Washington, DC- On June 10, 2009 Congressman Chaffetz sent a letter to public officials and constituents in his district proposing his stance on earmarks. During an open comment period of more than two months, public officials and constituents were encouraged to send back their feedback on the proposal. After receiving several suggestions on how to fine-tune his proposal, Rep. Chaffetz is now releasing his final earmark stance.
“I intend to use this analytical framework to evaluate each and every appropriation request I receive,” said Chaffetz. “Today I submit to the people of Utah a document distinguishing between abused earmarks and legitimate appropriation requests. This framework is a first step toward changing the way business is done by restoring integrity to the appropriations process in Washington, D.C.”
Appropriate Congressionally Directed Spending vs. Earmarks
Background
One of the platforms to which Congressman Jason Chaffetz is committed is increased openness, transparency, and reform in the annual federal appropriations process, especially as it relates to earmarks. In fact Congressman Chaffetz took a pledge that he would not seek any earmarks until these reforms were in place. Rather than wait for Congress to enact these reforms, Congressman Chaffetz will lead out with his own proposal.
Consistent with his commitment to bring transparency, openness, and reform to the process, Congressman Chaffetz has prepared the following guidance document.
Overview
Each year Congress enacts the appropriations bills which fund the operations of the federal government. As part of this process, individual congressional member offices may consider and submit to the Appropriations Committee funding requests for individual projects. These projects are often subject to scorn, as Americans have developed the sentiment that Congress is not appropriating funds in a transparent fashion, nor solely for projects with a justifiable federal purpose. Many Americans feel strongly, and often for good reason, that Congress’ actions in this regard waste U.S. taxpayers’ scarce dollars on “pork” projects which might not otherwise be funded were it not for federal involvement.
The Founders did not grant the Executive Branch sole discretion to determine spending priorities for the nation. On the contrary, the U.S. Constitution expressly gives Congress the authority to direct federal spending, and Congress is under no obligation to preserve the President’s budget priorities.
With record levels of debt and out-of-control spending, it is imperative that Congress ensure and certify to the American people that its appropriations practices represent and protect the interests of U.S. taxpayers. The appropriations process must be free from the taint of abuse, stains of corruption, cronyism, or charges of “pay to play” type schemes, wherein members of Congress submit requests in exchange for campaign support or other favored treatment.
Both Congress and the Administration acknowledge reforms are needed. The current efforts are a step in the right direction, but are still inadequate. Congressman Chaffetz offers this document to help interested parties to distinguish between projects funded through appropriate congressionally directed spending (CDS), which he will consider supporting, and traditional “earmarks,” which he will not.
Guiding Principles
As Congress and the Administration advance various reform proposals, the Office of Congressman Chaffetz puts forth the following guiding principles, some of which have been implemented:
· The federal appropriations process must be conducted in an open and transparent fashion, one which restores the American public’s confidence in the system.
· All requests for CDS must be submitted to the Appropriations Subcommittee of jurisdiction prior to the committee deadline. There should be no “air-dropped” earmarks.
· When a member submits a request for CDS, the appropriate Executive Branch agency should have a reasonable period in which to review the project to ensure it is eligible to receive funds and meets goals established in law and official policies.
· Each request for CDS should receive proper vetting and debate by the appropriate subcommittee, which should compare and prioritize the requests. If available, Congressional Budget Office Reports (CBO) on the effectiveness of federal agency programs seeking CDS should accompany the request.
· Rather than funding all requests with some degree of merit, sustainable and responsible funding levels should be set, and only the highest priority items within those levels should be funded.
· It is appropriate for public entities to seek federal funding.
· Public entity beneficiaries of CDS should award contracts to for-profit entities only through competitive bidding processes. Exceptions should be extremely rare.
· Members should post prominently on their official web sites information about all projects for which they submit requests, including the proposed recipient, the recipient’s address, the amount, and an explanation of the purpose and federal nexus of the request.
· Members will submit into the Congressional Record, once (and if) the project is funded, a detailed finance plan showing how the federal monies will be spent and justifying the use of taxpayers’ resources.
· Members should certify that neither they nor their spouse will benefit financially from approval of the request.
· Each appropriations bill should be available for public scrutiny on the day its subcommittee reports the bill. A list detailing each CDS request in the bill and the Member who made the request should accompany the bill.
Criteria for Funding
All federal funding requests submitted to the office of Congressman Jason Chaffetz are subject to the following criteria:
· All federal funding requests will be publicly disclosed on Congressman Chaffetz’ official website,
www.chaffetz.house.gov, under the tab “Appropriations.”
· Only requests from public entities will be considered. Congressman Chaffetz will not consider appropriations requests from or for private entities, and no “pass-throughs” will be entertained. Public entities are encouraged, though, to bring subject matter experts from private entities to describe and explain the request as appropriate.
· Only projects and programs for which there is an established federal nexus will be considered, e.g., interstate commerce, aid in compliance with federal mandates, or other projects and programs for which a defensible purpose exists for requesting federal government funding under the U.S. Constitution.
· Only requests for projects or programs that have been authorized by Congress (project,/program specific or general authorization, e.g., part of an agency mission or mandate from Congress) will be considered. A citation of the public law authorizing the project or program must be included in the application materials.
· Projects should be reviewed by the appropriate entities of the state and/or local jurisdictions impacted, as well as regional planning organizations, in the case of transportation infrastructure projects.
· Projects must meet all non-federal matching requirements.
· Funding requests will not be supported for any projects which are requested after the House appropriations deadline.
· Requestor must sign a financial certification stating that neither the requesting official nor anyone within the agency has any direct or foreseeable pecuniary interest in the project.
Summary
All projects requesting congressionally directed funding should:
· Go through an open process;
· Be scrutinized through the committee system;
· Have an appropriate federal nexus;
· Benefit the American public through a public entity.
]]>
