Dave Camp: “First, let me address the rule of the House. It's very clear that these are treated the same way, if you look at the…”

“First, let me address the rule of the House. It's very clear that these are treated the same way, if you look at the rules. In fact, if you pull the rules of the House out, there is subsection called ``Congressional Earmarks.'' All of this is listed in that section. So it's very clear that there was an intent to incorporate, unfortunately wrongly, these kinds of provisions in the earmark process. We didn't write that rule. The Democrats wrote that rule. We are trying to have some integrity to the entire process. Now, I realize that on the other side, whether it's a budget, and the Budget Act of 1974, you ignore that; whether it's PAYGO, you ignore that whenever it suits your needs and, quote, ``find an emergency'' to get around that. But the fact is we need to reform this process. We have not done that. And I have in personal terms urged the chairman not to bring this under suspension of the rules. The last time this bill was on suspension in the 109th Congress it failed, and a majority of the Democrats voted against the bill. I think this is not the process in order to find a bipartisan path forward on this bill. What we really need to do, I think what should have been done, is not bring this bill where it requires a supermajority, because I think it is very likely the bill will fail. And that may be the political outcome that my friends on the other side wanted.”