Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican earmark guidance, I am submitting for the Record the following project that has been authorized in H.R. 5658--the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009.

Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis.

Bill Number: H.R. 5658.

Account: Military Construction--Navy.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Marine Corps Base Twentynine Palms.

Address of Requesting Entity: 73549 29 Palms Hwy., Twentynine Palms,

Mr. Speaker, my colleague Ken Calvert and I want to express our love and admiration for Jan and Ed Slevin.

The congressional schedule may not allow our attendance at their 50th anniversary, a celebration that is taking place on June 20.

Both Ken and I want our colleagues to know much more about this outstanding couple and their decades of public service. So together, we are asking consent to include remarks in the Record reflecting their lives together and their contribution to our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my colleague from New Jersey yielding this time, and I won't even take that much time.

I rise today to recognize the fact that there may be an amendment later this evening that will address the Marine Corps Training Center at 29 Palms. It's very, very important for the House to know the significance of that facility, the role it plays in the great work of the Marine Corps. The design here is to try to improve and help with that work.

Mr. Chairman, I rise first to congratulate Chairman Ike Skelton and ranking member and former Chairman Duncan Hunter for working together in a bipartisan manner to craft an excellent National Defense Authorization Bill. As you know, this is Duncan Hunter's last authorization bill and I honor his many years of service on the Armed Services Committee and his unfailing support of our men and women in uniform.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately an amendment has been made in order to strike an important project that would benefit all the marines and their family members who are stationed or who pass through Twentynine Palms marine base.

This project is the Lifelong Learning Center.

Phase I of the Life Long Learning Center, LLLC, project at the Marine Corps base Twentynine Palms provides a facility to help marines and their families fulfill their educational goals.

The project will replace older, undersized facilities with a 17,000 square foot, three-story building which will include classrooms, office spaces, a computer room and other supporting infrastructure.

When completed, the LLLC will facilitate more than 40 higher education classes with an anticipated enrollment exceeding 1500 students per term.

U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Air Ground Task Force Training

Command, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center,

Twentynine Palms, CA, May 22, 2008.

Subject: Life Long Learning Center--Twentynine Palms

Hon. Mr. Lewis,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Lewis. The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center

(MCAGCC) is a remote, isolated base that is both home for

about one third of the 1st Marine Division and other units

assigned to I Marine Expeditionary Force, and is a service

level training installation. The installation has worked hard

over the years on innovation and best practices as evidenced

by our state-of-the-art training capabilities, demonstrated

excellence in energy conservation, improvements in quality of

life for our people, and

installation management. We are now determined to improve the

educational opportunities for the 12,000 Marines, their

families and the civilians who serve at this remote outpost.

The Life Long Learning Center (LLLC) project is critical to

the success of our education initiatives. MCAGCC's current

educational facilities are single story, 1950 era barracks

scattered throughout the base that have been converted into

classrooms. These facilities do not meet the needs of our

educational programs. The LLLC will provide a modern facility

that will meet all our requirements in one centralized

location. The project, as we have submitted in the Military

Construction program, will be constructed in two phases. The

first phase is a 17,000 square foot, three-story building

which will include classrooms, office spaces, a computer lab

and other supporting infrastructure. When completed, this

facility will provide space for more than 40 higher education

classes with an anticipated enrollment exceeding 1500

students per term. The second phase will provide a library.

We are committed to continuing education for our Marines

and Sailors. Not only do we get better Marines and Sailors,

we also set them up for success as they return to their

civilian communities.

Teaming with local school systems, MCAGCC bas brought the

expertise of the Department of Defense Education Activity

(DoDEA) to assist with local educational challenges. While

focused on military dependent children, there are a number of

programs that will benefit our local community, to include

teacher training and DoDEA provided AP courses. In this

remote and isolated location, employment opportunities are

limited for spouses and dependents. This facility will allow

us to expand education opportunities as an alternative to

employment.

MCAGCC is the single largest employer in the Morongo Basin

and access to a quality workforce is critical to our mission.

We provide multiple workforce development education and

training programs. I am convinced that improved education

programs will benefit the overall workforce, enhance the

quality of life in this region and ensure we are able to

continue to train our Marines for combat as our current

civilian workforce ages and retires.

