Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in regard to H.R. 2847, the legislation appropriating funds for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for 2010.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in general debate.

Mr. Chairman, if this is June, it must be appropriations season, and today I'm pleased to present to the House the first of the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2010, H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation bill.

While the summer may be hot and humid, as is typical in the Nation's Capital, with the assistance of this body, our days and nights need not be long for the House to fully consider this and the other 11 appropriations bills in regular order, or so we hope.

I want to thank the ranking member of this subcommittee with most sincerity for his assistance, help, counsel, and guidance in the development of this bill. Mr. Frank Wolf of Virginia was chairman of this committee for a number of years, served on it for a great number of years. We served on it together. He brings to this bill a lot of experience and knowledge and that is really helpful as you work up an appropriation bill, and I appreciate, Frank, very much your assistance on the bill and the credibility and knowledge you bring to it.

I also want to thank publicly and personally the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey, for his assistance in developing this bill. Mr. Obey's courtesy and the assistance of the front office has been very much appreciated, and we also appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the allocation that you've given us for this bill that's allowed us to do what we are allowed to do, however short the allocation may be.

I would also like to sincerely recognize the staff: the excellent work of the clerk, John Blazey, and the leadership he's provided to the rest of the staff, and all of them have done excellent work, which I appreciate: Adrienne Simonson, Dixon Butler, Diana Simpson, Darek Newby, Tracey LaTurner, Scott Sammis, all with the subcommittee; Mike Ringler and John Martens on the minority staff. And then on my personal staff, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson.

It's a lot of work putting together one of these appropriation bills, as anybody who's been involved with it or close to it understands, and they have worked long hours diligently with great competence to move this bill forward, and I most sincerely thank them for the efforts. We couldn't do this without them.

Mr. Chairman, in brief summary, this bill totals $64.4 billion, an increase of $6.7 billion over last year, but it is $200 million below the President's budget request. The bill provides $30.6 billion for investments in science, technology, and innovation, an increase of $1 billion over comparable levels from last year.

Within this level, the bill provides $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation and $18.2 billion for NASA. For NIST, the bill provides $781.1 million. For NOAA, it's recommended at $4.6 billion. The committee's recommendation continues to provide resources consistent with the doubling path identified for NSF and NIST in the COMPETES Act. It also considers the science and research conducted at NOAA and at NASA as critical to the Nation's science enterprise just as that performed by NSF and NIST.

For law enforcement and other agencies of the Department of Justice, the bill provides a total of $27.7 billion. Full funding of $7.9 billion for the FBI, $2 billion for the DEA, and $1.1 billion for ATF.

For the Bureau of Prisons, the bill provides $6.2 billion to address longstanding critical shortages in corrections' staffing and education, in addition to drug treatment. For State and local law enforcement activities, the bill provides a total of more than $3.4 billion, restoring, in large part, reductions proposed by the administration.

For programs funded through the Office of Violence Against Women, the bill provides an increase of $11 million, including a $10 million increase for STOP Formula Grants, and a $1 million increase for Sexual Assault Victims Services.

I want to be clear that while the funding table in the report for the Office of Violence Against Women may appear in the report to show a funding decrease, that is only because the bill moves a number of programs to the Office of Justice programs which actually administers those programs.

So, let me repeat, the bill increases funding for the Office of Violence Against Women by $11 million.

The bill provides a full funding of $298 million for the COPS hiring program. In other areas within the Justice Department, the bill provides $325 million--an increase of $41 million over the fiscal year 2009 level--for the Adam Walsh Act.

With respect to border security, the bill provides $1.5 billion, a 30 percent increase over fiscal year 2009. These funds will be used to address firearms and narcotics trafficking between the United States and Mexico, an issue on which every Member of this body has concerns, and we're pleased to provide these increases.

For the Second Chance Act, the bill includes a total of $114 million to develop and implement evidence-based strategies and programs at the Federal and State levels to reduce recidivism and the future costs of incarceration. I want to particularly compliment the authorizing committee for the good job that they have done with the Second Chance Act and other legislation they are considering. We are looking forward and appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with them on the funding side.

