Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 596 in part A.

I thank the Chair. Before I start with this amendment, I want to say that I support the part of the manager's amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania offered with regard to the F-22 program. I'm glad that we're doing what we're doing there, and I commend the committee for sticking with what the President wanted there. I think we've done the right thing.

This amendment would remove $160 million in funding for the U.S.-made first responder radios for use by Mexico's police force. This request is not classified as an earmark but is programmatic funding, and it came to my attention last week when it was featured in a story by the Washington Post. According to the article, 12 Members of Congress requested this funding which is to be used for radios with certain specifications. The article goes on to say that while no specific company is named in the bill, Motorola, which makes radios that fit the parameters set forth in the bill and which is based in Illinois, home to seven of the requesting Members, appeared to be the intended beneficiary of this funding. At the same time, the article points out that because this request is not considered to be an earmark, the Members who requested it are not required to publicly report it. Typically they have

to sign a certification saying they have no financial interest in the earmark, and that was not the case here.

Mr. Chairman, if it looks like an earmark, sounds like an earmark, I think it's an earmark. It ought to be disclosed under House rules, and it isn't here. Even if we accept that funding directed to a nameless company based on a certain set of requirements that only one company could provide is not an earmark, then we're met with an inconvenient problem: Why bother to make the earmark process more open and transparent when it would be just as easy to request the funding--in this case, funding that is several times more expensive than the average earmark--by calling the beneficiary a program and tailoring its description to suit the needs of one company? It's bad enough that this bill includes over 500 earmarks directed at private companies. The sponsors of those earmarks are all required to disclose their requests on their Web sites; and they even certify, as I mentioned, that they have no financial interest. But that is not the case here. They write letters, but it doesn't show up as an earmark.

The Post article quotes Bill Allison, senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, as saying, ``It kind of makes a mockery of the disclosure requirements we have. They will disclose the little things, the $1 million projects; but when you have big-ticket items, you don't have Members willing to take responsibility for those.'' I agree with Mr. Allison's assessment. If we truly want to drain the swamp and make the earmark process more transparent, we can't continue to allow private companies to be funded outside the current House rules.

I urge support for my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

I would inquire of the gentleman on the subcommittee if he believes that this is an earmark; and if it is, why Members aren't required to certify that they have no financial interest if they're requesting money for it?

I yield the gentleman time to respond.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

I will reserve the balance of my time.

We have a process here that I think over the years has been abused severely. We see that whenever we pick up the paper. We see examples of earmarks that have gone out of this place in prior years with no notice at all. Last year we didn't even have any opportunity to offer any amendments. The Appropriations Committee didn't even mark up the Defense bill. We see story after story from prior years of what happens when we don't have adequate disclosure and transparency. I would submit that that's what we're continuing here. We have a programmatic request that 12 Members signed a letter. Seven of those Members represent the State in which the recipient of the earmark clearly will receive a huge contract, and yet we don't have to file the disclosure requirements that we do for regular earmarks. I would say that we should not fund this programmatic request, which is really a stealth earmark, and get back to the process that we at least pretend to follow here, where we have disclosure and accountability. I would urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 1 in part B.

Let me just state, since the gentleman wouldn't yield time at the end of his statement for me to ask, with the last earmark amendment I had, the only information we have from the committee says that the money is to go to Mexico for a program in Mexico, for radios for Mexico. Afghanistan was never mentioned. If it is covered, we don't know that.

But when the Appropriations Committee takes 18 minutes to mark up the bill and then brings it to the floor and then the chairman of the subcommittee won't answer a question about it, to just say, Well, it's for Afghanistan as well, that doesn't help with this process at all. And I think that will be the pattern today, whether to simply reserve time and then not yield any so we can have any kind of colloquy to find out what really is at the heart of these earmarks or what these are really for.

So I hope that changes. I hope we have a real discussion here because we didn't get it in the Appropriations Committee. Remember, 18 minutes to approve a bill unanimously, with more than 1,000 earmarks in it that nobody in the full body had seen, and we only got a copy of days before the bill came out. Eighteen minutes.

Anyway, this amendment would prohibit $5 million from going to fund Enhanced Navy Shore Readiness Integration. The earmark is going to Concurrent Technologies. Now, most people who have been following this process will know that name and know it well because Concurrent has drawn considerable attention due to its proclivity for earmarks. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Concurrent received more than $200 million in earmarks between 2001 and 2006.

Concurrent technically is a nonprofit organization, with revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And it is receiving earmark after earmark after earmark after earmark, although questions are raised all over the place. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Concurrent Technologies' employees have donated more than $113,000 to current members of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee since 1998.

Let me just use a chart here. This chart kind of explains the phenomenon that we will see over and over and over again. And with every earmark amendment I am offering today, this pattern exists where Members of Congress will earmark dollars; the earmark spending goes to the earmark recipient; the earmark recipient will then turn around; and lobbying firms representing the earmark recipient, PACs there, executives from the lobbying firm, executives from the company itself, contribute handsomely to Members of Congress, and it recycles again and again and again. Circular fund-raising, that's what we're talking about here.

Now, I will point out that when Members of Congress request an earmark, they are forced to sign a certification letter saying that they have no financial interest. This kind of circular fund-raising is not illegal, and that's not what I'm alleging at all. But is it right? And should we, as Members of Congress, tolerate it again and again and again when these companies like Concurrent Technologies are in the news for having problems explaining what they've done with the earmark money that they've received again and again? And here we go saying, Now we have transparency and accountability, and we've changed the earmark process, and yet here we are again appropriating more money through an earmark to Concurrent Technologies.

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

Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing earmarks earlier in the appropriation cycle, one Member defending his earmark came to the floor and said he was getting an earmark for a university. Based on things I've read in the papers, this college does not have a lobbyist, either a Federal or State lobbyist. No one from the school has donated to my campaign; nothing at the school is named after me or is proposed to be named after me. To my knowledge, the school has never received an earmark of any sort from the Federal Government prior to this.

I would ask the gentleman, the sponsor of the earmark, if he can make the same statement with regard to this earmark. Have moneys come back from the recipient of the earmark?

And I would yield him time to do so.

Roll Call has noted that PMA, and we will get to another PMA earmark a little later, has been--well, let me step back just a bit. Sunlight Foundation has noted that Concurrent Technologies paid PMA $320,000 in lobbying fees in 2008 and received more than $14 million in earmarks sponsored by five Members, including the sponsor of this amendment. This signifies an impressive 4,463 percent return on investment. It's no wonder this process of circular fund-raising continues.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the sponsor of this earmark is reportedly among the five top recipients of PMA contributions. Roll Call noted that PMA has been the largest source of campaign contributions since 2001 and PMA and its client have

provided the sponsor of this earmark with nearly $200,000 in campaign contributions since 2001.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 258 in part B.

Mr. Chairman, before I get to the substance of the amendment, if people out there want to know why members of the Appropriations Committee, and particularly the Defense Subcommittee, are loathe to talk about these earmarks and to talk about this process and why the markup in the full committee took a full 18 minutes, this might explain it.

If you look here to the left of this chart, 33 percent of the dollar value of the earmarks in the Defense Appropriations bill go to just under 4 percent of the Members of this body. One-twenty-fifth of the Members in this body take home 33 percent of the earmarked dollars in this appropriations bill. So I don't blame them for wanting to get through this quickly, for having an 18-minute markup where nobody really talks about anything; you just shove it on through and it's a unanimous vote. If you want to know why, here it is.

But this Congress, the rest of the body, the rank-and-file Members who aren't on that committee ought to be concerned, particularly when over and over again there are press stories that are unflattering about what happens when earmarks go in this fashion. The Washington Post's top story above the fold today is another one, talking about how Members are loathe to get rid of these pork projects in the bill or these earmarks.