The state-of the-art educational facility provided by the

LLLC will provide Marines and their families the opportunity

to work on their career goals as well as prepare them for

life after the Marine Corps. It is my highest quality of life

initiative and I truly appreciate your assistance in helping

us support the Marines and Sailors preparing to defend this

great country of ours.

Sincerely,

M. G. Spiese,

Brigadier General.

I thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one good thing to say about the Democrat majority's budget resolution. Unlike the only other budget-related legislation considered by the House this year, at least this resolution, the budget resolution, follows regular order, not like the Appropriations Committee process this year.

Having looked at this budget in some detail, my advice to working families is simple: Hold on to your wallet. For the first time in history, the proposed discretionary budget will exceed $1 trillion. Think about that. $1 trillion. This bloated budget blueprint is a clear demonstration that the Democrat majority in Congress is keenly focused on dipping into your pockets to take more and more of your hard-earned money.

This budget shows that the Democrat majority will raise taxes without hesitation to support its addiction to spending. And it shows that Democrats in Congress are not interested in making difficult choices, setting priorities or rooting out waste in government spending. While our constituents struggle to keep up with their budgets, to fill their automobiles with gasoline, to buy groceries, for example, Democrats want to spend and tax to continue their dance in the majority.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time.

I must say that I came to the floor with great expectancy that we were discussing something that would actually provide gas price relief. Instead, we have another study that reviews the question of cartels and their impact upon prices of gasoline or oil in the United States presuming that unilaterally America, one way or another, can control what other countries do in terms of their partnerships known as cartels.

I must say that it's very clear that there are any number of avenues that can be followed, that should have been followed formerly that can affect the availability of crude oil in the United States. We have a huge, huge domestic supply.

In my own State, California, you have heard a bit today about a thing called the Pelosi premium. Frankly I'm not excited much about the Pelosi premium. The fact that the gentlelady from San Francisco is now the Speaker of the House is significant to California, but her district, just like mine, must be suffering as much as everybody with the price per gallon of gasoline at the pump. So together, we've got to try in California to find policy and program that will bring about change.

For example, for a long time for appropriate reasons we've been very sensitive about offshore drilling in California because of our beautiful Pacific Coast. We also now know that there are technologies developed and available beyond the site line that could cause us to at least take a look at how we tap that crude oil far off of our coast as a potential alternative supply. Without supply to meet the demand, America is not going to have independence from the Middle East.

Look to the south. The gulf region has tremendous potential in terms of future crude development. Could we not have developed policies that are foreign policies dealing with Latin countries to help them technologically better tap those sources so in spite of what goes on in Florida or in Texas or otherwise near the gulf, we could be reaching out in ways to allow that crude oil to become available here in our domestic supply and thereby put pressure on OPEC.

The technology that is developing relative to what we do with shale has tremendous potential in terms of tapping our reserves. We know that takes time but it also takes priority.

Instead of phony cartel bills, where are the bills that bring forward those policy changes and add to the research, as well as the specific funding for technology to reach into those reserves?

My friends on the floor have talked about the fact that it would take 10 years for us to effectively tap resources in Alaska, but for 10 years, those same people have been resisting our tapping into those resources. If we'd begun 10 years ago, that crude oil would be online right this moment, putting pressure on the process to allow us to meet our demand more effectively here at home rather than depending upon those overseas.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's time we got onto the policies in both bodies that make sense for America, and I appreciate the time.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague yielding me this time.

Perhaps the most important counsel I have ever received came from my dear friend and mentor, Dr. Adeline Gunther. ``Gram,'' as we called her, was the founder and guiding light of the University Religious Conference located near the UCLA campus. Gram said to me, ``Always remember, Jerry, what you are not willing to do in order to win.''

Think about that. What you are not willing to do in order to win.

Those running the Democratic leadership of the House need desperately to learn that lesson. So enamored with their power after 12 years out of the majority, the Democrat majority is now moving rapidly in the direction of reinventing the authoritarian system that was a part of their control for the previous 40 years.

The outrageous movement of the Iraq supplemental to the House floor, without consideration by the Committee on Appropriations and under a closed rule, is the case in point.

The supplemental began as a $108 billion request for funding requirements for the troops for the remainder of 2008. This must-pass emergency legislation has now grown to somewhere near $250 billion. A whole array of legislative provisions has been added that could have been and should have been addressed by way of regular order during the appropriations process.

Unfortunately, the supplemental will bypass the Appropriations Committee altogether, and through use of parliamentary trickery, avoid the inconvenient input of Democrat and Republican Members who have real expertise in the subject areas involved.