A significant initiative across the Department of Justice is increased investments in law enforcement and prosecution efforts in Indian Country, for which the bill provides approximately $155 million, and that is an increase of $65 million over fiscal 2009.

For SCAAP, which the President proposed to eliminate, Mr. Chairman, the bill includes $300 million.

With respect to the Department of Commerce, $4.6 billion is slated for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an increase of $129 million above the request.

The bill provides $7.4 million for Census, the same level as the budget request.

For NASA, the bill provides a total of $18.2 billion, an increase of $420 million over last year's level. Investments have been made in Earth science to further the decadal surveys. The recommendation, however, acknowledges, and this is important for Members to consider and take note of, that the administration has established a blue ribbon panel, Mr. Chairman, led by Dr. Norm Augustine, to review the current vision for human spaceflight.

Funds are provided in this bill to continue investments in human spaceflight at the level of last year. Reductions from the budget request should not be viewed by this body as any diminution of certainly my support or the committee's support in NASA's human spaceflight activities. Rather, it is a deferral. It is a deferral taken without prejudice. It is a pause. It is a timeout.

Call it what you will, it is an opportunity for the President to establish his vision for human space exploration, looking at the Augustine report when it becomes available in August, and then for his administration to consider what their vision will be, and then, most importantly, certainly for our committee, Mr. Chairman, to come forward with a realistic future funding scheme for the human space exploration program.

We hope it is a vision worthy of the program, and we look forward to realistic funding levels, which we have never had, or haven't had for many, many years, for human spaceflight.

It is also important to note that the total funding contained in this bill for NASA is an increase of $421 million over the fiscal year 2009 level, and, moreover, some $1 billion was provided in the Recovery Act for NASA activities.

Lastly, the bill provides $440 million for the Legal Services Administration. Appropriations for Legal Services increased by almost $90 million over the last couple of years, with which we are very pleased. It is still underfunded compared to base years in the nineties. This is indicative of the rising need for legal support for the poor, particularly because of mortgage fraud and the home crisis.

The bill continues the existing limitations, Mr. Chairman, on the use of these funds, except that it lifts the current restrictions on attorney's fees.

Mr. Chairman, that is a brief summary of the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for those kind comments about our Bureau of Prisons hearings. I would like to comment he was the leader with regard to prison reform and has been for a great number of years. Based upon those hearings, he is the one that contacted the State Council of Governments to encourage them to follow up with their proceedings in the fall. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, Congressman Culberson, who is a fine member of our subcommittee, and who brings particular expertise. As I often say, I aspire to know as much about the sciences as he does and he makes significant contributions to our committee. I thank him for his passion to our committee, and also to our Nation's space programs.

I share the sentiments the gentleman just expressed. I should note that the bill before the House today does not cut human spaceflight programs in fiscal year 2010; rather, the bill level funds ongoing activities until such time as the Augustine Commission completes its review, and the Obama administration commits to the next generation of human spaceflight.

I appreciate the work of both my colleagues from Texas. I appreciate and agree with the sentiments that they've expressed here today. I just wish I could have expressed them as eloquently as my colleague and committee member, Mr. Culberson, particularly as he alludes to the Civil War. I can think of no comparison to match it. But the sentiment I agree with.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and look forward to working with him on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his rising on this important issue, and I appreciate his leadership in supporting increased funding for the Bureau of Prisons.

BOP funding has simply not kept pace, Mr. Chairman, with the rising prison population and the aging BOP infrastructure. The Bureau of Prisons prisoner population is currently 37 percent above the rated capacity for BOP facilities, and the prisoner-to-staff ratio is an appalling 4.9-1. We must begin to turn that around, and this bill takes a big step in that direction. This committee has had this concern for a number of years and has been working diligently to increase this funding.

The bill provides an increase of $481.5 million above the fiscal year 2009 level for the Bureau of Prisons salaries and expenses, which is $97.4 million above the administration's request. We added that $97.4 million to help restore the BOP's base budget, which has been progressively hollowed out in recent years by inadequate budget requests. These additional funds will enable the Bureau of Prisons to hire additional correctional officers and activate two newly constructed prisons.

I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Kosmas).

Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida.

The gentlewoman is correct. That is the committee's position.

Mr. Chairman, I yield another 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Griffith).

