From Faculty Senate Listserv:

Each year Congress directs federal agencies to support certain projects at specific universities. The Chronicle ranked universities by the total dollar value of earmarks that Congress did not require these colleges to share with any partners. Many colleges also received earmarks that they were required to share with other colleges, businesses, or other government laboratories. Agencies did not always report what portion of these earmarks was designated for each partner, and so those amounts are not included. Figures are rounded. Rankings are based on unrounded figures.

USM shows up as #24 for 2003 and #30 for the five year period.
(http://chronicle.com/weekly/v50/i05/toprecipients.htm)
 

This article, "U.S. Senator Asks More Than 100 College Presidents for Details on Earmarks" is available online at
this address:

http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=pnxKqrzxzWcft94t5bHJhcjh6Bdwtxvh

U.S. Senator Asks More Than 100 College Presidents for Details on Earmarks

By JEFFREY BRAINARD

Washington

A U.S. senator who is a vocal critic of earmarks has written to more than 100 college presidents asking for details about those noncompetitive appropriations, which they have received from Congress. Some college officials are talking about ignoring the senator's request, however.

The letters were sent last week by Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican regarded as one of the most fiscally conservative members of that chamber. Senator Coburn's attention comes at a time when some members of Congress have criticized the growing amount of Congressional earmarks to colleges and other recipients. Dr. Coburn, who is a physician, has called earmarks "the gateway drug to overspending," arguing that they are partly to blame for the large increases in federal spending in recent years.

A sample version of the letter asks several questions about "all appropriations," including earmarks, received by institutions since 2000. Dr. Coburn requested a response by September 1, which could be a tall order for many colleges, where numerous administrators take vacation time in August.

Among the requested data are the purpose and amount of each project and its accomplishments, including "published peer-review research." Senator Coburn also wants information about how colleges review the quality of earmarked projects and whether they have considered hiring lobbyists to obtain the awards.

Senator Coburn's office could not immediately release on Monday a list of the universities chosen to receive the letters. But the list includes some institutions that received the most Congressionally earmarked funds in the 2003 fiscal year, as determined by a list published that year by The Chronicle, said the senator's spokesman, John G. Hart. The recipients also include some institutions that received the most federal research funds from all sources, including peer-reviewed grants, Mr. Hart said.

Some colleges and their lobbyists have already expressed worries over the letters, but Mr. Hart described the letters as "a routine request" and the concerns of recipients "an overreaction." Dr. Coburn made the request as chairman of a Senate subcommittee that oversees federal financial management, and in that role, he has also been gathering information about nonacademic earmarks, Mr. Hart said.

"He is interested in improving efficiency in all areas of government," the spokesman said. "He's not going out of his way to focus on university earmarks."

According to Mr. Hart, Senator Coburn is not on a quest to find silly-sounding earmarked projects, as some college officials fear -- some might turn up, he said, but so might "a list of fairly worthy projects." Rather, the senator wants to know more about how earmarked projects end up in Congressional appropriations bills. This includes the role of Washington lobbying firms, which "have really mastered the art of convincing universities that they're needed to get money for their institutions," Mr. Hart said.

The senator has not yet decided whether to hold hearings on the subject, Mr. Hart added.

Because the letters were not issued as subpoenas, colleges could legally decide not to respond, which is the route that at least one college representative has recommended for her institution's leaders.

Answering the letter "would be providing someone with bullets to shoot you," said Martha Stewart, director of federal relations for the University of Alaska system. She said she assumes that Senator Coburn would use the information to try to block Alaska's requests for earmarked projects -- which she declined to describe -- from appropriations bills for the 2007 fiscal year, which begins October 1.

Ms. Stewart said she supports transparency and public disclosure of how taxpayer funds are spent, including on earmarked projects. But, she said, Senator Coburn should have channeled his request through Alaska's Congressional delegation.

Not referring specifically to Ms. Stewart, Mr. Hart said opposition to the letters reflects "the mentality that taxpayers loathe" because it suggests they "don't have a right to know." He said Senator Coburn had not ruled out publishing a list of nonrespondents.

The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges has received numerous phone calls from college officials about the letters, whose existence was first reported on Monday by the publication Roll Call. "The reaction has been all over the board," said Sang Han, the organization's associate director for Congressional affairs. "Some schools are saying, 'We're OK with that,' and some are sort of puzzled."

"We're not in a position to recommend one thing or another to any of our schools," he said. Many of the association's members have actively sought earmarks.

Whatever Senator Coburn unearths, it seems unlikely that he will succeed in stripping funds for earmarked projects from appropriations bills in the Senate. Similar efforts in the House of Representatives were resoundingly defeated (The Chronicle, June 23), and many senators have strongly defended and sought earmarked projects.

However, Senator Coburn and other fiscal conservatives argue that the profusion of earmarks makes it harder for Congress to control overall federal spending because lawmakers are reluctant to vote against appropriations bills that contain earmarks for their districts.

Earmarks are especially controversial when awarded for academic research projects because this circumvents the merit-review process that federal agencies typically use when awarding grants for science. Congress provided more than $2-billion in earmarks to academe in 2003, the most recent year for which The Chronicle assembled detailed information on the practice. Most of this money was for research.

Supporters of earmarks argue that they provide a legitimate alternative route for colleges to obtain financing for worthy projects that, they say, are sometimes wrongly overlooked by the peer-review process.

Following is sample of Senator Coburn's letter.

