Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2020 Congressional Pig Book
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2020 Congressional Pig Book
“I believe that this book should be read by every citizen in America. … What is being done
here by CAGW, in my view, is of the greatest importance. [M]y constituents … need to
have these concrete examples of the way that business is done here in Washington, D.C.,
unfortunately, and the only way it’s going to stop is when it’s exposed.”
The late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), April 9, 2002
“I want to commend the Citizens Against Government Waste for doing a good job with the
Pig Book, pointing out the waste that goes on in our government.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), July 12, 2019
“Tom, thank you and Citizens Against Government Waste. I appreciate all of the wonderful
work that you do every year to promote transparently and responsibility in federal spending.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), July 18, 2018
“Tom and the CAGW team have done a great job and they ought to be commended for their
continuous work highlighting the most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most wasteful
examples of government excess.”
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), July 18, 2018
“I much appreciate the good work Citizens Against Government Waste continues to do. You
continue to be a beacon in this area.”
Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), July 19, 2017
“Tom Schatz deserves as much credit as anyone in America for putting a spotlight on
government waste.”
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), May 13, 2015
“Citizens Against Government Waste does a great job of highlighting the waste and the
culture of corruption that is rampant in Washington.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), May 7, 2014
“I commend Citizens Against Government Waste for trying to shame Congress into fiscal
responsibility, although one has to wonder if Congress has any shame. You certainly don’t get
that impression by flipping through the Pig Book.”
Then-Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), April 14, 2010
“At a time when millions of families are cutting back on spending, this year’s Pig Book shows
that politicians in Washington still refuse to make tough choices and sacrifice their pet
projects. I applaud CAGW for their efforts to force elected officials in Washington to deliver
the change the American people were promised.”
The late Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), April 14, 2009
“Those peckerwoods don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t. They’re not being realistic.”
The late “King of Pork” Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), July 19, 2001
The current national debt of $26.5 trillion is going to grow at a record pace
over the next decade. A January 2020 Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
report forecast an average annual deficit of $1.3 trillion between fiscal years
(FY) 2021 and 2030, rising to $1.7 trillion by the end of the decade, adding
$12.4 trillion to the national debt and bringing it to $36.2 trillion. That
estimate was made prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the subsequent
healthcare crisis and economic shutdown. One estimate suggests that the
pandemic will add $8 trillion to CBO’s FY 2030 projection, for a total of
$44.2 trillion.
For the third year in a row, members of Congress have set a record for the
cost of earmarks during the supposed earmark moratorium. This year’s
Congressional Pig Book exposes 274 earmarks, a decrease of 2.8 percent
from the 282 in FY 2019. While the number of earmarks declined slightly,
their cost went in the opposite direction. Legislators added $15.9 billion in
earmarks in FY 2020, an increase of 3.9 percent from the $15.3 billion in
FY 2019. The cost of the FY 2020 earmarks is only 3.6 percent less than the
$16.5 billion in FY 2010, the last year prior to the moratorium. Since FY
1991, CAGW has identified 111,417 earmarks costing $375.7 billion.
1
INTRODUCTION (continued)
The primary cause of this upsurge in earmarks is the two consecutive budget
deals that revoked the spending restraints imposed by the 2011 Budget
Control Act (BCA). The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, signed into law
on February 9, 2018 paved the way for a 13.4 percent increase in spending
in FYs 2018 and 2019. The subsequent Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019
covering FYs 2020 and 2021, which became law on August 2, 2019, lifted
spending caps by $320 billion. The budget deals covering the past three
years have resulted in the cost and number of earmarks increasing by far
more than the overall jump in spending.
While the BCA was successful in limiting spending, it was anathema to the
members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. It coincided
with the imposition of the earmark moratorium, which was first applied in
FY 2012.
Of course, this explosion of earmarks may not be enough for some members
of Congress. Prominent legislators from both parties have called for an end
to the earmark moratorium, including Senate Appropriations Committee
Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and committee members Roy Blunt
(R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Patty Murray (D-Wash.); House
Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), and
committee members Tom Cole (R-Okla.), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) and Mike
Simpson (R-Idaho); along with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-
Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.).
2
INTRODUCTION (continued)
On February 7, 2020, Chairwoman Lowey abandoned a planned return to
an open system of earmarking for FY 2021, reversing her position a month
earlier that she was open to bringing back the practice. If she had moved
forward, she would have been going up against Senate Republicans, who on
May 23, 2019, became the first group of members of Congress to agree to a
permanent ban on earmarks, by a vote of 28-12.
