The Senate Earmark Reform Meeting That Wasn’t, and Then Was
The informal Senate meeting on earmarks described below took place on February 17, 2006. It produced no plan. Congress then tightened earmark rules: the Senate passed S. 2349 in March 2006, and the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 added disclosure requirements. Earmarks were banned outright from 2011. They came back in 2021 under new names: Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate. As of November 2026, members file requests that are posted publicly and certify that they have no financial stake in them. For-profit companies cannot receive the money. The final FY2027 earmarks are still waiting on full-year spending bills, because a stopgap law keeps the government funded only through December 11, 2026.
What the original post reported
PorkBusters was a campaign run by bloggers against congressional earmarks, launched in September 2005. In February 2006 the group had an internal debate about a tip it had received: that there was an Appropriations meeting scheduled to discuss earmark reform.
Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee at the time. His spokesperson, Jenny Manley, told the campaign she knew nothing of any such meeting, either held or scheduled.
Senator Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), then chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, gave a different account. Congressional Quarterly (subscription required) reported his version:
“Senate appropriators discussed possible earmark overhauls in a meeting Feb. 17, but came to no resolution, according to Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg.”
The campaign’s post concluded that the meeting had taken place, even though nobody outside it knew what was said.
The spokesperson’s follow-up
Manley later wrote back to the campaign with this correction:
“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.”
According to the committee’s spokesperson, then, the meeting was a small, informal and bipartisan group of appropriators. It was not an official body.
Why the meeting mattered in early 2006
Earmarks were at the center of a reform fight in early 2006, after the lobbying scandals of 2005 and the controversy over Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere.” Several Senate proposals were competing in February and March of that year. A Congressional Research Service comparison of them, report RL33295, came out in March 2006.
- S. 2349, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced it. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee approved it on February 28, 2006, and the Senate passed an amended version on March 29, 2006.
- A 60-vote test for earmarks. One version of the reform would let any senator challenge an earmark. If the earmark did not get 60 votes, it would be struck from the bill.
- Pushback from appropriators. Some appropriators objected to proposals that applied only to earmarks written by their own committees. The reformers argued that disclosure had to start where most earmarks originated.
The Senate bill and the House version, H.R. 4975, never became law in that Congress. CRS report RL33397 analyzed both. Lasting rules arrived only in 2007, when the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act created Senate Rule XLIV. That rule requires senators to disclose the earmarks they request and to certify that they have no financial interest in them.
What happened to earmarks after 2006
Earmarks have gone through three phases since this meeting: disclosure rules, a full ban, and a revival with more safeguards.
| Period | What applied | Key detail |
|---|---|---|
| 2007 to 2010 | Earmarks allowed, with disclosure | Senate Rule XLIV required sponsor names and conflict-of-interest certifications |
| 2011 to 2021 | Earmark moratorium | House and Senate rules barred members from requesting earmarks |
| FY2022 onward | Community Project Funding (House) and Congressionally Directed Spending (Senate) | Requests posted online, no for-profit recipients, total capped as a share of discretionary spending |
| FY2027 cycle | House limit raised to 20 requests per member | House earmarks capped at 0.5% of discretionary spending; Senate cap is 1% |
House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) announced the revival on February 26, 2021, under the name Community Project Funding. The Senate uses the term Congressionally Directed Spending.
How earmarks work as of November 2026
Both chambers use a request, disclosure and certification process. Here is how it works:
- Requests. For FY2027, House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) allowed each member up to 20 requests across all subcommittees, up from 15 in FY2026. The House request portal opened on February 25, 2026.
- Disclosure. Members post their requests online. In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee, led by Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.), links to each senator’s financial certification letter.
- Limits. For-profit entities cannot receive the money, and only certain accounts are eligible. The House guidance caps the total at half of one percent of discretionary spending. The Senate cap is one percent.
- Oversight. The Senate committee requires the Government Accountability Office to audit a sample of enacted earmarks and report the results to Congress.
Requests on this scale add up quickly. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a group that tracks and criticizes earmarks, counted 6,693 House requests totaling $8.68 billion for FY2027. Citizens Against Government Waste opposes earmarks, and its 2026 Congressional Pig Book counted 8,392 earmarks costing $23.7 billion in the FY2026 spending bills. That count uses the group’s own definition, which is broader than the committees’ official disclosure tables.
Where FY2027 funding stands
No FY2027 earmarks have been enacted yet. The Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027 (H.R. 6500, P.L. 119-103) was signed on September 2, 2026. It funds the government through December 11, 2026. The Senate passed it 90-6 and the House 370-48. A stopgap law like this does not carry new earmarks. Congress must pass full-year bills or another stopgap measure by December 11 to avoid a funding lapse starting December 12, 2026.
FAQ
Did the February 17, 2006 meeting lead to any reform?
Not directly. Sen. Judd Gregg said the senators reached no resolution. The Senate passed S. 2349 in March 2006, but Congress did not enact lasting earmark rules until the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.
Are earmarks banned in Congress today?
No. They were banned from 2011 until 2021, then restored. The House calls them Community Project Funding and the Senate calls them Congressionally Directed Spending. Both come with public disclosure, conflict-of-interest certifications and caps on the total.
How can you see who requested an earmark?
House members post their requests on their own websites, and the House Appropriations Committee publishes tables of requests. In the Senate, senators post their requests and the Senate Appropriations Committee links to each senator’s certification letter. Enacted earmarks are listed in the explanatory statements that accompany the final spending bills.
How much money goes to earmarks each year?
It depends on who is counting. The House caps its earmarks at 0.5% of discretionary spending for FY2027, and the Senate caps its earmarks at 1%. Citizens Against Government Waste counted $23.7 billion in FY2026, but that figure uses a broader definition than the committees use.
What was PorkBusters?
PorkBusters was a campaign run by bloggers that launched in September 2005. Its members spread tips about congressional earmarks and urged readers to contact lawmakers about specific projects. The site is now an independent, nonpartisan explainer of federal spending with no connection to that campaign.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service: Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2027 (R49353)
- Congress.gov: H.R. 6500, Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027
- Congressional Research Service: Earmark Reform Proposals, Analysis of S. 2349 and H.R. 4975 (RL33397)
- Congressional Research Service: Comparison of Selected Senate Earmark Reform Proposals (RL33295)
- Senate Appropriations Committee: Reforms and Regulations for Congressionally Directed Spending in FY2027
- House Appropriations Committee: Cole Releases FY27 Community Project Funding Guidance
- National Taxpayers Union Foundation: Tracking House FY2027 Earmark Requests
- Citizens Against Government Waste: 2026 Congressional Pig Book
About this article
- Fact-checked before publication.
- Published · Updated
