Brown Plans Scrutiny of Earmarking
“I have been on somewhat of a crusade against unauthorized, location-specific appropriations to academic institutions which bypass congressional debate and legitimate processes of peer review or merit review.” -George Brown
Rep. George Brown (D-California), chairman of the House science committee, is known as an outspoken critic of appropriating money for unauthorized projects. Speaking at the February 12 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he announced his intention to hold a series of hearings over the next two months to investigate the practice, known as earmarking. The purpose of the hearings, Brown said, “is to shine a spotlight on this problem in an attempt to gain illumination about how the trend in earmarking can be curbed.”
The accepted process for funding of academic research requires that a project undergo peer review for scientific merit before it is funded by the appropriate federal agency. If the project is large and costly, or involves construction of a facility, it might undergo public hearings by a congressional authorizing committee. It is the role of the authorizing committee to approve agency budgets and programs, so that the corresponding appropriations committee can provide funding. Earmarks, also known as “pork barrel,” are projects which are specified for funding in an appropriations bill or report, without undergoing merit review or authorization. Powerful members of the appropriations committees often target this “pork” for academic institutions in their home states or districts.
Common for years in public works projects, earmarks for academic research and facilities have soared in recent years. Some universities, feeling the effects of tight budgets, outdated equipment and deteriorating facilities, have begun lobbying their Members of Congress for money. “Since 1980,” Brown stated, “the total value of earmarked projects has risen 70-fold. The net value of academic earmarks between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1992 was more than $2.5 billion, with nearly 50 percent of this total being appropriated in the last two fiscal years. The fiscal year 1992 appropriations bills and reports contained 500 earmarked projects for academic institutions-- for a net value of $707 million.”
Brown has begun his investigation by sending questionnaires to 50 of the academic institutions which received earmarks in fiscal year 1993 appropriations bills, asking for details on how the funds will be spent. The hearings will address such questions as the results of prior year earmarks, the motivation behind earmarking, and the impact of earmarks on other scientific research. “I don’t begin to know how best to resolve this problem,” Brown admitted, “but I am unwilling to accept-- as some claim-- that academic earmarking is not a problem. It is, and it has been spiraling out of control.”
Brown was quoted in the January 14 issue of “Washington Technology” as saying, “This is a highly visible area on which the political aspects are pretty clearly defined. You’re out to feather your own nest with these `pork projects,’ or else you’re trying to represent the interests of the whole country by subjecting these projects to intense scrutiny, peer review and appropriate action from the committees. . . We’re trying to be on the side of angels and correct this problem.”
The series of hearings will be the subject of future FYIs
