Alt-fuel vehicle center could lose out in earmark battle
By Kevin Bogardus
Posted: 07/31/07 07:53 PM [ET]
Years-long projects have become casualties in the battle between the Bush administration and Congress because of their funding through congressional earmarks. As scandals have grown, Republicans and Democrats have both tried to one-up the other in swearing off the targeted appropriations.
For example, a nationwide consortium of centers that train individuals on how to handle alternative fuel vehicles has lost funding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), despite queries from members of Congress, its affiliated schools and its own executive director. Its funding source: earmarks.
Funded off and on since 1992 by earmarks and executed through the EPA, the National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium (NAFTC) has helped train policemen and firemen to respond to accidents involving alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) as well as offering courses for AFV technicians.
Projects like the NAFTC have been caught in the earmark battle. Top Democratic appropriators promised to ban earmarks for the fiscal year 2007 budget and stripped such projects from the continuing resolution last winter. But taking that route handed the final choice over spending priorities from Congress to the executive branch.
“It has been an odd time for all of us with earmarks in the past. That’s not just us, but every university in the country,” said Dr. John Weete, vice president for research at West Virginia University (WVU). Headquartered at the school, the NAFTC receives its funding from the EPA through the West Virginia University Research Corporation.
“NAFTC had been funded through earmarks but there were no earmarks in FY07,” wrote an EPA spokesman in an email. “Since there were no earmarks, the agency cannot fund except through the competitive grant process.”
During work on the joint resolution that banned earmarks, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said that the legislation “provides the administration far too much latitude in spending the people’s money.” Obey later lamented that worthy projects would not receive funding this year.
On its part, the NAFTC took a proactive approach to the funding shortfall. Al Ebron, the consortium’s executive director, wrote to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson in late February asking for $2 million that had been set aside in the fiscal year 2007 Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
As Ebron argued, the NAFTC’s efforts fit with President Bush’s goal of reducing gas usage. He noted the center has trained close to 8,000 AFV technicians at 29 centers in colleges across the country.
“Without these funds, the NAFTC will be forced to significantly cut our programs or close our doors completely,” wrote Ebron.
In an interview with The Hill, Ebron said some of NAFTC’s 29 affiliated schools also contacted their respective members of Congress about the funds needed for the consortium.
The EPA’s response to Ebron on March 12 was non-committal, saying the agency was studying guidelines set by the budget resolution for this year’s operating plan.
But the EPA was more forceful with members of Congress who wrote in to support the NAFTC, according to letters obtained in Freedom of Information Act requests. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the Senate’s top appropriator, wrote to Johnson in February, asking that the EPA support the consortium.
The agency responded that earmarks are not allowed in EPA’s budget for FY 2007 “per guidance from the Office of Management and Budget [OMB].” That meant no funding will be provided for the NAFTC.
Byrd has supported the NAFTC. According to a Byrd aide, the senator provided the funds to establish the center as a pilot project.
After receiving a copy of Ebron’s letter from a constituent, Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.) forwarded the query to EPA in March and asked for “serious consideration of this matter.” But the agency told Visclosky that there would be no funding for the NAFTC.
In its responses, the EPA was following instructions from the White House. A February 15 memo by OMB director Rob Portman to all federal agencies stated that funding for projects should be based on their merits. In turn, many earmarks were ignored, even after members’ attempts to influence funding priorities.
Neither the consortium nor WVU’s research corporation has a D.C. lobbyist, and Weete and others say it would not be “normal” to hire one.
“We are close enough [to Washington] and we have a good relationship with our delegation,” said Weete.
Meanwhile, Ebron has said he has contacted NAFTC’s program officer at the EPA on what other funds the consortium could compete for, and he will also look to diversify its financing from universities and private projects.
The EPA said the timing of the appropriations process did not allow NAFTC to compete for grants this year, but it can compete in future years. The agency also said that more than $80 million in funds earmarked by members for EPA projects, such as the NAFTC, could be used at their discretion to cover payroll and other costs per Congress’s funding resolution.
No earmarked funding so far has been directed to the NAFTC for the fiscal year 2008 budget. As a result, Weete said, the center might have to consider sharp cuts.
“If the lack of funding continues, it will be difficult to maintain the level of staff,” he said.
