[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6068-H6071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1120
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EARMARK RESCISSION, SAVINGS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5730) to rescind earmarks for certain surface
transportation projects.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5730
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Surface Transportation
Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act''.
SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF ALLOCATED PROJECT FUNDS.
(a) ISTEA and STURAA.--The unobligated balances available
on December 31, 2010, under sections 1103(b), 1104(b),
1105(f), 1106(a), 1106(b), 1107(b), and 1108(b) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-240) and subsections (c) and (d) of section
149 of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) are rescinded.
(b) TEA 21.--The unobligated balance available on September
30, 2011, under section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178) for each project
for which less than 10 percent of the amount authorized for
such project under such section has been obligated is
rescinded.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM
CORRIDOR DESIGNATION.
Section 1117(d) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (112 Stat. 161) is repealed and the designation
made by that section shall no longer be effective.
SEC. 4. RESCISSION OF UNDESIGNATED HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT
FUNDS.
Of the amounts authorized for fiscal years 2005 through
2009 in section 1101(a)(16) of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (Public Law 109-59) to carry out the high priority
projects program under section 117 of title 23, United States
Code, that are not allocated for projects described in
section 1702 of such Act, $8,190,355 are rescinded.
SEC. 5. REPORT.
Not later than October 31, 2011, and not later than October
31 of each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate a report identifying each project
authorized under section 1602 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178), sections 1301,
1302, 1702, and 1934 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(Public Law 109-59), and section 144(f) of title 23, United
States Code, that has inactive funds or that has been
completed in the previous fiscal year. Such report shall
include, for each such project--
(1) the amount of funds authorized under such section;
(2) the unobligated balance of such funds; and
(3) a reference to the public law, section number, and
project number under which such project was authorized.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hare). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) and the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Duncan) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 5730, the
Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and Accountability
Act. The bill will eliminate a total of $713 million in contract
authority for 309 old transportation earmarks. In short, this bill will
prevent our deficit from rising by another $713 million.
In today's fiscal climate, we must be judicious in our spending. And
my legislation follows the commonsense principle of use it or lose it.
Before I came to Congress, I owned several small businesses. One of
my businesses was a small coffee and ice cream shop called
Huckleberry's. With a shop that sells food, the use it or lose it
principle is intrinsic. We would not buy more perishable foods than we
would sell; otherwise, we were at a loss.
Every small business owner knows that when you are working on a tight
budget, you cannot afford wasteful spending. And that, Mr. Speaker, is
exactly what these earmarks are. By targeting these earmarks, my
legislation will deliver real savings.
[[Page H6069]]
H.R. 5730 is one step towards the ultimate goal of reducing our
Nation's deficit. By rescinding unused earmark funds from over 20 years
ago, we will be improving the way in which Federal funds are managed
while proving our commitment to fiscal discipline.
In today's economy, it is essential that we manage taxpayer dollars
well, especially with respect to transportation funding. We will never
be able to adequately address the investment gap in transportation
infrastructure if we do not curb unnecessary spending.
To promote responsible future funding, my bill also requires the
Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual report that identifies
each project authorized under TEA-21 in SAFTEA-LU that contains
inactive funding or that has completed in the previous year. This
provision will give Congress greater oversight, and with the
identification of such projects, we may be able to implement more cost-
saving measures in the future.
Mr. Speaker, many of these earmarks have been on the books since
1987, and it's high time we tell the States to use it or lose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 5730. It
rescinds $713.2 million in contract authority for 309 projects from
four prior Surface Transportation Authorization Acts. This rescission
of contract authority will come from the following authorization bills:
$4.5 million for projects designated in the Surface Transportation and
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987; $263.5 million for projects
designated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991; $441.4 million designated for projects in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century; and $8.1 million authorized by the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act,
SAFETEA.
