House Democrats are eager to revive the notorious earmark, which is any provision that allocates cash to a pet project in a particular congressional district, when they take back the majority in January.
There is no House rule banning earmarks, but the Republican majority curtailed the practice in 2011 following allegations of corruption and years of bad publicity about projects like Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” that came with a $320 million price tag.
Now that Democrats are poised to take charge in January, there is nothing to stop them from inserting earmarks in the fiscal 2020 spending bills next year, and lawmakers said they are hoping to soon get a piece of the federal spending pie for specific needs in their districts.
“I hope they come back,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., who will take over as majority whip next year, told the Washington Examiner. “I was against them ever leaving.”
Clyburn and other proponents believe the earmark moratorium imposed by Republicans usurped the authority of Congress to direct spending.
Republicans and Democrats alike have argued that the earmark ban left directed spending up to the executive branch, which does not have the same ability or motivation to fund the needs of individual congressional districts. Lawmakers want the power back in order to give them more control over federal spending for their constituents.
“That’s my argument,” Clyburn told the Washington Examiner.
Democrats in particular are eager to wrest back control of the executive branch because most are so vehemently opposed to President Trump.
“Having the Trump administration decide what is going to happen in various congressional districts is not necessarily the right approach,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told the Washington Examiner.
Returning earmarks requires no congressional action, but Democratic leaders would have to give the green light when appropriations bills are drafted next year. They are poised to do so, top leaders said this week.
But Lofgren and other veteran lawmakers in both parties are wary of simply going back to the old earmarking practices that were deemed wasteful or outright corrupt.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks “quintupled” between 1996 and 2005 and included spending that earned public disdain.
In 2006, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham was sentenced to eight years in prison for using his perch on the House Appropriations Committee to earmark money for military contractors in exchange for bribes.
Democrats in the majority at the time added accountability and transparency to the earmark process, but Speaker John Boehner, a staunch earmark opponent, imposed a moratorium when he took over in 2011.
House Republicans have since then increasingly clamored for a limited return of earmarks for waterway and other projects, but the GOP leadership had shied away from returning to a practice that was vilified just a decade ago.
Democratic leaders do not appear hesitant at all.
“I am for what the Constitution says the Congress has the authority and responsibility to do: raise and spend money,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who will become majority leader in January.
But even those who want earmarks back are wary of simply permitting earmarks without making additional changes to ensure transparency and accountability.
“It would definitely need to be different than the way it was before,” Lofgren told the Washington Examiner.
Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., is a proponent of earmarks, which he said he was able to use to help the neediest in his district and to acquire federal dollars for low income housing and other projects.
“The problem with earmarks is they were abused,” Levin, who has served in Congress since 1983, told the Washington Examiner. “I think they need to essentially eliminate earmarks for private entities and have them only public. There needs to be a really good look at it.”
Hoyer reminded reporters this week of the earmark reform put in place by the Democrats when they took the majority in 2006. Those changes include limiting spending to public sector and nonprofit recipients and making them transparent in legislation posted online.
Democrats also required lawmakers affirm they have no financial interest in an earmark.
“To say that a member of Congress is unable to help his or her district, I think that is incorrect,” Hoyer said. “I expect to have the majority of both parties supporting this.”