So I would submit that if anybody out there is wondering why this process goes so quickly and Members are so disinclined to debate, why not? If you can do it, do it. If 4 percent of the Members in this body can take home 24 percent of the earmarks, that's a pretty good gig. But the rest of us ought to be concerned, and I think the country is concerned, certainly the press is reporting that there is an issue there.

This amendment would remove $5 million for funding for the Reduced Manning Situational Awareness program. According to the sponsor of this program, it's a command and control system with smart sensors, 3-D visualization, video analytics, and bandwidth management.

I'm not here to argue the merits of the program. I frankly don't have much knowledge in that area. But what we see here again is an earmark going to a private company. Sometimes Members will say, I'm just working for my district; I'm just getting earmarks for economic development in my district. In this case the company is not even located in the sponsor's district.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the gentleman brought up this phrase in the bill that it should be opened to full competition. The reason for the earmark is to get around competition. We all know that. Now we can have language in the bill that requires that. But I had a meeting with some Defense Department procurement officials and the Comptroller General a while ago, and I asked the Defense Department officials, What is your process with these earmarks? And they said, We subject them to full competition, basically except when we don't. So I asked them, Can you do a random sample of earmarks in the 2009 or 2008 Defense bill and come back to me and let me know how many went to the intended recipient for the earmark?

I yield.

I thank the gentleman for trying to clarify that. But I would submit that that is the process that the Defense Department says that they follow now. So they will take this language and say that's what we do already, except when we don't. And when they don't subject it to full competition, they simply issue what's called a J&A. And the J&A is the justification for why that earmark was not subject to competition.

I have asked for months and months and months, and I'm still waiting for some of those J&As. But we know with uncanny precision these earmarks end up with the intended recipient and simply putting in language in here, which my guess is will be taken out in the Senate anyway, though it doesn't mean much in the first place, it will not likely survive the Senate; but if it does, the Defense Department will say we do that anyway.

If it's subject to full competition, the gentleman mentioned with Concurrent Technologies that they had won in open competition for another pot of money. Well, great. If they're so good, why do we have to earmark money for them? Why don't we say compete on your own like everybody else? That is the purpose of these earmarks, to get around competition. That is the purpose of it. So to say, well, we inserted language in it and that will solve it all, it simply doesn't because the Defense Department knows who butters their bread. They know that they need to follow with uncanny precision the intended recipient.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me just finish the thought I had before.

President Bush a couple of years ago said that earmarks that end up in the report language and not in the bill itself, like these earmarks, that he would instruct the Federal agencies to ignore them and to simply openly compete contracts out there. This Appropriations Committee inserted language after the President did that and said that the President or the Federal agencies should have to follow the language in the report even though it wasn't legislative language.

So if we're all keen on competition here, why in the world, until the public started to focus on it, did we instruct the Federal agencies and say you have to take the language that's in the report as if it were law?

Anyway, let's get to this amendment.

This amendment would remove $2.2 million in funding for KDH Defense, for a Body Armor Improved Ballistic Protection.

I have not come here to debate the merits of the earmark. Again, I'm not an expert in improved ballistic protection defense. But I should say again I think people in our military are and the Pentagon is and that they should probably make this decision rather than a single Member of Congress.

As reported by Roll Call earlier this week, KDH Defense has received millions in earmarks to produce an underwater swimmer detection sonar system for the Navy to be used to protect its docks and ships. KDH's expertise lies in sewing bulletproof vests, but reportedly this earmark project was the first product to be delivered by KDH Electronic Systems, a startup company affiliated with KDH.

After several years and a series of botched agreements with subcontractors, KDH has yet to deliver this product. Based on the statements made by the president of KDH, it doesn't appear as though they ever will. And yet we are here today again ready to provide KDH with millions more in taxpayer dollars.

I would ask why are we doing this when we already have information that some of the individuals or companies that will be associated with this earmark haven't exactly done well in the past, haven't produced what they said they would, in some cases have little expertise in the area that they say they do in order to get the earmark?

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

Mr. Chairman, again, here we have the same pattern of circular fund-raising. Again, I am not alleging any illegal activity here. This is legal. It is unfortunate, but it is legal for Members to sign a certification that they have no financial interest in the earmark. But our same Ethics Committee issues guidance to the Members saying campaign contributions do not necessarily reflect or constitute financial interest.

That, I would submit, Mr. Chairman, is the wrong approach, and we are going to continue to see story after story where earmark recipients simply don't have the capability or the inclination to deliver on the product that they said they would deliver on, and yet they still continue, even in this environment with investigations swirling around all over, to receive these same earmarks.

By now, my colleagues are familiar with the PMA scandal that has plagued this body for months. There is an investigation, at least they are looking into it, we are told, by our own Ethics Committee here.

I am unconvinced that the PMA scandal will be the last scandal we see in this body. I am convinced that there will be earmarks that we approve today that later investigation will determine were not aboveboard, that these companies receiving these earmarks simply weren't delivering, because we have seen that again and again and again, and yet we go through this same process as if nothing were amiss.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, an editorial in The New York Times, entitled ``Political Animal 101,'' referred to the ``relationship between campaign dollars and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers'' as ``the ultimate in symbiotic survival and cynical influence trading.''

That is The New York Times. There have been editorials in the Washington Post. They have been in Roll Call and The Hill and just about everywhere. The mainstream media has done a great job investigating this and showing that this process leaves a lot to be desired.

Again, it doesn't have to be illegal to be something that Members of this body should stand up and say, you know, our House should have a higher standard here. We ought to have a higher standard than whether we can survive an investigation going on by the Justice Department right now, that we ought to leave some confidence with the public that we are doing things right here. And I would submit when you have more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 500 of which represent no-bid contracts to private companies like this one, then we have got a problem.

I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 389 in part B.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond a little to what the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee said.

He mentioned some of the horrible things that are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have attended funerals myself of members who were killed by an IED or some other measure out there that they need greater protection from. But that is not what we are talking about here.

The reason we are here and the reason I offered the last amendment is it is going to a firm that, according to press reports, doesn't have the expertise to do what they intend to do and in the past have not delivered on the promises that were made before.

We see stories again and again and again on that same theme, that earmarks go to such companies. In fact, there is a trial going on, I believe, right now in Florida where an earmark recipient has pled guilty, I believe, to distributing earmark money to contractors who had no intention of following through and delivering on the contract. That is why we are here.

So we can talk all we want about the needs of our troops in the field, and that is why I am offering these, because this money should be going to our troops in the field. Instead, it is being bled off, in some cases, according to press reports, to companies who don't know enough about what they are doing to receive the earmark. But they are getting an earmark and getting around competition despite the language in this year's bill which claims that these will be subject to free and open competition.

This particular amendment, Mr. Chairman, would remove $3 million from funding for a Gulf Range Mobile Instrumentation Capability project. Again, I am here not knowing the specifics of the technology here, but I would submit that there are people in the Defense Department that perhaps might know better than some Members. And in this case, I would think that the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee would concede that we shouldn't be giving money to companies that have been implicated, at least it has been alleged, that they are under investigation.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed real estate records and reported that many of the facilities that ProLogic, the recipient of this earmark, uses are partly owned by the family of the CEO, and ProLogic pays the CEO monthly rent that is higher than prevailing local rates. ProLogic was also subpoenaed in a broader Federal investigation into earmarks going to West Virginia, where ProLogic is headquartered.

The Wall Street Journal also noted that four of ProLogic's six facilities were located in the congressional districts of senior members of the House Appropriations Committee. CBS News reported that ProLogic has spent more than $880,000 lobbying and contributed more than $400,000 to congressional campaigns.

