David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am just a little confused about this amendment. I know that the Budget Act calls for us to have completed our appropriations work in the House by the 4th of July, and the promise that was made by the Democratic majority was that all of the appropriations bills would be done by the 4th of July break. I will say that I am a little confused. I would be happy to yield to my friend as to what this proposed amendment would, in fact, entail.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record extraneous material, including the amendment to be offered by Mr. Terry if, in fact, we do defeat the previous question.

Mr. DREIER. If I may inquire of my friend from Sacramento, how many more speakers do you have remaining?

Mr. DREIER. I have no further speakers, but I understand there is some amendment here to the rule that you want to talk about, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 5 minutes to my very good friend from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I would be happy to further yield to my friend, I would say that we have been going through the appropriations process. We are in the minority. There is a new majority. A promise was made to the American people that work on the appropriations process would be completed by the July 4th break. I am just a little confused here as to how it is that we got to this point. This is now an amendment to the rule that is being propounded, and I would just like to say that I think by virtue of doing this we are simply, Mr. Speaker, underscoring the fact that the work has not been completed. If a finger of blame is being pointed, I guess at our side, we have delayed the process of completing the appropriations work, all I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this was a commitment that was made at the beginning of the 110th Congress. And obviously, with the explanation just provided by my friend from Sacramento, this has not happened. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Obey.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee for his explanation. I will say, however, what we have done is we have followed the standard appropriations process. In fact, as we look at the rules that have been passed out so far through the appropriations process, in the last Congress, we made in order every single amendment that was proposed to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, and as the gentleman knows, only three of 23 amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee when it came to the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee bill were made in order which did in fact limit the debate. All I would say, Mr. Speaker, is my friend from Sacramento has come forward and said she is going to offer an amendment to the rule. I am concerned about it, the fact that it was not included in the rule and it has just come to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, again, I remember there was a promise made that the work on House appropriations bills would be completed by the July 4 break. It sounds to me as if there is an attempt being made to really go beyond and not comply with that promise that was made. There seems to be some kind of requirement here that we amend the rule to make this happen. I would be happy to yield to my colleague or to the gentleman from Florida, my Rules Committee colleague.

Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say last year there was not a commitment that was made that we would complete all of our appropriations work by the July 4th break.

Mr. DREIER. I would be happy to further yield.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask my friend, if a $4 billion increase is, in fact, a 6.76-percent increase over last year's funding level, which does round out to be a 7-percent increase in the spending over last year's funding level, I just ask my friend from Dallas if that, in fact, is correct?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Madam Speaker, I just want to say I am somewhat concerned with the whole tenor of this debate. My California colleague has stood here through the entire debate not yielding time to a single Member, talking about the fact that we are going to have this freewheeling debate. I asked him to yield to me, when he obviously has a great load of time. Madam Speaker, he chose not to yield. That is clearly his right. But if we are interested in at least a modicum of civility in the debate, I always try my darnedest to yield to any colleague who asks me to yield during debate, because I think that is what we should do around here. I was simply going to respond when my friend said that Mr. Price was here decrying the fact that his amendment was not made in order, which had a more modest cut than the one that has been made in order under the Jordan amendment, that maybe some Members would determine that the $275 million figure to which my friend referred earlier, being below the President's request, is not quite enough, but that maybe the Jordan amendment is too much. Mr. Price simply wanted to have a chance, Madam Speaker, to say, gosh, maybe a little more modest cut than the one that is in the Jordan amendment should be considered. So, I just want to say that I, again, as Mr. Price said so well during this debate, promises were made about a new sense of openness. It is very, very unfortunate that those promises have not been kept, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I would just like to, again, say that I hope very much that my friends on both sides of the aisle will join in supporting Mr. Sessions in trying to defeat the previous question so that we can make in order the very thoughtful, environmentally sound amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend from the Big D recognizing me, and I thank both of my friends for their management of this rule. I have got to clear my throat, Madam Speaker, because it was last night and early this morning that we had a freewheeling, very passionate, vigorous debate that took place on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, as