The Alabama Legislature is stalled on how to solve the funding crisis in education and since legislators are just returning from a one-week spring break, this week's Governmental Relations Update will focus on a federal issue. Specifically, I want to address the federal appropriations practice known as earmarking.

If you listened to the mainstream media today, you would believe that federal earmarks are criminal and that members of Congress directing them, and the leaders of the institutions receiving them, should be behind bars. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled "Colleges' Earmarks Grow, Amid Criticism" (referenced in the March 25 edition of the Press Register) begins with the following paragraph. "A record-breaking number of Congressional pork-barrel projects this year has loaded college and university plates with more of these controversial grants than ever before. The number of institutions receiving earmarks has shot up despite growing worries that the noncompetitive grants undermine the American scientific enterprise, and in spite of promises by some lawmakers to cut back."

Many would have you believe that earmarks are the cause of our federal budget deficit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Earmarks are neither criminal nor contributing to the federal deficit. In fact, earmarks make up only 6/10 of one percent of total non-discretionary federal spending. If earmarks were eliminated tomorrow, the money previously earmarked would still be spent. But without Congressional direction, it would be up to the bureaucrats in Washington, who answer to no one, and especially not the voters in Alabama, on where the money would go.

Members of Congress are elected to direct federal spending. Alabama sends its seven House Members and two Senators to Washington to help decide how taxpayer money should be spent. To eliminate earmarks would take away the right of our elected representatives to direct federal spending.

It is true, the earmark process has been abused in the past. The good news is that lobbyists and Congressmen involved in the practice have been convicted and are now serving time in federal penitentiary. As a result of the previous misuse, Congress has installed safeguards that require earmarks to be "clear and transparent." I believe the process has been adequately evaluated and flaws have been addressed.

Many appropriators, such as House Appropriations Committee's newest member, Mobile's own Jo Bonner, are pledged to make sure the process is open and above board. It is time to claim victory and move on.

And, now for a more selfish reason why I support earmarks. A recent New York Times article reported that the $30 million earmarked in the 2008 fiscal year budget by Senator Richard Shelby for the University of South Alabama's Engineering and Science Center was the largest single earmark in the current year's budget. Raise your hand if you think a bureaucrat in Washington would have directed that funding to USA. The Chronicle of Higher Education's article quoted earlier indicates that the University of South Alabama received the third largest amount of total non-shared earmarks for FY 08. At $33.4 million, the University of South Alabama is just behind the University of Mississippi at $37.6 million and $10 million behind Mississippi State University, ranked number 1, at $43 million.

We are proud of the earmark requests that we send to Congress each year. Every project submitted is of value to our community. They all help fulfill the University's mission of teaching, research and public service.