The cardinals claim they’re being cut out

Senior Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee claim that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has left them out of discussions about a moratorium on earmarks, marking a departure from the inclusive leadership style she has employed for much of her reign.

As some appropriators grumbled, Democrats on Tuesday inched closer to an earmark moratorium, a move that would infuriate many appropriators.

“It’s going to happen,” said an irritated Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. Others were more circumspect.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.) chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has been in leadership meetings on earmarks, but on Tuesday would say only, “No final decision has been made.”

“I’ve been consulting with members,” Van Hollen said. “It’s safe to say there’s a difference of opinion.”

Pelosi has discussed suspending earmarks with Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.) and John Murtha (D-Pa.), two of her closest lieutenants and the two most senior members of the Appropriations Committee, but she has otherwise limited talks to an extremely small circle.     

Pelosi and Obey have told members they want to call the bluff of Republicans who have called for an earmark ban while pursuing pet projects from the spending panel.

Obey and Murtha declined to comment on discussions of a possible moratorium.

Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi, disputed that Democratic leaders had left colleagues in the dark to smooth the path for a moratorium.

“The Speaker and leadership have been discussing this issue with members and that those discussions are ongoing,” said Elshami.

Democratic leaders who support the ban also say they want to be consistent with the Democratic nominees for president, who have both come out in favor of an earmark moratorium. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a longtime crusader against earmarks and his mockery of pet projects is only likely to get amplified during the presidential campaign.

Republican leaders claimed credit for getting the majority leadership to join them in taking a stand on earmarks.

“We’re glad they are joining us in genuine earmark reform, as we have asked them to do since our letter to Speaker Pelosi at our retreat. We welcome such a vote,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democratic leaders first aired the proposal publicly last week by suggesting money normally set aside for earmarks could instead pay for a second economic stimulus package.

Last year Pelosi routinely referred her toughest decisions to rank-and-file lawmakers early in the process.

For example, Pelosi was careful to let the caucus as a whole participate in the first stages of debate over how to craft legislation funding the Iraq war.

While that strategy produced rough consensus in the Democratic caucus on Iraq, it consumed a lot of time.

On the question of earmarks, however, bringing colleagues into this discussion early could doom the chances of a moratorium.

Last year, senior Democrats on the House Appropriations panel, the so-called appropriations cardinals, vigorously opposed and ultimately defeated a plan to eliminate all earmarks in the fiscal year 2008 spending bills to increase programmatic funding for medical research, education and other priorities.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a senior member of the appropriations panel, said she had received no information on the proposal to halt earmarks. She expressed hope that Pelosi would open up the decision-making process as she did many times during her first year as Speaker.

“I’ve always found her very consultative so I hope she wouldn’t leave out the Appropriations Committee in those discussions,” she said.     

Rep. John Olver (D-Mass.), chairman of the transportation, housing and urban development appropriations subcommittee, said that he had “no information” on discussions about an earmark moratorium.

Other senior appropriators who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid angering Pelosi by discussing a charged issue said she had cut them out of the loop. These lawmakers stressed that they want to be consulted before Pelosi reaches a final decision.

“We would like to be included in the discussions, I’ll leave it at that,” said one lawmaker.

Another legislator said that Pelosi had kept the discussions limited to her inner circle to avoid giving proponents a chance of killing the moratorium in its infancy. Lawmakers drew an analogy to how Pelosi last month suddenly pressed her colleagues to support a controversial ethics reform bill.

One appropriator said that a proposal to halt earmarks would likely provoke widespread opposition among Democrats and speculated that Pelosi would present the proposal as a decision made by “The Speaker” for the good of the party instead of something for colleagues to consider and debate.

“It would be Nancy Pelosi acting as Speaker for the good of the party,” said the lawmaker, who said a moratorium would provoke complaint from many lawmakers “including me.”

By presenting the decision as a fait accompli, he said, Pelosi would hope to minimize opposition, a tactic she apparently tried on ethics reform.

Lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee expect Obey to support Pelosi’s decision. But they made clear that he would do so out of loyalty. They said Pelosi, not Obey, would steer the party’s course on earmarks.

Some members are shrugging their shoulders at the prospect because they don’t expect appropriations bills to be signed into law this year anyway. An election is looming, and Democrats see little need to try to meet the demands of an unpopular president they expect to be replaced by a Democrat next year.

“If nothing’s going to happen anyway, why bother with it?” one lawmaker said.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said an impasse could be a good opportunity to get a better earmark process.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who as a member of the Appropriations Committee has worked closely with Democrats on an array of earmarks, predicted Pelosi would face fierce opposition from her caucus.

“She’s not gong to make many friends by doing this,” he said.

But other Republicans believe that they can use the issue of rampant congressional earmarking to their own advantage in November. One senior House Republican said GOP polls in several contested House districts showed that candidates could use the issue of earmark reform to potent effect.

Van Hollen said that Democrats could reap political benefits by taking the issue out of Republicans’ hands.

“I do think the Republicans have tried to seize on the issue as a symbol of the spending battle,” he said. “It has become a lightning rod in the public mode.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) announced Tuesday he was joining Democratic Reps. Mark Udall (Colo.) and Henry Waxman (Calif) in not seeking earmarks this year.

The earmark question came up at a leadership meeting Monday night, and was sensitive enough that the staff present for the discussion was asked to leave.

Rep. Tim Walz (Minn.), the outgoing president of the Democratic freshman class, said he would support an earmarks ban if it goes to balancing the budget.

“If it’s done in that sense, and not political theatrics, I’m supportive,” he said. “If we return it to the bureaucracy, which spends it even more irresponsibly than us, then it’s a gimmick.”

There are a number of ways an earmark ban can be carried out, aides said. For starters, the Appropriations Committee could simply stop taking requests. There could also be a vote to change the rules of the House, or a change to the rules of the appropriations committee. That would depend in part, aides said, on whether leaders want to ban appropriations earmarks, or also tax and other authorizing earmarks.

Some have also floated the idea of putting earmarks in a lame-duck spending bill. But Moran said he wouldn’t expect Bush to go along with a lame-duck budget with earmarks. And aides said for earmarks to be included in a year-end bill, the staff work would have to be going on now.