In total, H.R. 5730 rescinds approximately $713 million in contract
authority, which is a type of budget authority. However, this bill,
like the bill sponsored by Mr. Perriello last week, unfortunately will
not have any impact on outlays or direct spending. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, the budget deficit is defined as the
amount by which the Federal Government's outlays exceed its total
revenues. Because H.R. 5730 will not reduce the Federal Government's
outlays, this bill, unfortunately, will not reduce the budget deficit.
However, I believe it is smart for Congress to look at the projects it
has funded in the past and take the projects that are no longer going
to move forward off the books.
While I certainly applaud the gentlewoman from Colorado for this
legislation, we need to go much further. Congress needs to do much more
to reduce our ballooning national debt and the current budget deficit.
Last week the Office of Management and Budget projected that this
year's budget deficit will be $1.5 trillion. If I told somebody 10
years ago or even 5 years ago that we would be facing a $1.5 trillion
deficit in 1 year's time, they wouldn't have believed it. By the end of
the year, the Federal debt will represent 62 percent of our Nation's
economy. Congress needs to step up and take immediate action to ensure
our children and grandchildren are not buried under a mountain of debt.
I've also been asked by Ranking Member Mica to point out that none of
the five Transportation and Infrastructure Committee bills being
considered on the floor today were sponsored by members of the
minority. Traditionally, 30 percent of the bills considered under
suspension of the rules have been sponsored by members of the minority.
However, of the 43 T&I committee suspension bills that have been
considered this session, only four have been sponsored by members of
the minority, and we certainly encourage the committee to try to work
to improve this percentage back to its traditional 30 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5730.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, while I support the overall intent of H.R. 5730, it
appears that this bill also moves a political agenda, and, therefore, I
rise in opposition.
Section 3 of the bill includes a repeal of Corridor 0-1 on the
Appalachian Highway system located in Pennsylvania's Fifth
Congressional District--my district. While H.R. 5730 aims to rescind
unspent funds, there are simply no authorized funds associated with the
0-1 Corridor.
I have come to this floor on several occasions to speak in favor of
deficit reduction. Section 3 of this bill does nothing to lessen the
deficit.
Last month we lost a champion of the Appalachian Regional Commission,
Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd was instrumental in capping the available
miles in the Appalachian system. Section 3 is a feeble attempt to skirt
that cap in hopes of moving this project to another district in the
future.
Federal law provides metropolitan planning organizations with a role
in the coordination of transportation improvements. I've received
letters of opposition from planning organizations, and I quote: ``The
ARC has indicated that completion of the system is a top priority.''
Investment in the 0-1 Corridor has already occurred. In 2004,
preliminary engineering was done. In 2006 and 2010, the project was
added to the long-range plan. The planning organization actions
indicate that it will advance the project when sufficient funds are
available, and the current legislation enhances that possibility.
This scramble is nothing more than a political payout and a key sign
of what is wrong in Washington. Repealing the Corridor 0-1 designation
would impede critical safety improvements and puts the future of
infrastructure development of Centre and Clearfield Counties in
jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition of
this flawed measure.
North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and
Development Commission,
Ridgway, PA, July 15, 2010.
Senator Robert Casey,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Casey: On July 1, 2010, the House passed H.R.
4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, which
included Obey Amendment #2, a repeal of the Appalachian
Development Highway Systems (ADHS) designation of Corridor O-
1 (Section 4172). The O-1 Corridor was designated in TEA-21
(Section 1117(d)) and has been in place for the past 12
years. The mileage of the ADHS is legislatively capped and
the inclusion of Section 4172 is an inappropriate attempt at
removing mileage from one congressional district in hopes
that the Appalachian Regional Commission will then vote to
move the miles to another project.
In 1965 Congress authorized the construction of the ADHS
and by the end of FY 2009, 2,694.6 miles of the 3090 mile
system were completed or under construction. The ARC has
indicated that completion of the ADHS remains a top priority.
