Earmarks Disclosed by Congress: FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills
Released: 2010-04-16T00:00:00

Introduction

During 2007, both the House and the Senate established new earmark transparency procedures for their respective chambers. They provide for public disclosure of approved earmarks and the identification of their congressional sponsors, among other requirements. These procedures currently are contained in House Rule XXI, clause 9, and Senate Rule XLIV.

While the House rule requires disclosure of "congressional earmarks" and the Senate rule requires disclosure of "congressionally directed spending items," the terms are defined in the same way. Thus, this report uses the term "earmark" to encompass both a "congressional earmark" as used in the House rule and a "congressionally directed spending item" as used in the Senate rule. Under both chambers' rules, an earmark is a provision in legislation or report language that meets certain criteria. First, it is included primarily at the request of a Member. Second, it provides, authorizes, or recommends a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority (1) to an entity, or (2) to a specific state, locality, or congressional district. However, the rules exclude funding set-asides that are selected through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.

This report provides information on the earmarks disclosed by the House and Senate for the 12 regular, annual appropriations bills for each of FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010. For these bills, a list of earmarks was typically included in the explanatory statement accompanying the final version of the bill, under the heading "Disclosure of Earmarks and Congressionally Directed Spending Items." The abbreviations in Table 1 are used to reference the bills.

The appropriations committees began publishing these disclosure lists in FY2008, the first year under the new rules. This report analyzes the data in the lists directly, without additions or deletions, as explained below. The disclosures typically identify the federal agency, project name, amount, and requester. In some cases, other information also has been included, such as an account within an agency, or the recipient, purpose, or location of the earmark.

For FY2008-FY2010, the explanatory statement for the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill states that neither the bill text nor the accompanying explanatory statement contain earmarks as defined in House and Senate rules. Consequently, most of the discussion in this report focuses on the other 11 appropriations bills, for which Congress disclosed earmarks for each fiscal year.

This report does not address earmarks disclosed for bills other than the 12 regular, annual appropriations bills for FY2008-FY2010. For example, it does not pertain to any earmarks disclosed for supplemental appropriations bills or for authorizing legislation.

Tabulations in this report reflect all earmarks in the FY2008-FY2010 disclosure lists for the 11 appropriations bills, regardless of what information is provided for each entry. For instance, no distinctions are drawn based on the indicated requester. Some of the items identify the requester as one or more Members, others note only the President, while still others indicate the President and Members. Similarly, the counts of earmarks include those items in the disclosure lists for which no funding level was indicated.

Observers of the budget process frequently focus on earmarks that were originated by Congress. However, earmarking is not solely a congressional activity. Observers also have identified earmarking conducted by the President and others in the executive branch during budget formulation and execution, both at their discretion and through interactions with Congress. There is no source that defines and comprehensively identifies executive branch earmarks. Nevertheless, some of the FY2008-FY2010 congressional disclosure lists identify earmarks as requested solely by the President, or by the President and one or more Members. A discussion of these earmarks disclosed for FY2010 is presented below in the section on " Congressionally Disclosed Earmarks Requested by the President ," and for FY2008-FY2010 in the section on " Recent Earmark Trends: FY2008 to FY2010 ."

The tabulations in this report reflect the value of the earmarks in the disclosure lists, although subsequent actions could have altered them. For instance, rescissions of funds might have reduced the amounts identified as earmarked. Additionally, some of the earmarks may not have been provided to recipients who did not comply with conditions or requirements.

The balance of this report provides data on the earmarks disclosed by Congress for the FY2008-FY2010 regular annual appropriations bills. First, a series of tables and graphs depicts data for FY2010, the most recent fiscal year for which data are available for all enacted appropriations bills. Second, another series of tables and graphs compares earmarks for FY2010 with earmarks for prior years back to FY2008, the first year for which Congress published earmark disclosure lists under chamber rules. The tables and graphs contain data on the number and dollar value of the earmarks disclosed for each appropriations bill. They also identify the portion of each bill's total appropriation and non-mandatory funding that was earmarked.

Data on Congressional Disclosure of Earmarks

Distribution of Earmarks in FY2010

In FY2010, Congress identified 11,320 earmarks worth $32.0 billion. About 1.5% of the total regular FY2010 appropriation was earmarked, 2.4% if mandatory appropriations are excluded ( Table 2 ).

Some appropriations bills account for more earmarks than others. About four-fifths (79%) of the 11,320 earmarks in FY2010 are in five of the 12 appropriations bills (8,896 earmarks in Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Defense, Transportation-HUD, and Commerce-Justice-Science). The Energy-Water bill contains the greatest number of FY2010 earmarks (2,293, about 20% of all earmarks; Figure 1 ).

The distribution of the value of earmarks is more concentrated, with about $27.5 billion, or 86%, of the value of earmarks in four of the appropriations bills (Military Construction-VA, Energy-Water, Defense, and Transportation-HUD). The Military Construction-VA bill contains the greatest value of FY2010 earmarks ($14.5 billion, about 45% of the combined value of earmarks; Figure 2 ).

