David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, whether Members realize it or not, we are at an inflection point in history, maybe not the history that school kids will learn about, but the important history of this institution that supports every aspect of our democracy. Future Members of the House will look back on this day, and realize that today is when the last bastion of unbridled participation fell to the demands of a cynical and tyrannical majority. There are certain points in the House's history that Member's know by name or reference. Events such as Cannon's revolt where 100 years ago a group of progressive, bull-moose Republicans, joined with Democrats to say enough is enough, to Speaker Joe Cannon. The famous Civil Rights revolt during the Johnson Administration, where obstructionist Southern Democrats on the Rules Committee were supplanted in order to advance civil rights. The question is, will this be one of those days where where historians will say, ``This is where democracy prevailed against tyranny,'' or will we take the easy road of limiting participation to a privileged few? Mr. Speaker, I have a message for my colleagues: each of us must think very carefully about this vote, because once we go down this road, we aren't coming back. That means if you're Dennis Kucinich, and you believe that your country is fighting an unjust war, you're going to be silenced in the months and years to come. If you're Jeff Flake, and you are fighting every day against what you see as corruption and wanton spending, you are going to be gagged going forward. If you're Devin Nunes, and you're fighting to make sure your farmers have water to grow crops, you are out of luck. If you're Marcy Kaptur, and you're promoting the interests of labor unions, get ready for a long winter. I don't agree with most of those Members, but for this institution to work, they need to have a voice. This rule deprives them--and their constituents--of that voice. This rule concentrates power in the hands of David Obey and Nancy Pelosi. They get to decide who offers what and when. And my colleagues better hope that they never disagree with the majority leadership, or they will find themselves relegated to the sidelines, just as we do with this rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I reserve.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate that has taken place. It began with some very thoughtful comments from my friend from Utica talking about the need for funding for our troops, and I laude him for referring to the fact that that is the priority of this measure. We then listened to, on our side, the distinguished new ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, my friend from Santa Clarita (Mr. McKeon), talk about the priority of funding for our troops. And then we listened to speeches made by our colleagues, and there was barely a mention of the issue of troop funding. We just heard our colleague talk about firefighters. Hey, I'm from southern California where we have fires, and we have horrible fires. Loss of life and property is something that regularly takes place there. It's a very, very important issue. It's an issue that should be considered under the regular appropriations process under the leadership of my California colleagues, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey, not in a troop funding bill. Then we listened to our very good friend from Detroit talk about the automobile industry, a serious challenge that we, as a Nation, are trying to address. I personally believe that the notion of continuing to see the government more and more involved in this area is not the right thing to do, but it's a debate that will go on. And yet our friend, Mr. Levin, was talking about the issue of the automobile industry in this troop funding bill. Then I listened to our friend from Houston, Texas, talk about Darfur, one of the most troubled spots on the face of the Earth, an issue that does need to be addressed, and the challenges of meeting the needs of children in Texas, a very, very important issue, but not as part of a troop funding measure. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, through the very thoughtful work of the Appropriations Committee last month, we came to this floor with what President Obama and I believe a majority of Republicans and Democrats in this House would like to see us achieve, and I know the American people would like to see us achieve, and that is bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is a word that is used all the time around here, all the time. Everyone talks about the need for bipartisanship, how important it is. The Speaker in her opening address here to the Congress as we began the 111th Congress talked about how she wanted to work in a bipartisan way. We Republicans say we want to work in a bipartisan way. But this bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee was the first time, the very first time in this 111th Congress that we were able to see a bipartisan work product emerge from the Democratic leadership, and I congratulated them on that, and I have done that when we considered the bill, and I would like to be able to do it today. But, unfortunately, this bill has crumbled from what it was intended to be, a bill to support funding for our troops. It in fact included a reduction by transferring money that was intended in the House-passed bill to be funding for our troops to the International Monetary Fund. Now, I will say that that may be a worthwhile cause as we deal with the economic challenges that exist here in the United States and around the world. But, again, Mr. Speaker, that is something that should not be considered as an emergency funding measure. It is something that should be considered under the normal appropriations process, so that