REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS 

WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

PROGRAMS 

Department of Transportation 

Report Number AV-2007-066 

Date Issued: September 7, 2007 
U.S. Department of The Inspector General Office of Inspector General

Transportation Washington, DC 20590

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

September 7, 2007 

The Honorable Tom Coburn 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, 

 Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Coburn: 

We have enclosed the results of our review of congressional earmarks 

within Department of Transportation (DOT) programs, which we 

conducted in response to your request. Specifically, you asked that we 

conduct an independent analysis of the cost, oversight, and impact of 

congressional earmarks for the most recent fiscal year. 

We determined the total number and dollar amount of congressional 

earmarks within DOT programs for fiscal year 2006, the inclusion of 

earmarks in DOT’s annual planning and evaluation process, and the effects 

of earmarks on DOT’s mission and goals. 

This report provides our analysis of selected programs within the Federal 

Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the 

Federal Aviation Administration; these agencies accounted for 99 percent 

of the earmarks (both in number and dollar amount) in DOT for fiscal year 

2006. 

We want to express our appreciation to the Department and the various 

stakeholder organizations for their cooperation during this review. 
2

If I can answer any questions or be of further service, please contact me at 

(202) 366-1959 or Todd J. Zinser, Deputy Inspector General, at (202) 

366-6767. 

Sincerely, 

Calvin L. Scovel III 

Inspector General 

Enclosure (Report AV-2007-066) 
Table of Contents 

Transmittal Letter 

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 3

RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 6

TOTAL NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF EARMARKS WITHIN DOT

PROGRAMS FOR FY 2006 ..................................................................................... 6

EARMARKS AND THE PLANNING AND EVALUATION PROCESSES ......................... 6

EFFECTS OF EARMARKS ON DOT’S MISSION AND GOALS ................................. 10

EXHIBIT A. TOTAL NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF 

EARMARKS BY PROGRAM WITHIN DOT FOR FY 2006 ........................ 15

EXHIBIT B. NUMBER OF FY 2006 EARMARKED PROJECTS THAT 

BYPASSED ESTABLISHED REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESSES 

OR PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESSES................................ 16

EXHIBIT C. OIG ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF EARMARKS ON 

AGENCIES’ PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 17

EXHIBIT D. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED ....................... 18

EXHIBIT E. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY, AND 

RELATED AUDIT COVERAGE ...................................................................... 19
Introduction 

1

INTRODUCTION 

Over the past year, there has been considerable interest and debate over 

congressional earmarks. According to the Government Accountability Office, an 

earmark is a congressional directive in legislation to a Federal agency to spend a 

specific amount of its budget for a specific entity, project, or service. Earmarking 

differs from the general appropriations process where Congress grants a lump sum 

to an agency to distribute according to the agency’s authorized, transparent, 

statutory criteria and merit-based decision-making processes.1

 

In a memorandum published in January 2006, the Congressional Research Service 

reported that during the 10-year period from fiscal year (FY) 1996 to FY 2005, the 

number of earmarks within Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations 

acts and accompanying conference reports increased by more than 

1,150 percent—from 167 earmarks in FY 1996 to 2,094 earmarks in FY 2005. 

The amount of dollars earmarked also increased by more than 314 percent—from 

$789 million in FY 1996 to about $3.27 billion in FY 2005 (see figure). Although 

down in numbers from FY 2005, DOT’s FY 2006 appropriations2

 included 

1,582 earmarks, of which 1,516 were specifically identified in the conference 

report3

 accompanying the act. 

*Number and valuation of earmarks do not include earmarks contained in authorization acts for these years. 

Source: Congressional Research Service 

 

1

 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Office of the General Counsel, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law 

3rd Edition, (February 2006), vol. 2. 2

 Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 Pub. L. No. 109-115. 3

 Conference Report 109-307, dated November 18, 2005. Explanatory statements within conference reports do not 

have the full force of the law, but they explain the intent of the bill language for the guidance of the executive 

agencies. 

Figure. Summary of Earmarks Within DOT Appropriations 

Fiscal Years 1996-2005*

167 147 641

2,282

2,094

0.789

1.23 1.28

3.22

3.36 3.27

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005

Fiscal Years

0

1

2

3

4

No. of 

Earmarks Dollars 

Earmarked 

( in billions)

1,493
Introduction 

2

Not only do earmarks originate in the appropriation process, but they also enter the 

process through program authorizations.4

 Recent DOT re-authorizations have 

included a significant number of specific projects with associated funding directed 

to specific state and local agencies or locations. For example, the current DOT 

authorization for surface transportation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),5

 accounted for 

6,474 (80 percent) of DOT’s 8,056 earmarked projects for FY 2006. As with most 

DOT program authorizations, SAFETEA-LU is a multi-year (5 years—from 

FY 2005 to FY 2009) authorization with specified percentages of appropriated 

funds authorized each year for the given agencies, programs, and activities. 

In August 2006, Senator Coburn—then Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on 

Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and 

International Security—requested that we conduct an independent analysis of the 

cost, oversight, and impact of congressional earmarks. As Senator Coburn 

requested, we defined an earmark as a provision of law, directive, or an item 

represented in any table, chart, or text contained within a joint explanatory 

statement or a report accompanying an appropriations or authorization bill that 

identifies an entity, a program, project, or service and the amount of assistance the 

Federal agency is to provide. 

Consistent with Senator Coburn’s request, we determined (1) the total number and 

amount of earmarks within DOT for FY 2006, (2) the inclusion of earmarks in 

DOT’s annual planning and project evaluation processes, and (3) the effects of 

earmarks on DOT’s mission and goals. 

We focused our analysis on earmarks within DOT’s programs administered by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 

and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), because these three Operating 

Administrations accounted for 99 percent of the earmarks for FY 2006 (both in 

number and dollar amount) in DOT. Exhibits A through E provide details on: (A) 

the total number and dollar amount of earmarks by program with DOT for 

FY 2006; (B) earmarked projects that bypassed established selection and review 

processes or planning and programming processes; (C) our analysis of earmarks’ 

impact on agencies’ programs; (D) stakeholders interviewed; and (E) our 

objectives, scope and methodology, and related audits. We conducted this review 

between December 2006 and August 2007, in accordance with generally accepted 

Government Auditing Standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. 

 

4

 Authorizing legislation directs the enactment of appropriations of specific amounts for specific programs and 

activities to be provided in appropriation acts. Normally, an authorization of appropriation legislation is a 

prerequisite for making appropriations for the given program or agency (see GAO-05-734SP, Budget Glossary, page 

19 of 182). 5 SAFETEA-LU, Pub. L. No. 109-59 (2005). 
Executive Overview 

3

In February 2007, the President signed a joint resolution6

 passed by Congress that 

provided appropriations for FY 2007 with a moratorium on earmarks. Section 112 

of this joint resolution states that “any language specifying an earmark in a 

committee report or statements of managers accompanying an appropriations act 

for FY 2006 shall have no legal effect with respect to funds appropriated” under 

the joint resolution. 

The Office of Management and Budget has taken steps to enforce the joint 

resolution by requiring that Federal agencies only fund projects or activities that 

are “specifically identified in statutory text” and “in accordance with authorizing 

law, using statutory criteria, such as funding formulas, eligibility standards, and 

merit-based decision-making.”7

 

EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW 

Overall, we identified 8,056 earmarked projects within the Department’s programs 

that received more than $8.54 billion for FY 2006 (see exhibit A).8

 Of the 

8,056 earmarked projects for FY 2006: 

• 66 earmarked projects were specified in the text of the appropriation act. 

