By Lisa Mascaro (contact)

Wed, Mar 12, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Washington — Sen. Harry Reid stands by his earmarks the way a certain country singer stood by her man.

But his old-school approach is bumping up against Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who want to do away with earmarks this year, and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is inching toward a similar stance.

But Reid isn’t going along with the in-crowd.

When asked at a Tuesday news briefing whether he would support a moratorium, Reid told the story of the Northern Nevada town of Wells, which recently was upheaved by a 6.4-magnitude earthquake.

Wells is a tiny town, “a place I’m sure none of you have heard of,” Reid said. Even though its downtown and many of its homes were destroyed, the $1 million in losses doesn’t reach the $2.5 million threshold set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to trigger financial assistance, Reid said.

But the city could be helped by an earmark.

“I think that is a perfect place to go for congressionally directed spending, to help the little town of Wells reestablish their business community,” Reid said.

Reid has also pledged to go after more money, in light of the hepatitis C scare in Nevada, for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the safety practices at ambulatory clinics.

Reid brings home more pork for Nevada than the state’s other Washington lawmakers combined — $754.8 million in fiscal 2008. He said he’s all for ways to improve the earmark process for greater transparency “but to just carte blanche say there’s no earmarks is unrealistic.”

Democrats put a temporary moratorium on earmarks when they took over Congress after the 2006 election and established stricter rules that required lawmakers to put their names on all requests.

Earmarks have since decreased 23 percent, and the dollar value has declined from $29 billion to $18 billion, by some estimates.

But Republican leaders in the House, and a few in the Senate, have been pushing for further reforms as they try to reposition themselves as keepers of fiscal restraint.

Democrats, not wanting to lose their hold as the party that “drained the swamp,” sense they must take a stronger stance. First Obama, then Clinton — and maybe now Pelosi —came out calling for a ban.

But Reid isn’t the only one who is now in an incongruous position.

The rest of Nevada’s delegation is squirming a bit as a vote nears.

Republican Sen. John Ensign will be voting for the moratorium.

But Ensign declined to comment when asked what his vote will mean for the town of Wells.

“Nothing further,” Ensign spokesman Tory Mazzola said when pressed.

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley has her own quandary as an unabashed supporter of earmarks, including funding for the Veterans Affairs hospital being built in Southern Nevada.

Berkley’s spokesman, David Cherry, said she’s not sure how she would vote until she sees the bill, but that she “has serious reservations about any proposal that would eliminate millions of dollars in federal resources for projects benefiting families and businesses in the Silver State.”

Republican Rep. Dean Heller on Tuesday reiterated his support for a moratorium linked to a study of the issue. And as for the effect of his decision on Wells? His office was silent.

Republican Rep. Jon Porter is another big supporter of earmarks, but his spokesman is lying low until the moratorium proposal is presented.

Back in Las Vegas, they’re hoping the money flows. Regional Transportation Commission head Jacob Snow hopes to secure as much of his $60 million request as possible for freeway interchanges, bus depots and roads to keep traffic moving. “There isn’t a bad project on the list.”