Nick Smith

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am proud to salute Eileen Rocchio, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Eileen is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Eileen Rocchio is an exceptional student at Coldwater High School and possesses an impressive high school record, President of both the National Honor Society, and her class, Eileen was also listed in ``Who's Who Among American High School Students.'' She was cocaptain of the girl's basketball team, and was the 1995 homecoming queen. Outside of school Eileen has been very involved with Girl Scouts of America and received the Gold Award. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Eileen Rocchio for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am proud to salute Sarah Shaub, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Sarah is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Sarah Shaub is an exceptional student at Lenawee Christian High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Sarah was the president of the National Honor Society, has earned several academic awards, and was listed in ``Who's Who Among American High School Students.'' She has also been involved with student government serving as secretary and treasurer. She has been active in band, choir, and drama. Outside of school, Sarah has spent much of her time volunteering for a variety of local activities. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Sarah Shaub for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Penny Hamstra, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Penny is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Penny Hamstra is an exceptional student at Battle Creek Academy High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Penny has been involved with the National Honor Society as the secretary and treasurer. She has also been active in student government serving as secretary, treasurer and president. She is a member of the yearbook staff and has received numerous academic awards. Outside of school, Penny has been involved in a variety of local activities. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Penny Hamstra for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am proud to salute Caroline Dugopolski, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Caroline is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Caroline Dugopolski is an exceptional student at Grand Ledge High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Caroline has been involved with the National Honor Society, earned the D.A.R. Good Citizen Award, and was listed in ``Who's Who Among American High School Students.'' She attended the American Legion Auxiliary Girl's State and has been active in band and tennis. Outside of school, Caroline has spent much of her time as a community volunteer. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Caroline Dugopolski for her selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Andrew Burke, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Andrew is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Andrew Burke is an exceptional student at Lansing Catholic Central High School and possesses an impressive high school record. He has been involved with the National Honor Society and the Eagle Scouts. Andrew was also a National Merit semi-finalist and has received numerous academic awards. He was a member of the band and the quiz bowl team. Outside of school Andrew, has been a member of the Lansing Concert High School Honors Band and has earned the order of the Arrow Brotherhood member. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Andrew Burke for his selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong and active participation contributed to his success. To this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known, that is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Nicholas Ebinger, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Nicholas is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Nichiolas Ebinger is an exceptional student at Jackson High School and possesses an impressive high school record. Nicholas was the captain of the quizbusters team, and participated in Model United Nations. He was co-editor-in-chief of the yearbook and the youngest student ever accepted by Jackson Community College. Nicholas also excelled academically as the most valuable player on the undefeated conference championship academic team. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Nicholas Ebinger for his selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong and active participation contributed to his success. To this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, let it be known that it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence he has compiled in academics, leadership, and community service, that I am proud to salute Michael Bush, winner of the 1996 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Michael is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, MI. Michael Bush is an exceptional student at Columbia Central High School and possesses an impressive high school record. A member of the National Honor Society, Michael excelled academically and served as a class officer, chairperson for float building and homecoming committees, and cochairperson for the prom committee. Additionally, Michael was all-conference in both football and wrestling, and did local volunteer work. In special tribute, therefore, I am proud to join with his many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Michael Bush for his selection as a winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is also a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support, and