Let me just say that I appreciate my colleague's comments this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, let me first note that the bill before the House today does not actually cut human spaceflight programs in fiscal year 2010. Rather, the bill level funds ongoing activities until such time as the Augustine Commission completes its review and the Obama administration commits to the next generation of human spaceflight. In fact, the total in the bill before the House today provides an increase of over $420 million over the fiscal year 2009-enacted level across all NASA activities and programs.

We're talking only about the human spaceflight program here. I believe that the Augustine panel is well-positioned to make an informed review of planned U.S. human spaceflight activities and alternatives to ensure that the Nation is undertaking efforts that are safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable in the years following the completion of space shuttle manifests and its retirement.

When that panel provides its information, its informed judgment, to us and to our new President and when we have had an opportunity to embrace the Nation's next human spaceflight program and to budget accordingly, we look forward to moving forward.

I thank the gentleman with those assurances, too.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona, Chairwoman Giffords.

That is absolutely correct.

The funding deferral does not signify any weakening of the committee's support for human spaceflight and exploration. I would also direct the attention of my colleague to the bill's accompanying report that states this very fact.

And if I could find it here quickly, I would read it for her.

And I did find it. At page 146 of that report, I would refer the gentlelady to read a pertinent part. ``Accordingly, after the work of the panel is complete''--that's the Augustine Panel--``the committee expects the administration will amend its fiscal year 2010 budget request to fund fully the plan advocated by the panel, and that the administration's subsequent budget request shall similarly include resources that fund fully the Nation's Human Space Flight Program.'' That's in our report. And I am pleased to reaffirm that here tonight with the gentlelady with this colloquy and with the others that we've had colloquy.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Yes, I do. And I stated as much at the subcommittee markup of this legislation. Again, I would turn my colleague's attention to the accompanying report where these sentiments are also expressed.

I believe that the Augustine Panel is well positioned to make an informed review of planned U.S. human space flight activities and alternatives to ensure that the Nation is undertaking efforts that are safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable in the years following the completion of the space station manifest and retirement. And when that panel provides its informed judgment to us and the President and we are able to evaluate it, our new President and our authorizers will have a chance to look at it and act on it, our new President--and we--will have an opportunity to move forward together on our Nation's future human space flight program and budget accordingly.

The gentlelady, among these other colleagues, is a champion of the program. Thank you.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Let me first commend the gentlelady for her good work in this area in the short time she has been in the United States Congress and for her input into our subcommittee, which has certainly influenced our markup of the bill in this important area.

I thank the gentlelady for her comments. And I appreciate her support and commitment to programs funded through the Office of Violence Against Women.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Mrs. Kirkpatrick).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, would the Chair be kind enough to let both sides know how much time they have remaining, respectively?

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time in general debate. Let me again reiterate my appreciation to the committee, subcommittee, and ranking member in marking up this bill. And we look to proceeding through amendments at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment. I'm offering this amendment on behalf of Mr. Honda, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Culberson, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Ms. Giffords, Mr. McCaul, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, and Mr. Marshall.

This amendment would provide an additional $100 million, Mr. Chairman, for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, restoring it to the fiscal year 2009 funding level of $400 million.

Mr. Chairman, the current administration and the predecessor administrations have in turn each year proposed elimination of the SCAAP program. And since our allocation is $200 million below the administration's request, it is difficult to restore moneys such as to the SCAAP program to $300 million in the subcommittee mark. When the administration requests zero and then you have to fill that hole, that makes a tremendous strain on the other accounts in the bill.

I opposed the SCAAP amendment during committee consideration of this bill largely because it would have unadvisedly used the Bureau of Census as an offset. We are in the final year, final months of preparing for a census that's just a year away, and this is not any time to take money away from the Census. We have overcome hurdles in the Census and challenges as a result of some mismanagement with regard to census preparation. We are on track now. And this is not the time, given this short period before we have to conduct the census, to take money away from the Census, so we opposed it.

However, I am aware that there is considerable support, as reflected by the number of our colleagues who want to be cosponsors on this amendment here today. There is tremendous broad-based support in the body for the SCAAP program. It is supported by many Members; so I offer this amendment in recognition of that support.

