Prosperous and Secure Neighbor Alliance Act of 2007

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 502.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 502 provides for consideration of H.R. 2771, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2008, under a structured rule.

The rule provides H.R. 2771 with 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except for those arising under clause 9

or 10 of rule XXI. The rule also waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three amendments, two offered by Republican Members and one bipartisan amendment.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, the legislation we will consider today, H.R. 2771, funds the legislative branch of our government. This includes funding for the House of Representatives so Members of Congress have the resources we need to serve our constituents.

It includes funding for the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Compliance and other government agencies.

The bill also takes a bold step forward and begins implementing the Speaker's Green the Capitol Initiative. For the first time ever, the House of Representatives will take steps to address the threats of global warming by ensuring the House operates in a carbon-neutral manner.

The bill provides initial funding to Green the Capitol by switching to 100 percent renewable wind energy for the House's electricity needs, increasing the use of cleaner-burning fuels, and making congressional offices more energy efficient.

This is necessary as Members of Congress must set an example for our constituents by being as environmentally friendly as possible, especially as we ask them to do the same in their own homes.

Most importantly, however, this bill shows the Democratic majority's commitment to change the way our government is run. This bill demonstrates a commitment to fiscal responsibility, increased oversight and increased accountability.

Madam Speaker, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attested to, this bill is fiscally responsible. It provides an increase of only $122 million, or 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level. This is significantly lower than the 13 percent increase requested by the President. And much of the increase is attributable to unavoidable expenses that come in a Presidential election year.

Reducing the President's budget request by nearly one-quarter of a billion dollars shows that the Democrats are committed to holding the line on unnecessary spending, while ensuring that government is still able to deliver services to the American taxpayer.

While funding is increased by 4.1 percent over the 2007 enacted level, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee chose to invest heavily in critical life and safety and security measures for the Capitol complex.

The world changed on September 11, and we now know that the United States Capitol will forever be a target of a terrorist attack.

We owe it to our staff members, our visitors, our constituents, our distinguished guests, and to ourselves to ensure that the Capitol complex is as safe and secure as possible.

In a post-9/11 world, we cannot be too lax when it comes to securing the Capitol complex. Security enhancements are no longer an option. They are a necessity.

The Legislative Branch appropriations bill provides almost $50 million for security and lifesaving projects, including $5 million for new, interoperable police radios, $275,000 for utility, tunnel, health and safety process, $1.2 million for visitors escape hoods, $16 million for building security enhancements, $1 million for emergency exit signs and lighting in the Capitol, and $4.4 million in emergency lighting upgrades for the Rayburn Building.

The bill also provides a 7.7 percent increase for the Capitol Police Department and a 23 percent increase for the Office of Compliance so they can ensure health and safety of the Capitol complex.

Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the defining traits of the Democratic Congress has been increased government oversight. As such, this bill provides the tools Congress needs to hold the government accountable to the American taxpayer.

The Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee is determined to crack down on unnecessary spending by government agencies. The subcommittee held 11 agency budget hearings and is requiring government agencies to reexamine their needs based on priority, cost effectiveness, and fiscal responsibility.

The bill provides for additional staff at the Government Accountability Office to enable the GAO to better support congressional oversight efforts and address important issues such as health care, changing security threats, education, and continued audit work on the war in Iraq.

The Congressional Budget Office receives an increase in funding to better advise Congress on controlling runaway health care spending.

Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz and I discussed CBO staffing in a colloquy during a Rules Committee hearing on Wednesday. We both agree that the current funding staff levels are insufficient to meet our needs. We'll work together with CBO Director Orzag to address the staffing and enhance this important agency's efforts in the future.

The bill increases support for the Inspector General overseeing the Capitol Police Department. It also establishes a statutory Inspector General at the Architect of the Capitol. It is absolutely essential that there is stringent oversight of the Architect's office to improve its financial and management practices.

The subcommittee is 100 percent committed to improving the oversight and completion of the Capitol Visitors Center. I have personally toured the Visitors Center, and it is a beautiful addition that, when finished, we will all be proud of. However, no Member of Congress is proud of how this edifice has been produced. The project has spiraled out of control due to an inexplicable lack of oversight and accountability in prior Congresses, resulting in unnecessary delays and massive cost overruns. This bill assures that there will no longer be a blank check and no questions asked.

