[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1858-H1867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2400, BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 405
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. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid
highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and
shall not exceed two hours and 30 minutes, with two hours
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill,
modified by the amendment recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means now printed in the bill and the amendment
printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part 2
of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the first time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against the amendments printed in the report
are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may:
(1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments 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 amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
[[Page H1859]]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to 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 include extraneous material.)
{time} 1030
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 2400, the
Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act, better known
as BESTEA, under a balanced but structured rule providing 2\1/2\ hours
of general debate with 2 hours divided between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and 30 minutes divided between the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
and makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered
as read. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified.
Only those amendments printed in part 2 of the committee report are
made in order and all points of order against the amendments are
waived.
The amendment made in order under part 2 of the report shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole to postpone votes and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes
on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally,
the rule provides for one notion to recommit, with or without
introductions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2400 recognizes that the United States has
essentially concluded the 40-year interstate highway construction era.
It transitions the Federal Government into a new role, that of
maintaining the interstate system and overseeing national priorities
while supporting State and local transportation programs.
BESTEA improves on ISTEA by simplifying programs, updating formulae,
giving States more flexibility, and guaranteeing States a greater share
of their contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. It expands funding
for priority corridors and provides $570 million for new border
infrastructure and safety improvements to more efficiently handle the
NAFTA-related trade. Mr. Speaker, the smooth movement of goods and
people is increasingly critical to American competitiveness in this
period of expanding global trade.
BESTEA ensures that all gas tax revenues are spent on transportation
by removing the Highway Trust Fund from the unified Federal budget.
Furthermore, it reaffirms the commitment of this Congress to federalist
principles, upholding the rights of States to set and enforce their own
traffic safety codes, while providing financial rewards to encourage
States to adopt a range of measures to reduce drunken driving.
Every Member of this body agrees on the importance of reducing
drunken driving. The compromise language included in H.R. 2400 ensures
that States will redouble their efforts to get drunk drivers off the
road, while recognizing that each State should have the latitude to
adopt the approach that suits that State best.
Mr. Speaker, this fair and balanced rule allows the House to work its
will on the most important questions surrounding Federal transportation
programs. For example, H.R. 2400 allocates more money than ever before
to Member-sponsored priority projects. Under this rule, Members will
have the opportunity to decide whether to eliminate these projects,
saving the taxpayers over $11 billion, and allowing the States to
determine transportation priorities.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps no issue in public debate is more controversial
than that of racial and gender preferences. The House will consider
whether to end the use of such preferences in Federal highway
contracting and to return affirmative action to its original intent, an
outreach to people of all races and genders designed to promote equal
opportunity for all.
Most important, Mr. Speaker, the House will have the opportunity to
recognize that with the completion of the interstate system, the proper
role of the Federal Government is now limited to maintaining that
system and responding to a discrete range of national concerns.
The turnback amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and made in order by
this rule, if adopted, will continue the Federal role in matters of
national significance but return to State and local governments the
authority to determine and to fund their own transportation priorities.
The Kasich amendment recognizes the tremendous waste in the current
system, where the States collect the gasoline tax and remit it to us
here in Washington, which takes some off the top for Federal
bureaucracy, some for other States, and some for projects that are not
State priorities, all just to return the money to the States that
collected it in the first place. If they replace the Federal tax on a
penny-for-penny basis, 32 States will have more money for
transportation programs and six States will break even.
But because leaving the money with the States in the first place is
so much more efficient, not all States will have to replace the Federal
gas tax on a penny-for-penny basis. Like my home State of California,
for example, most States along with it will be able to reduce taxes
overall while increasing spending on transportation, because the waste
in the Washington bureaucracy would be totally eliminated. In fact,
economists estimate that about 20 percent of the purchasing power of
gas tax revenues is lost in the round trip to Washington and back.
If Members join me in support of the turnback amendment, that 20
percent can be returned to motorists in the form of tax cuts or used to
increase investment in transportation or other worthwhile spending. The
turnback amendment recognizes that the only way to finally resolve the
problem of donor States and to ensure efficient expenditure of gas tax
revenues is to let each State run its own program without interference
from Washington.
Mr. Speaker, with that I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this very fair and balanced rule, which makes in order a bill that
significantly enhances existing transportation programs and gives the
House the opportunity to debate important improvements as well as
alternatives to these programs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) my dear friend and the great acting chairman of the Committee
on Rules, for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I really want to congratulate my colleagues, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, for their very hard work
on this very, very difficult bill. Despite the months and months of
clamorings, despite the vastly different transportation needs of 50
States, Mr. Speaker, they have finally managed to come up with a bill
that satisfies a vast majority of Members, and for that they really
deserve our thanks.
I am sure that there are very few Members who would not change a
thing or two in this bill if they could, but all things considered, it
is about the best we are going to get and I urge all of my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, it is coming not a moment too
soon. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
expired on September 30, 1997. The few available Federal dollars in the
pipeline may very well run out on May 1, and it is critical that we not
leave the States with enormous half-finished transportation projects on
their hands.
[[Page H1860]]
So, Mr. Speaker, this bill reauthorizes our transportation programs
to the tune of some $217 billion in contract authority for the Highway
Trust Fund. Of that funding, Mr. Speaker, $36 billion is for transit
and $181 billion is for highways and for highway safety.
Mr. Speaker, many people take American infrastructure for granted.
They get in their automobile, they drive to work, they drive to school
without even thinking about it. But those roads they drive on and those
bridges they cross do not last forever, especially in the Northeast,
and we need to do our very best to make sure they stay as safe and as
accessible as possible.
