[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15424-15433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1345
 PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2847, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, 
         SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution H. Res. 552 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 552

       Resolved, That during further 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, no further general debate shall be in order. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII and House Resolution 
     544, and except as provided in section 2, no further 
     amendment shall be in order except: (1) amendments numbered 
     3, 6, 19, 22, 25, 31, 35, 41, 59, 60, 62, 63, 69, 71, 93, 96, 
     97, 98, 100, 102, 111, 114, and 118 printed in the 
     Congressional Record of June 15, 2009, pursuant to clause 8 
     of rule XVIII, which may be offered only by the Member who 
     submitted it for printing or a designee, and (2) not to 
     exceed 10 of the following amendments if offered by the 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     his designee: amendments numbered 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 
     83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 
     108 printed in the Congressional Record of June 15, 2009, 
     pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. Each amendment listed in 
     this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except that an amendment may be offered 
     only at the appropriate point in the reading. 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.  The chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their designees each may offer 
     one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of 
     debate. Such amendment may be repeated, but only after 
     consideration of an amendment listed in the first section of 
     this resolution.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 552.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 552 provides for further consideration of H.R. 
2847, the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2010, under a structured rule.
  Madam Speaker, I know it's safe to say that this has been a memorable 
appropriations process for both sides, and we're only getting started 
on this bumpy ride.
  Appropriation bills often generate very emotional responses on all 
sides, and this year is no different. The process is time-consuming and 
stressful, and my colleagues on Rules know that we were not meeting 
well after 1 a.m. this morning simply because we like each other's 
company.
  The rule we rise to consider today came about as a result of concern 
from the Appropriations Committee that we were unlikely to get an 
agreement from the minority for a set and reasonable schedule to 
consider these spending bills.
  Without such an agreement, there was a very real fear on our side 
that the process could have degenerated into a drawn-out battle, 
jeopardizing our party's commitment to getting each of the 12 
appropriations bills completed on time this year.
  At all costs, our party wanted to avoid a repeat of a disastrous 2-
month stalemate that shut down the government in 1995 and 1996. And 
while it's sometimes tempting for the party in the minority to blow up 
the process, as leaders in the House, we're determined to legislate in 
a way that seeks common ground and makes everybody proud.
  Moreover, we have in recent years detected a trend where more and 
more amendments are given to us each year on appropriations bills, 
often for no other reason than political gamesmanship or stunts.
  There was not a single amendment to this bill in fiscal year 2003, 
but this year we had 127 amendments filed on the bill as of the Tuesday 
deadline. That suggested to us that we were in for what potentially 
could have been a repetitive chain of deleterious and ill-considered 
amendments, none of which would have allowed us to get any closer to 
our goal of getting these bills completed and signed into law by the 
President.
  When it became clear this week that the minority was not ready to 
agree to a clear and firm schedule for finishing the work on the 
appropriations bills, we decided we had no alternative but to go ahead 
with a clear and concise plan.
  Our proposal sets out a best balancing act between doing the people's 
business and still giving both parties ample opportunity to shape the 
bills with amendments and discussion.
  Under the schedule, we will set aside a structured rule that provides 
for no additional amendments, other than the ones previously agreed to 
by the Rules Committee. Each of those amendments shall be debatable for 
10 minutes.

[[Page 15425]]

  I firmly believe that, given the refusal of the minority to agree to 
a schedule for getting the work done, this represents a workable 
compromise that will allow us to vote on the appropriations bills in a 
timely and efficient way.
  More importantly, it allows us to move each of these appropriations 
bills in the next 6 weeks while, at the same time, making progress on 
other crucial legislation facing Congress, such as health care, climate 
change and supporting our troops.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides will join me this morning in 
supporting this rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank 
my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) 
for the time.
  And I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I sincerely believe the majority will come to regret 
this decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on 
appropriations bills.
  Yesterday, the House passed an already unorthodox rule that broke the 
precedent. It was restrictive. And pursuant to that rule, 127 
amendments were filed by Members of this House.
  After debate on the first Republican amendment, the first one, the 
majority decided to halt consideration of the legislation, and called 
an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee, which began at 10:45 p.m. 
last night.
  In response to that first Republican amendment, the majority is now 
bringing forth this rule that will block consideration of most of the 
amendments that were made in order under the previous rule proposed by 
the majority and passed by this House. So all those Members who 
followed the rule previously passed and filed their amendments by the 
deadline will be left without the chance to represent the interests of 
their constituents.
  I think this rule is unjust. I think it's unnecessary. I think the 
majority's making a big mistake.
  During yesterday's late-night meeting, the distinguished chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee cited the large number of amendments that 
were preprinted pursuant to the previous rule as a reason for shutting 
down the appropriations process. He went on to cite what he considers 
to be his obligation to move the appropriations bills on schedule. As a 
matter of fact, he was kind enough to hand out to the members of the 
Rules Committee this copy of a proposed schedule.
  I understand his concern. But the reason, precisely, for the high 
number of amendments that were filed yesterday was because the majority 
had abandoned the use of the traditional open appropriations rule, and 
they had required Members to pre-print their amendments, and that 
forced Members to submit all of the amendments that they conceivably 
thought they might wish to introduce, to consider, rather, even if they 
eventually did not plan to offer them.
  Under the previous rule, Members were also barred from making germane 
amendments to their amendments, changes to their amendments, so Members 
submitted duplicative amendments to cover all possible angles.
  Members have an obligation to their constituents to represent them on 
appropriations bills and to represent the interests of their 
communities.
  Now, yes, even though over 120 amendments were set for debate, the 
reality, Madam Speaker, is that we never would have considered all of 
those amendments. Members were hedging their bets. They were submitting 
duplicative amendments that, in most instances, they didn't plan to 
actually offer for debate.
  Mr. Burton, for example, came before the Rules Committee last night. 
We were there till almost 2 in the morning, and he testified that he 
had submitted a number of amendments, but he only was going to ask for 
one of the amendments to be actually debated.
  So I ask, Madam Speaker, if the majority really believed that the 
minority was using dilatory tactics, why did they stop debate after the 
first minority amendment and call for an emergency Rules meeting?
  They should have followed the advice of my colleague on the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Perlmutter, and allowed debate to continue last night 
and proceeded to work through the amendments. Instead, after one 
minority amendment, they halted the floor process so that the Rules 
Committee could meet late last night.
  Now, by the time the meeting was over at almost 2 a.m., the House 
could have actually considered already a number of the amendments, and 
most likely could have agreed by unanimous consent, which is the 
tradition on appropriations bills, to limit time on remaining 
amendments and the debate time.
  If, after debating for a reasonable amount of time, the majority 
sincerely came, then, to the conclusion that the minority was using 
dilatory tactics, the majority then could have called the Rules 
Committee to seek a structured rule.

