[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3172-H3189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 115 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 115
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making
rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a
period not to exceed ten hours and shall be considered as
read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
1158 modified as follows: on page 56, after line 12, add as
new titles IV, V, and VI the respective texts of titles I,
II, and III of the bill (H.R. 1159) making supplemental
appropriations and rescissions for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, except the text
of section 306 of H.R. 1159. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order
against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for
failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 2
of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order unless printed as
an amendment to H.R. 1158 or H.R. 1159, as the case may
be, in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII before March
14, 1995. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. Points of order against such amendments for failure
to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. It
shall not be in order to consider an amendment proposing
to increase the net level of budget authority in the bill.
It shall not be in order to consider an amendment
proposing to redistribute budget authority within the net
level of budget authority in the bill except within a
chapter of the bill or, in the case of a title of the bill
not organized by chapters, within such title. Debate on
each amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute and any amendments thereto shall be limited to
thirty minutes. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this resolution, all points of order against the
amendments specified in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendment as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment
adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to
the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order
as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
amendment offered by mr. dreier
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Dreier: Page 3, line 15, insert
before the period ``, and any
[[Page H3173]] such amendment, or any amendment thereto,
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very dear friend, the gentleman from south
Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and to insert extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that the House is
considering a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1995. The
first was necessary to address critical shortages in the defense budget
which were threatening the readiness and safety of our national
security forces. The supplemental appropriations in H.R. 1158 are
equally critical. They provide disaster relief for 40 States with the
largest recipient being by State of California in order to respond to
last year's tragic Northridge earthquake and the flooding that has
taken place in California.
Prior to last month's consideration of the defense supplemental,
Congress had a spotlessly consistent track record of disrespect for the
taxpayer on this type of spending bill. No emergency supplemental had
ever been paid for through offsetting spending cuts. When emergency
spending was needed, the answer was always to pile it on top of the
already monstrous deficit. ``Charge it to the future, let them pay''
was the attitude that we had around here.
Mr. Speaker, this is a new era of fiscal responsibility in the House.
This emergency bill reduces deficit spending. The rule makes in order
H.R. 1158, provides 1 hour of general debate, and waives clause 2 of
rule XXI which prohibits unauthorized and legislative provisions
against the bill.
The rule makes in order as original text for the purpose of amendment
the text of H.R. 1158 combined with the text of H.R. 1159, except for
section 306 of H.R. 1159. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
is considered as read and subject to amendment for up to 10 hours. The
rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, and clause 2 of
rule XXI against the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Only amendments to H.R. 1158 and 1159 printed in the Congressional
Record before March 14, 1995 are in order. Debate on each amendment is
not to exceed 30 minutes. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI requiring emergency
designation is waived for each amendment. In order that amendments
promote fiscal responsibility to the same degree as the committee's
bill, amendments are not in order if they cause the net level of budget
authority to increase. In addition, budget authority must be
redistributed within a chapter or title if there are no chapters.
Points of order are waived against 3 amendments that have been
printed in the Record, all filed by Members of the minority.
These are a Brewster amendment providing for net savings from the
bill to be placed in a deficit reduction lock box, and amendment by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] appropriating net savings from
the bill to deficit reduction, and an amendment by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] to strike section 307 of H.R. 1159 regarding the
emergency salvage of dead and rotting timber.
Mr. Speaker, changing the culture of deficit spending is not easy.
Deficit spending is ingrained in the very heart of the bloated Federal
Government.
Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I would say to my friend, we have a number of requests
for time over here, and I have a statement. Then I have members of the
Committee on Rules to whom I will be yielding. I know that the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] will have time and I am sure
be very generous with it as I am with our time.
Mr. DOGGETT. I have a question, not a statement.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, changing the culture of
deficit spending is not easy. Deficit spending is ingrained in the
very heart of the bloated Federal Government. But effecting that change
is the right thing to do. Taxpayers recognize that many programs
despite good intentions clearly do not work. They also are very
appreciative of the fact that our new majority has a clear position on
new spending. We step up and pay for it. Nobody who cares about our
Nation's future hopes we revert to the old ways.
Mr. Speaker, the $17.4 billion in very thoughtful rescissions
reported by the Committee on Appropriations obviously far exceeds the
level of disaster relief. However, this is only troubling to those who
love the Federal bureaucracy. The committee did not set out to simply
find the minimum amount of wasteful spending needed to offset the
emergency funding. Instead, they set clear criteria to judge current
programs and they rescinded spending that met one of the following
conditions:
Spending that was not authorized.
Duplicative Federal programs.
Programs that received large funding increases in fiscal year 1995.
Programs with unspent funds piling up from year to year.
Programs that exceeded the level in the Clinton budget.
And programs that are wasteful or do not work.
To those around here who are committed to protecting the status quo,
those are radical criteria which should not be utilized. But to the
American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, these standards are nothing more than
common sense. I am happy to say that our new majority is using these as
we proceed with this issue of spending.
The Committee on Appropriations followed a lengthy and very open
process. They make a solid case that each and every rescission in the
bill meets one of those stated criteria. The final total of $17.4
billion covers the disaster relief and makes a real down payment toward
a balanced budget. They deserve our support, Mr. Speaker.
Of course we are going to hear complaints here on the floor from big
spenders. They do not oppose the $200 billion deficit status quo. They
look at the complete failure of the welfare state and say that the only
problem is that we have not spent enough. Many of the same people who
oppose the committee's rescissions opposed the balanced budget
amendment because it did not include specific cuts. Now they get a
first installment of our specific cuts, and how do they respond? They
say, ``No.''
Others claim to oppose the cuts because the Committee on Ways and
Means is going to report a bill that cuts taxes for working families.
Besides the fact that families send too much of their hard-earned money
to Washington already, if a Member does not like the tax package, vote
against that. It is a Contract item, it will get here to the floor for
a vote.
This rule debate really comes down to a very simple choice, Mr.
Speaker. Some people want to continue to simply add new spending to the
deficit. They always have an excuse why every program in the $1.5
trillion Federal budget is too important to cut. On the other side are
those who recognize that things have to change. We offer answers that
are no more complicated or profound than those offered by every middle-
income family that spends more than it earns.
{time} 1230
We want to cut back a little here and there to work back to a
balanced budget.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very fair and
responsible rule, support the Appropriation Committee's very find work.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record material on the amendment
process under special rules reported by the Committee on Rules, 103d
Congress versus 104th Congress, as follows:
[[Page H3174]]
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of March 15, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 19 83
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 4 17
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 23 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of March 15, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, CA. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/10/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: v.v. (2/22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res 108 (3/6/95). Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res 109 (3/8/95). MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191; A: 247-
181 (3/9/95).
H. Res 115 (3/14/95) MO.................. H.R. 1158........... Making Emergency Supp. ...................
Approps..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote.
Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a masterpiece. We would never
know from the conversation on the other side of the aisle that this
bill cuts all of the low-income housing fuel for poor people, the $17
billion includes the money for LIHEAP. The bill also cuts back on
student loans, cuts back on food programs.
I have not heard a word about it. They talk about how important this
rule is. I think it is very important. But we in the minority were not
allowed to bring forth a lot of amendments. We were told what was in
the bill, but we had no role in shaping it.
This is the most restrictive rule. It goes beyond anybody's
imagination, and despite the promises to the contrary, it protects the
Republicans from the cuts that we want to make against them.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about cutting, but they did
not mention the specifics. The low-income people, the most vulnerable
of our vulnerable, as I say. There was actually testimony from the
Republican side that the low-income heating program is not needed
anymore. I do not know where some of those people come from, but I know
in Massachusetts we do not get a 5-day notice when we are going to have
a freeze. We have people, we have pictures of people who have been
frozen to death because heating units were shut off during a certain
cold spell.
So I think we have to look at those things that really affect the
poor people, those who are unable to help themselves.
They want to cut spending, sure they do. They want to cut spending so
they can get that money in that pool to raise the tax breaks they are
going to give to the high 2 percent of this country. That is very
important. We have a list of corporations that will cease being
taxpayers once this thing goes through. We will not hear about that
though.
They want to cut spending for the elderly, for children, the working
poor, but do not touch those corporations, do not touch those people in
the high 2 percent on the capital gains tax.
Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that the amendment satisfies the
requirement, according to them, that it does not touch military
projects; and it does cut more money from this bill than is needed
because they are going to put that in a pot and use it for the tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that could be said but because
of my restriction on time, I just cannot do it. But I want everybody in
the Chamber or within the sound of my voice to know that this is the
bill that cuts low-income housing programs, this is the bill that cuts
low-income housing, this is the bill that cuts low-income feeding,
Meals on Wheels, WIC Programs, if Members feel they can vote for that
bill under any excuse, then so be it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would add to the brilliant remarks of my
friend from South Boston and say yes, this is the bill that gets us on
the road to a balanced budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and, Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of this rule providing for the consideration
of two supplemental appropriations and rescissions bills reported by
the Committee on Appropriations. Taken together, these bills provide
approximately $5.4 billion in supplemental appropriations for disaster
assistance primarily for the Northridge earthquake victims in
California, but also for victims of other disasters in a total of 40
States.
But the truly remarkable thing about these bills is that the cost is
fully offset by rescissions which not
[[Page H3175]] only pay for the bills but produce reductions in
Government spending totaling more than $17 billion.
This is the first major step in the downsizing of this bloated
Federal Government and moves us closer to the twin goals of lower taxes
and lower deficits.
I cannot help but remember the debate about the balanced budget
constitutional amendment when its opponents charged that it was all
rhetoric but that there were no real cuts. Do Members remember that?
Today we have the first installment of the real cuts.
These cuts will result in immediate savings because almost all of
these cuts are in current fiscal year funding.
And on the subject of rhetoric, I hope we will not hear too much of
the usual song and dance where the big spenders try to portray
themselves as the ones with compassion. We have heard a little bit
about this this morning already.
What is compassionate about burying our children and our
grandchildren in debt? That is about the least compassionate thing I
ever heard of. The people with true compassion are those who are trying
to reduce the debt burden on future generations.
Mr. Speaker, we also need to be certain that we keep the facts in our
discussion of this bill straight. For example, yesterday in the Rules
Committee there was a strong attack on so-called cuts in the School
Lunch Program until it was pointed out that there is nothing in the
bill dealing with school lunches.
Then there was an attack on the $25 million rescission in the Women,
Infants and Children's Program. It turns out that the rescission will
not affect anyone currently benefiting from that program. The entire
rescission is from $125 million in unspent funds left over from the
1994 appropriations.
In other words, the $260 million increase provided for the program
for fiscal year 1995 remains untouched, and that is a fact.
So we need to be certain that our words are accurately describing the
situation. It is not fair to allege a program is being decimated when
in fact the spending for the program will continue to increase, and
that is exactly what most of this bill is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that at the appropriate
time in the consideration of this bill, I myself, along with the
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], will be prepared to offer an
amendment to eliminate the rescissions in the bill which affect certain
veterans programs. We have proposed to pay for that restoration of
funding with additional cuts in the AmeriCorps Program, and I will have
a lot more to say about that when the debate takes place.
The care of veterans who in many cases have risked their lives in
defense of this Nation is a much higher priority than anything we will
find in the so-called AmeriCorps Volunteer Program, which is not a
volunteer program at all. When you get paid for something that is not
volunteering.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before this House today is a historic move in
the right direction, and I look forward to a very spirited debate
leading to the adoption of this first major step to reduce the burden
of bloated government on the American people.
Before this is over, we are going to restructure this Federal
Government, we are going to shrink the size and the power of this
Federal Government, and return it to the State and local governments
where it belongs.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think my friend the gentleman from New
York, will not only shrink the size of the Government but he is going
to shrink the size of the elderly population once they have no more
fuel.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this rule for a
number of reasons. First of all, this fight between us today has
nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of deficit reduction that is
being proposed. Every amendment that I asked the Committee on Rules to
make in order, and every amendment that they turned down that I tried
to get made in order, would have cut exactly the same amount from the
deficit as this proposal before us today. The only difference is that
we would have cut that money in different places.
The bill before us is a contract on kids; the bill before us is a
contract on old folks. It clobbers programs for both, and yet I think
we ought to look at what it does not hit. It does not hit pork. We
asked them to make in order the Coleman amendment so we could knock out
$400 million of congressional pork. The Committee on Rules said no, no,
no, you cannot touch that.
It does not touch the Pentagon. We are told by such well-known
``liberals'' as Senator McCain that we have at least 8 billion dollars'
worth of waste in the Pentagon, and yet the Rules Committee says ``oh,
no, no, you cannot take a single dime out of there, precious precious,
precious; better we go after the kids, better we go after the old
folks.'' So that is what we are being asked to do today.
This bill is laughable, and so is the justification for it by the
majority party. We have been told since January that the reason they
were going to pass this bill is to create a kitty of money so they
could finance their tax cut. So they go after veterans, they went after
kids and old folks in order to create a nice pot of money for their tax
package.
We found out in the Ways and Means Committee 2 days ago what that tax
package is. They are going to provide 75 percent of the capital gains
tax relief to people who make more than $100,000 a year. Do Members
really think that is what the public voted for in November? Baloney.
What else are they going to do? They are gong to repeal the
alternative minimum tax on corporations. What does that mean? It means
a laundry list of Fortune 500 corporations who used to get by with
paying not a dime in Federal taxes will revert to form. And they will;
I have a list here if anybody wants to see it. But then after we raised
cain about it, they say well no, we do not think we are going to use
that money for tax cuts after all.
In the Committee on Appropriations when we tried to pass the Murtha
amendment, which said that you could not use any of these cuts to
finance the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy, every single
Republican in the committee voted against that amendment. Now they have
had a ``religious conversion'' on the road to Damascus. They say: ``Oh
well, Saint Paul told us that we better have a similar experience, and
so what we are going to do now is we are going to pretend we are not
going to use this for tax cuts.''
I think that side of the aisle does not know what it is doing on this
bill and the Congress should not pass this rule under those
circumstances.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the ranking minority member of the
Appropriations Committee has chosen the rule for the supplemental
appropriations bill to debate the tax bill. I encourage him to debate
and vote against the tax bill when it comes up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
There has been a lost of hue and cry about this bill over the last
couple of weeks. But the fact of the matter is it has been a very open
process through subcommittee and full committee, and we are proud to
report that we are now bringing forward to the House the largest
rescission package, the largest cut package in prior appropriations
ever to come before the House of Representatives or for that matter the
entire Congress, roughly a $17.2 billion package of cuts in this year's
budget plan.
Our critics think that Republicans want to take food out of the
mouths of widows and orphans. In fact, Republicans are determined to
help future generations of widows and orphans and everybody else in
this country to survive. The fact of the matter is this is the first
step toward a balanced budget. We will get to a balanced budget by the
year 2002 and this is the first step.
The Chicken Littles, the liberals, the Democrats of this Congress who
had 40 years to try to bring fiscal sanity and common sense to the
American public
[[Page H3176]] and totally abdicated their responsibility, with the
budget presented by our President of the United States who refused to
balance the budget this year, next year and every year into the future,
by calling for $200 billion deficits 1 year after another, have
essentially said to us a balanced budget is not necessary and anything
you cut causes pain to women, children, infants, the infirm, elderly,
et cetera. The fact is our bill does not take a single person off the
WIC rolls.
{time} 1245
Actually it leaves in place a $260 million increase in the program
for fiscal year 1995.
They say we are cutting the school-to-work program. It leaves in
place $62.5 million more than the previous year appropriated. You can
go down the list. There is always a reason to quarrel with all of the
cuts that we have made.
