[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     Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17) are rescinded.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     rescinded.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     21st Century (112 Stat. 161) is repealed and the designation 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.

                          ____________________