CQ WEEKLY - CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS
Aug. 7, 1999The Driving Force Of Bud Shuster
By Jeff Plungis, CQ Staff Writer
Going into the final day of debate in June on a bill authorizing billions for airport construction, even those who relied on Bud Shuster's legislative prowess had their doubts. The energetic chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee had lined up a formidable coalition of airlines, airports and roadbuilders to back his bill (HR1000), which Shuster said could prevent "gridlock in the skies."
But against him were some of the most powerful fellow Republicans in the House, who condemned the bill as a budget-buster -- Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young of Florida, Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer of Texas, Budget Chairman John R. Kasich of Ohio and, perhaps most deadly of all, Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas, nicknamed "The Hammer" for his skill in rounding up votes.
Shuster's allies need not have worried. Just a year after forcing through a $218 billion highway bill that all but shattered the 1997 balanced-budget agreement, and the Republican Revolution along with it, Shuster's big-ticket airport bill passed easily, 316-110. (CQ Weekly, p. 1462)
He did it not with flash but with fundamentals -- the dogged, personal politics that always have counted most on Capitol Hill.
"He's an absolute warrior for what he believes in," said Republican Mark Sanford of South Carolina, who has fought the lure of public works spending so popular with colleagues. "He knows what motivates people in his committee and what motivates them on the floor."
Shuster, 57, a former electronics executive from rural south-central Pennsylvania, brandishes an impressive command of his subject, steely determination and a veteran committee staff. He also has a formidable fundraising machine whose fruits he shares with allies.
Indeed, his lavish fundraising and relationship with a former chief-of-staff-turned-lobbyist and with a hometown developer led to an investigation by the House ethics committee. (1998 CQ Weekly, p. 3232; 1998 Almanac, p. 7-3)
But the center of Shuster's power is his 75-member committee, the largest in Congress by design and one of the most harmonious in action. Shuster uses the committee as a battering ram to get his way -- the reliable votes of 41 Republicans and 34 Democrats that leaders of neither party can ignore in a House where the balance of power is counted on two hands.
Not that people in both parties do not grumble. Some Democrats complain that Shuster's pursuit of highways and airports bleeds money from more deserving domestic programs.
Republican Christopher Shays of Connecticut said Shuster's public works bulldozer has imperiled the paramount priority of his party -- maintaining fiscal discipline. The inability of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. (1979-99), to stand up to Shuster on the highway bill, he said -- the first major test of the balanced-budget agreement -- was one factor that led to Gingrich's downfall.
"Republicans who were true to the budget agreement were snowed," Shays said. "The big tragedy -- and we're paying the penalty now -- is Newt didn't confront him."
Shuster dismisses the Republican budgetwatchers as "know-nothing conservatives." In a July 17, 1999, op-ed column in The New York Times, he wrote: "These conservative critics oppose investments by trying to discredit them. They call spending on public works in someone else's back yard a pork barrel project, but that is far from the truth.
"The one thing Congress is doing, over their objections," Shuster wrote, "is building assets for the future of our country."
The Path to Power
Shuster came to Congress in 1973 as a conservative Republican and very much in the minority. Liberal Democrats wielded considerable power in Congress then and found common ground with President Richard M. Nixon on major social programs. But the Watergate scandal came to dominate that Congress, and Shuster's first big moment came in 1974, when he informed the beleaguered chief executive that the majority of the freshman class would not support him in an impeachment vote.Shuster still considers himself a fiscal conservative who favors carefully targeted spending for public investment and tax cuts if there is money left over.
But in legislative style, Shuster seems closer to the Democratic chairmen who ruled Congress for four decades: Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois (1959-95) on Ways and Means, John D. Dingell of Michigan on Commerce and -- perhaps most of all -- the late Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi (1941-95) on Agriculture Appropriations.
Whitten's career in Congress stretched from the New Deal to the GOP sweep to power in the 1994 elections. He was a dealmaker who turned the drafting of the annual agriculture spending bill into a work of art. Colleagues concerned about farm problems in their districts or food stamps in the cities -- and there were legions of them -- had to deal with Whitten.
Through his ability to steer $12 billion in Agriculture Department discretionary spending, sometimes at the county level, Whitten made many friends over five decades. He would remind nearly every witness that came before his committee, "The wealth of this country comes from the soil."
Like Whitten, Shuster came to Congress with an idea of what he wanted to work on and a vision of its vital importance to the country.
Shuster's hardscrabble 9th District was facing economic hardship as he came to Congress in 1973. The district, which includes Altoona and Shuster's hometown of Everett in the Allegheny Mountains, was facing the closure of the Penn Central Railroad. It is mostly agricultural, with few towns larger than 5,000 people. It was not well-served by the national highway system, except for the stopover of Breezewood -- the "Town of Motels" where the Pennsylvania Turnpike meets Interstate 70.
