[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3715-H3719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT ON H.R. 2400, BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998 OFFERED BY MR. MINGE
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Minge moves the managers on the part of the House at
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill, H.R 2400, be instructed to ensure that spending for
highways and transit programs authorized in the conference
agreement on H.R. 2400 is fully paid for using estimates of
the Congressional Budget Office, to reject the use of
estimates from any other source, to reject any method of
budgeting that departs from the budget enforcement principles
currently in effect, or the use of the budget surplus to pay
for spending on highways or transit programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member in
opposition will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the transportation bill that is pending before the
conference committee exceeds what was in the balanced budget agreement
of 1997. It exceeds what is in the Senate budget resolution. It exceeds
what is in the pending House budget resolution. It is clear that we
have a budget busting bill that is coming out of the conference
committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the conferees have a very heavy burden
of identifying offsets that would make this particular transportation
bill fit within any type of reasonable budget process. In this context,
it is becoming clear that the conferees are sorely tempted to use a
process called directed scoring.
This body has established a tradition of referring to the
Congressional Budget Office to determine the cost of programs that are
proposed, to determine the cost of offsets that are proposed, to
provide guidance to this body. The Congressional Budget Office, over
the years, has earned the reputation of being bipartisan, actually of
being nonpartisan. The Congressional Budget Office, if it had been
listened to, 10, 15 years ago, would have provided us with the guidance
that would have avoided the tremendous deficits that we incurred in the
1980s and the early 1990s. Tragically, we did not listen to the
Congressional Budget Office.
The question that we now face is, should we depart from this honored
principle, should we disregard the rules and the traditions of this
body and simply pick and choose?
Mr. Speaker, the tradition that is so well established and the rules
that are so well established are ones that we should continue to
observe. If we are to allow the conferees to simply determine what
particular scoring agency or
[[Page H3716]]
entity provides the most favorable figure and then use that figure in a
conference report, we will essentially have gutted the responsibility
that we have to the American people to make sure that we comply with
the budget principles that are so important in this country. We have
come close to balancing the budget in 1998. All we are doing is using
the Social Security Trust Fund that appears to keep us in the black.
{time} 2030
At this point I almost feel like I need to start again. But the point
that I am trying to make is that cherrypicking in scoring is an
abhorrent practice and it is one that we should not allow to be
established, and it is one that we should instruct the conferees to not
use in connection with the transportation bill.
The precise way in which this appears to be unfolding here in mid-May
is that the Veterans Administration, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, has, by a ruling of an administrative law judge, an obligation
to cover the cost of health care for veterans that have illnesses
related to smoking or tobacco use. The Office of Management and Budget
has apparently estimated that it will cost $17 billion to provide that
health care. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it will cost
$10 billion.
The question is should we allow the conferees to pick and choose what
agency's scoring will be used in connection with the conference report.
Seven billion dollars, in a sense, is hanging in the balance here.
Seven billion dollars that may well be added to the deficit; or $7
billion that would be added to this Nation's debt; or $7 billion that
we would not have available for Social Security reform; or, ultimately,
$7 billion that might have to be sequestered from other programs.
It is not responsible, Mr. Speaker, for us, as a body, to engage in
any picking and choosing of who is to be doing the scoring in
connection with our offsets. We have an agency that we have
established. Let us use that agency. That agency is the Congressional
Budget Office.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
seek the time in opposition for the majority party?
Mr. DeLAY. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to
instruct, and I am instructed that the conferees, who would like to be
out here to debate against this motion to instruct, but they are hard
at work in the conference in order to turn out an excellent highway
bill, but I am instructed to tell the House that the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is against this motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago this Chamber was
filled with people, people fighting over whether we should be using
Congressional Budget Office numbers or GAO numbers. And the people on
the majority side of the aisle said we cannot trust those numbers. We
cannot trust those numbers. We have to go with the Congressional Budget
Office numbers. And that was the agreement that was reached. The
administration agreed to that, the parties on this side agreed to that,
because we felt that it continued the fiscal integrity that had been
established by the Congressional Budget Office.
