[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15281-15289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2847, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 544 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 544

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
     11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order 
     except: (1) those received for printing in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record of June 15, 2009 (or earlier) designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII; and (2) pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so 
     received may be offered only by the Member who submitted it 
     for printing or a designee and shall be considered as read if 
     printed. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Clause 9(b)(2) of rule XXI is amended by inserting 
     ``such'' after ``no''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 544.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 544 provides for the consideration of 
H.R. 2847, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the committee and ranking member for reporting out this 
bill that does not pay mere lip service to making communities safer, 
but makes critical investments in our Nation's communities.
  The bill provides $802 million for Community Oriented Policing 
Services, which we know as the COPS program, 45 percent above the 
current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally 
important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire 
and train new officers, to participate in community policing, purchase 
and deploy new crimefighting techniques and technologies, and develop 
and test new and innovative policing strategies.
  So often State and local governments are critical of the Federal 
Government's programs because they pass down mandates without funding 
them. But this bill appropriates money to put more police on the 
street, funds successful drug court programs, and increases Byrne 
funding to help develop new and innovative law enforcement techniques 
which put violent criminals in jail and keep our streets safe for our 
children.
  This funding includes $298 million for the COPS hiring grants 
program, which help our local law enforcement agencies put more police 
on the street. When combined with the $1 billion provided in the 
Recovery Act for the COPS hiring grants, the funding in H.R. 2847 will 
enable the hiring of more than 7,000 police officers. Those are 
officers in each and every State in this country.
  Increasing the number of police on the street will help local law 
enforcement agencies to reduce violence and get illegal guns off the 
street. As a former prosecutor, I know that the vast majority of the 
violent crimes committed with guns in this country are committed with 
illegal guns, not legal guns. By putting more police officers on the 
street, it will give officers the ability to better enforce the laws on 
the books, not by creating new laws, but by reducing the number of 
illegal guns, which is the cause of the majority of gun violence in 
this country.
  This bill provides $15 million for the Weed and Seed program. Weed 
and Seed helps localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime 
and then take the all-important step often left out, that is, seeding 
the formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood 
revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in 
sites and communities such as my home in Utica and Rome, New York, 
cities which I represent.
  H.R. 2847 also includes $384 million for Juvenile Justice programs, 
$11 million above the 2009 level. This underscores the strong Federal 
commitment to supporting States and communities in their efforts to 
develop and implement prevention and intervention programs and to 
improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety 
and holds offenders accountable while also providing rehabilitative 
services that are tailored to meet the needs of juveniles and their 
families.
  Additionally, the underlying bill includes $45 million for grants, 
technical assistance, and training to State and local governments to 
develop dedicated drug courts that subject nonviolent offenders to an 
integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives and sanctions.
  As a district attorney, I quickly learned that no matter what 
initiatives law enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it 
never really affected the demand for drugs, which never seemed to go 
down and therefore created a market for drug dealers. One

[[Page 15282]]

thing I saw is that reducing the supply can work, but reducing the 
demand for drugs always works.
  When my office established a drug court program, I realized the 
powerful effect that the program had on helping enrolled participants 
get control of their addiction, thereby freeing them and their families 
from their awful addiction and reducing the demand for drugs. The 
appropriation of $45 million for drug courts provided by H.R. 2847 is 
12.5 percent more than the current level, and I congratulate the 
committee on that increase.
  The bill also includes funding for upgrades to emergency 
communications systems around the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important 
programs for which H.R. 2847 would appropriate funds. My remarks are 
focused on the criminal justice aspects of this bill, but there are 
many other important areas addressed in this legislation.
  It provides funding for critical scientific research, including 
programs to keep America on the cutting edge of technology, innovation 
and those that study climate change as well as funding the Department 
of Commerce and Economic Development Administration. The Appropriations 
Committee has approved a bill which would provide funding for these 
critical programs, and I once again thank them for their work and 
welcome the chance to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time 
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in opposition to this unorthodox rule brought forth by 
the majority. It continues the precedent the majority set last year 
when they decided to no longer allow the House to consider 
appropriations rules with open rules and instead use a restrictive rule 
that requires Members to preprint any proposed amendments in the 
Congressional Record.

                              {time}  1530

  So this is a restrictive rule, even though the majority calls it an 
open rule with a preprinting requirement. It was not long ago when the 
majority felt quite differently. At the end of 2004, the current 
distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then a member of the 
minority and ranking member of the Rules Committee, released a report 
called, ``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy.'' On 
Page 26 of the report the chairwoman said that she considers rules with 
preprinting requirements, like today's rule, restrictive and not open. 
Why exactly is this a restrictive rule? Let, me, again, quote the 
chairwoman's 2004 report. ``A preprinting requirement blocks any 
amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of debate.''
  For example, Mr. Speaker, Members will be blocked from offering 
germane changes to their own amendments if an issue surfaces during 
debate, or if there is a minor drafting error. That is why, during 
yesterday's rules hearing, I made a motion to modify the rule to allow 
Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in this 
rule, to make germane modifications to such amendments. My commonsense 
amendment was defeated by a straight party-line vote.
  I will provide you an example, Mr. Speaker, why I believe my 
amendment was important. During last year's consideration of the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, 
Representative Buyer submitted an amendment for consideration. However, 
the amendment had a drafting error and did not comply with one of the 
rules of the House.
  Once Congressman Buyer realized the problem, he asked unanimous 
consent to change his amendment to achieve its original purpose, and 
also to comply with the rules of the House. However, the majority 
blocked his unanimous consent request.
  If the bill had been considered under an open rule, Representative 
Buyer could simply have introduced a new amendment. But, just like the 
bill being brought to the floor today, that bill was not considered 
under an open rule, and Members were blocked from making germane 
changes to their amendments, unless they received concurrence of every 
Member through a unanimous consent agreement.
  Yesterday, during the hearing on the supplemental appropriations 
bill, the Rules Committee ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to ask 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, how the 
majority would handle another occurrence like occurred last year with 
the Buyer amendment.
  But when Mr. Dreier began asking his question, the Rules Committee 
chairwoman did not allow Mr. Dreier from going forward with the 
question. The Rules Committee chairwoman explained her ruling by 
saying, the hearing on the underlying legislation was complete, and the 
committee was now considering the supplemental funding bill; a bill 
that is an appropriations bill just like the underlying legislation. 
And yet, the chairwoman found that asking the Appropriations chairman 
about the upcoming appropriations process during a hearing on an 
appropriations bill was inappropriate. I think that was unfortunate.
  Please let me quote Chairwoman Slaughter's report from 2004. 
Restrictive rules block ``duly elected Members of Congress the 
opportunity to shape legislation in a manner that they believe is in 
the best interest of their constituents and the Nation as a whole.'' 
They also block, and I continue quoting, ``the full and free airing of 
conflicting opinions.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert the relevant parts of the chairwoman's 
report into the Record.
  If the rule was restrictive under the majority's definition in 2004, 
why is it not the same today?
  What makes this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the House 
has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills in 
order to allow each Member the ability to offer germane amendments 
without having to preprint their amendment or receive approval from the 
Rules Committee.
  Other than the recent use by the majority to restrict debate on 
appropriations bills, we have to look back nearly 15 years to the last 
time a restrictive rule was used. So this is not a one-time aberration 
but, in fact, the way the majority plans to continue to consider all of 
the appropriations bills this year.
  So I believe that the majority is really not only subverting the 
rights of every Member, and also bipartisan and open debate on 
appropriations bills, but I think they're setting a dangerous precedent 
that is unfortunate. Excessive partisanship is unnecessary and 
unfortunate.

          Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy


 A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic 
                     Process in the 108th Congress.

         Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office

           The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member

       4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open 
     Rules'' 
       During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out 
     four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement. 
     This provision requires Members to submit their amendments 
     for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance 
     with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor 
     debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically 
     calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them 
     ``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the 
     appendices attached to this report.
       While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-
     printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common 
     tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules 
     Committee report;\31\ there is a significant difference 
     between an open rule and a

[[Page 15283]]

     rule with a pre-printing requirement. A pre-printing 
     requirement forces Members to reveal their amendments in 
     advance of floor consideration, something that may assist the 
     floor managers, but can disadvantage the Member offering it. 
     In addition, a pre-printing requirement blocks any amendment 
     proposal that might emerge during the course of the debate. 
     When Chairman Dreier was in the minority, he made the 
     following statement about the preprinting requirement during 
     debate on a rule on national, service legislation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \31\According to our records, 50% (64) of the non-conference 
     report/non-procedural rules reported by the Committee in the 
     108th Congress were rules restricting debate to amendments 
     printed in the Committee report. In the ``Additional Views'' 
     they filed in the 102nd Congress Survey of Activities 
     Republican Rules Committee members, including Chairman 
     Dreier, complained this type of restrictive rule had become 
     ``a favored method of the majority.'' Under this procedure, 
     the Rules Committee ``selectively determines which 
     [amendment] to make in order and which may not be offered on 
     the floor. Usually, the amendments made in order are subject 
     to strict time limits, as opposed to open debate under the 
     five-minute rule, and are not subject to amendment. On rare 
     occasions the Rules Committee has allowed all amendments 
     submitted to be offered, but this is the exception, not the 
     rule.'' H. Rept. 102-1101, 102nd Survey, p. 109.

       ``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it 
     is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House 
     debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is 
     impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with 
     a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment 
     to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome 
     preprinting process? Shouldn't the committees that report 
     these bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the 
     legislation under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I 
     think we can do better.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \32\Congressional Record July 20, 1993, p. H4820.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose 
     of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected 
     Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a 
     manner that they believe is in the best interest of their 
     constituents and the nation as a whole. It is not to help the 
     foor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in 
     allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions'' 
     would allow at least some House business to occur in an open 
     format---in a procedural framework that allows Members to 
     bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion 
     and debate under the five-minute rule.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \33\As we have noted above, most appropriations bills are 
     debated under technically open rules, but amendments are 
     subject not just to the normal restrictions of germaneness, 
     but also a number of other restrictions set out in rule XXI 
     and in the Congressional Budget Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


II. Republicans Expanded the Consideration of Suspension Bills to Crowd 
                   Out Real Deliberation in the House

