[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15479-15486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 552 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2847.

                              {time}  2304


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. 
Altmire in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
bill had been read through page 101, line 20.
  Pending is amendment No. 107 offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Campbell). The gentleman from California has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 
Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Science is incredibly important 
to the commercial and recreational fishing industry on the east coast. 
It ensures fisheries managers have the best possible science when 
making decisions regarding a multi-billion dollar industry. This 
amendment would also arbitrarily cut much needed funding from the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  The Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Science addresses the most 
urgent scientific issues limiting successful management of the summer 
flounder and black sea bass fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region. It is 
a multi-state multi-institutional partnership that will utilize 
academic and recreational/commercial fisheries resources to develop 
targeted science initiatives.
  Summer flounder and black sea Bass are among the most valuable 
recreational fish in the Mid-Atlantic. Both are also important 
commercial species. This project will benefit the participating 
recreational and commercial fishermen of the Mid-Atlantic, their shore-
based supporting industries, and tee many consumers of seafood that 
count these species among their preferred seafood items.
  This program helps us incorporate critical information into the 
fisheries management process. By using the best possible science 
fisheries managers will be able to create healthy sustainable fisheries 
and protect the fishing industry.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment.
  On behalf of eastern Long Island, I commend Chairman Obey and 
Chairman Mollohan for their leadership on the underlying bill, and I 
thank them on behalf of the taxpayers' best interests.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic 
Fisheries Science conducts urgent research to revive and manage 
fisheries, including summer flounder and black sea bass fisheries in 
the Mid-Atlantic region.
  I requested this, project along with my colleagues, both Republicans 
and Democrats from New Jersey and New York, because the research to be 
conducted will help stimulate an industry that is critically important 
to my region--precisely what our economy is calling for and precisely 
the opposite of what has been suggested by the gentleman from 
California, whose district could not be further away or more detached 
from the jobs and families this research benefits. In fact, on Long 
Island, the fishing industry is a source of $2 billion to the local 
economy and sustains more than 10,000 full and part-time jobs.
  I do not presume to know what is of critical importance to the people 
and economies of Newport Beach or Laguna Beach and I doubt the 
gentleman from California has spoken to fishermen in my district who 
are struggling with outdated catch limits and quotas, and thus as a 
result, struggling to make a living.
  This request is not a typical earmark. It does not serve only a 
single district. It was not requested by one member or one party. It is 
not a crutch for a fading industry. Rather, the Partnership for Mid-
Atlantic Fisheries Science is a reputable organization--with well-
established federal and regional partnerships, such as the National 
Marine Fisheries Service, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission committees and assessment 
programs.
  Additionally, the Partnership will serve critical needs in the region 
known as the Mid-Atlantic Bight, where the recreational and commercial 
fishing industries--and the jobs and families that support them--depend 
on summer flounder and black sea bass for their livelihood.
  Providing data based on the best possible science--as this research 
funding provides--is vital to the health of our fisheries and the 
economic well-being of our fishermen.
  If you support a down-payment on job creation and a prudent 
investment of taxpayer dollars in the future of this economy, vote 
against this misguided amendment and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Campbell 
Amendment. This amendment would bar funds in the bill from being used 
to fund a $600,000 project for the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic 
Fisheries which I requested along with Reps. Bishop, King and Pallone. 
In addition, it reduces by $600,000 funding for the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.
  The Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries is a multi-state 
partnership comprised of commercial and recreational fishing 
organizations and academic institutions in New Jersey and New York. It 
is dedicated to the design and implementation of scientific projects 
addressing critical needs to improve the assessment and attainment of 
sustainability for the most important fisheries of the Mid-Atlantic 
region.
  The project the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee has chosen to fund and which this amendment bars funding 
for is titled ``Summer Flounder and Black Sea Bass Initiative.'' The 
goal of this initiative is to gain data to address the most urgent 
scientific issues limiting successful management of the summer flounder 
and black sea bass fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region. This data will 
then be provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service, regional 
councils, and state regulatory bodies to be used in the assessment 
process carried out by these groups. This assessment process is used to 
estimate maximum sustainable yield, and from this, yearly fishing 
quotas.
  Summer flounder and black sea bass are among the most valuable 
commercial and recreational fish species in the Mid-Atlantic region. A 
reduction in total allowable catch for summer flounder since 2004 
decreased the commercial and recreational fisheries by over 37.7 
percent with an economic impact in excess of $47.3 million per year. In 
2008, the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries provided necessary 
data leading to a relaxation of quota reductions in 2009. This was an 
important first step in improved management of this species which can 
continue with funding for this project.
  In 2009, the black sea bass quota was cut 44 percent, costing the 
economies of the Mid-

[[Page 15480]]