The subcommittee has held, and will continue to hold, monthly hearings, and the Architect will be required to submit a detailed plan to the House and Senate before one cent can be spent.

Madam Speaker, this bill delivers on the promises that Democrats made. It's fiscally responsible. It focuses on life, safety, and security measures, and provides much needed accountability to the process.

I would like to thank Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for all their hard work and thoughtful work that went into this legislation.

In particular, I want to thank the gentlelady from Florida, Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz. She has been a true champion for the Democratic majority's efforts to bring efficiency, fiscal responsibility, accountability to the Federal Government, and to this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, this bill is well thought out, well crafted, and sets the right priorities. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy the comments and the colloquy that my colleague from Texas and I and the rest of the committee engage in. We seem to have this conversation quite a bit these days.

I'd like to remind the gentleman that, while it's true that we have made three amendments in order this year, two Republican and one bipartisan, last year there were four Democratic amendments made in order on this particular appropriations bill. The prior year, however, there were 11 amendments offered in committee, and only one Democratic amendment was offered in this bill.

Why I raise this number, I want to point out that this is not unusual for this Legislative Branch appropriations bill to be a structured rule in prior years. And, in fact, there's good reason for that. My distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in committee yesterday, in fact, that there is potential for demagoguery on both sides of the aisle on this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and that he has agreed in the past, and this year, on a structured rule.

Now, honorable men and women can disagree on the merit and the substance of particular amendments, the number of which are not as important as the fact that we are arguing about substantive language, about health and safety, about meeting our constituents' needs. And I think it's important that we talk about that substance, rather than just the number on the bill.

And so, Madam Speaker, I think that we've done a good job producing a fiscally accountable bill for the Congress. In fact, the President asked for $275 million more than our subcommittee is providing under this legislation. The President asked for a 15 percent increase in this appropriation, and Congress saw fit to only offer 4.1 percent. I think the subcommittee has done a good job crafting this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California and I agree on one thing absolutely, and that is that Mr. Cleaver is a great Member of Congress and offers thoughtful amendments.

The problem with his amendment was that it was simply unworkable. It required that vehicles be E85 ethanol-compliant. And, for example, in California, in Mr. Dreier's and my own State, there are only two gas stations that provide E85 fuel.

I drive a hybrid. I think it is an important thing for Members of Congress to lead on this issue, but the fact is that the amendment was unworkable. We discussed that in Rules Committee yesterday. I discussed that with Mr. Cleaver, and, in fact, the committee did see fit not to make that amendment in order.

The gentleman raises a number of other points, but I would like to talk about the $16 million and the FDA building that the gentleman raised and the fact that the appropriations subcommittee is, in fact, bringing fiscal accountability and better standards to the construction process of the Capitol, and that this proposal that the gentleman from California refers to was actually initially brought to the House by former Speaker Hastert. And, in fact, we are continuing the prior administration's priority in this area.

The subcommittee has changed the way this building will be managed and procured in that the GSA will manage the construction and retrofit of this new building that is being acquired in order to provide swing space and allow the operations of Congress to continue as we revamp other buildings here in the Capitol complex. The $16 million in security enhancements this bill provides for the FDA building are critical if we are to use the building for additional House office space. The project was originally approved, as I said, by former Speaker Hastert and is now being carried forward in this bill. It is critical so that we can get the swing space ready for the House to use when we begin the badly needed renovations to the Cannon Building, which is nearly 100 years old, and to the Longworth Building, which is nearly 75 years old. We need flex space to move offices while those buildings are being renovated. The FDA building fits the bill.

GSA is ready to invest $150 million in the renovations of this building. This additional funding is to bring security from the generic government building level up to meet the requirements of congressional office space. This is a long-term investment. If we don't put

this money into getting the FDA building ready now, we will have to delay much-needed renovations to our existing buildings.

I would also say that I believe it is important for our staff to get the same kind of security that we would get as Members. We know that in the post-9/11 world, as we have talked about many times on the floor before, Members of Congress and this Capitol complex are targets, and it is imperative that we provide our staff with the same security that we ourselves demand.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I was not.

