David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I could ask my friend to further yield, I will say absolutely not. I will tell you that what I was talking about was the tax that is imposed on those people in upper income brackets, 82 percent of whom are small business owners in this country. That's the tax that we were talking about in the last measure, and that played a big role in leading those of us who want to ensure that we get this economy growing again that we would not, in fact, impinge on that by imposing that tax increase. So I will say to my friend, let's move ahead. Let's make sure that we get the important funding to our troops so that we can be successful in ensuring our safety, and I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I want to begin by expressing my great appreciation to the very able and distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, my dear friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I will say, Madam Speaker, that I stand here with somewhat mixed emotions. While I am happy that we are going to finally ensure that our men and women in uniform who are on the front lines ensuring the safety of our fellow Americans are going to have the funding that is necessary, I'm saddened that we are here at this juncture considering this measure under a process which was not at all necessary. Madam Speaker, if we had, literally months ago, months ago, come to this point, we could have, under regular order, very easily provided the necessary troop funding that is out there, dealt with the issue of unemployment benefits, which is going to be addressed, and ensure that we're not going to put into place a massive tax increase on job creators here in the United States. So I will say, Madam Speaker, that we want to do everything that we can to, as expeditiously as possible, meet the demand that has been set forward by our leaders on the frontline in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope very much that my colleagues will join with me. It's not normal that I would support this structure that would allow for same- day consideration of the measure, but I believe it is imperative that we get funding to our troops, and I believe that the measure that we're going to consider in just a little while from now will allow us to do that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to our very thoughtful and hardworking colleague from Columbus, Indiana, an area that has been victimized by the floods and will be assisted in this package that is coming forward, Mr. Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield my friend 1 additional minute.

Mr. DREIER. I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Pryce for introducing H.R. 1553, the Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2008. As a co-sponsor of the bill, I am proud to support this measure. We all know that cancer is a devastating disease that affects untold numbers of Americans each year. While it is often easy to think of cancer as only affecting adults, the measure before us today is a reminder that cancer is in fact the leading cause of disease-related death in children in the United States, claiming the lives some 2,300 children annually. It is therefore fitting that this bill has been named in honor of Caroline Pryce Walker, the late daughter of our colleague Deborah Pryce, who lost her battle against neuroblastoma in 1999 at nine years of age. As many of us know, there are numerous institutions throughout the country which are dedicated to providing better care and research for childhood cancer patients. I am particularly proud to have several participating institutions located in my home state of California, including Cure Search, which has a research center located in the city of Arcadia, as well as the City of Hope, which is located in the city of Duarte. These institutions work under an unincorporated, nationwide network known as the Children's Oncology Group, which is comprised of over 200 childhood cancer treatment and research centers that collaborate on clinical trials and translational research of pediatric cancer. The work of Cure Search and the City of Hope, along with hundreds of other institutions across the county, has helped to make significant advances in the treatment of childhood cancer. When the National Cancer Institute founded the first pediatric cooperatives in 1955, the childhood cancer survival rate was a mere ten percent. Thanks to the collaborative work being performed through the Children's Oncology Group, that number has risen to seventy five percent today, and it is because of these joint efforts that new trends and therapies in childhood cancer are discovered each year. However, in recent years, treating cancer has become just one aspect of addressing the health needs of children afflicted with the disease. The Children's Oncology Group has been at the forefront of raising awareness about the challenges that exist in the post-treatment, cancer survivorship period. For example, few may know that two-thirds of the children who survive cancer will ultimately experience at least one, if not more, long-term health issue as a result of their treatment. These so called ``late-effects'' pose substantial health challenges for those who are fortunate enough to survive childhood cancer as well as for the doctors who treat them. To that end, the Children's Oncology Group has taken an important lead in focusing greater attention on long-term complications that arise from radiation and other therapies and has worked to study the long-term care needs of childhood cancer survivors. In fact, one of my constituents, Dr. Smita Bhatia, a resident of Arcadia who works at the City of Hope, served as the Chair of the Late Effects Committee at the Children's Oncology Group for eight years and was instrumental in establishing national guidelines for survivorship care. Today, these guidelines are being used to help equip survivors with the tools they need to identify the side-effects of specific cancer treatments and remain healthy as they mature into adulthood. The measure before us today will help advance our understanding of