‘Letter’ of Earmarks Law Tough to Follow

Related Content

Related Story

• Who’s on First for New Ethics Training?

Print

E-Mail

Reprints

Text Size

Latest News

• Balfour Drops Out of Race for Linder's Seat
• Setbacks Zero Out Gains in Whip Count
• Schumer, Graham Unveil Immigration Reform Blueprint
• Subpoenas Target Nevada Firms That Donated to NRSC
• Obama Fails to Sway Lynch

A little-noticed provision included in the House rules package on earmark reform has prompted a growing tide of frustration from rank-and-file Members’ offices over the lack of clarity provided by the new requirements.

And as the spending season begins in earnest, some lawmakers also have raised concerns that the rules cut down on Member input to the Appropriations Committee, giving the already powerful panel even greater autonomy to dole out tax dollars.

The confusion stems from what has been a common practice in past years — to build support for projects of broad or regional interest, lawmakers often circulate letters to their colleagues to sign on to “multi-Member” funding requests.

For instance, Members in Western states make requests for certain flood control projects, or border state lawmakers request more funds for programs to combat illegal immigration, or rural state Members ask for money to combat the illegal production of methamphetamines.

However, Congressional aides familiar with the process say there has been a notable drop in the number of letters circulated this session because the interpretation of the new rules from the staffs of both Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) suggest that any Member who signs one of these letters risks sacrificing one of their total appropriations requests annually allotted to each Member’s office.

In the past, multi-Member letters were considered a separate act from a lawmaker’s yearly earmark requests that are used to steer funds to benefit an individual district’s interests. The deadline for the annual requests this year is March 16. Now, aides said, Members could take a hit on their aggregate requests just by signing on to a multi-Member letter.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty if this is going to be a ding against one of your projects,” said one legislative aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. Compounding the problem is that each of the Appropriations panel’s 12 subcommittees has different standards for the number and restrictions for earmark requests, so what might count against a Member on one subcommittee might not on another. “The entire thing is a crapshoot,” the aide said.

There appears to be consensus that it would not count against a Members’ earmark allotment if the request is “programmatic,” meaning it already is included in the federal budget, but aides have said — under guidance from Obey’s office — that they should nevertheless take the new required step for all requests of certifying there is no conflict of interest for the request.

Now any Member who signs on to such a letter will have to submit a separate letter to the Appropriations Committee on official letterhead verifying the purpose of the funding request and certifying that neither the Member nor their spouse has any financial interest in the requested project.

Another GOP legislative aide noted that the House ethics committee has offered no training sessions or guidance as to exactly what “financial interest” means in regard to earmark requests and what might be considered a conflict or not.

Furthermore, if even one Member signing on to a letter fails to submit the additional certifying letter, the Appropriations Committee will not consider the request because it will be considered in violation of the rules. For instance, if 100 Members sign a letter but one does not submit the form, the request will be null and void in the eyes of the panel.

As a result, Congressional aides say there has been a notable drop in multi-Member letters. “It’s been a lot of guesswork,” said one legislative aide to a GOP Member who does not sit on the committee. “No one is sure what they can ask for anymore.”

Added another aide: “We’ve had very little communication this year. I’ve seen hardly any letters.”

What that means, some aides have argued, is that the Appropriations Committee will have even more authority over earmarks if rank-and-file Members are reluctant to make their requests known in ways such as multi-Member letters.

Appropriations lobbyists said group letters have become a powerful tool for securing funding requests. “We get half a dozen clients funded that way,” said Rich Gold, who heads the lobbying practice at Holland & Knight.