we all know. And we are here this morning addressing an issue which traditionally has, in a bipartisan way, been recognized that, as a measure to avoid demagoguery, should be brought up under a structured rule. It is the only appropriations bill that both Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized all along that we should do, and I am happy to say that we are proceeding with the other appropriations bills under an open amendment process. I will say that I am very, very troubled, very troubled, with the way that this has been handled. My friend from California has just said that this is a discussion that has been going on and on. We seem to have this same discussion back and forth. And I will tell my friend we could end it right here, we could end it right here if, in fact, as the gentleman from Dallas has just said, the promises that were made in last year's election were, in fact, kept. We don't have to continue to have this kind of debate over the rule if we would see the kind of compliance with the commitments that were made to the American people. Now, let me just say what did happen in the past on the issue of the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. As Mr. Sessions has just said, 100 percent of the amendments that were proposed last year were, in fact, made in order. And the year before, the gentleman is absolutely right, there were 11 amendments submitted, but the gentleman said only 1 amendment was made in order. No. One Democratic amendment was made in order of the 11 amendments, but there were Republican amendments proposed, too, and there were 4 amendments made in order. So what I am saying is that this notion that somehow 11 Democratic amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules and only 1 Democratic amendment made in order? That is wrong. The fact of the matter is we have worked very hard to ensure that every Member who has come forward with a responsible, thoughtful amendment that should be debated on the legislative branch appropriations bill could, in fact, have that opportunity. And that is what has happened in the past. I am very proud to say that last year every single amendment submitted to the committee was made in order. This year 23 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, 23 amendments. And how many were made in order? It is very sad. Only three amendments were made in order. Now, let's look at some of the amendments that were denied, Madam Speaker. The distinguished chairman, former chairman, of the Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee, Mr. Kingston, is here, and he came before the Rules Committee with some very thoughtful amendments. Now, my friend from California has just talked about the issue of the Visitors Center. Mr. Kingston, who has consistently raised very important questions about that in the past, said that we don't need to put $16 million, which, as was said in the dissenting views on this issue, is the tip of the iceberg, creating a chance to spend well in excess of $50 million, at the minimum of $55 million, for another building with an additional 200,000 square feet behind the Ford Building over here. Now, Madam Speaker, we are going to have an additional half a million square feet when we see completion of this Congressional Visitors Center. We all hope that it happens in our lifetime, but I will say that we are going to have an additional 500,000 square feet. And I know my friend from California said he has just been there. And, by the way, I should extend congratulations to the gentlewoman from Florida for the great job that she has done in working closely with Mr. Wamp on this issue. She testified, Madam Speaker, before the Rules Committee, and I appreciate her diligence on this, and I suspect that she would be somewhat concerned as well that the opportunity for an amendment process like the one that we have had in the past is being denied to a number of our Members, both Democrats and Republicans alike. Mr. Kingston, the former chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, also offered an amendment calling for the Basic Pilot Program to be included, dealing with this notion that we impose on everybody else, Madam Speaker, the requirement that they comply with the Basic Pilot Program when it comes to this very serious issue of illegal immigration, and yet we are free of having to comply with that within the first branch of government. I think that is an absolute mistake, and that is what Mr. Kingston has been trying to address with his amendment. One of the amendments that troubled me most that was not made in order came from a very distinguished Democratic Member of this institution. I am proud of the fact that he represents my parents in Kansas City, Missouri. It is Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, who came before the Rules Committee, Madam Speaker, and he said that he had been told by staff not to offer the amendment. He was very concerned about being there, and he said that he was somewhat confused, and, understandably, that does happen on occasion. I just told one of my staff members that the moment they tell me to do something, I automatically and instinctively do the opposite. But what happened in his case was that he felt somewhat concerned about coming before the Committee on Rules when so many people had told him not to do it. I have never seen a situation like this, Madam Speaker. The Chair of the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter had to say to Mr. Cleaver that he was welcome at any time to come before the Rules Committee and offer an amendment. I thought that that was just a right that every Member in this institution had. And, unfortunately, while we made Mr. Cleaver's amendment in order in the last Congress, this new majority refused to allow Mr. Cleaver the opportunity to even have his amendment heard, even have it debated here, Madam Speaker. And that is why Mr. Sessions is going to offer an opportunity, if we can, to defeat the previous question, to take the Cleaver amendment, which deals with the very important priority that has