Today, the concern is cherrypicking. The concern today is whether the
conferees are going to pick and choose which budget estimates they like
the most. And this is a real world concern, as the gentleman from
Minnesota indicated, because $7 billion hangs in the balance. If we use
the GAO numbers, we are looking at $17 billion. If we use the
Congressional Budget Office numbers, we are looking at $10 billion.
If we are going to be truthful with the American people, and if we
are going to keep this process as pure as it should be, we have to use
consistent numbers. It is wrong for us to shop around to try to find
the best price and stick it in at that point.
So I am proud to stand with the gentleman from Minnesota, because I
think he is basically trying to come forward with some truth in
budgeting. And I think it is important for us to retain the integrity
of the process. So I would urge all my colleagues to support the
gentleman's motion.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the Republican
leadership would want to take credit for cutting $17 billion out of
veterans' health care programs rather than just cutting $10 billion.
But I presume if they want to take credit for cutting those veterans'
benefits, despite the opposition of every major national veterans
organization, then they can have that credit.
Mr. Speaker, the principle behind the Minge motion is very simple. It
says, first, if Congress is going to increase spending for new
programs, it should pay for it with cuts in other programs. Second, the
Minge motion says Congress should use honest numbers, honest numbers in
budgeting.
I would hope that every Member of Congress who has claimed to be a
fiscal conservative will vote for this motion. I would like to see
bipartisan support for it.
The first point, paying for new spending with other budget cuts, is
certainly not a new idea. Every Member who voted, Republican and
Democrat alike, who voted for the 5-year Balanced Budget Act just 9
months ago in this body, in this Chamber, has already gone on record
saying new spending should be paid for, not passed on to our children
and grandchildren as an increase in the national debt.
The second point to the Minge motion, using honest budget numbers, is
something my Republican colleagues have strongly embraced in the past.
Specifically, Republican House Members up to now have argued that the
Congressional Budget Office numbers should be used to ensure, in their
terms, honest budgeting.
In light of numerous Republican floor speeches in 1995, when many
House Republicans were even willing to shut down the Federal Government
over the principle of using CBO numbers, it would be surprising today
if that principle should now be abandoned in the name of cutting
veterans' programs, health care programs, more deeply, or in the name
of increasing Federal spending by $7 billion.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if a principle is good enough to justify
shutting down the Federal Government, with all the harm that caused
just 3 years ago, then surely that same principle should be worth
voting for today in the Minge motion.
Let me use not my words but the words of Republicans on the floor of
this House just a few years ago about the important principle that the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is showing today.
Speaker Gingrich said, ``All the President has to do,'' and then went
on to finish by saying, ``is to commit to a 7-year balanced budget with
honest numbers and an honest scoring system,'' referring to the CBO
numbers.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, said, on November 20, 1995, in this House:
There is no wiggle room there, ladies and gentlemen. We
will do it with 7 years, as estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office. There is no wiggle room there. No smoke and
mirrors. We will do it with realistic figures.
Seems to me if smoke and mirrors were a bad habit in 1995 they are a
bad habit in 1998.
Let us go on to see what other Republican Members of the House said
about using CBO numbers.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), my friend and colleague, a
strong fiscal conservative, said:
I also rise in favor of the concurrent resolution that says
we will balance the budget in 7 years, that we will use
honest numbers.
The Congressional Budget Office numbers are what he was referring to.
And finally, let me just mention another Republican statement from
December 20 of 1995 made in the well of this House. The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton) said:
I believe a lot of Members on that side want a balanced
budget, too. They want it honestly scored, and that means by
the Congressional Budget Office. We are tired of smoke and
mirrors and phony numbers.
[[Page H3717]]
Yet phony numbers are what this House will endorse if it votes
against the Minge motion.
