By Jonathan Allen and Rachel Bloom, CQ Staff

Black and Hispanic lawmakers in the House lag significantly behind their white counterparts in the distribution of appropriations earmarks, a new analysis of spending bills for fiscal 2008 shows.

The average white House Democrat got twice as much money for special projects this year as the average black Democrat, by one measure. By another, white Democrats came out on top by a 5-3 ratio. White Democrats also did better than Hispanics in netting earmarked dollars.

The analysis largely confirms past findings about a process that generally rewards the constituents of appropriators, their political allies and party leaders. Congressional districts that are not represented on the Appropriations Committee or in the leadership get less, as do many districts dominated by racial minorities and the most conservative Republican-leaning districts.

“These decisions get made based on political power,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that compiled the latest statistics on earmarks. Congressional Quarterly analyzed the data and calculated breakdowns by party, race, gender and other attributes.

“We’re concerned,” said Rep. G.K. Butterfield , D-N.C., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “It’s time to critically re-evaluate the methodology used” to award earmarks, he said.

The new statistics cover $18.3 billion allotted to 12,881 specially designated projects in the Defense appropriations law (PL 110-116) and the omnibus measure that covered all other spending for the current fiscal year (PL 110-161).

The analysis comes at a time when increasing attention is focused on the process of targeting spending to favored projects. President Bush has directed agencies to ignore future earmarks that are not written specifically into law — and most are not. Instead, they are included in directives in non-binding committee reports.

Averages Show Disparities: Click Here to View Chart

Conservatives have led House Republicans in demanding that Democrats impose a moratorium on earmarks until the process can be overhauled.

Moderate and conservative House Republicans are also engaged in a fierce battle for the Appropriations seat left open by the resignation of Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who was appointed to fill the Senate seat vacated by Republican Trent Lott. Wicker led all House members in earmarks this year, sponsoring or cosponsoring $178 million in projects, according to the data.

Calls for change also have come from minority groups, as well as a few lawmakers who regard earmarking as wasteful.

The Congressional Black Caucus formed a five-member task force to address gaps in earmarks between whites and African-Americans after a CQ analysis last October found disparities in the process.

Black Caucus members have since met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., to discuss their concerns. But black and Hispanic Democrats have said that alterations could not easily have been made before the fiscal 2009 appropriations process. “Something should be done,” said Ra??l M. Grijalva , an Arizona Democrat who is a leader among Hispanics in the House. “The expectation was there, but the time was too short.”

Some conservatives are trying to force refinements in the process by legislation. Rep. Phil Gingrey , R-Ga., introduced a bill aimed at giving an equal share of the earmark pot to each lawmaker. It has 50 GOP cosponsors.

“The Speaker is aware of these concerns and has had discussions with members of both caucuses,” said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill. “As with our efforts to ensure transparency in earmarks, the Speaker is open to continued reforms to ensure the earmark process is fair and equitable.”

The Methodology

In its tabulations, Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) produced two figures for each lawmaker. One total is based on projects for which a lawmaker is given sole credit as sponsor. The second tallies earmarks credited to a lawmaker as either sponsor or cosponsor. The TCS analysis also includes about $3.5 billion, mostly for water projects and defense items that were not listed by the House and Senate Appropriations committees as earmarks, but that the group decided should be included.

The analysis was limited because the Appropriations panels do not say what portion of each multi-sponsor earmark should be credited to each lawmaker involved in it. Many members of the House and Senate add their names to the projects sponsored by other members of their state’s congressional delegation in the final phases of the legislative process. TCS calculated 1,672 instances of senators adding their names to projects that originated in the House. House members piggybacked on 1,284 Senate earmarks.

Those Who Said 'No': Click Here to View Chart

“That tells us that earmarks are not radioactive,” said Alexander.

The Winners

The lawmakers who bring home the most, almost all of whom are members of the Appropriations committees, tend to be proud of their accomplishments.

In the Senate, where 29 members serve on the committee, appropriators got 77 percent of the earmarked dollars attributed to a single sponsor and were credited for 43 percent of the dollars secured by multiple members.

Fifteen percent of House members are on the Appropriations Committee, and they received 49 percent of the solo-sponsored earmark dollars and cosponsored 32 percent of the shared projects.

“Great. Wonderful,” Wicker said upon learning of his spot atop the House list. While Wicker earmarked less than $7 million by himself, he joined with colleagues, including Lott and the top Senate Republican appropriator, Thad Cochran , on more than 25 times that figure.

Top Recepients: Click Here to View

“I do it because it’s good policy,” he said.

The Mississippi delegation proved among the most adept at funneling tax dollars back home, which could play to Wicker’s advantage as he seeks to defend his new seat in the November election.

Mississippi ranks fourth in earmarked dollars per capita, behind Alaska, Hawaii and West Virginia, all of which are represented by senior Senate appropriators.

Sen. Mary L. Landrieu , also an appropriator, was first among all Democrats in earmarked dollars secured along with other members, a total of $470 million.

“I do believe the process can be abused at times,” Landrieu, D-La., said. “However, I believe our constituents sent us here to fight for them and to fight for projects that they believe are valid.”

Pennsylvania Rep. John P. Murtha , the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, ranked first among House Democrats, with $176 million in shared earmarks and $160 million attributed solely to himself.

The Abstainers

The small set of lawmakers who do not seek earmarks at all often express the most disdain for the process.

Sen. Tom Coburn , R-Okla., argues that earmarks cost far more than their stated price tags, which generally amount to 1 percent of all appropriations or less. Party leaders can persuade lawmakers to vote for massive spending bills they might not otherwise support by directing relatively small bursts of funding to their districts, he said. “The earmark is the tool,” he said.

He is one of 13 House and Senate members — 11 Republicans and two Democrats — who did not sponsor or cosponsor any earmarks last year.

States That Got the Most: Click Here to View Chart

One of the nay-saying Democrats, freshman Sen. Claire McCaskill , represents Missouri with Christopher S. Bond , a Republican who ranks fourth among all lawmakers with $455 million in earmarks secured by himself and with colleagues. “We have a very different view,” McCaskill said. “I believe very much in getting federal dollars for Missouri. But it should be based on merit and a competitive process.”

Those who do not earmark say their constituents understand their position and — as evidenced by their re-election — they do not pay a political price.

“None that we know of,” said Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz., whose state ranks at the bottom of the list, in part because he and GOP Reps. Jeff Flake and John Shadegg abstain from earmarking.

House Democrats who are white directed an average of $9 million to their districts for projects on which they were the lone sponsor. For African-American House members, all of whom are Democrats, the figure was $4.4 million. The 20 Hispanic Democrats averaged $7 million, a figure that was bolstered by more than $1 million per member by a single $23 million earmark for an international bridge with one end in the district of Texas Rep. Ruben Hinojosa .

White Democrats, on average, were the sole sponsors or cosponsors of $35 million in earmarked money, compared with $22 million for the party’s African-Americans and $23 million for its Hispanic members.

Grijalva said the poorest communities often end up getting the least help. “Where the greatest need is, that should be a criteria, and it’s not,” he said.

Alexander, of TCS, credited Congress with reducing the number of earmarks from past years and for implementing new rules that made it easier to identify earmark sponsors.

But she said the process could be more transparent. “It’s impossible to imagine staff or members of Congress having the time to look at every one of those items,” Alexander said.

Greg Vadala contributed to this story.