Every program has a constituency. But, ladies and gentleman, if we do
not make these cuts, we are going to run the risk of what happened in
Mexico 10 weeks ago, With the devaluation of the peso, the collapse of
their economic system, the prospects of recession or possibly
depression, joblessness, massive unrest in the streets these are things
that could happen in this country. I am not prepared to see that
happen. As the new chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I say
we must work towards a balance budget.
That $200 billion to $300 billion in deficits year after year after
year, a $5 trillion debt load which amounts to $20,000 for every man,
women and child in America is unacceptable. In 2 years, the interest on
the debt that we have now will exceed what we spend on all of the
defense of this Nation. Now, that is a frightening prospect, and what
we have to do is start getting our fiscal affairs under control just
like every man, women, and child, every American family has to do in
this country.
They have to balance the budget. They have to get outflow in line
with income. And that is what we should be doing in this country. That
is what we are attempting to begin by taking a small, modest step, with
$17 billion in cuts, $6 billion in emergency spending, giving us $11
billion in net cuts in last year's budget.
Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said that he is against
this rule. I might only say that if he had offered to support the rule,
he would have gotten a lot more amendments. The gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said that he would have liked to offer a lot of
other amendments. He might have been able to, had he supported the
rule, but he did not like this rule anyway. He was going to vote
against it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? He mentioned my
name. He will not yield to me?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. What I said
is true.
Mr. OBEY. Why do you not tell the whole story? You asked me if I
would support the rule if you made my amendments in order. I told you
not if you included the other language which was being objected to by
40 Members of your own party.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Actually you mentioned two other language. One part
of the language is in. Part of the language is out.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Not at this moment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Why do you not mention my name and then yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, is it not true, I ask the chairman, that
when you were in front of the Committee on Rules you said that the
LIHEAP program was no longer needed?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Indeed, I would, if I can reclaim my time. The
gentleman full well knows that the LIHEAP program was created at a time
of highly escalating energy prices, when the energy prices in this
country because of the energy crisis of the 1970's were just running
out of sight, and there were some people who felt that the poor people
in the colder areas of this country needed that extra assistance. Well,
energy prices are now about a third of what they were back then, and,
yes, there are always going to be people in need of assistance, but we
have hundreds and hundreds of programs of duplicating good intent,
which have to be weaned out so that we can cut unnecessary bureaucracy,
so we can eliminate the redundancies, so we can return to the taxpayer
so much of the money that we have taken from him and so that we can
lift the burden of regulation on the people of America.
Now, that is just an example. The gentleman from Massachusetts
illustrated one program out of many that are affected here.
Now, nobody can say that Americans are not compassionate. We are so
compassionate we are almost broke, and it is time to get our fiscal
situation under control. It is time to begin with this one step toward
a balanced budget.
Folks, if you do not like these cuts, you are not going to like the
ones that come, but we are beginning in the right direction. We should
begin with passing this rule, pass the bill, and go on and achieve a
balanced budget so that our children and our grandchildren can have the
same high standard of living that we enjoy today, and failure to act
today almost guarantees disaster for them in the future.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
dear friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], a very
hard-working member of the Committee on Rules and a man who tells the
truth all the time.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the legislation that it would
make in order.
Mr. Speaker, as the Member of Congress who represents the
congressional district that was hardest hit by the Northridge
Earthquake last year, I deeply regret that I cannot support the
legislation that provides much-needed funding for relief for victims of
that disaster, as well as for victims of other disasters across our
Nation.
That is because, unfortunately, the $5.4 billion in emergency funding
for disaster relief is contained in a bill that also slashes spending
for a great many worthy programs. Combining these two matters--
emergency assistance and rescissions--into one piece of legislation
leaves us with the unfair choice of voting either for emergency
assistance and against adequate funding for a great many other programs
we support, or against emergency assistance and for retaining existing
funding for those other programs.
The way the majority party has framed this choice does a grave
injustice to the victims of the earthquake, and of the other disasters.
It has made the provision of the relief they need, dependent upon
cutting spending for public broadcasting, for housing assistance for
the elderly, for student loans, for summer job programs, for veterans,
and for a great number of other valuable programs which serve many of
our Nation's pressing needs.
We don't mind having an all-out debate on whether we should cut these
programs--we should have one--but we do object to holding emergency
disaster assistance hostage to that debate. And that is exactly what we
are doing by mixing $5.4 billion of emergency disaster assistance with
17.1 billion dollars' worth of very controversial spending cuts.
There is a sound reason why emergency spending was exempted from the
Budget Act's rules about spending offsets: so that disaster relief or
spending for any other emergency, would not get bogged down in
controversy over unrelated matters, and so that Congress could pass
these bills quickly and speed relief to people who are in need of our
help.
However, now that the majority leadership has decided that emergency
spending needs to be offset, that is likely to change. In fact, since
this legislation cut three
times as much spending as it provides in emergency assistance, the
controversy over it is likely to be made greater than if the spending
were offset by an equivalent amount of spending, which would, in
itself, be difficult to pass--but a much fairer way of dealing with
this. The likelihood of this emergency assistance getting through the
legislative process quickly, and relatively intact, is very slim.
If we are going to change the way we provide disaster assistance, we
should do it by voting for such a change, not by leadership fiat.
Before we decide to offset every provision of emergency assistance with
spending cuts--or, as in this case--with 3 times the amount needed to
offset the assistance--Members
[[Page H3177]] ought to have the opportunity to ask themselves: If a
disaster struck in my district, is this the way I would want relief
legislation treated?
As someone who represents a district that has been declared a Federal
disaster area a number of times in the last 3 years, I believe it is
absolutely essential that we continue to treat disaster assistance
separately from the way we treat other spending, and I think we are
making a big mistake by not doing that now.
Not only does the combination of emergency assistance and spending
cuts in one bill force an unfair decision on us, but the rule also
leaves us with very limited options for making these spending cuts less
onerous.
By limiting amendments to just those which meet very strict criteria,
the rule makes it next to impossible to have a meaningful debate on
spending priorities. In constructing amendments to restore spending for
certain programs, Members were very limited in the ways they could
construct the amendments. In many cases, they could not propose cuts in
the programs they would have preferred to reduce, because those
programs were outside the relevant chapter of the bill or were not cut
in the bill as reported, and, therefore, not eligible for cuts under
the rule.
To add to the restrictiveness in the way in which amendments could be
drafted, many Members who wish to offer amendments will be prohibited
from doing so because of the 10-hour time limit on the amendment
process. There are about 40 amendments which were preprinted in the
Congressional Record and which appear to meet the strict criteria of
the rule. In 10 hours--which includes time spent on recorded votes--
with a 30-minute time limit on each individual amendment, there will
not be nearly enough time to consider all of these amendments--or even
half of them.
In addition, because the rule protects an egregious example of
legislating on an appropriations bill from points of order, the rule
makes this already controversial bill even more so controversial. The
rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI against consideration of the salvage
timber provision, which would require cutting double the amount of
timber which was cut from our national forests last year, and which
would suspend all environmental laws protecting the preservation of our
forests.
That provision, which makes a vast and unwise change in the policy
governing logging in national forests, has no place in an
appropriations bill. Had the Rules Committee left it unprotected from
points of order--or had the committee struck this provision from the
bill, as it did with the other controversial legislative provision in
this bill, dealing with Medicaid funding of abortions for victims of
rape and incest--we would not have to use any of our limited time on
debating an amendment to strike this provision, and we would not be
risking sending to the Senate a bill containing a provision which is
likely to add to the time it will take to consider the bill in that
body.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule that presents Members with an
unfair decision on the bill it makes in order. I urge Members to vote
``no'' on the previous question, and ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Veteran, the
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, this is not out of my time that we get
the props in here.
Mr. Speaker, the pictures around me are veterans who were wounded or
hurt in the service and wounded in combat. I thought it was important
that we have these pictures.
I rise in opposition to the rule. Many Members share my view on what
the Committee on Appropriations has done, and they were wrong, Mr.
Speaker, in rescinding more than $200 million in funding to improve VA
health care. And I was not permitted by this rule to offer a clean up-
or-down amendment.
Now, veterans across the country are asking some hard questions about
what is going on around here. Why, they ask, should it be necessary to
fight to keep money already appropriated to improve VA health care?
Why, they ask, should veterans have to find other cuts to keep funds
needed for the VA? Why, they ask, cannot my Member of Congress have the
chance to vote either yes or no on a straightforward amendment to
restore VA funding?
In urging a clean amendment to restore the VA's $206 million, the
commander in chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has put it very
well, and I quote, he said, ``This Nation's veterans should not be
placed in competition with other Federal programs for Federal dollars
to fund new spending initiatives,'' and the national commander of the
American Legion is supportive of this clean amendment.
Now, my colleagues, generations of veterans have put their lives on
the line. They did not ask any questions when they marched off to war.
They did not know whether they were going to come back or not, and we
owe them a debt, and I would hope you would vote against this rule that
I was not given the opportunity to offer a clean up-or-down amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I am happy to yield to the chairman, my good friend,
the gentleman from New York, who did not give me this opportunity.
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman very much. And I am going to tell
you I am a veteran, and I represent hundreds and hundreds and thousands
of veterans. None of them in my district want us to be fiscally
irresponsible. They support offsetting cuts in those areas that are not
priority.
And I would urge everybody to vote for the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and my amendment which is going to
restore those veterans' cuts and is going to reduce the level of
spending for something called National Service Corps.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You have got the great veterans' organizations who
totally disagree, totally disagree with you. You are wrong. The
gentleman is totally wrong in what he said.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I want you to repeat what was drowned out in some
catcalls when you made the statement. You said that you were refused an
amendment, and the other amendment that is coming forward will not do
what you want to do? Is that what you said?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. That is correct. I do not think we should go and take
money away from other programs to fund veterans' programs. They marched
off to war. They deserve a straight up-or-down amendment. We did not
get it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Just to even it out, I know the gentleman from
Mississippi is a veteran. I am a veteran, disabled veteran, so we know
where the veterans are.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. And I will be glad to let the gentleman have my
charts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to this rule.
This resolution makes a travesty of the Democratic process and the
rules of fair play. This rule is nothing but an attempt to divert
attention to peripheral issues and deny the Congress and the American
people the opportunity to discuss the real issues. I was not permitted
to offer an amendment which would have restored $2 billion to the
veterans and housing programs that will be cut here today.
The debate today should be whether cuts should be made in the
Veterans Administration, or in the summer jobs program, or in the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. We should not be debating
the question: Do you want to cut the VA or do you want to cut
Americorps? The debate should not be on whether the veterans' program
is more popular than Americorps. But unfortunately, that is exactly
what we would have to do as a result of this rule.
They do not want the debate to be on whether a cut in the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting is good policy. They are afraid of that debate.
So they hide behind this artfully crafted gag rule and force the debate
to be on whether you want to rob Peter to pay Paul. The Sophie's Choice
they have left us is totally unfair, and totally unnecessary.
There is nothing in the House rules or in the Budget Act that
requires such a rule. Even though not required to do so, these bills
offset the supplemental funding provided by a ratio of nearly 3 to 1.
Why are the extra rescissions included? To offset the tax increase
proposed in the contract for America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of this body, I feel I
must
[[Page H3178]] point out that what we are debating here is typical
slick contract-driven baloney. What they are doing is saying to this
House, ``You cannot bring up issues and vote them up or down. You can
only bring up issues in a very narrow and impossible to explain in 30
seconds convoluted system so that they do not have to vote on families,
they do not have to vote on children.''
They can vote on chapters and sections. It is just not right.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates].
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this rule, because, among
other things, the rule makes in order the Taylor timber salvage sale
amendment which is a timber lobbyists dream.
The Taylor amendment is a congressional gift to the timber industry
at a time when the timber companies are enjoying record profits. This
amendment is not a part of the Republican Contract With America, and
there is no need to rush it through. This amendment is a 13-page
legislative bill that totally revises the law on timber sales, no
hearings, no witnesses, no examination by a legislative committee.
I urge the House to oppose the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, here is what this debate is about: This weekend Members
of both parties are going to go home and have a town meeting, and
someone is going to ask them if they are in favor of cutting spending
or not. Most of us are going to say yes, we are in favor of cutting
spending, and then someone in the audience is going to raise their hand
and say, ``Congressman, why did you vote to cut the aid that I get to
pay my utility bill, my heating bill, when you could have voted instead
to cut money from the savings and loan bailout or from the bureaucracy
in the Agriculture Department or from the Export-Import Bank?''
If you vote for this rule, Mr. Speaker, if Members vote for this
rule, here is the honest answer to that question: ``I had a chance to
vote for that kind of amendment, but I refused it. I had a chance to
defeat this rule and let us bring to the floor amendments that would
let us cut other areas that benefit corporate America and do not hurt
seniors and kids and middle-income families, but I did not take that
opportunity.''
{time} 1300
If this rule passes, this will be the day that the Contract With
America was breached for the first time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong objection to the rule
and the rescissions that follow this rule.
The gentleman from Louisiana said that the LIHEAP program, the low-
income housing energy assistance program, is no longer needed. Maybe if
you live in Louisiana it is no longer needed. But tell that to the 5
million people, families headed by disabled, families headed by people
who earn $8,000 a year. Heat is still expensive, and it is still cold
in New England.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill which is nothing more than
an attempt to transfer wealth from the neediest in our country to those
very well off, and to Fortune 500 companies.
For instance, and there are many examples, in 1993, more than 5
million households across the country, 1.7 million of them in New
England, benefited from funding under LIHEAP. The program offers
heating assistance to low-income, disabled, and elderly families; more
than 70 percent of the recipients have annual incomes of less than
$8,000.
In New England, where our winters are long and harsh, low-income
families pay nearly four times more of their income for energy than the
average family.
Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to believe that this would be one of
the first programs picked on, but it is even more unbelievable when you
know it would go to pay for a fiscally irresponsible tax bill which
loses $188 billion over 5 years and $630 billion over 10 years. A tax
bill that is unfriendly to those in middle-income brackets and a tax
bill that promotes tax shelter activity, not the new business activity
that we need.
By combining debt financing and a new cost recovery depreciation
systems, the bill would create something tantamount to a voluntary
corporate income tax, or at least the economic equivalent of safe
harbor leasing--the egregious tax loophole created in 1981 that led to
unprecedented commerce in tax preferences.
This bill would lead to a dramatic increase in tax-motivated leasing
transactions or artificial merger and acquisition activity.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is a bad bill linked to an even
worse bill coming in 2 weeks. I urge all Members to vote against this
rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding
this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, this debate on this rule is not about Democrats that are
for or against offsets; it is not about whether we are for balancing
the budget. We are. I voted for the balanced budget amendment, the
line-item veto, and I have brought many amendments to this floor,
including an amendment to cut the space station billions of dollars to
reduce the deficit.
This debate today is one about a fair rule to allow us cuts in
corporate programs and subsidies, to help heat the kitchens and the
bedrooms for senior citizens or to help pregnant women deliver healthy
babies. It is about a rule that is about 70 years old. I voted against
Democratic rules when they were not fair. This is the first time I have
risen against a Republican rule because it is a Russian rule; not of
the Russia of 1995 but of the Russia of 1925.
Why not just have an up-or-down vote on this whole bill? We are not
even given the opportunity to amend this.
Do the American people support cutting the CIA budget of $28 billion
or, as the Republicans want to do, cutting the WIC Program, cutting
heating for senior citizens, cutting summer youth training programs? I
do not think so.
Mr. Speaker, give us the ability to make those offsetting cuts and
balance the budget.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] has 11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
(Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, what a terrible rule. Cutbacks for heating programs for
low income, for senior citizens, cutbacks in education, cutbacks for
veterans, cutbacks for WIC. But we are not allowed to discuss cutbacks
in corporate welfare, cutbacks in military spending.
