Members of Congress who have pledged not to request earmarks this year are feeling little heat from recipients of the projects, who seem resigned to the current anti-earmark environment in Washington.

Several groups that have benefited from earmarks in the past, in turn, say they will survive without the spending, which in some cases makes up a very small part of their budgets.

Operation Smile benefited from a $1.5 million earmark last year provided to the Defense Department, which worked with the nonprofit on surgeries around the world. The earmark was sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), one of 33 lawmakers who have pledged not to request earmarks this year.

Franks said he was worried his pledge could hurt worthy projects in his district. The Arizona Republican sponsored or co-sponsored more than $29 million in earmarks last year, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS).

But Operation Smile seems well-prepared to handle any reductions. Only 5 percent of its revenue comes from government grants, according to the group.

Like Magee’s group, several other earmark recipients said more of their funding comes from other sources. Still, groups are employing a variety of strategies to deal with the anti-earmark pledges, including asking other members to make the requests.

“We rarely go to only one member of Congress for support of any project,” said one appropriations lobbyist, who asked to speak on background. “So when one or more are not able to help for whatever reason, their colleagues shoulder the extra burden and find ways to get the most worthy initiatives funded.”

If a one-year earmark moratorium does get approved, which seems unlikely in the Senate, lobbyists are looking for other tools to ensure projects are funded. They’re encouraging clients to apply to federal agencies for grants, and pressing them to look to private foundations for help.

Some lawmakers have faced complaints from home for their no-earmark pledges. Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said a natural science school in his district was upset with his decision not to submit earmark requests this year.

“They said, ‘We’re disappointed but we understand that this is the right thing to do,’ ” said Udall, who is running for a Senate seat this year.

Udall sponsored or co-sponsored $28 million in earmarks last year, according to data compiled by TCS. But Udall said the workload dealing with the requests for his office, let alone for the Appropriations Committee, has become immense and contributed to his decision not to request earmarks this year.

“Everything needs to be in the authorizing language,” said Udall. “I want to see a fair and more transparent process.”
The Colorado Department of Transportation has been a recipient of Udall’s earmarks, but believes it will not be affected by his self-imposed ban, according to its public information officer.

On average, the department receives $400 million per year in federal funds, with less than 1 percent provided through earmarks. Udall has directed money towards specific Colorado highways and airports in the past.

“It is not going to affect our program. We are going to get the same amount regardless from the federal government,” said Stacey Stegman, the department’s public information officer.

She also said that if an earmark is needed, another member of Colorado’s delegation could make the request.
Waukegan, Ill., Police Chief Bill Biang plans to stretch out funds his department has received from earmarks sponsored by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Biang’s department has received more than $800,000 in earmarked funds to help control an emerging gang problem in the area, thanks to Kirk. But the House Appropriations Committee member will not request funding for projects this year.

Biang now has no requests with Kirk or others on Capitol Hill. But the police chief has said he will look to other Illinois lawmakers or federal grants to help keep the anti-gang program running if Kirk’s self-imposed ban persists beyond this year.

“We certainly will look for other avenues to fund the program,” said Biang, who apparently bears no grudge towards Kirk for his pledge.

“Congressman Kirk has done a great job for us,” Biang said.

Kirk said he hasn’t received complaints from others in his district over his pledge.

“Overall, what I have heard from constituents is that it would be great to submit a request … but they think what I am doing is correct,” Kirk said.

Last week, Kirk said he surveyed subscribers to his e-mail newsletter about his stance. Of the roughly 500 responses, about 85 percent agreed with his decision not to request earmarks, Kirk said.

“To have a stronger voice, you have to adhere to the moratorium yourself,” said Kirk.