Veto the Pork: The $700 Million Mississippi Rail Relocation Fight
The $700 million to move the CSX rail line off the Mississippi Gulf Coast never became law. House and Senate negotiators dropped it in late May 2006, and on June 15, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the $94.5 billion war and hurricane emergency bill (H.R. 4939, Public Law 109-234) without it. Congress banned earmarks like this one from 2011. They came back in 2021 as Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate, now with the sponsor’s name attached and public disclosure. As of November 2026, the FY2027 earmarks are written into bills that have not been enacted, and the government is running on a stopgap law (P.L. 119-103) that expires December 11, 2026.
What the $700 million would have paid for
The money was a Senate addition to the 2006 emergency supplemental. It would have bought the CSX right of way along the Mississippi coast and moved the freight line inland. That would have cleared the old rail bed for a new east-west road and let U.S. 90 along the beach become a smaller scenic boulevard through cities such as Biloxi and Gulfport.
Mississippi’s two Republican senators backed the plan: Thad Cochran, then chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Trent Lott. They argued that moving the line inland would protect it from future hurricanes. Critics called it a “railroad to nowhere.” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said on the Senate floor, “This is not an emergency.”
The White House objected to this specific item. The Office of Management and Budget’s statement of administration policy on H.R. 4939 noted that CSX had already repaired its hurricane-damaged line with its own money. CSX said the line was back in full operation on January 31, 2006, about five months after Hurricane Katrina. President Bush’s veto threat itself was about the bill’s total cost. He said he would veto a supplemental that went past his request of about $94.5 billion, and the Senate version was well over $106 billion.
At the time, the PorkBusters blog campaign welcomed the veto threat. Its post said American taxpayers deserved better than to take on $700 million in debt so that Biloxi could have a scenic boulevard, and it urged the president to stick to that position.
The Senate votes that kept it alive
The rail money survived on the Senate floor, by a single vote in its closest test.
| Date | Vote | Result |
|---|---|---|
| April 26, 2006 | Motion to table the part of Sen. Tom Coburn’s amendment that struck the $700 million rail relocation | Tabled 49-48, so the money stayed in |
| April 26, 2006 | Amendment by Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) to strip all the non-emergency projects the Senate had added | Defeated 72-26 |
| Late May 2006 | A budget aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said the rail earmark would not be in the conference report | Dropped in conference |
| June 15, 2006 | Senate vote on the final conference report | Approved 98-1 |
| June 15, 2006 | President Bush signs H.R. 4939 | Public Law 109-234, $94.5 billion |
Cochran had forced a separate vote on the railroad item alone, which is how it passed 49-48. Coburn admitted beforehand that he probably did not have the votes to strip it. The final law was $14.4 billion smaller than the bill the Senate passed, and it still included $19.3 billion in more relief for Gulf Coast hurricane victims and other disasters.
How the Sun Herald and local readers saw it
Opinion on the coast was split. According to the Sun Herald, the Biloxi-Gulfport daily, writing in an editorial: “We don’t expect an editorialist or newscaster who has never been here even once to appreciate that fact; we do expect a president who has already been here 10 times to better understand the situation.” The paper was answering national critics of the rail plan and the White House’s objection to it.
The PorkBusters post was written by a contributor who said they lived on the coast. It disputed the editorial: the writer saw no reason to spend $700 million moving a CSX line that had just been repaired. The post pointed to letters in the Sun Herald’s own pages as evidence that other residents agreed. Two of those letters are below.
Ronald Salters of Ocean Springs: “Too many details of this pork project are hidden.”
It is hard to believe that $700 million is being misappropriated for the purchase of the CSX right of way. This is only the beginning of the funds that will be needed to tear down a perfectly functioning railroad and build a multi-lane monstrosity, the details of which are conspicuously hidden from public scrutiny. The casinos and Harrison County [are] the only true beneficiaries of this outrageous pork barrel.
The real travesty is that no one has considered the fact that an east-west corridor currently exists along the CSX right of way through Harrison County. By using the existing service roads and easements a multi-lane, east-west corridor could be constructed and co-exist with the railroad for far less than $700 million.
The $700 million is an unsolicited arm-twisting by politicians who used to brag about building infrastructure and fiscal responsibility. We should not let politicians use strong-arm tactics to push their pet project through Congress, furthering this country’s debt at a time when real needs are not being met.
There is a better use of $700 million; one need look no further than those who are desperately seeking housing and jobs as they are being handed eviction notices by FEMA.
William Hutter of Biloxi: “Questions should have been answered earlier”
Politics and ethics aside, there remains the issue of whether buying the CSX right of way for an east-west connector road is good public policy. I offer the following for consideration:
- If the tracks are retained for light rail use, how will safety be increased? On a limited-access, high-traffic connector road, how will traffic accidents be reduced?
- Most of the Coast casinos are located along the beachfront. Moving traffic away from their front door seems counter-productive. The hundreds of beachfront businesses we hope will rebuild will face the same disincentives.
- The dream for a scenic U.S. 90 may be overblown. Most of the Victorian houses are gone, and view of the water is being decreased by condominiums.
- Width greater than the CSX right of way will be required. That will come at the expense of the moderate-income houses that line the tracks.
