Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in the United States today, the tax burden on families is at a record high. In 1948, tax rates equalled 3 percent of income for the average family of four, but today it is 24 percent. That is eight times more than it was 40 years ago, and on top of that, our system is complex, it is convoluted, it is confusing. As IRS study estimates that taxpayers spend 5 billion man-hours filling out their return every year. That is more time than is spent in the entire automobile industry in this country in terms of man-hours. We need significant tax relief, and that is exactly what the Republican plan will do: tax relief, spending cuts, deficit reduction, and the resulting smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive Government. Ultimately, our plan is simple. It makes sense. Americans work hard for their living and should keep more of what they earn. They do not need the Government telling them how to spend their money.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about the Exports, Job and Growth Act of 1996. Whenever supporters give a bill a motherhood and apple pie title like that, and who is not against exports, who is not for growth and jobs? But it is time to take a hard look when people give a title to a bill like that. It should be called the doubling OPIC Act. That is what we are doing today. We are expanding and doubling a Government agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, at a time when many on this floor have committed themselves to balancing the budget and encouraging the private sector by asking, Is this an appropriate role for government? We have heard how OPIC does not give subsidies. We have heard that charge. But can anyone tell us how this is true? The fact is that not only does OPIC receive operating expenses from the U.S. Government, but most importantly what it does is it sells the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. That is what it does. Does that sound familiar? That is what the savings and loan industry did. It sold the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.

Mr. ROYCE. There are no free lunches. As I said, this puts the American taxpayer on the hook. If we look at the countries that we are rating here, that we are insuring, some of them are rated as double F, double F by OPIC itself. There is no end in sight to OPIC's expansion because OPIC has a good racket, because there is market value to Uncle Sam's backing, and that means OPIC discourages private sector competition. The fact is that the private market in risk insurance will not reach its potential as long as OPIC is in business. Just read the recent J.P. Morgan report on OPIC. It does not make much of a case that private sector competitors are not being crowded out of the business. The J.P. Morgan report also says the demand for political risk insurance is growing. So what is our response here today? Not faith that the market will expand to serve this new demand, but instead some say, Let's expand OPIC and deter private interests from taking this business. There certainly are private alternatives to OPIC's latest and growing activity, and that is starting up investment funds for developing countries. Today there are hundreds of private developing country investment funds. Portfolio money is flooding into the developing world, all parts of the developing world. Over the last several years several funds have started up to invest in Africa, long thought to be out of bounds for investors. Look them up, they are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Individual Americans and institutions are buying these funds. So why is OPIC involved with the Africa Growth Fund or funds in Poland or Russia? The private sector responds; it does not need a government push. Last, I will just say, what type of message are we sending to developing countries? We rightly preach privatization and the virtues of the free market, yet here we have OPIC giving Government subsidies. It sends the wrong message to the developing world.

Mr. ROYCE. Let me have my time; then you may have your time.

Mr. ROYCE. Let me respond to that. The savings and loan industry in the 1970's did not cost the taxpayer one red cent, but in the 1980's it certainly did.

Mr. ROYCE. The answer, if it goes bust, about $25 billion.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROYCE. I just shared with you that it could cost the American taxpayer $25 billion because that is what you are putting the taxpayer on the hook for.

