David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, the end of the fiscal year, as we all know, is just a few days away. Despite this looming deadline, Congress has not completed action on a single appropriations bill. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: we have got within 5 days of the end of the fiscal year, and yet not one single appropriations bill has been completed by this Congress. As a result, the Democratic majority is scrambling to accomplish two things, two things with this underlying bill that we have. The first is to buy more time to get our work done with the continuing resolution, which will keep the government operating for an additional 38 days beyond the September 30 expiration of the fiscal year. The second is to finally take the first step towards passing our appropriations conference reports. Madam Speaker, which spending bill has the honor of being considered first? Which spending bill? Perhaps it's our Homeland Security appropriations bill, which funds our Border Patrol and other Federal agencies charged with protecting our States, cities, and ports from terrorist attacks. Or, perhaps, Madam Speaker it's the very, very important Defense appropriations spending bill, which would provide the funding for our troops. In fact, the very first spending bill that the House is moving to send to the President is our Congress' own funding bill. The underlying Legislative Branch appropriations bill makes the Democratic majority's funding priorities very, very clear. Madam Speaker, I describe this as the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. That's really what it is. We remember back in 1992, putting people first was President Clinton's campaign motto. We have now seen this Congress establish a new directive based on what we are doing on this appropriations bill, and that is we are putting Congress first. As we look at this priority, it is very clear that the continuing resolution will allow for more time to take care of everything else. Now, some would say that we, as Republicans, are just belly-aching. I mentioned President Clinton and his campaign back in 1992 of putting people first, and this now the putting Congress first appropriations process. Well, back in 1996 after President Clinton had been President for almost 4 years, he vetoed the Legislative Branch appropriations bill when a Republican Congress sent it as the second appropriations bill of that season. Madam Speaker, President Clinton said the following in his veto message: ``I believe that it would be inappropriate to fully fund regular funding for Congress and its offices while funding for most other activities of government remains incomplete, unresolved and uncertain. I don't think Congress should take care of its own business before it takes care of the people's business.'' Those are the words of President Clinton in his 1996 veto message when the second appropriations conference report sent to him was the Legislative Branch appropriations bill measure. He was right to veto that bill and President Obama would be right to do it now, Madam Speaker, following President Clinton's lead. Unfortunately, even if the President wanted to veto this bill, there is a problem. A veto, as we all know, would shut down the government, something that no one wants. The Democratic majority has made sure that our offices don't have to worry about working within temporary funding; but our veterans, Homeland Security personnel, the fighting men and women will just have to make do. Madam Speaker, this is just another example of what I am calling the ``putting Congress first'' appropriations process. Those who follow the work of the Congress know that continuing resolutions are not unusual, and we recognize that on this side of the aisle. The Federal budget is a very serious responsibility, and our work often, under either party, has extended throughout the fall. What's different throughout this year is not the necessity of a continuing resolution. What's different, Madam Speaker, is the fact that the Democratic majority shut down debate on our appropriations bills, ostensibly for the sake of completing our spending bills on time. They said that there was a schedule to keep. They said that there was no time for debate and deliberation while the clock was ticking. With regrets to the American people, we just cannot allow for scrutiny and accountability on the spending of taxpayer dollars because September 30 is fast approaching. Now, as the fiscal year draws to a close, it would appear that the rights of Democrats and Republicans have been trampled on for the sake of a goal that has not come close to being achieved. Throughout June and July, as debate on bill after bill was shut down, we heard the drum beat of the impending deadline. On June 10 our friend, whom I am happy to see here on the floor, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, announced his ``ambitious schedule'' saying that his time line would be unworkable as long as we had ``procedural cooperation.'' Of course, we very soon learned that procedural cooperation was a euphemism for closing down the debate. Now, the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, on June 17 on the House floor, said that the Democratic majority was prepared to push forward at all costs to complete the appropriations process on time. Again, we now know that those costs were the abandonment of what has been the 220-year history of the appropriations process, and that is open to debate and the rejection of amendments to be considered by Democrats and Republicans. On June 19, the distinguished majority leader reiterated this stance saying that the only way to get our work done is if we limit debate time. Throughout the summer, the Democratic majority did just that. Every single appropriations bill was considered under a restrictive rule. Spending bills have been historically considered, as I said, under a full and open process that allows for all Members, not just committee Chairs or members of the leadership, but all Members of both parties to make their constituencies' voices heard in the Federal spending process. Yet the Democratic majority announced at the outset of this year's process that they were abandoning open debate for the sake of expediency. Now, Madam Speaker, the Democratic majority did deliver on the issue of closing down debate for the appropriations process. What they haven't delivered on is the timely completion of our constitutional responsibility. They dismantled the open appropriations process, and, for what? So we could pass the ``putting Congress first'' bill and leaving the rest of our work to be completed at a later date. We could call this just another broken promise in a never-ending string of broken promises by this Democratic majority; but this is bigger, this is bigger, Madam Speaker, than just broken promises. We have more than a trillion-dollar deficit, and the year isn't over yet. Our national debt has skyrocketed, skyrocketed to nearly unfathomable levels. The American people are incredibly frustrated about our fiscal state and the crippling debt we have saddled on our future generations. Yet the Democratic majority has shut out accountability of their spending practices for the sake of a deadline that they didn't even try to keep. That's one of the reasons why we are here today, to extend the deadline on appropriations bills that were rammed through the House without the benefit of many thoughtful amendments from both Democrats and Republicans proposed by those who are deeply concerned about runaway spending. Now, of course, our friends on the other side of the aisle will have great excuses, and they are excuses we have heard regularly from both sides. They will say that the House has done its work; they can't control what happens over in the other body; we can't control what those guys do on the other side of the Capitol. But when the Republicans were in the majority, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would regularly point out that we had control of both bodies of Congress and the White House. They would say that we were in control, and so we had to shoulder the responsibility. Madam Speaker, when someone stands up and makes the argument we did our job in the House, but we can't, we can't control what those guys do over on the other side of the Capitol, remember what was regularly said, that when you have supermajority control of the Senate, and now with the appointment of Paul Kirk, the 60th seat is there in the Senate, when you have control of the White House and a large majority in the House of Representatives, one has to take responsibility. Now, the situation is such that our friends must take the responsibility. With the impending appointment, as I said, we now have, we now have both Houses of Congress and the White House in complete control of the Democrats. Excuses about blaming the other body for having not done their work really are not acceptable. Madam Speaker, not one of us, not one of us is interested in a government shutdown. But this bill makes two things very clear, first, that the Democratic majority is more concerned with padding its own budget for this institution than meeting the rest of the country's needs. Second, the concerns and input of the American people were stifled, we see now, for no good reason at all. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. If I can reclaim my time, let me say that I was simply responding to the gentleman from Worcester, who was saying that somehow the ACORN concerns that have been raised are nothing but developed from right-wing radio, as he described it. It is true that a number of very, very smart investigative journalists have come forward and brought to the forefront some of the most outrageous abuses of taxpayer dollars, and we have seen these reports carried on television. The gentleman mentioned Fox News. We've heard it reported on the radio. I believe that it is a great service, as we see hardworking Americans, hardworking Americans trying to make ends meet, and that kind of abuse of their tax dollars is outrageous, as has been reported. That kind of abuse is outrageous.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a fascinating debate, and I know that we want to move to consideration of the measure. I hope that we'll be able to defeat the rule. As I listened to my friend from New York talk about ACORN, to follow the logic that the gentleman has put forward basically is saying that ACORN is an entitlement; ACORN is entitled to these taxpayer dollars. We don't believe that, Madam Speaker. We happen to believe that the outrageous reports that have come forward are very clear and the admissions that have been made by ACORN, and the changes that they are attempting to make now that this kind of behavior has come to light is very important. So my friend from New York is criticizing the fact that this continuing resolution does not provide funding for ACORN, but only for 30 days. The continuing resolution is 30 days. Basically 30 days following September 30, the end of the fiscal year, funding goes right back up. So I guess his entitlement will be able to be continued. The notion of somehow saying that the United States House of Representatives, which under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, is empowered with spending the taxpayer dollars, cannot cut off funding for ACORN, and for that reason, we're going to see the gentleman from New York voting against the continuing resolution is, to me, absolutely incomprehensible. Madam Speaker, I've got to say that we've got a process here which is putting Congress first. My friend has just outlined the priorities. I guess I would inquire of him how often he gets calls from his constituents saying, Are you keeping the Capitol Complex safe so that you can move in and out of your office? That is not what the American people are concerned about. I recognize it's important to keep this great Capitol Complex safe, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't pass the Legislative Branch appropriation bill. I'll tell you what I do believe. I believe that border security and dealing with the threat of terrorism by funding Homeland Security and I believe that passing the Defense appropriation bill so that our men and women in uniform have the resources that they need through the appropriations process is more important right now, and the American people get that. With that, if my colleague is prepared to close, Madam Speaker, I will simply say to my colleagues that this measure does, as I said, put Congress first, and we should not put Congress first, ahead of the priority spending for national security, which is priority number one. We continue to have statements made by our friends on the other side of the aisle, including the veto message from President Clinton in 1996. He vetoed a measure because we were passing the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for saying that there are many other priorities that should be ahead of it. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so that we can move ahead in a very, very responsible way. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, the gentleman was not on the floor when Mr. McGovern began his opening statement. The gentleman did, in fact. So now I will say both my friends from Massachusetts and New York are now saying that right-wing talk radio is somehow responsible for this, when, in fact, it has been some very shrewd investigative journalists. And we have seen talk radio and some of the cable television networks bring us to the forefront. Unfortunately, it's taken quite a while for the so-called mainstream media to begin the kind of coverage of ACORN that we are finally seeing.