Shuster, who had just sold a computer business, saw transportation as a means to revive the area's fortunes. And although he would be in the minority, he did not want to spend his time voting against things. He wanted to find a committee that was going to move bills he could support.
Rebuffing suggestions that he apply his electronics expertise to the House Administration Committee, Shuster requested and received a spot on Public Works and Transportation.
Shuster became ranking Republican on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in 1975, in just his second term. The ranking Public Works Committee Republican, William H. Harsha of Ohio (1961-81), appointed Shuster to the position over more senior members as the 94th Congress was being organized.
Given the bipartisan tradition of the committee, the slot provided Shuster a chance to begin influencing the highway authorization bill. When a spot opened up on the influential Ways and Means Committee a few days later, Shuster passed it up to remain on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee.
"That fundamental decision I made to stay, way back then, put us on the course where we are today," Shuster said in a July 29 interview.
Almost immediately, Shuster began to push an idea that is currently at the center of a House-Senate dispute over the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill: whether transportation trust funds should be used exclusively for transportation. (FAA bill, p. 1933)
In 1975, a group of senators led by Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., proposed abolishing the Highway Trust Fund and putting highway spending into the regular budget process.
Shuster vigorously defended the trust fund, arguing that the move to abolish it would lead to less funding for highways when they needed more money. "The inescapable fact is that the Highway Trust Fund is inadequate to provide for America's highway needs," Shuster told CQ at the time. "It's going to be a bloody, bloody battle."
Shuster won that fight, beating Kennedy, an influential three-term liberal senator, and President Gerald R. Ford, who supported the trust fund's elimination. (1975 Almanac, p. 735)
The Art of Earmarking
It was on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee that Shuster began to learn the craft he has since perfected: drafting the intricate measure that authorizes federal highway and transit spending, replete with a highly developed system of "earmarking," or writing in specific projects at the request of individual members.As a junior Republican, Shuster became versed in the drudgery of the federal highway building process when his Democratic chairmen wanted to concentrate on the higher-profile issues of aviation and mass transit. They were only too happy to delegate the laborious task of writing the highway sections of the bill. And Shuster was only too happy to take on the job.
One of Shuster's key aides, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chief of Staff Jack Schenendorf, has been a staff member on the committee since 1976.
Schenendorf said Shuster was valuable to Democratic chairmen such as James J. Howard (D-N.J., 1965-88) and Glenn M. Anderson (D-Calif., 1969-93) by arguing for shared priorities within the Republican Conference.
Because of the bipartisan tradition of the panel, Shuster said, he was a "full partner" in drafting legislation.
Shuster has continued the tradition, often saying that he and ranking Transportation and Infrastructure Democrat James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., are "joined at the hip."
As a result, the committee often votes out major bills unanimously, going to the floor as a united voting bloc.
"Most committee chairmen want their panels to be as small as they can possibly be," Shuster said. "I take exactly the opposite view."
The panel expanded in 1997 in preparation for drafting the highway bill, but it was expected to shrink back the following year. However, Shuster said, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., found few volunteers willing to leave and many new members wanting to join. Hastert called Shuster to ask him if it would be all right to keep the panel at 75 members.
"We're not only the largest committee in the House, we're the largest committee in the history of the United States Congress," Shuster said. "But it's not me who made it that size."
The highway bill has enabled Shuster to build one-on-one relationships with a large number of lawmakers. He takes the time to learn which projects are important to lawmakers and will question federal officials about the projects and follow up when letters are necessary.
Often, lobbyists say, Shuster knows more about the projects than the lawmakers who request them.
"Members feel that he really cares about them," said one lobbyist. "That's why some senior Republicans will back him against the leadership. They owe him."
Shuster feels passionately about the practice of earmarking projects, and he has defended it in floor speeches as Congress' duty.
"Angels in heaven don't decide where highway and transit systems are going to be built. It's a process," Shuster said in the interview last month. "And who can assert it's okay for governors and state legislatures and the secretary of Transportation to decide where 95 percent of the money is going to go, but it's not OK for members of Congress, who have to cast the tough votes for the legislation, to decide where 5 percent will go?
"Are there some bad projects? Certainly there are some bad projects. But 99 percent of the 5 percent are good projects. And if a member doesn't know what is good for his district, he isn't going to be a member for very long."
Shuster has "perfected [earmarking] as a tool for gathering long-term support," said a highway lobbyist.
