The Last Time A Surface Transportation Bill Was Earmarked: SAFETEA-LU’s “Above-the-Line” Highway Earmarks
(Since the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee recently announced that his panel will bring back earmarking of special projects for legislators (for Democrats, at any rate – Republican participation is not yet certain), I decided to reprint my detailed analysis I wrote of the highway earmarks the last time T&I did so – the 2005 SAFETEA-LU law. The following article is substantially as it originally appeared in the January 17, 2006 issue of my old publication Transportation Weekly.)
TW Analysis: “Above-the-Line” Highway Earmarks
Party, Chamber Approaches Differed On How To Equitably Allocate $6.9 Billion
(From Transportation Weekly – January 17, 2006)
The mammoth surface transportation authorization law signed into law last August (Public Law 109-59, also known as SAFETEA-LU) drew widespread attention for its 5,091 earmarked “high priority” highway projects in section 1702 of the law totaling $14.8 billion. (The precise state-by-state totals for HPPs can be downloaded from FHWA in this spreadsheet – see the “Aggregate” tab, Column N.)
However, an October 2005 debate in the Senate (regarding whether or not to transfer earmarked high priority project funding from two Alaska bridge projects to Louisiana to rebuild the Interstate 10 Twin Spans bridge) revealed an important fact about the $14.8 billion in HPP funding — it is “below the line,” meaning that it is factored into the overall formula funding guaranteed to each state under the bill. For most states, if their high priority projects are repealed, the equity bonus provisions of 23 U.S.C. §105 simply add extra formula money to the state’s apportionment to bring that state back up to its guaranteed share of the program (or annual total dollars, as the case may be).
The result: it is almost impossible to repeal, transfer or cut below-the-line project funding without (a.) changing the funding formula totals of not just that state but many other states and (b.) possibly increasing total authorized highway funding levels.
This is also why many state DOTs dislike high priority projects — the money for those projects can, in effect, crowd out other formula-funded projects that are higher on the state priority list but which did not get earmarks. Several state DOT representatives complained about this at the AASHTO annual meeting last September.
(Ed. Note: according to articles in the Anchorage Daily News, some Alaska state legislators were upset that Alaska’s below-the-line bridge earmarks were forcing that state’s DOT to put other needed projects on the back burner, which may be a reason why Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) allowed the Senate to transfer that money from the bridges to Alaska’s general formula fund).
However, there is another kind of earmarked money that is not held against a state’s formula apportionment — “above the line” funding which is outside the scope of the equity bonus program. Above-the-line earmarks are, effectively, free money for states and their legislators.
A Transportation Weekly analysis shows that title I of SAFETEA-LU (the non-research funding section for the Federal Highway Administration) contained $6.9 billion in above-the-line earmarks. Months of painstaking research have allowed us to attribute most of the large above-the-line earmarks to individual members of Congress. And the analysis shows that the Republican and Democratic parties in the House and Senate took very different approaches to distributing their money.
A little background: in the 1987 and 1991 highway bills, all earmarks were above the line. This angered “donor state” lawmakers who felt that they were not getting their fair share of the overall amount of highway money, so in 1998, they won a key victory and had TEA21’s $9.4 billion in high priority projects placed below the line. TEA21’s $250 million or so in other miscellaneous highway earmarks were above the line, as was the $900 million for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
The Wilson Bridge money illustrates the best argument for an above-the-line earmark: some projects are so big that to give them designated federal funding below the line would destroy the recipient state’s entire highway program.
As the table at right shows, most of the other above-the-line money funds things that either benefit the highway program as a whole (administrative expenses, research, innovative financing) or which specifically benefit certain areas and should not complicate the formula calculations for other areas (federal lands highways, Puerto Rico).
TEA21 left several competitive grant programs above the line so that DOT could make annual allocations based on need. But starting in 2000, the Appropriations Committees began earmarking all of the above-the-line competitive grant money that TEA21 left laying around, infuriating the authorizing committees. Accordingly, the authorizers earmarked a great deal more above-the-line money in SAFETEA-LU, both because it was “free money” and so that the appropriators could not earmark it later.
