Republicans split on eve of vote to bring back earmarks

Fifteen Senate Republicans, including Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Marco Rubio of Florida, signed a letter on Monday pledging to vote against repealing the conference’s earmarks ban and not to “participate in an inherently wasteful spending practice that is prone to serious abuse.”

That number is not large enough to prevent Senate Republicans from approving earmarks again but demonstrates a willingness of the senators to wage war publicly on their pro-earmark colleagues.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS DROP DECADELONG OPPOSITION TO EARMARKS

Congress placed a ban on earmarks, the practice of allowing members of Congress to designate direct spending for certain programs or projects in their districts while circumventing the normal appropriations process, in the House in 2011. They are often negatively described as “pork barrel” spending.

Senate Republicans banned earmarks in their Senate rules in 2019.

But House Democrats this year have brought back the practice. House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro announced that her committee will accept “community project funding” requests from members. It is essentially a revamped version of the earmarks process with some additional measures meant to guard against abuse.

That put the burden on House Republicans to change their rule against requesting earmarks in order for their members to participate in the revamped program. Despite heavy criticism from some conservatives, the House Republican Conference voted last month to allow Republican members to request funds for their district as long as the request is public and they provide “a written justification for why the project is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds” and neither the member nor the member’s immediate family has an immediate financial interest in the request.

Now Senate Republicans face the same dilemma.

Senate Republican rules stipulate that it “is the policy of the Republican Conference that no Member shall request a congressionally directed spending item, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit, as such items are used in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.”

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said that banning earmarks helped combat “wasteful spending,” and Cruz called it a “corrupt” process.

But as some Republicans have noted, the Senate Republican rules are not binding — meaning that if the rules do not change, there are no tangible consequences for a Republican member.

Some Republicans don’t see the problem with the new earmarks. Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito told reporters last week that she plans to request earmarks.

Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told the hill press pool last week that there is a way to administer earmarks in a “meritorious and substantive” way and that he will request earmarks no matter what.

“If you don’t want ‘em, don’t ask,” Shelby said.

Barring Republicans from participating in the new and improved earmark system comes with political risks. A Democrat could go back to his or her district or state and point to the specific money brought back to the area and note that the Republicans refused to ask for it. And refusing to participate in the process can deprive their states of funding for key projects that might not otherwise get federal money.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham has argued in favor of earmarks, saying that former President Donald Trump also appears to support them.

“Democrats do it. If we don’t do it, we’re stupid,” Graham said last month.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Former President Barack Obama campaigned against earmarks in 2008, pointing to money aimed at expensive projects such as the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska that was meant to connect one town to an airport but was never completed. Other critics say that the process fosters corruption: In 2006, California Rep. Randy Cunningham was sentenced to eight years in prison for taking bribes in order to deliver spending via earmarks.