With Money Tight, Scientific Pork Barrel Faces More Scrutiny : But the system to fund lawmakers’ pet projects is expected to survive. And the price tag grows.

As Congress concluded closed-door negotiations over the federal budget late last year, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) took advantage of arcane congressional rules to add $10 million to the bottom line for a center in Honolulu to increase public scientific literacy.

Inouye was not the only one taking such action. Ten powerful members of Congress added $95 million to this year’s federal budget for pet scientific projects--none of which were subject to public scrutiny or evaluation by independent scientists.

The practice, known as academic earmarking, has expanded dramatically in recent years. Since 1980, the total cost of such projects has risen more than 70 times over, according to budget experts. This year, the price tag is expected to be nearly $800 million, a 13% increase from 1992.

Proponents argue that funding arrangements provide for valuable research and scientific programs that otherwise would go undone. They also note that Congress similarly earmarks money for military equipment, highways and bridges, federal buildings, airports and water projects in lawmakers’ districts.

But with the Clinton Administration and congressional leaders under pressure to curb spending and reduce the federal deficit, such practices are coming under increased scrutiny.

Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has begun a series of hearings to investigate the arbitrary funding of scientific projects.

“It’s difficult defending it in today’s Congress because things are so tight,” he said. “It’s particularly bad because most people are suffering and a few privileged people are able to get tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for things that they think are important.”

Even as the White House struggles to come up with a painful package of tax increases and spending cuts, President Clinton himself has participated in the funding practice.

Congressional sources said that to win a key vote on his budget proposal last month the President urged a House Appropriations subcommittee to approve an extra $8 million for a Saginaw, Mich., research facility in the district of Rep. James A. Barcia, a Democratic freshman. The congressman’s staff, while acknowledging the President’s support, disputed that it was in exchange for a vote.

“It’s obvious now with the outrage of taxpayers over new taxes that members of Congress should pay more attention to this,” said Tom Shatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayers’ advocacy organization.

Brown is not alone in his efforts to reform the practice. The list of those fighting it include Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). Few members of Congress want to confront the issue publicly, however, because many of their districts benefit from it. In 1992, 209 colleges and universities representing every state were specifically named in one of 13 appropriations bills as recipients of research or facilities funding.

To be sure, much of the money goes to research and facilities that are considered important to institutions or communities, and some have national applications. And the money spent on such projects represents only about 10% of the $10 billion that the federal government annually gives to colleges and universities for research and development through a competitive process.

But opponents argue that the process does not result in equitable or efficient spending because the projects are not reviewed competitively based on their merits and do not necessarily involve research that the government considers a national priority.

Brown argues that academic earmarking takes money from projects deemed essential by the government and scientific community and gives it to other endeavors that provide political capital for powerful legislators.

“Earmarking has reached the point where it is distorting scientific and agency priorities and causing serious inefficiencies in the use of scarce research dollars,” he said.

Even everyday citizens share some of the responsibility. “Taxpayers scream when they see (such spending), but when it’s going into their own back yard, they think it is wonderful,” Shatz said.

In preparation for the hearings, Brown’s office randomly selected 50 academic earmarks from the 1993 budget and solicited information on use of the funds.

A preliminary review indicates that almost without exception, the money is used to fund facilities and research that have not been reviewed by scientists or analyzed for their value to the nation.

The most frequent beneficiaries are institutions that have a powerful member of Congress or an influential lobbyist backing them.

Wheeling Jesuit College of West Virginia, for example, whose main supporter is Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), has received more than $24 million in recent years from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for two projects: one that is developing ways to teach aerospace technology and another that helps private business and industry use the technology developed in federal laboratories.

At least $12 million more has been pledged.

A NASA official who administers the program said there is no objective reason why money for those projects was awarded to the tiny liberal arts college.

“I’m definitely not trying to defend these earmarks,” said Malcom Phelps, chief of the technology and evaluation branch of NASA’s education division. “If the funds were appropriated to us, our approach would be to award it on a competitive basis.”