Mr. DREIER. Of course, I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, let me say that we are here talking about the issue of education and how we're going to pay for it. And I think that there is clearly a bipartisan agreement that improving the quality of education in the United States of America is essential, not only for people to be successful right here in the United States, but as I regularly point out, if we are in this global economy going to see the kind of success that we all want, it is essential that we have the best educated, most talented young people who are ready to enter the job market. That is why making sure that they can pursue higher education is a very high priority. There is no disagreement on that whatsoever. The reason we are here right now, Madam Speaker, is to address the issue as to how we pay for it. Now, I was just in a discussion with the very distinguished new ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), and we were talking about the size of the Federal deficit. It is $1.6 trillion. I reminded him that is larger than the entire Federal budget was just 10 years ago. We have a number of new plans before us that dramatically expand that. Health care is just one of them. We have the $787 billion stimulus package. We have many, many plans that expand rather than reduce the reach of government. Unfortunately, we have before us one more of those. Now we have sort of what I have seen as the battle within the Congressional Budget Office. We have a lot of different figures that have been thrown forward to us which create some conflict. I think one of the most interesting was a letter that I just saw sent from Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, to the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, our colleague, Mr. Gregg. In it he refers to the fact that as we go down the line, we are going to obviously see what is a tremendous increase in expenditures. I listened to my friend, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, talk about the fact that we will have $10 billion in savings. Based on what I have seen from this Congressional Budget Office number, we not only will not have savings; we will have a dramatic increase in spending. Now we know that pursuing private markets is the right way for us to go, but we have had disruptions in the private markets over the past couple of years. Unfortunately, the measure before us prevents us from being able to rely on private credit markets in the future. One of the reasons that is so important is because private capital is what I believe we should be relying on as much as possible. I am not saying there should be no role for government, but this measure before us usurps even a modicum of private sector involvement. Where do we as taxpayers look? As my friend and I were just discussing, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Kline, we will be looking to China as we continue to go further and further into debt. That is unfortunately exactly what this legislation will do. We will be paying a rate of return on that money that the taxpayer is borrowing. And, again, we will be ignoring the private markets as they reemerge. And so, Madam Speaker, I have to say that this is just one more indication, as all of the attention is focused on health care, of another $50 billion to $150 billion expansion of the burden that is imposed on our taxpayers, and I don't believe that it will do nearly as well as the private sector would in trying to look to the sources of credit so that we can ensure that the pluralism that we have in education, clearly the best higher education system on the face of the Earth, succeeds. And so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and to make sure that we do have the kinds of improvements that I believe the gentleman from Minnesota wants us very much to implement.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and I appreciate his question. Let me say that obviously the lowest rate is what we all want to pursue. I believe if we create an opportunity to move into the private markets, creating more competition will play a role in bringing those rates down; and that is what we should be doing. The debt burden that is going to continue to be imposed on the U.S. taxpayer is something we also need to address as well.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, last week we got the troubling news that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was joining Russia and Nicaragua in recognizing the Abkhazia and South Ossetia territories of Georgia as independent countries. This is very troubling. The international community recognizes the territorial integrity of Georgia, and now we have to wonder, with Chavez's move, what other countries might join him in this effort. It is absolutely essential that we stand with our ally, Georgia, in doing everything that we can to strengthen democracy, the rule of law, and the institutions that exist there. Senator Kerry and I have joined in introducing a resolution calling for the establishment of a U.S.-Georgia free trade agreement. The actions of Chavez make that even more important today than ever. We need to do all that we can to help strengthen and bolster our economy and their economy as well. Let's pass this resolution and ensure that the free people of Georgia are able to succeed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the issue of health care, the administration late last Friday night did something that was 180 degrees from what was promised in last year's campaign. I am referring to a tax increase on middle-income working Americans. Yes, last Friday night, the administration announced that there will be a 35 percent tariff on inexpensive tires coming in from China. The interesting thing is this was done in response to a petition from the steelworkers union without a single U.S. tire manufacturer signing on in support of this. In fact, they have even gone on so far as to say that if this 35 percent tax is imposed, they will not go into the business of actually manufacturing inexpensive tires. So what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that we will see not only a 35 percent tax increase on working Americans, but we will not see a single job created here in the United States of America. We need to realize we also create the potential for great retaliation in a wide range of other areas. This decision is bad for the American worker and bad for the U.S. economy.