Reform Earmarks Process resolution

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.