Given numerous safety issues identified along the O-1
corridor, we believe it is imperative that you ensure the
commitments made in TEA-21 are preserved and Section 4172 of
H.R. 4899, as passed by the House, is not included in the
final supplemental appropriations package.
It is widely known that ADHS projects would take years to
complete and given the economic climate and strains on the
Commonwealth's transportation budget, the residents along the
O-1 Corridor should not be put at a disadvantage for the gain
of another region. This is an important and vital link in our
overall transportation system in North Central Pennsylvania
and we ask for your continued support. We appreciate your
attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Eric M. Bridges,
Executive Director.
____
Centre County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (CCMPO),
State College, PA, July 21, 2010.
Re H.R. 4899, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010--Section
4172.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: On July 1, 2010, the CCMPO was
informed that the U.S.
[[Page H6070]]
House of Representatives recently approved H.R. 4899, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, which included an
amendment repealing the Appalachian Development Highway
System (ADHS) designation for Corridor O-1 in Centre and
Clearfield Counties. Corridor O-1 was originally designated
as part of the ADHS in June 1998, in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
Improvements in Corridor O-1 will address safety issues on
existing roads connecting Interstate 99 and Interstate 80,
and will facilitate economic development activities in the
Moshannon Valley and central Pennsylvania. Preliminary
engineering work on Corridor O-1 began in 1999 and proceeded
in a timely manner until March 2004, when work was suspended
on over 20 major highway projects in the Commonwealth because
of funding constraints. At that time, a recommended preferred
alternative had been identified, and the project was nearing
environmental clearance.
In 2006, the CCMPO included Corridor O-1 as a high-priority
``Project for Future Consideration'' in its adopted Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2030. On March 23, 2010, the
CCMPO again designated Corridor O-1 as a ``Project for Future
Consideration'' in its new LRTP 2040, which is scheduled for
adoption in September 2010. The CCMPO's actions indicate that
it intends to advance the project when sufficient funding is
available, and the current ADHS designation enhances the
possibility of funding being committed.
The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) has indicated
that completion of the ADHS is a top priority. Considerable
investment has already been made in the ADHS system in Centre
County, with only the I-99/I-80 Interchanges and the Corridor
O-1 project yet to be finished. Pursuing these improvements
in safety and the resulting economic development will fulfill
the initial intention of the ADHS. We urge you to take action
to ensure that the repeal of Corridor O-1's designation in
Section 4172 of H.R. 4899 is not included in the final
legislation, which will preserve the original commitment in
TEA-21.
In late 2008, similar efforts were made to transfer the
ADHS designation and associated system mileage from Corridor
O-1 to another project in the Commonwealth. Although the
CCMPO was aware of the 2008 efforts, we were not informed of
the most recent action, which affects a key project within
our jurisdiction. Federal law provides Metropolitan Planning
Organizations with a role in the coordination of
transportation improvements and the expenditure of federal
funding for such improvements. A proposed action of this
importance warrants early notification to the affected area,
and the opportunity for discussion by the state and local
officials represented on the CCMPO.
We also note that media reports about the passage of H.R.
4899 characterizing Corridor O-1 as a ``stagnant'' corridor
are misleading. This project, like several other major
highway projects across the Commonwealth, is only awaiting a
commitment of funds in order to advance.
On behalf of the members of the CCMPO Coordinating
Committee, we appreciate your past support for transportation
projects of all modes in Centre County, and request your
support in ensuring that Section 4172 of H.R. 4899 is not
included in the final Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010.
We look forward to your response about this important issue.
If you have any questions or need additional information
about this project, please contact Thomas P. Zilla of the
CCMPO staff at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Daniel D. Klees,
Chair, CCMPO Coordinating Committee.
{time} 1130
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), cosponsor of the
bill.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank the
gentlelady for sponsoring this legislation. I rise in support of it. As
was mentioned, I am a cosponsor.
This would rescind contract authority for old transportation
earmarks. I think we all recognize there are a lot of earmarks that go
through this place that are never funded, and that's usually a good
thing because often they are quite wasteful.
This bill also shines a spotlight on wasteful transportation earmarks
in a number of bills, and it rescinds more than $8 million in contract
authority for SAFETEA-LU which we passed just a few years ago. Many of
us will remember, SAFETEA-LU contained more than 6,000 earmarks,
including the infamous earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere, but it also
included bike paths, museums, hiking trails, visitor centers,
streetscapes, and parking facilities worth more than $700 million
alone.
I would urge those who are looking to bolster their fiscal
credentials by voting for this legislation to rescind contract
authority for old earmarks to remember that in 2 days we'll be
considering the T-HUD transportation bill, which contains about 500 new
earmarks worth more than $300 million, and if we are going back and
saying, yes, earmarks are wasteful, we ought to recognize that in the
same week we're doing this we're also considering a new appropriation
bill with about 500 earmarks worth about $300 million.
I will be offering a series of amendments, and if I'm allowed I'll
offer that, if the majority allows me to do it, to strike some of these
earmarks, and I hope that the same people who vote for this legislation
will also vote to strike certain wasteful earmarks from that
legislation as well.
We simply can't say all right we're for fiscal responsibility when
we're rescinding old earmarks that haven't been spent or earmarked
moneys and then a couple of days later approve a bill that has more
than 500 earmarks worth about $300 million that will take effect now.
So, anyway, I commend the gentlelady for bringing this to the floor.
I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This is a good piece of
legislation. Let's also remember when we're approving new earmarks we
ought to have the same fiscal discipline.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support this
legislation. It is a small step for fiscal conservatism. I think it is
very unfortunate, though, that this debate comes right on the heels of
the debate about the war supplemental, a more than $55 billion bill on
top of the hundreds of billions we've already spent for the war in
Afghanistan.
A columnist in today's Washington's Post said, We are wading deeper
into a long running, morally ambiguous conflict that has virtually no
chance of ending well.
I think it's very sad that we're talking about spending mega-billions
more on a war that has continued for over 9 years at this point and is
not worth one more American life.
But I commend the gentlewoman from Colorado for bringing this
legislation to the floor. As I said earlier, it's unfortunate that in
the way we do the Federal accounting this will not reduce the deficit,
but it is a step in the right direction, and we need to go further and
actually cut total Federal spending by the $713 million that
procedurally we are saving here in this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter
from the Taxpayers For Common Sense Action that was written to Mr.
Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Taxpayers for Common Sense,
July 27, 2010.
Chairman James Oberstar,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oberstar: Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-
partisan budget watchdog, strongly supports a small but
important step to reduce the nation's yawning budget deficit:
the inclusion of a provision in the Federal Aviation
Administration authorization legislation that would rescind
transportation earmarks that remain unobligated ten or more
years after their authorization.
The Senate has already adopted an amendment to its version
of the bill, introduced by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), which
indicates that chamber's support for this idea. A bill
introduced by Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) (H.R.5730--Surface
Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and
Accountability Act), builds upon the Senate provision and
saves even more taxpayer dollars. Rep. Markey's proposal
identifies more than $713 million worth of unused earmarks
that can be rescinded, most of which are more than ten years
old. There may be an opportunity to rescind additional
earmarks from previous appropriations bills, which would be
worth pursuing as well.
We urge you will take this opportunity to save taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars and wipe these liabilities
off the books. If you would like to discuss this issue
further please contact me or Erich Zimmermann.
Sincerely,
Ryan Alexander,
President.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5730, the ``Surface Transportation Earmark Rescission, Savings, and
Accountability Act,'' introduced by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
Markey).
The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) has scoured the books of
the Federal Highway Administration to identify funds that can be
rescinded. This bill rescinds $713.2
[[Page H6071]]
million of Federal-aid highway contract authority that is currently
available for 309 Member-designated projects included in four prior
surface transportation authorization bills. It takes this $713 million
off the table so that it cannot be used to increase spending in the
future. Any savings from this bill will be used to reduce the deficit.