Mr. ROYCE. Because you are ballooning this program up and, yes, it is the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer that will be on the hook.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, as I was reading the papers this morning I noticed some stories that claimed that this welfare reform proposal is not such a big change--that its significance has been overrated. That all sides are coming to a consensus and it's not such a big deal after all. In the short term, that's how it may look. But in the long term, we are making a fundamental change to the status quo--we've gone beyond questioning the failed policies of the past--we are implementing a whole new approach. We are beginning to replace the welfare state with an opportunity society. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences. The Great Society approach may have been well-intentioned, but the impact was tragic. We have done a disservice to those who have fallen into the welfare trap. The incentives have been all wrong and the logic backward. We need a welfare system that saves families, rather than breaking them. And that's what this bill does. Our welfare system has deprived people of hope, diminished opportunity and destroyed lives. Go into our inner cities and you will find a generation fed on food stamps but starved of nurturing and hope. You'll meet young teens in their third pregnancy. You'll meet fatherless children. You'll talk to sixth graders who don't know how many inches are in a foot. And you'll talk to first-graders who don't know their ABC's. It's time for Washington to learn from its past mistakes. It's time to reform our welfare system, to encourage families to stay together and to put recipients back to work. That's what our plan does. Four years ago, President Clinton promised to end welfare as we know it, and I am pleased that he has committed to sign our bill into law. Our plan calls for sweeping child support enforcement. We end welfare for those who won't cooperate on child support. We strengthen provisions to establish paternity. We force young men to realize they will be required to provide financial support for their children by requiring States to establish an automated State registry to track child support information. One of the key elements of our welfare reform bill is ending fraudulent welfare payments to prisoners and illegal immigrants--saving $22 billion. Each year, millions of taxpayer dollars are illegally sent to prisoners in State and local jails through the Supplemental Security Income Program. In fact, in one case, infamous ``Freeway Killer'' William Bonin illegally collected SSI benefits for 14 years while on San Quentin's death row. This bill removes the Washington-based intermeddling and bureaucratic micromanagement that has resulted in welfare programs that build a welfare population but do not relieve the suffering of those who are poor. We do not want to maintain the poor, we want to transform them. That's exactly what this bill would do.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this amendment. Authorization for Federal subsidies to develop the advanced light water reactor was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which was enacted into law on October 24 of that year, and I am just going to quote from that law. It states that ``The Secretary'' of Energy ``shall conduct a 5-year program of technical and financial assistance to encourage the development of advanced light water reactor designs which'' shall be ``no later than the end of fiscal year 1996.'' That is the law that was passed. Last year we went through this. On July 12, the distinguished chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water defended continued Federal funding of this program, and he said at that time, ``* * * this is the fifth year of a 5-year program for the advanced light water reactor.'' That was a year ago. Now we have the Department of Energy concurring with the assessment in a March 28, 1996 memo. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, next week on July 4, the American people will celebrate 220 years of independence from Great Britain, but they will also celebrate the fact that their liberation from $3.3 trillion in total costs and regulations that it takes 6 months to pay. It was not always so. If we went back to the 1960's, we would see that the Federal tax rate then was 12 to 13 percent. It has doubled since then to 25 percent. When we add the regulations cost, when we add the State cost, it brings it up to almost 50 percent. Now that is the cost of increased Government spending. That is why some of us fight to reduce wasteful Government spending on this floor. Let us reduce the burdens which we have placed upon the American worker. Let us reform the overgrown Government agencies and roll back senseless and burdensome regulations. Let us grant the American worker the independence that he or she deserves from the Federal Government.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and there are several points I want to make. The first on purchaser road credits, they are not necessary for timber harvesting. Logging occurs on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management under their lump sales program, which does not involve purchaser road credits. States also manage their timber sale programs much more effectively. According to the General Accounting Office, States fund their programs with a percentage of timber sales receipts which provides a built-in incentive to promote cost efficiency. The General Accounting Office also states that while the States' planning processes are fairly straightforward, the Federal agencies' processes are much more lengthy and expensive. I would lastly also like to note that the House budget resolution that we recently passed calls for market-based decisionmaking in public land management in the area of multiple activities, including the timber road programs. In my view, those of us who supported our budget resolution should also support this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, traditionally the battle cry for business in America has been ``Get government off our backs.'' However, some corporations have been publicly demanding less Government interference while quietly seeking millions of taxpayers' dollars to finance their business endeavors overseas. A wealthy corporate executive in a pin- striped suit is not exactly what most people would think of as a typical welfare recipient. However, some Fortune 500 companies are lining up at the public trough to get their share of the millions of dollars being given out through the Federal Government's market access program to subsidize their overseas advertising budget. The numbers are not insignificant. I will share with the Members that since 