
generations. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 842 the Truth in 
Budgeting Act.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 842, 
which would take the transportation trust funds off-budget, thereby 
giving them special status so the rules that apply to almost all other 
portions of the budget would not apply.
  I certainly appreciate the important role the Federal Government 
plays in maintaining Federal highways and helping States to build and 
repair State and local roads, highways, bridges and mass transit 
projects. I also understand the concerns of States whose citizens 
contribute more in taxes to the trust funds than they receive back in 
transportation assistance from the Federal Government.
  While at one time I supported this proposal, I now believe that 
taking the trust funds off-budget is not the most responsible or 
appropriate solution to the transportation funding problem. I also 
believe it would cause a budgetary nightmare that would make our 
efforts to balance the Federal budget--already a Herculean task that we 
have yet to complete--virtually impossible.
  Rather than having some States receive less than their fair share 
back from the highway trust fund, we should reform the structure by 
which the Federal Government collects taxes and returns money back to 
the States for transportation projects. If a State were allowed to keep 
the money, it would be better able to plan and execute highway 
construction and upkeep.
  The main problem with H.R. 842 is the impact it would have on our 
efforts to balance the Federal budget. Balancing the budget must be our 
highest priority. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated 
that taking the trust funds off-budget would increase the Federal 
budget deficit by more than $20 billion over the next 5 years. That 
means we would need to find an additional $20 billion in order to 
balance the budget. Where would the $20 billion in cuts come from? 
Education? Environmental protection? Medical research?
  The Federal Government has spent $6 billion more on transportation 
projects than it has collected in gas taxes since the creation of the 
highway trust fund in 1957. The $19 billion surplus everyone talks does 
not exist in any form other than an accounting entry at the Department 
of the Treasury.
  Because of my overriding concern about the impact this legislation 
would have on our efforts to balance the Federal budget, I must vote 
against this bill.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 842, 
the Truth in Budgeting Act, which would take the Federal transportation 
trust funds off-budget. I want to commend the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bud Shuster, and the 
distinguished ranking member of the committee, Jim Oberstar, for their 
perserverence in getting this important legislation to the House floor.
  H.R. 842 takes the highway, aviation, inland waterways, and harbor 
maintenance trust funds off budget. As one of the bill's original 
cosponsors I urge all of my colleagues to look past the ``sky is 
falling'' rhetoric of some of its opponents and support the bill.
  The four transportation trust funds have proven to be an effective 
way to raise the necessary revenue to pay for many of the varied 
transportation needs of the country. Unfortunately, the vast revenues 
generated by the trust funds have been used to mask the true size of 
the Federal deficit.
  Some have argued today--and they've bolstered their arguments with 
testimonials from some of the Nation's leading economic experts, the 
same experts, by the way, who brought us NAFTA and GATT, that the 
transportation trust funds should make a contribution to reducing the 
deficit. The fact is, since 1990 transportation users already have 
contributed more than $30 billion to deficit reduction through the 
diversion of part of the Federal motor fuels tax to the general fund.
  There is a huge surplus in the trust funds--surpluses that are 
projected to grow by leaps and bounds in the years ahead. Under the 
President's most recent budget plan, the highway trust fund alone would 
make the third largest contribution to deficit reduction--only Medicare 
and Medicaid would be cut more.
  Let's put this in perspective. According to the Alliance for Truth in 
Transportation Budgeting, from fiscal years 1996 to 2002, the balances 
in the highway trust fund will almost triple from $21 billion to $60 
billion--an increase of $39 billion. The $39 billion increase will be 
used on spending in the rest of the Government--these are funds that 
are supposed to be used only for transportation purposes. There is no 
justification to collect transportation user fees for the purpose of 
hiding Government spending in other areas.
  This is what today's debate is all about. Are we going to continue 
diverting the bulk of the balances in the transportation trust funds to 
shield the true size of the Federal budget deficit, or are we going to 
spend the revenues generated by the trust funds on their intended 
purpose? If we don't pass this bill, then we should be honest with the 
American people and do away with the trust funds and simply call the 
transportation user fees what they really are: taxes.
  The current transportation and infrastructure needs of the country 
are indeed staggering. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates 
the backlog of needs for our Nation's highways and bridges totals $315 
billion. Airport investment needs are estimated at $10 billion a year, 
while it will cost an estimated $8 billion a year simply to maintain 
the Nation's transit systems.