Let us vote this rule down and develop a fair system of priorities
for this country.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because it denies us
the opportunity to make critical decisions about our spending
priorities. This bill contains deep cuts in education and student aid,
in assistance programs for seniors, in veterans programs, in health
programs for pregnant women, and in antidrug programs. On the other
hand, the bill contains no cuts in pork projects, no cuts in
unnecessary weapons systems, and no cuts in wasteful programs. This
bill cuts the muscle and leaves the fat. Worse, the rule doesn't give
us chance to offer any real amendments to make the bill better.
For example, I had hoped to offer an amendment today to eliminate the
cuts in funding to Public Broadcasting contained in this bill--but this
restrictive gag rule would force me to make additional cuts in
education or health programs that have already been cut too deeply.
There are other programs
[[Page H3179]] in the budget that I would like to cut instead, but this
rule will not let me.
The $141 million cut in funding for Public Broadcasting contained in
this bill would result in 80 stations being forced to shut down and
would mean the elimination of locally produced public television and
radio shows. And this is only the beginning.
This cut was not made to save money--it was made to eliminate public
television entirely. Make no mistake: this bill is a wrecking ball
aimed straight at ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood'' and at ``Sesame
Street.''
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Republican leadership is waging an
ideological holy war against public broadcasting. Opposing this effort
are millions of American families who watch public television and
listen to public radio every day.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will mean a lot fewer cookies for my friend
here--and as a mother of three children I can tell you that Cookie
Monster and the other Muppets are among the best friends that any kid
will ever have. Anyone who wants to take the Muppets off public
television will have a lot of explaining to do to the children of
America--and their parents too. Make no mistake: this debate is about
Oscar the Grouch, and Big Bird, and Ernie, and Bert. The new Republican
majority has put them on the chopping block.
Mr. Speaker, ``Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood'' is much more popular than
Mr. Gingrich's. ``Sesame Street'' is a far healthier environment for
children than Capitol Hill. The Muppets are far more popular than this
Congress, and we should think twice before we eliminate them.
Defeat the rule so that we can offer an amendment to save Sesame
Street from the wrecking crew.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
very dear friend from Redlands, CA. [Mr. Lewis], the senior California
member on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of a very, very difficult rule.
To say the least, when we are attempting to address this horrendous
deficit problem which burdens our entire economy, it is appropriate to
look back at the 1995 appropriations year. Deciding how you are going
to make adjustments in wished-for growth in each of those programs is a
difficult process.
I hear the word ``cut, cut, cut, cut,'' everywhere. What we are
really talking about is an attempt to adjust decisions on spending
within last year's bill, and to decide that some of the appropriated
growth could be cut back a little.
Every one of these programs are either going back to the President's
recommendations in the first place or they actually reflect efforts to
rein in continued growth in programs where people services are
involved.
There is little question that when people attempt to trade one
program off against another, veterans versus NASA, assistance for
people with AIDS versus space station, that makes it extremely
difficult to understand the motives of those advocating smaller
government.
We are attempting to start on that glidepath that will lead us to a
balanced budget by 2002. The people who come to the floor who proudly
say, ``I voted for the balanced budget amendment,'' and then come and
suggest we cannot even begin to slightly readjust backward the $1
trillion budget of last year are speaking out of both sides of their
mouths.
The American public is not going to be fooled. I strongly urge you to
support this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the next gentleman I will yield to probably
could explain why the Republicans have taken this track. I yield 1
minute to our inhouse psychiatrist, the gentleman from Washington [Mr.
McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the question here is: Why are we making
these cuts? Is it to balance the budget? I would say ``no.''
Yesterday on the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, we
passed a bill that gives away $700 billion over the next 10 years. That
unbalances the budget by $700 billion. These cuts are being made to pay
for that tax cut.
Now, the tax cut goes to the most wealthy 10 percent in this country.
Sixty percent of the benefit will go to the top 10 percent in this
country. They will give a family credit to the 40 million families in
this country--only the top 30 million. The bottom 10 million families
in this country will not receive one dime for their children in a tax
cut out of the tax bill we put through.
These cuts we are going through here today are simply to pay for a
giveaway to the wealthy in this country. I think we ought to vote
``no'' on this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This rule is a gag rule. This is a
divisive rule. This rule only allows amendments that pit one good
program against another good program. The $25 million cut in WIC can
only be restored by cutting at least an equal amount in agricultural
research funds. The $50 million in Veterans' Administration medical
care funding, and the $156 million in VA hospital construction funding
can only be restored by cutting wastewater treatment infrastructure
financing and other worthy programs. Healthy Start money can only be
restored under this rule by cutting money from the National Institutes
of Health.
This rule is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This rule
is not unlike pitting sibling against sibling, or child against parent.
Worse, Mr. Speaker, the rule allows debate and a vote on a bill that
assaults the Nation's poor. For example, the bill proposes a rescission
of $7.2 billion from the HUD programs--representing 42 percent of the
entire rescission package. By cutting public housing programs, we will
adversely affect 630,000 families with children and 530,000 elderly
households. The cuts in the section 8 program will leave countless
families with children and elderly virtually homeless.
The section 515 rental housing program will be nonexistent. In
addition, the bill eliminates all--not some--but all funding for the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This program helps low-
income families with home heating bills.
Mr. Speaker, what is going on here? Child nutrition programs are
being cut. Housing assistance programs are being cut. And, assistance
with heating bills is being eliminated. These are all basic needs. If
this agenda continues, we will have millions of very hungry and very
cold people, out on the streets.
While cutting these basic needs, the bill cuts $1.7 billion from
education programs. Programs that prepare our students to compete in an
increasingly globalized world cut. Youth job training programs that
provide work experience for students are cut. And, the bill goes
further and deeper. Rural America and National Public Radio are like
peanut butter and jelly--they are best together. In isolated areas,
like eastern North Carolina, National Public Radio is the only reliable
news source.
With this bill and proposed amendments, the demise of the Public
Broadcasting System is certain. A total of 15.8 million people listen
to NPR every week. The total Federal investment in NPR amounts to just
29 cents per American, per year. I ask each of my colleagues, are these
cuts putting good programs against each other, in the Nation's best
interest? I think the answer is obvious. Vote against this rule and
vote against the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise
in opposition to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is an abomination. I am fundamentally opposed
to several elements contained in this bill, as well as the way it will
be considered.
First, emergencies are emergencies. We should never have to cut
programs which have already been budgeted due to an act of God. That is
what this legislation would do.
The State of California has been the unfortunate site of several
natural disasters recently. It is absolutely the role of the Federal
Government to assist in these relief efforts. But, the way this bill is
structured, we will create several new emergencies as we pay for relief
from earthquakes and floods.
Cities cannot afford cuts in summer jobs. This program has helped
avert social disasters in many communities throughout this country. Not
any more.
Poor people cannot go without energy assistance. But this bill will
freeze elderly people in the northeast because of an earthquake in
California.
People need housing. But this bill would create a shelter emergency
for thousands of
[[Page H3180]] Americans because of a natural disaster in one region of
the country.
Tell veterans why they do not need health care--health care which
this Congress approved last year--because of a California earthquake
last year. Anyone who has visited a veterans hospital in this country
understands the number of emergencies that this bill will inflict on
our Nation's veterans.
Last, this rule sets up false choices. It is a sham. This rule is not
about robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about taking away Peter's home
to pay for Paul's tent.
The American people want a discussion about budget priorities. But
that is not what is before us. This is a cold-hearted, slick, political
way to punish poor and middle-income families because of unpredictable
weather. It is using natural disasters to affect this Republican
Congress' mean-spirited political agenda. This whole process should be
rejected.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding
this time to me for the opportunity to speak against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of sorrow that we have to stay
here today not only with this bill with which I disagreed on some of
the provisions that took away my clinic in my veterans facility back in
Columbia, MO, it took away my heating assistance during the cold winter
months which will come up next year. But now it take away the
possibility that we will save a lot of lives of the unborn with the
Istook amendment, just like any amendment that would be offered to it,
and strikes it from the bill. We do not an opportunity to save those
lives of the unborn as a result of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in what I am now hearing from so-
called pro-life forces on the majority side, that they are going to
vote for this rule that will mean that more unborn are going to suffer
the fate of an abortion and die as a result of this rule.
I strongly oppose the rule, I ask the Members to defeat the rule so
that the Committee on Rules has to put back the Istook language and
then we can vote on it fair and square in this House--either you are
for it or against it--and not do it the way that the Committee on Rules
has decided to do it and not give us a chance to vote on that language.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, the Honorable Judge Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from California opened the
debate on this rule by informing the House that this is a new era in
addressing the deficit. And I have to agree with him completely. In
fact, it is a brand-new, sparking era because as recently as last
Friday I was engaged in colloquy here on the floor with the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules and the distinguished
majority leader, and they all informed me that it would be entirely out
of order, under the rule proposed for this debate, to allocate even as
much as 1 cent to deficit reduction.
So I am glad we made some progress, if it is indeed progress, here in
the House, in that in the period between last Friday and now we have
found out from the majority that they have a new interest in deficit
reduction and indeed a new era.
I sought to engage the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] in a
colloquy during his opening remarks concerning this sudden change. And
I would propose, since he would not do it on his time, to do it on my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] this
question: Do I understand that under this rule it is proper to allocate
these savings, that there will be an amendment to allocate savings to
deficit reduction?
Mr. Dreier. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I say, yes, it is the Brewster amendment which has been
made in order. That is the same as the Crapo amendment.
Mr. DOGGETT. And the Murtha amendment that I was told last Friday
would not be in order? I am glad to know that they are now in order.
Mr. DREIER. We want all these ideas to be considered.
I hope my friend, the gentleman, will support the rule now that we
have done this.
I assume my friend from Texas, Mr. Doggett, will be supporting the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Wilmette, IL [Mr. Porter], the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. It is a fair rule.
I read in the media today that several of our colleagues object to
the rule as unfair because it requires amendments to have offsets,
offsets in the same account, or subcommittee, in order to add back
funds that have been rescinded.
Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at this. In 15 years the other party never
went outside the accounts once, not once that I know of. I am amazed
that with $200 billion deficits people do not understand that our job
is not to be here to serve each special interest and fund their
program. Our job, the reason we are here, is to be responsible for the
bottom line, for governing this country and getting our financial
affairs in order. The job of appropriators and the job of every Member
in the House is to choose among competing priorities for spending, to
choose among alternatives, to bring spending under control, to reduce
the deficit and to take responsibility. The rule would require us to do
exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, it is a good rule. It requires us to look at programs
and determine if they have a national reason for being funded. We have
to look at small programs that serve narrow constituencies at a huge
expense and are expensive not only in terms of dollars, but also in
personnel, and perhaps determine that they ought to be served under
broader authorities; to look at programs and see if they might be
better done in the private sector or by State and local government
rather than by Federal Government; and, yes, to look at programs and
determine they just do not work, if that is the fact.
Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this bill does not cut
taxes. The arguments about cutting taxes are inappropriate here. I say
to my colleagues, ``When you're running $200 billion deficits, and you
cut spending by $17.5 billion, that obviously reduces the deficit.
Later, if you want to cut taxes, then you vote against doing that, as I
will, and you ensure that you continue to reduce the deficit with this
entire $17.5 billion.''
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing here.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. We only have 1 minute for him unless the
Members on the other side will be so generous as to donate time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to my
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] very much for the usual consideration we get from the
Republicans these days.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Are there any other Members over there who would like to
donate 15 seconds?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The chair recognizes the
gentleman from Massachusetts for 75 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor today
with the hope that we could have offered an amendment along with the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] that would have restored the
Federal fuel assistance. I had hoped to offer an amendment that would
have gotten drug-addicted and mentally disturbed people out of public
housing for senior citizens, and I had hoped to offer an amendment
which would have made sure that poor children are not retarded by the
time they reach school age by eating lead-based paint in their
apartments, in addition to one that would have gotten drug dealers out
of
[[Page H3181]] public housing. They were not allowed to be offered
because the Committee on Rules struck down the ability because, even
though we would have paid for every single one of those programs, the
Committee on Rules denied the Democratic Members the opportunity to
offer amendments that would have gotten the job done.
My colleagues, I ask the people of this House to defeat this rule, to
recognize that we are not allowed to offer amendments that look out for
poor, and the vulnerable, and our senior citizens in this country by
virtue of the gag rule that the Republicans have put on the Democratic
Members of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The time of the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for a response, I yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the
gentleman currently on the books there are 163 job training programs,
240 education programs, 93 early childhood programs, 46 youth
development programs. The redundancy and inefficiency of government
today in providing meaningful services for the American people is
incredible, and the American taxpayers pay for every one of them.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Tell me whether the programs work.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 3 minutes, not to the
gentleman from Massachusetts. I am yielding it to the gentleman from
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a distinguished member of the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this
democratically constructed, fair, and modified open rule.
Mr. Speaker, our first mission is to provide emergency disaster
relief to the people of California and other States. This is what we
set out to do, and I will yield to the gentleman when I am through.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I am just wondering what document the gentleman is
reading from.
Mr. GOSS. Also under this rule we allow Members to set cutting and
spending priorities and to offer further reductions in government
spending, a new idea here.
Mr. Speaker, the broader vision today is to take on another important
step toward fiscal responsibility and accountability to the American
taxpayer. That is what we promised.
I want Members to know that passing this rule will give us the
opportunity to make two crucial advances in the way we do business.
First, we will have the opportunity to vote for emergency disaster
relief. That is entirely paid for, never been done before, new idea. We
are paying for it, and at the same time we are making a major
downpayment on our pledge to the American people to cut waste, reduce
spending. That is what the vote was in November.
Last month I submitted my third annual list of spending cuts to the
Committee on Appropriations. I am pleased and gratified to see that
committee acted on several of those proposals in this package.
Included, for instance, is a $45 million rescission in the Economic
Development Commission, a $5 million rescission from the Legal Services
Corporation, a $3 million rescission from the Rural Electrification
Administration, a $5 million cut in TVA programs, along with several
more cuts in areas I and others have targeted as wasteful spending,
and, as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has just been
reading from a long catalogue of redundancies, there is more to be
done.
While we will hear some Members saying we are cutting too much
spending in some cases, I am hopeful we can go beyond what the
committees requested. I am proud to join with the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and
others in bipartisan support of an amendment to further cut the
Appalachian Regional Commission, that rescission increasing the
committee's cut of $10 million to a full $117.5 million.
Mr. Speaker, there are contentious items in this bill, including a
big cut in veterans funding, which I personally opposed, but I am
pleased I am going to have the opportunity to restore those funds by
cutting lower priority projects. That is a very fair system. My State
of Florida ranks 2d in veterans population, yet it is 34th in VA
funding, so I am confident that we are going to find the necessary
offsets in a National Service Corps to preserve funds for our much-
needed veterans clinics for Florida where they have been promised, and
they are needed and deserved.
Mr. Speaker, this bill demonstrates the progress we in the majority
have made in cutting spending. We said we would pay for all the
supplementals and reduce the deficit. We are keeping our promise. We
said that we would get specific spending on spending cuts, and we are
doing that today. I think the array of opposition shows that we are on
target, we are hitting the mark, we are excising pet projects that have
been overserved and overprovided for many years.
I urge support of this rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The minority has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining,
and the majority has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, the need for rescissions and deficit
reduction has never been greater, and I agree with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague, that it is time to step up to
the tough choices. This rule, however, does not afford Members the
opportunity to step up to a serious debate about responsible
alternative ways to cut spending.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule is arbitrary in forcing proponents
of amendments to stay within chapters of the bill, chapters which have
no more relationship to the real world than chapters from Alice in
Wonderland.
