Nick Rahall: “I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite know from which side to request time on this issue. You…”

“I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite know from which side to request time on this issue. You see, I am for legitimate, well-scrutinized, scrubbed, and screened earmarks. Now, unless the GOP leadership can convince me that this is not an earmark, then I will vote ``no'' on the bill. We should be here today debating a long-term, robust surface transportation bill that would create jobs and keep our economy moving forward by rebuilding America and by putting Americans to work. Rather, we are considering a bill that authorizes the construction of a specific bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin with an estimated total project cost of $574 million to $690 million--an earmark. Instead of openly acknowledging that this bill is a blatant earmark, the Republican leadership pretends that it is not one. It was quietly added to the schedule less than 48 hours ago, scheduled for this post-sundown debate. Do not get me wrong. I am not against earmarks, but let's be open, transparent, and honest with the American people. That's why ``earmark'' got the bad name it did, because we were not open and transparent and honest with the American people. So if there is any doubt whether the bill that the House is now considering today is an earmark, all you have to do is read the bill: . . . may authorize and assist in the construction of a new extradosed bridge crossing the St. Croix River approximately 6 miles north of the I 94 crossing.…”