[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.                                                                                                                                    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                        

                          ____________________