AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY -- (Extensions
of Remarks - June 22, 1999)
[Page: E1357]
---
SPEECH OF
HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1999
The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, to
reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
purposes:
- Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise in opposition to H.R.
1000. Our country's aviation system is integral to our nation's transportation
system and there's no question we need to continue to invest in America's
aviation infrastructure.
- The problem is that this bill takes the Aviation Trust Fund ``off-budget''
which means aviation taxes cannot be used for any other purpose, creating
what's called a firewall around billions of dollars in aviation taxes. As a
former member of the Budget Committee and a current member of the
Appropriations Committee, I can safely say this makes a mockery of the budget
process and threatens our surplus.
- Supporters of the bill argue that since the money in the aviation trust
fund comes from aviation taxes, it should all be spent for aviation purposes.
As a matter of tax fairness, federal taxes should be spent for their intended
purposes.
- But this is simply a red-herring argument to justify placing aviation
spending at the absolute head of the line in competition for federal funds.
Furthermore, taking the trust fund off-budget means that there would be no
budgetary constraints to control aviation spending.
- This is troubling for two reasons.
- First, why are we exempting aviation programs from the normal budget
scrutiny that all other programs must endure? Do we really want to place
aviation funding ahead of all other federal priorities such as education,
health care, Medicare, or national defense?
- Second, taking the trust fund off-budget means we jeopardize our surplus.
AIR-21 will spend $14.3 billion more over five years on airport construction,
busting the budget caps. This additional funding, since it's not subject to
the normal budget rules which require offsets, will be paid out of the
surplus. While Republicans may be confused as to what their priorities are,
Democrats are unified that any budget surplus should be dedicated to shoring
up Social Security and Medicare.
- Let's be clear. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to put one small
part of the budget ahead of the other. At the same time, it busts our spending
caps, eviscerates any notion of reasonable fiscal discipline and handicaps our
ability to preserve the surplus.
- If Congress feels we should increase the nation's investment in aviation,
let's do that. But let's not permanently put one category of spending ahead of
another. In the spirit of budget discipline and fairness, I urge my colleagues
to vote against this bill.
END