Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I remain confused.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am sure the gentleman is, but I am sort of curious why the U.S. House of Representatives on a late afternoon on the House floor, where most of us are not familiar with the project, should override whatever the normal procedures are and adopt an amendment saying we cannot do something which one normally can do in the State of California.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing this important matter to the consideration of the subcommittee.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, as we go to conference and consider all our alternatives, we will keep the request of the gentlewoman in mind. Let me add, however, for the gentlewoman and for all other Members that part of this bill carries very significant increase in transit formula funding for local transit agencies and we may have limits as to what we can do in discretionary funding. But communities should also look to the additional formula funding for potential use in preliminary engineering on some of these projects. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is one of these amendments and one of these proposals we seem to have seen regularly this session, like we had on the emergency supplemental. It is a pretend that we are cutting when in fact we are not. The amendment really does not do any damage to the bill, because it does not cut any money that we were planning to spend in the year 2000. It does not provide any outlay savings. It does not complicate the AIP program through August 6. I assume that program will eventually be extended, at which point new contract authority will be given to fund it throughout the balance of the fiscal year. So it is one of these amendments, if it makes someone feel good, I guess that is a plus. But it is also one of our pretend schemes which really is not doing anything.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maine for his presentation. It is a new problem, and we will try and work with the gentleman in the future.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment cuts $1 million from the Transportation Administrative Service Center, which has already been cut in the request by $10 million in this bill. The center finances common administrative services, such as payroll, accounting, copying and telecommunications that can be performed more economically and efficiently through a central organization rather than the various modal administrations of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Chairman, the entire purpose of the Transportation Administrative Service Center is to save the government money by consolidating redundant administrative overhead and functions. Individual departmental agencies may purchase administrative services outside the Transportation Administrative Service Center only if they can demonstrate that doing so is cost beneficial to the department as a whole. Rather than supporting the Transportation Department's effort to control costs by centralizing administrative functions, this amendment would penalize the Department. The net effect of the Sanford amendment might well be that the various agencies in the Department will seek out other sources for their needs which could cause duplication of procurement, accounting and other administrative services and higher costs overall. In the end, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not save money, it will cost the government money, and it should not be adopted.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. SABO. So, Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this highway is also in the courts?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am finding it difficult to understand why on the House floor where most of us do not know what we are doing, we should make a judgment on what happens in the State of California with funds that they control, subject to the normal procedures that we have.

Mr. SABO. So this is a project, Mr. Chairman, that has proceeded under whatever the procedures are in California, I assume using general Federal highway aid money, through the normal environmental process, dealing in whatever fashion they do in California with local units of government. I gather some of this project is built right now, and right now it is at a stop; is that accurate?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming, my time, but it is not a demo?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SABO. But it is not a demo project that we have specifically designated by Federal law?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Is this a highway project that was designed by the State of California with general highway funds?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), and I would like to engage him in a colloquy at this time. Mr. Chairman, I do not know anything about this project, although I do not know where it is, what it is, and I suspect most House Members do not. Is this a highway demo?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Did I understand my friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to raise a point of order against the amendment but requests unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) might have 2 minutes to explain his amendment before a ruling by the Chair?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)