Mr. Honda is a member of the subcommittee and a cosponsor of this amendment, and he has been particularly persuasive about the need to restore SCAAP funding to the level that this amendment would bring it to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment and would be willing to accept the amendment.

We're willing to accept the amendment. What happens in conference is in the future, and I wouldn't be able to make any commitments with regard to that in any way.

Will the gentleman yield?

As the gentleman understands--the gentleman has been to conference before on bills.

And the gentleman understands that conferees come to the conference from many different directions and have many different attitudes. There are many different issues in the bill during conference. I will tell the gentleman that we take seriously our bill as it is fashioned, as we bring it to the floor, and as it is amended on the floor as we proceed to conference.

Beyond that, the gentleman clearly understands that conferences are about process and that there's give-and-take in the Congress. All of the attitudes expressed in conference must be taken into consideration, and there is nothing about this amendment that precludes our not seriously supporting it in conference. But the gentleman is asking for something that the gentleman knows in the process cannot be guaranteed, and that is, I guarantee that we're going to do something in conference. I hope that's satisfactory. If it's not, it's the best I can do for the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

We will approach the conference, my colleague from Indiana, exactly the way I described to you. We will consider every issue that is in the bill as it comes out of the House of Representatives seriously as we approach conference. If it's accepted, it will be in the conference report. You have the ranking minority member. He is going to be a part of the conference. The other members of the committee are going to be a part of the conference, and we will treat this issue just as seriously as we treat all issues. We will support it in conference, and it will be a part of the process of the conference as it moves forward. I hope that is satisfactory to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join our chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia, in beginning consideration of H.R. 2847, making appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies. The bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the study and exploration of space.

The bill before the House today addresses a number of national needs and requirements, and I think it is important for the Record to show that I believe, and I think any fair-minded person would, to say that the chairman has done a commendable job in balancing the many competing interests and has put together a solid bill in a fair and evenhanded way.

At times I have felt the minority has not been treated very, very fair, and I will say with the gentleman, we have been treated very, very fair, and I think it is important to make sure everyone knows that. We have not been foreclosed from anything.

I also want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their help and assistance, including the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, and the Republican members of the subcommittee, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Bonner.

I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who spent long hours in putting this bill and report together. The majority staff: John Blazey, Tracey LaTurner, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson, Diana Simpson, Darek Newby and Scott Sammis. And the minority staff: Mike Ringler and John Martens. And on my staff, Tom Culligan, and on the chairman's staff, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson.

Overall, the bill, as I said, includes important increases to priority programs, including the need to address violent crime, particularly crime related to drug trafficking and gangs; and the need to boost our Nation's competitiveness through more investments in scientific research and improving science, math in education.

However, I believe we could have met the most pressing needs by prioritizing within the lower allocation. This allocation given to the subcommittee is $64.8 billion, which is $6.8 billion or 11.7 percent above 2009. This allocation allows virtually every agency, account and program to grow, and I believe it is more than a sufficient amount to address the highest priority needs.

The rate of increased spending in the bill corresponds with the majority's overall budget blueprint, which increases discretionary spending by $77 billion over the current fiscal year. Since the other party took control of Congress, nondefense, nonveterans affairs discretionary spending has increased by 85 percent.

This rate of spending does not represent a step toward restoring fiscal balance. There was an article today I think in Reuters mentioning that our Nation, if we continue the current course, will lose our triple A bond rating, it is the earliest date I have ever seen, by 2010. It is 2009 now. That means next year. So how we deal with that is really a tough, but an important, issue.

Some highlights: for the Department of Commerce, the bill includes $13.85 billion, including an increase of $4 billion to conduct the 2010 Census.

The chairman has included strong funding for trade enforcement, which I appreciate, particularly with regard to China and the full request for Commerce Department programs to enforce dual-use export controls and respond to cyber-espionage threats.

For the Justice Department, the bill includes $27.5 billion, $672 million above the request. The FBI's operating level is funded at the President's request, which is necessary in order to continue current staffing operation levels, which also fund the urgent increases in counterterrorism programs.

Too often we fail to recognize the critical and often dangerous work that the FBI is doing at home and abroad in order to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. This is incredibly important work, and the bill strongly supports those efforts while also providing necessary funding for the FBI to fulfill its traditional roles and address emerging problems such as mortgage and financial fraud, child exploitation, and the spread of violent gangs.

