Earmarks are trophy-spending, clear and simple.  The problem, from a public interest perspective, is that the interests who are fighting for these trophies use weapons that the public at large don't have in their arsenal.  They use firms of six-figure lobbyists and campaign contributions to steer taxpayer money away from merit-based review and agency scrutiny, and in the mad scramble for this trophy spending, important public interest priorities - the ones that don't have K street on their payroll - are largely being ignored.    

In Greasing the Wheels, an upcoming report from US Public Interest Research Group, we looked at the way campaign contributions from transportation interests made during the 2008 election cycle may have influenced that year's transportation appropriations.  Preliminary data shows that the states where campaign contributions to state and federal campaigns were highest from transportation interests received an overwhelming percentage of the earmarks in that years appropriations bill. 

It is also becoming clear from our research that an alarmingly high number of the 720 federal-aid highway program earmarks in the bill were for new roads and lane miles, despite a loud public outcry for increased bridge repair funding following the collapse of the 1-35W bridge in Minneapolis.

It has been said, in defense of the current system, that every project has a constituency, but not every worthwhile project has the resources, influence, and access it takes to "win" an earmark, and the rules of the game are definitely tilted towards those that do.

To serve the public better and more efficiently, Congress should turn its attention away from the fight for earmarks and towards a national strategy that reduces our dependence on oil, curbs global warming pollution, alleviates congestion, improves safety, and supports healthy, sustainable communities.  After all, it is the taxpayers that are paying for this system, not the interest groups and the lobbyists that they hire.
 

Collapse

The success of our nation’s economy relies largely on the safe, efficient movement of freight. The upcoming reauthorization bill must focus on delivering projects that address national priorities, beginning with the expansion and repair of our aging National Highway System. Economists predict a 26 percent increase in total U.S. freight tonnage by 2020, so we must work to meet this demand by first addressing nation’s worst traffic bottlenecks, listed by the Federal Highway Administration.

Special interest groups jeopardize the efficient movement of freight as they seek to divert highway trust fund money away from highways to other purposes. The taxes that you and I pay for gasoline and the taxes that trucking companies pay for diesel should be spent for their intended purpose, highway infrastructure. Already, 20 percent of federal highway fuel taxes raised are harmfully diverted from highways. Spending huge amounts of money to lobby for further diversion of funds is reckless and threatens the movement of goods and ultimately our economy.

If special interest groups want money spent on other kinds of transportation, then they should levy a tax on that mode or their customers or suppliers, just as significant taxes are levied on automobile and truck fuel and equipment to fund highways. The trucking industry is willing to pay even more diesel tax, which is already substantially higher than the tax on gasoline, as long as the revenue is dedicated solely to highways.

To maximize the funds allocated in the reauthorization bill, the federal government should tie infrastructure investment to system performance by requiring recipients of federal funds to meet performance standards related to safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction and emissions. We must monitor how well we’re doing in delivering value. Moreover, infrastructure projects must recognize the critical role of freight transportation in meeting the nation's economic needs.

The next surface transportation authorization bill must maintain a strong federal role and focus on delivering projects that create the most value for our economy and taxpayer’s money.

Collapse

The best way to counter earmarking is to put in place a performance-based transportation system that would determine eligibility and award support for projects that demonstrate benefits according to identified goals.

While I agree that earmarking is not as prevalent as critics of transportation programs would have us believe, it is undoubtedly true that the worst examples have damaged the public’s perception about the value of infrastructure investments. As a consequence, the bad examples also make it harder for policymakers to raise the gas tax or other revenues that would support programs that address the nation’s needs. 

President Obama clearly understood this political calculus when he advocated for the passage of an earmark-free American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and added that there would be a heightened level of transparency and accountability for project sponsors that received funding. The fact that the President successfully pushed for funding above the House and Senate levels for high-speed rail (HSR) at the conference committee stage does not make that program an earmark under any definition I am aware through my experience and research. 

It is not uncommon for House-Senate conferees to go beyond the two chambers’ specific funding levels especially on large bills like ARRA. Specific projects were not named and funding was provided in much the same way as it was for airports and for the new discretionary intermodal surface transportation grants: 100% funding for competitive grants. If these are the models for future transportation programs we would be fortunate and would have more effective policies.