Regular order is designed to ensure that people's voices and interests are heard on serious public policy questions as they move through the legislative process. To have the Democrat leadership cut off the people's right to be heard by such a crass parliamentary set of maneuvers results in great harm to the Appropriations Committee and seriously undermines the credibility of the world's most admired legislative body.

Only three or four Members, at most, have provided serious input throughout this misguided process. All Members, Democrats and Republicans alike, should be enraged by this arrogant demonstration of dictatorial control. I know from private conversations with many of my friends on the other side of the aisle that there is a great deal of frustration among Democrats with Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi for their excessive and abusive control of this process.

Madam Speaker, let me assure you that my colleagues and I will continue to exercise every tool available to us to protect the established traditions of the House and the fundamentals of our democratic system. It is clear that Speaker Pelosi is willing to do anything, including stifling the voices of nearly every Member of the House, to win.

I urge all of my colleagues to remember the words of my mentor, Dr.

Adeline Gunther, who said, ``Always remember what you are not willing to do in order to win.''

I very much appreciate your recognizing me to respond to my friend, David Obey.

I am going to speak just a little bit out of order, for two of my colleagues on the floor, David Obey, the chairman of the committee, and my colleague, Mr. Murtha, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, have shared with me, I thought, over some years, the traditional order of this House. I've seen how the committee system works, especially in the Appropriations Committee, making certain that all Members, Democrats and Republicans, had an opportunity to provide input. And now to have us move so far away from that traditional order by way of this process today is a great disappointment to me.

I can't help but wonder if maybe there is some lack of commitment to regular order that I had never perceived before. For example, my colleague from San Diego, the chairman of the VA Subcommittee, if he had been given an opportunity, could have marked up and had hearings and otherwise on the VA portions some time ago.

This supplemental came from the President well over a year ago. We have had plenty of time to exercise the process in the way that maximizes Members' involvement, remembering that those Members are elected to represent their people at home.

And so the procedure we are going through today has undermined that representative process.

I think many of my colleagues, particularly those who serve with me on the Appropriations Committee, know that I have a great deal of respect for the senior Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Robert Byrd. While he and I may disagree on issues from time to time, it is fair to say that we both share a deeply held love and respect for this institution.

Senator Byrd also reveres the established traditions and precedents of the committee he leads. He understands that we will only truly know what is in the supplemental if it is exposed to the light of day through the regular order committee process. No one, not even the Senate majority leader, is going to tell Senator Byrd to abdicate his devotion to regular order or his responsibility as chairman of his beloved Appropriations Committee.

Unfortunately, the adherence to regular order has now been completely abandoned on the House side of the Capitol. Both Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, the sole authors of the House supplemental before us today, have dismissed as ``a nonissue'' those bipartisan voices calling for full committee consideration of this critically important legislation.

In conversations with both Republicans and Democrats in the House, it is widely felt that the Democrat leadership has unfairly and wrongly circumvented the House Appropriations Committee process.

Further, the House majority has chosen to proceed under a closed rule, eliminating any and all amendments on the House floor, and is intent on bypassing a conference committee with the Senate. In effect, the Democrat leadership has eliminated every conceivable opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to represent the views of their own constituents.

I find this sadly ironic, for it was Nancy Pelosi in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat majority's governing philosophy. And I will quote her: ``Bills should come to the House floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee markups.''

As the body knows full well, we have had not an open process, let alone full and fair debate. Nor have we had any amendment process. Nor have we had any hearings whatsoever. So, I ask the Speaker, what has changed?

In an October 20, 2006 press release, then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to then-Speaker Hastert, ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.''

My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concerns about Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey being the sole authors of this legislation without any input from other Members with considerable expertise in these subject matters. I am not alone in expressing this concern.

Last week, my dear friend and colleague, Marcy Kaptur, voiced her displeasure with Chairman Obey and her own leadership. She said, ``Leadership, by keeping the supplemental too close to the vest and not going through a committee markup, has failed to engage the broader membership. It does disenfranchise the voice of people who don't come from leadership locations.''

I just happen to be the ranking member on this full committee. I saw the text and the heart of this proposal only yesterday in the early part of the afternoon. They have had it for months in the works, but have chosen to ignore entirely the minority in this connection. My colleagues know that I have expressed grave concern about this process before.

The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, has said that it is disingenuous for Republicans to speak out over the Iraq war supplemental bypassing the Appropriations Committee process. He suggested that the House Republicans, while in the majority, had engaged in similar practices. This argument would be convenient if it were, in fact, true. However, we all know that facts are stubborn things.

According to the April 29 edition of the Politico, ``There have been about three dozen emergency spending bills in the past 20 years, and a handful has passed without input from the Appropriations Committee, including billions in Hurricane Katrina aid and post-September 11 funds. But none of the Iraq war funding bills has bypassed the appropriations panel in the process.''

Have there been occasions where supplemental spending bills have not been

considered by the full committee? Sure there have. But on those rare instances, such as the aftermath of September 11 and so on, there was bipartisan consensus on the need to act quickly. And we did so by working together.

In no circumstance, to my knowledge, did either the Republican majority or the Democrat minority that preceded it ever deny either the opposition party or even members of its own party a seat at the table in writing such critical legislation.

Yet here we stand today, debating the merits of a bill that only a handful of Members have even seen. Very, very few Members know what is in this legislation.

I ask you, anybody in this room, have any of you, besides David Obey, had a chance to really read this bill and know what's in it in detail? You're going to be asked to vote on it anyway, regardless of that lack of input.

Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, deserve to have their voice heard. By the end of the day, not one Member will have an opportunity to offer an amendment or propose any alternative ideas to this body for a vote.

What are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of?

This is the fifth time since January 2007 that this majority has brought a supplemental appropriations bill to the House floor under a closed rule, violating the entire tradition of the appropriations process.

In order for the people's voices to be heard, it is fundamental that the representatives' voices are heard. What is happening here is that we are beginning to lay a pattern to destroy the representative process that allows the people to be heard through the people they send here to represent them in the first place.

Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey have effectively said to virtually every Democrat and Republican serving this great body: ``Your voice is irrelevant, and your input is not welcome.'' Again, what are Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey afraid of?

I believe this practice of circumventing our traditional committee process and ignoring the voices of rank and file Members and their constituents is detrimental to the health of the legislative process. It puts in place a process wherein a handful of powerful legislators become ``the Great Deciders'' of what should or should not be included in this almost $250 billion spending bill. This is not the ``House of the Few Great Deciders.'' It is the ``People's House.'' It is the House of Representatives. We fail to recognize this at our great peril.

On May 24, 2002, my friend and my chairman, Mr. Obey, said, and I quote, ``What a shame, when the legislative process is corrupted to polarize a product that should have been used to forge national unity.''

These words are particularly true today as Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi put partisan interests ahead of the interests of the Members of the House and ahead of the people of this country. We can do better. And ladies and gentlemen, we must do better.

We can do better, and, ladies and gentlemen, we must do better. Vote ``no'' on this package and send it back to where it belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Florida, Bill Young.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New York, Jim Walsh.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize my colleague from Virginia, Frank Wolf, for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is left on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, one of the delights of this process, preparing for this bill, has been to go back through the process of the past and look at some of the protestations and expressions of concern by my colleague, now the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee. I love this quote particularly. He says, ``Now this bill is going nowhere. It's going to be vetoed.'' Which bill are we talking about? This one or that one?

The American people know that once again Congress is putting partisan political considerations ahead of the needs of the American people. What we ought to do is to stop these political games and go forward with the regular process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for 2 minutes the former chairman of the Veterans' Committee, Steve Buyer of Indiana.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I would yield myself 10 seconds.

The chairman of the committee could have raised this 6 months ago since the bill has been around for a full year, but he chose to use political rhetoric today rather than really carry out his responsibilities.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, could you give us the time, please, on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 1 minute to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, Mr. Wamp from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kingston from Georgia.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, in the interest of keeping this wonderful dialogue going on, I yield the gentleman from Georgia 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the Republican Policy chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

(Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

As of this moment, we have one additional speaker. I may take 10 seconds to close or something like that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader of the Republican side of the aisle, my colleague, John Boehner, for 1 minute.

No. I indicated I was recognizing him for 1 minute. I may have a few seconds myself at the end.

I will just have a few seconds. I will reserve the balance of my time.