In the five-year, $88 billion highway authorization bill passed in 1987 (PL 100-17), before he became chairman, there were 120 earmarks amounting to $890 million -- including a $72 million project for Shuster's district, the bill's costliest. (1987 Almanac, p. 331; 1987 Weekly, p. 2581)
In the $218 billion, six-year 1998 highway law (PL 105-178), there were about $9 billion in special projects. (1998 Almanac, p. 24-12)
Rewards and Punishments
Conservative critics have decried Shuster's reliance on earmarks to secure support, but they have had little impact."Everyone is concerned with their districts, and they don't want to cross swords with somebody unless they absolutely have to," said Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.
Tiahrt, a fiscally conservative member of the Republican class of 1994, said he has had to appeal to Shuster for individual projects even as he has opposed him on philosophical grounds. And Tiahrt said it was perfectly understandable that members would be loath to cross the powerful chairman.
"I've never heard him threaten anybody," said Tiahrt. "Nonetheless, there is still that lingering doubt. . . . Whenever you try to get something done, you always want to make sure everything is working in your favor, and some people may perceive that that is one thing that they could have controlled that would work in their favor."
In other cases, the threat has been more than theoretical. Shays said his district's allocation of specified highway projects dropped from $20 million to $2.5 million after he spoke against the bill.
"He's not reluctant to notice when you're not supportive," said Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a longtime veteran of the Transportation Committee.
Perhaps no one has paid a higher price for crossing Shuster than John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.
Boehner served as House Republican conference chairman, the fourth-ranking Republican, in the 104th and 105th Congresses. He was a frequent critic of Shuster's highway bill. And in May 1997, Boehner was in the Speaker's chair during a key vote for Shuster on the balanced-budget deal.
House leaders twisted arms to defeat a Shuster amendment to add $12 billion in highway spending to the budget blueprint, and Boehner brought the gavel down as soon as time expired. The vote was 214-216, and Boehner's quick gavel prevented any last-minute votes from changing the outcome. (1997 Almanac, p. 2-23)
As the 106th Congress was being organized, Shuster decided to support J.C. Watts Jr., R-Okla., a member of the Transportation Committee, who was challenging Boehner for conference chairman. Shuster's sway over the 41 GOP members of his committee helped deliver key votes Watts needed to win.
An Aviation Coalition
But all of this influence over bread-and-butter concerns cannot completely explain Shuster's success this year. The aviation bill does not contain spending that can be classified as earmarks in the traditional sense. Spending on individual airports is determined by a formula set by the FAA. And there are not as many airports as highways.But Shuster knows that every lawmaker has constituents who fly, and members of Congress themselves are frequent fliers, as aware of the problems of the nation's airports as anyone.
The chairman's strategy was to make sure all members knew how the bill would benefit their districts. Staff members issued a detailed airport-by-airport breakdown of where the new funds would go. Every commercial airport in the country would get a substantial boost, tripling their basic grant under the Airport Improvement Program.
Then, Shuster aggressively countered every argument that threatened to bring down the bill. He decried the "misinformation campaign" of appropriators, who he said were trying to scare lawmakers with false stories about cuts that would be required for Amtrak and the Coast Guard. And the chairman denounced reports that Appropriations staff members were keeping track of his bill's supporters, threatening reprisals on the fiscal 2000 Transportation spending bill (HR2084).
Shuster also used the same argument he made in 1975 about the integrity of trust funds: It was morally wrong to take taxes from people using the transportation system and use the money for something else, even a tax cut or federal debt reduction. If the trust fund money could not be spent on roads or airports, the transportation taxes should be reduced, Shuster said.
When the New York delegation threatened to balk at the last minute over the effects of loosening flight restrictions at John F. Kennedy International and La Guardia airports, Shuster's staff went to work negotiating a delay for the new rules while the FAA studied their potential effect.
DeLay spoke against the bill, saying it would break the budget caps, jeopardize Social Security and endanger the effort to cut taxes. "We must shut this door today, and we must slam the door shut," DeLay said. Shuster quickly rose to his feet to remind members that DeLay spoke only for himself. House leaders had promised not to take an official position, while Hastert himself personally supported the bill.
Marshaling the Lobbyists
But all the logic in the world is probably not enough to get a bill through a conservative Congress when the Appropriations, Budget, and Ways and Means chairmen are against it.In the face of such efforts, there is no substitute for grass-roots support. In Shuster's case, it is often grass-roots support whipped up by well-connected business groups.
Far from shying away from special interests such as road-builders, airlines and airports, Shuster aggressively recruits them to lobby. He and his staff meet frequently with groups that support his legislation to discuss individual lawmakers and which of them need extra convincing.
"It's just getting groups to support you and then encouraging them to let members know of their support," Schenendorf said. "There is no substitute for members hearing from people in their districts."
Schenendorf said that more often than not, wavering members simply need more information.
"Not all of these associations do things in an energetic way," he added. "We encourage them to organize themselves, divide members up and keep lists of who supports the bill."
Some watchdogs have been critical of Shuster's cozy relationship with the lobbyists.
