Rural Technology Development and Outreach Act

I rise in support of H.R. 2965, updating and enhancing the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2965, which will reauthorize and improve the SBA's SBIR and STTR programs. This bill has strong bipartisan support and would work to invest in entrepreneurial innovation and job growth.

While our economy is recovering, it still has a ways to go. Even now, we need to be focused on putting Americans back to work. We need growth that is lasting and industries that are sustainable. We need jobs that cannot be shipped overseas and will not evaporate in the next cycle of boom and bust. But those jobs aren't going to appear out of thin air. They need to be created. By expanding existing industries and unlocking new ones, H.R. 2965 will generate the jobs we need.

The SBIR and STTR programs are vital to small business growth. Year after year, they help jump-start 1,500 new companies. At the very least, that is 1,500 new employers. Over time, that is millions and millions of direct and indirect positions. But while these initiatives are crucial, they're not living up to their full potential. Through H.R. 2965, we can improve SBIR and STTR so they are running at maximum capacity.

Job creation, Mr. Chairman, is the primary goal of R&D. But in order to generate new positions, we have to first develop new industries. Commercialization is critical to that process.

But, unfortunately, most research never makes it to the market.

To address that issue, we are creating commercialization benchmarks. We're also encouraging conversations between SBIR officers and purchasing agents. Ultimately, those dialogs will enhance the flow of information between buyers and sellers, helping more ideas move from the drawing board to the marketplace.

When all is said and done, commercialization means more than new products--it means new jobs. Once a product hits the mainstream, it opens up a world of opportunity in a wide range of industries, from retail to manufacturing. By stimulating these sectors, we can help our economy on its route to recovery.

Even as our economy rebounds, small firms struggle to find funding-- particularly equity investment. Just a year ago, venture capital firms drove $5.7 billion into small companies. Today, we have seen almost a 50 percent decline. In terms of what that means for the economy, there are now $3.7 billion fewer dollars to help our small businesses create jobs. The programs' current regulations only compound those challenges.

By shutting venture capital out of SBIR and STTR, we are blocking billions of dollars to create jobs and limiting our ability to innovate. What are we supposed to say to a venture-backed firm that is researching cures for pancreatic cancer? Are we supposed to shake our heads and say, Sorry, you've done some promising research, but we just can't help you find a cure?

Mr. Chairman, this program is better than that. That is why H.R. 2965 gives small firms--not Washington bureaucrats--the final say in how their firms are financed.

This bill provides for the reasonable use of venture capital, while maintaining important safeguards. Make no mistake, SBIR and STTR are-- and forever will be--small business programs. This provision doesn't change that. What it does do is give small firms the funding they need to develop new products.

Even with the necessary capital, small firms struggle to see R&D from start to finish. That is because it is a complex process. Measures to block funding delays and increase efficiency will streamline R&D, helping more products make it out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. Meanwhile, we're going to broaden the scope of American innovation.

Silicon Valley doesn't hold a franchise on innovation, which is why H.R. 2965 reaches out to underserved rural areas. Through cutting edge technology and grassroots marketing, it also seeks to bring women, minorities, and veterans into the SBIR and STTR programs.

Innovation is the first stop on the path to prosperity. By enhancing and expanding SBIR and STTR, we can encourage small business growth in all parts of the country. In doing so, we will help our small firms to grow, innovate, and--most importantly--create homegrown jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology who moved this legislation through the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jason Altmire.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Halvorson, who authored several of the provisions of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair how much time we have left.

I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Clarke) 3 minutes.

(Ms. CLARKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to invest in the two greatest sources of economic growth: entrepreneurship and innovation. We know that small firms create roughly 70 percent of all new jobs, and we recognize that new markets are the surest path to prosperity, so it only makes sense to strengthen small business innovation. H.R. 2965 does exactly that. This is a bipartisan bill, one that could not have been drafted without contributions from my colleagues, Mr. Graves, Mr. Schock, Mrs. Halvorson, Mr. Bright, Mr. Nye, and most importantly, the bill sponsor, Mr. Altmire.

I would also like to thank Science and Technology, both chairman and ranking member, and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. David Wu, and the ranking member.

Especially, I want to say thank you to the staff on both committees who have worked so diligently in working in a bipartisan manner.

