David Dreier

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. 2996, the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act: Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 2996, the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act Account: EPA STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Arcadia, California Address of Requesting Entity: 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $500,000 for the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre for their Joint Water Infrastructure Projects. Arcadia's project will provide for the portion of the construction cost for the Baldwin Reservoir Rehabilitation Project ($250,000). This project will provide for structural reinforcement of the existing reinforced concrete reservoir to be able to withstand a seismic event as identified in the Corps Seismic Reliability Study in 1997. Sierra Madre's project will provide for the portion of the construction cost for its Water Supply Well Project ($250,000). This project will replace an existing well with a new high capacity well to provide for groundwater supply reliability. Each city will provide a 45% local match to the 55% EPA STAG funding, as required.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for his superb management. The American people are hurting. We know that very, very well. We hear it daily. Jobs are being lost, people are losing their businesses, people are losing their homes. They don't want to see another tax burden imposed on them, which is exactly what this bill is going to do. Everyone recognizes that there is going to be an increase in the burden on the American people. Unfortunately, as we pursue green technology, we have not been given an opportunity to do that. My friend from Ohio has been very thoughtful on this issue. He had an idea--several ideas that I offered before the committee. One of the things I believe we should do, Madam Speaker, is allow for the free flow of green technology globally. I'm working with my friend from Ohio in a bipartisan way on that.

Mr. DREIER. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time. Let me say that I totally agree with the statement of my friend. Here is a demonstration of bipartisanship. It's not often that Mr. Kucinich and I work together on the exact same issue. We believe that the free flow of tremendous green technology around the world will, in fact, dramatically improve our economy and the standard of living and quality of life for the American people and for the rest of the world. Defeat this rule, so that we can bring back some of the 224 brilliant ideas that were offered but totally denied by this majority. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Let me just say at this juncture we do have several speakers, and I would ask my friend if he might want to yield some of his time because I know we have several speakers who would gladly utilize the time. I will say to my friend that it does seem to me rather unfortunate that, with the exception of our very brave and courageous friend from Colorado, there is no one on the majority side who wants to stand up and defend the notion of denying Democrats----

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, let me just say that, again, if you look at the middle paragraph on page 10, the issue of 2- minute voting is raised, and I think common sense would say with the argument just put forward by my friend from Colorado about the challenge of votes, the notion of going from 5-minute to 2-minute votes does not improve the situation that they face. To my friend's first point, Madam Speaker, I would like to say the following: the American people did send us here to act. They're expecting action. They want us to act. The American people are hurting. I come from Los Angeles, California. We have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate in the City of Los Angeles. I represent suburban Los Angeles and part of the Inland Empire, and I will say that we are dealing with very serious economic challenges. People are losing their businesses, people are losing their homes, and people are obviously losing their jobs. They want us to get our economy back on track. And one of the things that they were promised was that if we passed the economic stimulus bill, the unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Right now we all know that the unemployment rate, as was said by President Obama, is now 9.4 percent; and based on reports we have received in the last few days, it reportedly is probably going to go higher. I hope and pray that that is not the case. But one of the things that we've found is that over the last couple of years, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending has not provided what the American people want, and that is some security when it comes to their jobs, getting their jobs back, saving their businesses, and saving their homes. That's the action they want us to take. And the process we are in the midst of right now denies us any opportunity, Democrats or Republicans, the chance to bring about meaningful cuts in expenditures. At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security from the Appropriations Committee, my very, very good friend and classmate (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the son of a 20-year veteran of the House Rules Committee, the gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, a new member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Well, I would first inquire of my friend if he has any speakers before I respond.