[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1553-H1556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Based on the Chair's
examination of press accounts referring to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) which he has furnished to the Chair, the
gentleman is recognized for a question of personal privilege. Under
rule IX, the gentleman is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, many years ago, Joseph McCarthy in
Wheeling, West Virginia stood up and waved papers and said he had the
names of 57 Communists in government. Well, he got lots of headlines
but, of course, he was eventually proved to be a liar. I am reminded of
that event, although I certainly make no such charge here today.
Mr. Speaker, three of our colleagues have made numerous statements in
the media that we have been, quote, ``buying votes,'' to get them to
support our BESTEA transportation legislation in exchange for projects
which we have given them. Indeed, conversely, that we have been
threatening Members that if they did not vote with us, they would not
get the projects.
Let me make this very clear. I challenge these Members to name one
person, one person whom I went to and said they will get a project in
exchange for their vote. I challenge them to name one person who I
threatened that they not get a project if they voted against us.
Indeed, if we look back at the battle we had here last year on the
budget resolution where we had our transportation amendment, I urge my
colleagues to go look at Members who voted against us and then look at
the projects they are receiving today. This is simply a blatant
falsehood.
Now, no doubt many Members support our legislation because it is
important to their district, because it is important to America,
because they are getting projects that they have requested and which
have been vetted through our 14-point requirement.
It seems that in life sometimes there are those who, when one takes a
different view from their view, they must somehow ascribe some base
motivation. They simply cannot believe that because someone disagrees
with them, that another's motives can be as pure as theirs. Indeed,
sometimes it seems as though the smaller the minority they represent,
the more incensed they become, because they view themselves as more
pure, more righteous, more sanctimonious than the larger majority of us
who are mere mortals. But I do not ascribe any of these motives to our
colleagues. I prefer to believe that they simply are misinformed.
Mr. Speaker, the supreme irony, the supreme irony is that the three
individuals who have been attacking us, attacking our motives,
attacking our integrity, have submitted projects to us for their own
congressional districts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I join in the gentleman's indignation, to put it mildly,
[[Page H1554]]
over these attacks that are totally unjustified, unfounded, and
inappropriate for Members of this body to make.
First of all, the projects in question have gone through a very
thorough and careful vetting process according to a 14-point outline
that the committee fashioned, which includes a requirement that the
project be on the State's priority or State's future project
development list. The points that are included in the review of
projects are all the points that States use to measure validity of
projects that their transportation departments will fund.
After reviewing all of these projects and ensuring that they meet
standards accepted by States and that these are projects necessary in a
Member's district, we accept the Member's judgment as to what is
necessary for his or her district, and those projects are included in
this package, as was done in 1991 in the previous transportation bill.
Mr. Speaker, I could understand Members disagreeing with the process,
but I do not approve, I am offended by the use of language and by the
accusations made. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been a vigorous
advocate for transportation since before he was elected to Congress in
1972 and since taking his place on the then-Committee on Public Works
and now-Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Under his
chairmanship, he has waged a nationwide campaign for increased
investment in the Nation's portfolio of bridges, highways, buses,
transit systems, but above all, its safety. He is a champion of safety.
The gentleman's drive to increase spending out of the highway trust
fund, tax dollars that have been collected at the pump but not paid
into projects for which driving America has already been taxed, is
clear and well known and widely respected, open and clear for everyone
to review.
So when the gentleman from Pennsylvania or I, together on a
bipartisan basis, present our program to our respective caucuses and to
this body and ask for their support, we do so very clearly, very
openly, without any hidden agenda. And for Members then to say that
they have been somehow browbeaten, whipped into line, or threatened is
totally inappropriate and totally untrue.
As a strong and vigorous advocate for his viewpoint, I respect the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and I respect those who take a differing
viewpoint. They are entitled to that viewpoint. They are also entitled
to the fair share of funding that we have designated without any
questions, without any quid pro quo.
We respect and always have respected the Members' right to vote their
district and their conscience. We would ask them, and I do not think
there is anything inappropriate to ask a Member to support this
legislation, but we respect their right not to.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania has conducted
himself with the highest dignity, with the appropriate character of a
Member of Congress of this distinguished body, in the same manner that
he has done for his 26 years in the House of Representatives. I join
with him in reproving those who have used such inappropriate language.
