Lobbying bill adds more challenges to earmark process

House Republican leaders have incorporated changes in earmark transparency rules sought by conservatives into the lobbying overhaul package that are likely to further inflame House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.

The proposal had circulated for several weeks and was the subject of a previous agreement between House GOP leaders and conservatives in return for their support for the fiscal 2007 budget resolution. Lewis opposed the budget in part because of that agreement, and he had aimed to head off incorporating the changes in the lobbying bill on the floor this week.

But on Friday, the Rules Committee added the changes as part of a manager's amendment to the lobbying bill, siding with conservatives. Lewis' spokesman declined comment on his boss' strategy this week but reiterated his longstanding contention that earmark rules should apply to tax bills and other legislation as well as appropriations.

A leadership aide noted that appropriators knew the proposal "had been out there for a while" and that the Rules Committee action should come as no surprise.

As part of the deal with the House Republican Study Committee, GOP leaders agreed on language that would allow members to raise a point of order against consideration of appropriations conference reports by asserting that the underlying bill contained earmarks that had not been considered by the House or Senate.

Technically, members could raise the point of order only if the Appropriations Committee does not include a list of the offending earmarks' sponsors in the report accompanying the bill. However, a member could make his or her objection on the grounds that a list was incomplete, and force a 30-minute debate on the floor over earmarks in the underlying bill -- up from 20 minutes in the original version as drafted by the Rules Committee.

Under the language, during debate on the rule for an appropriations conference report "the Chair shall put the question of consideration as follows: 'Shall the House now consider the resolution notwithstanding the assertion of [the maker of the point of order] that the object of the resolution introduces a new earmark or new earmarks?'"

That provision was left out of the initial version of the lobbying bill, and gives earmark critics an expanded opportunity to highlight what they see as abuses of the process.

Members would not have to provide evidence that an offending provision was new and had not been previously considered; they would merely have to make the assertion and the chair would either overrule or sustain the motion.

Susan Davis contributed to this article.