Earmarks & Air Strikes: New Haven’s DC Crew Weighs In

New Haven’s Congress members took the lead Friday on two issues, one domestic, one international.

DeLauro Restores Earmarks

New Haven U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro took the lead in returning the practice of earmarking to Congress. In her new role as chair of the House Appropriations Committee, she was finalizing details with Senate counterpart Patrick Leahy Friday for the rules that will govern their return.

Republicans in 2010 banned the practice, under which members of Congress agree to support a broader bill in return for it including funding for a project in their home district. The argument was that such deals larded bills with pork, with big-ticket items (like the ​“Bridge to Nowhere”) that soaked taxpayers without serving the public good.

The argument for bringing them back: It has become hard for Congress to pass major legislation without earmarks. DeLauro and other proponents (from both parties) argue that they can brought back in a way that addresses the concerns. Under new rules, for instance, members of Congress who request earmarks will be publicly identified, and they will attest to having no personal financial interest in their requested projects. Earmarks will be limited, with vetting on their merits.

Punchbowl News, the indispensable new Capitol Hill online newsroom, broke the news Friday about the deal. Here’s what they wrote:

Earmarkers unite! Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D‑Conn.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D‑Vt.), the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations committees respectively, have reached a deal on [many of] the ground rules for earmarks in this year’s spending bills.
This is a big development, which you are reading about first here.
​“Chair DeLauro is pleased that Chairman Leahy supports moving forward with a reformed process of limited Community Project Funding,” said Evan Hollander, communications director for the House Appropriations Committee. ​“Chair DeLauro will share additional details about the House process and important reforms soon, and looks forward to Senator Leahy doing the same for his chamber.”
Here are the highlights of the agreement:

Earmarks will be capped at 1% of spending. This amount will likely be split evenly between the House and Senate, but that hasn’t been completely formalized yet.

Each subcommittee will vet earmark requests. All earmarks have to comply with the full committee spending cap.

Earmark requests will follow the 2010 standards. You can read about that here. But we’ve described these rules before — earmarks are filed online, members cannot have a financial stake in the entity receiving the earmark, etc.

GAO will review some of the fiscal year 2022 earmarks to ensure they are in compliance with standards.

There’s still no firm rule in place on earmarking for for-profit entities.
There’s likely to be a limit on how many earmarks each member can get across the 12 spending bills, but that’s still a moving target. However, there’ll be a limit on which programs earmarks can be used for, according to sources familiar with the issue.

Remember: Republicans and Democrats say that earmarking will make legislating easier. This will shift power in Washington back toward appropriators, who have been on the outs for the last dozen or so years.

“I have always believed that members of Congress have a better understanding of their communities than Washington bureaucrats,” Leahy said in a statement to Punchbowl News. ​“We are in good faith negotiations with the House and my Senate colleagues to bring back Congressionally directed spending in a transparent and responsible way, and those discussions are ongoing.”

Rep. Kay Granger (Texas), the top Republican on House Appropriations, also supports the use of earmarks, as long as there are safeguards in how these provisions are included in spending bills.

“From my understanding, there are numerous improvements in what earmarks looked like before,” Granger said on Friday. ​“I hope we give it a chance.”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R‑Calif.) said Friday he has spoken to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D‑Md.) about earmarks, and is waiting to review the proposal before making a decision on how to proceed. House Republicans have a party rule against earmarks that they would have to alter should they decide to participate in the process.

Murphy Chides Biden On Airstrikes

Connecticut U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy has a new role, as well: chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism.

In that role, he tweaked President Biden Friday for the way he ordered airstrikes on Syria — without consulting Congress first.

It was a fine line for Murphy to walk: Balancing support for a president of his own party pursuing a new foreign policy more to his liking; and consistency in his long-term insistence that the executive branch honor its constitutional requirements to consult with the legislative branch.

Here’s how Murphy navigated that line in the statement he released:

“The strikes by Iranian-backed militias on bases in Iraq hosting U.S. troops are unacceptable, and the president unquestionably has the right to defend our nation and our armed forces from imminent attack. But retaliatory strikes, not necessary to prevent an imminent threat, must fall within the definition of an existing congressional authorization of military force. I have inherent trust in the national security decision making of President Biden, and I know how seriously he takes Congress’s war making powers. But Congress should hold this administration to the same standard it did prior administrations, and require clear legal justifications for military action, especially inside theaters like Syria, where Congress has not explicitly authorized any American military action.”

Later Friday Murphy got to heap praise on his fellow Democrat in the Oval Office. He issued a statement in response to the Biden administration’s announcement that it has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the assassination of the Washington Post’s Jamal Khashoggi.

Here’s the statement Murphy released:

“The Biden administration is finally ending one of President Trump’s greatest cover-ups. By making the Saudi Crown Prince’s involvement in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi known and issuing new punitive visa restrictions and Magnitsky financial sanctions, the administration is finally moving to hold those involved accountable and sending a signal to the world that such behavior against dissidents will not be tolerated without consequence.

​“Jamal Khashoggi is just one of many brutally targeted by the Saudi government around the world. The Biden administration’s new campaign against the Kingdom’s pursuit of dissidents and their families abroad is long overdue and critical to deter other autocrats from following suit. While this specific campaign is important, I do believe we need a broader re-evaluation of our relationship with Saudi Arabia which begins with downsizing our security partnership and upgrading our focus on human rights. The administration’s arms sales review is an opportunity to reset the relationship based on U.S. interests and values. We clearly should not be selling offensive weapons to a country that is responsible for murdering an American journalist along with so many innocent civilians in Yemen. Doing so only enables Iran’s influence to grow and an arms race to spiral, both of which run contrary to broader U.S. security goals across the region.”