Omnibus Appropriations Bill FY 2011 HUD Items, Including List of HUD Earmarks for Oregon.

Main PR page HERE from Appropriations Committee has links to various documents. Note: Bill is NOT passed by Congress and subject to significant amendment before it does pass.

• Full Bill HERE, nearly 2,000 pages. HUD Section [Division L, Title II, begins on page 1,555).
• DOT/HUD Summary is HERE, HUD explanation begins on page 2.
• DOT/HUD earmarks are listed HERE, HUD earmarks begin on page 62).
• Explanatory Statement for Division L (Division of bill covering DOT/HUD) is not yet posted.

$2.6 Million in Oregon HUD Earmarks (All use funds from HUD Economic Development Initiative Program):

City of Astoria , OR	Construction of a Park	$800,000		Wu
City of Bend, OR	For design and construction of new research and development facility	$200,000	Merkley; Wyden
City of Grants Pass, OR	For the acquisition and renovation of a community center	$500,000	Wyden; Merkley
City of Salem, OR	Construct Waterline Improvements	$500,000	Wyden; Merkley	Schrader
Luke-Dorf, Inc., Portland, OR	For the construction of a Behavioral Healthcare Housing Facility, with medically-monitored treatment, for individuals	$300,000	Merkley; Wyden	Blumenauer
South Coast Development Council, Coos Bay, OR	Planning, Development and Construction of a Facility	$750,000	Merkley; Wyden	DeFazio
YWCA of Greater Portland, OR	For design and construction of a facility that provides safety and services to victims of Human Trafficking	$300,000	Wyden; Merkley

Originally created and posted on the Oregon Housing Blog.

HUD Took ZERO Deductions From HUD Congressional Earmarks; Other Agencies Took $500M (3%).

Large OMB report HERE shows deductions taken by Federal agencies from FY 2008 earmarked funds.

Related NY Times story is HERE.

Some agency deductions were to pay for agencies administrative costs, some were because earmarked projects were "ineligible"--AKA ILLEGAL. DOT had $8.1 Million of these "ineligible" projects (see page 23).

On page 3, OBM lists HUD as one of several agencies which did not deduct ANYTHING from earmarked funds--meaning ALL $$ were to be disbursed to grantees. In FY 2008 there were 777/$205 Million in HUD earmarks; a listing is HERE.

Despite the modest 3% agency deductions (including millions for ineligible/illegal projects) Senator Nelson self righteously claims in the NY Times story:

"“This is an issue of transparency,” Mr. Nelson said. “Some of these agencies are clearly taking money without any authority, and they should not have these off-budget expense accounts."

[Perhaps he was peeved that Agriculture/Rural Development deducted 6% /$20.1 Million of their earmarked $$?].

Thankfully, the NY Times story adds a bit more context:

"Many federal agencies can cite laws or rules that they say grant them the authority to take part of the earmarked money. But the laws and rules do not always specify the percentage that can be withheld, and some agencies say there is no law outlining how much they can take. As a result, many agencies have developed their own policies."

Cross Post: Seattle Time Story on Defense Favors/Earmarks Includes Oregon Data.

Post from my Oregon Earmarks Blog is HERE.

Cross Post: Palin '08-'09 Per Capita State Earmark Requests Compared to Obama.

From my Oregon Earmarks blog, new post HERE.

Cross Post: Earmark Moratorium Defeated in Senate.

Voting against the moratorium during the budget bill consideration were both Oregon Senators, while all presidential candidates voted FOR the moratorium.
See cross post from my Oregon Earmarks blog HERE.

Cross Post: CRS Report on Earmark Executive Order.

Cross Post From Oregon Earmarks Blog , HERE

From the report:
" Courts have acknowledged a premise upon which the order appears to be based: Earmarks in legislative history documents and other sources that are not anchored in statutory text have no legal force or effect"

CROSS POST: News Flash for President, Earmark DOLLARS have Declined by 25%-36%.

From Oregon Earmarks Blog HERE.

Earmark Database Correction Posted; Handful of Duplicate Entries Removed

In reviewing the data in my last posting and workbook I realized that there were a handful of Senate earmarks from the Commerce and Justice appropriations that had been entered twice. I have now removed those duplicates from the database in this CORRECTED database HERE.

The new Oregon earmark total is now $488,786,572 instead of the previously reported total of $490,586,572

1.The President’s earmark requests and those presidential earmarks supported by the delegation, and the difference between them, remained the same as in the earlier post:

The President’s budget earmark requests for Oregon: $454,707,000

Presidential Earmarks Only, Oregon Delegation requested: $373,442,833

Oregon delegation reduction in Presidential earmarks: ($81,264,167)

2. However, the amount of Oregon delegation earmarks NOT found in the President’s budget were reduced. This also reduced the net increase in delegation earmarks beyond those requested in the Presidents budget. The corrected amounts are:

Oregon delegation earmarks NOT in the President’s Budget: $115,343,739

Net Increase in Delegation Earmarks vs. President’s Budget: $34,079,572

I regret these errors.