we can make a determination whether increasing by $5 billion the funding for the International Monetary Fund is more important than transportation priorities here in the United States or other priorities that we have. So, some might like to say that this bill is just a continuation of what we considered last month. But, Mr. Speaker, it unfortunately has gone a long way down from where we were, creating the potential, the potential for us to not be able to prevent with absolute certainty the terrorists from Gitmo ending up in the United States. There is no guarantee that that will happen. On the IMF, on the IMF, there is no guarantee, no guarantee in this measure that funding requests could not be made for countries like Iran or Venezuela. So, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that this troop funding bill has ended up addressing, and it was made very clear by an overwhelming majority of the remarks that came from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, so that we can come back and pass in this House what 267 Members last Friday said that they wanted to have passed, and that is a clean bill that funds our troops and ensures that we won't have terrorists in the United States, that ensures that we will not be dramatically expanding a wide range of other programs. So vote ``no'' on this rule, and, if by chance it passes, I urge a ``no'' vote on the conference report itself, because we can do better. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I don't have any further requests for time. I would inquire of my friend whether he has any further speakers?

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I just plan to close debate if the gentleman has concluded debate.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my friend from Utica who made it very clear that he believes that troop funding is their priority; but yet this measure reduces by $4.7 billion the level of troop funding that we had in the bipartisan bill passed just last month and transfers it to the IMF. So, in fact, this measure does cut troop funding. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the new ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the very distinguished gentleman from Santa Clarita, California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. DREIER. Let me begin by thanking my friend from Utica for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I have to say that it's with extreme disappointment and sadness that I rise in opposition to this rule, having been very supportive of it when we had it just, it seemed, a few weeks ago. The underlying measure of the supplemental appropriations bill that's supposed to fund our troops began auspiciously as a wonderfully bipartisan effort. In fact, when the House first considered the funding measure last month, Republicans were very proud to have what was our first opportunity, Mr. Speaker, our first opportunity of this 111th Congress to consider a major bill that had been developed in a bipartisan way. I noted on that occasion that the President's call for bipartisan action had previously been completely thwarted by the Democratic majority; and, frankly, the record proves that to be the case. But finally when it came to the issue of funding our troops, even the Democratic leadership that had thwarted efforts to follow the Obama directive for bipartisanship, we had concluded that they weren't about to politicize the process of funding our troops. While the bill that we considered last month was not perfect, it did accomplish the key issue at hand, adequately providing for the protection and welfare of our troops. And as I said, we were very proud to do it in a bipartisan way, something the President wants, something that the American people want, and frankly, it's something that I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in this House want. But unfortunately the Democratic leadership does not seem to have that same goal. Now the Democratic leadership is, unfortunately, back to what has very unfortunately been determined to be business as usual, which is concerning a measure which should have been as depoliticized as possible, considering it in an extraordinarily partisan way. The conference report before us actually cuts troop funding in order to pay for billions of dollars of additional non-troop non-emergency spending. This includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund in order to provide additional global bailouts. Now any country, Mr. Speaker, can apply for this money. So there's nothing to ensure that United States taxpayer dollars don't go to countries like Iran or Venezuela. The question of whether to provide this new IMF funding is a controversial one; and it may end up being a right decision; but it's one that should be fully debated, not air-dropped into a conference report. Again, whatever the outcome of that debate on IMF funding, it is clearly something that should not be considered as emergency funding. It should be part of the regular appropriations process, which we're in the midst of right now, where tough decisions are made, priorities are set, and a proposal to send $5 billion to the International Monetary Fund can be weighed against other priorities that Members of this House may have, like transportation funding or some other issue that it may be determined through the deliberative process is a higher priority. Mr. Speaker, our military is on the verge of running out of money. We all know that. That, frankly, is why we're here. The resources needed for our troops to conduct their mission and return home safely are nearly depleted. This, the issue of troop funding, is a true emergency. This is what this supplemental appropriations bill is all about--to protect and support the men and women in harm's way defending our