Where Langworthy's Earmarks Go — and the One County They Miss
Companion entry: What “I Secured” Leaves Out: Langworthy’s Shared and Out-of-District Earmarks.
Why this matters
Rep. Langworthy regularly announces federal dollars “delivered” for NY-23. Most of that money is formula or competitive grants decided by federal agencies — he does not choose the recipients. The one pot he does control is Community Project Funding (CPF) — member-directed earmarks he personally selects. Because those are his choices, their distribution is a fair measure of his priorities.
Statement
Source: Community Project Funding disclosures, FY2024–FY2026, langworthy.house.gov
“The projects supported went through a rigorous review and consultation process and followed important criteria: … A demonstrated benefit to the community, particularly underserved communities.”
His own stated standard for choosing earmarks is benefit “particularly [to] underserved communities.” This entry measures the result against that standard.
The Facts
Two appropriations laws funded his earmarks: FY2024 (P.L. 118-42) and FY2026 (enacted early 2026). FY2025 funded none (a full-year continuing resolution). Across those cycles, his in-district CPF totals roughly $31 million. Set against U.S. Census ACS 2024 data, the per-resident distribution is:
| County | Poverty rate | CPF projects | CPF $ | $ per resident |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erie (NY-23 portion) | 13.9% | 4 | $13.2M | $85.16 |
| Allegany | 16.2% | 4 | $3.93M | $83.34 |
| Cattaraugus | 19.1% | 7 | $6.22M | $81.62 |
| Schuyler | 14.8% | 1 | $1.00M | $56.94 |
| Chautauqua | 17.4% | 4 | $4.35M | $34.65 |
| Steuben | 13.8% | 2 | $2.23M | $24.13 |
| Chemung | 16.3% | 1 | $0.48M | $5.84 |
| Tioga | 13.4% | 0 | $0 | $0.00 |
The distribution leans toward need. Across the eight counties, earmark dollars-per-resident show a weak positive correlation with poverty (Pearson r = +0.33, n = 8 — directional, not statistically strong). The three best-served per resident are Erie ($85), Allegany ($83), and the district’s poorest county, Cattaraugus ($82) — a near three-way tie. This is not a story about funneling money to well-off areas or ignoring the poor. With one exception.
In plain language: His earmark dollars broadly favor the poorer rural counties — which is what you’d want. But one populous, higher-poverty county is conspicuously left out.
Counting: every project is a member-directed CPF item on his official disclosures, verified against the enacted FY2024 House Appropriations subcommittee tables (which list each with “Langworthy” as requester). Formula/competitive grants (FAA, FEMA, ARC, USDA-RD) and out-of-district items are excluded.
The Chemung gap
Chemung County is one of the district’s larger counties (about 82,000 residents) and its 3rd-highest in poverty (16.3%) — yet lowest in earmark dollars per resident ($5.84) among the counties that received any (only Tioga, the lowest-poverty county, got none). Chemung sits entirely within NY-23 (Langworthy is its only House member, and Elmira is one of the district’s two largest cities), so this is not a split-representation artifact.
Across his first three request cycles (FY2024–2026), his only Chemung CPF selection was a $480,000 award to Elmira College — a private institution, not a municipal water, sewer, or public-safety project of the kind he directed elsewhere. (For FY2027, still pending, he has since requested a Chemung County hospital radiology project — his first county request there.)
And the need was real and fundable: Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand secured a $1,000,000 Community Project Funding award for a Chemung County wastewater consolidation project (FY2023) — a municipal need the senators chose to fund and Langworthy did not. Chemung’s other infrastructure came through smaller formula grants he announced but did not direct (e.g., a $248,815 Appalachian Regional Commission canal-connector grant, July 2025).
Context (the fairness caveat — resolve before publishing)
Community Project Funding requires a local applicant: a municipality or eligible entity must submit a project to the member’s office, and a member may forward only up to 15 per year. Chemung’s low total therefore has two possible explanations the public record does not distinguish:
- Chemung/Elmira governments applied and were not selected, or
- they submitted fewer or no applications for him to forward.
This entry does not assert a deliberate snub. It documents a distribution that broadly tracks need with one clear exception — a populous, higher-poverty county left almost entirely out — and notes the senators funded a Chemung municipal project he didn’t. Which explanation applies must be resolved (via the county/city or his office) before any stronger framing.
Questions This Raises
- Why is Chemung — populous, 3rd-poorest, entirely in NY-23 — last in earmark dollars per resident, its only earmark to a private college?
- Did Elmira or other Chemung municipalities submit CPF requests that were not forwarded?
- Why did the senators fund a Chemung County wastewater project when Langworthy did not?
Sources
- CPF / appropriations requests (FY24–26): langworthy.house.gov/services/appropriations-requests
- FY2024 enacted CPF tables, House Appropriations (each lists “Langworthy” as requester): Interior-Environment/EPA STAG, CJS, THUD (index)
- Chemung wastewater CDS ($1,000,000, Milton St / Lake St consolidation): Schumer/Gillibrand FY2023 Southern Tier release ($8.5M) (verified verbatim)
- Chemung ARC canal-connector grant ($248,815, July 2025): langworthy.house.gov/issues/grant-announcements
- County demographics: U.S. Census, ACS 2024 5-year (population B01003, poverty B17001).
Note: This entry documents publicly available information about member-directed federal spending. Earmarks are a legal, disclosed part of the appropriations process; this addresses how they were distributed, not their legitimacy. Last updated: July 9, 2026.