Atlantic an estimated $92 million. Without additional research on 
critical data inadequacies the continued viability of this vital 
fishery is endangered.
  Cape May, New Jersey in my Congressional District is the second 
busiest commercial fishing port on the East Coast. The data this 
initiative could produce and the yearly fishing quotas it could impact 
have direct effects on the economy of my district. This would impact 
not only the commercial fishermen and their families, but recreational 
anglers and the shore-based infrastructure both groups rely on--docks, 
packing houses, bait and tackle shops, marinas, etc., as well as the 
restaurant owners and seafood markets.
  The $600,000 set aside by the Commerce, Justice, Science 
Appropriations Subcommittee for the ``Summer Flounder and Black Sea 
Bass Initiative'' for the Partnership for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries will 
provide essential data which has the ability to directly impact the 
economy of my Congressional District. For this reason, I join Reps. 
Bishop, King and Pallone in strongly opposing the Campbell Amendment to 
the Commerce, Justice, Science FY 2010 Appropriations bill and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member seek recognition on the Campbell 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated 
as No. 87 in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 87 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``Department of Justice--General Administration--
     National Drug Intelligence Center'' shall be available for 
     operations of the National Drug Intelligence Center, and the 
     amount otherwise provided under such heading is hereby 
     reduced by $44,023,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the gentleman from 
Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the 
National Drug Intelligence Center and reduce the cost of the bill by a 
commensurate amount. This is not the first time I have come to the 
floor to try to strike funding for the NDIC, but this is the first time 
I have tried to come and strike this earmark when it was requested by 
the President. In times past, the earmark was requested by another 
Member of Congress, but this time the President has taken it up.
  After years of trying to close down this entity, the administration 
has decided that they want to keep it. It has been described by the 
previous administration as duplicative and ineffective. I think that 
just about every report we have seen on this center has said that. It 
is a considerable amount of money, I believe $44 million. We should be 
saving that.
  According to the administration officials, by including funding for 
the NDIC in his budget request, the President helped to establish the 
Department of Justice as the NDIC's permanent funding source. In this 
case, I think ``permanent'' is a troubling word, particularly when it 
regards the NDIC.
  Reportedly, this shift will also change the NDIC's name to the Center 
For Strategic Excellence. As Shakespeare once wrote, A rose by any 
other name would smell as sweet. I submit that the metaphor remains 
true, only it is not the perfume of roses that we smell here with the 
NDIC.
  The NDIC was established in 1993 and has been the recipient of more 
than 350 million taxpayer dollars in the 15 years it has been in 
existence. Despite all the money and time, the NDIC, according to the 
previous administration, ``has proven ineffective in achieving its 
assigned mission.''
  Now, we all expect the Obama administration to disagree with many 
determinations by the Bush administration, but the criticism of the 
NDIC extends beyond the previous administration. A report by the GAO 
issued shortly after the NDIC's opening way back in 1993 cited 19 other 
drug intelligence centers that already existed whose functions the NDIC 
duplicates. So it is not just the previous administration. Long before 
that, we have recognized that this is money that should and could be 
saved if we would close down this center.
  As reported in The Hill on May 14, a review by OMB agreed. They 
concluded that NDIC's efforts were duplicative of those of the other 
intelligence agencies.
  In 2006 a spokesman for DOJ asserted that the resources for the NDIC 
should be ``realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national 
security initiatives.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a center begging to be shut down. I don't need 
to remind anybody here of the problems we are having fiscally. We are 
running the biggest deficit we have ever run, we have public debt that 
is just astounding, we have unfunded liabilities that should make us 
all shudder, and we simply can't keep a center like this open for tens 
of millions of dollars a year that has been called duplicative and 
ineffective. So I think that this is an amendment that should pass.
  We are not targeting, as I mentioned, any Member earmark this time. 
This is the President's earmark. And part of the role of Congress, one 
that we have not done well, is to police the administration and to look 
at what they are allocating and earmarking for.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the National Drug Intelligence Center was 
requested by the administration. The President's request was for 
$44.023 million. The request in that amount was approved by the 
committee. The National Drug Intelligence Center provides strategic 
drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, 
and training assistance to the drug control, public health and law 
enforcement and intelligence communities in order to reduce the adverse 
effects of drug trafficking, drug abuse and other drug related criminal 
activities.
  In this bill, Mr. Chairman, the organization is funded at our 
recommendation of $44.023 million, which, I repeat, is at the budget 
request.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I'm often told we shouldn't be challenging 
Member earmarks. We shouldn't be challenging them because we ought to 
be going after those faceless bureaucrats and the things that the 
administration proposes that we don't look at enough. And I agree, 
certainly.
  So here's a case where the administration, not just the previous 
administration, but administrations before that have said this is 
duplicative. It's a center in search of a mission, and it ought to be 
shut down. You could save $44 million a year. And yet we won't do it. 
If we're not going to shut down a center like this, where are we going 
to cut?
  Let me just quote, according to the Department of Justice Budget and 
Performance Summary for Fiscal Year 2010: ``The most significant 
challenge for NDIC currently is its lack of a permanent funding 
source.''
  Now, think of that for a minute. If that's the biggest challenge 
they've got, not, you know, finding a strategic mission or way to aid 
in our drug control effort, but is finding a permanent funding source. 
That seems to be their mission. And from what we know, that may be 
mission accomplished now, because the President is seeking to put it