It is an assault upon the integrity of the chairman of this committee,
a Member who has championed the cause for all of America for better
transportation, better investment in the future of our economy, and I
salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Minnesota for those words.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for being a chairman and taking care of the
jurisdictional authority which he is in charge of. I am tired of the
``pork barrel'' labels on the gentleman from Pennsylvania and on the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. Speaker, I had five bridges in the original ISTEA bill, and one
of the major news networks came to my district and said, boy, you are
getting all of this pork. And I said, come on down. Then I showed them
bridges with a sway, with a 2-ton weight limit. The next bridge down
had a 5-ton weight limit. And I got those bridges built. I got the
money for them. And they are still not built; they are now under
process. That is how many years it takes.
Well, I want to announce here that as soon as the wrecking crew
appeared on the Center Street Bridge, the first time the backhoe hit
one of the steel structures, the bridge collapsed.
{time} 1015
They said, thank God citizens were not killed. Enough of this pork
barrel madness. Ohio had 28 major projects announced last year, and my
district did not get one of them; and I have the most infrastructure
needs in the country. No Member of Congress should go home and flout
this pork barrel if they have got infrastructure needs and they are not
taking care of it. Because that is why we are elected.
And by God, I am just glad we are building the Center Street bridge
and no one in my district got hurt. I want to say this as a former Pitt
grad, my colleague stands for what a chairman should be; and all
chairmen should deal with their jurisdictional authority and dispatch
the duties like he has.
I stand with him, proud to be associated with him, and I commend him
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the fine job they
have done on this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, if the Chairman would continue to yield,
let me just emphasize once again, never on our side or on the
chairman's side of the aisle was any Member told that conclusion of
their project was contingent upon or dependent upon their vote. No
Member was asked how they intended to vote in advance. Projects were
included for Members on the basis of the merits of the project, not on
how they would vote.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
Washington, DC, March 7, 1996.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: Recently, the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation submitted an authorization request to your
Committee to extend the Broken Arrow Expressway from I-44
southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the Tulsa County Line.
I am forwarding the enclosed request on to your Committee
for its consideration. I am confident that the merit of the
project will speak for itself.
Sincerely,
Steve Largent,
Member of Congress.
____
Information Requests for Transportation Projects State of Oklahoma
Project Description: SH 51 (Broken Arrow Expressway)
extending from I-44 southeast approximately 8.0 miles to the
Tulsa County Line.
evaluation criteria and responses are as follows
1. Name and Congressional District of the Primary Member of
Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members
supporting the project (each project must have a single
primary sponsoring Member).
U.S. Representative Steve Largent.
2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient
responsible for carrying out the project.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds
(if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on
the National Highway System)?
This project is eligible for Federal-aid funds and it is on
the National Highway System.
4. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project
and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In
doing so, identify the specific segment for which project
funding is being sought including terminus points.
Design/Scope: Reconstruct the existing 4 lane highway and
add 2 additional lanes to provide a 6 lane facility. This
project will complete the final improvements to upgrade the
Broken Arrow Expressway which connects the Tulsa central
business district with Broken Arrow, Oklahoma and the
residential developments in the western portion of Wagoner
County. The specific section we are requesting funding for
extends from I-44 southeast 8.0 miles to the Tulsa/Wagoner
County Line.
5. What is the total project cost and proposed source of
funds (please identify the federal, state, or local shares
and the extent, if any, of private sector financing or the
use of innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is
being requested for the specific project segment described in
item #4?
The estimated total cost of this project is $160,000,000
and the average daily traffic volume on this section of
highway is in excess of 78,000 vehicles daily.
10. Does the project have national or regional
significance?
[[Page H1555]]
This project is on the National Highway System and it
serves as a connector route between I-44, I-444, I-244, US
64, US 169 and the Muskogee Turnpike. Consequently, this
highway serves both local commuter traffic and interstate
travel which makes it significant from a national and
regional level.
11. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely
to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles
based on environmental or other types of concerns?
Although an environmental assessment has been completed on
this project, a reassessment will be required. The EA
includes the mainline, but does not include the interchange
at US 169. Clearance of the SH 51/US 169 interchange will
likely require intermodal issues and a major investment study
(MIS).