Despite the Senate Republicans’ ban, the clamor for a return to earmarks
continues. It is worth recalling why this corrupt, inequitable, and costly
practice was first subject to the moratorium. The movement gained traction
due to the tireless work of members of Congress such as then-Rep. Jeff Flake
(R-Ariz.) and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.); high-profile boondoggles
like the Bridge to Nowhere; and a decade of scandals that resulted in jail
terms for Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) and Bob Ney
(R-Ohio) and lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
As Sen. McCain explained regarding those making the case for a return to
earmarks, “The problem with all their arguments is: the more powerful you
are, the more likely it is you get the earmark in. Therefore, it is a corrupt
system.”
3
INTRODUCTION (continued)
Another argument centers on the Article I tax and spending power given
to Congress. As Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and then-Rep. Jeb Hensarling
(R-Texas), co-leaders of the Article I Project, wrote in 2017 in regard to
earmarks, “Congress needs to assert its power of the purse, but not in
this manner.” As practiced in the past, Lee and Hensarling continued,
“earmarking was not the innocuous exercise of Congress’ constitutional
spending power; it was the tool lobbyists and leadership used to compel
members to vote for bills that their constituents – and sometimes their
conscience –opposed.” Bringing back earmarks, they wrote, “would make
our job harder, make Congress weaker and make federal power more
centralized, less accountable and more corrupt.”
One of the more frequently used arguments in favor of earmarks is that they
help pass legislation, which even President Trump mentioned on January
9, 2018. But earmarks cause members to vote for excessively expensive
spending bills that cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in exchange
for a few earmarks worth a few million or sometimes just thousands of
dollars.
4
INTRODUCTION (continued)
The FY 2020 earmarks were again contained in omnibus packages
containing thousands of pages, which present their own challenges to
determine how money is being spent. Voting on blocks of spending bills
bundled together with minimal time for review is a strong indicator of a
poorly functioning legislative process.
In other words, the average dollar amount for the Corps of Engineers
earmarks in FY 2020 was $43.3 million, while in FY 2010 the average
was $1.1 million. The “Congressionally Directed Spending” section at the
end of the FY 2010 bill contained the names of the members of Congress
requesting each project and its location, as required by the transparency
rules at the time. In stark contrast, the FY 2020 earmarks, which cost
$541.1 million more than the FY 2010 projects – almost exactly double
the amount – contained no such data and simply created a pool of money
to be distributed later without any specific information about the eventual
recipients.
Members of Congress will argue that their standards differ from the earmark
criteria used in the Pig Book, and that the appropriations bills are earmark-
free according to their definition. However, the difference in the definition
of earmarks between CAGW and Congress has existed since the first Pig
Book in 1991.
5
INTRODUCTION (continued)
The question for those in Congress who deny the existence of earmarks in
the appropriations bills is: Why were these projects previously considered
earmarks, but not this year?
6
I. AGRICULTURE
While members of Congress have long used the Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to
feed at the trough, their appetite was reduced in FY 2020. The number of
earmarks decreased by 21.4 percent, from 14 in FY 2019 to 11 in FY 2020,
and the cost decreased by 45.1 percent, from $148.7 million in FY 2019 to
$81.7 million in FY 2020.
$10,000,000 for high energy cost grants within the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS). The RUS grew out of the Department of Agriculture’s Rural
Electrification Administration (REA) of the 1930s. The REA’s mission was
to promote electrification to farmers and residents in communities where
the cost of providing electricity was considered to be too expensive for local
utilities. By 1981, 98.7 percent electrification and 95 percent telephone
service coverage was achieved. Rather than declaring victory and shutting
down the REA, the agency was transformed into the RUS, and expanded
into other areas.
RUS high energy cost grants are intended to assist communities whose
energy costs exceed 275 percent of the national average by funding the
construction, installation, and repair of energy distribution facilities.
This may sound like a bright idea, but the RUS Electric Loan Program
is intended to achieve the same objective. Former President Obama’s FY
2013 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings proposed the elimination
of the High Energy Cost Program, noting that low-interest electric loans
are available through the RUS to residents of the areas served by the High
Energy Cost Program, which include Alaska, Hawaii, several communities
in certain other states, and U.S. territories.
