Few would argue that America's highways don't need improvement, and even expansion. But the national highway transportation bill now in Congress goes well beyond legitimate highway needs. Approved every six years, the highway spending bill is considered the classic of pork-barrel spending. This year's proposals contain an estimated $11 billion for lawmakers' pet projects.

Rep. Don Young, who serves as the head of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, admitted to flaws in the system that encourages piling on projects to let lawmakers up for re-election brag about "bringing home the bacon."

"It's not a good way to legislate," said Young, who also pointed with pride to his own success in earmarking more than a billion dollars to Alaska projects. Talking with a reporter for the Anchorage Daily News about the highway bill, Young added, "I mean I stuffed it like a turkey."

Young is making a few headlines outside Alaska for two projects that critics say are obvious waste. Dubbed the "bridges to nowhere," Young managed to stuff the highway spending plan with funding for a $2 billion bridge that will span an Alaska inlet, linking Anchorage to a ship port with a single tenant and no surrounding businesses or homes. Young's other bridge project calls for a mile long span (the largest in the U.S.) with 200 feet of clearance over the water (80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge). This particular bridge connects the mainland to an island with less than 8,000 residents who already have a ferry service to the mainland most users describe as more than adequate for their needs. The locals say they don't need the bridge, but will certainly appreciate the construction-related income.

According to the New York Times, the earmarked money going to Alaska in the current House bill exceeds the total funding for earmarked projects in 41 other states combined.

But Young defends stuffing the $256 billion House version of the highway bill by saying it's his job to bring home federal tax dollars to his constituents. While the House bill passed last week is making news for pork-barrel spending, the Senate passed its $318 billion version of the highway spending bill in February.

In addition to Young's "bridges to nowhere," the highway bills also contain non-highway spending for projects such as battlefield preservation, Indian casinos in Michigan and nature centers.

Despite the modest uproar over pork spending and complaints from Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, and the handful of other members of Congress who are concerned over wasteful spending, the highway spending bills seem to represent an irresistible splurge for lawmakers - both Republican or Democrat.

For most lawmakers, deficit spending concerns are overshadowed by the re-election benefits of bringing home tax dollars for highways and other projects.

A better system for Congress to adopt in the future might be to consider highway projects without any knowledge of their location. Funding special transportation projects that receive approval based on "blind" evaluation reduce the disproportionate benefits going to a few highly placed lawmakers.

Taking the politics out of highway spending will probably never happen, but public and political pressure should be applied to eliminate the most questionable projects. The problem, as always, is that pork projects are only found in someone else's congressional district or state.

The best that can be hoped for is that the veto threat from President George W. Bush and well-publicized criticisms of the wasteful spending from Sen. McCain and a few others will apply pressure on Congress to scale back the highway spending plan and trim off a few billion dollars of pork.

Unfortunately, in the "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine" atmosphere surrounding highway funding, the system is cleverly designed to defy spending restraint.

- J.L.W.III