House Republicans overwhelmingly voted to keep earmarks in place amid a push from conservatives to ban the practice during a closed-door meeting on Wednesday, where members considered a variety of proposed rules changes as they prepare to be in the majority in the next Congress.
The amendment, put forward by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), aimed at barring member-directed spending failed in a 52-158 vote, with one member voting present. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA) requested a recorded vote that was conducted via secret ballot on the language to bar the practice of allowing members to attach money for district projects to larger bills.
HOUSE REPUBLICANS PASS FIRST WAVE OF RULE CHANGES FOR NEW MAJORITY
Earmarks have long been a point of contention among GOP members, with proponents arguing that eliminating them kneecaps the legislative branch’s authority over spending. Critics have bashed their use, alleging that they lead to corruption, pointing to controversies including the so-called Bridge to Nowhere and the Jack Abramoff scandal.
“Most don’t want to cede authority to the executive branch,” one member who supported keeping them in place told the Washington Examiner.
“I would say 90% of comments are in opposition to McClintock amendment,” another lawmaker said.
Following the meeting, Perry said the rules changes were largely “a step in the right direction” but slammed the decision to keep earmarks in place.
“I just think we missed the mark on that. It’s unfortunate. But look, we took a shot. The people that are standing here at the mic with me recognize that Washington, D.C., is broken, and we have taken a good faith effort, working with our colleagues, to make some changes here,” he told reporters. “There was a member here that said he’d been here for 26 years and didn’t want to change anything because things are working well. The American people disagree with that.”
Republicans previously voted to ban the practice in 2010, with Democrats voting to revive earmarks in 2021 after making reforms to the process aimed at increasing transparency. Republicans passed a resolution in 2021 during a closed-door meeting in support of restoring the practice along with reforms aimed at preventing members from abusing it.
In addition to the amendment on earmarks, conservative members pushed a variety of substantial changes with mixed success in the meeting.
The conference shot down an amendment led by Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX), a Freedom Caucus member, that would have required “conference rules to be considered and agreed upon by the whole Conference, prior to Leadership elections.”
Members of the caucus heavily lobbied leadership to hold the vote on conference rules changes ahead of leadership elections in the months leading up to November, arguing that they should have an understanding of how the chamber will function in the new Congress before choosing who will lead it.
Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-TX) proposed changes to how amendments are added to bills passed, and going forward, amendments that 20% or more of the GOP caucus supports will receive priority consideration in the Rules Committee, providing a win for the Freedom Caucus. The caucus has been adamant in its push to slow down the legislative process, return to regular order, and decentralize power away from leadership.
The structure of how the rules vote meeting was conducted differed from previous years, with conference voting on the amendments on two separate days, allowing for a forum in advance, according to one senior GOP source. Members were also allotted the longest period of time ever to submit amendments in advance of the meetings.
The changes to the process came as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) grapples with attempting to garner enough support to obtain the speaker’s gavel in January, with conservatives saying they felt their voices were ignored in previous years.
“This is the first time this has ever happened since I’ve been here — there’s a reason why this is happening because people standing here are making it happen. This is being forced upon them because they don’t want to do this, and what you saw two weeks ago — and the difference today is because freshmen, the freshmen that are in the group here, they saw what happened two weeks ago, and they thought, ‘Oh my goodness, what did I get into here?’” Perry said while surrounded by multiple conservative members.
“I came to Congress to represent the people in my hometown, and I come here, and it’s dictatorial. And of course they saw that, and the leadership didn’t like that look, so they spent the two weeks to make a difference, to make a change, and of course, it was much more amicable today, as it should be. This is our conference,” he added.
Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), a vocal McCarthy critic who has said he will vote against the California Republican in the Jan. 3 speakership election, argued that the change to the process should have happened sooner.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“It shouldn’t take fear from a presumptive speaker who’s afraid he doesn’t have 218 votes, which he does not, to work to try to empower regular members to have a voice in legislation, to have a voice in how Congress operates, and that is a separate consideration from the speaker,” he said. “This is what should happen — this should have happened as we asked for it to happen before when we came to leadership in July, August, and September, begging them to consider changes to the rules to empower regular members. That has nothing to do with who is the speaker of the House.”
Due to the narrow margins in the House, McCarthy can only lose four votes on the floor to obtain the top leadership role, and while conservatives largely applauded the changes to the rules vote process, it remains unclear if he managed to sway enough of his defectors during the closed-door leadership vote to secure the gavel.
