Speeches
|
|
Print this page |
Statement Regarding the Federal Highway Aid Amendment
June 1, 1994
Washington, D.C.- Senator John McCain spoke on the floor of the United States Senate today regarding the Federal Highway Aid Amendment, and gave the following remarks:Mr. President: This amendment is very simple. It expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should allow federal highway aid to be distributed equitably among the states according to the Department of Transportation's allocation formula, and refrain from the practice of legislative earmarking.
The problems associated with diverting Highway Trust Fund money to Congressionally earmarked highway projects has been debated before. But, regrettably, the practice continues and it demands our attention. This bill and the accompanying report contains $300 million in highway earmarks--300 million that would otherwise be distributed to the state to fund their priorities, has been set aside and carved up by Congress for favored projects.
I would like to read an editorial from the Orlando Sentinel that sums up the issue quite accurately and succinctly:
(ORLANDO SENTINEL)
There's not much I can add to that very accurate treatise on the situation. It says it all. Mr. President, we are all guilty of this practice. I know that many of the demonstrations authorized under the Highway bill have already been started and that it may be too late to turn back. But at some point it must stop. A vote for the resolution I have offered is a vote to stop this obsolete practice.
I reiterate to my colleagues that the problem of highway project earmarking is not a regional or a partisan issue. It's not about east versus west, urban versus rural, or should it be Republican versus Democrat. It's a matter of better government.
President Clinton, in his budget request this year, asked Congress to stop diverting Highway Trust Funds to pay for special projects--a practice that skews priorities, and favors some states at the expense of others.
He urged Congress to allow highway aid to be distributed fairly according to the established formula so that taxpayer's dollars could be spent according to the priorities established with such great care and expertise by those best qualified to do so -- the individual states.
To those who pay public tribute to the concept of reinventing government, and I'm quite certain that includes every member of this body, I urge you to keep in mind that the administration's blueprint for better government requests that we refrain from tying the hands of administrators with mandated spending on site specific projects.
Allowing highway aid to be equitably distributed, and spent on the highest priorities doesn't seem like a lot to ask. It sounds like good government. It sounds like good government because it is. But, this bill with $300 million diverted for special projects just perpetuates the tired status quo.
Many of these projects, I'm certain, are vital. Many of them may even be state priorities. I'm sure that the members of the appropriations committee are well intentioned and do their best to try and screen the projects as best they can. But, it just isn't working. Many of the projects on the earmark list might not appear on a state priority list for many years. To those who would disagree, I ask simply, if the contrary were true, why do we need the earmark.
This bill also contains numerous earmarks for bus and rail transit projects. The Department of Transportation has allocation criteria for awarding projects which take into consideration the Clean Air Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Again, rather than earmark future projects we should adhere to the process.
Mr. President, as sure as I'm standing here today, I can see the press releases that will go out when this bill passes. Congressman "fill in the blank" announces he has won funding for this bridge or that road. And, it will sound impressive. It will sound like effective legislating. He's bringing home the goods. They may even name the highway after him. What a guy! But, guess what? Oddly enough, there will never be a press release about the priority project that didn't get funded because of the "pork factor"--the vital bridge that will just have to wait, or the critical road improvement that just won't get done.
In my opinion, the good government argument should be compelling enough. But for those hopelessly enamored with earmarks and the Congressional way of doing business, I offer a word of caution and I suggest that a little math might be in order. Each Senator might measure what his state would receive if the $300 million in earmarks were divided according to the formula, against what their state might receive for a Congressionally awarded demonstration. I suspect many Senators, particularly those not on the right committees, might reconsider just how wonderful the practice of earmarking is.
So, Mr. President, the resolution I have offered is very simple. It says let's bring order, priorities and principal to the process. It says let's defer to merit. It says let's do as the President and our Governors request -- let's adhere to process rather than the catch as catch can free for all of congressional earmarks.
A vote for the resolution is a vote for good government, merit-based process and state empowerment. A vote against the resolution is a vote for business as usual and the worn out politics of pork.
# # #
|