David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, all I'm saying is that we were promised a 24-hour opportunity for Members of both the Democratic and the Republican Parties to have a chance to review this measure. And I believe that having gone 110 days, that allowing for a review with potential earmarks and other items in here is the responsible thing to do because that is the promise that was made to this institution at the beginning of the 110th Congress.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me begin by saying that I do have the utmost respect for the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations and, of course, for my Chair, the gentlewoman from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter). And I understand that there is great sincerity on their part in this quest here and I understand there is a desire to ensure that we have a process that works. I will just make a couple of comments on process here and some concerns that I have and then I have some other remarks on the overall issue of the war. We have gone through, as we know, four incarnations of this attempt and now 110 days that has really prevented us from making sure that we have had an opportunity to get the funding necessary for our troops. Through that process, Democrats and Republicans alike have regularly said they don't want to do anything to prevent funding from getting to our troops. And I respect that. Again, Members on both sides of the aisle have pointed that out, Mr. Speaker. But we all know that from the outset, the President made it clear that he was going to veto anything that established an artificial timeline which he, and I agree with him, concluded would be a prescription for admitting defeat. And so he was very strong on that and unwavering. So we've gotten to the point where we are at this moment, and that point is we have a 213-page package that is before us. My good friend from Wisconsin said that I was bellyaching about the process, and I will say again to my colleagues, I'm not complaining about what took place in the hours leading up to the consideration of this package. This is my 27th year here and I understand that negotiations among the Senate, the House and the White House are challenging and can often go into the night. The only point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that as we look at this process of having this 213-page measure before us, we were promised by the new majority that we would be given 24 hours before consideration of major legislation here on the House floor. And, as I said, and I am really somewhat confused on this because, I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, I look at the time stamp on this. The time stamp on the measure that we are voting on is 9:38 p.m. last night. Yet he said that he was negotiating into the night, 1 o'clock in the morning. I mean, I didn't follow all of the incarnations of this, but I do know that we received this at 5:39 this morning, and that was less than an hour and a half before the Rules Committee was scheduled to convene at its 7 a.m. meeting this morning. And then we had it made public at about the time our group convened, the Rules Committee convened. And so that does concern me. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow Members to offer motions to strike earmarks which are undoubtedly going to come to the attention of Members the longer that this agreement is available. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment and extraneous material be printed in the Congressional Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, finally, we are going into this Memorial Day weekend. I have the honor of participating in seven Memorial Day events on Monday in southern California, and I will be meeting with family members. Just yesterday, I met with the mother of a young man, Mr. Colnot, who lost his life over a year ago in Iraq. She said to me just yesterday afternoon, ``It is absolutely essential that we complete our mission.'' I have regularly pointed to another one of my constituents whose son paid the ultimate price. A man called Ed Blecksmith's son, J.P., died over 2 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago, on the famous November battle of Fallujah. And repeatedly Mr. Blacksmith has said to me, ``You must complete this mission or my son, J.P., will have died in vain.'' So, Mr. Speaker, as we go into this Memorial Day weekend, I thank God that we are going to pass this measure that will be providing the essential support for our troops, so that General David Petraeus and the new leadership, with a new strategy to deal with uncertainty, will have the hope of victory. There is no guaranteed success, but there is a hope for victory because this is a struggle which is going to continue on and on and on as long as there are people out there who are going to try to do us in, to kill us, and to change our way of life. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can offer my amendment. And if by chance we are not successful on that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule because of the unfair process that we have. But if in fact the rule does proceed, I urge everyone, in a bipartisan way, to support the very important measure that will allow us to support our troops and allow them to complete their mission. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Then I will yield myself the balance of the time on our side. How much time is that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my very good friend from Rochester how many speakers she has remaining and then how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. DREIER. I will reserve the balance of my time, then.