[[Page 15481]]

under DOJ where it will remain permanently.
  But we in Congress, it's our role, part of our oversight function is 
to ensure that money is not wasted by those, I'm always told, faceless 
bureaucrats. Here's a perfect example of where we can make a 
difference, where we can save money, and we ought to do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 86 in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 86 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
     Cross Agency Support'' shall be available for the Innovative 
     Science Learning Center of ScienceSouth, Florence, South 
     Carolina, and the amount otherwise provided under such 
     heading (and the portion of such amount specified for 
     Congressionally-designated items) are hereby reduced by 
     $500,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $500,000 funding 
for the Innovative Science Learning Center at ScienceSouth in Florence, 
South Carolina, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a 
commensurate amount.
  According to its Web site, ScienceSouth is a nonprofit institution 
established in 2000 by educators and business leaders and seeks to 
advance scientific understanding and increase the competitiveness of 
future generations.
  ScienceSouth offers programming for schools and families, as well as 
summer camp sessions, and currently offers hands-on science workshops 
at its newly opened ScienceSouth pavilion.
  Additionally, ScienceSouth is planning to open a new permanent 
facility. It's unclear whether the Innovative Science Learning Center 
is connected to this. There's no mention of it in the ScienceSouth Web 
site, and my staff was unable to find any information on the center 
online. This project is likely connected to the growth of this 
institution. Perhaps we'll have clarification here.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the sponsor of the project that 
ScienceSouth appears to offer a valuable service to the community. I 
appreciate efforts to make learning fun for families. I applaud 
ScienceSouth's decision to expand.
  However, I have to question how essential it is that ScienceSouth 
receive Federal funding. According to the Web site, ScienceSouth counts 
DeLoitte and Touche, I guess, Honda, Wachovia, AT&T, Bank of America 
and many other as its sponsors. It's also received funding from the 
State legislature, and holds an annual gala to raise funds from private 
donors. Yet year after year, we see earmarks such as these approved by 
the House; and year after year, some of us try to come to the floor of 
this House and ask why. Why do we continue to fund these projects?
  We're often told that we're trying to wean them off Federal funding. 
Yet, that weaning never seems to be accomplished.
  This year I'd also like to draw attention to the fact that earmarks 
like this exist because we have a pretty powerful spoils system. It 
favors powerful Members of Congress over just about everyone else.
  With more than 1,000 earmarks in this bill, a full review and 
breakdown of earmarks was in tall order. However, you look at just a 
glance at one earmarked account in this bill, the COPS Law Enforcement 
and Technology account reveals that Members of the House leadership, 
appropriators, committee chairmen and ranking members are taking home 
more than 45 percent of the earmarked dollars in that account.
  I wish I could say this was the exception to the rule. Unfortunately, 
it's not.
  When you look at last year's Defense spending bill, for example, the 
same powerful Members took home 54 percent of the total earmarks 
contained in the bill. I'd remind my colleagues that this subset of 
Members comprises only 25 percent of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, I often hear that Members know their districts better 
than those faceless bureaucrats. I would think it would be a tough case 
to make that only Members of the Appropriations Committee, or only 
Members who are in leadership positions on both sides of the aisle, 
they just happen to know their districts a lot better than anybody 
else, than the rank-and-file Members. Else, why should they get nearly 
half of the earmarks when they comprise less than a quarter of the 
body?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina, our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Mollohan for yielding me 
the time.
  Ranking Member Wolf, Mr. Flake, Members of the committee, 
subcommittee and staff, I very seldom come to this floor to make 
statements. But I do tonight because I consider it to be very, very 
critical to the education of our young people for us to continue and to 
expand the partnerships that all of us are trying to develop with the 
business community in trying to educate our children, most especially, 
those children who live in disadvantaged or what we call at-risk 
conditions.
  ScienceSouth is a hands-on, minds-on program that many of us have 
worked a long time to develop.
  And I want the gentleman to know that we aren't talking about my 
district here. We are talking about the I-95 corridor that has been 
dubbed ``The Corridor of Shame,'' that runs for 200 miles through South 
Carolina.
  One of the partners, as he may have mentioned in his statement, is 
the city of Dillon. Dillon is not in my district. It is a city made 
famous by its School District No. 2, on the evening that the President 
of the United States addressed a joint session here in this room, and 
he identified a young lady sitting next to his wife, Ty'Sheoma Bethea, 
and talked about the letter she wrote to him. Ty'Sheoma Bethea is one 
of the students benefiting from this program, and Dillon is not in my 
district.
  This is not about seeking largesse for the district I represent. This 
is about educating the children of this great Nation and of my home 
State.

