[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3719-H3722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2400, BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE 
       TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998, OFFERED BY MR. OBEY

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct House conferees 
on the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, 
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that 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 limit the aggregate 
     number of earmarked highway demonstration projects included 
     in the conference report on H.R. 2400 to a number that does 
     not exceed the aggregate number of such highway demonstration 
     projects earmarked during the 42 years since the enactment of 
     the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXVIII, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct the conferees on the highway 
bill now pending somewhere in this Capitol is an attempt to put some 
limits on the pork barrel spending in BESTEA by placing a ceiling on 
the total number of highway demonstration projects that can be included 
in the conference report.
  It instructs the House conferees to make a great sacrifice and to 
limit the number of highway demonstration projects to the total number 
of highway demonstration projects that have been approved in all of the 
previous four years combined since the establishment of the Highway 
Trust Fund.
  Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, there were over 1,500 highway 
demonstration projects earmarked in the House version of BESTEA at a 
cost of about $9 billion, and the number is growing.
  Apparently, the conferees intend to keep all of the House 
demonstration projects and add an undetermined number of Senate 
projects into the total pot of $9 billion for highway demonstration 
projects.
  At 1,500 projects, that is nearly three times the number of projects 
included in the last surface transportation bill, and 10 times the 
number of projects in the 1987 reauthorization bill that President 
Reagan vetoed for going too far.
  Mr. Speaker, in all of the years going back to the establishment of 
the Highway Trust Fund in 1956, Congress has earmarked some 1,022 
highway demonstration projects, costing about $10 billion according to 
information supplied by the Federal Highway Administration.
  If this highway bill passes, which the conferees are intending to 
wrap up tonight, they will have earmarked in one year 50 percent more 
pork projects than the Congress passed in the previous 42 years 
combined.
  Let me make it clear. I do not object to all highway demonstration 
projects. Some are perfectly reasonable. I think that some of the 
projects in this bill will be reasonable, but it is a question of 
balance. This bill sets a new record of excess.
  I would simply note that, when our good friends on the Republican 
side of the aisle were trying to win control of this House 3 years ago, 
they spoke repeatedly about 40 years of excess and mismanagement by the 
Democratic majority. Often that phrase was used to deride Democrats for 
using the legislative process to earmark individual projects that may 
have helped a small number of people or a particular region of the 
country but could not be justified in the broader context of what was 
good for the entire country.
  But now, the Republican leadership is evidently proposing in a single 
piece of legislation to earmark more projects than were earmarked by 
Democratic Congresses during that entire 40-year period. That is enough 
to give excess a bad name.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that my motion will merely trim about 
one-third of the demonstration projects included in BESTEA. I would 
observe that we know from previous experience with highway 
demonstration projects that, frequently, they languish in the pipeline 
and may never get built.
  Just looking at the 538 demonstration projects approved in the 1991 
ISTEA bill, we know that nearly 200 have not even begun construction; 
and that has tied up nearly $800 million in resources that cannot be 
reallocated to more pressing road and bridge projects. In all, over 
$1\1/2\ billion in ISTEA funds earmarked for highway demonstration 
projects remain unobligated today.
  In my view, the pork barrel spending spree in this bill is going to 
make Congress the laughing stock of America. This is one of those bills 
that will probably pass tomorrow, and it will not receive very much 
attention. But I would predict to you that, over the next 5 or 6 
months, the press is going to dig into this bill, and they are going to 
find incredible laughing items. You will see on network news on a 
weekly basis this outrage or that joke funded by the bill. A lot of 
Members who vote against this motion tonight or who vote for the bill 
tomorrow will wish that they had not.
  This is the time when you have a chance to correct the problem. 
Frankly, the motion that I am offering is so modest that I am almost 
embarrassed by it. I want to repeat once more. All this says is that 
you should not appropriate in this one year, or you should not 
authorize in this one year more projects than were previously funded in 
the entire 42-year history of the highway program. I really think that 
that is the minimum that we should ask the conferees to consider 
cutting. I would urge Members to adopt the motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the 
gentleman. I have heard that occasionally when bills are introduced, 
presented on the floor, and they contain a large number of projects for 
individual Members around the country, that this can affect the 
acceptability of the legislation and perhaps lead to the passage of 
legislation that otherwise would be very difficult to pass. Has this 
problem come to your attention, and could you comment on that?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would certainly say that 
is true. Let me stipulate, I am not a ``Percy Pureheart'' on this 
issue. I think that there are times when it is just as legitimate for 
the Congress to specify that $5 million will go for a specific highway 
project as it is for the administration to determine that that is where 
the money ought to go.
  But I do believe that, when you have this number of projects, there 
is only one reason you have this many projects in the bill; and that is 
to pass a budget busting monster.
  I did not vote for the budget that passed last year, because, as the 
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations, I warned that this 
Congress would never live up to the cuts that they were promising in 
that proposal. I need go no further than this bill in order to 
demonstrate that that was the case.

