U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce (Photo by Heath Haussamen)
Did Southern New Mexico’s congressman, who has complained about earmark abuse in the past, try to get his colleagues to approve an earmark that would benefit a campaign contributor?
According to a Politico article, members of both parties thought that was exactly what was happening and recently voted to kill Republican Rep. Steve Pearce’s proposal.
From Politico:
“New Mexico Republican Rep. Steve Pearce tried and failed to win adoption of an amendment earlier this month that critics in both parties say looked, smelled, walked, sounded like and ultimately amounted to an earmark — despite a GOP ban on the practice and a House rule requiring amendments containing earmarks to identify them.
“The amendment in question would have allowed Doña Ana County, N.M., to convey land to Verde Realty, which is building a massive planned community next to the airport, as part of an exchange of parcels. Under federal law, the county can’t relinquish land given to it by the federal government without a new act of Congress. Several of Houston-based Verde’s executives contributed to Pearce’s campaign in 2007.
“The amendment failed, 207-215, after a behind-the-scenes fight over whether it violated the letter or spirit of House rules and a separate Republican Conference moratorium on earmark requests. That controversial moratorium was adopted in late 2010. Under House rules, a point of order may be made against an amendment carrying an earmark if its sponsor does not identify it as such.
“Pearce’s camp says the amendment simply did not fit the definition of an earmark, but 38 Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, nonetheless joined with Democrats to defeat the measure.”
You can read more about the situation from Politico here.
Pearce has never been anti-earmark, but he has accused members of both parties of abusing the earmark process.
Here’s what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had to say about the situation:
“Even his fellow Republicans wouldn’t go along with Rep. Steve Pearce’s scheme to violate the ban on earmarks for the best interests of his contributors,” the DCCC’s Gabriela Domenzain said. “This report reveals that Rep. Steve Pearce’s real agenda is to get his pork, especially for his special-interest friends.”
Update, 5:05 p.m.
From Pearce spokesman Eric Layer, who said he wanted to point out “a few facts that the Politico story didn’t get correct.”
“1. This isn’t an earmark. It doesn’t meet the definition of an earmark. The fight and the quotes have a lot more to do with the games on Capitol Hill than anything else.
“2. As further proof this wasn’t an earmark, the transfer did pass in the same bill. Congressman Pearce, working with Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson, successfully passed an amendment that permitted the transfer.
“3. As a final note, Congressman Pearce worked with Democratic Senator Bingaman, along with Democratic Congressmen Heinrich and Luján, to aid Doña Ana County who requested this action to help their citizens.
“Here is the text of the Amendment that passed:
“The Pearce-Matheson Amendment ‘Allows the Secretary of Transportation to release any airport, city, or county from the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions on deeds which the U.S. conveyed to an airport, city, county property for airport purposes, provided that the release results in furthering airport purposes.’”