Congressional Directives: Selected Agencies' Processes for Responding to Funding Instructions
Published: 2008-01-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In recent years, congressional concern and public debate have increased about the nature and growing number of earmarks. This report seeks to provide Congress and the public with an understanding of how agencies respond to congressional funding directions by examining how selected executive branch agencies translate these directions from Congress into governmental activities. There have been numerous calls in and out of Congress for earmark reform in response to concerns about the nature and number of earmarks. Both Houses of Congress have taken steps to increase disclosure requirements. The President has also called for earmark reform. In January 2007, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed agencies to collect and submit data to it on fiscal year 2005 earmarks in appropriations bills and certain authorization bills. GAO collected and analyzed information on four agencies' processes (i.e., the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works programs). Our objectives were to identify, for these agencies, (1) their processes for identifying and categorizing congressional directives; (2) their processes for tracking, implementing, and reporting on congressional directives; and (3) agency officials' views on the trends and impact of congressional directives.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Congress or its committees may use formal vehicles to provide written funding instructions for agencies or to express preferences to agencies on the use of funding. These formal vehicles include statutes (i.e., authorization or appropriations acts) or House, Senate, and conference reports comprising significant parts of the legislative history for a given statute. Often referred to as "earmarks," these written instructions range from broad directions on policy priorities to specific instructions. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, to finance government operations through appropriations, and to prescribe the conditions governing the use of those appropriations. This power is referred to generally as the congressional "power of the purse" and derives from various provisions of the Constitution. Government agencies may not draw money out of the Treasury to fund operations unless Congress has appropriated the money. At its most basic level, this means that it is up to Congress to decide whether to provide funds for a particular program or activity and to fix the level of that funding. It is also well established that Congress can, within constitutional limits, determine the terms and conditions under which an appropriation may be used. In this manner, Congress may use its appropriation power to accomplish policy objectives and to establish priorities among federal programs. Our review of four federal agencies' processes for responding to written directives from Congress regarding the use of funds found that each of the selected agencies responds to congressional directives in a manner consistent with the nature of its programs and operations and in response to the desires of its own authorizing and appropriations committees in Congress. Agencies differ in terms of the specific processes followed to respond to congressional directives, and they have also adopted their own approaches for responding to the 2007 request for data on earmarks from OMB. OMB's guidance to agencies excludes from its definition of earmarks funds requested in the President's Budget. With a few exceptions, officials representing the selected agencies generally expressed the view that the number of congressional directives had increased over time. Agency officials provided a range of views on the impact of congressional directives on budget and program execution. Some agency officials said that congressional directives had a limited impact on their mission requirements or ability to accomplish their goals. Other agency officials reported that implementation of these directives can displace agencies' program priorities as the agencies redirect resources to comply with these directives. Some told us that congressional directives provided money for projects they wanted but had been unable to get funded through budget requests. Agency officials also reported that directives can add uncertainty as agencies respond to congressional priorities identified months later than their planning for items in the President's Budget

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In recent years, both congressional concern and public debate about  In recent years, both congressional concern and public debate about  earmarks have increased. Specifically, congressional concern has focused  earmarks have increased. Specifically, congressional concern has focused  on both the nature of earmarks as well as the increase in the number of  on both the nature of earmarks as well as the increase in the number of  earmarks. At the same time, a great deal of misunderstanding exists about  earmarks. At the same time, a great deal of misunderstanding exists about  what the term earmark means, about the wide variation in the nature of  what the term earmark means, about the wide variation in the nature of  earmarks, and about how earmarks fit into the broader budget context.  earmarks, and about how earmarks fit into the broader budget context.  This report seeks to move beyond the public debate surrounding earmarks  This report seeks to move beyond the public debate surrounding earmarks  to examine how executive branch agencies translate spending directions  to examine how executive branch agencies translate spending directions  in law and committee reports into governmental activities by explaining  in law and committee reports into governmental activities by explaining  how executive branch agencies respond to these congressional directives.  how executive branch agencies respond to these congressional directives.
Congress or its committees may use formal vehicles to provide written  Congress or its committees may use formal vehicles to provide written  funding instructions for agencies or to express preferences to agencies on  funding instructions for agencies or to express preferences to agencies on  the use of funds. These formal vehicles include laws (i.e., authorization or  the use of funds. These formal vehicles include laws (i.e., authorization or  appropriations acts) or House, Senate, and conference reports comprising  appropriations acts) or House, Senate, and conference reports comprising  significant parts of the legislative history of a given law. These instructions  significant parts of the legislative history of a given law. These instructions  are often referred to as earmarks and range from broad directions on  are often referred to as earmarks and range from broad directions on  policy priorities to specific instructions. The range of these congressional  policy priorities to specific instructions. The range of these congressional  funding directions collectively is so broad that for the purpose of this  funding directions collectively is so broad that for the purpose of this  report, we refer to these directions as “congressional directives” in order  report, we refer to these directions as “congressional directives” in order  to avoid confusion associated with varied legal and common usage  to avoid confusion associated with varied legal and common usage  definitions and connotations of the term “earmarks.” We identify and use  definitions and connotations of the term “earmarks.” We identify and use  agency-specific terms when discussing definitions agencies use for  agency-specific terms when discussing definitions agencies use for  congressional directives.  congressional directives.
The current focus on the number and amount of earmarks overshadows  The current focus on the number and amount of earmarks overshadows  the limited information available about the agency role in this aspect of  the limited information available about the agency role in this aspect of  the appropriations process. This report seeks to fill that knowledge gap  the appropriations process. This report seeks to fill that knowledge gap  and clarify what actually happens after agencies identify their respective  and clarify what actually happens after agencies identify their respective  congressional funding directives. To provide Congress and the public with  congressional funding directives. To provide Congress and the public with  a better understanding of how agencies respond to congressional funding  a better understanding of how agencies respond to congressional funding  directives, the objective of this report is to describe the processes used in  directives, the objective of this report is to describe the processes used in  selected agencies to identify, categorize, track, implement, and report  selected agencies to identify, categorize, track, implement, and report  back on congressional directives as well as how selected officials within  back on congressional directives as well as how selected officials within  these agencies characterize trends in the number and types of directives  these agencies characterize trends in the number and types of directives  and the impact of directives on agency budgets and program  and the impact of directives on agency budgets and program  implementation. The selected agencies were the Department of Defense,  implementation. The selected agencies were the Department of Defense,  Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works programs.
In summary, we found that each agency responds to directives in a manner  consistent with the nature of its programs and operations. Each agency  reported that it had a definition it believed was consistent with and  responsive to its own authorizing and appropriations committees in  Congress. The agencies also have recently adopted their own approaches  for responding to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) January  2007 direction to agencies to collect and submit data on fiscal year 2005  earmarks in appropriations bills and certain authorization bills, including  report language. OMB’s guidance to agencies excludes from its definition  of earmarks funds requested in the President’s Budget. Following the  issuance of this OMB guidance on earmarks, each agency developed an  approach to provide OMB the data it requested. The agencies reported that  to respond to OMB’s data request, they did not use the definitions they  previously used for monitoring congressional directives. Rather, they  provided data based on either OMB’s definition of earmarks or what was  agreed to in a negotiation with OMB.
