BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman for yielding and join this group of what we might call apostate appropriators who are leading the reform cause, because I think we all agree that the current system was broken under Republican leaders and broken under Democratic leaders.
I believe that we should not tax the American people more than necessary, that taxpayer monies should be spent wisely, and that Congress should use its power to cut waste to keep taxes low. Many congressional earmarks are a waste of the taxpayers' money.
I authored the amendment to kill the Bridge to Nowhere. It was a difficult choice, taking on a very powerful Member of Congress who had the ability, in some eyes, to delete all transportation funding for my own district. But I looked at this project, it was an earmark not by the Appropriations Committee but by the Transportation Committee, to build a $320 million structure slightly shorter than the Golden Gate Bridge, slightly taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, connecting Ketchikan, Alaska, population 8,000, with Gravina Island, population 50. Gravina Island has no paved roads, no restaurants, and no stores. It was clear that this was an extravagant expenditure of money by the United States taxpayers to benefit a very, very few number of Americans.
It was also disturbing about how this project was handled, as so many other low quality earmarks are done: air-dropped without consideration by the House or Senate floors; no potential to amend or kill this project by Senators or Members of Congress; added to a conference report, that is a final bill, at the last minute where everyone is only given one vote, ``yes'' or ``no,'' on the complete package and not able to reach in and delete funding for a low quality project.
Our battle, after the Kirk Amendment passed, was a long one, but finally the Governor of Alaska relented. And thanks to public outrage, thanks to congressional scrutiny, thanks to concerned Americans around this country, the Bridge to Nowhere will not be built.
But we have seen so many other projects which do not pass even a laugh test among American taxpayers. For example, a new earmark, I understand, for the Berkeley school system would create French gourmet menus for school lunches, clearly something that does not even pass the laugh test here on the House floor among Republicans or Democrats.
Also, we have seen these earmarks for Monuments to Me. I think it is perfectly appropriate when we see a proud public structure funded by the taxpayers to be named after one of our national heroes, to be named after a great American, or just great humanitarian from history, but not for sitting politicians who currently hold public office. I am worried that, for example, throughout West Virginia we have many Senator Byrd centers. It seems like almost a large part of the State is now named after a sitting Member of Congress, who comes with feet of clay, someone who can have great, great attributes and great detriments, and someone who really should be judged by history before we name great public works after them.
Our reforms talk about ending funding for these Monuments to Me. It calls for an increased level of, I think, appropriate humility in what we fund. In the past, like many of my colleagues, I have requested earmarks because I have been struck by critical needs in my district. But increasingly, in order to get funding for small projects in your district, you are asked to support funding for large projects in other people's districts, for Bridges to Nowhere, for more Monuments to Me, for things that are, quite frankly, not defensible for the public fisc and for the taxpayers' expenditure. I think we have to recognize that some of these earmarks will simply lead directly to higher taxes for the American people and for programs which do not reflect an appropriate decision by the government to remove funding from an individual taxpayer to provide for these projects.
That is why I back this moratorium that we have come forward with and I back the Kingston-Wolf reforms, because I think it is a recognition by members of the Appropriations Committee that the system is broken; that the public's confidence in how this money is spent is not there; that Republicans and Democrats should join together to fix it; that the power of the purse is rightly put by the Constitution in the Congress. But it has to be a power that is respected. It has to be a power in which judgment is leveled and which the burden of proof is against spending the taxpayers' funds so that always we have a feeling towards the bottom line of balancing the budget and making sure the tax burden on the American people is as low as possible.
That is why I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Virginia for having this Special Order and hope that this legislation can pick up bipartisan steam and be adopted by the American people. They get it, but some of the elected representatives of the American people here still don't get it, and their voices need to be heard.
I yield back to my friend from Virginia.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT