[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6492-H6493]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order 
against consideration of H.R. 3534 because it does not comply with 
clause 9(a) of rule XXI, because the committee report to accompany the 
measure does not contain a statement that this bill contains no 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits.
  I would point the Speaker to page 125 of the accompanying report. The 
report contains a statement that H.R. 3435 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits. That is not the proposition that we are considering today. 
Today we are considering H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and 
Aquatic Resources Act of 2009. However, the proposition identified in 
the committee report is H.R. 3435, a bill making supplemental 
appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to 
Recycle and Save program. As it happens, that measure was signed into 
law on August 7, 2009, and is Public Law 111-47. So it cannot be the 
proposition that we are considering today.
  Clause 9(a) of rule XXI prohibits the consideration of ``a bill or 
joint resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a 
statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' The rule specifies 
``the'' proposition, not ``a'' proposition. Thus the statement in the 
committee report fails to meet the test because it describes a 
proposition rather than the one which is the subject of the report.
  Normally, clause 9(d) would preclude the Chair from even entertaining 
this point of order. However, it also specifies ``the'' proposition and 
not ``a'' proposition and thus is inapplicable in this case.
  I would also note that the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
3534 specifically exempts clause 9 of rule

[[Page H6493]]

XXI from the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the 
bill; so the bill is exposed to this point of order.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from West Virginia seek 
to argue the point of order?
  Mr. RAHALL. No, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order that the bill 
violates clause 9(a) of rule XXI. Under clause 9(a) of rule XXI it is 
not in order to consider a bill or a joint resolution unless the 
committee report on the measure includes a list of congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits contained in 
the measure, or a statement that the measure contains no such earmarks 
or benefits.
  The Chair has examined the relevant committee report, House Report 
111-575, and finds that it contains on page 125 a statement with regard 
to another measure, H.R. 3435, but not a statement with regard to this 
bill, H.R. 3534.
  Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. Consideration of the 
bill is not in order.

                          ____________________