[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 300 Introduced in Senate (IS)]







108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 300

  Expressing the sense of the Senate on project earmarking in surface 
                          transportation Acts.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 11, 2004

   Mr. Graham of Florida (for himself and Mr. McCain) submitted the 
     following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
  Expressing the sense of the Senate on project earmarking in surface 
                          transportation Acts.

Whereas the House of Representatives adopted a rule in 1914 stating that it 
        shall not be in order for any bill providing general legislation in 
        relation to roads to contain any provision for any specific road;
Whereas diverting funds to low-priority earmarks diminishes the ability of 
        States and local communities to set their own priorities and address 
        their own mobility problems;
Whereas the General Accounting Office has reported that demonstration projects 
        reviewed were not considered by State and regional transportation 
        officials as critical to their transportation needs and that over half 
        of the projects reviewed were not included in State and local 
        transportation plans;
Whereas some earmarks have nothing to do with transportation and may worsen 
        congestion by diverting scarce resources from higher priorities;
Whereas the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) 
        contained 10 earmarks at a cost of $385,925,000;
Whereas the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 
        (101 Stat. 132) contained 157 projects at a cost of $1,416,000,000;
Whereas the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 
        1914) contained 538 projects at a cost of $6,082,873,000;
Whereas the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 107) 
        contained 1,851 projects at a cost of $9,359,850,000;
Whereas annual transportation appropriations acts show the same trend in 
        increasing earmarking of projects;
Whereas the funding earmarked for many projects does not cover the full cost of 
        the project and requires State and local communities to cover the 
        unfunded costs; and
Whereas funding of earmarked projects can have a dramatic effect on the rate of 
        return that a State receives on its contributions to the Federal Highway 
        Trust Fund: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient 
        Transportation Equity Act of 2004 should not include project 
        earmarks;
            (2) if earmarked projects are included, the projects should 
        be included within the funding that a State would otherwise 
        receive so as not to penalize other States; and
            (3) any earmarked projects should be included in the 
        funding equity provisions of the next surface transportation 
        Act so that the projects do not adversely affect the rate of 
        return that a State receives from its contributions to the 
        Highway Trust Fund.
                                 <all>