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, from my political perspective as a
Democrat, it would probably help me more if most Republicans vote
against the Minge motion. Such a vote would show the increasingly
restless core Republican voters that the Republican leadership in this
House has turned its back on principles such as fiscal responsibility
and using honest budget numbers that seemed so terribly important just
36 months ago. If these core principles were the Republican
justification for shutting down the Federal Government in 1995, then
surely those principles should be worth supporting in the few minutes
ahead.
Because, though, I believe that the policy of fiscal responsibility
in this highway bill is more important than its politics, frankly, I
hope that Republicans will stick with their past principles and join
Democrats in supporting the Minge motion.
Mr. Speaker, this highway bill is the first major test of the 5-year,
5-year, balanced budget agreement signed just 9 months ago. If we fail
to be fiscally responsible in this, our first major test of the budget
agreement, then the so-called 5-year Balanced Budget Act should be
renamed the 9-Month Budget Act, or perhaps even the ``We Really Didn't
Mean It Budget Act''.
Any Member who supported the Balanced Budget Act or has spoken of
``honest budgeting'' can show their constituents this evening they mean
what they say by voting for the Minge motion.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge) has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding me this time. I wish there was a little more attention being
paid to this motion to instruct.
As one that spent a good part of my congressional career striving for
a balanced budget, I am rather happy to see that for the first time in
years we have a surplus. Too many people, though, are ignoring that we
have a surplus because of the Social Security trust fund surplus for
this year.
Any dollars that we spend over and above the balanced budget
agreement of last year are going to eventually come from Social
Security. Let no one be deceived or deceive anyone with their vote on
any bill that exceeds that which we agreed to in the balanced budget
agreement.
We have spent a lot of time fussing over the last several years about
whose scoring is going to be used. It is, well, I do not want to use
the word amazing, it is rather alarming and disturbing that all of a
sudden it seems that the majority that have spent a good part of their
time criticizing OMB suddenly are willing to cherrypick a number that
suits the current needs that will borrow an additional $7 billion from
the Social Security trust fund to pass a highway construction bill. And
I am not opposed to the highway construction bill, except that portion
which busts the budget.
I think we are soon going to find, even though I hear that the budget
that is going to be submitted after we come back after Memorial Day, 2
months late, is not going to talk about specifics. Once again, Members
of this body are going to get to vote for principles, numbers.
If we are really truly wanting to keep our country on a fiscally
sound direction, this motion to instruct should not just pass here on
the floor but our conferees, who are working, as the majority whip
said, as we speak, they ought to be listening to this and they ought to
be already doing that which we are asking them to do: Use CBO scoring.
If it was reason enough to shut the government down in a dispute with
the President a couple of years ago, how can it be tonight that we
suddenly say it does not matter anymore? If it was so much of a
principle for us to stand on, and I disagreed with the tactic of
shutting the government down, but I agreed with the principle that we
should use CBO scoring. And now all of a sudden are we just going to
wink and nod and convince the people that we are doing budget
responsible things? I hope not.
We have a surplus this year. We are going to have a surplus next
year. It is because the economy is performing. It is because somebody
out there in the marketplace believes that something of what we have
been doing over the last 5 years is working. We have 5 consecutive
years of a deficit coming down. Five consecutive years. We are in the
black this year.
But how long will we be in the black, particularly if we start going
against the very principles that we have agreed unanimously,
unanimously, last year, that when it comes to scoring various bills we
are going to use CBO scoring?
{time} 2045
If we cherry-pick $7 billion, and I have got my concerns about the
utilization of veterans' funding for purposes of paying for this bill,
very big concerns. And a lot of other Members are going to have their
concerns. Because if we have $10 billion in the veterans area, we
should spend that on improving veterans' health care, not on some other
purpose. Because we have tremendous need, as we almost had a unanimous
vote this afternoon on the defense authorization bill.
But I conclude by saying this: This motion will hold the conference
committee to the standard that this Congress and the President
unanimously agreed to as part of the budget agreement. If we could
unanimously agree to this last year, how can we change our mind? For
what convenient purpose can we do it tonight?
