[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3943-H3945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2400,
BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 449 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 449
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purpose of
debate only.
House Resolution 449 is a straightforward resolution. The proposed
rule merely waives all points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration. This resolution was reported out of the
Committee on Rules by a voice vote.
Mr. Speaker, the approval of House Resolution 449 will allow us to
move forward with the consideration of the conference report to H.R.
2400, the new highway bill entitled the Transportation and Equity Act
for the 21st Century.
Mr. Speaker, this is legislation that will provide desperately needed
funds to help rebuild America's roads and bridges. This bill provides
the resources to meet America's infrastructure needs.
Furthermore, the legislation improves safety on America's highways.
For example, the conference report significantly strengthens drunk
driving protections, including an increase in funding to help States
enact and enforce programs to combat drunk driving. States can
strengthen the .08 blood alcohol concentration legal limits, license
revocation for repeat offenders, young offenders aged 21-34, and other
targeted efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 449 and
the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I once again thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this time congratulate my colleagues,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bud Shuster) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Jim Oberstar), for their very
hard work on this bill.
Despite the months and months of clamoring, despite the vastly
different transportation needs of the 50 States, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and the gentleman from Minnesota have managed to come up
with a bill that satisfies the vast majority of Members and, for that,
they deserve our thanks.
I am sure that most Members would change a thing or two in this bill
if they could, but, all things being considered, it is about the best
we are going to get, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
[[Page H3944]]
As far as I am concerned, this conference report is coming not a
moment too soon. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1997 expired in September of 1997. It is critical that we do not
leave the States with enormous half-finished transportation projects on
their hands.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of people take America's infrastructure for
granted. They get in their car and drive to work or school without even
thinking about it. But those roads they drive and those bridges they
cross do not last forever, especially in the northeast, and we need to
do our best to make sure they stay as safe and as accessible as
possible.
So anyone who does not understand the need for transportation funding
needs to remember that this is how we get our products to the market,
this is how we get our Reebok sneakers to the malls, our Gillette
blades to the malls, and our computer chips to the docks to be sent
overseas.
A good transportation system creates jobs, keeps America safe and
advances our country's economy. The conference report we are
considering today is a 6-year bill that retains the basic structure
from ISTEA, including its good environmental programs and its
commitment to safety.
It also encourages equal opportunities by keeping the disadvantaged
business enterprise program for women and minority-owned construction
firms.
I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill applies Federal labor
standards and employee protections like the Davis-Bacon Act for people
working on the highway and transit projects that are contained in this
bill.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the safety programs in this bill are well
worth it. Every year some 40,000 people die in motor-vehicle-related
deaths in this country. And if this bill improves highway safety enough
to lower that number by just one, it is well worth it.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for their outstanding work on
this bill; and I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time on the rule to simply announce to the
House that I intend to oppose the conference report and, if I have the
opportunity, I intend to offer a motion to recommit.
I do so for the following reasons: Number one, this bill is a budget
buster. It is a veritable pork bonanza. It now contains not the 1,500
special projects which we were told about yesterday. I am told that it
now contains about 1,800 special projects. That is 80 percent more
projects in 1 year than was provided by the Congress in the previous 42
years of the history of the Highway Act combined.
There are projects in here that have been scrutinized by no one other
than the Member who requested them. There are a number of projects that
have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. There is funding for
museums, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, grants to medical
schools, direct subsidy payments to private corporations, money paid to
trade schools, renovations for historic buildings. A lot of that may be
worthy, but it has no business in a highway bill.
{time} 1615
I would say that I do not know how many Members know it, but this
bill actually authorizes a $120 million project for a highway in a
foreign country, $120 million for a highway in Canada, paid for by U.S.
taxpayers.
The worst thing about this bill in my view is that it is financed out
of the hides of veterans' health care and now, as of early this
morning, out of child care for our kids, Meals on Wheels for our
seniors, foster care, and adoption services for orphans, because the
bill provides for a $2 billion cut in the title XX block grant. So we
are again pummeling the most defenseless people in this society in
order to provide more concrete.
I am a strong supporter of highway construction, but I do not want to
build roads on the backs of kids who need child care and poor seniors
who have difficulty getting their wheelchair to the sidewalk and are
not going to be getting congregate meals and will not have the luxury
of using the public highways. It just seems to me that this is an
irresponsible bill, a spectacularly irresponsible bill.
