David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Maryland has just advocated vigorously bipartisanship in this process. I am now happy to yield 2 minutes to the coauthor of a bipartisan proposal, my friend from Chattanooga, Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from Ohio how many speakers she has remaining.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend we have a couple of speakers remaining, and if she has more than that, we will continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield my friend an additional minute.

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

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair, what is the procedure to move ahead to ensure that we have enforcement of rule IX?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as legislators there can be no issue of more fundamental importance than the strength and the integrity of our institution. None of our work here, none of our legislative or political priorities matter if we don't have the integrity and the trust of the people that are necessary to be an effective body. The Founders of our Republic, the authors of our Constitution, were well aware of the inherent challenges in making government fully accountable. They understood human nature and the pitfalls that go with investing power in individuals. After all, Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51: ``But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.'' Those were the brilliant words of the Father of our Constitution. Our Founders recognized, Mr. Speaker, these challenges and knew the answer was to empower institutions rather than individuals. They knew that the House of Representatives, like all government institutions, must have the authority and the imperative to preserve its integrity and to punish those individual Members who would tarnish its reputation, diminish its stature, and erode its ability to serve as the representative of the people. They gave explicit constitutional authority to do so. As we all know, Article II, section V, clause 2 of the Constitution directs Congress to ``determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.'' Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, they knew that the most important guarantor of accountable and trustworthy government is democracy itself. No individual Member of Congress ever acts with impunity because we are judged every 2 years by the people who sent us here. And, of course, no one is above the law. As we speak, there are former colleagues of ours serving time in jail for their abuses of the offices that we hold. Outside watchdog groups, the media, individual voters and our criminal justice system are all working, and working quite effectively, to shed some light on this body and ensure Members are held accountable. Externally, Mr. Speaker, the pressure is on. The problem is how to deal with accountability internally; how do we fulfill our constitutional imperative to police ourselves and preserve the integrity of this body. Our current process is broken. It's hamstrung by two key problems: partisan deadlock and a lack of transparency. This a serious challenge. It is so serious that some Members of this body apparently feel that we are not up to the job. A task force was established to consider the question of whether we should just throw up our hands, concede that we are not capable of fulfilling our constitutional duty to police ourselves and set up another body to do it for us. This was a dubious task to begin with, but I believe that it was tackled with all sincerity and commitment. Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith took on the role assigned to them and very carefully considered the question. But the breakdown came when it was time to make its recommendation. The proposal put forth by Mr. Capuano, which ignores the real problem of a broken, internal ethics process, and in fact exacerbates the problem by adding a new partisan outside body, was not endorsed by his Republican counterpart. It met immediate criticism on both sides of the aisle. The Democratic leadership had no choice but to pull it. Now, Mr. Smith offered a very thoughtful alternative, and we were told that consideration of Mr. Capuano's proposal was being postponed in order to work with Mr. Smith and consider his suggestion. That bipartisan negotiation, to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, never took place. Mr. Wamp and Mr. Hill also submitted a proposal, a bipartisan proposal; but it was disregarded as well. Instead, we are back here confronting essentially the same deeply flawed proposal that was yanked from the schedule a couple of weeks ago. They may have put lipstick on that pig, but it is still a pig, Mr. Speaker. This proposal still sets the stage for partisan witch hunts. It may take bipartisan support to initiate investigations, but they can be advanced purely on partisan lines. So at the very beginning, when little information is known, bipartisanship is called for. But once the process begins, the flood gates for partisan attacks are wide open. The minor modifications made to the original proposal do nothing more than attempt to obfuscate the utterly partisan nature of the proposed Office of Congressional Ethics. As we have seen countless times under the Democratic leadership, a bad proposal demands a draconian process to get it through. And the worse the proposal is, the worse the process needs to be. We've seen an explosion of closed rules in this Congress. And what does a closed rule do? It severely