Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to hold an explanatory public meeting prior to the submission of congressional earmark requests.

Referred to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 9, 2010

Amends Rule XXIII (Code of Official Conduct) of the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner (Member) from submitting a request for a congressional earmark without first holding a public meeting to review such request.

Requires such meeting to: (1) be open to coverage by the press; and (2) provide a forum for constituent participation, either in person or through teleconference, web conference, or internet chat.

Requires a Member requesting a congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an accompanying report) or in any conference report (or joint explanatory statement) to provide a written statement to the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction certifying that the Member has complied with the requirements of this resolution.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-12] · D–CA

Committees

Ethics Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Mar 9, 2010
Referred to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
Mar 9, 2010
Introduced in House
Mar 9, 2010
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Mar 9, 2010 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Res.1147 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1147, 111th Congress: Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to hold an explanatory public meeting prior to the submission of congressional earmark requests.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1147

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-03-09.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1147/BILLS-111hres1147ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:24Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.1147 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.1147 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1147, 111th Congress: Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to hold an explanatory public meeting prior to the submission of congressional earmark requests.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1147

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-03-09.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1147/BILLS-111hres1147ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:24Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1147 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.1147 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1147, 111th Congress: Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to hold an explanatory public meeting prior to the submission of congressional earmark requests.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1147

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-03-09.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1147/BILLS-111hres1147ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:24Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1147 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.1147 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1147, 111th Congress: Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner to hold an explanatory public meeting prior to the submission of congressional earmark requests.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-resolution/1147

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2010-03-09.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hres1147/BILLS-111hres1147ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-02T16:20:24Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1147 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.