27 July 2006

Dear (College President),

As a United States Senator, and Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security, I retain oversight over the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal financial management, as well as the collection of statistics.

In my role as Chairman of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, I work hard to shepherd taxpayer dollars to achieve the best possible outcomes. As a practicing physician, I also know the value of good scientific research -- and what that research can mean to a sick or hurting individual. I also know that many institutions such as yours play a significant role in the process of fostering the ideas, supporting the individuals and conducting the research that often translates into life-changing innovations and discoveries. It is because of your role in this process that I am reaching out to you for some helpful feedback. I would greatly appreciate your consideration of the following questions, and I look forward to receiving your response.

1. Please provide a list of all appropriations received by your institution from the year 2000 to the present, and the amount of assistance received.
   
   
2. Please provide a summary of the specific objectives or goals set to be achieved by any entity, program, project or service associated with an appropriation at your institution, and, for each appropriation, a list of accomplishments that can be attributed to the project, entity, program or service (e.g. published peer-reviewed research, etc., depending on the nature of the earmarks your institution has received).
   
   
3. How does your institution set a measure for standards to achieve quality and outcomes for entities, programs, projects or services receiving assistance through earmarks or appropriations?
   
   
4. Does your institution have a stated policy regarding Congressional earmarks or appropriations (if so, please describe)? Does your institution have a policy regarding partnering in research projects with other universities who may have a differing policy?
   
   
5. Has your institution considered hiring a lobbyist to assist your institution in attaining familiarity with the opportunities that may exist to obtain Federal funds for research -- such as the earmarking process?
   
   
6. In conclusion, do you find Congressionally earmarked funds to have contributed in a substantive way to your academic institution?
   
   

Thank you for your prompt assistance regarding this matter. If at all possible, I would greatly appreciate receiving your response by September 1, 2006. If you should have any questions, please contact my staff member Anna Shopen at (202) 224-2254.

When responding, please respond by fax if at all possible to Fax (202) 228-3796. If you cannot respond by fax, please mail your response to: Chairman Tom Coburn, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Attn. Anna Shopen, 439 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.

Sincerely,

Tom Coburn, MD Chairman Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security

[Sometimes Mississippi's own congressmen can smell the pork.]

HA, 11/24/04

Millions approved for Pine Belt
Area lawmaker voted against bill

WASHINGTON - Congress approved millions of dollars for Hattiesburg-area projects in a massive spending bill that Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor voted against because he said it was filled with wasteful spending.

But University of Southern Mississippi and Area Development Partnership officials were grateful for the bill's approval and say the projects will ultimately benefit the Hattiesburg area.

"Congressman Taylor voted his conscience against the bill," said Angie Dvorak, ADP president. "He was not singling out our projects in the bill. There are hundreds and hundreds of projects in the bill."

Included in the $388 billion spending bill was $2 million to continue work on the new Trent Lott National Center for Excellence in Economic Development and Entrepreneurship. The new center will be part of the University of Southern Mississippi campus.

The bill also contained $1 million for the Hattiesburg Innovation and Commercialization Center, a joint venture between the university and local government aimed at attracting new technology and research companies to the area.

A total of $8.5 million has been collected for that project which will cost around $11.5 million just for installing basic needs such as utilities, said Cecil Burge, USM vice president of research and economic development.

The center is being built on the site of the old Van Hook Golf Course and is a 10- to 15-year project.

Among the millions of dollars for Mississippi projects is:

$2.5 million to build an access road from Classic Drive to Golf Course Road for the innovation center.

$300,000 for water and sewer improvements in Lamar County.

$300,000 to study whether moving the Greyhound bus station to the Hattiesburg Railroad Depot would cause too much traffic congestion.

"As in each year's federal appropriations process, Mississippi's interests are well represented in this funding bill," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who sponsored many of the earmarks.

The bill was approved last weekend on a 344-51 vote by the House and a 65-30 vote in the Senate.

All Mississippi lawmakers voted for the bill except Taylor, D-4th District, who said lawmakers weren't given enough time to debate the provisions of the bill. He also said the bill was filled with wasteful spending, such as $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation and $80,000 for the San Diego Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center.

"I'm not willing to take a lot of garbage for a few good things," Taylor said.

Burge said he understood Taylor's stance on the matter.

"I've always admired Congressman Taylor for his intellectual honesty," Burge said. "I can certainly understand those concerns."

However, Senator Coburn and other fiscal conservatives argue that the profusion of earmarks makes it harder for Congress to control overall federal spending because lawmakers are reluctant to vote against appropriations bills that contain earmarks for their districts.

Earmarks are especially controversial when awarded for academic research projects because this circumvents the merit-review process that federal agencies typically use when awarding grants for science. Congress provided more than $2-billion in earmarks to academe in 2003, the most recent year for which The Chronicle assembled detailed information on the practice. Most of this money was for research.

---

The bold is mine. This is important to note because there are mechanisms in place through the merit review process that place underfunded institutions and states, such as ours, at an advantage. The merit review process is multi stage and provides a number of checks and balances. Congress can target areas of need through public hearings and RFAs and so on, but under merit review (peer review and councils) and program office oversight, their ability to direct cash based on specific relationships is more limited. Earmarks are a means for establishing political capital in a way that can't be done under peer review. Mississippi may be the recipient of much largesse at the moment (MSU, USM, and UM are in the top 25), but when Thad Cochrane retires and the music stops, we will be paying for others' fun money under this system. I do hope that we make good use of this "seed" money while it is our turn in the sun.