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, there could be no more appropriate moniker for a Hollywood post office than Johnny Grant's. The unofficial mayor of Hollywood for more than half a century, Johnny's name is synonymous with the community he loved and promoted so well. It is especially appropriate that the post office at 1615 North Wilcox Avenue, just off of Hollywood Boulevard, would bear his name, as he managed to secure a Hollywood postmark, despite the fact that it's not its own city. Only Johnny Grant could have pulled that off. While celebrating his 84th birthday, Johnny said that the Hollywood postmark was one of three accomplishments of which he was most proud, along with the Hollywood sign and the Walk of Fame. I had the privilege of knowing Johnny and calling him a friend for many years. I always admired his incredible zeal for life. He brought a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm to everything he did--which was never on greater display than when he tirelessly supported our Nation's veterans. While serving in the Army Air Corps during World War II, his ``Strictly GI'' radio show was broadcast in New York City and North Carolina, featuring stories of interest to servicemen and women. He went on to do 60 USO tours and personally sponsored trips in Korea and Vietnam to show his deep support and commitment to our men and women in uniform, to encourage them and boost morale during very difficult times. Johnny produced and hosted the Marine Corps' Toys for Tots telethon for ten years, and organized countless other events raising millions for the USO, the Boy Scouts of America, police and fire services and veterans organizations. Hollywood, the City of Los Angeles and the entire Nation mourned his death in January of last year. H.R. 2760 is a modest but fitting tribute to Hollywood's favorite son, and I think he would appreciate seeing his name live on in the community he loved and called home for over fifty years.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing appreciation to my friend, colleague and partner in dealing with this and with a wide range of issues that affect the Los Angeles area, Mr. Schiff. It is true that we are in the midst, Mr. Speaker, of what is the largest recorded fire in the history of Los Angeles County, and it has been a difficult time. It started in a little, tiny area above La Canada Flintridge. Immediately, we saw the wonderful local, county and State officials come together, as is so often the case, to deal with this tragedy. We also were able to see--and we continue to see at this moment, Mr. Speaker--one of the unique capabilities shown by California, because of the fact that we regularly deal with fire, that being the Unified Command. Under Captain Mike Dietrich, the incident commander, we have seen all of these firefighters--the 8,000, the number mentioned by my colleague Mr. Schiff--come from near and far to join together under this Unified Command to prosecute this fire, which, as of right now, has burned over 160,000 acres. Now, to put this in context, the Angeles National Forest is made of 650,000 acres, and it is the number one, most utilized national park in the United States of America. Why? Because of its proximity to the Los Angeles basin. In excess of 160,000 acres have burned at this point, and it's about 60 percent contained. It is hoped that full containment will take place around the 15th of this month, meaning sometime next week. So this is a problem with which we have dealt for a long period of time, and it is obviously one we will continue to face. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that fires are a national phenomenon, but when we see lives and property threatened, it is essential that we do everything that we can to put forward priority number one, and that is the protection first of life and then of property. As Mr. Schiff has said, we also know that we have tragically lost two courageous firefighters, and having just gone through the resolution dealing with September 11 and the loss of those firefighters, we are reminded again of the courage of these individuals. Just before getting onto the airplane at LAX yesterday, I had a lengthy conversation with Laurie Barrios, who is the sister of Captain Ted Hall. She talked about the sacrifice that their family has made. In fact, I should say, with Mr. Towns here, jokingly, she said, We're like a New York family. Her father had been a battalion chief. Her brothers and other relatives are firefighters in this California family. She quoted her brother, who said at a reunion that they had had just recently, I am not a hero. I am just an average guy, doing the job that I love. That, I believe, really is the vision and the goal that so many firefighters have. They're not selfish. They very much want to make sure that they can ensure the safety of people and property. The sacrifice. Mr. Schiff mentioned the Glendale officer who was in uniform at day and who volunteered at night. These people are so extraordinarily dedicated. So Captain Ted Hall was one of those tragically killed, working to save lives and property. Specialist Arnie Quinones is the other, and I know that he is a constituent of our colleague Mr. McKeon. Mr. Berman is here. I know that his area has been impacted, Mr. Sherman's as well, Mr. Lewis', Mr. Baca's. This has had an impact all over the southern California area; but the unique tragedy here in the case of Mr. Quinones is that his wife, Laurie, is expecting a child in 2 weeks. So, as we look at the two lives that have been lost, Specialist Quinones will have passed away before his child is born. It underscores the fragility of life and the importance of the work that these people have engaged in. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also share a little bit more of the conversation that I had with Captain Hall's sister. She referred to their family as having been firefighters for--I guess now--generations, and she talked about their respect and reverence for the environment. She said that her father would always say, when they were out hiking, to put the pinecone back exactly where it was because that is God's gift to us. She had, as had every member of their family, a wonderful reverence for the environment. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can stand here and articulate the emotion that Captain Hall's sister, Laurie Barrios, shared with me when she insisted that we pursue a balanced policy when it deals with the preservation of our environment. She went so far as to say that there are, obviously, steps that could have been taken that would have diminished the magnitude of this fire. Again, I can't speak as strongly as she, but I do believe that it is absolutely essential that we pursue that very, very balanced approach in dealing with fires. With 160,000 acres burning, one of the challenges has been, as Mr. Schiff said, what has happened to the air quality in the area. Well, I think that controlled burns and taking steps to ensure that fires do not spread are essential. The great team in Los Angeles County, led by Fire Chief P. Michael Freeman, and others in the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles, and in these great cities that we're privileged to represent make it very, very clear that we want to take those preemptive steps to ensure that, while we'll always face fires in the future, we can diminish the level of damage that we have seen in the past 10 days in southern California. So, Mr. Speaker, we recognize most importantly the loss of two heroes, Captain Ted Hall and Specialist Arnie Quinones. We at the same time recognize the continued sacrifice that at this moment is going on in southern California to do everything that they possibly can to get this fire under control. In the names of Arnie Quinones and Ted Hall, I hope very much that we will do everything that we can to ensure that all levels of government and individuals take steps to make sure that we don't have the kind of tragedy through which we're going at this moment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I have to say that I am rather struck as I listened to my California colleagues, Ms. Matsui and Mr. Bilbray. We have had three New Yorkers and now three Californians who have stood here to recognize the significance of what, unfortunately, is one of the most tragic days in the 220-year history of the United States of America. All of the remarks have been extraordinarily thoughtful. They have focused on why it is that we are here, and it is to remember those thousands of lives that were lost. But, as was said by Mr. Engel, Mr. Towns and Mr. King as well, and Ms. Matsui and, I know, Mr. Bilbray, the good that has come from one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history is that we saw a solidarity, the likes of which we have not seen in a long period of time, and we saw so many great things done by courageous people. Now, we've heard about the New Yorkers, and no one sacrificed more than New Yorkers as we, for literally months, watched the cleanup take place at the World Trade Center. But I'm reminded of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department in Southern California. It was so moved they came together and provided a fire truck to the New York City Police Department. And when we've had three New Yorkers and three Californians, I know that we speak for everyone across this country when we underscore how important it is to recognize this, one of the most tragic days in our Nation's history. Now, there are other things that have come from this. And as I look at my friend, Mr. King, I'm reminded that he is the former chairman, now the ranking member, of the Committee on Homeland Security that was established in the aftermath of September 11. And as we sit here, prepared to mark the eighth anniversary, I think it's important to note that another good thing has emerged. That good thing is the fact that while most predicted that within a matter of months, and certainly years, we would have another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, it's due to the work of Peter King and lots of other people in this institution, in the executive branch and around the country that have ensured that we have not to this point, and we hope and pray that this vigilance will continue and that we will never have an attack like we saw on September 11 of 2001. And we also need to use this resolution, Mr. Speaker, to remind ourselves that we still live in a very, very dangerous world. There are people who would like to do us in. We know that. We find it out on a daily basis, and we see it in tragic terrorist attacks that take place in other parts of the globe. And so I join, Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues in strong support of the effort that Ms. Matsui and Mr. King and others have put together on this resolution in hopes that this will be a learning experience, just, as Mr. Engel mentioned, as December 7, 1941, was a date for past generations. We all remember the history of December 7, 1941; and, similarly, we hope that this resolution will ensure that future generations will never forget what happened on September 11, 2001.