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am going to begin by doing something that I don't believe I have ever done when managing a rule here in the House. Traditionally when Mr. Boehner, our Republican leader, gets up or my Rules Committee colleagues, Messrs. Diaz-Balart and Sessions or Ms. Foxx, would stand up here, we rise to basically make the case for Members of the minority. We're Republicans. We make the Republican case about how important it is for us to ensure the rights of the minority, something that James Madison talked about very eloquently 220 years ago. Today I rise on behalf of all of my colleagues; and I rise, especially today, for Democrats because it's unprecedented that we would be in the circumstance that we are today. Now I've seen an awful lot in this institution in the years that I've been privileged to serve here. I've observed the way this House is run. In most instances, under both Democrats and Republicans, I have been very proud of the work product that has emerged. But in many of those instances, I have been less than proud of the way the greatest deliberative body known to man--or what has been described as such by people like the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, is no longer the greatest deliberative body known to man, or at least we're slipping away from that--because we're undermining the deliberative process. Usually when we get off-track, which has happened under both Republicans and Democrats, and put our short-term goals ahead of the long-term interest of the institution, it is not a good thing. It is, we often believe, noble for us to put our short-term goals there because we have an important priority. When my friends in the majority asked the Nation to give them control of this House, they correctly criticized me personally and others within the Republican leadership because we said that we limited their voices in amendment and debate. It didn't happen often, but it did happen. And I will say that without the ability to offer improvements to legislation and ideas, Members of this body could not do the job that they are charged with doing; and that is, pursuing the hopes, dreams and aspirations of their constituents. We all represent a little less than three-quarters of a million people; and we have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans alike, to do just that. That's why I say again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the effort to ensure that my Democratic colleagues are not shut out of this process. Now as you know very well, Madam Speaker, when our California colleague, Speaker Pelosi, took the gavel, she promised that they would do better than I did as chairman of the Rules Committee, and better than our Republican leadership had done in the past. Unfortunately this rule before us really illustrates just how far we have fallen from those great words that were put forward by Speaker Pelosi. With this rule, it's very difficult for me to know exactly where to begin with criticism; but let's start with the very nature of the rule itself. We all know that the House has allowed less debate and fewer amendments in its consideration of bills over the last few years. The one great exception to that has been the appropriations process. Why? Because we all know article I, section 9 of the Constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. We've always taken this responsibility very seriously in a bipartisan way. And we've always--under both Democrats and Republicans--allowed Democrats and Republicans to engage in a free- flowing and rigorous debate. Everyone is very, very concerned about what happened last week. My Democratic colleagues are concerned with the number of votes that were held and the outrage that we demonstrated. We Republicans are horrified that we began down that route. Unfortunately, last week's act was just the warm-up to what we're seeing today. Today we are beginning what can only be described as the main event. This is because today's rule will become the model for every appropriations bill that we consider in the future. It is very likely that this rule, Madam Speaker, will become the model for every bill that we consider in this Congress. Rather than any Member, Republican or Democrat, being able to offer any germane amendment on behalf of their constituents and the Nation, this resolution from the Rules Committee, under the direction of Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, limits what ideas can be debated on this floor; and as I said, it limits the ideas proposed by my Democratic colleagues. So anyone who wants to say that I'm standing here, Madam Speaker, just whining on behalf of the minority, it is preposterous. Democrats sat in line before the Rules Committee until nearly 11 o'clock last night; and Democrats have been shut out of this process. So unfortunately I, representing the minority, am the only one who can stand here on behalf of our Democratic colleagues. It means, unfortunately, that our constituents--and I say this to my colleagues-- our constituents in Democratic districts and Republican districts alike are unfortunately being held hostage by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. If he's having a bad day, the American people will have no recourse. That means that our constituents' concerns about spending will go unheeded, and we all know that that's what this is about. If you doubt it, look no further than last week's funding bill for this institution alone. We fought for several amendments that could bring about a reduction in the 16.2 percent increase in spending for the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We had some large cuts, but we had the most modest cut imaginable. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to allow for a one- half of 1 percent reduction in the 16.2 percent increase that we put into place. While the American people are struggling to make ends meet, while people are trying to keep their jobs, their homes, we in this institution allowed for a 16.2 percent increase; and we simply said in the appropriations process that maybe we should debate on the floor whether or not we would have a one-half of 1 percent cut. Unfortunately that was completely denied. I also want to take a moment to discuss some of the more creative aspects of this rule, as were read by the Reading Clerk. For the first time ever, the rule allows the Chair to impose 2-minute voting. Now previously 2-minute voting was something that was done with a bipartisan agreement. Democrats and Republicans came together and said, We have got so many votes here, rather than having Members sit around with 5-minute voting, we would agree to 2-minute voting. Now I will say that ignoring this process that has existed in the past, including the provision that allows the Chair to actually impose 2-minute voting, we ignore the stress that 2-minute voting places on the nonpartisan professionals who tally our votes. It increases the opportunity for error. I would commend to my colleagues the report of the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007; and on page 10 under The Events Surrounding Roll Call Number 814, it makes very clear that one of the factors involved in this was the fact that there were 11 2-minute votes held leading up to that. I know full well, as I look at the wonderfully dedicated and hardworking rostrum staff, what a litany of 2-minute votes is imposed on them. And we want to make sure that what happened on August 2 of 2007 never happens again. And allowing the Chair to impose 2-minute voting does create the potential for that. I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that I'm very concerned about the fact that this rule does create a scenario that puts people in an awkward position. I have a number of very, very close friends with whom I have been privileged to serve here. One of those is my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who works closely with Mr. Rogers in a bipartisan way dealing with the issue of our Nation's homeland security. I have already said, Madam Speaker, that I am very troubled with amendment No. 68 that was put forward, and I don't mean to get too far down into the weeds here, but we have another unprecedented action put into place here. Amendment No. 68 simply said, page 93, line 13, ``strike `the.' '' This is the amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee. This amendment was submitted, and a revised version of it was submitted; and now, Madam Speaker, the revised version makes in order seven amendments, one of which actually required waivers to allow it to proceed. Now, this has not been done before and it's unfortunate. It was really sort of a bait and switch. We saw this amendment that said ``strike `the,' '' and then it's revised all of a sudden with seven amendments being made in order. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of transparency that we were promised when the new majority came to power. There are other elements to the rule that I don't want to discuss, but suffice it to say that each and every provision of this rule, Madam Speaker, is designed to restrict and limit the rights of Democrats and Republicans to debate and improve this bill, as has always been done in the 220-year history of this great institution. Now, why is any of this important? Because, Madam Speaker, process is substance. In committee there were many amendments defeated even though they would have gone a long way to improving the bill and reducing problems like illegal immigration, an issue that Mr. Rogers has worked very closely on. One of those is the E-Verify program that my California colleague (Mr. Calvert) has worked on. He made an attempt to offer that amendment. It was defeated. And Mr. Kingston similarly offered an amendment to require government contractors to use E-Verify to deal with our Nation's border security. His amendment was also defeated. I supported both of those amendments up in the Rules Committee. Now we won't get the opportunity to debate the kinds of things that Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Kingston wanted us to be able to address. I personally believe that, while I support E-Verify, I believe that the bill that I have worked on, H.R. 98, which would establish a smart counterfeit-proof Social Security card, is the best way to end the magnet that draws people into the country illegally. But I do think that E-Verify is a very important step in the direction of dealing with our security. Under the traditional process, Madam Speaker, as you know very well, we could address all of these issues. All of these issues from both Democrats and Republicans could have been considered, but, unfortunately, it ain't going to happen. One of the most senior Members of this institution once said, ``We have gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term `representative democracy.' The reason that we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the world.'' Now, that Member was David Obey. He said that in the fall of 2000. While he was concerned about how the House was handling an appropriations conference report, those were the words of Chairman Obey at that time. His words have never been truer than they are right now. The problem is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today Chairman Obey is the one who is circumventing regular order. What we have here is, Madam Speaker, what tragically is becoming the new normal. And it's all being done in the name of dramatically increasing spending because we have seen over the last 2 years an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending. And now we're denied any opportunity to bring about the kinds of reductions that we need to utilize. Madam Speaker, I know that we have schedules to keep. That's the argument that is regularly propounded by the Chair of the Rules Committee and others in the Democratic leadership. We understand the exigencies of that schedule. But throwing aside the quaint notion of democracy and debate is something that I believe would lead, as Republican leader John Boehner said earlier today, Thomas Jefferson to be spinning in his grave. It would lead James Madison to be horrified, the notion of casting aside democracy and debate because we have to maintain our schedules. And I will say again on this scheduling notion, Madam Speaker, last week, rather than 127 amendments, we would have had, I believe, 30 amendments, and before we had gotten to consideration of the legislative branch bill, I am sure that hours and hours and hours ahead of that we would have been completed with the work of the Commerce- Justice-Science Appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up for the rights of Democratic Members of this institution who are being denied this. Reject this rule. Let's come back with what has been the case for 220 years under both political parties, that being an open process. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Athens, Georgia, who had an amendment that he would have been allowed to debate if we had an open rule, and unfortunately, he is not (Mr. Broun of Georgia).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, this debate is all about spending. The American people are hurting. Jobs are being lost. Businesses are being lost. Homes are being lost. And the American people are expecting us to put into place policies that will get the economy back on track. We were promised by President Obama that if we passed the $787 billion, really $1 trillion, stimulus bill that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Today the unemployment rate is at 9.4 percent, and tragically it appears to be getting worse. And what is our answer? Well, it is to continue a pattern that has been going on for 2 years now. In nondefense spending, we have had an 85 percent increase in Federal spending, an 85 percent increase. And what is it we have said? We believe, Madam Speaker, that we can responsibly put into place spending cuts. We have made attempts. My friend, Mr. Broun, whom I mentioned earlier, wanted to offer a one-half of 1 percent spending cut in the 16.2 percent increase that was put into place for our spending for the legislative branch last week, and he was denied his chance to bring about that modest cut. As we look at the appropriations process now, bringing about reductions in spending is not an option. They are simply increases in spending time and time again. Now what is being utilized to make sure that we can continue to increase spending? Well, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what is being done is we are shutting out the opportunity for both Democrats and Republicans to have a right to offer amendments. Now I will say, having been here for more than a couple of years, one of the most exhilarating experiences that one can have as a Member of Congress is to stand up under an open rule, especially during the appropriations process, ask that they strike the last word, and be recognized for 5 minutes to engage in what can really be a free-flowing debate. We have two members of the Rules Committee who have never served in this institution before, and they have never experienced the opportunity for that free- flowing debate on any legislation. And an open rule has not been an option so far. But Madam Speaker, I never thought that I would see the day when we would, on the sacrosanct article 1, section 9 power in the Constitution dealing with spending, prevent Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to engage in that. I think about my colleagues who want to regularly engage in debate, Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur. I may not agree with them often, but I believe they should be able to participate in the process. We have Republicans like Devin Nunes, Jeff Flake and others who want to be able to stand up. Mr. Broun, who just spoke, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert and others want to have a chance to stand up. And guess what, Madam Speaker? They unfortunately are denied that in this process. Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1943 made the following statement. He said, The history of liberty is largely due to the history of procedural safeguards. Now, Madam Speaker, I believe that the Federal Government is too big and spends too much, as our Leader Boehner regularly says. And I believe that we should have a right to bring about those reductions so that we can get our economy back on track to ensure that Americans aren't going to lose their jobs, their businesses and their homes. And we are denied that chance today. But I want to say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity. And it is before us right now. All we need to do is vote ``no'' on the previous question, and what will happen? We will be continuing the 220-year tradition of appropriations under an open amendment process. If we can defeat the previous question, I, Madam Speaker, will offer an amendment that will allow us to do exactly what Chairwoman Obey in the year 2000 said needed to be done. We need to allow for a free-flowing, open debate so that deliberative democracy can, in fact, once again flourish. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and allow us to have the opportunity to offer an open rule. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, well, I guess then that I will close the debate. I thought we were expecting some other people.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me say that there were a number of Members who were expected to be joining us, I would say to my friend, and the fact is that they were anticipating a debate taking place on the rule. And very, very courageously, my friend has been the only Member on the Democratic side to stand up, and I am the one standing here defending the rights of Democrats I'm happy to say. So the gentleman might want to talk for a couple of minutes while I wait for some of my colleagues who thought the debate might be taking place later if he wants to.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be happy to yield to my friend if he wants to engage on this issue at all. First, to his last point, as he talked about the challenge that our wonderful rostrum staff before us, who are so dedicated and hard working, have to deal with with repeated votes. So the answer to that is to allow the Chair to impose on this institution 2-minute voting? I know this is all inside baseball stuff, but all one needs to do is go back and look at that report on the August 2, 2007, vote, which I have right here and look at page 10, and the issue of 2-minute votes is raised.