restricts debate and shuts out all amendments. This has become the go-to rule for this new majority. And that's as bad as it could possibly get. Right? There is nothing worse that they could do than to shut out all amendments and alternatives. Right? I used to think so until this point, until we saw this rule. This one absolutely takes the cake, Mr. Speaker. In case you missed it when the Clerk read it, and allow me to repeat it, pay attention or you will miss it again: ``Resolved, that House Resolution 895, as amended by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, is hereby adopted.'' That's what the resolution says. This rule actually provides for passage of the underlying proposal without so much as one single word of debate on this proposal. They simply declare it into existence. No debate, no vote. A closed rule may shut out dissent, but this rule eliminates deliberation altogether. Before this Congress even began, our distinguished Speaker, my fellow Californian, committed to ``the most honest and open government,'' has managed to stoop to unprecedented lows in closed, inaccessible government that operates purely on back-room deals with no place for open, honest debate. And for what purpose? To ram through a policy so bad it has been widely and heavily criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. A policy to turn our ethics process into nothing more than cheap partisan games and a policy of abandoning our constitutional imperative to police ourselves and ensure the integrity of this great institution. This is terrible policy, brought to us by a singularly terrible rule. I urge my colleagues to reject the rule and demand real ethics reform that actually addresses the root problems in our current system and accepts responsibility, as the Constitution directs us to, for our own ethics process. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and with that, I yield myself such time as I might consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as the two Democratic contenders duke it out in the Presidential campaign, there's one issue that they both seem very eager to be identified with. And it's very unfortunate, it's the issue of economic isolationism. This kind of policy is as dangerous as it is inconsistent with their own rhetoric. Both Democratic contenders like to talk about the need to enhance our Nation's image and increase our leadership in the international community. They talk about diplomacy and soft power, and then they turn around and insist we try to withdraw from the worldwide marketplace and cede our global economic leadership. It has even been suggested by them that we go back on a 14-year deal with our two closest neighbors, including our neighbor to the north who has been such a key political ally. Perhaps this outlandish rhetoric is delivered with a wink and a nod. Perhaps it's merely an attempt to score a few political points without any intention to actually dismantle the deep economic and political ties that we share with our trading partners in this hemisphere. Frankly, I hope that that is the case. But either way, Madam Speaker, this is very dangerous rhetoric. NAFTA has long been addressed by those running for office as though it were an unmitigated disaster; no one seems to want to touch it with a 10-foot pole. After all, everyone knows that NAFTA has hurt our economy and cost us millions of jobs. Right? Wrong. In 1994, when Bill Clinton sent NAFTA to the Congress, the gross domestic product in this country was $6.9 trillion. Today, we have a $14.1 trillion economy. In other words, we have more than doubled the size of our economy in the NAFTA-era. When adjusted for inflation, the numbers are still very striking, with 50 percent growth since 1994. During the same period, 25 million jobs have been created, while our labor force has grown by 18 million. Fourteen years of NAFTA have seen our economy grow considerably while more Americans are working than ever before and new jobs have abounded. To put it bluntly, anyone who says that NAFTA has destroyed our economy is flat out wrong. Not only has the predicted ``giant sucking sound'' that we heard about during the NAFTA debate not come to pass, but the precise opposite has taken place. But, Madam Speaker, NAFTA is just one component of the complex relationships that entail our global engagement, where the economic and the political are inextricably entwined, and nowhere is this role more critical than in our own neighborhood. We have spent years and countless resources promoting democracy in this hemisphere. The rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and his cohorts throughout the region have demonstrated that authoritarianism in our backyard is still a reality. As he sends troops to the border he shares with our friend and ally, Colombia, we are reminded that tyranny in our hemisphere still poses very grave threats. NAFTA, CAFTA, the Peru Free Trade Agreement, and the proposed agreements with Colombia and Panama build upon the twin pillars of liberty: democratic governments and free markets. They enhance our economic strength with new opportunities and give us greater leverage to ensure that we have peaceful and prosperous neighbors. And we know that peace and prosperity, Madam Speaker, go hand in hand. We simply cannot disengage economically without disengaging politically. Engagement through trade is our source of strength and our leadership, and we would disengage to our peril. Those who regard our leadership in the international community so casually that they would trash it for political gain threaten not only our own prosperity, but our ability to play a positive role in this hemisphere and around the globe as we seek to grow our economies and to grow the economies of our neighbors.