In a
surprising development, momentum is building in Congress to revive the use of
earmarks after President Trump endorsed the idea on Tuesday, The Hill reported
this week.
No matter
what, they won't call them earmarks: lawmakers say they're in favor of
"congressionally directed spending." That would be a significant
change in attitudes on Capitol hill, and conservatives are divided on whether
to reverse the ban, which has been in place since Republicans took over the
House majority after the 2010 midterm elections.
Conservative
leaders like House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, R-N.C., reject the
idea—but, even they sound open to a return to earmarks ahead of House Rules
Committee hearings next week.
"I
don't know that I'm opposed to it," Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., a
Freedom Caucus member, told The Hill. "We're spending more money than ever
and it's still going out, but it doesn't seem to come to my district."
If
earmarks were restored, "I can be more of a spokesman for the people in
Tennessee who need it," DesJarlais continued. "There is an overpass
in Rutherford County that we need to get funding for. We've got things up in
Nashville, the Percy Priest Reservoir … so yeah, I would like to have a better
voice."
"I
don't know if earmarks is the answer. I've never had them, so I don't know if
it's good or not."
Other
conservatives also expressed openness to allowing earmarks or something
similar, saying that ensuring money for specific projects would give the
legislative branch more power.
Trump
said at a White House meeting with roughly two dozen lawmakers on Tuesday that
Congress should consider allowing earmarks again. He suggested that doing so
would allow Congress to function better, lamenting that the "levels of
hatred" among Republicans and Democrats are "out of control."
"Maybe
we should think about it," Trump said. "Maybe all of you should think
about going back to a form of earmarks. You should do it."
"We
have to put better controls because it got a little out of hand, but that
brings people together," Trump added.
House
Republicans came close to reinstating earmarks days after Trump won the
presidency in 2016. Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., persuaded his conference to postpone
a vote on returning earmarks, reminding them that Trump had just won the
election on a promise to "drain the swamp."
But a
little over a year later, Republicans are trying again.
The
first Rules Committee hearing on Jan. 17 will feature testimony from members of
both parties to discuss earmarks, while subject matter experts will headline
the second hearing the following day.
House
Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, R-Texas, stressed that any return to
spending that resembles earmarks would include reforms.
"The
bottom line is we are trying to create a new way. We are not going back to
earmarks. Those were dead eight years ago," Sessions told The Hill.
"What
we're going to do is allow a meritorious-based system where people can see this
as in the best interest, on a meritorious basis, for programs."
"Member-directed
resources is an important part in making sure you're targeting money where it
needs to go," Rep. David Joyce, R., Ohio, told The Hill. "People
should put their names on this and make it transparent so everyone gets to see
what you're putting your name to."
Congressional
leaders once had the power to use earmarks as a way to corral the necessary
votes to pass legislation. They would dangle the promise of an earmark in an
upcoming spending bill in exchange for a lawmaker's vote on legislation.
Some
members have argued in recent years that the lack of earmarks has contributed
to the gridlock in Congress.
"I
think we've just given up so much power to the executive branch, number one.
Then number two, you've lost a legislative tool that's useful," said Rep.
Tom Cole R-Okla., a senior member of both the Rules and Appropriations panels.
Rep.
Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., another top appropriator, fist-pumped in excitement
when he learned that Trump's comments on Tuesday were publicly televised.
House
Republicans led by then-Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, pushed for the earmark
ban following acknowledgments by both parties that some projects had been
abused.
The
infamous "bridge to nowhere" — a proposed $400 million project to
construct a bridge between the city of Ketchikan, Alaska, and a nearby island
with an airport — further drew nationwide derision around the same time as a
case of a kickback for an earmark came to light and paved the way for banning
earmarks.
Cole
acknowledged reinstating earmarks in an election year would be tough and
stressed that any effort should be bipartisan.
"I
think anytime you start the process, that's good. And I applaud the effort. But
I recognize how difficult it's going to be in an election year," Cole
said.
Earmarks,
by any name, help Congress pass appropriations bills many don't like—so,
appropriators tend to like them, while budget hawks don't. Still, this is a
fight producers should watch as it gets underway in the near future, Washington
Insider believes.