With a few exceptions, officials representing the selected agencies  generally expressed the view that the number of congressional directives  had increased over time. Agency officials provided a range of views on the  impact of these directives on budget and program execution. Some agency  officials said that the impact of congressional directives on their mission  requirements or ability to accomplish their goals was limited. Some told us  that congressional directives provided money for projects they wanted but  had been unable to get funded in their agencies’ budget requests. In other  agencies, officials reported that implementation of these directives could  displace agencies’ program priorities as the agencies redirect resources to  comply with congressional directives. Agency officials also reported that  directives can add uncertainty as agencies respond to congressional  priorities identified months after their planning for items in the President’s  Budget.
This report provides background and context on congressional directives  and the use of the term earmarks. Agencies’ approaches to defining,  identifying, categorizing, tracking, implementing, and reporting on  congressional directives are discussed in separate sections for the four  selected agencies. Appendix I describes our methodology for reviewing  congressional directives. Appendix II lists key GAO contacts. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. This report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
subsections: section_title: Section 1: Background
paragraphs: This section provides context for understanding the history and use of  congressional direction for appropriated funds. It traces the development  of authority for congressional direction of funds from the U.S.  Constitution to the current focus on reducing the number and amount of  earmarks in appropriations legislation.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and raise revenue  for the government, to finance government operations through  appropriation of federal funds, and to prescribe the conditions governing  the use of those appropriations. This power is generally referred to as the  congressional “power of the purse.” The linchpin of congressional control  over federal funds is found in article I, section 9, clause 7 of the  Constitution, which provides that “No money shall be drawn from the  Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Thus, no  officer or employee of the government may draw money out of the  Treasury to fund agency operations unless Congress has appropriated the  money to the agency. At its most basic level, this means that it is up to  Congress to decide whether to provide funds for a particular program or  activity and to fix the level of that funding.
It is also well established that Congress can, within constitutional limits,  determine the terms and conditions under which an appropriation may be  used. In other words, Congress can specify (or direct) in an appropriation  the specific purposes for which the funds may be used, the length of time  the funds may remain available for these uses, and the maximum amount  an agency may spend on particular elements of a program. In this manner,  Congress may use its appropriation power to accomplish policy objectives  and to establish priorities among federal programs. It is then the obligation  of the agencies under Presidential supervision to ensure that these policy  objectives and priorities are faithfully executed.
subsections: section_title: Definitions
paragraphs: Historically, the term “earmark” has described legislative language that  designates a specified amount of a larger appropriation as available only  for a particular object. The term earmark derives from ancient England  where English farmers would mark the ears of their swine, oxen, and  other livestock to cull them from the village herd and demonstrate  ownership. In common usage, however, the term earmark soon developed  a broader meaning.
There are many definitions of earmarks. For example, our Glossary of  Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process defines earmarking as either of  the following:  1.  Dedicating collections by law for a specific purpose or program.
Earmarked collections include trust fund receipts, special fund receipt  accounts, intragovernmental receipts, and offsetting collections  credited to appropriation accounts. These collections may be classified  as budget receipts, proprietary receipts, or reimbursements to  appropriations.  2.  Designating any portion of a lump-sum amount for particular purposes  by means of legislative language. Sometimes “earmarking” is  colloquially used to characterize directions included in congressional  committee reports but not in the legislation itself. “There is not a single definition of the term earmark accepted by all practitioners and  observers of the appropriations process, nor is there a standard earmark practice across all  13 appropriation bills. According to Congressional Quarterly’s American Congressional  Dictionary, under the broadest definition ‘virtually every appropriation is earmarked.’ In  practice, however, earmarks are generally defined more narrowly, often reflecting  procedures established over time that may differ from one appropriation bill to another.
For one bill, an earmark may refer to a certain level of specificity within an account.
For other bills, an earmark may refer to funds set aside within an account for  individual projects, locations, or institutions (emphasis added).”
In recent years there has been a significant amount of public discussion  about the nature and number of earmarks, with exponential growth  reported in the number and amounts. For example, researchers at the  Brookings Institution, on the basis of data compiled by CRS, cited  dramatic growth in earmarks between 1994 and fiscal year 2006. In fact,  CRS data show increases in the number and amount for individual  appropriation bills during that period.
Any discussion of trends, however, is complicated by the fact that  different definitions of the term earmarks exist and that the amounts  reported vary depending on the definition used. Although CRS has totaled  the number and amount of earmarked spending for each of the regular  annual spending bills enacted since fiscal year 1994, CRS has cautioned  that the data presented for the 13 appropriations cannot be combined into  a governmentwide total because of the different definitions and  methodologies that were used for each bill. These differing definitions  would make any total invalid.
subsections: section_title: Lump Sum and Line Item
paragraphs: Any definition of the term earmark requires a reference to two other terms  in appropriations law—lump-sum appropriations and line-item  appropriations. A lump-sum appropriation is one that is made to cover a  number of programs, projects, or items. Our publication, Principles of  Federal Appropriations Law (also known as the Red Book), notes that  GAO’s appropriations case law defines earmarks as “actions where  Congress . . . designates part of a more general lump-sum appropriation for  a particular object, as either a maximum, a minimum, or both.”
Today, Congress gives federal agencies flexibility and discretion to spend  among many different programs, projects, and activities financed by one  lump-sum appropriation. For example, in fiscal year 2007, Congress  appropriated a lump-sum appropriation of $22,397,581,000 for all Army  Operations and Maintenance expenses. Many smaller agencies receive  only a single appropriation, usually termed Salaries and Expenses or  Operating Expenses. All of the agency’s operations must be funded from  this single appropriation.
A line-item appropriation is generally considered to be an appropriation of  a smaller scope, for specific programs, projects, and activities. In this  sense, the difference between a lump-sum appropriation and a line-item  appropriation is a relative concept hinging on the specificity of the  appropriation. Also, unlike an earmark, a line item is typically separate  from the larger appropriation. As noted above, in earlier times when the  federal government was much smaller and federal programs were (or at  least seemed) less complicated, line-item appropriations were more  common. For example, among the items for which Congress appropriated  funds for 1853 were separate appropriations to the Army, including:  $203,180.83 for clothing, camp and garrison equipage, and horse  equipment; $4,500 for fuel and quarters for officers serving on the coast  survey; and $400,000 for construction and repair.
section_title: Appropriations in the Beginning of the Republic
paragraphs: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America  in Congress assembled, That there be appropriated for the service of the present year, to be  paid out of the monies which arise, either from the requisitions heretofore made upon the  several states, or from the duties on impost and tonnage, the following sums, viz. A sum  not exceeding two hundred and sixteen thousand dollars for defraying the expenses of the  civil list, under the late and present government; a sum not exceeding one hundred and  thirty-seven thousand dollars for defraying the expenses of the department of war; a sum  not exceeding one hundred and ninety thousand dollars for discharging the warrants issued  by the late board of treasury, and remaining unsatisfied; and a sum not exceeding ninety- six thousand dollars for paying the pensions to invalids.”