So anybody who is horrified at the amount of transportation funding
included in this bill needs to remember that this is how we get our
produce to market, our computer chips to the docks to be sent overseas,
our Gillette products and Reebok sneakers to the malls. A good
transportation system creates jobs, it keeps America safe, and it
advances our country's economy.
So, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today is a 6-year bill.
It retains the basic structure from ISTEA, including its very good
environmental programs and its intense commitment to safety. It also
encourages equal opportunities by keeping the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Program for women and for minority-owned construction firms,
and I am very happy to say that this bill applies Federal labor
standards and employee protections like the Davis-Bacon Act for people
working on highway and transit projects.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the safety programs in this bill are very
well worth it. Every year some 40,000 people die in motor vehicle-
related deaths in this country. And if this bill improves highway
safety enough just to lower that number by one, I feel it is worth it.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman Shuster), I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar), the ranking member, for their very, very hard work on this
matter, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that we will have a few Members
who will want to participate in the debate on the rule, but at this
time we do not have anyone here, so I will reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for
the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. This bill
is good for the environment, it is good for labor, it is good for the
opportunity it provides to women and minorities, it is good for the
economy, good for our cities and our more rural regions, and most
important, Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for our communities, our
families and our children.
Our Nation's infrastructure is desperate for capital improvements to
make commerce flow more efficiently and to make roads and bridges safer
for the families who use them daily. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have
worked tirelessly to design legislation that truly meets our Nation's
needs, and I applaud them for their hard work and their great success.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation is what good government is
all about: meeting the needs of our Nation's families and overall
economy. While Europe and the Pacific Rim nations invest trillions into
their infrastructure, we cannot rest. We must invest in our
infrastructure if we have any hope of competing in the global economy.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and final passage of BESTEA.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is not whether
we want to improve transportation infrastructure. The answer to that
question is clearly ``yes.'' The question before us today is this:
Should Congress increase spending by $26 billion on any program without
paying for it? I believe the answer to that question is ``absolutely
not.''
Mr. Speaker, it is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst. Do not trust
my judgment. Let us see what fiscally conservative groups said about
this question. The National Taxpayers Union said, ``Unlike the Boston
Tea Party, Congress' ISTEA party,'' this bill, ``will leave taxpayers
with a huge fiscal hangover.''
To my Republican colleagues who have attacked Democrat spending
habits for years, the National Taxpayers Union, their friend, also
said, ``If the trend continues, the free-spending Democratic Congresses
of the early nineties could look like misers compared to this one.''
The Wall Street Journal said just yesterday that this bill is highway
robbery and that all in all the highway bill is the lowest moment since
Republicans regained Congress, a highway bill that has become one of
the great log rolling parties of all time.
The Citizens Against Government Waste said that, ``If Congress
persists in this attempt to break the highway spending caps imposed on
the budget deal from less than a year ago, the balanced budget deal is
dead.''
Mr. Speaker, if a principle is worth fighting for, it should be worth
fighting for two days in a row. Yesterday, from this very well, our
Republican colleagues said it was essential to have offsets to pay for
our supplemental emergency appropriation bill and cover flooding damage
in this country. Yet today, the same Republican leadership will force
this House to pass a highway bill that does not pay for one dime of the
$26 billion in new spending.
I guess the Republican leadership is saying that yesterday fiscal
responsibility was important, today it is not.
{time} 1045
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Everett, Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the very distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond just briefly to our
friend who previously spoke in the well. First of all, this bill does
not spend a penny more than the revenue paid into the Transportation
Trust Fund by the American people, the traveling public from their gas
taxes, not a penny more. In fact, over the 6 years of the bill, we
spend approximately $3 billion less than the revenue paid in gas taxes.
We do not spend any of the money that is currently in the
Transportation Trust Fund, the $23 billion in the Highway Trust Fund,
not a penny of it. In fact, we have agreed that the portion of that
fund, which is not necessary to provide liquidity, will not be spent
and will be turned back. That is approximately $10 billion in reduction
in the national debt.
Further, we have agreed that we will not count the interest paid on
that balance in those trust funds, which means over 6 years that is
approximately $15 billion in foregone debt. So with those two
provisions, and I must tell my colleagues, many of us swallowed hard in
these negotiations to give up those two principles, but because of
that, it means that when we count the reduction in the national debt on
the interest, and we count the reduction by foregoing the $10 billion
balance in the trust fund, that is $25 billion. That accounts virtually
for the increased spending by reducing the national debt.
Let me emphasize again, however, setting all that aside, the cold
hard fact remains that we are simply spending the revenue coming in.
This is honesty in budgeting. If we are not going to spend the revenue
coming in, then we should reduce the taxes.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where we are
today. Let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for a bill that has worked
its way through the process in a manner that recognizes that we do need
to repair our bridges and highways in
[[Page H1861]]
America. Not only do we face in cities and rural communities crumbling
infrastructure, but every one of us knows that congestion abounds in
our cities, our counties, our hamlets and our States.
This BESTEA legislation recognizes that over a 6-year period it is
important to rebuild America. Houston' Mayor, Bob Lanier, chaired the
Committee to Rebuild America. We fully recognize the importance of
making sure that this crumbling infrastructure does not do damage to
the trade and economic vitality of our Nation. This bill takes that
into consideration. Particularly in the manager's amendment, the
provision that the DOT to develop a strategic plan for highway research
and technology development, this allows the Department of
Transportation to have develop and transportation plan for the nation.
In my city of Houston in particular we are looking at new
opportunities for transit ways, for commuter rail, for people movers,
and we look forward in the years to come to redesigning our effort and
possibly moving forward to end the congestion in our city. This
transportation bill allows those considerations to occur regarding
rail, even though we know that it will require an additional
application process.