country. The Democratic leadership, instead, chose to cut troop funding and load this bill up with other very controversial funding that does not support our troops. Republicans made it clear that we could not support a troop funding bill that does not, in fact, fully fund our troops. So the leadership on the other side of the aisle found itself in a dilemma. They had lost Republican support with their partisanship, their controversial programs and their cuts for troop funding. So what could they do? How could they win the votes necessary to pass this conference report? The obvious solution would have been to return to bipartisanship. It's what the President of the United States has called for; it's what the American people want; and it's what I believe a majority of Democrats and Republicans in this House would like. But instead, the Democratic leadership chose to push the contents of this bill as far to the left as they possibly could in the hopes of picking up support from the fringes of their own party. Having left the middle ground, the fringe was the only place left to go. So how did they appeal to the very, very extreme left? First they watered down language related to moving terrorists to U.S. soil from Guantanamo Bay. Well, Republicans have supported much stronger language to ensure that no terrorists are ever moved to or set free on American soil. The original language would have at least required consultation with Congress and slowed down the process until we could act definitively to ensure the protection of our communities. But inexplicably, as Democrats, Republicans and Independents across the country have voiced their outrage over the prospect of having terrorists potentially released on American soil, today's conference report further weakens the already weakened language. It leaves our neighborhoods even more vulnerable to the movement of Gitmo terrorists. Furthermore, the Democratic leadership removed protections to ensure that information that could put our troops in danger would not be released. Many on the far left opposed these protections, so the Democratic leadership bartered for their support of this bill by stripping them out completely. Without those protections in place, our troops in the field will be subject to even greater harm. This was the price the Democratic leadership paid in order to negotiate with the far left rather than return to the bipartisanship and common sense that had guided earlier debates on this funding bill. To see just how far out of the mainstream this approach is, Mr. Speaker, look no further than the vote on the motion to instruct conferees that we had just this past Friday. It was a Republican motion which handily passed the House by a vote of 267-152. Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 267-152, this House called for a clean bill that restores full funding for the troops and keeps in place the protections to prevent the release of information that could potentially endanger our troops. That strong bipartisan vote just this past Friday in favor of this motion indicates how much support there is in this House for a clean, bipartisan full troop funding bill. For those of us who naively thought that the funding of our troops was the one issue that could not be politicized, this is a very, very sobering moment. Clearly the Democratic leadership cannot help themselves. Even when bipartisanship would be the easy choice, they were compelled to move in the exact opposite direction. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, demand a clean troop funding bill, one that fully provides the resources they need, one that is stripped of all extraneous controversial non- emergency funding and one that includes full protections for American communities as well as our troops in the field. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my California colleague, the gentleman from Glendale, Mr. Schiff, for his thoughtful remarks. And I want to say that he and I share our commitment to NASA and the very important programs that take place at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And that's the point. I mean, there are many important items in this bill which continue to be priorities. I would like to say to my friend from Utica, who, again, is working very hard, he is very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, he has never had to serve in the United States House of Representatives as a member of the minority. My dream is that one day he might be able to serve as a member of the minority, and who knows how that will come out. I mean, it's always up to the voters to make that determination. But I would say that those 127 amendments about which my friend referred and then I referred when I was in the well are amendments that I had to encourage our colleagues to file. Why? First, there were only 2 days, 2 legislative days, that this bill was out there. And if we had had an open amendment process, as I said, I can say with absolute certainty there would not be 127 amendments filed to this measure; again, maybe half that, maybe many fewer than that. And many of those amendments are duplicative. And the reason is that Members might find themselves in the same position as Mr. Buyer did. And that's why I say my friend has served exclusively as a member of the majority; but if one day he is serving here as a member of the minority and were to receive the word that he could not make a minor, germane modification to his amendment, I think that he would understand the concern that we have. Members on this side of the aisle represent just a little less than half of the American people. And they all have just as much right to be heard as Members of the majority. I recognize that the majority does rule in this place, but that does not mean that we should prevent Members from