On the gang issue, this bill includes a new $35 million initiative to fund the FBI's Safe Streets Task Force and ATF Violent Crime Impact Teams. This will fund new task forces and new positions on existing task forces in the areas, which is pretty much the entire country, plagued by gang violence.

The bill increases State and local law enforcement accounts by $197 million. Despite this increased funding for SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the program is reduced to $300 million from the current level of $400 million, and the chairman,

appropriately so I think, has drafted an amendment to increase SCAAP that I hope will pass with bipartisan support.

In the area of science, the bill includes important initiatives in science competitiveness. Our country is falling behind. We have about 95,000 engineers working for the space program, and China has about 200,000.

The previous administration launched the American Competitiveness Initiative, which included a commitment to double the funding are for basic scientific research over 10 years and also to strengthen education and encourage entrepreneurship. I am pleased that the chairman has done this and also that the new administration embraced this goal.

For the National Science Foundation, the bill provides $6.9 billion, a 6.9 percent increase above the current year for research that will set the groundwork for the development of new technologies and science education that will ensure we have a well-educated and skilled workforce to improve competitiveness.

For NASA, the bill includes $18.2 billion. This includes the full request for aeronautics, the shuttle program and the International Space Station, as well as funding above the request for NASA science and education. However, the bill freezes funding at the current level for exploration activities pending the outcome of a blue ribbon panel review of future options.

The result of this cut is a funding level that will not be sufficient to sustain the current development scheduled for the next generation of space exploration vehicles and would result in severe disruption to the Nation's human spaceflight program.

I look forward to the recommendations, as the chairman does, of the review panel being led by Norm Augustine, and to working with the chairman and other Members to ensure that the final bill will include sufficient funds to continue the U.S. leadership role in human spaceflight.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the important language that is included in the bill regarding the release and transfer of Guantanamo detainees. This bill does not prevent the closure of Guantanamo. It seeks only to ensure in the process of carrying out the executive order that national security, the security of our communities and the security of our men and women in uniform overseas are the highest priority.

The bill prohibits the release of any detainees into the United States. It also prohibits transfer to the U.S. for prosecution as well as transfers or release to other countries unless and until the administration presents a comprehensive report to the Congress on the proposed disposition of each individual. This report will detail security risks and measures to mitigate those risks and will include a certification that affected State governments have been notified in advance.

Regarding transfers to other countries, the report must address the risk of recidivism. Some are going to Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Saudi Arabia has funded many of these radical madrasas up on the Pakistan- Afghan border, and Yemen has been the center of a lot of terrorist activities. The report must address the risks of recidivism and detail the terms of any financial agreements related to the acceptance of the individuals transferred.

The language will ensure that detainees are not released into our communities, and it places important restrictions and conditions on future transfers and releases.

It has become clear in the last few days that the administration is rushing to release and transfer as many of these detainees as possible before the will of Congress to place restrictions can be enacted.

In closing, despite concerns about the overall levels of spending, the bill represents the chairman's best efforts to distribute the allocation he was given to the various competing requirements under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. I commend the chairman and I thank the chairman for his openness and his thoroughness to the minority.

I would say that the chairman held a week of hearings on prison reform. We, unfortunately, have the largest per capita prison population in the world. They were the best hearings that I have seen held in this Congress.

Based on that, and I want to commend Mr. Mollohan, based on that, the Council of Governments and the Pew Foundation will be putting on a major conference this fall that I am sure the chairman will be very much involved in to establish the best practices, because you cannot just put a man or woman in prison and lock them up and throw away the key without any job training and things like that.

There was not a lot of coverage. I don't think The New York Times ever covered the story. I don't think many of the major papers did. But it was the best hearings in the time that I have been here, and I want to thank the chairman for his efforts and concerns. I think a lot of positive things will come out of that.

