Congress revives earmarks ahead of big bills
WASHINGTON — Untreated sewage has sloshed illegally into Pittsburgh’s three rivers for decades — the result of an aging sewer system that has created a costly engineering challenge for the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority that, by latest estimates, will cost more than $2 billion.
Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, is sympathetic — and, along with lawmakers of both parties, is now eyeing a comprehensive infrastructure package this spring that could total as much as $2 trillion over the next decade.
Alcosan’s sewer project costs will “all fall on the ratepayers if we don’t provide some assistance from the federal government,” Mr. Doyle said during a virtual talk with community leaders this month. “I anticipate that any infrastructure bill that we do, there’s going to be a clean water component to that, and it’s going to deal with some of these kinds of projects.”
“So hang in there, Alcosan,” he added. “Help is on the way.”
Mr. Doyle’s pledge carries a little more weight this year. That’s because earmarks, after a decadelong ban in Congress, are poised for a comeback in upcoming spending bills.
Earmarks, provisions inserted by lawmakers into government spending bills that direct funding to a specific project in their district, long were maligned by critics as wasteful and unnecessary spending. The socalled “Bridge to Nowhere,” an unfinished project in Alaska fiercely supported by its local lawmakers,
ginned up public controversy in the late-2000s and drew ire from lawmakers of both parties.
Now, a new argument has won the day: that Congress, with the constitutional power over the government’s purse strings, should seize back some of that control from unelected officials in federal agencies.
Last month, Democrats, who control both the House and Senate, moved to allow earmarks on 1% of annual discretionary spending, amounting to about $14 billion in funding that will be divided up among lawmakers in both chambers. The House Republican caucus followed suit last week, voting to lift its internal party ban. The secret-ballot vote was 102 to 84, GOP sources told Politico.
Regional lawmakers are preparing to have conversations with local groups in the coming weeks about where federal funding could be needed most. On Friday, Rep. Conor Lamb, D-Mt. Lebanon, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, announced that his office was opening up requests through 5 p.m. April 6.
“This program is an opportunity to invest federal dollars in important projects in our communities,” Mr. Lamb stated. “When it comes to how your tax dollars are spent, this program gives more of a voice to Western Pennsylvania and less to Washington.”
The move garnered support from some Republicans, too.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Butler, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, voted to lift the ban in the GOP vote last week.
“Congressionally directed spending allows representatives to more effectively serve their districts and fulfill their constitutional power of the purse,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement.
“It has never made sense to me that Congress would abdicate its power to the executive branch and allow unelected bureaucrats to determine where our tax dollars are spent,” he said.
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, RPeters, who joined the House Appropriations Committee this year, said the return of earmarks will “rightfully reassert Congress’ constitutional role over federal spending.”
“Our region relies on federal funding to support everything from our roads and wastewater treatment facilities to local opioid addiction recovery programs and workforce training,” Mr. Reschenthaler said. “Unelected D.C. bureaucrats unfamiliar with the unique needs of areas like ours and beholden to the progressive special interests of the Biden administration should not have complete control in deciding which communities receive funding.”
Bringing it home
Earmarks have long been the subject of a complicated debate over whether they ultimately help or harm constituents and taxpayers.
The term originates with farmers who would cut a notch in their animals’ ears as a mark of ownership. In legislation, an earmark is simply a pot of money set aside for a specific purpose: funding for university research; grants for roads and bridges, locks and dams, and airports; a boost to a local nonprofit that serves the needy.
In Pittsburgh, that could mean something like Defense Department funding to the National Robotics Engineering Center in Lawrenceville, or a Department of Transportation grant for the Bus Rapid Transit project.
Earmarks grew in the 1990s and 2000s when congressional appropriators streamlined earmark requests from lawmakers — though earmark spending was a fraction of overall spending. Earmarks, at their peak, barely broke 2% of total federal outlays, according to a 2006 Harvard study on the practice.
Earmarks often were targeted by leading members of both parties as public distrust of government spending and “pork barrel spending” that promoted patronage with donors and implicit vote buying. In addition to helping constituents, lawmakers who sought
earmarks generally received more donations and had better election results, according to numerous academic studies of the earmark era.
In 2009 — in the depths of the last economic downturn — the late Republican Sen. John McCain railed against some 9,000 earmarks in a government spending bill as “wasteful, disgraceful, corrupting … pork barrel spending.” The following year, thenPresident Barack Obama told lawmakers he would not support legislation that contained earmarks.
Distaste with earmarks has persisted.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., introduced legislation this month that permanently bans earmarks in Congress, a bill that garnered nine Republican co-sponsors but is unlikely to be taken up.
“Earmarks allow lobbyists and politicians to belly up to the pork barrel buffet in order to fund pet projects that are based on politics and favors instead of merit,” Mr. Toomey said. “Going back down this road will only fuel more overspending and further undermine the legislative process.”
Knowing Pennsylvania
But the earmark ban did not stop the push by lawmakers on behalf of projects in their districts, Mr. Doyle explained. Rather, “it really drove the process underground.”
“Let me say this: I don’t apologize for earmarks,” Mr. Doyle said during the virtual conversation this month, hosted by the Greater
Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce.
“The way you got money in that budget was you had to call the administration up, you had to call the secretary of transportation up, and you had to lobby for money that they were directing,” Mr. Doyle said.
Supporters said the current plan to revive earmarks — officially called “member-directed spending” — is transparent and holds members accountable.
Each lawmaker can submit up to 10 requests for earmarks — officially called “community project funding” — to their chamber’s appropriations committee. The details of all requests will be made public via an online, searchable public database. Only nonprofits and governmental entities will be eligible, and the Government Accountability Office will audit the process and submit a report to Congress.
“I was elected, as a member of Congress, to have the opportunity to bring dollars and support to our communities in Pennsylvania,” Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said in an interview.
“Some bureaucrat in Washington — I don’t care what administration; I don’t care whether that bureaucrat is a Democrat or a Republican — they don’t know as much about Pennsylvania as I do,” Mr. Casey said.
A former Pennsylvania auditor general, Mr. Casey said the new earmark rules promote “effective and efficient” spending. But in any cases
where a project goes bust or proves to be politically unpopular, lawmakers can be held accountable in ways an unelected federal official cannot.
“If something happens to a project, or people don’t like the way it was spent, members of Congress like me will get blamed,” Mr. Casey said. “And that’s part of the deal.”
Fierce competition
The potential earmarks for the region remain to be seen — but the challenges are many and widespread following the COVID-19 pandemic and years of underinvestment in infrastructure.
Mr. Doyle told community leaders that he sees it as a “collaborative effort” with local officials and organizations, which is “the way I’ve always done it.” A spokesman with his office estimated that Mr. Doyle directed nearly $33 million to Alcosan alone before the earmark ban was put in effect.
Once submissions are decided by each lawmaker, the competition will be fierce in the House, where $7 billion is up for grabs among more than 400 members. The Senate will get $7 billion to spread among 100 members.
“I want to target areas that haven’t benefited from some of the recovery we’ve seen in some parts of the city, places in the Mon Valley and parts of the city of Pittsburgh that are still struggling,” Mr. Doyle said.