being able to participate in this process. Mr. Diaz-Balart has entered into the Record a document that was put forward in the 108th Congress by the now-chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, the then-ranking minority member. She, at that time, held the position that I have. And the document describes what we are using as our procedure for consideration of this measure as a ``restrictive process.'' Now, traditionally, Democrats and Republicans alike have called it a modified open rule. But the preprinting requirement, according to this document, blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of the debate. Now, those are not my words; those are the words of Ms. Slaughter when she was ranking minority member on the Committee on Rules. And so all I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the name of deliberative democracy, this notion of saying that every Member has had an opportunity to look at this--2 legislative days--and the fact that 127 amendments were filed meant that there was this exhaustive analysis of the bill, I think, is not an accurate way to characterize it. The 127 amendments were filed--I believe that many of those 127 amendments were filed because we are not having what has been the longstanding tradition allowed to Members of this House, and that is an open amendment process for consideration of the measure. And that's why, again, I urge my colleagues to vote with Mr. Diaz-Balart in opposition to the previous question. And when that is defeated, make in order his amendment that would simply allow Members to have the right to make germane modifications to their amendments. I also submit for the Record a copy of the announcement I posted on the Committee on Rules Republican web site, instructing Members of the restrictions created by a restrictive pre-printing rule and giving them guidance about how best to preserve their right to have amendments considered. Majority Restricts Amendment Process for Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill Earlier today, the Majority announced that next week the House will consider H.R. __, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. However, unlike consideration of virtually all of appropriations bills during the years of the Republican Majority, the Democratic Majority has announced its intention to restrict the amendment process by requiring all amendments to be pre-printed in the Congressional Record by the end of the legislative day on June 15, 2009. Members should be aware that this deadline allows barely 2 legislative days to draft and submit amendments for printing. This is a subtle--yet extremely significant--departure from the long-standing, bipartisan tradition of considering most of the regular appropriations bills under completely open rules. This change means-- Members must file their amendments by the deadline announced by the Majority, or they will not be able to offer their amendments; If the amendment is not printed in the Congressional Record by the deadline (perhaps due to space limitations imposed by the Government Printing Office or other printing problems), Members will not be able to offer their amendments; If the Office of Legislative Counsel is unable to keep up with the demand for drafting amendments by the deadline, those Members will be unable to offer their amendments; If Members need to change their amendments during the process (for instance, if an offset is stricken by an earlier amendment), they will not be permitted to do so; If a bill is considered over multiple days, Members will not be able to offer amendments if they are printed after the deadline announced by the Majority, even if the bill is still being debated; In many cases, Members will have to file amendments without the benefit of a review by the Office of the Parliamentarian or the Congressional Budget Office, and may not receive early notice on possible points of order; and, If Members need to change their own amendments to correct technical errors or reflect a negotiated change, they will not be permitted to do so, except through unanimous consent. The Majority has demonstrated that it is openly hostile to allowing Members to make technical corrections on the floor after an amendment has been printed. Members and staff are encouraged to watch the video on our website entitled ``The Problem with Pre-Printing'' which demonstrates some of the problems that can arise from a pre- printing rule. You may also wish to review the materials dealing with appropriations bills which are part of our Parliamentary Boot Camp educational series and our fact sheet on pre-printing amendments in the Congressional Record. In order to assist Members in bringing their ideas to the floor even with this restrictive amendment process, the Rules Committee Republicans suggest the following: 1. Make sure the amendments are printed by the deadline. This is the most important element of a pre-printing rule. Unlike years past, where the rule simply required that the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record at any point during consideration of the bill, the Democratic Majority has set hard deadlines for pre-printing, meaning that you may be deprived of the opportunity to offer your amendment if you miss the deadline, even when the bill is considered on multiple days. 2. Coordinate with the Republican staff of the Appropriations Committee. They will do their best to advise you on possible procedural problems (including compliance with the Budget Act), even if they disagree with the substance of your amendment. 3. File multiple versions of amendments. If you are concerned about possible points of order that may lie against your amendment, such as budget act violations, violations of ``legislating on appropriations bills,'' or other similar points of order, you should file multiple versions of the amendment to give yourself options if you want to offer it. If it is not printed, it cannot be offered. 