[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.
____________________