• 1,516 earmarked projects were specified in the conference report 

accompanying the appropriation act. 

• 6,474 earmarked projects were identified in the appropriation act’s 

accompanying conference report sections referring to distribution of FY 2006 

authorized funding as directed by SAFETEA-LU. 

FHWA, FTA, and FAA accounted for 99 percent of these earmarked projects, 

both in number (8,011 of the 8,056 projects) and dollar amount (about 

$8.49 billion of the more than $8.54 billion). FHWA had the highest number of 

earmarked projects at 6,556, and FTA had the highest percentage of its FY 2006 

appropriation earmarked at 28 percent. 

Generally, before a capital or research project can receive DOT funding, either 

discretionary or formula, it must be the product of a planning process. Planning 

for highway, transit, and airport improvement projects takes place at the local, 

state, or Federal levels. For highway and transit projects, each metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO), in cooperation with the state and public 

 

6

 Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-5. 7 Office of Management and Budget Director, memorandum to the heads of departments and agencies, 15 February 

2007. 8

 Number and amount of earmarks identified in DOT appropriation and accompanying conference report for FY 2006. 

Dollar amounts reflect funding levels prior to the Government-wide, 1-percent rescission enacted in DOD 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act, 

2006, Pub. L. No. 109-148. 
Executive Overview 

4

transportation operators, must develop a long-range transportation plan and a 

short-range transportation program for the urbanized areas within the state. 

Integral to the planning process is an evaluation of factors such as a project’s 

enhancement of mobility, maximization of safety and security, relief of 

congestion, financial viability, and protection of the environment. The planning 

process culminates in a list of projects to be funded within 4 years. 

To be eligible for Federal funds, a project must be part of the Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP), which is approved by the MPO and the Governor, 

and the State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is approved 

by the Governor, FHWA, and FTA. Subsequent to the planning process, FHWA 

and FTA select projects to receive discretionary grants based on their merits as 

reflected in the transportation plans. For formula grants, the states make the 

selections based on their priorities and in cooperation with the MPOs and local 

officials. 

To be considered for funding under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), a 

project would be part of the national Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP), 

which is formulated by FAA in cooperation with states, planning agencies, and 

airport sponsors. In all cases, the planning process culminates in a list of priority 

projects to be funded within a given time frame. 

However, our review of 7,760 earmarked projects valued at $8.05 billion within 

FHWA, FTA, and FAA programs disclosed that 7,724 of the 7,760 projects 

(99 percent) either were not subject to the agencies’ review and selection 

processes or bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes. 

For example, 125 AIP projects, totaling almost $201 million, were earmarked for 

FY 2006. Of the 125 earmarked projects, 72 (about 58 percent),9

 totaling 

$132.4 million, were on FAA’s list of candidates to receive AIP funds for critical 

airport planning and development projects—the remaining 53 projects were not. 

These 53 projects, totaling about $68.5 million, would not have been considered 

for funding in FY 2006 if they had not received earmarks. 

There were earmarked projects we reviewed that were evaluated as “highest” 

priority projects and would have been fully funded regardless of being earmarked. 

For example, the New Starts Program is the Federal Government’s primary 

financial resource for supporting locally planned, implemented, and operated 

transit fixed “guideway” systems.10 From heavy to light rail, from commuter rail 

 

9

 Although these projects were on FAA’s AIP list of candidates, there is no guarantee that these projects would have 

been funded had they not been earmarked. 10 A “fixed guideway” refers to any transit service that uses exclusive or controlled rights-of-way or rails, entirely or in 

part. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, monorail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, inclined plane, 

cable car, automated guideway transit, ferryboats, that portion of motor bus service operated on exclusive or 

controlled rights-of-way, and high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes.
Executive Overview 

5

to bus rapid transit systems, these projects have improved the mobility of millions 

of Americans; helped to improve air quality; and fostered the development of 

more viable, safe, and livable communities. 

However, earmarks may not be the most effective or efficient use of funds on 

programs within FHWA, FTA, and FAA. Many earmarked projects considered by 

the agencies as low priority are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked 

projects. For example, for FY 2006, FAA considered 9 of the 10 new earmarked 

projects, totaling $31.5 million, in its Tower/Terminal Air Traffic Control Facility 

Replacement Program within the Facilities and Equipment account to be low 

priority projects that would not have received funding without the earmarks. 

Funding these new low priority projects in FY 2006 added to the already 

substantial backlog of replacement projects from earmarks in prior fiscal years and 

caused FAA to delay the planning of its higher priority replacement projects by at 

least 3 years. 

Some earmarks are providing funds for projects that would otherwise be ineligible. 

For example, for FY 2006, 16 of 65 earmarked projects, totaling more than 

$14 million, in FHWA’s Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program did not 

meet statutory program criteria and would not have received funding were it not 

for a section in DOT’s appropriations law11 that allows funding for earmarks that 

do not meet the statutory requirements of the program. 

 

11 Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 109-115 § 113. 
Results

6

RESULTS 

Total Number and Dollar Amount of Earmarks Within DOT Programs 

for FY 2006 

For FY 2006, there were 8,056 earmarks within DOT programs with a total 

amount of more than $8.54 billion, or over 13 percent of DOT’s appropriation. As 

shown in table 1, FHWA, FTA, and FAA accounted for 99 percent of these 

earmarks both in number (8,012 of the 8,056) and dollar amount (about 

$8.49 billion of the more than $8.54 billion). The percentage of budgets 

earmarked ranged from a high of 28 percent at FTA to a low of 2.83 percent at 

FAA. 

Table 1. Number and Amount of Earmarks Within DOT for FY 2006 

Operating 

Administration\a 

Total Number of 

Earmarks 

Total Amount of 

Earmarks 

Total FY 2006 

Appropriation 

Percentage of 

FY 2006 

Appropriation 

Earmarked 

FHWA 6,556 $5,675,100,200 $36,648,886,903 15.49% 

FTA 1,252 $2,405,673,150 $8,590,365,000 28.00% 

FAA 204 $408,340,000 $14,414,000,000 2.83% 

Sub-total 8,012 $8,489,113,350 $59,653,251,903 14.23% 

All Others 44 $55,890,000 $3,795,558,000 1.47% 

Total 8,056 $8,545,003,350 $63,448,809,903 13.47% 

\a Exhibit A details the number and amount of earmarks within FHWA, FTA, and FAA programs for FY 2006. 

Source: DOT-OIG 

The cost of administering earmarks is not included in table 1. We were unable to 

quantify such costs because the Operating Administrations do not separately track 

the cost of administering earmarked projects. However, program officials we 

spoke with in FHWA, FTA, FAA, and the Office of the Secretary all agreed that 

there are additional costs associated with administering earmarked projects, such 

as the additional staff time needed to review projects that are not normally eligible 

for Federal funding. 

Earmarks and the Planning and Evaluation Processes 

We reviewed 27 of 54 programs subject to earmarks within FHWA, FTA, and 

FAA and found that 7,724 of the 7,760 (99 percent) earmarked projects for FY 

2006 bypassed the agencies’ review and selection processes or states’ planning 

and programming processes (see table 2). 
Results

7

Table 2. Number of Earmarked Projects Bypassing Agencies’ Review 

and Selection Processes or States’ Planning and Programming 

Processes 

OA No. of 

Programs 

Reviewed\a

No. of 

Earmarks 

Reviewed 

Amount of 

Earmarks 

Reviewed 

No. of Earmarks Not Subject 

to the Agencies’ Authority To 

Review and Select Projects 

Based on Merit 

FHWA 7 260 $1,176,278,000 260 

FTA 3 1,209 $2,357,688,150 1,175 

FAA 12 182 $311,690,000 180 

Subtotal 22 1,651 $3,845,656,150 1,615 

 No. of Earmarks That 

Bypassed the States’ Normal 

Planning and Programming 

Processes 

FHWA 5 6,109 $4,202,447,200 6,109 

Grand Total 27 7,760 $8,048,103,350 7,724 

 \a Exhibit B details by program earmarked projects that were either not subject to FHWA, FTA and FAA’s 

statutory authority to award capital and research grants based on merit or bypassed the states’ normal planning 

and programming processes. 