active participation contributed to his success. To this remarkable young man, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all his future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about minimum wage and the desirability for low-income wage earners to earn more money. Of course, it is right. Raising low wages appeals to the sense of decency and compassion of Americans. But it would be a mistake. We have a system of allocating resources in this country called the free enterprise system. It has worked very well for this country. It has made ours the greatest country on Earth. Increasing the minimum wage would impose significant costs primarily on unskilled Americans because the minimum wage is going to deprive some of those Americans from access to an entry-level job. I ask the liberal labor union bosses if they are sure this is the way they want America to go. If employers cannot afford to pay the increase in minimum wage, then what are they going to do? They are either going to go out of business or they are going to respond by reducing hours, reducing benefits or paying less frequently. In conclusion, I want to give my colleagues a quote from George Washington, a great man. George Washington said: If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The rest is in the hands of God.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday May 7, 1996 Congress will vote to roll back the 4.3-cent increase in the Federal gasoline tax that was passed in 1993 over the objections of every Republican member of congress. It is appropriate that we talk about this on tax freedom day, the day when the average American can quit working for the government and begin working for himself. The tax increase we experienced in 1993 has resulted in slower economic growth than otherwise would have occurred. Using the Washington University Macro Model, the model that won the blue chip forecasting Award for 1995, the Heritage Foundation estimated that the 1993 tax hike resulted in 1.2 million less private sector jobs and 40,600 less new business starts. The economy lost $2,100 in output for every household in America over the 1993-1996 time period. And the personal and corporate tax increases delivered only 49 percent of the revenue predicted by the Congressional Budget Office at the time. But while we are talking about reducing the gas tax, we should consider repealing the tax at the Federal level and allowing States the ability to raise and retain gas tax revenues. Today the Federal interstate program is nearly complete and the role of the Federal government in transportation needs to be reexamined. I am proposing that just as Andrew Jackson found in the 1830's when he returned transportation responsibilities back to the States, transportation is primarily a local issue. There is some role for the Federal Government in maintaining the existing interstate structure, although it is hard to imagine that States would jeopardize their economic well-being by allowing their interstate roads to fall to pieces. But the current system mostly moves taxes from the States to Washington DC, redistributes some of it, attaches unfunded mandates, uses some for administration, and sends the remainder back. Why not let States levy the taxes necessary to fund their roads, and use new and innovative methods to finance and operate transportation systems unburdened by Federal regulations put in place by those special interest groups capable of effective Washington lobbying? Imagine what advances in technology we might see if States were able to freely innovate in transportation. Some States might lower their gas tax and allow for private roads with electronic sensing imbedded so you could drive and be billed at the end of the month. New satellite technology might allow firms to build and maintain roads that are truly paid for by the users. These roads would have to be plowed and kept free of potholes or people would choose other roads or other means of transportation. Other states might choose an entirely different system that we can't imagine. What we do know is that the system would be better than what we have now. Those of us who were using slide rules in college could not have imagined the era of personal computers. Markets and competition among the states will yield innovation and innovation is key to progress.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 30, the University of Michigan hockey team defeated Colorado College 3 to 2 in overtime to win the 1996 NCAA Hockey National Championship. The championship was Michigan's 8th hockey championship--more than any other school--and its 29th NCAA championship in all sports. On their way to the championship, the Wolverines compiled a record of 33-7-2, winning the CCHA tournament championship, the Great Lakes Invitational Tournament, and sharing the CCHA regular season championship. The team outscored its opponents by 239 to 93 over the course of the season. Among the standouts on the team are: Center Brendan Morrison who led the team in scoring and was named the most outstanding player of the NCAA tournament. He was also named the player of the year in the CCHA, and was a finalist for college hockey's highest individual honor, the Hobey Baker Award. Goalie Marty Turco who was recognized on the NCAA all-tournament team. He allowed just 2.16 goals per game over a 42-game season and saved 90 percent of the shots he faced. Defenseman Steven Halko who was also recognized on the NCAA all- tournament team. He was the senior captain of the Wolverines and led the stingiest defense in college hockey. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to attend the reception at the White House to congratulate and honor the team for its achievement. The team and Michigan coach Gordon ``Red'' Berenson were honored by University of Michigan President James J. Duderstadt, Vice President Al Gore, Senator Carl Levin, Representative John Conyers, and myself among others. I salute the University of Michigan Wolverines for their achievements. Members of the 1995-96 Michigan ice hockey team: John Arnold, Andrew Berenzweig, Jason Botterill, Peter Bourke, Justin Clark, Greg Crozier, Chris Fox, Chris Frescoln, Steven Halko, Bobby Hayes, Matt Herr, Kevin Hilton, Mike Legg, Warren Luhning, John Madden, Gregg Malicke, Brendan Morrison, Bill Muckalt, Sean Ritchlin, Dale Rominski, Mark Sakala, Harold Schock, Blake Sloan, and Marty Turco.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, last year, I was a Chair of the Budget Committee working group looking at this part of the budget. We recommended the elimination of the Federal Maritime Commission. I'm glad to support this bill to do that today. The Federal Maritime Commission, established in 1961, is charged with maintaining a cartel formed by the steamship lines to increase ocean transportation rates above market levels. The FMC also enforces an extraordinarily burdensome tariff filing scheme and restricts the negotiation of contracts for the transportation of goods. This burdens out exporters and contributes to our negative balance of trade. Dr. Alan Furgeson an economist under contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, calculated that FMC regulations and restrictions increase transportation costs by an average of 18 percent above the market level. He also estimated that U.S. exporters lose hundreds of millions of dollars of sales due to these additional transport costs. The bottom line is that the FMC is costing Americans jobs by rendering U.S. products less cost-competitive. This proposal would deregulate Federal maritime policy, terminate the Commission, and transfer critical functions to the Department of Transportation. It deserves our support.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on how we should increase wages of workers in this country and how we should not increase those wages. The debate over the minimum wage is a debate really about the fundamental principles of government and how our society is to be organized. Unfortunately, the debate has been framed in terms of politics rather than policy. In light of this, I would like to make three points: First, historically it has been well noted by many economists, Frederich Bastiat pointed out in 1853 that a just government would not interfere in a person's right to contract with someone else for his or her labor services. Now, what this minimum wage legislation will do is tell, for example, a senior that wants to work part-time at maybe a day-care center, and 48.5 percent of those receiving minimum wages are voluntary part-time workers, that she or he cannot work if the day-care center cannot afford to pay $5.15 per hour. It says to the black teenager that he cannot try to get a first job and learn a skill if that employer cannot pay $5.15 per hour, and if his services are not worth that at the beginning of his employment, prior to training, then he will not have that opportunity. Those who would support the minimum wage must hold the position that government can tell you at what rate you can sell your labor. So here is a Federal law saying you cannot work, you cannot sell your labor, for less than what the Federal Government mandates is a fair wage. This is not consistent with a just society or the freedom of individuals. Second, an increase in the minimum wage is really going to harm the poor. Increasing the minimum wage must result in some workers being laid off. So the question is, are we going to pass a law that helps some, because some will benefit from an increase in minimum wage, while at the same time telling a few of those who are no longer going to be employed that they cannot be employed because the employer will not pay them the higher minimum wage that is contemplated to be established? It is just a matter of how many jobs will be lost. Assuming no job losses is equivalent to assuming a perfectly inelastic demand for unskilled labor, which clearly is not the case. This is just a quick effort to represent the supply and demand for the market for unskilled, entry level jobs. If you have the demand curve going down; in other words, the higher the wages, the less number are going to be employed, and so as the demand curves down to a lower wage and a greater number being employed, and likewise the supply is going to increase so the higher the wages the more people that are going to be looking for those jobs, you end up at the intersection with what is the equilibrium wage. If we raise the minimum wage higher, that means this change will represent that number of people that are going to no longer be employed. It just makes sense that there are some people in our society at the beginning that will no longer be able to be employed if we raise the minimum wage up to $5.15 an hour. But increasing the minimum wage will not make any dent in the poverty rate. Of the 23.5 million adults in poverty, just over 2 percent are working for the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage will cost the unskilled their job opportunities. Professors Neumark and Wascher, in their paper in Industrial and Labor Relations Review, estimate a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage will destroy more than one-half million unskilled jobs. Now, an increase in the minimum wage of 90 cents will raise prices by an estimated 2.2 billion, and those price increases will mostly affect poor people. This price rise will come about because some small businesses in competitive industries will go out of