House GOP Pursues Fiscal Reform
The bill at the center of this July 2006 story never became law. Rep. Todd Tiahrt’s Government Efficiency Act (H.R. 5766) never got a House floor vote, and it died when the 109th Congress ended. Of the four budget reforms House conservatives asked for that year, only the earmark rule was adopted: the House approved H.Res. 1000 by 245-171 on September 14, 2006. Earmarks were later banned in Congress from 2011. They came back in 2021 as Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate. As of November 2026 they still run under those programs, with caps, public disclosure and member certifications.
The 2006 fight over the Government Efficiency Act
In late July 2006, moderate House Republicans got House leaders to hold off on a budget reform bill that conservatives in their own party wanted. Roll Call staff writer Jennifer Yachnin reported on July 31, 2006, that the measure had been pulled from the floor schedule until after the August recess.
What the bill would have done
H.R. 5766, the Government Efficiency Act of 2006, would have set up federal review commissions to study specific agencies and programs. Each commission would then recommend to the President and Congress whether a program should be kept, merged, cut back, expanded or abolished. Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, introduced the bill on July 12, 2006. The House Government Reform Committee held a hearing on July 19 and reported the bill on July 24 (House Report 109-594).
The report described the bill this way:
“The Government Efficiency Act, authored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), had been slated to go to the floor late last week but was scrubbed from the schedule Thursday afternoon. The bill would establish a federal commission to evaluate government-funded agencies or specific programs and issue recommendations to Congress on whether those bodies should be consolidated, abolished, expanded or otherwise altered.”
Boehlert’s proposed changes
The best-known objections came from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who chaired the House Science Committee at the time. Under the bill as written, the White House would appoint all seven commission members, choosing four of them after consulting the majority and minority leaders of both chambers. Boehlert proposed these amendments:
- Congress, not the White House, would make every appointment.
- Two House members and two senators would be added to the panel.
- The commission would have to hold public hearings.
- Congress would get 45 legislative days to review the commission’s recommendations, instead of the 30 days in Tiahrt’s draft.
- Members could offer floor amendments to the commission’s proposals. The bill only allowed amendments in committee.
| Feature | Tiahrt’s H.R. 5766 as drafted | Boehlert’s proposed change |
|---|---|---|
| Who appoints members | President (4 of 7 after consulting congressional leaders) | Congress makes all appointments |
| Lawmakers on the panel | None | 2 House members and 2 senators |
| Public hearings | Not required | Required |
| Congressional review period | 30 legislative days | 45 legislative days |
| Amendments to proposals | Committee only | Allowed on the floor too |
Where the bill stood at the end of July 2006
The House Rules Committee looked at the measure that Wednesday. It had not yet voted on the terms of debate, including which amendments members could offer. One Republican aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the paper: “Opposition has stayed quite strong from moderates and Democrats.” Outside Congress, OMB Watch, a government watchdog group, argued that the bill gave the White House too much control over the commissions.
Conservatives still expected the bill to come back in the fall. They expected the same for a broader plan from Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas). His bill, H.R. 3282, would have created a Federal Agency Sunset Commission and given federal programs automatic expiration dates. It was modeled on the sunset commission in Texas. “We look forward to working with leadership to enact real budget process reform after the August district work period,” said a Republican aide who worked for House conservatives.
The four reforms conservatives asked for
The review commissions were one of four budget process demands that conservative Republicans made to House leaders while the fiscal 2007 budget resolution was being negotiated in 2006. The other three were earmark reform, rules for emergency spending, and a line-item veto. Here is what became of the three that are clearly recorded:
| Measure | Bill | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Program review commissions | H.R. 5766 (Tiahrt), H.R. 3282 (Brady) | Neither got a House floor vote; both died at the end of the 109th Congress |
| Line-item veto | H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 | Passed the House 247-172 on June 22, 2006; the Senate never passed it, so it did not become law |
| Earmark disclosure | H.Res. 1000 | Adopted 245-171 on September 14, 2006 (199 Republicans and 45 Democrats voted yes; 24 Republicans and 147 Democrats voted no) |
Under H.R. 4890, the President could have proposed cancelling specific discretionary spending, new mandatory spending or targeted tax breaks, and Congress would have voted on each proposal. H.Res. 1000 was a House rule, not a law. It required bills and conference reports to list their earmarks and name the member who sponsored each one. The House then lost its Republican majority in the November 2006 elections.
How a conservative blogger saw it at the time
The blog’s author argued that House Republicans had waited too long. In his view, voters would read the procedural changes as election-year politics unless real results came with them, such as actual spending cuts or a President actually using a line-item veto. He thought congressional leaders wanted the measures “fresh in voters’ minds” on Election Day.
He also said several of Boehlert’s demands were not worth fighting over. He did not think public hearings or a 45-day review period would change much about how the commission worked. He called the plan to take appointments away from the administration “silly,” and asked whether Boehlert believed only Congress had the expertise for the job. That commentary first ran on the blog The Influence Peddler on July 31, 2006.