``Then you should say what you mean,'' the March Hare went on. ``I
do,'' Alice hastily replied; ``at least--at least I mean what I say--
that's the same thing, you know.''
And what do the rule's proponents say. ``It too confusing to do
otherwise.''
Do they mean what they say? Or is this patronizing statement part of
an effort to demean the independence, intelligence and integrity of
every Member of this body.
Further, we could have prevented making disaster relief a political
football where victims of disasters are pitted against some of the most
vulnerable in our society, the aged, the young and the ill-housed, and
we could have had an opportunity to delete the language preventing the
President from issuing his executive order on permanent replacement of
strikers.
I hail the last-minute addition of the deficit lock box, a concept I
co-authored and vigorously support, but I am well aware that the
majority opposed it in the Committee on Appropriations, it appears now
because without it the rule would have failed.
I urge rejection of this rule. We can do better.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
There are few issues we deal with in Congress which are as important
as our responsibility under the Constitution to exercise the power of
the purse--to decide where spending will be increased and where it will
be decreased. And that is exactly what this supplemental and rescission
bill is all about.
But this rule would very narrowly limit our ability to do our job,
which is to consider alternative places to cut spending and to increase
spending. This rule says that if we want to increase funding for a
particular program, we can do it only if we find cuts in the same
chapter of the bill. We may well prefer to make an offsetting cut in
some other chapter or some other program, but under this rule we could
not do that.
That is simply not right. We should make the offsetting cuts wherever
they make the
[[Page H3182]] most sense, not where they just happen coincidentally to
have been put in the same chapter. There are amendments which will be
offered to reduce a rescission for a particular program, and which I
would want to support, but I will not be able to do so because the
offsetting cut will be taken from a program which makes no sense to
cut. And in fact, it may make no sense to the author of the amendment
to make that particular cut, but he or she had to because that was the
program which just happened to be in the same chapter as the program
being restored. There may be other programs which would make perfect
sense to cut instead, but we would be barred under this rule from
making those more sensible spending cuts.
This is a totally arbitrary and artificial restriction on amendments
to cut spending.
The rule before us, in my opinion, is a grotesque distortion of the
principles of free and open debate that should prevail in this House.
I am not a stridently partisan Member of this House, and I have
always done my best to work amicably with Members of both sides of the
aisle.
But this rule put forward by the Republican Rules Committee, by
restricting the cuts that can be offered to only those Republicans want
to include, and protecting programs only Republicans want to protect,
literally warps the nature of the spending debate in this House.
I will vote no on this rule. If it passes, I will refuse to cooperate
with any Sophie's Choice amendment brought up under its structure and
vote present.
These are not the country's choices, and attempting to portray them
as such is a distortion of the process.
I also oppose the rule because it would protect provisions of the
bill which violate House rules against legislating in an appropriations
bill. Specifically, the bill lowers transit funding obligations
ceilings and highway obligations ceilings in ways which clearly violate
rule XXI of the House. Both Chairman Shuster and I urged the Rules
Committee not to protect these violations of House rules, and yet that
is exactly what the rule does.
Finally, I want to point out a very unfortunate provision of the
supplemental and rescission bill with respect to California and with
respect to any other State which might suffer natural disaster damage
to its highways. When a natural disaster strikes, as flooding has
struck California so severely in the past few days, damage to highways
is often a substantial part of that damage, and highways are often the
facilities which must most urgently be repaired, both for public safety
reasons and for purposes of getting the area back on its feet
economically. This bill would rescind all the emergency relief money
for highways. In fact, it would rescind more money than exists in this
program. The emergency relief fund in the highway program now has a
balance of about $300 million. This bill would rescind $351 million.
What happens if we wipe out the emergency relief account? As the
flood waters recede in California we are facing enormous amounts of
emergency repair work to reopen highways. And we are likely to face
additional flood damage further East in the coming months and hurricane
damage in the Southeastern part of the country late in the fiscal year.
If this bill is passed and wipes out the emergency relief account, the
emergency highway repair effort will have to struggle to find
unobligated balances in other highway programs from which to borrow. We
would either not get the emergency repairs done, or we would get them
done at the expense of other highway programs in other States. And we
would probably end up restoring the Federal money later anyway,
resulting in no real savings to the Federal taxpayer anyway, but
resulting in program delays in other States. This is a crazy way to try
to get highway emergency repair work done, when everybody agrees this
is work that urgently needs to be done.
The highway emergency relief rescissions in this bill are seriously
flawed, and I want Members to know that this has the potential to
create real problems in highway programs all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, we need the FEMA supplemental which is part of this
bill. But the rest of this bill is seriously flawed, and the rule for
the consideration of the bill effectively blocks our ability to correct
the flaws in the bill. I urge a no vote on the rule, and then let's
take a few days to bring forth a FEMA supplemental in a bill which
makes sense, under a new rule which makes sense.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I rise in strong opposition to this gag
rule, Mr. Speaker, and the reason why I rise in strong opposition is
because I had several amendments that will address several serious,
serious problems in this Nation, one being the summer jobs program.
I say to my colleagues: If you vote for this rule, this rule would
not allow us to address the summer jobs program. There are 1.2 million
young people that will be on the streets as a result of this rule and
as a result of this rescission packet, 14,000 young people in a time
that we need to get young people off the streets and into jobs and in a
time that we want to take young people, older people or mothers off of
welfare and put them on the payrolls. This amendment would not allow us
to keep young people working during the summer.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment further takes away all the money--this
rule will take away all the money for drug-free schools and
communities. I have an amendment that would restore that money, but I
will not be able to offer that amendment simply because this rule will
not allow that.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when young people are using more drugs in our
schools and communities, more guns in our schools and communities, we
are still taking away all the money for drug-free schools and
communities.
I offered three separate amendments to delete rescissions and restore
funding for the TRIO Program, job training programs, and for safe and
drug-free schools. Each of these amendments is not allowed under the
rule we are currently debating.
The rule calls for offsetting rescissions to be made within the same
chapter/appropriations subcommittee and within the same programs which
have already been rescinded.
Under this rule, I would have to further cut into chapter VI. This
chapter contains rescissions for programs I am committed to. I do not
wish to further cut programs within this chapter. In my opinion, we
have cut too far already. If I was going to cut I would cut further
into the foreign operations chapter. Foreign operations appropriations
were only cut $93.5 million. This accounts for only 0.5 percent of
rescinded funding; 99.5 percent of all funding cut was to domestic
programs. Of these programs $5.89 billion has already been cut from
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education programs.
Below, I list programs which I would have had to find further cuts in
to make my amendment in order under this rule. Should I have cut deeper
into the funding to keep this Nation healthy so that I could delete
rescissions for training the youth of this country to be productive
citizens and taxpayers? This is the type of decision we are faced with.
I could not cut foreign operations programs.
Chapter VI--Labor-HHS-Education--$5.89 billion has already been cut
from this chapter.
Labor: $2.3 billion cuts; of those cuts, I would have to make cuts
beyond: Training and employment, $2.285 billion; community service
employment for older Americans, $14.4 million; State unemployment
insurance and employment service, $12 million; OSHA, $16.1 million.
Health and Human Services: $1.727 billion cuts; of those cuts, I
would have to make cuts beyond: Health and human resources, $82.8
million; Centers for Disease Control, $8.9 million; National Institutes
of Health, $70 million; Health Care Financing Authority, $38.2 million;
LIHEAP--low income home energy assistance--$1.3 billion; community
services block grant, $27 million; Children and Family Services
Program--crime bill--$25.9 million; foster care and adoption
assistance, $150 million.
Education: $1.626 billion cuts; of the cuts I list below, I would
have to make cuts beyond: Education reform, $186 million; title I for
disadvantaged students, $113.3 million; impact aid, $16.3 million;
school improvement programs--construction--$746 million; crime bill,
$11.1 million; bilingual and immigrant education, $38.5 million;
vocational and adult education--tech prep and literacy--$232.4 million;
national and community service, $210 million; public broadcasting, $141
million; student financial aid, $83.4 million; higher education, $102.3
million; libraries, $34.7 million.
These are just some of the programs that I would have to cut further
to comply with the rule. This is rediculous and uncalled for. I oppose
the rule and urge Members to vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I do not remember a rule like this. I do not
remember a rule where it was preselected. The gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Andrews] is on the floor. He had a bill called A to Z that allowed
46 hours for any Member to pick any program to cut spending. But in
this rule we only have the leadership's list
[[Page H3183]] to choose from, and I say to my colleagues, If it's not
on the list, you don't get your shot.
As a matter of fact, what is that for? To protect, I suggest, the
projects they want to talk about, but not to do anything about.
My colleagues, I rise in opposition to this rule. If we pass this
rule and bill, teenagers will have fewer jobs, children will be
hungrier, older Americans will be colder, families will find housing
less available, and veterans will be less cared for.
Yes, we need to cut spending, but let us do it not on the backs of
children, veterans, and older Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
The appropriations process is inherently one of weighing priorities
and making choices.
I am willing to make those choices--to bite the bullet and make the
tough decisions that are necessary to bring our budget deficit under
control. But this rule has made a farce of that process.
First, this rule requires that, if funding is to be restored to one
program, offsets must be found in the same chapter of the bill.
I sit on two subcommittees--Treasury Postal and Labor-HHS-Ed. The
idea that we can not weigh the importance of educating and training our
children against the construction of a new building is ludicrous.
I am the ranking Democrat on Treasury Postal, but I would be the
first to say that our Nation's children are more important than that
construction. This rule prohibits us from making that judgment.
In addition, for the first time in my career in Congress, the rule
requires that offsets come solely from programs which have already been
cut at the subcommittee and full committee level.
All programs should share in the burden of necessary reductions.
Instead, the Republicans have targeted programs for children, the
elderly, and veterans for severe cuts or entire elimination--and then
guaranteed that they would be cut still further by the adoption of
these two provisions in the rule.
This rule also protects inappropriate authorizing legislation adopted
by this committee with inadequate information, without holding any
hearings, and against the strong objections of Mr. Obey, the ranking
Democratic member.
The original contract for American--the U.S. Constitution--promised
an open, informed debate by educated citizens and their elected
representatives.
This bill has been put together in haste, largely without hearings,
and with inadequate consideration of its implications. It attacks the
health, food, and education programs needed to create an active,
informed democratic society of the future.
I urge you to vote against this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Actually I have been corrected. Somebody informed me that there is
money for low-income housing in the Republican legislation. They are
building new prisons out of the crime bill, so there will be low-income
housing available.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from West Virginia
[Mr. Mollohan].
{time} 1330
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the good news in this rule and this bill
is we are funding disaster relief to California. the bad news is that
we are taking money from across the country to fund it, instead of
treating it as an emergency supplemental as we traditionally do. We are
taking money from roads in the country, to pay for road reconstruction
in California; from low-income housing across the country, to repair
housing in California.
The rule and the reason why we oppose it is it prohibits the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], who is the ranking minority member on
VA-HUD, whose subcommittee is funding $7.2 billion, one-third of this,
it prohibits him from offering an amendment to restore with offsets
some of that housing money, and prohibits the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] from trying to restore the $206 million
from veterans programs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for those reasons.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the problem here with the statement from my very dear
friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, is that once again it is
looking at the past. We no longer plan to spend dollars that we do not
offset. We are going to be responsible in dealing with even disasters
that exist.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman
from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a new member of the Committee on Rules, who
played a key role in fashioning this rule.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his
leadership on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this very fair
rule. If some here have not figured it out yet, Mr. Speaker, we find
ourselves in a new era of fiscal responsibility. Gone are the days of
wrapping up huge bills on the Federal credit card and then passing the
check on to our children and grandchildren. It is time to make the
tough choices, the tough choices for the future of this country.
Thankfully, many of us here are ready to do that. The 104th Congress
under new leadership is committed more than ever to requiring the
Federal Government to live within its means. That includes paying for
supplemental appropriations, even if they are designated emergency
spending. How novel. We pay for what we are spending.
Now, changing the culture of deficit spending is no easy task. The
American people need only look to the debate in the other body to see
how hard it was to pass the balanced budget amendment. As hard as we
worked, that effort was not successful. Even as we speak, those who
have the insatiable thirst for spending are working hard to weaken the
line-item veto legislation.
This rule provides a reasonable, orderly procedure to consider these
hard decisions in a manner that is fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, I
believe that the Committee on Appropriations has taken brave,
commendable steps to reduce the size and scope of Government and to put
us on a steady course toward providing a more secure financial future
for our children.
I urge my colleagues to support these bills and to adopt this very
fair, reasonable rule. No doubt about it, these are tough choices. But
these are tough times, and they require courage. Paint us as black as
you will, but I am proud to be a part of the new culture of fiscal
responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to join me. The alternative, the status quo, is
a sin against our children. Vote for this fair rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, hard choices? Great courage? For heavens
sakes. You know what this rule does not permit? It does not permit us
to put highway demo projects for cutting before this Congress. Oh, we
could not do that. That is in somebody's district.
It has been referred to as pork by Members of the Republican Party
ever since I have been here. But would they approve my amendment which
would have allowed the Secretary to cut out those projects? No. You
know why? They would rather take money away from children and school
lunch programs. And they ought to call time, because they made a
mistake and they can live with it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 1158.
This rule makes a mockery of the fair and open process we were promised
by the Republican majority. Under the rule approved by the Republican
majority, I will not be able to offer an amendment to correct a glaring
inequity in H.R. 1158. My amendment would have done what H.R. 1158 does
not do--cut out low priority highway demonstration projects.
Under the rule approved by the Republican majority, I will not be
able to offer an amendment which would have authorized the Secretary of
Transportation to cancel up to $400 million in unobligated funds
currently designated for highway demonstration projects in
appropriations or authorization acts. Authority to cut this low
priority spending was requested and submitted to Congress by the
President in
[[Page H3184]] his fiscal year 1995 supplemental proposals. My
amendment would have required the Secretary to target only the lowest
priority projects not yet under construction.
Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to a bill that looks first to slashing
funds for the more than 1 million seniors who live in public housing,
cutting funds for 50,000 to 100,000 pregnant mothers and infants from
the WIC program, and eliminating funds for veterans' medical care
facilities and equipment, without even considering the possibility of
cutting wasteful highway demonstration projects.
I have to ask the question why certain items were not cut. Why is the
$1.9 billion in unobligated money earmarked for over 400 highway
demonstration projects not touched in this rescission package?
According to the Federal Highway Administration, there is nearly $300
million in unobligated funds for highway demonstration projects funded
in appropriations acts, and another $1.6 billion in unobligated funds
highway demonstration projects authorized in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Act [ISTEA] that are yet not under construction. Why has
not one dime of this money been targeted for rescissions in H.R. 1158?
In these austere times when we are cutting programs for women,
children, the elderly, and veterans, I believe that we have to take
another look at these highway demonstration projects. And, when we take
a closer look, I think you will find that these are projects that have
not been requested by the President.
When we take a closer look, we find that the Department of
Transportation and the General Accounting Office have concluded that it
will take some $28 to $30 billion to complete all of the earmarked
highway demonstration projects authorized in either appropriations
bills or authorization acts.
When we take a close look we find that the Federal Government is
picking up the tab for many of these projects with the States have
deemed to be a low priority for State funds or which are not even on
State transportation improvement plans. If Congress is serious about
making cutting wasteful spending, we need look no further than this
group of projects to begin.