When coming to their “global agreement” on the structure of SAFETEA-LU last summer, senior negotiators from the House Transportation and Infrastructure and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee agreed in principle that the final bill would contain $14.8 billion in below-the-line high priority projects, split 60-40 between the House and Senate, and that about $7 billion in additional above-the-line highway money would be earmarked and split 50-50 between the chambers. This appears to have been borne out in the final legislation.
Amounts and accounts. We have added up $6.9 billion in earmarked above-the-line contract authority in title I of Public Law 109-59. The primary locations and amounts are:
- “Transportation Improvements” (sec. 1934) — $2.555 billion.
- “National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program” (sec. 1302) — $1.948 billion.
- “Projects of National and Regional Significance” (sec. 1301) — $1.779 billion.
- Set-asides from the highway bridge program (sec. 1114(e)) — $400 million.
- “Nonmotorized Pilot Program” (sec. 1807) — $100 million.
- Other miscellaneous title I earmarks — $119 million.
Chamber split. None of these accounts or their projects are labeled “House” or “Senate” or “Republican” or “Democrat.” However, there are other clues in the bill as to who funded what.
Specifically, the House and Senate could not agree on how much flexibility states could have in moving earmarked money around, so the bill treats House and Senate projects differently. Section 1935 of the bill says that high priority projects #s 1-3676, PNRS projects #s 1-18, and corridor projects #s 1-27 are to be treated one way, while HPPs#s 3677-5173, PNRS projects #s 19-25, corridor projects #s 28-33, and all transportation improvements are to be treated another way.
Since HPPs #s 1-3676 were in the version of the bill originally passed by the House, this is a clear sign that the aforementioned projects in the first list were House money and that the remainder is Senate money. (Ed. Note: in addition to the flexibility provisions of sec. 1935 and sec. 1102(c)(4), if one looks at the actual physical papers of the conference report (as originally posted on the House Rules Committee website, before repagination by GPO), one can see that the House and Senate project lists were separate pieces of paper.)
There is one caveat to this: in the transportation improvements, the appearance of the papers makes it clear that the original Senate list was only 428 projects long and that the last 37 projects were added separately. The first 28 of those were projects for U.S. territories originally contained in the House bill (since territories are not part of the funding formulas, it doesn’t make sense to fund their earmarks below the line) — $16 million apiece for the Democratic Delegates from Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands, $36.1 million for the Republican Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico (a T&I member) and $12 million for a project on Saipan in the Northern Marianas Islands (which do not have formal representation in Congress — an August 13, 2005 article in the Saipan Tribune credited T&I chairman Don Young (R-AK) for the money).
The last ten transportation improvements are apparently House GOP projects — six of the ten were claimed in press releases by Republicans, notably Richard Pombo (R-CA), and two of the others were the subject of local newspaper articles crediting Young.
Party split. Having established which chamber got which projects in the big accounts, one tries to allocate them by party. This is fairly easy in the PNRS and corridor accounts because the projects go in order—House GOP first, then House Democrat, then Senate GOP, then Senate Democrat.
Party analysis is harder in the Senate because $2.4 billion of the Senate’s $3.2 billion in above-the-line money went into that chamber’s 428 transportation improvement projects, which were alphabetized by state, making it impossible (with a few exceptions) to know for sure which Senator was responsible for the money and, in states where one Senator is of each party, blurring the party split.
The House’s $3.69 billion was split on a 55-45 basis between the Republican side and the Democratic side. While we cannot add up the Senate party numbers ourselves for the reasons listed above, staff sources believe that this was the Senate party split as well (which would make sense, since the Senate itself is divided 55-45).
Party priorities. Having identified many of the above-the-line earmarks by state and party, certain patterns and priorities become clear. The Senate distributed its above-the-line money much more widely than did the House. A total of 44 states received some kind of above-the-line earmark out of the Senate allocation. In contrast, the House money was much more concentrated, with just 26 states (plus the District of Columbia and the territories) receiving earmarks.
Since above-the-line earmarks are free money (the best kind), it is not surprising that this is where most senior members of the authorizing committees, and party leaders, chose to get their money. But with a few exceptions, the Senate emphasized relatively smaller individual earmarks in a wider number of states, while the House concentrated its money in a few districts.