[[Page H3720]]

  I have had many a Member come up to me today and say, I would like to 
vote for you. In fact, I would like to speak for you. I had one Member 
say, do you see that? This is the chart that demonstrates the 
historical growth of the project. One Member said, you see this little 
item at the top of that red line? I am afraid that is my project.
  So you are going to see a lot of folks vote for that bill tomorrow 
because they have gotten a tiny little bit for their district, and that 
will mean that they will vote for a product which will bust the budget 
and, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) says, wind up putting 
much more pressure on Social Security and other crucial problems that 
we have in this country.
  So I would urge Members that this bill, in my view, cannot even pass 
the laugh test. If we still had the TV program Laugh-In, this would 
consume the entire show. I would hope that the Members would support 
the amendment and oppose the bill tomorrow if it does not comply with 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the previous motion, our majority 
whip had yielded our time back, and we did not reply in any way to that 
discussion. But I would like to take this opportunity to just point out 
one thing.
  There was expressed great consternation on the minority side that the 
majority was going to agree to use CBO numbers in the scoring in this 
conference on the ISTEA or BESTEA bill, and that we allegedly closed 
the government down last year because the CBO scoring was not used, and 
then they expressed great consternation that now we are going to use 
OMB scoring.
  I would simply say that, while I am not a member of the conference, I 
have discussed with Members who are, and it is my understanding that 
they agreed to use OMB numbers because, in the negotiations with the 
administration, and the administration's concerns, that the 
administration insisted that the OMB numbers be used; and that was the 
reason that they were.
  Then as far as the budget, I would just say this, that this side, 
obviously, we are as committed today as we have always been to making 
sure that we maintain the balanced budget, that we try to pay off part 
of the Federal debt, that we try to give the American taxpayer some tax 
reduction, that we save Social Security, that we put Medicare on a 
sound footing.
  Then I would make one other comment. I think that Congress does have 
a right to specify how some money is spent for highway projects. The 
State that I am from, Kentucky, the money goes down to the State, and, 
usually, the Governor and the transportation cabinet in that State make 
all the decisions.
  So I do not think that we should apologize for directing where a 
small amount of this money will go, because needs have been brought to 
our attention. We appropriate the money, so we should have some say in 
how the money is spent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman who just spoke approves of the 
grant to PBS that is in the highway bill? Let me simply say that I must 
say I find it hard not to chuckle at the observations made by my friend 
from Kentucky.
  He indicates that the reason OMB scoring is used is because the 
administration wants it. If he is telling me that the reason that OMB 
scoring is being used is to accommodate the administration, I would say 
congratulations. This is the first time that side of the aisle has paid 
any deference to the administration this entire year. The rest of the 
time, they have been savaging them.
  I would also simply say that I fully agree with the gentleman that 
the Congress has an absolute right to designate projects that it thinks 
are high priority.
  My objection is not that there are projects in this bill. My 
objection is that there is such a gross number in the bill, that these 
projects are being used to drive a bill that otherwise would not pass, 
because this bill is a blatant budget buster.
  This bill is going to spend at least $10 billion more than we are 
allowed to spend under the budget which passed this Congress last year. 
That means that Congress will have two choices. It will either have to 
take that money out of some other program and, evidently, the conferees 
have decided to take a good piece of it out of veterans health care, 
which I object to, or else the conferees are going to simply use a 
different set of numbers to wiggle their way out of the budget and wind 
up enabling themselves to spend at least $10 billion more than they 
will admit to spending publicly through their funny money estimates.

