[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Page 759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 365--TO PROVIDE A 60 VOTE POINT OF ORDER AGAINST OUT 
    OF SCOPE MATERIAL IN CONFERENCE REPORTS AND OPEN THE PROCESS OF 
                         EARMARKS IN THE SENATE

  Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
Administration

                              S. Res. 365

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. OUT OF SCOPE MATTERS IN CONFERENCE REPORTS .

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a conference report that includes any matter not 
     committed to the conferees by either House. A point of order 
     shall be made and voted on separately for each item in 
     violation of this section.
       (b) Disposition.--If the point of order against a 
     conference report under subsection (a) is sustained, then--
       (1) the matter in such conference report shall be deemed to 
     have been struck;
       (2) when all other points of order under this section have 
     been disposed of--
       (A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of 
     whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the 
     House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the 
     House, and concur with a further amendment, which further 
     amendment shall consist of only that portion of the 
     conference report not deemed to have been struck;
       (B) the question shall be debatable; and
       (C) no further amendment shall be in order; and
       (3) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill 
     and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the 
     House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.

     SEC. 2. EARMARKS.

       (a) Honesty in Earmarks.--Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
     the Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``10.(a) In this paragraph, the term `earmark' means a 
     provision that specifies the identity of an entity to receive 
     assistance and the amount of the assistance.
       ``(b) It shall not be in order to consider any bill or 
     amendment between the Houses or conference report on such a 
     bill unless a list of--
       ``(1) all earmarks in such measure;
       ``(2) an identification of the member who proposed the 
     earmark; and
       ``(3) an explanation of the essential governmental purpose 
     for the earmark;
     are available to all Members and made available to the 
     general public by means of the Internet for at least 24 hours 
     before its consideration..''.
       (b) Member Requests.--Prior to the consideration of a bill 
     in the Senate, any Member who requests an earmark in the bill 
     shall file a copy of the request with the Secretary of the 
     Senate and the request shall be printed in the Congressional 
     Record.

     SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF CONFERENCE REPORTS ON THE INTERNET.

       Rule XXVIII of all the Standing Rules of the Senate is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``9. It shall not be in order to consider a conference 
     report unless such report is available to all Members and 
     made available to the general public by means of the Internet 
     for at least 24 hours before its consideration.''.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the senior 
Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, in submitting a bipartisan 
proposal to reform some of the procedures of the Senate that have 
caused an explosion of anonymous earmarks in conference reports.
  Our proposal does not bar the long-standing practice of allowing 
Members to channel resources to communities in their States that need 
Federal resources. However, we attempt to bring a far greater degree of 
transparency to the process and make it nearly impossible for Members 
to insert items in unamendable conference reports which have not 
undergone thorough scrutiny by either the House or Senate.
  The proposal we are submitting today would create a point of order 
against any item included in a conference report that had not been 
considered by either body. This point of order lies against all 
legislation, not simply appropriations bills. Thus a transportation 
authorization conference report that includes highway and bridge 
projects that were not considered by either body would be subject to 
this point of order, just as an earmark inserted in an appropriations 
conference report would be subject to a point of order. This point of 
order could be waived by 60 votes.
  Although current Standing Rule 28 allows a point of order against 
items in conference reports that were not considered by either body, 
this point of order is almost never used. That is because if the Rule 
28 point of order is sustained, the entire conference report is 
rejected and Senate and House Members must reconstitute a new 
conference where all items in the original bills must be renegotiated.
  Under our approach, if a point of order against an item in the 
conference report is sustained, the conference report, minus the items 
struck by the point of order, is returned to the House for its 
concurrence.
  Our approach is modeled after the Byrd Rule that applies in the case 
of reconciliation conference reports.
  I believe that this new point of order will make it far less likely 
that Members will attempt to insert new items in conference reports 
that have not been thoroughly aired in debate. However, our resolution 
goes much further in enhancing the transparency of earmarks, especially 
in appropriations bills.
  Our resolution requires that any Senator who requests an earmark in 
an appropriations bill must file a copy of the request with the 
Secretary of the Senate, who is then required to publish the earmark 
request in the Congressional Record.
  Moreover, our resolution requires that all earmarks that are included 
in appropriations bills must be specifically identified in the Report, 
along with the sponsor of the earmark and an explanation of the 
essential government purpose of the earmark. In addition, such reports, 
including conference reports, must be made available to all Members, 
and the general public via the Internet, at least 24 hours before 
consideration of the measure.
  There is nothing inherently wrong when a Member directs financing for 
a key project in his or her state. Sometimes it is necessary to get the 
Federal bureaucracy to focus on the needs of our constituents. However, 
the process needs far greater transparency, and it is my hope that this 
resolution will resolve some of the problems that have been associated 
with this process.

                          ____________________