7
I. AGRICULTURE (continued)
$9,000,000 for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the
Delta Regional Authority (DRA), a 12.5 percent increase from the $8
million earmarked in FY 2019. The DRA also received an earmark costing
$27.5 million in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Both the ARC and DRA have been targeted by numerous cost-cutting
plans. All four versions of President Trump’s Major Savings and Reforms
between FYs 2018 and 2021 proposed eliminating funding for the DRA,
which would save $27 million according to the FY 2021 report. Each of
the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) budgets from FYs 2017 through
2020 called for the termination of regional commissions. Former President
Obama’s FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings proposed a $3
million annual cut for the DRA.
The ARC has received 13 earmarks costing $404.8 million since FY 1995,
and the DRA has received 16 earmarks costing $113.9 million since FY
2003.
8
II. COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE
The cost of earmarks in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (CJS) has increased rapidly in recent years. The eight
earmarks in FY 2020 constitute a 33.3 percent increase from the six earmarks
in FY 2019. The $1.6 billion earmarked in FY 2020 is an increase of 105.1
percent from the $780 million in FY 2019, and 2,566.7 percent more than
the $60 million earmarked in FY 2016. The percentage increase in the cost of
earmarks in the CJS bill from FY 2019 to FY 2020 was the second largest of
any of the 12 appropriations bills.
Since FY 2001, members of Congress have added 132 earmarks for NOAA,
costing $1.1 billion. In other words, the FY 2020 earmark accounts for 64.1
percent of the total amount of funding that legislators have earmarked for
NOAA over the past 20 years.
For the fourth consecutive year, President Trump’s FY 2021 Major Savings
and Reforms recommended eliminating funding for the PCSRF. Elimination
of the fund would allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) “to better target remaining resources to core
missions and services.” The budget also noted that programs like the
PCSRF favor state, local, and/or industry interests, and are “not optimally
targeted, in many instances favoring certain species and geographic areas
over others,” and do not direct funds to programs that have “the greatest
need or potential benefit.”
9
II. COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE (continued)
The RSC’s FY 2020 budget also proposed eliminating funding for the
PCSRF, stating that it was one of several grant programs that “do not
provide significant support to the core mission” of NOAA.
10
III. DEFENSE
The Department of Defense (DOD) has received the most earmarks at the
highest cost to taxpayers in each year since FY 1994, and despite a substantial
drop from FY 2019 in both the cost and number of earmarks, that trend
continued in FY 2020. The number of earmarks in the bill declined by 14.8
percent, from 155 in FY 2019 to 132 in FY 2020, while the cost decreased by
20.2 percent, from $9.4 billion in FY 2019 to $7.5 billion in FY 2020. The
amount contained in the DOD appropriations bill constitutes 47.2 percent of
the $15.9 billion in earmarks in all 12 appropriations bills for FY 2020.
$2,052,800,000 for five earmarks for the F-35 JSF, the second-most ever
earmarked for the program. The bulk of the FY 2020 earmarks fund the
acquisition of 22 aircraft beyond the amount requested by the DOD,
including 16 for the Air Force and six for the Marine Corps. The money
earmarked for the F-35 represents 12.9 percent of the $15.9 billion in
earmarks across all the spending bills in FY 2020, and is a 16.7 percent
increase from the $1.8 billion earmarked for the JSF in FY 2019.
Long the posterchild of a broken acquisition system, the JSF program has
been plagued by an abundance of persistent issues. In development for
nearly 19 years and nine years behind schedule, total acquisition costs now
exceed $428 billion, nearly double the initial estimate of $233 billion. An
April 22, 2019 Bloomberg article noted that the lifetime operation and
maintenance costs of the most expensive weapon system in history will
total $1.2 trillion. This is a 20 percent increase over the $1 trillion in JSF
lifetime operation and maintenance costs as reported in April 2015 by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO).
11
III. DEFENSE (continued)
As in each preceding year, 2020 brought more bad news for Lockheed
Martin, the F-35 manufacturer. The FY 2019 DOD Operational Test and
Evaluation Annual Report revealed that testers consider the “accuracy of
the gun, as installed in the F-35A, to be unacceptable.” The report also
noted that the JSF program currently carries 873 unresolved deficiencies,
including 13 Category 1 items, which involve the most serious flaws that
could endanger aircrew and aircraft. While this is an overall reduction
from the 917 unresolved deficiencies and 15 Category 1 items found in
September 2018, the report stated that “although the program is working
to fix deficiencies, new discoveries are still being made, resulting in only a
minor decrease in the overall number of deficiencies.”