This is reflected in the size of the typical above-the-line project. The average project size of a Senate above-the-line earmark was $7.1 million. However, the average is high because of a few relatively large Senate megaprojects. The median size of a Senate project is $2.9 million. (Median means if you rank a group of numbers in order by size, the median is the number closest to the middle of the list, and is a better tool for getting a representative number out of a long list). By contrast, the House list has an average project size of $38.5 million and a median project size of $11 million.
Both parties in the Senate appear to have given their money out based on traditional factors like seniority on the EPW committee, leadership position, seniority in the chamber, chairmanship (or ranking membership) on other powerful committees, and being an in-cycle Senator with a tough election. The top five states with Senate above-the-line earmarks were all well-represented on the EPW panel in 2004-2005:
|Top 5 Senate Above-the-Line Earmark States|
|State||EPW Senator||ATL Amount|
|Oklahoma||Jim Inhofe, EPW full committee chair||$340,000,000|
|Missouri||Kit Bond, EPW subcommittee chair||$300,000,000|
|Vermont||Jim Jeffords, EPW full committee ranking||$172,000,000|
|Montana||Max Baucus, EPW subcommittee ranking||$153,625,000|
|Nevada||Harry Reid, Minority Leader (but he had the EPW seniority to be full committee ranking)||$150,000,000|
Beyond the top five, the Senate list (see below) makes clear that money was given out to Senators in rounded chunks of $10, $15 or $20 million each (more for EPW folks).
Since state formula totals are more important in the Senate, some above-the-line money was also used to assuage Senators unhappy with their apportionments.
By contrast, a combination of factors led to an amazingly high concentration of the House money in just two states…
|Top 5 House Above-the-Line Earmark States|
|State||Important House Members||ATL Amount|
|California||Ways and Means chair Bill Thomas, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi||$1,212,000,000|
|Illinois||Speaker Dennis Hastert||$622,000,000|
|Oregon||T&I subcommittee ranking Peter DeFazio||$200,000,000|
|Louisiana||recently retired Energy and Commerce chair Billy Tauzin, Ways and Means future chair-presumptive Jim McCrery||$175,000,000|
|Alaska||T&I chair Don Young||$169,950,000|
Two men — Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) and Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) — between them took home an astonishing 48 percent of all the House GOP above-the-line money. Thomas got $630 million (31%) of the Republicans’ $2.04 billion, while Hastert got $347 million (17%).
Thomas’s take in particular came as a shock to other California Republicans who were pushing for money for other Golden State priorities like the Alameda Corridor East, which Young declined to fund (Young’s counterpart Jim Oberstar (D-MN) gave the project $125 million in Democratic money).
In general, House Democrats appear to be the only ones who focused on true “projects of national and regional significance,” funding such bipartisan priorities as the Alameda Corridor and the Chicago rail relocation project, and freight movement projects in New York/New Jersey and Los Angeles which look to have a significant national impact on freight mobility (which was the top priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the last cycle, but as one GOP aide once said, “freight don’t vote”). Young did give $100 million for the Virginia I-81 dedicated truck lane project, however, and to a few multi-state projects (although $50 million across six states for Interstate 69 is a drop in the bucket).
(Ed. Note: it does help that the senior ranks of T&I Democrats include representatives from urban areas with heavy vehicular and freight congestion).
Following is a whole bunch of tabluar data. In addition to the below, a full two-page table of state-by-state distribution of all above-the-line earmarks, broken down by House and Senate, can be downloaded here.