Mr. Speaker, if my amendment has been made in order under the rule,
my amendment would have resulted in the cancellation of earmarked
highway demonstration projects included not only in appropriations
bills, but also in ISTEA. And, with good reason. ISTEA authorized more
than $6 billion in direct spending through the use of contract
authority for 539 specially earmarked highway projects--triple the
number and four times the amount of congressional pork included in the
previous highway authorization bills.
In 1991, when ISTEA was debated on the House floor, the now
Republican majority leader had this to say:
Now what is wrong with the spending? I happen to believe we
need to spend on infrastructure where it is needed in the
public's general interest. This bill again spends first on
where it is needed in the parochial interests, in the special
interests, in the local interests, what they call pork barrel
spending.
Clearly, a big part of the problem is that back door spending on
highway demonstration projects is out of control. The appropriations
bills are scored with the outlays that result from this spending. If we
are going to rein in the pork barrel spending spree, we have to look at
the millions of dollars funneled to special highway projects through
both the appropriations and the authorization process. If Congress
won't do the job of curbing wasteful highway project spending, we ought
to give the Secretary of Transportation the tools he needs to get the
job done.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert at the end of my statement a list
of hundreds of highway demonstration projects that should be examined
before we proceed further to cut children, the elderly, veterans, and
the most disadvantaged in our society.
HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Unobligated balances]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated
State Description balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misc. Highway Trust Funds
Florida................. 17th St. Causeway Tunnel...... 3,291,616
Do.................. Biscayne Blvd/US 1 Connect 2,400,000
Port Miami to I-395.
Georgia................. Railroad-Highway Crossings 1,013,334
Demos, Augusta.
Hawaii.................. Kihel-Haleakala Highway, 4,500,000
Saddle Road.
Massachusetts........... Vehicular/Pedestrian Safety 9,017,271
Demo.
Michigan................ M-84, Bay Road-Saginaw & Bay 100,000
Counties.
Missouri................ Multi-Modal Transportation 640,000
Center, St. Louis.
Montana................. I-90 Interchange, Belgrade.... 2,000,000
New Jersey.............. Rt. 21 Viaduct, Advance 2,880,000
Property Acquisition.
Do.................. I-78 Downtown Connector/Peddle 1,504,000
St Ramp.
Do.................. Rt. 21 widening, RR/Highway 1,200,000
Bridge, Newark.
New York................ Design Improvement to Miller 1,696,000
Highway, NYC.
Do.................. Exit 26 Bridge, Schenectady... 1,280,000
Pennsylvania............ I-81, Wilkes-Barre, Exits 43- 2,880,000
46 Corridor.
South Dakota............ New Castle-Vermillion Bridge.. 3,296,000
Indiana................. SR67, I-69 to Muncie Bypass... 4,992,000
Michigan................ I-96 Bypass, Grand Rapids..... 768,000
Do.................. Maple Rd., Walled Lake........ 2,000,000
New Hampshire........... Bridge Capacity Improvements.. 7,730,028
Pennsylvania............ US 202, King of Prussia to 1,440,000
Montgomery Ville.
---------------
Subtotal.......... .............................. 54,628,249
General Funds
Arizona................. Veterans Memorial Overpass.... 1,000,000
Do.................. U.S. 93 upgrade, Kingman-Lake 1,000,000
Mead.
California.............. US 101 HOV Ianes, Marin County 500,000
Do.................. Mare Island access study...... 500,000
Do.................. I-15 widening, Victorville to 1,667,000
Barstow.
Do.................. State route 71, planning/ 1,000,000
design, Riverside Co..
Do.................. CA 113-I-5 improvements....... 500,000
Do.................. Highway 41 expansion.......... 1,000,000
Do.................. Bristol St. improvement 1,000,000
project, Santa Ana.
Do.................. US 101 congestion relief, 500,000
Sonoma County.
Do.................. CA 113 railroad grade 668,000
separation.
Do.................. State highway 58 upgrade, 500,000
Bakersfield.
Do.................. Arden Garden connector, 1,000,000
Sacramento.
Do.................. CA 138 CA 14 to 50th Street, 1,000,000
E. CA.
Do.................. CA 905 congestion mitigation 668,000
border facility.
Do.................. Highway Bypass Demo, 8,132,240
Prunedale, CA.
Connecticut............. Transportation center, Norwich 668,000
Florida................. Causeway Tunnel/Bridge........ 5,225,000
Do.................. Port of Palm Beach Intermodal 500,000
Facility.
Do.................. I-4 Greeneway Interchange, 1,000,000
Orlando.
Do.................. Fuller Warren Bridge, 5,000,000
Jacksonville.
Do.................. Airport Access road, 1,000,000
Jacksonville.
Do.................. NE Dade Bikepaths--North Miami 680,000
Do.................. NE Dade Bikepaths............. 247,564
Georgia................. Railroad-Highway Crossing 6,745,123
Demo, Augusta, GA.
Do.................. Olive Road Crossing--Augusta, 1,635,000
GA.
Do.................. State road 611 connector with 2,000,000
I-20.
Do.................. Sidney Lanier bridge, 1,850,000
Brunswick.
Hawaii.................. Kihei road, Maui.............. 2,500,000
Do.................. Saddle road................... 1,000,000
Illinois................ Springfield--Eleventh Street 549,032
Extension.
Do.................. Bridge Construction--Hillsboro 529,434
Do.................. Bridge Construction--Hillsboro 378,530
Do.................. Veterans Parkway, Springfield. 1,000,000
Do.................. Peoria-Chicago Highway........ 1,000,000
[[Page H3185]]
HIGHWAY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION--Continued
[Unobligated balances]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated
State Description balance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do.................. US67/IL267 improvements....... 800,000
Do.................. Railroad-Highway Crossings 8,330,669
Demo.
Indiana................. Rt 12 Relocation--E. Chicago 46,962
Marina.
Do.................. Indianapolis to Evansville (I- 2,120,975
69).
Do.................. SR67 from I-69 to Muncie...... 4,093,831
Iowa.................... Des Moines Inner Loop......... 1,004,675
Kansas.................. I-35 Interchange--Salina...... 2,374,400
Louisiana............... I-10/I-12 Baton Rouge bypass.. 500,000
Do.................. I-10, St. Charles Parish line 1,000,000
to Tulande Ave.
Do.................. I-10/I-610 intersection, New 10,000,000
Orleans.
Maryland................ Corridor O.................... 5,000,000
Massachusetts........... Center Street Extension....... 3,360,000
Michigan................ M-6 South beltline, Grand 1,000,000
Rapids.
Do.................. Rail consolidation project, 5,000,000
Monroe.
Do.................. M102/Grand River interchange.. 1,313,000
Minnesota............... Wabasha St Bridge replacement, 500,000
St. Paul.
Missouri................ I-255/Mo 231 intersection..... 535,000
Montana................. I-90 interchange, Belgrade.... 1,104,000
Do.................. I-90 interchange, Belgrade.... 500,000
Nebraska................ Missouri R. bridge, 2,000,000
Springfield-Niobrara (NE/SD).
Do.................. Missouri R. bridge, 2,240,000
Springfield-Niobrara (NE/SD).
Nevada.................. Pyramid interchange, I-80..... 5,500,000
Do.................. Rail Crossing Caliente........ 1,331,280
New Jersey.............. I-280 Downtown connector- 2,648,366
interim improvements.
Do.................. Route 21 widening, Newark..... 5,187,741
Do.................. Route 4 bridge replacement.... 490,400
Do.................. Highway study--Route 21 2,547,000
Viaduct.
Do.................. Highway Study--Route 208/Route 1,561,382
4 interchange.
Do.................. Highway Study Route 4/Route 17 3,511,808
interchange.
Do.................. Route 21/McCarter highway, 4,500,000
Newark.
New Mexico.............. PE Demo--Railroad Overpass in 1,363,391
Las Vegas, NM.
Do.................. US 70 frontage road, Las 1,000,000
Cruces.
New York................ Exit 26 Bridge Project, 1,700,000
Schenectady County.
Do.................. Miller Highway from 59th to 2,800,000
72nd St, Manhattan.
Do.................. Exit 26 Bridge Project, 3,600,000
Schenectady County.
Do.................. Meadowbrook State Parkway..... 3,600,000
Do.................. Mount Vernon Parking Facility. 320,000
Do.................. Grand Concourse Ave, Traffic 425,000
Impr. Bronx.
Do.................. Exit 26 Bridge Project, 3,200,000
Schenectady County.
Do.................. NY 531 extension study, Ogden- 150,000
Sweden.
Do.................. Delaware St. reconstruction, 700,000
Tonawanda.
North Carolina.......... Peace St. Thomasville......... 625,000
Do.................. US 17 bridge replacement, 3,000,000
Neuse River.
Do.................. Unity St, Thomasville......... 625,000
Ohio.................... I-680 Access Ramps Youngstown. 1,700,000
Do.................. I-680 Access Ramps Youngstown. 2,250,000
Do.................. SR 124/7, Ravenswood connector 1,336,000
Do.................. Intermodal terminal, Fearing 668,000
Blvd, Toledo.
Do.................. US 30 widening, Wooster to 2,500,000
Riceland.
Oregon.................. Columbia Gorge Highway........ 2,255,200
Pennsylvania............ Highway widening dmeonstration 1,381,840
project.
Do.................. Highway widening demonstration 32,081
project.
Do.................. Highway widening demonstration 640,000
project.
Do.................. State Route 711 Bypass, 2,965,752
Ligonier.
Do.................. US Route 202 Bypass 22
Montgomeryville & Doylestown.
Do.................. US220 Bald Eagle to Centre 27
County Line.
Do.................. PA North Philadelphia 4,640,000
Intermodal Facility.
Do.................. PA Center Avenue Extension.... 2,464,000
Do.................. US 202 King of Prussia and 400,000
Montgomeryville.
Do.................. I-81 in Vicinity of Wilkes- 2,264,577
Barre.
Do.................. State Route 711 Bypass........ 900,000
Do.................. Pier 98, Philadelphia......... 60,000
Do.................. US 15 Steam Valley-Sebring.... 1,500,000
Do.................. US 22/PA 217 bridge........... 600,000
Do.................. Blairsville Bridge............ 1,069,000
Do.................. PA 3011 Improvements, Scranton 1,000,000
Do.................. PA 14 improvements, Bradford 1,000,000
County.
Do.................. US 22, Sec. B07 reconstruction 1,000,000
South Dakota............ Missouri River Bridge, 2,000,000
Vermillion, SD-Newcastle.
Tennessee............... Old Nashville Bridge.......... 1,000,000
Texas................... TX: FM-3464 from Mines Rd to I- 1,600,000
35 in Laredo.
Do.................. Texarkana Road improvement.... 1,379,960
Do.................. 6th & 7th Sts. improvements, 500,000
Brownsville.
Utah.................... 5600 West widening in West 1,572,000
Valley City.
Do.................. 9th Crossing-Provo and E-W 5,051,474
connector from US 89-189.
Do.................. I-15 corridor improvements, 1,500,000
Salt Lake City.
Do.................. I-15/University Avenue 1,500,000
interchange.
Vermont................. Bridge Safety Repair.......... 208,871
Virginia................ Pinners point connector....... 1,000,000
Do.................. 14th Street Bridge lane 1,000,000
addition.
Washington.............. SR 305 improvement, Bainbridge 672,000
Island.
West Virginia........... Corridor D improvement 7,123,410
projects, Clarksburg to OH
line.
Do.................. Highway study--Route No. 2.... 441,228
Do.................. Mercer/McDowell Counties, 5,000,000
Route 52.
Do.................. Riverside expressway, Fairmont 4,000,000
---------------
Subtotal.......... .............................. 225,528,245
===============
Total............. .............................. 225,528,245
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS, 1991 ISTEA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF FEB. 24, 1995
[*These balances are subject to change]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount New
State and section No. Project description NHS Est const Cong. available thru obligated (*) Unoblig authorization
start dist. FY 1995 (02/24/95) Bal (02/24/95) 96-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama--1105(f)2............ Upgr E/W Corr-RT 72......... yes..... no info.. 8........ 7,544,816 5,348,224 2,196,592 4,393,184
Alabama--1107(b) 192......... Imp to Anniston E Bypass US unk..... 1995..... 3........ 6,952,000 200,000 6,752,000 4,048,000
431.
Alabama--1107(b)30........... Reconst W Tunnel Plaza Inter yes..... 1997..... 1........ 9,480,000 2,003,040 7,476,960 5,520,000
I-10 fr Va to Mobile Rv
Tunnel.
Alabama--1107(b)35........... Const 4-lane Hwy to bypass no...... 1997..... 2, 7..... 7,457,600 760,000 6,697,600 4,342,400
Mont, AL.
Alabama--1107(b)80........... Black War Rv Br-AL.......... no...... 1995..... 6, 7..... 4,044,800 2,403,316 1,641,484 2,355,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 35,479,216 10,714,580 24,764,636 20,658,784
==========================================================================================================================
Arizona--1106(b)74........... Vet Memorial Inter/Palo no...... 1996..... 2........ 1,516,800 857,280 659,520 883,200
Verde Overpass.
Arkansas--1103(b)4........... Desha Co: Study for AR-MS unk..... no info.. no info.. 505,600 0 505,600 294,400
Great River Bridge.
[[Page H3186]]
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS, 1991 ISTEA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF FEB. 24, 1995--Continued
[*These balances are subject to change]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount New
State and section No. Project description NHS Est const Cong. available thru obligated (*) Unoblig authorization
start dist. FY 1995 (02/24/95) Bal (02/24/95) 96-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas--1106(a)49.......... Imp US 65................... yes..... 1995..... 3........ 24,016,000 1,701,610 22,314,390 13,984,000
Arkansas--1106(a)51.......... Study Bypass Alternatives yes..... no info.. 3........ 1,896,000 8,000 1,888,000 1,104,000
for US 71.
Arkansas--1106(a)53.......... Const of Replace Br across no...... 1995..... 1........ 1,580,000 538,400 1,041,600 920,000
the White Rv.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 27,997,600 2,248,010 25,749,590 16,302,400
==========================================================================================================================
California--1104(b)1......... Const of HOV Lns on I-70.... yes..... no info.. 37....... 4,676,800 0 4,676,800 2,723,200
California--1104(b)10........ Const 1 Block Tunnel on Rt no...... no info.. 49....... 3,160,000 66,446 3,093,554 1,840,000
15.
California--1104(b)11........ Extend I-110................ yes..... no info.. 33....... 6,383,200 3,200,000 3,183,200 3,716,800
California--1104(b)14........ Imp 3 Grade Crossing........ no...... no info.. 3........ 1,137,600 0 1,137,600 662,400
California--1104(b)15........ Const 2 Park & Ride yes..... no info.. 3........ 4,866,400 2,032,800 2,833,600 2,833,600
Facilities for I-80.
California--1104(b)40........ HOV Lane Imp on Lawrence no...... no info.. 15....... 6,383,200 5,534,670 848,530 3,716,800
Expressway.
California--1105(f)20........ Imp on I-15 & I-40.......... yes..... 1995..... 40....... 26,914,400 3,775,792 23,138,608 21,785,600
California--1106(b)1......... Bristol Street Project...... no...... no info.. 46....... 2,591,200 1,817,600 773,600 1,508,800
California--1106(b)36........ Grade Separation Project.... no...... no info.. 37....... 4,171,200 0 3,539,200 2,428,800
California--1106(b)41........ Conduct Environmental....... no...... no info.. 50....... 632,000 632,000 312,000 368,000
California--1106(b)46........ Relocate a Portion of no...... no info.. 33....... 2,970,400 320,000 2,890,400 1,729,600
Atlantic Blvd.