The perennial problems with the F-35 and other aircraft led the Air Force to
announce on May 7, 2020 that it will scrap the 80 percent mission-capable
rate directive established three years ago. In FY 2019, the F-35A’s readiness
rate was 62 percent. Eliminating the goalposts will not ultimately increase
the performance of the JSF.
12
III. DEFENSE (continued)
Former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson also cited the high operating
costs of the F-35 as a factor in purchasing the F-15X. On March 22, 2019,
Secretary Wilson stated that Lockheed Martin has not given “enough
attention on the sustainment costs of the aircraft and driving them down.”
Many of the problems with the F-35 program can be traced to the decision
to develop and procure the aircraft simultaneously. Whenever problems
have been identified, contractors needed to go back and make changes to
planes that were already assembled, adding to overall costs. Speaking at the
Aspen Security Forum on July 24, 2015, then-Air Force Secretary Deborah
Lee James stated, “The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never
again should we be flying an aircraft while we’re building it.”
Other dilemmas relating to the JSF’s utility in future conflict have also
cropped up. A May 2018 House Armed Services Committee (HASC)
report revealed that the Navy’s JSF, the F-35C, may lack sufficient range to
function adequately in a future war.
Of course, the plethora of JSF deficiencies has not stopped the Pentagon
from asking for funding, and members of Congress from supplying it,
oftentimes exceeding the request from the DOD, a trend that continued
in FY 2020. Rather than asking pressing questions as to whether the F-35
remains worthy of further commitment, members of Congress provided
earmarks for 22 additional aircraft. Upon completion of the development
phase, additional funding will be needed to retrofit the JSFs purchased via
earmarks in FY 2020.
Members of Congress are already gearing up to add more earmarks for the
F-35 in FY 2021. In a March 17, 2020 letter to the chairman and ranking
members of the HASC and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the
Congressional JSF Caucus argued that the Pentagon must purchase 19
additional aircraft in FY 2021 beyond the 79 it intended to acquire.
13
III. DEFENSE (continued)
The letter is authored by the four co-chairs of the caucus, House
Appropriations Committee member Martha Roby (R-Ala.); HASC member
Michael Turner (R-Ohio); Rep. John Larson (D-Ct.); and Rep. Marc Veasey
(D-Texas); and co-signed by 126 other members of Congress. The letter
encouraged a 24 percent increase in the number of JSFs to be purchased
and inexplicably suggested this would “further reduce overall program
costs.” The authors revealed their motive for requesting the acquisition of
more JSFs by stating that the platform “bolsters our domestic economy by
supporting more than 1,800 suppliers and more than 254,000 direct and
indirect jobs across the country.”
Since FY 2001, members of Congress have added 29 earmarks for the JSF
program, costing $8.9 billion.
$1,615,600,000 for 36 earmarks for health and disease research under the
Defense Health Program (DHP), which is a 9.9 percent increase in cost
from the 34 earmarks worth $1,470,300,000 in FY 2019, and the most ever
earmarked for the program.
The late Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) November 2012 “The Department
of Everything” report pointed out that the DOD disease earmarks mean
that “fewer resources are available for DOD to address those specific health
challenges facing members of the armed forces for which no other agencies
are focused.” According to the report, in 2010 the Pentagon withheld more
than $45 million for overhead related to earmarks, which means those funds
were unavailable for national security needs or medical research specifically
affecting those serving in the military.
14
III. DEFENSE (continued)
On June 17, 2015, then-SASC Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested
that funding for medical research should only be included in the DOD bill
if the secretary of defense determined it was directly related to the military.
He said that “over the past two decades, lawmakers have appropriated
nearly $7.3 billion for medical research that was ‘totally unrelated’ to the
military.” In a response that explains why legislators continue to believe that
they have the knowledge, privilege, and right to earmark billions of dollars
for the DHP, Senate appropriator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) claimed that none
of the secretaries of defense that he had known, despite being “talented
individuals,” were qualified to decide whether any of this research is related
to the military.
Since FY 1996, members of Congress have added 772 earmarks for the
DHP, costing taxpayers $14.9 billion.