We are moving in the right direction, but, Mr. Speaker, I am greatly
concerned, because there seems to be an effort that is misdirected in
eliminating the DBE program, which flies in the face of constitutional
law that allows, under Adarand, the opportunity for reaching out, for
goals, for the need to diversify in contracting with Federal monies,
and to allow contractors who are women and minorities to participate in
a full and open process. I am not so sure where this amendment came
from, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask my colleagues to vote it down. Even
after we vote for the rule we will not support the amendment
eliminating the DBE program of the DOT.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today on the rule for H.R. 2400. I want to
commend Representatives Shuster and Oberstar for their work on this
complex and highly important piece of legislation. I generally support
the Rule, but it allows certain amendments and disallows others that
may be vital to the bill itself.
It is vital to pass the amendment offered by Congressman Davis (D-
Ill.) to increase from $42 million to $150 million per year the bill's
authorization for the new Welfare-to-Work transportation program. This
is a common sense program that will finance services that transport
current and former welfare recipients to and from jobs, and job-related
activities. If we really want to help people make this kind of
transition then this is the kind of support we should be giving them.
It bothers me that there is an amendment being offered to end the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises program. This is a program that has
allowed full opportunity for women and minorities to participate in the
contracting for small businesses after years of being denied that
right.
The DOT's equal opportunity program benefits all Americans by
promoting the formation of small businesses, creating new jobs,
fostering economic growth and stimulating innovation.
If Congress decides not to reauthorize the DBE program, it will
create a major disruption in the national economy. Thousands of small
businesses may go out of business, costing tens of thousands of jobs.
In the past, when state or local governments cut similar DBE
programs, opportunities for women and minority-owned firms dried up.
Prime contractors, in effect, told disadvantaged business owners,
``We'll call when we need a minority.''
By refusing to authorize the DBE program, Congress will be creating a
huge pot hole in the road to equal opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, this Rule is the result of hard work and should be
supported. Thank you.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Sanibel, Florida, (Mr. Goss), the distinguished chairman of the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Budget and Legislative Process.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from greater San Dimas,
California, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this fair-
structured rule. It is a good process that makes in order amendments
from both side of the aisle.
Today we seek to balance two important goals: Maintaining, enhancing
our Nation's roads and highways on the one hand, while remaining
committed to last year's balanced budget agreement on the other. We all
know we need more infrastructure, and we all know we need more fiscal
responsibility how to deal with it.
Additional concern of the folks I represent in Florida is not a new
one: Providing equity to donor States through the transportation
funding formula. I would like to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for addressing the equity issue. BESTEA does
represent an improvement in terms of rate of return. We are pleased to
see that.
Under the current formula, Florida should receive 90 cents back on
the dollar as opposed to 83 cents or less currently set in law. That is
progress. I think it is equity. But I have got to say I am disappointed
that this long-awaited reform has to come at the expense of fiscal
discipline. Instead of prioritizing our resources and making the tough
choices, this bill creates a larger pie for everyone. It is one way of
doing things, sort of a classic Washington response.
We do not have enough money to do everything we want. We make a
bigger pie, spend anyway, and hope that things work out. What is worse,
I think, is that the bill provides no offsets. We have an extra 26
billion over last year's budget caps. I do not think it is fiscally
responsible. It is not acceptable to those who wish to balance the
budget to add 26 billion.
Just yesterday, we committed to offsets for our supplemental
emergency spending. It was a long, long debate and we had a lot of
discussion about it. But I think the principle of setting for offsets
is extremely important.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation requires that not one
penny of this can be spent unless we bring back offsets agreed to in
the conference with the House and the Senate. It was felt by our
leadership that we might as well do this in conference once because the
Senate will have different priorities than we do. We need to negotiate
the differences. So let me emphasize, not one penny of this can be
spent unless we bring back offsets from conference.
Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
the explanation. I understand that. My concern is that we have not yet
delineated those offsets.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget
Process, I am also concerned about the bill's provision moving the
Highway Trust Fund off budget. We have to be extremely careful about
placing more money outside the parameters of the congressional budget
process.
Frankly, instead of piecemeal reforms that will provide less control
over spending, I think we should work toward comprehensive budget
process reform that makes sense. I am pleased to be working with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and a great many others,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), to make the question of budget
reform a goal that we can accomplish this year.
There are other real concerns that I am sure Members will touch on as
well. I do not pretend to judge the merits of each demonstration
project, but I think it is doubtful that well over 1,400 projects are
deserving of Federal attention. To put this number in some kind of a
perspective, the last ISTEA bill, 1991, contained only 539 demo
projects, I am told. No transportation bill contained any demo projects
until 1982. So we got along without them for quite a while. In fact,
the committee's own rules state that it shall not be in order for any
bill providing general legislation in relation to roads to contain any
specific provision for any road.
Mr. Speaker, I can contend it is time that we abandon demonstration
projects and let the States, the local folks decide what their State
transportation priorities are. That is why I intend to support the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich), in his turn-back amendment later today. I think the idea makes
good sense, cut the gas tax, keep just enough to maintain our
interstates, and let the individual States decide and manage their own
transportation priorities.
[[Page H1862]]
The wisdom of Members of Congress goes far, but I do not think it
extends to the intricate details of planning highway and bridge and
interchange improvements and construction. I think those decisions
should be made by the professionals at the State departments of
transportation. I am disappointed I cannot support the hard work of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and others. I know they have
worked hard and brought forth what is a very good bill in their eyes.
I am concerned about the fiscal constraints problem, the demo
problem, some of the other points I have mentioned. I do urge a yes
vote on this rule so we can have a debate, and I urge fiscal discipline
and loyalty to the principle of fiscal discipline when we get to the
final vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress my State got back
about 70 cents for every dollar it sent to Washington for highways.