From today’s perspective, some might say that this first appropriation  contains several lump-sum appropriations. Others might say that these are  line-item appropriations for (1) civil servants, (2) department of war,   (3) treasury, and (4) pension payments. In any event, these are  congressional directives instructing the executive branch on how funds  are to be spent. As discussed earlier, this illustrates the definitional  difficulties in this area.
The second appropriation made by the First Congress for 1791 contained a  congressional directive to spend “a sum not exceeding fifty thousand  seven hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-three cents,” for several  specific objects requested by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander  Hamilton in his budget estimates, such as converting the Beacon of  Georgia into a lighthouse and for the purchase of hydrometers.
section_title: Congressional Directives and Restrictions in Legislative History
paragraphs: Today, congressional committees sometimes insert spending directives  and restrictions on the use of appropriated funds in what is known as the  legislative history of an act—that is, House, Senate, and conference  reports accompanying a piece of legislation. As a matter of law,  instructions in committee reports and other legislative history as to how  funds should or are expected to be spent do not impose any legal  requirements on federal agencies. Only directions that are specified in the  law itself are legally binding.
This does not mean agencies are free to ignore clearly expressed  legislative history applicable to the use of appropriated funds. In a 1975  decision, we pointed out that agencies ignore such expressions of intent at  the peril of strained relations with committees and that agencies have a  practical obligation to abide by such expressions. This obligation,  however, must be understood to fall short of a legal requirement giving  rise to a legal infraction where there is a failure to carry out that  obligation. In that decision, we pointed out that Congress has recognized  that it is desirable to maintain executive flexibility to shift funds within a  particular lump-sum appropriation account so that agencies can make  necessary adjustments for unforeseen developments, changing  requirements, and legislation enacted subsequent to appropriations. This  is not to say that Congress does not expect that funds will be spent in  accordance with budget estimates or in accordance with restrictions or  directions detailed in committee reports. However, in order to preserve  spending flexibility, it may choose not to impose these particular  restrictions as a matter of law, but rather to leave it to the agencies to  “keep faith” with Congress. “Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting  restrictions in the operative statutes (though not . . . just in the legislative history). And of  course, we hardly need to note that an agency’s decision to ignore congressional  expectations may expose it to grave political consequences.”
section_title: Recent Guidance to Agencies on Collecting Data on Earmarks
paragraphs: There have been numerous calls in and out of Congress for earmark  reform. Both Houses of Congress have taken steps to increase disclosure  requirements. In January 2007, the President proposed “earmark reforms”  in his State of the Union address. These included cutting the number and  amount of earmarks by at least half. According to the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), in fiscal year 2005, there were 13,492  earmarks totaling $18,938,657,000 for appropriations accounts. “Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the  congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or  competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails  the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the funds allocation process.”
OMB asked agencies to provide earmark information encompassed in all  enacted appropriations bills in fiscal year 2005 and in any congressional  reports. The guidance to agencies also directed prioritization of data  collection to focus first on appropriations bills, since legislative action on  those bills typically begins in the spring. In addition, OMB directed  agencies to plan on providing information on earmarks in authorizing and  other bills that are identified based on consultation with OMB. OMB’s  guidance to agencies excludes from its definition of earmarks funds  requested in the President’s Budget.
OMB posted these data on its Web site and also asked agencies to identify  earmarks in fiscal year 2008 appropriations bills as they moved through  the legislative process. This request for data asked the heads of  departments and agencies to report to OMB the number and dollar value  of earmarks in each account within 7 days after an appropriations bill is  reported by the House or Senate Appropriations Committee or passes on  the House or Senate floor.
section_title: Section 2: Department of Defense
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for the military forces  needed to deter war and protect the security of the United States. The  major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine  Corps. DOD includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, three military departments, nine  unified combatant commands, the DOD Inspector General, 15 defense  agencies, and 7 DOD field activities.
We focused on OSD’s Comptroller; the military services (Army, Navy,  Marine Corps, and Air Force); two defense agencies, the Defense  Information Systems Agency (DISA) and the Defense Threat Reduction  Agency (DTRA); and one combatant command, the U.S. Special  Operations Command (SOCOM).
subsections: section_title: Definition DOD Used for Identifying and Tracking Congressional Directives
paragraphs: DOD has had a procedure in place for many years that identifies and  categorizes all congressional directives—which it calls add-ons or items of  congressional interest—for programs and projects contained in the bill  language included in the appropriations conference report. DOD does not  include items in defense authorization bills in its list of add-ons. According  to DOD officials, DOD defines an add-on as an increase in funding levels in  the bill language included in the appropriations conference report that was  not originally requested in the President’s Budget submission. appropriate funds for execution of program directives. DOD follows  defense appropriation bills to determine how to execute program  directives. Six additional types of add-ons to be excluded were  funding for the Global War on Terror,  funding for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment (97-0350)  appropriations account for procuring equipment,  funding for military personnel,  funding for peer-reviewed Defense health programs,    policy decisions for which DOD submitted its budget request with the best  estimate available at the time but for which Congress subsequently  adjusted the budget request due to refined estimates provided to it, and  items that are being transferred to other accounts that result in a net zero  change to DOD’s overall budget.
DOD officials provided their rationale for excluding these types of add-ons  for fiscal year 2005. According to DOD officials, the funding for the Global  War on Terror is specific to providing support to the troops for ongoing  combat operations and related activities. In fiscal year 2005, the Global  War on Terror was funded primarily through supplemental appropriations  rather than through the DOD base budget request. DOD officials stated  that the National Guard and Reserve appropriations account to procure  equipment (i.e., account 97-0350) was not an earmark because, although  its funding was not requested in the President’s Budget, the funding was  routinely provided directly by Congress to maximize readiness of the  National Guard and Reserve. Congressional add-ons for military personnel  appropriated for basic pay and benefits were excluded because these were  routine, merit-based administrative costs. Peer-reviewed Defense health  programs were not considered earmarks because they were funded based  on merit that was determined by a panel of physicians. Policy decisions for  which DOD submitted a budget but did not fully fund procurement of an  item were excluded because they were based on a preliminary estimate  that required additional funding and were not new items. DOD excluded  funds that were transferred to other accounts because the funds needed to  be aligned with the correct place in the budget before they could be  obligated or expended.