  Even if we spent all of the money generated every year by the 
transportation trust funds we would not be able to meet all of this 
Nation's transportation needs.
  And H.R. 842 would not result in all of the money in the trust funds 
being spent every year. Under H.R. 842, spending from the trust funds 
would still have to go through the normal appropriations process. 
Congress would still have a final say on how much is spent on 
transportation.
  But H.R. 842 will preserve the fiscal integrity of the trust funds by 
ensuring that the revenue is spent on transportation projects and not 
used to mask the size of the federal deficit.
  Would H.R. 842 result in more Federal spending on transportation 
projects? Yes it would, and I say bravo. Keep in mind that this 
spending is not deficit spending--it is spending that will already have 
been paid for through the transportation user fees. H.R. 842 will 
ensure, for the first time, that these user fees are exactly that and 
not simply another tax that goes in the black hole known as the general 
fund.
  One final note. If any of you are concerned that H.R. 842 will put a 
squeeze on other needed Federal programs, let me remind Members of two 
key points:

[[Page H3533]]

  First, transportation spending would still have to be approved by the 
Appropriations Committee; and
  Second, 42,000 jobs are created in America for every $1 billion 
invested in Federal transportation projects.
  The bottom line is, Congress will never balance the Federal budget 
unless the American economy continues to grow. Unless the Congress 
takes action now to make the needed investments in our Nation's 
infrastructure, our economy will wilt on the vine, we will continue to 
lose jobs, and America will cease to be the economic leader of the 
world.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the entire 
leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for being 
so diligent in bringing the issue of investment in our Nation's 
infrastructure to the attention of the American people. You should be 
commended for all of your efforts in getting this bill to the floor for 
a vote, despite the strong opposition of H.R. 842 by powerful Members 
of the House.
  As a cosponsor of H.R. 842, the Truth in Budgeting Act, I believe 
that moving the trust funds off budget is vital to ensuring that we 
will be able to meet the vast infrastructure needs of our Nation's 
transportation systems, provide adequate funding for the National 
Highway System, and ensure that ISTEA is fully funded.
  The current, documented, unmet transportation infrastructure needs of 
our Nation are enormous. Those needs are $212 billion to fix 265,000 
miles of highways which are below acceptable engineering standards; $78 
billion to fix 238,000 bridges which are rated as structurally 
deficient; and $80 billion in public wastewater treatment facility 
needs.
  I represent Florida's Third Congressional District which includes 
four interstate highways, two international airports, eight regional or 
commuter airports, a major seaport, and a river used extensively for 
intrastate commerce.
  Every year, I assist these Florida transportation facilities in 
getting Federal dollars. But there is never enough money to meet all of 
their needs. I would like to enter into the Record a letter that I just 
received from the FAA talking about severely limited AIP funds and 
denying a funding request from the Gainesville Regional Airport. The 
city of Gainesville's airport is not the only airport affected by the 
AIP funding situation. Of the Nation's top 100 airports, 23 are 
incredibly congested, and would use additional funds for expansion 
purposes.
  We would be able to address some of these transportation needs if the 
transportation trust funds are moved off budget. The four 
transportation trust funds, highway trust fund, aviation trust fund, 
inland waterways trust fund, and the harbor maintenance trust fund are 
unique in that they are wholly user financed, invest in transportation 
infrastructure, and are deficit proof. Taking highway trust funds off 
budget frees up $1.1 billion for ISTEA spending.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this good bill which will 
ensure that taxes paid by the American people for more roads, expanded 
transit systems, safer bridges, updated equipment for our air traffic 
control centers, adequate number of Coast Guard stations, and for many 
other transportation purposes are used for those purposes.

         Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
           Administration,
                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 1996.
     Hon. Corrine Brown,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Brown: Administrator Hinson has asked me 
     to respond to your letter supporting a request for Airport 
     Improvement Program (AIP) funding to reimburse the city of 
     Gainesville for expenses involved in acquiring property 
     through inverse condemnation.
       The city of Gainesville's request for fiscal year (FY) 1996 
     noise discretionary funds was considered carefully. Because 
     of severely limited AIP funds, including those funds 
     designated for noise compatibility and planning, we rely 
     strongly on our priority-rating system to select projects for 
     funding. This rating system considers the type of work and 
     the activity level of the airport when assigning the 
     priorities. Unfortunately, based on its priority, we do not 
     have sufficient funding to approve a grant for Gainesville's 
     noise project at this time.
       I assure you that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
     will continue to work with the city to provide reimbursement 
     for the land acquisition already completed. Toward that end, 
     we will retain the city's grant application on file for 
     future consideration as funds become available. We are 
     hopeful that reauthorization of the AIP beyond FY 1996 will 
     provide adequate funding and allow us to carry out these 
     intentions.
       The FAA continues to support the Gainesville Regional 
     Airport through AIP entitlement funds. A current year project 
     has been approved totaling $1.66 million in Federal funds to 
     continue the expansion and renovation of the terminal 
     building.
       If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. A. 
     Bradley Mims, Assistant Administrator for Government and 
     Industry Affairs, at 202-267-3277.
           Sincerely,
                                              James H. Washington,
                      Acting Associate Administrator for Airports.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall 
be considered by sections as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment, and pursuant to the rule, each section is considered as 
having been read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       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 ``Truth in Budgeting Act''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I request to 
know why we would be doing it this way. There are only five sections.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, for the 
convenience of the Members.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to consider the 
gentleman's request in the future, but until we consult, I do object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Are there amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, AIRPORT 
                   AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND, INLAND WATERWAYS TRUST 
                   FUND, AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Highway Trust Fund, the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund--
       (1) shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, 
     receipts, or deficit for surplus for purposes of--
       (A) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (B) the congressional budget (including allocations of 
     budget authority and outlays provided therein), or
       (C) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985; and
       (2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation 
     imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
     outlays) of the United States Government.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. SHUSTER.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shuster: Page 3, line 10, insert 
     ``except the Line Item Veto Act of 1996'' before the comma.

