Congressional Constitution Caucus' Constitution Hour

CONGRESSIONAL CONSTITUTION CAUCUS' CONSTITUTION HOUR

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this late evening, dedicated defender of the Constitution, to engage, as we do each Thursday evening, part of the Congressional Constitution Caucus, as we go into this Memorial Day weekend work period.

Tonight I am here to discuss a topic that has been in the media for some time of late, earmarks and the appropriate role that your tax dollars and the Federal Government should have with them. I am here to inject just another thought into this discussion. While Members enjoy the opportunity to brag about all the money that they bring home to their districts through earmarks, you have to ask the question, is the process of earmarking really the best for all parties involved, for the States, for the districts, for the projects, for the people who eventually receive those monies?

Remember this: Money for earmarks is not new money we order to be printed from the Bureau of Engraving every time we pass an appropriation bill. It is, of course, simply dollars that have been taken from the Treasury, money that has been collected from Federal taxes, money that has been raised, obviously, by the hardearned taxpayers back home and sent to Washington D.C.

Also, those listening to a dialogue also have to remember that it is simply not a dollar-for-dollar cycle. Some of that money that we spent is spent on fees and expenses and Federal employees' salaries. The Federal Government, as big as ours is, believe it or not, is expensive to run.

Finally, money is not distributed to all the States evenly or in proportion to those States. For example, I come from the State of New Jersey. A hardworking person in our State works all day, earns his money, raises a dollar, sends that dollar to Washington D.C., hoping to return back to the State of New Jersey, in equal amount, a dollar for purposes in that State. Instead, New Jersey receives only 54 cents on the dollar. That, my friends, is the dollars and cents of the issue.

Now, let me bring you a little bit closer to home in terms of the mission of our caucus and what we are talking about tonight. That is the question of who really is best able to decide how these dollars are spent?

Now, when you think about it, when you send your tax dollars to Washington, you back at home lose all control over it, even if it is spent on what you would say is the intended best purpose or interest. This is just a little brief history or discussion on how it all works. It is spent here in D.C. Requests are submitted. They are vetted in committee, discussed on the floor, amended by Members from all over the country, way far away from where that issue may be back in your hometown, negotiating in conference with the Senate, and then, if you are lucky, maybe a little sliver of that comes back to your own district. But this money they ultimately receive might not fund your community's greatest priority or need. It might just simply be funding a project that is, well, politically popular here in D.C. or simply a project that is able to make its way through the system.

I am here to promote that there might be a better way to do this. But, you know, I don't really have to do that because our Founding Fathers were the ones to set out what the best way was. The 10th amendment really does that for us. This, of course, is the amendment that limits the powers of the Federal Government; all those powers not delegated specifically to the Federal Government are retained by the States respectively. That is where the best allocation of those dollars would be.

The Founding Fathers understood, which explains why they authored this amendment, that decisions are most effectively made at the most local level possible, that the types of projects that earmarks usually fund, roads, bridges, environmental projects, would be better served if it is money that was kept in State in the first place. The decision on how those dollars are spent would be made by the local residents right there at home. Here in Washington, those decisions are made by bureaucrats through layers of red tape with political consequences always in mind. But at back at home, those decisions are made for what is best for the people back up there.

In closing, let me just mention this, that limited government really isn't just an ideology of policy wonks here in Washington or politicians any place; it isn't just an idea that was proposed by some rich white men over 200 years ago in this country when it was discovered by our Nation. It is a system of government that will have the best results for all for whom government is supposed to serve, the people who gave it the authority to act in their interest in the first place.

With that, I come to a conclusion and to wish everyone a safe return after this Memorial Day weekend.

http://thomas.loc.gov