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend from California, the ranking member of this very important Trade Subcommittee, and I congratulate my good friend from Michigan for moving forward this very important 10-month extension. Obviously, it is clear that we are using this time to talk about the importance of coming together in a bipartisan way, working as Democrats and Republicans, to ensure that we are able to proceed to deal with both the economic as well as the national security implications of ultimately seeing us put into place the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. One of the great misconceptions around here and one that unfortunately has been spread very widely, Madam Speaker, is the fact that many people say that the Government of Colombia has been involved in killing labor leaders. I have heard that said on many occasions. I think it is very unfortunate that that and things close to that have gotten out there, when in fact we have seen since 2002 a 50 percent increase in the level of funding for the Fiscalia, the entity spending a great deal of time prosecuting those who have been responsible for killings of those labor leaders. Similarly, it is important to note that there are roughly 1,500 labor leaders who get protection provided by the Government of Colombia. They are working to ensure the safety of those labor leaders, number one; and, number two, they are working to ensure that they bring to justice those who might be responsible for any of those killings. There is no desire on the part of the government to do that. The government has done everything it possibly can to demobilize the paramilitaries, the FARC, the ELN and others who have been involved in the narcotrafficking and other criminal activity that has taken place in the country. There is no nation on the face of the Earth that in a 5-year period of time has gone through a greater transition than Colombia has, and the leadership of President Uribe and so many others in his country who are dedicated to the future of that nation have, I believe, laid the groundwork for us to ensure the strength of the relationship between our two countries and to deal with the national security implications. I have to say in closing, Madam Speaker, that I truly do believe that this will help us stabilize this very important part of the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I simply rise to say that my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, is incorrect when he said that we are asking for a measure to be considered overnight. On Tuesday of this week, this measure was sent to this House. We have had an opportunity, as we have looked at the issue of FISA modernization since July of this past year to get it done, and there is an urgency at this moment. So it has not been overnight. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi is absolutely right, this is a very, very sad day for all of us. We just memorialized our colleague, Tom Lantos, and we have come back today to deal with an issue which I believe is one that creates the potential to undermine the power of the first branch of government. Now, as has been said, if we looked at the potential court challenge that we can see, this notion that has been put forward by our former colleague, Mr. Edwards, that we are, in fact, a separate, independent, and equal branch of government could be thrown out the window. The other thing that's very sad about today, Madam Speaker, is the fact that we are here with an absolutely unprecedented rule. Never before in the history of the Republic has there been such a rule. This rule actually undermines the deliberative nature of the people's House. What we're doing is we are saying that there will be no debate whatsoever, no debate whatsoever on these very important two contempt resolutions, no debate whatsoever. When this rule is adopted, we will see those two measures hereby adopted, meaning that there will be no chance for us to, as a House, have the kind of debate that we did for an hour upstairs in the Rules Committee. And so, we're throwing out the window the notion of participation in a free and open debate. And Madam Speaker, the other thing that is very sad about today is that, while we were promised 1 year ago last month a new direction for America, a new era of openness, an opportunity for free-flowing debate, we will, with passage of this resolution, be on the brink of seeing the 110th Congress, and I will say to the distinguished chair of the Committee on Rules, since she is presiding over this, Madam Speaker, we will have, this Congress, adopted more closed rules than any Congress in the history of the Republic. I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. And I urge strong support for the resolution which will allow us to finally bring about modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And we have all come to the conclusion that this has been a very sad day in many ways. Of course, the saddest part of it was the loss of our dear friend and colleague, Tom Lantos. I would simply like to say that Mr. Diaz-Balart had the responsibility of serving as the floor manager for a rule that was, as he said in his very thoughtful statement, unprecedented. And we had a debate on that rule, and this House chose to do something it had never done before, pass a rule which