12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency, and
environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits
associated with completion of the project.
Widening this expressway to 6 lanes, reconstructing the
major clover leaf interchanges, and providing full
directional interchanges will significantly increase
capacity, reduce congestion and improve the safety of this
major highway serving the Tulsa metropolitan area.
13. Has the project received funding through the State's
Federal aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a
transit project, through Federal Transit Administration
funding? If not, why not?
The State of Oklahoma has expended in excess of $34,000,000
in State and Federal funds on this project to perform
preliminary engineering work, acquire right-of-way, relocate
utilities, and reconstruction work on several sections of the
highway in the past few years.
Is the authorization requested for the project an increase
to an amount previously authorized or appropriated for it in
federal statue (if so, please identify the statute, the
amount provided, and the amount obligated to date), or would
this be the first authorization for the project in a federal
statute? If the authorization requested is for a transit
project, has it previously received appropriations and/or
received a Letter of Intent or entered into a Full Funding
Grant Agreement with the FTA.
The authorization requested for this project would be the
first one received by the State of Oklahoma on the Broken
Arrow Expressway.
____
Washington, DC, February 25, 1997.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: Enclosed, please find a copy of an
ISTEA funding request by the City of Charlotte, North
Carolina, which we both represent. As the attached proposal
indicates, the City of Charlotte is seeking funds for a South
Corridor Transitway, one of the first of its kind in the
United States. This project would link Uptown Charlotte to
Southeast Charlotte via a 13.5 mile express bus transitway,
relieving traffic congestion and providing improved access to
the City's Uptown area.
We respectfully submit this proposal by the City of
Charlotte and ask for your due consideration of this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact either one of us with
questions or concerns. We would both be pleased to speak with
you further concerning this project.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick,
Member of Congress.
Melvin Watt,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 6, 1997.
Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman-Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Petri: I encourage you to read the
following testimony and letter. The enclosed detail very
carefully the importance of Oklahoma's surface
transportation.
I request that you give the State Highway 51 demonstration
project proposal your full consideration.
In advance, I would like to thank you and your colleagues
on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for your
diligence and hard work on the upcoming ISTEA
reauthorization.
Sincerely yours,
Tom A. Coburn, MD,
Member of Congress.
____
State of Oklahoma,
Office of the Governor,
Oklahoma, OK, February 21, 1997.
Hon. Thomas E. Petri,
U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman-Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Petri: The significance of our surface
transportation system should not be under estimated. Careful
investment in our infrastructure increases productivity and
economic prosperity at local and regional levels. Despite the
importance of our transportation system to the nation's
economic health, investment has fallen well short of what is
truly needed. Dealing with these needs will require numerous
approaches, including special project funding.
As you begin the monumental task of reauthorizing the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISETA), we, the undersigned, wish to lend our support to the
following special funding request which is in addition to our
existing obligation limit and is critical to the
transportation needs of the State of Oklahoma.
SH 51 extending from Coweta east approximately 14.6 miles
to Wagoner, Oklahoma.
We commend your committee for its role in enacting ISTEA
and for the subsequent improvements made with the passage of
the National Highway System Bill last year. A sound national
transportation policy is critical to our state's economy and
our nation's ability to compete globally. To that end we urge
you to evaluate our request and take the appropriate action.
Sincerely,
Frank Keating,
Governor.
Neal A. McCaleb,
Secretary of Transportation.
Herschal Crow,
Chairman, Oklahoma Transportation Commission.
____
Demonstration Project Testimony, State Highway 51, Wagoner, Oklahoma
Submitted by: the Honorable Tom A. Coburn, U.S. House of
Representatives and Neal A. McCaleb, Secretary of Transportation, State
of Oklahoma
State Highway 51 (SH 51): SH-51 extending east from Coweta
to the Arkansas border, has been identified as a
Transportation Improvement Corridor. Eastern Oklahoma has an
ever increasing population. Tourism has also increased in the
Fort Gibson Lake and Tahlequah areas. These two factors form
the basis of why reconstruction of SH-51 is of foremost
concern.
The route has a high accident rate and contains bridges
that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. For
projected traffic, this two lane route with no shoulders is
unacceptable, and could ultimately curb any future economic
growth in the northeastern region of Oklahoma.
