The $1.7 trillion spending bill moving through Congress contains more than 7,200 earmarks for projects in lawmakers’ home states and districts.
-
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
Give this articleGive this articleGive this article
Lawmakers from both parties put more than 7,200 earmarks into a sprawling $1.7 trillion spending package that is making its way through Congress.
WASHINGTON — Nearly $500 million in federal funds could be headed to South Florida for ecosystem restoration. Another $14,000 is meant for a library reading readiness program in Minnesota and $150,000 for a sidewalk project in Mapleton, Maine, a community of fewer than 2,000 people.
This week, lawmakers unveiled an expansive $1.7 trillion federal spending bill that needs to pass to prevent a shutdown and fund the government through next fall. Tucked into the sprawling legislation is $15 billion in earmarks, now known as community project funding, which directs federal funds for specific projects in members’ home states and districts.
Lawmakers from both parties stuffed such earmarks into the bill, including several Republicans who secured funding for hometown projects but have said they will not vote for the package. The bill contains more than 7,200 earmarks, up from 4,962 that totaled $9 billion in the last spending package, which passed in April. The increase, lawmakers and experts said, could be the result of congressional members learning how to navigate a practice that was resurrected earlier this year with passage of the last spending bill, after a decade in which funding for the projects, often derided as “pork,” was banned.
Opponents of earmarks consider the practice corrupt because it essentially allows lawmakers to use taxpayer money to fund pet projects without public debate or discussion. Others regard it as a necessary tool in a partisan Congress, one that gives lawmakers across the political spectrum the ability to cut deals to fund the government and avoid painful shutdowns that hurt federal workers and the U.S. economy.
“I think it’s a wonderful opportunity for members to give back to their states,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who alone secured over $280 million for her state.
What’s In the $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill
Card 1 of 7
A sprawling package. Top lawmakers unveiled a roughly $1.7 trillion spending package that would keep the U.S. government open through September. Here is a look at some key provisions in the 4,155-page bill Congress is expected to pass this week:
Military spending is the big winner. The Defense Department would see an extraordinary surge in spending when adding its regular 2023 fiscal year budget together with additional aid for Ukraine. All together, half of the funding included in the bill goes to defense, or a total of $858 billion.
Making it easier (for some) to save for retirement. The package includes new provisions that would alter how millions of Americans save for retirement, including older people who want to stash away extra money before they stop working and those struggling under the weight of student debt.
Overhauling the Electoral Count Act. The legislation includes an overhaul of the 135-year-old law. Supporters of former President Donald J. Trump sought to exploit ambiguities in the law to disrupt the traditionally ceremonial counting of the presidential electoral ballots on Jan. 6, 2021.
A ban on TikTok on government devices. TikTok will be banned from all federal government devices under the bill. The move is intended to assuage heightened privacy and national security concerns about the app, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance.
International climate finance loses out. The bill includes just $1 billion to help poor countries cope with climate change. The figure falls far short of President Biden’s promise that the United States would spend $11.4 billion annually by 2024 to help developing nations adapt to a warming planet.
Other provisions. The bill also includes increased funding for the police, billions in aid for communities ravaged by natural disasters and a win for the lobster industry over whales. Read more about what’s in the bill here.
Molly E. Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said the process allows members to have a stake in a legislative process that is typically governed by senior leadership.
“It’s a really important way for members to serve the needs of their constituents and to feel like they have a stake in the legislative process,” she said.
Ms. Reynolds said the increase from the last spending bill could reflect the fact that many members have never experienced the earmark process given they were elected after lawmakers, concerned about abuse of the practice, placed a moratorium on earmarks in 2011.
“Offices are figuring out how to gather the information that they need from their communities about where this funding should go,” she added.
Proponents of the earmarks also argue that they make up less than 1 percent of the bill’s total and that Congress enacted stricter rules this time around, such as requiring lawmakers to disclose each project request on their congressional website and certify that no one in their family stood to benefit.
Last year, the Senate Republican conference agreed to maintain the ban, a symbolic move meant to uphold the mantle of fiscal conservatism, but some still decided to partake in the practice this year.
Senior leaders from both parties shored up over $727 million in earmarks. Republican leaders, including Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the No. 3 Republican in the House, and Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the minority whip, secured about $55 million. However, it is unclear whether Ms. Stefanik will vote for the bill. In a news conference last week, she said she opposed the spending measure. Despite her potential “no” vote, the bill is expected to pass, greenlighting her earmarks. Ms. Stefanik’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Several longtime members who are retiring after years in Congress also secured their final round of funding dollars.
Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, steered more than $762 million to his state, with a significant portion going toward ecological projects involving rivers and lakes. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, led the initiative for over $212 million in earmarks for his home state.
The funding is set to go toward projects big and small. Morris, Minn., could get less than $20,000 for early childhood and after-school program equipment, and $50 million could be set aside to start an endowment fund at the University of Alabama to support faculty recruitment for engineering and the sciences.
Environmental projects were prominently featured, with more than $1.2 billion set aside for water- and energy-related matters. That includes $90 million that Representative Randy Weber, a Texas Republican, secured for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Freeport, Texas.
More than $5 billion was set aside for transportation and urban development projects.
Ninety-three projects for police departments for body-worn cameras, police training and upgraded equipment and infrastructure could also be considered.
Some Republican lawmakers expressed their disapproval of the spending, accusing lawmakers of pursuing “woke” projects with taxpayer funds. Among the projects criticized was a $3.6 million Department of Transportation project for a hiking trail named the “Michelle Obama Trail” in Georgia that was inserted by Representative Hank Johnson, Democrat of Georgia.
Representative Mary Miller, Republican of Illinois, said on Twitter, “I will vote against the radical Biden omnibus, which includes ‘woke’ nonsense.”
Others pointed to a $3 million earmark for the New-York Historical Society and American L.G.B.T.Q. Museum Partnership Project, which would expand the New-York Historical Society building to include an exhibition space for L.G.B.T.Q. history and culture, which is expected to open in 2024.
Rachel Shorey and Vivian Li contributed reporting.
Source: nytimes.com
