[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          CONTROLLING EARMARKS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
report for Wednesday, January 5, 1994, into the Congressional Record:

                          Controlling Earmarks

       One of the most common complaints I hear from Hoosiers is 
     that Congress needs to cut ``pork barrel'' spending--the 
     Lawrence Welk boyhood memorial, the Steamtown Railroad 
     Museum, a proposal to turn the northern lights into an energy 
     source, and unneeded road or water projects. Typically this 
     spending comes from special interest provisions, known as 
     earmarks, which are included in congressional spending bills. 
     Studies indicate that the quantity of earmarked funds has 
     increased during the past decade.
       Earmarks direct the federal government to provide funds to 
     a particular group, industry, or geographic area. Many of 
     these earmarks provide funds to worthwhile projects and thus 
     improve public policy. But others allocate federal dollars to 
     wasteful, pork barrel projects, and are primarily the result 
     of efforts by Members of Congress to benefit their 
     constituents at the expense of the nation as a whole. The 
     earmarking process in Congress should be reformed to help 
     ensure that only worthwhile projects are funded.


                               background

       There is no commonly accepted definition of what 
     constitutes pork barrel spending. Many individuals tend to 
     view special interest projects that help them as worthwhile, 
     but view similar projects that help others as suspect. A 
     levee along the Ohio River may be important, even vital, to 
     an Indiana community, but could be seen as unnecessary and 
     wasteful by a Californian. And some of the concern about pork 
     barrel spending no doubt can arise from misleading 
     characterizations of projects. For example, most people would 
     question the value of studying the properties of molds, but 
     such research led to the discovery of penicillin.
       To curb wasteful programs, Congress is supposed to review 
     proposals for spending twice. First, it must authorize 
     funding for the project (i.e. set policy goals and funding 
     limits for the project). Second, it must appropriate funding 
     for the project (i.e. actually allocate money for it). Some 
     special interest projects pass even though they receive full 
     review during the authorization and appropriations processes. 
     But too often Congress appropriates money for a project 
     without the necessary authorization, making it more difficult 
     to screen out wasteful projects. Furthermore, many special 
     interest provisions appear only in the explanatory report 
     that accompanies a spending measure. And pork is not found 
     only in spending bills. Tax bills, for example, often contain 
     loopholes that reduce the tax burden on particular 
     individuals, firms, or industries.


                                analysis

       Many earmarks have significant policy benefits--for 
     example, funds are often earmarked to deal with floods and 
     other disasters. Congress typically appropriates money for 
     large categories of spending called appropriations accounts, 
     such as the construction account in the Corps of Engineers 
     budget. But sometimes it is necessary to target expenditures 
     to specific projects. Members of Congress are usually more 
     familiar with the day-to-day needs of their constituents than 
     are executive branch officials, who must deal with the entire 
     country. Not all public policy details should be delegated to 
     the executive branch.
       But the excessive use of earmarks by Congress results in 
     wasteful spending and reduced accountability in government. 
     Earmarks often are buried--some would say hidden--in huge 
     omnibus bills or reports, making it difficult for Members to 
     discern good earmarks from bad. One example was the proposed 
     memorial to Lawrence Welk in North Dakota (funding for this 
     project was eventually eliminated). Nothing is more 
     frustrating for Members than to vote for major national 
     legislation, only to discover later that it also contained 
     obscure pork barrel items such as the Welk project.
       Another reason why earmarks do not receive full review by 
     Congress is that many are placed in the explanatory reports 
     that accompany spending bills. These reports, which are 
     written by staff members of the Appropriations Committees, 
     are primarily intended as back-ground information about a 
     bill and are not binding. They are not considered formally by 
     the full House or Senate, and conceivably could be ignored by 
     the executive branch. In practice, however, it is difficult 
     for executive branch officials to ignore the explicit 
     directions of the Appropriations Committees because of the 
     power that appropriators have over agency budgets.
       In recent years, particular attention has been paid to so-
     called academic earmarks, which target research and 
     development funds to particular colleges and universities. 
     Last year approximately $750 million was earmarked for 
     academic institutions, most of it through committee report 
     language. Many observers criticize academic earmarking 
     because it circumvents the usual ``peer review'' process 
     through which research and development proposals are 
     evaluated by experts in the relevant field.


                            recommendations

       A number of recommendations are under discussion in 
     Congress to deal with the problem of excessive earmarking--
     and through it the problem of pork barrel spending. Some 
     propose that earmarks simply be abolished. My sense is that a 
     complete ban on earmarks would be overly rigid. As mentioned, 
     some earmarks are worthwhile, and our goal should be to 
     screen out the wasteful earmarks rather than abolish them 
     all. Vice President Gore's commission to ``reinvent 
     government'' (the National Performance Review) proposes 
     that executive branch agencies pay less heed to earmarks 
     included in appropriations report language. This may help, 
     but by itself cannot solve the problem of wasteful 
     earmarks. There still will be substantial pressure on 
     agency officials to follow these directives. Additionally, 
     Congress itself should play a role in curbing wasteful 
     spending by scrutinizing more carefully spending for 
     locality-specific projects. In recent years, Congress has 
     begun to vote more frequently on specific projects with 
     the result that some have been eliminated.
       The most effective method for reducing wasteful earmarks 
     may be to open up the earmarking process to better scrutiny 
     by Members of Congress, the media, and the public. The Joint 
     Committee on the Organization of Congress, which I co-
     chaired, proposed that all earmarks be listed clearly in the 
     reports accompanying authorization and appropriations 
     measures. That means that before a spending bill is 
     considered on the floor, all Members of Congress, as well as 
     the media and the public, would know exactly what special 
     earmarks are contained in the bill. All loopholes in tax 
     bills should be similarly identified in the accompanying 
     report. Exposing earmarks and other special interest 
     provisions to fuller scrutiny will force proponents to 
     justify them publicly and help ensure that fewer wasteful 
     programs will pass. Sunshine is still the best disinfectant 
     for wasteful proposals.

                          ____________________