I should note this company has denied allegations of wrongdoing and the status of the investigation is currently unknown.

But here we have a company that press reports say is either under investigation or cooperating with an investigation, and we are still giving it an earmark, a no-bid contract. Despite what is said about this will be open to free and open competition, we are giving them an earmark and saying this company at this address should get this money.

I just don't see where this connects with the speech about the needs of our men and women in the military. Again, I will stipulate, we need to make sure that our men and women are armed, that they have force protection, that they have the arms and everything else they need. And that is why I am so against this process that we have here, because we bleed off money that should be going to our military into companies, through no-bid contracts, who in too many cases simply aren't doing the work that they were contracted to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very distinguished Rules Committee colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I was just thinking as I was sitting here listening to his very thoughtful remarks. And he is a diligent and hardworking new member of the committee. He's now, this month completed 6 months, halfway through the first session of the 111th Congress. And my friend on the Rules Committee has, along with 70-some-odd other Members, not once, not once seen something that, when I'd been here 6 months I'd seen on countless occasions, and that is an open rule, an open amendment process.

And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope very much that my friend on the Rules Committee, the other new members of the Rules Committee, and the Members of this institution and, most importantly, the American people, will, sometime in the 111th Congress, have the opportunity to see an open debate under the 5-minute rule in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, last week we marked a very significant anniversary in this institution. It was the formal consideration of James Madison's proposal to amend the Constitution to add a Bill of Rights. That debate, Mr. Speaker, began 220 years ago, just this last week. It was July 21 of 1789 that the House of Representatives began the process of debating whether or not to proceed with the Bill of Rights. In that first summer of the very first Congress, Congressman Madison proposed his amendments, which were considered by the House Rules Committee, and then moved to the House floor for a 10-day debate.

And I underscore that again, Mr. Speaker, the debate that took place on the floor of the House of Representatives lasted 10 days for consideration of the Bill of Rights. Now, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that took place that summer and it was very, very instructive. It was instructive, the debate that we saw 220 years ago this summer, not just for its substance, but in many ways for the nature of that debate that was managed by Congressman Madison who, incidentally, represented the seat that is now held by our distinguished Republican whip, Mr. Cantor.

Throughout the course of that debate, summer of 1789, it was very clear that Mr. Madison had great respect for the views of the Members who disagreed with him. He had a great deal of respect for those with whom he vigorously disagreed. He argued with civility, comity, and respect. He never impugned his adversaries' motives. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he not only didn't impugn his adversaries' motives, he actually defended them himself during debate. He passionately sought consensus on the fundamental issues and placed it above his own ambivalence that existed on lesser concerns.

And it was ambivalence, because, if you recall your history, Mr. Speaker, he was not, at the outset, a believer in the necessity for a Bill of Rights. He urged his colleagues to act on, and I quote from a June 1789 speech when he actually introduced the Bill of Rights, what he called the principles of amity and moderation to proceed with caution, but that ultimately they must act resolutely to satisfy the public mind. Again, Congressman Madison's words.

He clearly did not believe that decisive action and a full, open debate were mutually exclusive. He believed that clearly that ultimate decision would be a better one with a full, rigorous, and open debate. He saw them as being fully intertwined, that elevating the debate above reproach would give this body the moral authority to act decisively and appropriately as a truly representative body, which it has been.

I believe in this Madisonian model, Mr. Speaker, very, very fervently. I believe in that model of intellectually rigorous, open, and civil debate. So it's with great dismay that I have seen the tenor of our debate deteriorate and the legislative process grow even more closed in recent years. The closing down of the traditionally open appropriations process has, for me, personally, been the most troubling thing to observe.

We have the very serious responsibility of spending the taxpayers' hard-earned money. That responsibility deserves a completely open and transparent process. Unfortunately, this year, for the first time in the 220-year history, we have had a restrictive appropriations process from the beginning to what today is now the end. As was pointed out by Mr. Flake earlier, this is the last of the now 12 appropriations bills. Today, we consider that final appropriations bill under the exact same, restrictive process with which we've considered every single appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as we mark this 220th anniversary of that very historic debate on the Bill of Rights, we, unfortunately, are making history of our own. It's not history of which we can be very proud. It's not history that will judge this institution kindly. Today, we mark the final death knell for the open process with which we have historically handled our constitutionally mandated power of the purse.

The abandonment of this tradition began just over a month ago, on June 17, when the Democratic majority announced at the very outset of the process that it would not be granting the customary open rule for spending bills. Since that day, June 17, we have been on a steady march toward an ever more

restrictive process, barring the full transparency that the taxpayers deserve and prohibiting the full participation of rank-and-file members of both parties.

I will say that we regularly hear that this is characterized as Republicans complaining or whining. We are fighting for the rights of Democrats and Republicans. The reason is the Democrats and Republicans represent the American people, and it's the American people who are being undermined by this very unfortunate process.

With today's consideration of our final appropriations bill, the full pivot to what I am describing as the ``new normal'' becomes complete. Having cast aside one of our longest-held traditions, we now have a process where the chairman of the Appropriations Committee alone is the sole arbiter of what spending amendments may be offered, who can speak on them and for how long. They have done this in the name of expediency, citing a strict schedule that must be adhered to.

If they were only concerned with time limits, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Flake pointed out earlier, why didn't they simply impose an overall time limit debate on each bill? If it simply were this schedule that Mr. Obey has repeatedly held up, just put an outside time limit on the debate. I would not have been a proponent of that, but it certainly would have been preferable to this kind of restriction imposed on the American people by way of preventing their Democratic and Republican Members of the House from being able to offer their amendments.

A popular justification has been to claim that the process took too long back in 2007, so it had to be controlled from the beginning this time, but that argument completely overlooks the fact that 2007 was a very unique year. It was the transition year from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority here in the House. One of the hallmarks of transition years is a lengthier appropriations process, and yet the new Republican minority took less floor time in 2007, almost 26 hours less, than the new Democratic majority did back in 1995. Again, let me underscore that.

When we heard that the 2007 appropriations process was so out of hand, we needed to realize that, in its being a transition year, there were actually fewer amendments that were proposed by Members of the new minority. That had been the case when Democrats were in the minority back in 1995. When we compare these 2 years, it is very clear that, while there was an increase in time spent on our spending bills in 2007, it was very modest to what the Democrats engaged in when they entered into the minority, as I said, following the 1994 election.

The Democratic majority's excuses just don't stand up to scrutiny. The real motivation, Mr. Speaker, for this restrictive process has been to cherry-pick amendments and to shield their profligate spending practices from any real transparency or accountability. It's very obvious.

I and my Republican colleagues on the Rules Committee--Messrs. Diaz- Balart and Sessions and Ms. Foxx--have just completed, through a great deal of effort by members of the Rules Committee staff, this report entitled ``Opportunities Lost: The End of the Appropriations Process.'' I'm glad that my friend on the other side of the aisle has it, and I look forward to his comments and thoughts on it, as well as I do of those of our other colleagues. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to read it. I have this report which we're just issuing today, Mr. Speaker. In the not too distant future--I hope later today or tomorrow--we will actually have this report available online for our colleagues who would want to gain access to it. They just need to go to rules-republicans.house.gov, and a copy of this report will be made available.

The greater irony, Mr. Speaker, of all of this is that the Democratic majority campaigned on the need for full, open and transparent debate. That was the plank of the platform back when the majority was won and, in fact, in the last election as well. I think it's extraordinarily ironic, while we heard this argument made about a ``culture of corruption''--those are the terms that Ms. Pelosi used repeatedly--that we just had the gentleman from Arizona offer over 500 amendments to deal with this challenge. I mean there are former Members of this institution who are in jail today because of abuse of the earmark process. Yet those who campaigned on this issue of ending the culture of corruption are denying an opportunity for a full vetting of the amendments that have been proposed by our friend Mr. Flake.