                              {time}  1400

  Instead, the majority gave up after just one minority amendment and 
immediately decided to use the heavy hand of the Rules Committee to 
close down the deliberative process. So I wonder if they really had any 
intention at all to follow through on their initial call for Members to 
be allowed to offer amendments that were preprinted in the 
Congressional Record.
  Now, under the rule that we're considering at this time, only 22 
specific amendments chosen by the majority are made in order. The rule 
also calls for the Appropriations ranking minority member to decide 
which 10 additional earmark-related amendments will be considered. So 
the majority is bucking the decision to the minority on which of their 
amendments they will block.
  The minority must now have to silence our own Members even though it 
was not our decision to limit amendments. I think that really is 
unfortunate by the majority. If the majority wants to block amendments, 
they should have the courage to say whose amendments they wish to 
block.
  So, Madam Speaker, I think, today, we're witnessing a sad page in the 
history of this body. I think we're witnessing a day that, without 
doubt, will come to be regretted by the majority.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. I want to express my appreciation to Chairwoman 
Slaughter for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Chairman Mollohan for doing an 
outstanding job with this year's Commerce, Justice, and Science bill, 
and I intend to vote for it and to support it enthusiastically. I know 
that he had to make some hard choices, and I am pleased that he was 
able to fund nearly all of the administration's requests, in 
particular, for the National Science Foundation.
  However, a provision in the report concerning materials research has 
just been brought to my attention, and I am hopeful that, as this bill 
moves to conference, we might be able to address this language.
  The basic research and fundamental science funded by the National 
Science Foundation are vitally important to the future of our Nation. 
However, there is language in the report eliminating the President's 
proposed increase in the NSF's Materials Research budget ``in light of 
similar investments in basic energy sciences,'' allegedly, at the 
Department of Energy.
  It is my understanding that this may not be the case. The National 
Science Foundation's Division of Materials Research funds research on 
the fundamental behavior of matter and materials that lead to the 
creation of new materials and new technologies. In addition, Materials 
Research supports instruments and facilities, including the Cornell 
Electron Storage Ring and the Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source, 
located in New York. They are crucial, both of them, for advancing this 
scientific field.
  Until this year, the Cornell facilities had been funded by the NSF's 
Division

[[Page 15426]]