childhood cancer by addressing the need to obtain more accurate data to study trends and evaluate the most effective courses of treatment. While approximately 12,500 children in the United States are diagnosed with cancer each year, researchers have experienced great difficulties in pinpointing the exact causes of childhood cancer. Because of its random occurrence in children across the United States, it has been nearly impossible to acquire statistically significant data on the causes of and effective treatments for childhood cancer. The work of Cure Search and the City of Hope will be amplified by the underlying bill, which authorizes the creation of a national childhood cancer research database to provide better statistics on the occurrence of childhood cancer as well as the most effective treatments for patients. Building this database is critical to ensuring that those who are responsible for treating childhood cancer have the very best data available to them. Additionally, the bill authorizes $30 million to enhance and expand biomedical research programs that allow scientists to study how tumors form and spread as well as the impact that genetics can have on the likelihood of cancer and relapses of the disease. The bill also will provide better educational and informational services for childhood cancer patients and their families to ensure that they have access to appropriate clinical treatments and support services. H.R. 1553, Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, affirms a long-term commitment to providing a cure to childhood cancer and also will ensure that doctors and patients alike are provided with the best information to make important medical decisions in the near- term. As we seek to address the needs of childhood cancer patients, survivors and their families, I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the research that will be authorized by H.R. 1553 and support this bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me just say the 1935 Social Security Act is a debate that took place more than a couple of years ago. Let's talk about what it is that we as Republicans have believed passionately in doing, and that is to ensure that people who are hurting the most are in fact able to benefit from unemployment benefits. You know, we had an interesting debate in the Rules Committee last night. We just talked about the need for PAYGO compliance. Of course that was the sine qua non when we were debating the rules at the beginning of this Congress, the fact that we were going to make sure that everything was PAYGO compliant. Obviously this is not PAYGO compliant. Everyone has acknowledged that. The distinguished chair of the Rules Committee in a discussion with Mr. Hastings last night finally acknowledged that this is not PAYGO compliant, so completely contrary to what has been promised here time and time again. But when it comes to actually ensuring that those who are truly in need are the beneficiaries of unemployment compensation, it seems to me we should go back not to 1935, but to 2002 because we had an extension of unemployment benefits that was put into place in 2002. Madam Speaker, virtually every Democrat at that time supported the notion of saying there should be a minimum of 20 weeks of work, 20 weeks of work before someone could have the opportunity to see the unemployment benefits accrued to them. What is it that this measure does? I will tell you, when I talk to my constituents about this, Madam Speaker, they are absolutely horrified. I just was downstairs 5 minutes ago talking to one of my constituents about it, and I explained what I am about to say here to our colleagues, and she could not believe it. Every member of her family with her, they were absolutely horrified when I said the following: under this plan, if someone works for only 2 weeks, they work only 2 weeks in their entire life, they are able to receive 52 weeks, one entire year of unemployment benefits. That's what it says, that's what this measure does. In 2002 when we dealt with this issue, the Democrats decided there should be at least 20 weeks of work. And now when we have an unemployment rate, which as I acknowledged has gone up a half a percent, and it hasn't gone up to that level in 22 years, it is very unfortunate, it is still significantly lower than the unemployment rate we have seen in the past. And what are they saying, if someone has worked for only 2 weeks, they are able to see 52 weeks of benefits. That is just plain wrong. I will tell you, whether you are a working American or an American looking for a job, that is not right because perpetuating the welfare state is exactly what that does. It is not providing a cushion of benefits. We also believe, Madam Speaker, that the opportunity to say, gosh, if someone is out there and they are working to find an employment opportunity and they do, we believe we should reward that by providing them a lump-sum benefit, a lump-sum benefit that has rewarded them for the fact that they have found a job. We know it is difficult. We are not saying that everyone is going to be able to, but that is the kind of thing that we want to do. And what has happened here? Well, the new majority has said an absolute closed rule, no opportunity for us to offer that kind of amendment. Let me get back to the issue that we have been talking about time and time again which is on the minds of the American people, Madam Speaker, and that is the issue of high gasoline prices and the energy costs that we face right now. You think about people who are struggling and are looking to find a job and are out there, looking to improve their situation, I will tell you, one of the cruelest penalties of all on them happens to be high gasoline prices. Last night I had one of our telephone town hall meetings, and I had the opportunity to have nearly 5,000 households from the area that I am privileged to represent from southern California on the phone, and we talked about the need to increase energy supply. I took a number of questions during the one-hour program and not one person, not one person, Democrat, Republican, Independent, we call