Earmark ban resolution introduced in House

Last week, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.Res.1289, a “Sense of the House” resolution calling on House Democrats to join Republicans in adopting a total ban on earmarks for one year.  The resolution also called for reducing federal spending by the total amount spent on earmarks in FY2010 and creating a bipartisan, bicameral committee to review and overhaul the budgetary, spending, and earmark processes.

A few things need to be noted about this resolution.

First, the resolution has been referred to the House Budget Committee, and its Democratic chairman, Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) is unlikely to bring it up for a vote.

Secondly, if by some chance there were a vote in the Budget Committee, the Democratic majority on the Committee would likely vote it down.

Third, if the measure were ever passed by the full House, it would not change a thing legally.  Goodlatte’s resolution is what’s known as a “Sense of the House” resolution, which expresses the opinion of the House of Representatives (and only the House, not the Senate) and has no legal effect.

While Goodlatte’s measure is purely symbolic, it does provide earmark opponents a means of rallying grass roots supporters to put pressure on members of Congress.  Phone calls and letters urging members to support this resolution might push some members into taking a position they would rather avoid.  This is likely to have a greater impact on the Republican side of the aisle. 

However, since House Republicans have already adopted a one year ban, and most are sticking to it, House Republicans have nothing to lose in backing a non-binding resolution calling on Democrats to do what they have already done.  This probably explains why so many Republicans have co-sponsored the resolution, which currently has 165 co-sponsors, all of them (or nearly all of them) Republicans.  This in spite of the fact that all but 39 House Republicans asked for earmarks in last year’s omnibus spending package. 

Hmm.  A back of the envelope calculation tells me that there has to be about 125 cosponsors of this resolution who also asked for earmarks.  For most House Republicans it seems that the best position is to be against earmarks and for them at the same time.