This legislation has the support of 60 different organizations, including the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, the Advanced Medical Technology Association and the Biotechnology Industry Organization. The SBIR and STTR programs are critical to small business resources. They helped 1,500 firms get off the ground every year, and in the past we have sparked breakthroughs in everything from antivirus software to defense technology.

Clearly, these programs hold enormous value. Even so, they haven't been modernized in over 8 years and are in sore need of enhancement. In improving SBIR and STTR, we are going to increase efficiency, expand the small business talent pool and boost commercialization.

Meanwhile, we are also going to give entrepreneurs more options for forming their ventures. Taken together these measures will do more than spark invention. They will help small firms market new products, open new industries and put more Americans back to work.

I will urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Pursuant to the rule, I send to the desk a modification to amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes technical and conforming changes to the underlying legislation. It also incorporates several important amendments offered by Members.

I would like to thank these Members for their contributions: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Boren, Mr. Boswell, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Childers, Mrs. Dahlkemper, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Kratovil, Ms. Markey, Mr. McNerney, Ms. McCollum and Mr. Perlmutter.

Because of their contributions, we have a stronger bill before us today. The provisions that are included in the manager's amendment will foster what we are doing to help veteran small businesses. As a new generation of veterans returns home from the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them will be seeking opportunities through entrepreneurship. Veterans are often well suited to be small business owners.

The manager's amendment will also enhance our outreach to women- and minority-owned businesses. Diversity has always been our Nation's greatest strength. By expanding the diversity of the firms that compete for SBIR grants, we will strengthen the overall SBIR program. The same can be said about the provisions in the manager's amendment that will encourage greater participation by rural businesses. Drawing these companies into the program will mean more ideas and better ideas.

In addition to encouraging greater diversity among participating firms, the manager's amendment targets SBIR and STTR groups toward a number of pressing problems where innovation and research are badly needed. For instance, language in the amendment clarifies that the programs shall make renewable energy a priority. Small businesses are already leading the way in constructing a green economy, and this provision will build on that success.

Lastly, the manager's amendment improves oversight. The 111th Congress has made oversight one of our top priorities to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and well.

This amendment continues that effort. SBIR and STTR are two of our Nation's most successful programs. It is our goal to ensure they continue functioning smoothly and effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

I urge adoption of the manager's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, in the 111th Congress, this body has made oversight a top priority. Accountability is critical to the legislative process, and it is the principle that the Small Business Committee has consistently worked to promote. So I thank the gentlelady from Florida for this amendment.

As I mentioned, my colleagues and I on the Small Business Committee have conducted a great deal of oversight. We have collaborated with GAO in the past, and I know they do good work. So I would be particularly interested to see them do a study on the effects of venture capital investment in the SBIR program.

In particular, I think it would be useful for all of Congress to understand how both this legislation as well as the 2003 ruling blocking venture capital participation has affected the SBIR program. These questions are critical to our continued oversight of these initiatives, and I thank the gentlelady for her efforts in this area.

I think a study will shed light on the role that venture capital plays in the high-tech arena. For many small firms, access to capital is critical, and it is often equity investment that allows a small business to advance their research to the marketplace.

A recent study by the National Research Council, which this GAO investigation would complement, found that restricting venture capital investment adversely affected the most promising firms. GAO has the broad capabilities to investigate the impact of this legislation and the SBA's regulation in this area, across all SBIR agencies. This comprehensive review will shed light on both the historical patterns of venture capital financing throughout the program, and whether certain agencies are embracing such investment.

Like Ms. Brown-Waite, I am committed to keeping SBIR and STTR small business programs. I believe that this study will help ensure this. With the economy facing so many challenges, expanding access to capital for small businesses has never been more important.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for any thoughts he may have.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlelady is prepared to yield back, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Space exploration has long been a symbol of American innovation. Today, we are in the process of unwinding one of our most high-profile efforts in that arena. In the next year, NASA's space shuttle project will retire for good. As the program comes to an end, so will an estimated 8,000 contracting jobs. While the project is shutting down, its contractors and the innovation behind it shouldn't have to.

In the past, these firms contributed a great deal to NASA's space shuttle program. I believe they can do the same for other Federal agencies, and for other space initiatives such as the Mars Lander project. That is why Ms. Kosmas's amendment is so important.

By retooling their operations and seeking new markets, space shuttle contractors can continue to offer high-wage jobs to countless Americans, all while maintaining their commitment to science and technology.