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010: Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Air Force, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Advanced Projects Research, Inc., located at 1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite B, La Verne, CA 91750 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1.5 million which will be used to continue testing and development for the production of the Wavelength Agile Spectral Harmonic (WASH) Oxygen Sensor which continually measures oxygen concentration in military high-performance fuel tanks, and the Cell Level Battery Controller that monitors and controls charge and temperature at the cell level of military battery energy storage systems. Approximately $146,000 will be used for project management; $220,000 for engineering analysis; $512,000 for engineering design; $275,000 for hardware fabrication and assembly; $329,000 for test engineering; and $18,000 for material and hardware. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air Force RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Defense-Wide, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: AeroVironment, located at 181 West Huntington Drive, Suite 202, Monrovia, CA 91016 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1 million to develop the Hand-Held Lethal Small Unmanned Aircraft System (SUAS). Air Force Special Operations Command stated its need for a capability to engage fleeing enemy combatants on the battlefield. The Hand-Held SUAS will help protect U.S. troops by providing an efficient tool to encounter a target quickly with minimum collateral damage using an on-board explosive. Controlled with common ground-control devices, this precision system will provide unparalleled situational awareness and combat effectiveness in urban and mountainous environments. Approximately $600,000 is for test production, including procurement of parts for manufacturing. $300,000 is for engineering costs and $100,000 is for flight testing and range costs. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Defense-Wide RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Chang Industry, located at 968 Palomares Avenue, La Verne, CA 91750 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $4 million to develop Fire Shield, an Active Protection System (APS), with the cooperation of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, Michigan. Fire Shield would be used to protect armored vehicles from the blast effects and the plasma jet of rocket propelled grenades by detecting and destroying incoming projectiles. Approximately $800,000 is for directional warhead blast and fragment effects characterization and optimization. $600,000 will be used for static threat defeat characterization, test and evaluation with directional warhead. $600,000 will be used for threat defeat test and evaluation on a controlled moving platform with directional warhead. $1 million will be allocated to integrate the system for use on optimal vehicles, such as Mine Resistant Ambush Protected and Joint Light Tactical vehicles, and protection system deployment configurations (vehicle geometry dependant) for overall vehicle protection using sensor/warhead components. The remaining $1 million will be used for the preliminary incorporation of Insensitive Munition and development of proper Safe & Arm for the Fire Shield system and conducting preliminary interaction with the Army Fuse Board. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Navy, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: City of Hope National Medical Center, located at 1500 E. Duarte Road, Duarte, CA 91010 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $1 million for the City of Hope National Medical Center's Advanced Molecular Medicine Initiative (AMMI), which furthers the mission and goals of the Navy's Division of Molecular Medicine program, performing a variety of basic and translational research programs investigating human disease mechanisms. The Navy's Medical Development Program is directed to develop biomedical equipment and related techniques to reduce morbidity and enhance medical care for combat casualties. The AMMI directly complements these efforts by improving therapeutic treatments for the Department of Defense and civilian populations. This research will also develop expertise and technologies directly applicable to defense against biological, chemical or radiological attacks. $750,000 is for continued research and $250,000 is for genotyping. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Navy RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Tanner Research, Inc., located at 825 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, CA 91016 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,500,000 to continue development of a Dual-Mode Micro Seeker (radio frequency/electro- optical (RF/EO)) for use in improving the accuracy of gun-launched and small missile interceptors used with current and emerging defensive weapons systems. The funding includes: $300,000 for RF signal processing development; $850,000 for Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuits and Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor integrated circuit development; $600,000 for EO avalanche photodiode (APD) circuit development; $450,000 for RF seeker integration; and $300,000 for EO seeker integration. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and if by chance the previous question does prevail, to oppose this rule so we can get back to the Madisonian vision of representative democracy. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my Rules Committee colleague if he has any further speakers.