4. In a pinch, don't be afraid to draft your own amendment. While the Office of Legislative Counsel provides excellent, nonpartisan advice and drafting services, they are not always able to provide drafted amendments by the printing deadline. If they are unable to provide assistance by the deadline, prepare the amendment in your own office and submit it. While it is advisable, there is no requirement that amendments be drafted by the Office of Legislative Counsel. 5. Amendments should be drafted with relative references instead of page and line numbers. The Majority has posted the text of the bill on the Rules Committee's website, but this is not the final version of the bill. When printed by GPO, the page and line numbers will likely change. By drafting references relative to the rest of the bill (i.e., ``In the second sentence of the paragraph captioned . . .'') you will protect yourself against changes resulting from the printing process. 6. Consult with the Parliamentarians, CBO, and the Budget Committee. Even if an amendment is printed in the Record by the deadline, it is still subject to potential points of order or Budget Act violations. However, if you cannot get an answer from these offices by the deadline, you should still file the amendment for pre-printing and continue to pursue your inquiries. The Republican staff of the Committee on Rules stands ready to assist your offices in dealing with this restrictive amendment process. Should you have any questions, please contact the Republican staff of the Committee on Rules at x5- 9191.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues--and I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that I revere this institution. 220 years ago this summer, James Madison, following the urging of his constituents, came back to the House of Representatives, doing something that he actually opposed when he penned the U.S. Constitution: that being the implementation of the very important Bill of Rights, which is something that we as Americans spend a lot of time thinking about and which is something that the rest of the world looks to. There are people in Iran today who are looking at our Bill of Rights as they think about the need to pursue democracy and as they choose their leaders in their country. Peoples all over the world continue to look to our Bill of Rights. It was 220 years ago this summer that James Madison moved the Bill of Rights through this institution. I'm going to, next month, spend some time talking about that historic summer 220 years ago. I say that simply to underscore the fact that I have such great regard for the precedents and for the rules of the House of Representatives, and I consider it a great privilege to serve with Mr. Diaz-Balart, with Mr. Arcuri and with the other members who serve on the House Rules Committee. I take the work there very, very seriously. I believe that we're at a troubling moment when it comes to the deliberative nature of this institution. We had the exchange that took place between the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on this process of filing amendments. We had a rigorous debate that took place in the Rules Committee yesterday about the fact that appropriations bills are considered as privileged. As you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is there is no need for a special rule for the consideration of appropriations bills. Constitutionally, it is a very important part of the process. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution makes it very clear that spending doesn't emanate from the White House; it emanates from the United States Congress. By tradition, it begins here in the House of Representatives. As I stand here, I'm thinking about conversations that I had with one of the greatest Members to ever serve here, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher), who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and who was the long-time chairman of the Health Subcommittee. I remember his saying to me that he believed appropriations bills should come to the floor without being considered with a special rule because they are considered as privileged; but the tradition over the past several decades has been that the need for a special rule would allow for the protection of the bill, meaning that points of order could not be raised against the work product of the Appropriations Committee and that we would then allow for an open amendment process, meaning that any Member could stand up here in the House and offer a germane amendment to the appropriations bill. It is true that the appropriations process can be prolonged, and it has been in the past; but when we were in the majority, having presided regularly over the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, I remember witnessing the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee or of the subcommittee come together and have an agreement that amendments would be addressed and that they would put an outside time limit for the consideration of those amendments. Over my nearly three decades here, Mr. Speaker, I've seen that happen on a regular basis. Guess what? It has worked out pretty doggone well. Now, there are people who are disturbed over the fact that 127 amendments were filed yesterday at the Rules Committee to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. That was not necessary. That was not necessary, and it would not have happened had we had the standard open amendment process for the consideration of measures. Yes, there are a number of very important issues that I and my colleagues believe should be addressed in this appropriations bill. I will say that it could be