This amendment offers transitional assistance to displaced firms, helping them identify and vie for other R&D projects. In doing so, it will ensure that even with the loss of the program, we don't lose our most innovative businesses.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) for any comments he wishes to make.

We are prepared to accept the amendment.

I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation that we're debating today is designed to expand the pool of businesses that participate in the SBIR program. That is why this bill provides grants to economic development organizations so that they can educate rural entrepreneurs as well as businesses owned by women, minorities,

and veterans about SBIR. By expanding the set of businesses that compete for grants and contribute creative ideas, we can further spur innovation and encourage the development of new, better products.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington strengthens this part of the bill. By utilizing organizations that have experience with the communities we are trying to reach, it will expand the reach of the SBIR and STTR program, making this bill more effective.

It only makes sense to have the Small Business Administration leverage the knowledge of groups that already work closely with these populations. These organizations are already familiar with the small businesses in their communities and know which entrepreneurs will make strong SBIR candidates.

With this amendment, we will be able to broaden the pool of talent that competes for SBIR grants. That means more ideas, better ideas, and an improved return on investment for the taxpayer.

I, therefore, urge the adoption of this amendment and yield to the cosponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his good amendment.

We all know that one area where SBIR has been most successful is medical research. From heart stents to pacemakers, advances in the medical technology field bring important benefits to the lives of ordinary Americans every day.

In addition to improving our quality of life, the medical technology industry is an important driver in the American economy. In 2006, this industry employed more than 350,000 people and paid $21.5 billion in salaries. Clearly, this field, which is dominated by smaller firms, plays a vital role in providing jobs and fostering economic growth.

Many of these firms got their start thanks to SBIR funding. The kind of high-risk/high-reward research that medical technology companies engage in makes them strong candidates for SBIR grants, so already there is an important relationship between SBIR and advances in the medical technology field. Mr. Paulsen's amendment would codify this relationship by putting a direct reference to medical technology in the act.

While a seemingly small change, this amendment will formalize SBIR's support for medical technology research. In that way, the amendment will support future research and may very well lead to the development of the medicines of tomorrow.

I believe this is a good amendment, and I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Graves, for any comments that he may have.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Putting aside the gentleman's comments, let me just say that we spent almost 2 hours, 3 hours here debating the SBIR/STTR, and what we heard is people talking about the economic downturn and how can we grow this economy. This bill deals with title IX of the Small Business Act. As such, Mr. Speaker, under clause 7 of the House rule, the amendment is not in order and is not germane to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. In today's economy, small business is where innovation happens. The Science and Technology Committee intends to promote science and technology research that drives an innovation economy. That is why I rise in support of H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act.

At more than $2.3 billion per year, the Small Business Innovation and Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs comprise the largest source of Federal support for technological innovation in the private sector. Given the current economic climate, we need robust SBIR and STTR programs to create the next generation of companies that will provide high-paying jobs and grow our economy.

However, these programs originated more than 25 years ago. Given the economic changes we have seen during the past two decades, we need to update these programs to reflect the current economic realities of our increasingly competitive innovation economy.

The Committee on Small Business and the Committee on Science and Technology have held numerous hearings on SBIR and STTR over the past several years. Witnesses shared many recommendations about how SBIR and STTR can be strengthened.

Recently, both committees overwhelmingly supported H.R. 2965, with each committee voting favorably to reauthorize SBIR and STTR through 2011 with some much needed modernization and changes.

The legislation has been endorsed by more than 100 organizations, including the American Association of Universities, BIO, the National Venture Capital Association, the Energy Sciences Coalition, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

The bill increases the award sizes for phase 1 and phase II to reflect the actual cost of doing high-tech research today. It also increases the flexibility of the SBIR by allowing cross-agency awards and allowing applicants to apply directly for phase II funding.

H.R. 2965 allows venture capital-backed small businesses to once again apply for awards and specifically defines their eligibility requirements. This temporary ban on venture capital majority ownership was the result of a ruling in 2003 by an administrative law judge in Boston.

For 20 years--from the inception of the program in 1983--to 2003, venture capital-funded companies could freely participate in these programs. There is no evidence, there is no evidence anywhere, that during that time there was any crowd-out of other businesses by VC- backed businesses.

There has been a lot of debate over the role of venture capital participation, but the National Academies recently released a report that states that venture-backed companies are important. They contribute greatly to technologic development and they do not-- emphatically, do not--crowd out other small businesses.