                              {time}  2320

  This program is very, very important, and it has been around for 9 
years, and I would like the gentleman to know that this is not anything 
that we are trying to wean off of. This is something that I wish we had 
more money to spend on. We cannot put this kind of condition on the 
education of our children.
  Now, I don't understand why it is that we can understand the 
necessity for repeat expenditures to educate people and not understand 
why partnerships ought to exist, because students are being born every 
day. This program is not being maintained for the same students. It is 
being maintained for students who are being born every day

[[Page 15482]]

and who are reaching a level every day of benefiting from this program.
  So Ty'Sheoma Bethea will go on to college or will go on to 
university, and I am going to help ensure that she does. There will be 
others behind her to benefit from this program. So this is not 
repetition on the same students. This is the repetition of a program 
that has proven to be very, very beneficial.
  In closing, might I say that this program is so important to the 
business community in South Carolina until Richard Powell recently 
ended his career at ESAB, which is a global welding and cutting firm, 
where he held positions of senior vice president of strategic planning, 
of senior vice president of information technology, vice president of 
manufacturing, and controller, and he took over the directorship of 
this program.
  This is one of the reasons we exist--to make the quality of life 
better for those young people, especially those who live along the I-95 
corridor that so many of us like to talk of as the ``corridor of 
shame.'' What we're trying to do with this program is to turn that 
corridor into an oasis of opportunity for those children.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of commendable education 
programs, and this is certainly one that is fulfilling its objective.
  We are facing a $2 trillion deficit this year alone, and I think it 
behooves us as Members of Congress to make some choices at some time. I 
think all of us would love to have money for every worthy project 
that's out there, but here is a project that is receiving a lot of 
money from the private sector. I listed off some of the sponsors. 
They've been able to get large grants from corporations, and that 
speaks well for this program. Yet it has been around for 9 years, and 
since 2002, it has received $1.6 million in earmarks from this body.
  At what point do we say, ``Enough is enough''? At what point do we 
say, ``Yes, it is time to wean this program off of Federal dollars''? 
If not now, when? When we hit a $3 trillion deficit? At what point do 
we say, ``We're spending too much''? We all know that we have to borrow 
any money that we spend on any of these programs because we're running 
a $2 trillion deficit. I would simply submit that we have got to make 
some cuts somewhere, and we don't seem to be willing to do it anywhere. 
So, with that, I would urge support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 15 seconds.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield the gentleman from South Carolina 15 seconds.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman that I 
agree that we must find places to cut, and I have worked very hard on 
this side of the aisle to do that, but I think it is foolhardy to cut 
from the education of our children. They are, in fact, our future. This 
is an investment in the future of our children and of this great 
country.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 85 in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 85 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration--
     Cross Agency Support'' shall be available for the Drew 
     University Environmental Science Initiative of Drew 
     University, Madison, New Jersey, and the amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount 
     specified for Congressionally-designated items) are hereby 
     reduced by $1,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $1 million for 
the Environmental Science Initiative at Drew University, and it would 
lower the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.
  I have nothing against environmental science. I think very highly of 
the gentleman who has sponsored this earmark, but I do have a problem 
with handing out these kinds of earmarks to private universities. Drew 
University is not only a private institution; it also has a reported 
endowment of more than $268 million. In addition, the university was 
recently awarded a grant of $950,000 by the Andrew W. Mellon 
Foundation, a grant that was for the establishment of the new 
Environmental Studies and Sustainability major at the school. This is 
according to the university's Web site.
  I applaud Drew University. It speaks highly of the university that it 
was able to secure a grant from a foundation like the Mellon 
Foundation. Yet it's curious, in light of this grant, that Drew 
University should receive a $1 million earmark for what the sponsor 
said is the development of new environmental studies courses for the 
construction and improvement of science laboratories.
  It sounds to me like this new course of study at Drew University not 
only got a $1 million grant from the foundation for the new major but 
that it is also getting a $1 million grant from the taxpayers as well. 
I'm sure the curriculum Drew offers is competitive and noteworthy, but 
so are the curricula of many universities across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been increasing attention paid to earmarks 
for private companies. What do we do about earmarks to private 
universities that have demonstrated their ability to secure generous 
grants from prestigious foundations? Why do the Federal taxpayers have 
to provide funding as well?
  Drew University has the benefit of relationships with influential 
Members of Congress, obviously; but does that justify this kind of 
earmark?
  As I mentioned, there is a bit of a spoil system here. I mentioned 
the CJS spending bill overall. When you look at simply one program, 
again, like the COPS grant, it contains nearly $123 million in 
earmarked funds. Powerful Members of Congress, appropriators, 
leadership, and committee chairs and ranking members are taking home 
more than $55 million of that. That represents 45 percent of the total 
dollars earmarked. Yet I would remind my colleagues again that this 
subset of Members comprises only 25 percent of this legislative body.
  I would submit that the taxpayers have already had an education. 
We've received an education in Congress' wasteful earmarking ways. We 
don't need to subsidize a private university in this manner. I urge 
support of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, personally, I believe that we do 
need to rein in excessive government spending and promote fiscal 
discipline, and I've been heavily involved in that.
  With that said, I want to thank you, Representative Flake, for 
bringing this very important project to everyone's attention. I know we 
can all agree on the importance of math and science education. 
Throughout my career in county, in State and now in Washington, I've 
been a strong proponent of instilling an interest in STEM education in 
our young people so that they may tackle our country's and our planet's 
most pressing issues.
  The Drew University Environmental Science Initiative--and Drew is 
located in Madison, New Jersey--fits perfectly in line with this goal 
of advancing science education. This program benefits Drew's 
undergraduate students,