"Shuster has put together a huge coalition that has entitled a whole lot of people," said Ronald D. Utt, a Heritage Foundation critic of government spending.
"People who support your legislation become your allies, and they go out and work for it," Shuster said. "I don't know what could be improper about asking a lobbyist who supports your position to go out and work members of Congress."
This close relationship with powerful trade groups has enabled Shuster to conduct campaign fundraising on a national scale. Fundraisers with groups who have a stake in transportation bills before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have consistently helped Shuster raise one of the largest war chests in the House, even though he has been unopposed in six of the last seven elections and has not had a strong challenger since 1974.
"He is a money machine," said one lobbyist.
Shuster said the strong fundraising has helped scare off potential challengers, and he is able to dole out money to Republican candidates who need it. But a 1998 study of his campaign spending by the Philadelphia Inquirer suggested that much of the spending went for hotels ($529,000), airline tickets and charter flights ($350,000), restaurants ($279,000) and alcohol ($60,000).
The study covered the years from 1985 through 1996; Shuster gave $200,000 to other candidates during that 12-year span.
"The fundraising is an effort to keep his lifestyle as high as possible," said Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional Accountability Project, a watchdog group affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph Nader.
It is clear that Shuster, if not crossing the line, certainly approaches it more closely than most members do.
The House ethics committee is investigating possible ethics violations during his last three re-election campaigns. (CQ Weekly, p. 198)
Shuster also has been criticized for his relationship with his longtime chief of staff, Ann Eppard, who is now an independent lobbyist with many transportation clients. Eppard continues to work for Shuster as a paid consultant and fundraiser for his campaigns.
Eppard was indicted by a federal grand jury in Boston in April 1998 for allegedly failing to report $230,000 in illegal gratuities while working in Shuster's office.
In 1997, the ethics committee began investigating a complaint by the Congressional Accountability Project that Shuster received improper gifts from Eppard, mostly in the form of free lodging. The group also charged that Eppard's clients got favorable treatment from Shuster.
Ruskin said it took seven months to find three House members willing to write the letters necessary to refer the complaint to the ethics panel under House rules.
The Years to Come
No one in Congress wins every battle, and earlier this year, Shuster lost a big one. As part of the changes in congressional procedures Republicans adopted in 1995, committee chairmen are limited to three terms.Shuster tried to get House leaders to write in an exemption for him. He lost. He tried to get assurances that he would be chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the 107th Congress. He could not.
It now looks as if Shuster will settle for the chairmanship of the Ground Transportation Subcommittee, while Don Young, R-Alaska, assumes command of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is the very panel of which Shuster was named ranking Republican in 1975.
As Shuster showed then, a seat on that panel is still a considerable power base. There will be future highway bills, and any wise chairman would probably want to take advantage of all of Shuster's skills. Term limits aside, his critics are likely to be dealing with Bud Shuster for a long time to come.
The Chairman's Lieutenants
One key to Bud Shuster's ability to master opponents is a staff that rivals any in Congress and knows the legislative process and transportation policy inside out."He has very competent staff, [Chief of Staff] Jack Schenendorf and [Counsel] Roger Nober have made it their life's work to master the budget process," said Roy Kienitz, executive director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project and a former aide to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y.
"You'd think that would be standard operating procedure, but you would be amazed at how many [chairmen] get hoodwinked by the budget committee," Kienitz added.
A sketch of some top Shuster staff aides:
Jack Schenendorf, chief of staff. Schenendorf, 55, is Shuster's right-hand man during legislative negotiations. A committe aide for 24 years and chief of staff since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995, Schenendorf worked with Shuster as Republican counsel to the Surface Transporation Subcommittee beginning in 1976.
A former Navy submariner, Schenendorf is a graduate of Georgetown Law School.
Roger Nober, counsel. Nober, 34, became chief committee counsel this year. Last year, as counsel for the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Nober was credited with drafting the surface transportation law -- strking a balnce between state interest and ensuring that favorite projects were in place. A Havard-trained lawyer, Nober joined the committee in 1993.
While in law school, Nober taught a seminar on transportation planning and economic development. In 1990, he published an article in the Harvard Journal of Legislation on the use of environmental laws to stop highway projects.
Scott Brenner, spokesman: Brenner, 34, is in charge of Shuster's rapid-response communications team. He does not hesitate to call reporters when he thinks Shuster is misportrayed. On the Hill since 1990, he has worked for the Ways and Means Committee and for Florida Republicans E. Clay Shaw, Jr. and Bill McCollum.
Before coming to the Hill, Brenner worked for a group called Freedom Medicine on the Afghanistan border, helping train mujahadeen rebels to become paramedics.
Source: CQ Weekly
The definitive source for news about Congress.
©1999 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.