took two contempt resolutions and adopted them. That was a decision of the House. And I think it was an unfortunate one. Mr. Diaz-Balart had a responsibility to stand up for this institution. He and I stood together at that service, heard from colleagues of ours and heard from many other distinguished people who remembered the life of Tom Lantos. We were stunned when all of a sudden the bells rang and the House was going to reconvene in the middle of this memorial service. Now, members of the majority staff, Madam Speaker, had been informed, had been informed, of exactly what it was that we in the minority were going to do. If the House reconvened and we proceeded with consideration of this special rule, we had informed the members of the majority staff that we were going to call for a vote. So Mr. Diaz-Balart was simply working to, under very, very, very challenging, and, again, from my perspective, unprecedented circumstances, where I had never before seen the House of Representatives convened during a memorial service being held in Statuary Hall, but under those circumstances, Mr. Diaz-Balart had the responsibility to fulfill his duties, not to the Republican Members, but to do what he believed to be right, and I agree with him, obviously, in upholding the rights of this institution. So for any Member, any Member or anyone outside to malign Mr. Diaz-Balart for simply doing his job under very difficult circumstances is not right. Let me conclude by simply saying that Mr. Diaz-Balart is one of those Members who we all know is a fighter for freedom and has been throughout his entire life. In many respects, Lincoln Diaz-Balart is very similar to Tom Lantos. Madam Speaker, I will say that it is a tragic irony that as we are remembering the life of Tom Lantos that a Member like Lincoln Diaz- Balart would in any way be maligned for his work on behalf of the struggle for freedom and democracy and the liberation of people all over this world.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as is very evident, this is a sad day and evening for the House of Representatives, and, of course, the Lantos family, and for all of the American people and all who are lovers of freedom. ``Tom Lantos devoted his life to shining a bright light on dark corners of oppression.'' That was a quote from Speaker Pelosi in her official statement in responding to the tragic news of Tom's passing. I am going to quote Speaker Pelosi once again, Madam Speaker. ``Tom Lantos devoted his life to shining a bright light on dark corners of oppression.'' We have heard that Tom Lantos is the lone survivor of the Holocaust to ever serve in the Congress of the United States. We know of his tremendous accomplishments. We know the fact that 58 years ago this coming July he and Annette were married. And we know that he had an absolutely wonderful family. His two daughters did provide those 18 grandchildren and two great grandchildren, and I have to say that I personally have had the opportunity to spend time with all of them. The reason is that I am one of Annette and Tom's neighbors here on Capitol Hill, and we always knew when the Lantos household was filled over at Justice Court, because kids were running around all over that area, and it was such a wonderful thing. When I heard the Speaker say today what Tom's daughters said to him, the fact that he lost his family in the Holocaust would lead them to provide him with a family that he no longer had, obviously they did. I have known of no parent or grandparent to be prouder of their children and grandchildren than Annette and Tom Lantos have been of their wonderful family, and having heard Speaker Pelosi's words, I now have an even greater understanding of the importance of the role that Annette and Katrina played in providing them with that family. We got the news I read this morning in the paper that just last week the Prime Minister of Hungary was scheduled to present Tom with the highest honor that Hungary bestows on anyone; and, sadly, he was too ill to receive that honor. But we know that Tom regularly described himself as one who was born Hungarian, but was American by choice; and I think that underscores the extraordinary importance of immigration and the great importance of what it is that has made the United States of America as great as it is. One of the things, I am the first Republican to stand up but I am going to be turning this over to the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Affairs in just a few minutes, but as the first Republican to stand up, I have to say that one of the greatest things about Tom Lantos is that he regularly transcended political party. He was known for the wonderful working relationship that he had with the former chairman of his committee who, as we all know, passed away sadly last year, our colleague Henry Hyde. And I regularly, as a member of the Rules Committee, had the opportunity to see Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos come together, arm in arm, working together on behalf of a very positive foreign policy for the United States. Now, don't get me wrong, there were more than a couple of occasions, especially in the last couple of years, where there was disagreement between Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos. But time and time again, both men demonstrated their extraordinary patriotism and their commitment to the greatness of the United States of America. On January 2, just last month, our friend Tom announced that he would not be running for reelection. Of course, he had gotten the news of