Energy Department pledges to fend off earmark pressure

The Energy Department has informed Congress it will not respond to pressure from lawmakers urging them to fund their projects, after complaints that the agency might show preferential treatment to influential members.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sent a letter Thursday to Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and John McCain, R-Ariz., assuring them the department would decide which projects to fund only after a careful review. "DOE is prepared to be fully accountable for making those decisions," Bodman wrote.

The letter was in response to concerns from Coburn, McCain and others that the agency would continue to fund earmarks contained in the fiscal 2006 Energy and Water spending bill, despite limitations in the pending yearlong fiscal 2007 funding resolution.

The $463.5 billion resolution now on the Senate floor contains no new earmarks and says projects listed in reports in the previous year's bills have "no legal effect." The House Appropriations Committee tried to rescind $495 million in prior-year Energy Department nuclear research, arguing it was unnecessary and could be diverted to other programs, such as health care and law enforcement.

But the House contends Senate appropriators insisted the funds mostly stay put -- only $94.5 million was rescinded. House aides said of the fiscal 2006 money remaining, Energy Department officials had informed lawmakers they intended to continue funding some of the projects funded last year.

Those projects were predominantly in the home states of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

"I hope you all realize that ... voting for this continuing resolution today means that you have decided that several hundred million of tax dollars will be better spent on welfare for the nuclear weapons labs than on these other pressing national needs," House Energy and Water Appropriations ranking member David Hobson, R-Ohio, said on the floor last week. The measure passed, 286-140.

Attached to Bodman's letter was a memorandum from agency chief of staff Jeffrey Kupfer to all agency program officers, reiterating President Bush's State of the Union remarks opposing "special interest funding earmarks."

While acknowledging the agency had received requests from various lawmakers, the Feb. 2 memo states that because of the CR's language and Bush's speech, "we must ensure that the department only funds programs or activities that are meritorious."

The Energy Department is not the only agency being peppered with requests by lawmakers seeking to ensure their states' priorities are protected.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are complaining that the resolution shortchanges Pentagon base closure and realignment funding that would accommodate about 12,000 soldiers returning from overseas.

To bolster domestic accounts and veterans' health care, Democrats trimmed $3.1 billion from the White House's base-closing request, arguing the money could be added to a $100 billion-plus war supplemental next month.

There is still $2.5 billion in the CR, but the uncertainty has some lawmakers concerned their states' projects might not get the funds they need. The Pentagon can allocate the money at its discretion, as opposed to communities being assured of their projects if the full request for base closing and realignment projects were included. Initial construction phases could be started in the meantime, and aides said lawmakers were likely to lobby the Pentagon for their states' slice of the interim funding.

Thirty-three states are in line for base funds, with Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Georgia particularly concerned about the delay. Texas would get nearly $615 million for Army troops alone, with more than two-thirds of that going to Fort Bliss, for projects ranging from live fire ranges and an urban assault course to a dental clinic and child development center.

Senate Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and others were hoping to amend the bill to add back the $3 billion and offset it with an across-the-board cut.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., complained that Democrats "scraped and squeezed" to come up with extra money for their priorities but only left an additional $1 billion over fiscal 2006 for base projects. While slightly short of the full request, the House and Senate-passed fiscal 2007 Military Construction bills would have each funded that section of the budget at nearly $4 billion above last year.

"If [Inhofe] doesn't like the bill he could have gotten it through the Senate the first time around when they were in control," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., replied.