people regardless of their political party, not one person opposed our efforts to try to increase supply, recognizing if we can increase the supply by responsibly and in an environmentally sound way, exploring in ANWR, by pursuing the cleanest, safest most cost-effective energy source known to man, that being nuclear energy, by working to increase our refinery capacity, by looking at the shale reserves in this country, and again in an environmentally sound way exploring them, deep water exploration off the coast, those are the things that we believe are necessary. And, Madam Speaker, not one of my participants on our conference call last night indicated opposition to that. The American people get it. They know that for two decades plus we have unfortunately seen a majority of the new majority in this place stand there and prevent us from pursuing opportunities to increase the supply so that we can bring prices down. Now I had the chance to talk with a number of experts on this issue, a number of our colleagues who represent States like Texas and Oklahoma, and one of the things that we hear time and time again is we need an immediate response. I listened to my friend from Utah talk about action. Well, I wondered, how are we going to be able to immediately bring gasoline prices down? Having spoken to a wide range of people, because of the fact that oil prices are based on futures, if we take any of those actions that I outlined, whether it is in an environmentally sound way pursuing ANWR, whether it is deep water exploration, whether it is looking at shale, whether it is nuclear energy, if we were to take any of those actions, we would, Madam Speaker, see an immediate reduction, an immediate reduction. Why, because there would be recognition in the marketplace that we are now vigorously pursuing an effort to increase our supply. So those people who are unemployed, and that is what this issue is about, those people who are out there responsibly working hard to find a job, are being penalized by high gasoline prices, just as every other American is being penalized by it because of the increased cost of virtually everything. That is why it is terribly unfair for us not to responsibly look at these creative proposals that are out there. We want to ensure that people who are hurting are able to benefit from the unemployment compensation that we provide. So everyone on the other side can stand up and say the Republicans don't care about those who are facing difficulty economically; that is absolute baloney. We care. We want to make sure that there are opportunities there. We want to make sure that we open up new markets around the world for job creation and economic growth so that good jobs can be created right here. Let's defeat this rule and let's come forward with a measure that can get the signature of the President, because we all know that this is going no place. The Statement of Administration Policy, which I will include for the Record, has made it very clear that the President wants us to put in job creation policies, and he wants to work to responsibly deal with unemployment compensation, and the attempt to embarrass us is not going to sell with the American people. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 5749--Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 The Administration is deeply committed to continually fostering an environment where every American who wants a job has a job. The Administration believes the best way to help workers is to create an environment that encourages job creation and to promote effective job training. To accomplish these goals, the Administration urges Congress to create more opportunities for American exporters by passing the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, make permanent the President's tax cuts that will expire over the next two years, and reform and reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and the Workforce Investment Act. The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to enact these important measures. However, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5749. If H.R. 5749 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. This legislation raises several concerns. First, although the unemployment rate has recently risen, it remains below the levels historically relied on to justify a federally financed extension of unemployment benefits. The last initiation of temporary extended benefits was in 2002 amidst the unprecedented events surrounding September 11, 2001. Other than that special case, extensions have generally been granted only when the unemployment rate was notably higher than it is today, at or above 7 percent. Second, this bill would allow the payment of up to 13 extra weeks of benefits in every State, even though some of those States have unemployment rates as low as 2.6 percent. At present, a majority of States have unemployment rates at or below 5 percent, and it is fiscally irresponsible to provide extra benefits in States with low unemployment rates. In States with higher unemployment rates, the Federal-State extended benefits program already can provide up to 13 additional weeks of benefits to workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment insurance benefits. As many economists have noted, the counterproductive result of a broad extension of benefits would be that recipients may remain unemployed for slightly longer than they would have otherwise. Third, this bill does not contain an important provision found in previous Federal extensions and the permanent Federal-State extended benefits law that assures the benefit extension is paid only to individuals who have demonstrated a serious attachment to the labor force. Since 1981, individuals must have 20 weeks of full-time employment to qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Under this bill, individuals who have worked as little as two weeks could qualify for up to 52 weeks of total unemployment benefits. This violates the longstanding requirement that extended benefits should be for Americans with meaningful work histories. Fourth, for purposes of determining whether a State is considered a ``high unemployment'' State in which an extra 13 weeks of benefits is payable (for a total of 26 weeks of additional benefits), this proposal would use a total unemployment rate of 6 percent as the trigger for State eligibility. This is, historically, a relatively low number for justifying a full year or more of unemployment benefits. As an alternative to these ill-targeted and costly measures, the Administration could support legislation that would offer a 13-week extension of Federally financed unemployment benefits to high-unemployment States alone.