[Pages H6910-H6917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1345
PROVIDING FOR 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.

[[Page H6911]]

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.
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.

[[Page H6912]]

Until this year, the Cornell facilities had been funded by the NSF's
Division 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
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 asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
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 H6913]]

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

[[Page H6914]]

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 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

[[Page H6915]]

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

[[Page H6916]]

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 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:

[[Page H6917]]

____________________