Madam Speaker, I will say that it seems ironic to me that they blame the Democrats for everything, yet this proposal that is being put forward by the gentleman from Georgia was originated under the speakership of Mr. Hastert and was planned during that period of time. And, frankly, it was a good idea. It's something that needs to be done.

The other point I would just like to make at the outset of my discussion here.

No, I will not yield.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I also want to point out that Mr. Kingston is talking about immigration and the lack of accountability with regard to illegal workers on government projects. I would like to remind the gentleman that it is his President that is in charge of enforcement, it is the administrative branch of government that is in charge of adjudicating and prosecuting illegal aliens, and that it is their Department that is awarding the contracts. And so if the gentleman is concerned about this, he should talk to his President down the street. And with a single conversation, he should be able to get the administration to do what he wants, since he is of the same party.

With regard to this building that we're talking about, when we had the anthrax scare here in Congress, I am aware that they actually had to displace Federal workers to house congressional employees in that building. That was only for a couple of weeks. To do this for months on end while a building is being renovated is simply unacceptable.

Further, Mr. Kingston's amendment was argued in the subcommittee and it was put forward in the subcommittee and it was rejected by the subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. We need this swing space to be able to do the renovation. And I think this goes back to a very simple thing that Mr. Dreier said, that this can be demagogued.

Clearly, we can have disagreements, but we need to do the right thing by the American people to provide for the safety of Congress. This $16 million appropriation is for Capitol security. Either you support security for Members, for the staff and for the general public, or you don't. You either support security or you don't. And I say that the bipartisan workings of the committee were the correct action and that the amendment that the gentleman offered was previously rejected in committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Georgia by saying that, in fact, the Rules Committee did offer Mr. Jordan's amendment from Ohio that one-ups the gentleman from Georgia. In fact, the gentleman from Georgia said he wanted to cut overall the entire operations in Congress and legislative branch by 1 percent. Mr. Jordan offers a 4 percent cut. And so we made that in order so that the Congress can have the debate that Mr. Price from Georgia has indicated that he wants to have on the House floor.

It is a very open process. And, in fact, I will tell you that this is a very bipartisan bill. Mr. Wamp and Ms. Wasserman Schultz came to the Rules Committee and indicated absolutely that they had worked on a bipartisan basis on this bill and that they thought that they had done a good job working on a bipartisan basis.

We have, in fact, offered the debate. We will, in fact, have a debate on cutting overall administration. In fact, this is a responsible bill in that we have cut $275 million from the President's request, 11 percent less than the administration asked for the operations of the legislative branch. This is a fiscally responsible bill. The committee has worked together to craft it in a bipartisan way, and I think that we in fact have a very good piece of legislation before the Congress today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for his hard work on the bill. Clearly he and our chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz of Florida, have done a good job working together on a bipartisan basis to craft a bill that will work for Congress and work for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my friend, the gentleman from California, that I, in fact, did yield to him earlier in the debate for quite some period of time and let him speak on my time prior. So, with that, I think we have, in fact, worked on a bipartisan basis. I am also willing to work and discuss with my colleagues.

But, in fact, as the gentleman said, this legislative branch appropriations bill is one where you can, in fact, have shenanigans, or I think his word was ``demagoguery,'' and, in fact, we have a structured rule so that we limit that. We are, in fact, trying to have the most open process. I think we have succeeded in doing a better job than happened in the prior Congresses.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like just to yield briefly to our distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to respond.

The gentleman is correct. I will yield him additional time to respond.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Madam Speaker, there were several misstatements of fact in the last statements that were made here on the floor by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

This bill actually does not provide $4 billion for legislative branch appropriations, as the gentleman indicated, but $3.1 billion for the legislative branch. The actual spending for fiscal year 2007, including the supplemental but not rescissions, this bill is a $122 million increase, which is 4 percent of that amount. If the $50 million rescission in the fiscal year 2007 CR is included, the bill is only $73 million, or 2.4 percent, above the prior year.