Source: DOT-OIG 

To illustrate: 

• 1,615 of the 7,724 of the earmarks, valued at more than $3.8 billion, were not 

subject to FHWA, FTA, and FAA’s authority to review and select projects 

based on merit. 

Under Federal statute, FHWA, FTA, and FAA have the authority to award 

grants for capital and research projects using discretionary funds. Normally, 

these DOT agencies would award a grant only after the project had been 

through planning and evaluation at the local, state, or Federal levels. For 

example, a candidate for a highway or transit capital grant would be the 

product of the metropolitan and state-wide planning process and part of the TIP 

and the STIP. A candidate for an AIP grant would be part of the national 

ACIP, which is formulated by FAA in cooperation with states, planning 

agencies, and airport sponsors. In all cases, the planning process culminates in 

a list of priority projects to be funded within a given time frame. Subsequent 

to planning, FHWA, FTA, and FAA would select a project to receive a grant 

after a review and evaluation of criteria established to identify and rank the 

most meritorious projects. 

Planning for research takes place within each of the three agencies in dialogue 

with transportation leaders and university researchers and in accordance with 
Results

8

the agencies’ strategic goals and objectives. The preferred method for 

selecting research projects is through open competition and an evaluation by 

peers. 

• 6,109 of the 7,724 of the earmarks, valued at about $4.2 billion, bypassed the 

states’ normal planning and programming processes. 

In addition to discretionary funds, FHWA, FTA, and FAA apportion funds to 

states and their subdivisions based on formulas prescribed by law (often 

referred to as formula funds). For example, FHWA apportions funds for the 

Surface Transportation Program based on total lane miles of Federal-aid 

highways (25 percent), total vehicle miles traveled on Federal-aid highways 

(40 percent), and estimated tax payments attributable to highway users paid 

into the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund (35 percent). 

In order for the funds to be eligible for use by the states, projects must undergo 

the states’ normal planning and programming processes and be included in the 

STIP. Agencies provide the formula funds to the states, and the decision on 

how to spend formula funds are made at the state and local level,12 not by the 

agencies, although those decisions are subject to their review. 

Earmarked projects we reviewed, however, either were not subject to the agencies’ 

expertise and normal authority to select projects for funding after a review and 

evaluation of a project’s merit, rank, and priority or bypassed the states’ normal 

planning and programming processes as demonstrated in the following examples. 

• FHWA’s National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program: This 

program was established under SAFETEA-LU to provide funds for 

construction of highway projects in corridors of national significance to 

promote economic growth and international or interregional trade. For 

FY 2006, all 33 of the program’s earmarked projects, totaling about 

$389.6 million, bypassed the Agency’s review, approval, or merit-based 

selection processes. While projects were not selected based on merit, the states 

were still required to submit an application to FHWA identifying the project’s 

purpose, eligibility, scope of work, proposed schedule, cost estimates, and all 

funding sources in order to receive the earmarked funds. 

• FHWA’s Public Lands Highways Discretionary Program: This program was 

established to improve access to and within the Nation’s Federal lands. For 

FY 2006, all 77 of the program’s earmarked projects, totaling about 

$95.2 million, bypassed the Agency’s review, approval, or selection processes. 

 

12 23 U.S.C. 145 states that the authorization of the appropriation of Federal funds . . . under this chapter shall in no 

way infringe on the sovereign rights of the states to determine which projects shall be federally financed. 
Results

9

Again, while these projects were not selected based on merit, the states were 

still required to submit an application to FHWA identifying the project’s 

proposed work, purpose and benefits, schedule, and amount of Federal funds 

requested in order to use these earmarked funds. 

• FTA’s National Research Program: FTA’s research delivers solutions to 

improve public transportation. FTA’s National Research Program is one 

program over the last 10 years in which the majority of projects have been 

earmarked, thereby bypassing the established planning and evaluation process 

put in place by FTA. For FY 2006, $40.8 million (74 percent) of the 

Program’s funding was earmarked to 46 projects. These 46 projects, however, 

did not have to go through the planning and evaluation process by meeting 

eligibility criteria; being selected through an open competition; and, finally, 

being evaluated by peers. As part of the open competition, proposals are 

submitted to FTA where they are evaluated by in-house experts to ensure the 

project (1) fills a need, (2) is not being carried out by other projects or 

organizations, and (3) supports the attainment of FTA’s strategic research 

goals. 

• FTA’s Bus and Bus Facilities Program: This program makes funds available 

to public transit providers to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and 

related equipment and to construct bus-related projects. Congress has 

earmarked the program for more than 10 years (since 1995). As a result, FTA 

did not have the opportunity to select bus and bus facility projects based on 

merit. For FY 2006, Congress earmarked $813.9 million of the $847.5 million 

appropriated (96 percent) for 1,097 projects. According to FTA, because 

Congress has been earmarking bus funds for many years and the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal included the formularization of the 

bus program, FTA no longer had a mechanism in place to select bus and bus 

facility projects. However, program officials commented that FTA would 

establish a systematic mechanism to rank and rate projects if the Agency had 

this responsibility. As a result of a joint resolution passed by Congress that 

provided appropriations for FY 2007 with a moratorium on earmarks, FTA 

implemented criteria to rank bus and bus facility projects because 

congressional earmarks covered only a little more than half of the $882 million 

available for the program. 

• FAA’s Airport Improvement Program: This program provides funds for 

projects that plan for and develop a safe and efficient national airport system. 

For FY 2006, 125 AIP projects were earmarked totaling almost $201 million. 

We found that of 125 earmarked projects, 72 (about 58 percent), totaling about 

$132.4 million, were on FAA’s AIP list of candidates to receive funding for 

critical airport planning and development projects—the remaining 53 were not. 
Results

10

These 53 projects, totaling about $68.5 million, would not have been 

considered for funding if they had not received earmarks. 

Effects of Earmarks on DOT’s Mission and Goals 

The Department’s mission states: 

The national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, 

and the security of the United States require the development of 

transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, safe, 

efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent with 

those and other national objectives, including the efficient use and 

conservation of the resources of the United States. 

The Department has established five strategic goals for achieving its mission: 

• Safety: Enhance public health and safety by working toward the elimination 

of transportation-related deaths and injuries. 

• Reduced Congestion: Reduce congestion and other impediments to using the 

Nation’s transportation system. 

• Global Connectivity: Facilitate an international transportation system that 

promotes economic growth and development. 

• Environmental Stewardship: Promote transportation solutions that enhance 

communities and protect the natural and built environment. 

• Security, Preparedness, and Response: Balance transportation security 

requirements with the safety, mobility, and economic needs of the Nation and 

be prepared to respond to emergencies that affect the viability of the 

transportation sector. 

With more than 8,000 projects earmarked for FY 2006, it would not have been 

practical for us to determine the effect of each earmark on DOT’s mission and 

goals. Instead, we limited our review to selected earmarked projects in the 

27 programs and identified in the following manner the effects that earmarks have 

on DOT’s mission and goals: 

• There were earmarked projects reviewed that were evaluated as “highest” 

priority projects and would have been fully funded regardless of being 

earmarked. 

