[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 19, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR EARMARKING REFORM IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DAVID DREIER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 14, 2006

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H. Res. 1003, a 
rule providing that, upon its adoption, H. Res. 1000, providing for 
earmarking reform in the House of Representatives is hereby adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an important reform that 
members of both parties have supported. In fact, it was a key provision 
in the House-passed Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act. 
Specifically, with this new rule, member-directed spending to projects 
in their district, or earmarks, will no longer be anonymous.
  As it stands now, there are no disclosure requirements for earmarks 
in appropriations, tax and authorizing legislation. Earmarks can be 
buried in the text of bills that often number into the thousands of 
pages. There is no easy way to account for how many earmarks are in a 
bill and who is sponsoring them.
  This new rule requires sponsors of earmarks to be listed in committee 
reports. Conference reports must also have a list of earmarks that are 
``airdropped'' into the agreement.
  We are blowing away the fog of anonymity so the public can have a 
clear picture of what the projects are, how much they cost and who is 
sponsoring them. This is a victory for fiscal responsibility and a 
victory for spending taxpayer dollars wisely.
  As an enforcement mechanism, this new rule also provides for a 
question of consideration when a bill or conference report does not 
contain a list of earmarks. The question of consideration is debatable 
for 30 minutes--15 minutes equally divided.
  If a Member feels strongly enough about a proposed earmark, they will 
have to attach their name to it. And they need to be prepared to make 
their case in full view of their colleagues and constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, while the report to accompany H. Res. 1000 addresed 
several issues regarding the implementation of this new rule, I believe 
that it is important to further clarify how this rule will operate 
after its adoption.
  First, this rule will become effective immediately upon its adoption. 
Any report filed by a committee from that point forward should address 
this new rule. If there are earmarks in the bill or report, they should 
be listed appropriately; if there are none, I would encourage the 
committee chairmen to include a statement to that effect, as is often 
the current practice with other reporting requirements under rule XIII.
  Secondly, with regard to measures in conference, we recognize that 
the exact requirments of the resolution may be problematic given that 
this rule was not in place at the point of House consideration. We 
believe that it is important that committee chairmen make a good faith 
effort to comply with the spirit of the rule, and would regard 
inclusion of a list of earmarks which were not in either the House or 
Senate bill or their accompanying reports, i.e. ``airdropped'' 
earmarks, as meeting the intent of this new rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the earmark reform will build on the reforms already 
being implemented by the Appropriations Committee--reforms that have 
reduced the number of earmarks this year by 37 percent. Overall, 
spending on member projects was reduced $7.8 billion below last year. 
Over the last 2 years, Member project spending has decreased by over 
$10 billion.
  I want to thank Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee for 
making significant progress in reining-in government spending.
  I also want to make very clear that our focus is not solely on 
appropriations. For the reform to be effective, it must be 
comprehensive, and that was the commitment made by Speaker Hastert and 
the leadership of the House. So let me point out that this earmark 
reform applies across the board. It does not just apply to some 
committees. It covers all committees and all appropriations, tax and 
authorizing legislation that moves through regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, we have taken great care to clearly and precisely state 
what constitutes a tax, an appropriations and an authorizing earmark. 
And the good news is that there is more agreement than disagreement on 
these definitions. Yet clearly, there's no magic bullet. There is not 
going to be one definition that will be perfect and please everybody. 
But at the end of the day, we have to come together and move this 
process forward. If there's an earmark in a bill, it belongs on a list. 
It's just that simple.
  Now, is this new disclosure going to completely end the practice of 
earmarking? No. But it will shine a spotlight on earmarks without 
grinding the legislative process to a halt.
  And let me make very clear that the larger goal of this new rule is 
to make a profound and lasting change in how this institution handles 
earmarks and spends taxpayer dollars. The goal is to increase 
transparency and accountability. And the goal is to pull back the 
curtain on earmarks for the public, who have every right to know.
  For this earmark reform to be both meaningful and lasting, everyone, 
from commttee chairman on down, must make a good faith effort to comply 
with the spirit of the new rule. Our leadership--and certainly the 
Rules Committee--has made such a commitment. We are determined to make 
this work.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that while this is an 
important milestone on the path toward reform, we have not reached the 
goal-line. Reform is a continuous process. It gains momentum from 
members who never let up and never settle for the status quo. I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes for reforming earmarks and yes to setting the 
stage for more reforms down the road.

                          ____________________