In the Democratic Congress, Pork Still Gets Served

After the House finished with the Energy Department spending bill, Reid sent a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman on Feb. 1, saying that there were no earmarks. Then came a "however."

Reid, as a senator from the electricity-needy West, noted that the legislation set aside $300 million in new money for research in energy efficiency and renewable energy and suggested that some money be used to reverse the administration's original plan to end its geothermal-energy research program.

Reid demanded that the administration fund the geothermal program at 2006 levels or higher. "Geothermal energy has the potential to cleanly and renewably satisfy the new electricity needs of the West," he wrote.

Reid also asked the administration to expand a federal loan program to include geothermal research projects. Other lawmakers, from both parties, inundated the Energy Department with similar requests.

Democrats slammed such practices when Republicans ruled the House, but such calls and letters have not let up in the Democratic Congress, executive branch officials said.

"Certainly, we have heard from various members of Congress this year to express their support for various projects and groups seeking funding from the department," said Energy Department spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton. "There's no difference from previous years."

Another key Democratic reform requires House members seeking earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the project.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did just that when she requested $25 million for a project to improve the waterfront in her home district of San Francisco. Her request did not note that her family owns interests in four buildings near the proposed Pier 35 project.

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that any suggestion of a conflict of interest is "ridiculous." He said that Pelosi was passing along a spending request from the Port of San Francisco and that she would not benefit from it.

One of the bonanza areas for earmarks traditionally involves Pentagon spending and authorization bills. To help lawmakers make their requests efficiently, House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) sent out a two-page tip sheet, along with several sample letters and forms. "Provide all necessary information on the attached form to ensure full consideration of the request," the guidelines urged. Skelton set a deadline of noon on March 15 for requests.

Democrats are not alone in seeking new money for pet projects. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) has made one of the biggest earmark requests in the new Congress, seeking $2.4 billion to build 10 more C-17 planes -- which the Pentagon has said it does not need. Such planes would create work at Boeing and other military contractors, benefiting lawmakers' constituents in several states, including a C-17 assembly line near Rohrabacher's district.

"The only ones playing politics in this decision are those unelected officials of the Department of Defense who are trying to keep everyone happy by spending billions of dollars on ancient aircraft when more modern aircraft is available," Rohrabacher said.

Veteran appropriations watchers say the new Congress has also been playing with wording to disguise some earmarks or to create the appearance that less special-interest spending is occurring.

For instance, a new emergency spending bill for the Iraq war passed by the House this month had no specific earmarks, but it included a clause declaring that all the projects lawmakers had included in a previously vetoed bill were, in effect, included.

Likewise, the House Appropriations Committee report accompanying the Iraq supplemental spending bill vetoed by President Bush boldly declared: "This bill, as reported, contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits." But it set aside money for pet projects including $25 million for spinach, $60 million for salmon fisheries and $5 million for aquaculture.

"Absolutely nothing has changed," said the Center for Defense Information's Winslow T. Wheeler, a Senate appropriations and national security aide who worked for both Democrats and Republicans over three decades before stepping down in 2002. "The rhetoric has changed but not the behavior, and the behavior has gotten worse in the sense that while they are pretending to reform things, they are still groveling in the trough."