For example, the New Starts Program is the Federal Government’s primary 

financial resource for supporting locally planned, implemented, and operated 

transit fixed “guideway” systems. From heavy to light rail, from commuter rail 

to bus rapid transit systems, these projects aim to improve the mobility of 
Results

11

millions of Americans; help to improve air quality; and foster the development 

of more viable, safe, and livable communities. Except for a small portion, 

(32 of the 66 projects representing $130.5 million of the $1.5 billion in 

earmarks for FY 2006), New Starts projects have been through a rigorous 

planning and evaluation process. 

• At the same time, other earmarked projects would have been considered 

necessary although not high priority and would have been fully or partially 

funded even if they had not been earmarked. 

For example, for FY 2006, Congress earmarked more than 1,000 bus and bus 

facility projects totaling almost $814 million. According to FTA program 

officials, more than 90 percent of these projects are necessary and arise out of 

the local planning process. At an operational level, communities always need 

to purchase buses to support transit service. Because formula money is never 

enough to meet transit needs, communities need an infusion of additional funds 

to fulfill this role. 

• However, we have identified at least five ways in which earmarks impact 

programs within FHWA, FTA, and FAA (see exhibit C for the types of impact 

that earmarked projects have on FHWA, FTA, and FAA programs). 

First, earmarks can reduce funding for the states’ core transportation 

programs. For example, according to FHWA officials, funding for three 

earmarked programs (High Priority Projects, Highway Priority Projects, and 

Surface Transportation Projects) reduced apportionments to the states for core 

transportation programs. For FY 2006, Congress earmarked over 

5,600 projects valued at over $3.5 billion in these 3 programs—almost 

10 percent of FHWA’s annual budget. Based on discussions with state 

officials, FHWA officials believed many of these projects would not have been 

high priority candidates for funding under the states’ formula programs. 

However, FHWA was required to fund the projects because they were 

earmarked thereby reducing states’ apportionments by $3.5 billion. 

Second, earmarks do not always coincide with DOT strategic research 

goals. For example, FTA has five research goals to support its research 

mission to deliver solutions to improve public transportation. These goals 

include (1) providing transit research leadership, (2) increasing transit 

ridership, (3) improving capital and operating efficiencies, (4) improving 

safety and emergency preparedness, and (5) protecting the environment and 

promoting energy independence. For FY 2006, we found that all 46 earmarked 

projects, valued at about $40.8 million, in FTA’s National Research Program 

did not address the first goal and only partially addressed goals 2 through 4. 
Results

12

Third, many low priority, earmarked projects are being funded over 

higher priority, non-earmarked projects. For example, for FY 2006, FAA 

considered 9 of the 10 new earmarked projects, totaling $31.5 million, in its 

Tower/Terminal Air Traffic Control Facility Replacement Program within the 

Facilities and Equipment account to be low priority projects that would not 

have received funding without the earmark. These new projects have added to 

the already substantial backlog of replacement projects from earmarks in prior 

fiscal years and have caused FAA to delay the planning of its higher priority 

replacement projects by at least 3 years. 

Earmarks for FAA’s Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) Program within the 

Facilities and Equipment account represent another example of low, rather than 

high, priority projects receiving funds. For FY 2006, Congress earmarked 

almost $11.7 million for 15 ILS projects. Of the 15 ILS earmarks, 8 were for 

new projects and 7 were for projects receiving earmarks in prior years. 

According to FAA officials, the Agency would not have selected any of the 

15 earmarks to receive funds because none of the earmarked projects would 

have met FAA’s requirements for selecting a project, such as the requirement 

that a project’s benefits are equal to or greater than its costs. 

In another example, 36 of 77 earmarked projects for FY 2006 in FHWA’s 

Public Lands Highways Discretionary program, totaling $37.6 million, would 

not have been given high priority funding because the projects were not in 1 of 

the 11 states containing at least 3 percent of the total public land area in the 

United States in accordance with requirements found in Title 23 of the United 

States Code. Funding preference is generally given to those 11 states that 

contain at least 3 percent of the total public lands in the United States. 

Fourth, earmarks provide funds for projects that would otherwise be 

ineligible. For example, for FY 2006, 16 of 65 earmarked projects in FHWA’s 

Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program, totaling more than $14 million, 

did not meet statutory program criteria and would not have received funding if 

not for Section 113 of DOT’s appropriations law13 that allows funding for 

earmarks that do not meet the statutory requirements of a program. 

Also, for FY 2006, 4 of 25 earmarked projects totaling $28 million in FHWA’s 

Projects of National and Regional Significance Program did not meet statutory 

criteria. Typically, project costs must exceed $500 million or be 75 percent of 

the amount of Federal Highway funds apportioned to the state in which the 

project is located for the most recently completed fiscal year. None of the four 

 

13 Section 113 of Pub. L. No. 109-115 states that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, projects and activities 

described in the statement of managers . . . under the headings ‘Federal-Aid Highways’ and ‘Federal Transit 

Administration’ shall be eligible for fiscal year 2006 funds made available for the project for which each project or 

activity is so designated.” 
Results

13

projects met these criteria. However, a provision in SAFETEA-LU for this 

program directs that funds be allocated for these projects notwithstanding the 

program criteria set forth elsewhere in the statute for the program. 

Other examples of ineligible projects that received earmarks are in FTA’s Bus 

and Bus Facilities Program. To be eligible, a bus or bus facility project must 

be for transit purposes. Nevertheless, projects without a transit connection 

received earmarks for one of two reasons: the earmark was either written 

specifically into legislation or into the Conference Report, and the Section 113 

eligibility provision was applied. For example: 

-Bus category transit funds were earmarked to fund two intermodal facilities 

that do not have a transit connection. In the first case, project 

documentation indicates that the funds were for a “general purpose 

container dock, rail facilities, and necessary rolling stock and storage 

area...providing for the operation of a fully integrated container handling 

facility.” In the second case, documentation indicates that the funds were 

intended to restore the exterior of a former railway depot to its original 

configuration and refurbish the interior to house a historical museum and 

office facilities. FTA was compelled to fund the first project because of the 

Section 113 eligibility provision and the second project because it was 

written into law. 

-FTA declined to fund an FY 2005 earmark for a park-and-ride facility that 

Congress intended for use as a parking garage at a local hospital, an 

ineligible use of Federal transit funds. In the FY 2006 Department of 

Transportation Appropriation Act, Congress directed that funds originally 

available for the park-and-ride facility be made available to the hospital for 

the parking garage. A transit connection does not exist, but FTA funded 

the earmark because it was written into law. 

Fifth, earmarks can disrupt the agency’s ability to fund programs as 

designated when authorized funding amounts are exceeded by overearmarking. In SAFETEA-LU, earmarks actually exceeded the authorized 

funding levels for three of the five FHWA research programs for FY 2006, 

resulting in across-the-board program cuts to stay within authorized funding 

levels for each of the three programs. 

-The Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment 

Program (STRDD) was earmarked at $234 million but only authorized 

funding of $196.4 million for FY 2006. This resulted in a 16.36-percent cut 

in all STRDD programs without a prescribed method to make the cuts. 
Results

14

-The University Transportation Research Program included $76.4 million in 

earmarks with an authorized funding level of $69.7 million for FY 2006. 

This resulted in an 8.77-percent cut in the University Transportation 

Research Program without a prescribed method to make the cuts. 

