HOUSE LEADERS MULL GROUND RULES FOR PET PROJECTS Speaker Mike Johnson is navigating another demand from conservatives that has flown more under the radar: Changing the rules on earmarks. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) is leading appropriations critics in proposing an item-by-item scrutiny system to root out “political” projects in both chambers. But new Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has his own ideas. He told us he wants to unlock the possibility of more earmarks, this time in the Labor-HHS-Education funding bill, which was off limits for member-directed projects last time around. Besides that, he doesn’t see many “extensive changes” this year. The final call is up to Johnson, who of course faces the added pressure from conservatives still weighing an ouster vote. “Whatever the speaker comes back with is what I'll be supporting,” Cole said. Although the new Appropriations chair won’t talk about his pitch to Johnson, he spoke freely about his qualms: 1. Why he wants to unlock Labor-H: Because the House barred earmarks in the largest non-defense funding bill last year and the Senate did not, senators got all the power to route millions of dollars in federal cash to hospitals, workforce development programs and school districts in their states. “You’ve got nothing to trade,” Cole told us. “To me, it just works better when we’re coordinated. But I also recognize that, at the end of the day, nobody over here tells the United States Senate what to do, and vice versa.” 2. The nonprofit and ‘political’ attack problem: Since last summer, House Republicans have worked to weed out Democrat-led earmarks for projects they disagreed with. First, they nixed funding for LGBTQ+ programs in committee, as Democrats decried the unprecedented move as “insane” and “bigoted.” Then last month, fueled by Libs of TikTok scorn, they targeted a $1 million earmark Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) secured for an LGBTQ+ community center in Philadelphia. Still, many House conservatives wanted to delete more, including earmarks for organizations that perform abortions or provide needle exchange, condoms and services to immigrants, even if federal funding wouldn’t be used for those specific efforts. Due in part because of those objections, the House passed the final funding package last month with just five votes to spare. One way Cole hopes to cut down on that drama: Bar earmarks for non-profits, at least under the Transportation-HUD bill. “It narrows it down. So we hope that would be helpful,” he said. One conservative’s idea: Aderholt is leading conservatives in a different reform plan. The Alabama Republican told us he briefed Cole and the speaker on his idea to require both subcommittee leaders in the House, and both in the Senate, to sign off on earmarks before they make it into funding bills. “If they keep going the way we’re going, nobody can vote for an appropriation bill,” Aderholt said. He doesn’t like the idea of barring earmarks for nonprofits, arguing that it would rule out “good, solid” organizations like the Boys & Girls Clubs. Dream on: The House’s top Democratic appropriator, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, said Aderholt’s approach would mark the death of earmarks again. “If we start to review everybody's project, can you imagine what kind of chaos?” she said. “If we go down that slippery slope, I would be the first one to say: End it.” Across the Capitol, top Senate appropriators already rolled out their earmark guidance for the upcoming fiscal year. And senators in both parties like their autonomy from the tumultuous House. — Jennifer Scholtes and Caitlin Emma, with assist from Joe Gould and POLITICO Deep Dive
| 
