McCaskill Asks LaHood to ‘Put an End to’ Transportation Earmarks

When House leaders agreed last week to ban earmarks to for-profit entities, tax and transportation projects got a notable exemption. But that doesn’t mean Congress has no appetite to curb transport earmarks, as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) showed in a letter sent this week to U.S. DOT chief Ray LaHood.

McCaskill_Claire.jpgSen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) (Photo: William Woods)

McCaskill, known for fiscal hawkishness, asked LaHood to "work with me to put an end to this practice" of earmarking money in long-term federal transportation policy bills, which allot six years’ worth of highway trust fund revenue to specific local projects.

McCaskill said the growth in congressional earmarking of transport funds "distorts the operation of the federal-aid highway and transit programs" because lawmaker-directed spending circumvents state and local "planning, review, and selection processes."

That broad characterization of transportation earmarks is true in a large number of cases, but many others benefit projects that have already met with approval from state and local planners.

Grants under the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program, for example, are historically earmarked by lawmakers eager to see aid flow to local rail and bus systems, but each project has already made it through an extensive vetting process. In other instances, earmarks help cash-strapped transit agencies complete environmental and engineering studies that might not be possible without federal assistance — such as the $6 million in planning funds that Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) directed to Chicago’s Circle Line proposal last year.

Earmark reforms adopted by the House transportation committee last year ask lawmakers to document the local benefits and other sources of funding for favored projects.

Check out excerpts from McCaskill’s letter to LaHood after the jump.

Dear Mr. Secretary,

I am writing to express my concern about the continuing practice of earmarking in surface transportation reauthorization legislation. Over the last 20 years, we have seen this practice explode, spending billions of dollars on the priorities of individual members, resulting in a loss of funding for individual states and a waste of taxpayer dollars. As the Congress looks to consider a new transportation bill this year, I ask that you work with me to put an end to this practice so that we return to a more equitable and thoughtful distribution of funding transportation projects. …

When the Congress passed the last transportation reauthorization bill in 2006, 11% of the bill, equaling $22 billion, was earmarked. In comparison, throughout the 1980s, only 1% of transportation funding was earmarked. This growth in member-requested projects is frustrating because earmarks bypass the planning, review, and selection processes of the state and local governments and agencies.

That is not to say that these projects are without merit. Many of them would be worthwhile initiatives; but earmarking distorts the operation of the federal-aid highway and transit programs. It reduces the allocations provided for states’ core transportation programs and often funds low-priority, earmarked proposals over the higher-priority, publicly vetted proposals. …

With our current budgetary situation and the escalating federal debt, we cannot allow the process of earmarking to continue. Determining how to prioritize transportation projects cannot be and should not be decided by individual members of Congress. Our state and local projects, working with federal agencies, are better equipped to know what the priorities should be for addressing our infrastructure needs.

Instead, we should [direct] our efforts towards funding for formula and competitive grant programs as was originally intended by the Congress. This will result in better and more equitable distribution of funding, better use of taxpayer money, and transportation projects that work for everyone. …

  • Ron McLinden

    “McCaskill Asks LaHood to ‘Put an End to’ Transportation Earmarks” — Does Secretary LaHood write earmarks into bills? Or is it Senator McCaskill’s colleagues in Congress.

  • “earmarks” represents members of Congress trying to be more specific with how money is spent. we used to have “pork barrel” spending that went … well, it went where the most powerful members of Congress wanted it. earmarks allow spending to be targeted to where it is needed, not where the Ways & Means Chair decides it needs to go.

    this is McCaskill throwing out the baby with the bathwater. not to mention grandstanding for the home voters.

  • Cheryl

    I fully support Senator McCaskill on this. I live in St. Louis and have seen earmarks override the planning agencies and cause money to be spent on roads projects that should never have been built.

    The article mentions earmarks that had already been through a vetting process. But if this is true, then earmarks would not be needed. The problem is that just the opposite is happening. The projects are not deemed the highest priority, but instead overrule projects that local citizens rate more important.

  • Rich Alossi

    One reason urban areas like Los Angeles get shortchanged is because so often funding is tied up in unnecessary earmarked projects that otherwise wouldn’t get funding on the federal level. Think the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere.

    Meanwhile, worthy projects that wait in line and go through the process are denied federal funding because there’s not enough money. Rural and suburban Congresspeople are especially adept at getting funding for their pet projects, while urban areas are left holding the bag. I support the proposal.

  • First up against the wall ought to be the PBQD-designed PBQD-promoted, hypocritically Pelosi-shilled, SFCTA-beloved, PBQD contractor welfare program known as the “Central Subway”.

    Terminate earmarked pork masquerading as “transit” immediately, if only for the most parochial and local reason that the giant sucking sound coming Union Square doesn’t completely swallow whatever is still left of Muni.

    Politically juiced porkmarks: as bad for the unlucky recipients (the gifts that keep on giving!) as they are for the suckered donors.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

LaHood Answers GOP Critic, Soothes Dem Skeptic of Sustainability Budget

|
As Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood tangled with a senior GOP senator today over the White House’s $500 million-plus request for its inter-agency office of sustainable communities — a new project aimed at channeling federal energy towards local transit-oriented and smart growth plans — an influential Democrat joined her fellow senator in raising questions about diverting […]

Voinovich Joins House Dems in Saying No to Transpo Funding Stopgap

|
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) allied with House Democrats today. (Photo: UPI) The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will move tomorrow on a White House-backed extension of the four-year-old federal transportation law, but at least one of its members is already opposed. George Voinovich (R-OH) linked arms with House Democratic leaders on the transportation panel […]