California--1106(b)66........ Gr separation projects (3).. no...... no info.. 36....... 4,487,200 80,000 4,407,200 2,612,800
California--1106(b)71........ Const of Public HOV no...... 1995..... 46....... 9,353,600 1,147,469 8,206,131 5,446,400
Facilities.
California--1107(b)116....... Const of Indust Blvd........ no...... 1996..... 3........ 5,245,600 1,352,000 3,893,600 3,054,400
California--1107(b)12........ Const of A, B, & C Segments no...... no info.. 48....... 9,100,800 400,000 8,700,800 5,299,200
of St. Rt 76.
California--1107(b)61........ Widen & Reconst Bridge to yes..... 1996..... 40....... 1,137,600 0 1,137,600 662,400
Caltrans height standards.
California--1107(b)71........ Rt 156 Hollister Bypass..... no...... 1997..... 17....... 568,800 403,200 165,600 331,200
California--1107(b)72........ Rt 101...................... yes..... 1998..... 17....... 2,654,400 0 2,654,400 1,545,600
California--1107(b)82........ 1-880/Alvarado-Niles Rd yes..... 1996..... 13....... 6,004,000 0 6,004,000 3,496,000
Interchange.
California--1107(b)86........ Rt 58 Improvements.......... yes..... no info.. 20, 21... 2,970,400 4,700,000 -1,729,600 1,729,600
California--1107(b)87........ Norwalk Blvd grade no...... no info.. 34....... 2,970,400 0 2,970,400 1,729,600
separation.
California--1108(b)15........ Const of a Multi-Modal no...... 1997..... 29....... 5,624,800 1,502,000 4,122,800 3,275,200
Transit Parkway.
California--1108(b)21........ Upgrade Rt 87 fr 4 to 6 no...... 1996..... 16....... 9,353,600 0 9,353,600 5,446,400
lanes.
California--1108(b)30........ Extend rice Rd, Widen no...... 1996..... 23....... 5,624,800 320,000 5,304,800 3,275,200
Hueneme Rd & Cons Rt 1.
California--1108(b)31........ Imp Ground Access........... no...... no info.. 36....... 5,656,400 0 5,656,400 3,293,600
California--1108(b)36 Ave P8 Improvements......... no...... 1996..... 25....... 2,275,200 0 2,275,200 1,324,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 136,914,000 27,283,977 109,550,023 85,836,000
==========================================================================================================================
Colorado--1106(a)60.......... Upgrade Fram to Market Rd... no...... no info.. 3........ 1,832,800 1,299,200 533,600 1,067,200
Connecticut 1108(b)9......... Imp of Hwy and Transit yes..... 1995..... 3........ 6,383,200 1,839,070 4,544,130 3,716,800
Projects.
DC--1104(b)6................. Primary Intermodal System... no...... no info.. DC....... 4,297,600 0 4,297,600 2,502,400
DC--1106(b)10................ Boundary Street Safety...... no...... no info.. DC....... 4,297,600 0 4,297,600 2,502,400
DC--1106(b)70................ SE/SW & Anacostia Freeways.. yes..... no info.. DC....... 2,970,400 84,000 2,886,400 1,729,600
DC--1107(b)98................ Hybrid Fuel Cell............ unk..... no info.. DC....... 2,275,200 0 2,275,200 1,324,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 13,840,800 84,000 13,756,800 8,059,200
==========================================================================================================================
Florida--1103(b)12........... 17th St Causeway, Tunnel/ no...... 1997..... 16, 17... 8,595,200 1,185,003 7,410,197 5,004,800
Bridge, FT. Lauderdale.
Florida--1104(b)30........... Broward Co, Hallandale no...... no inf... 16, 17... 5,372,000 0 5,372,00 3,128,000
Bridge.
Florida--1106(a)28........... Chattachouchee: Mosquito no...... no inf... 02....... 1,516,800 0 1,516,800 883,200
Creek Bridge.
Florida--1106(a)29........... Upgrade SR-71, Rt 10-Rt 8... no...... 1997..... 02....... 1,832,800 407,638 1,425,162 1,067,200
Florida--1106(a)30........... Upgrade SR-267.............. no...... no info.. 02....... 2,970,400 0 2,970,400 1,729,600
Florida--1106(a)55........... Brevard Co, Engineering no...... 1997..... 11....... 101,120 13,600 87,520 58,880
Improv. SR-3.
Florida--1106(b)42........... Sarasota: Interchange at US yes..... no inf... 13....... 1,516,800 593,323 923,477 883,200
301 & Univ PKY.
Florida--1107(b)196.......... Orlando, ROW acquisition.... unk..... no info.. 05, 11... 61,620,000 0 61,620,000 35,880,000
Florida--1107(b)28........... Brevard Co, Bridge SR 3 over no...... 1995..... 11....... 4,360,800 0 4,360,800 2,539,200
Barge Canal.
Florida--1107(b)43........... Hillsborough: I-4 from Tampa yes..... 1995..... 07, 09... 15,484,000 9,987,252 5,496,748 9,016,000
to Co line.
Florida--1108(b)16........... Jacksonville: I-295 yes..... no info.. 03, 04... 4,487,200 0 4,487,200 2,612,800
Interchange and access road.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 107,857,120 12,186,816 95,670,304 62,802,880
==========================================================================================================================
Georgia--1105(f)2............ Upgrade East-West Corridor yes..... no info.. 7........ 3,531,616 433,047 3,098,569 2,056,394
along route 72.
Georgia--1106(b)4............ Atlanta: Martin Luther King no...... 1995..... 5........ 505,600 0 505,600 294,400
Dr..
Georgia--1106(b)72........... Atlanta: I-20 Interchange at yes..... 1996..... 11....... 7,078,400 128,000 6,950,400 4,121,600
Lithonia Indust Blvd.
Georgia--1107(b)202.......... Hwy improvements............ unk..... no info.. no info.. 17,064,000 200,000 16,864,000 9,936,000
Georgia--1108(b)48........... Augusta: RR overpass at 15th unk..... 2000..... 11....... 3,728,800 158,400 3,570,400 2,171,200
and Greene Sts..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 31,908,416 919,447 30,988,969 18,579,584
==========================================================================================================================
Hawaii--1107(b)203........... Hwy improvements............ unk..... no info.. 02....... 3,792,000 0 3,792,000 2,208,000
Idaho--1104(b)31............. Bannock & Caribou Co.'s Hwy yes..... 1998..... 02....... 6,383,200 160,000 6,223,200 3,716,800
Improv.
Idaho--1107(b)190............ Lewiston: New Road along unk..... 1997..... 01....... 2,464,800 0 2,464,800 1,435,200
FAU73444 in Bryden Canyon.
Idaho--1107(b)191............ Bear Lake Co: US-89 from unk..... 1996..... 02....... 11,692,000 1,334,383 10,357,617 6,808,000
Montpelier to Geneva.
Idaho--1107(b)60............. Bryden Co: Improve road WA no...... 1997..... 01....... 3,349,600 480,000 2,869,600 1,950,400
State line to Lewiston.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 23,889,600 1,974,383 21,915,217 13,910,400
==========================================================================================================================
Illinois--1104(b)19.......... Fox River Valley: 8 bridges. unk..... 1999..... 14....... 5,245,600 1,657,512 3,588,088 3,054,400
Illinois--1104(b)4........... East St Louis: Bridge Study. yes..... 1999..... 12....... 884,800 437,424 447,376 515,200
Illinois--11-7(a)1-.......... Study: Hwy 67 Alton to yes..... 1999..... 18....... 1,580,000 385,744 1,194,256 920,000
Jacksonville.
Illinois--1106(a)31.......... East Louis to Carbondale yes..... 1999..... 12....... 202,240 143,360 58,880 117,760
Tollway Feasibility Sty.
Illinois--1106(a)32.......... Mt. Vernon: 34th St Ext..... no...... 1997..... 20....... 606,720 85,596 521,124 353,280
Illinois--1106(a)33.......... Feather Trail Road, Pulaski no...... no info.. no info.. 695,200 85,285 609,915 404,800
Co.
Illinois--1106(a)34.......... Resurface SR 1: Cave-In-Rock yes..... 1999..... 19....... 1,137,600 0 1,137,600 662,400
to north of Omaha.
Illinois--1106(a)36.......... Saline Co: Improve Rt 13.... yes..... 1997..... 19....... 2,528,000 0 2,528,000 1,472,000
Illinois--1106(a)65.......... W. Central: Widen US 34..... yes..... 1997..... 17....... 1,200,800 0 1,200,800 699,200
Illinois--1106(a)66.......... Bridge on US67 in NW IL..... yes..... 1996..... 17....... 1,516,800 0 1,516,800 883,200
Illinois--1106(a)9........... East St Louis: Study Access no...... 1999..... 12....... 151,680 0 151,680 83,320
Rd to Jeff Mem Park.
Illinois--1106(b)14.......... Chicago: Various............ unk..... 1995..... 1........ 2,338,400 204,367 2,134,033 1,361,600
Illinois--1106(b)17.......... Harvey: IL 1 interchange.... yes..... 1996..... 14....... 1,580,000 0 1,580,000 920,000
Illinois--1106(b)18.......... Markham: Sibley Blvd........ no...... 1997..... 2........ 2,212,000 0 2,212,000 1,288,000
Illinois--1106(b)19.......... Chicago: IL 1 at 155th St... unk..... 1996..... 2........ 884,800 76,000 808,800 515,200
Illinois--1106(b)2........... Metro East/St Louis MO no...... no info.. 12....... 632,000 0 632,000 368,000
Bridge Study.
Illinois--1106(b)52.......... Chicago: Eisenhower & unk..... 1999..... no info.. 3,033,600 0 3,033,600 1,766,400
Stevenson Connector.
Illinois--1106(b)53.......... Chicago: Museum of Science unk..... 1997..... 1........ 22,120,000 2,840,000 19,280,000 12,880,000
and Industry.
Illinois--1106(b)54.......... Chicago: Skyway Bridge...... unk..... no info.. 1........ 8,974,400 74,222 8,900,178 5,225,600
Illinois--1106(b)55.......... Chicago: Cermak Rd Bridge... no...... 1996..... 1........ 5,814,400 488,927 5,325,473 3,385,600
Illinois--1106(b)57.......... Chicago: Cicero Ave......... yes..... 1997..... 2........ 695,200 0 695,200 404,800
Illinois--1106(b)58.......... Chicago: 183rd St Reconstr.. no...... 1997..... 2........ 948,000 0 948,000 552,000
Illinois--1106(b)59.......... Chicago: 111th St Reconstr.. no...... 1996..... 3........ 1,580,000 337,411 1,242,589 920,000
Illinois--1106(b)6........... Chicago: Study for road..... unk..... no info.. 1........ 101,120 0 101,120 58,880
Illinois--1106(b)60.......... Chicago: 111th St Upgrade... no...... 1995..... 14....... 1,580,000 236,000 1,344,000 920,000
Illinois--1106(b)61.......... Chicago: 111th St. Widen.... no...... 1996..... 3........ 2,970,400 862,990 2,107,410 1,729,600
Illinois--1106(a)56.......... Chicago: Roosevelt Rd and no...... no info.. 1........ 8,974,400 4,861,264 4,113,136 5,225,600
Bridge (56) Improv.
Illinois--1106(b)16.......... Calumet Park Ashland Ave no...... 1997..... 3........ 1,327,200 196,844 1,130,356 772,800
Bridge.
Illinois--1107(b)102......... IL 17: Splear Rd to Rt 1.... yes..... 1996..... 15....... 1,137,600 0 1,137,600 662,400
Illinois--1107(b)104......... Ford Co: Replace 1.6 US 24.. yes..... 1997..... 15....... 1,137,600 0 1,137,600 662,400
Illinois--1107(b)105......... Watseka: US 24: Crescent yes..... 1996..... 15....... 1,580,000 324,795 1,255,205 920,000
City to IL 1.
Illinois--1107(b)106......... Replace Emington Spur Rd.... no...... 1996..... 15....... 410,800 0 410,800 239,200
Illinois--1107(b)107......... Improve New Lenox Rd........ unk..... 1997..... 11....... 1,580,000 176,016 1,403,984 920,000
Illinois--1107(b)108......... Improve Shorewood Roadway... unk..... 1996..... 11....... 821,600 0 821,600 478,400
[[Page H3187]]
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS, 1991 ISTEA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF FEB. 24, 1995--Continued
[*These balances are subject to change]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount New
State and section No. Project description NHS Est const Cong. available thru obligated (*) Unoblig authorization
start dist. FY 1995 (02/24/95) Bal (02/24/95) 96-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois--1107(b)11.......... Chicago: Computer Mgt System no...... no info.. 1........ 2,717,600 1,926,400 791,200 1,582,400
Illinois--1107(b)120......... Frankfort Twp: Improve Sts.. no...... 1996..... 11....... 632,000 34,778 597,222 368,000
Illinois--1107(b)121......... Matteson: I-57 Bridge....... no...... 1996..... 2........ 2,275,200 396,723 1,878,477 1,324,800
Illinois--1107(b)122......... US 150/IL 1 Belgium to South yes..... 1996..... 15....... 2,401,600 0 2,401,600 1,398,400
of Westville.
Illinois--1107(b)123......... US 45: Savoy to Tolono...... no...... 1995..... 15....... 3,539,200 0 3,539,200 2,060,800
Illinois--1107(b)16.......... Frankfort: Road Improvemts.. no...... 1997..... 11....... 821,600 79,440 742,160 478,400
Illinois--1107(b)17.......... Plainfield: EJ&E Viaduct.... yes..... 1997..... 13....... 632,000 0 632,000 368,000
Illinois--1107(b)32.......... Galina: EIS on US 20........ yes..... no info.. 16....... 1,264,000 528,000 736,000 736,000
Illinois--1107(b)38.......... Mendon to West Point Rd: Hwy no...... 1997..... 17....... 3,160,000 1,694,212 1,465,788 1,840,000
336.
Illinois--1107(b)66.......... Jacksonville Bypass......... yes..... 1997..... 18....... 9,985,600 527,153 9,458,447 5,814,400
Illinois--1107(b)95.......... DuQuoin Hwy Bridge.......... yes..... 1996..... 12....... 1,643,200 291,834 1,351,366 956,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 117,254,960 18,952,297 98,302,663 68,275,040
==========================================================================================================================
Indiana--1104(b)35........... Merrillville: Road & unk..... 2000..... 1........ 1,137,600 186,724 950,876 662,400
Overpass Construction.
Indiana--1105(f)26........... Improve Bloomington to yes..... no info.. 7, 8, 10. 14,978,400 14,978,000 400 8,721,600
Newberry segment.
Indiana--1106(b)22........... ROW Acquisition--West Lake unk..... 1995..... 1........ 632,000 195,640 436,360 368,000
Corridor.
Indiana--1106(b)24........... Hobart, Lake Station & New unk..... 2000..... 1........ 2,717,600 416,320 2,301,280 1,582,400
Chicago.
Indiana--1106(b)62........... Muncie: SR 67 Widening...... no...... no info.. 2........ 6,320,000 0 6,320,000 3,680,000
Indiana--1107(b)97........... East Chicago Marinal Access unk..... no info.. 1........ 5,372,000 2,403,142 2,968,858 3,128,000
Rd.
