Investing in Indiana

About Earmarks and the Federal Funding Process

Each year, in order to fulfill its constitutional obligations, Congress must debate and pass legislation known as “appropriations bills” that keep our government running and continue services for the American people.  As you probably know, part of that process allows individual members of the House of Representatives and Senate to request that a portion of the overall spending in those bills be directed to a specific purpose or project as approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.  That setting aside of funds is popularly known as “earmarking.”

I strongly support transparency and reform in the earmarking process.  Soon after coming to Congress in early 2007, I voted for a moratorium on all Fiscal Year 2007 earmarks and helped put in place strong new rules on earmarking.  Since those rules were put into place, the overall dollar amount of earmarks has been reduced 50 percent compared to when I was elected to Congress in 2006. 

I believe we must continue to do better, and I support reducing earmarks even further.  In fact, I would support ending the practice of earmarking as long as any such prohibition were applied to all members of the House and Senate.  Unless and until that happens, I will not unilaterally forfeit my ability to advocate for the needs of our communities because doing so would allow for funds that I otherwise could have secured for Hoosiers to be earmarked by other lawmakers for projects in states like California and New York.  In the twenty-five year period from 1981 through 2005, Indiana received more back in federal spending than it paid out in taxes in just two years.  If I were to stop pushing for Indiana to get its fair share, this historical inequity would continue and other states would reap even greater benefits from Hoosiers’ tax dollars.

Finally, I would like to address, by way of example, the common misconception that earmarking increases federal spending.  In any given year, appropriators might set aside $20 million for a particular program and earmark $2 million (of the $20 million) for specific projects in different parts of the country.  If, in this example, appropriators either chose not to or were prohibited from earmarking any of the funds, the program would still be funded at a level of $20 million, leaving the total amount of spending unchanged. 

Stan Collender, a respected budget expert, puts it this way in a column about earmarking myths: “First, contrary to what’s constantly either said or hinted at, eliminating an earmark does not result in lower spending.  An earmark is nothing more than an agreement on how to allocate part of an appropriation.  Cutting the earmark simply eliminates the allocation; the size of the appropriation remains the same.”


My Fiscal Year 2011 Earmark Policy

I have advocated and will continue to advocate for projects that improve public health and welfare and bolster economic development and job growth in north central Indiana.  In doing so, I and my staff closely scrutinize every appropriations request my office receives to ensure it proposes using taxpayer dollars responsibly.  Moreover, I do not submit every request that is submitted to my office.  Of those I choose to submit, only some are ultimately, approved by the House Appropriations Committee and its many subcommittees.  My goal is to identify and support, to the best of my ability, those projects that would benefit north central Indiana. 

• I only sponsor requests for projects or services in Indiana's Second Congressional District.
• I do not sponsor project requests on behalf of for-profit entities or private businesses.
• I limit my requests to a maximum of $2 million per project.  Most of my requests are for much less.
• Requests for multi-year projects will be considered, but funding will not be sought for any project more than two consecutive years.  I reserve the right to, in rare instances, fund projects for more than two consecutive years if I believe those projects are especially important for the public good.
• Local entities submitting transportation and infrastructure requests should be prepared to contribute a substantial share of the total funding for the project.
• For each request I submit for Congressional approval, I certify that neither I nor my wife will benefit financially from the successful approval of the project.

Fiscal Year 2011 Requests
Review the list of 2nd District projects submitted to receive federal funding in fiscal year 2011.

Approved 2nd District Projects
Review 2nd District projects that have been approved for federal funding in fiscal year 2010, as well as for previous fiscal years.

Transportation (SAFETEA-LU) Authorization Requests
Review the list of transportation authorization projects I requested through the upcoming SAFETEA-LU legislation.

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Authorization Requests
Review the list of water infrastructure projects I requested through the upcoming WRDA legislation.

I Value Your Input
I have tried to put in place a process that is transparent and fair, and if you have suggestions for how I can improve the Congressional appropriations process, I invite you to email me your thoughts at: http://donnelly.house.gov/contact/contact-us-form.shtml.