[[Page 15483]]

and it assists Drew in expanding its partnership with local elementary, 
middle and high schools. Many speakers had come to the floor earlier, 
saying, you know, How are we going to meet the challenges of China and 
India?
  One of the ways you meet the challenges of China and India with 
regard to their educational systems is to make sure that there are 
colleges and universities that are doing what they can to graduate 
students who are heavily involved in math and science studies.
  I strongly share Drew's belief that, in order to confront tomorrow's 
environmental challenges, we must capture the interest and imagination 
of our Nation's youth early in education, and Drew does this.

                              {time}  2330

  I'd also add that this project, this science initiative, like all 
others proposed for funding, has been thoroughly vetted and completely 
transparent.
  And may I add, unlike the gentleman's home State of Arizona, which 
ranks 21st in the Nation in tax dollars returned from Washington, my 
home State of New Jersey ranks 50 out of 50, dead last. So, quite 
honestly, I don't apologize for looking after my State, my public and 
private universities, because we want the best of America to be well 
educated, and I think the investments we're making in science, math, 
technology, and engineering in New Jersey and colleges and universities 
across the country is money well spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, again I would say if we're not going to cut 
spending here, where are we going to do it? If we can't say that we are 
not going to give a million dollar grant to a private university that 
just received a million dollar grant, or close to, from the Mellon 
Foundation for an almost identical purpose, a private university that 
has an endowment of $268 million while we have a public debt of about 
$11 trillion and a deficit this year of $2 trillion, if we can't decide 
that we are not going to give a million dollar earmark in this manner, 
where are we going to cut? When are we going to say enough is enough? 
We're spending too much.
  So I commend those who are looking for ways to save, but I have to 
remain a little skeptical if we can't do away with programs like this, 
with earmarks like this.
  With that, I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 91 in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 91 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
     Operations, Research, and Facilities'' shall be available for 
     the Science Education Through Exploration project of the 
     JASON Project, Ashburn, Virginia, and the amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount 
     specified for Congressionally-designated items) are hereby 
     reduced by $4,000,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a $4 million 
earmark for the JASON Project and lower the overall cost of the bill by 
a commensurate amount.
  The JASON Project was founded in 1989. It's been around for 18 years. 
According to their Web site, the purpose of the organization is to 
design science curriculum for fifth- to eighth-grade classrooms.
  We all know that science is important for any child's education, and 
if local schools wish to supplement their science curriculum with the 
services provided by the JASON Project, I believe they certainly should 
have that choice.
  However, this earmark is going to the JASON Project organization, not 
to the schools who wish to purchase its products. This $4 million 
earmark is one of the largest in this year's CJS bill, and I remain 
unconvinced that JASON is so desperately in need of Federal funding.
  In 1995 JASON became a subsidiary of National Geographic, one of the 
world's largest nonprofit science and educational organizations. In 
addition to the funding it receives from National Geographic, JASON is 
also partners with NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. The Motorola Foundation, Shell Oil Company, and 
Microsoft also provide funding for JASON.
  Why, with so many resources, does the JASON Project still receive 
earmarks year after year after year? This is just the latest year that 
we have challenged this earmark on the floor, and we're always told 
it's vital, we've got to have it. Next year, it's vital, we've got to 
have it. When does the $4 million a year stop?
  According to the JASON Project, support from all of these groups 
enables the organization to offer its educational resources online for 
free. However, all of JASON's curriculum materials must be purchased, 
costing schools $788 for a classroom pack and about $2,500 for a school 
pack. In 2007 the JASON Project was the recipient of a $2.2 million 
earmark. Last year JASON received $5.6 million from the Federal 
Government.
  The JASON Project has been so effective in securing money that its 
Web site offers tips for teachers in securing funds from local entities 
in order to buy JASON products. So here's what they offer: They offer 
tips to teachers to go out and secure funds from local entities in 
order to buy JASON products.
  If the JASON Project can't continue its operations without Federal 
funds after 18 years, I think you have to question its effectiveness. 
We have to stop funding projects like this year after year after year.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank 
Chairman Mollohan for his outstanding leadership as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Flake amendment to strike 
funding from the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill for the 
JASON Project. And I, again, do want to thank Chairman Mollohan in 
particular for his unwavering support of this important program, which 
ultimately results in its being a public-private partnership, which, I 
think, is a great example of how to invest in education.
  The JASON Project was first created by Dr. Bob Ballard. Many of you 
may remember Dr. Ballard was the famed underwater explorer who found 
the Titanic. And Dr. Ballard has a real passion for children in 
educating the next generation.
  I've had the opportunity to work with Dr. Ballard at the University 
of Rhode Island on science education initiatives, and I am grateful for 
his work to establish the JASON Project and for his dedication to 
training and inspiring future scientists.