       Another aspect of the disturbing trend towards curtailing 
     real deliberation on controversial issues in the House has 
     been the Republican leadership's tendency to devote more and 
     more floor time to debating bills under the suspension of the 
     rules. In the 108th Congress, standing House Rule XV 
     permitted the House to consider bills under suspension of the 
     rules on Mondays and Tuesdays, and during the last six days 
     of a session of Congress. The suspension procedure allows for 
     40 minutes of debate, requires a two-thirds vote for a bill 
     to pass, and allows no amendments except by the floor 
     manager.
       The ostensible purpose of the suspension day procedure is, 
     as the Republican majority describes it in one of its 
     Parliamentary Outreach newsletters, ``to dispose of non-
  I reserve.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Mr. Obey.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise to express my concern about the 
ability of this House to get its crucial work done under the 
circumstances in which we're operating.
  As I think every Member of the House understands, President Obama 
inherited an economic crisis and a foreign policy mess, and so the 
Congress first had to turn our attention to dealing with that economic 
crisis, and we finally got that out of the way in the form of the 
Recovery Act. We then had to finish all of last year's domestic 
appropriation bills, which took a considerable amount of time, and then 
we had to turn to the supplemental appropriation bill which we will be 
debating later today to finish funding the Middle Eastern war efforts 
for the remainder of the fiscal year, because the previous 
administration had a practice of only asking for funding for that 
endeavor 6 months at a time.
  And now we are trying to bring up the first of 12 appropriation 
bills. And in order to stay on schedule so we can do the people's 
business by the end of the fiscal year, we need to deal with all 12 of 
those bills in the next 6 weeks. I think that means that we have a 
problem.
  In fiscal '03 there were no amendments offered to this bill. In 
fiscal '04 there were 10 amendments offered by Republicans and 6 by 
Democrats. In fiscal '05 there were 19 amendments offered by 
Republicans and 11 by Democrats. In fiscal '06 the number increased to 
19 and 27, and in '07 we had 38 amendments offered by Republicans and 
37 offered by Democrats. Today, we have had filed on this bill 127 
amendments.
  Now, in the schedule that I announced last week for appropriation 
bills, we announced a schedule that would allow us to finish all of 
these appropriation bills by the August recess, provided that we were 
able to stick to that schedule. That schedule allocates about 7 to 8 
hours of debate on all amendments on average for each bill.
  The problem that I see here with this bill is that we already have 
amendments filed that will take at least 23 hours, and even if 
amendments are considered out of order, it still takes 10 minutes or so 
to dispose of each of those amendments.
  So last week the majority leader and I met with my friend, the 
ranking member of the committee, and the minority leader, asking 
whether or not it would be possible to reach agreement on time and on 
the number of amendments offered so that we could finish this bill 
along the schedule that we had outlined; and at that time, the prospect 
did not seem too promising, if I can be polite about it.
  And I would simply like to ask my friend from California at this 
point, before we get into this bill, whether, in light of the time 
squeeze that we have, whether the gentleman would be in a position to 
agree to a proposition that would, in fact, limit the number and the 
time of amendments to that amount of, or to that number and to that 
amount of time, that would enable us to cut that 23 hours down to about 
7 or 8 hours?
  And I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. In exchange with my colleague, I was 
interested in his commentary regarding the number of amendments in the 
past on this bill and other bills like it. I too am very concerned 
about the time difficulty that we are having. I'd much prefer to have 
us get back to regular order where we'd have open rules on these bills.
  But at this point in time, because of the requirements of the 
majority, the preprinting requirements, et cetera, there are a lot of 
Members who are very frustrated by this bill, and they'd like to make 
some serious changes, but they find themselves in a position where they 
can't provide amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. We can continue this exchange. There is, as 
a result of the change in the rules and the way we can provide 
amendments, there had been as many as 127 amendments preprinted on this 
bill, 104 of them by the minority who feel they've essentially been cut 
out of the process. And because of that, and because of the importance 
of the issues that are a part of this bill, I cannot agree to a time 
limitation.
  I think the time limitation you were discussing was like for 8 hours 
or something. I'm afraid my conference might very well have a 
revolution on its hands, and you might have a new ranking member.
  Mr. OBEY. Well, I thank the gentleman for his frankness. I regret the 
content of his response, but I do appreciate the fact that he is 
forthright and honest in laying out what the prospects would be.
  And Mr. Speaker, I think that that presents a dilemma to the House, 
because we want to finish our business, and I would point out that the 
schedule that we've set out can be adhered to only if we can work out 
reasonable time limits with each of these bills.
  And I would point out that what we're trying to do with that schedule 
is to allow ample time for discussion of these appropriation bills and 
also still leave time on the calendar to deal with the crucial issues 
of health care, of climate change and the military authorization bill, 
among others.
  So I think at this point the House has a problem. And I hope that we 
will face up to it forthrightly, because I think we do have an 
obligation to try to get the people's business done on time.

[[Page 15284]]


  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my serious concerns about 
the bill before us today and about the lack of sufficient funding for 
NASA's next-generation human space flight.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us has a $6.7 billion increase in 
spending over last year. That's a 12 percent increase over last year's 
spending.
  And while the overall NASA budget gets a slight increase from last 
year, the budget for our Nation's next generation-human space flight 
vehicle constellation is cut by $566 million.
  While lawmakers can talk about supporting space exploration, the 
bottom line is that the United States will soon yield its preeminence 
in space to Russia after the last shuttle flight, currently scheduled 
for 2010. This legislation does nothing to avert America's human space 
flight gap.
  Those who follow our Nation's space budget realize what's at risk. 
Soaring rhetoric and good intentions of playing financial catch-up 
later with space funding can easily surrender to other competing 
initiatives. Delays and studies are the road to the graveyard for many 
legislative proposals.

