[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11] [House] [Page 14834] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]POINT OF ORDER Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of H.R. 3534 because it does not comply with clause 9(a) of rule XXI, because the committee report to accompany the measure does not contain a statement that this bill contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. I would point the Speaker to page 125 of the accompanying report. The report contains a statement that H.R. 3435 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits. That is not the proposition that we are considering today. Today we are considering H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009. However, the proposition identified in the committee report is H.R. 3435, a bill making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save program. As it happens, that measure was signed into law on August 7, 2009, and is Public Law 111-47. So it cannot be the proposition that we are considering today. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI prohibits the consideration of ``a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee unless the report includes a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.'' The rule specifies ``the'' proposition, not ``a'' proposition. Thus the statement in the committee report fails to meet the test because it describes a proposition rather than the one which is the subject of the report. Normally, clause 9(d) would preclude the Chair from even entertaining this point of order. However, it also specifies ``the'' proposition and not ``a'' proposition and thus is inapplicable in this case. I would also note that the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3534 specifically exempts clause 9 of rule XXI from the waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill; so the bill is exposed to this point of order. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from West Virginia seek to argue the point of order? Mr. RAHALL. No, Mr. Speaker. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order that the bill violates clause 9(a) of rule XXI. Under clause 9(a) of rule XXI it is not in order to consider a bill or a joint resolution unless the committee report on the measure includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits contained in the measure, or a statement that the measure contains no such earmarks or benefits. The Chair has examined the relevant committee report, House Report 111-575, and finds that it contains on page 125 a statement with regard to another measure, H.R. 3435, but not a statement with regard to this bill, H.R. 3534. Accordingly, the point of order is sustained. Consideration of the bill is not in order. ____________________