Ultimately, Congress retains the right to identify specific projects either in statute or in report language. Together with formula-based programs, they provide members of Congress and interests with the assurance that at least some of the monies raised by taxes or user fees will be devoted to projects they support (either because of national, state or district needs).

The key to making sure that formulaic programs and earmarking do not constitute a disproportionate share of the surface transportation authorization is for advocates of a performance-based system to spell out what the elements and benefits of such a system would be. Only when members of Congress, including those not on the relevant committees, understand transportation’s impact on their constituencies and on imperatives such as economic growth and national productivity, job creation, protecting the climate and making the U.S. more energy secure, will they be willing to reform and expand the program.

A realistic political strategy should be to establish a “beachhead” of good discretionary programs” in the new authorization and fight off the beach for a greater share of monies in subsequent authorization cycles.

Collapse

During the debate that preceded the creation of SAFETEA-LU, there was a great deal of policy debate and discussion. In fact, the original draft of TEA-LU included a number of sections dedicated to refocusing the federal government's role in addressing congestion. As time wore on, the question most members became most concerned with was, "how much is my state going to receive through the formulas, and how many of my projects am I going to get?" As a result, it's my belief that many of the needed policy changes that should have been included were ultimately dropped. The focus shifted from policy to "pork".

As the process of authorization begins again, there is a lot of fervor and excitement about reformational policy changes that will reshape our federal transportation policy. But as the process ultimately gets dragged out and extended, will that fervor for reform fade?  In many meetings I have participated in, I have been troubled by statements made by some Congressional offices. In several offices, their top concern is already on the projects they want to receive in this authorization bill.  It has always seemed foolish to me how these projects, that usually total somewhere between $5 and $20 million, become the centerpiece for members when we are debating a half a trillion piece of legislation that serves as the underpinning for how people and goods move about in this country. 

I think there is enough blame to go around. Transportation policy groups need to do a better job explaining why Members should take the time to care about the policy rather then focus all their efforts and political capital securing $8 million for an interchange in their district. Additionally, transportation stakeholders (who usually benefit from and champion many of these earmark requests) should recognize that fighting for earmark dollars in this debate is like fighting for the breadcrumbs at Thanksgiving Day dinner. Better said, why fight for $10 million when there is $500 billion on the line?

Earmarks may be a politically necessary evil, but they can't be the focus of this bill, and the responsibility of ensuring that isn't the case lies with all of us.

Collapse

 It is hard to accept the assumption underlying this question, that earmarks can undermine “good policy”. What “good policy”? Since the completion of the Interstate Highway System, federal involvement in transport has not produced much of it.

Is it not a triumph of hope over experience to expect better from those who, on the basis of no published analysis, want to establish new, heavily subsidized, high-speed rail systems, and to reduce people’s vehicle-miles of travel?

Earmarks, of the kind used by Congressman Jack Murtha to force taxpayers to finance the airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania (which accommodates just three daily return commercial flights), should stay. They illustrate the absurdity of federal involvement in financing transport infrastructure and services, and strengthen the case for not reauthorizing it.

Earmarks have become caustic to the transportation program, and have been equated to "pork" in the mind of the public and has eroded public confidence. It is difficult to focus the program on a unifying theme or vision when funding becomes a political grant program.On the other hand, realistically it is doubtful that eatrmarks can be totally eliminated and perhaps that is not even desirable. When I served as Highway Director in Colorado, the Congressional delegation routinely asked what the Department's top priorities were and those projects were earmarked. I suspect that was not an isolated case. As a minimum, legislation should mitigate against the worst excesses of earmarks by setting a deadline for project completion and requiring that the earmarked projects be included in the State's Improvement Program.

I cannot add anything to Jack Schenendorf's excellent post.  His analysis of this issue just reminds me of how much of an honor it was to work for him when Bud Shuster was T&I Chairman.  I recommend reading his post in its entirety.

No. If handled properly, the "push for earmarks" should not undermine efforts to reform surface transportation policy. But there is a far better approach, in my view. The right kind of bill could actually eliminate or greatly reduce the number of earmarks.

Earmarks are controversial. And it's not just projects like the Bridge to Nowhere.

Look at the $8 billion earmark for high speed passenger rail that President Obama inserted into the stimulus bill. At his request it was just "air dropped" into the conference report at the very last minute. It had not been in either the House or Senate versions of the bill. Many criticized the President for doing the very thing he had campaigned against. But many others saw it differently. To them, it was a much needed reform. High speed passenger rail had been ignored for too long; it was about time the Federal Government prioritized rail investment. They were delighted with the earmark. One earmark--two vastly different reactions.

