by Mark Silva
Ray LaHood, secretary of transportation in the administration of President Barack Obama, insists that there won't be "any boondoggles'' in the spending of billions of dollars for public works envisioned in the economic stimulus bill that Congress is debating.
"The one thing that the president has said all through this and set a very high bar -- no earmarks,'' LaHood said. "The money has to go to projects that are ready to go in the states, and I just know that there are lots of these projects around.
"There aren't going to be any earmarks and there aren't going to be any boondoggles,'' he said in an interview with CNN's John King on State of the Union aired today. "This money will be spent correctly, by the book, with no shortcuts.''
LaHood, the self-retired former Republican congressman from Peoria, Ill., and one of just two registered Republicans whom Obama has tapped for his Cabinet, was asked about the administration's outreach to the House in the first vote on the stimulus bill - the one which every Republican member of the House opposed. Can't he "pick up the phone'' and "work with these guys,'' or did he go to the president and tell him, 'you've got a problem here?''
"The president asked me to go up with him to the Republican conference, and I was privileged to be able to do that,'' LaHood said. "And I did make some phone calls. I talked to some people. Obviously, I wasn't very persuasive, since I wasn't able to persuade anybody to vote for it.
"But, look, I've been talking to some senators when I've had the opportunity and I'm going to continue to do that for the next 10 days until this bill is passed,'' LaHood said. "And I think the conference report that will come out of the conference report that will be considered will be something that Republicans, some Republicans will look very carefully at. ''
Here, courtesy of CNN's State of the Union, is a transcript of John King's interview of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood:
KING: Joining us now on "State of the Union" for the first Sunday interview by a member of the Obama Cabinet is the transportation secretary, Ray LaHood. He is in his hometown of Peoria, Illinois. Mr.
Secretary, thank you for joining us on "State of the Union." I want to get straight to...
LAHOOD: Good morning.
KING: ... the kitchen table. Good morning to you, sir.
I want to get straight to the kitchen table accountability test. The American people are under a lot of pressure right now economically. They hear all these numbers being thrown around in Washington. If you get this money, set the standard for us, the accountability threshold right now. How many jobs and how fast?
LAHOOD: A lot of jobs, John. And I've invited every secretary of transportation to Washington this Wednesday, that we're going to have a meeting at the Old EOB across from the White House. We're going to lay out for them what we believe are the opportunities for every state in the country to put people back to work on projects that are ready to go, by the book, no shortcuts. These projects really are projects that have been sitting on shelves all over the country, where states are waiting for the money. And this is an opportunity for every state in the country to bring to Washington a couple of examples of projects that they will be able to implement quickly, within the timeframes that are in the legislation, so that people will be building roads and bridges and other infrastructure projects this spring, summer and fall. And I believe an enormous number of people, thousands of people, will be going to work in good paying jobs.
KING: Well, Mr. Secretary, where do you draw the line in terms of what is stimulus spending and what is wasteful spending, maybe even a boondoggle? And I ask the question because the debate in Washington, you know, has been veered off track a little bit by legitimate concerns, many would say, about spending money on anti-smoking programs in this bill. Maybe a worthy goal, but why is it in this emergency recovery bill?
How do you draw the line between stimulus and maybe boondoggle? One mayor I talked to this past week, for example, says he wants to use some of this money to build a new wave pool in his community, with a water slide. He says it creates job. Is that the kind of project that passes your sniff test?
LAHOOD: Well, look, our criteria is going to be the criteria that we've used at the department for a long time, John. And, also, the money will be going to the governors and their state secretaries of transportation and highway administrators. And the one thing that the president has said all through this and set a very high bar -- no earmarks. The money has to go to projects that are ready to go in the states, and I just know that there are lots of these projects around, and we're going to learn a lot more about it next Wednesday.
And the point is, there aren't going to be any earmarks and there aren't going to be any boondoggles. This money will be spent correctly, by the book, with no shortcuts.
KING: Mayors think they should spend the money, not governors. We have turf battles in Washington between Democrats and Republicans. When you get out to the states, you know this well, it's the mayors and the governors sometimes at odds. Why do the governors have a better plan than the mayors? The mayors would tell you that they can get the shovels in the ground faster.
LAHOOD: Well, look, the bureaucracy is in place at the state level, John. The states have these departments of transportation, and they know how to meet the criteria that we have to set at the department so that the money is spent correctly, that people are put to work, that the projects are done according to the way that they are supposed to be done.
Lots of cities -- some of the big cities, perhaps like Chicago or Boston or otherwise, you know, may have these kind of staff people in place. But for the most part, every state, all 50 states do have the mechanism and the bureaucracy to make sure that this is done by the book. And that is going to be something that -- go ahead.
KING: The word bureaucracy scares me a little bit, but we hope it works out and it's a good bureaucracy.