                              {time}  1545

  The bill's $566 million cut for our next generation human spaceflight 
vehicle sends the wrong message to the hardworking men and women who 
are developing Constellation now. It sends the wrong message to college 
students who are seeking advanced engineering and science degrees. It 
tells them that human spaceflight is not really a priority in this 
country. This message will not go unnoticed in Beijing or in Moscow.
  This Congress passed the stimulus bill in February, including an 
additional $400 million for the Constellation program. Yet, today, the 
bill before us essentially takes all of that funding back and then 
some--poof--like a shell game. If the inadequate funding level for NASA 
that is contained in this bill is allowed to stand as it is, then our 
Nation's human spaceflight program will be dealt a very, very serious 
blow.
  For a comparison, let's look at several of the spending items in the 
bill. The bill would increase funds for the COPS program by $252 
million over 2009, and this is on top of over $1 billion in the 
stimulus bill. The bill spends $7.4 billion on the census, an increase 
of $4.2 billion over last year. The bill increases funding for the 
National Science Foundation by $446 million over 2009 to promote 
scientific research by students. Yet it cuts funding for human 
spaceflight, a fountainhead of patents and scientific discovery.
  I would say to the chairman of the subcommittee, I appreciate the 
work that you do and the challenges before you. Without a robust manned 
space program, the United States cannot maintain our leadership in 
space nor can we carry crews beyond low Earth orbit. It is for this 
reason that we must work to restore the funding that was cut from this 
program.
  I look forward to working with you and with my colleagues over the 
next several months to restore the funding so that we can get our 
Nation's next human spaceflight vehicle back on track. A cut of this 
magnitude at this critical stage cannot and absolutely must not be 
allowed to stand.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio, a former colleague from the Rules Committee (Ms. 
Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend from 
New York, for the time and for his leadership.
  I also want to thank Chairman Obey for all of the hard work he has 
put into developing this bill that will fund some of our Nation's most 
critical needs, including the funding for prisons, for law enforcement 
and for initiatives related to the southwest border, along with 
promoting important scientific research and development.
  This bill provides $30.6 billion for investments in science, 
technology and innovation, including $6.9 billion for the National 
Science Foundation, whose grants in the past have allowed researchers 
in our colleges and universities to discover fundamental particles of 
matter, to develop carbon-14 dating of ancient artifacts and to decode 
the genetics of viruses, to name just a few.
  It provides $1 billion to science, technology and math education for 
our students, from graduate students all the way down through 
kindergarten. So we're going to educate our students for the future and 
will continue to be leaders in innovation in this global world.
  It also invests $781 million in the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, which is very important for the area that I represent. 
It provides for scientific and technical research services. Along with 
$125 million for the manufacturing extension partnerships, we will be 
investing $125 million to help small- and mid-sized manufacturers 
compete globally by providing them with technical advice and access to 
technology. As well, we will be leveraging private funds to save and 
create jobs. This program has been vital to the 13th District of Ohio, 
resulting in jobs that can be directly linked to it. We are also 
investing $70 million to fund high-risk, high-reward research into 
areas of critical national need done by U.S. businesses, colleges and 
universities, and labs. That is through the Technology Innovation 
Program.
  In addition, this bill provides much-needed funding for the Bureau of 
Prisons to protect American citizens. According to the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, in a 15-State study, over two-thirds of the 
released prisoners were re-arrested within 3 years. Now, with this in 
mind, the Bureau of Prisons is provided with $6.2 billion to address 
long-standing critical shortages in corrections staffing, education and 
drug treatment, as well as an investment for Second Chance Act offender 
reentry programs.
  The bill also provides the much-needed $298 million for the COPS 
hiring program, which, when combined with the $1 billion provided in 
the Recovery Act for the program, will put 7,000 new police officers on 
the streets of American communities, improving the safety for our 
constituents.
  The ongoing drug violence on our southwest border is also addressed 
in this bill by providing funds for the DEA to combat the flow of 
illegal drugs across the border, for the ATF to reduce violent crime 
and to enforce Federal firearm and explosive laws, and for the 
department-wide Southwest Border Initiative to secure our border 
against violence and drug trafficking.
  With all of that in mind, I rise in support of the rule and of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues--and I know I 
speak for all of my colleagues when I say that I revere this 
institution.
  220 years ago this summer, James Madison, following the urging of his 
constituents, came back to the House of Representatives, doing 
something that he actually opposed when he penned the U.S. 
Constitution: that being the implementation of the very important Bill 
of Rights, which is something that we as Americans spend a lot of time 
thinking about and which is something that the rest of the world looks 
to. There are people in Iran today who are looking at our Bill of 
Rights as they think about the need to pursue democracy and as they 
choose their leaders in their country. Peoples all over the world 
continue to look to our Bill of Rights. It was 220 years ago this 
summer that James Madison moved the Bill of Rights through this 
institution. I'm going to, next month, spend some time talking about 
that historic summer 220 years ago.
  I say that simply to underscore the fact that I have such great 
regard for the precedents and for the rules of the House of 
Representatives, and I consider it a great privilege to serve with Mr. 
Diaz-Balart, with Mr. Arcuri and with the other members who serve on 
the House Rules Committee. I take the work there very, very seriously.

[[Page 15285]]