|ABOVE-THE-LINE EARMARKS OF $100 MILLION OR MORE IN TITLE I OF SAFETEA-LU|
|1||$ 330,000,000||Corridor #4||CA||Bakersfield Centennial Loop||House||Thomas (R)|
|2||$ 160,000,000||PNRS #8||OR||I-5 corridor bridges||House||DeFazio (D)|
|3||$ 152,000,000||Corridor #10||IL||I-80 to I-88 North-South Connector||House||Hastert (R)|
|4 (tie)||$ 150,000,000||PNRS #10||IL||Mississippi River Bridge||House||Costello (D)|
|4 (tie)||$ 150,000,000||Corridor #8||LA||I-49, AR Line to Shreveport||House||McCrery (R)|
|6 (tie)||$ 140,000,000||PNRS #1||CA||Bakersfield Beltway System||House||Thomas (R)|
|6 (tie)||$ 140,000,000||PNRS #5||IL||O’Hare Bypass, Elgin Extension||House||Hastert (R)|
|8||$ 125,000,000||PNRS #9||CA||Alameda Corridor East||House||SoCal Dem Delegation|
|9||$ 120,000,000||PNRS #25||WA||Alaska Way Viaduct||Senate||Murray (D)/Cantwell(D)|
|10 (tie)||$ 110,000,000||Corridor #33||OK||I-44 in Tulsa||Senate||Inhofe (R)|
|10 (tie)||$ 110,000,000||TransImp #323||OK||I-40 Crosstown Realignment||Senate||Inhofe (R)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||PNRS #7||IL||CREATE (Chicago rail relocation)||House||Lipinski (D)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||PNRS #12||NY||Cross Harbor Freight, NYC||House||Nadler (D)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||PNRS #13||WA||Alaska Way Viaduct||House||McDermott(D)/Larsen(D)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||PNRS #14||CA||Desmond Bridge-710 Gateway Project||House||Millender-McDonald (D)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||PNRS #18||NJ||Liberty Corridor||House||Menendez (D)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||Corridor #5||VA||I-81 Dedicated Truck Lanes||House||Young (R)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||Corridor #6||CA||S.R. 178, Bakersfield||House||Thomas (R)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||Corridor #18||CA||I-405 HOV Lanes||House||Berman (D)|
|12 (tie)||$ 100,000,000||Corridor #31||TN||I-69||Senate||Frist (R)|
Five SAFETEA-LU Highway Earmark Recipients and What They Got
The top five recipients of earmarked funding in the SAFETEA-LU law took home a collective $2.6 billion in projects for their home states or districts, a Transportation Weekly analysis reveals.
House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) took home an astounding $755 million — $630 million in “above-the-line” money that is not held against a state’s share of formula money, along with at least $125 million in high priority projects which are considered a part of a state’s formula apportionment. Thomas might have even more HPP money, but since the 3,594 House HPPs were deliberately put in random order and are not identified by member district, identifying all of a member’s HPPs in a 54-member state like California is next to impossible.
|PNRS #1||Bakersfield Beltway System||$ 140,000,000|
|Corridor #4||Bakersfield Centennial Loop||$ 330,000,000|
|Corridor #6||S.R. 178, Bakersfield||$ 100,000,000|
|Corridor #7||Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield||$ 60,000,000|
|Subtotal, Above-the-Line||$ 630,000,000|
|HPP #3637||Kern County SR widening||$ 92,000,000|
|HPP #1043||SR 46, San Luis Obispo County||$ 33,461,000|
|Subtotal, HPPs (easily identifiable ones only)||$ 125,461,000|
|TOTAL, REP. THOMAS (FHWA NON-RESEARCH ONLY)||$ 755,461,000|
House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young (R-AK) took home at least $557 million, with only $145 million above the line but $412 million in HPPs (identifiable because Alaska only has one representative). While Young’s sizeable HPP earmarks for two Alaska bridges have been repealed, that money stays in Alaska at state DOT discretion and is still reflected in Young’s HPP total.
|Bridge #2||Gravina-Ketchikan Bridge||$ 50,000,000|
|Corridor #14||Knik Arm Bridge||$ 30,000,000|
|Sec. 1907||Pavement Marking Study||$ 2,000,000|
|Sec. 1945||TV Documentary||$ 2,950,000|
|Sec. 1960||Alaska Denali Commission||$ 60,000,000|
|Subtotal, Above-the-Line||$ 144,950,000|
|Non-Senate HPPs||Various high priority projects in AK||$ 411,700,000|
|Subtotal, HPPs||$ 411,700,000|
|TOTAL, REP. YOUNG (FHWA NON-RESEARCH ONLY)||$ 556,650,000|
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took home $485 million, $340 million above-the-line and $145 million below. (Identifying Inhofe’s HPPs and transportation improvements is easy because his home-state Senate colleague, Tom Coburn (R-OK), claims to have had no earmarks in the bill).