I want to get to a point -- I was in Carmel, Indiana this past week, talking to the mayor, and he says one of the ways to get the shovels in the ground faster is for you to use your executive authority here in Washington to change the rules, at least temporarily. As you know, there are environmental impact studies. There can be, you know, public comment and review periods at times. Listen to the mayor of Carmel, Indiana, Jim Brainard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR JIM BRAINARD (R), CARMEL, IN: Waive the rules. The rules for transportation projects that we normally have to deal with on the highway. Environmental impact statements, public comment periods, they slow it down. The absolute key is to get shovels in the ground as quickly as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Mr. Secretary, will you and the president use your executive authority? As you know, that might anger environmental groups, that might anger labor unions, but is waiver to get these projects moving faster, is that the way to do this?
LAHOOD: Not at all. It really isn't. And it would be different if every one of these states didn't have projects.
You all know -- and I think that the viewers know -- that these states have had a pent-up demand for these projects to get funded and haven't had the local match to fund them, haven't had the ability to do it, because they haven't had the money to do it.
It's not as if we're going to be lacking for projects, John. There are lots of road, bridges, infrastructure that can be implemented immediately, within the timeframes that -- in the legislation, and put a lot of people to work in good paying jobs.
We don't need to waive anything. This is going to be done by the book, according to the rules, no shortcuts, no earmarks.
KING: Mr. Secretary, I'm going to stand up here in Washington and walk over to my magic wall. Because I was in your community last week.
You're speaking to us from Peoria, an area you represented in the Congress for some time. When I was in your city right here in middle America, right along the river -- it is a beautiful city -- but it is struggling at the moment, like many factory towns. This is the floor of Caterpillar. You see these amazing tractors and earth-movers being made. Many of these workers, union workers, see the buy American provisions in the House version and the Senate version of this legislation, they think it sounds good, it sounds patriotic, but it might actually cost more of them their jobs. More than 20,000 have already been let go. Will your president fight to get that out of there? They say the buy American provision will cause a trade war, and they won't be able to export these tractors overseas.
LAHOOD: I think there is going to be a lot of discussion about the buy American provision in the conference. And I think you're going to see the president weigh in on this. And I haven't talked to the president directly about it, but...
KING: Is that an in or an out?
LAHOOD: ... his chief of staff -- I think there is going to be a lot of discussion about it, John.
KING: OK. Well, at least -- we'll leave that to that (ph).
I want to talk about your unique role in the administration. Just a few months ago, you were a Republican in the United States Congress.
You were questioning many of the priorities of the Democrats who ran the United States Congress. You're now serving in the Democratic president's Cabinet. Every one of your former colleagues in the House, Republican House members, voted no. If Ray LaHood was still a Republican member of Congress from Peoria, Illinois, would you have joined them, sir, in voting no on the first stimulus package?
LAHOOD: Well, look, I didn't get elected to anything last November, John. I'm a part of the Obama team. I'm proud to be a part of President Obama's team. I consider it a great privilege that the president asked me to join his team. I'm going to do everything I can to help the president find the votes for the conference report once the Senate passes this. I'm going to work very hard next week. I'm going to work the phones. I am going to talk to my former colleagues, and do all that I can to persuade them that this bill really will put people to work.
KING: What about...
LAHOOD: America is hurting...
KING: What about in the first round, sir? Excuse for interrupting. Did the president call you and say, hey, Ray, we got a problem in the House? All your friends in the Republican conference are saying no? Can you pick up the phone? Can you work these guys? Or did you go to him and say, Mr. President, you've got a problem here?
LAHOOD: Well, it was a combination of both. The president asked me to go up with him to the Republican conference, and I was privileged to be able to do that. And I did make some phone calls. I talked to some people.
Obviously, I wasn't very persuasive, since I wasn't able to persuade anybody to vote for it. But, look, I've been talking to some senators when I've had the opportunity and I'm going to continue to do that for the next 10 days until this bill is passed.
And I think the conference report that will come out of the conference report that will be considered will be something that Republicans, some Republicans will look very carefully at.
KING: When you were in the House, again as a Republican, you were not always a fan of the speaker, Nancy Pelosi. You have joined this administration in part because the new president -- because he wants to have true bipartisanship in Washington, after eight years of Bill Clinton and eight years of George W. Bush, where there wasn't much bipartisanship in Washington. And yet, after the compromise came out of the Senate the other day, the House speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, said this. "Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship when the rest of the country says they need this bill."
You didn't always get along with the speaker when you were in the Congress. Does your president, a Democrat, now have a problem with the House speaker, who doesn't think bipartisanship should rule Washington?
LAHOOD: Look, the president ran on this notion that people have to work together. This is what people in the country want. And they (inaudible)...
KING: So is Nancy Pelosi wrong? Is Nancy Pelosi wrong and does the president need to call her on this?
LAHOOD: The people in America want us to work in a bipartisan way.
People want to go back to work. The only way we're going to solve the problems of unemployment and a bad economy is in a bipartisan way. The president has carried that message all the way through here, and I think he'll carry it all the way to the signing of this bill.