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. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010: Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization 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 $2,000,000 to develop Fire Shield, an Active Protection System (APS) with the guidance of the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center in Warren, Michigan. Fire Shield would be used to protect armored vehicles from the blast effects and the plasma jet of rocket propelled grenades (RPG) 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. The remaining $600,000 will be used for threat defeat test and evaluation on a controlled moving platform with directional warhead. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: David Dreier Bill Number: H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 Account: Air Force, Air National Guard, Operations and Maintenance Legal Name and Address of Entity Receiving Earmark: Gentex Corporation, located at 11525 6th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $6,000,000 to complete the Air National Guard's fleet-wide implementation and standardization to the MBU-20A/P Oxygen Mask and Mask Light. Approximately, 34 percent ($2,040,000) of the funding is for manufacturing; 4 percent ($240,000) is for sustainment and systems engineering support; 6 percent ($360,000) is for inspections and tests; 20 percent ($1,200,000) is for general and administrative; 35 percent ($2,100,000) is for material; 1 percent ($60,000) is for packaging handling shipping and transportation. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air National Guard.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, having participated in this process in the past, agreements are worked out, as Mr. King said, between the two leaderships. And if we begin with the work of an appropriations bill and Members are in fact offering dilatory amendments, there is an effort made at the leadership level to bring about an agreement at that time. The notion of trying to impose that constraint before the process has even begun is wrong and it is unprecedented and it has been part of what has killed deliberative democracy under the leadership of this majority.

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I would like to yield to my friend from Florida to say to him that what I was proposing that bill-by-bill we begin with a process, as has been done for the decades that I've been privileged to serve here, and make an attempt to work together to bring about some kind of agreement. No attempt was made to do that. The request was unprecedented in that it was a sweeping request made at the beginning of the appropriations process before we had even come to the floor and started working on this. I would be happy to yield to my friend to respond to that.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Grandfather Community, North Carolina, for yielding me the time, and I appreciate her service on the House Rules Committee. It is absolutely true. We could move the appropriations process through the House of Representatives much more easily if the minority party didn't exist. If we weren't here creating what my friend from Fort Lauderdale has called ``shenanigans'' or using terms like that, we could move this process along very easily. Unfortunately, the minority party, the group that represents almost half the American people, is being treated as if they don't exist. And this rule is a perfect example of just that, Mr. Speaker. I know that people are saying that yesterday was a history-making day because there were more recorded votes on the floor of the House than have ever been held in modern history. But the real history that was made yesterday was the fact that we saw the volume that was put forward in the 108th Congress by the now-Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, described as the ``death of deliberative democracy,'' actually implemented here for the first time in the 220-year history of the United States of America. For the first time ever we saw a process begun which is in fact creating a scenario where the majority is ignoring the minority and doing what the American people do not want. I do not believe that the American people want us to continue down the road towards a dramatic increase in Federal spending. People want to get the economy back on track, people want to make sure that their jobs aren't lost, but they're really wondering whether or not the way to do that is to have a huge increase in Federal spending, and yet that's exactly what is happening. And this rule is a perfect example of that. Now, I was harshly criticized by Members of the now-majority when I had the privilege of chairing the House Rules Committee. But I will tell you the last time that I chaired the House Rules Committee there were seven amendments to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bills submitted to the Rules Committee, and I was pleased that I could make every single one of those in order. Every single amendment that was submitted was made in order. And as has been pointed out, 20 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, and only one amendment was made in order. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? Not one single amendment was made in order that would do what the American people want us to do and, that is, to reduce the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government. A 16 percent increase in the level of spending under this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill--and we all recognize that the need for Capitol Police and staff and oversight of the executive branch are all critically important things--but our colleague from Georgia (Mr. Broun) offered an amendment that would simply provide a one-half of 1 percent reduction--one-half of 1 percent reduction--and yet the majority chose not to make even that amendment in order. Yes, there were larger proposals for cuts. And we know there is a tendency on this bill-- that's why we've had a bipartisan agreement that this is the one of the 12 appropriations bills that we do have a structured rule on--but with a 16 percent increase in the bill, to not allow the House to work its will and have a chance for even a one-half of 1 percent reduction in that rate of growth, that's not what the American people want. That's not what the American people want. And so the death of deliberative democracy was the history that was made yesterday, Mr. Speaker, because this is, in fact, the first time that this kind action has been taken and, unfortunately, it has begun a pattern. It's begun a pattern. As I listened to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King) refer to the fact that he was victimized by the bipartisan leadership when we in fact had said to him that we wanted to come to a time agreement on consideration of appropriations bills, it is evidence that we can at the leadership level--maybe not every rank-and-file Member--but that the leadership level worked together. That is why I am very happy to see my very good friend from Wisconsin, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, here. And I would ask my friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, whether or not he believes that we could in fact come to some kind of agreement if we were to proceed with the appropriations process under an open rule. And I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, if he would engage with me on this.