of Physics. They are currently transitioning to the Division of 
Materials Research, which may have caused some confusion. The President 
asked for an increase to support research and development at these 
Cornell facilities. The Department of Energy does not have a facility 
comparable to Cornell's, and as far as we know, the work done at 
Cornell is the most advanced in the world.
  I would be happy to discuss this further, and I hope that we can work 
together to clarify the report language on the NSF Materials Research 
budget so that it will not affect the work of these important 
facilities.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, Federal spending is out of control, and I 
rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Here are the facts: We are running a $2 trillion Federal deficit. The 
second tranche of the TARP funding allowed to be spent another $350 
billion. The stimulus bill passed earlier this year is over $1 
trillion, including the cost of the debt. An omnibus bill of $400 
billion and a budget passed by this administration and this Congress 
will double the national debt in 5 years and will triple it in 10.
  Now comes the first spending bill to the floor for Commerce-Justice-
Science with an 11.7 percent increase in Federal spending. Republicans 
offered about 100 amendments which were designed to cut Federal 
spending and to restore fiscal discipline to this very first bill.
  After 30 minutes of debate on the first amendment that was offered, 
the majority cut off debate. The Democrats in this Congress apparently 
believe the Republican amendments to cut runaway Federal spending would 
take too much time. Apparently, the majority can't spend our money fast 
enough. The truth is this was an outrageous abuse of the legislative 
process, but this debate is not about process. This debate is about 
runaway Federal spending, and the American people have had enough of 
it.
  Republicans in Congress believe that Congress has time to get it 
right. We believe this Congress should take the time necessary to 
debate and to restore fiscal discipline to our Federal budget. Today, 
beginning at this very hour, we will stand up for the American people, 
for their right to have a budget that reflects the same discipline and 
sacrifice that every American family and that every small business are 
making during these difficult times.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to take a stand against 
runaway Federal spending--beginning here, beginning now.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to support the underlying rule and to indicate 
that we are in some very challenging times.
  It is important that the National Science Foundation has been funded. 
In particular, the Second Chance bill, which I worked on with a number 
of my colleagues, has been added to provide for the rehabilitation and 
for the opportunity for work for numbers of those who are ex offenders. 
I raised some challenges.
  I had intended to offer and to respond to the shortage of the NASA 
funding in this bill short of the President's mark; but as we have had 
deliberations, we have realized that the Augustine report is coming 
forward.
  I wanted to include $400 million that, I think, would have been 
appropriately deducted to provide for human space exploration, because 
we built the international space station--that was our genius--and we 
did it with our collaborators and with our allies. That entity will 
provide the next generation of research. The only way to engage the 
international space station is to be able to have the CEV vehicle and 
to continue human space exploration; but the resolve in the report 
language specifically notes that this does not disallow the addition of 
those dollars as we make our way through this legislation and to the 
conference committee.
  The Augustine report will come forward, and I hope that will not be a 
challenge, for it will be, in essence, an abandonment of a future that 
helps to employ people and to create jobs. We know that 11 million 
visitors have gone through Johnson Space Center alone, in Houston, 
Texas. As a 12-year former member of the Science Committee, having 
worked on safety issues dealing with the international space station, I 
know the value of human spaceflight and of that space station.
  I also would have added language to restore the President's authority 
to close Guantanamo Bay. I know that we are looking at that in a way 
that some agree with and that some don't. I believe the language that 
prohibits that is language that, hopefully, we will consider as we make 
it through and that the President provides all of the information that 
Congress wants them to have.
  Then I want to at least place in the Record the interests of 
continuing to work with our juveniles who are engaged in violent 
juvenile crimes. We have seen the loss of life in many of our major 
cities, and I had an amendment that would have provided for $20 million 
from the Federal Bureau of Prisons' construction programs, redirecting 
those funds to youth mentoring and to delinquency programs, recognizing 
that violent crimes by juveniles largely take place right after the end 
of the school day between the hours of 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. Further, it 
costs an average of $7,136 to educate a pupil in public schools while 
the cost of incarcerating a juvenile, in Texas alone, is a whopping 
$56,000.
  In Texas, we are reaching a point where we have more use for the 
criminal justice system than we have for our education system. As we 
move forward, I ask my colleagues to think of these issues.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, last evening, I was 
patiently waiting here on the House floor to offer an amendment to the 
Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill. The Democratic leadership 
suddenly moved to shut down debate and to cut off our ability to 
represent our constituents and to offer ideas to improve this 
legislation.
  At 8 p.m. last night, the rules of the House allowed me to offer my 
amendment, but this morning, under the rewriting of the rules, I am 
blocked from doing so. I deeply regret this unfairness and this 
hostility in letting Representatives--Members of Congress--come to the 
House floor for just 5 minutes and offer amendments to a bill that 
spends $64 billion.
  The amendment that I am blocked from offering, frankly, is very 
simple. It would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund that 
has received strong bipartisan support for years and is an existing 
program but which this bill has explicitly eliminated. The Pacific 
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is a successful grants-to-States program 
used to help recover and to conserve endangered, threatened, at-risk, 
and important tribal salmon runs on the Pacific coast.
  In April, President Obama proposed in his budget to eliminate this 
fund and to transfer the funds to another fund. From the Northwest, the 
reaction was bipartisan and very swift. The success of this long-
standing program was so compelling that the Obama administration 
reversed its course, to their credit, and sent a letter to Congress, 
seeking to restore the funds to this recovery plan. My amendment, which 
I am now blocked from offering on this floor, would simply adopt the 
Obama administration's position.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I regret this unprecedented rule restricting House 
debate, and this successful endangered salmon recovery program will 
suffer for it. The House action to eliminate this plan, frankly, will 
make it much more difficult for the Senate to deal with in the other 
body.
  This amendment is very simple. It would restore the Pacific Coastal 
Salmon Recovery Fund that is eliminated in the bill and Committee 
report.