In addition to tourism dollars, the highway also serves as
a major travel corridor and commuter route extending from the
Tulsa Metropolitan area east to Broken Arrow, Muskogee and
the Arkansas state line.
SH-51 is crucial to the region's business, industry and
labor, because it provides access to the Tulsa metropolitan
area, McClellan Kerr Navigational System, and several
recreational areas in eastern Oklahoma.
Nationally significant, SH-51 connects with I-44, I-244,
the Muskogee Turnpike, US-412 and other major routes in
eastern Oklahoma.
It is essential that SH-51 be expanded to four lanes to
increase capacity, promote tourism, boost economic growth,
and to improve safety and congestion. This project is
estimated to cost $63 million, and although the state has
expended nearly $34 million to improve this corridor, it is
simply not enough in view of the overall critical needs of
the entire highway system.
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation Information Requests for Transportation Projects, State
of Oklahoma
Project Description: SH 51 extending from Coweta east
approximately 14.6 miles to Wagoner, Oklahoma.
Evaluation Criteria and Responses are as follows:
1. Name and Congressional District of the Primary Member of
Congress sponsoring the project, as well as any other Members
supporting the project (each project must have a single
primary sponsoring Member).
Response to No. 1: U.S. Representative Tom Coburn.
2. Identify the State or other qualified recipient
responsible for carrying out the project.
Response to No. 2: Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
3. Is the project eligible for the use of Federal-aid funds
(if a road or bridge project, please note whether it is on
the National Highway System)?
Response to No. 3: This project is eligible for the use of
Federal-aid funds, but it is not on the National Highway
System.
4. Describe the design, scope and objectives of the project
and whether it is part of a larger system of projects. In
doing so, identify the specific segment for which project
funding is being sought including terminus points.
Response to No. 4: Design/Scope: Reconstruct to 4 lanes.
The objectives of this project is to continue improving SH 51
from Tulsa extending west approximately 59.0 miles to
Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The specific section for which we are
requesting funding extends from Coweta east 14.6 miles to
Wagoner, including the Wagoner bypass.
5. What is the total project cost and proposed source of
funds (please identify the federal, state, or local shares
and the extent, if any, of private sector financing or the
use of innovative financing) and of this amount, how much is
being requested for the specific project segment described in
Item No. 4?
Response to No. 5: The estimated total cost of this project
is $63,000,000.00 and we are requesting $50,400,000.00 in
Federal-aid funds. The State of Oklahoma will provide
$12,600,000.00 in matching funds to finance this project.
6. Of the amount requested, how much is expected to be
obligated over each of the next 5 years?
[[Page H1556]]
Response to No. 6: All of the funds we are requesting can
be obligated over the next 5 years.
7. What is the proposed schedule and status of work on the
project?
Response to No. 7: The environmental clearance has been
completed on this project. However, a reassessment may be
necessary. Following completion of the environmental
reassessment, right-of-way and design plans will be prepared
and this takes approximately 2 years. Right-of-way
acquisition will then take about 18 months to complete.
Construction contracts should be ready for letting within 4
to 5 years.
8. Is the project included in the metropolitan and/or State
Transportation Improvement Program(s), or the State long-
range plan and, if so, is it scheduled for funding?
Response to No. 8: The right-of-way acquisition and utility
relocations for one section of this project are currently on
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and funding
is scheduled for these items. The entire project limit,
however, is identified as one of the transportation
improvement corridors in the Statewide Intermodal
Transportation Plan (long range plan). Due to the high cost
of this project and the State's limited funds, the remaining
construction, right-of-way, and utility phases of this
project are not currently scheduled.
9. Is the project considered by State and/or regional
transportation officials as critical to their needs? Please
provide a letter of support from these officials, and if you
cannot, explain why not.
Response to No. 9: This project is considered critical to
the economic growth of the eastern region of Oklahoma which
generates a large amount of tourism in the Fort Gibson Lake
and Tahlequah areas. The highway also serves as a major
travel corridor and commuter route extending from the Tulsa
Metropolitan area east to Broken Bow, Muskogee and the
Arkansas State Line.
10. Does the project have national or regional
significance?
