Providing For Consideration Of Senate Amendments To H.R. 3590, Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009, And Providing For Consideration Of H.R. 4872, Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is quite simple. In the last 2 weeks, both the House Republicans and the House Democrats have passed sweeping anti-earmark resolutions. Moreover, the leadership of the House has said that they will ensure that earmarks are in the past. But, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is filled with earmarks, not the least of which is the Louisiana purchase, not the least of which is the Bismark provision. Mr. Speaker, the amount of earmarks violating both Republican and Democratic House rules against earmarks is beyond the counting of any of us. My point of order is intended to stop the bill until earmarks can be removed from the bill.

I might note, Mr. Speaker, last night until late at night, for more than 13 hours, Republicans offered 80 amendments, many of which could have fixed portions of this bill. None--I repeat, Mr. Speaker, none--were ruled in order.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that an earmark is tantamount to a bribe. An earmark to receive a vote is clearly a way to get a vote in return for something of value.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a vast tax increase and a vast increase in the reach of government. It deserves to be considered on its merits, not based on promises and bribes for financial gain to various Members' districts. Therefore, it is clear we must remove all earmarks before this legislation can move forward.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 10 minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to use a purely technical violation of the earmark identification rule to try and block the House from even considering the rule and the underlying legislation. In fact, the Budget Committee did include an earmark statement in their committee report.

However, a minor technical error in that statement made the legislation subject to a point of order. The Budget Committee has since filed two clarifying earmark statements in the Congressional Record. Clearly these statements, as well as the initial statement in the committee report, should show that it does not violate the spirit of the earmark rule. I have copies of these statements for any Members who need clarification.

The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted. Perhaps the gentlelady from New York could tell me, does that mean that under the rule that the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, the Gator aid, and the Bismark bank job will be somehow removed from the legislation after its passage?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am happy to tell you that. The final bill will not have State-specific provisions. The provisions that are in apply to multiple States, and a provision in the education portion of the reconciliation bill regarding State-owned banks is being struck by the manager's amendment.

Mr. ISSA. Reclaiming my time, I'm going to simply state for the record that our reading is that all of these will go to the President in the bill. And, of course, if by some miracle a bribe for one becomes a bribe for many States, somehow I don't think the American people will find that particularly a happy day for anyone, except perhaps the few States who receive for a short time a special consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source