Lastly, I am pleased to operate under an open rule today, and look forward to the consideration of the many amendments that have been filed and will be urging my Members on this side at final passage to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Culberson is definitely the science man. I mean, he is the science guy. It's not debatable, and if we have an amendment, and he also is a Civil War guy too, but he is the science guy.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member on the Science and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey), who represents Cape Canaveral, who worked on the Apollo, who helped put the first man on the Moon, and who is a strong advocate for NASA and for the space program. He has advocated and has talked to me over and over about this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, as we look at this bill, I know there is going to be a series of amendments at different times, and I think a lot of the amendments that will be offered will be from Members who are very sincerely concerned about the economic crisis that our country faces. There was an article today in Reuters. Let me read it to the Members here. It says:

``New York Reuters: Technical analyst Robert Prechter on Monday said he sees the United States losing its top AAA credit rating by the end of 2010, as he stuck by a deeply bearish outlook on the U.S. economy and stock market.

``Prechter, known for predicting the 1987 stock market crash, joins a growing group of market heavyweights in forecasting the United States will lose its top credit rating as the government

issues trillions of dollars in debt to fund efforts to bail out the economy.

``Fears about the long-term vulnerability of the prized U.S. credit rating came to the fore after Standard & Poor's in May lowered its outlook on Britain, threatening the U.K.'s top AAA rating. That move raised fears that the United States could face a similar risk, with the hefty amounts of government debt issued in both countries to pay for financial rescues causing budget deficits to swell.''

So as Members offer these, I would just say there are some things there that are important in the country. We have got to get control of spending. But in other areas, our country is facing a crisis--in the area of science. Last year China and India graduated 700,000 engineers, and we only graduated 70,000, and 40 percent of our engineers are foreign students who are returning to their country.

And, lastly, in the space program, we have 95,000 engineers working on the space program. But China has 200,000. And unless we do some fairly dramatic things, our factories will close and we will lose the edge in science and engineering. So we need to gain control of the entitlement spending, and I hope to be able to offer an amendment to the Financial Services bill. I'm going to offer an amendment that sets up a bipartisan commission to put every spending program on the table, every spending program in the government on the table, and give that bipartisan commission an opportunity to then go around the country holding public hearings, but to send a proposal up to Congress and require the Congress to vote on it.

So I understand the frustration of many of the Members when they see this Congress failing to address the fundamental issues of spending in the Congress. And we also have the trustee's report showing that the Social Security system is beginning to go bankrupt faster, the Medicare system is going to go bankrupt faster, and young people have no confidence and believe that the Social Security system is not sound.

We have a moral obligation to deal with that, and I hope that Congress will.

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of the amendment.

As the gentleman says, Colombia is a strong ally and a partner in this hemisphere; and I support the Congress acting to implement U.S.- Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The trade agreement that has been negotiated would bring important economic benefits to the U.S. and level the playing field between our countries. It would create jobs. The unemployment rate that just came out is 9.2 percent. Not to do this would border on being crazy. The gentleman's amendment would serve the ongoing debate by generating information about the economic impacts here in the U.S. of our failure to adopt the agreement. So I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time and yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to this unorthodox rule brought forth by the majority. It continues the precedent the majority set last year when they decided to no longer allow the House to consider appropriations rules with open rules and instead use a restrictive rule that requires Members to preprint any proposed amendments in the Congressional Record.

So this is a restrictive rule, even though the majority calls it an open rule with a preprinting requirement. It was not long ago when the majority felt quite differently. At the end of 2004, the current distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, then a member of the minority and ranking member of the Rules Committee, released a report called, ``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy.'' On Page 26 of the report the chairwoman said that she considers rules with preprinting requirements, like today's rule, restrictive and not

open. Why exactly is this a restrictive rule? Let, me, again, quote the chairwoman's 2004 report. ``A preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of debate.''

For example, Mr. Speaker, Members will be blocked from offering germane changes to their own amendments if an issue surfaces during debate, or if there is a minor drafting error. That is why, during yesterday's rules hearing, I made a motion to modify the rule to allow Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in this rule, to make germane modifications to such amendments. My commonsense amendment was defeated by a straight party-line vote.

I will provide you an example, Mr. Speaker, why I believe my amendment was important. During last year's consideration of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, Representative Buyer submitted an amendment for consideration. However, the amendment had a drafting error and did not comply with one of the rules of the House.