I will have a few seconds, but at the end of it, if you are at the end.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed in many ways this discussion today. But most particularly, I have enjoyed having a chance to review the comments, sometimes even the lectures, of my colleague, the chairman of the committee, over the years. It wasn't that long ago that I had the chance to be the chairman myself. And earlier today, I used a quote from the then-ranking member of the committee in which he, in part, said, ``The American people know that, once again, Congress is putting partisan political considerations ahead of the needs of the American people.''

He protested so much. In that same conversation, Mr. Obey went on to say, ``In my view, the quickest way to end this political nonsense is to vote `no' on this bill so that we can send the President a bill which is respectable, responsible and can be signed.''

I must say that serving in the ranking member position at this point in time, I couldn't more heartily adopt the words of my colleague when he formerly had a position like mine.

In the meantime, this bill goes forward. The chairman knows full well that the bill that was written in the corner of this building by a couple of hands is going nowhere. It is very likely to be vetoed. In turn, he is repeating that very process he was protesting against so strongly not so long ago.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express to the House my concern about the fact that Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi are very, very busy these days. If news reports are to be believed, it's apparent that they're going about doing all of the work of the Appropriations Committee as well as the House almost all alone with almost no input from Democrats or Republicans from the House.

Because of that busy schedule, I have been writing to Mr. Obey of late. I have sent him three letters altogether. Last Thursday, I sent him a letter that was signed by the entire Republican membership of the Appropriations Committee urging him to have regular order and full hearings on the supplemental that is before us that represents a huge portion of our spending, and yet there has been no hearing whatsoever.

Just in case Mr. Obey hasn't seen this letter because his staff is very busy, I know, working on these projects, I would like to submit that letter for the Record and urge the House to urge the leadership to allow us to have public hearings so that Members can have input regarding their districts' needs on this very, very important part of this year's work.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC, May 1, 2008.

Hon. David Obey,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: In the absence of any response from you

to my April 21st and April 24th letters, and recognizing

Senator Byrd's immediate response to the Republican Senators

from his Committee, we are writing to once again express our

grave concerns over media reports that your leadership plans

to unilaterally, and without Member input, write and take to

the House floor the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

bill under a closed rule and bypass full Appropriations

Committee consideration. Such action would be an historical

and unprecedented abdication of responsibility for the House

Appropriations Committee and would be viewed by many in both

parties as a shameful power grab by House and Senate leaders.

Senator Byrd, who recognizes the slippery slope involved in

circumventing the well-established rules and precedents of

the Appropriations Committee, has scheduled a frill Senate

Appropriations Committee markup for the week of May 5th. We

urge you in the strongest possible terms to follow Senator

Byrd's example and schedule a full Committee markup in the

House at the earliest possible date.

It is only right and fair that you allow Members of our

Committee--Republicans and Democrats--to do the work they

were elected to do. We are extremely troubled by the fact

that under this scheme no Member of the House will be

afforded the opportunity to offer amendments in full

Committee or on the House floor while Senators in the other

body will be given the opportunity to let their constituent's

voices be heard. We must act expeditiously to move through

full Committee and onto the floor a clean Emergency

Supplemental, free of extraneous funding and policy

provisions, to address the urgent needs of our troops and

their families.

On October 20, 2006 then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wrote

in a letter to then-Speaker Hastert: ``We must restore

bipartisanship to the administration of the House,

reestablish regular order for considering legislation. and

ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the

minority. The voice of every American has a right to be

heard.''

Again, we urge you and Speaker Pelosi to stand by those

words. Historical precedent and tradition dictates that this

legislation be fashioned in an open and transparent process,

and ensure full participation by both parties--not behind

closed doors but in the full light of day. As the Speaker

stated less than two years ago, every Member of the

Appropriations Committee and, indeed, every Member of the

House and their constituents deserve to have their voices

heard.

We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Jerry Lewis; C.W. Bill Young; Ralph Regula; Harold

Rogers; Frank R. Wolf; James T. Walsh; David L. Hobson;

Joe Knollenberg; Jack Kingston; Rodney P.

Frelinghuysen.

Todd Tiahrt; Zach Wamp; Tom Latham; Robert B. Aderholt;

Jo Ann Emerson; Kay Granger; John E. Peterson; Virgil

H. Goode, Jr.; Ray LaHood; Dave Weldon.

Michael K. Simpson; John Abney Culberson; Mark Steven

Kirk; Ander Crenshaw; Dennis R. Rehberg; John R.

Carter; Rodney Alexander; Ken Calvert; Jo Bonner.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida