About
In the beginning

Founders
Glenn Reynolds
N.Z. Bear

Pork Issues
Pork Hall of Shame
HHS Earmarks
Who Put a Secret Hold on Government Transparency?

General Pork
How to Find Pork

Congressional News
Hotline Blog
The Hill

Other Porkbusters
Citizens Against Government Waste
Heritage Foundation
The Examiner
The Sunlight Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
The Club for Growth

Contact
bear
at
truthlaidbear
dot
com


Porkbusters Store
Get Porkbusters Gear!

Hosted By





The Meeting That Wasn't --- And Then Was
February 21, 2006 08:51 AM

We had an interesting debate last Friday about a tip we received that there was an Appropriations meeting scheduled to discuss earmark reform.

At the time, Appropriations Chairman Cochran's spokesperson, Jenny Manley, denied all knowledge of any such meeting either occuring, or having been scheduled in the first place.

According to Senate Budget Chairmain Judd Gregg, however, a meeting did occur. Greg is cited in Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) as follows:

"Senate appropriators discussed possible earmark overhauls in a meeting Feb. 17, but came to no resolution, according to Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg"

So: we don't know what was discussed, but I think we can all agree now that the meeting did, in fact, happen...

Update: Jenny Manley writes: "I'm sorry if I misled you in any way last week. I was just informed this morning that Sen. Gregg got together some other Senators to talk about earmarking. It was just an informal discussion among a small group of Senators (Republican and Democrat appropriators) who are interested in talking more about earmark reform. I understand someone who works for Gregg referred to it as a "task force" but no one else has called it that, and the Committee does not view these Members as any type of official subcommittee. It was just a few Members who got together to discuss their ideas... hardly a secretive task force. Had I known about this meeting last week though, I would have referred you to one of the Members who attended the meeting for a comment. Again though, I'm sorry for the confusion. My intent last week was to see to it that you had the truth, not to cloud the situation. "