|Bridge #5||OK State-maintained bridges||$ 50,000,000|
|Corridor #30||Ports to Plains||$ 35,000,000|
|Corridor #33||Interstate 44, Tulsa||$ 110,000,000|
|TransImp #s 323-329||Various transportation improvements||$ 135,000,000|
|Sec. 1944||Tar Creek, OK Project||$ 10,000,000|
|Subtotal, Above-the-Line||$ 340,000,000|
|HPP #s 4667-4695||Various high priority projects in OK||$ 145,000,000|
|Subtotal, HPPs||$ 145,000,000|
|TOTAL, SEN. INHOFE (FHWA NON-RESEARCH ONLY)||$ 485,000,000|
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) took home $467 million, with $347 million of that being above-the-line. (We did not identify all of his HPPs, but Taxpayers for Common Sense claims to have, and their total is reflected in the table). (March 2021 addendum: Corridor #10 project, the “I-80 to I-88 North-South Connector” at $152 million, also known as the “Prairie Parkway,” later became controversial after it was revealed that Hastert secretly owned land by the proposed road, which he flipped for $3 million after the earmark was made. The project and was canceled in 2012.)
|PNRS #5||O’Hare Bypass, Elgin Extension||$ 140,000,000|
|Corridor #10||I-80 to I-88 North-South Connector||$ 152,000,000|
|Corridor #12||Route 34 Interchange||$ 55,000,000|
|Subtotal, Above-the-Line||$ 347,000,000|
|HPP #1527||Stearns Road Bridge, Kane Co.||$ 70,400,000|
|Other HPPs identified by Taxpayers for Common Sense||$ 49,934,000|
|Subtotal, HPPs||$ 120,334,000|
|TOTAL, SPEAKER HASTERT (FHWA NON-RESEARCH ONLY)||$ 467,334,000|
Senate Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Kit Bond (R-MO) took home around $400 million. (We tried to differentiate his projects from those of his home-state colleague Jim Talent (R) by using Talent’s July 29, 2005 press release. Bond’s total could be off by $10 to $12 million either way, as some projects were shared).
|Bridge #4||Mississippi River Bridge||$ 50,000,000|
|Sec. 1807||Columbia, MO Nonmotorized Pilot||$ 25,000,000|
|TransImp #s 211-226||Various transportation improvements||$ 225,000,000|
|Subtotal, Above-the-Line||$ 300,000,000|
|Non-House HPPs||Various high priority projects in MO||$ 160,000,000|
|Subtotal, HPPs||$ 160,000,000|
|SUBTOTAL, MISSOURI SENATE||$ 460,000,000|
|Minus approximate Sen. Talent total from his press release||$ (60,000,000)|
|TOTAL, SEN. BOND (FHWA NON-RESEARCH ONLY) (approx)||$ 400,000,000|
List of All Major Above-the-Line Highway Projects in SAFETEA-LU
|#||State||Project Description (abridged)||Amount||Chamber||Sponsoring Member|
|Bridge Program Set-aside – sec. 1114(e) (23 U.S.C. 144(g))|
|House R’s – $110 million; House D’s – $90 million; Senate R’s and D’s – $100 million each|
|i||CA||Golden Gate Bridge||$ 50,000,000||House||Pelosi (D)|
|ii||AK||Gravina-Ketchikan Bridge||$ 75,000,000||House||Young (R)|
|iii||NV||Hoover Dam Bridge replacement||$ 50,000,000||Senate||Reid (D)|
|iv||MO||Mississippi River Bridge||$ 50,000,000||Senate||Bond (R)|
|v||OK||State-maintained bridges||$ 50,000,000||Senate||Inhofe (R)|
|vi||VT||Missisquoi Bay Bridge||$ 18,000,000||Senate||Jeffords (I)|
|vii||VT||State-maintained bridges||$ 32,000,000||Senate||Jeffords (I)|
|viii||IL, IA||Bettendorf, IA – Moline, IL Bridge||$ 35,000,000||House||Nussle (R)|
