January 26, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 26


January 26, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 25, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 24, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

House Republicans Reverse Course on Earmarks, Congressionally Directed Spending is Back

Since the Democrats reclaimed control of the House of Representatives in 2018, barrels of ink have been spilled on the topic of “congressionally-directed spending”. Better known as earmarks, this funding mechanism allows Members of Congress to send money directly to projects identified in their districts, largely bypassing the federal bureaucracy and its protracted grant application process. For more than a decade, the Congress has banned the practice of including congressionally-directed funding in spending bills. Now, Democrats in control of both chambers and the White House are poised to bring earmarks back. On March 17th, House Republicans voted to reverse the GOP Conference’s ten year-old ban on congressionally directed spending, paving the way for Members from both parties to make requests in upcoming spending and infrastructure bills.

Two distinct varieties of earmarks have emerged in the current Congress, and the process for submitting requests is now taking shape.


Last week, House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) distributed a letter to his House colleagues regarding his plan for a surface transportation authorization bill expected to move this spring. Though the formal process to submit project requests is slated to be announced later in March, the letter encourages Members of Congress to begin gathering information from around their districts. It also lays out key elements of project submissions to be considered in a highway bill or broader infrastructure package, including:

  • Documented inclusion on the state transportation improvement program (STIP) and the metropolitan transportation improvement program (TIP), if applicable,

  • Sources of funding for the project beyond what is requested,

  • Letter of support from state department of transportation, or local government, transit agency, or non-federal sponsor, and

  • Public comment process.

Community Project Funding

Also last week, House Appropriations Committee Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) announced the Committee would accept requests for Community Project Funding. This followed up on a February memo outlining the requirements for earmark requests in FY22 appropriations bills. Beginning March 29th, the House Appropriations Committee database will be open for Members of Congress to submit Community Project Funding requests. The window will close in mid-April, with different dates and requirements for each Appropriations Subcommittee. While additional guidance from the Subcommittees is forthcoming, we know the basic and critical elements of the process, including:

  • Members will be limited to ten project requests total across all Subcommittees and not all will be granted,

  • Requests will need to demonstrate strong community support,

  • Requests will be posted online for public review,

  • Only public entities and non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations will be eligible – funding will not be directed to for-profit companies, and

  • Existing requirements for state or local matching funds will not be waived.

Both earmark processes are going to have quick turnaround timelines. Members of Congress are already contacting local leaders to understand priorities in the district. Competition for funding will be fierce and not every project on Members’ wish lists will be funded. Engagement at the local, state, and federal level is crucial.

Members and applicants are going to require education and guidance from those who know how the process has worked in the past since the vast majority of Members of the House took office after the earmark ban was implemented. Moreover, many state and local leaders have not had the benefit of congressionally directed spending during their careers in public service. 

Steven A. Baddour, Christian T. Fjeld and R. Neal Martin contributed to this article.

©1994-2023 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 77

About this Author

Frank Guinta ML Strategies VP
Senior Vice President of ML Strategies/US

Frank is based in our Washington, DC office and is Senior Vice President of ML Strategies.

Prior to joining the firm, Frank represented New Hampshire’s 1st congressional district in the US House of Representatives. He served for two nonconsecutive terms, from 2011 to 2013 and from 2015 to 2017. During his time in Congress, Frank served on several House committees. During his most recent term, he was a member of the Committee on Financial Services and served on its Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit as well as its Monetary Policy and Trade sub-committees. Previously he served...

Anthony M. DeMaio Director of Government Relations Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo Washington, DC
Director of Government Relations

Anthony is based in our Washington, DC office and is a Director of Government Relations of ML Strategies. He provides political insight, legislative strategy, and messaging help for clients from various industries and sectors.

Anthony has over a decade of experience working with Congress, executive agencies, and the media to accomplish policy objectives. Anthony has represented clients from virtually every sector of the economy, including health care, transportation, technology, higher education, and defense. He lobbies on major authorization legislation and appropriations bills....

Stephen Tocco, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Boston, Strategies Chairman and CEO
ML Strategies - Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Steve is the Chairman of ML Strategies. He manages a team of consultants in Boston and Washington, DC, and advises clients, from Fortune 100 companies to entrepreneurs, on a wide range of issues. He was a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Massachusetts from 2006 to 2011 and served as its Chairman from 2006 to 2007. He also served as Chairman of the Board of Higher Education in Massachusetts from 1999 to 2006.

From 1993 to 1997, Steve was executive director and CEO of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). Earlier, he served as Massachusetts Secretary of...

William F Weld Attorney Mintz Levin Law Firm and Former Massachusetts Governor
Member Mintz ML Strategies - Principal

Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld provides clients with advice and counsel related to domestic and international government strategies, international business transactions, cross-border investments, and international capital flows.

Before joining Mintz Levin and ML Strategies, Bill practiced law in the New York and Washington, DC offices of a large international law firm, where he established an extensive international consulting business in mining, energy, and technology.

Bill was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 1990 and reelected in 1994 with 71% of the vote....

Alexander Hecht, Vice President of Government Relations, Mintz Levin law Firm
ML Strategies - Executive Vice President & Director of Operations

Alex is Executive Vice President & Director of Operations, ML Strategies, Washington, DC. He is an attorney with more than 10 years of senior-level experience in Congress and trade associations.

Alex assists clients with their legislative and regulatory needs on a wide range of issues, including health care, telecommunications, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), technology, energy, and federal procurement. Prior to joining ML Strategies, Alex served for over six years as chief counsel for Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) on the US Senate Committee on Small Business...