[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

                          ____________________