[[Page 15427]]

  The Recovery Fund is a long-standing, successful grants-to-states 
program used to help recover and conserve endangered, threatened, at-
risk and important tribal salmon runs on the Pacific Coast, or for the 
conservation of Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat.
  The Fund delivers grants directly to states to be administered.
  For years, it has received strong bipartisan support.
  However, in April, President Obama submitted in his budget request to 
Congress, a proposal that eliminated the Pacific Coastal Salmon 
Recovery Fund, and transferred a reduced amount of funding to a much 
broader nationwide species recovery grant program.
  From the Pacific Northwest, the reaction and opposition to this 
proposed elimination was swift, bipartisan, loud and clear.
  The success of this decade-long grant program was so compelling, and 
the efforts of the Northwest congressional delegation were so 
persuasive, that the Obama Administration actually reversed course.
  On May 21st, President Obama sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi amending 
his April submission to specifically request that ``$50 million shall 
be transferred to `Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery'.''
  Credit is due to the Obama Administration for abandoning their 
elimination proposal and clearly expressing their support for this 
program. I thank them and the people of the Pacific Northwest thank 
them.
  Yet, the annual appropriations bill currently before the House 
proposes to actually follow through with eliminating the Pacific 
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.
  As this bill and Committee report are written, the Fund is 
specifically and explicitly eliminated and money is moved to a vague, 
broad, nationwide recovery program. Monies in this vague, new program 
will go to ``salmon projects''.
  Gone is the Fund, its direct grants to states, its requirement of 
matching funds, its emphasis on endangered salmon and runs important to 
Northwest tribes.
  In its place, this bill provides less money, dilutes it to any 
project of any sort for salmon anywhere in the country, and lets NOAA 
rather than states decide how it is spent.
  My amendment would restore the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 
as it has long existed and direct funds to the traditionally funded 
states.
  The text of my amendment copies the language of the 2009 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill that passed in March of this year. Just three 
months ago, this House and this Congress approved this same text.
  My amendment would keep funding at the same level singled out for 
``salmon projects'' in the bill, $50 million, but it makes certain the 
funds are administered through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery 
Fund, which is the official position and request of the Obama 
Administration.
  To object to this amendment would be to insist on the first Obama 
budget's vague, diluted salmon funding proposal that has been so 
loudly, soundly, and rightly rejected.

    Amendment to H.R. 2847, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hastings of 
                               Washington

       Page 14, line 3, after the colon insert the following: 
     ``Provided further, For necessary expenses associated with 
     the restoration of Pacific salmon populations, $50,000,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided further, 
     That of the funds provided herein the Secretary of Commerce 
     may issue grants to the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 
     California, and Alaska and Federally-recognized tribes of the 
     Columbia River and Pacific Coast for projects necessary for 
     restoration of salmon and steelhead populations that are 
     listed as threatened or endangered, or identified by a State 
     as at-risk to be so-listed, for maintaining populations 
     necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or 
     native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of Pacific 
     coastal salmon and steelhead habitat, based on guidelines to 
     be developed by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided further, 
     That funds disbursed to States shall be subject to a matching 
     requirement of funds or documented in-kind contributions of 
     at least 33 percent of the Federal funds:''.
                                  ____



                                              The White House,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2009.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Madam Speaker: I ask the Congress to consider the 
     enclosed Fiscal Year 2010 Budget amendments for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Health and Human 
     Services, Homeland Security, Justice, and State and Other 
     International Programs, as well as the District of Columbia. 
     Also included are amendments to general provisions included 
     in Title VI of the Financial Services and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 2009. These amendments would not affect 
     the totals in my FY 2010 Budget.
       In addition, this transmittal contains an FY 2010 amendment 
     for the Legislative Branch. As a matter of comity and per 
     tradition, this appropriations request for the Legislative 
     Branch is transmitted without change.
       The details of these requests are set forth in the enclosed 
     letter from the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barack Obama.
       Enclosure.

       Agency: Department of Commerce
       Bureau: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
       Heading: Operations, Research, and Facilities
       FY 2010 Budget Appendix Page: 214-215
       FY 2010 Pending Request: $3,087,537,000
       Proposed Amendment: Language
       Revised Request: $3,087,537,000
       (In the appropriations language under the above heading, 
     add the following to the first paragraph directly before the 
     ending period:)
       : Provided further, That of the amounts provided herein, 
     $61,000,000 shall be available for Species Recovery Grants 
     for the conservation and recovery of threatened or endangered 
     marine species, of which $50,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     ``Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery''
       This amendment would clarify that funding for Pacific 
     salmon recovery is included in the sums made available for 
     the new Species Recovery Grant program. The proposed Budget 
     totals would not be affected by this amendment transferring 
     funds to the ``Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery'' account.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have anymore speakers present on 
the floor, so I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee 
(Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have a chart showing that this country is 
pretty much facing bankruptcy. We have $11 trillion of debt. 
Traditionally, it has been the practice around here, whether Republican 
or Democrat, to have open rules whereby Members can offer amendments 
regarding whatever they see fit.
  The American people realize that we're living in trying economic 
times, and rightfully, they expect their elected officials to evaluate 
different spending programs to see whether they should be for them or 
against them. If we cannot even come up with a fair process to debate 
annual spending bills, there is very little hope. There is very little 
hope, there is very little hope for this country to deal with this.
  There is $56 trillion of debt. There is $11 trillion owed to the 
Chinese and to the Saudis. The bankruptcy system is coming.
  We should go back to the Rules Committee and report out the original 
bill to allow any Member to offer any amendment. Otherwise, what you're 
going to do to this process--and I've been here for a few years--is 
radicalize it whereby nobody will feel they have any investment in this 
bill.
  So I urge the defeat of this bill. Send it back. Have an open bill 
whereby any Member, Republican or Democrat, can offer any amendments 
they want to. Otherwise, we will never resolve this issue of $11 
trillion, and the next time we come here, it will be $12 trillion.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, last night, I offered a simple amendment to 
study the economic impact of this body's delaying the enactment of the 
Colombia Free Trade Agreement. While the majority accepted my 
amendment, it was clear that my amendment would not be included in the 
final version of the bill. As such, I requested a recorded vote as is 
my right as a Member of the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1415