I urge an aye vote for the motion to instruct. But, more importantly
than that, I encourage our conferees, who are meeting to do it without
us instructing them to do it, to do it. Because that is what every one
of my colleagues conferring on this bill agreed last year that they
were going to do. Do it for that purpose, if for no other reason.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the issue that the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge) raises tonight is a very simple one. It is one with which
many Members on both sides of the aisle are familiar. It is an issue
that dominated American politics for most of the last decade. The issue
is phoney numbers.
David Stockman, when he directed President Reagan's Office of
Management and Budget, called it the ``magic asterisk.'' It involves
the ability of budget analysts to show that virtually any spending
proposal is budget neutral if they are willing to make the right
assumptions.
Now, the Congressional Budget Office is supposed to decide what
proposals that are offered by various Members and various committees
will actually cost or save. The game that is presently being played on
the highway bill is to simply say that the Congressional Budget Office
just does not understand that the savings that the Congress will get
from disallowing certain veterans from receiving health benefits that
they are now entitled to will be much greater than their analysts
estimate. The committee is, in essence, saying that CBO has it all
wrong and that we have to use another estimate.
At the same time, the conferees are trying to argue CBO just does not
understand that the outlays that will occur from the highway bill are
much lower than the CBO estimate, so they have got it all wrong; and,
so, we are supposed to use another estimate.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any particular hang-up about whether
CBO or OMB numbers are used. I think that the goal ought to be to
determine who is the most accurate and what is the most real. It is
clear that that is not what is happening in this case.
What is happening in this case is that the conferees, apparently, are
looking for ways to spend almost an extra $10 billion without admitting
that they are spending it. So they are simply rejiggering the estimates
of the spending regs in order to make that happen.
Well, I would say that there is little question that these numerical
manipulations have been cleared by the majority party leadership on
both sides of the Capitol and that virtually any number that will help
sell the highway bill is going to be deemed acceptable.
[[Page H3718]]
This is the same leadership, as I understand it, that repeatedly shut
down the Federal Government over the sanctity of CBO scoring just 2\1/
2\ years ago.
On November 15, 1995, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) took
the floor and said, ``We do not ask you to agree to anything but two
principles, that the budget will be balanced in 7 years and that the
scoring will be honest numbers based on the Congressional Budget
Office.''
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) himself told the
Congress in 1971, ``So we should support our Congressional Budget
Office, a bipartisan office. We should not rely on OMB's figures.
Because certainly in the past they have been very, very unreliable.''
But that was before the Republican leadership had the opportunity to
hand out $9 billion in special projects. So I guess, with that kind of
opportunity, we may decide not to be quite so picky about their facts.
And so, we have a new set of principles that apparently are going to be
applied. We will always use the CBO unless using estimates from another
source helps us to pass bills which we want to push through.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not a budget process. This is not
discipline. There is no limit to how far that approach can take us in
balancing revenues that outlays on paper even if they will not do it in
the real world. We can buy anything we want as long as we can find a
friendly estimator, and that is what is happening here tonight.
So if we are going to throw the budget process overboard, it seems to
me we should not do so selectively and maintain the false pretense that
we are still maintaining discipline. If we are going to do that, then
perhaps we should plan to eliminate the $26 million we are planning to
spend on the Congressional Budget Office, period. At least that would
be a real offset to the billions of deficit spending contained in the
present version of the highway bill.
So I would simply urge, Mr. Speaker, we adopt the Minge amendment in
the interest of honesty and budgeting.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time remaining to
summarize the position in the debate.
As has just been pointed out, Members of this body on both sides of
the aisle have held the Congressional Budget Office in high esteem. It
is particularly important to note that the Republicans in this body
have said that it is virtually worth dying for as a political
principle.
We have shut the Government down over the question of whether we
would use the CBO scoring or use estimates from some other source. And
now to say that that principle is no longer worth even participating in
a debate is amazing.