|ix||OR||State-maintained bridges||$ 40,000,000||House||DeFazio (D)|
|Total, Bridge||$ 400,000,000|
|Projects of National and Regional Significance – sec. 1301|
|House Republican Projects (#s 1-6) – $475,000,000|
|1||CA||Bakersfield Beltway System||$ 140,000,000||House||Thomas (R)|
|2||VA, WV, OH||Heartland Corridor||$ 90,000,000||House||Multiple members (R)|
|3||CA||Inland Empire Gateway||$ 55,000,000||House||Lewis (R)|
|4||MI||Blue Water Bridge, Port Huron||$ 20,000,000||House||Candice Miller (R)|
|5||IL||O’Hare Bypass, Elgin Extension||$ 140,000,000||House||Hastert (R)|
|6||WI||Marquette Interchange, Milwaukee||$ 30,000,000||House||Petri (R)|
|House Democratic Projects (#s 7-18) – $1,065,000,000|
|7||IL||CREATE (Chicago rail relocation)||$ 100,000,000||House||Lipinski (D) – Jr. and Sr.|
|8||OR||I-5 corridor bridges||$ 160,000,000||House||DeFazio (D)|
|9||CA||Alameda Corridor East||$ 125,000,000||House||SoCal Dem Delegation|
|10||IL||Mississippi River Bridge||$ 150,000,000||House||Costello (D)|
|11||CA||Transbay Terminal||$ 27,000,000||House||Pelosi (D)|
|12||NY||Cross Harbor Freight, NYC||$ 100,000,000||House||Nadler (D)|
|13||WA||Alaska Way Viaduct||$ 100,000,000||House||McDermott (D)/Larsen(D)|
|14||CA||Desmond Bridge-710 Gateway Project||$ 100,000,000||House||Millender-McDonald (D)|
|15||CO||Denver Union Station||$ 50,000,000||House||DeGette (D)|
|16||MN||Union Depot Multimodal Transit||$ 50,000,000||House||Oberstar (D)/McCollum (D)|
|17||CA||Sacramento Union Station||$ 3,000,000||House||Matsui (D)|
|18||NJ||Liberty Corridor||$ 100,000,000||House||Menendez (D)|
|Senate Republican Projects (#s 19-24) – $119,000,000|
|19||NM||El Paso, TX rail relocation||$ 14,000,000||Senate||Domenici (R)|
|20||PA||US-422, Montgomery County projects||$ 20,000,000||Senate||Santorum (R)|
|21||PA||Route 28, Allegheny County||$ 15,000,000||Senate||Santorum (R)|
|22||PA||I-80, Monroe County||$ 15,000,000||Senate||Santorum (R)|
|23||SC||I-73 Construction||$ 40,000,000||Senate||Graham (R)/DeMint (R)|
|24||VA||Portsmouth Rail Relocation||$ 15,000,000||Senate||Warner (R)|
|Senate Democratic Project (#25) – $120,000,000|
|25||WA||Alaska Way Viaduct||$ 120,000,000||Senate||Murray (D)/Cantwell (D)|
|Total, PNRS||$ 1,779,000,000|
|National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program – sec. 1302|
|House Republican Projects (#s 1-18) – $1,222,000,000|
|1||TX, AR, MS, TN, KY, IN||I-69 Planning and Construction||$ 50,000,000||House||Multiple members (R)|
|2||LA||Louisiana Highway 1||$ 20,000,000||House||Tauzin (R-retired)|
|3||MD||Montgomery-PG Connector||$ 10,000,000||House||Gov. Ehrlich (R)|
|4||CA||Bakersfield Centennial Loop||$ 330,000,000||House||Thomas (R)|
|5||VA||I-81 Dedicated Truck Lanes||$ 100,000,000||House||Young (R-AK)|
|6||CA||S.R. 178, Bakersfield||$ 100,000,000||House||Thomas (R)|
|7||CA||Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield||$ 60,000,000||House||Thomas (R)|
|8||LA||I-49, AR Line to Shreveport||$ 150,000,000||House||McCrery (R)|
|9||AR||I-530, Pine Bluff to Wilmar||$ 40,000,000||House||Jay Dickey (R-retired)|
|10||IL||I-80 to I-88 North-South Connector||$ 152,000,000||House||Hastert (R)|
|11||WI||US 41 Corridor, Milwaukee-Green Bay||$ 30,000,000||House||Petri (R)|
