WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders on Wednesday said they will ban the use of earmarks to direct federal money to defense contractors, energy firms and other for-profit companies.
Midlands House members said they already comply with the ban.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said he hopes the ban will mean 1,000 fewer earmarks and will break the link between campaign contributions and earmarks that has sparked intense criticism.
The ban is the most aggressive step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the awarding of earmarks, which lawmakers use in annual spending bills to direct that federal money be spent in a very specific way.
The hope is that a moratorium on earmarks would help Democrats address voters’ concern about rising federal spending and deficits, as well as a series of ethics-related inquiries involving Democratic lawmakers.
The announcement by House Democrats comes as their Republican rivals weigh giving up earmarks altogether.
Most earmarks benefit public or nonprofit organizations such as hospitals, police departments, universities and arts centers.
But critics say earmarks for private companies amount to no-bid contracts for firms that frequently provide contributions to lawmakers’ re-election campaigns. Chiefly at issue are earmarks that go to companies seeking Pentagon contracts that are funded through the annual defense appropriations bill.
Since retaking control of Congress in 2007, the Democrats have taken a series of steps, including disclosing publicly which lawmakers requested each earmark, in an attempt to eliminate abuses. Although outside critics of the earmark process have dismissed some of those steps as cosmetic, the ban on earmarks for profit-making companies announced on Wednesday drew praise.
“For-profit earmarks are really where the rubber meets the road as far as corruption,” said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based group that has been critical of earmarking.
The fiscal year 2010 spending bills contained 9,499 congressional earmarks worth $15.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which constructs a database of the required disclosures.
Nebraska ranked near the bottom in the total amount of earmarked funds. The state was ahead of only Wyoming and Delaware in the total amount of money from earmarks, although it ranked 29th in per capita earmark funding at $33.20 per person.
Most of Nebraska’s earmarks had Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s name on them.
A survey of the 47 earmarks for Nebraska in last year’s spending bills revealed that only one involved a for-profit company and that one came from the Senate.
Nelson secured a $1.6 million defense earmark to create the Virtual Business Accelerator for the Silicon Prairie, a partnership between the University of Nebraska at Omaha and Dawnbreakers, a professional services firm based in Rochester, NY.
Iowa landed at No. 24 in the total amount of money from earmarks, thanks primarily to Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat and a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The state’s per capita amount of $54.51 placed it 16th among the states.
Both Harkin and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, had their name on earmarks that went to for-profit companies. For example, BioProtection Systems Corp. received a defense earmark worth $3.6 million for anti-viral vaccine development, sponsored by both Grassley and Harkin.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, did not have any for-profit company earmarks.
The dearth of Nebraska earmarks to benefit for-profit companies represents a change from years ago.
The World-Herald reported in 2007 that Congress had approved more than $50 million in earmarks for Omaha defense contractor 21st Century Systems Inc. Among those who helped secure earmarks for the company were Nelson and Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb. The lawmakers also had received campaign contributions from executives at 21st Century.
Terry said in 2007 that he would no longer seek specific funding for private companies and Nelson adopted a policy that for-profit companies seeking earmarked funds must partner with a nonprofit entity.
Nelson said Wednesday that he would consider any proposals offered but didn’t see the need for the kind of ban being discussed by House Democrats.
A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Nelson has defended earmarks as a way to ensure that federal bureaucrats don’t overlook institutions in small states such as Nebraska. He also has supported new disclosure requirements aimed at making earmarks more transparent.
“We’re self-policing in how we go about doing it, and we’re comfortable with that,” Nelson said Wednesday.
Terry said he was pleased to see Democratic leaders adopt a policy that he has followed for some time.
“If campaign contributions are coming from these same companies, this can cause a real problem,” he said.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., said there is a big difference between earmarks and earmark abuse, and he defended the role of lawmakers directing funds to institutions serving a high public purpose. But because a lot of earmark abuse has resulted from earmarks that benefit private companies, the Democrats’ ban is a reasonable move, he said.
For himself, Fortenberry has adopted a policy of not requesting earmarks for for-profit companies, and he has proposed random audits of individual earmarks.
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., does not seek earmarks, and he called the House ban “a step in the right direction.” Grassley said he supports a proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., for a one-year moratorium on earmarks.
But Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday signaled no interest in going along with a ban.
“It does not make sense to discriminate against for-profit organizations,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat. For-profit companies, like nonprofits, hire lobbyists and make political contributions to lawmakers that are “all fully disclosed and available for all to see on the Internet,” he said.
Ellis, of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the Senate needs to go along or else “the campaign cash will flow a little more heavily to the Senate side of the Capitol and for-profits earmarks will remain alive and well.”
This report includes material from the Associated Press, the New York Times and Bloomberg News.
Contact the writer:
202-662-7270, joe.morton@owh.com
