In the article Matt cites below, Robert Novak reports on a related issue: Senate "appropriators' noncompliance" with a requirement in the Senate ethics bill (passed but not yet enacted) that a member requesting an earmark disclose any personal financial interest in that earmark. Senate subcommittee "request forms [issued this year] generally omit" this disclosure requirement, Novak notes. Without new Senate ethics rules, there aren't any technical violations, but the practice runs afoul of the pledge by Appropriations chair Robert Byrd (D-WV) to "place a moratorium on all earmarks until a reformed process is put in place." Meanwhile, The Hill reports today mounting confusion on the House side on how to interpret similar but mandatory earmarks disclosure requirements, echoing members' complaints that we noted earlier this month. The confusion has prompted one House member to refrain from submitting any earmark requests at all, because of the "ethical uncertainty of any earmark defining personal financial interest."