Earmarks Inching Closer to Half a Billion; Delegation Earmarks vs. Presidential Earmarks Data Worksheets Added

House Defense and Agriculture earmarks have added another $20 Million to Oregon earmarks, bringing combined House and Senate earmarks past the $490 Million level for FY 2008.
FY 2008 earmarks are 19 times FY 2007 Oregon earmarks of $25.73 Million.


Analysis of Presidential vs. Oregon Delegation Earmarks.

1.In the Excel workbook HERE I have added a new worksheet which includes only those earmarks where “the President” is included as either the requestor or in combination with an Oregon Senator or Representative.

The President’s budget earmark requests for Oregon:
$454,707,000

Presidential Earmarks Only, Oregon Delegation requested:
$373,442,833


Oregon Delegation Reduction in Presidential Earmarks: $(81,264,167)


2.I have added a second worksheet for earmarks NOT from the President, but added by a member of the delegation.

Oregon delegation earmarks NOT in the President’s Budget: $117,143,739

3.Net Increase in Delegation Earmarks vs. President’s Budget: $35,879,572



Some important notes:

1. About ¼ of the appropriations bills remain to be passed by committee and data entered into the Oregon earmarks database.
2. The database necessarily currently has similar/duplicate entries for the same project in differing bills from the House and Senate. The amount represented as Presidential earmarks are subject to similar duplication.
3. None of the appropriations bills has been passed by both House and Senate and signed by the President. The bill reconciliation process, possible vetoes, and the possibility of an omnibus appropriations bill combining several individual bills will have impact earmarks, most likely to reduce them.

There are three important “take aways’ :

1. When all is said and done, Oregon final earmarks for FY 2008 may very well be LESS than the earmarks for Oregon requested by the President in his budget, albeit for different projects than requested in the budget.
2. Data confirmation that the President’s Budget IS a key source of earmarks should not minimize the significant increase in Oregon Earmarks that seems likely to occur from FY 2007 to FY 2008.
3. With few appropriations bills actually signed into law it seems likely there may be once again an omnibus spending bill combining several appropriations into one bill. This would likely refocus attention on earmarks, even though unlike last year this is not an election year (but it is a year before the presidential electon).

Update: House Approval of HUD Appropriations Bill—Finally Yes, After 12 Hour Debate.

The House took up consideration of the HUD/Transportation bill around 8:20 A.M. Pacific Time on Tuesday July 24th. The debate on the bill, including consideration of 42 amendments, continued for another 12 hours before the bill was finally approved.

The full THOMAS information on the bill, including all amendments is here)

In addition to the two HUD related amendments discussed in yesterdays article (here) there were a number of additional HUD related amendments that were defeated or withdrawn. These included an increase in Public Housing operating subsidies by $20 million; elimination of funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program; an increase in Brownfields funding by $1 million; an increase in funding for Fair Housing by $5.82 million; an increase of Lead Hazard Control funding by $10 million; elimination of earmark projects in Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, California, Alabama, and Texas; prohibition of the use of funds to implement or enforce the requirement under section 12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937[this was a public housing community service exemption provision]; reduction in funding by $3.2 billion, by $507.67 million, and by $253.69 million; prohibition of the use of FHA funds for a housing trust fund; prohibition of the use of funds to implement Davis Bacon provisions.

HUD related amendments that were approved included an increase of HOME funding by $6.76 million; prohibition from the use of funds to implement proposed rules published on Friday, May 11, 2007, relating to FHA standards for mortgagor's investment in mortgaged property; prohibition of the use of funds to provide homeownership assistance for applicants, or to employ workers as described in 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

Complete HUD /Transportation Appropriations Bills and Reports are Finally Available

PDF files of the text of House and Senate HUD/Transportation appropriation bills, and their reports, were finally published late this week (It took about a week after the bills were considered by Committee for this to be completed).

The Senate version (S.1789), is here. Earmarks are found in the Senate report (Senate Report 110-131), here), not in the text of the bill.

House Report: 42 pages of earmarks requests.

The House Report on the bill is No. 110–238 and it is available here.

(House earmark requests in this Report cover 42 pages; look for an analysis of any Oregon HUD earmarks funded within this bill, and compared to Senate HUD earmarks in Oregon, later this week).

The full text of the House version (H.R. 3074) is here.

(As of today I have not seen reliable information about scheduled dates for votes on HUD appropriations in either the House or the Senate. If you have that information, please indicate that information, and its source, in the comments section of this posting).

Perspective: $288 Million in Senate HUD Earmark Spending as High As 29 Times Spending Slated for Other Important HUD Programs.

HUD earmarks in FY 2007 appropriations were ZERO. The FY 2008 Senate HUD /Transportation Committee approved appropriations bill includes $240 Million in earmarks for Economic Development Initiatives and another $48 Million in Neighborhood Initiatives, a total of $288 Million in HUD earmarks.

The Senate Appropriations Committee bill would see HUD spending more on earmarks than it does for AID’s housing, for disabled housing, for public housing redevelopment, fair housing enforcement, etc.

Click here to see a PDF table with a comparison of earmark funding to funding for some other HUD programs –the ratio of earmark spending vs. those programs is as high as 29 to 1.

(Keep up to date on Oregon earmarks by subscribing to the Oregon Earmarks blog here.