Lifting the Earmark Moratorium: Frequently Asked Questions (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (10 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Dec. 3, 2020 |
| Report Number |
R45429 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Lynch, Megan S. |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Dec. 10, 2018 (10 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
While the term earmark has been used historically to describe various types of congressional
spending actions, since the 110th Congress (2007-2008) House and Senate rules have defined an
earmark as any congressionally directed spending, tax benefit, or tariff benefit that would benefit
an entity or a specific state, locality, or congressional district. In the 112th Congress (2011-2012),
the House and Senate began observing what has been referred to as an earmark moratorium or
earmark ban. The moratorium does not exist in House or Senate chamber rules, however, and
therefore is not enforced by points of order. Instead, the moratorium has been established by party rules and committee
protocols and is enforced by chamber and committee leadership through their agenda-setting power.
In recent years, some Members have expressed interest in lifting the earmark moratorium. Whether or not the earmark
moratorium is lifted, the House and Senate continue to have formal earmark disclosure rules that were implemented in the
110th Congress with the stated intention of bringing more transparency to earmarking. These rules generally prohibit
consideration of certain legislation unless information is provided about any earmarks included in the legislation. House and
Senate rules require that any Member submitting an earmark request provide a written statement that includes the name of the
Member, the name and address of the earmark recipient, and a certification that the Member has no financial interest in the
earmark. House and Senate rules require that committees determine whether a provision constitutes an earmark, and
committees must compile and make accessible certain earmark-related information.
If Congress were to lift the current earmark ban, it might also choose to institute any number of policies or restrictions to
govern the use of congressional earmarks. These policies or restrictions might be instituted through formal amendments to
the House and Senate standing rules, by standing order, or by enacting new law. Such policies might also be instituted
through party rules or leadership and committee practices and protocols. Some policies might seek to add more transparency
to the earmarking process or prohibit certain types of entities from receiving earmarks. Restrictions might be implemented
related to the purposes for which an earmark could be used or limiting the amount of federal dollars that might be spent on
earmarks. Other policy approaches might potentially involve the executive branch or the congressional support agencies.