been set forth by our Speaker that looks at the environmental standards for this institution. Mr. Cleaver simply says that prospectively we should have flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles purchased through the Members' representational accounts. It is an issue that should be debated here on the House floor. Again, we made that amendment in order last year, and it has been denied the opportunity this year. One other thing that I will say again that is very troubling about this so-called new era of openness. Our colleague from West Virginia, a very distinguished former member of the Committee on Rules, tried to submit an amendment to the Rules Committee, and Shelley Moore Capito was denied that opportunity at the door to even submit her amendment, recognizing that she was a few minutes, I think right around 30 minutes, beyond the imposed deadline. I think the flexibility for Members is something that we always recognized, but has been denied here. But to have a former member of the Rules Committee denied an opportunity to even submit the amendment is, to me, Madam Speaker, undermining this entire spirit of openness. So, Madam Speaker, let me say I am going to encourage my colleagues to support Mr. Sessions in his quest to defeat the previous question so that we can give Emanuel Cleaver an opportunity to offer the amendment that was denied him by the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. And let me, if I could, just respond to a couple of his points. First of all, the gentleman has offered some very thoughtful arguments on this issue, and I think that the fact that he has made these arguments underscores why the Rules Committee should have, in fact, allowed a debate on these issues to proceed. He began by talking about how unworkable the amendment that Mr. Cleaver has put forward by virtue of the fact that California has only two of these E85 stations. I know that the Cleaver amendment provides options, a hybrid vehicle, which the gentleman drives and obviously is able to get fuel very easily, and the option of looking at the flex- fuel vehicles. And, obviously, if it is a flex-fuel vehicle, it has the ability to use others. They don't have to go to those two stations that exist in California. And I think that, again, that underscores the fact that we should be having this debate. We made it in order in the last Congress, and, unfortunately, they chose not to make it in order. And on the issue of the additional building, he has raised a lot of interesting arguments about that. Mr. Kingston would simply like to have a chance, as a former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, to debate it. I thank my friend for yielding, and I will just say that I wish we would have a chance to have a free-flowing debate on this.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. If I may, under my reservation, Madam Speaker, I would just like to make sure that we have in place a provision now, as was agreed on last week, that will ensure that the rights of Members, when it comes to raising a point of order, are maintained when it comes to appropriations bills. I would say, Madam Speaker, that I believe this is a very good start. My personal preference would have been that we could have gone back to the provision that we had last year to allow the same kind of protection for earmarks when it comes to both authorization and tax bills. And I hope very much, Madam Speaker, that we are going to have an opportunity to work together. I look forward to working with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules and the leadership teams on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we can in fact pursue further transparency, openness, accountability and enforceability when it comes to the issue of earmarks. With that, I withdraw my reservation, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would simply ask my very distinguished Chair for an explanation of exactly what it is that we're doing here. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules under my reservation, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I rise to congratulate my very good friend from Vermont for moving through this so expeditiously. I want to say we are very supportive of moving ahead with this very, very important piece of legislation which is designed to focus on our Nation's veterans. We look forward to moving as expeditiously as possible to completion of this. Mr. Speaker, with that, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule. As has been pointed out by our distinguished Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and the gentleman from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, in their thoughtful remarks on this issue, this is an open rule. The problem is, we are still dealing with this problem of the lack of reform in the earmark process. It is for that reason that having voted upstairs, yes, the fact that we haven't brought about the very important reform that is necessary to this horrendous earmark process, that I am going to join with Mr. Diaz- Balart when he calls for defeat of the previous question and an opportunity that would be allowed by defeating the previous question for us to offer an amendment that would take on this earmark issue. Mr. Diaz-Balart very correctly pointed to the fact that in the 109th Congress we were able to implement very important, sweeping reforms for the earmark process. We know that there was understandable, bipartisan outrage that was reflecting the concern of the American people over the abuse of earmarks. There are people who are in prison today because of this, among other reasons. That is why last fall, we stepped up to the plate, and under our Republican leadership, we put together a bipartisan support for earmark reform. At that time, unfortunately, our colleagues who were in the minority and today in the majority described those reforms as a sham and meaningless. But those reforms, Mr. Speaker, guaranteed accountability, transparency, enforcement, disclosure, things that have been completely thrown out the window unfortunately