-The Training and Education program had $27.65 million in earmarks but 

was authorized only $26.7 million for FY 2006. This resulted in a 

3.44-percent cut in the Training and Education program without a 

prescribed method to make the cuts. 

We are not making any recommendations in this report as the nature of this review 

was to conduct an independent analysis of the cost, oversight, and impact of 

congressional earmarks for the most recent fiscal year. On August 16, 2007, a 

copy of this report was provided to officials from the Department and the 

Operating Administrations for comment. Their comments were considered in 

finalizing our report. 
Exhibit A. Total Number and Dollar Amount of Earmarks by Program Within DOT 

for FY 2006 

15

EXHIBIT A. TOTAL NUMBER AND DOLLAR AMOUNT OF 

EARMARKS BY PROGRAM WITHIN DOT FOR FY 2006 

Operating Administration Total Number of 

Earmarks 

Total Amount of 

Earmarks 

FHWA Programs 

Projects of National and Regional Significance 25 $355,800,000 

National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement 33 $389,600,000 

Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant 6 $6,000,000 

High Priority Projects 5,091 $2,966,400,000 

Transportation Improvement Projects 466 $511,047,200 

Stand Alone Projects 12 $43,950,000 

Bridge Set-Asides 9 $100,000,000 

Surface Transportation Research, Development, and 

Deployment (STRDD)1 43 $234,803,000 

Highway Priority Projects 24 $25,000,000 

Surface Transportation Projects 519 $600,000,000 

Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program 65 $100,000,000 

Public Lands Highways Discretionary 77 $95,200,000 

Ferry Boats Discretionary 26 $35,000,000 

Training and Education2 7 $27,650,000 

University Transportation Research3 52 $76,400,000 

Intelligent Transportation Systems 3 $13,000,000 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 1 $500,000 

Transportation and Community and System 

Preservation 

94 $61,250,000 

Appalachian Development Highway System 1 $20,000,000 

Other Transportation Projects 2 $13,500,000 

Subtotal 6,556 $5,675,100,200 

FTA Programs

Bus and Bus Facilities 1097 $813,903,150 

New Starts 66 $1,503,000,000 

National Research 46 $40,785,000 

University Transportation Centers 8 $7,000,000 

National Transit Institute 1 $4,300,000 

Alternative Analysis 18 $18,900,000 

Clean Fuels 16 $17,785,000 

Subtotal 1,252 $2,405,673,150 

FAA Accounts 

Operations 13 $28,995,000 

Facilities & Equipment (F&E) 52 $169,200,000 

Grants-In-Aid for Airports 125 $200,900,000 

Research, Engineering, and Development 14 $9,245,000 

Subtotal 204 $408,340,000 

Other OA Program Subtotals 44 $55,890,000 

Grand Total 8,056 $8,545,003,350 

1 STRDD designations in SAFETEA-LU exceeded the authorized funding level of $196.4 million for FY 2006 

through FY 2009 (in FY 2006 by $38.4 million, requiring a 16.355-percent cut in all STRDD programs). 

2 The T&E program also had $27.65 million in “earmarks” but was authorized at only $26.7 million, requiring a 

3.436-percent cut in all T&E programs. 

3 University Transportation Research program included $76.4 million in “earmarks” but was authorized at only 

$69.7 million, requiring an 8.770-percent cut in all University Transportation Research programs.

Source: DOT-OIG 
Exhibit B. Number of FY 2006 Earmarked Projects That Bypassed Established 

Review and Selection Processes or Planning and Programming Processes 

16

EXHIBIT B. NUMBER OF FY 2006 EARMARKED PROJECTS 

THAT BYPASSED ESTABLISHED REVIEW AND SELECTION 

PROCESSES OR PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESSES 

OA Program or 

Account Name 

No. of 

Earmarks 

Reviewed 

Amount of 

Earmarks 

Reviewed 

No. of Earmarks 

That Bypassed the 

Agencies’ Authority 

To Review and Select 

Projects Based on 

Merit

No. of Earmarks That 

Bypassed the States’ 

Normal Planning and 

Programming 

Processes 

FHWA Programs 

Projects of National and 

Regional Significance 25 $355,800,000 25 

National Corridor 

Infrastructure 

Improvement 33 $389,600,000 33 

Freight Intermodal 

Distribution Pilot Grant 6 $6,000,000 6 

Interstate Maintenance 

Discretionary Program 65 $100,000,000 65 

Public Lands Highways 

Discretionary 77 $95,200,000 77 

Ferry Boats 

Discretionary Program 26 $35,000,000 26 

Surface Transportation 

Research, 

Development, and 

Deployment 28 $194,678,000 28 

Highway Priority 

Projects 24 $25,000,000 24 

Surface Transportation 

Projects 519 $600,000,000 519 

High Priority Projects 5,091 $2,966,400,000 5,091 

Transportation 

Improvement Projects 466 $511,047,200 466 

Bridge Set-Asides 9 $100,000,000 9 

Subtotal 6,369 $5,378,725,200 260 6,109 

FTA Programs

Bus and Bus Facilities 1,097 $813,903,150 1,097 

New Starts 66 $1,503,000,000 32 

National Research 46 $40,785,000 46 

Subtotal 1,209 $2,357,688,150 1,175 

FAA Accounts 

Operations 13 $28,995,000 12 

Facilities & Equipment 

(F&E) 30 $72,550,000 29 

Grants-In-Aid for 

Airports 125 $200,900,000 125 

Research, Engineering, 

and Development 14 $9,245,000 14 

Subtotal 182 $311,690,000 180 

Grand Total 7,760 $8,048,103,350 1,615 6,109 

 Source: DOT OIG
Exhibit C. OIG Analysis of Impact of Earmarks on Agencies’ Programs 

17

EXHIBIT C. OIG ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF EARMARKS ON 

AGENCIES’ PROGRAMS 

OA Program Names Earmarks 

Reduce 

Funding for the 

States’ Core 

Transportation 

Programs 

Earmarks 

Coincide 

With OA’s 

Strategic 

Research 

Goals 

Many Low Priority 

Earmarked Projects 

Are Being Funded 

Over Higher Priority 

Projects 

Some Earmark 

Projects Are 

Being Funded 

That Would 

Otherwise Be 

Ineligible\d

FHWA 

Projects of National and 

Regional Significance No Unknown\c Yes 

National Corridor Infrastructure 

Improvement No Unknown Unknown 

Freight Intermodal Distribution 

Pilot Grant No Unknown Unknown 

High Priority Projects Yes\a Yes\e Yes 

Transportation Improvements No Yes\e Yes 

Bridge Set-Asides\b No 

Surface Transportation Research, 

Development, and Deployment No Yes Yes No 

Highway Priority Projects Yes Yes\e Yes 

Surface Transportation Projects Yes Yes\e Yes 

Interstate Maintenance 

Discretionary Program No Yes\e Yes 

Public Lands Highways 

Discretionary No Yes\e Yes 

Ferry Boats & Ferry Terminal 

Facilities No Yes\e Yes 

FTA 

Bus and Bus Facilities Unknown Yes 

New Starts Yes Yes 

National Research No No Yes Yes 

FAA 

Operations No No 

Facilities & Equipment (F&E) Yes No 

Grants-In-Aid for Airports No Yes No 

Research, Engineering, and 

Development Yes Yes No 

Shaded areas = not applicable 

\a The amount of High Priority Projects (HPP) funding a state receives is considered in the calculation of the state’s 

equity bonus apportionment. For most states, the receipt of HPP funds reduces the amount of its equity bonus 

funding. 

\b According to FHWA officials, there are no eligibility requirements for this program. Rather, the statute expressly 

designates projects. 