We have provided in this measure fiscal responsibility, accountability, and security and life safety for the Members of Congress, for the general public and for our staff.

I would also like to make a point that this bill represents a $276 million reduction from the Republican administration's request on this matter.

Madam Speaker, three principles guided the development of the underlying legislation: fiscal responsibility, security and life safety, and accountability.

This bill makes smart decisions with taxpayer dollars. It provides the necessary resources for Congress to carry out its constitutional oversight responsibilities, something we saw sorely lacking in the last Congress. It ensures the Capitol complex is safe and secure. Most importantly, it allows Members of Congress to represent and serve our constituents in the most efficient and effective manner possible.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

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?

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).

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this unnecessarily and uncharacteristically restrictive rule. On Wednesday night, despite the protests and objections of Republicans on the committee, the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee did its level best to solidify the committee's status as the Graveyard of Good Ideas in this House by passing out the most restrictive rule for a Legislative Branch appropriations bill in recent history.

Last year, when the Republicans ran the Rules Committee, we reported out a rule for consideration of the 2007 Legislative Branch in which we made in order all seven, that's seven out of seven, amendments submitted by Members of this body so that they could be considered and debated on this House floor. These amendments included four sponsored by Democrats and three sponsored by Republicans, making the rule and that process a completely inclusive and bipartisan product.

The year before that, the Republican-run Rules Committee, nearly half of the 11 amendments submitted in it were made in order under the rule, with both bipartisan and Democrat-

sponsored amendments allowed to be debated there on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I wish I could claim to be stunned by the majority's enormous departure from the Republican-led precedent to increase inclusiveness and dialogue in the House on this particular appropriations bill which is, by convention, the only bill to come to this floor under a closed process.

However, rather than honoring this tradition, on Wednesday the Democrat Rules Committee produced the most restrictive and closed rule in recent history. Earlier this week, 24 Members of this body submitted thoughtful and earnest proposals to improve this legislation to the Rules Committee. Additionally, Members tried to have their constituent voices be heard also by the committee, but they were turned away at the door because their amendments were submitted shortly after the arbitrary deadline.

And out of these 24 amendments, only three were given the opportunity to be debated on the floor. In passing this rule, Democrats made a calculated decision not to make every single amendment in order like Republicans did the year before. They even voted to abandon the more relaxed standard of 2 years ago, when half of the amendments were made in order.

So instead of making 100 percent of their colleagues' amendments in order, or even 50 percent of the amendments in order, this rule makes only 12 percent of the amendments submitted in order. This seems pretty meager in comparison to the grand promises made during last year by Speaker Pelosi to run the ``most honest and open Congress'' in history.

Among the amendments rejected by the committee on Wednesday were two amendments offered by someone with more knowledge of the legislative appropriations than perhaps any other Member of this body, my friend and the former chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston; an amendment by a Member of the Democrat majority, Mr. Cleaver of Missouri, that was made in order last year by the Republican majority, not this year; and a number of friendly taxpayer amendments by my good friend and colleague from Texas, the gentleman, Mr. Hensarling, that would have reduced the overall cost of this bill to the taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I do understand that the majority Democrats outnumber Republicans and have enough Members on the committee to win every single vote in the Rules Committee. And I understand that, as the majority, it is their responsibility to run the committee and the floor as they see fit. So all things being equal, I will not take exception to their new, heavy-handed approach to shutting down debate.

However, the second-ranking member of this body, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, crowed to the media on December 5 that Democrats would ``have a Rules Committee that would give opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and be considered on the floor of the House.''

Obviously, that is not happening. I believe every single Member of this body and, more importantly, the American people who send us here every 2 years have the right to know that when these grand promises are not being lived up to that those things will be noted on the floor. And they are, again, today.