  I believe that we're at a troubling moment when it comes to the 
deliberative nature of this institution. We had the exchange that took 
place between the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on this process of 
filing amendments. We had a rigorous debate that took place in the 
Rules Committee yesterday about the fact that appropriations bills are 
considered as privileged.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is there is no need for a 
special rule for the consideration of appropriations bills. 
Constitutionally, it is a very important part of the process. Article 
I, section 9 of the Constitution makes it very clear that spending 
doesn't emanate from the White House; it emanates from the United 
States Congress. By tradition, it begins here in the House of 
Representatives.
  As I stand here, I'm thinking about conversations that I had with one 
of the greatest Members to ever serve here, the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Natcher), who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and who 
was the long-time chairman of the Health Subcommittee. I remember his 
saying to me that he believed appropriations bills should come to the 
floor without being considered with a special rule because they are 
considered as privileged; but the tradition over the past several 
decades has been that the need for a special rule would allow for the 
protection of the bill, meaning that points of order could not be 
raised against the work product of the Appropriations Committee and 
that we would then allow for an open amendment process, meaning that 
any Member could stand up here in the House and offer a germane 
amendment to the appropriations bill.
  It is true that the appropriations process can be prolonged, and it 
has been in the past; but when we were in the majority, having presided 
regularly over the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, I remember 
witnessing the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee or 
of the subcommittee come together and have an agreement that amendments 
would be addressed and that they would put an outside time limit for 
the consideration of those amendments.
  Over my nearly three decades here, Mr. Speaker, I've seen that happen 
on a regular basis. Guess what? It has worked out pretty doggone well. 
Now, there are people who are disturbed over the fact that 127 
amendments were filed yesterday at the Rules Committee to the Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations bill. That was not necessary. That was 
not necessary, and it would not have happened had we had the standard 
open amendment process for the consideration of measures.
  Yes, there are a number of very important issues that I and my 
colleagues believe should be addressed in this appropriations bill. I 
will say that it could be done under an open amendment process, but 
unfortunately, the majority has decided to not only have a preprinting 
requirement but to set an arbitrary deadline so that, if appropriations 
bills may be considered more than a day or so later, one could not file 
additional amendments for the consideration of the measure. In our 
attempt to get a commitment that we would simply be able to allow 
Members to make germane modifications to their amendments, we have been 
denied that.
  In fact, we had a vote in the Rules Committee last night. I know, Mr. 
Speaker. I apologize. This is very inside baseball. I know I may not be 
quite on message, but I think the message is a very clear one: It's 
fairness in dealing with the challenges that the American people are 
facing. So we had a party-line vote, Mr. Speaker. We had this vote, and 
we were denied the opportunity to allow Members to even make germane 
modifications to amendments that had been submitted to the Rules 
Committee.
  Now, Mr. Diaz-Balart is going to make an attempt to defeat the 
previous question. This vote on the previous question is one that will 
simply say that we, as an institution, want the American people, 
through their elected Representatives, to have the chance to think 
about, to deliberate and to vote on the measures included in this 
appropriations bill and we hope in the other I guess it is 11 now 
appropriations bills, in addition to the one that we're considering 
here today.
  It is a troubling pattern which undermines deliberative democracy. 
Now, it's not unusual, but it is very troubling. I don't know how many 
amendments would have been offered if we'd had an open amendment 
process; but guess what? I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, for a second 
that 127 amendments would have been offered. I think there would have 
been many, many fewer than that. When the Members of this House, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, are told that they can't even make 
germane modifications to their amendments, there is little choice other 
than to have Members file many, many, many different amendments so that 
we will at least be able to allow this process to proceed.
  Chairman Obey referred to the fact that the issue of global climate 
change and the issue of health care are both issues that the Democratic 
majority wants to bring to the forefront in the next couple of months. 
We understand that elections have consequences, and those are issues 
that they clearly have a right to bring up. I want to address those 
issues. On our side, we want to address those issues in a slightly 
different way, but we don't believe that we should be addressing those 
issues at the expense of the very important process enshrined in 
article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, and that is the power of 
the purse: the appropriations process.

                              {time}  1600

  So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to join Mr. Diaz-
Balart, the gentleman from Miami, in attempting to defeat the previous 
question in the name of deliberative democracy so that we can allow 
elected representatives to in fact represent their constituents. And if 
by chance the previous question is passed, I am going to urge my 
colleagues to join in opposition to the rule because we can do a better 
job.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
sharing with us his thoughts. Clearly, his institutional knowledge of 
this grand institution is second to none. But there is one point that I 
think is important to clear up, and that is the fact that this bill has 
a preprinting requirement that in no way, shape, fashion, or form means 
that anyone is precluded or prevented from filing an amendment. What it 
does, however, mean is that any amendment that an individual 
Representative files has to be filed by a certain period of time, and 
that was yesterday. That does one thing. And I would submit that that 
enables our constituents to have the very, very best legislation that 
they can because it does one thing, it gives the Representatives an 
opportunity to read that amendment to see what that amendment means and 
to have an opportunity to interpret it and determine whether or not it 
is the best thing for the bill or, in fact, whether it should be 
pulled.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARCURI. If I could finish my thought.
  So I would submit that, in fact, it is a good thing to have a 
preprinting requirement in this particular bill, and I would yield to 
my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and I appreciate his kind 
remarks. And I will say that the gentleman is relatively new to the 
institution. And I would say that, frankly, since the gentleman has 
been here, we have not really had as many open rules as we should. I 
know that there has been an attempt made to define a modified open rule 
as an open rule----
  Mr. ARCURI. If I may reclaim my time----
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I look forward to getting 
some time from my friend from Miami.
  Mr. ARCURI. The point of it is that this allows individuals to file. 
In fact, the fact that we have 127 amendments filed, much more than 
we've had in the past, certainly indicates that in fact Representatives 
have had an opportunity to file.

[[Page 15286]]