DOD officials stated that the list of exclusions is guidance for the  components to use as they review the congressional add-ons to determine  which funds should not be considered earmarks. Components prepared  justifications for each add-on they believed should be excluded based on  the exclusion criteria. In addition, officials stated that the criteria are  evolving and that they are continuing to work with OMB to refine them.
section_title: DOD’s Process for Identifying and Categorizing Congressional Directives
paragraphs: Before OMB’s 2007 guidance, DOD had an established process that it  continues to use for identifying congressional directives contained in the  bill language of the appropriations conference report. In addition, each  component routinely monitors the congressional budget cycle and has its  own staff (i.e., legislative liaisons and financial management staff) who  work with congressional staff to determine, if necessary, the purposes and  objectives of congressional directives. In addition, legislative liaisons are  responsible for updating their leadership on the status of congressional  directives during House and Senate Appropriations Committee markups,  floor debates, and the final conference report.
Under the procedure DOD has had in place for years, the OSD Comptroller  identifies all congressional directives contained in the bill language from  the appropriations conference report, which are categorized by budget  accounts and components, and provides the relevant list to the  appropriate component.
In response to OMB’s 2007 guidance, DOD officials described an additional  three-step process they used for identifying and categorizing fiscal year  2005 earmarks:  1.  Components reviewed the list of congressional directives identified by  the OSD Comptroller and applied the agreed-on exclusion criteria,  then developed justifications for any congressional directives they  identified as earmarks that met the criteria to be excluded, and then  provided the revised list of directives and justifications back to the  OSD Comptroller. 2.  The OSD Comptroller and OMB jointly determined if any further  adjustments needed to be made to the list based on their review of the  justification provided by the components.  3.  After the list was agreed on, an OSD official created the list that was  uploaded to an OMB earmarks site for review. OMB approved the list  for release to the public site.
Figure 1 describes DOD’s process for identifying and categorizing fiscal  year 2005 congressional directives in response to OMB’s 2007 data  collection effort.
Committee markups, floor debates, and the conference report) within 7  days. In addition, the DOD components will have access to the OMB  database and will be required to enter the details about the earmarks,  including recipient, location, and amount, as well as data on the execution  status of their respective earmarks. OSD Comptroller officials said that  they will be responsible for providing oversight of this process and will  monitor the Web site to ensure that the components populate the database  within the required time frames.
section_title: DOD’s Process for Tracking, Implementing, and Reporting on Congressional Directives
paragraphs: DOD does not have a centralized tracking and reporting mechanism that  shows to what extent funding has been obligated and expended in  accordance with congressional directives. DOD component headquarters  staff track the amount of funding provided to them for individual  congressional directives. Program offices track the execution of funds for  the specific programs covered by the directives but are not required to  report the status to the components or to the OSD Comptroller’s office.
The OSD Comptroller makes an allotment of funding for the congressional  directives to the components, and this funding is tracked by the various  components’ financial management systems rather than within a  centralized system maintained by OSD. We identified the financial  management systems for five of the six components that we interviewed.  The sixth, SOCOM, at this time uses the department’s Programming,  Budgeting, and Accounting System to facilitate the tracking of  congressional directives. The systems described by the five components  track all budget allotments and include unique codes or other features that  identify funds designated for congressional directives for tracking  purposes.
The financial management systems used by the five components are as  follows:    The Army uses the Funds Control System to track funds allotted for  various directives. The system issues a funding authorization document to  the Army operating agencies responsible for implementing the directives.  Army officials identified two steps within the process that allow operating  agencies to track congressional directives. The remarks section of the  funding authorization document includes a statement that identifies the  item as a congressional directive, and resource managers give each item  an execution code that further facilitates tracking of such directives. congressional directives in the system. This process allows the system to  produce reports on such directives for review by program managers, as  needed.
The Navy’s financial management system is the Program Budget  Information System that tracks congressional directives. These directives  are tagged and then monitored during execution.
The Washington Allotment Accounting System is the financial accounting  system used by DISA that provides information on the funding execution  of congressional directives. Funding is monitored at the program level by  DISA’s Home Team. According to DISA officials, congressional directives  are assigned a project code that is linked to the funding documents, such  as contracting vehicles, and that code allows DISA to determine that  funding for a directive has been spent.
DTRA’s financial accounting system is the Centralized Accounts and  Financial Resources Management System. According to DTRA officials,  congressional directives are given a work unit code in the accounting  system that provides the status of funds for these directives through  execution.
Furthermore, Navy and Air Force officials provided examples of initiatives  intended to streamline the process for tracking the status of congressional  directives.
According to a Navy official, the Navy’s Enterprise Resource Planning  System is part of its ongoing business transformation effort, which, among  other improvements, is intended to enhance its capability to track  congressional directives. Through this integrated system, the Navy plans  to include a code that identifies congressional directives through its  accounting system.
The Air Force Research Lab has developed a process for tracking  congressional directives. The lab set up separate account codes, called  Emergency and Special Program Codes, to identify the funding that has  been allocated for each directive. According to Air Force officials, they are  considering a similar tracking model for Air Force-wide implementation. the funding status for the list of congressional directives. Officials we  interviewed from the six components said that once funding has been  distributed to the program offices, they do not follow up to determine  whether the directives are implemented.
OMB’s Web site for fiscal year 2005 earmarks did not provide a means to  include the implementation status of individual earmarks. According to  DOD officials, DOD has asked OMB to include another field that would  show the implementation or completion status of congressional earmarks  in OMB’s database to facilitate tracking in the future. This field will require  DOD components to update information on the Web site beyond the OSD  Comptroller’s initial posting of data.
DOD does not have a routine procedure for reporting to Congress on the  progress being made on individual directives. According to DOD officials,  components respond to individual congressional inquiries regarding the  status of individual directives. In addition, the legislative liaison  coordinates and oversees DOD responses to congressional inquiries on  congressional directives as they are received.
section_title: DOD Officials’ Views on Trends and Impact of Congressional Directives
paragraphs: We interviewed DOD officials who had responsibility for budgeting,  financial management, and legislative issues related to congressional  directives from six components. Some of the officials stated that they had  only been in their positions for a short time and therefore could not  comment on the trends and impact of directives on their budget and  programs. However, others provided views on how congressional  directives affect budget and program execution. Anecdotally, they offered  the following views:    According to OSD officials, they have not maintained data on whether the  number of congressional directives has increased or decreased over time.  However, two military service officials commented that in their view there  has been an increase in the number of such directives.
Congressional directives are viewed as tasks to be implemented and  are opportunities to enhance their mission requirements through  additional funding in areas that would not have been priority areas  because of budget constraints.
Congressional directives can sometimes place restrictions on the  ability to retire some programs and to invest in others. Restrictions  have an effect on the budget because they require the components to  support an activity that was not in the budget.
There has always been a feeling that the billions of dollars of  congressional directives must come from somewhere, but it is not  possible to determine whether any specific directive resulted in  reducing funding for another program.
