[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4247-4248]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          ENSURING TRANSPORTATION EARMARKS STAY BELOW THE LINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the transportation 
bill. I offered an amendment earlier today, and time constraints 
prohibited me from really explaining the amendment, what I was seeking 
to do and the problem with the bill as it currently is or may become 
once it gets through conference.
  During debate on the bill, the chairman of the committee said that 
every earmark in the bill was related and being spent on 
transportation. He actually stated that every dollar in the bill was 
for transportation.
  I am holding here some 200 pages of earmarks, over 3,300, about 30 
per page here. Let me just give you an example of some of them, and you 
can decide for yourself whether or not they are related to 
transportation.
  You the taxpayer are spending $3 million in the bill to renovate and 
expand the National Packard Museum and adjacent Packard facilities in 
Warren, Ohio.
  You the taxpayer are spending $7,268,486 for the Vermont Association 
of Snow Travelers to build a snowmobile trail in Vermont.
  You the taxpayer are spending $750,000 to construct horse riding 
trails in the Jefferson National Forest.
  This is in the transportation bill, mind you, all dollars that are 
supposed to be spent exclusively on transportation.
  You the taxpayer are spending $540,000 to establish a transportation 
museum on Navy Pier.
  How about $3.2 million to acquire site, design and construction of an 
interpretive center, whatever that is, and enhancement of trail 
corridor for the Daniel Boone Trail Wilderness Corridor?
  How about $1.7 million for reconstruction and conversion of Union 
Station to establish a transportation museum?
  On and on and on it goes. Here is the last one, not the last, but 
another one: $1 million you are spending to fund reconstruction of the 
home of James Madison in Orange, Virginia. Now, one might argue that, 
when a visitor is visiting the home of James Madison, he is not on the 
road, and therefore, he is freeing up available space for the other 
motorists. Perhaps that relates to transportation. I am stretching 
here, but they must be stretching for spending our taxpayer dollars 
that way. But certainly, I think the taxpayer is owed a better 
explanation than that.
  The problem with the transportation bill, to add insult to injury, is 
that, too often, these earmarks in other States come out of your 
State's formula. Arizona is a donor State; we give far more than we get 
back from the Federal Government, and too frequently, these earmarks 
traditionally have been taken out of our formula. An earmark for $7 
million for a snowmobile trail in Vermont comes out of Arizona's 
formula, because Arizona is a donor State. It is simply not right.
  In this bill, the amendment I offered, I withdrew it, because my 
amendment was largely included in the manager's amendment, meaning that 
earmarks will now be under the line, meaning they will be counted 
against a State's formula. So, theoretically, an earmark in Vermont 
will not come out of Arizona's formula.

[[Page 4248]]

  I worry about that, however. I worry if that will hold in the end 
when this bill gets through conference, because if we have that kind of 
criteria for earmarks in the bill itself, then the criteria which 
identifies programs of regional and national significance, programs and 
earmarks that are above the line that will not come out of a State's 
formula, if they are as loosey goosey as these criteria by which we 
claim these earmarks are related to transportation, the regular high 
priority earmarks, then we are going to see our formula dollars taken 
once again and spent on earmarks where they should not be.
  Obviously, Mr. Speaker, what we need is a turn-back bill. It is 
estimated that it would cost about 3 cents, rather than the 18.4 cents 
we are currently spending per gallon to maintain the interstate highway 
system. Instead, we are sending all 18.4 cents to Washington. Some of 
it makes it back. What does come back, comes back with mandates and 
stipulations that decrease the value of those dollars that we actually 
do receive back. It is no wonder that the roads and the infrastructure 
in this country are suffering so badly.
  We need that turn-back bill. I have introduced it; it is awaiting 
action. In the meantime, certainly, we need to instruct and plead with 
the conferees on this bill to ensure that earmarks stay below the line, 
meaning, you can take all the earmarks you want, but they come out of 
your State's formula, not everyone else's. I urge the conferees to do 
this.

                          ____________________