\c Unknown = Unknown to agency officials. 

\d Some projects may not meet eligibility requirements of the specific program from which funding is available or they 

may mot meet other Title 23 eligibility requirements. 

\e Based on agency officials’ understanding of state priorities for surface transportation funding. 

Source: DOT-OIG 
Exhibit D. List of Stakeholders Interviewed 

18

EXHIBIT D. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED 

U.S. Department of Transportation Agencies

Office of the Secretary (OST) 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

Federal Railway Administration (FRA) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) 

Other Stakeholders Interviewed 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) 

Air Transport Association (ATA) 

American Trucking Association (ATA) 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 

American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) 

Airports Council International – North America (ACI-NA) 

American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 
Exhibit E. Objectives, Scope and Methodology, and Related Audit Coverage 

19

EXHIBIT E. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY, AND 

RELATED AUDIT COVERAGE 

Objectives 

In August 2006, Senator Coburn—then Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on 

Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International 

Security—requested that we conduct an independent analysis of the cost, 

oversight, and impact of congressional earmarks. 

Consistent with Senator Coburn’s request, we determined (1) the total number and 

cost of earmarks within DOT for FY 2006, (2) the inclusion of earmarks included 

in DOT’s annual planning and project evaluation processes, and (3) the overall 

effects of earmarks on DOT’s mission and goals. 

Scope and Methodology 

Audit work for this report was conducted between December 2006 and July 2007 

and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted Government Auditing 

Standards as prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. 

We initially surveyed the Office of the Secretary, Surface Transportation Board, 

the Office of Inspector General, and the 10 Operating Administrations within DOT 

to identify the total number and cost of the earmarks for FY 2006. Subsequently, 

we reduced the scope of our audit and focused our analysis on congressional 

earmarks within DOT programs administered by FHWA, FTA, and FAA because 

these three Operating Administrations accounted for 99 percent of the earmarks 

both in number and in dollar amount in FY 2006. 

During the audit, we interviewed officials at FHWA, FTA, and FAA Headquarters 

in Washington, DC. Respective to each Operating Administration, we obtained 

computer-generated earmark data and relied on these to determine the total 

number and cost of the earmarks. The earmark data were verified from our review 

of the authorization and appropriation laws and corresponding congressional 

reports. The figures used in our review reflect funding provided in the DOT 

appropriations for 2006 and are prior to the Government-wide, 1-percent 

rescission enacted in the Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic 

Influenza Act of 2006, Public Law Number 109-148. 

We interviewed program managers and officials representing FTA, FHWA, and 

FAA to better understand the program planning and project evaluation processes. 

We also obtained and reviewed available annual processing plans and guidance 

criteria relative to the programs of the Operating Administrations to determine 
Exhibit E. Objectives, Scope and Methodology, and Related Audit Coverage 

20

whether the earmarked projects bypassed the planning and evaluation processes. 

We also interviewed stakeholders from eight associations that represented their 

respective mode of transportation to get their perspective on how earmarks affect 

their lines of business or organizations (see exhibit D). 

To identify the universe of congressional earmarks within DOT, we examined 

earmarks from different sources, including authorization and appropriation laws 

and accompanying conference reports; DOT’s Operating Administrations’ 

programs, projects, or activities reports; and interviews with Operating 

Administrations’ program managers, counsel, and policy officials. 

To determine the effects of congressional earmarks on DOT’s mission and goals, 

we interviewed the program managers and officials of FHWA, FTA, and FAA on 

any existing impacts that the congressional earmarks may have on FY 2006 

projects within their programs. 

We also obtained and reviewed FHWA, FTA and FAA’s FY 2006 Presidential 

Budget Submission and Estimates and its subsequent budget and funding 

schedules as determined from the FY 2006 Appropriations Act to (1) compare the 

earmarks against the funding level of the projects that each Operating 

Administration requested funding for and the actual amounts that Congress 

appropriated; (2) determine whether funding for planned and high priority projects 

or programs was affected because of earmarks; (3) identify any shortfalls in 

funding or scheduling delays for any projects and; (4) examine earmarks’ effect, if 

any, on the current projects’ baseline costs. 

Related Audit Coverage 

There has been no prior audit coverage on congressional earmarks for all the 

modes within DOT by the Office of Inspector General. However, the Office of 

Inspector General reported in the Department of Transportation’s “Top Ten 

Management Challenges”14 that FTA oversight funds would soon be insufficient 

for all the large-dollar projects and numerous earmarked projects. The report 

discusses that earmarking of appropriated funds could reduce the Department’s 

and grantees’ flexibility to fund other important projects and to provide adequate 

funding to complete projects. 

On March 6, 2007, our report, “Opportunities To Free Up Unneeded FHWA 

Funds for Use in Hurricane Recovery Efforts” (MH-2007-037), stated that there 

were opportunities for FHWA to free up unneeded funds on highway projects in 

five states affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas). With congressional approval, these earmarked funds 

could be freed up and re-deployed to reduce the cost of hurricane recovery efforts. 

 

14 OIG Report Number PT-2001-017, “Top Ten Management Challenges,” January 18, 2001. 
Exhibit E. Objectives, Scope and Methodology, and Related Audit Coverage 

21

Because states often need several years to develop a project before beginning 

construction, we limited our audit to projects directed in legislation enacted on or 

before October 23, 2000. We identified 19 projects with $10.7 million in 

unneeded funds that could be re-directed to hurricane recovery efforts. We 

recommended that FHWA: (1) coordinate with state transportation officials to 

promptly identify how earmarked funds in the 19 projects we identified could best 

be re-directed for use on hurricane recovery efforts and formally alert Congress of 

the available funds; (2) complete implementation of legislation allowing states to 

identify pre-1991 unneeded, earmarked funds and use them on other transportation 

projects in the state without specific congressional action; and (3) provide 

Congress with a list of all unneeded earmarked funds on a regular basis. FHWA 

agreed with our recommendations. 

On August 2, 2006, the Transportation Research Board sent a review on DOT’s 

5-year strategic plan for Federal transportation research, development, and 

technology (RD&T) to then Acting Department Secretary, Maria Cino. The 

review was based on the contents and findings of a 15-member committee of 

experts in transportation engineering, economics, system operations and 

administration, environmental policy, and research that was convened under the 

auspices of the Transportation Research Board. The review states that the DOT 

faces constraints to strategic RD&T planning and investment especially because of 

earmarking. The review also conveys to the Secretary that there was an increase 

in legislation specifying that research centers, projects, or studies be located at 

particular institutions and notes that even when RD&T funds are not earmarked in 

this manner, authorizing legislation and appropriations language often contain 

instructions designating the specific topics of RD&T, thus reducing DOT’s and its 

Operating Administrations’ flexibility to allocate resources across strategic RD&T 

priorities. 
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts found in this 

document. These pages were not in the original document but have been added here 

to accommodate assistive technology. 
Review of Congressional Earmarks Within Department of Transportation 

Programs 

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

Figure. Summary of Earmarks Within DOT Appropriations Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal 

Year 2005 

• In fiscal year 1996, there were 167 earmarks valued at $789 million. 

• In fiscal year 1998, there were 147 earmarks valued at $1.23 billion. 

• In fiscal year 2000, there were 641 earmarks valued at $1.28 billion. 

• In fiscal year 2002, there were 1,493 earmarks valued at $3.22 billion. 

• In fiscal year 2004, there were 2,282 earmarks valued at $3.36 billion. 

• In fiscal year 2005, there were 2,094 earmarks valued at $3.27 billion. 

Note: Number and valuation of earmarks do not include earmarks contained in authorization 

acts for these years. 

