WASHINGTON -- Republicans have a new idea on how to boost Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, considered the New Jersey lawmaker most at risk of losing re-election this fall partly because of the backlash against President Donald Trump.

More than a decade after scandal temporarily cost them control of the House, Republicans are debating whether to resume allowing members of Congress to designate specific local projects for federal funding.

The Washington term for it is earmarking. But you probably know it better as doling out money for pork barrel projects so lawmakers can woo the voters back home.

That would put Frelinghuysen, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, in a stronger position than most to ensure a steady supply of pork to his district and his state.

"Rodney is in the absolutely perfect position: He has the big chair," said former Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., a former Appropriations subcommittee chair who touted his ability to obtain earmarks during his re-election campaigns.

"People can say, 'Thank you for that bridge project, thank you for that economic development project, thank you for that new housing development,'" Walsh said.

Trump's record-low approval ratings are hurting Republicans up for re-election this fall and Frelinghuysen, R-11th Dist., is no exception.

He has no better than a 50-50 chance of winning re-election this fall, according to the Cook Political Report, a Washington-based publication that tracks races for the House and Senate. The only other New Jersey district considered as competitive by Cook is in South Jersey where Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd Dist., is retiring.

House Republicans decided to revisit their earmarks ban, enacted after they reclaimed the majority in 2011, due to the inability of Congress to come together on major legislation, including the deadlock over a spending bill that culminated in the recent three-day shutdown.

The House Rules Committee recently held a hearing on the issue.

The idea behind restoring earmarks is that lawmakers would be more willing to support legislation if it includes provisions for their districts.

"The complete gridlock in Congress has led some people to argue that this forced Republicans and Democrats to talk and to deal and to horse trade," Republican consultant Craig Russell said.

Bringing back earmarks would enhance Frelinghuysen's clout.

All 20 House members receiving the most money in earmarks in 2010, including both Frelinghuysen and then-Rep. Steve Rothman, D-9th Dist., either sat on the Appropriations Committee or represented states where a senator did, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a research and advocacy group supporting cuts in government spending.

"I have always supported congressionally-directed funding," Frelinghuysen said. "The Constitution gives the 'power of the purse' to the House and Senate and I have long argued that it is preferable for members of Congress, who know their district far better than any unelected agency bureaucrat, to submit requests in a transparent way through the Appropriations Committee."

A campaign brochure touts Frelinghuysen's committee chairmanship as "giving New Jersey a major voice in Washington decision-making for the first time in a generation."

But it doesn't carry the power it once did, thanks to the earmarks ban.

"It's better to be an appropriator or have a friend on Appropriations but the idea that individual Appropriations members can designate projects is a thing of the past," said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University.

Even when Frelinghuysen last year added $900 million to a House spending bill for the Gateway Tunnel project, some House Republicans sought strip the funding because they said it ran afoul of the earmark ban.

After ending 40 years of Democratic control in 1995, House Republicans used earmarks to cement their majority. The number of earmarks grew to 15,569 in 2016 from 4,126 in 1994.

That led to scandal.

There was the questionable: $300 million for a "bridge to nowhere" between the city of Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport on Gravina Island, population 50.

And there was the corrupt: GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California went to prison for trading contracts for bribes, and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was ensnared in his own criminal case.

That helped Democrats win back the House in 2006 and impose new stringent disclosure requirements for earmarks rather than a ban.

One of Frelinghuysen's Democratic challengers, Mark Washburne, said earmarks should not return.

"I understand the argument that they are needed to help secure enough votes to get some controversial legislation passed," said Washburne, a political science professor at the County College of Morris. "Most legislation is not usually controversial, however, and legislators were using the privilege of earmarks to add pet projects for their district and/or state to bills that then needed to be paid for by all taxpayers."

Opponents fear that scandals that led to the ban would resurface if earmarks are renewed.

"You're making funding decisions on the basis of political muscle rather than project merit," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

"We're wasting money going to lower-priority projects when there are more important needs facing the country," Ellis said. "We're bringing back pay-to-play, where thousands of dollars in lobbying cash can turn into millions of dollars in taxpayer money going to their clients."

Jonathan D. Salant may be reached at jsalant@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @JDSalant or on Facebook. Find NJ.com Politics on Facebook.