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that if in fact we were going to see compliance with this 24-hour request, the 9:38 time stamp that is on this measure, the 6:30 time stamp that is on the other, the domestic spending measure would have in fact allowed us to consider this measure on the floor on Friday, which is really what should have happened as we proceeded with that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that my friend from Rochester is just going to close the debate on her side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was in control of the time. I yielded myself such time as I may consume, and as I did that, I asked that I yield to my colleague from California. But if, in fact, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules wishes to supersede that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. DREIER. If the gentlewoman will yield.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I'm happy to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, was I out of order by yielding to my colleague?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden). (Mr. WALDEN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was recognized, and I announced at the beginning----

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and I express my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have to begin by saying how greatly saddened I am by the opening statement that was just delivered by the Chair of the Committee on Rules. Using the word ``failure'' to describe what has taken place in Iraq is, to me, as we head into this Memorial Day weekend, an extraordinarily sad message for our courageous men and women who are on the frontline in this struggle against global terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we just got the news this morning of the death of Joseph Anzack who was one of the three troops in Iraq who was kidnapped, and as we think about this Memorial Day weekend, to say to those men and women who are there on the frontline that this is a failure, I believe, is a horrible, horrible message, and I'm greatly troubled that those words would emanate from the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, it has taken the Democratic leadership four tries, and as my very good friend from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) said in his 1- minute speech, more than 100 days since the President's request that they have finally agreed to vote on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill that gives our troops the funding they need without tying their hands and ensuring their defeat. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times my friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, is saying that they have lost, saying that they have failed and saying that defeat is imminent, the passage of this funding bill will help very much to ensure that that is not the case. I'm extremely proud that we have been able to hold the line on the disastrous proposal and this notion that somehow we have lost and we have failed in the struggle against terrorism. Unfortunately, though, at this point in the debate, we can't be totally certain about what it is exactly that we're agreeing upon, particularly in the case, Mr. Speaker, of the additional spending. Now, let me explain why. For several years, there has been concern from both sides of the aisle about the lack of availability of the text of bills and conference reports. That concern has been raised by both Democrats and Republicans on a regular basis. I would like to briefly, for our colleagues, outline a timeline for how this rule we are debating at this moment was produced. Last night, the Committee on Rules adjourned at roughly 8:45 p.m. after reporting the rule on lobbying reform, which we will be considering in a little while. Then members of the Rules Committee patiently waited until 11 p.m., when we were notified the text of the supplemental agreement wouldn't be ready until the early morning hours and that the Rules Committee would hold an emergency meeting at 7 a.m. The text of the Obey amendments were then circulated to the Rules Committee members at 5:39 this morning, just a few hours ago; 5:39 this morning, less than 1\1/2\ hours before we convened the Rules Committee. The text of the amendments were not posted publicly on the committee's Web site until around the time we actually met. Now we are here considering the rule, which makes in order language which spends $119.99999 billion, less than 4 hours after it was actually submitted. I remember my very good friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) regularly saying that we needed to be provided with 24 hours notice. This clearly is a far cry from what was promised at the beginning of this Congress. This language may very well represent the agreement between the House, the Senate and the administration. However, there is no way for us to know this, because there has been no time to thoroughly read the language and verify. Unfortunately, as most Members must at this point, I shall have to proceed under an assumption. I must say that I am very concerned about the negative impact the ongoing surrender debate has had in Iraq, both in terms of the morale of our troops and our credibility with the Iraqi people. I am concerned about the impact that this delay in funding has had on our military as well. But, ultimately, we have succeeded in ensuring that this body has the opportunity to fund our troops without