Infrastructure: Earmarks vs. Formula Grants — What Langworthy Actually 'Delivered'
Why This Matters for NY-23
When press releases announce federal grants as victories for “strong leadership,” constituents deserve to know whether their representative actually secured the funding — or is simply announcing grants that would have come regardless. This matters because:
- Policy attribution affects elections — If voters credit their representative for Biden-era programs, they may not understand which policies actually helped their communities
- Future funding depends on understanding — USDA Rural Development grants flow from agencies that face 31.7% staffing cuts under budgets Langworthy supports
- Local planning requires honesty — Municipalities making infrastructure decisions need accurate information about sustainable funding sources
Statement
Source: Multiple Press Releases Reported by: Langworthy.house.gov
Langworthy has announced multiple federal infrastructure grants for NY-23 communities, characterizing them as victories for the district and evidence of his advocacy.
Examples:
June 2025: “$3.8M federal grant for Finger Lakes Railway track rehabilitation… a major victory for the Southern Tier’s transportation network and a testament to what strong leadership can deliver for rural communities.”
June 2024: “$4.6 million in federal funding for water infrastructure improvements in Watkins Glen.”
Throughout 2024-2025: Multiple USDA Rural Development grants for schools, water systems, and community facilities.
The Key Distinction: Earmarks vs. Formula Grants
There are two fundamentally different types of “delivering” federal funding:
| Type | How It Works | Member Role |
|---|---|---|
| Community Project Funding (Earmarks) | Member specifically requests funding in appropriations bill | Direct — would not happen without member request |
| Formula/Competitive Grants | Federal agencies award based on applications and criteria | Indirect — flows to qualifying applicants regardless of member |
Langworthy’s press releases do not consistently distinguish between these categories.
What Langworthy CAN Legitimately Claim Credit For
These are Community Project Funding (earmarks) Langworthy specifically requested:
| Project | Amount | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Newstead Community Center | $5,000,000 | Erie County |
| Dunkirk Harbor improvements | $4,750,000 | Chautauqua County |
| Cornell Cooperative Extension renovation | $254,000 | Allegany County |
These were included in appropriations at his direction. He can legitimately take credit for these.
What Langworthy CANNOT Claim He “Delivered”
These came from formula programs or Biden-era legislation:
| Project | Amount | Actual Source |
|---|---|---|
| Jamestown Microgrid | $17,400,000 | DOE Grid Resilience program (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 2021) |
| Finger Lakes Railway | $3,800,000 | FRA program (Biden administration) |
| Watkins Glen water | $4,600,000 | EDA (Biden-Harris program) |
Langworthy was not in Congress when the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed. These grants would have flowed to qualifying applicants regardless of who represented the district.
The Math Problem
Langworthy has claimed “more than $20 million in federal funding across NY-23.”
| Category | Amount | His Role |
|---|---|---|
| Earmarks he directed | ~$10M | Legitimate credit |
| Formula/competitive grants | ~$25M+ | Announcement only |
The “$20 million” figure likely combines both categories without distinguishing between them.
The Pattern
What Langworthy’s announcements say:
- Emphasize his role in “securing” or “delivering” funding
- Characterize as victories for “strong leadership”
- Rarely if ever mention the Biden administration
- Often omit the specific federal program providing the funding
What the original grant sources say:
- Biden-Harris administration programs
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding
- American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding
- Regular federal agency competitive grants
Case Study 1: Jamestown Microgrid ($17.4M)
Langworthy’s characterization: Announced as evidence of “delivering” for the district.
The actual source:
- Funded through DOE Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships program
- Established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (2021)
- Langworthy was not in Congress when this law passed
Senator Schumer’s office attributed the funding to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The distinction: This is a competitive federal grant from a Biden-era program. It would have been awarded to qualifying applicants regardless of who represented NY-23.
Case Study 2: Finger Lakes Railway
Langworthy’s announcement (June 2025): “Congressman Nick Langworthy announced $3,869,945 for Finger Lakes Railway track rehabilitation… a major victory for the Southern Tier’s transportation network and a testament to what strong leadership can deliver for rural communities.”
FingerLakes1.com local news coverage (June 11, 2025): “Though the project was previously announced during the Biden administration, it had not been funded until now.”
What this reveals:
- Project was initiated under Biden administration
- Langworthy announced it when funding came through
- Local outlet noted the timeline disconnect
Case Study 2: Watkins Glen Water Infrastructure
Langworthy’s announcement (June 2024): Emphasized the $4.6 million grant for water system improvements, presented as delivering for the district.
U.S. Economic Development Administration press release (June 25, 2024): “The Biden-Harris Administration knows that infrastructure is key to building an economy that works for all Americans… Today’s announcement continues progress toward President Biden’s goal of ensuring every American has access to clean drinking water.”