                              {time}  2115

  That is why I object to these projects.
  I would also simply say that just because the administration supports 
or acquiesces in something, does not mean that I always will or that 
people on this side of the aisle always will. I do not care who engages 
in this process. In this instance it happens to be wrong.
  The administration, it is clear to me, is acquiescing in this 
legislative outrage because they do not believe that they have the 
votes to sustain a veto, and that is because the bill has been 
structured so that virtually every State and every Member has a project 
that will drive them to support this bill.
  This bill is not going to be a bill that is passed to meet the 
national interests of the country. It is going to be a bill that is 
passed to meet the political needs of the leadership in this House and 
Members individually in this House, and that is not the way we are 
supposed to deal with a major national responsibility.
  I passionately support highway construction. I think we need more 
investment in it. But that is not my only priority. I do not put it 
ahead of veterans health care. I do not put highways ahead of 
education. I do not put highways ahead of health. Most of all, I do not 
put highways ahead of honest budgeting.
  So that is the reason that I make this motion; not because I have a 
``Percy Pureheart'' objection to Congress occasionally selecting a high 
priority project. It is because this is a blatant political power play 
to bust the budget, and Members ought not to swallow it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Edwards] .
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague from 
Kentucky would be willing to have a discussion. I appreciated his 
comments, trying to explain why Republicans might oppose the very 
principle tonight that they were willing to shut down the government 
for three years ago. I would be willing to hear from the gentleman from 
Kentucky once again.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of veterans in my district who did not get 
compensation and pension checks, service-connected veterans who did not 
have their cases processed because Republicans said in these statements 
I have before me, made on the floor of this House, that we are willing 
to shut down the government basically to stand up for this principle of 
using CBO numbers.
  I would like to be able to go back and explain to them tomorrow why 
the principle that the Republican Party used to shut down the 
government and cut off veterans' checks, to basically lay off Federal 
employees, to put their financial health at risk, why the principle 
that was so important three years ago in fighting for is not worth 
fighting for, or even, frankly, coming to the floor of the House to 
even discuss tonight? I would be glad to yield some time to the 
gentleman to answer.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman that 
the President is the one that vetoed those bills, and because of that 
funding ran out. As I said earlier in these discussions, in the 
conference regarding this very complicated, complex bill, that was one 
of the areas that I understand our side gave in on, to use the OMB 
numbers, in an effort to be amicable in this situation.

[[Page H3721]]

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in response I would say 
I think the American people made it very clear who they held 
responsible for shutting down the government, and it was not the 
President they held responsible, it was the Republican majority in this 
House. Criticism even came from Republican Members in another body in 
this town of that.
  But I guess the answer that I still do not have this evening is why 
Republicans were willing to hurt veterans, willing to hurt people on 
Social Security, willing to lay off Federal employees to the tune of 
hurting millions of American families just three years ago over this 
principle of honesty in budgeting, and yet tonight we hear that there 
will be total acquiescence to the President. What happened to the 
commitment to principle?
  Perhaps, frankly, I better understand now why the Republican core 
base in this country is beginning to have some second guesses about 
supporting the majority it thought it was electing, committed to 
certain principles that we find tonight it is very conveniently 
ignoring in the name of spending more money or cutting more funding out 
of veterans' health care, perhaps.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I really find it incredible that 
the conferees are going to be bringing back a bill tomorrow which 
ignores virtually everything that has been promised to the country on 
this bill over the last month.
  We had a motion last night, which this House adopted unanimously, 
asking the conferees not to cut veterans' health care in order to pay 
for highway projects. Yet the conferees will be reporting back a bill 
which ignores that instruction.
  We will soon be leaving for our Memorial Day recess. I wonder how 
many Members of this House are going to go home and rub shoulders with 
their veterans and pose for political holy pictures with their veterans 
organizations, one day after they have voted ``yes'' to pork and ``no'' 
to veterans? And yet that is what is going to happen, I would predict.
  I hope that the American people are watching, and I hope that they 
will understand what is being done. To me, it would be an act of 
consummate arrogance for the conferees to do that, but I expect that is 
exactly what they will do tomorrow.
  The best we can do is to try to urge them through motions like this 
not to do it, which is why the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) and 
I are both here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Without objection, any electronic vote on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) will be conducted 
as a 5 minute vote, if conducted immediately following this 15 minute 
vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 77, 
nays 332, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                                YEAS--77

     Archer
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Condit
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Graham
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (NY)
     McCollum
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Obey
     Pastor
     Porter
     Portman
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Thornberry
     Vento
     Waters
     Wexler
     Wolf

                               NAYS--332

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lofgren
       

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bateman
     Berman
     Deutsch
     Foley
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Johnson, Sam
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McDade
     Meeks (NY)
     Moran (VA)
     Ney
     Parker
     Quinn
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Torres
     Towns
     Waxman
     Wicker
     Yates

                              {time}  2143

  Messrs. SKEEN, SMITH of New Jersey, SHAW, ROTHMAN, DOOLEY of 
California, HILLIARD, ANDREWS, BISHOP, POMEROY, RUSH, HEFNER, 
GEJDENSON, MILLER of California and PAYNE, and Ms. DANNER, Mrs. THURMAN 
and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

[[Page H3722]]

  Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, JONES, KOLBE, STUMP, HILLEARY and GIBBONS 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________