Also, a number of years ago the Washington Post printed an article harshly criticizing all of the earmarks, i.e., "pork," in a surface transportation bill. Ironically, on the facing page, there was an article praising the money in the bill for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge--which just happened to be one of the earmarks being criticized in the previous article. One organization--two views on the same earmark.

These examples help illustrate why the question of earmarks is not simple. Whether an earmark is good or bad, and whether the process of earmarking is good or bad policy, is often in the eye of the beholder.

As we analyze this week's question, it is important to keep six points in mind regarding surface transportation earmarks:

First, earmarks make up only a small portion of the surface transportation programs. Media accounts often make it seem that surface transportation bills are made up almost entirely of earmarks. But that is not true. Earmarks account for only about 10 percent of the funding in an authorization bill. The remaining 90 percent of the funding is distributed by formulas to state and local governments, where state and local officials decide on how the funds will be spent.

Second, the vast majority of earmarks are good transportation projects supported by state and local officials. Media accounts typically focus on the few bad apples and often leave the impression that all of the earmarks are bad. But the record clearly demonstrates otherwise. Most of the earmarks in surface transportation bills have been shown to be solid transportation projects worthy of funding.

Third, the current investment shortfall has contributed to the growth in earmarking. As a nation we are seriously underinvesting in our surface transportation infrastructure. As a result, many needed improvements are being deferred or cancelled, often to the consternation of the public. It should therefore come as no surprise that elected officials, including members of Congress, are being pressured by their constituents to come up with funding for these much-needed projects. Earmarks are one way to do that.

Fourth, many members of Congress support the concept of earmarking a small percentage of the funds at the Federal level. Their reasoning goes something like this: since they have to cast the tough votes to impose the user fees that pay for the programs, they should at least be able to have a say on how a small portion of the funds are spent. They know the needs in their district as well as, if not better, than any bureaucrat in the state capital where most of the funding decisions are made. If they choose bad projects that are not supported by the public, they will be held accountable in the next election.

Fifth, earmarks--even good ones--complicate a state's decision-making and make the Federal program more difficult and costly to administer. The shortfall in funding already makes it hard for states to develop coherent long-range investment strategies. Having to incorporate dozens if not hundreds of individual projects into that plan makes the state's job all the more difficult. And it often results in the state having to drop higher priorities from the plan in order to accommodate the earmarked projects. Moreover, ad hoc earmarks will not lead to a cohesive national transportation network.

And sixth, the tremendous growth in earmarks, coupled with the few "bad apples" and the critics' use of the bad apples to tarnish all earmarks, have given the Federal surface transportation programs a black eye. There simply is no way to ignore that fact. The programs have lost significant credibility with the public.

Now, let's look at the question of whether the push for earmarks in this year's bill will undermine efforts to reform surface transportation policy.

Let's assume that Congress decides to include earmarks in the bill; to limit the earmarks to a relatively small portion of the program, in the range of the current 10 percent or less; to carefully review project submissions to weed out the "bad apples"; and to require increased transparency. Under these circumstances, and despite the inevitable controversy that will accompany the earmarks, I think it is quite possible for Congress to reform the remaining 90 percent of the program in a significant way. In fact, as suggested in the question, the earmarks could actually help "grease the political skids," for the reforms.

But there is a better way, in my view.

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission concluded that our surface transportation system is at a crossroads and that the future of our nation's well-being, vitality, and global economic leadership is at stake. We called for a "New Beginning." We called for reform. We called for increased investment. We called for significant and decisive action NOW.

We concluded that it is essential that the next surface transportation bill focus on meeting national priorities and use performance-based, outcome-driven criteria. But we also recognized that programmatic reform in and of itself is not enough. We also need a substantial increase in investment. And we need to use the same cost-to-complete funding mechanism that we used to successfully build and complete the Interstate System. Finally, we need to speed up project delivery.

If Congress took this approach, I believe that earmarks could be eliminated or greatly reduced. This approach would commit Congress and state and local governments to systemic improvements in our national transportation network. The public would understand what improvements would be made over time. It would reestablish the same kind of covenant that existed with the Interstate System. As a result, there would be much less constituent pressure for earmarks. There weren't earmarks during the Interstate Construction period and we accomplished great things. We can do the same thing again.