Through the years working with Mr. Petri and others we have been able
to raise that to just about a dollar. This bill continues that new one-
to-one relationship roughly, and for that I am very pleased.
But this bill has three problems that lead me to conclude I cannot
support it. First of all, the bill increases spending by 44 percent
over the last bill. I simply do not think we have the money.
Secondly, yesterday this House made a great thing of insisting that
the emergency appropriation for Iraq and Bosnia and natural disasters
be fully offset to the tune of about $3 billion. Today we are being
asked to vote for a bill that is 13 times that large in terms of the
amount by which it exceeds the amount that the budget allowed for it
last year, and yet we have no idea whatsoever what other priorities are
going to have to be cut back in order to pay for it.
Highways are a very high priority with me. But they are not the only
priority. It seems to me irresponsible, to say the least, for the House
to vote on this before we know where the money is going to come from.
In my view, this House ought to turn down this bill until the budget
resolution is out here so that Congress can make its priority choices
and decide how much more funding it wants in education, how much more
funding it wants in health care, how much more funding it wants in
Medicaid, or how much less it may want in some of these areas.
Until we know that, I think it is spectacularly irresponsible for us
to proceed to vote for this bill. And even though I am a zealous
supporter of highway construction, and I guess in my days in the State
legislature I was probably a pretty good imitation of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), under these circumstances I simply
cannot support this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Bolivar, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to stand here in
support of this bill. I think this bill moves highway funding in the
right direction. Certainly I want to say in response to my friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that I do not know what the third
point was, but in response to the first two, this bill does increase
spending for highways by about 40 percent. But the way it does this is
by spending the Highway Trust Fund on transportation. That is the way
this should have been done all the time.
We would not be talking about spending more money on highways than we
had planned for in the past if we had been doing what the American
people thought we were doing all the time, which was spending their gas
tax money for the purpose they thought it was going to be spent for. In
terms of the offsets, we wouldn't have to be considering offsets if a
year ago we had moved to move this transportation fund off budget. It
is important, I think, to create and continue the credibility that the
gas tax system has by spending the money for what Americans think the
money is going to be spent for, by balancing the budget in a true and
fair way, and the way to do that is to move this trust fund off budget,
treat it as a trust fund, and of course that results in more money
being spent on our infrastructure because that is exactly how people
thought that money was going to be spent in the past.
Of course in response to the questions on demonstration projects, the
projects that have some input by the Members of Congress only reflect
about 5 percent of the money being spent on total, on transportation.
Those projects still have to be approved as part of the State-wide
plan. Eighty-five percent of the dollars spent are spent by the
departments of transportation in the various States.
{time} 1100
Seven percent is spent by the administration in one way or another;
and only five percent receive real input from the Members of Congress,
who know their districts better than anybody else.
I urge adoption of the rule and adoption of the plan.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), a member of the committee.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule, especially on
my side of the aisle; and I urge them to set aside partisan
considerations and any special agendas and support the rule.
The consideration of legislation to reauthorize ISTEA simply cannot
wait. It is the 11th hour. We face a May 1 deadline, upon which the
ability of States to obligate Federal highway dollars will expire. This
comes at a critical time, especially in many States where the start of
the construction season must begin earlier than in other parts of the
country.
A vote against this rule will unravel the delicate balance that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has achieved; and I commend
his leadership, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), in achieving this delicate balance.
If we defeat this rule, it kills the bill. I cannot even imagine what
the alternative would be. So I urge my colleagues to keep their eye on
the ball here.
To those who believe ISTEA spends too much, I say, under the rule,
they will have their chance to vent their concerns through the
amendments offered by the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from
South Carolina. They will have their shot through these two amendments.
To those who are concerned with the proposed amendment of my good
friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), I say
to them that they will have their chance in conference to vent their
concerns and their support for this amendment at that time.
We may debate the issue today and during general debate or during
consideration of this rule, but I urge support of the rule so that the
process may go forward so that we will have consideration during the
conference committee.
And to those of my colleagues who are concerned that this rule makes
in order the amendment of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Roukema) to eliminate the DBE program, I say that they will have the
commitment from the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure that will stand with them in opposing
this amendment. Republican and Democrat alike, we in the leadership on
the committee will urge a no vote on that amendment.
So I urge adoption of this rule.
My colleagues, do not have it said that we have worked to defeat the
most important legislation facing our Nation today, because the eyes of
the Nation are upon us. Every motorist who sat in congestion this
morning knows that, every driver subject to road rage. A vote on this
rule is a defining moment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Scottsdale, Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding me the time; and I rise in strong support of the rule and the
self-executing amendment contained therein.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all my colleagues and their staffs and the
American people to listen closely, especially
[[Page H1863]]
the veterans who have served this country. Because contained within
this rule is an amendment that sends a very strong message to our
Nation's veterans, a message that needs to be reaffirmed loudly and
clearly, that I do this morning in the well of the House and that, more
importantly, we do in the legislative language of this rule. Because we
need to say to America's veterans that we will not take money from
their programs to pay for transportation spending.
The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled
American Veterans, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam
Veterans of America, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Jewish War
Veterans, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Non-
Commissioned Officers Association have all spoken very clearly; and, my
colleagues, we should heed their call to resist the temptation to raid
veterans' programs to fund this bill.
Now, I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to accept this
amendment and include it as part of the rule. I appreciate the
willingness of my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to hear these
concerns.
And the reason we must express them today from this well and in this
rule is because, sadly, the other body, the Senate, it seems, ignored
veterans' concerns when it passed its version of the bill. The Senate-
passed bill would apparently spend all the veterans' money on surface
transportation projects.
