Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285791477
label
D. Allan Bromley - Congress [1990]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285791477
contentType
document
title
D. Allan Bromley - Congress [1990]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62030-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285791477
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a16955c9db3e2999
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Personal Files
OA/ID Number:
62030
Folder ID Number:
62030-005
Folder Title:
D. Allan Bromley - Congress [1990]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 21, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Auan
SUBJECT:
Congressional Earmarks for R&D
A few days ago I told you I would send you a study identifying the earmarks made by
Congress in FY 1991 appropriations for R&D items that are for particular
institutions or locations and were not included in the President's budget. That study
is attached.
The study identified 492 such earmarks, totaling $809.6 million. Of these 325 ($182.2
million) were in Agriculture, where I understand specific earmarking is customary in
Congress.
In other areas, R&D earmarking seems on the rise, with 48 in Energy and between 20
to 30 each in Defense, Interior, GSA, and EPA. In Defense $253.4 million of the
"peace dividend" was applied to R&D earmarks, which were exempted from a
previously enacted legal requirement for competition. Also noteworthy is the $60.7
million in a GSA appropriation for R&D construction at 21 universities and other
private institutions. As far as I know, neither GSA nor the Treasury-Post Office
subcommittees, where these items originated, normally have responsibilities for such
items.
The R&D earmarks have put an extra squeeze of at least $332 million on the R&D
programs as proposed in the President's budget. The most serious impacts appear
likely to be in Energy and Agriculture. The other $475 million of R&D earmarks
were covered by increases in the R&D accounts, which presumably means that a
corresponding squeeze was applied elsewhere in the budget.
At least 25 of the earmarks appear to call for the establishment of new centers,
institutions, or other organizations. In most of these cases, continued federal support
in future years seems clearly implied. Thus, this year's earmarks have put a built-in
squeeze on future budgets, an effect that will be compounded as additional earmarks
are made in future years.
I should emphasize that this study covered only R&D related earmarks, not all
earmarks. Thus, it did not cover such items as the Lawrence Welk memorial,
highway "demonstration" projects, or the $200 million earmarked for the
Weatherization program in the Energy Department.
It should also be noted that the study was based only on a review of the often meager
information in the Congressional reports and bills. Therefore, it did not identify the
sponsorship of the earmarks and does not provide a basis for judgments on the
merits of the earmarked items or on the motivations of the earmarking, A case-by-
case review with agency or Congressional staff directly involved would be needed to
determine to what degree each earmark was (1) a response to advocacy by an
institution, (2) a parochial initiative in Congress, or (3) a recognition by Congress of
a significant national or programmatic need.
If you would wish such a sponsorship analysis, it will take a little time, but we will
be happy to produce it for you.
Attachments
Shapley/Bromley memorandum of December 17, 1990, with Tables I, II and III and
separate tabulation
cc:
Richard G. Darman
frile
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 21, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Allan
SUBJECT:
Congressional Earmarks for R&D
A few days ago I told you I would send you a study identifying the earmarks made by
Congress in FY 1991 appropriations for R&D items that are for particular
institutions or locations and were not included in the President's budget. That study
is attached.
The study identified 492 such earmarks, totaling $809.6 million. Of these 325 ($182.2
million) were in Agriculture, where I understand specific earmarking is customary in
Congress.
In other areas, R&D earmarking seems on the rise, with 48 in Energy and between 20
to 30 each in Defense, Interior, GSA, and EPA. In Defense $253.4 million of the
"peace dividend" was applied to R&D earmarks, which were exempted from a
previously enacted legal requirement for competition. Also noteworthy is the $60.7
million in a GSA appropriation for R&D construction at 21 universities and other
private institutions. As far as I know, neither GSA nor the Treasury-Post Office
subcommittees, where these items originated, normally have responsibilities for such
items.
The R&D earmarks have put an extra squeeze of at least $332 million on the R&D
programs as proposed in the President's budget. The most serious impacts appear
likely to be in Energy and Agriculture. The other $475 million of R&D earmarks
were covered by increases in the R&D accounts, which presumably means that a
corresponding squeeze was applied elsewhere in the budget.
At least 25 of the earmarks appear to call for the establishment of new centers,
institutions, or other organizations. In most of these cases, continued federal support
in future years seems clearly implied. Thus, this year's earmarks have put a built-in
squeeze on future budgets, an effect that will be compounded as additional earmarks
are made in future years.
I should emphasize that this study covered only R&D related earmarks, not all
earmarks. Thus, it did not cover such items as the Lawrence Welk memorial,
highway "demonstration" projects, or the $200 million earmarked for the
Weatherization program in the Energy Department.
It should also be noted that the study was based only on a review of the often meager
information in the Congressional reports and bills. Therefore, it did not identify the
sponsorship of the earmarks and does not provide a basis for judgments on the
merits of the earmarked items or on the motivations of the earmarking. A case-by-
case review with agency or Congressional staff directly involved would be needed to
determine to what degree each earmark was (1) a response to advocacy by an
institution, (2) a parochial initiative in Congress, or (3) a recognition by Congress of
a significant national or programmatic need.
If you would wish such a sponsorship analysis, it will take a little time, but we will
be happy to produce it for you.
Attachments
Shapley/Bromley memorandum of December 17, 1990, with Tables I, II and III and
separate tabulation
cc:
Richard G. Darman