  This right was then denied to me by the majority.
  This goes directly against what the Speaker said in her ``New 
Direction for America'', and I quote: ``Every person in America has a 
right to have his or her voice heard. No Member of Congress should be 
silenced on the floor.''
  I had an issue that I thought should be included in the bill, and I 
have a right to try to amend the bill to include this provision. I 
followed the majority's requirements, jumped through

[[Page 15428]]

all of their new hoops to offer this amendment. I followed all of the 
rules, yet was denied not because of procedure, not because of decorum, 
and not even because my amendment lost the vote. Rather, I was denied 
by the majority because they didn't want their Members to have to take 
a stand.
  Now, I come from the great State of Illinois. I love my State, the 
Land of Lincoln, the home of Obama. My State is also home to George 
Ryan, a Governor who is now in prison; Governor Blagojevich, a man who 
is on his way; and a State that's home to machine-style politics. I see 
this body headed in the same direction.
  What happened here last night was a clear step in the wrong 
direction. The majority has shut us out of one of the last rights of 
the minority, the ability to offer amendments to appropriations bills. 
The majority now has even continued this trend in the rule by 
disallowing several noncontroversial amendments, a second of which I 
offered that would have added more funding to the Minority Business 
Development Agency, an agency which under the current bill will see a 
funding decrease over what the House Appropriations Committee approved 
last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority this: With a 40-seat majority, what 
do they fear in an open arena in the competition of ideas? What do they 
fear with letting a good idea stand the test of time, allow a hearing, 
allow debate, and allow their Members to vote them up or down? With a 
40-seat majority, partisan amendments, amendments that really have no 
substance, would clearly die on a partisan vote. But those amendments 
that carry value, those amendments that will stand the test of time, 
and those amendments that are right for the American people, 
Independents, Republicans, and Democrats alike, will pass this body and 
should be allowed a vote.
  Now, the majority last night argued that we were dilatory. I would 
argue it was democracy. Twenty minutes on an amendment is hardly 
dilatory. With 120 amendments the worst-case scenario, Mr. Speaker, 
would be four 10-hour days.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SCHOCK. Is four 10-hour days too much to debate $64 billion of 
American taxpayer dollars?
  We've seen the waste created by the haste of this body, of the happy 
spending majority that this body has, with the stimulus bill, the 
overbloated omnibus bill, and now this bill, which seeks to increase 
spending by over 12 percent.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule to allow democracy to continue in 
this body.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose this rule. I was here on the 
floor last night and waiting to offer an amendment to the pending 
appropriations bill that would give Congress the opportunity to take a 
step towards restoring fiscal reality in Washington. Unfortunately, the 
moments before my amendment was to be considered, the House was shut 
down and, with it, the ability to have sorely needed debate about the 
need for belt tightening.
  Ironically, not long before that, I was holding a telephone town hall 
meeting with residents throughout western New York, and one of the 
questions I received was about whether I was disheartened with the 
process in Washington. And my response was that after 5 months in 
Congress, I was frustrated mostly with the way in which Washington 
continues to spend taxpayer dollars freely without any understanding of 
how the middle class lives in these difficult economic times and how we 
will ever pay back this exorbitant amount of debt.
  My amendment and those offered by my colleagues presented a valuable 
opportunity to turn back the page on the excessive spending and work on 
a bipartisan basis to identify ways to make Washington do more with 
less. These spending bills call for across-the-board increases in 
already bloated Federal programs while workers and businesses in my 
district struggle to figure out how they are going to get by on less 
and, in too many cases, far less than they are used to having. Our 
constituents who are struggling to make ends meet deserve better.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule so we can have a truly 
open discussion of the shared sacrifices required to put our Nation's 
fiscal house in order.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, watching the attitude and really this spending 
adventure that the majority has taken on really reminds me of somebody 
that's paving a highway, and what they have done is they want to 
completely flatten out any opposition to really runaway Federal 
spending, just absolutely no restraining influence whatsoever, Mr. 
Speaker.
  So here you have a group of House Republicans who are trying to 
articulate a sense of restraint. We are hearing from our constituents 
who are incredibly concerned about the pace of spending. And yet the 
speed bumps that we offered have been completely flattened out.
  I offered an amendment which would have said, look, the Speaker of 
the House recently accused people of committing a Federal crime, a 
crime that is punishable, if true, by 5 years in prison. The amendment 
that I offered that met the previously articulated preprinting 
requirement would have said we're going to allocate money to the 
Department of Justice to investigate this accusation of a Federal 
crime. And yet what does the majority do late at night in the wee hours 
when nobody's watching? Being completely intimidated by an open and 
robust debate.
  This rule is really an incredible disappointment. I think it's an 
incredible insult, frankly, to the American public that wants to talk 
about spending and is weary of the attitude that has come through from 
the majority.
  We know what we need to do. We need to stand up for the American 
taxpayer, stand up for our children, stand up for our grandchildren, 
who are being saddled with a legacy of debt, and vote against this 
rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 
1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Boehner.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and remind my 
colleagues that the Constitution provides that the Congress of the 
United States shall determine spending. The Constitution of the United 
States also empowers our citizens to send their elected representative 
to Washington to represent them, and collectively we represent the 
American people.
  If you think about where we've been this year, we had the nearly 
trillion dollar stimulus plan, when you look at the interest that's 
going to be paid on it. We had the over $400 billion omnibus 
appropriation bill that had 9,000 earmarks in it. We had a budget that 
came through here that has trillion dollar deficits for as far as the 
eye can see. We bailed out Wall Street. We've bailed out the auto 
companies. And we're spending money and racking up debt at record 
levels.
  So here we are. We are starting the annual appropriations process, 12 
appropriation bills that will spend nearly $1.5 trillion that we do not 
have, $1.5 trillion that we're going to have to go borrow from the 
American people and further imprison our kids and grandkids.
  And you would think that as we are debating the spending of this $1.5 
trillion that the majority would do as it