  Mr. SHUSTER. During the debate on the rule, Mr. Chairman, some 
concern was expressed as to whether the Line-Item Veto Act would apply 
to trust fund spending if this bill passes. We believe it will, and it 
certainly is our intent that it apply. However, because this question 
has been raised, I want to make it crystal clear that this is one more 
of the protections that exist in this legislation and, indeed, this 
amendment clarifies it, and I offer it on behalf of myself and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], to clarify the fact that the line-
item veto does apply. This amendment removes any ambiguity.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, before stating opposition to the amendment, I would 
like to inquire about some further explanation of the amendment, and I 
may not actually oppose the amendment. I have not had an opportunity to 
see the wording of the amendment.
  My inquiry to the chairman would be if it is the intent of this 
amendment to

[[Page H3534]]

apply the line-item veto provisions as signed by the President to all 
expenditures of the trust fund, which would include contract authority 
as well?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, just as it applies to 
anything else.
  Mr. ORTON. And so, then, contract authority spending by the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure would be subject to line-item 
veto?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is the way it is today and that is the way it would be under our 
legislation. The answer is yes.
  Mr. ORTON. Only above baseline.
  Mr. SHUSTER. It applies just the way the bill currently applies.
  Mr. ORTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is my concern, because as the 
gentleman will recall, during the debate of the line-item veto bill I 
rose to propose an amendment to the line-item veto bill, to apply the 
line-item veto to contract authority as well. The proponent of the 
amendment rose and vehemently opposed my amendment. My amendment 
failed.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that the 
conference report includes all discretionary spending, including 
contract authority and, therefore, this would apply.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear the gentleman's 
interpretation of that. That, I think, clarifies, and if, in fact, that 
is an accurate interpretation, that this would apply to all spending 
from the trust fund, including all contract authority, not just an 
amount above the baseline.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that it 
applies the same way the existing law applies today. The gentleman's 
amendment offered some months ago failed in this body.
  Mr. ORTON. But, Mr. Chairman, I would ask if it is the gentleman's 
interpretation that all contract authority would----
  Mr. SHUSTER. No, Mr. Chairman, it is my interpretation that this 
applies just exactly the way the law applies today.
  Mr. ORTON. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying that 
this does not apply to contract authority spending.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, it does apply to contract authority in the same way 
that is applied under the current law.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a question whether the current law 
does apply to contract authority, which is the issue I am raising, and 
that is why I wish for the chairman to be on record.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am told by our counsel it does apply to 
contract authority.
  Mr. ORTON. That is the point I wish to make. And if, in fact, as the 
gentleman has indicated, Mr. Chairman, that the line-item veto would, 
not only under current law but under his amendment, apply line-item 
veto to all contract authority, then I would favor the amendment and 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. SHUSTER. No, not at all, Mr. Chairman. I would say to my friend 
that it applies to contract authority in the same way that the current 
law applies to contract authority, which, indeed, is above the 
baseline.
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman to amend his 
amendment to expand it so that, in fact, it would apply to all contract 
authority?
  Mr. SHUSTER. No, I would not because we have offered this to have it 
apply exactly as the current law applies.
  Mr. ORTON. Then, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I take back the balance of my 
time and I would simply make the point that if the gentleman is not 
willing to expand his amendment to make it absolutely clear that the 
line-item veto applies to all contract authority spending by the 
committee, then, in fact, the argument that was raised during the 
debate on the rule is, in fact, applicable.