A spokesman for Byrd said the senator, who was out of town, believes that such appropriations are far from the biggest problem facing federal budget-makers.

Inouye also defends the $10 million in federal money he helped get for the construction of the Bishop Science Center in Honolulu, which will have a planetarium, a wide-screen theater and an exhibition hall. The center will be used in part to supplement the current science curriculum of the state’s schools.

“The merits of the center we will defend to the death,” said Nestor Garcia, Inouye’s spokesman.

At one of the hearings, Ken Schlossberg, a lobbyist who has helped win earmarks for universities, objected to the blanket indictment of them, pointing to one in particular as a worthy program.

He said the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., one of the nation’s most prestigious marine biological laboratories, had a turn-of-the-century shack in which to keep its marine animals until he helped them get federal funding for a state-of-the-art Marine Resources Center.

But lawmakers who oppose the funding practice counter that if the projects are worthy of federal funding, the institutions should compete for it and not be granted money simply because of the clout of lawmakers.

“The bottom line is that most earmarked projects are funded the way they are because they wouldn’t be able to withstand close scrutiny,” said Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.).

Government watchdogs say that tracking earmarks and persuading members to vote against them is almost impossible because the funds are often added to bills at the last minute.

Also, descriptions of the projects are often less than a line long. Frequently, they do not even appear in the text of the bills, but are mentioned briefly in legislative reports filed with the bill.

“The problem is not so much finding them but figuring a way to get at them,” said Bob Palmer, Brown’s chief of staff.

The difficulty is illustrated by the 10 projects that received funding in the last day of the congressional session last year.

Brown called them particularly “egregious” because they were funded even though the House earlier had voted against them by a 2-to-1 margin. They were then put in another bill that passed.

The academic community is mixed on the programs. Some university presidents defend them as a necessary way to fund important projects, and some pay lobbyists as much as $30,000 a month to make sure their institutions receive the funds.

The prospects for reform appear slim. Although the public looked to the large freshman class of lawmakers to overhaul the way Congress operates, most of them soon joined the appropriations panels that make the selections.

The Pet Projects

Skirting peer review, 10 powerful members of Congress added $95 million to this year’s budget to pay for pet scientific projects. Here are the projects:

* Cancer Treatment Facility (Indiana University School of Medicine), Indianapolis. Cost: $10 million

* Bishop Science Center (State Museum of Natural and Cultural History), Honolulu. Cost: $10 million

* Cancer Institute of New Jersey (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey), New Brunswick, N.J. Cost: $10 million

* Center for Energy and Environmental Resources (Louisiana State University), Baton Rouge, La. Cost: $10 million

* Ambulatory Care and Teaching Center (Hahnemann University), Philadelphia. Cost: $10 million

* Northeast Environmental Resource and Renewal Facility (Lackawanna Heritage Valley Authority), Mayfield, Pa. Cost: $6.8 million

* Ambulatory Research and Education Building (Oregon Health Sciences University) Portland, Ore. Cost: $10 million

* Center for Advanced Industrial Process (Washington State University), Pullman, Wash. Cost: $8 million

* Advanced Technologies Institute (Universtiy of Connecticut), Storrs, Conn. Cost: $10 million

* The Biomedical Research Facility (University of Alabama at Birmingham), Birmingham, Ala. Cost: $10 million

The Growing Appetite for Pork

The total value of pork barrel projects has soared since 1980. Here are yearly totals:

Year In millions Projects 1980 $10.7 7 1981 $0 0 1982 $9.4 9 1983 $77.4 13 1984 $39.3 6 1985 $104 39 1986 $110.9 38 1987 $163.3 48 1988 $232.4 72 1989 $299.0 208 1990 $248.0 252 1991 $470.3 279 1992 $708.0 499

Sources: Congressional Research Service, “Chronicle of Higher Education,” “Legislative Studies Quarterly,” James D. Savage