Now, it is my view that in passing this rule and the amendment
contained herein, this House will send a message to the other body that
we are opposed to that. So it is important to give our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure chairman and other members of the
conference a clear signal when they go into consultations with the
other body so that they stand firm and we stand firm protecting
veterans' programs.
Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his help in
making this amendment in order.
Let me also pause at this time, Mr. Speaker, to thank the dean of our
Arizona delegation, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), chairman of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, who 53 years ago today was landing
in the Pacific possessions defending America's freedom in World War II,
for his leadership; and also one of our new colleagues, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond), for his help in joining with me to offer
this amendment, again, to echo the comments of my good friend from the
other side of the aisle from West Virginia.
This is an important rule, an important piece of legislation. Please
vote yes on this rule and the amendment contained therein.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, well, my colleagues, today is April Fool's
Day. How fitting and how truly outrageous that we are here today
considering a rule that silences this Chamber and prevents debate on
our amendment that will save hundreds of lives every year.
The amendment that I had hoped to offer, along with our colleagues,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman), and over 100 cosponsors, was not a radical proposal. It would
have simply established .08 BAC as the national DWI standard. It was
identical to a measure adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate during
consideration of the highway bill last month.
More than 17,000 Americans were killed last year by drunk drivers.
More than 3,700 of these fatalities and countless other injuries
occurred in crashes involving persons with BAC levels below .10.
Virtually every medical, law enforcement, and highway safety
organization supports the .08 standard. The United States lags behind
other industrialized nations in adopting .08 laws, despite the
overwhelming evidence that drivers are seriously impaired at .08.
Here in the United States, 15 States have already adopted .08 laws;
and studies show that as many as 600 lives would be saved each year if
every State adopted the .08 standard. And yet, this life-saving measure
was blocked by the Committee on Rules. How shameful.
In my 10 years of service in this institution, I have never been so
disgusted. The liquor and restaurant industries gave millions in
campaign contributions last year, and today they got what they paid
for. The liquor industry owns this House lock, stock, and barrel.
Every 30 minutes an American is killed by a drunk driver, and yet the
House leadership could not even give Members half that time to debate
our amendment. Somehow, though, they managed to find time for 60
minutes of debate on a partisan measure that failed the Senate
overwhelmingly. What a sham.
The House leadership has opened their doors and pockets to the liquor
lobby and slammed them in the face of the mothers and fathers who have
lost children to drunk drivers. The liquor lobby has bottled up our
bill and demonstrated loud and clear that they put profits ahead of
people's lives.
Today we had an opportunity, my colleagues, to follow the Senate lead
and save lives. We were poised at a crucial moment in the fight to make
our Nation's roads safer from drunk drivers. The rule defeats all that.
I urge Members to oppose this gag rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Middleton, New York (Mr. Gilman), the very distinguished chairman of
the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern about the rule which fails to
make the .08 blood alcohol content amendment in order during
consideration of ISTEA reauthorization.
I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for bringing
this measure to the attention of the House. This amendment establishes
a National DWI standard of .08 blood alcohol concentration and was
approved by the Senate by a 62-32 vote earlier in March.
Fifteen States have already adopted .08 BAC laws, and their
experiences show that 600 lives would be saved in our Nation each year
if every State adopted this tough and necessary DWI standard. The
tragedy of a fatality that results in drunk driving has touched too
many families throughout our Nation. Seventeen thousand Americans were
killed by drunk drivers just in last year alone.
In response to opponents of the .08 BAC due to States rights
concerns, please bear in mind that President Reagan's remarks during
the signing of a bill establishing the age of 21 as the national
minimum drinking age stated, ``This problem is bigger than the
individual States. It is a grave national problem, and it touches all
of our lives. With the problem so clear-cut and the proven solution at
hand, we have no misgivings about the judicious use of Federal power.
I'm convinced it will help persuade State legislators to act in the
national interest to save our children's lives.''
That was President Reagan who succinctly emphasized the importance of
the measure. It is clear that President Reagan understood the need for
the Federal Government to protect our youth across the Nation. I am
confident that he would feel no less obligated to do the same if he was
still president.
Bear in mind that the .08 amendment leaves it up to the States to
decide what penalty should apply for DWI convictions. Those who stand
to lose the most by the blood alcohol content standards higher than .08
are our children.
In closing, let me urge our colleagues that this rule, which I
reluctantly support, would have been far stronger by including the
Lowey-Gilman amendment; and I am urging my colleagues to provide a
future opportunity for further consideration of this worthy proposal.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H1864]]
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule;
and I do so not in criticism of the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. They have attempted to
do their job in high priority.
My concern today deals with the total amount of spending and the
waiving of the budget process in a way that I have never seen in the 19
years I have served in this House of Representatives. We Democrats used
to waive budget decisions and were criticized for doing it. But it was
wrong when we did it. It is wrong when they do it today. And never have
we seen it done as it is being done today.
Where is the budget resolution? I want to have a warning, and I want
all of my colleagues who believe this is a free shot today to listen to
what I am about to say. We are using real bullets in this bill. Passing
the highway bill as it is passed today jeopardizes a lot of other
programs.
Agriculture, for example, has priorities; and they are the first
casualty of this bill. The Committees on Agriculture in the House and
Senate have worked with the administration to reach a compromise on the
Ag Research Conference, using savings from food stamp administration to
pay for agriculture research, nutrition programs, rural development,
and crop insurance.
Now we are hearing the leadership of the Congress has determined that
the agriculture research bill will not come to a vote because those
monies have been reserved to pay for the highway bill. Now, if my
colleagues care about problems of crop insurance, if my colleagues care
about problems of nutrition programs, if my colleagues care about rural
development programs, if my colleagues care about crop insurance
concerns, please understand this is not a free shot.