Regardless of what you think on a particular issue, it would seem that denying him the opportunity to offer these amendments, of which he only has an opportunity to offer 8 amendments out of the 500 that he filed--and he can only pick very few of those--is, to me, really playing the role of exacerbating what Ms. Pelosi described as the culture of corruption rather than working to bring it to an end.

I will say that, as we proceed here--and we've gone for 2\1/2\ years. It actually has been exactly 2 years since we've had an open rule considered here in the House of Representatives. I've got to say, as to the notion of saying that we were going to have, as the American people were promised, a full, open, rigorous, transparent debate, they were empty words. They were clearly empty words. They have taken us precisely in the opposite direction, Mr. Speaker, culminating in this dubious honor of being the first majority in the 220-year history of the United States of America to shut down the appropriations process from start to finish.

Now, I believe it's no accident that this abandonment of open debate on our appropriations bills has coincided with the most excessive spending in our Nation's history. It's no coincidence that our deficit has exceeded the $1 trillion mark just halfway through the year at the same time that the Democratic majority has shut out meaningful debate on their spending practices. Looking back over the better part of the last two decades, as this detailed report of ours shows, it's clear just how much damage has been done to our deliberative imperative as an institution under this new majority.

Mr. Speaker, this resorting to restrictive debate is made even starker when we look back to exactly where we began 220 years ago this summer with that great debate launched by the author, the Father of the U.S. Constitution, James Madison, when he decided to proceed with the Bill of Rights. If James Madison were around today, he would be absolutely horrified. In fact, I think this is the closing line that we have in this report.

It reads, ``This summer marks the 220th anniversary of the introduction of the Bill of Rights by James Madison in the First Congress. It is a good thing that he is no longer alive to see what the House has become. If he were, he would wonder where we went wrong.''

Mr. Speaker, I want us to have an opportunity to engage in rigorous, open, civil debate. Unfortunately, we are denied that opportunity under this restrictive rule, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. This is our last opportunity in this appropriations process. We can prove wrong the statement that I just made that we've had a closed process from start to finish if we can reject this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I would like to say in response again to my hardworking Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Polis, who earlier was talking about the great hearing that we had upstairs with the chairman and ranking minority member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, he was talking about the fact that Mr. Young had indicated that this bill would look very similar if he had been in the top position as chairman--which he's been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and now, of course, serves with great distinction as the ranking minority member.

But I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that this does not in any way mean that because the Appropriations Committee members continue to work together that we should deny the rest of the American people who don't have representatives, like the gentleman from Colorado and I, who serve on the Appropriations Committee the opportunity to participate in this process which was always the case when Mr. Young was chairman, with a very, very brief exception when there was a bipartisan consensus and concern back in 1997, I guess. I don't think he was chairman in 1997 on that one occasion. But I've got to say, I suspect, under his chairmanship, we always had an open amendment process here on the House floor.

And I would yield to my good friend from Indian Shores, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and former chairman of the subcommittee and the full committee, Mr. Young. I would like to engage in a colloquy with him.

I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution and having served as many years--how many years has my friend served in the House?

So nearly four decades in this House. And, Mr. Speaker, during those four decades of very distinguished service, Mr. Young has been in the minority and the majority and virtually always had an open amendment process. And he understood very well, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, that to deny Members the opportunity to participate in this is just plain wrong.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman be happy to yield?

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

I just yielded you a minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the gentleman a minute.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me simply say that what has led us to this point has been, for the first time in the 220-year history of the United States of America, the shutting down of the appropriations process.

I would yield to myself 30 seconds.

I will say to my friend, if I could engage in a colloquy with my friend, I will say to him that very, very clearly the argument that he has just propounded about the desire to get back on track with an open--I assume the gentleman meant an open amendment process, which is what we have had for 220 years. I will say it is my hope we will do that. But frankly, today is our last opportunity if we in fact have all 12--as has been the case--all 12 of the appropriations rules closed down as this has been.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time, let me say, Mr. Speaker, as I reclaim my time and say the following:

My friend, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Speaker, my friend, Mr. Blumenauer, has never sat on the side as a member of the minority having been denied the opportunity that he has just said that he has denied today in the appropriations process because never before has he or any Member of this institution have all of the appropriations rules handled under a closed process such as this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very, very hardworking colleague from Morristown, New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water.

Will the gentleman yield for just one brief second? I am happy to yield additional time.

I would just like to say to my friend I think he makes a great point, Mr. Speaker, about the working together of subcommittee chairmen and ranking members.

We have been regularly arguing, and I know my friend understands very well in his distinguished leadership position that on the floor when we have an open amendment process, the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member, not anyone in the leadership, worked this out on the floor, just as they have in committee. And it was my hope that we were going to be able to do that through this appropriations process.

I thank my friend for yielding.

If the gentleman will yield on that point?

If the gentleman would further yield, let me just say that I disagree, with all due respect to my friend, about this notion of doing it before the process has even begun. Let me go back to where we were.

As happened in 1997, we can go upstairs in the Rules Committee if we have recalcitrant Members on either side of the aisle and we can shut down the process, and there would not be the kind of resistance, if we had at least tried the open amendment process.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my Rules Committee colleague if he has any further speakers.

Is the gentleman then prepared to close if I were to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me just say that it is very sad that we are at this point now, the completion of the appropriations process. My friend just referred to the term as we talked about best practices and working together, ``precedents.'' Well, the sad thing, with the 12th appropriation bill, if we pass this rule, we have set the precedent for the entire appropriations process. All 12 appropriations bills have been considered under restrictive rule, if we in fact proceed with this.

In fact, I have just been given an amendment to this rule, Mr. Speaker, that will even shut the process down even further, denying Members an opportunity to divide the question on the very few amendments that have been made in order.

So, this notion that we somehow have this outside time limit, and my very good friend from Seattle, Mr. Dicks, with whom I have been privileged to work on a wide range of issues in the past, talked about the fact that all these amendments have been filed, in 1995 when my colleagues on the other side went into the minority, there was an additional 26 hours, 26 additional hours spent on the debate on the appropriations bills than was the case when my party went into the minority in 2007.

So this notion that somehow all of these amendments would be offered is just plain wrong. Why? Because if you are going to close down the process or have a modified open rule, the notion of having every amendment possible considered is the only option that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here in the name of my Oregon colleague, Mr. Blumenauer. He had two amendments that he sought to have made in order. If we had had an open amendment process, my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer, with whom I was able to engage in this colloquy a little, would have had his amendments made in order.

He talked about the tension being high. Well, the tension is high, Mr. Speaker, and it is not just around the issue of health care. It is around the fact that 220 years ago this very summer, James Madison, a member of the

House Rules Committee, moved at the encouragement of his constituents the Bill of Rights with 10 days of debate through the House of Representatives. And through the 220-year history of the United States of America, Democrats and Republicans alike, representing what now is about 650,000 to 700,000 American, have had the right to stand up on the House floor and offer germane amendments to appropriations bill.

I use the term ``sacrosanct'' to describe the appropriations process on the House floor. I never believed, and I have not been here as long as the 39 years of my good friend, Mr. Young, but I never believed, Mr. Speaker, that I would see us get to the point where Republicans and Democrats alike would be shut out of the process, which is exactly what has happened here.

In ``A New Direction for America'' that was penned by Ms. Pelosi when they were seeking the majority, they had a very, very interesting line. It said: ``Democrats believe that America needs and Americans deserve a new direction that provides opportunity for all.''

