[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[House]
[Page 16163]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      PROVIDING FOR EARMARK REFORM

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of the 
resolution (H. Res. 491) providing for earmark reform, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would 
simply ask my very distinguished Chair for an explanation of exactly 
what it is that we're doing here.
  I am happy to yield to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on 
Rules under my reservation, Madam Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  What this measure does is absolutely guarantee that any earmark in a 
conference report that has not been passed in the House will be subject 
to a point of order even though the Rules Committee may have protected 
against all points of order.
  Mr. DREIER. If I may, under my reservation, Madam Speaker, I would 
just like to make sure that we have in place a provision now, as was 
agreed on last week, that will ensure that the rights of Members, when 
it comes to raising a point of order, are maintained when it comes to 
appropriations bills.
  I would say, Madam Speaker, that I believe this is a very good start. 
My personal preference would have been that we could have gone back to 
the provision that we had last year to allow the same kind of 
protection for earmarks when it comes to both authorization and tax 
bills. And I hope very much, Madam Speaker, that we are going to have 
an opportunity to work together. I look forward to working with the 
distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules and the leadership teams 
on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we can in fact pursue further 
transparency, openness, accountability and enforceability when it comes 
to the issue of earmarks.
  With that, I withdraw my reservation, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 491

       Resolved,  That during the remainder of the 110th Congress 
     it shall not be in order to consider a conference report to 
     accompany a regular general appropriation bill unless the 
     joint explanatory statement prepared by the managers on the 
     part of the House and the managers on the part of the Senate 
     includes a list of congressional earmarks (as that term is 
     used in clause 9(d) of rule XXI) in the conference report or 
     joint statement (and the name of any Member, Delegate, 
     Resident Commissioner, or Senator who submitted a request to 
     the respective House or Senate committee for each respective 
     item included on such list) that were not committed to the 
     conference committee by either House, not in a report on such 
     bill, and not in a report of a committee of the Senate on a 
     companion measure.
       Sec. 2.  It shall not be in order to consider a rule or 
     order that waives the application of the first section of 
     this resolution.
       Sec. 3.  A point of order under this resolution shall be 
     disposed of by the question of consideration under the same 
     terms as specified in clause 9(b) of rule XXI.

  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________