[[Page 15484]]

  As Congress addresses today's economic challenges, we must be 
vigilant in giving our future generation the tools that they need to 
succeed. The gentleman from Arizona noted the deficit that our country 
faces. Well, how are we going to get out of our deficit and ensure that 
we are creating wealth for the future, that we are creating prosperity 
for our country if we don't invest in our young people, if we don't 
invest in our future? That's what the science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics programs in particular do. They make sure that we are 
educating our young people who are going to be the job creators, the 
problem solvers, the innovators of tomorrow. We're investing in our 
young people.
  STEM education has become a common theme during this debate tonight, 
and the JASON Project focuses on just that. Since 1989 the JASON 
curriculum, which is a free curriculum, has been distributed to over 7 
million students and teachers. JASON fosters critical thinking and 
problem-solving while engaging students in real hands-on science, 
helping them understand complex scientific concepts.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment and support funding 
to encourage and inspire our next generation of critical thinkers by 
supporting the JASON Project.
  Again I want to thank Chairman Mollohan for his unwavering support of 
this vitally important program.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for the opportunity 
to stand up and speak about and in favor of the JASON Project.
  For those who might not know, the JASON Project is a powerful 
education program, as Mr. Langevin just described, promoting hands-on 
learning, science learning, that connects primarily fifth-grade and 
eighth-grade students and their teachers with great explorers, 
scientists, role models, cutting-edge research.
  This subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, held a number of hearings on science 
education. It's a topic of great concern for the subcommittee as we 
fund the National Science Foundation and NASA and NOAA, all agencies 
that have wonderful science programs, and they also have an education 
mission.