I would close by reading two paragraphs from two letters from
veterans' organizations. One from the Disabled American Veterans reads:
``We strongly urge a no vote on the previous question for consideration
of any such recommittal motion. Defeat of the previous question will
allow the veterans' recommittal motion to be offered and give veterans
the straight up or down vote on this proposal to cut compensation,
which simple fairness dictates they be given.''
Paralyzed Veterans of America says as follows: ``It has been
purported that veterans do now agree to the offsets due to the
inclusion of certain other increases in benefits.''
This is patently untrue. Paralyzed Veterans Association, and I am
sure other veterans' organizations, have never supported the increase
of one benefit at the expense of another. The conferees should
reconsider their actions in using veterans' funds as offsets to pay for
transportation highway projects that far exceed the levels established
in last year's Balanced Budget Amendment.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, if I have the opportunity, I will plan to
offer a motion to recommit this conference report and ask the conferees
to take out the cut in veterans' funding. If someone attempts to
preempt my motion with a sweetheart motion that denies the House an up
or down vote on the veterans' issue, I will ask for a rollcall on the
previous question. Veterans' groups have indicated in writing that they
strongly support the motion that I will offer.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect those who have worked hard to
develop America's highway infrastructure. I believe that is an
important function of the Federal Government.
But for anyone who has come to this Congress on the platform of
fiscal responsibility, I would like to suggest there is something very
wrong with our voting in just a few minutes to spend $200 billion of
our taxpayers' money, when frankly I cannot get a copy of the bill to
even look at before we vote on it.
Whether one thinks this could be a great bill or one thinks it is a
horrible bill, the fact is that we are about to spend $200 billion and
most Members have not even had a chance to look at the bill. It is
fiscally irresponsible.
Whether you are Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, the fact
is that this does not make sense for us to so cavalierly spend that
much money of taxpayers' dollars without being given a fair opportunity
to review the details of this bill.
A few minutes ago, I was told by staff that we could get a copy of
this bill sometime tomorrow, of course, after we have voted on it. And
I guess it would be nice if they vote for this to get a copy tomorrow
so they can tell their constituents what is in it.
So my objection to this rule, Mr. Speaker, is not any specific
content in the bill. Because, frankly, most of us do not have a chance,
I cannot find a copy of the bill, at least on this side of the aisle.
Perhaps the majority party has a copy of the bill. But we also have a
constitutional responsibility to review legislation before we vote on
it even though we are on the minority side of the aisle.
So I object and I hope other Members of this House from both parties
who have gone back home year after year after year and said, we have
got to spend your taxpayer dollars wisely, we have got to be careful in
how we spend it, we ought to show fiscal responsibility, I hope those
Members will think twice before spending $200 billion without even
looking at a copy of the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the honorable gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) I should point out that I am overly
impressed with the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
about worrying about the taxpayer.
[[Page H3945]]
Also, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) impresses me. I am glad
that both of these individuals have come forth on behalf of the
taxpayer. Because, in 1997, under the National Taxpayers Union, both of
them were rated with F's as big spenders. But, apparently, in the last
couple hours we had have had a conversion. I am pleased to see it. I am
impressed. I am excited about it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to announce that the Senate
has just passed this conference report by a vote of 88-5 and also to
announce that at 2:30 this afternoon, the President of the United
States announced that he will be pleased to sign this law.
The President said that first it must keep our budget balanced, it
must preserve the budget surplus until we have saved Social Security,
and then it must not undermine our national priorities, including
education, health care, child care, and the environment.
The bill being considered by the Congress this afternoon meets those
principles. I am quoting the President of the United States, and he
says: ``I will be pleased to sign this bill into law.''
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to congratulate the chairman. He has done a heck of a
job. He ought to be very pleased with those numbers that have just come
out of the United States Senate and the announcement from the White
House. Congratulations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 359,
nays 29, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
YEAS--359
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryun
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--29
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Boehner
Boyd
Chabot
Christensen
Coburn
Doggett
Edwards
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hobson
Kennedy (RI)
Largent
Lewis (GA)
Maloney (NY)
Minge
Obey
Sabo
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Souder
Thurman
Tierney
Wexler
Yates
NOT VOTING--45
Archer
Bateman
Boucher
Burr
Burton
Conyers
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutsch
Fawell
Foley
Furse
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Graham
Green
Harman
Hefley
Hoekstra
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
King (NY)
Kingston
Lofgren
McCrery
McDade
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Miller (CA)
Mollohan
Parker
Quinn
Rangel
Reyes
Riggs
Sanford
Skaggs
Smith (OR)
Stenholm
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Towns
Wamp
Waxman
Wicker
{time} 1641
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The results of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________