|12||IL||Route 34 Interchange||$ 55,000,000||House||Hastert (R)|
|13||CA||I-80 Placer Line to SR 65||$ 50,000,000||House||Doolittle (R)|
|14||AK||Knik Arm Bridge (Don Young’s Way)||$ 30,000,000||House||Young (R)|
|15||IA, IL||I-74 Bridge, Moline-Bettendorf||$ 15,000,000||House||Nussle (R)|
|16||AR||I-49 Belle Vista Bypass||$ 20,000,000||House||Boozman (R)|
|17||SC||I-73 Corridor||$ 10,000,000||House||Brown (R)|
|House Democratic Projects (#s 18-27) – $423,000,000|
|18||CA||I-405 HOV Lanes||$ 100,000,000||House||Berman (D)|
|19||AR||I-69 Corridor||$ 75,000,000||House||Ross (D)/Berry (D)|
|20||MN||Falls-to-Falls Corridor||$ 50,000,000||House||Oberstar (D)|
|21||DC||Frederick Douglass Bridge||$ 75,000,000||House||Norton (D)/Hoyer (D)|
|22||CT||Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge||$ 35,000,000||House||DeLauro (D)|
|23||IN||I-80 Improvements||$ 10,000,000||House||Visclosky (D)|
|24||CA||S.R. 4 East Upgrades||$ 20,000,000||House||Tauscher (D)|
|25||LA||L.A. 1 Replacement||$ 5,000,000||House||Melancon (D)|
|26||AZ||S.R. 85 Upgrade||$ 3,000,000||House||Grijalva (D)|
|27||WV||I-73/I-74 Corridor||$ 50,000,000||House||Rahall (D)|
|Senate Republican Projects (#s 28-33) – $303,000,000|
|28||LA||I-49 N, Shreveport to AR Line||$ 27,500,000||Senate||Vitter (R)|
|29||LA||I-49 South Improvements||$ 27,500,000||Senate||Vitter (R)|
|30||OK||Ports to Plains Corridor||$ 35,000,000||Senate||Inhofe (R)|
|31||TN||I-69||$ 100,000,000||Senate||Frist (R)|
|32||CO||US-287 Ports-to-Plains Corridor||$ 3,000,000||Senate||Allard (R)|
|33||OK||I-44 in Tulsa||$ 110,000,000||Senate||Inhofe (R)|
|Total, Corridor||$ 1,948,000,000|
|Nonmotorized Pilot Program – sec. 1807|
|1||MO||Columbia, MO project||$ 25,000,000||Senate||Bond (R)|
|2||CA||Marin County, CA project||$ 25,000,000||Senate||Boxer (D)|
|3||MN||Minneapolis, MN project||$ 25,000,000||House||Oberstar (D)|
|4||WI||Sheboygan County, WI project||$ 25,000,000||House||Petri (R)|
|Total, Nonmotorized Pilot Program||$ 100,000,000|
|Transportation Improvements – sec. 1934|
|1 thru 428||428 Senate projects in 42 states||$ 2,393,625,000||Senate|
|429 thru 456||28 projects in U.S. territories overseas||$ 96,111,000||House|
|457 thru 466||10 apparent extra House GOP projects||$ 65,500,000||House|
|Total, Transportation Improvements||$ 2,555,236,000|
|Other miscellaneous above-the-line projects in title I|
|AK||Sec. 1907 Pavement Marking||$ 2,000,000||House||Young (R)|
|TN||Sec. 1907 Pavement Marking||$ 2,000,000||House||Duncan (R)|
|IA||Sec. 1919 Road User Fee Study||$ 12,500,000||Senate||Grassley (R)|
|WI||Sec. 1943 Great Lakes ITS||$ 9,000,000||House||Petri (R)|
|OK||Sec. 1944 Tar Creek, OK Project||$ 10,000,000||Senate||Inhofe (R)|
|AK||Sec. 1945 Alaska TV documentary||$ 2,950,000||House||Young (R)|
|AK||Sec. 1960 Denali Commission||$ 60,000,000||House||Young (R)|
|MD||Sec. 1961 I-95/Contee Road||$ 1,000,000||House||Hoyer (D)|
|CA||Sec. 1962 Petaluma, CA project||$ 20,000,000||House||Young (R-AK)|
|Total, Other Title I Projects||$ 119,450,000|
|House Total Above-the-Line Contract Authority||$3.69 billion||53.5%|
|Senate Total Above-the-Line Contract Authority||$3.21 billion||46.5%|
|Total Above-the-Line Earmarked Contract Auth.||$6.90 billion|