What happened next
The 2006 commission bills went nowhere, but the debate over earmarks kept going and changed shape. Earmarks went from disclosure in 2006, to a ban in 2011, to a capped and publicly disclosed return in 2021.
The commission idea after 2006
Tiahrt kept pushing for a review commission after 2006. In 2009 he introduced a Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA) bill, H.R. 1802. In 2014, Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) introduced a CARFA bill as H.R. 4566. Neither became law.
Boehlert did not run again in 2006 and left the House in January 2007. Tiahrt served until January 2011. Brady retired in January 2023.
From disclosure to ban to Community Project Funding
Earmarks went through three phases after the 2006 rule:
- Disclosure (2006 onward). Spending bills had to list earmarks and their sponsors. That made pet projects easier to trace but did not limit them.
- Moratorium (2011 to 2021). In the 112th Congress, the House and Senate adopted party and committee policies that stopped members from requesting earmarks.
- Return (2021 onward). In February 2021, House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) announced that earmarks would return under a new name, Community Project Funding. The Senate’s version is called Congressionally Directed Spending. The first projects were funded in the fiscal 2022 bills, and Republican-led Congresses have kept the practice going.
How earmarks work as of November 2026
The current rules come from House and Senate committee and party rules, not from a statute. For the fiscal 2027 cycle:
- Request limits. Each House member could submit up to 20 Community Project Funding requests across all bills. The limit was 15 in fiscal 2026.
- Total cap. In the House, Community Project Funding cannot exceed 0.5 percent of discretionary spending. The Senate cap is 1 percent.
- Eligible recipients. In the House, money can go only to state and local governments and nonprofits. For-profit companies are not eligible.
- Certification and disclosure. Members must certify that they and their families have no financial interest in a project, and they must post their requests online.
- Closed subcommittees. The House takes no requests in four subcommittees: Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Legislative Branch, and National Security-State.
Counts for fiscal 2026 depend on the method. The Associated Press counted more than 8,000 local projects worth over $15 billion, about 1 percent of the $1.65 trillion in discretionary spending Congress approved for that year. Citizens Against Government Waste’s 2026 Congressional Pig Book counted 8,392 earmarks costing $23.7 billion. That higher total includes some defense items the group found without a named sponsor.
Where fiscal 2027 spending stands
None of the 12 regular fiscal 2027 appropriations bills has been enacted. The government is running on a continuing resolution, H.R. 6500 (Public Law 119-103), which President Trump signed on September 2, 2026. The House cleared the final version 370-48 on September 1. It keeps agencies funded at fiscal 2026 levels through December 11, 2026. The House has passed three regular bills: Agriculture, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs, and National Security-State. If Congress does not act, a funding lapse would begin on December 12.
FAQ
Did the Government Efficiency Act of 2006 become law?
No. The House Government Reform Committee reported H.R. 5766 on July 24, 2006, but the bill was pulled from the floor schedule and never got a House vote. It died when the 109th Congress ended in January 2007.
What is the difference between a sunset commission and a review commission?
Brady’s sunset plan, H.R. 3282, would have given federal agencies automatic expiration dates unless Congress reauthorized them. Tiahrt’s review commissions would have studied specific programs and recommended changes, and Congress would then have voted on those recommendations. A Congressional Research Service report from July 2006 compared the two bills side by side.
Does the President have a line-item veto?
No. Congress gave the President a line-item veto in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, but the Supreme Court struck it down in 1998 in Clinton v. City of New York. The 2006 House bill, H.R. 4890, would have let the President propose cuts for Congress to vote on. It passed the House 247-172 but never passed the Senate.
Are earmarks banned today?
No. The ban that started in 2011 ended in 2021. Earmarks now go through Community Project Funding in the House and Congressionally Directed Spending in the Senate. They are capped at 0.5 percent of discretionary spending in the House and 1 percent in the Senate, and members must disclose their requests publicly.
How can you see what your member of Congress requested?
House and Senate members post their requests on their official websites. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees publish lists of the projects included in each bill. Once money is awarded, you can follow it on USAspending.gov, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation keeps a searchable database of House requests for fiscal 2027.
Sources
- Congress.gov: H.R. 5766, Government Efficiency Act of 2006, reported bill text and House Report 109-594
- Congressional Research Service: Sunset and Program Review Commission Bills in the 109th Congress: Comparing H.R. 3282 and H.R. 5766 (RL33569)
- Congressional Research Service: Commission on the Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies (CARFA): A Brief Overview of Legislative Proposals (RS21980)
- Congressional Research Service: Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006: Background and Comparison of Versions (RL33517)
- Congressional Research Service: Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2027 (R49353)
- Congress.gov: H.R. 6500, Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027
- Senate Appropriations Committee: FY 2026 Congressionally Directed Spending
- House Appropriations Committee: Chairman Cole’s statements on H.R. 6500
- Congressional Research Service: Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2027 Appropriations (R49343)
About this article
- Fact-checked before publication.
- Published · Updated