Paying for these programs under the caps of the budget that we have
bipartisanly agreed to will be extremely difficult if the first bill
outside the budget resolution comes to the floor of the House and is
passed without anyone thinking they are going to have to pay for it
with real dollars.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
{time} 1115
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be rejected. It excuses a
massive failure of leadership, and it is an April fool's joke on the
American people. We are breaking the historic budget agreement to
eliminate our Nation's deficit when the ink is hardly dry.
An agreement that was widely praised on both sides of the aisle and
around the country is now being repudiated. We are spending at least
$33 billion more in this particular bill than that historic agreement
allowed in the budget.
We are also using the Highway Trust Fund concept as a smoke screen
for a spending spree that even leaves the most conservative critics in
despair. The fact of the matter is that we have spent on
transportation, more particularly highways, during the period of this
trust fund, $152 billion that is not accounted for in the trust fund.
It is because this money, including interest, has come out of the
general fund. This is according to a GAO report.
We are also violating all budget rules. Previous speakers have
alluded to that. It makes no sense to have a budget resolution process
and then neglect it.
Finally, we are passing legislation that disregards the
responsibility that we all have of balancing the various needs of the
Federal Government and the American society as we identify our
priorities. We are simply identifying transportation as the first and
only priority. We are neglecting what this does and many other very
important programs.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I support more funding for highway and mass
transit. My district needs it, and my constituents want it. And the
committee has kindly provided some funds for my district. But we have
provided a substantial plus-up in transportation spending already.
In the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, transportation was the only
function of the budget funded at a higher level than the President
requested. In the appropriation process, we went even further. In
highway programs alone, we appropriated $23.3 billion in fiscal 1998.
That is $2.3 billion above the level appropriated in fiscal year 1997.
In terms of outlays, it is $3.5 billion more than fiscal year 1997, an
increase of 19 percent.
This bill goes far beyond even those increased levels. BESTEA is $40
billion above the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997, and outlays is $26
billion. If we pass this bill, transportation will trump the rest of
the budget. We will have to pare back priorities that we have already
committed to and preclude ourselves from doing initiatives in other
areas.
What does that mean? Education will take a hit. Housing is in
jeopardy, NIH and biomedical research, other infrastructure, the Corps
of Engineers.
Exactly what offsets we will make we do not know, because this bill
does not identify them. It says elliptically that no funds can be
obligated under this law until offsets have been identified. I take it
this decision will be made in conference by the conferees on this bill,
not by the Committee on Budget in a budget resolution, not the
Committee on Appropriations in the 302(b) allocation process.
This is a radical departure from our established procedures. This
bill violates the Balanced Budget Agreement by being $40 billion above
the agreed-upon amount. It violates the Congressional Budget Act by
presenting this bill before a budget resolution has been passed and by
exceeding the allocations made last year. It violates the Budget
Enforcement Act by presenting or creating $9.3 billion in mandatory
spending, which is not without identifying the offsets.
What I call for, Mr. Speaker, is a vote against the rule and return
to established procedures, to the disciplines that have brought us at
long last to a balanced budget.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Stamford, Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Connecticut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Connecticut
is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I know there are men and women of goodwill on both sides of this
issue. I have a feeling that, I end up sounding a bit self-righteous
because I have lot of convictions.
I just want to say from the outset that someone said to me, you may
feel strongly you are right, but you are not always right. Maybe this
is one of those times.
But I believe with all my heart and soul this is a core debate for
this Republican Congress. Are we truly going to get our country's
financial house in order and balance the budget? It is a core issue.
Are we are going to talk about spending surpluses before surpluses even
exist?
Last year, many of us felt the budget agreement was too generous. The
Budget Committee allowed the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, for instance, to get $9 billion more. Then the
Appropriations Committee decided to give the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure another $11 billion. Last year we
gave the committee $20 billion more during a 5-year period.
We have a bill that is coming before us that is going to spend,
according to CBO $33 billion above and beyond the budget agreement. I
know Republicans are not going to let it be paid for out of the defense
side of the budget. Democrats, particularly the President, are not
going to let transportation be paid
[[Page H1865]]
out of the social side of the budget. So maybe it comes out of some
theoretical savings that we have in entitlements, or maybe it just does
not get paid for.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if we do have a surplus, it should go for
social security or deficit reduction like my side has advocated. I
think if we have new programs, they should be paid for out of old
programs. I believe, if we have new taxes, we should cut taxes
somewhere else for no net increase.
I am hard-pressed to know how this $33 billion budget buster fits in
with this Republican majority and what I have been about for 11 years
in trying to get my country's financial house in order.
I particularly object to the fact that the Committee on Rules did not
provide in order a bipartisan amendment which would have allowed us to
debate this issue and bring the transportation bill in line with the
budget agreement.
I am particularly disappointed the Committee on Rules did not put in
order an amendment that would have allowed us to vote on whether the
transportation bill would be in accordance with our budget agreement.
In other words, if our amendment had been in order and passed, we would
take $33 billion out of this $217 billion bill.
Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that this Republican majority finds its
center again. I believe we are losing it. I believe we need to work
overtime to get it back. I honestly have to say to my colleagues I
think we will be judged harshly if we don't. I oppose the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio).
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield to no Member of this
institution in my love for infrastructure. I think we all appreciate
the fact that this bill gives us a great opportunity to take something
home to the people who send us here.
But my problem with it is that it is, frankly, too big. This is not
just a vote about bridges and highways. This is, in fact, the budget
vote for this Congress. This is a vote that is going to shape the
Federal budget not just this year but for the next 5 years.
We have already passed the deficit reduction package in the first
year of this Congress. Most of the cuts occur in the outyears. Most of
the outlays in this bill occur in the outyears. The Budget crunch is
out ahead of us.