Eliminating or greatly reducing earmarks would eliminate or reduce much controversy. There would be much greater support from the public and from opinion leaders. And it is this level of support that will be needed if we are to truly modernize our surface transportation network (our highways, bridges, transit systems, freight rail, passenger rail and non-motorized systems) to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and to raise the revenues necessary to make it a reality.

Let me close by making clear that these are my personal views and that they do not necessarily reflect the views of my firm Covington & Burling LLP, my surface transportation clients, or the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, on which I had the honor of serving as Vice Chair.

Collapse

Since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU there has been a growing acknowledgement that national transportation policy has lost direction and a clear sense of purpose. Congress, itself, recognized this fact, by establishing two commissions to examine national transportation policy and funding. Whether the next surface transportation authorization bill is truly transformative, however, remains to be seen.

The explosion of earmarks in the multi-year surface transportation authorization bills over the last fifteen years and the hundreds of earmarks that are included in the annual transportation appropriations are symptoms of this loss of national purpose and consensus. The authorization bills have essentially become huge public works bills, filled with local projects and justified by their capacity to stimulate construction and construction-related jobs. The only important arguments about these bills are over money -- money for every Congressional District, donor-donee arguments, and calls for each state to come as close as possible to returning 100 percent of the federal gasoline tax revenues raised in its boundaries. As much as earmarks, the Equity Bonus program symbolizes the loss of national purpose in surface transportation legislation.

I am optimistic that in the long-run we will be able to refocus national transportation policy and federal funding on national purposes, but this will not happen in a single bill. Certainly, the reports of the two Commissions, our work at the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Brookings Institute's study, and the work of many organizations and groups all call for programmatic reform and are beginning to change the terms of the debate. Congressman Oberstar has described his STAA, as a transformative bill, and there is a growing awareness that increased investment in transportation should only come in the context of significant reform.

While Congress may not achieve fully transformative legislation in the next round of authorization, we should press for the inclusion of significant "markers" or building blocks in that bill (and even in the inevitable extensions of the existing act), steps that will begin to move national transportation legislation toward principles of performance, outcomes, and accountability, shaped around national goals and purposes. We should begin to create the bases and the tools to make wise decisions about the investment of limited resources and to develop the criteria by which priorities of investment can be established around economic, social and environmental benefits and returns.

However, even taking these first steps will require the engagement of a broad coalition of civic and economic interests and demands strong national leadership. These elements were present in the enactment of the truly transformative transportation legislation of the second half of the 20th Century, the Interstate Highway System and the deregulation of the aviation, rail, and trucking industries. Real reform in surface transportation will not come from the transportation sector, alone, but will require a similarly broad civic, political, and economic coalition. Reform will happen only when it is seen to serve significant national purposes. That is our real challenge.

Collapse

It depends on what the definition of 'reform' is. Do thousands and thousands of business-as-usual earmarks represent the kind of focused, evidence-based, or values-driven program many are calling for? Well, no. This aggregation does not even adhere to the largely unanimous overarching policy recommendation for a unified and purposeful national program.

There is little economic justification for a nation making broad transportation and infrastructure improvements in all places. Yet that is exactly how the American transportation structure operates as we do not prioritize projects on the national level. SAFETEA-LU's entropic set of earmarks have replaced and trumped any unified national purpose.

Over 5,000 of these earmarks are part of the so-called "High Priority Projects" program. There is no definition for precisely what kind of priorities but since only about half of the total funding from these earmarks goes to the 100 largest metropolitan areas our national economy does not appear to be one of them.

However, perspective is important here. About 8 percent of the highway funds authorized in SAFETEA-LU are earmarked. Three times as much money is distributed as part of the largest federal highway program-the Equity Bonus program-which exists solely to make sure that each state gets back close to as much money as they pay in gas-tax revenue. Another 52 percent is spread around based on traditional metrics such as amount of roads, miles driven, and fuel consumed. Less than one-fifth come from other measures of need such as number of deficient bridges, roadway fatalities, or population in air quality non-attainment areas.

Alaska's infamous "bridge to nowhere" became a catch phrase for a political and decision making process gone wild. But the proliferation of earmarks is the result of a program that exists today without a comprehensive vision or true sense of the spatial patterns of the economy.

Collapse