15
III. DEFENSE (continued)
While members of Congress will typically create dubious justifications for
earmarking funding for programs in their districts, perhaps claiming DOD
officials mistakenly failed to request funding, this effort is more transparent.
Some anonymous member of Congress deemed it necessary to supply
funding for unneeded work simply to support local industries.
16
IV. ENERGY AND WATER
Legislators once again flooded the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act with pork. Legislators added 47 earmarks in FY
2020, which is 46.9 percent more than the 32 added in FY 2019. The $3.4
billion earmarked in FY 2020 represents a 47.8 percent increase from the $2.3
billion in FY 2019.
Since FY 1994, there have been 26 earmarks worth a total of $94.1 million
for aquatic plant control projects, meaning the amount provided in FY
2020 represents more than a quarter of the total provided over the past
27 years. Legislators who have requested earmarks for the aquatic plant
control program include Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.),
who requested three, and one each by Senate Appropriations Committee
Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions
(R-Ala.).
17
IV. ENERGY AND WATER (continued)
Legislators also included $15,325,000 for aquatic nuisance control research,
which last received a $200,000 earmark in FY 1992. The amount provided
in FY 2020 represents an 11,900 percent increase in funding over FY 1992.
$11,400,000 for fish passage and fish screens, which is 44.3 percent more
than the $7.9 million earmarked in FY 2019, and the largest amount ever
provided for this purpose.
18
V. FINANCIAL SERVICES
Legislators again loaded up the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act with earmarks. The number of earmarks doubled from
three in FY 2019 to six in FY 2020. The cost of the projects increased by 215.7
percent, from $167.7 million in FY 2019 to $529.5 million in FY 2020, the
largest percentage increase in any of the 12 appropriations bills.
19
V. FINANCIAL SERVICES (continued)
Members of Congress who have provided earmarks for the ONDCP
include Senate Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Subcommittee member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Appropriations
Committee member Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), and Rep. Rick Larsen
(D-Wash.).
President Richard Nixon kicked off the War on Drugs on June 18, 1971,
declaring drug abuse to be “public enemy number one.” Since then, the
U.S. has spent more than $1 trillion on drug interdiction policies, with little
to show for it. In fact, the drug problem has grown exponentially, especially
with the rise of opioids. In 2018, 67,367 Americans died of drug overdoses,
including 46,802 involving opioids.
Spending more than $1 trillion, including yet another earmark, along with
ineffective ad campaigns, is not the way to win the war on drugs.
20
V. FINANCIAL SERVICES (continued)
$80,350,000 for entrepreneurial development programs (EDP) within
the Small Business Administration (SBA), a 45.3 percent increase from the
$55.3 million earmarked in FY 2019.
Once heavily earmarked by members of Congress, the SBA received its first
earmark in seven years in FY 2018, when legislators supplied $54,650,000.
In FY 2010, members of Congress added 259 earmarks costing $58.9
million, including local business development centers, chambers of
commerce, and business incubation centers.
Each of those earmarks included the name of the recipient, its location, and
the member of Congress responsible. In contrast, the FY 2020 earmark,
which 36.4 percent more money than in FY 2010, contains no identifying
information and no indication as to where the funding will be directed. As
has been noted previously, the lack of transparency regarding this earmark is
troubling, given that former members of Congress received prison sentences
relating to misuse of earmarks.
21
VI. HOMELAND SECURITY
The cost and number of earmarks dropped precipitously in the FY 2020
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act. Overall, the
number of earmarks dropped by 45.5 percent, from 11 in FY 2019 to 6 in
FY 2020, while their cost shrank by 43.6 percent, from $560.9 million in
FY 2019 to $316.1 million in FY 2020. The cost of pork declined chiefly
because legislators declined to earmark any money for the National Predisaster
Mitigation Fund, which received $211 million in FY 2019, and had long been
included in the DHS appropriations bills.
Since FY 2005, the NDPC has received 10 earmarks worth $783.6 million,
including a $10.1 million earmark in FY 2010 by Senate appropriator Tom
Udall (D-N.M.) and then-Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).
$63,642,000 for the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP), the same
amount provided in FY 2019.
A June 2014 GAO report found that, despite distributing nearly $2.9
billion in funding to the PSGP since 2002, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency “stated that it is unable – due to resource constraints
– to annually measure reduced vulnerability attributed to enhanced PSGP-
funded security measures.”