Mr. DREIER. Is the gentleman then prepared to close if I were to close?

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

Mr. DREIER. I would yield to myself 30 seconds. I will say to my friend, if I could engage in a colloquy with my friend, I will say to him that very, very clearly the argument that he has just propounded about the desire to get back on track with an open--I assume the gentleman meant an open amendment process, which is what we have had for 220 years. I will say it is my hope we will do that. But frankly, today is our last opportunity if we in fact have all 12--as has been the case--all 12 of the appropriations rules closed down as this has been.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Let me just say that it is very sad that we are at this point now, the completion of the appropriations process. My friend just referred to the term as we talked about best practices and working together, ``precedents.'' Well, the sad thing, with the 12th appropriation bill, if we pass this rule, we have set the precedent for the entire appropriations process. All 12 appropriations bills have been considered under restrictive rule, if we in fact proceed with this. In fact, I have just been given an amendment to this rule, Mr. Speaker, that will even shut the process down even further, denying Members an opportunity to divide the question on the very few amendments that have been made in order. So, this notion that we somehow have this outside time limit, and my very good friend from Seattle, Mr. Dicks, with whom I have been privileged to work on a wide range of issues in the past, talked about the fact that all these amendments have been filed, in 1995 when my colleagues on the other side went into the minority, there was an additional 26 hours, 26 additional hours spent on the debate on the appropriations bills than was the case when my party went into the minority in 2007. So this notion that somehow all of these amendments would be offered is just plain wrong. Why? Because if you are going to close down the process or have a modified open rule, the notion of having every amendment possible considered is the only option that we have. Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in the name of my Oregon colleague, Mr. Blumenauer. He had two amendments that he sought to have made in order. If we had had an open amendment process, my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer, with whom I was able to engage in this colloquy a little, would have had his amendments made in order. He talked about the tension being high. Well, the tension is high, Mr. Speaker, and it is not just around the issue of health care. It is around the fact that 220 years ago this very summer, James Madison, a member of the House Rules Committee, moved at the encouragement of his constituents the Bill of Rights with 10 days of debate through the House of Representatives. And through the 220-year history of the United States of America, Democrats and Republicans alike, representing what now is about 650,000 to 700,000 American, have had the right to stand up on the House floor and offer germane amendments to appropriations bill. I use the term ``sacrosanct'' to describe the appropriations process on the House floor. I never believed, and I have not been here as long as the 39 years of my good friend, Mr. Young, but I never believed, Mr. Speaker, that I would see us get to the point where Republicans and Democrats alike would be shut out of the process, which is exactly what has happened here. In ``A New Direction for America'' that was penned by Ms. Pelosi when they were seeking the majority, they had a very, very interesting line. It said: ``Democrats believe that America needs and Americans deserve a new direction that provides opportunity for all.'' ``Opportunity for all'' is what they said was going to be the hallmark. Apparently it is opportunity for all, except for rank-and- file Members of the United States House of Representatives, because the elected Representatives of both parties are being denied an opportunity to put forward their great ideas. And since we have crossed this $1 trillion spending mark for the deficit in the first 6 months, and it is projected to go to $1.8 trillion by the end of this year, it is obvious that this process has been used to cherry-pick amendments and deny Democrats and Republicans who would like to engage in fiscally responsible policies from being able to do that. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to defeat the previous question; and if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule providing for the traditional open rule for appropriations bills, again giving us this one last opportunity to do that, and we will have the opportunity to return to our traditions, to honor the vision of the Framers of our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the explanatory material, be placed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. As happened in 1997, we can go upstairs in the Rules Committee if we have recalcitrant Members on either side of the aisle and we can shut down the process, and there would not be the kind of resistance, if we had at least tried the open amendment process. I thank my friend for yielding.