``Opportunity for all'' is what they said was going to be the hallmark. Apparently it is opportunity for all, except for rank-and- file Members of the United States House of Representatives, because the elected Representatives of both parties are being denied an opportunity to put forward their great ideas.

And since we have crossed this $1 trillion spending mark for the deficit in the first 6 months, and it is projected to go to $1.8 trillion by the end of this year, it is obvious that this process has been used to cherry-pick amendments and deny Democrats and Republicans who would like to engage in fiscally responsible policies from being able to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to defeat the previous question; and if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule providing for the traditional open rule for appropriations bills, again giving us this one last opportunity to do that, and we will have the opportunity to return to our traditions, to honor the vision of the Framers of our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the explanatory material, be placed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and if by chance the previous question does prevail, to oppose this rule so we can get back to the Madisonian vision of representative democracy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 685 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we've been here before. This very same point of order has been raised against nearly every appropriations bill, and each time it's used to discuss something other than its intended purpose, which is supposed to be about unfunded mandates. Once again, it's about delaying consideration of this bill and, ultimately, stopping it altogether.

I hope my colleagues will again vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and fund the important defense needs of our Nation and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill are welcomed to vote against this bill on final passage. We must consider this rule and we must pass this legislation today to continue to fund the defense and protection of our country.

I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would encourage my colleague from Arizona to stick around, assuming that this motion passes, for the discussion of the rule. He will find in the proposed rule there is the opportunity that we will be giving the House of Representatives as a whole to vote on a block of amendments that the gentleman has identified, as well as several individual ones that the gentleman has identified.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider, so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 685.

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

House Resolution 685 provides for consideration of H.R. 3326, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, under a structured rule. I'd like to thank Chairman Obey, Ranking Member Lewis, Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for their tireless and bipartisan work on this important bill to fund the defense needs of our Nation. Their job is not easy. The needs of this country are endless, our security challenges are daunting. Threats to our security are numerous and always changing. And the resources that we can devote to these problems are precious and limited, as our Nation faces a severe recession.

So each year we must prioritize, re-evaluate and invest in strategies that will keep our country and our people safe. We will invest in the equipment that will protect our troops and in programs that will care for the men and women who defend us, who serve our country so bravely and capably every day.

H.R. 3326 fulfills these responsibilities by providing first-class equipment for our troops that are in harm's way, by increasing fiscal responsibility and oversight within the Department of Defense, and by investing in adequate health care and increased compensation for our soldiers and their families.

To help protect our troops, the bill provides increased funding for the mine-resistant ambush protective vehicle fund and the procurement of new Humvees and new heavy and medium

tactical vehicles to meet the needs of our military. The bill also invests in weapons systems that meet our current and future needs, instead of plunging money into weapons systems that do not meet timelines, budgets or realistic threats or are based on threats that are antiquated that we no longer face.

We need to transform our military to make sure that we can keep the American people safe. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities to the troops, to taxpayers, or to the Nation if we can't meet our fiscal responsibilities.

H.R. 3326 reduces advisory and assistant service contracts by saving $51 million while providing $5.11 billion for Department of Defense personnel to perform DOD functions. The bill also provides funding for the Inspector General to increase oversight over the acquisition and contracting process to ensure the taxpayers' funds are spent wisely. By reducing funds for wasteful weapons and bloated contracts, we can provide better care and a better quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families.

H.R. 3326 increases pay for all servicemembers by 3.4 percent, and fully funds the requested end-strength levels for active Reserve and selected Reserve personnel. The bill continues efforts to end the practice of stop-loss, so difficult for the families of our troops who are deployed overseas, and includes $8.33 million to pay servicemembers $500 for every month of involuntary service.

The bill provides $29.9 billion for top-of-the-line medical care, including $500 million for traumatic brain injuries and psychological health and increased funding for the wounded, ill and injured warrior programs. We can make no greater investment than in the health and welfare of those who have sacrificed and given so much to protect our freedoms.

It's also important to keep in mind that for every soldier who is dutifully serving on the battlefield, in Iraq or Afghanistan, sailing on a ship in the Pacific of the Atlantic or stationed on a military base in Germany, Japan or elsewhere, there is also a military family in our neighborhoods, in our districts, in our cities, and those families too are serving our country. To honor their commitment to this country, and to acknowledge their sacrifice, this year has been called the Year of the Military Family, and this bill adds substance to those words and that title.

H.R. 3326 includes over $472 million for family advocacy programs and fully funds the Family Support and Yellow Ribbon programs. The bill also includes $20 million for the Army National Guard Family Assistance Centers and Reintegration programs. I strongly believe that this bill is a positive step forward in the way that Congress prioritizes our military spending and provides for the men and women who serve our Nation and their families.

I support H.R. 3326 and House Resolution 685.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this report. I look forward to reading it, to discussing it and, hopefully, to imposing some best practices for future processes.

I would point out that there are, of course, distinctions in the type of work that we do here; between the critical, philosophical, democratic bases of our country and the discussion and debate around the Bill of Rights, and the work of the House that we need to conduct in a bipartisan way.

The gentleman will recall that, yesterday, Ranking Member Young and Chairman Murtha appeared before our Rules Committee and discussed how there was a strong bipartisan consensus on the bill. In fact, I believe that Ranking Member Young indicated that the bill would look substantially the same regardless of which party were in the majority, which shows the dedication of both parties in our country to protect our people.

I have to admit that, as somebody who was against the Iraq War and as somebody who is very skeptical of our ongoing operations of Afghanistan and, indeed, as to what our exit strategy is, it was actually disconcerting to me that the bill would look the same with regard to whichever party were in the

majority. I would like to address some of the issues relating to the exit strategy in Afghanistan and where we see that going.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the vice chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure, with regard to the excellent colloquy between my colleague from California and colleague from Oregon, I share the concerns addressed by my colleague from Oregon. And again, that was not a call with regard to this particular rule on this particular bill, but it is a discussion of process, which is a healthy discussion.

I look forward to reading the report that was put together by our colleagues in the Rules Committee. We

are all in agreement that we should work to improve the process together. We want a process that we can all stand before the American people and say that this was a good process, a constructive process, one that values expediency, participation, input; and I feel that we can build upon the best practices and precedents of the past to work together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to have improved processes in future years.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Dicks.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield one additional minute to the gentleman.

Not at this point, no.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for their and their staff's hard work on bringing this bill to the floor, as well as for offering an amendment to strike the funding for continued procurement of F-22 aircraft.

I particularly would like to thank President Obama and Secretary Gates for their leadership on this important issue, for targeting the elimination of unnecessary weapons systems and aircraft. It is not in the American people's best interests to pay Lockheed Martin $369 million of taxpayer money to add dozens of aircraft when we already have a fully functioning fleet of 187 F-22s currently operated by the Armed Forces.

This victory is an important first step in eliminating cold war-era weapons systems and questioning the relevance of aircraft and security systems that are an inadequate defense against the 21st-century national security threats we face and an important step in moving towards balancing the budget and fiscal responsibility.

I also strongly support provisions in the legislation that prohibit the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, require the Secretary of Defense to provide goals and a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, and restate the United States commitment to prohibiting torture of detainees currently held in U.S. custody.

This is just the beginning of President Obama's efforts to bring our troops home safely, and I look forward to the time when stop-loss and troop surges are a thing of the past.

Although I strongly support withdrawing our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible, until we do so I believe it is crucial to provide support to our servicemen and servicewomen in harm's way and those returning home to their families.

This legislation also provides $29.9 billion to guarantee that our troops have the best medical care made available to them. Included in the Defense appropriation is over $2 billion for funding of medical research and developing treatment for diseases, including breast cancer research, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer and spinal cord injuries, research for applications that have much wider applications outside of defense.