in the 110th Congress. So while they described the very important, tough reforms that we had in the 109th Congress as a sham, they have gone right down into the drain and really created potential for little more than abuse of the issue of earmarks. We have already seen examples of that. Of course, the problem that took place in the clash between the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, Mr. Murtha, and our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, when it came to the issue of earmarks. Unfortunately, there was no chance whatsoever for us, because of the lack of enforcement that exists now under the Democratic leadership, for us to get at that. Then when we heard just last week the words that came from the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, that we will not see earmarks provided in the appropriations process itself, but instead, what we are going to see is this secret slush fund put into place that allows, in a very secretive process, to ``air drop'' these earmarks into a conference report that could come out at some later point. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the American people wanted when they called for reform of this earmark process. That is not what they expected. It is not what they got with the reforms that we put into place in the 109th Congress. But unfortunately, well, we had these great reforms, but they have been thrown out the window in the attempt to continue to, in a surreptitious manner, seek these things in there. We just marked the 20th anniversary of the very famous speech that was delivered by Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate where President Reagan said, ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.'' I have been reminded, I mentioned here last week when we had two votes on different rules to try and bring about reform of the earmark process another famous speech Ronald Reagan gave in the negotiating process with the Soviet Union. He said, and I have now been working on my Russian on this, ``Doveryai no Proveryai,'' which meant ``trust but verify.'' The fact of the matter is, we want to be able to trust our colleagues, fellow elected representatives, to do the right thing when it comes to earmarks. But we feel very strongly that the American people should have the right and the opportunity to verify whether or not those dollars that are being spent can, in fact, stand up to the light of day. So while I am pleased that we are going to have a truly open rule if, in fact, this thing passes, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we don't succeed, Mr. Speaker, in defeating the previous question, I am going to urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to vote ``no'' on this rule because of the fact that it does not step up to the plate and allow us to have the kind of reform of earmark abuse that the American people desperately want.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate what the distinguished Republican whip was raising on this whole issue of the pre-printing requirement. I heard the gentleman from Maryland talk about consternation on our side about the so-called pre-printing requirement, and I heard him just say from his perspective he believes that if an amendment is printed in the Record that in no way undermines the right of a Member to offer an amendment. The gentleman is correct, if there is in fact a pre-printing requirement and a Member is entitled to offer that amendment. But the gentleman has just said in his statement that, from his perspective, this does not alter that right. But I think the distinguished Republican whip was right on target when he pointed to the fact that the legislative process, through a long history which extends not just decades, I would say to my whip, but the 200-year history of this institution, is one that says that an open rule is one that allows any Member through that process to stand up. If an idea comes to that Member that should be addressed, that Member has the right to do that. This new definition of what an open rule is is something that to me is beyond the pale and is undermining the deliberative nature of this institution. I would say to both of my friends, the majority leader and the distinguished Republican whip, that here we are in a position where we have tried our doggonedness to make sure that we have a more open body. That was the argument that was propounded by the Speaker on December 6, 2006, in her great statement; and we have in fact taken a retrograde step on that by preventing Members from being able to have the chance as the legislative process proceeds to do that. And the notion that we would, as we begin the very important appropriations process, in any way impinge on the rights of Members to participate in this process is to me absolutely abhorrent. And I will say also on this issue which the distinguished Republican whip has just raised of earmarks, we in our reform package which we passed last October made sure that every Democrat and every Republican would have a right to stand up and bring to light any earmark that has been included in a bill, and it allows either through that bill and if not through the bill through the rule to do so. We today have had two votes in this House, two votes in this House; and, unfortunately, most Members on the majority side chose to cast votes that prevented us from being able to get back to just the standard that we provided in the 109th Congress for this supposedly new and open 110th Congress. I would like to say to my friends that I am very troubled with the discussion that I am hearing as the ranking member on the Rules Committee; and as we proceed with consideration of these appropriations bills, I will assure you, Mr. Speaker, I plan to do everything that I possibly can to ensure that we have a complete, open amendment process which, as the distinguished Republican whip has said, with the exception of one and on occasion two appropriations bills has been provided as a right to both Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand here as someone who is supportive of