I come to speak about a very disturbing trend that we have here in Congress that both parties are guilty of perpetuating. In 1982, in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, when it was passed, there were just 10 earmarks with a total value of $385 million. In 1987, the bill contained 157 earmarks; and it grew to $1.4 billion. In 1991, there were 538 earmarks at a cost of $6 billion; in 1998, 1,800 earmarks at a cost of $9 billion. This year, there are 2,300 earmarks in the transportation bill that we will be discussing this week. When that happens, when there are earmarks, it takes away from the high-priority projects that the States have identified and instead puts money toward low-priority projects that are identified by a specific Member of Congress. That is simply wrong to take money from Arizona or California or Texas from that formula to fund an earmark in West Virginia or Alaska or Minnesota or elsewhere. We need to change this process now, and I urge adoption of an amendment which will do that.
Jeff Flake: “I come to speak about a very disturbing trend that we have here in Congress that both parties are guilty of…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the issue of earmarks in transportation funding during a congressional debate.
Share
More from Jeff Flake
I expect we will stay in regular touch, and I look forward to finding ways that we can continue to work together on making sure that the United States remains not just a nation of interests, but a nation of values and where our foreign…
No doubt. No doubt. The president has particular, you know, sway over Republican voters, that subset of a subset that controls primaries.
to conclude, I thank my colleagues for their kind words. I thank them for taking their jobs seriously and that they would continue to do this. I say to our President: This is not a witch hunt. Russia attempted to interfere in our…
We need to make clear that that is inconsistent with democratic values and inconsistent with commitments that have been made.