22
VII. INTERIOR
While the number of earmarks in the FY 2020 Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act decreased by 4.5
percent, from 22 in FY 2019 to 21 in FY 2020, the cost jumped substantially.
Earmarks in FY 2020 cost $473.6 million, a 28.8 percent increase from the
$367.8 million FY 2019.
$25,810,000 for wild horse and burro management, the most ever
earmarked for this purpose, and an 86.5 percent increase from the $13.8
million in FY 2019. The total earmarked in FY 2020 constitutes 58.9
percent of the $43.8 million that legislators have added for this program
since FY 1992.
Wild horses couldn’t drag members of Congress away from this wasteful
spending.
Each of former President Obama’s budgets from FYs 2011 through 2017
slashed funding for NHAs. The FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations,
and Savings recommended trimming the budget by 55 percent, from $20
million to $9 million. The past three of President Trump’s Major Savings
and Reforms proposed eliminating the HPP entirely, saving $22 million. The
2021 report noted there is no “systematic process for designating Heritage
Partnership Areas or determining their effectiveness,” and that funding for
the HPP diverted resources from core NPS responsibilities.
23
VII. INTERIOR (continued)
$16,000,000 for the Save America’s Treasures (SAT) grants program, a 23.1
percent increase from the $13 million earmarked in FY 2019. Intended to
help preserve historic locations across the country, members of Congress
have added 268 SAT earmarks costing taxpayers $97.5 million since FY
2006.
Between FYs 2008 and 2010, when transparency rules required each
earmark to contain the name of the legislator who requested it and the
recipient’s name, city, and state, members of Congress went whole hog for
SAT earmarks. In FY 2008, 78 members of Congress added 70 earmarks
costing $13.6 million. In FY 2009, 58 members of Congress added 55
earmarks costing $10 million. And in FY 2010, 72 members of Congress
added 52 earmarks costing $10.2 million.
During those three years, there were 21 earmarks for theaters costing $4.5
million; 10 earmarks for museums costing $2.4 million; and seven earmarks
for opera houses costing $1.5 million. One of those earmarks, worth
$150,000, was obtained by House appropriator Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
in FY 2010 for the Sterling Opera House in Derby, Connecticut; $110,000
of that amount had to be returned to the federal government after it was
improperly used by the city.
While the earmarks in FYs 2008 through 2010 were transparent, there is
no indication where the FY 2020 earmark is going. As a result, taxpayers
will be unaware should a member of Congress direct the SAT money in FY
2020 to a friend, former staffer, or anyone else.
24
VII. INTERIOR (continued)
Former President Obama called for the elimination of SAT in the FY 2011
version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings, to allow the NPS to “focus
resources on managing national parks and other activities that most closely
align with its core mission,” since the grants have “not demonstrated how
they contribute to nationwide historic preservation goals.”
On top of these problems with the SAT program, many facilities could have
simply charged more money or found other ways to match the amount of
the earmarks.
$5,000,000 for the National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs (NCACA)
grant program, the largest earmark ever for the program, and a 78.6 percent
increase from the $2.8 million provided in FY 2019.
The NCACA provides funding for large arts and cultural institutions in
Washington, D.C. Recipients in FY 2019 included $450,730.26 for the
Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, $112,151.92 for The Phillips
Collection, and $106,756.91 for Ford’s Theatre.
The Kennedy Center sold 1,545,922 tickets during the 2018-2019 season,
meaning it could have charged an extra $0.30 per ticket and eliminated the
need for NCACA funds.
25
VII. INTERIOR (continued)
The Phillips Collection boasted 125,216 visitors in FY 2019. Instead of
relying on the NCACA, it should have charged $0.90 more per admission.
According to its website, Ford’s Theatre hosts more than 650,000 visitors
each year. Therefore, it could simply charge $0.17 more per ticket to repay
the funds obtained from the NCACA.
$663,000 for a brown tree snake eradication program. The snakes are native
to northern Australia, Indonesia, and many of the islands in Melanesia,
but have caused damage to the ecosystem of Guam, where they were likely
introduced by the U.S. military following World War II.
In comments on the Senate floor on July 22, 2004, Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.) said of an earmark that found its way into the FY 2005 DOD
appropriations bill, “$1 million for the Brown Tree Snakes. Once again, the
brown tree snake has slithered its way into our defense appropriation bill.