Specifically, the bill:
Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA)
(P.L. 100-17): $4.55 million for 2 projects;
Rescinds all remaining highway earmarks designated in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240):
$263.543 million for 154 projects;
Rescinds all highway projects designated in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) (P.L. 105-178) that have not
obligated at least 10 percent of the funds authorized for the project:
$441.475 million for 152 projects; and
Rescinds all High Priority Project program funds authorized by the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) that were not designated
for use on a specific project: $8.190 million for 1 project.
In addition, the bill establishes a process for tracking unspent
project funds going forward, enabling Congress to identify projects
that have inactive funds or that have been completed in the previous
year.
Member-designated projects play an important role in the Federal-aid
highway program. They provide constituents with a chance to weigh in
directly with their elected officials on their community priorities,
and allow Members an opportunity to support transportation safety and
mobility improvements that may be overlooked by the State Department of
Transportation.
Yet, it is also necessary to use a commonsense approach to dealing
with projects that are complete or no longer viable. Many of the funds
rescinded under this bill are from projects that are complete, but have
excess remaining funds that cannot be used now that the project is
finished. There is no reason for these remaining funds to stay on the
books.
Other projects affected are those that show no likelihood of going
forward, due to changing community priorities or other transportation
needs. Rescinding funds from projects that are no longer viable is a
practical approach to saving taxpayers' dollars.
Rescinding this $713 million now prevents it from being used to
increase spending in the future.
It has, unfortunately, become somewhat routine for appropriations
bills to rescind contract authority to offset other spending. Such
rescissions are included in appropriations acts because they are useful
in offsetting other spending. Even if a contract authority rescission
is ``scored'' as only reducing budget authority, not outlays, a budget
authority offset is often all that is needed to facilitate additional
spending in an appropriations bill.
In fact, the Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed to use a
portion of the funds rescinded in this bill to offset spending in its
version of the FY 2011 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
appropriations bill.
To the extent that this bill takes $713 million off the table and
makes that amount unavailable for rescission, or use, by some future
appropriations bill, it will indeed result in ``real'' savings.
The gentlewoman's bill is in line with the High Priority Project
reform principles issued by the bipartisan leadership of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure in April 2009, which established
an unprecedented level of transparency, accountability, and reform for
surface transportation projects going forward.
These principles called for the repeal of funds from older projects
that have not spent out. The gentlewoman's bill is an effective and
thoughtful means of achieving this policy objective and will save the
government money by eliminating unnecessary project designations.
H.R. 5730 is one step in a continuing effort to find savings within
programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Other steps are also being taken. Last week, the House
passed H.R. 5604, the ``Surface Transportation Savings Act of 2010'',
introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello), which
rescinds $107 million in highway safety and transit contract authority.
I applaud the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) for her
initiative in bringing this measure forward and her commitment to sound
fiscal policy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5730.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, today I made an error in how I voted on
rollcall 471, passage of H.R. 5730, the Surface Transportation Earmark
Rescission, Savings, and Accountability Act.
I intended to vote against this legislation and I would like to make
the record clear as to why. For 50 years, my community in Buffalo and
Western New York has long struggled with the vestiges of economic
decline. The public has also been denied proper access to Buffalo's
waterfront. This bill would rescind funding that would directly improve
public access to the waterfront and support our community's economic
revitalization. Providing public access to the waterfront has been my
top goal throughout my career as a public servant.
While I understand the frustration with project funding that was long
ago authorized, yet remains unspent, and the need to focus on deficit
reduction, I will continue to insist that the agencies responsible for
the deployment of these funds advance these initiatives without further
delay. It is for this very reason that I opposed and intended to vote
against this bill.
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Markey) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 5730.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________