business or produce less. This decrease in supply will show up in the form of higher prices for the goods and services produced in low wage industries, and who buys their goods in stores are certainly the poor people. The wealthy are not going to lose their jobs or their businesses. The way to increase wages is to cut the payroll taxes, cut the capital gains tax, balance the budget, make sure we do not have an increase in inflation, increase the skills of the future work force and current work force, and enact significant regulatory reform. The debate over minimum wage is a debate about the fundamental principles of government and how our society is to be organized. Unfortunately, the debate has been framed in terms of politics rather than policy. In light of this, I'd like to make three points. First, as Frederich Bastiat pointed out in 1853, a just government would not interfere in a person's right to contract with someone else for his or her labor services. What this minimum wage legislation will do is to tell the senior that wants to work part-time at the day care center, and 48.5 percent of minimum wage workers are voluntary part- time workers, that she cannot work if the day care center cannot afford to pay her $5.15 an hour. It says to the black teenager that he cannot try to get a first job, and the training that will go along with it, unless he can produce $5.15 per hour worth of services. Those who would support the minimum wage must hold the position that the government can tell you at what rate you can sell your labor services. This is not consistent with a just society of free individuals. Second, an increase in the minimum wage will harm the poor. Increasing the minimum wage must result in workers being laid off and fewer job opportunities. It is just a matter of how many jobs will be lost. Assuming no job losses is equivalent to assuming a perfectly inelastic demand for unskilled labor, which clearly is not the case. Those that wish to increase the minimum wage assume that a majority of the Congress with the approval of the President may decide that those who lose their jobs, or are denied their first job, must suffer this in order to make others better off. But increasing the minimum wage will not make any dent in the poverty rate. Of the 23.5 million adults in poverty, just over 2 percent are working at minimum wage. And increasing the minimum wage will cost the unskilled their job opportunities. Professors Neumark and Wascher, in their paper in Industrial and Labor Relations Review, estimate a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage will destroy more than one-half million unskilled jobs. The unemployment rate among black teenage males is currently greater than 38 percent, while the national rate for adult males is 5 percent. Who is likely to suffer from the loss of low-skilled jobs? An increase in the minimum wage of 90 cents will raise prices by $2.2 billion. This price rise will come about because some small businesses in competitive industries will go out of business or produce less. This decrease in supply will show up in the form of higher prices for the goods and services produced in low-wage industries. And who buys their goods at stores staffed by people making minimum wage? Who buys food at restaurants that hire first-time workers? The wealthy are not going to suffer from the higher prices. The wealthy are not going to lose their jobs or their business because of an increase in the minimum wage. But the poor, unskilled, job-seeker, and the small business owner on the edge of making it will suffer. How can we as a Congress claim that we can make the decision that these people must suffer in order for some other people to gain? It is time to admit that this increase in the minimum wage is an unjust interference of the Government in the lives of the working poor which will cause more harm than good.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 128, I was outside the Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

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.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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. 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. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. No, it just does not take them off budget.

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. 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.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is amendment No. 8 printed on page H3489, amendment on page 12 after line 22.

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. 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.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, the country owes a debt of gratitude to one of my constituents, Prof. John Hall of Albion College in Albion, MI. His story has been told on the CBS Evening News as well as on the front pages of America's most prominent newspapers. Professor Hall is an expert in, among other things, World War I fighter planes. He discovered that original pieces from a French World War I aircraft were for sale but which he knew to be the property of the Smithsonian. Inquiries led him to the seller--a Smithsonian curator, who even offered to authenticate the pieces he was selling on Smithsonian letterhead. Professor Hall contacted the FBI. At their request, he wore a hidden microphone when discussing various aircraft parts that were available for sale with the curator. As a result, the FBI was able to arrest him. Thanks to professor Hall's detective work, the Smithsonian is now undergoing an inventory to see what else might have been stolen and implementing a bar code system to ensure that such theft becomes much less likely in the future.