The Defense appropriation also funds important technology research, providing funding for research that keeps the United States on the cusp of innovation for important civilian applications. Funding for this legislation will advance lithium ion battery technology, energy storage that is a linchpin of making renewable energy like wind and solar viable and cost-effective.

Installing photovoltaic panels on military installations saves our military money and ensures that no matter where in the world our troops stand in harm's way, they can quickly access the infrastructure of the modern world. This technology also has the effect of reducing costs for Americans to use these technologies in their homes by driving scale.

This legislation also funds a robust, small business innovation program. Small businesses receive capital to develop technologies to keep our country safe, while providing high-wage employment and bolstering local economies.

These innovations also have direct civilian applications. Many of the technologies we enjoy in our daily lives, like global positioning systems to microwave ovens, we often take for granted; but they have been developed and researched as part of a DOD effort.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides critical funding for our national defense, as well as funding for civilian activities. Among these activities are those in support of small business and workforce development.

In Colorado, many small businesses rely on the SBIR program of the Department of Defense, such as TechX, which provides critical software innovations to the Department of Defense while providing high-paying jobs to my constituents.

This bill also provides funds for programs such as the Center for Space Entrepreneurship, a program that is a collaboration between the educational institutions, the Colorado Office of Economic Development, and the leadership efforts of our Lieutenant Governor, Barbara O'Brien. This program incubates aerospace industry's small businesses. It also helps individuals transition into careers in this industry.

Among their most important work is the outreach they do in schools to ensure that the next generation has an interest in and the skills to ensure that our Nation remains a world leader in space industry.

The satellites and spacecraft developed and manufactured by Colorado's thriving aerospace industry are not only of tremendous economic benefit to our State, which is one of several reasons we have an unemployment rate below the national average; but also this equipment keeps our Nation safe, and many of the satellites provide civilian applications, such as the DISH television, GPS service for our cars, and reception for our cellular phones.

While H.R. 3326 provides top-of-the-line equipment and technologies for our troops, these dollars would be hollow without the bravery, dedication, and skill of the men and women who serve us every day in our Armed Forces.

Their service wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the support, dedication and sacrifice of military families that receive support from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be offering an amendment to the rule. I want to briefly explain the amendment. This amendment will add to the rule a technical provision that's included as boilerplate language in virtually all of our rules for both appropriating and authorizing legislation but was inadvertently dropped from this rule. This language simply protects amendments from a division of the question.

I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, the rule and the previous question.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

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

Madam Chair, I rise today to discuss an issue vital to American air superiority.

First, I want to thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for their tireless efforts in support of those who bravely defend us at home and abroad.

While there is much to applaud in this bill, I am very concerned about any steps to remove advanced procurement funds for the F-22A Raptor. Currently, H.R. 3326 contains $370 million for long lead supplies needed to procure 12 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year 2011. Preserving this funding, Madam Chair, is absolutely critical.

Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary Gates have expended great capital in recent weeks to ensure that the F-22 program ends at 187 aircraft once and for all. However, their position is not driven by military requirements but, rather, by budget constraints.

The facts are that the F-22 has a flyaway cost of $142 million--this is a 35 percent decrease since its inception--and the next F-22 will actually be cheaper than the next Joint Strike Fighter.

Madam Chair, is this how we should determine how best to defend our Nation and to ensure American air superiority, or should we rely on the results of over 30 air campaign studies that have been conducted over the last 15 years, which validate a requirement for far more than 187 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-15 A-D Eagles?

We should also listen to those who fly these fighters, Madam Chair. A June 9, 2009, letter from General John Corley, the commander of Air Combat Command, states, ``At Air Combat Command, we have held the need for 381 F-22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term.''

Madam Chair, General Corley goes on to state, ``There are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.''

I would like to submit this letter for the Record, Madam Chair.

Department of the Air Force,

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Langley Air Force Base, VA, June 9, 2009.

Hon. Saxby Chambliss,

Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Chambliss: Thank you for your letter and the

opportunity to comment on the critical issue of F-22 fleet

size. At Air Combat Command we have held the need for 381 F-

22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our

Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed,

asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my

opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current

national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-

term.

To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187

F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.

Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with

Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be

obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft.

While OSD did not solicit direct input from Air Combat

Command, we worked closely with our Headquarters in ensuring

our views were available. We realize the tough choices our

national leadership must make in balancing current

warfighting needs against the fiscal realities our Nation

faces.

The F-22, a critical enabler of air dominance, plays a

vital role and indispensable role in ensuring joint freedom

of action for all forces and underpins our ability to

dissuade and deter. Thank you for your continued support of

the US Air Force and Air Combat Command.

Sincerely,

John D.W. Corley

General, USAF Commander.

I also would like to submit for the Record a letter that I sent to President Obama and to Secretary Gates. It's signed by 199 of my House colleagues. It concludes that continued F-

22 production is in the national economic interest of the United States.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 21, 2009.

President Barack Obama,

The White House,

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: The Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense

Authorization act requires your certification on continued F-

22A Raptor production by March 1, 2009. We strongly urge your

certification of continued production of this vital program.

Continued F-22 production is critical to the security of

our nation. The F-22 is the nation's most capable fighter and

the world's only operation 5th generation fighter aircraft in

full-rate production. It is the weapon system we need to

respond to potential adversaries who are increasing their air

combat capabilities both in terms of technology and numbers

of aircraft. Several nations have announced that they are

developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, 5th

generation fighters that will reach production within the

next five to ten years. Additionally, sophisticated and

highly lethal air defense systems such as the SA-20 and S-

300/400 are proliferating worldwide.

Our nation has committed to procuring a total of just 183

F-22 aircraft. We are convinced that this number is

insufficient to meet potential threats. After accounting for

test, training, and maintenance aircraft, only about 100 F-

22s will be immediately available for combat at any given

time. Given that over 30 air campaign studies completed over

the last 15 years have validated a requirement for far more

than 183 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800 F-

15 A-D Eagles, it is clear that such a lean F-22 fleet is not

consistent with America's national security interest.

The F-22 is a model production line. Since full-rate

production began, the unit flyaway cost has decreased by 35

percent. If this certification is delayed, layoffs will begin

as this critical supplier base shuts down. Once we begin to

lose the F-22 industrial base that was created with billions

of dollars of investment over many years, it will quickly

become virtually impossible to reconstitute a production

capability.

The F-22 program annually provides over $12 billion of

economic activity to the national economy. As our nation

faces one of the most trying economic times in recent

history, it is imperative to preserve existing high paying,

specialized jobs that are critical to our national defense.

Over 25,000 Americans working for more than 1,000 suppliers

in 44 states manufacture this aircraft. Moreover, it is

estimated that another 70,000 Americans indirectly owe their

jobs to this program.