Response to No. 10: This project is regionally significant
because it provides access to the Tulsa metropolitan area,
McClellan Kerr Navigational System, and several recreational
areas in eastern Oklahoma. SH 51 is also nationally
significant because it connects with I-44, I-244, the
Muskogee Turnpike, US 412, and other major routes in the
eastern section of Oklahoma.
11. Has the proposed project encountered, or is it likely
to encounter, any significant opposition or other obstacles
based on environmental or other types of concerns?
Response to No. 11: The environmental clearance has been
completed on this project. However, a reassessment is likely.
We do not anticipate any major opposition or other obstacles
that will delay construction of this project.
12. Describe the economic, energy efficiency,
environmental, congestion mitigation and safety benefits
associated with completion of the project.
Response to No. 12: Widening SH 51 to a 4 lane highway will
increase capacity, promote tourism and economic growth in the
region, and improve the safety and congestion along this
major highway serving the eastern region of Oklahoma.
13. Has the project received funding through the State's
Federal-aid highway apportionment, or in the case of a
transit project, through Federal Transit Administration
funding? If no, why not?
Response to No. 13: During the past few years the State has
expended in excess of $34,000,000.00 to improve this corridor
between I-44 in Tulsa and the Arkansas State Line. However,
because the overall critical needs of the entire highway
system far exceeds the limited funding levels, this project
from Coweta to Wagoner has not received funding through the
State's Federal-aid highway apportionments.
14. Is the authorization requested for the project an
increase to an amount previously authorized or appropriated
for it in federal statute (if so, please identify the
statute, the amount provided, and the amount obligated to
date), or would this be the first authorization for the
project in federal statute? If the authorization requested is
for a transit project, has it previously received
appropriations and/or received a Letter of Intent or entered
into a Full Funding Grant Agreement with the FTA?
Response to No. 14: This is the first authorization we have
requested for this project.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 10, 1997.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation, Rayburn House
Office Building.
Hon. Thomas Petri,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Rayburn
House Office Building.
Hon. Jim Oberstar,
Ranking Democratic Member, House Committee on Transportation,
Rayburn House Office Building.
Hon. Nick Rahall,
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation, Rayburn House Office Building.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members: On February 25,
1997, the North Carolina Delegation forwarded to your
attention copies of the State of North Carolina's highway
transportation project priorities.
Included in this package, there were two funding requests
that are of particular concern to our districts, the Ninth
and Twelfth Districts of North Carolina. These requests
regarded funding for construction of the Eastern and Western
Outer Loops in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The completion of the Outer Loop is the foremost road
priority for our region during consideration of
transportation funding this year. The purpose of this letter
is to formally inform you of our strong support for this
critical transportation need for the City of Charlotte.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of this
request. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us if we
can provide you with further information regarding the Outer
Loop project.
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick,
Member of Congress.
Melvin Watt,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, August 20, 1997.
Chairman Bud Shuster,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: We are writing to express our strong
support for the I-40 cross bridge project, which was
submitted to the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in
February. This project is important not only to the State of
Oklahoma, but also to the Nation.
The I-40 cross bridge is in a critical state of disrepair.
There are serious safety concerns surrounding the continued
use of this bridge. Due to these concerns Oklahoma inspects
this particular bridge every six months; other bridges are
inspected only once every two years.
It is critical to the State and to the Nation that this
bridge remains open. Recently, the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation determined that approximately 102,000 cars
cross this bridge every day. Furthermore, 61% of all the
trucks that cross this bridge are out of state trucks.
Clearly, this bridge is heavily traveled by more than just
Oklahomans.
Both the Governor of Oklahoma and the Secretary of
Transportation have endorsed this project and have made it
the number one transportation priority for the State of
Oklahoma. Unfortunately, due to the magnitude of the project,
Oklahoma does not have the funds to tackle it at this time.
We are committed to working with our state officials to
ensure that this project receive the attention and funding it
needs. We would greatly appreciate your consideration of the
merits of this project. The I-40 cross bridge is indeed vital
to both Oklahoma and the overall interstate system. Please
let us know if we can provide you with additional
information.
Sincerely,
Rep. J.C. Watts, Jr.
Rep. Ernest Istook, Jr.
Rep. Steve Largent.
Rep. Frank Lucas.
Rep. Wes Watkins.
Rep. Tom Coburn.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________