Once Congressman Buyer realized the problem, he asked unanimous consent to change his amendment to achieve its original purpose, and also to comply with the rules of the House. However, the majority blocked his unanimous consent request.

If the bill had been considered under an open rule, Representative Buyer could simply have introduced a new amendment. But, just like the bill being brought to the floor today, that bill was not considered under an open rule, and Members were blocked from making germane changes to their amendments, unless they received concurrence of every Member through a unanimous consent agreement.

Yesterday, during the hearing on the supplemental appropriations bill, the Rules Committee ranking member, Mr. Dreier, attempted to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, how the majority would handle another occurrence like occurred last year with the Buyer amendment.

But when Mr. Dreier began asking his question, the Rules Committee chairwoman did not allow Mr. Dreier from going forward with the question. The Rules Committee chairwoman explained her ruling by saying, the hearing on the underlying legislation was complete, and the committee was now considering the supplemental funding bill; a bill that is an appropriations bill just like the underlying legislation. And yet, the chairwoman found that asking the Appropriations chairman about the upcoming appropriations process during a hearing on an appropriations bill was inappropriate. I think that was unfortunate.

Please let me quote Chairwoman Slaughter's report from 2004. Restrictive rules block ``duly elected Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a manner that they believe is in the best interest of their constituents and the Nation as a whole.'' They also block, and I continue quoting, ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions.''

Mr. Speaker, I will insert the relevant parts of the chairwoman's report into the Record.

If the rule was restrictive under the majority's definition in 2004, why is it not the same today?

What makes this restrictive rule more unfortunate is that the House has a long tradition of allowing open rules on appropriations bills in order to allow each Member the ability to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendment or receive approval from the Rules Committee.

Other than the recent use by the majority to restrict debate on appropriations bills, we have to look back nearly 15 years to the last time a restrictive rule was used. So this is not a one-time aberration but, in fact, the way the majority plans to continue to consider all of the appropriations bills this year.

So I believe that the majority is really not only subverting the rights of every Member, and also bipartisan and open debate on appropriations bills, but I think they're setting a dangerous precedent that is unfortunate. Excessive partisanship is unnecessary and unfortunate.

Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy

A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic

Process in the 108th Congress.

Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office

The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter, Ranking Member

4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open

Rules''

During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out

four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement.

This provision requires Members to submit their amendments

for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance

with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor

debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically

calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them

``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the

appendices attached to this report.

While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-

printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common

tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules

Committee report; \31\ there is a significant difference

between an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing

requirement. A pre-printing requirement forces Members to

reveal their amendments in advance of floor consideration,

something that may assist the floor managers, but can

disadvantage the Member offering it. In addition, a pre-

printing requirement blocks any amendment proposal that might

emerge during the course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier

was in the minority, he made the following statement about

the preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on

national, service legislation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ According to our records, 50% (64) of the non-conference

report/non-procedural rules reported by the Committee in the

108th Congress were rules restricting debate to amendments

printed in the Committee report. In the ``Additional Views''

they filed in the 102nd Congress Survey of Activities

Republican Rules Committee members, including Chairman

Dreier, complained this type of restrictive rule had become

``a favored method of the majority.'' Under this procedure,

the Rules Committee ``selectively determines which

[amendment] to make in order and which may not be offered on

the floor. Usually, the amendments made in order are subject

to strict time limits, as opposed to open debate under the

five-minute rule, and are not subject to amendment. On rare

occasions the Rules Committee has allowed all amendments

submitted to be offered, but this is the exception, not the

rule.'' H. Rept. 102-1101, 102nd Survey, p. 109.

``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the

Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it

is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House

debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is

impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with

a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment

to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome

preprinting process? Shouldn't the committees that report

these bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the

legislation under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I

think we can do better.\32\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Congressional Record July 20, 1993, p. H4820. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose

of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected

Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a

manner that they believe is in the best interest of their

constituents and the nation as a whole. It is not to help the

foor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in

allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions''

would allow at least some House business to occur in an open

format---in a procedural framework that allows Members to

bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion

and debate under the five-minute rule.\33\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ As we have noted above, most appropriations bills are

debated under technically open rules, but amendments are

subject not just to the normal restrictions of germaneness,

but also a number of other restrictions set out in rule XXI

and in the Congressional Budget Act. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Republicans Expanded the Consideration of Suspension Bills to Crowd