embryonic stem cell research. I have voted in support of this research in the past, and I plan to vote for it again today when this measure is brought up. But I have to say that as I listened to my very good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) speak on this issue, and I will say again to him that, as he knows, I am a supporter of stem cell research and I will be voting in support of this bill, I'm absolutely horrified by the remarks that were just made by my colleague from Massachusetts. Why? Because just yesterday he stood here during the debate on the Afghanistan Freedom Act rule and said there that we're now enjoying a new day in the House of Representatives, and yet, we today are considering this rule under a completely closed process, shutting out all Members, Democrats, Republicans alike, who might want to have an opportunity to make some kind of amendment or modification to this process. Further, Mr. McGovern went on to talk about the fact that there is a very important institution in his congressional district that will be the beneficiary of the funding that is provided for this research, and that gets right to the point that I believe is a very important one for us to make. Well, we continue, Mr. Speaker, to hear this argument that it's a new day in this Congress. I am very, very troubled over a number of issues and over the fact that nothing, nothing could be further from the case. Now, we've heard both sides of the aisle talk about the need for earmark reform, and that's the reason that I just raised the issue of Mr. McGovern's hospital to be a beneficiary of this bill. I'm wondering whether or not that's an earmark that we're considering. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of the fact that, in the 109th Congress, we passed major earmark reform legislation. It was earmark reform legislation that had enforceability and full accountability, and we heard Democrats say that they wanted to, quote/unquote, improve on the earmark reform that we proudly put into place in the 109th Congress. The real tragedy here, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we not only have seen no improvement on the issue of earmark reform, but what has happened? We have seen a retrograde step taken on the issue of accountability and enforceability. And let me explain that to my colleagues and then proceed to say that Mr. Sessions will be moving to defeat the previous question, and if the House sees fit to defeat the previous question on this issue, Mr. Speaker, what we will do is we will offer an amendment, an amendment that will finally bring about the kind of enforceability that we passed in the 109th Congress but, through sleight of hand by the House Committee on Rules, has been denied every Democrat and every Republican in this institution. And so let me make it very clear, as we complete this debate and go into a vote on the previous question, any Member of this institution who votes in favor of the previous question to end debate will be, in fact, denying an opportunity for us to have accountability, enforceability and transparency on this issue of earmark reform. Now, what is it that we've seen reported to us on this earmark process that is going to be moving ahead in the days and weeks and months ahead? We've already seen abuse in the Intelligence authorization bill that we had, and I'm not going to get into the details of that. Everyone knows we had a major clash that took place here between our colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). We all know about that. But what is on the horizon for us, Mr. Speaker? What's on the horizon is the fact that the very distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, has already announced, when it comes to the issue of earmarks, we're not going to be doing it in the appropriations process. How is it that earmarks are going to be able to get into the bill? They're going to be air dropped into conference reports. Now, it's very difficult to imagine a more secretive process for earmarks than to have them air dropped into conference reports. But now let's again look at what we did in the 109th Congress and what we're going to propose if Mr. Sessions is successful at defeating the previous question. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is we're simply going to say that there should be an opportunity for enforcement. Again, we had that enforcement provision in the earmark reform that we passed in the 109th Congress, but that has been completely denied. Mr. Speaker, no Democrat, no Republican can stand up, and if a list is not provided of those earmarks, raise a question about that. If the chairman has simply said, there are no earmarks, there is no opportunity today under the action that has been taken by this Democratic Congress, whether they have said they're for earmark reform and accountability and transparency, they, in fact, deny that. And so all we're saying, Mr. Speaker, is let's give Democrats and Republicans an equal opportunity to do what it is that the American people have said should be done. We want to bring an end to wasteful spending and abuse of this so-called earmark process. So there's going to be an opportunity. There's going to be an opportunity in just a few minutes for every single Member of this institution, Democrat and Republican alike, to decide whether or not we're going to build on the success that we had in the 109th Congress with accountability, enforceability and transparency on earmark reform, or will we, in fact, allow a secretive process which encourages abuse to proceed. Now, I'm old enough, Mr. Speaker, to have served here when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States. In his negotiations with the Soviet Union, he used a Russian expression. ``Doveryai, no proveryai,'' was the Russian expression that he used. And what did that translate to? ``Trust, but verify.'' And that's exactly what this debate comes down to, Mr. Speaker: Trust, but verify, because I hear Democrats and Republicans alike say that we need to have full accountability and we need to bring an end to abuse of the earmark process. But we need to have a process of verification. We need to have a process that will allow us to ferret out the kind of abuse that we've already seen in the 110th Congress to this earmark process. Again, I am going to encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Sessions will be encouraging that at the end. When, because I am an eternal optimist, like Ronald Reagan, when we defeat the previous question, all we will be doing is saying that we should come back to the kind of accountability, transparency, and enforceability of the earmark reform to which everyone seems to be so strongly committed.