House GOP OKs spending earmarks, boosting infrastructure plan

From Transport Topics. House Republicans voted to allow their members to request dedicated-spending projects, known as earmarks, following that same move by Democrats, in a positive sign for President Joe Biden’s hopes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. The House GOP caucus March 17 voted by secret ballot to approve earmarks, according to people familiar with…

US Capital

From Transport Topics.

House Republicans voted to allow their members to request dedicated-spending projects, known as earmarks, following that same move by Democrats, in a positive sign for President Joe Biden’s hopes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

The House GOP caucus March 17 voted by secret ballot to approve earmarks, according to people familiar with the matter.

Senate Republicans still have to decide whether to participate in earmarking, which both parties banned in 2011 after years of their association with wasteful projects and with corruption. Advocates say new transparency rules will help address those issues, and encourage the kind of deal-making essential to bipartisan agreements.

“There’s a real concern about the administration directing where money goes; this doesn’t add one more dollar,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, while not specifying how he voted. “Members here know what’s most important about what’s going on in their district, not Biden.”

Maintaining the ban would have limited the ability of GOP lawmakers winning inclusion of projects important to their constituencies in the infrastructure bill Congress is now poised to debate. Republicans have divided over the issue, however, with some saying earmarks contribute to excess federal spending, at a time that government debt is soaring.

Sen. Mitt Romney, a moderate Utah Republican, said earlier this week that earmarks “have been associated with excess and would represent a turn to the worst.” He argued that “it’s just unnecessary spending and projects that are not necessarily in the national interest but are more akin to the seniority of a particular individual to ask for a particular benefit.”

See the complete article online at Transport Topics.

Posted in