his illness. And in that statement announcing his retirement, Madam Speaker, he said, ``It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family, and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a Member of the United States Congress. I will never be able to express fully my profoundly felt gratitude to this great country.'' Madam Speaker, one of the things that I regularly say about the United States of America, and I think like most of the people who are here in this Chamber at this moment, we were born here; and people who were born here can have a tendency to take the greatness of the United States of America for granted. But I will say that Tom Lantos demonstrated fully, through every single aspect of his life, the profound appreciation that an immigrant has for something that many of us who are native born have a tendency to take for granted. And I regularly fight against that, and seeing someone like Tom Lantos has played a big role in inspiring me. And I know there are other great immigrants who serve in this Congress and obviously in this country as well. And I think that his life underscores that. As I look over and see our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, I am reminded of the great work that he did on the Helsinki Commission and, as has been stated on the issues that Mr. Stark raised, environment and other issues. But when it came to fighting on behalf of human rights, in 1983 Annette Lantos became the volunteer director of the Human Rights Caucus because of her extraordinary commitment to that cause. And, obviously, it was led by Tom through these so many years. And I will just say that for me, personally, I was elected with Tom in November of 1980, 28 years ago this coming November; and this is a professional loss, but obviously for so many of us, a very profound personal loss. And I want to say to all of the family members how much I have appreciated the friendship. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. And the world is a better place, the world clearly is a better place for the life of Tom Lantos. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) be able to manage the balance of our time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. This is a very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. We all know, and I was happy to hear my friend in Ohio talk about, the importance of our global competitiveness and we have to have the best educated people as we proceed to make sure that we can compete in that global economy. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the process around which we are considering this very important legislation is just plain wrong. We had 61 amendments that were submitted to us in the Rules Committee. Now, the last time that this was successfully authorized, as Mr. Hastings has pointed out to our colleagues, was 10 years ago. It was done under a modified open rule. We had four Democrats sit before us on one of the panels last night, and they complimented the Rules Committee members for the hard work. And the very distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules proceeded to talk about how life was tantamount to a living hell when we as Republicans were in control versus this great new day that we have. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you just a little bit about this great new day that we have. There have been more than double, I repeat that, more than double the number of closed rules in the first session of the 110th Congress and during this month of January leading up to the first of February than we had in the first session and leading up to the first of February in the 109th Congress, more than double the number of closed rules. And as I said, the last time we authorized this bill was in 1998, and it was done under a modified open rule. Yes, there was an attempt two Congresses ago to do it, and when we had a structured rule, it failed. Why don't those colleagues of ours who are in charge learn from the mistake of having not done this under an open amendment process? So though we continue to hear, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great new day and all these wonderful changes have taken place, we actually have had Democrats and Republicans, Democrats and Republicans, prevented from improving this bill. Now, Mr. Hastings correctly pointed to the fact that the administration has raised a number of concerns, dozens of new programs that are duplicative that are included in this bill. The President wants to work with us to improve this legislation. Doing it under the structure that we have today undermines the potential to see that happen. Reject this rule, and let's come back with at least a modified open rule so that we can proceed with something that in a bipartisan way we very much want to see happen.