1985, 1\1/4\ billions of dollars of Federal money has been spent on this program. We are fighting a $5 trillion debt that has dragged our economy to a point where the economic growth is a crawl. Five trillion dollars, and here is 1\1/4\ spent since 1985. Mr. Chairman, we have offered this amendment to eliminate one of the most egregious corporate welfare programs, with the hope that a trend will develop which would further rid the private sector of an intrusive government. The Federal Government first began financing corporate advertising in 1985 with the targeted export assistance. It was established to encourage commercial export markets for U.S. farm products. Then, after a critical audit of the General Accounting Office, it was changed to the market promotion program. Then, after another critical audit, it was changed to the market access program in 1996. The names may have changed after every audit, but the program has not. Not unlike most good-intentioned Federal programs, Federal funding of advertising turned out to be just another Government handout. Instead of promoting generic agricultural products like wheat and corn, a majority of the budget has gone to brand name corporate advertising of the most well-known American corporations. Despite the amount of money that has gone into MPP, the General Accounting Office, in assessing the program, concluded that ``There is no clear relationship between the amount spent on MPP and the levels of exports.'' In a separate report, the GAO questioned whether MPP funds are actually supporting additional promotional activities or if they are simply replacing private industry funds. MPP is typical of a bureaucratic program run amok. This should not come as a surprise to us. Whenever the Government attempts to help business, the inevitable result is reduced efficiency due to weakened market incentives. If overseas promotion is so critical to a particular product's market, then companies would, in considering their rate of return, invest their resources there. Because MPP funds are, in essence, free money, corporations have no incentive to spend it wisely. We have already heard the example, and I doubt that the raisin industry would have spent $3 million of their own money as carelessly in the Japanese market. That is not likely. Mr. Chairman, Government has no business deciding which companies are worthy of advertising funds. That is precisely what the free market is there to do, to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible. The Government ought not to be taking tax money from companies to finance the advertising of their competition, which is the direct result of redistribution. Our amendment to eliminate MAP enjoys support from across the philosophical spectrum. Everyone, from the Progressive Policy Institute and Friends of the Earth to the Cato Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste, agree corporate welfare must be eliminated, and the best place to start is by cutting funding of Government-subsidized advertising. If we are truly committed to balancing the budget and downsizing the Federal Government, we must be willing to attack corporate welfare and take companies like Pillsbury and Tyson Foods off the public dole.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for this bill, of which I am an original coauthor, to repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon Federal gas tax imposed by the Clinton budget in 1993. At a time when we in Congress are trying to put money back in the pockets of American families and recharge the Nation's economy, gasoline excise taxes are at an all-time high. In the last 10 years, the Federal gasoline tax more than doubled, from 9 cents to 18.3 cents per gallon. Now, in California, the total gasoline tax has increased to 47.4 cents per gallon. We are to believe that government can continually increase taxes like this without it affecting the price at the pump? Economists tell us that that is not so. Economists tell us if we increase taxes, and increase taxes, and continue to increase that tax, we will see that reflected in the pump price. Now, the prior Congress did increase this tax and we want to repeal it. This tax burden takes $422 out of the average American family's household budget per year, and that is a significant amount of money for hardworking American families trying to make ends meet. When President Bill Clinton pushed through the 4.3-cent-per-gallon hike in the Federal gas tax in August of 1993, as part of the largest tax increase in peacetime history, he assured his colleagues that the tax increase would only affect the rich. In reality, the gas tax increase has had a significant day-to-day impact on middle and lower income American families. These are the folks that are feeling the pinch at the pump, it is not the rich. And to add insult to injury, none of the 1993 increase goes toward improving our Nation's roads or bridges or highways, which would be of some benefit to the user that is paying that tax. So the recent painful increase in the price of gas at the pump gives us an excellent opportunity to repeal a tax that never should have been imposed. Cutting the Department of Energy to pay for the fuel tax repeal makes sense. Like the first bill I introduced 3 weeks ago, this legislation recognizes the tremendous inefficiencies of an outdated, overgrown bureaucracy that has long outlived its purpose. Created by President Jimmy Carter in 1976 to solve the energy crisis, the DOE has grown into a massive $17.5 billion bureaucracy with multiple missions and questionable priorities. It has been plagued with controversy and management problems. In a February 1995 report, the General Accounting Office criticized the Department of Energy, and concluded that the ``DOE is not an effective or successful cabinet department.'' But this is only part of the story. I urge my colleagues to read my editorial printed in the Washington Times this morning, where I go into much more detail on the inadequacies and failures of a Department that has simply outlived its purpose. The bottom line is that energy is no different from any other commodity in the marketplace. Energy production and distribution is better directed by market forces than by government planners and bureaucrats. As is the case with so much of our government today, the DOE represents an outdated response to a brief period of crisis and is basically irrelevant today. While this legislation we are debating today does not go as far as the earlier legislation I introduced, it does focus attention on the blatant mismanagement and abuse of taxpayer funds that plague this Department and reduces its budget. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. We should repeal the 1993 gas tax, cut the Department of Energy budget, and give the money back to motorists. That's more than the Department has done. Cutting the Gas Tax and Reinventing Government (By U.S. Rep. Ed Royce) In 1992, when he was running for president, Bill Clinton promised he would not raise federal gasoline taxes. But just one year after he was elected, in August 1993, he pushed through the Congress a budget proposal with over $265 billion in tax increases, including a 4.3 cent per gallon hike in the federal gas tax. At the time, Clinton assured his colleagues that the 1993 tax increases would only affect the ``rich.'' In reality, the gas tax increase has had a significant day-to-day impact on American families, especially those who are middle and lower- income. These are the folks that are feeling the ``pinch at the pump,'' not the ``rich.'' To add insult to injury, none of the 1993 increase goes toward improving our nation's roads, bridges or highways, which would be of some benefit to the user. This is a perfect case study of how the democrat philosophy of redistribution of income can backfire. Two years after the ill-fated tax increase, Clinton apologized before a group of Democratic party donors, admitting that he ``probably raised taxes too much.'' But is he sorry enough to do something about it? If so, he now has a perfect opportunity to partially right his wrong and kick-start his effort to ``reinvent government.'' Two weeks ago I introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to repeal the 4.3 cent gasoline tax increase, paid for by downsizing the Department of Energy (DOE). It is that bill which provided the basis for the proposals now moving through the House and the Senate. The painful increase in the price at the pump gives us an excellent opportunity to repeal a tax that never should have been imposed, while at the same time helping taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. Why offset the cost of the repeal by downsizing the DOE? Admittedly, it's an easy target--the Department is plagued with controversy and management problems. But that's only part of the story. The DOE simply has outlived its purpose, and like any obsolete entity or industry, its got to go. To put the situation in perspective, in the wake of the Arab oil embargo in 1976, Jimmy Carter campaigned for President on a platform of energy independence. The following year, he created the DOE and charged it to solve the problem. Since then, the DOE has grown into a massive $17.5 billion bureaucracy with multiple missions and questionable priorities. Needless to say, it has not solved the problem. For example, the department embarked on a massive and expensive program to develop synthetic fuels. Predictably, it failed. After billions of dollars, a half dozen years, and a notorious scandal, the department abandoned its ``synfuels'' program, and concentrated on overseeing nuclear energy programs. Meanwhile, the market took care of the petroleum shortages and the price of oil dropped from a high of $40 per barrel to $20. Much of DOE's budget is directed at nuclear weapon or nuclear cleanup activities. These environmental and defense undertakings are best managed by environmental and/or defense agencies, not energy departments. Turning the weapons-related programming over to the requisite agencies makes sense, and helps protect against bureaucratic ``mission creep'' as was the case at the old Atomic Energy Commission. Additionally, in the case of the Department of Defense, merging the weapons producers with the weapons customers helps ensure coordination of national strategy. President Clinton has already proposed that we denationalize the DOE's Power Marketing Administration's (PMA), and turn the Bonneville Power Administration into a public corporation because the premises on which they were established is no longer applicable. He's got that right. More than 98 percent of America is already wired for power and there is no cause whatsoever to believe that private companies would somehow ``pull the plug'' on electrified regions. Governments around the world are privatizing government operated power systems, including Poland, Hungary, Spain, Italy, and Peru. The U.S. should listen to the advice it gives to the former Soviet bloc and denationalize its own ``means of production. We should also sell the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR), and the Naval Petroleum Reserves (NPR). The NPR were originally set aside to ensure the Navy a supply of oil as it converted its fleet from coal to oil before WWI. The SPR was created during the energy crises of the 1970's, when Congress decided the government should produce oil and gas at these fields and sell them on the commercial market. The problem is that the SPR, no matter how large, cannot insulate the American economy from international energy markets. Even if we were to import no foreign oil whatsoever, international supply disruptions would cause price increases just as high here as they would be in a nation that imports all of its oil. Additionally, much of the SPR is high-sulfur crude that would be amply available in any OPEC-induced crisis. It's low-sulfur crude that the U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf and high-Sulfur crude cannot easily be substituted for low- sulfur crude without a great deal of cost. Finally, concern over the inability to secure needed oil during a supply disruption has decreased significantly. The number of oil-exporting nations has increased, and the large oil companies have worked to diversify their sources of oil. As Daniel Yergen, President of the Cambridge Energy Research associates and author of The Prize explained, ``There is a much more secure base to the world's energy economy than was the case in 1973 . . .'' The bottom line is that energy is no different from any other commodity in the marketplace. Energy production and distribution is better directed by market forces than by government planners and bureaucrats. As is the case with so much of our government today, the DOE represents an outdated response to a brief period of crisis and is basically irrelevant today. For these reasons, it only makes good sense to terminate unnecessary programs, consolidate others, transfer those serving a valid purpose, and privatize programs that could be better performed outside of the government. The DOE was a government-imposed solution to a world market problem. And it hasn't worked. We should repeal the 1993 gas tax, cut the Department of Energy budget, and give the money back to motorists. That's more than the Department has done.