Indiana--1108(b)45........... Gary: US 12/20 to Lake...... unk..... 1997..... 1........ 1,390,400 80,000 1,310,400 809,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 32,548,000 18,259,826 14,288,174 18,952,000
==========================================================================================================================
Iowa--1106(a)108............. Mason City Bypass........... yes..... 1996..... 2........ 9,353,600 3,397,850 5,955,750 5,446,400
Iowa--1107(b)62.............. Freemont Co: Hwy 2.......... no...... no info.. 4........ 5,498,400 0 5,498,400 3,201,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 14,852,000 3,397,850 11,454,150 8,648,000
==========================================================================================================================
Kansas--1104(b)29............ West Leavenworth Trafficway. no...... 1997..... 2........ 5,435,200 729,600 4,705,600 3,164,800
Kansas--1106(a)21............ Lake Porter & LaPort Cos.... yes..... 1996..... 2........ 8,279,200 1,140,800 7,138,400 4,820,800
Kansas--1107(b)044........... Wichita: Interchange at yes..... 1997..... 4........ 4,171,200 4,171,200 1,214,400 3,643,200
Oliver St.
Kansas--1107(b)154........... Widen US Rt 81.............. unk..... 1995..... 1........ 4,424,000 2,942,432 1,481,568 2,576,000
Kansas--1107(b)155........... Hutchinson Bypass........... unk..... 2000..... 1........ 15,420,800 2,303,000 13,117,800 8,979,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 37,730,400 11,287,032 27,657,768 23,184,000
==========================================================================================================================
Kentucky--1104(b)39.......... Louisville: Waterfront Dev. no...... no info.. 3........ 2,970,400 240,000 2,730,400 1,729,600
Roadway.
Kentucky--1106(a)98.......... Sount Central: Hwy 92 Study. no...... no info.. 5........ 63,200 26,400 18,400 36,800
Kentucky--1106(a)99.......... Improve US 27, Jessamine.... no...... 1995..... 6........ 5,814,400 0 5,814,400 3,385,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 8,848,000 266,400 8,563,200 5,152,000
==========================================================================================================================
Louisiana--1105(f)21......... North-South Corridor State yes..... 1998..... 4, 5..... 18,707,200 4,000 18,703,200 10,892,800
line to Shreveport.
Louisiana--1106(a)113........ Replace Louisa Bridge....... no...... 1998..... 3........ 6,004,000 532,368 5,471,632 3,496,000
Louisiana--1106(a)17......... Lake Charles: Access to Rose no...... 1996..... 7........ 2,591,200 55,299 2,535,901 1,508,800
Bluff Industrial Area.
Louisiana--1106(a)18......... Ambassador Caffery Parkway.. no...... 1997..... 4, 7..... 9,416,800 68,000 9,348,800 5,483,200
Louisiana--1106(a)56......... Baker: New Road Constr...... no...... 1996..... 1, 4, 6.. 1,074,400 80,000 994,400 625,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 37,793,600 739,667 37,053,933 22,006,400
==========================================================================================================================
Maine--1104(b)44............. Bath-Woolwich: Carlton unk..... 1997..... 01....... 6,320,000 2,640,000 1,840,000 3,680,000
Bridge.
==========================================================================================================================
Maryland--1107(b)4........... Hartford Co: S Hampton Rd no...... 1996..... 02....... 632,000 0 632,000 368,000
Brg.
Maryland--1107(b)6........... Hartford Co: Watervale Brg.. no...... 1995..... 02....... 695,200 0 695,200 404,800
Maryland--1107(b)7........... Baltimore Co: Papermill Rd no...... 1996..... 02....... 3,349,600 0 3,349,600 1,950,400
Brg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 4,676,800 0 4,676,800 2,723,200
==========================================================================================================================
Massachusetts--1104(b)22..... Boston: Bike & Ped Path..... unk..... 2000..... 8........ 758,400 0 758,400 441,600
Massachusetts--1106(b)30..... Lawrence: I-495 Improve..... yes..... 1996..... 5........ 2,970,400 0 2,970,400 1,729,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 3,728,800 0 3,728,800 2,171,200
==========================================================================================================================
Michigan--1104(b)32.......... Vienna Twp: I-75/M57........ yes..... 1995..... 5........ 5,624,800 132,000 5,492,800 3,275,200
Michigan--1106(a)43.......... Ottawa: US 131 St Joseph Co. yes..... 1999..... 6........ 316,000 0 316,000 184,000
Michigan--1106(a)45.......... US 131 Holland, Ottawa Co... yes..... 1999..... 2........ 821,600 379,608 441,992 478,400
Michigan--1107(b)112......... US 131 Cadillac to Manton To unk..... 1996..... 2........ 2,654,400 0 2,654,400 1,545,600
Traverse City.
Michigan--1107(b)47.......... Grand Rapids: Connect I-96/I- yes..... 1999..... 2,3...... 4,360,800 1,821,600 1,269,600 2,539,200
196.
Michigan--1107(b)54.......... Flint: Construct, Improve no...... 1995..... 9........ 316,000 0 316,000 184,000
and widened of 5-land
Roadway.
Michigan--1107(b)55.......... Flint: 5-lane Roadway yes..... 1995..... 9........ 568,800 0 568,800 331,200
Construction.
Michigan--1107(b)89.......... Traverse City Bypass........ no...... 1999..... 1........ 2,844,000 0 2,844,000 1,656,000
Michigan--1108(b)8........... Road under Detroit City no...... 1997..... 14....... 2,717,600 0 2,717,600 1,582,400
Airport runway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 20,224,000 2,333,208 16,621,192 11,776,000
==========================================================================================================================
Minnesota--1105(f)22......... Ave of the Saints, St. Paul yes..... 1995..... 1........ 7,457,600 352,597 7,105,003 4,342,400
to St. Louis.
Minnesota--1106(a)88......... Improve Mankato South Rt.... no...... 1995..... 2........ 6,320,000 665,528 5,654,472 3,680,000
Minnesota--1106(a)91......... Eden Praire/Cologne: Twin yes..... 1995..... 3........ 5,498,400 380,000 5,118,400 3,201,600
Cities Corridor.
Minnesota--1107(b)128........ Hwy 53 Twig to Hwy 37....... unk..... 1995..... 8........ 6,004,000 1,699,628 4,304,372 3,496,000
Minnesota--1107(b)129........ Hwy 169 Grand Rapids to High unk..... 1995..... 8........ 5,688,000 144,000 5,544,000 3,312,000
City.
Minnesota--1107(b)130........ Hwy 61 Schoeder to Grand unk..... 1995..... 8........ 11,376,000 288,000 11,088,000 6,624,000
Marais.
Minnesota--1107(b)133........ Hruck Hwy 37 & Hughes Rd.... unk..... 1995..... 8........ 316,000 8,000 308,000 184,000
Minnesota--1107(b)159........ Nicollet Co: C.A.S.H. 41.... unk..... 1995..... 2........ 1,896,000 299,766 1,596,234 1,104,000
Minnesota--1107(b)81......... Brooklyn Park: Hwy 610...... unk..... 1997..... 3........ 22,752,000 590,072 22,161,928 13,248,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 67,308,000 4,427,591 62,880,409 39,192,000
==========================================================================================================================
Mississippi--1104(b)28....... Rankin Co: East-Metro Center no...... no info.. 3........ 2,907,200 356,646 2,550,554 1,692,800
Access Road.
Mississippi--1106(a)26....... Natchez: Upgrade Hwy 61..... yes..... no info.. 4........ 221,200 0 221,200 128,800
Mississippi--1107(b)85....... Pascagoula: Improve US 90... no...... no info.. 5........ 2,717,600 333,386 2,384,214 1,582,400
Mississippi--1108(b)34....... I-20 at Pirate Cove Rd...... yes..... no info.. 2........ 2,148,800 263,608 1,885,192 1,251,200
Mississippi--1108(b)35....... Jackson Airport Connectors.. no...... no info.. 3........ 1,959,200 0 1,959,200 1,140,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 9,954,000 953,640 9,000,360 5,796,000
==========================================================================================================================
Missouri--1104(b)5........... Lindbergh Blvd and I-70 St yes..... no info.. no info.. 9,353,600 0 9,353,600 5,446,400
Louis Lambert Airport.
Missouri--1105(f)22.......... Improve Ave of Saints St yes..... no info.. 9........ 20,270,136 0 20,270,136 11,802,864
Paul to St Louis.
Missouri--1105(f)3........... Improve North-South Corridor unk..... 1995..... 7........ 2,275,200 1,612,800 662,400 1,324,800
along Hwy 71.
Missouri--1107(b)40.......... Jefferson Co: Widen I-55.... yes..... 2003..... 3........ 3,223,200 0 3,223,200 1,876,800
Missouri--1108(b)27.......... St Louis: Construct no...... no info.. no info.. 3,728,800 0 3,728,800 2,171,200
multimodal transp. facility.
Misssouri--1108(b)42......... Kansas City: South River- unk..... no info.. no info.. 8,026,400 0 8,026,400 4,673,600
front Expressway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 46,877,336 1,612,800 45,264,536 27,295,664
==========================================================================================================================
Montana--1107(b)0194......... Billings: Construct Shilo-90 unk..... 1997..... 1........ 6,952,000 568,388 6,383,612 4,048,000
Montana--1107(b)0195......... Missoula: Construct Missoula unk..... 1997..... 1........ 4,424,000 542,127 3,881,873 2,576,000
Airport/1-90.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H3188]]
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS, 1991 ISTEA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF FEB. 24, 1995--Continued
[*These balances are subject to change]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount New
State and section No. Project description NHS Est const Cong. available thru obligated (*) Unoblig authorization
start dist. FY 1995 (02/24/95) Bal (02/24/95) 96-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 11,376,000 1,110,515 10,265,485 6,624,000
==========================================================================================================================
Nebraska--1105(f)17.......... Improve Heartland Expressway yes..... 1995..... 3........ 9,353,600 560,000 8,793,600 5,446,400
Nebraska--1106(b)39.......... Omaha: Improve US6.......... yes..... 1997..... 1........ 3,286,400 1,372,800 1,913,600 1,913,600
Nebraska--1107(b)50.......... Springfield: Missouri River no...... 1996..... 3........ 2,970,400 0 2,970,400 1,729,600
Bridge Construct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 15,610,400 1,932,800 13,677,600 9,089,600
==========================================================================================================================
Nevada--1104(b)9............. Las Vegas: Spaghetti Bowl/ yes..... 1995..... 1........ 28,440,000 16,697,491 11,742,509 16,560,000
US95 & I15.
Nevada--1105(f)20............ Improve I-15 & I-40 in CA, yes..... 1995..... 1........ 10,500,000 3,616,000 6,884,000 0
AZ, NV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 38,940,000 20,313,491 18,626,509 16,560,000
==========================================================================================================================
New Jersey--1103(b)7......... Ocean City-Longport Bridge.. no...... no info.. 02....... 11,628,800 513,637 11,115,163 6,771,200
New Jersey--1106(b)34........ Middlesex: Widen Rt 1....... yes..... 1996..... 6,7,13... 4,676,800 4,593,746 83,054 2,723,200
New Jersey--1106(b)35........ Perth Amboy & Woodbridge yes..... no info.. 06....... 1,580,000 343,557 1,236,443 920,000
Twps: Study River Crossings.
New Jersey--1106(b)37........ Parsippany, Troy Hills: yes..... no info.. 11....... 1,959,200 432,704 1,526,496 1,140,800
Improve I-280.
New Jersey--1107(b)125....... Paulsboro: New bridge....... no...... no info.. 01....... 1,706,400 0 1,706,400 993,600
New Jersey--1107(b)73........ Rt 21 Viaduct ``NJ Transit no...... 1999..... 10....... 9,353,600 6,198,608 3,154,992 5,446,400
Br'' Acquisition.
New Jersey--1107(b)74........ Widen Rt 21-Newark.......... no...... 1996..... 10....... 8,784,800 0 8,784,800 5,115,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 39,689,600 12,082,252 27,607,348 23,110,400
==========================================================================================================================
New Mexico--1106(a)93........ Clayton: Raton-Clayton Road. no...... 1995..... 3........ 5,877,600 619,910 5,257,690 3,422,400
==========================================================================================================================
New York--1104(b)07.......... Buffalo: Peace Bridge truck no...... 1998..... 29....... 12,324,000 2,773,000 9,551,000 7,176,000
inspection facility.
New York--1106(b)48.......... Long Is: Southern State Pkwy yes..... 1998..... 1,2...... 2,907,200 0 2,907,200 1,692,800
New York--1104(b)18.......... Long Island: Van Wyck yes..... 1996..... 10,12.... 2,275,200 0 2,275,200 1,324,800
Expressway.
New York--1104(b)38.......... New York: Williamsburg to yes..... no info.. 8,12..... 2,275,200 0 2,275,200 1,324,800
Holland Tunnel Bypass.
New York--1106(a)4........... Oneida: Upgrade Hwy......... no...... 1996..... 23....... 5,056,000 1,428,800 3,627,200 2,944,000
New York--1106(a)70.......... Wayne Co: Improve Rt 104.... yes..... 1997..... 27....... 4,044,800 0 4,044,800 2,355,200
New York--1106(a)9........... New York: Miller Hwy........ yes..... 2001..... 8, 15.... 9,859,200 4,440,398 5,418,802 5,740,800
New York--1106(b)49.......... Schenectady: Exit 23 Bridge. no...... 1995..... 21....... 3,602,400 0 3,602,400 2,097,600
New York--1106(b)73.......... Buffalo: Southtowns no...... 1999..... 30....... 5,372,000 1,008,000 4,364,000 3,128,000
Connector.
New York--1107(b)163......... New York: Ferry landing..... unk..... 1996..... 8........ 1,264,000 0 1,264,000 736,000
New York--1107(b)164......... New York: Foley Square...... unk..... no info.. 8........ 3,318,000 0 3,318,000 1,932,000
New York--1107(b)165......... New York: FDR Drive......... unk..... no info.. 15,14.... 6,320,000 6,320,000 4,480,000 3,680,000
New York--1107(b)200......... Binghamton: Study rehab of S unk..... no info.. 26....... 316,000 158,400 157,600 184,000
Wash. St Brg.
New York--1107(b)59.......... Amherst & Erie Cos: Rt263 & yes..... 1996..... 27....... 4,803,200 1,269,414 3,533,786 2,796,800
Rt78.
New York--1108(b)12.......... Buffalo River/Gateway Tunnel no...... 1999..... 30....... 12,766,400 1,560,000 11,206,400 7,433,600
New York--1108(b)28.......... Orange & Rockland: Park & no...... 1997..... 20....... 2,970,400 392,000 2,578,400 1,729,600
Ride.
New York--1108(b)32.......... Intermodal Facility at Mt. no...... no info.. 19....... 4,487,200 0 4,487,200 2,612,800
Vemon Rail Station.
New York--1108(b)33.......... Orange Co: Stuart Airport yes..... 1997..... 19....... 9,922,400 2,992,000 6,930,400 5,777,600
Interchange Proj..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 93,883,600 22,342,012 76,021,588 54,666,400
==========================================================================================================================
North Carolina--1106(a)100... U-2519/X-2 Hwys Cumberland.. yes..... 1996..... 1,7,8.... 10,048,800 7,123,200 2,925,600 5,851,200
==========================================================================================================================
North Dakota--1104(b)12...... Bypass around Lincoln State no...... 1996..... 1........ 695,200 496,000 199,200 404,800
Park.
North Dakota--1107(b)171..... Grading & surfacing-Richland unk..... 1995..... 1........ 379,200 637,600 -258,400 220,800
Co..
North Dakota--1107(b)183..... Lincoln State Park-Morton unk..... 1996..... 1........ 2,022,400 80,000 1,942,400 1,177,600
Co..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 3,096,800 1,213,600 1,883,200 1,803,200
==========================================================================================================================
N. Hampshire--1106(a)38...... Ledyard Bridge no...... no info.. 2........ 4,929,600 774,827 4,154,773 2,870,400
reconstruction.