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume as we proceed with this debate on this authorization and earmark process. I will acknowledge that based on this new and, I believe, rather unfortunate definition that is provided for earmarks, you have, in fact, seized a little loophole in trying to determine that these are not earmarks. And I will tell you, Madam Speaker, what that loophole consists of. Not a specific dollar amount. Now, Madam Speaker, potentially this is even more egregious. Why? Because without a specific dollar amount, we don't know exactly how much is going to be expended. And Mr. Bishop has just given me a copy of the proposed blueprint budget; and, Madam Speaker, what that consists of is specific designation to these private entities. And in many ways, this is, as I said, more egregious than had a specific amount been put into place, which would have required this to have been considered as an earmark. Madam Speaker, our quest is simply for more transparency, accountability, and disclosure of our constituents' hard-earned taxpayer dollars; and we believe very strongly that that should, in fact, be the case. Now, everyone says what I just said. Everyone says we want more transparency, accountability, and disclosure. Everyone says that we want to be great stewards of the taxpayer dollars, those dollars of our hardworking constituents. The fact is what we have got here is something that is potentially even worse than under the definition that you all have as an earmark. So I will say that looking at this proposed blueprint budget makes it even more imperative that we do everything within our power to proceed with making sure that we defeat the previous question and make in order the earmark amendment that we are going to be offering, and I hope very much that my colleagues will join in doing that. Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question, as I have said, so that I can amend the rule to allow for consideration of H. Res. 479, the Boehner earmark enforcement rule changes. And don't fear, the amendment would not prevent the House from considering the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. It would merely allow the House to also consider the Boehner earmark reform proposal. Over the first year of Democratic control, we have learned that the earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses as well as a myriad of other legislative scenarios which were not contemplated when the new Democratic majority put through the so- called earmark reform rules. These loopholes, as I was saying earlier, have prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion legislation, and the omnibus bill, which, as we all know, contained nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air- dropped in the bill at the last minute. Now, Madam Speaker, it's not just Republicans as I was saying in my opening remarks who have taken note of these earmark loopholes. Our colleague from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) recently introduced a virtually identical rules change geared at closing the air-drop loophole as well as the amendments between the Houses loophole. Obviously, I believe it's about time for the Democratic majority to start listening not only to concerns that are emerging from those of us who serve in the minority, but from members of their own caucus on this issue as well. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted into the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I'd like to express my great appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Atwater, California, who so ably represents his constituents here, is beginning his second session as a member of the Rules Committee, and I will say that it is great to welcome a fellow Californian to the Rules Committee. But, Madam Speaker, at first blush one looks at this bill and it is, as I think was really reflected in the gentleman's remarks, sort of innocuous and noncontroversial. I mean, it's a pretty simple measure. New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act, who can be opposed to that? I mean, who could be concerned about that? It certainly wouldn't be the first time in the 110th Congress that we have had a measure brought up with a rule that could have very easily been considered under suspension of the rules. After all, today so far we have under suspension of the rules passed a bill that provided a $150 billion economic stimulus to our Nation's economy, an issue which I'm very proud to say, as we all are, that saw the two parties come together, working with the White House in a bipartisan way to make sure that we could have this economic stimulus package. And I hope and pray that it mitigates the economic challenges that our constituents are facing in the future. And then, Madam Speaker, we move from there to consider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, an extension of that, as we worked on the issue of reform. And so here we've dealt with the economic stimulus and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both measures considered under suspension of the rules, and now we have a rule for consideration of the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act. I think my point is that this is a measure that very easily could have been considered under suspension of the rules, and we understand that there is an attempt to fill the schedule and there were people who quipped about that last night up in the Rules Committee. It is unfortunate. I know a number of other Members have already left. We didn't work today until noon; and we are in a position now, having begun working so late, that we're going into the night on this measure, which is a bill that initially, as I said, could have been completely noncontroversial and considered under suspension of the rules. But I will say, having looked now at the measure, there are concerns that have been raised. They are concerns about private property rights and the threat of eminent domain. In fact, Madam Speaker, the State of New Hampshire opted out of the national designation because of these concerns. The people of New Hampshire believe that the trail running through their State is well managed and is in no need whatsoever of Federal intervention. But the other States involved would