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, a member of the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, 
Mr. Schiff.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to express my strong support for the Commerce, Justice and 
Science Appropriation bill and at the outset want to congratulate 
Chairman Mollohan for the extraordinary job that he has done in putting 
this bill together.
  In particular, I want to highlight a couple of key investments in the 
bill in the areas of law enforcement and science.
  In particular, we invest over $800 million in the COPS program that 
has been very successful in putting additional cops on the beat and 
deterring criminal activity and keeping our communities safe. That is a 
vital investment. The legislation also makes a very important 
investment to those of us that live in the border States in a program 
called SCAP, which provides assistance to States that have to 
incarcerate illegal immigrants and bear the costs of flaws in our 
Federal immigration policy.
  Furthermore, the bill makes a very key investment, very substantial 
investments in DNA technology and backlog reduction. To the degree we 
can eliminate backlogs of DNA evidence, we can take murderers and 
rapists off the streets. Of this there is no question: you can tell 
from a statistical certainty that when you reduce backlogs, you take 
murderers and rapists off the streets and prevent them from committing 
further offenses. This is another key investment.
  And, finally, let me speak to a science investment in the bill which 
I think is also very important and that is this legislation keeps some 
of our most important space science efforts, like the Mars program, on 
track, which has brought us new, unprecedented information about the 
world we live in that has led to scientific improvements and innovation 
here on the ground and is a vital investment in our Nation's future.
  So I want to thank you, Chairman Mollohan, for your extraordinary 
work on this bill, for the key investments in law enforcement and 
science, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) such time as he 
may consume.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my California 
colleague, the gentleman from Glendale, Mr. Schiff, for his thoughtful 
remarks. And I want to say that he and I share our commitment to NASA 
and the very important programs that take place at the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory. And that's the point. I mean, there are many important 
items in this bill which continue to be priorities.
  I would like to say to my friend from Utica, who, again, is working 
very hard, he is very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, he has never had to serve 
in the United States House of Representatives as a member of the 
minority. My dream is that one day he might be able to serve as a 
member of the minority, and who knows how that will come out. I mean, 
it's always up to the voters to make that determination.
  But I would say that those 127 amendments about which my friend 
referred and then I referred when I was in the well are amendments that 
I had to encourage our colleagues to file. Why? First, there were only 
2 days, 2 legislative days, that this bill was out there. And if we had 
had an open amendment process, as I said, I can say with absolute 
certainty there would not be 127 amendments filed to this measure; 
again, maybe half that, maybe many fewer than that. And many of those 
amendments are duplicative. And the reason is that Members might find 
themselves in the same position as Mr. Buyer did. And that's why I say 
my friend has served exclusively as a member of the majority; but if 
one day he is serving here as a member of the minority and were to 
receive the word that he could not make a minor, germane modification 
to his amendment, I think that he would understand the concern that we 
have.
  Members on this side of the aisle represent just a little less than 
half of the American people. And they all have just as much right to be 
heard as Members of the majority. I recognize that the majority does 
rule in this place, but that does not mean that we should prevent 
Members from being able to participate in this process.
  Mr. Diaz-Balart has entered into the Record a document that was put 
forward in the 108th Congress by the now-chairwoman of the Committee on 
Rules, the then-ranking minority member. She, at that time, held the 
position that I have. And the document describes what we are using as 
our procedure for consideration of this measure as a ``restrictive 
process.''
  Now, traditionally, Democrats and Republicans alike have called it a 
modified open rule. But the preprinting requirement, according to this 
document, blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the 
course of the debate. Now, those are not my words; those are the words 
of Ms. Slaughter when she was ranking minority member on the Committee 
on Rules.
  And so all I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the name of 
deliberative democracy, this notion of saying that every Member has had 
an opportunity to look at this--2 legislative days--and the fact that 
127 amendments were filed meant that there was this exhaustive analysis 
of the bill, I think, is not an accurate way to characterize it.
  The 127 amendments were filed--I believe that many of those 127 
amendments were filed because we are not having what has been the 
longstanding tradition allowed to Members of this House, and that is an 
open amendment process for consideration of the measure. And that's 
why, again, I urge my colleagues to vote with Mr. Diaz-Balart in 
opposition to the previous question. And when that is defeated, make in 
order his amendment that would simply allow Members to have the right 
to make germane modifications to their amendments.
  I also submit for the Record a copy of the announcement I posted on 
the Committee on Rules Republican web site, instructing Members of the 
restrictions created by a restrictive pre-printing rule and giving them 
guidance about how best to preserve their right to have amendments 
considered.

  Majority Restricts Amendment Process for Commerce, Justice, Science 
                          Appropriations Bill

       Earlier today, the Majority announced that next week the 
     House will consider H.R. __, the Commerce, Justice, Science, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
       However, unlike consideration of virtually all of 
     appropriations bills during the years of the Republican 
     Majority, the Democratic Majority has announced its intention 
     to restrict the amendment process by requiring all amendments 
     to be pre-printed in the Congressional Record by the end of 
     the legislative day on June 15, 2009. Members should be aware 
     that this deadline allows barely 2 legislative days to draft 
     and submit amendments for printing.
       This is a subtle--yet extremely significant--departure from 
     the long-standing, bipartisan tradition of considering most 
     of the regular appropriations bills under completely open 
     rules. This change means--
       Members must file their amendments by the deadline 
     announced by the Majority, or they will not be able to offer 
     their amendments;
       If the amendment is not printed in the Congressional Record 
     by the deadline (perhaps due to space limitations imposed by 
     the Government Printing Office or other printing problems), 
     Members will not be able to offer their amendments;
       If the Office of Legislative Counsel is unable to keep up 
     with the demand for drafting amendments by the deadline, 
     those Members will be unable to offer their amendments;
       If Members need to change their amendments during the 
     process (for instance, if an offset is stricken by an earlier 
     amendment), they will not be permitted to do so;
       If a bill is considered over multiple days, Members will 
     not be able to offer amendments if they are printed after the 
     deadline announced by the Majority, even if the bill is still 
     being debated;
       In many cases, Members will have to file amendments without 
     the benefit of a review by the Office of the Parliamentarian 
     or the Congressional Budget Office, and may not receive early 
     notice on possible points of order; and,
       If Members need to change their own amendments to correct 
     technical errors or reflect a negotiated change, they will 
     not be permitted to do so, except through unanimous consent. 
     The Majority has demonstrated that it is openly hostile to 
     allowing Members to make technical corrections