Source: Congressional Research Service 

Table 1. Number and Amount of Earmarks within DOT for Fiscal Year 2006 

• In fiscal year 2006, FHWA had 6,556 earmarks valued at $5,675,100,200, which was 

15.49 percent of its total appropriation valued at $36,648,886,903. 

• In fiscal year 2006, FTA had 1,252 earmarks valued at $2,405,673,150, which was 28 

percent of its total appropriation valued at $8,590,365,000. 

• In fiscal year 2006, FAA had 204 earmarks valued at $408,340,000, which was 2.83 

percent of its total appropriation valued at $14,414,000,000. 

• The fiscal year 2006 subtotal for FHWA, FTA, and FAA was 8,012 earmarks valued at 

$8,489,113,350, which was 14.23 percent of their total appropriation valued at 

$59,653,251,903. 

• In fiscal year 2006, all other Operating Administrations had 44 earmarks valued at 

$55,890,000, which was 1.47 percent of their total appropriation valued at 

$3,795,558,000. 

• In fiscal year 2006 DOT had a total of 8,056 earmarks valued at $8,545,003,350, which 

was 13.47 percent of its appropriation valued at $63,448,809,903. 

Exhibit A details the number and amount of earmarks within FHWA, FTA, FAA, programs 

for FY 2006. 

Source: DOT-OIG 
Table 2. Number of Earmarked Projects Bypassing Agencies’ Review and Selection 

Processes or States’ Planning and Programming Processes 

• For FHWA, we reviewed 7 programs with 260 earmarks valued at $1,176,278,000 and 

found that all 260 earmarks were not subject to the agency’s authority to review and 

select projects based on merit. 

• For FTA, we reviewed 3 programs with 1,209 earmarks valued at $2,357,688,150 and 

found that 1,175 earmarks were not subject to the agency’s authority to review and select 

projects based on merit. 

• For FAA, we reviewed 12 programs with 182 earmarks valued at $311,690,000 and 

found that 180 earmarks were not subject to the agency’s authority to review and select 

projects based on merit. 

• For FHWA, FTA, and FAA, we reviewed a subtotal of 22 programs with 1,651 earmarks 

valued at $3,845,656,150 and found that 1,615 earmarks were not subject to the agencies’ 

authority to review and select projects based on merit. 

• For FHWA, we reviewed 5 programs with 6,109 earmarks valued at $4,202,447,200 and 

found that all 6,109 earmarks bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming 

processes. 

• The grand total is as follows: We reviewed a total of 27 programs with 7, 760 earmarks 

valued at $4,202,447, 200 and found that 7, 724 earmarks either were not subject to the 

agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on merit or bypassed the states’ 

normal planning and programming processes. 

Exhibit B details by program earmarked projects that were either not subject to FHWA, FTA 

and FAA’s statutory authority to award capital and research grants based on merit or 

bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes. 

Source: DOT-OIG 

Exhibit A. Total Number and Dollar Amount of Earmarks by Program Within DOT 

for Fiscal Year 2006 

Item 1. The following are programs within the Federal Highway Administration: 

• Projects of National and Regional Significance had 25 earmarks totaling $355,800,000. 

• National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement had 33 earmarks totaling $389,600,000 

• Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant had 6 earmarks totaling $6,000,000. 

• High Priority Projects had 5,091 earmarks totaling $2,966,400,000. 

• Transportation Improvement Projects had 466 earmarks totaling $511,047,200. 

• Stand Alone Projects had 12 earmarks totaling $43,950,000. 

• Bridge Set-Asides had 9 earmarks totaling $100,000,000. 
• Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment (STRDD) had 43 

earmarks totaling $234,803,000 (note: STRDD designations in SAFETEA-LU exceeded 

the authorized funding level of $196.4 million for FY 2006 through FY 2009 [in FY 2006 

by $38.4 million, requiring a 16.355-percent cut in all STRDD programs]). 

• Highway Priority Projects had 24 earmarks totaling $25,000,000. 

• Surface Transportation Projects had 519 earmarks totaling $600,000,000. 

• Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program had 65 earmarks totaling $100,000,000. 

• Public Lands Highways Discretionary Program had 77 earmarks totaling $95,200,000. 

• Ferry Boats Discretionary had 26 earmarks totaling $35,000,000. 

• Training and Education had 7 earmarks totaling $27,650,000 (note: the Training and 

Education program also had $27.65 million in “earmarks” but was authorized at only 

$26.7 million, requiring a 3.436-percent cut in all Training and Education programs). 

• University Transportation Research had 52 earmarks totaling $76,400,000 (note: 

University Transportation Research program included $76.4 million in “earmarks” but 

was authorized at only $69.7 million, requiring an 8.770-percent cut in all University 

Transportation Research programs). 

• Intelligent Transportation Systems had 3 earmarks totaling $13,000,000. 

• Bureau of Transportation Statistics had 1 earmark totaling $500,000. 

• Transportation and Community and System Preservation had 94 earmarks totaling 

$61,250,000. 

• Appalachian Development Highway System had 1 earmark totaling $20,000,000. 

• Other Transportation Projects had 2 earmarks totaling $13,500,000. 

Subtotal for Federal Highway Administration programs in FY 2006 was 6,556 earmarks 

totaling $5,675,100,200. 

Item 2. The following are programs within the Federal Transit Administration: 

• Bus and Bus Facilities had 1,097 earmarks totaling $813,903,150. 

• New Starts had 66 earmarks totaling $1,503,000,000. 

• National Research had 46 earmarks totaling $40,785,000. 

• University Transportation Centers had 8 earmarks totaling $7,000,000. 

• National Transit Institute had 1 earmark totaling $4,300,000. 

• Alternative Analysis had 18 earmarks totaling $18,900,000. 

• Clean Fuels had 16 earmarks totaling $17,785,000. 

Subtotal for Federal Transit Administration programs in FY 2006 was 1,252 earmarks 

totaling $2,405,673,150. 
Item 3. The following are accounts within the Federal Aviation Administration: 

• Operations Account had 13 earmarks totaling $28,995,000. 

• Facilities & Equipment (F&E) Account had 52 earmarks totaling $169,200,000. 

• Grants-In-Aid to Airports Account had 125 earmarks totaling $200,900,000. 

• Research, Engineering, and Development Account had 14 earmarks totaling $9,245,000. 

Subtotal for Federal Aviation Administration Accounts for FY 2006 was 204 earmarks 

totaling $408,340,000. 

Subtotal for other Operation Administrations within DOT for FY 2006 was 44 earmarks 

totaling $55,890,000. 

The grand total for the total number and dollar amount of earmarks by program within DOT 

for fiscal year 2006 was 8,056 earmarks totaling $8,545,003,350. 

Source: DOT-OIG 

Exhibit B. Number of FY 2006 Earmarked Projects That Bypassed Established Review 

and Selection Processes or Planning and Programming Processes 

Item 1. The following are programs within the Federal Highway Administration: 

• Projects of National and Regional Significance had 25 earmarks reviewed totaling 

$355,800,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review 

and select projects based on merit was 25. The number of earmarks that bypassed the 

states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

• National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement had 33 earmarks reviewed totaling 

$389,600,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review 

and select projects based on merit was 33. The number of earmarks that bypassed the 

states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant had 6 earmarks reviewed totaling $6,000,000. 