like to move forward on the Federal designation, so we are here late this afternoon to consider this. Now, as we proceed, we've simply asked that the concerns that have been raised see the light of day on the House floor; as I said, these concerns as they relate, first and foremost, with the issue of private property rights and eminent domain. Unfortunately, while seven amendments were submitted to us in the Rules Committee, only two were made in order, two out of seven amendments submitted. And unfortunately, contrary to the promise that was made at the beginning of the 110th Congress by Speaker Pelosi that we would have a substitute made in order for legislation that's considered, a substitute that was proposed by Mr. Bishop was, in fact, denied by the Rules Committee. And why? I mean, I ask about the time constraints again. As I said, we didn't begin work today until noon. The House convened at noon. Our most critical business of the day, as I said, the stimulus bill and the FISA law, were considered under suspension of the rules. So, why the rush for us to proceed with this New England Scenic Trails bill? There is really no practical reason why, Madam Speaker, now that we've decided to not take this up under suspension of the rules and have a debate, that we can't engage in a little extra debate to allow for the concerns to be vetted. And if we can't have an open debate on the issue of scenic trails, then one's got to ask, what issue will we have an open debate on? I mean, what hope is there for an open process for the most significant and the most controversial issues if we can't have it on the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act? Now, six amendments were submitted by our friend, former Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Bishop, addressing the private property rights issue. Four were rejected by the Rules Committee. A seventh amendment was offered by Mr. Flake that would explicitly prevent the use of earmarks in this bill. Now, Mr. Flake's amendment would have provided an opportunity to examine this bill's provision to direct unspecified Federal dollars to two private entities. Now, did any Members have a personal stake in these private groups, in these private entities? Did any Member make a specific request on behalf of these private entities? Mr. Flake's amendment would have helped to shed a little sunlight on this provision before we direct Federal taxpayer dollars towards two private groups. But this amendment was also rejected, Madam Speaker, unfortunately, by the Rules Committee. Shutting out this amendment is, to me, probably the most troubling of all. Obviously, the issue of private property rights and eminent domain that Mr. Bishop has wanted to address and his four amendments that were denied is very, very troubling. But this issue of completely preventing Members from the opportunity for sunshine and disclosure on what could have been a request by a Member for support for two private organizations is very troubling. Now, Madam Speaker, I've got to say that this issue itself gets right to the heart of one of the biggest challenges that we faced under the Democratic leadership in this place, and it is the inability or unwillingness to rein in wasteful earmarks. Now, last week, we Republicans were meeting in West Virginia, and we spent a great deal of time talking about the issue of earmarks when our Republican conference came together. And I'm happy to say that, with a united front, Republicans came together on this issue and we decided that we would call for a moratorium on earmarks, a moratorium until a bipartisan committee can formulate a proposal that eradicates waste, fraud, and abuse in the earmark process. It's the so-called Kingston- Wolf-Wamp legislation that has been put forward. Now, we offered to have a complete ban on earmarks, and we challenged our Democratic colleagues to join in with a bipartisan agreement to have a moratorium on earmarks until such time as this bipartisan committee can come forward. Now, Madam Speaker, as I see you in the chair, as I see my friend from Atwater, I suspect that either or both of you, and certainly a lot of your Members, are going to be going on to your retreat. The Democratic Caucus is, I know, going for a meeting that will be taking place over the next few days. And it's fun, but challenging, and great to have an opportunity for the two parties to work within their caucuses, your caucus, our conference, to deal with these issues. Well, I would just like to say that, just as we did at our meeting last week, while far be it for me to be so presumptuous as to say I should set the agenda for the Democratic Caucus retreat, I would like to say that in light of the offer that we made coming forward as Republicans on this issue of earmarks, I would recommend that in light of the discussion that came here on the floor today on this issue, the speech that was delivered last night from the President of the United States in which he called for cutting in half the number of earmarks saying that he would veto legislation if he didn't see it cut in half, the request that we have made on behalf of our constituents to say we should have this moratorium done in a bipartisan way, and we as Republicans are challenging our Democratic colleagues to do that, I would like to say that I hope very much that Members at your retreat would, rather than spending a lot of time on a number of other issues, I would hope that you would put partisanship aside and try to work, just as we did on this economic stimulus issue, in a bipartisan