                              {time}  2340

  So we sponsored these hearings to try to determine what is the best 
educational experience, how do we effectively promote science education 
among our youth, a challenge that is difficult to me.
  The subcommittee heard from Dr. Harold Pratt, former president of the 
National Science Teachers Association, and Bill Nye the Science Guy--if 
Members on the floor don't know who he is, their children certainly 
do--underscores the critical need for science education programs, such 
as the JASON Project, to attract America's youth to science disciplines 
and to better equip our teachers through professional development.
  Both of our witnesses agree that the struggle to attract and to 
retain students to science begins early, begins in elementary school, 
and that the preparation and education of science teachers is one of 
the most important elements in that recruitment. The JASON Program, 
which was founded in 1989 by Dr. Robert Ballard, who discovered the 
Titanic, has helped inspire and motivate more than 7 million students 
and teachers to become more proficient in science. And I can't think of 
a program that has a better return on investment than one that has 
reached so many and that has such a profound impact on America's 
innovation and competitiveness in the long run.
  It does one other thing, Mr. Chairman: It promotes the private-public 
partnerships that the gentleman, who is the author of the amendment, 
frequently alludes to. It's a wonderful program. It serves the Nation. 
And I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, we talk a lot about investment here. And it 
seems that when we want to spend money that we don't have, we call it 
an investment and assume everybody is going to be okay with it. We've 
invested so much that we have a $2 trillion deficit now. We've got to 
stop investing, spending, whatever you want to call it, if we want to 
get out of this deficit; and this seems a perfect place to start.
  The Member mentioned that this is money well spent, that it's a great 
return on investment. I'll tell you what was a great return on 
investment. Over the past decade, the JASON Project has spent about $1 
million lobbying the Federal Government, in most cases, I think, 
lobbying for earmarks like this. For that $1 million, they've invested 
in lobbying this body. They've received tens of millions of dollars in 
earmarks. That's a pretty good investment, if you ask me; but it's 
nothing that we ought to just be proud of taking part in. At some point 
we've got to say, hey, there are a lot of private organizations that 
are helping this organization. At some point they need to be weaned off 
of Federal dollars. I would submit that $4 million in an earmark this 
year, when we have a deficit of $2 trillion, is simply too much. If 
we're not going to stand up here on this, again, I have to ask, when 
are we going to stand up and start paring down this deficit? It's 
amazing that we just don't see a real commitment here in this body at 
this time to actually take control of Federal spending. It's 
unfortunate we're not seeing it on this earmark, from the sounds of it; 
but I'd like to urge support of it. Maybe now is the time that we'll 
stand up and say, Enough is enough. I urge support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated 
as amendment No. 84 in the Congressional Record.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 84 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds provided in this Act under the 
     heading ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
     Operations, Research, and Facilities'' shall be available for 
     the Institute for Seafood Studies project of the Nicholls 
     State University Department of Biological Sciences, 
     Thibodaux, Louisiana, and the amount otherwise provided under 
     such heading (and the portion of such amount specified for 
     Congressionally-designated items) are hereby reduced by 
     $325,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 552, the gentleman from 
Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This amendment would remove $325,000 in funding for the Institute for 
Seafood Studies at the Nicholls State University Department of 
Biological Sciences in Thibodaux, Louisiana, and reduce the overall 
cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. It's my understanding that 
this money would be used to fund the creation of an Institute for 
Seafood Studies with the purpose of increasing and coordinating 
research related to sustainable fisheries and the seafood industry.
  Mr. Chairman, it would seem that we're developing a trend in the 
House, funding seafood earmarks. It seems a little fishy to me. We keep 
coming up with--there are lobster things, there are shrimp things, 
there are a lot of seafood things here in the bill, and then we never 
seem to be offsetting this spending anywhere else. It's just another 
earmark for this or for that or for this or for that.
  Every year we approve earmarks for projects associated with lobsters, 
like I mentioned, crabs, mussels, oysters,

[[Page 15485]]

whales, salmon, horseshoe crabs, trout, shrimp. The list goes on and on 
and on. And now we are going to approve an earmark that creates an 
institute, literally, to study seafood. It's not enough to fund all of 
these other things. Now we have to create an institute to study 
seafood. And I would venture a guess that we'll be back here next year 
with another earmark for that same program because now that we have an 
institute created by the Federal Government through an earmark, then 
who is going to sustain it but the Federal Government with another 
earmark and earmarks in perpetuity?
  This earmark is only one of a thousand earmarks in this bill. As I 
mentioned, this is another example of where we always hear that Members 
know their districts best, but when you look at the earmarks funded in 
this legislation, you see the same spoils system that we see elsewhere.
  Again, I have to ask, does an appropriator or does a member of the 
leadership or a ranking member or a chairman of the committee just 
happen to know his district that much better than a rank-and-file 
Member, that they should receive almost double in dollar amount and in 
number of the earmarks that are proffered by this institution? That 
sounds fishy to me as well.
  We often get high-minded about, you know, we have to stand up for the 
prerogatives of the House and that we keep our ability to earmark 
because we know better than those faceless bureaucrats. But why do only 
some of the Members here know better? And it always seems to me that it 
is the same Members again and again.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Member from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. I thank my friend.
  I thank Mr. Flake for his leadership on the issues of fiscal 
responsibility. As a Blue Dog Democrat, I appreciate the importance of 
fiscal responsibility; and getting our fiscal house in order is the 
best way to come out of this recession quickly, a recession caused by 8 
years of irresponsible spending. And I am aware that my friend was one 
of the few people that continued to hawk his side of the aisle.
  Part of fiscal responsibility is the need for legislators to 
prioritize spending, spending on projects that improve our 
constituents' safety, health and their livelihood. This institute will 
be working toward developing standards and guidelines for seafood 
safety as well as methods to advance sustainable fishing practices. In 
fact, this project dovetails nicely with the work being done in Energy 
and Commerce as we speak regarding the food safety bill and the issues 
that confront us. The rash of food-related illnesses and the deaths in 
the past few years highlight the vulnerability of our country and what 
we face from unsafe food sources and imports.
  Louisiana is the number one producer in the continental United States 
of the most valuable commercial shellfish and finfish species, 
providing about one-third of the Nation's commercial seafood species. 
Our working coast sends fresh seafood around the country, including 
States in the West like Arizona. I remember spending one Mardi Gras 
week in meetings in Phoenix and enjoyed fresh crawfish from Louisiana 
in Arizona restaurants. And that was because of the fact that our 
people in Louisiana try to bring the freshest and the best to the rest 
of the country.
  So it's imperative that we have the ability to ensure that this 
valuable resource be kept safe and sustainable.