  Because there is a concern that there may be spending that is not 
covered by line-item veto; that, in fact, that spending may continue to 
be simply pork barrel spending; it may continue to be authorized under 
this legislation, so that a committee of Congress can directly 
authorize contract expenditures, which neither come within the fiscal 
restraints of the budget act nor comes within the fiscal restraints of 
the line-item veto, thereby completely avoiding and evading any type of 
fiscal restraint on that spending.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment as it stands; would 
encourage the gentleman to expand the amendment to make it clear that 
the line-item veto does, in fact, apply to all contract spending by the 
committee, authorized by the committee; and if, in fact, he would do 
that, I would support the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for 
it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the gentleman is trying to rewrite the line-item veto law. I am 
informed what we have done here goes as far as we can go within this 
legislation. It would not be germane for us to attempt to rewrite the 
line-item veto law in this legislation. So we are simply offering this 
to conform with the line-item veto law, which is now the law of the 
land.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am simply suggesting that if needed the 
committee chairman wished to avoid all criticism of this bill as not 
pertaining under line-item veto, then in fact he could seek to waive 
the germaneness requirement under unanimous consent, could in fact ask 
to have that amended expanded.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman can assure me that by doing so I would 
remove all criticism from this bill, I would certainly seriously 
consider doing that, but I do not think that is a reality. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. ORTON. Reclaiming my time, I think it will remove criticism from 
the amendment and in fact eliminate one of the objections that many 
people have had to this particular bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be on the floor for the full discussion 
of the line-item veto. The chairman of the committee and I had a bit of 
a dialog about it this morning during the rule, and we came down to the 
conclusion that we were not sure whether we were clear on whether or 
not the legislation before us would or would not be subject to the 
line-item veto. In the interest of clarity, we wanted to make 
absolutely certain that this legislation was subject to the line-item 
veto as passed by the Congress, as signed by the President into law, 
and that, I believe, is the purpose of the chairman's amendment.
  I certainly support what the chairman is trying to accomplish, if it 
is as I believe, to clarify that this legislation will be subject to 
the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which is the way I read the one-line 
amendment that he has proposed.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make this legislation 
subject to the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, the answer is yes.
  Mr. GOSS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that that was the 
clarification that we were all seeking with regard to the line item 
veto, and I think that to go any further than that, to try and somehow 
now amend the line item veto, would of course not only be inappropriate 
but nongermane and beyond the scope and so forth.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Florida yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am just curious, how could this bill not 
have the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 apply to it.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, my understanding from the 
Parliamentarian, the need for this amendment follows this reason. The 
main reason the

[[Page H3535]]

trust fund bill is now exempt from the Line Item Veto Act is that the 
President can only exercise the line-item veto if he certifies that 
cancellation of the item will reduce the deficit. Since the trust fund 
bill would remove disbursements for purposes of calculating the 
deficit, the President would be prevented from exercising a veto 
authority absent compliance with the deficit reduction standard.
  I am happy to yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Now I understand why the gentleman may need this amendment, 
because of that language. Do I also understand that the Line Item Veto 
Act does not apply to contract authority in the same fashion as it 
applies to other discretionary spending?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to speak for the Line Item Veto 
Act. The Line Item Veto Act speaks for itself. As the gentleman knows, 
we did discretionary authority, new entitlements and targeted tax 
benefits in line-item veto. So to the extent what we are talking about 
falls into those areas under the act as written, the answer would be 
yes.

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the Line Item Veto Act, 
that its application to contract authority is much more limited than it 
is to discretionary spending as exists in appropriation bills from year 
to year. Is that accurate?
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, I am not sure that it is. Again, I 
think that I should refer the gentleman to the act the way it is 
written. I believe it refers to contract authority, and I believe that 
the proper way to respond to the question is to refer the gentleman to 
the act. There may be some parliamentary interpretation.
  Mr. SABO. I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is it his 
understanding that the Line Item Veto Act pertains to contract 
authority in the same fashion as it does to discretionary appropriated 
spending or is it a more limited application?
  Mr. GOSS. Since the time is mine, I would be very happy to yield to 
the gentleman if he wishes me to. But I will tell the gentleman that 
what he is asking is contract authority and direct spending questions 
are covered already in the act.
  Mr. SABO. But I am just curious, to what degree the line-item veto is 
different for the direct spending of contract authority versus that of 
appropriated discretionary funds.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSS. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, all I can tell the gentleman is, it is our 
intention and our belief that in fact what we are doing here is saying 
that the line-item veto shall apply as it applies in the current line-
item veto law. If the gentleman has questions about the nuances of that 
law, this gentleman is not prepared to answer them.
  Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, contract authority is not 
discretionary. It is direct spending, and direct spending is covered 
but it is not discretionary. I am sorry, that is the way it is.
  I yield further to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is my understanding that the application of line-item veto to 
contract authority is much more limited than it is to any discretionary 
appropriated funds, and that in fact that it only applies to increases 
in baseline spending.
  Mr. GOSS. My time is finished. I am not sure the gentleman's 
interpretation is correct. But the gentleman is entitled to his 
interpretation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 3. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF AIRPORT 
                   AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 471 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 47131 as section 47132; and
       (2) by inserting after section 47130 the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 47131. Safeguards against deficit spending