Congressional directives could tend to displace “core” programs, which  according to a DOD official, are programs for which DOD has  requested funding in its budget submission.
Additional time and effort are required to manage the increasing  number of congressional directives.
Program execution of congressional directives is delayed in some cases  as efforts are made to identify congressional intent.
The process for identifying the purposes and objectives of a  congressional directive was significantly streamlined in the fiscal year  2008 defense appropriations bill, and it is now easier to determine the  source of a directive.
section_title: Section 3: Department of Energy
paragraphs: The Department of Energy’s (DOE) mission is to promote energy security  and scientific and technological innovation, maintain and secure the  nation’s nuclear weapons capability, and ensure the cleanup of the nuclear  and hazardous waste from more than 60 years of weapons production.  DOE’s nine program offices focus on accomplishing various aspects of this  mission. We reviewed documentation and interviewed officials in the  Office of Budget, which is within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,  and four DOE program offices: the National Nuclear Security  Administration (NNSA), Office of Science, Office of Energy Efficiency and  Renewable Energy (EERE), and Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy  Reliability.
subsections: section_title: Definition DOE Used for Identifying and Tracking Congressional Directives
paragraphs: Since 2005 DOE has generally defined congressional directives, which it  refers to as earmarks, as funding designated for projects in an  appropriations act or accompanying conference or committee reports that  are not requested in the President’s Budget. These congressional  directives specify the recipient, the recipient’s location, and the dollar  amount of the award and are awarded without competition. DOE officials  said that this definition does not include money appropriated over and  above the department’s budget request (also known as “plus ups”) or  program direction contained in the act or report language because the  department can still develop projects and compete them in following this  direction. However, before fiscal year 2005 some DOE program offices  considered program direction in committee reports, such as language  requesting more research in a certain area, to be earmarks.
section_title: DOE’s Process for Identifying and Categorizing Congressional Directives
paragraphs: Officials from DOE’s Office of Budget and program offices separately  review the appropriations act and accompanying conference and  committee reports to identify and categorize congressional directives by  program office. These processes are not recorded in written policy but  have generally been in place since fiscal year 2005, according to DOE  officials. Once the staff of the Office of Budget and each program office  develop their lists, they work together to reconcile any differing  interpretations of the act and report language to produce a single list.  Program office staff make the final determination on whether a particular  provision should be considered a congressional directive. During the  course of the fiscal year, this list may change as the Office of Budget or a  program office learns more about the intent of the appropriations  committee responsible for the direction.
The process for identifying and categorizing congressional directives has  changed somewhat since OMB issued instructions on earmarks in 2007.  According to DOE Office of Budget officials, OMB’s January 2007  definition of earmarks differed from DOE’s definition, and applying OMB’s  definition somewhat increased the number of earmarks the department  reported to OMB for fiscal year 2005. For example, DOE budget officials  said that OMB’s definition of earmarks includes money specified for a  particular DOE laboratory, while DOE’s definition does not because DOE  maintains some level of control over project objectives and outcomes at  these laboratories. These budget officials also said that DOE is planning to  adopt OMB’s definition beginning in fiscal year 2008 to identify earmarks  to make this process of developing a list of earmarks more uniform.
section_title: DOE’s Process for Tracking, Implementing, and Reporting on Congressional Directives
paragraphs: research or demonstration projects under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.  They also prepare a Determination for Non-Competitive Financial  Assistance to explain why the award will not be competed—a document  that requires approval by the relevant program Assistant Secretary. Once  these paperwork requirements have been met and a financial assistance  agreement (grant or cooperative agreement) is awarded, the recipient can  begin withdrawing funds from an account set up for the project or submit  requests for reimbursements. During the course of the project, the  recipient must submit progress reports and a final report to program  officials.
Contract management staff in each of the four program offices use  administrative databases to track each of their projects, including  congressional directives. They use these databases to help manage  workload for project officers and to keep track of documentation sent to  and received from recipients. Specifically, EERE tracks each of its  congressional directives through an Internet-based database. The other  three DOE program offices maintain separate, less formal spreadsheets on  the congressional directives for their specific programs. These  spreadsheets contain background information, such as the project’s  purpose, dollar amount, and recipient. These spreadsheets are not part of  a larger DOE tracking system. In addition, the program offices do not  prepare regular reports on congressional directives and generally only  follow up on the status of a particular congressional directive if they  receive an inquiry from the appropriations committee. DOE Budget Office  officials told us that the departmentwide accounting system, the Standard  Accounting and Reporting System, cannot generate reports specifically on  congressional directives for the department. This is because DOE’s  program offices differ in the way they assign accounting codes to  congressional directives. For example, while EERE assigns an individual  accounting code to each directive, NNSA generally does not. recipient of congressional directives in prior years that sought continued  funding in fiscal year 2007 to submit an application for a formal merit  review by the department because (1) the resolution directed all federal  departments (including DOE) to disregard fiscal year 2006 congressional  directives, cutting off funding for any multiyear directives from previous  years, and (2) no committee reports, which are the primary source of the  department’s congressional directives, accompanied the continuing  resolution. As a result of this policy, program officials from the Office of  Science told us that they received few applications for continued funding  in fiscal year 2007. The department funded substantially fewer  congressional directives compared to previous years.
section_title: DOE Officials’ Views on Trends and Impact of Congressional Directives
paragraphs: DOE officials stated that through fiscal year 2006 the number of  congressional directives had increased, and that this growth limited the  ability of certain program offices to develop and implement their strategic  goals. DOE officials said that the number of congressional directives  began a steady rise in the late 1990s that continued through fiscal year  2006. As noted earlier, they said that because of the continuing resolution  there were far fewer projects in fiscal year 2007 that were associated with  congressional directives. In terms of the types of congressional directives  awarded since the late 1990s, DOE officials from two program offices said  that there were “hot topics” that garnered attention at certain times. For  example, an official from EERE—which had the highest dollar value of  congressional directives among DOE program offices—told us that there  were directives in recent years to fund fuel cell research at specific  facilities.
DOE program officials reported that implementing congressional  directives imposed a high administrative burden. For example, many  officials reported that it takes longer to process and award congressional  directives because DOE personnel need to educate some recipients on  DOE’s processes, such as how to submit an application and comply with  DOE’s reporting requirements and the applicability of cost-sharing  requirements. To help address this issue, EERE invites all recipients of  congressional directives to a presentation at DOE headquarters for an  overview of the process.