simultaneously handing the terrorists a date certain for our surrender. While this process, this political process has played out, I talked a great deal about what the consequences would be if we were to abandon the Iraqis to the terrorists. And, of course, al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the murder of Mr. Anzack, whom I mentioned, Joseph Anzack. They clearly are in the midst of their drive. We also are hoping very much that we can see this fledgling democracy take hold. That is why what we are going to be doing here, providing that necessary support, helps us in that quest, but there is no need to take my word in this matter. We are hearing repeatedly, repeatedly from our people on the ground, from the Iraqi leadership and from the Iraqi people, that withdrawing before our mission is complete would have terrible consequences. Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, has implored us not to leave. I would like to quote Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations. ``We are at war together,'' he recently said. ``We are allied at war together against a common enemy. We have one way forward: together.'' In a recent interview with the New York Post, he talked about the troop surge and pointed to the progress that is being made because of it. At this critical juncture, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations believes we should be redoubling our efforts and pressing forward, not debating a withdrawal at the precise moment that progress is being made. Every Member of this body knew at the beginning of this process that the President would never sign a withdrawal bill. The President said it, and the President says what he means, and he means what he says. Unfortunately, as Mr. Lungren pointed out in his 1-minute speech earlier, the weeks and weeks of pointless debate on our surrender date have clearly taken their toll in Iraq. As Ambassador al-Istrabadi points out, and I quote, ``It's been very painful to watch the political process in Washington, because it seems to have very little to do with Iraq.'' He says that al Qaeda has been following this debate closely. The ambassador says, ``There are real enemies who are watching the debate, who understand what's happening here and who think they can affect the outcome of the debate.'' He is baffled, as I am baffled, that the Democratic leadership could even consider playing right into the terrorists' hands. How on earth could we even contemplate giving them what they want and turning the country and the region over to them? I understand many Americans just want this war to be over. I want this war to be over, too. I would like nothing more. I would like nothing more than to be able to tell the people whom I am honored to represent here that their husbands and wives and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters are going to be coming home tomorrow. The problem is that, even if we were to withdraw from Iraq, the war would not magically be over. We can pick up and go home. We can turn off our TV sets and ignore what is taking place over there. But the war will still go on. The terrorists will continue their battle for Iraq and for the region; only, this time, we would not be there to stop them. We would not be there to train and strengthen the Iraqi Army and police forces or to help strengthen those democratic institutions. I have to say that I am particularly proud of the work that our House Democracy Assistance Commission is doing. David Price of North Carolina has chaired this effort, and we are hoping to be able to include Iraq's parliament as we work in consultation to help them build this fledgling democracy. Before long, I have no doubt whatsoever that the war would make its way to our doorstep once again. We ignored a growing terrorist haven once before, and we suffered the worst attack on our soil because of it. I was very proud during the decade of the 1980s to work with a number of our colleagues in providing the assistance to the Mujahedin who were fighting to liberate their country of Afghanistan from the Soviet Union. When that was over, we left and did virtually nothing to help build a democracy. Did Afghanistan teach us anything? Did September 11 teach us nothing? Burying our heads in the sand is not an effective defense. The consequences of abandoning our mission in Iraq would be even graver than the consequences of ignoring the growing terrorist threat that took place during the decade of the 1990s in Afghanistan. This time, not only would the terrorists establish another safe haven from which to operate their global terror network, they would, and I quote, ``erect a triumphant monument on the ruins of American power,'' as the American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan said. We simply cannot and will not strengthen the hands of terrorists who have made the destruction of America their number one priority. We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst. We cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and then I'm going to be yielding to one of my colleagues. Let me say that at 7 o'clock this morning I praised the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey. He knows that I have the utmost respect for him and his work. He is very, very diligent, and a very, very thoughtful Member. And I have been privileged to serve with him for the last more than a quarter of a century, as we were counting upstairs some of our former colleagues who are long departed, Mr. Dabo, Mr. Conte, and others. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, with all due respect to my friend, I am not bellyaching about the process itself. I am not bellyaching about what it is that got us here. I am simply pointing to a promise that was made to this institution; and that promise, Mr. Speaker, was that there would be 24 hours to review legislation before it is brought to the floor. And I will acknowledge that when we were in the majority, we did not always provide that 24 hours. But, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Wisconsin, it is not about what we did, it is about what this new majority promised they were going to do. And that commitment was that after this laborious late-night negotiating process that included Members of the other body, the White House, and Members of this body into the night, that there would be a 24-hour opportunity for Members to look at a $119.99 billion spending measure. So I have to say that the process that led up to the creation of this is historically the process that does bring about bipartisan agreements. The gentleman is absolutely right, not everyone is happy with all the measures included in this bill. But the fact of the matter is we are where we are; we have gotten here under challenging circumstances. As I said, the Rules Committee adjourned at 8:45 last night. At 11 o'clock we were informed that we would have an emergency meeting at 7 o'clock this morning, and at 5:39 this morning it was made available to us. And here we are just a few hours later considering it on the House floor. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping to go back to Los Angeles tomorrow morning, and I'd like to be able to do that. But I'm more than willing to help this majority comply with the promise that they made that on all major legislation, they would in fact provide the minority and, frankly, the majority Members with 24 hours to review the legislation. And, finally, I just have to say that when we hear arguments that somehow President Bush is playing into the hands of the terrorists and responsible for where we are, Mr. Speaker, September 11 of 2001 changed not only the United States but the world. The largest most important Nation in the history of mankind suffered an attack the likes of which we had never seen in our Nation's history. And so, taking on a multi- pronged approach, dealing with, as we have in both Afghanistan and in Iraq, and we all know that Iraq is the central front for al Qaeda, has been very important. You can raise issues like weapons of mass destruction and other items like that, but the fact of the matter is, we are where we are today. And I believe that it would be a horrendous mistake for us to take a retrograde step, which is exactly what those terrorists want. And with that, I'm happy to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend from Sacramento, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very dear friend for yielding, and I would simply say the reason we're calling for a ``no'' vote on the rule is that we should allow us to get to what I, as we now know, affectionately describe what the former minority leadership called the sham level. We need to at least get up to the level, and I'm very appreciative of the remarks that my friend has offered characterizing, I think correctly, my bill.

Mr. DREIER. So the gentlewoman is the last speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is on her feet and so I would actually like to engage her in a colloquy, if I might, and ask some questions. I would be more than happy to yield to my friend from Tampa. I am very concerned about the ramifications of this measure, and I talked about the concern that I have over this issue of charitable events, and that this item was in a piecemeal way stuck into this rule, and I raised the issue of the letter. Mr. Speaker, I submit for printing in the Record a copy of the letter that was sent by Mr. Boehner to my California colleague Speaker Pelosi. Mr. Speaker, the reason I do that is that there has been no response to this nearly 2-month-old letter; and I hope that maybe someone on the Speaker's staff will read the Congressional Record and see this request for a truly bipartisan approach to this issue. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 29, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: The American people have every right to expect the highest ethical standards here in the people's House. Yet, less than three months into the 110th Congress it has become clear that House ethics rules are hopelessly broken. Members on both sides of the aisle are understandably frustrated because they know you can't ``clean up Congress'' with confusing rules that are as difficult to comply with as they are to enforce. It is equally clear that until the ethics rules are repaired through a genuinely bipartisan process, they will continue to lack the credibility needed to ensure broad compliance, effective enforcement and widespread public acceptance. As you know, sweeping changes to House ethics rules imposed at the start of this Congress were drafted in secret by the incoming Majority without consulting either the Minority or the staff of the nonpartisan Ethics Committee. The new rules were then rammed through the House with no opportunity to carefully analyze the proposals or to improve them in any way. The consequences of this ill-considered approach are now being felt by Members and staff on both sides of the aisle: A staffer may attend an evening reception hosted by a corporation and consume shrimp, champagne, sliced filet and canapes . . . but may not accept a slice of pizza or a $7 box lunch provided by the very same corporation at a policy briefing the next day. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (pp. 4-5)] Although Members and staff may play in a $1,000 per person charity golf tournament to benefit a local scholarship fund, they are prohibited from similarly helping the American Red Cross raise funds for Katrina victims by playing in its golf tournament--solely because the Red Cross employs lobbyists. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Jan 19, 2007 (p. 7)] In order to go on a ``first date'' with someone who happens to be a lobbyist, a staffer must agree to pay for his or her full share of the lunch or dinner, as well as anything else of value, such as a movie, concert or ballgame. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sneet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p.2)] A Member may accept $200 tickets for the Final Four from Ohio State (public university), but not $20 tickets to a preseason game from Xavier University (private university). [see Gifts & Travel, House Ethics Committee, April 2000 (p. 37)] A Member may accept a $15 t-shirt or $20 hat from the Farm Bureau, but not a $12 mug or mouse pad. Similarly, a $4 latte is OK--but a $4 sandwich is not. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 5)] A Member who has his own airplane is prohibited from flying it for any purpose--official, campaign or personal--even at his own expense. [see Ethics Committee letter to Rep. Stevan Pearce, Feb 16, 2007] A staffer invited to a post-season barbecue for her daughter's soccer team may not attend once she learns that it will be held in the home of a player whose father is a lobbyist. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 2)] Although a Member may not accept dinner from a lobbyist who uses his own funds or those of his firm, he may accept dinner from the very same lobbyist using a credit card provided by his state or local government clients. [see clause 5(a)(3)(O) of House Rule XXV] A corporate executive who is not a lobbyist may not use his expense account to take a Member out to dinner, but may--in many cases--take the same Member to dinner using his personal funds. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', Feb 6, 2007 (p. 3)] A Member may not take a privately-funded trip if a lobbyist accompanies him to and from Washington; but the same Member may spend five days in Brussels discussing global warming with environmental group lobbyists--as long as none of them are on the same flights to and from the meeting. [see Ethics Committee ``pink sheet'', March 14, 2007 (p. 2)] It's no surprise that Members deeply committed to following the rules are confused and concerned by the current state of disarray in the House. Making matters worse, the chaos inflicted on Members and staff by careless (or worse) Democrat rule writers has now infected the legislative process as well. For example, confusion over the proper application of congressional earmark rules has made it possible for Democratic leaders to certify as ``earmark free'' a multi-billion dollar Continuing Resolution that any knowledgeable observer will confirm was laden with them. Moreover, the failure of the House Ethics Committee to provide official guidance to Members seeking to comply with newly adopted earmark ``conflict of interest'' rules until after the deadline fix submission of earmark requests had expired has unnecessarily disrupted the FY08 appropriations process by delaying for more than a month processing of many Member earmark requests, and complicated efforts to make the earmark process more transparent. This latter incident underscores the folly of Democrats rushing to unilaterally impose complicated and contradictory new rules on the House, and then denying an entirely reasonable joint request by the Chairman and Ranking Republican of the Ethics Committee for the additional resources the panel needs to carry out its added responsibilities to Members. Sadly, Democrat leaders straining to legitimize their campaign rhetoric have instead left Members--on both sides of the aisle--more vulnerable than ever to violating rules that are hard to define, riddled with logical inconsistencies, and utterly unlikely to prevent the sort of abuses that have properly sparked so much public outrage. After all, few of the ``Culture of Corruption'' violations by Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney--or alleged violations by William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan--would have been prevented had the recently passed ethics changes been in effect last year. Rather, the principled path to a more ethical Congress is through clearcut, common sense rules that are widely communicated and firmly enforced. And, as you and your fellow Democrat leaders argued so persuasively during the last Congress, the process of developing those rules must be transparent and genuinely bipartisan. To that end, I ask that you join me in appointing a bipartisan working group tasked with analyzing House ethics rules--and recommending fair, sensible and understandable revisions that working group members believe would improve both compliance and enforcement. As with the Livingston-Cardin ethics task force in 1997, the working group should be led by co-chairs and evenly divided between majority and minority members. I propose that it consist of six to eight members, including a member of the ethics committee from each party (but neither its chairman nor ranking minority member), one elected leader from each party, and one or two additional Members from each side of the aisle. I further propose that we direct the working group to report back its recommendations no later than July 1, 2007 to allow time for the House to consider its proposed revisions to the Rules of the House prior to the August recess. Madam Speaker, I have been encouraged by recent public statements made by you and members of your staff noting your desire to correct evident problems with several of the new rules. Thus, I hope you will commit to work constructively with me to ensure that any revisions to the Code of Conduct and other House rules are imbued with the sort of credibility that you have often pointed out can only result from a thoroughly bipartisan effort. Sincerely, John A. Boehner, Republican Leader. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my colleague from Tampa to describe a term that is in this bill. Now, one of the questions out there is that Members of Congress are often approached by people and considered for employment beyond their service in this institution. Now, in H.R. 4975, we were very specific in saying that when negotiation for compensation, and those are the exact words that we used in H.R. 4975, are included in the bill, then there has to be a letter to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct stating that that negotiating process has begun. So we had that exact term of ``negotiating for compensation.'' Those are the three words that we had in there. Now, I would like to inquire of my friend from Tampa why it was in this measure that they went from ``negotiation for compensation'' to simply ``negotiation.'' And the reason I say that is a very sincere one. The question naturally comes to mind, now, the gentlewoman from Tampa is new here and obviously not prepared to leave at this point. But there are people, Mr. Speaker, who may have been here for a while and people have decided they wanted to approach them. Is it negotiation if it is simply said to that person, ``Gosh, we'd like you to consider going to work for us''? And so I am wondering if my friend might define this term ``negotiation'' for us. And I am happy to yield to the distinguished manager of this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I might reclaim my time. And I do so to simply say, I was posing a question to my colleague, not asking for a campaign speech on what the American people sent us to do here in November. The fact is, Democrats and Republicans alike are committed to reform. I am very proud of the record we have had on reform, and I am honored to have had it praised by the distinguished Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary. The question that I have is a very specific one: Why in this legislation did we go from the utilization of three words, ``negotiation for compensation,'' to this open-ended question of simply ``negotiation''? I would be happy to further yield to my friend to elucidate us on that.

Mr. DREIER. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time. My question, and I will pose it again to my colleague from Tampa. The issue of negotiation for Members of Congress, the debate that we are having now is not about the message that was sent last November, it is not about Medicare part D. It is a question about the issue of lobbying and ethics reform in this institution. And obviously my colleague doesn't really have an answer to this question. What it does do is it underscores the fact that it is absolutely essential that we deal with this issue in a responsible, bipartisan way to try to bring about some kind of resolution in here. And so I am very, very troubled with the way that this has been handled in a piecemeal way. And so, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the effort is a valiant one. I congratulate and praise those who have been involved in it. And as I said in my opening remarks, it's very clear that reform is a work in progress. And we need to do more on the issue of reform. It's just that this bill is nowhere near the level of the bill that was passed under the Republican Congress. And I will say, I hope very much this institution will pass a bill that is even better than the one that I was privileged to author in the 109th Congress. And I believe that we could do better than we did in the 109th Congress. It's just that this measure, after all of this talk of reform, after all of this talk about the message sent last November, falls short of where we were in the last Congress, and that's why we are very troubled by this. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that when we succeed in defeating the previous question, I will be able to make in order an amendment that was offered that specifically provides greater disclosure and transparency and accountability which, again, are the three buzz words that are used around here: transparency, disclosure and accountability. If, in fact, a Member is asking for an earmark, if a Member has been asked for an earmark by a lobbyist, under the amendment that I hope that we will be able to make in order, that Mr. Flake has propounded and unfortunately it was rejected by the Rules Committee, it would simply require that lobbying entity to disclose the fact that they have, in fact, made that in order. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to, just before the vote on the previous question, have printed in the Congressional Record a detailed explanation of the amendment that would require that lobbyists who make a request of a Member, that they call for an earmark to be made, that that information be made public. I believe that that, in and of itself, is a very, very modest but responsible thing that needs to be done in this effort to ensure greater transparency and disclosure.