House Science Committee Hammers Earmarking

This week the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee revisited one of the most intractable problems facing science funding: the earmarking of money by the appropriations committees. During two days of hearings the committee received testimony from administration officials and recipients of earmarked funds. This FYI covers the first day of the hearings.

Much of this hearing revolved around a discussion of the power which committee report language has in earmarking federal money. The appropriations committees, aware that they cannot easily earmark funding in appropriations bills, have resorted to the next best thing: including earmarking language in the reports accompanying the bills. Although these reports do not have the force of law, departments and agencies are extremely reluctant to ignore these directives (in other words, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”)

House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California) tried, without success, to persuade Martha Krebs, DOE, and Jon Cannon, EPA, to ignore the report language. Although Krebs and Cannon admitted that earmarking undercuts their procedures and adversely affects their research agenda, and oppose the practice, they nevertheless see the report language as an expression of the intent of Congress. As Krebs stated, “the Department does not second-guess Congressional direction.” Brown was unsatisfied with this line of reasoning, saying “That’s not a good enough answer.”

Determining the intent of Congress is not a straightforward procedure. Administration officials comb bills, report language, and the “Congressional Record” to identify earmarks. Telephone calls to congressional staff are made if all else fails, causing Brown to remark that appropriations staff had greater influence in such matters than he did.

Also testifying was M.R.C. Greenwood of OSTP, who stated that earmarking “runs counter to the very process of research funding that has assured excellence in American science.” Greenwood described an Office of Management and Budget directive to agencies to decrease FY 1996 budget submissions for research funding not subject to peer evaluation. (Congress does, of course, alter the final budget numbers.) Brown wants the administration to more actively counter earmarking.

A second panel of witnesses was comprised of representatives of three universities receiving earmarked money. None of them overtly embraced earmarking, but all lauded the value of the facilities or programs established with the money. Securing earmarked money is not always inexpensive. In answer to a question, a vice president from Northwestern University testified that his institution pays between $300,000 and $400,000 a year in support of this activity, which was practiced, at varying levels, he said, by a “couple hundred universities.”