[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.

                          ____________________