[[Page 15429]]

has done for most of our history and allow for an open debate, allow 
for a process that protects the franchise of each Member of this body. 
But, no, we couldn't do that.
  There were conversations over the last couple of weeks about how to 
limit this process, and I made it clear to the majority leader and to 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that I wasn't going to 
agree to limit the ability of Members to participate in this process as 
we try to control spending in this body. I made it very clear to Mr. 
Obey and to Mr. Hoyer that we would work with them in an open process 
to facilitate it, to try to maximize the number of bills that could be 
finished before the August recess. But apparently that wasn't good 
enough. So we came up with this convoluted process where we were going 
to require Members to preprint their amendments. And all that did was 
to drive up the number of amendments, most of which probably were never 
going to be offered.
  But the real point here is that there is a serious issue about how 
much spending and how much debt is piling up on the backs of the 
American people. Members on both sides of the aisle want to have a real 
debate about how much spending is enough and, if we are going to spend, 
what is the appropriate way to spend.
  You know, the American people sent us here and they gave us the 
world's most expensive credit card. I would also describe it as the 
most dangerous credit card in the history of the world. It's a voting 
card for a Member of Congress. And our constituents expect us to use 
this responsibly on their behalf. And I can tell you that most of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle believe that the majority is using 
this card recklessly to build up deficits and to build up debt to 
record levels. The amount of debt and the amount of spending is going 
to imprison our kids and our grandkids, and all we want to do is to 
have an opportunity to debate just how much spending is enough. That's 
what we're asking for. But to deny us our rights protected under the 
Constitution denies the American people their chance to say how much 
spending is enough.
  I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's do the 
right thing. Let's defeat this resolution that's in front of us that 
will restrict the rights of all Members, and if we can defeat this 
resolution, we can go to a process that can work in a bipartisan way to 
address the needs of Members on both sides of the aisle, and we can do 
it in a bipartisan way. Vote ``no.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it's not surprising to me that the 
chairman of the Rules Committee continues to reserve her time and that 
there are few Democrats who have come down to the floor to defend this 
terrible rule or this embarrassing bill that the rule brings to the 
floor.
  It's a disgrace what happened last night. After only a few minutes of 
debate, legitimate debate on legitimate amendments, the majority moves 
to rise, goes back to the Rules Committee, and writes a rule that slams 
down more than 80 Republican amendments, a number of Democratic 
amendments too, but far more Republican amendments, without any 
consideration whatsoever. We have heard from some of those speakers 
here just in the last few minutes, people who had good, sound 
amendments to offer.
  But I would like to talk about the overall bill. That's my concern. 
This bill spends $64.31 billion, an 11.7 percent increase. Now, where 
is that money coming from? Every penny of that increase is going to be 
borrowed. In fact, the budget that the Democrats adopted for this 
coming year that this appropriations bill is a part of spends $1.2 
trillion more than is coming in in revenues; $3.6 trillion in 
expenditures, $2.4 trillion in revenues coming in--a $1.2 trillion 
deficit in 1 year.
  Until this year we have never had a single year in our Nation's 
history where we have had more than a $500 billion deficit, and $500 
billion is a staggering amount of money. And yet the budget they just 
adopted for the next 10 years, every single year it exceeds $550 
billion, rising until at the end of the 10 years about $700 billion. 
Year after year after year, doubling our national debt and putting our 
country in great jeopardy.

