By David Baumann, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, March 1, 2007

The Democrats claim they cleaned the pork out of the FY07 joint resolution [PDF]. Cries of "yeah, right" could be heard all over town. But a couple of the earmarking process's toughest critics say the Democrats actually did a pretty good job.

	What's the impact of Congress clamping down on earmarks? Appropriators have said it's a temporary shift of power to the executive branch.

"There was funding for some categorical programs," said Steve Ellis, vice president of watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "I really haven't found an earmark per se." Even Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., was somewhat impressed. "When you put it against last year, they did a better job than the House-passed bills," Flake said. "It wasn't as clean as it was portrayed." However, since the appropriations bill that the Republicans had passed was loaded with earmarks, Flake added, "Republicans can't complain based on what we did." For Flake, who is usually howling about the appropriations process -- and particularly earmarks -- that amounts to high praise.

Of course, everyone must keep in mind that the joint resolution only funded most of the domestic side of the government. Most omnibus spending bills are thousands of pages long and are easy to hide things in. This joint resolution was 137 pages, so there was little room for mischief.

However, keep in mind that the defense and homeland security appropriations bills passed on their own last year and were signed by the president. Ellis said the defense bill alone contained more than 2,600 earmarks.

So what's the impact of Congress having used a vacuum cleaner on earmarks? Appropriators have said the result will be a temporary shift of power to the executive branch. And based on one analysis, that appears to be the case. Some federal officials have an unexpected boatload of money that they -- not members of Congress -- can decide how to divvy up. It will have a huge impact on research and development programs, according to Kei Koizumi, director of the research and development budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Many of the research and development funding agencies are heavily earmarked," said Koizumi, who traces such issues throughout the year.

In a report last month, Koizumi said that, even for agencies that received no funding increases, some research programs will see more funds because money that had been intended for earmarks can be used for competitive or formula grants. One of the big winners, he said, was the Department of Energy's research and development programs, which received a boost and then had additional money to spend as a result of the earmark cut. "I'm sure it is overwhelming, especially for the Department of Energy, which is getting a lot of money, which it was not expecting," he said.

On the other hand, Congress did cut funding for some programs because of the lack of earmarks. For instance, research and development programs at the Transportation Department will drop 2.2 percent.

Koizumi predicted that many agencies -- like the Agriculture Department -- will award the grant money through a competitive grant process. Others, such as the Energy Department, will use a mixture of competitive and formula grants. At NASA the money will likely go directly to the agency programs.

Koizumi said that federal officials have a tough job ahead of them. They face unique problems they never have faced before and will probably never face again. They will have to make decisions that members of Congress normally make for them. And some lawmakers will probably ask those officials to fund projects even though they were not formally earmarked. "I would not be surprised if backdoor earmarking was occurring," he said. "But it puts agencies in a difficult position. It's delicate. In most years, there's a list. But not this year."

-- David Baumann is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor and covers Congress for National Journal magazine. He can be reached at dbaumann@nationaljournal.com.

[ Capitol Corridors Archives ]

Need A Reprint Of This Column?
National Journal Group offers both print and electronic reprint services, as well as permissions for academic use, photocopying and republication. Click here to order, or call us at 877-394-7350.