done under an open amendment process, but unfortunately, the majority has decided to not only have a preprinting requirement but to set an arbitrary deadline so that, if appropriations bills may be considered more than a day or so later, one could not file additional amendments for the consideration of the measure. In our attempt to get a commitment that we would simply be able to allow Members to make germane modifications to their amendments, we have been denied that. In fact, we had a vote in the Rules Committee last night. I know, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. This is very inside baseball. I know I may not be quite on message, but I think the message is a very clear one: It's fairness in dealing with the challenges that the American people are facing. So we had a party-line vote, Mr. Speaker. We had this vote, and we were denied the opportunity to allow Members to even make germane modifications to amendments that had been submitted to the Rules Committee. Now, Mr. Diaz-Balart is going to make an attempt to defeat the previous question. This vote on the previous question is one that will simply say that we, as an institution, want the American people, through their elected Representatives, to have the chance to think about, to deliberate and to vote on the measures included in this appropriations bill and we hope in the other I guess it is 11 now appropriations bills, in addition to the one that we're considering here today. It is a troubling pattern which undermines deliberative democracy. Now, it's not unusual, but it is very troubling. I don't know how many amendments would have been offered if we'd had an open amendment process; but guess what? I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, for a second that 127 amendments would have been offered. I think there would have been many, many fewer than that. When the Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike, are told that they can't even make germane modifications to their amendments, there is little choice other than to have Members file many, many, many different amendments so that we will at least be able to allow this process to proceed. Chairman Obey referred to the fact that the issue of global climate change and the issue of health care are both issues that the Democratic majority wants to bring to the forefront in the next couple of months. We understand that elections have consequences, and those are issues that they clearly have a right to bring up. I want to address those issues. On our side, we want to address those issues in a slightly different way, but we don't believe that we should be addressing those issues at the expense of the very important process enshrined in article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, and that is the power of the purse: the appropriations process. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to join Mr. Diaz- Balart, the gentleman from Miami, in attempting to defeat the previous question in the name of deliberative democracy so that we can allow elected representatives to in fact represent their constituents. And if by chance the previous question is passed, I am going to urge my colleagues to join in opposition to the rule because we can do a better job.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I appreciate his kind remarks. And I will say that the gentleman is relatively new to the institution. And I would say that, frankly, since the gentleman has been here, we have not really had as many open rules as we should. I know that there has been an attempt made to define a modified open rule as an open rule----

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I look forward to getting some time from my friend from Miami.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of Mr. Mollohan's amendment, of which I am a co-sponsor, to increase funds for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). I'm pleased that we were able to work in a bipartisan manner to increase SCAAP by $100 million, from $300 million to $400 million. Representatives Lewis, Honda, Calvert, Schiff, Edwards, Culberson, Linda Sanchez, Mitchell, Gary Miller, Giffords, McCaul and Kirkpatrick all provided valuable input and support to make this happen. Securing our nation's borders is the responsibility of the federal government. Congress has consistently legislated that the federal government must either take criminal aliens into federal custody or reach an agreement to compensate state and local jurisdictions for their incarceration. The cost of jailing criminal illegal immigrants has placed an enormous cost on all of our states and local governments. My state of California, in particular, shoulders the greatest burden of illegal immigration, and has received over $2.5 billion in SCAAP funds since the inception of the program, representing 42 percent of nationwide SCAAP awards. Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County, which I represent, receive only a fraction of what they spend to jail criminal illegal immigrants. According to Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, incarcerating illegal aliens costs the County $100 million per year. And according to San Bernardino County Sheriff Rod Hoops, jailing illegal immigrants costs the County $24 million per year. Yet last year, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties only received $14 million and $2.3 million, respectively. In fact, since 2000, Los Angeles County has received $159 million in SCAAP funds and San Bernardino County has been awarded $6.7 million. In nine years, Los Angeles County was reimbursed an amount equal to what it spends on jailing criminal illegal immigrants in just a year and a half, while San Bernardino County received SCAAP funds equal to what it spends in less than half a year. While the underlying bill provides $300 million for SCAAP, this is still $100 million less than we provided last year. At a time when our state and local governments are feeling the financial crunch, they should not be forced to continue to shoulder what is a federal responsibility. This amendment will add $100 million to SCAAP, restoring the program to its 2009 level of $400 million. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it seems like a long time ago, but I would like to begin by congratulating my friend from Miami for his very thoughtful and very passionate opening statement. It's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we get this bill right because it clearly has an impact on every bilateral, regional and multilateral relationship that we have in the world. And I hope very much that at the end of the day, we will be able to get it right. I would like to take my time to talk about just one of those very important bilateral relationships that we have, and that is the relationship with what Colin Powell described as the most misunderstood country in the world. I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, about the fourth most populous country in the world, the largest Muslim population in the world, and of course, by virtue of that, the largest Muslim democracy in the world, that being Indonesia. Now, as we look at the changes that have taken place over the past 11 years in Indonesia, it is absolutely remarkable and extraordinarily impressive. The 32-year reign of Suharto came to an end in 1998, and since that time, we have seen democracy take hold and build. We all know that democracy is a work in progress. We in America know that our democracy continues to be a work in progress and Indonesia's is as well. The challenge of ensuring that the military comes under civilian rule is one with which they're still grappling. And if you think about this country, 17,000 different islands and hundreds of languages and ethnicities, and yet they have been able to cobble together what President Yudhoyono described to some of us as the convergence of modernity, Islam, and democracy. So, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to this day to work on that relationship through our House Democracy Assistance Commission, where we're working to build the parliament which, again, a little more than a decade ago was a sham organization, and today it is growing and building well. Other institutions, including the very important rule of law in Indonesia, are continuing to build as well. So there are challenges. We all know that. And I hope very much that we will be able to continue to encourage the kind of reform that is taking place there. So at the end of the day, I have to say on this measure that we're dealing with, as Mr. Diaz-Balart has pointed out so well, there are some important amendments that some of my colleagues have spoken about that were not made in order. So I'm going to urge my colleagues to join with us in opposition to this rule because Mr. Smith, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, and others, argued that we should have an open amendment process that would allow a free-flowing debate on all of these issues.

Mr. DREIER. I think it could be even better if we were to have an open amendment process. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, we were all saddened by the passing of our former colleague Jack Kemp who served with such great distinction in this House and in former President Bush's cabinet. He was most famous for his football career and the following poem from Capitol Guide Albert Carey Caswell reflects on his wonderful life. Jack, You Went Deep! In the game of life . . . going long or deep . . . What, steps must we so take . . . to so make our lives complete? All upon this earth, so very deep! As left behind, when our time runs out to reap! All in the calls that we so make, all in the hearts that we so touch . . . so very deep! Whether, on fields of green . . . Or walking upon, those most hallowed halls of Congress seen . . . Jack, you . . . always went deep! A Jack of all trades, a Renaissance Man God so made . . . all in our hearts to keep! A Fine Father, A Fine Husband . . . and a Good Friend! A True Leader, of both Women and Men! Whether, on fields of green . . . or in those halls of Congress seen . . . As Jack, was always well armed to compete! For this man could lead! A Man of character and class, soft spoken . . . who in our hearts now lasts! As why Bob Dole, saw your fine soul . . . and wanted to make you his VP! As why all of Buffalo knows, to what a fine man Jack Kemp so rose! For in the game of life, when . . . he came up to that line . . . He would always shine, and go deep . . . and not think twice! And, for all of his leadership . . . and all of his accomplishments so bright. . . The greatest thing of all, for which we so weep tonight! Is that Family Man, so very bright . . . For it was once said, ``In the end, the love you send'' . . . ``Is equal to the number you make!'' Upon, looking at his family's Christmas cards! The tears in our eyes, now run so very hard! Knowing what his fine life and love . . . had so meant! For Love of God and Country, and Family your life was spent! But, for you Jack . . . you kind soft spoken man . . . Heaven, could not wait! As why, In the Game of Life . . . Jack, your life was so complete! As Jack . . . yea! You, went deep! In honor of a warm hearted man, Congressman Jack Kemp . . . A great leader on and off the field . . . a fine father, a great husband and a family man . . . during the Memorial Day Concert at The Capitol, Dan Snyder asked me if I had written anything for his friend Jack. Inspired by his request and Jack this tribute was written.