                              {time}  1430

  People don't even know what $1 trillion is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and bring 
back the bill so that we can adjust and cut spending.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how 
disappointed I am with the majority for not allowing a fair and free 
debate on some very important issues. Obviously this bill spends too 
much money. It has earmarks that have never been vetted. But we brought 
other issues of equal importance, things that the American people 
deserve to hear. I had an amendment. It says we need to stop 
Mirandizing terrorists in foreign countries, Afghanistan, for attacking 
our troops and being detained. Miranda rights--You have the right to 
remain silent. You have a right to a lawyer. It's happening now. And 
the worst part of this is that even the majority wasn't briefed or, if 
they were, they're not talking about it. We have one opportunity to 
stand up today and say, Enough. You can't criminalize the battlefield.
  We have FBI agents who, after our soldiers picked them up and after 
trying to kill members of the 82d Airborne or the 101st or our Marines, 
take them to the detention facility, and they read them their rights. 
They're non-United States citizens. They're foreigners. We just wanted 
the opportunity to tell America, We think that's crazy. You're going to 
tell a terrorist who just came off the battlefield that you have the 
right to remain silent. How much information will they not give that 
might save the life of one of our soldiers in Afghanistan today? And 
the biggest travesty today is, you never gave us the opportunity to 
talk about it, to move the issue forward.
  We've had about three different opinions from this administration on 
if they are or are not doing it. Well, I can tell you--I've been there, 
and I've seen it. Our soldiers are going to get frustrated. I know our 
FBI agents are frustrated. Our law enforcement community is frustrated. 
And the best you can do is say, Debate is inconvenient for us today, 
and some things are just better left unsaid, like the billions of 
dollars in this bill that spends too much money, money that we don't 
have, that we're going to have to borrow from the Chinese or the 
Russians or the Saudis. Or the fact that we look those soldiers in the 
eye and say, We can't even have the opportunity to talk about it on the 
floor of the House.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I can't say how much I've been amused by 
the statements that we have heard from our dear friends across the 
aisle. They know very well what kind of economic circumstances this 
country is in. They know very well that this administration and this 
Congress inherited one of the largest national debts in the history of 
our country from the previous administration and from their 12 years in 
Congress. And they are, amusingly, fighting to prevent us from trying 
to overcome the circumstances that they have brought about and that we 
have to deal with.
  Yes, we have to deal with this huge economic problem, and we are 
dealing with it. We're dealing with it by investing money in the 
internal needs of this

[[Page 15430]]

country, by bringing about better systems of education and health care, 
creating new technologies and new industries and huge numbers of jobs 
as a result of those investments, all of which they are opposed to.
  You have to ask yourself, why would they be opposed to someone else 
trying to correct the problems that they initiated? Well, I think the 
answer to that is very clear. They would like to see the efforts to 
correct these problems stopped over the course of the next couple of 
years, and they would be then able to say that what we have tried to do 
was not successful. They wouldn't admit that they stopped it if they 
were able to do it, but that's exactly what they were trying to do.
  They're trying to prevent intelligent economic investment in the 
internal needs of the American people. They're trying to stop 
intelligent internal investments in the economy of our country. They're 
trying to stop the creation of new jobs. They're trying to stop the 
upgrading of the quality of the infrastructure of our Nation. They're 
trying to stop improvements in education. They're trying to stop 
improvements in health care, all of which they had the responsibility 
for bringing about over the course of the last 8 years.
  So that's the situation that we're dealing with. This particular bill 
is a very strong investment in the internal needs of America. They want 
to halt it as much as they can, drag it out as long as possible; and if 
they were successful with this appropriations bill, then they would try 
to do the same thing with every single other appropriations bill, the 
appropriations that the people of America need and need badly as a 
result of the huge debt that they brought about and what we are trying 
to overcome. And we will overcome it. We will overcome it in large 
measure with some of the things that have been done: the economic 
stimulation bill, which they were opposed to, which is having a very 
positive effect on the economy in this country; and furthermore, the 
economic stimulation that will occur in each one of these 
appropriations bills.
  So that is basically the situation that we're dealing with here, and 
that is why we have to have this rule and this bill, because of the 
needs of our country and because of the intelligent, reasonable and 
effective way in which we are addressing those needs.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman.
  I rise today to oppose H.R. 2847, a bill that could use taxpayer 
dollars for a purpose the American people are adamantly against, 
housing Guantanamo detainees in Federal prisons in the United States.
  In a May Gallup poll, 65 percent of Americans were opposed to closing 
Guantanamo. Further, 74 percent of Americans opposed moving them to 
their own State. This bill leaves open the possibility for the Bureau 
of Prisons to use taxpayer dollars to house Guantanamo detainees in our 
communities in direct contradiction to the will of the American people.
  The amendment that I wanted to submit, before the Democrats in the 
Rules Committee issued their gag order, specified that none of the 
funds appropriated by this act may be used by the Bureau of Prisons to 
incarcerate individuals currently held in Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Speaker, 
these detainees are not convicted criminals repaying their debt to 
society but rather the most dangerous people on the face of the planet, 
terrorists who will stop at nothing to kill any and all Americans that 
they can. We cannot allow taxpayer dollars to be spent bringing these 
terrorists to live among the civilians they have sworn to destroy. 
Also, our prisons are already at capacity. In my Colorado district, 
Supermax Federal prison is at 99.7 percent capacity, leaving room for 
only one additional inmate, yet there are 226 prisoners now at 
Guantanamo. Other maximum security facilities in the U.S. are, 
likewise, operating at 55 percent above capacity.
  The fact is, we do not have the capability to house terrorists on our 
own soil without endangering prison employees and posing a risk to the 
communities in which they are sent. The President simply does not have 
a plan. It is unfortunate that my Democratic colleagues do not want to 
debate this vital issue. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL. I thank the gentleman.
  ``Every person in America has a right to have his or her voice heard. 
No Member of Congress should be silenced on the floor.'' ``Bills should 
generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full 
and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the 
minority the right offer its alternatives.'' Speaker Pelosi, A New 
Direction for America.
  This right has been denied. This is not a new direction. It is a 
wrong direction. My amendment would block taxpayer dollars from being 
used for monuments to be named after sitting Members of Congress.
  I would like to yield the balance of my time to the Chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee as to whether she agrees that taxpayers dollars can be 
used to fund Monuments to Me after sitting Members of Congress; and if 
she does not agree with that, why my amendment was blocked when it has 
been ruled in order twice before.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will 
be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can 
amend this rule and allow an open rule consistent with tradition and 
with fairness.
  I urge my colleagues to consider what we are about to do and to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so that we can uphold our tradition of 
allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe if not, the majority will come to regret this 
decision and close down the deliberative process of the House on 
appropriations bills.
  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. Again, I ask for a ``no'' vote on 
the previous question so that we can uphold the tradition of openness 
on appropriations bills and fairness.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, whether Members realize it or not, we are at 
an inflection point in history, maybe not the history that school kids 
will learn about, but the important history of this institution that 
supports every aspect of our democracy.
  Future Members of the House will look back on this day, and realize 
that today is when the last bastion of unbridled participation fell to 
the demands of a cynical and tyrannical majority.
  There are certain points in the House's history that Member's know by 
name or reference. Events such as Cannon's revolt where 100 years ago a 
group of progressive, bull-moose Republicans, joined with Democrats to 
say enough is enough, to Speaker Joe Cannon. The famous Civil Rights 
revolt during the Johnson Administration, where obstructionist Southern 
Democrats on the Rules Committee were supplanted in order to advance 
civil rights.
  The question is, will this be one of those days where where 
historians will say, ``This is where democracy prevailed against 
tyranny,'' or will we take the easy road of limiting participation to a 
privileged few?
  Mr. Speaker, I have a message for my colleagues: each of us must 
think very carefully