                              {time}  2350

  Why should we be using taxpayer funds? The seafood industry in 
Louisiana--and in many parts of the country, not just Louisiana--is a 
conglomerate of many small, single-owner businesses. Sometimes a member 
of the industry owns a single boat, and that is part of the industry 
that we know in south Louisiana along the entire gulf coast. And if you 
go throughout the fishing industry in the United States, you will find 
that does not differ a lot.
  Many beneficial domestic policies have strong, positive impacts on 
all of our constituents. In the case of food safety and sustainability, 
all of our constituents--regardless of whether they're from the north, 
the west, the south, the east, middle-America--share in the peace of 
mind that they can feed their families with clean, healthy, safe food. 
While those benefits are shared by all, it makes sense that the costs 
be shared as well.
  This project that we're discussing today focuses funding on food 
safety and sustainability in the location that produces a large portion 
of the Nation's seafood. By prioritizing the funding of the Institute 
for Seafood Studies at Nicholls State University, we are responsibly 
investing in a food supply that we can all enjoy. This is not just a 
Nicholls State University, a Third Louisiana District, a south 
Louisiana thing. This is about safe seafood, whether it's shrimp, 
whether it's fin fish, regardless. It's about the study and the making 
sure that the products that are delivered to America are safe for the 
people to consume.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and hope that the 
Congress of the United States will recognize the importance of the 
working coast. We're not the Sun Coast, we are not the Sand Coast, we 
are not the Condominium Coast. We are the coast of the United States 
that produces over 30 percent of the seafood, and good quality, safe 
seafood that we hope to preserve.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the time remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. First, this is the last amendment tonight. I want to thank 
the Members for staying around this long. I know their time is more 
valuable than mine, and I appreciate your indulgence here on this 
important process, and I apologize for keeping people this long, 
particularly those who came to defend their projects.
  The Member mentioned that it's important that we think of the little 
guys here. The last time I checked, we have an $11 trillion debt. That 
amounts to about $36,000 per American, per person; for a family of 
four, obviously it's much bigger than that. It's time we start looking 
out for them.
  If we look at this bill itself, CJS, it's 12 percent bigger than it 
was last year. In the year that we're running record deficits every 
year, we're expanding this bill by 12 percent.
  I appreciate what the Member said about the last 8 years. We missed a 
historic opportunity as Republicans to actually rein in spending. We 
didn't do it, to our eternal shame, and that's part of the reason we're 
smack dab in the minority today. We put ourselves on a course toward a 
fiscal cliff.
  But now we're still headed toward that fiscal cliff. And with bills 
like this that cost 12 percent more than last year, we've stepped on 
the accelerator. Why are we doing that? And if we can't stop creating 
new institutes to study seafood or anything else, then where are we 
going to cut? Where is the fiscal responsibility that we keep hearing 
about that's being employed? I just can't see it here.
  And like I said, we're creating a new institute here, a new institute 
that will now be reliant, I'm sure--I will bet just about anything that 
we will be back next year with another earmark for that same seafood 
institute that we just created because we've just got to keep it going 
now. And that will just add more to the deficit. Remember, we have to 
spend more every year.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just wanted to mention to the gentleman from Arizona 
that I don't know if it's making him feel any better about the 12-
percent increase in the bill, which he accurately notes, but 
approximately 7 percent of that--maybe a little more than 7 percent of 
that is the increase in

[[Page 15486]]

Census, about $4 billion to prepare for the 2010 census. It's an 
unusual increase, and it is directly related to the census and would be 
a short-term funding increase for that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. I just want to take this occasion to express my sympathy to 
the gentleman on his loss this evening. I'm not talking about anything 
that happened here on the floor, but I understand he was a victim in a 
15-10 drubbing of the Republicans in the congressional baseball game by 
the Democrats. And I understand that despite the fact that the 
gentleman hit a triple, alas it was in a losing cause. We know how you 
feel. We've felt it many times in the last decade.
  Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman not at all for bringing that up. I 
had hoped to improve my batting average by coming to the floor tonight, 
and it doesn't seem that I have. So I will have to settle for the one 
triple.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Surely.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just wanted to tell the gentleman from Arizona that 
learning that makes us all feel, on this side of the aisle, better 
about waiting for him tonight.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield back.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Obey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________