       ``(a) Estimates of Unfunded Aviation Authorizations and Net 
     Aviation Receipts.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, shall estimate--
       ``(1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the 
     unfunded aviation authorizations at the close of the first 
     fiscal year that begins after that March 31 and
       ``(2) the net aviation receipts at the close of such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(b) Procedure if Excess unfunded Aviation 
     Authorizations.--If the Secretary determines for any fiscal 
     year that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) exceeds 
     the amount described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary 
     shall determine the amount of such excess.
       ``(c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded 
     Authorizations Exceed Receipts.--
       ``(1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary 
     determines that there is an excess referred to in subsection 
     (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the 
     percentage which--
       ``(A) such excess, is of
       ``(B) the total of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the 
     next fiscal year.
       ``(2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary 
     determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund for the next fiscal year shall be reduced by such 
     percentage.
       ``(d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--
       ``(1) Adjustment of authorizations.--If, after a reduction 
     has been made under subsection (c)(2), the Secretary 
     determines that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) 
     does not exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or 
     that the excess referred to in subsection (b) is less than 
     the amount previously determined, each amount authorized to 
     be appropriated that was reduced under subsection (c)(2) 
     shall be increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines that it may be so increased without 
     causing the amount described in subsection (a)(1) to exceed 
     the amount described in subsection (a)(2) (but not by more 
     than the amount of the reduction).
       ``(2) Apportionment.--The Secretary shall apportion amounts 
     made available for apportionment by paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Period of availability.--Any funds apportioned under 
     paragraph (2) shall remain available for the period for which 
     they would be available if such apportionment took effect 
     with the fiscal year in which they are apportioned under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any 
     determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be 
     reported by the Secretary to Congress.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Net aviation receipts.--The term `net aviation 
     receipts' means, with respect to any period the excess of--
       ``(A) the receipts (including interest) of the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund during such period, over
       ``(B) the amounts to be transferred during such period from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under section 9502(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (other than paragraph (1) 
     thereof).
       ``(2) Unfunded aviation authorizations.--The term `unfunded 
     aviation authorization' means, at any time, the excess (if 
     any) of--
       ``(A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund which has not been 
     appropriated, over
       ``(B) the amount available in the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund at such time to make such appropriation (after all other 
     unliquidated obligations at such time which are payable from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund have been liquidated).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 471 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking

``47131. Annual report.''

     and inserting the following:

``47131. Safeguards against deficit spending.
``47132. Annual report.''.

     SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DEFICIT SPENDING OUT OF THE INLAND 
                   WATERWAYS TRUST FUND AND HARBOR MAINTENANCE 
                   TRUST FUND.

       (A) Estimates of Unfunded Inland Waterways Authorizations 
     and Net Inland Waterways Receipts.--Not later than March 31 
     of each year, the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, shall estimate--
       (1) the amount which would (but for this section) be the 
     unfunded inland waterways authorizations and unfunded harbor 
     maintenance authorizations at the close of the first fiscal 
     year that begins after that March 31; and
       (2) the net inland waterways receipts and net harbor 
     maintenance receipts at the close of such fiscal year.
       (b) Procedure If Excess Unfunded Inland Waterways 
     Authorizations.--If the Secretary of the Army determines with 
     respect to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund for any fiscal year that the amount 
     described in subsection (a)(1)

[[Page H3536]]

     exceeds the amount described in subsection (a)(2), the 
     Secretary shall determine the amount of such excess.
       (c) Adjustment of Authorizations if Unfunded Authorizations 
     Exceed Receipts.--
       (1) Determination of percentage.--If the Secretary of the 
     Army determines that there is an excess referred to in 
     subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary of the Army 
     shall determine the percentage which--
       (A) such excess, is of
       (B) the total of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, as the case may be, for the next 
     fiscal year.
       (2) Adjustment of authorizations.--If the Secretary of the 
     Army determines a percentage under paragraph (1), each amount 
     authorized to be appropriated from the Trust Fund for the 
     next fiscal year shall be reduced by such percentage.
       (d) Availability of Amounts Previously Withheld.--If, after 
     an adjustment has been made under subsection (c)(2), the 
     Secretary of the Army determines with respect to the Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund or the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
     that the amount described in subsection (a)(1) does not 
     exceed the amount described in subsection (a)(2) or that the 
     excess referred to in subsection (b) with respect to the 
     Trust Fund is less than the amount previously determined, 
     each amount authorized to be appropriated that was reduced 
     under subsection (c)(2) with respect to the Trust Fund shall 
     be increased, by an equal percentage, to the extent the 
     Secretary of the Army determines that it may be so increased 
     without causing the amount described in subsection (a)(1) to 
     exceed with respect to the Trust Fund the amount described in 
     subsection (a)(2) (but not by more than the amount of the 
     reduction).
       (e) Reports.--Any estimate under subsection (a) and any 
     determination under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall be 
     reported by the Secretary of the Army to Congress.
       (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section the 
     following definitions apply:
       (1) Airport and airway trust fund.--The term ``Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund'' means the Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
     established by section 9502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (2) Harbor maintenance trust fund.--The term ``Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund'' means the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund established by section 9505 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
       (3) Highway trust fund.--The term ``Highway Trust Fund'' 
     means the Highway Trust Fund established by section 9503 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (4) Inland waterways trust fund.--The term ``Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund'' means the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     established by section 9506 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (5) Net harbor maintenance receipts.--The term ``net harbor 
     maintenance receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the 
     receipts (including interest) of the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund during such period.
       (6) Net inland waterways receipts.--The term ``net inland 
     waterways receipts'' means, with respect to any period, the 
     receipts (including interest) of the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund during such period.
       (7) Unfunded inland waterways authorizations.--The term 
     ``unfunded inland waterways authorizations'' means, at any 
     time, the excess (if any) of--
       (A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund which has not been appropriated, 
     over
       (B) the amount available in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     at such time to make such appropriations.
       (8) Unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations.--The term 
     ``unfunded harbor maintenance authorizations'' means, at any 
     time, the excess (if any) of--
       (A) the total amount authorized to be appropriated from the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund which has not been 
     appropriated, over
       (B) the amount available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust 
     Fund at such time to make such appropriations.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY.