KING: I want to close, sir, with what is a remarkable moment. Back when I was covering the White House and you were a House Republican, you were the gentleman who presided over most of the impeachment trial of a Democratic president in the House of Representatives. And I want to make clear to our viewers, you received high marks from Democrats and Republicans alike for the manner in which you conducted these proceedings. But there is Ray LaHood, we're showing our viewers, in the chair in the House of Representatives, presiding over the impeachment of a Democratic president. You're now in the Cabinet of the next Democratic president. Reflect on that.
LAHOOD: I consider it a privilege. When President Obama was a senator from Illinois, he and I worked very well together. I have a wonderful relationship with the president and his chief of staff, and I consider it a great privilege to be a part of their administration, and help push through an opportunity to put America back to work.
This is an extraordinary opportunity for me, to be a part of a team that wants to get America working again, and I consider it a privilege to be able to do that.
KING: Mr. Secretary, we thank you for joining us on "State of the Union." We will keep in touch in the weeks and months ahead and we will keep you accountable, make sure that money gets to the projects that create jobs in the short term. Thank you very much, sir.
LAHOOD: Appreciate it, John.
KING: Thank you, sir.
LAHOOD: Thank you.









Comments
No "earmarks" in the bill?
Even the Left wing group CREW (often cited by Swamp reporters) notes the bill has funding directed to benefit specific companies and areas. See http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/37182 for an article titled "An earmark by any other name". The article starts out:
"Lumped together, the House [1] (PDF) and Senate [2] (PDF) versions of the economic stimulus plan number some 1,400 pages, roughly the equivalent of the complete works of Shakespeare.
And some of the language is just as artfully crafted.
The package includes an insurance exemption -- but only for companies that work on recreational boats longer than 65 feet. Another provision would lift a Medicare regulation affecting only three long-term care hospitals in the country. There's also language requiring the Transportation Security Administration to buy 100,000 uniforms from U.S. apparel makers.
In theory and publicity, the package is "earmark free." But it contains dozens of narrowly defined programs that send money to specific areas or cater to special interests, despite President Obama's pledge to pass "an economic recovery plan that is free from earmarks and pet projects.""
Posted by: "Dissent is Patriotic" | February 8, 2009 11:35 AM
.Far cry from his dealings in Ilinois politics.
Posted by: Inky | February 8, 2009 11:49 AM
I do not understand why people are having diffculty understanding. The number of unemployed people (11.6 million) and the unemployment rate (7.6 percent) rose in January. Over the past 12 months, the number of unemployed persons has increased by 4.1 million. The Department of Labor reported today that nonfarm payroll employment fell sharply in January (-598,000) and the unemployment rate rose from 7.2 to 7.6 percent. Payroll employment has declined by 3.6 million since the start of the recession in December 2007, .... most of this mess happening only in past three months! And some wonder Obama is pushing so hard for a stimulus package. Is the Herbert Hoover approach, do nothing, all we need, leading us to a twelve year depression ??
Posted by: Suggestions4Obama.com | February 8, 2009 4:31 PM
According to the CBO, the stimulus bill will actually hurt the economy in the long run. However, there is the possibility it will stimulate illegal immigration. In addition to providing up to 300 thousand construction jobs for illegal aliens, the bill will bail out irresponsible states like California. This will allow them to avoid dealing with one of the primary reasons they have a budget deficit. That reason is the extensive and expensive social net they have extended to illegal immigrants. Obama's stimulus will stimulate illegal immigration
Posted by: The Intellectual Redneck | February 8, 2009 5:24 PM
" The Intellectual Redneck " sounds like "honest lawyer". What are those things called- OxyMORONS?
Posted by: barkleyg | February 8, 2009 7:26 PM
Keynes pointed out that long run all die.
So I guess the point is stimulus will ultimately lead to inflation and will also create a geezer force field to ratchet up SS and related benefits, which leads to further inflation and higer taxes etc. etc.
Anyhoo, John Calloway had John Kass on recently--must be in some archive somewhere--and Kass had some very uncomplimentary things to say about LaHood and the likliLahood that there would be big time hanky panky in the letting of DOT contracts.
Who'd a thunk it?
Posted by: ornery | February 8, 2009 8:37 PM
Look to Iceland where the nation is broke. There they say that unregulated and privatization of a capitalistic society is an unleashed monster. G.O.P.,Greedy Old Pricks took over their Country, and left it in ruin.
Give the Republicans a burial at sea so they can toss a wreath on the water every year. As far as McCain being against the stimulus package, where in the hell was he when the Republicans took the 5 trillion dollar debt to 10 trillion dollars. REMEMBER THE REPUBLICANS NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR THEIR COUNTRY, THEY ALWAYS DO SOMETHING TO THEIR COUNTRY!!! whiteagle38
Posted by: R. Juneau | February 8, 2009 9:54 PM