Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, to no surprise of my friend from Oregon. Let me help him a little bit with how I give opposition in context.

As the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me just to consider how we are going to get soybeans out of Arkansas as the sole limiting factor on how we budget. It is important, it is important to my producers, but at the end of the day, we are $23 trillion in debt. The deficit this year, to add to that $23 trillion, is expected to approach $1 trillion. H.R. 2440 would disrupt the recently enacted budget agreement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you know that we did months of negotiation on some agreement to keep the government open and operating. This body established discretionary spending caps for the next 2 years with the passage of the bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. The bill before us today breaches that law; it increases that deficit.

So my question is: What was the point of us going through that arduous process of negotiating a bipartisan, bicameral agreement with the President so that, just 3 months later, we could shoot a $10 billion hole in it?

This bill would increase the deficit by up to $10 billion, which I believe is unacceptable, given our fiscal condition.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the annual deficit this year will be $1 trillion, adding to the already $23 trillion in debt.

Now, let me be clear. I acknowledge that there are structural budgetary challenges associated with the harbor maintenance trust fund. They need to be fixed. I think everyone agrees that this is not fair that our shippers are required to pay a tax for harbor maintenance but then the funds can't be spent on the very service they are supposed to provide. That, we can agree on.

The work that is done on our ports is critical to both American jobs and the economy. We need to fix the flaws in the maintenance trust fund to ensure this essential work can be done; however, this bill is not the answer. It is not a long-term solution. It is just a quick fix.

I would like to work with Members on both sides of the aisle to assess not only the harbor maintenance trust fund, but also all government trust funds to evaluate their funding mechanisms to ensure they make sense and operate as intended.

H.R. 2440 is merely an effort to spend more money without offsets, bust the caps, resulting in an increase to the deficit of about $10 billion.

There is also a determined opposition in the United States Senate. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Enzi and I have released the following joint statement in opposition to H.R. 2440. It reads:

The bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased spending caps for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, was enacted less than 3 months ago. Instead of prioritizing additional funding for harbor maintenance activities under this agreement, H.R. 2440 would further increase spending by as much as $10 billion over the next 2 years. This approach is irresponsible. It would not provide a lasting solution. With annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion for the foreseeable future, Congress should be focused on reducing the deficit rather than increasing it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R.

Mr. Speaker, in our process, it is not as simple as ``just spend the money.'' It has to go through a process. We call it the appropriations process, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware of it, having served on the Appropriations Committee.

Here is the deal: The budget agreement is indifferent as to the source of that money, whether it is a harbor maintenance trust fund issue or whether it is spending that is borrowed from China or from the international bond market. It is indifferent to it. It goes through the same process.

This blows a $10 billion hole in the deficit that is just 3 months away from the agreement that we had 3 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, with the numbers we are facing--trillion- dollar deficits and $23 trillion in debt--what is another $10 billion?

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Congress needs to start making the tough decisions. The responsibility is at our feet. It is in Article I of the Constitution, that same Constitution we all took an oath to in January. And I am not talking about tough decisions regarding the harbor maintenance trust fund by itself. I am talking about a lot of programs, all programs, mandatory spending programs.

And an inconvenient truth, Mr. Speaker, is this: As a percentage of our economy, mandatory spending is going higher. Discretionary spending, the money we are talking about today, is getting lower.

I wish my friend from Oregon would bring the same passion to the floor that he brings on the harbor maintenance trust fund to actually righting the ship on spending in the country as a whole to include solutions to the mandatory spending programs that continue to skyrocket totally unchecked by the Congress.

I want more money for education. I want more money for science and healthcare. And I want more money for harbor maintenance. I have backlogs in my own district. But it needs to be prioritized.

This discussion should have taken place 3 months ago. In fact, it did. There were other issues addressed in the negotiation for the budget caps that we operate under today.

May I remind my friend from Oregon that we had a long talk about the Census. It made it in. We discussed harbor maintenance. We discussed VA MISSION, Mr. Speaker, and that was in excess of $20 billion. But, somehow, we were able to get it beneath the caps.

At the end of the day, only one of those negotiating topics actually made it into the discussion. So now here we are, expected to relitigate the other cap adjustments.

What other types of spending will folks want to give special privilege to? Proponents are saying we don't get what we want so let's just bust the caps. That is a dangerous precedent. It should never be considered in the same context as overseas contingency and disaster spending, which we all know operate above the caps.

It would behoove us to take note of organizations that have expertise in the state of our Nation's fiscal well-being and their opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement by the National Taxpayers Union that says, among other things, in urging a ``no'' vote on the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act, the Congress of the United States should be asking for healthier trust funds, not weakening those trust funds. National Taxpayers Union, Washington, DC, October 28, 2019.

NTU urges all Representatives to vote ``NO'' on H.R. 2440, the Full Utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Act. This legislation would lead to higher federal spending, exempt the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) from discretionary caps, and potentially draw down the $9 billion surplus in the HMTF. Lawmakers should oppose this proposal, and pursue legislation that strengthens caps on discretionary spending rather than weakening them.

H.R. 2440 would add the HMTF to a special, narrow group of spending categories that are exempt from Budget Control Act (BCA) caps. Currently, that list is limited to emergency and overseas contingency operations (OCO) spending, disaster relief, continuing disability reviews and redeterminations, health care fraud and abuse control, reemployment services and eligibility assessments, and wildfire suppression. Despite the pending expiration of BCA caps on discretionary spending, the bill's supporters have failed to make the case that HMTF belongs in the same category of exempt spending as disaster relief and OCO.

CBO has scored H.R. 2440 as having no impact on direct spending, revenues, or the deficit, but this is a misleading analysis. As NTU Foundation pointed out in June, the sponsors of the legislation ``wrote that it would provide for an additional $34 billion in funds for harbors. Despite the obvious motivation to use HMTF as a vehicle for spending hikes, CBO's zero score reflects a myopic reading of the bill.'' This intention is also made clear in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report on H.R. 2440, which states, ``[t]his change would enable the investment of approximately $34 billion over the next decade from the HMTF for the intended purpose of maintaining Federally-authorized harbors.''

Policymakers should want strong surpluses in taxpayer- backed trust funds. At a time when the Social Security and Medicare Part A trust funds are facing insolvency, Congress should not be passing legislation that strains one of America's healthier trust funds. If lawmakers want to spend a higher portion of HMTF' s annual revenues, they should do so by having harbor maintenance needs compete with other priorities considered by Congress each year, rather than carving out a caps exemption for HMTF. Passing this legislation will only encourage special interests to seek additional exemptions for their priorities.

NTU strongly urges Representatives to oppose H.R. 2440 in its current form.

Roll call votes on H.R. 2440 will be included in our annual Rating of Congress and a ``NO'' vote will be considered the pro-taxpayer position.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an old saying, and my dad, who grew up on a Yellow County, Arkansas, farm says it to me often. He says: Son, when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.

Mr. Speaker, if we pass H.R. 2440, we will have added yet another shovel full of deficit to our Nation's fiscal situation. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source