EERE and the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability said  that they were not appropriated additional dollars to fund congressional  directives. These program officials told us that their ability to accomplish  their strategic goals has been limited because congressional directives  make up a large percentage of their budget and it is often difficult to align  the outcomes of congressional directives with these goals.
section_title: Section 4: Department of Transportation: Highways and Transit
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation (DOT) implements and administers  most federal transportation policies through its 10 operating  administrations. These operating administrations are generally organized  by mode and include highways and transit. The operating administrations  are responsible for independently managing their programs and budgets to  carry out their goals as well as those of the department. As such, DOT has  delegated the responsibility for identifying, categorizing, tracking, and  reporting on congressional directives to its operating administrations.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for the  highway program, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is  responsible for the transit program. While FHWA and FTA carry out some  activities directly, they, like many other DOT operating administrations, do  not have direct control over the vast majority of the activities they fund  through grants, such as constructing transportation projects. The  recipients of transportation funds, such as state departments of  transportation, are responsible for implementing most transportation  programs and congressional directives. The federal highway and transit  programs are typically funded through multiyear authorization acts, such  as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A  Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and its predecessor, the Transportation  Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). These authorization acts, which  are subject to the annual appropriations process, set the upper funding  limit for the federal highway and transit programs. Both the authorization  and appropriations acts contain congressional directives for the federal  highway and transit programs. See figure 2 for additional information on  the mission and organizational structure of FHWA and FTA.
Section 4: Department of Transportation:  Highways and Transit FHWA provides financial and technical support to states and localities for constructing,  improving, and preserving the national highway system through its headquarters office  and 52 federal-aid division offices (division offices). Division offices are located in every  state, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and provide front-line  delivery assistance in the areas of highway transportation and safety services.
FTA supports locally planned and operated mass transit systems throughout the United  States through its headquarters office and 10 regional offices. The regional offices work  with local transit officials in developing and processing grant allocations, providing  technical assistance, and monitoring projects.
subsections: section_title: Definitions FHWA and FTA Used for Identifying and Tracking Congressional Directives
paragraphs: DOT’s definition of congressional directives, which it refers to as  earmarks, has remained generally consistent over a number of years and  mirrors OMB’s definition. Although DOT has not issued guidance on the  definition of earmarks to its operating administrations, DOT officials said  that they expect the operating administrations to follow OMB’s definition.  Although FHWA’s and FTA’s definitions are generally consistent with  OMB’s definition, there are a few differences, specifically:    FHWA defines earmarks as designations that specify a recipient, purpose,  and total funding amount. FHWA officials told us that they consider their  definition narrower in scope than OMB’s definition because OMB does not  require an earmark to contain all three elements (i.e., recipient, purpose,  and total funding amount). FHWA distinguishes between statutory  designations that are binding on the agency and nonstatutory designations  identified in congressional reports that are not binding on the agency.  FHWA officials did not change their definition of earmarks after the  release of OMB’s guidance in 2007. FHWA officials told us that they  honored fiscal year 2007 statutory designations and handled nonstatutory  designations in accordance with the OMB guidance. definition would capture New Starts projects, which are typically  designated in both the President’s Budget and legislation. OMB’s definition  would not capture the New Starts projects, if the projects and funding  levels designated by Congress match the projects and funding levels  designated in the President’s Budget. FTA officials did not change their  definition of earmarks after the release of OMB’s guidance in 2007.
section_title: FHWA and FTA Processes for Identifying and Categorizing Congressional Directives
paragraphs: DOT has delegated the responsibility for identifying and categorizing  congressional directives to its operating administrations. FHWA has  further delegated the responsibility for identifying and categorizing  congressional directives to its program offices. For example, the Office of  Infrastructure is responsible for identifying congressional directives in the  High Priority Projects program—which falls under this office’s purview.  When identifying congressional directives, FHWA categorizes them as  statutory, nonstatutory, or hybrids. apportionments and allocations. Both FHWA and FTA officials told us  that they comply with nonstatutory congressional directives that meet  eligibility requirements to the extent possible—although they are not  required to do so.
section_title: FHWA and FTA Processes for Tracking, Implementing, and Reporting on Congressional Directives
paragraphs: FHWA uses an electronic system to track congressional directives.  FHWA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer and program offices  collaborate to track most congressional directives. Staff in FHWA’s Office  of the Chief Financial Officer enter projects into the tracking system after  receiving requests from program offices for project identification  numbers. Once congressional directives are entered into the system, they  are not tracked separately from other projects, such as those funded by  formula. The program offices then send memorandums to FHWA division  offices to notify them of the total amount of funds available for each  project. Officials from FHWA division offices and state departments of  transportation with whom we spoke have access to FHWA’s system and  may also track congressional directives using their own systems. Officials  in these offices said that they also maintain their own tracking systems to  improve their staff’s and the public’s access to data and to corroborate  data in the federal tracking system. was added to the system in 2006, in part, to track what they described as  the growing number of congressional directives.
FHWA and FTA do not typically implement congressionally directed  projects. Rather, they provide funds through grants, and state and local  agencies generally implement the highway and transit congressional  directives in carrying out their programs. Specifically, FHWA division  offices and FTA regional offices administer and obligate funds for  projects, including congressionally directed projects, to grant recipients  and respond to questions from recipients on issues related to eligibility  and transferability, among other things. In turn, the grant recipients  implement congressional directives. Figure 3 illustrates the processes used  by FHWA and FTA to identify, track, and implement congressional  directives. “clarification letters” that are periodically sent to DOT from congressional  committees. These letters are jointly signed by the House and Senate  appropriations subcommittees and provide clarification on how Congress  would like to see directed funds used. DOT provides the responsible  operating administrations, such as FHWA or FTA, with these letters and  coordinates responses on whether the operating administration can  comply with the request. In addition to responding to specific requests  from congressional committees, DOT also communicates some general  funding information on congressional directives to Congress. For example,  as required by law, DOT notifies the relevant House and Senate  Committees prior to announcing a discretionary grant, letter of intent, or  full funding grant agreement totaling $1 million or more. In addition, FTA  reports to Congress at the end of each fiscal year on all projects with  unobligated funds that have reached the end of their availability period.
section_title: FHWA and FTA Officials’ Views on Trends and Impact of Congressional Directives
paragraphs: FHWA officials, as well as officials from the state departments of  transportation with whom we spoke, stated that the number and value of  directives, notably high-priority projects, increased substantially from  TEA-21 (1998 to 2003) to SAFETEA-LU (2005 to 2009). FHWA officials  provided documentation that showed that the number of High Priority  Projects listed in SAFETEA-LU was almost triple that of the number of  projects listed in TEA-21. FTA officials also stated that the number and  value of authorization and appropriations directives in transit programs  increased between TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU.
SAFETEA-LU. FHWA officials further noted that congressional directives  can be inconsistent with states’ transportation priorities, particularly if the  congressional directives are for projects outside of their statewide  transportation programs. Officials from one state department of  transportation noted that although many congressional directives in  SAFETEA-LU were requested by the state, about one-third of the  congressional directives did not have statewide benefits or serve an  eligible highway purpose.