I’m sure the snakes are a serious problem, but a defense appropriations act is
not the appropriate vehicle to address this issue.”
Since FY 1993, there have been 19 earmarks costing $18.3 million to fight
brown tree snakes. Members of Congress who have inserted earmarks for
this program in the past include then-Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), then-Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam),
and the late Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).
26
VIII. LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION
The cost and number of earmarks in the FY 2020 Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education Appropriations Act (Labor/HHS) increased almost
equally. The number of projects in the bill jumped by 17.4 percent, from 23 in
FY 2019 to 27 in FY 2020, while their cost ballooned by 18.2 percent, from
$1.1 billion in FY 2019 to $1.3 billion in FY 2020.
It is worth noting the extent to which the cost of earmarks in the Labor/HHS
bill have exploded over the past three fiscal years. The $1.3 billion provided in
FY 2020 represents a 2,213.2 percent increase from the $56.2 million in FY
2017.
$53,609,000 for Rural Hospital Flexibility Grants (Flex), the same amount
provided in FY 2019. The earmarks for Flex grants provided in the past
two years are tied for the second-largest ever for the program, behind the
$64.2 million in FY 2006.
Flex grants were created to “improve access to hospitals and other health
services for families that live in rural communities.” The last six Obama
administration budgets recommended slashing funding for the Flex
program, including by $16 million in FYs 2016 and 2017.
Since FY 2006, Flex grants have received nine earmarks totaling $295.6
million.
27
IX. STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS
The number of earmarks in the FY 2020 State and Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act increased by 14.3 percent, from seven in FY 2019 to eight
in FY 2020. Their cost exploded by 48.7 percent, from $369.9 million in FY
2019 to $550 million in FY 2020.
The NED earmark represents 42.3 percent of the total cost of earmarks
contained in the State and Foreign Operations bill. Since FY 1997, the
NED has received 10 earmarks worth a total of $691.1 million. The FY
2020 earmark represents 33.7 percent of this total.
Congress should let taxpayers off the hook and tell the IFCs to go fish for
money elsewhere.
28
IX. STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS (continued)
The foundation has a $97.1 million annual budget, meaning the earmark
represents 19.6 percent of its income. The organization had 718 donors
between October 1, 2016 and September 30, 2017, composed of 91
corporations, foundations, and organizations, 30 government and
multilateral agencies, and 597 individuals. The entity should rely solely on
these private sources of income.
All four versions of President Trump’s Major Savings and Reforms between
FYs 2018 and 2021 proposed eliminating funding for the Asia Foundation.
The RSC’s budgets from FYs 2017 through 2020 also recommended
zeroing out funding.
$16,700,000 for the East-West Center in Hawaii, the same as FYs 2018
and 2019. The amount provided in FY 2020 is a 183.1 percent increase
over the $5.9 million earmarked in FY 2017, and tied for the largest
earmark ever for the center.
29
IX. STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS (continued)
The East-West Center is like the North-South Center, which stopped
receiving federal funding in 2001. An April 3, 2009 Congressional Research
Service report stated, “Congress has not funded the North-South Center
since FY 2001, noting that it should be funded by the private sector.”
Following that logic, the East-West Center should be funded by the private
sector as well. It probably would be, except the center is in the state of a
Senate appropriator. Since FY 1997, the East-West Center has received 17
earmarks totaling $177.5 million.
The FYs 2018 through 2020 versions of President Trump’s Major Savings
and Reforms and the RSC’s budgets from FYs 2017 through 2020 proposed
eliminating funding for the East-West Center.
30
X. TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The number of earmarks in the FY 2020 Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act decreased by 11.1
percent, from nine in FY 2019 to eight in FY 2020. The cost of earmarks
declined by 7.3 percent, from $181.5 million in FY 2019 to $168.3 million in
FY 2020.
$142,004,000 for five earmarks for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund
(AATF), through which the Federal Aviation Administration finances
airport infrastructure improvements. The FY 2020 earmark represents
an 11.4 percent increase over the $127.5 million in FY 2019. Since FY
2005, members of Congress have added 15 earmarks for the AATF costing
$283.8 million, which means the amount provided in the FY 2020 earmark
represents half of this total.
Included among the FY 2020 earmarks for the AATF is $37 million for
payments to carriers, and $12.9 million for advanced materials/structural
safety. The $37 million earmark is the third-largest ever provided for the
AATF, and the second to be supplied for payments to carriers. The $12.9
million earmark is the largest-ever for advanced materials/structural safety,
4 percent more than the $12.4 million earmarked in FY 2019.