The Honorable Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure himself has noted on a prior occasion in 1991 that, at
that time, it was a fight between OMB downtown and the Congressional
Budget Office, and I am quoting: ``Now we must remember that OMB
downtown is that same wonderful organization that gave us a $100
billion mistake, as I recall it, on their estimates of revenue with
regard to the budget estimate. CBO estimates are based on actual,
obligational experience. And if indeed they are wrong, this bill has in
it a fail-safe provision.''
Continuing on to say, ``So we should support our Congressional Budget
Office, a bipartisan office. We should not rely on OMB figures. Because
certainly in the past they have been very, very unreliable and we
should support the committee position.''
Mr. Speaker, I submit that we should listen to the chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in this very important
respect.
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is also very important to note that by
taking the risk of using designated scoring that takes a much more
expansive cost estimate of the values, so to speak, of this offset,
that is assuming we are saving $17 billion and that we can therefore
spend $17 billion places us in the very awkward position of going after
Social Security.
We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the only reason we can talk
about any type of a surplus these days is that we are borrowing $100
billion in 1998 from the Social Security Trust Fund. If it were not for
this borrowing, we would be running a deficit of close to $50 billion.
We do not have a surplus. We cannot afford to invade the Social
Security Trust Fund year after year.
It is time for budget candor. It is time for those of us here in the
House of Representatives to continue to observe the commitment that we
have made to the American people that we are going to use solid budget
scoring numbers; we are going to use the Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Condit).
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment. I know that
it has been said, but I wanted to say it again. We had this debate a
couple years ago where we talked about who we should use in terms of
doing a financial analysis, and I think all of us had a pretty lengthy
debate and had an opinion about this. But, in the final analysis, we
thought CBO was the appropriate agency to use.
All I am saying is that I think we ought to stick to that. That is
what we agreed to. And we have gone through this. I think this is a
good amendment, and I would call on Members on both sides of the aisle
to do what we said we were going to do when we agreed to do this a few
years ago. Use the CBO. That is the numbers that we all agreed upon.
And let us not confuse the matter by using one set of numbers one time
and another set of numbers another time. Let us keep some continuity to
this and use CBO.
I would just ask all those people to come over here and support the
amendment. It is a good amendment, and I congratulate the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for offering it.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that so many
Republican Members, colleagues who are willing to shut down the Federal
Government, harming veterans, harming seniors on Social Security,
putting many of our Federal employees at risk of losing their homes,
not being able to pay their bills, did not think it was important
enough to come back to the floor tonight to be here with less than half
a dozen of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
But what I do hope is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
American that were directly harmed by the Government shutdown, such as
our veterans in my district that did not receive compensation and
pension checks, did not have their cases handled, I hope the hundreds
of thousands of Federal employees that were put out of work because the
Republicans said the principle of using the Congressional Budget Office
numbers were so important we had to shut down the Government over that
principle, I hope all those millions of people will notice this debate
tonight and realize that the distinguished Majority Whip has now said
this principle is no longer worth defending. Not only is it not worth
defending, he said he is going to oppose the motion.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly appreciate those observations by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards). It clearly is a sad day when we can blatantly run over
this principle and proceed to pass legislation in disregard of what I
think on a bipartisan basis we have over the years established as a
very sound budgeting principle.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to close by saying that it is easy
for us, in the euphoria of passing a highway bill or a transportation
bill, to sort of give a wink and a nod at what we have thought was
important on another day.
There is something in this highway bill for all Americans. It is
important that we continue to invest in our infrastructure. I do not
think there is any question about that. All of the speakers this
evening agree with that principle. I would like to make sure that I am
among those individuals.
But the real question that we face is our responsibility, the
American people, as we proceed to pass this very important legislation.
Let us make sure that we do not use this opportunity to
[[Page H3719]]
invest in our infrastructure as an opportunity to slide back on our
commitment to balancing the budget and giving the American people the
fiscal responsibility that they deserve.
{time} 2100
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
conferees offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further
proceedings on the question of adoption of this motion to instruct
conferees are postponed until after consideration of the motion to
instruct to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________