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I will tell you that this debate is to me rather sad. I listened to my friend, Mr. McDermott, with whom I have been very privileged to work for many years on trying to open up new markets for U.S. workers, to have access into those markets around the world. He represents the Seattle area, and we all know how important trade is. He and I have been privileged to try and pry open markets in Asia and Latin America and other parts of the world. I just was downstairs and heard him on TV make some statement, and I would be happy to yield to him if I am incorrect in quoting him. He said Republicans don't care about those who are unemployed, those who are suffering and are victimized here. And I would be happy to yield. Is that what my friend said? I would say to my friend from Seattle, I would be happy to yield to him, that Republicans don't care about those who are unemployed?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield? It has nothing to do with feelings being hurt on this issue. My feelings aren't hurt at all over this issue. My concern happens to be the U.S. Constitution. I know that raising the term ``the Constitution'' is something that my friend might not like. And I congratulate him on his work product on this bill through the process and all. I know he has worked very hard. My feelings aren't hurt. I am just saying that we believe that things need to be done correctly, under the Constitution.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say my friend has just indicated that there was discussion that took place with the ranking minority member and the Republican Whip before the vote took place. The concern that we have on this issue is the fact that we even moved ahead with consideration when there was protest raised by our leadership staff saying that we have a problem here, it needs to be addressed. I didn't even know that this was taking place until we were well into debate on the attempt to override the President's veto. So that is a concern we have raised. We acknowledge that mistakes are made. We know that happens. It has happened under both parties in the past. But to proceed when there has been concern raised by the minority staff is another matter. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I simply want to say that the concern that we have was the rush to proceed with that veto override vote last night, when in fact from what I infer from what the distinguished chairman has just said, Mr. Speaker, that obviously the bill should be together. We should in fact move ahead, for all intents and purposes, from scratch on this so that we can follow, as Mr. Hastings up in the Rules Committee last night explained when we talk to school groups, how a bill becomes the law. This is not the way it is done. This is not the way it was envisaged by the Framers of our Constitution. And, as I said last night in the Rules Committee, we have Members looking at article I, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, which does raise this. All we are saying is we acknowledge mistakes were made. We don't believe there was any intent here, until we proceeded after, and, again this is a bipartisan bill, after there was concern raised from our minority leadership staff members. So that is why I believe that the decision was an incorrect one. And the notion of our now including in this Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization bill in the rule to allow that bill to come up a provision that allows us to proceed with this kind of debate is just plain wrong. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I am happy to continue engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Agriculture. What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that, again, we all acknowledge that mistakes are made. But this is a bill that has enjoyed bipartisan support. I am not going to give all my arguments. I have given them during debate on the bill. I voted against the bill, but I am not standing here trying to block it from becoming public law. We saw there were only 108 of us yesterday that voted to sustain the President's veto, so that much is there. But the fact is that is not the bill that we voted on in this institution before, and with this concern that has come to the forefront, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that since our Republican leadership staff indicated to members of the majority that we should not proceed until we resolve this matter, and as we discussed yesterday in our colloquy with the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, the notion of all of a sudden taking part of one bill, having it signed or vetoed, and that bill not all being included as one, it has created a tremendous confusion and a potential constitutional quagmire.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009: Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Chang Industry. Address of Requesting Entity: 1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite F, La Verne, California 91750. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $6,000,000 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 $200,000 is for identifying and refining the operational requirement; $4,000,000 is for system development; $600,000 is for materials and equipment; $1,200,000 is for testing and evaluation. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Army, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Tanner Research. Address of Requesting Entity: 825 South Myrtle Avenue, Monrovia, California 91016. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $5,000,000 to complete development of a Dual-Mode Micro Seeker (radio frequency/electro- optical (RF/EO)) being developed with the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. This funding seeks to improve the accuracy of gun-launched and small missile interceptors used on current and emerging defensive weapons systems by increasing the accuracy needed to counter incoming rocket, artillery and mortar threats. Approximately $600,000 will be used for RF signal processing development; $1,700,000 for monolithic microwave integrated circuits and complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor integrated circuit development; $1,200,000 for EO avalanche photodiode (APD) circuit development; $900,000 for RF seeker integration; and $600,000 for EO seeker integration. In each example, system development cost is approximately 64 percent; materials and equipment costs are approximately 28 percent; and testing and evaluation are approximately 8 percent. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Army RDT&E account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Air Force, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) Account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advanced Projects Research, Incorporated. Address of Requesting Entity: 1925 McKinley Avenue, Suite B, La Verne, California 91750. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $5,200,000 to continue testing and development of the Wavelength Agile Spectral (WASH) Oxygen Sensor with the guidance of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory in Wright-Paterson Air Force Base, Ohio. The WASH Oxygen Sensor intends to measure oxygen concentration in military high-performance fuel tanks. This funding will also be used for the Cell Level Battery Controller, which intends to monitor and control charge and temperature at the cell level of military battery energy storage systems. Approximately $477,000 will be used for project management; $763,000 for engineering analysis; $1,430,000 for engineering design; $954,000 for hardware fabrication and assembly; $1,144,000 for test engineering; $62,000 for material and hardware; $348,000 for subcontracts; and $22,000 for travel. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air Force RDT&E account. Requesting Member: Congressman David Dreier. Bill Number: H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Account: Air National Guard, Operation and Maintenance account. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Gentex Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 11525 Sixth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Description of Request: Provide an earmark of $2,000,000 to supply Air National Guard aircrews with approximately 2,200 MBU-20A/P Oxygen Masks with Mask Lights. The oxygen mask's unit price is approximately $900 per unit. The MBU-20A/P was approved for fleet wide implementation in an effort to standardize to a common enhanced oxygen mask. Approximately, 34 percent of the funding is for manufacturing labor; 4 percent is for sustainment and systems engineering support; 6 percent is for inspections and tests; 20 percent is for general and administrative costs; 35 percent is for material; 1 percent is for packaging handling shipping and transportation. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the Air National Guard, Operation and Maintenance account.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank the distinguished Republican leader for yielding. As the leader has said, this is a circumstance that does bring to mind the Deficit Reduction Act controversy which created a huge stir in this place and one with which we are still trying to contend. I just heard that the Rules Committee was scheduled to reconvene at 6:30 this evening to report out the Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization bill, and I have been told that there's going to be some attempt made in the Rules Committee to deal with this issue in that rule. That's the word that we have been hearing over here. I thank my friend for yielding. If he would yield to the distinguished majority leader, I would like to have us enlightened on the prospect of this.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would just like to raise one other point that should be part of those discussions. If I could remind our colleagues, one of the items that was debated vigorously during consideration of the farm bill happened to be the issue of the baseline numbers that were used. We are poised at this moment to bring up a budget resolution which will raise a question as to exactly what baseline level is used and what pay-fors might be out there. So I think that we have some very serious questions that are raised. My friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) just reminded us again that for us to conclude, as the distinguished Republican whip has said, that this bill somehow would have passed identically in the exact same form is a real stretch. For that reason, I think that we have lots of questions that need to be addressed before we do proceed. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me say in the name of saying they are taxing the rich, the facts show it. Eighty-two percent of the people who fall in that category are small businessmen and women. That's just the facts. With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), the ranking member of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee of Ways and Means.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DREIER. In light of the fact there is much more time remaining on the other side, may I ask the distinguished Chair if she might proceed and yield some of her time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, it's just one simple bite at the apple, something we always guaranteed the Democrats when we were in charge. It's one amendment. We're just trying to help the Democratic majority become the majority that they promised that they would be. It's not too late. Let them do it, Madam Speaker. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.