According to a November 21, 2016 Cato Institute report, the AATF has
the indirect effect of preventing competition among airlines. Because the
AATF allows funding only for maintenance and improvements, airports are
limited in the number of gates they can build. As a result, airport managers
ration gate access through long-term contracts with established companies,
creating a barrier to entry for potential competitors.
31
X. TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (continued)
$3,000,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan program (Title XI), the
same amount provided in FY 2019. In 2001, then-OMB Director Mitch
Daniels labeled Title XI an “unwarranted corporate subsidy.” An August 8,
2011 Bloomberg Businessweek article noted that the program was suspended
in 1987 following 129 loan defaults between FYs 1985 and 1987. The Bush
administration ceased issuing loans in 2005, but Congress consistently
resuscitated the program. In one high-profile failure, two ferries meant
for Hawaii sat docked in Norfolk, Virginia, after the operating company
defaulted on a $138 million loan in 2009. The Navy bought the ferries for
$35 million in 2012.
Title XI did not receive a budget request, meaning all of the funding was
provided via earmark. Since FY 2006, legislators have added six earmarks
totaling $46.9 million for the program.
This booklet was written by Sean Kennedy, director of research and policy.
It was edited by Thomas A. Schatz, president.
32
More Praise for CAGW and the Pig Book
“You owe it to yourself to get this book at cagw.org. Check your outrage meter when
you’re done. … Don’t read the Pig Book and weep. Read it, get angry, call your
representatives and ask them to give up earmarks for good.”
Syndicated Columnist Cal Thomas, July 19, 2017
“The government watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
published their annual report on wasteful government spending and found that
Congress is not keeping Kosher. … To showcase the size of the problem, CAGW held
a press conference on Wednesday morning featuring lawmakers and Faye, a full-grown
pot-bellied pig and mascot for government waste.”
Leandra Bernstein, WJLA, July 19, 2017
“The fire of anti-Washington sentiment that’s burning through the country this election
season has found some new fuel in the latest Congressional Pig Book, an annual tome
detailing federal government waste.”
Doug McKelway, Fox News, April 13, 2016
“Even though actress Fran Drescher spoke at the National Press Club Tuesday, the
real eye turner could be found down the hall at an event held by Citizens Against
Government Waste. The organization released its annual Pig Book, detailing some of
the biggest ‘porkers’ – or earmark lovers and their pet projects – in Congress. … And to
add some heft to their presentation, the organization brought out two real pigs – Dudley
and Winnie – who did their part to oink about government waste.”
Politico, April 15, 2009
“[CAGW] just hosted its well-known Washington awards show, complete with men in
pig costumes – and actual pigs. Citizens Against Government Waste has been rolling
out the swine awards for nearly 20 years, and … they’ve identified $290 billion in pork
spending since 1991.”
FOX Business Network, April 14, 2009
“The least popular book in Congress comes out today. The Pig Book, a digest of
Washington’s wasteful or so-called pork spending.”
Chris Cuomo, ABC’s “Good Morning America,” April 2, 2008
“The Pig Book portrays a Congress with an insatiable appetite for ‘pork,’ spending your
tax dollars on pet projects, often to help members win votes – or campaign contributions.”
CBS, “The Early Show,” April 2, 2008
“The Pig Book. It sounds like a children’s story, but it is anything but. We’re talking about
some very serious cash here. … Criticism by this group is not one-sided. Democrats and
Republicans are being held in the spotlight for their earmarks.”
CNN, April 2, 2008
“In one of those sure signs of spring in the nation’s capital – right after the cherry
blossoms – comes release of the Congressional Pig Book. For 18 years now Citizens Against
Government Waste has been contributing to the public debate over congressional
spending on earmarks, exposing the way members of Congress spend the taxpayers’
money on projects of either dubious merit or projects that simply have not been awarded
competitively or been subject to public hearings.”
Boston Herald, April 5, 2008
“Citizens Against Government Waste is Washington’s leading opponent of pork-barrel
spending. Its annual Pig Book, which lists the government’s narrow giveaways, is used by
news outlets worldwide to ridicule federal earmarks.”
Jeff Birnbaum, The Washington Post, February 20, 2007