Brown Seeks Gore’s Help in Combating Earmarking
As the fiscal year 1994 appropriations process unfolds, chairman George Brown of the House science committee persists in his battle to root out earmarks (funds targeted for a specific unauthorized, unpeer-reviewed project or facility in an appropriations bill or its accompanying report.) In a letter dated September 27, Brown requested the assistance of Vice President Al Gore in combating this practice. The letter begins by praising Gore’s report on reinventing government, particularly the recommendation to “minimize congressional restrictions such as...earmarks.” Selected portions of Brown’s letter to Gore are highlighted below:
“I do not question the goals of most earmarked projects, but rather the method by which the funds are awarded. Dollars are allocated to particular institutions for particular purposes based on nothing more than that school’s ability to approach a member of the Appropriations Committees (a process often facilitated by a high-priced lobbyist) to ask for a favor. The projects themselves rarely undergo even the quick scrutiny of public testimony before Congress; the vast majority of these earmarks are written into report language in House-Senate Conferences by staffers.
“More than ninety percent of earmarks appear in the report language that accompanies legislation. These reports are neither legally binding on an agency nor subject to review or amendment by either the House or Senate. Just as importantly, these reports are not signed by the President. Although report language is in effect nothing more than the studied opinions of those members of the Appropriations Committees that were a party to the Conference, agencies in the executive branch testified before the Science Committee earlier this month that they treat such language as if it represented the legally binding will of Congress.
“I want to work with you to develop a mechanism which would give agencies a greater voice in determining which (if any) earmarks they will follow and which they should reject. One possibility is an Executive Order which would give agencies guidance on how to respond to earmarks in appropriations report language. The Executive Order could clarify the notion that report language is merely advice, not legally binding instruction. The strongest approach would be to require agencies to disregard earmarks appearing in report language that are not also explicitly delineated in the appropriations legislation.”
Brown also outlines two less severe alternatives: either requiring agencies to seek approval of both the relevant appropriating AND authorizing committees before funding an earmarked project, or requiring the agencies, with the approval of both types of committees, to transfer earmarked funds “to existing authorized programs which have the general programmatic goals embodied in the earmarked project.” In either option, if the authorizing and appropriating committees cannot reach agreement, the funds would be returned to the Department of the Treasury.
In related action, Brown also succeeded in amending the House version of the fiscal year 1994 defense appropriations bill to require that Technology Reinvestment Program funds be awarded through a competitive process.