A senior FTA official also noted that congressional directives may result in  the displacement of projects that FTA views as being a higher priority and  ready for implementation with projects that are a lower priority for FTA.  For example, some New Starts congressional directives provide funding  for projects that are not yet ready for implementation, delaying the  implementation of FTA’s higher-priority projects that are scheduled to  receive federal appropriations.
FTA officials said that roughly 85 to 90 percent of the congressional  directives received in the New Starts program are for projects that FTA  has recommended for funding in its budget. One FTA official also  acknowledged that some congressional directives provide funding for  projects that FTA has identified as priorities in its research program and  were included in the President’s Budget, although the majority of  directives were not requested and displaced research activities FTA  identified as being of higher priority. funding in a merit-based selection process. FTA officials also told us that  congressional directives sometimes provide funding for projects that  would otherwise be considered ineligible, such as directives to construct  parking garages with transit funding.
Officials from FHWA division offices and FTA noted that in some cases,  the language of congressional directives makes it difficult to implement  projects. For example, an official from one FHWA division office noted  that some congressional directives for the state contained language that  was either too specific and was therefore inconsistent with the purposes  and objectives of the local sponsor or contained language that made the  project ineligible because it did not meet certain federal regulations.  According to agency officials, in these cases, a technical corrections bill  must be passed before the projects can be implemented, delaying  implementation of the projects.
Officials we spoke with from three state departments of transportation  also noted that inflexibilities in the use of congressionally directed funds  limit the states’ ability to implement projects and efficiently use  transportation funds by, for example, providing funding for projects that  are not yet ready for implementation or providing insufficient funds to  complete particular projects.
An official from one state department of transportation noted that  although congressional directives can create administrative challenges,  they often represent funding that the state may not have otherwise  received.
FHWA and FTA officials noted that the growth in the number of  congressional directives has increased the time and staff resources needed  to identify and track projects. For example, FHWA officials noted that  relative to their proportion of the budget, they devote a higher percentage  of time to administering congressional directives than other projects.  Similarly, officials from FHWA division offices stated that they spend a  substantial amount of time working with the state to determine whether  projects meet federal eligibility requirements, respond to questions of  transferability, and provide assistance to the state for projects that were  not included in their state transportation plan. FTA officials noted that  some recipients of a congressional directive are unaware of the directive  and may decide to use the grant for another purpose, making it difficult to  obligate funds within the 3-year availability period.
section_title: Section 5: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Programs
paragraphs: Through its Civil Works programs, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  (Corps) investigates, develops, and maintains water and related  environmental resources throughout the country to meet the agency’s  navigation, flood control, and ecosystem restoration missions.  Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Corps has eight regional divisions  and 38 districts that carry out its domestic civil works responsibilities.  Figure 4 shows the Corps’ divisions and districts.
subsections: section_title: Definition Corps Civil Works Used for Identifying and Tracking Congressional Directives
paragraphs: The Corps has identified congressional directives for many years for  project implementation purposes. The Corps has used the term adds to  identify some congressionally directed projects. According to Corps  budget officials, congressional directives are defined by the agency as any  of the following changes to requests made in the President’s Budget:    an increase or decrease in funding levels for a budgeted project,  the funding of a project that was not included in the President’s Budget,  and    any project that has language in a committee or conference report or in  statute that restricts or directs the Corps on how to spend funds.
Corps officials told us that this definition is consistent with the definition  of earmarks in OMB’s 2007 guidance, except that an earmark is a  restriction or specification on the use of funds, while a congressional  directive can be simply an increase or decrease in funding for a budgeted  project. For project implementation purposes, the Corps has continued to  identify congressional directives in the same manner as it did before OMB  issued its guidance. that a separate effort was needed because (1) OMB required information  that was not available from the Corps’ normal process for identifying  congressional directives and (2) the Corps had only a short time to  respond to the request. The program manager responsible for responding  to OMB identified the fiscal year 2005 earmarks using appropriations bills  and conference reports. To complete the OMB request, the program  manager supplemented this information with some project-level details,  such as the name of the nonfederal sponsor, which the manager obtained  from the relevant districts, according to Corps officials. These officials  also said that the results of the program manager’s work were reviewed by  Corps managers before the information was submitted to OMB.
section_title: Corps Civil Works’ Process for Identifying and Categorizing Congressional Directives
paragraphs: The Corps identifies all congressional directives included in  appropriations statutes, bills, and related conference reports each year  and routinely makes this information available to its headquarters and  division and district staff, according to Corps officials. With the assistance  of the district offices, officials in each of the Corps’ divisions develop  spreadsheets identifying the congressional directives in their region by  examining the language in appropriations committee reports, the  conference report, and the appropriations statute and comparing this  language to the President’s Budget. According to Corps budget officials,  most congressional directives receive no special attention because they  are generally categorized as being in compliance with the Administration’s  budget policy and the Corps’ policy (i.e., increased funding provided to  projects included in the President’s Budget). not provide the nonfederal sponsor with credit for work completed before  the nonfederal sponsor enters into an agreement with the Corps.
For the congressional directives that require additional discussion on how  the Corps will implement the projects, the divisions prepare fact sheets.  Table 1 shows the various types of information provided with each fact  sheet. submits all prepared fact sheets with the recommended implementation  plans to Corps headquarters and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of  the Army for Civil Works for their review. Each division then has a  teleconference with these headquarters officials to discuss and approve  the plans. Most implementation plans are completed at this stage.
For the fact sheets with unresolved issues, each division holds a  videoconference with officials from headquarters and the Assistant  Secretary’s office. Attendees for each videoconference include senior  executives from the Corps and the Office of the Deputy Assistant  Secretary of the Army for Management and Budget. After this  videoconference, each division incorporates changes to its  implementation plan and resubmits it for final approval by headquarters  and the Assistant Secretary.
Corps headquarters releases the associated funding for all projects to the  districts immediately after the agency receives its appropriation. Corps  officials said that while the implementation plans are being discussed for  projects with unresolved issues, the districts may obligate funds for  certain activities that do not conflict with Administration budget policy or  Corps policy. Once the implementation plans are completed, the districts  will continue to execute remaining aspects of the plans.