way to recognize the very, very pressing need for earmark reform and our proposal, which should, in fact, provide strong bipartisan support. I will say, Madam Speaker, that the integrity and the effectiveness of this body depends on our agreement to proceed with very, very important bipartisan reform on this issue. It's my hope that my Democratic colleagues will use their upcoming retreat over the next few days as an opportunity to urge their leadership to accept our proposal to make a bipartisan effort to tackle this very, very critical issue. Today's bill was perhaps a small but yet a significant opportunity to signal a newfound commitment to open process and meaningful earmark reform. Unfortunately, today's bill is a missed opportunity. I suspect that this measure will proceed. I don't think that we'll have the votes to defeat the previous question, which I should say I'm going to attempt to do, to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order what I would describe as the Marshall proposal, the proposal that has been put forward by one of our Democratic colleagues, Mr. Marshall, which is basically identical to the Boehner proposal that we have on earmark reform, which will provide a greater degree of transparency, accountability, disclosure, and enforcement on this issue, which unfortunately is not there. So, when it comes to our attempt to defeat the previous question on this, what I will be offering is tantamount to a bipartisan proposal for our colleagues as we seek to address this issue. So, again, I would say, Madam Speaker, if my colleagues had proceeded with this bill under a suspension of the rules, you would not have had to listen to the speech I just delivered because we would have done the exact same things as we did on the $150 billion economic stimulus bill, and we would have done the exact same thing as we did on the very important Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reform measure, and albeit simply an extension, the steps towards bringing about reform. But in light of the fact that we are here, denying the opportunity for us to address the issue of private property rights and eminent domain, and the opportunity for the kind of transparency and disclosure that everyone around here talks about on the issue of earmarks that would have come forward in the amendment offered by our colleague, Mr. Flake, I'm going to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can make that earmark reform proposal in order. And if that is defeated, I will urge a ``no'' vote on the rule as we proceed with this. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to my very dear friend from Atwater by saying a few things. First, on this notion of Mr. Bishop's very able leadership position on the committee, my friend, who served with great distinction in the California State Legislature, knows very well that the legislative process is an ongoing process, and people work on amendments, people work on legislation in committee. And the fact that Mr. Bishop may have been working on some of the amendments that he is dealing with right now and did not offer them in the committee should in no way deny him the right to represent his constituents and the American people with one of his brilliant, new, and creative ideas that quite possibly developed from the markup to the Rules Committee and now to the floor. So, I would argue that it is very important for us to do everything that we can to ensure the most open amendment process, which is what we were promised at the beginning of this Congress. Second, Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend on this notion of the designation of earmarks, I will say that I am particularly proud of the fact that in the 109th Congress we dealt with stronger enforcement, we dealt with the issue of earmark authorization, tax bills, and appropriations bills. Now, I will recognize that the definition that exists for earmarks in the 110th Congress is not nearly as strong as the definition that was put into place in the 109th Congress. Why? Because the gentleman is trying to argue right now that there are no earmarks in this bill. Well, I would argue that in the 109th Congress, based on the definition that we passed in this House and was implemented, that this would have been considered an earmark. Now, I know that there is a lot of vagueness on this, but we do know the following: this is an authorization bill, and there are two private entities that are the beneficiaries of this. The gentleman may be absolutely right. It may be critically important to the New England National Scenic Trail Designation Act to have these items in there. It may be. Far be it from me to say that they shouldn't be there because I don't know at this point. All we're arguing is that we should, in fact, have the opportunity for our colleague, Mr. Flake, who spent a great deal of time dealing with the earmark issue, to come forward with his amendment so that we could debate it. That's what we are hoping for. So I will say, Madam Speaker, that I believe that if we, as an institution, are serious about the issue of earmark reform, reining in wasteful Federal spending, we should, in fact, in a bipartisan way, in a bipartisan way, proceed with this moratorium until such time as the bipartisan committee can come back with a group of recommendations as to how we can again, in a bipartisan way, deal with this issue of earmark reform. With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to my very good friend from Utah, my former Rules Committee colleague (Mr. Bishop).