NEWS OF THE WEEK
SCIENCE FUNDING: House drops 10 pork-barrel· projects
T
he House of Representatives has taken an unprecedented step in the continuing battle over "pork-barrel science." It has voted, 250 to 104, to deny $94.8 million in funding for 10 academic research facilities—earmarks—listed in the final House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 1993 energy and water development appropriation bill. These projects were inserted by the conference committee without having first been approved by either the House or Senate. At press time, the Senate had yet to act on the conference report. But given Congress' scheduled Oct. 3 adjournment, there is little time for a fight over the earmarks, and the House action may well be the final word. The vote had as much to do with Congressional prerogatives as it did with "academic pork." But it may well mark the beginning of increased scrutiny and oversight of Congressional earmarks for research and research-related facilities, which cost taxpayers some $2.5 billion from 1980 through 1992, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The fight to delete the projects' funding was led by Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D.Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology. Brown pointed out to the House that there was no money for any of the 10 projects in the House-passed appropriation bill, and only $300,000 to study them in the Senatepassed bill. Yet, they emerged from the conference committee with funds totaling $95 million. Furthermore, he said that seven of the eight states in which the projects are located have important members on the Committee on Appropriations in either the House or the Senate. "This process by which unreviewed, unrequested projects are inserted into the conference ... is wrong," Brown argued. "This process denies the members of the House who are not on the Appropriations Committee any opportunity to 6
SEPTEMBER 28,1992 C&EN
California," Myers continues. "It is going to be spent, except it is going to be spent somewhere else in the country," and will go instead to Number of academic $ Millions elite universities. projects funded 1800 8001 However, the idea that Congressional earmarks for academic research facilities provide a chance for 600 600 "have-nots" to get a more equal share may not be true. The CRS study, requested by Brown, found 400 400 that of the $2.5 billion earmarked for some 234 colleges and universities for the 1980 through 1992 fiscal 200 200 years, nearly a third of the funds were distributed to 10 institutions, whereas more than half went to 20 1982 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 institutions. The top 10 recipients of. Note: All numbers are estimates; fiscal years. Source: Congressional Research Service those earmarked funds—Iowa State' University, University of Alaska, Oregon Health Sciences Center, Louisisecure worthy projects through the nor- ana State University, University of West mal processes of authorization, peer re- Virginia, University of Hawaii, Universiview, and so on." Brown's amendment ty of Rochester, Florida State University, does not delete the $95 million from the University of Alabama, and Boston Uniappropriation bill, but does require that versity—were all among the top 100 rethe 10 projects be specifically authorized cipients of federal R&D funds in 1990. in legislation before money can be apMoreover, the study says, nearly a third propriated for them. Then they would of all earmarked dollars went to five have to be funded through an agency states, whereas half went to 10 states. The process that awards grants on a peer-re- top 10 state recipients of federal R&D viewed competitive basis. funds from all sources in fiscal 1990 obIt is that very process that advocates tained nearly a third of all earmarked dolof Congressional earmarks for academic lars during the fiscal 1980-92 period. And research facilities object to. What peer re- three of the top five recipients of federal view really means, says Rep. John T. research dollars—Massachusetts, New Myers (R.-Ind.), ranking minority mem- York, and Pennsylvania—also are among ber of the Appropriations Subcommittee the top five beneficiaries of academic on Energy & Water Development, "is pork. 'To me," Brown says, "this does not that a group of college presidents, in seem like spreading the wealth. It seems most cases, or maybe professors get to- like double-dipping." gether and decide among themselves Earmark supporters also argue that earwhich universities will get the money. marks help make less prominent instituWhat we are doing here with your mon- tions more competitive in obtaining federey, the taxpayers' money, is deciding al research funds. "This also appears to be that these universities, which may not be a myth," notes Brown. The CRS study one of the 20 or 30 or 40 most prestigious shows that institutions that receive large universities in the country," will get the amounts of earmarked funding compete funding they need to do the job. no more effectively for peer-reviewed "We are not saving one penny by the funds after receiving the earmarks. amendment of the gentleman from Janice Long
Congressional earmarks for academic institutions soar
