Methods of Federal Funding > Earmarks > Myths and Facts

Myths and Facts

1). Congressional earmarks are awarded without the same budgetary review as other spending.

Earmarks satisfy the statutory and/or programmatic requirements of the particular appropriations account through which the earmark is funded. After the Appropriations bill is signed into law, the earmark recipient works with the federal agency that administers the earmarked funds to demonstrate how the earmark meets the budgetary requirements of the program.  After release of the funds, the earmark recipients are further subject to the same oversight standards required of recipients of competitive grants. 

2). Most earmarks are slipped into legislation at the last minute, once debate has ceased.

While it is technically possible for Members of Congress to add funding for earmarks at the last minute, the procedural rules of the House and Senate discourage this practice. In the Senate, for example, 60 senators must agree to consider a final version of legislation and accompanying report if it includes any matter not included in the original House or Senate versions of a bill

As evidenced by last year’s Environmental Protection Agency funding bill, for example, adding projects at the last possible minute is rarely done. Out of the 285 water infrastructure improvement projects that Members of Congress funded, only four were added during the final drafting stage of the bill. Moreover, Members of Congress still had the opportunity to vote yes or no on the bill that contained these four additional projects.

3). Members of Congress may introduce earmarks anonymously, making it difficult for constituents to follow the actions of his/her legislator.

In both chambers, the sponsors of congressional earmarks that are included in authorization and appropriations legislation are made public. There is a direct reference to the earmark sponsor noted in the actual text of the legislation, conference report, committee report, or explanatory statement.

In addition, the House and Senate require additional actions for their respective Members:

Senate – Members of the Senate are required to submit a written letter to the Senate Committee on Appropriations stating that neither the Senator nor their immediate family have any pecuniary interest in any requested congressionally directed spending. These letters are posted on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s website 48 hours prior to the Committee markup of an annual spending bill.

House – Similar to the Senate, House Members are required to submit written earmark requests to the House Committee on Appropriations that include name of the House Member requesting the earmark, location of the earmark, earmark purpose, and a certification that neither the Representative nor the Representative’s spouse has a financial interest in the project. Only request letters for projects that receive funding are open to the public in paper form.

4). Getting rid of earmarks would reduce spending and save taxpayers money.

Earmarks, in large measure, do not create additional federal spending.  In most instances, earmarks merely help guide how a small fraction, historically less than 2 percent, of overall funding in a particular account is directed.  For most programs, if Congress does not specify how dollars are to be distributed through directives, such as the earmarks, the federal agencies are left to allocate the funds as they deem best.

In fiscal year 2008, Congress did earmark funding for local projects, but also held total discretionary spending to the levels requested by the president.  Moreover, when Congress did not earmark funding for fiscal year 2007, and instead left these funding decisions to the Administration, there was no reduction in federal spending - not one dollar less; the agencies determined how the monies were all federal funds were allocated rather than Congress sharing in directing a small fraction of overall spending.