The Honorable Phil Gingrey, MD (GA-11); The Honorable Kay

Granger (TX-12); The Honorable Neil Abercrombie (HI-

01); The Honorable John Dingell (MI-15); The Honorable

Danny Davis (IL-07); The Honorable Chet Edwards (TX-

17); The Honorable Todd Tiahrt (KS-04); The Honorable

Thomas Price (GA-06); The Honorable Norman Dicks (WA-

6); The Honorable David Scott (GA-13); The Honorable

Bill Young (FL-10); The Honorable Jack Kingston (GA-

01); The Honorable Mac Thornberry (TX-13); Honorable

Hank Johnson (GA-04); The Honorable Ellen Tauscher (CA-

10); The Honorable Sanford Bishop (GA-02)

The Honorable Ben Ray Lujan (NM-03); The Honorable Brian

Higgins (NY-27); The Honorable Gresham Barrett (SC-03);

The Honorable Christopher Carney (PA-10); The Honorable

Timothy Bishop (NY-01); The Honorable Bill Shuster (PA-

09); The Honorable Dean Heller (NV-02); The Honorable

Jim McGovern (MA-03); The Honorable Shelley Berkley

(NV-01); The Honorable John Barrow (GA-12); The

Honorable John Larson (CT-01); The Honorable Phil Hare

(IL-17); The Honorable John Sullivan (OK-01); The

Honorable Ander Crenshaw (FL-04); The Honorable Adam

Putnam (FL-12); The Honorable Mike Rogers (AL-03); The

Honorable Michelle Bachmann (MN-06); The Honorable Doug

Lamborn (CO-05); The Honorable Mary Bono Mack (CA-45);

The Honorable Mike Rogers (MI-08); The Honorable Larry

Kissell (NC-08); The Honorable Anna Eshoo (CA-14)

The Honorable Mike Simpson (ID-02); The Honorable Steve

LaTourette (OH-14); The Honorable Alcee Hastings (FL-

23); The Honorable Greg Walden (OR-02); The Honorable

Corrine Brown (FL-03); The Honorable Collin Peterson

(MN-07); The Honorable Robert Andrews (NJ-01); The

Honorable Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL-21); The Honorable

Mark Souder (IN-03); The Honorable Rick Boucher (VA-

09); The Honorable Joe Barton (TX-06); The Honorable

Chris Smith; (NJ-04) The Honorable Brian Bilbray (CA-

50); The Honorable Gary Miller (CA-42); The Honorable

Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23); The Honorable Tom Latham (IA-

04); The Honorable Jerry Moran (KS-01); The Honorable

Peter Viscolosky (IN-01); The Honorable Jo Bonner (AL-

01); The Honorable Donald Manzullo (IL-16); The

Honorable Don Young (AK-At Large); The Honorable Peter

Roskam (IL-06)

The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25); The Honorable

Dave Camp (MI-04); The Honorable Kevin Brady (TX-08);

The Honorable Paul Broun (GA-10); The Honorable Chris

Murphy (CT-05); The Honorable Parker Griffith (AL-05);

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes (MD-03); The Honorable

Steve Scalise (LA-01); The Honorable John Carter (TX-

31); The Honorable Pete Olson (TX-22); The Honorable

Connie Mack (FL-14); The Honorable Eric Cantor (VA-07);

The Honorable Peter King (NY-03); The Honorable Zack

Space (OH-18); The Honorable Patrick Kennedy (RI-01);

The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05); The Honorable

Tom Price (GA-06); The Honorable Madeleine Bordallo

(GU); The Honorable Ted Poe (TX-02); The Honorable Bill

Posey (FL-15); The Honorable Jim Marshall (GA-08); The

Honorable Louie Gohmert (TX-01)

The Honorable Henry Brown (SC-01); The Honorable Jim

Langevin (RI-02); The Honorable Debbie Wasserman-Shultz

(FL-20); The Honorable Kristen Gillibrand (NY-20); The

Honorable Rob Bishop (UT-01); The Honorable Dean Heller

(NV-02); The Honorable Michael Arcuri (NY-24); The

Honorable Robert Brady (PA-01); The Honorable John

Barrow (GA-12); The Honorable Michael Burgess (TX-26);

The Honorable Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24); The Honorable

Mike McCaul (TX-10); The Honorable Artur Davis (AL-07);

The Honorable Joe Wilson (SC-02); The Honorable Jim

Himes (CT-04); The Honorable Joe Courtney (CT-02); The

Honorable Dan Boren (OK-02); The Honorable Patrick

McHenry (NC-10); The Honorable Charlie Wilson (OH-06);

The Honorable Kenny Marchant (TX-24); The Honorable Sue

Myrick (NC-09); The Honorable Wally Herger (CA-02)

The Honorable Harry Teague (NM-02); The Honorable Chellie

Pingree (ME-01); The Honorable Steve King (IA-05); The

Honorable Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03); The Honorable Paul

Hodes (NH-02); The Honorable Sam Graves (MO-06); The

Honorable Leonard Boswell (IA-03); The Honorable Duncan

Hunter (CA-52); The Honorable John Adler (NJ-03); The

Honorable Gus Bilirakis (FL-09); The Honorable Michael

McMahon (NY-13); The Honorable John Linder (GA-07); The

Honorable Kendrick Meek (FL-17); The Honorable John

Kline (MN-02); The Honorable Allen Boyd (FL-02); The

Honorable Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01); The Honorable Mary

Fallin (OK-05); The Honorable Robert Aderholt (AL-04);

The Honorable Zach Wamp (TN-03); The Honorable Bobby

Scott (VA-03); The Honorable Loretta Sanchez (CA-47);

The Honorable Rodney Alexander (LA-05)

The Honorable Dave Reichert (WA-08); The Honorable Dennis

Moore (KS-03); The Honorable Mike Turner (OH-03); The

Honorable Daniel Maffei (NY-25); The Honorable John

Culberson (TX-07); The Honorable Mike Conaway (TX-11);

The Honorable Bob Latta (OH-05); The Honorable Richard

Neal (MA-02); The Honorable Pete Hoekstra (MI-02); The

Honorable Pete Sessions (TX-32); The Honorable Tom

Rooney (FL-16); The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-

08); The Honorable Dan Lipinski (IL-03); The Honorable

Steve Austria (OH-07); The Honorable Patrick Murphy

(PA-08); The Honorable John Boozman (AR-03); The

Honorable Kevin McCarthy (CA-22); The Honorable Joe

Donnelly (IN-02); The Honorable Elijah Cummings (MD-

07); The Honorable Buck McKeon (CA-25); The Honorable

Nathan Deal (GA-09); The Honorable E. B. Johnson (TX-

30)

The Honorable Joe Baca (CA-43); The Honorable Dan Burton

(IN-05); The Honorable Elton Gallegly (CA-24); The

Honorable Frank Lucas (0K-3); The Honorable Joe Crowley

(NY-07); The Honorable Harold Rogers (KY-05); The

Honorable Rosa DeLauro (CT-03); The Honorable Frank

LoBiondo (NJ-02); The Honorable Bennie Thompson (MS-

02); The Honorable Steve Rothman (NJ-09); The Honorable

Jim Costa (CA-20); The Honorable Dan Lungren (CA-03);

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46); The Honorable

Nick Rahall (WV-03); The Honorable John McHugh (NY-23);

The Honorable Ralph Hall (TX-04); The Honorable Lamar

Smith (TX-21); The Honorable Tim Holden (PA-17); The

Honorable Bob Filner (CA-51); The Honorable Maurice

Hinchey (NY-22); The Honorable Trent Franks (AZ-02);

The Honorable Mark Schauer (MI-07)

The Honorable Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09); The Honorable

Tim Ryan (OH-17); The Honorable Grace Napolitano (CA-

38); The Honorable Maxine Waters (CA-35); The Honorable

Darrell Issa (CA-49); The Honorable Jeff Miller (FL-

01); The Honorable Mike McIntyre (NC-07); The Honorable

Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02); The Honorable lleana Ros-

Lehtinen (FL-18); The Honorable George Radanovich (CA-

19); The Honorable Gregg Harper (MS-03); The Honorable

Doc Hastings (WA-04); The Honorable Christopher Lee

(NY-26); The Honorable Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04); The

Honorable Dennis Rehberg (MN-At Large); The Honorable

Randy Forbes (VA-04); The Honorable John Shimkus (IL-

19); The Honorable Steve Israel

(NY-02); The Honorable Mike Ross (AR-04); The Honorable

Steve Buyer (IN-04); The Honorable Paul Tonko (NY-21)

The Honorable Tom Cole (OK-04); The Honorable Donna

Christensen (VI); The Honorable Sam Johnson (TX-03);

The Honorable Brian Bilbray (CA-50); The Honorable John

Fleming (LA-04); The Honorable Mike Coffman (CO-06);

The Honorable Henry Cuellar (TX-28).

