{ "id": "R41554", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R41554", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 623869, "date": "2020-05-05", "retrieved": "2020-05-19T13:46:24.964501", "title": "Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban", "summary": "In the 112th Congress (2011-2012), the House and Senate began observing a moratorium on earmarks. Earmarks\u2014formally known as congressionally directed spending\u2014directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending prior to the ban. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, rail, and aviation funding were distributed before and after the earmark ban, and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution with a ban in place.\nHouse Rule XXI uses the term \u201ccongressional earmark\u201d while Senate Rule XLIV uses the term \u201ccongressionally directed spending,\u201d but they otherwise use the same definition of an earmark as\na provision or report language included primarily at the request of a [Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or] Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.\nThis definition covers earmarks in authorization and appropriations bills as well as in committee reports.\nCurrently, over 92% of federal highway funds and more than 75% of transit funds are distributed by statutory formulas. The use of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs, and generally has not been earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage was available for earmarking prior to 2011. Most rail funding goes to Amtrak to operate national intercity passenger service. Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and has not been earmarked. \nMost of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary funds are typically distributed through a competitive grant-making process, within guidelines established by Congress and DOT. In practice, however, much of this funding was earmarked by Congress prior to 2011. The precise share of federal transportation dollars that was spent on earmarks cannot readily be calculated, but, according to a DOT Inspector General report, in FY2006 approximately 13% of DOT\u2019s total budgetary resources were earmarked.\nBanning earmarks has not eliminated the opportunity for Members to influence the allocation of transportation resources. The funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects. The definition of \u201ccongressionally directed spending\u201d under House and Senate rules appears to permit some \u201csoft\u201d earmarks, which do not specify a place or amount of funding. Without earmarking, Members can continue to call or write DOT in support of projects. Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures, which can increase the likelihood of federal funding without an earmark. Members can also attribute their support for transportation authorizations to federally funded projects in their districts or states generally.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41554", "sha1": "8f84f8095b70d28dd265845ae31cc139e57e58cc", "filename": "files/20200505_R41554_8f84f8095b70d28dd265845ae31cc139e57e58cc.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41554", "sha1": "0ecf20932359a1213b1e180d9e8162d1648ec637", "filename": "files/20200505_R41554_0ecf20932359a1213b1e180d9e8162d1648ec637.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4867, "name": "Transportation Funding" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4897, "name": "Transportation & HUD Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 588115, "date": "2018-12-03", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T20:26:59.898397", "title": "Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban", "summary": "In the 112th Congress, which convened in January 2011, the House and Senate began observing an earmark ban. Earmarks\u2014formally known as congressionally directed spending\u2014directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending prior to the ban. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, rail, and aviation funding were distributed before and after the earmark ban, and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution with a ban in place.\nThe rules in both houses of Congress include identical definitions of \u201ccongressionally directed spending.\u201d The rules define an earmark as\na provision or report language included primarily at the request of a [Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or] Senator providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.\nThis definition covers earmarks in authorization and appropriations bills as well as in committee reports.\nCurrently, about 92% of federal highway funds and more than 75% of transit funds are distributed by statutory formulas. The use of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs, and generally has not been earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage was available for earmarking prior to 2011. Most rail funding goes to Amtrak to operate national intercity passenger service. Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and has not been earmarked. \nMost of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary funds are typically distributed through a competitive grant-making process, within guidelines established by Congress and DOT. In practice, however, much of this funding was earmarked by Congress prior to 2011. The precise share of federal transportation dollars that was spent on earmarks cannot readily be calculated, but, according to a DOT Inspector General report, in FY2006 approximately 13% of DOT\u2019s total budgetary resources were earmarked.\nBanning earmarks has not eliminated the opportunity for Members to influence the allocation of transportation resources. The funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects. The definition of \u201ccongressionally directed spending\u201d under House and Senate rules appears to permit some \u201csoft\u201d earmarks, which do not specify a place or amount of funding. Without earmarking, Members can continue to call or write DOT in support of projects. Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures, which can increase the likelihood of federal funding without an earmark. Members can also attribute their support for transportation authorizations to federally funded projects in their districts or states generally.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41554", "sha1": "16cd2b0dffda635dc3c8d7f784dddef08c32faef", "filename": "files/20181203_R41554_16cd2b0dffda635dc3c8d7f784dddef08c32faef.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41554", "sha1": "c761cdd3d288eed566709344ff2562f7ccc80216", "filename": "files/20181203_R41554_c761cdd3d288eed566709344ff2562f7ccc80216.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4867, "name": "Transportation Funding" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4897, "name": "Transportation & HUD Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457962, "date": "2017-01-04", "retrieved": "2017-01-06T19:13:12.160067", "title": "Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban", "summary": "In the 112th Congress, which convened in January 2011, the House and Senate began observing an earmark ban. Earmarks\u2014formally known as congressionally directed spending\u2014directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending prior to the ban. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, rail, and aviation funding were distributed before and after the earmark ban, and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution with a ban in place.\nCurrently, about 92% of federal highway funds and more than 75% of transit funds are distributed by statutory formulas. The use of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs, and generally has not been earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage was available for earmarking prior to 2011. Most rail funding goes to Amtrak to operate national intercity passenger service. Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and has not been earmarked. \nMost of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary funds are typically distributed through a competitive grant-making process, within guidelines established by Congress and DOT. In practice, however, much of this funding was earmarked by Congress prior to 2011. The precise share of federal transportation dollars that was spent on earmarks cannot readily be calculated, but, according to a DOT Inspector General report, in FY2006 approximately 13% of DOT\u2019s total budgetary resources were earmarked.\nBanning earmarks has not eliminated the opportunity for Members to influence the allocation of transportation resources. The funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects. \u201cSoft\u201d earmarks can be used to identify a project as a congressional priority in appropriations bill report language apparently without violating an earmark ban by not specifying an amount of funding. Without earmarking, Members can continue to call or write DOT in support of projects. Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures, which can increase the likelihood of federal funding without an earmark.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41554", "sha1": "5127a8c33fdb533fff51e6afdfe03a4ef84d0869", "filename": "files/20170104_R41554_5127a8c33fdb533fff51e6afdfe03a4ef84d0869.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41554", "sha1": "42a363e834df7b321a05827666258ea5debd75ad", "filename": "files/20170104_R41554_42a363e834df7b321a05827666258ea5debd75ad.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4867, "name": "Transportation Funding" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4897, "name": "Transportation & HUD Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 450836, "date": "2016-03-17", "retrieved": "2016-03-24T16:52:15.633492", "title": "Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban", "summary": "In the 112th Congress, which convened in January 2011, the House and Senate began observing an earmark ban. Earmarks\u2014formally known as congressionally directed spending\u2014directed a significant amount of federal transportation spending prior to the ban. This report discusses how federal highway, transit, rail, and aviation funding were distributed before and after the earmark ban, and how Members of Congress might influence the distribution with a ban in place.\nCurrently, about 92% of federal highway funds and more than 75% of transit funds are distributed by statutory formulas. The use of formula highway funds is under the control of the states. The bulk of formula transit funding is under the control of local governments and public transit agencies. Most federal funding for aviation is for operation of the air traffic control system and safety-related programs, and generally has not been earmarked. Most aviation infrastructure spending is distributed according to priorities set forth in national plans, but a small percentage was available for earmarking prior to 2011. Most rail funding goes to Amtrak to operate national intercity passenger service. Federal funding for maritime purposes is directed by statute and has not been earmarked. \nMost of the remaining federal transportation funding is distributed under discretionary programs. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary funds are typically distributed through a competitive grant-making process, within guidelines established by Congress and DOT. In practice, however, much of this funding was earmarked by Congress prior to 2011. The precise share of federal transportation dollars that was spent on earmarks cannot readily be calculated, but, according to a DOT Inspector General report, in FY2006 approximately 13% of DOT\u2019s total budgetary resources were earmarked.\nBanning earmarks has not eliminated the opportunity for Members to influence the allocation of transportation resources. The funding formulas and eligibility rules in authorization bills can be shaped to favor particular states, congressional districts, and projects. \u201cSoft\u201d earmarks can be used to identify a project as a congressional priority in appropriations bill report language apparently without violating an earmark ban by not specifying an amount of funding. Without earmarking, Members can continue to call or write DOT in support of projects. Members may also seek to influence the priority a project receives under mandated state and local planning procedures, which can increase the likelihood of federal funding without an earmark.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41554", "sha1": "6230bad58f5ea49e1fa76f50f3a39f761c21b96d", "filename": "files/20160317_R41554_6230bad58f5ea49e1fa76f50f3a39f761c21b96d.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41554", "sha1": "f82c10ca6bfb874db56629dede64a30853a269a0", "filename": "files/20160317_R41554_f82c10ca6bfb874db56629dede64a30853a269a0.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2351, "name": "Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies' Appropriations" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc809338/", "id": "R41554_2011Jan03", "date": "2011-01-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Transportation Spending Under an Earmark Ban", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110103_R41554_c76bf36809493af59ce6b6ca8385bd11d51db7c0.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110103_R41554_c76bf36809493af59ce6b6ca8385bd11d51db7c0.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Transportation Policy" ] }