Some appropriations bills account for fewer earmarks but have a greater share of the value, or vice versa. For example, Military Construction-VA is ranked sixth in the number of earmarks (with 7%), but is ranked first by the value of earmarks (with 45%). In contrast, five bills are ranked lower by the value of earmarks than their rank by number. Energy-Water is ranked first by number but second by value; Labor-HHS-Education is ranked second by number but sixth by value; Commerce-Justice-Science is ranked fifth by number but seventh by value; Interior is seventh by number but eighth by value, and Agriculture is eighth by number but tenth by value ( Figure 1 and Figure 2 ).

Earmarks as a Percentage of Appropriations in FY2010

Another measure of the magnitude of earmarks is the percentage of the appropriation that is earmarked. There are various types of appropriations totals, but perhaps the two most relevant for this comparison are the grand total and the total of non-mandatory appropriations ( Table 2 ).

Earmarks are predominantly, if not exclusively, found in discretionary accounts. All appropriations bills include discretionary spending, and some include mandatory spending. Discretionary spending supports a wide variety of activities. It is controlled by the appropriations acts, which are under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Mandatory spending primarily funds entitlement programs. It is controlled by the authorization (or legislative) acts, which are under the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees.

In addition, the Transportation-HUD bill separately identifies contract authority, which is included in these tables as non-mandatory appropriations. The difference between the total and non-mandatory appropriations can be large for some bills, such as Labor-HHS-Education (which has mandatory funds for Medicare and Medicaid, among other programs) and Agriculture (which has mandatory funds for food stamps and the farm commodity programs).

For all 12 FY2010 appropriations bills combined, 1.5% of the total value of regular appropriation is earmarked, and 2.4% of the non-mandatory appropriation is earmarked.

The percentages of regular FY2010 total appropriations that were earmarked ranged from 0% for the State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill to 16.9% for the Energy-Water appropriations bill ( Table 2 , Figure 3 ). However, for all of the bills except two (Energy-Water, and Military Construction-VA), the percentages of total appropriations that were earmarked are less than 3%.

When mandatory funds are excluded, the percentages earmarked can change significantly. For example, the percentage of the FY2010 total appropriation earmarked for Military Construction-VA is 7.9%, but it increases to 11.5% of the non-mandatory appropriation ( Table 2 , Figure 3 ). For Financial Services, the respective percentages are 2.4% and 4.3%; for Agriculture, 0.3% and 1.5%; and for Labor-HHS-Education, 0.1% and 0.6%.

Congressionally Disclosed Earmarks Requested by the President

House and Senate rules do not require congressional disclosure of presidentially requested earmarks. The disclosure lists for some bills, however, include the "President" as a requester. Table 3 presents the number and value of FY2010 earmarks in the disclosure lists that were requested by the President. It is not clear that Administration earmarks are defined or disclosed consistently across all appropriations bills. Thus, it is possible that there may be more presidentially requested earmarks than are reflected in Table 3 . The disclosure list for the FY2010 Financial Services bill also identified the Judiciary as a requester for five earmarks.

Nine of the 11 FY2010 appropriations bills with congressionally disclosed earmarks list the "President" (or the "Judiciary") as a requester of some earmarks, alone or with Members of Congress. The total across all appropriations bills in FY2010 is 2,039 earmarks worth $21.8 billion (18% of the total number and 68% of the total value). Only the Defense and Legislative Branch appropriations bills did not identify earmarks as requested by the President in FY2010.

The President is disclosed as the only requester (no Members of Congress are listed) for a subset of earmarks. The 12-bill total is 1,265 earmarks worth $9.5 billion (11% of the 11,320 total number and 30% of the $32.0 billion total value). The Energy-Water bill had 768 of these earmarks worth $2.0 billion; Military Construction-VA is next with 320 earmarks for $6.4 billion ( Figure 4 , Figure 5 ). The President (or the Judiciary) and Members of Congress jointly requested another subset of earmarks. The 12-bill total is 774 earmarks worth $12.4 billion (7% of the 11,320 total number and 39% of the $32.0 billion total value). The Energy-Water bill has 409 of these earmarks worth $2.7 billion, and the Military Construction-VA bill had 243 earmarks worth $7.0 billion ( Figure 4 , Figure 5 ).

The final subset of earmarks are those requested solely by Members of Congress. The total across all appropriations bills in FY2010 is 9,281 earmarks worth $10.2 billion (82% of the 11,320 total number and 32% of the $32.0 billion total value; Table 3 ). The Labor-HHS-Education, Defense, Transportation-HUD, and Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bills each had between 1,500 and 1,800 Member-only earmarks ( Figure 4 ). Among these, Defense accounted for $4.2 billion of the earmarks, followed next by Transportation-HUD with $1.2 billion of Member-only earmarks ( Figure 5 ).