However, according to a Corps official, there are a few instances in which  the Corps does not execute the project. These instances may occur, for  example, when (1) funds are appropriated for the project, although funds  had not previously been authorized; (2) the project was authorized, but the  authorized spending limit had already been reached; or (3) the Corps was  directed to continue a feasibility study, but the agency found that the least  costly alternative was to relocate the affected facilities and the local  sponsor was not interested in continuing the study. In such situations, the  districts are generally responsible for informing individual Members of  Congress about the decisions affecting their respective jurisdictions, and  Corps headquarters notifies the relevant congressional committees.
section_title: Corps Civil Works’ Process for Tracking, Implementing, and Reporting on Congressional Directives
paragraphs: According to Corps officials, the Corps does not have a separate approach  for tracking, implementing, and reporting on projects generated from  congressional directives. Instead, all projects are managed in the same  manner for tracking, implementation, and reporting purposes. The  procedures are detailed in a manual that establishes the Corps’ project  management practices. For example, all Corps projects require a written  project management plan that details how the project will be  accomplished. A Corps official stated that the process does not include a  distinct method for reporting on the status of directives to Congress or any  of its committees or members.
section_title: Corps Civil Works Officials’ Views on Trends and Impact of Congressional Directives
paragraphs: The Corps does not analyze trends in congressional directives, and there  was no consensus among the officials we spoke with on trends in the  number of these directives. While some Corps officials told us that they  believe the overall number of congressional directives has remained at  about the same level for the last decade, another Corps official told us that  he believes the number of congressional directives has increased  throughout the decade. This official stated that in recent years Congress  has added a number of projects that the Corps labels as “environmental  infrastructure projects” that are outside the scope of the Corps’ historic  missions. Those projects included building sewage treatment plants and  water supply facilities, revitalizing local waterfronts, and maintaining  waterways primarily for local recreation. The Chief of the Programs  Integration Division, who is responsible for the Civil Works budget,  estimated that these types of congressional directives are a small portion  of the Corps’ Civil Works program budget.
If the Corps categorizes a congressional directive as being inconsistent  with the Administration or Corps policy, the Corps will not budget for the  project in subsequent fiscal years. Officials said that they believe this  could potentially increase the Corps’ backlog of incomplete projects.
Congressional directives are more difficult to plan and schedule for  execution in advance compared with projects included in the President’s  Budget. Officials said that this is because it is more difficult to develop an  accurate project timeline because of the greater uncertainty about future  funding levels for these projects.
Congressional directives may make it more difficult for the Corps to  predict and manage full-time equivalent (FTE) levels and allocations from  year to year. Even though congressional directives increase the Corps’  budget authority, the Corps generally establishes FTE levels using the  President’s Budget much earlier in the year. Because the number and  regional focus of congressional directives can change from year to year,  the Corps faces some uncertainty about whether it will have adequate staff  in the right locations to manage the project workload of each district in  response to the changing nature of the congressional directives.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to identify for selected agencies (1) the process for  identifying and categorizing congressional directives; (2) the process for  tracking, implementing, and reporting on congressional directives; and   (3) agency officials’ views on the trends and impact of congressional  directives. The selected agencies were the Department of Defense (DOD),  the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Transportation  (DOT), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works programs  (Corps). These agencies cover a range of characteristics concerning  congressional directives, including the number of congressional directives.
DOD received the largest number of reported congressional directives and  made up 55 percent of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2006.  We focused our review on the relationship between the Office of the  Secretary of Defense’s Comptroller and the components (i.e., military  services, defense agencies, and combatant commands) and how the  components internally process and account for congressional directives.  Specifically, we focused on the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force;  the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Defense Threat  Reduction Agency; and the U.S. Special Operations Command.
DOE generally receives congressional directives in reports that  accompany annual appropriations acts. Congressional directives are  spread across DOE’s programs, with some programs reporting that  congressional directives make up a large portion of their budgets. We  focused our review on the following program offices that oversee the  majority of DOE’s congressional directives: the National Nuclear Security  Administration (NNSA), the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable  Energy (EERE), the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability,  and the Office of Science.
DOT receives congressional directives contained in multiyear  transportation authorization acts. We focused our review on the surface  transportation programs administered by the Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)  because of the level of funding authorized in the current surface  transportation authorizing legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,  Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),  and the number of congressional directives contained in this legislation for  these programs.
The Corps’ Civil Works programs maintain a wide range of water  resources projects, including flood protection, navigation, or other water- related infrastructure. Under some definitions of directives, the Corps’  appropriations could be characterized as consisting largely of directives.
We assessed the reliability of the agencies’ data on congressional  directives tracking by speaking with knowledgeable officials using a  common set of questions about their past and current definitions of  congressional directives for purposes of identifying and tracking such  directives. We learned that the definitions—both across and, sometimes,  within agencies—were not consistent. Therefore the data cannot be used  for making comparisons across agencies or showing trends over time, nor  can the data from different agencies be aggregated.
This review provides information on the processes described to us by  officials at the selected agencies. The information provided is not  generalizable beyond the four agencies. In addition, we did not evaluate  the agencies’ processes for compliance with the Office of Management and  Budget’s (OMB) guidance on earmarks, memorandum M-07-09.
To identify the selected agencies’ processes for identifying and  categorizing congressional directives, we first had to determine how they  identified directives (i.e., how they defined them) as well as whether the  definition changed after the January 25, 2007, issuance of the OMB  guidance.
We determined the extent to which the agencies had established processes  for identifying and categorizing congressional directives (e.g., by  organization, program, location, statute or report, type of directive, or type  of impact). To do so, we reviewed the selected agencies’ policies and  guidance for identifying and categorizing congressional directives,  including the source of these directives before fiscal year 2007 (e.g.,  statute or conference report). We also interviewed knowledgeable agency  officials in budget, program, and congressional affairs offices.
At DOD, we interviewed officials from the Office of the Secretary of  Defense Comptroller’s office and budget officials from components to  obtain information on how congressional directives are implemented as  well as to obtain their views on the impact of congressional directives on  their budget and program execution. We also interviewed officials  responsible for legislative affairs who support budget officials in  determining congressional intent of congressional directives.
At DOE, we spoke with officials from NNSA, the Office of Science, EERE,  the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, and the Office of  Budget in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. We also spoke with  officials from some of the site offices that help the program offices  implement and track congressional directives.
At DOT, we spoke with officials from the Office of the Secretary, FHWA,  and FTA. Because implementation is handled at the division and state  levels, we also interviewed officials from FHWA division offices and state  departments of transportation in Alaska, Florida, and Maine. We selected  the division offices and states to interview based on the number of  congressional directives in SAFETEA-LU as well as the level of oversight  and involvement of those division offices and states in the administration  of congressional directives.
At the Corps, we spoke with the Chief of the Programs Integration  Division, who is responsible for the Civil Works budget, and other officials  responsible for identifying earmarks for OMB and congressional directives  for the Corps’ routine management process.
To identify the selected agencies’ processes for tracking, implementing,  and reporting on congressional directives, we reviewed agency documents  related to available data or databases used for tracking and reporting on  congressional directives. We also reviewed agency guidance or written  protocols to demonstrate actions taken to implement congressional  directives. In addition, we also interviewed the relevant agency officials  from the units of the selected agencies we previously discussed.
To obtain their views on the trends and impact of congressional directives  on agency programs, we spoke with knowledgeable agency officials from  the selected agencies using similar questions. Because we assessed  agencies’ data on congressional directives to be insufficiently reliable for  the purposes of comparing across agencies and showing trends over time,  we could not analyze trend data.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts
subsections: section_title: Agency-Specific Contacts