House Republicans Announce They Won’t Seek Earmarks (Update2)

March 11 (Bloomberg) -- House Republicans announced they won’t request any earmarks in an election-year attempt to outdo Democrats in clamping down on the practice of attaching pet projects to budget bills.

Republicans emerged from a closed-door meeting today saying they agreed to a one-year ban on spending, tax and tariff- related earmarks. The decision came a day after House Democrats said they wouldn’t fund special projects for defense contractors, energy firms and other private companies. Public and non-profit groups would still be eligible for earmarks under the Democratic plan.

Both parties have been trying to turn a practice that for years has had bipartisan support into a political issue they can use in this year’s elections. Polls show rising public concern about federal spending and deficits.

“We’re offering the American people a fresh start on spending in Washington,” said Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the House’s third-ranking Republican. He said Republicans held a “marathon debate” on the issue and predicted the plan would provide a “startling” contrast between the parties.

House Republicans last year requested 1,208 earmarks worth $1 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington group that tracks the projects.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Democrats won’t match the Republican initiative.

Tiny Percentage

The proposals’ significance is probably more political than budgetary because while earmarks have become synonymous with wasteful spending for many voters, the practice makes up only a tiny percentage of federal spending.

Lawmakers in both parties may find their efforts muddled by colleagues in the Senate, where lawmakers have been less enthusiastic about curbing earmarks. Senate Republicans plan to discuss the issue next week, said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the Appropriations Committee’s top Republican, said today he opposed a moratorium on earmarks because it would amount to “refusing to assume responsibility for a constitutional requirement that Congress appropriate the money that’s spent by the federal government.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, said yesterday that he wouldn’t go along with House Democrats’ plan. “It is no secret” that for-profit companies, like non-profits, hire lobbyists and make political contributions to lawmakers that are “all fully disclosed and available for all to see on the Internet,” he said. “It does not make sense to discriminate against for-profit organizations.”

Earmark critics hailed the bipartisan efforts to crack down on the practice. “It’s been quite a whirlwind,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Both the ban on for-profit earmarks and the moratorium are significant steps in the right direction.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at   or bfaler@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jim Kirk at   or jkirk12@bloomberg.net.