[[Page 15431]]

about this vote, because once we go down this road, we aren't coming 
back.
  That means if you're Dennis Kucinich, and you believe that your 
country is fighting an unjust war, you're going to be silenced in the 
months and years to come.
  If you're Jeff Flake, and you are fighting every day against what you 
see as corruption and wanton spending, you are going to be gagged going 
forward.
  If you're Devin Nunes, and you're fighting to make sure your farmers 
have water to grow crops, you are out of luck.
  If you're Marcy Kaptur, and you're promoting the interests of labor 
unions, get ready for a long winter.
  I don't agree with most of those Members, but for this institution to 
work, they need to have a voice. This rule deprives them--and their 
constituents--of that voice.
  This rule concentrates power in the hands of David Obey and Nancy 
Pelosi. They get to decide who offers what and when. And my colleagues 
better hope that they never disagree with the majority leadership, or 
they will find themselves relegated to the sidelines, just as we do 
with this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:


 AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 552 OFFERED BY MR. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART OF FLORIDA

       Strike all after the Resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
       ``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 further 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. No further general debate shall be in 
     order, and remaining proceedings under House Resolution 544 
     shall be considered as supplanted by this resolution. The 
     bill shall continue to 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 XM are 
     waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     Chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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
                                  ____

       (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.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 180, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

[[Page 15432]]



                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bishop (UT)
     Bright
     Cantor
     Harman
     Herger
     Kennedy
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Matheson
     Sullivan
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1507

  Ms. KOSMAS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California and Ms. WOOLSEY changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on June 17, 2009, I was unavoidably 
detained and unable to be in the Chamber for a rollcall vote. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 351, the 
motion ordering the previous question on the rule for H.R. 2847, the 
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 
FY 2010.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 351, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California was allowed 
to speak out of order.)


                  Introducing Joaquin Sanchez Sullivan

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 
purpose of introducing the most important and undoubtedly the greatest 
piece of work I have ever brought to the floor of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, before I take all of the credit, I want to thank 
especially the health care workers from coast to coast who helped me 
deliver a very healthy baby. And I want to especially recognize the 
distinguished doctors and nurses at Washington Hospital Medical Center 
and the talented doctors in Los Angeles, especially Dr. Aliabadi, Dr. 
Rotmench, and Dr. Iqbal.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that my husband, James Sullivan and 
I, introduce to you and to all of my colleagues the proudest 
achievement and newest member of the California delegation, Joaquin 
Sanchez Sullivan.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 201, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--201

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Fallin
     Farr
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes

[[Page 15433]]


     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Speier
     Stearns
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Davis (AL)
     Harman
     Kennedy
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Peterson
     Sullivan
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1520

  Ms. SPEIER and Messrs. BLUMENAUER and HONDA changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________