By U.S. Rep. John L. Mica
Congressional earmarks have been under attack from several quarters lately, and earmarking has received considerable attention from the media and the public. However, one of the most important responsibilities of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is to establish federal policy and designate transportation and infrastructure priorities that will be eligible for federal funding.
Setting policy and project priorities is an essential legislative responsibility. If a project is transparently submitted by a member of Congress, publicly vetted by congressional committee, and in compliance with legislative rules, there is no reason to impose a ban on congressional earmarks, as some have proposed.
As Republican leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to deal with some of the prior abuses, I instituted a stringent earmark disclosure policy. All Republican members have been required to submit project requests before the committee considers the earmark. Those requests are made available for public review and kept on open file in the committee’s Republican staff office.
If properly considered through both the congressional authorization and appropriations processes, earmarks are an important legislative tool essential to a representative form of government. Without the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee role of identifying and authorizing project priorities, unelected bureaucrats would be free to designate critical projects across the nation without taking into account the needs and requirements as identified by the directly elected representatives of the people.
Just as essential as authorization earmarking is appropriations earmarking by members of Congress. In fact, we have a glaring example of what can take place without transportation appropriations earmarking.
The original fiscal year 2007 transportation appropriations bill included 1,155 highway and transit earmark requests from members. Congress failed to pass that legislation separately, and when Congress did eventually pass a continuing resolution for that fiscal year all earmarks were eliminated. Then the Department of Transportation received all of the fiscal 2007 highway and transit discretionary funding to spend without restrictions.
Rather than fund any of the 1,155 earmarks submitted by elected members of Congress and considered by congressional committees through an open, public legislative process, the administration made all decisions on earmarking. Unelected bureaucrats, through a closed process, without public hearings, congressional oversight or consultation, chose to designate $853 million in taxpayer funds to just five congestion-pricing projects. The five project earmarks included:
• $350 million to New York City
• $158 million to San Francisco, important to the Speaker of the House
• $133 million to Minnesota, important to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman
• $138 million to Seattle, important to the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman
• $63 million to Miami, in the home state of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ranking member
This is a clear illustration of what can and did happen in the absence of congressional earmarking — in the end, unelected bureaucrats in the administration were given the opportunity to spend more than $1 billion on projects of their choosing.
While there have been instances of abusing earmarks, it is important that we correct the problems, not destroy the process. If transparently submitted and considered publicly, recorded and openly vetted through congressional hearings, congressional earmarks play an important role in our elected-representative form of government.
Members of Congress have a unique position within their districts. They are elected by their constituents, and they should be able to know and prioritize the key transportation, infrastructure, economic development, community improvement and other important needs of the cities and communities they represent. Every member of Congress vitally understands this direct relationship and the important responsibility required by their position.
In this important position of trust, some members have chosen not to request earmarks, which is their prerogative. However, those members who wish to exercise this important legislative responsibility should not be denied that opportunity. Every member will accordingly be held accountable by his or her constituents and so judged at the time of election.
Finally, imagine for a minute a transportation and infrastructure authorization or appropriations process that gave carte blanche to anonymous and unaccountable federal bureaucrats. It isn’t a pretty picture.