[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Page H3344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CONGRESSIONAL CONSTITUTION CAUCUS' CONSTITUTION HOUR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this late 
evening, dedicated defender of the Constitution, to engage, as we do 
each Thursday evening, part of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, 
as we go into this Memorial Day weekend work period.
  Tonight I am here to discuss a topic that has been in the media for 
some time of late, earmarks and the appropriate role that your tax 
dollars and the Federal Government should have with them. I am here to 
inject just another thought into this discussion. While Members enjoy 
the opportunity to brag about all the money that they bring home to 
their districts through earmarks, you have to ask the question, is the 
process of earmarking really the best for all parties involved, for the 
States, for the districts, for the projects, for the people who 
eventually receive those monies?
  Remember this: Money for earmarks is not new money we order to be 
printed from the Bureau of Engraving every time we pass an 
appropriation bill. It is, of course, simply dollars that have been 
taken from the Treasury, money that has been collected from Federal 
taxes, money that has been raised, obviously, by the hardearned 
taxpayers back home and sent to Washington D.C.
  Also, those listening to a dialogue also have to remember that it is 
simply not a dollar-for-dollar cycle. Some of that money that we spent 
is spent on fees and expenses and Federal employees' salaries. The 
Federal Government, as big as ours is, believe it or not, is expensive 
to run.
  Finally, money is not distributed to all the States evenly or in 
proportion to those States. For example, I come from the State of New 
Jersey. A hardworking person in our State works all day, earns his 
money, raises a dollar, sends that dollar to Washington D.C., hoping to 
return back to the State of New Jersey, in equal amount, a dollar for 
purposes in that State. Instead, New Jersey receives only 54 cents on 
the dollar. That, my friends, is the dollars and cents of the issue.
  Now, let me bring you a little bit closer to home in terms of the 
mission of our caucus and what we are talking about tonight. That is 
the question of who really is best able to decide how these dollars are 
spent?
  Now, when you think about it, when you send your tax dollars to 
Washington, you back at home lose all control over it, even if it is 
spent on what you would say is the intended best purpose or interest. 
This is just a little brief history or discussion on how it all works. 
It is spent here in D.C. Requests are submitted. They are vetted in 
committee, discussed on the floor, amended by Members from all over the 
country, way far away from where that issue may be back in your 
hometown, negotiating in conference with the Senate, and then, if you 
are lucky, maybe a little sliver of that comes back to your own 
district. But this money they ultimately receive might not fund your 
community's greatest priority or need. It might just simply be funding 
a project that is, well, politically popular here in D.C. or simply a 
project that is able to make its way through the system.
  I am here to promote that there might be a better way to do this. 
But, you know, I don't really have to do that because our Founding 
Fathers were the ones to set out what the best way was. The 10th 
amendment really does that for us. This, of course, is the amendment 
that limits the powers of the Federal Government; all those powers not 
delegated specifically to the Federal Government are retained by the 
States respectively. That is where the best allocation of those dollars 
would be.
  The Founding Fathers understood, which explains why they authored 
this amendment, that decisions are most effectively made at the most 
local level possible, that the types of projects that earmarks usually 
fund, roads, bridges, environmental projects, would be better served if 
it is money that was kept in State in the first place. The decision on 
how those dollars are spent would be made by the local residents right 
there at home. Here in Washington, those decisions are made by 
bureaucrats through layers of red tape with political consequences 
always in mind. But at back at home, those decisions are made for what 
is best for the people back up there.
  In closing, let me just mention this, that limited government really 
isn't just an ideology of policy wonks here in Washington or 
politicians any place; it isn't just an idea that was proposed by some 
rich white men over 200 years ago in this country when it was 
discovered by our Nation. It is a system of government that will have 
the best results for all for whom government is supposed to serve, the 
people who gave it the authority to act in their interest in the first 
place.
  With that, I come to a conclusion and to wish everyone a safe return 
after this Memorial Day weekend.

                          ____________________