       This Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall 
     apply to fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1995.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute?


                   amendment offered by mr. oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 3, line 10, strike ``Notwithstanding'' and insert 
     ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding''.
       Page 4, after line 14, insert the following new subsection:
       (b) Limitation on Interest Paid to Trust Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 9602(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``The amount of interest credited 
     to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, the Highway Trust Fund, 
     the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, or the Inland Waterways 
     Trust Fund for any fiscal year shall not exceed the amount of 
     interest which would be credited to such Fund if such 
     interest were determined at the average interest rate on 52-
     week Treasury securities sold to the public during such 
     fiscal year.''
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to fiscal years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, we had during the time of general debate 
extensive discussion about the role of interest paid on revenues from 
the highway trust fund that are collected at the pump and then used by 
the Treasury Department to purchase Treasury notes, as happens with all 
trust funds in the Federal Government. As I said in my remarks, my 
closing remarks, would anyone reasonably expect the Federal Government 
not to honor its obligation to pay interest on Treasury bonds, on our 
World War I bonds, on World War II bonds, on other securities of the 
Treasury Department that are purchased by U.S. citizens, by foreign 
interests, by foreign governments, which buy in great numbers Treasury 
securities which underwrite the deficit? No, of course not, not 
expected. So with the trust funds.
  Mr. Chairman, those trust funds are used to purchase Treasury 
securities, and interest is required to be paid. Under current law, the 
interest earned by the highway trust fund is the average of all 
interest paid on the public debt. That average runs about 6.6 percent.
  The amendment I offer proposes to limit the interest earned on 
highway trust fund dollars in an amount equal to the rate on a 1-year 
Federal Treasury note. That number is about 5 percent, just a little 
above, 5.1 percent.
  The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the amount of interest 
earned by the transportation trust funds, thereby reducing the ever-
increasing balance that has accumulated over a period of several years. 
Now, this is an amendment that I offer for myself, for the Chairman, 
with whom I have consulted in the preparation of this amendment. This 
is, again, a demonstration on our part of our good faith to limit in 
the future the growth of this trust fund and to gradually reduce that 
amount, not take that surplus all at once off budget, but gradually 
reduce it over a period of time. To help do that, we propose this 
limitation on the interest rate because over a period of time, the 
trust fund is being long-range dollars, have benefited from the longer 
term interest rate on Treasury securities. So in the spirit of fairness 
and comity I propose that we make this change.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to my Chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this has indeed been 
worked out with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], Members on our side, and I think 
it is a fair approach and I support it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding, and he 
has a good amendment, we should pass it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  The amendment was agreed to.


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 12, after 
     line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. APPROPRIATION OF INTEREST EARNINGS OF HIGHWAY TRUST 
                   FUND.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to offset 
     the approximately $82,000,000,000 that has been appropriated

[[Page H3537]]

     from the general fund of the Treasury for Federal-aid highway 
     and mass transit construction projects.
       (b) Appropriation of Interest Earnings.--On September 30, 
     1996, there is hereby appropriated from the Highway Trust 
     Fund to the general fund of the Treasury an amount equal to 
     the aggregate amounts of interest credited to the Highway 
     Trust Fund before such date.
       Page 13, line 1, strike ``5'' and insert ``6''.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment until we know what the amendment is.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is amendment No. 8 printed 
on page H3489, amendment on page 12 after line 22.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object until we 
have an opportunity to examine the amendment to see whether it is 
germane.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of 
order against the amendment.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes into 
account the problem of the accumulated interest that is now in the 
highway trust fund in the amount of $19 billion. Again, the question 
is, should Congress, in past general fund appropriations for highway 
purposes, so designate that it was trust fund money rather than the 
general fund? General fund expenditures since 1956, when we started the 
highway trust fund, have exceeded $38 billion. The estimate is 
someplace between $38 billion and $40 billion. This is general fund 
appropriations for highway purposes that were not designated to come 
out of the trust fund.
  So what we have been doing over the years is spending more and more 
money out of the general fund, at the same time we were spending every 
cent that came in from the highway gas tax. So it is reasonable, I am 
suggesting to my colleagues, to consider that money that has been spent 
out of the general fund an offset to the $19 billion now owed to the 
trust fund by the general fund. The accumulated interest on some of the 
trust fund money diverted in the 1960's is the question in this taking 
off-budget debate. Some have suggested that that $19 billion is the 
property of the trust fund and therefore should be spent for roads. I 
am suggesting that because of the fact that we have now spent 
approximately $40 billion out of the general fund for roads, an 
additional $40 billion out of the general funds for mass transit, that 
it is reasonable to consider those expenditures as an offset to the 
interest that has been accumulating which represents approximately $19 
billion. This amendment negates that $19 billion.