[[Page 15287]]

     on the floor after an amendment has been printed.
       Members and staff are encouraged to watch the video on our 
     website entitled ``The Problem with Pre-Printing'' which 
     demonstrates some of the problems that can arise from a pre-
     printing rule. You may also wish to review the materials 
     dealing with appropriations bills which are part of our 
     Parliamentary Boot Camp educational series and our fact sheet 
     on pre-printing amendments in the Congressional Record.
       In order to assist Members in bringing their ideas to the 
     floor even with this restrictive amendment process, the Rules 
     Committee Republicans suggest the following:
       1. Make sure the amendments are printed by the deadline. 
     This is the most important element of a pre-printing rule. 
     Unlike years past, where the rule simply required that the 
     amendment be printed in the Congressional Record at any point 
     during consideration of the bill, the Democratic Majority has 
     set hard deadlines for pre-printing, meaning that you may be 
     deprived of the opportunity to offer your amendment if you 
     miss the deadline, even when the bill is considered on 
     multiple days.
       2. Coordinate with the Republican staff of the 
     Appropriations Committee. They will do their best to advise 
     you on possible procedural problems (including compliance 
     with the Budget Act), even if they disagree with the 
     substance of your amendment.
       3. File multiple versions of amendments. If you are 
     concerned about possible points of order that may lie against 
     your amendment, such as budget act violations, violations of 
     ``legislating on appropriations bills,'' or other similar 
     points of order, you should file multiple versions of the 
     amendment to give yourself options if you want to offer it. 
     If it is not printed, it cannot be offered.
       4. In a pinch, don't be afraid to draft your own amendment. 
     While the Office of Legislative Counsel provides excellent, 
     nonpartisan advice and drafting services, they are not always 
     able to provide drafted amendments by the printing deadline. 
     If they are unable to provide assistance by the deadline, 
     prepare the amendment in your own office and submit it. While 
     it is advisable, there is no requirement that amendments be 
     drafted by the Office of Legislative Counsel.
       5. Amendments should be drafted with relative references 
     instead of page and line numbers. The Majority has posted the 
     text of the bill on the Rules Committee's website, but this 
     is not the final version of the bill. When printed by GPO, 
     the page and line numbers will likely change. By drafting 
     references relative to the rest of the bill (i.e., ``In the 
     second sentence of the paragraph captioned . . .'') you will 
     protect yourself against changes resulting from the printing 
     process.
       6. Consult with the Parliamentarians, CBO, and the Budget 
     Committee. Even if an amendment is printed in the Record by 
     the deadline, it is still subject to potential points of 
     order or Budget Act violations. However, if you cannot get an 
     answer from these offices by the deadline, you should still 
     file the amendment for pre-printing and continue to pursue 
     your inquiries.
       The Republican staff of the Committee on Rules stands ready 
     to assist your offices in dealing with this restrictive 
     amendment process. Should you have any questions, please 
     contact the Republican staff of the Committee on Rules at x5-
     9191.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice and 
Science Subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I think it is a fair rule 
and comprehensive. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the effort 
that went into fashioning this bill, which was very exhaustive and very 
inclusive of all parties.
  During the review process, Mr. Speaker, for this bill, the fiscal 
year 2010 budget request for the Commerce, Justice and Science and 
Related Agencies Appropriation bill, the subcommittee had a total of 24 
budget hearings. I understand that we didn't get the budget request 
until late this year, but we had budget hearings even before we got the 
request and budget hearings even after we got the request.
  The subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress--many 
Members of Congress inputted this process early on before we marked 
up--and some 68 outside witnesses. This testimony was crucial to our 
fashioning the bill, and the thoughts and the concerns of those who 
contributed are incorporated in this bill. In addition, officials of 
the administration representing all of the Departments in the bill one 
way or another inputted the legislation by testimony or otherwise.
  And this year in particular, Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee focused on 
a series of hearings on investments for all facets of the scientific 
enterprise--climate science and mitigation--as well as prisoner reentry 
programs, recidivism reduction, and criminal justice reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we focused on some of those areas because we felt that 
in the past there had been neglect, and that we needed, for our economy 
and also for just appropriate operation of these agencies, that 
additional funding was needed.
  In brief, the bill totals $64.4 billion, which is an increase of $6.7 
billion over last year, and it's $200 million below the President's 
request. The bill provides $30.6 billion for investments in science, 
technology, and innovation, an increase of $1 billion over comparable 
levels from last year.
  I think there is a consensus that investments in science technology 
and investments in innovation are comparable to economic development 
necessary for us as we prepare for the new economy, as we work our way 
out of the recession that we find ourselves in. Investments in the new 
economy are crucial, and this committee that funds science is at the 
center in the critical path of that effort.
  Within this level, the bill provides $6.9 billion for the National 
Science Foundation and $18.2 billion for NASA. For NIST, the bill 
provides $781 million, and NOAA is recommended at $4.6 billion. The 
committee's recommendation continues to provide the resources 
consistent with the doubling path identified.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. It also considers the science and research conducted at 
NOAA and NASA as critical to the Nation's science enterprise.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the Rules Committee for fashioning a rule that 
recognizes, first, the welcoming input that this committee has had from 
our colleagues throughout the process. The minority has been fully a 
part of the process. We very much appreciate Mr. Wolf's contribution to 
the bill. Many of his thoughts--I can't think of one that's not 
incorporated in the legislation one way or another. He was a former 
chairman of this subcommittee, and therefore his contribution and his 
insight is particularly beneficial, and we appreciate that 
contribution.
  I support the rule, Mr. Speaker, and hope that our colleagues will as 
well.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the 
balance of our time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Again, I would like to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from New York for his ongoing leadership, and 
that of the Rules Committee.
  I join with the chairman of the Subcommittee on CJS, Mr. Mollohan, in 
congratulating the Rules Committee for constructing this rule, but I 
also congratulate Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Wolf for a 
constructive overview of important issues that, as a member of the 
House Judiciary Committee, I have great concern about.
  And so I rise to support the rule, but I also want to offer my 
underlying support for the Community Oriented Policing bill. I was an 
original cosponsor on the COPS bill out of Judiciary, led by Mr. 
Weiner. This is an important stopgap for crime across America helping 
our law enforcement.
  As an original long-standing supporter of the Office on Violence 
Against Women and the VAWA Act, starting with Chairman Hyde, who served 
so ably in this body, I am delighted to see that we have $11 million 
more than 2009, with $400 million.

