Banning Congressional Earmarks Would Cost Colleges Billions

Colleges stand to lose billions of dollars for research, facilities, and other purposes if Congressional leaders hold firm in their pledge to ban earmarks, the spending that individual members direct to their home states and favorite projects outside of the competitive processes.

Some of the biggest losers would be colleges in states whose lawmakers in Washington hold top positions on appropriations committees, and which have traditionally received substantial earmarks. In spending bills for the 2010 fiscal year, colleges in Texas, Mississippi, and California received the most Congressionally directed money for academic projects, according to an analysis of data by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

House Republicans, who will take control of their chamber in January after picking up 63 seats last month, have vowed to eliminate earmarks from appropriations bills. And President Obama has said he supports overhauling the earmark process to eliminate waste and abuse. The federal-deficit commission he appointed has recommended cutting earmarks out of spending legislation, estimating that doing so would save about $16-billion annually.

With the political momentum shifting against such spending, colleges’ government-relations officials are telling campus leaders not to count on more federally directed dollars anytime soon.

“Chancellors and provosts and vice presidents for research need to realize that this is going to be the law of the land for at least two years,” says Keith Yehle, director of federal relations at the University of Kansas, which received two earmarks in 2010, totaling $2.8-million, for military-education programs and for research technology in superconductors, according to the watchdog group. “They shouldn’t expect earmarks to miraculously appear at this time next year.”

Unique Role

Earmarks brought about $2.25-billion to colleges and universities in 2008, the most recent year for which The Chronicle has conducted a comprehensive analysis. Those earmarks financed about 2,300 projects, including campus buildings, research projects, and research centers.

In 2010, colleges received an estimated total of $1.5-billion in earmarks, according to data from Taxpayers for Common Sense. Its tally is not directly comparable to the 2008 figure, because of differences in searching methods.

Earmarks make up only a small part of colleges’ revenue, but with state budgets tightening and Republicans in Congress looking for domestic spending to cut, the loss of earmarks would be another blow to campus bottom lines.

Several higher-education lobbyists say earmarks fill a unique role in higher-education budgets. Federal dollars can help pay for centers and schools to attract faculty in new fields; buy expensive equipment, like electron microscopes; and develop campus infrastructure. Such projects often aren’t supported by competitive grants, which typically finance research programs but not the infrastructure or equipment to make those programs possible, the lobbyists say. Or the projects might be too expensive to be included in annual budgets.

While hundreds of colleges have received money from earmarks over the past few decades, a moratorium would hit some harder than others, especially those that have seen a steady flow of earmarked money coming from members of Congress in powerful positions.

The Chronicle’s 2008 analysis of higher-education earmarks found that Mississippi State University and the University of Mississippi topped the list of institutions receiving earmarks that year, receiving $40-million and $37.5-million, respectively. Sen. Thad Cochran, who represents Mississippi, is the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee, and colleges in his state have continued to benefit from his role. In spending bills for 2010, Mississippi State and Ole Miss received $28.5-million and $30.7-million, respectively, according to the watchdog group.

In the past few years, other states with prominent appropriators have included Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and their colleges have benefited accordingly. Next year, some states that might have moved into this group as a result of the turnover in Congress might be frozen out by an earmark moratorium. A Republican from Kentucky is set to lead the House appropriations committee, and a Washington State representative is expected to take the top Democratic spot on the panel.

Some multiyear projects, too, could take a hit. A handful of college programs, including a number at schools of agriculture, have earmarks that were supposed to be financed for several consecutive years. It is unclear what will happen to those programs if Congress ends its earmarking.

Opponents of earmarks within higher education argue that such directed spending subverts the peer-review process to the detriment of scientific progress, financing ideas that might not be the best use of federal dollars. The Association of American Universities has at times pushed its members not to seek earmarks, although its current stance is that members are free to pursue earmarks if they wish.

Some colleges argue that earmarks help them branch out into new areas, expanding their ability to receive competitive grants in the future. Because scientists are constantly developing new ideas, says Zachery Moore, director of federal relations at Pennsylvania State University, federal agencies might not update grant programs quickly enough to finance some cutting-edge ideas. Earmarks, he says, have helped Penn State conduct research in these areas.

Symbol of Dysfunction

Earmarks don’t make up a substantial portion of the federal budget, accounting for about one-half of 1 percent of all appropriations in 2010. But members of Congress who have called on their colleagues to significantly change or end the practice say it is a symbol of government waste and an invitation to influence-peddling and corruption.

And many lawmakers, especially Republicans, saw November’s election as a referendum against excessive government spending.

“Earmarks have become a symbol of a dysfunctional Congress and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington for too long,” Reps. John A. Boehner and Eric I. Cantor, the House’s top two Republicans, said in joint remarks a few days before the House Republican caucus unanimously adopted a moratorium on earmarks.

House Republicans are expected to extend the moratorium to the entire chamber when they take over control in January, barring Democrats, too, from engaging in the process.

Senate Republicans have also adopted a voluntary ban on earmarks, although Democrats still hold a slim majority there. However, more senators than ever—39, including some Democrats—have endorsed an end to earmarks, in a December vote to block the practice. While that attempt failed, those lawmakers could stifle the earmarking process.

There is a chance, though, that any ban on earmarks wouldn’t stick. They have long been popular among members of Congress who see earmarks as a way to provide direct benefits to their districts, and who often gain political support in the process. Lawmakers are also likely to face increasing pressure to bring money back to their constituents as state and local governments begin slashing their own budgets.

Given those powerful incentives for lawmakers to continue to find ways to allocate aid to their home states, and because the Senate is not expected to ban earmarks outright, the fate of such spending is up in the air.

“We’re in a wait-and-see mode,” says Penn State’s Mr. Moore. Come January, Pennsylvania’s Congressional delegation will comprise eight Democrats and 13 Republicans.

In the meantime, colleges’ federal-relations officials say they still expect to talk with campus researchers next year to identify where federal money could do some good. They want to be prepared if lawmakers ask them how they can help, they said.

Colleges are also working to develop other avenues and partnerships that could bring in money to make up for the loss of earmarks. One lobbyist says his college is looking to develop partnerships with federal agencies to support research facilities or projects that would be financed at least in part through the agencies’ operating budgets, rather than by earmarks. Other colleges say they are developing partnerships with businesses or trying to secure private money to pay for projects that would have come from federal dollars.

Even if the earmark moratorium holds, colleges’ government-relations officers say they face much bigger fights in coming years if federal research dollars are threatened by Republicans who vow to cut domestic spending. The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have combined research budgets of about $38-billion, and cuts in their spending could harm colleges much more than a ban on earmarks.

“The dynamics of funding will change. That much we know,” says James W. Tracy, vice president for research at the University of Kentucky. “But where it ends up, nobody really knows.”

Alex Richards contributed to this article.