Representative Laura Gillen, Democrat of New York, arrived at a fire department in her Long Island district last week bearing a huge cardboard check for nearly a million dollars, with “U.S. Congress” written on the signature line.
“In May, I urged the House Appropriations Committee to allocate new federal funding for a fire truck for the Bellerose Village Fire Department and successfully secured $938,000,” Ms. Gillen wrote on social media. “I am delighted that this funding is now headed to Bellerose to help our first responders.”
Ms. Gillen had, in fact, lobbied her colleagues to approve funding for the fire truck, and it was included in the spending package that ultimately ended the nation’s longest government shutdown. But what she did not mention was that she, like most Democrats in Congress, ultimately voted against the bill that provided the money, because it failed to meet her party’s demand to extend expiring health care subsidies.
“Americans are counting on Congress to work together to prevent insurance premiums from skyrocketing for millions of people,” Ms. Gillen said last month, explaining her vote. “Nassau County families cannot afford this cruel indifference to their financial hardships.”
She is one of roughly a dozen House Democrats, almost half of whom are facing tough re-elections next year, who opposed the spending bill even though it contained millions of dollars that they had personally worked to add.
They include Representatives Gabe Vasquez, who secured $1.85 million for his New Mexico district, including for town hall renovations, and Josh Riley of New York, who won $1.6 million. Representative April McClain Delaney of Maryland boasted of bringing home $6.7 million in earmarks for her district, including funding for new fire trucks, water lines, and a new radiology oncology department for a local medical center.
Nearly everyone in the congressional Democratic caucus, with the exception of eight senators and six members in the House, voted against the stopgap bill. Dozens of Democratic senators won earmarks for their communities in the legislation.
The dynamic provides a window into one of the reasons the annual appropriations process has broken down in recent years.
Earmarks, which allow individual members of Congress to steer federal funding to specific projects in their states and districts, were once used to build support for spending measures that lawmakers might otherwise be inclined to oppose. In the past, it would have been considered anathema for a lawmaker to oppose a bill that contained one of their earmarks.
But the annual debates over funding the government have gradually become proxies for bigger ideological fights. Democrats framed the latest battle as one about controlling health care costs and opposing the Trump administration, while Republicans have in past years used spending deadlines to fight for President Trump’s border wall or to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
That has led to an uptick in both parties in a practice that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, once referred to as “Vote no, but take the dough.” After the Democratic-led Congress passed President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s bipartisan infrastructure law, Democrats hammered Republicans for claiming credit for funding projects in their districts made possible by legislation that they had opposed.
In other corners of Congress, earmarks, which in recent times have been rebranded as “community project funds,” are derided altogether. Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rick Scott of Florida, all conservative Republicans, have slowed consideration of a package of spending bills because they object to the inclusion of funding for specific projects. The three men are the authors of a bill that would eliminate the practice altogether.
“Funneling money into pet projects and special interests, wasting millions of tax dollars on bridges to nowhere makes our debt out of control,” Mr. Scott said in a statement last month, when the resolution was introduced.
Proponents of earmarks have argued that beyond providing an inducement for lawmakers to vote for spending bills, they also allow members of Congress a more direct way to respond to their community’s needs.
Ms. Gillen, for example, began pushing for funding for the Bellerose fire department after local officials reached out to her office asking for help to secure the money to update their aging fleet. The fire trucks, Ms. Gillen’s office said, were the oldest in Nassau County.
“I heard their pleas for help, submitted this project for consideration, and successfully secured $938,000 for the Bellerose Village Fire Department in the final appropriations bill through my strong advocacy,” Ms. Gillen said in a statement.
Mr. Vasquez, for his part, said in a statement that he was happy to submit requests for earmark funding after Representative Yvette Herrell, the conservative Republican who held the seat before him, never sought such funding on ideological grounds.
“Unlike my predecessor, I have actually submitted and fought for federal funding for community projects here in my district,” he said.
And Ms. McClain Delaney said in a statement that “bringing federal investments home has always been one of my top priorities.” She has, she said, “eight more projects awaiting a vote on the House floor.”
Catie Edmondson covers Congress for The Times.
The post After Shutdown, Democrats Claim Credit for Funding They Opposed appeared first on New York Times.