                              {time}  1615

  In addition, it is important to note the Second Chance Act. Wherever 
I go, Mr. Speaker, I'm having ex-offenders who want to straighten their 
life out, who want to get back with their families, who need mental 
health services, and they truly need to have the second

[[Page 15288]]

chance. I hope that we can ensure that this makes it through the 
Senate, comes into conference, and we get this money out so that we can 
redeem Americans who want to get back on the right track. This is an 
important issue to be involved in.
  I also want to speak about an issue that is very near and dear. I am 
a member of the NASA Action Team. And we note that the space 
exploration, human spaceflight, has gotten a mark out of this committee 
of $400 million less than the President's mark. First, I'm delighted 
that the President has nominated General Bolden, who is in line to be 
the next NASA Director. But to my colleagues, it is important to note 
that we're not just talking about money going into space; we're talking 
about the International Space Station, which I have watched being built 
in my 12 years as a member of the Health Science Committee.
  We have an opportunity now to be at the cutting edge of climate 
research, the cutting edge of health care research and heart disease, 
HIV, and cancer on the International Space Station. The only way we can 
communicate visibly and reasonably to provide that kind of human 
component, human resources, is to have human spaceflight.
  So I ask my colleagues, as we consider this bill, to consider the 
fact that it is not, in essence, money that flies into space but real 
investment in America's genius and America's science, America's 
innovation, America's job creation, the very message of this President.
  I'm disappointed that this mark is less than the President's mark and 
would hope to be able to present my side of the story, if you will, to 
this august body. But I want to work with my colleagues to ensure that 
we know that this is out of sincerity and recognition of the vitality 
of science. I'm very pleased with the money that has been put into 
climate measures, money put into NOAA because I come from the gulf 
region.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ARCURI. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize how important it is to have these other 
elements of science. As I indicated, the $1.3 billion, including $150 
million to deal with space-based climate measurements, is important. 
For those of us who are in the gulf region, the issues dealing with 
hurricanes and climate control and NOAA are very important, and the 
National Science Foundation.
  But let us work together as we look at science in its totality to 
view the International Space Station as something we created, something 
we built. This massive football field that is in space is a miracle, in 
essence. Let's utilize it in a vital way by supporting our human 
spaceflight.
  I thank my colleagues and I ask my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my 
friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy and all who have participated in the 
debate on the rule for bringing this appropriations bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this rule and allow Members who have 
preprinted their amendments, as specified in the rule, to make germane 
modifications to their amendments.
  As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this restrictive rule we are 
considering today will not allow Members from amending their own 
amendments, even if they are simply trying to correct a minor drafting 
error or make changes to the amendment to comply with the rules of the 
House. One of the reasons we have so many amendments filed is because 
Members have filed duplicative amendments to avoid the possibility of 
errors such as this.
  In order to make sure an amendment complies with the rules of the 
House, Members must consult with four different offices: the Office of 
the Legislative Counsel, the Parliamentarian, the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the Budget Committee. If any of those offices find an issue 
with an amendment, then the Member has to make changes to the 
amendment. This becomes particularly difficult when Members are only 
given an average of 2 legislative days to draft their amendments and 
consult all the relevant offices and make changes and then consult with 
the offices again. Given this scenario, it is quite plausible that a 
Member didn't have enough time and included a minor drafting error and 
that, for example, is not caught until it is too late. We saw it last 
year with an amendment by Mr. Buyer on the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. So as to not have a repeat of 
that unfortunate incident, I propose to change the rule to allow 
Members to make germane changes to their amendments.
  I remind Members that by voting ``no'' on the previous question, 
Members will not be voting to kill or to delay the underlying Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations bill. I encourage all of my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
that Members will be given the opportunity to make changes to their 
amendments if necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for his courtesies in this debate and 
for his very able management of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, on my opening remarks, I chose to focus on the criminal 
justice programs that are funded under H.R. 2847, but there are many 
other important areas addressed in this legislation, and we have heard 
about many of those during the debate. In closing, I would like to take 
the opportunity to discuss another of these that is of utmost 
importance to America.
  The bill includes $293 million for the Economic Development 
Administration, which is $20 million above the amount enacted in 2009. 
The EDA administers several economic programs, including public works 
grants for upgrading infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment 
assistance for communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to 
other countries.
  H.R. 2847 includes more than $158 million for the Economic 
Development Administration's Public Works Program, $25 million more 
than last year. H.R. 2847 also makes critical investments in scientific 
research and NASA's space program. The bill includes $6.9 billion for 
the National Science Foundation. This level of funding will support the 
doubling of NSF's budget over the next 10 years and represents a true 
commitment to investment in basic research and development which will 
provide for innovation and future technologies to help the United 
States be competitive.
  H.R. 2847 includes over $18.2 billion for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to pioneer the 
future in space exploration, scientific discovery in aeronautics 
research, and this appropriation enables them to accomplish this 
mission. This recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of 
NASA's Mars exploration and provides funds for the completion of the 
Mars science laboratory to launch in 2011. Exploration has always been 
critical to mankind. We live in America today because of exploration. 
We must continue to explore the new frontier for future generations.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that so far we 
have discussed only a handful of the important programs that are funded 
by the fiscal year 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying 
bill, H.R. 2847. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

[[Page 15289]]



 Amendment to H. Res. 544 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       On page 2, line 21, after ``if printed.'' insert the 
     following new sentence, ``The proponent of each such 
     amendment may make germane modifications to such amendment.''
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution .  .  . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________