UPDATE: The original headline to this post was "Reichert's hidden earmark." After the post appeared, Reichert's press secretary contacted me to say Reichert wasn't involved in getting the $25 million. The story from the Tri-City Herald was incorrect on that point, she said. Since no one took credit for the $25 million funding request, it's impossible to know who did ask for the money.

UPDATE on Oct. 15: The Tri-City Herald ran a correction today and changed the language in their online story to say that Doc Hastings was the only member of Congress to seek the $25 million.

Here's the original post:

U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, took a pledge last March to voluntarily stop asking for earmarks until Congress completed more thorough reform. In a video explaining his decision, he said, that although he supports earmarks for some projects, he felt Congress needed to create a trustworthy and open process for them.

"Sometimes you have to do what you think is right, no matter what the consequences are," he said.

But this summer, Reichert worked with other members of the state delegation to get $25 million for a lab near Hanford, as reported by the Tri-City Herald.
His campaign said the $25 million for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was not an earmark. It was "programmatic funding," because the money was intended to ensure the program was "being administered correctly," said Reichert's campaign manager, Mike Shields.

"His name isn't on it," Shields said. "No one thought that this was an earmark."

He's referring to a reform in the House that requires members to put their names next to any earmarks they ask for. Essentially, he's saying that since Reichert didn't list it as an earmark, it's not an earmark.
In a story in The Seattle Times Sunday, reporters David Heath and Christine Willmsen wrote that despite the reform, members of Congress are spending millions on "hidden earmarks" -- member projects for which they aren't taking credit. The Hanford lab is an example.

Shields disagrees, and said the project is "definitely not an earmark." He says the fact that the Burner campaign is pointing fingers about earmarks shows "how desperate" her campaign is. (Burner's spokesman, Sandeep Kaushik, sent me a link to the Tri-City Herald story).
Congressman Norm Dicks, a Democrat, helped get the money for the lab, as well, and his spokesman, George Behan, said that, "under the technical definition, I guess that is an earmark."