The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select 

projects based on merit was 6. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal 

planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program had 65 earmarks reviewed totaling 

$100,000,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review 

and select projects based on merit was 65. The number of earmarks that bypassed the 

states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Public Lands Highways Discretionary Program had 77 earmarks reviewed totaling 

$95,200,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review 

and select projects based on merit was 77. The number of earmarks that bypassed the 

states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Ferry Boats Discretionary Program had 26 earmarks reviewed totaling $35,000,000. The 

number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects 
based on merit was 26. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal 

planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment had 28 earmarks 

reviewed totaling $194,678,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ 

authority to review and select projects based on merit was 28. The number of earmarks 

that bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

• High Priority Projects had 24 earmarks reviewed totaling $25,000,000. The number of 

earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on 

merit was 0. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and 

programming processes was 24. 

• Surface Transportation Projects had 519 earmarks reviewed totaling $600,000,000. The 

number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects 

based on merit was 0. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning 

and programming processes was 519. 

• High Priority Projects had 5,091 earmarks reviewed totaling $2,966,400,000. The 

number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects 

based on merit was 0. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning 

and programming processes was 5,091. 

• Transportation Improvement Projects had 466 earmarks reviewed totaling $511,047,200. 

The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select 

projects based on merit was 0. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal 

planning and programming processes was 466. 

• Bridge Set-Asides had 9 earmarks reviewed totaling $100,000,000. The number of 

earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on 

merit was 0. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and 

programming processes was 9. 

Subtotal for Federal Highway Administration programs in FY 2006 was 6,369 earmarks 

reviewed totaling $5,378,725,200. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ 

authority to review and select projects based on merit was 260. The number of earmarks that 

bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes was 6,109. 

Item 2. The following are programs within the Federal Transit Administration: 

• Bus and Bus Facilities had 1,097 earmarks reviewed totaling $813,903,150. The number 

of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on 

merit was 1,097. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and 

programming processes was 0. 

• New Starts had 66 earmarks reviewed totaling $1,503,000,000. The number of earmarks 

that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on merit was 32. 

The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming 

processes was 0. 

• National Research had 46 earmarks reviewed totaling $40,785,000. The number of 

earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on 
merit was 46. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and 

programming processes was 0. 

Subtotal for Federal Transit Administration programs in FY 2006 was 1,209 earmarks 

reviewed totaling $2,357,688,150. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ 

authority to review and select projects based on merit was 1,175. The number of earmarks 

that bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

Item 3. The following are accounts within the Federal Aviation Administration: 

• Operations Account had 13 earmarks reviewed totaling $28,995,000. The number of 

earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on 

merit was 12. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and 

programming processes was 0. 

• Facilities & Equipment (F&E) Account had 30 earmarks reviewed totaling $72,550,000. 

. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select 

projects based on merit was 29. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal 

planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Grants-In-Aid to Airports Account had 125 earmarks reviewed totaling $200,900,000. 

The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select 

projects based on merit was 125. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ 

normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

• Research, Engineering, and Development Account had 14 earmarks reviewed totaling 

$9,245,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and 

select projects based on merit was 14. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ 

normal planning and programming processes was 0.

Subtotal for Federal Aviation Administration accounts for FY 2006 was 182 earmarks 

reviewed totaling $311,690,000. The number of earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ 

authority to review and select projects based on merit was 180. The number of earmarks that 

bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes was 0. 

The grand total was 7,760 earmarks reviewed totaling $8,048,103,350. The number of 

earmarks that bypassed the agencies’ authority to review and select projects based on merit 

was 1,615. The number of earmarks that bypassed the states’ normal planning and 

programming processes was 6,109. 

Source: DOT OIG 

Exhibit C. OIG Analysis of Impact of Earmarks on Agencies’ Programs 

Item 1. The following are programs within the Federal Highway Administration: 

• Projects of National and Regional Significance. Did earmarks reduce funding for the 

states’ core transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating 

Administration’s strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked 

projects being funded over higher priority projects? Unknown. Are some earmark 

projects being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? Yes. 
• National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement. Did earmarks reduce funding for the 

states’ core transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating 

Administration’s strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked 

projects being funded over higher priority projects? Unknown. Are some earmark 

projects being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? Unknown. 

• Freight Intermodal Distribution Pilot Grant. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ 

core transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating 

Administration’s strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked 

projects being funded over higher priority projects? Unknown. Are some earmark 

projects being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? Unknown. 

• High Priority Projects. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core transportation 

programs? Yes. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s strategic 

research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded over 

higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ understanding of state 

priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

• Transportation Improvements. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core 

transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s 

strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded 

over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ understanding of state 

priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

• Bridge Set-Asides. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core transportation 

programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s strategic 

research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded over 

higher priority projects? N/A. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? N/A. 

• Surface Transportation Research, Development, and Deployment. Did earmarks reduce 

funding for the states’ core transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with 

Operating Administration’s strategic research goals? Yes. Are many low priority 

earmarked projects being funded over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark 

projects being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? No. 

• Highway Priority Projects. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core 

transportation programs? Yes. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s 

strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded 

over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ understanding of state 

priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

• Surface Transportation Projects. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core 

transportation programs? Yes. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s 

strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded 

over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 
otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ understanding of state 

priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

• Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Program. Did earmarks reduce funding for the 

states’ core transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating 

Administration’s strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked 

projects being funded over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects 

being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ 

understanding of state priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

• Public Lands Highways Discretionary. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core 

transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s 

strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded 

over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ understanding of state 

priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

• Ferry Boats & Ferry Terminal Facilities. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ 

core transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating 

Administration’s strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked 

projects being funded over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects 

being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? Yes. (Note: Based on agency officials’ 

understanding of state priorities for surface transportation funding.) 

Item 2. The following are programs within the Federal Transit Administration: 

• Bus and Bus Facilities. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core transportation 

programs? N/A. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s strategic 

research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded over 

higher priority projects? Unknown. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? Yes. 

• New Starts. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core transportation programs? 

N/A. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s strategic research goals? 

N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded over higher priority 

projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would otherwise be 

ineligible? Yes. 

• National Research. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core transportation 

programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s strategic 

research goals? No. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded over higher 

priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would otherwise be 

ineligible? Yes. 

Item 3. The following are accounts within the Federal Transit Administration: 

• Operations Account. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core transportation 

programs? N/A. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s strategic 

research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded over 

higher priority projects? No. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? No. 
• Facilities & Equipment (F&E) Account. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core 

transportation programs? N/A. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s 

strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded 

over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? No. 

• Grants-In-Aid to Airports Account. Did earmarks reduce funding for the states’ core 

transportation programs? No. Did earmarks coincide with Operating Administration’s 

strategic research goals? N/A. Are many low priority earmarked projects being funded 

over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects being funded that would 

otherwise be ineligible? No. 

• Research, Engineering, and Development Account. Did earmarks reduce funding for 

the states’ core transportation programs? N/A. Did earmarks coincide with Operating 

Administration’s strategic research goals? Yes. Are many low priority earmarked 

projects being funded over higher priority projects? Yes. Are some earmark projects 

being funded that would otherwise be ineligible? No. 

Note: The amount of High Priority Projects (HPP) funding a state receives is considered in 

the calculation of the state’s equity bonus apportionment. For most states, the receipt of HPP 

funds reduces the amount of its equity bonus funding. 

Note: According to FHWA officials, there are no eligibility requirements for the Bridge SetAsides program. Rather, the statute expressly designates projects. 

Note: Unknown = Unknown to agency officials. 

Note: Some projects may not meet eligibility requirements of the specific program from 

which funding is available or they may mot meet other Title 23 eligibility requirements. 

Source: DOT-OIG