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, in 1992, when he was running for President, President Bill Clinton promised he would not raise Federal gasoline taxes. But just 1 year after he was elected, in August 1993, he pushed through the Congress a budget proposal with over $265 billion in tax increases, including a 4.3 cents per gallon hike in the Federal gas tax. At the time the President assured his colleagues that the 1993 tax increase would only affect the rich. In reality the gas tax increase has had a significant day-to-day impact on American families, especially those who are middle and lower income. These are the folks that are feeling the pinch at the pump, not the rich. To add insult to injury, none of the 1993 increase goes toward improving our Nation's roads, bridges or highways, which would be of some benefit to the user. This is a perfect case study of how the philosophy of redistribution of income can backfire. The painful increase in the price at the pump gives us an excellent opportunity to repeal the tax that never should have been imposed, while at the same time helping taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are fighting for a balanced budget is that it will allow young working families to save more of the money that they earn. It will boost the economy. It will increase their wages. The problem with the Clinton budget is that it taxes more and it spends more. And the problem with the Clinton budget is that it simply does not balance. It increases the deficit next year, and even more the year after that. That means more money out of the taxpayers' pockets. Our GOP budget ends three decades of reckless deficit spending and stops forcing our children to pay our bills. Currently, the Federal Government taxes and spends on programs that in many cases simply are not effective, and that is why we provide tax relief. That is why we reform welfare. That is why we are shifting power and money and influence out of Washington and giving it back to the people whose taxes it was paid with. For example, in this budget we terminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Commerce, chronically mismanaged agencies. We eliminate or privatize 130 wasteful or unnecessary Federal programs, saving more than $34 billion over 6 years. The Republican budget cuts corporate welfare, it implements the FAIR Act, taking us away from a command-control Federal farm program, and leading us back toward a more purely based market-based farm system. Last, Mr. Chairman, President Clinton's budget plan avoids making the hard choices. Of all the spending cuts he recommends, 64 percent take place in the last 2 years, after he is out of office. As has been pointed out, that is like trying to lose 50 pounds over 50 weeks and waiting until the last week to lose 49 pounds. It simply will not happen.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, my legislation that is here today, H.R. 2980, does three things. First it makes crossing a State line to stalk someone a felony and thus for the first time it defines in law, in Federal law, the crime of stalking, and it brings certain penalties, 5 years for the crime of stalking, 10 years if a gun is used and so forth. Second, it makes crossing a State line in violation of a restraining order a felony. And, third, it makes it a felony to stalk someone on Federal property such as a post office or a military base or a national park. The bill is needed because in each of these cases the victim loses the protection of their State laws. I was the author in 1990 of the first State antistalking law in the country, in California. The California legislature passed my bill after four women were killed in the space of 6 weeks in Orange County, CA. Each woman, fearing for her life, had sought police protection only to be told that there was nothing that law enforcement could do until she was physically attacked. One police officer told me at the time that the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life was to tell that victim ``there is nothing I can do until you're attacked'' and subsequently she was killed. The law was passed by the California legislature defines stalking as an obsessive pattern of behavior and threats that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life or fear for great bodily harm. Versions of that law have since been adopted in every State in the Nation and here in the District of Columbia, and they have been very useful in protecting stalking victims before they are attacked, before they are injured. The problem has been that when the victim leaves her State or when he leaves his State, they lose their protection. State laws are not the same and restraining orders obtained in one State may not be valid in another. This bill addresses that problem by making it a felony to cross a State line to stalk someone in violation of a restraining order, and in addition it protects victims on Federal property. Mr. Speaker, many stalking victims unfortunately have become prisoners in their own State. They cannot leave the State for a vacation or business or otherwise without exposing themselves to danger. Ironically, many stalking victims are advised by someone from Victim Witness or other groups that help stalkees, they are advised typically, get away from your stalker, move away from your stalker. But if they take that advice, ironically, they have now lost their protection. This bill would solve that problem. It gives stalking victims freedom to travel, to lead normal lives and not subject themselves to fear of injury or death. Sitting in the gallery today is a woman who was stalked for 8 years. Her stalker was finally sent to State prison when he attempted to kidnap her, leading to an 11-hour police standoff. Her testimony before the California legislature was instrumental in the passage of the California antistalker law and subsequent stalker laws. She left the State. But when the stalker was released from prison, he jumped parole and he left the State and her nightmare began anew. Fortunately the stalker was intercepted in another State, but others may not be so fortunate. We need to pass this bill to give stalking victims freedom to travel, to live without fear and to begin anew. I urge the Members' ``aye'' vote.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, according to the Congressional Research Service, over $38 billion has been spent from the general revenue on highway projects since the highway trust fund was created in 1957. These general funds have effectively masked the true cost of Federal highway spending. If these funds had been charged to the highway trust fund, arguably there would not be a surplus. So this bill that we are going to vote on creates a firewall that would prevent gas tax revenues dedicated to the trust fund from being used for any programs outside the highway trust fund; very well. Then this amendment would create a corresponding firewall preventing transportation projects from being funded by general revenues. I ask for my colleagues' ``aye'' vote.

Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, yes, we are trying to change the process here so that it is done in the future proportionately on the basis of fuel taxes paid in by the various States and not affected by earmarking. It is because earmarking favors Sates with Members on key committees and communities with the resources to hire Washington advocates at the expense of other States and localities. State transportation departments, in my view, and State legislatures are in a much closer position of being closer to the people to determine which highway projects are most deserving of funding than Congress. This is my view. Although individual Members may be knowledgeable about projects in their district or State, Congress as a whole is not in a position to make decisions about the merits of individual projects across the country. Lastly, the process of earmarking funds for demonstration projects encourages the use of transportation funds for high profile politically popular new construction projects at the expense of the less visible but more important repair and maintenance projects. So I urge and an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment is supported by both supporters and opponents of H.R. 842. Indeed, the authors of the amendment include both proponents and opponents of the bill, as well as those who are as yet undecided. But very simply put, Mr. Chairman, the amendment says that if the highway trust fund is placed off-budget, there will be no earmarks for specific projects. If earmarks occur, the fund comes back on budget. Why is this amendment important? Because this bill, H.R. 842, this underlying bill, would have the effect of exempting highway trust fund spending from all budgetary controls, including discretionary caps, pay-go rules, and 602(b) allocations. If we are going to give highway funds special protection from budget rules, then it is reasonable to hold highway funding to a high standard of accountability, and that means no earmarking. Highway users who pay into the trust fund deserve to have those funds expended in the most efficient and fair manner possible. Earmarking disadvantages everyone in every project not on the list, and projects should be judged on their individual merits, not on patronage. This amendment guards against pork barreling and protects the integrity of the highway trust fund. Supporters and opponents of the bill should all agree on that point. By way of demonstration, I just want to remind the Members that in 1991, in the highway demonstration projects, 30 percent of those funds went to West Virginia. West Virginia is .7 percent of the population. In 1992, 30 percent went to West Virginia. In 1993, we had one-third of all highway demonstration project dollars going to West Virginia; in 1994, $54 million, which amounted to 43 percent of the highway demonstration dollars; and in 1995, the fiscal year past, Members know the story. West Virginia for two projects got 52 percent of the Senate's money, or 21 percent of the Nation's highway money for demonstration projects. Mr. Chairman, while the people of western Virginia are fine people, in my view this is unfair, unjust, inequitable. Some might call it highway robbery. Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge all of the Members to vote for the amendment. It is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to comply with the spirit of the bill by providing for a complete segregation of highway trust funds and general funds. If the Highway Trust Fund is to be dedicated strictly to transportation programs, then the general fund should be dedicated exclusively to nontransportation programs. That is what this amendment does. This principle should be supported by both supporters and opponents of H.R. 824, and I would just share with my colleagues that taking the transportation trust funds off budget will effectively reduce the amount of discretionary funds available under the discretionary spending limits for nontransportation programs. Allowing transportation projects that should be funded through the trust funds to receive general revenues in addition to trust fund revenues will further exacerbate the squeeze on all other discretionary spending. It is unfair to both allow transportation programs to be funded off budget outside of the discretionary caps and also receive funds from general revenues. I urge an aye vote on the amendment.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?