Madam Chair, I ask all of my colleagues to reject the Obama administration's posture on the F-22 and to support continued F-22 production as we consider this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as Chairman Murtha suggested, we basically support this manager's amendment. We have no opposition, and in fact, support it except for the one item that has to do with the air superiority aircraft, the F-22.

We support the original position that Chairman Murtha offered to the subcommittee and the subcommittee agreed to, and that was to be able to keep the production line open for the F-22. We're just really concerned that 187 aircraft cannot guarantee that we will control the air over the battlefield if that situation develops.

I now include a chart that I discussed yesterday in general debate on the number of aircraft, fighter aircraft, that we have bought over the years, and how many of them we have lost through attrition, through accidents, and through actual combat.

Aircraft History

F-4: Production: 1958 to 1979 by McDonnell Douglas; Built:

4,138 (2,874 USAF; 1,264 Navy and MC); Lost: 71 combat losses

plus 54 lost in accidents (3%).

F-14: Production: 1970 to 1992 by Northrop Grumman; Built:

679; Lost: 121 (18%); Retired in 2007.

F-15: Production: 1974 to 1985 by McDonnell Douglas/Boeing;

Built: 1,118; Destroyed: 117 (10%); Active Today: 618.

F-16: Production: 1978 by General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin;

Built: 2,230; Destroyed: 334 (15%) includes 25 destroyed due

to battle damage; Active Today: 1,167.

F-18: Production: 1983 by McDonnell Douglas/Boeing; Built:

1,048; Lost in accidents: 170

(includes 2 shot down in Gulf War); Stricken for maintenance

and exceeding life limits: 246 (40%); Active Today: 632.

F-22: Production: 2001 to 2009 by Lockheed Martin;

Building: 187; Projected losses: 6, leaving only 181 (3% like

the F-4); 19, leaving only 168 (10% like the F-15); 28,

leaving only 159 (15% like the F-16); 34, leaving only 153

(18% like the F14); 75, leaving only 112 (40% like the F-18).

187 just doesn't really, in my opinion, doesn't guarantee that we will have what we need. Hopefully, we'll never need them, but we just don't know that we might not need them. And if we need them and don't have them, where are we and where is the soldier on the ground? If we need them and don't have them, somebody else's airplane may be over that battlefield.

So it would have been better if we could have had a straight up-or- down vote on the F-22 issue, and I requested of the Rules Committee to make such an amendment in order, and they chose not to do so.

So I will vote against this manager's amendment--again, not because we're opposed to the manager's amendment, but we think that we are threatening the future security of air control and air superiority over the battlefield.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield now to a very distinguished member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 3 minutes.

I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of the subcommittee, for 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman from Georgia 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

I want to say and to make sure that Members understand that I know that Mr. Murtha is not opposed to the F-22 and that he supports it because it was in his original mark that he presented to the subcommittee. And I understand the change in political mode that we have experienced. But you know, from the time that I came here, we were fighting about the F-14. There were those who didn't want to do the F- 14, which was a very important aircraft for our fleet protection. Most of our new aircraft have been opposed by certain quarters in the country. The M1 tank, which is by far the world's best tank, was opposed by certain groups of people. Well, we cannot afford to allow an enemy to control the air over our troops. It's as simple as that. We have never sent our soldiers into battle with only 187 fighter aircraft in our inventory that have the capability to control the air over the battlefield. So yes, it's expensive. Freedom doesn't come free. I'm not really opposed to this amendment, but I'm going to vote against it because of the F-22 issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment and are happy to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we are very familiar with this amendment. We know of the great work Mr. Sessions has done relative to the hyperbaric chambers for treatment of all types of wounds and diseases, and we are very pleased to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk about the amendment because the gentleman has conceded that the program it would fund is essential to force protection, and that is the case.

But I think the point that I want to make is there has been a lot of misleading information suggested here, not necessarily intentionally and I don't think with any attempt to besmirch anyone's character. We have heard on the cap-and-trade bill ``read the bill.'' We have heard on the health bill, if we ever see one, ``read the bill.'' And I agree with all of that. We ought to be reading the bills.

I don't think my friend from Arizona has read this bill, and it is not nearly as big as the cap-and-trade bill was or the health bill will be. But had he read the bill, he would have found on page 113, section 8115(a) that it says: ``Those which are considered congressional earmarks for purposes of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, when awarded to a for-profit entity, shall be awarded under full and open competition.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I will claim the time in opposition.

I don't know about the company and the concerns that Mr. Flake has about the company. I don't even know the company, but I know the issue and I know the needs for the Eglin Range. The Air Force and the Navy use the eastern part of the Gulf of Mexico for just tremendous amounts of training.

Members will recall that during the debates over oil drilling and drilling for natural gas and doing other kinds of commercial activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, we always protected the Gulf of Mexico east of the military mission line because it was so critical to training for our national defense, to train those pilots and those people who are on seaborne missions, to train them so, if they do have to go into harm's way, they will have the proper training.

This is for range sensors to help with the training of those military training programs of the Air Force and Navy. If you recall, the debate was very, very aggressive on that issue, and the Congress on numerous occasions agreed that we had to protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico so that we were free to use those areas for training.

Now, I am not going to vote for this amendment. The interesting thing here is, I think, if Mr. Flake were a member of the Armed Services Committee or the Appropriations Committee, he would have a better knowledge of how that works. He may never have even heard of what we call unfunded requirements. He may never have heard of witnesses coming to testify before these committees on the issue of the request by the administration for appropriations and then giving you and giving the members of the committees a list of unfunded requirements, things that they need that were not included by OMB in the budget request.

The Members that have been here for a while might remember that when I first became chairman of this subcommittee, I identified every unfunded requirement that I could and I put it on a scroll and we rolled it across the front of this Chamber so people, Members, could see what the military said they needed but didn't have in the budget request.

I will give you one example. In talking about bombers at a particular hearing some years ago, an Air Force officer said to me, You know, these bombers are really important, but you guys aren't paying attention to something else really important.

I said, Tell us about it. What are you talking about?

He said, do you know that the tugs that we use to pull the bombers out of the hangars to take them out to the runway, we don't have enough? And so, if we have a large mission, we have bombers and aircraft waiting in line to get a tug to pull them out. Well, that's an unfunded requirement, and the committee tries to take care of those unfunded requirements. The Defense Department, under the language that I read earlier, must compete, no matter what the bill says, no matter what the report says about where the committee thinks that the work ought to go, the Defense Department has to compete it.

Now, I don't know how much more transparency we can give to Mr. Flake if the projects are competed. But I agree with him. If someone, some company is not doing the job properly, then they ought to be investigated, and they ought to be taken off the list of contractors. In fact, in my own district I had a request for an earmark in this year's bill, and the Inspector General decided to pay that company a visit to see about something. I'm not even sure what it was about because they keep these investigations pretty secret.

But I pulled the request for that earmark until we work it out, until we find out what happened here, what went wrong, what are they investigating. And I think we ought to do that. And I don't think we ought to be providing contracts to anyone who hasn't treated the public trust properly. So Mr. Flake and I aren't totally in disagreement, but we're in disagreement on this amendment because that Eastern Gulf of Mexico range that is so important to training Air Force and Navy pilots especially, and seaborne vehicles, is very, very important, and those sensors are part of that training.

I yield back my time.