- A limited-access road means street grids will be blocked and neighborhoods will be separated.
- If the main artery for Coast traffic is moved north of the beach, it does not make much sense to route traffic across Biloxi Bay onto old U.S. 90.
In summary, I fail to see how a project with the potential of increasing traffic, doing nothing for traffic safety, decreasing tax revenues, reducing affordable housing, dividing neighborhoods, and delaying construction of the Biloxi-Ocean Springs bridge is in my best interest or that of my fellow citizens. Had this project been fully discussed earlier we might have avoided the embarrassing situation in which we now find ourselves.
Supporters of the plan answered critics like these. Jim Barksdale, chairman of Gov. Haley Barbour’s Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal, defended the relocation in a May 4, 2006, letter to The Wall Street Journal. He said it was part of the state’s long-term rebuilding plan, not a giveaway.
What happened next
The rail relocation was never funded, and the CSX tracks stayed on the coast. They still carry freight, and since August 2025 Amtrak’s Mardi Gras Service has used them for passenger trains between New Orleans and Mobile, with stops in Bay St. Louis, Gulfport, Biloxi and Pascagoula.
The bigger change came in how Congress handles earmarks:
- 2007: Both chambers adopted earmark disclosure rules requiring sponsors’ names to be listed, partly in response to fights like this one and the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
- 2011: At the start of the 112th Congress, House Republicans adopted a moratorium on earmarks in appropriations bills, and the Senate largely followed in practice.
- 2021: The House Appropriations Committee, then under Democratic control, brought earmarks back for FY2022 bills as Community Project Funding, capped at 1 percent of discretionary spending. The Senate returned to them as Congressionally Directed Spending.
- 2023 onward: House Republicans kept earmarks but tightened the rules.
- FY2025: A full-year continuing resolution carried no earmarks.
- FY2026: Earmarks returned in the regular bills enacted in early 2026. CQ Roll Call counted nearly $15.5 billion enacted by mid-February 2026. Citizens Against Government Waste, which uses a broader definition, counted 8,392 earmarks worth $23.7 billion in its 2026 Congressional Pig Book.
How earmarks work as of November 2026
A member of Congress can still steer money to a named project at home. The difference from 2006 is that the request is public, carries the member’s name and has to fit under a fixed cap.
- Request: Members send project requests to the House or Senate Appropriations Committee during a spring window. For FY2027 the House window ran in March 2026.
- Disclosure: House members post their requests online, and each one must certify that neither they nor their spouse has a financial interest in the project.
- Eligibility: In the House, money can go to state and local governments and eligible nonprofits. For-profit companies are barred.
- Selection: Subcommittees pick projects within the applicable cap and list them, with sponsors, in the bills and reports. The Senate committee posts its Congressionally Directed Spending tables by bill.
- Enactment: Nothing is final until the full-year bill becomes law. A continuing resolution, like the one now in effect, does not fund new earmarks.
For FY2027, the House has passed some bills with Community Project Funding, including the Agriculture bill, according to a September 2026 Congressional Research Service report. The Senate has posted its requested Congressionally Directed Spending projects. The continuing resolution signed September 2, 2026, keeps agencies running through December 11, 2026. Congress has to pass full-year bills or another stopgap by then to avoid a funding lapse starting December 12.
FAQ
Did the $700 million Mississippi rail relocation ever get funded?
No. The Senate kept it in its version of H.R. 4939 by a 49-48 vote in April 2006, but negotiators dropped it from the final bill in late May. President Bush signed the bill without it on June 15, 2006. The CSX line still runs along the coast.
Did President Bush actually veto the bill?
No. His veto threat applied to any supplemental that went past his total of about $94.5 billion. Congress cut the bill to that level, dropped the rail money, and he signed it as Public Law 109-234.
Who sponsored the rail relocation earmark?
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), then chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, led the effort, with Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) backing him. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) led the floor fight to remove it. The Office of Management and Budget also objected, noting that CSX had already repaired the line.
Are earmarks banned in Congress today?
No. A moratorium ran from 2011 until 2021. Earmarks now exist as Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate, with named sponsors, public request lists and caps on how much can be spent.
How can someone see which earmarks their members of Congress requested?
House members post their Community Project Funding requests on their official websites. The Senate Appropriations Committee publishes Congressionally Directed Spending tables for each bill. Once money is awarded, you can follow it through USAspending.gov.
What was PorkBusters?
PorkBusters was a campaign run by bloggers from 2006 to 2010 against congressional earmarks. It targeted projects such as Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” and this Mississippi rail relocation, and it encouraged readers to contact Congress and send in tips about spending items.
Sources
- Public Law 109-234 (H.R. 4939), GovInfo
- Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 4939 (Senate), Office of Management and Budget
- FY2006 Supplemental Appropriations, Congressional Research Service (RL33298)
- Community Project Funding: House Rules and Committee Protocols, Congressional Research Service (R46722)
- Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2027 (P.L. 119-103), Congressional Research Service
- Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2027 Appropriations, Congressional Research Service
- FY 2026 Congressionally Directed Spending, Senate Appropriations Committee
About this article
- Fact-checked before publication.
- Published · Updated