Those of us on this side of the aisle who want another 100,000
teachers in the classroom so we can reduce classroom size, or who want
to expand Medicare to people who are 55 to 65 and have lost their jobs
and their health benefits and those on the other side of the aisle who
think they may want some tax cuts in the future are, at this point,
being told by the people bringing us this bill that their priorities do
not count that they have no lace in the debate.
If we want to protect social security by allowing the surplus to be
held in abeyance until we come up with that fix, we can count on that
surplus being spent if this bill passes. In fact, this is a vote that
will, in fact, put us in a position to have no discretionary dollars to
spend on any of our priorities on either side of the aisle in the next
3 to 5 years.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. By skipping the budget
process, by not facing up to these dilemmas, these needs for offsets
publicly, up front, we are delaying till the end of this process the
responsibility we should have taken by now.
We are not willing to have a priorities debate in front of ourselves,
let alone the American people and that decision is an abomination. I
appreciate the people who bring this bill to us. They do it in all good
faith. But they do it in a way that is detrimental to the future of
this institution and the American people despite their sincere belief
that the Highway bill should take precedent over every other spending
program.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the
gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Aviation.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill.
I particularly want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for his hard work on this bill. It is a
real tribute to his perseverance and his dedication to and love for his
country.
I want to also commend the ranking member, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his work.
A misimpression is being conveyed on this bill. Many people seem to
think that all of this spending is being done in 1 year. This is a 6-
year bill. When we divide 6 into the total involved here, it comes out
to slightly less than 2 percent of Federal spending over this period.
Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker, slightly less than 2 percent of
Federal spending over this 6-year period.
I believe we can poll any group in this country and well over 90
percent of the people in this country would agree that 2 percent is not
too much for Federal Government to spend on our Nation's highways,
roads, bridges, and transit needs. This is a very conservative bill,
Mr. Speaker. It is one that all Members can and should support.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), the minority whip.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. Under
today's budget constraint, $218 billion is simply too much. It is too
much asphalt, too much money to take away from our children, the
elderly, our veterans, and the needy.
This bill busts the budget by $26 billion. Money does not grow on
trees. It must come from somewhere. This bill will force us to cut
valuable government programs like Head Start, school lunches, low
income housing, health care, veterans, and environmental protection.
This bill is not the bridge to the 21st century. It is not a bridge
to our future. We are moving down the wrong highway. Are we prepared as
a great Nation to choose concrete over children, bridges over books,
pavement over people?
Do not get me wrong. We need Federal transportation programs, but
$218 billion is simply too much. Beginning with the Democratic budget
in 1993, we have put our fiscal house in order. Now we have a balanced
budget. We have money for schools. We have money for children. We have
money for veterans, the elderly, and the needy. This bill will end all
of that. It puts our fiscal house in disarray. It busts the bank.
Because this bill does not pay for itself, it makes no hard choices.
It is easy to vote for a $20 million road project in our district. But
how do we tell little children there is no money for schools, no money
for books, no money for teachers?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I am not
willing, I am not prepared to sacrifice education, health care, the
environment, and community development to $218 billion worth of asphalt
and urban sprawl. It is simply too much.
{time} 1130
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Los
Alamos, New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) who worked long and hard to make sure
that veterans will not be detrimentally impacted by this bill.
Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Speaker, this vote this morning is concerning
keeping our word, our word to those who pay taxes into the Highway
Trust Fund for the highways and the bridges that Americans deserve, but
it is also about keeping our word to the veterans of the United States
of America.
I am proud to represent in the State of New Mexico the survivors of
the Bataan death march, a road of a different kind. These were men that
laid down their lives, and their brothers were killed during the time
of the Bataan death march, and we need to remember that these men
received promises from this government to take care of their medical
needs, and to be utilizing money for roads from the veterans' fund is
unconscionable, but it is equally unconscionable to be charging
Americans at the gas pump for taxes and not delivering the roads.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, the rule that will
enable us to keep our word both to those who have supported our
veterans and also those who have supported our roads.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Del
Mar (Mr. Cunningham), my very good friend and fellow Californian.
[[Page H1866]]
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule. Like all
the bills that we have, I do not know of a single bill that we have
that there are parts that we do not like. I like the section that we
just talked about, protecting the veterans, and I think the case that
can be made in order is a very good one. The chairman may disagree with
that.
But I was disappointed at one area, and the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Lowey) has an amendment that would draw down drunk drivers down
to .8 percent and put penalties. It is a stick. There are measures in
the bill that is a carrot and a stick, but I think in the case of drunk
drivers we need more stick than we do carrot, and I am disappointed
that that is not allowed. It is in the Senate version, and I would ask
the chairman and the ranking minority to support that in conference
even though it is not in our bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) ranking member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar) is recognized for for 3 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules for this time.
Listening to all these previous speakers who came up with one or
another complaint about this legislation, one would think Chicken
Little was right, the sky is falling all around us, or the budget. Or
one might think that this bill is some sort of budgetary Pac Man
chewing its way through the budget, nibbling up everything else for
every other function. To say that we cannot do anything for education
or we cannot do anything for veterans because of this bill is absolute
hogwash. Look at the budget and the billions of dollars that are in
that budget for every other function of government.
To say that we are taking $26 billion is wrong. It is $25.4; let us
be right, let us get the numbers right. Even if my colleagues figure
out that a decimal point does not go over a halfway point they can slip
it over to the first. Let us be exact about it, $25.4 billion. That is
$4 billion a year over the budget agreement over the period of this
bill.