So while my service in the Graveyard of Good Ideas in the House may prevent me from being surprised when these campaign pledges are broken on a daily basis by the Democrat majority on the Rules Committee at the direction of Democrat leadership, I hope that the American people are still shocked and appalled that promises delivered in November and December were promptly forgotten in January, and that they continue to be ignored today.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to send a message to this new Democrat leadership that this restrictive debate in the people's House is completely unacceptable. Join me in voting ``no'' on this rule so that the Rules Committee can live up to the standards set by the Democrat leadership and pass out a rule that allows for debate on the issues and ideas of every single Member of this body, not just the ones that the Democrat leadership find politically convenient.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from San Dimas, California, the Honorable David Dreier.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman now seems to want to duck what Republicans have done for 12 years, and that is, take responsibility for that, which they should do. The fact of the matter is we're here asking for and we're in the Rules Committee asking for the ability to be able to debate these. We're not blaming anybody, except to say that we believe there should be a debate, an open and honest debate that would be good for the American people, which would avoid the gentleman having to be concerned about who is blaming who.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, we are quite open about what we wanted today. We wanted the rule to match the promise that the new Democratic majority had made. They asked for the ability to lead this country and to make this the most open, honest Congress in history. Yet we find at this time that the Rules Committee does not do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

If I could inquire of the time remaining on both sides, please.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans are here today to say we believe the process should equal what the Democrats had said they would do. It did not.

Secondly, we have problems with the bill because of the more than 7- percent increase in spending over last year's level. We believe that that is excessive, at a time when we thought both sides agreed that fiscal sanity would be in order, especially in dealing with this body. So, the Republican Party is here today to say we think that is too much money.

Madam Speaker, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I may amend the rule to make in order the very thoughtful amendments of my Democratic colleague from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), which was made in order by the Republican-controlled Congress in the Republican Rules Committee last year.

The amendment would encourage House Members to lease hybrid and other more economical vehicles. In this time of high gas prices and our need, the national desire, the need to reduce the reliance on foreign sources of energy, this House should have at least have the opportunity to debate such a thoughtful amendment.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and the extraneous material printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, we were advised that the gentleman did not have any additional speakers.

I appreciate that.

Madam Speaker, without getting into an argument with the gentlewoman, we would just state the facts of the case. It is over $4 billion additional spending, this year over the last, and $4 billion is a lot of money to run this ship.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Speaker, I believe it to be correct, but the fact of the matter is, whether it's a 6-percent increase or a 4-percent increase as the gentlewoman subscribes to, we believe that is not the proper way to grow this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that this discussion is interesting, and, as Mr. Dreier has said to Mr. Cardoza, it is worthy of debate.

I want to ask my friend, were you here during the anthrax threat?

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, it is important because there is a little history here, Madam Speaker, but during the period of time in which much of the Longworth office was shut down and evacuated right in the wake of 9/11, I don't know how many Members, and perhaps Mr. Dreier knows, but we all had temporary offices in a building downtown, and I do not remember which building that was. But it was interesting. That was a direct threat to the United States Congress, and some of the offices were closed down for maybe a couple of months.

I moved my entire staff off premises. And so to say now that we have to construct expensive, unnecessary swing space just to fill in a gap is ridiculous.

I want to point out that I think it's important for newer Members to realize there is a history, there is a precedent. And because of the Rules Committee shutting down this amendment and free speech, most Members won't know that we are trying to prevent something that we've already gone through before, and that is temporarily locating elsewhere in a secure premises.

I wanted to commend Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the Chair, and the ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for what they have done on the CVC, the Capitol Visitors Center. It is a monstrosity; something we're all very disappointed in. When I was Chair of this committee, we tried our best to get our arms around it. One of the things that we all discussed is unfortunately it's kind of a bicameral problem. You don't have one head of the snake, one committee, one Chair who was fully responsible from alpha to omega.

I commend the committee on what they've done on this. I do think that with this FDA building we are creating another CVC boondoggle, as already outlined and debated in the committee. Since 2002, we've been debating this unnecessary additional office space, this swing space. And at the same time, the committee of the same government agencies are involved in it that have given us the CVC. So not to allow that amendment on the floor is something, in my opinion, is worth voting ``no'' on the whole rule debate.

The other amendment that I offered, among the many amendments that were turned down by the Democrats, it's very important to say the people who talked about sunshine so much are now denying it on the bill that tells this institution and the public so much about ourselves. No one gets elected or unelected on leg branch politics, except it does show what your culture of leadership is. If you don't allow sunshine, if you don't allow an open rule, if you don't allow open debate on your own piece of legislation that governs the House, then how can you go around and pontificate from coast to coast what an open government you're going to bring the United States people?

