PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 30, 2010
Anti-Pork Act of 2010 - Amends Rule XXIII (Code of Official Conduct) of the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner (Member) requesting a congressional earmark in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) to provide a written statement to the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction certifying that specified requirements have been met.
Requires a governmental entity or nonprofit, earmark recipient within the district of, and designated by, the Member to have held a public hearing on the congressional earmark at least 30 days before its submission to the committee. Requires notice of the public hearing to have been printed in the appropriate local newspaper at least 15 days before the hearing.
Requires further that, if such earmark request is for public improvement purposes, the local government entity with jurisdiction over the requested improvement has passed a resolution in support of the earmark request or written a binding official communication in its support.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the amount of appropriated funds for the project to 50% of its total cost. Prohibits an earmark from funding any administrative costs.
Requires the requesting Member to have posted the earmark request on his or her public website, including the name and address of the intended recipient or, if there is no specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the activity, the earmark's purpose, and the 30-day public hearing notice.
Amends Rule X (Organization of Committees) to require any subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations to hold a hearing on all requested earmarks to be included in a measure or any accompanying report before it approves such legislation. Requires a 14-day advance public notice of the hearing on the committee website.
Requires the Member requesting an earmark to testify in its support at the applicable subcommittee hearing.
People & committees
Rep. Turner, Michael R. [R-OH-3] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Rules
Referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Standards of Official Conduct
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5997 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5997 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5997 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5997 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.