Do my colleagues mean they cannot find $4 billion in a $1.7 trillion
federal budget? Out of a $7 trillion national economy? That
transportation accounts for over 10 percent of our total gross domestic
product, approaching $778 billion, the transportation sector alone? It
is the engine driving the national economy.
For 30 years, my colleagues, for 30 years surpluses have been
building up in the Highway Trust Fund, being used to fund other
functions of government. Transportation going to come to the floor over
the last 30 years and say, ``Oh, my God, you can increase spending for
this that or the other function because it means we won't build more
roads and bridges.'' No. And over that period of 30 years $29 billion
have been built up in the surplus in the Highway Trust Fund, and now
that surplus is just going to go poof, off into the ether, to reduce
the Federal debt somehow, and we do not even get to spend out the
interest on capital into the Highway Trust Fund in the next 6 years of
this legislation.
As my colleagues know, the Congress, this Congress, this body right
here made an agreement with the driving public of America in 1956 and
said we will create a trust fund into which taxes on gasoline will be
paid, and from that trust fund we will create a guaranteed dedicated
revenue stream to build these projects. And bills would come to the
House floor every 5 years and pass on a voice vote because the public
had confidence that we meant what we said, that we struck a bargain and
we are living by that bargain. And now we have got that surplus built
up, and that surplus is just going to go away. That is nonsense.
Vote for this rule, vote for this bill, vote for the future of
America.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that was a spectacular speech, but I am sure we will
hear an even better one now from the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules. Pending that I would like to make a unanimous
consent request.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
general debate for this rule, H. Res. 405.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is
recognized for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding this time to me.
After the last speech by my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar), I should just move the previous question because I
think he has sold this House, and rightfully so. In doing so I want to
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and all of the other members of the
committee that worked so diligently on this.
As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, I take no back seat for anyone as
far as fiscal responsibility in this House. And as my colleagues know,
5 years ago I wrote a book. It is called ``The Balanced Budget, A
Republican Plan,'' and it shows how to go about balancing the budget
not in 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 or 2, but in 1 year, and we followed it up with a
2,000 page bill that shows how to deduct over $900 billion in spending.
Well, the Republican and the Democratic Members of this House adopted
much of this, and today I am so very, very proud that after 20 years
that I, Jerry Solomon, can say we have got a balanced budget in this
House.
Now it comes to the trust funds. There is nothing more outrageous to
the American people, nothing, than taxing them for a certain purpose
and then this Congress absconding with the money, and that is what we
have been doing for years in the Social Security Trust Fund, in the
Medicare Trust Fund, in the Highway Trust Fund. That is illegal.
Of course we have done it legally, but it is illegal to the American
people because the motorists have paid these taxes year after year
after year, these surpluses have built up, and then we have used the
surpluses to offset and say we have a balanced budget. Well, we are not
going to do that any more; we are going to take those moneys that were
raised for this purpose and we are going to spend it all across this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I represent the Northeast. It is the Rust Belt. I
represent an area in the Catskill Mountains, the Hudson Valley and the
Adirondacks where we still have old post roads where they used to drive
horses and carriages over them, and we have bridges that are falling
down and people are being killed. Not too many years ago a whole wide
road washed out and killed dozens of people.
The infrastructure of this country is going down the drain, and if we
do not have a strong infrastructure, how can we continue to have a good
economy? We cannot, and that is why every Member, especially
conservatives like me, ought to come over here and live up to their
fiscal responsibility and vote for this rule and vote for the bill.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment to
H.R. 2400 which expresses the Sense of Congress that offsets to
spending above the Congressional Budget Office baseline, as described
in section 1001 of the bill, should not be taken from veterans
programs. This amendment will be considered as adopted upon approval of
the rule governing consideration of H.R. 2400.
This important amendment makes it clear that offsets for increases in
spending authorized by the Building Efficient Surface Transportation
and Equity Act should not include any provision making a change in
programs or benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
There seems to be a widespread misconception about restricting or
denying a benefit to which a qualifying veteran is entitled to receive
as a means of finding ``savings'' to offset the costs of other
legislation. This misconception is seductively simple--if a veteran is
not now in receipt of an entitlement which he or she would qualify to
receive if they had applied for this benefit, then eliminating this
benefit does that veteran no harm.
[[Page H1867]]
Would the Members of the House and Senate who are eligible for, but
not yet in receipt of, a retirement pension believe they would not be
harmed if their anticipated retirement benefit was reduced or
eliminated because they had not yet applied to receive it? There would
be shrieks and howls about such an injustice. We would be told the
Members had ``earned'' their pension. Veterans also have earned the
benefits which they are entitled to receive.
Let me also make it clear that I strongly support passage of H.R.
2400. We clearly need to have a modern, efficient and reliable
transportation infrastructure. This has always been important and is
certainly no less important today with the increasing globalization of
the economy and economic competition. We can do this, however, while
continuing to honor our commitments to veterans.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 357,
nays 61, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 90]
YEAS--357
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capps
Carson
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Rush
Ryun
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NAYS--61
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Brown (OH)
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Christensen
Clayton
Conyers
Cramer
Davis (FL)
Deutsch
Dooley
Edwards
Etheridge
Fazio
Ford
Gephardt
Graham
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hoyer
Inglis
Kind (WI)
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Obey
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Schumer
Shadegg
Shays
Skaggs
Smith, Adam
Spratt
Stenholm
Tanner
Torres
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Wolf
Yates
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Cannon
Cox
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Jefferson
Kennedy (MA)
Klug
Payne
Rangel
Riggs
Royce
Waters
{time} 1200
Messrs. HASTINGS of Florida, CRAMER, WATT of North Carolina, SCHUMER,
Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. INGLIS of South Carolina, SALMON,
TORRES, GRAHAM, and SANFORD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RODRIGUEZ and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
____________________