[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S1020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SENATE RESOLUTION 300--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROJECT 
               EARMARKING IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACTS

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

                              S. Res. 300

       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.

                          ____________________