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise to join my very distinguished colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, in not only opposing this rule but opposing the previous question on this. I am going to explain that in just a moment. Mr. Diaz-Balart went through and gave a very, very good summation of where we stand on this issue of openness, transparency and disclosure; and his reference to the December 6, 2006, quote from our distinguished Speaker, my fellow Californian, underscores the fact that everyone can talk about the issue of openness, transparency and disclosure. But when it comes to granting it, it's very sad and really a very sad day for this institution. Now I know that there has regularly been a lot of criticism over the way we as Republicans managed this institution for the 12 years leading up to last November's election, but I like to remind our colleagues that, whatever criticism they want to level at us, it's not about what we did, it's about what they promised they were going to do. That's really the sad thing here, the promises that were made, in fact, have not been kept. I think that's evidenced, as Mr. Diaz-Balart said, by virtue of the fact that we were going to have all of these open rules, and at this moment we are considering the second totally closed rule of the day, meaning that no Member will have the opportunity to offer any amendment whatsoever as we consider this measure. In the last Congress, we were proud of the fact that we were able to take on what was a bipartisan concern, that being the abuse that we saw of earmarks. We all know what that consists of. It has been reported very, very widely, the abuse of earmarks; and that played a role in leading us, in the last Congress, to respond. I am very proud in the 109th Congress we were able to pass major earmark reform that got at the issue of transparency and disclosure and, most important, enforceability, making sure that Members of this House, Democrat or Republican, stand up on the floor and raise a question and bring to the attention of this House an earmark that should be brought to the light of day. We heard that the reforms that were passed at the beginning of this Congress were going to build on what we did in the last Congress and ``improve'' on the earmark reform that we passed in the 109th Congress. Let me say again, as I did when we considered the last rule, every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican alike, will in just a few minutes have an opportunity to vote on whether or not we believe the earmark reform that has been touted very widely is going to be enforced. That's the vote we are going to face. What it consists of is Mr. Diaz-Balart will move to defeat the previous question so that we will simply have an opportunity to make it in order to consider an amendment that will allow us to enforce this much-ballyhooed earmark reform process. Now, in the last rules debate, I quoted Ronald Reagan, and I quoted Ronald Reagan because during the discussion of the arms buildup and our negotiations with the former Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan used a Russian expression, and that Russian expression is ``doveryai, no proveryai.'' I have to say that my Russian has improved between the debate on the last rule and the debate that we are holding right now, because I got it a little turned around. But thanks to our first-rate staff here we went on to the Internet and found the exact Russian expression: ``doveryai, no proveryai.'' Now, what that means is trust, but verify. Everyone here has talked about the need for us to again have greater transparency, disclosure, accountability and enforcement on the issue of earmarks. Unfortunately, the rule that was passed in this 110th Congress, which was designed to improve on what we did in the 109th Congress, not only doesn't improve, it denies, it denies every Republican and every Democrat in this House an opportunity to come forward and, in fact, let the institution have the chance to determine whether or not this is a justifiable earmark. A couple of examples most recently, we saw the clash that took place between the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, our friend, Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers). That was a very unfortunate part of the consideration of the intelligence authorization bill. Then we saw the quote, the statement that was made by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, who has announced that we are not going to be considering earmarks in the appropriations process itself, earmarks are only allowed to be airdropped into the appropriations conference reports, again, again further blurring the opportunity for Members to have, in full view, these earmarks. Let me say once again we are going to give every Member of this House, in just a few minutes, the chance to vote on whether or not you believe there should be an opportunity for greater enforceability, transparency and disclosure of these earmarks that have been put into place. That promise was made early on; and, unfortunately, it has not been kept. We are going to give Members a chance to decide whether or not that promise should be kept. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that ``no'' vote on the previous question will again allow Mr. Diaz- Balart the opportunity to offer this very thoughtful amendment that should enjoy very strong bipartisan support. I thank again my friend from Miami for yielding.