N. Hampshire--1104(b)8....... Nashua River Bridge......... no...... no info.. 2........ 758,400 0 758,400 441,600
N. Hampshire--1107(b)153..... Congrestion relief North unk..... no info.. 1........ 3,981,600 1,700,000 2,281,600 2,318,400
Conway.
N. Hampshire--1106(a)47...... Manchester Airport Rd. yes..... no info.. 1........ 2,528,000 370,600 2,157,400 1,472,000
Improvement.
N. Hampshire--1106(a)37...... Replacement of Winchester no...... no info.. 2........ 505,600 160,000 345,600 294,400
Bridge.
N. Hampshire--1107(b)152..... Study corridor Rte. 16...... unk..... no info.. no info.. 1,264,000 896,000 368,000 736,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 13,967,200 3,901,427 10,065,773 8,132,800
==========================================================================================================================
Ohio--1104(b)21.............. Toledo--study 6 corridors... no...... no info.. 9........ 151,680 0 151,680 88,320
Ohio--1104(b)41.............. Dayton-Bicycle/ped facility. no...... 1997..... 17....... 1,896,000 0 1,896,000 1,104,000
Ohio--1106(a)1............... Improvements Short Creek Hwy no...... no info.. 18....... 1,580,000 0 1,580,000 920,000
Ohio--1106(a)19.............. Rt. 68 Bypass--Clark, yes..... 1999..... 7........ 9,985,600 0 9,985,600 5,814,400
Champaign and Logan
Counties.
Ohio--1106(a)40.............. Belmont St. Bridge no...... 1998..... 17....... 758,400 0 758,400 441,600
replacement.
Ohio--1106(a)41.............. Bridge St. Bridge no...... 1997..... 17....... 758,400 0 758,400 441,600
replacement.
Ohio--1106(a)42.............. Niles: Belmont St. Bridge... no...... 1999..... 17....... 1,580,000 800,000 780,000 920,000
Ohio--1106(a)64.............. Const. interchgs rt.615 at 1- yes..... 1996..... 19....... 2,970,400 0 2,970,400 1,729,600
90.
Ohio--1106(a)92.............. Rt 30 Ext: E. Canton/Minerva yes..... no info.. 16....... 3,349,600 5,300,000 -1,950,400 1,950,400
Ohio--1106(b)20.............. Center St. Bridge unk..... 1999..... 17....... 7,710,400 0 7,710,400 4,489,600
replacement.
Ohio--1107(b)(1)............. Cadiz to Clairsville-US 250. yes..... 1998..... 18....... 12,640,000 0 12,640,000 7,360,000
Ohio--1107(b)197............. Design & const. I-280 Bridge unk..... 1997..... 9........ 23,384,000 0 23,384,000 13,616,000
Ohio--1107(b)65.............. US 68 Ohio River Bridge..... no...... 1995..... 2........ 9,796,000 0 9,796,000 5,704,000
Ohio--1107(b)70.............. Brook Park: Access Rd....... no...... no info.. 19....... 8,974,400 0 8,974,400 5,225,600
Ohio--1107(b)78.............. Akron: Kelly Ave. extension. no...... 1999..... 14....... 6,004,000 800,000 5,204,000 3,496,000
Ohio--1107(b)99.............. Rehab. Bridge on US 224..... no...... 1999..... 17....... 632,000 250,000 382,000 368,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--.................. ............................ ........ ......... ......... 92,170,880 7,130,000 85,020,880 53,669,120
==========================================================================================================================
Oklahoma--1103(b)1........... Bridge on Rt. 59, Delaware.. no...... 1997..... 2........ 6,130,400 0 6,130,400 3,569,600
Oklahoma--1107(b)9........... Tulsa-Upgrade US 75......... yes..... 1997..... 1........ 8,848,000 6,272,000 2,576,000 5,152,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--.................. ............................ ........ ......... ......... 14,978,400 6,272,000 8,706,400 8,721,600
==========================================================================================================================
Oregon--1103(b)2............. Ferry St. Bridge, Eugene.... yes..... 1998..... 4........ 14,978,400 0 14,978,400 8,721,600
Oregon--1108(b)43............ Columbia Slough Bridge...... no...... 1996..... 3........ 1,327,200 144,000 1,183,200 772,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total--.................. ............................ ........ ......... ......... 16,305,600 144,000 16,161,600 9,494,400
==========================================================================================================================
Pennsylvania--1103 (b)3...... Aliquippa Ambridge Bridge no...... 1997..... 4........ 15,800,000 0 15,800,000 9,200,000
Beaver County.
Pennsylvania--1104(b)2....... Pratt Terminal Bridge, I-95, no...... 1998..... 3........ 21,804,000 0 21,804,000 12,696,000
Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania--1104(b)26...... Improve Towanda Township.... yes..... 1997..... 10....... 5,561,600 0 5,561,600 3,238,400
Pennsylvania--1105(f)1....... US 220 High Priority yes..... 1995..... 5........ 32,042,400 1,760,000 30,282,400 18,657,600
COrridor.
Pennsylvania--1105(f)6....... US 220-Bald Eagle to US 322. yes..... 1996..... 5,9...... 93,536,000 4,560,000 88,976,000 54,464,000
Pennsylvania--1106(a)106..... US 222 reconstr. Berks Co... yes..... 1999..... 6........ 4,171,200 720,000 3,451,200 2,428,800
Pennsylvania--1106(a)116..... Carroltown/Dubois: US 219... yes..... 2001..... 9,12..... 2,528,000 306,671 2,221,329 1,472,000
Pennsylvania--1106(a)68...... Dauphin Borough to yes..... 1996..... 17....... 7,584,000 2,534,764 5,049,236 4,416,000
Speeceville.
Pennsylvania--1106(a)7....... US 219 Johnsonburg Bypass... yes..... 1996..... 5........ 8,848,000 484,065 8,363,935 5,152,000
Pennsylvania--1106(a)75...... Climbing Lane Demo - US 15.. yes..... 1995..... 5........ 8,721,600 0 8,721,600 5,078,400
Pennsylvania--1106(a)81...... US Rt. 219 Meyersdale Bypass yes..... 1996..... 12....... 30,336,000 8,972,000 21,364,000 17,664,000
Pennsylvania--1106(a)83...... Laurel Valley Expressway.... no...... no info.. 12....... 3,160,000 644,000 2,516,000 1,840,000
Pennsylvania--1106(a)96...... US Rt. 222, Lehigh Co....... yes..... 1997..... 15....... 948,000 480,000 468,000 552,000
Pennsylvania--1106(a)97...... Rt. 33, Northhampton Co..... yes..... 1996..... 15....... 10,617,600 5,392,000 5,225,600 6,182,400
Pennsylvania--1106(b)27...... Chambersburg: I-81 yes..... 1996..... 9........ 1,162,880 131,560 1,031,320 677,120
interchange.
[[Page H3189]]
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS, 1991 ISTEA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS OF FEB. 24, 1995--Continued
[*These balances are subject to change]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount Amount New
State and section No. Project description NHS Est const Cong. available thru obligated (*) Unoblig authorization
start dist. FY 1995 (02/24/95) Bal (02/24/95) 96-97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania--1106(b)3....... Beave/Butler Co: I-79 to Rt. no...... 1999..... 4........ 2,212,000 0 2,212,000 1,288,000
60.
Pennsylvania--1107(b)134..... Route 120 - Lock Haven...... unk..... 1996..... 5........ 2,528,000 160,000 2,368,000 1,472,000
Pennsylvania--1107(b)19...... Borough of Water Street-US yes..... 1997..... 9........ 5,056,000 240,095 4,815,905 2,944,000
22.
Pennsylvania--1107(b)20...... Borough of Holidaysburg: US yes..... no info.. 9........ 32,864,000 1,040,000 31,824,000 19,136,000
22.
Pennsylvania--1107(b)22...... US 22 North of Lewistown.... yes..... 1998..... 9........ 36,845,600 427,390 36,418,210 21,454,400
Pennsylvania--1107(b)23...... Reedsville and Seven yes..... 1997..... 9........ 22,183,200 216,231 21,966,969 12,916,800
Mountains.
Pennsylvania--1107(b)25...... Roaring Springs: PA 36...... no...... 1995..... 9........ 5,561,600 1,090,400 4,471,200 3,238,400
Pennsylvania--1107(b)26...... Altoona to Juniata.......... no...... 1998..... 9........ 4,499,840 120,000 4,379,840 2,620,160
Pennsylvania--1107(b)27...... Bedford Co.-Rt. 30.......... no...... 1998..... 9........ 30,336,000 1,858,447 28,477,553 17,664,000
Pennsylvania--1107(b)31...... WIden US 202 to unk..... no info.. 8,13..... 5,624,800 1,668,000 3,956,800 3,275,200
Montgomeryville.
Pennsylvania--1107(b)52...... Wilkes-Barre & Mountaintop.. yes..... 1996..... 11....... 10,554,400 0 10,554,400 6,145,600
Pennsylvania--1107(b)58...... Montgomeryville: US 202..... no...... no info.. 8,13..... 6,825,600 0 6,825,600 3,974,400
Pennsylvania--1108(b)39...... Erie Co.; Eastide Connector no...... no info.. 21....... 4,740,000 1,966,927 2,773,073 2,760,000
Proj..
Pennsylvania--1108(b)5....... OH border to Pittsburg no...... 1997..... 4........ 2,022,400 0 2,022,400 1,177,600
Airport.
Pennsylvania--1108(b)6....... Reconst. Delaware Ave. Serv. no...... 1995..... 1,3...... 1,516,800 240,000 1,276,800 883,200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 420,191,520 35,012,550 385,178,970 244,668,480
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island--1107(b)140..... I-95 Stormdrain Construction unk..... 1995..... 1,2...... 8,216,000 800,800 7,415,200 4,784,000
Rhode Island--1107(b)149..... Woonsocket Bridge unk..... 1995..... 1........ 221,200 0 221,200 128,800
Improvements.
Rhode Island--1107(b)150..... Reconstruction of Roadways.. unk..... 1996..... 2........ 3,602,400 648,396 2,954,004 2,097,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 12,039,600 1,449,196 10,590,404 7,010,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota--1105(f)17...... Improve Heartland Expressway ........ 1996..... 001...... 9,353,600 255,200 9,098,400 5,446,400
South Dakota--1107(b)51...... Mo River bridge in Vemillion ........ 1996..... 001...... 2,275,200 88,512 2,186,688 1,324,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 11,628,800 343,712 11,285,088 6,771,200
==========================================================================================================================
Tennessee--1104(b)17......... Bicyle Sys. Contr.- no...... no info.. 6........ 252,800 40,000 212,800 147,200
Murfreesboro.
Tennessee--1104(b)3.......... Davidson-Williamson County no...... no info.. 5,6...... 632,000 36,000 596,000 368,000
Bike Path.
Tennessee--1105(f)2.......... Route 72 East-West Corridor. yes..... no info.. 7........ 1,765,808 416,000 1,349,808 1,028,192
Tennessee--1106(a)13......... Ft Loudon Dam Brdg-Lenoir no...... no info.. 2........ 316,000 38,766 277,234 184,000
City.
Tennessee--1106(a)69......... W. Fork Stone River Bridge no...... 1995..... 6........ 505,600 62,025 443,575 294,400
in Rutherford.
Tennessee--1106(b)45......... Urban Diamond Interchange & yes..... 1996..... 3........ 1,959,200 240,348 1,718,852 1,140,800
Connector-Chattanooga.
Tennessee--1107(b)76......... 1-81/Kendrick Creek Rd.- yes..... no info.. 1........ 3,665,600 80,000 3,585,600 2,134,400
Sullivan.
Tennessee--1107(b)77......... Foothills Parkway........... no...... 1995..... 1........ 7,078,400 371,623 6,706,777 4,121,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 16,175,408 1,284,762 14,890,646 9,418,592
==========================================================================================================================
Texas--1105(f)15............. Constr. US-71............... yes..... 1997..... 1........ 3,953,286 0 3,953,286 2,301,914
Texas--1106(a)110............ Contr-Impr 4-lane divided yes..... 1997..... 14....... 27,744,800 0 27,744,800 16,155,200
hwy.
Texas--1106(a)63............. Highway 288: Angleton....... yes..... 1997..... 14,22.... 568,800 0 568,800 331,200
Texas--1107(b)101............ Ft. Worth: I-35 Basswood yes..... 1996..... 6........ 11,249,600 0 11,249,600 6,550,400
interch.
Texas--1107(b)115............ Ft Worth Hillwood/I-35 yes..... 1995..... 6........ 8,026,400 1,645,360 6,381,040 4,673,600
Interch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 51,542,886 1,645,360 49,897,526 30,012,314
==========================================================================================================================
Utah--1108(b)38.............. Provo Municipal Airport..... no...... no info.. 3........ 632,000 0 632,000 368,000
==========================================================================================================================
Vermont--1107(b)146.......... Constr. US-7 N Bennington to unk..... 1999..... 1........ 12,640,000 1,389,600 11,250,400 7,360,000
SW NY-7 Hoosick NY.
==========================================================================================================================
Virgin Islands--1104(b)34.... Raphune Hill Bypass: St. yes..... no info.. 1........ 11,628,800 3,761,212 7,867,588 6,771,200
Thomas.
Virgin Islands--1107(b)94.... Constr. second Road: St no...... no info.. 1........ 1,074,400 310,000 764,400 625,600
Thomas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 12,703,200 4,071,212 8,631,988 7,396,800
==========================================================================================================================
Virginia--1107(b)14.......... Maine/Worsham St. Brdg/ no...... 1996..... 5........ 6,320,000 0 6,320,000 3,680,000
Danville.
==========================================================================================================================
West Virginia--1104(b)42..... Impr. SR-9 Martinsburg to VA unk..... 1995..... 2........ 69,520,000 3,330,442 66,189,558 40,480,000
Berkeley & Jefferson.
West Virginia--1104(b)43..... Constr. Coal Field unk..... 1997..... 3........ 31,600,000 2,148,338 29,451,662 18,400,000
Expressway.
West Virginia--1105(f)10..... Shawnee Project, part of I- yes..... 1998..... 3........ 2,844,000 1,188,000 1,656,000 1,656,000
73/74 Corridor Proj.
West Virginia--1105(f)11..... Widening US-52 Huntng.- yes..... 1995..... 3........ 63,200,000 8,951,200 54,248,800 36,800,000
Willism..
West Virginia--1105(f)12..... Replac. US-52 From yes..... 1997..... 3........ 8,848,000 2,087,865 6,760,135 5,152,000
Williamson WV to I-77.
West Virginia--1106(a)105.... Hwy Impr. Mason County...... yes..... 1996..... 2........ 12,324,000 194,960 12,129,040 7,176,000
West Virginia--1106(a)118.... Chelyan Bridge Replacement.. no...... 1995..... 2........ 5,372,000 0 5,372,000 3,128,000
West Virginia--1106(a)77..... Riverside Expressway Imprv.. no...... 1996..... 1........ 3,349,600 1,248,758 2,100,842 1,950,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... ............................ ........ ......... ......... 197,057,600 19,149,563 177,908,037 114,742,400
==========================================================================================================================
Wisconsin--1104(b)36......... I-794 Bicycle Transportation yes..... no info.. 4,5...... 948,000 0 948,000 552,000
==========================================================================================================================
Subtotal not under ............................ ........ ......... ......... 1,893,875,342 272,828,236 1,623,533,506 1,103,977,258
construction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________