The goal of SBIR is to encourage innovation. It is time that we fix the administrative ruling of a single judge and support more innovative small businesses and the best technology that we can help bring to market.

Today, we recognize our leadership by reauthorizing SBIR and STTR. I want to commend Chairwoman Velazquez in particular for her commitment to small business innovation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a leader in energy innovation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time remains.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize the staff who put many hard years of work into this legislation. On the Science Committee staff, I always say that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to serve on the Science Committee, but you do have to be a rocket scientist to staff the Science Committee. I would like to recognize the good work of Mike Quear of my staff and Dennis Worden.

The bill that they have crafted is fundamentally about jobs. It is about turning research into new products and new services, but most importantly, good, high-wage jobs that tend not to go away. This is a 25-year-old-plus program that has worked, and we are here today making improvements. We are making the program more flexible by permitting cross-agency awards. We are permitting awardees to skip phase one and go straight to a phase two award if they have done that development work with private money. We are collecting data, because there is a dearth of data currently, data that will help us target this program even better in future reauthorizations.

For the first time in 5 years, we are going back to the prior rule, the preexisting rule that was there for 20 years of permitting venture capitalists to participate more broadly in the program but with carefully crafted restrictions. This program remains the exclusive domain of small businesses, those businesses with 500 or fewer employees. It is the kind of bill that has brought together a bipartisan consensus, because we need it now more than ever under our economic circumstances. This is the kind of legislation that we should be working on all the time that turns research into new products, new services and new jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today first to applaud the House for working on legislation that is designed specifically to help small businesses. It is the most important thing that Congress can do for the economy, and I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their hard work on this issue.

I also rise today to bring one provision in the bill that will surely influence the effectiveness of the SBIR and STTR programs--either for good or ill.

Section 102 mandates that no single venture capital firm may own more than 49 percent of a small business for that small business to be eligible to participate in these programs. Multiple venture capital companies, however, in aggregate, may own a majority of the shares, but no single firm may have a controlling interest.

In essence, section 102 attempts to strike a balance between the two concerns. On the one hand, Congress does not want large venture capital firms scavenging and acquiring a large number of small businesses simply to take advantage of Federal tax dollars. On the other hand, Congress has an interest in making sure that any otherwise eligible small business is not unnecessarily excluded from participating simply because it has received all or a majority of its funding from a single angel, of sorts, investor.

Preventing large firms from ``gaming'' the system is the correct goal in my view, and I appreciate the committee's work to address this problem. Yet, Congress must do everything possible to ensure that we are not letting our pursuit of the perfect affect our ability to achieve the goals of this legislation.

Simply put, my amendment directs GAO to conduct a study on the effect that this ownership restriction has on participation. This will help Congress to determine if the right balance has been struck.

The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that in far too many cases thoughtful and well-intended programs to assist small businesses have been unnecessarily hampered by arbitrary rules and restrictions that made sense at first glance.

The SBA's ARC loan program, for instance, which provides 100 percent guarantees for small business loans had been hampered because despite the guarantee, many banks are refusing, most banks are actually refusing to participate. Banks are being forced to hoard capital to satisfy stress test requirements, and while those requirements make sense for regulators, they

inhibit the government's ability to administer its small business programs.

As my colleagues know, small businesses accounted for 70 percent of new job growth over the last 10 years. It is critical that Congress get these small business programs right and that they are implemented quickly. Over the long term, Congress must continue to do everything to support entrepreneurs through thoughtful policy and resist the temptation to replace them with bureaucrats.

This, Mr. Chairman, is a program that supports entrepreneurs, and I think that we owe it to them to make sure that the program is as effective as possible; and if it is not, to fix it until we get it right.

I believe this legislation has a chance to do what Congress should have done from the start in this economic crisis, and that is to help small businesses. However, if in a month from now Congress turns around and institutes employer mandates and taxes the health care benefits provided by small business owners, the House will again have taken a step back in supporting the recovery and growth of small businesses.

I urge the House's adoption of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady from New York working with me on this amendment as a former New Yorker and as somebody who wants to make sure that this bill works. I really appreciate it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2965, the Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act of 2009. This bill incorporates the important language of legislation that I introduced in H.R. 2772, the SBIR and STTR Enhancement Act. I would like to thank first Chairwoman Velazquez, Ranking Member Graves

and Mr. Altmire for working to move this important piece of legislation forward and doing so in such a bipartisan way. I also want to thank my colleague Congressman Nye for his work with me on the subcommittee level to ensure that the process of modernizing the Small Business Innovation Research program was done in an effective, efficient and bipartisan fashion with the input from those who are most important, that is, the small business sector who utilizes this important program.

