GOP reps refuse to sign earmark report

Two members of the House Republican Select Committee on Earmark Reform have refused to sign off on the panel’s proposed report, calling the recommendations toothless.

GOP Reps. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Mike Simpson (Idaho), polar opposites on the issue of earmarks, both said the panel’s recommendations will not lead to earmark reforms.

{mosads}“Frankly, I think it’s show. I haven’t signed it for the same reason as Flake, because I don’t think it really does anything,” said Simpson, a proponent of earmarks.

“Even though we’re on different points of view on the earmark reform thing, if you’re going to do something, it oughta mean something — otherwise don’t do it,” Simpson said in an interview with The Hill.

Flake said the House’s approval of a $410 billion omnibus that included 9,000 earmarks — 4,000 of which were requested by Republicans — spoke volumes about the GOP’s willingness to reform.

“Had we done something before the omnibus or whether we do something after the omnibus, it doesn’t matter much because the omnibus said all that needed to be said about our commitment to earmark reform,” said Flake, a vociferous opponent of earmarks.

Members of the panel are expected to consider the report this week, but it’s uncertain whether the 10-member task force can reach a deal.

Some members have called for a total ban on earmarks, while others propose reducing the overall number of earmarks by a certain percent.

It is uncertain where these seemingly irreconcilable differences leave House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), who is stuck between outspoken anti-earmark advocates and an equally resolved number of appropriators and other members within the conference who support them.

“I don’t do earmarks; I wish that they weren’t around here,” Boehner said in an interview last week. “I’ve spent three years trying to find a way to end the practice or fix the practice. I haven’t found it yet, but I’m still working on it.”

The House Republicans agreed to form the earmark panel at their organizational meeting last November. Initially, the newly reelected Boehner wanted to impose a conference-wide moratorium on earmark spending until the task force completed its work.

But when Republicans decided to form the earmark committee at their organizational meeting in November, leaders had to walk away from an initial call to impose a GOP moratorium on earmarks until after the task force reported its findings and recommendations.

At the time, appropriators threatened to call for a conference-wide vote on banning earmarks altogether, knowing that Boehner wouldn’t want to risk losing a vote on such a sensitive issue the same day that he was reelected to lead the conference.

Now, after three months of discussions and debate on the task force, the conference may remain at an impasse over how to proceed, especially if Democrats refuse to make the same reform.

“Part of it is, how can we impose this on ourselves if they don’t agree, and the Senate too?” said Rep. John Mica (Fla.), a select panel member and ranking Republican on the Transportation Committee.

Democrats have their own internal party battle brewing. House and Senate Democrats have declared their right to include “legislative directed spending” in appropriations bills, but President Obama ran on a pledge to eliminate the practice. Obama, however, is likely to sign the earmark-laden omnibus bill later this week.

For his part, Flake sees a glimmer of light at the end of the long earmark reform tunnel.

With lobby shops under FBI investigation for pay-to-play schemes and the president’s recent declaration to end the practice of no-bid contracts — which Flake says that earmarks are — change may come to Capitol Hill before Congress takes action.

“In the end, events will overwhelm us, these investigations will go on, or the president will outflank us. He’s embarrassed to sign this omnibus, so he’s going to put out some directive and it’s my guess that he’ll say no more earmarks for private companies,” Flake said. “Our ethics committee may not see campaign contributions as financial interests, but it seems that the Justice Department does. So, I think, the jig may be up. … I hope.”