What Langworthy’s version omitted:
- Any mention of Biden-Harris administration
- The EDA grant program funding this
- The policy context for infrastructure investment
Case Study 3: USDA Rural Development Grants
Langworthy has announced multiple USDA grants:
- Waverly Central School District: $2,750,113 (December 2023)
- Prattsburgh water infrastructure: $4.9M (2024)
- Various community facility grants throughout 2024-2025
The context: USDA Rural Development is a federal agency. These are competitive federal grants, not congressional member-directed funding.
Langworthy’s simultaneous positions:
- Announces USDA grants as evidence of his advocacy
- Supports Trump administration that eliminated 36% of USDA Rural Development staff in 2025
- Voted for budgets proposing 31.7% reduction in Rural Development staffing (FY26)
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Context
November 2021: Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
- $550 billion in new infrastructure spending over 5 years
- Significant funding for rural broadband, water systems, transportation, energy
- Passed on bipartisan basis
Langworthy’s timeline:
- Elected in 2022 (after IIJA passed)
- Did not vote on the bill
- Has consistently criticized Biden administration spending as “out of touch” and “reckless”
But many grants he announces come from IIJA-funded programs:
- Rural broadband expansion
- Water infrastructure improvements
- Transportation upgrades
- Energy grid modernization
What This Looks Like to Constituents
Example sequence:
- Biden administration creates grant program (IIJA, ARPA, etc.)
- Local entity applies for competitive grant
- Federal agency awards grant
- Langworthy issues press release announcing the grant
- Local news covers Langworthy’s announcement
- Constituents see Langworthy delivered funding
- Constituents may not know Biden policies/programs funded it
Net effect: Credit for Biden-era infrastructure investment without acknowledging the policy source.
The Broader Context
Langworthy’s rhetoric about Biden administration:
- “Out of touch spending”
- “Released from Mars”
- “Reckless fiscal policy”
- Consistently critical of Biden economic policies
Langworthy’s practice:
- Announces grants funded by Biden administration programs
- Characterizes as his own advocacy victories
- Rarely credits the federal programs enabling the funding
Questions This Raises
If Langworthy opposes Biden administration spending policies, should he credit them when announcing grants from Biden-era programs?
When a local outlet reports a project was “previously announced during the Biden administration,” does that change the characterization of “what strong leadership can deliver”?
How can constituents make informed decisions about which policies deliver for rural areas if credit is disconnected from policy source?
Is announcing USDA Rural Development grants while supporting 31.7% staff reductions to that agency consistent?
When Langworthy says he “secured” or “delivered” funding, does that mean:
- He directed congressionally-mandated funding?
- He advocated for a competitive grant application?
- He announced a grant that would have been awarded regardless?
Sources
Langworthy Announcements:
- Langworthy.house.gov: Jamestown Microgrid announcement ($17.4M)
- Langworthy.house.gov: Finger Lakes Railway grant announcement (June 2025)
- Langworthy.house.gov: Watkins Glen water infrastructure announcement (June 2024)
- Langworthy.house.gov: Newstead Community Center ($5M) — Community Project Funding
- Langworthy.house.gov: Dunkirk Harbor ($4.75M) — Community Project Funding
- Langworthy Appropriations Requests FY25 page (langworthy.house.gov)
Original Federal Sources:
- DOE Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships program (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law)
- U.S. Economic Development Administration: Watkins Glen grant press release (June 25, 2024)
- USDA Rural Development: Grant award announcements
- Senator Schumer’s office: Jamestown Microgrid attribution
Local News Coverage:
- Post-Journal: “City Awarded $17M For Electric Infrastructure Upgrade” (October 2023)
- FingerLakes1.com: “Finger Lakes Railway awarded $3.8 million federal grant for track upgrades” (June 11, 2025)
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act:
- H.R. 3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)
- Langworthy elected 2022 (after IIJA passage)
USDA Staffing Context:
- USDA Office of Inspector General: Staffing reports (2025)
- Civil Eats: “USDA Cuts Deep: Nearly 20% Workforce Lost in 2025”
In Plain Language
There are two types of federal grants: earmarks (where a congressman specifically requests funding in a bill) and formula/competitive grants (where federal agencies award money based on applications, regardless of who represents the district).
Langworthy legitimately secured about $10 million in earmarks — funding that wouldn’t exist without his request. But he also takes credit for $25+ million in grants from Biden-era programs that would have gone to qualifying applicants anyway.
His press releases don’t distinguish between these categories, so when he says he “delivered” $20+ million for the district, constituents can’t tell how much he actually influenced versus how much he simply announced.
Assessment
The credit-claiming pattern is documented across multiple press releases.
- Some announcements involve genuine earmarks Langworthy secured (~$10M)
- Others involve formula grants from legislation he did not support and was not in Congress to vote on (~$25M+)
Constituents reviewing his communications cannot easily tell the difference without checking the underlying funding source.
Verdict: MISSING ATTRIBUTION — Legitimate earmarks are mixed with formula grants he did not create, without clear distinction.
Note: This entry documents publicly available information from congressional records, federal agency announcements, and news reporting. Readers may draw their own conclusions about appropriate credit attribution for federal grants.
Last updated: February 7, 2026