As implied above, the vast majority of earmarks (82%) are Member-only earmarks, while the value of earmarks is more evenly split among the three categories of requesters. Specifically, the earmarks requested jointly by the President and Members accounted for 39% of the total earmark value, followed by Member-only requests with 32% of the value and President-only requests at 30% of the value.

The relatively large number and dollar value of presidentially requested earmarks for Military Construction-VA and Energy-Water reflect the practices of some agencies within these bills of requesting and managing funds at the project level. Specifically, the Department of Defense typically requests funds for individual military construction projects, and such requests are among those disclosed for the Military Construction-VA bill. Similarly, the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation typically request funds for specific agency projects, and these requests are among the earmarks disclosed for the Energy-Water bill.

Recent Earmark Trends: FY2008 to FY2010

From FY2008 to FY2010, the three years with disclosure lists, the number of appropriations earmarks decreased 12% to 11,320 (1,490 fewer earmarks). However, the value increased 11% to $32.0 billion (+$3.1 billion, Table 4 ). Over the same period, total appropriations increased by 31%. Thus, the percentage of the appropriations that was earmarked decreased in FY2010: 1.5% of the total appropriation (down from 1.8% in both FY2008 and FY2009) and 2.4% of the non-mandatory appropriation (down from 2.9% in both FY2008 and FY2009, Table 5 ).

Seven of the 11 bills with earmarks had a decrease in number, including the five bills accounting for 79% of the earmarks (Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Defense, Transportation-HUD, and Commerce-Justice-Science; Figure 6 ). Two of these bills (Transportation-HUD and Labor-HHS-Education) accounted for 68% of the decline in number (1,019 fewer earmarks). Four bills (Military Construction-VA, Interior-Environment, Homeland Security, and Financial Services) had an increase in the number (372 more earmarks).

Six of 11 bills had a decrease in the value of earmarks, subtotaling a $1.7 billion decline. Five bills (Military Construction-VA, Transportation-HUD, Financial Services, Interior-Environment, and Labor-HHS-Education) had an increase in the value of earmarks. The Military Construction-VA bill accounts for the magnitude of the increase in the value of earmarks, with a $4.5 billion (+45%) increase over two years ( Figure 7 ). Excluding Military Construction-VA, the value of earmarks for the remaining bills is down 7% (-$1.4 billion) in the two years since FY2008.

Trends in Earmarks as a Percentage of Appropriations

Table 5 is a multi-year version of Table 2 that contains data on the earmarked percentage of appropriations from FY2008 to FY2010, as well as the number and value of earmarks.

For each appropriations bill, the percentage of non-mandatory appropriations that was earmarked fell from FY2008 to FY2010 ( Figure 8 ). This result occurred despite growth in the value of earmarks in some bills, as discussed earlier, because total appropriations increased by over 30%. For most bills the decline in the percentage earmarked was consistent over the three years, but for three bills the highest percentage was in the middle year. Over all 12 appropriations bills, the percentage of non-mandatory appropriations that was earmarked fell from 2.9% in FY2008 to 2.4% in FY2010 ( Table 5 ).

Trends in Congressionally Disclosed Earmarks Requested by the President

Table 6 is a multi-year version of Table 3 that contains data on the number, value, and percentage of presidential earmarks in appropriations bills from FY2008 to FY2010. Figure 9 and Figure 10 are multi-year versions of the earlier figures ( Figure 4 and Figure 5 ) on presidential earmarks.

Both the number and value of earmarks requested solely by the President increased since FY2008. The number of such earmarks increased 54%, from 819 to 1,265, while the value increased 126%, from $4.2 billion to $9.5 billion. The increase in the number of President-only earmarks is counter to the decrease in the total number of earmarks over the FY2008-FY2010 period (discussed in Table 4 ). The 126% increase in the value of President-only earmarks notably exceeds the 11% increase in the total value of earmarks since FY2008.

Conversely, the number and value of earmarks requested solely by Members have decreased, by 17% and 19% respectively, from 11,117 earmarks worth $12.5 billion in FY2008 to 9,281 earmarks worth $10.2 billion in FY2010. This 17% decrease in the number of Member-only earmarks is a larger decrease than the 12% overall decrease in the number of earmarks from FY2008 to FY2010 ( Table 4 ). The 19% decrease in the value of Member-only earmarks is counter to the 11% increase in the total value of earmarks since FY2008.

The number and value of earmarks requested jointly by the President and Members of Congress were relatively more steady. The number of such earmarks fell 11% from 874 in FY2008 to 774 in FY2010, while the value of those earmarks rose 1% from $12.2 billion to $12.4 billion.

Even if Military Construction-VA earmarks are excluded, the trends are still similar. For the rest of the appropriations bills excluding Military Construction, the total number of earmarks requested solely by the President increased 36%, while the number of Member-only earmarks decreased 17%. In terms of the value of earmarks, the total value of earmarks requested solely by the President increased 70%, while the value of Member-only earmarks decreased 20%.