I know that the members of the Rules Committee and the members of the Appropriations Committee have somewhat been under a mandate, maybe even a gag order, by the leadership, but I would say there is huge hypocrisy and irony in this.

Another important amendment that I offered has to do with the Basic Pilot Program. And I'll ask you this: Do you think that people who do construction for the Federal Government should have legal employees, or should they be allowed to have illegal aliens? Well, we know and the Chair would be interested to know about the situation in California, because it's been such a hot debate out there, and the folks who have been building the fence, that the folks who are constructing the fence were busted for having illegal aliens to build a fence to keep illegal aliens out of the country. That is absurd. Similarly, we see this all over the place on Air Forces bases and Federal institutions, where contractors come in, and after close scrutiny we find they are hiring illegal aliens.

What the amendment would have done, which I believe would have wide bipartisan support, simply says that you need Social Security verification if you're going to do business with the Federal Government. No big deal, except for in this town and in this Chamber somehow that might offend some of our K Street friends, or should I say some other people's K Street friends. Because folks I know back home, they want Social Security verification. Unless you attack the job magnet, you're always going to have the attraction for illegals to come into the country.

This would give us an opportunity to lead by example to say we're not going to let you do business with the Federal Government unless you have verified Social Security. And the program is run by ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. It's called the Basic Pilot Program. Nothing controversial whatsoever. However, the Rules Committee is not even going to allow us to have a vote on it.

I cannot believe that the people one year ago, indeed, 7 months ago, were campaigning out there, telling Americans the Democrats are going to deliver open and honest government, because this rule is anything but that.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I just want to know, is it in the Democrat budget?

I want to thank my friend from Texas for his leadership on the Rules Committee and on this issue of wanting and demanding what the American people want, and that is an open process.

I oppose this rule because I believe, Madam Speaker, that it stifles the ability for Members of this House to represent their constituents. The reason that it stifles them is because it doesn't allow for the kind of debate and the kind of voting on issues that we've just heard about.

This is a good bill. I want to commend my classmate, Representative Wasserman Schultz, and Representative Wamp for their work; but it's not a perfect bill. And so we ought to move in the direction of making it a more perfect bill by allowing amendments, other ideas from this House to come forward.

Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to say that this is just another example of what I have come to know and phrase as ``Orwellian democracy'' by this new majority. It's Orwellian democracy because they say one thing and they do exactly the opposite.

What did they say? Well, what they said is that they would assure a fair and open process. Before the last election, Speaker Pelosi said, ``Because the debate has been limited and Americans' voice is silenced by this restrictive rule, I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.''

So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, or is it a broken promise?

The chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, said before, ``If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and the thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule.''

So what's changed, Madam Speaker? What's different now? Is it political expediency, or is it a broken promise?

Mr. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, said, ``I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you want to show some bipartisanship, if you want to promote a process that has some integrity, this should be an open rule. All Members should have an opportunity to come here and offer amendments to this bill to improve the quality of deliberations on this House floor.''

So what's different now, Madam Speaker? Is it political expediency, or a broken promise?

Democratic Caucus Chair, Mr. Emanuel, said before, ``Let's have an up or down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it on the table. Let's have a vote. So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want to do, let's have an up or down vote. You can put your votes right up there, and then the American people can see what it's all about.''

So what's different, Madam Speaker? Political expediency, or a broken promise?

I offered an amendment that would be debated on this floor that would have reduced the amount of spending by 1 percent. It would have saved the American taxpayer $31 million. Now, $31 million may not seem like a lot in Washington, but back where I come from and across this Nation, $31 million is a lot of money. It would say to the American people this is a step in the right direction for fiscal responsibility. That was said before, what was said before by the now majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who said, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.''

Madam Speaker, rules aren't rules if you only follow them when you want to, and choosing when to do so is breaking a promise. An open promise shouldn't just be something that you talk about on the campaign trail.

Madam Speaker, Americans understand that promises made on the campaign trail and promises that aren't kept in the heat of debate on the House floor are broken promises. And the American people are paying attention.