Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress -- in either bill or report language -- for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof in the allocation process.

• Earmarks and Programmatic "Control." If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of "control critical aspects" includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding.

• Earmarks Include:

1. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
2. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
3. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.

OMB has used this definition to gather data on earmarks internally. This definition is similar to the definition that the Congress developed during the 110th Congress for disclosing earmarks in spending legislation (H. Res. 6 and the Senate-passed version of S. 1). 

Congressionally-directed appropriations, or “earmarks,” have become a familiar theme – and occasional villain – as leaders in Washington continue to confront unprecedented fiscal challenges nationally and growing calls for budgetary restraint on Capitol Hill.  As many are aware, federal earmarks appear as individual line items within annual appropriations legislation, and are utilized to designate a portion of broad programmatic funding to support specific initiatives throughout the nation.  Each year, nearly all Members of Congress undertake an extensive request and review process to assess constituent appropriations requests and articulate priorities to relevant appropriations subcommittees.  These priorities are weighed by Appropriations Subcommittee Members and staff as they work to draft spending measures to fund federal programs throughout the coming fiscal year.  Selected earmarks are included within final committee and conference reports.

As elaborated within the chart and graphs below, the number and value of federal earmarks rapidly expanded starting in the 104th Congress.  Earmark spending reached a high of $29 billion during the second session of the 109th Congress.  Even at its peak in FY05, earmark spending represented just over 1% of the total federal budget.  Earmarks have been characterized as favoring cronyism and wasteful spending, and many have proposed new initiatives to overhaul the earmark process or eliminate program-specific language entirely.  Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain (R-AZ) emphasized his opposition to earmark spending throughout his campaign for the White House, and helped to elevate the discussion to national prominence throughout recent months.  President-elect Barack Obama (D-IL) joined Senator McCain in forgoing earmarks during the FY09 fiscal cycle.  Despite concerns, earmarks have proven to be useful tools in allowing elected officials to close the gaps and cracks associated with tight budgets and growing community needs.  For many state, local and not-for-profit efforts, earmarks have provided triage and a safe haven for otherwise underfunded and unfunded programs. 

With the federal government  operating  under a continuing resolution funding federal programs at current levels until March 6, 2009, Congress will be forced to revisit outstanding FY09 appropriations legislation early in the Obama Presidency. 

<Back to "Economy & Federal Budget" page>