Following floor battle, members release lists of earmark requests

Last week’s debate about earmark secrecy is producing even more openness about what projects lawmakers want taxpayers to fund.

Several members, seeking to ensure they aren’t seen as hypocritical on the issue, have released lists of their requests.

{mosads}House Budget Committee ranking member Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released the two projects he wants — $6 million for public transit in Janesville and $75 million in a statewide transit request — when reporters asked this week. So did Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), whose list includes $6.8 million for “Sandy Point Road.”

“People asked because of the debate, so we released it,” said Ryan spokeswoman Kate Matus.

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) yesterday released his lengthy list, which includes $1 million for the “Theater on the Lake.” He is the only member of Democratic leadership to release his list of projects, though leadership aides stressed that all earmarks agreed to by the Appropriations Committee will be made public, along with their sponsors.

Emanuel says it is hypocritical of Republicans to bash Democrats about transparency but not tell the public what projects they’re seeking.

“All of a sudden, House Republicans have found their voice and proved the old Washington adage: Their opinions are firm — it’s their principles they’re flexible on,” Emanuel said. “For 12 years, House Republicans refused to make any changes and presided over an earmark explosion.”

Some of last week’s most outspoken critics of Democrats’ earmark proposal aren’t so open about their own requests.

Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) were among the leaders of the effort to criticize Democrats for keeping earmarks secret and refusing to allow the projects to be challenged on the floor.

“Let’s have a way to evaluate those earmarks. Our constituents deserve to know before that vote takes place rather than after that bill comes out of conference committee,” Blackburn said.

But they had already turned down requests from newspaper reporters in their home states for a list of the earmarks they were requesting.

“We have a policy of letting the appropriations process unfold before releasing information about who received federal funding,” Blackburn told her local paper.

Two Democrats from her state, Reps. Jim Cooper and Lincoln Davis, released their lists in May in response to a media request.

But Blackburn maintains that Democratic criticism is a ploy to divert attention, claiming that Democrats lost the debate on earmarks last week and were forced to do what Republicans had been demanding.  

“This is just a smokescreen put up by liberal leadership because they feel like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar,” Blackburn spokesman Matt Lambert said. “They are unhappy because members exposed their scheme for creating secret earmark slush funds and trying to hide billions of dollars in pork.”

A McHenry spokesman echoed Blackburn’s claims and said his boss didn’t release his earmark request because of a “long-standing” practice among the North Carolina delegation to “avoid confusion.”

“The Democrats took it on the chin last week — and this week, they’re trying to play political rope-a-dope. It’s interesting that they want to rehash a fight they’ve already lost,” said McHenry spokesman Aaron Latham. “We release information on requests when the Appropriations Committee completes the bill-drafting process and there is something tangible and in print.”

GOP Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) lists his earmark requests on his website, although his spokesman, Ed Patru, says each member should decide whether or not to make requests public.

“Some members release them. Some don’t. Some disclose only to local media on request,” Patru said. “The issue is whether members ought to have the right to challenge these earmarks on the floor. You saw the power of that with [Rep.] Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and [John] Murtha (D-Pa.).”
Rogers tried to strip a $23 million earmark placed in the Iraq spending bill by House Appropriations defense subcommittee Chairman Murtha for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Murtha’s district. Days later, Murtha reportedly threatened Rogers’s earmarks “in a loud voice” on the House floor. Republicans tried and failed to reprimand Murtha, who later apologized.

Earmarks grew dramatically under 12 years of Republican rule as watchdog groups grumbled. They became truly notorious when it was revealed that earmarks were part of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s (R-Calif.) personal enrichment campaign, that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff called them “favor factories,” and that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) used one for construction of a bridge to a remote area, dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Democrats promised a more open and transparent process, but when appropriations season came around this month, they announced that earmarks would not be added until conference, when they cannot be deleted from bills.

When that caused a furor, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) announced that the earmarks would be made public a month before conference committees met.

But he still wasn’t going to allow members to challenge them on the floor. Irate Republicans protested with procedural motions that shut down floor action for much of last week.

Last Thursday night, they finally reached a deal allowing the homeland security and military construction bills to pass with no earmarks. The remaining 10 bills will include a list of requested projects. Members would be permitted to raise a point of order if a bill has earmarks that were added in conference and if a list of earmarks is not included.

 Click here for  list of earmark requests by select members