[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 136 (Monday, September 26, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      TIME TO CALL TO ACCOUNT WRITERS OF BASELESS NEWS EDITORIALS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Wise] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, today, the Washington Post began another 
editorial attacking a major West Virginia project and West Virginia's 
senior Senator, and I think it is time to start calling to account 
those who want to make these kind of accusations, these type of 
statements, and they are not backed up by facts or solid judgment.
  The gist of the Washington Post editorial is that because the Senate 
included in its part of the transportation appropriation bill dealing 
with discretionary highway projects a certain amount of money, I 
believe $90 million for Corridor H in West Virginia, most of which, 
yes, runs through may district, that this is somehow infringing 
possible House Members.
  Let us look at the reality of the situation. When the transportation 
appropriation bill left the House, there was $299 million of highway 
projects in it, about 108 projects I believe for House Members. The 
Senate had added to its bill $352 million. When the conferees got 
together, they had $299 million of House projects, and $352 million of 
Senate projects, roughly $600 million. They compromised and took the 
higher Senate number, $352 million, and then divided up and said all 
right the Senate will take 52 percent of the projects, and the House 
will take 48 percent.
  Now, some might say that sounds unfair, because should not the House 
get at least as much? But if you look at other parts of the bill, and 
yes, it is a much bigger bill than this one section, if you look at 
other parts of the bill, for instance, the House received 58 percent of 
all mass transit projects.

                              {time}  1040

  Incidentally, we do not do a lot of mass transit in West Virginia, 
whereas the Senate received 42 percent. And so there are different 
shares throughout the bill. So then the Senate allocated for its 
portion, $90 million toward Corridor H, and the House Members, the 
House conferees allocated their share. Some way this is unfair. I ask 
Members to look at what the alternative is.
  Do they want the Senate making decisions on House, projects first of 
all? That is question No. 1. It was House conferees that allocated the 
share that they agreed to in the conference.
  The second is that even if we took all $90 million out of the 
Senate's portion, that does not guarantee one extra nickel for a House 
Member. Because what happens then, I presume, is that the Senate then 
allocates its share somewhere else.
  Yes, I have had Members come up to me and say, did I get nicked, did 
my project suffer because of this. The answer is that in every 
conference they divide up the application. Here the House Members, the 
House conferees worked out the House allocation, and the Senate worked 
out its allocation. So I would submit that not one extra nickel is 
going to a House Member, even if something should happen to that $90 
million.
  I do resent greatly the Post somehow claiming that this is a change 
and that the $90 million is more than could even be obligated in 1 year 
for the West Virginia project. The fact of the matter is, we do not 
build too many projects around here by simply appropriating what we 
obligate in 1 year: Houston Transit System, a recent example; a highway 
project in Dallas, another recent example.
  If you simply appropriated each year what could be obligated each 
year for a massive project, you would have a number of projects coming 
in at one time for massive amounts of funding, this spreads it out and 
permits us to take care of one project one time and another project 
another time.
  I also point out, I wish the Post would get this straight, we in West 
Virginia think that, yes, we are entitled to our fair share, and we 
want everyone else to have theirs. We have stood up and voted for $9 
billion, not million, billion for the Washington, DC, suburban 
Maryland, and Virginia metro system, the subway system. It is a nice 
subway system. I like tunnels. We have lots of tunnels in West 
Virginia. They are called coal mines. Not one train runs through them. 
Our transit system is much lower cost and it is called highways, but 
they are vitally important to us as a transit system is important to an 
urban area.
  I might point out there has been a lot of discussion about this. The 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has been named several times in 
these editorials, taking 1 minutes on the floor. I just point out that 
the metro serves his constituents, $9 billion, Dulles Airport in 
northern Virginia in that district and, lo and behold, a CIA center for 
$300 million popped up unannounced on the front pages of the Washington 
Post. Where did that come from? We know about $300 million projects and 
where they are located in West Virginia. When the Post was looking 
around they said, oh, my, this is a surprise to all of us. So these 
things work out.
  I would urge my colleagues to look at the conference report, such as 
the appropriations report, remembering that there may be one section in 
here, we are talking about a massive bill, and that other States get 
their allocations in different ways throughout that bill.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this carefully as this matter comes 
to the floor.

                          ____________________