GOP divided on earmarks’ revival

House Democrats propose new process for funding requests

WASHINGTON — Republicans are weighing whether to join a Democratic push to revive earmarks, the much-maligned practice in which lawmakers direct federal spending to a specific project or institution back home, such as a new bridge, community library or university research program.

Earmarking was linked to corruption a decade ago, leading to an outcry and their banishment in both the House and Senate. But many in Congress say the ban has gone too far, ceding the “power of the purse” to party leaders and the executive branch and giving lawmakers less incentive to work with members of the other party on major legislation.

Democratic appropriators in the House are proposing a revamped process allowing lawmakers to submit public requests for “community project funding” in federal spending bills. To guard against graft, the process includes safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest.

Whether earmarking becomes bipartisan could have enormous implications not only for the allocation of spending across the country, but for President Joe Biden, who is gearing up to push for an infrastructure overhaul that he hopes will attract significant Republican support. With earmarking in place, bipartisanship could prove easier to achieve, as lawmakers on both sides of the aisle could have reason to support bills they would otherwise oppose.

“This is a matter of allowing members to serve their own constituents,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. “Somebody is going to be making these decisions — and I don’t want to bash federal bureaucrats — but somebody who has never been to my district probably doesn’t know the needs as well as I do.”

With Congress having allocated nearly $6 trillion in response to the covid-19 pandemic, some conservatives are opposed to the prospect of Republicans participating in a Democratic spending spree. They say their party should resist earmarking, not revive it.

“This is not the time to fall into the swamp or into the dark hole of earmarks,” said Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C. “We’ve got to draw a bright line between Republicans and Democrats right now.”

For now, the debate over earmarks is taking place mostly behind the scenes, with the House Republican leadership holding a listening session on the issue Monday night.

“It really feels like a jump ball,” Budd said. “Some are adamantly opposed, as am I. The older members who have been here a lot longer, they tend to be for it.”

Republican members in both chambers of Congress have sponsored legislation this year to prohibit earmarks. Eleven Republicans have added their names to a bill sponsored by Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., and 10 Republicans have signed on to a House version from Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C.

About three dozen lawmakers signed a letter Wednesday urging the leaders of the appropriations committees in both chambers to avoid a return to earmarking. Budd spearheaded the effort.

The end of earmarking came swiftly a decade ago, when House Republicans took the majority and quickly banned the practice. Then-President Barack Obama pledged during a State of the Union address that “if a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.” The Senate Appropriations Committee soon followed up with a moratorium of its own.

Over the years, the moratorium has been enforced by party rules and committee protocols. It does not exist in House or Senate rules or by force of law.

In late February, as Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., took charge of the House Appropriations Committee, she said it was time for a change. Done properly, she and other Democrats say a defined process for funding requests can make lawmakers more responsive to their constituents.

She has spelled out several requirements that must be met for lawmakers to request funding, including;

■ All requests must be made online.

■ Members must certify that they and their family have no financial interest in the projects they request.

■ Members may request funding for state or local government grantees and for nonprofits, but not to help for-profit corporations. A maximum of 10 requests will be considered per member.

■ The overall amount of spending on projects must not exceed 1% of discretionary spending. Such spending doesn’t include entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security, or the cost of financing the federal debt.