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and, Madam Speaker, I will inform my friend that there are no other requests for time on our side of the aisle. At this juncture, I will encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. First, let me say how great it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I would like to express my appreciation to my good friend from California, my colleague, Mr. Cardoza, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this rule actually provides for the consideration of two problematic bills--H.R. 1385, which would extend recognition to six Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and H.R. 31, which would extend recognition to the Lumbee Tribe in the State of North Carolina. Both adopt an arbitrary and inconsistent recognition process that threatens those tribes who are already Federally recognized and upends the process for future applicants. And this rule provides for an even more problematic process. The issue of tribe recognition--like all matters before Congress-- demands clarity, fairness and transparency. The two underlying bills, unfortunately, deliver just the opposite. H.R. 1385 would extend recognition to six Virginia tribes rather than requiring that they go through the normal Federal recognition process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These tribes have sought legislative action because they lack the proper documentation to complete the regular administrative process. This is due to the fact--and it was correctly pointed out by my California colleague--that they've been victims of targeted attacks in the past which resulted in the destruction of many of the very important historical documents that would have been necessary. This is a reminder, Mr. Speaker, of a very, very ugly chapter in our Nation's history, and Congress should work very carefully to address this issue. While the situation of the Virginia tribes is difficult--and I recognize that--for the reasons I just stated, we need to consider the overall fairness of our actions. For instance, there are currently nine other tribes, nine other tribes that have fully completed their application processes and are awaiting final determinations. They have done their due diligence and deserve to have their cases addressed in the proper order. While the six tribes covered in H.R. 1385 may deserve special dispensation from the normal BIA process, questions have been raised regarding the fairness of penalizing the nine other tribes who fully completed the process and are patiently waiting in line for the determination. The process serves a purpose: ensuring that tribal determination is fair, consistent and fully vetted. We need to think very, very carefully, Mr. Speaker, before upending that regime. H.R. 31 is even more controversial, not least because the price tag comes to $786 million--or, Mr. Speaker, I should say ``at least'' $786 million. We know that an enactment of this bill would cost, again, at least three-quarters of a billion dollars. And I say ``billion'' because I know the word ``trillion'' is used more frequently around here tragically these days. But it would be very, very, very costly. It could balloon to an even larger level of funding. At issue is conflicting membership estimates of the Lumbee Tribe. The Interior Department estimates it at 40,000; the tribe itself estimates it at about 55,000, a difference of nearly 40 percent. But what's more, local North Carolina media have reported that some in the tribe intend to expand its membership once this bill is enacted. They're waiting for Federal recognition and then want to increase their numbers, expanding the cost of this bill even further and pulling resources away from the long-recognized tribes. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Lumbee Tribe, just like any other Indian tribe, should obtain Federal recognition on its merits. It may indeed deserve recognition. However, the merits are still far from clear. The last several administrations have opposed their application. The Obama administration has reversed course, but it has not offered any explanation as to why. In fact, the administration does not yet have its appointees in place at the Interior Department to even articulate their reasoning. Mr. Speaker, Congress must fully vet all of these issues and act in a clear, comprehensive way that eliminates the current confusion and restores clarity and certainty. And yet inexplicably, the rule which we're debating right now curtails the ability of Members, Republican and Democratic Members, to offer their amendments so that a comprehensive consensus solution could, in fact, be reached. Rather than an open process which would have allowed the House to address many of these issues, the rule for the Lumbee Tribe bill is a closed rule, despite submission of the very thoughtful amendment by Mr. Shuler. It is, in fact, a bipartisan amendment. He should be allowed to bring his alternative before the House for an up-or-down vote. It's very sad that I have to stand here as a minority Member fighting for the rights of a majority Member of this institution. Similarly, Madam Speaker, the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, our friend from Roanoke, Virginia, (Mr. Goodlatte) asked for an open amendment process on the Virginia bill. While two of his amendments were made in order, an open process would have allowed him to offer all of his amendments and permitted all Members to participate. Madam Speaker, these bills have problems but this rule has a bigger problem. As happens all too often in this Democratic majority, this debate will be closed rather than open, and Members will be shut out of the process. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. We can address these very, very important issues in a more fair and balanced way. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.