The Small Business Innovation Research, or SBIR program, as we refer to it, was established over 20 years ago and is an important resource in assisting small business owners wishing to bring their technological advancements to the marketplace. While small business owners represent some of the brightest innovators our country has, because of the high cost of doing technological research for the government, small businesses are, unfortunately, often underrepresented in receiving such research-intensive government contracts. When the Federal Government looks to the private sector for the development of new technologies and ideas, they must look beyond simply large corporate conglomerates to the small businesses that truly drive our economy and create American jobs.

I am encouraged that this legislation and the language contained in it will make a number of necessary and overdue changes to the SBIR program, ensuring its continued use to help in the commercialization of those innovations made by small businesses. Additionally, this language will equip the SBIR program with important new tools to bring it more in line with the needs of small business owners in the 21st century. Included are important provisions to allow for increased oversight, more transparency and greater flow of information between the recipient and participating agencies. We will now have more timely solicitation responses from these agencies, the creation of an online database to properly study and measure the performance of businesses participating in the program and new restrictions regarding potential program abusers. These changes will help SBIR continue to be one of the few government assistance programs which actually works.

Finally, by responsively increasing the grant limits, which have not been altered in over 20 years since the program's inception while simultaneously not increasing the total funding pool, we ensure that this program is streamlined to become more effective and efficient, to focus on granting funds to those potentially successful ideas that need this type of support to transition from concept to reality. Rather than throwing more taxpayer money at an unnecessarily large amount of grants, the SBIR program will now focus on investing in those ideas from small businesses which actually possess the potential to reach full commercialization phase.

Today this House will make these important changes to the SBIR program to ensure its continued use as a resource, which helps small businesses bring their new and novel ideas to the market while also providing a value to our economy, which we all know it so desperately needs. Knowing that over 60 percent of American citizens get their paycheck from a small business, it only seems right in these tough economic times that we focus on beefing up those support efforts here in the Federal Government to help the largest employers in our country, small businesses. I urge a ``yes'' vote and passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form.

Mr. Speaker, we offer this motion to recommit because I think everyone in this body realizes that we have gone far astray from regular order, and we know the damage that does to this Institution. We have done it in the name of expediency, as if we have to be done by some specific date on some arbitrary schedule that has been scratched out on some piece of paper.

We all know that we have work to do. We weren't here Monday. We could have worked. We could have done appropriation bills. But instead, what we have done is cut Members out not being able to offer amendments on the floor, not only minority Members but majority Members too.

We all know that we have gotten far away from regular order and that we need to return to regular order where Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents that elected them here. That means offering amendments to appropriation bills. Our history has been that appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule so that Members have the right to offer amendments.

Is it frustrating? Yes. Does it take a lot of time? Yes. Are there some amendments that we wish wouldn't be offered? Sure. But that is our job. Our job is to come here and debate issues, not expediency, trying to get them done at a specific time. By doing that, what we do is cut off Members' ability to offer amendments and represent their constituencies.

I believe that Mr. Obey was absolutely correct on October 6, 2000, when he said, We have gotten so far from regular order that I fear that if this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term ``representative democracy.'' The reason we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this Institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate, minority Members and majority Members. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to call this the greatest deliberative body left in the world.

He is absolutely right, and we need to adopt this as a sense of Congress that we need to return to regular order so that Members can represent their constituents and they can offer amendments. It will take long, yes, but people will have the opportunity to represent their constituents. And everyone here on both sides of the aisle knows in their heart this is what we need to do if we are going to be called a ``representative democracy'' instead of trying to get it done because we have an August recess coming up.

I am willing to stay and work. I am willing to stay on the weekends and work if that is necessary to get our work done. And you should be, too. That is what we are getting paid for, not to cut Members off.

So I would urge you to adopt this motion to recommit so that we can return to regular order and so that Members have the right and the ability to represent their constituents on this floor.

I fear, as I said the other day, I truly fear that you know not the damage that you do to this Institution with the rules that are closing off debate on the appropriations process. We need to return to regular order and open debate and let Members offer their amendments and represent their constituents in the manner for which they were elected.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.