McCaul Op-Ed: No bridges to nowhere in my backyard

Houston Chronicle

(Washington D.C.)- As a former Federal Prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice and a current member of the House Ethics Committee, holding all public officials to the highest ethical standards is not new to me. Doing the right thing for the American people, in opposition to the self-serving, business-as-usual policy in Washington, is also not new to me. I have been called upon by the people of the Tenth District of Texas to exercise common sense judgment on issues that matter; issues on which the average American feels Washington has become so completely self-serving and tone-deaf. Their repeated calls for someone to stand up and simply say enough is enough are outweighed by the addiction to bringing home the federal bacon. This is the system we operate in now and it is wrong.

Common sense is also knowing that the first step to breaking any addiction is admitting you have a problem. We have many problems in Congress, and one of the most undeniable is the earmark process. It is broken system which breeds corruption. This is not my opinion, but a fact, and a problem as inconspicuous to the American people as a two-ton pink elephant standing in their living room. They see with alarming clarity what those whom they have chosen to represent them have refused to see, or admit, which is that Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle bear the responsibility for letting a legitimate process, intended to directly fund worthy projects in their Congressional districts with Federal dollars, spiral out of control into a case study in self-serving and wasteful government spending, or worse, criminal behavior.

Admitting we have this problem does not mean all earmarks are bad. In fact, most are legitimate and submitted in an effort to help the largest number of people by funding meaningful and worthwhile requests. I, for one, voluntarily publish all of my earmark requests, and which requests are eventually funded, each year. However, their virtue has become overshadowed by the lack of complete transparency and accountability in the process. As the number of earmark requests continues to grow behind closed doors, this process continues to bloat already unprecedented government spending, and lead to well publicized abuses like the infamous Alaskan "bridge to nowhere" and Members of Congress accepting illegal contributions to line their own pockets instead of serving the American public. Enough is simply enough.

Since joining the House of Representatives in 2005, I have taken my responsibility to safeguard the taxpayers’ money seriously and worked hard to ensure the projects I supported are both legitimate and worthy of taxpayer funding. However, due to some Members of Congress abusing this solemn privilege for their own benefit and destroying the taxpayers’ trust, even the legitimate requests must be halted until the process is reformed. For this reason, earlier this year I joined 158 of my House Republican colleagues in cosponsoring legislation calling for a temporary ban on earmarks until the system can be reformed and made more transparent. The price of not funding worthy projects and programs that help improve the daily lives of my constituents is not insignificant, nor one that I take lightly. It is, however, a necessary price to pay to restore the public trust. Interestingly, despite almost unanimous agreement on both sides of the aisle that sunlight is the best disinfectant, the Majority leadership of the House of Representatives has yet to take up this bill.

It comes as no surprise that in the hometown of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, many of my colleagues who have called for a moratorium continue to perpetuate the broken process and request earmarks. I believe that actions speak louder than words, and this is why I have chosen to lead by example. Along with 35 of my House colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, I am not requesting earmarks until meaningful, common sense reforms are made. What are these reforms? At a minimum, they are to allow every earmark request the opportunity of an up or down vote on the House floor and be fully transparent as to its sponsor and benefactor. This is neither unrealistic nor unreasonable, except to those who have corrupted the process for their personal gain.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said to the Wall Street Journal in July 2006, "Personally, myself, I’d get rid of all of them. None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has... and the fiscal irresponsibility of it." Yet now that she has the power to enact meaningful reforms, she has declined to do so. She has declined to do so in the face of textbook wasteful spending like Rep. Charlie Rangel’s (D-NY) earmark for the "Rangel Center for Public Service" and a $39 million provision for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA, a duplicative center which has been accurately described as a "boondoggle." This is the type of calculated doublespeak which deservedly earns Congress’ low approval rating.

I believe that earmarks, done properly, are an important tool for Members of Congress to help direct Federal funding to their districts. We should, after all, be infinitely better qualified than a Washington bureaucrat 2,000 miles away in a bloated Federal agency to make these decisions. Earmarks, however, should only be used when Congress has the people’s trust. This is why I have decided to stand on principle rather than join the crowd to secure "my share" of the pork.