                              {time}  1445

  I understand that my colleague from Pennsylvania is going to pursue 
his point of order that this amendment is not germane. It is 
technically not germane, and, therefore, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan to withdraw his amendment?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Smith] is withdrawn.


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 8, lines 
     10 and 11, strike ``the receipts and disbursements of'' and 
     insert the following: ``the amounts that after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act are received by or disbursed 
     from''.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against this 
amendment until we have an opportunity to examine it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania withdraws his point of 
order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. This amendment deals with the same issue. A 
lot of the concern about taking the Highway Trust Fund off budget is 
that the additional moneys that have now accumulated in interest and 
indebtedness from the Highway Trust Fund, in the amount of $20 billion, 
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, amounting to additional $11 billion 
would be spent, thereby taking money away from other programs. This 
would result in one of two scenarios: Either we borrow more money or we 
reduce expenditures in other areas.
  This amendment provides that the only funds coming off budget would 
be funds being received into those trust funds from this coming 
September forward. So what it does is it reserves and keeps on budget 
the so-called cash account or the accumulated interest and other 
assumed debt that now exists. It is my suggestion that that is 
reasonable because this body needs to deal with the question of whether 
or not those funds have already been paid back. It is my suggestion 
that, because there has been approximately $40 billion coming out of 
the general fund for highway construction, because of the fact that 
there has been another $40 billion coming out of the general fund for 
mass transit, that we have adequately paid back those funds. Therefore, 
at this time it seems reasonable that we not transfer these funds off 
budget and we amend this bill accordingly.
  The question of taking the highway trust fund off budget or 
continuing to expend these moneys under current procedures misses the 
point of what our ultimate goal should be. I would hope that we all 
agree that our goal is to spend transportation money from the States in 
the most effective and efficient way and accommodate the transportation 
needs of each State.
  Detouring gas tax funds through the Federal Government to be returned 
after paying Federal administration costs is not effective or 
efficient. Allowing politicians in power to get more than their fair 
share is not effective or efficient. Not only do we use up vast sums in 
administration and manipulate funding for political purposes but we 
send the remaining funds back to the States with Federal regulations 
and mandates such as the Davis-Bacon Act that add billions of dollars 
of increased costs to highway and mass transit construction. Gabriel 
Roth who wrote ``Roads in a Market Economy'' suggests that a State 
would have to get back 150% of what it sent to Washington in order to 
break even because of these Federal mandates. That means that there are 
only 10 States in the Nation that get back enough from Washington to 
equal what could be accomplished if the gas tax money stayed in the 
State to begin with.
  If we agree that we want the most efficient use of the available 
funds for transportation, then I suggest that we leave these funds at 
the State level in the first place. The Federal Government should 
retain only funding to provide a transition for those States that are 
currently benefiting and for transportation safety. Each State would 
then levy the gas tax locally in order to fund its own transportation 
system. This would end the process of sending State money to Washington 
to have some of it drained off in administration, some of it 
redistributed, and then be forced to beg to get the remainder.
  This suggestion is not new. The concept of returning responsibilities 
to the States has been at the forefront of the welfare debate. Senator 
Mack of Florida has been a leader on this issue on the Senate side. The 
Heritage Foundation suggested devolution of the highway program to the 
States in a report last year. The support for this concept is building.
  We should not shy away from examining from time to time each of our 
Federal programs and see if conditions still warrant the program at 
all, and if they do, should another level of government be responsible. 
Having served in local and State government before coming to Congress, 
I can say that the benefit of the doubt should lie with the government 
closest to the people. We should not be afraid to examine the proper 
role of the various level of governments in the highway program. I 
believe that once one looks into the transportation system in detail, 
the arguments support a smaller Federal role and a greater State and 
local role.
  This body should vote against this bill that would simply move the 
inefficient way we expend dollars for transportation infrastructure 
from one committee to another and truly take the highway trust fund off 
budget by devolving the responsibility and revenue base back to our 
States and communities.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  There are several reasons why this amendment should be defeated. It 
is a

[[Page H3538]]

killer amendment which really has the effect of prohibiting any 
spending of the accumulated balances in any of the trust funds.
  Now, if we believe that it is fundamentally wrong to have a $30 
billion balance, money paid in there by the users, and are now saying 
that it can never be spent, that is just fundamentally wrong. There are 
other ways to deal with this, more appropriate ways, and indeed the 
Committee on Appropriations which sets the annual ceiling. If our 
legislation passes today, the Committee on Appropriations will still 
set the annual ceiling, and that is the place to make that decision. 
But to say today that none of the $30 billion that has accumulated can 
ever be spent is just fundamentally wrong. This would artificially 
cordon off that nearly $30 billion in accumulated balances and hold 
them hostage.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. But it is not a question of them not being 
allowed to be spent. It is a question of them being spent in the same 
way that it has been spent since the existence of the trust fund in 
1956.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that is what the 
amendment does. What the amendment does is say you cannot spend it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No, it just does not take them off budget.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, it does not take them off budget, and the 
fundamental issue here is that these should be taken off budget. This 
gets to the heart of the question. Indeed these are user fees paid in 
there. They should be taken off budget.
  But I would be quick to emphasize that limits should be set on what 
can be spent, and those limits are what should be set by the 
authorizers and by the appropriators, and in fact for the past year we 
have been saying we want to sit down with the appropriators and the 
budgeteers in order to negotiate a compromise on this kind of an issue, 
but unfortunately they were never willing to sit down and negotiate 
with us. So now to come at the last minute with a proposal I think, 
while I would not want to say it lacks good faith, although others have 
said that, nevertheless I think that this should be defeated and we 
should set these limits through the normal process of the authorizing 
and appropriating committees.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  This amendment is like so many others that look benign but have a 
poison pill attached. Clearly, this amendment undercuts a vitally 
important purpose of this legislation, which is to enable the Congress 
to spend down in a phased and fiscally responsible manner the $30 
billion in surplus built up in the highway trust funds and the aviation 
and the other trust funds.
  The $30 billion of surplus that we have been debating about all 
afternoon, the gentleman would say, oh, sorry, we are not going to 
spend the surplus, we can just spend what comes in on an annual basis. 
That is what this debate is all about, about withholding funds and 
building up these accumulated surpluses that then are sued to mask the 
deficit.
  These surpluses should be off budget with the trust fund. The 
surpluses have accumulated because of failure to spend the user taxes 
we agreed to be taxed for that we have agreeably paid for the purpose 
of building highways and bridges and airports and deepening our 
waterways and improving our navigation channels. As budgetary 
conditions permit, the surplus should be devoted to their intended 
purpose.
  The surpluses will not be spent down overnight, as we have repeatedly 
said in the course of this afternoon's debate. The bill does not exempt 
funds or the surpluses from the authorization or the appropriation 
process. We will have complete control over whether and when the 
surpluses are drawn down. In fact, over the past year the gentleman for 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has been working diligently with the 
Committee on Appropriations and Committee on the Budget leadership to 
try to work out a plan under which the spend down would occur. It can 
be done; we have done so in the past in the aviation bill of 1990, the 
AIP reauthorization bill.
  We worked out a very fine accommodation of reasonable accommodation 
with the Committee on Appropriations, the transportation appropriation 
subcommittee, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of 
Transportation, the Committee on Ways and Means, under which agreement 
over a period of time, the very complex adjustment, we would draw down 
the surplus built up in the aviation trust fund, those moneys to be 
invested in airport runways and taxiways and parking aprons that were 
needed to relieve congestion at the Nation's airports, and it worked. 
That money was not all drawn down overnight in one big fell swoop; 
gradually over a period of time. Unfortunately, now the surpluses have 
begun to build up again.
  So take the trust funds off budget, the surplus will be spent down in 
a reasonable and responsible fashion under accommodations between our 
committee and the Committee on Appropriations, working with the 
Committee on the Budget as well. We do not need this amendment. This 
really is a killer amendment. It ought to be defeated and ought to be 
unmasked for what it is: an attempt to gut the bill.
  Defeat the Smith amendment.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to emphasize what the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure said. If my colleagues 
vote for the Smith amendment, they kill the bill. This is a killer 
amendment. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] does not like this 
bill. So in the option that he has been given he has offered his 
amendment to simply kill the bill.
  We know the purpose of the bill is to take trust funds off budget and 
permit Congress to set whatever levels of spending it deems 
appropriate. In the Truth in Budgeting Act this amendment would not 
allow Congress to determine what trust funds support the aviation and 
highway system needed.
  So I want to support what the ranking member said and advise Members 
to defeat this amendment because it, in fact, will kill the bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and with that I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith] to respond to some of the points made.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, by not having 
the so-called cash reserve or the accumulated interest transferred and 
taken off budget means it will be spent exactly how the total trust 
fund has been spent since it was first started in 1956. So it is not a 
question of not spending the money, it is a question of that $30 
billion coming under the caps and being spent in such a way through the 
budget process and the appropriation process as it has always been 
spent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.

                          ____________________