Out Real Deliberation in the House

Another aspect of the disturbing trend towards curtailing

real deliberation on controversial issues in the House has

been the Republican leadership's tendency to devote more and

more floor time to debating bills under the suspension of the

rules. In the 108th Congress, standing House Rule XV

permitted the House to consider bills under suspension of the

rules on Mondays and Tuesdays, and during the last six days

of a session of Congress. The suspension procedure allows for

40 minutes of debate, requires a two-thirds vote for a bill

to pass, and allows no amendments except by the floor

manager.

The ostensible purpose of the suspension day procedure is,

as the Republican majority describes it in one of its

Parliamentary Outreach newsletters, ``to dispose of non-

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) such time as he may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy and all who have participated in the debate on the rule for bringing this appropriations bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow Members who have preprinted their amendments, as specified in the rule, to make germane modifications to their amendments.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this restrictive rule we are considering today will not allow Members from amending their own amendments, even if they are simply trying to correct a minor drafting error or make changes to the amendment to comply with the rules of the House. One of the reasons we have so many amendments filed is because Members have filed duplicative amendments to avoid the possibility of errors such as this.

In order to make sure an amendment complies with the rules of the House, Members must consult with four different offices: the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Parliamentarian, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Budget Committee. If any of those offices find an issue with an amendment, then the Member has to make changes to the amendment. This becomes particularly difficult when Members are only given an average of 2 legislative days to draft their amendments and consult all the relevant offices and make changes and then consult with the offices again. Given this scenario, it is quite plausible that a Member didn't have enough time and included a

minor drafting error and that, for example, is not caught until it is too late. We saw it last year with an amendment by Mr. Buyer on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. So as to not have a repeat of that unfortunate incident, I propose to change the rule to allow Members to make germane changes to their amendments.

I remind Members that by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or to delay the underlying Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members will be given the opportunity to make changes to their amendments if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, like all of my colleagues--and I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that I revere this institution.

220 years ago this summer, James Madison, following the urging of his constituents, came back to the House of Representatives, doing something that he actually opposed when he penned the U.S. Constitution: that being the implementation of the very important Bill of Rights, which is something that we as Americans spend a lot of time thinking about and which is something that the rest of the world looks to. There are people in Iran today who are looking at our Bill of Rights as they think about the need to pursue democracy and as they choose their leaders in their country. Peoples all over the world continue to look to our Bill of Rights. It was 220 years ago this summer that James Madison moved the Bill of Rights through this institution. I'm going to, next month, spend some time talking about that historic summer 220 years ago.

I say that simply to underscore the fact that I have such great regard for the precedents and for the rules of the House of Representatives, and I consider it a great privilege to serve with Mr. Diaz-Balart, with Mr. Arcuri and with the other members who serve on the House Rules Committee. I take the work there very, very seriously.

I believe that we're at a troubling moment when it comes to the deliberative nature of this institution. We had the exchange that took place between the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on this process of filing amendments. We had a rigorous debate that took place in the Rules Committee yesterday about the fact that appropriations bills are considered as privileged.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is there is no need for a special rule for the consideration of appropriations bills. Constitutionally, it is a very important part of the process. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution makes it very clear that spending doesn't emanate from the White House; it emanates from the United States Congress. By tradition, it begins here in the House of Representatives.

As I stand here, I'm thinking about conversations that I had with one of the greatest Members to ever serve here, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Natcher), who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and who was the long-time chairman of the Health Subcommittee. I remember his saying to me that he believed appropriations bills should come to the floor without being considered with a special rule because they are considered as privileged; but the tradition over the past several decades has been that the need for a special rule would allow for the protection of the bill, meaning that points of order could not be raised against the work product of the Appropriations Committee and that we would then allow for an open amendment process, meaning that any Member could stand up here in the House and offer a germane amendment to the appropriations bill.

It is true that the appropriations process can be prolonged, and it has been in the past; but when we were in the majority, having presided regularly over the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, I remember witnessing the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee or of the subcommittee come together and have an agreement that amendments would be addressed and that they would put an outside time limit for the consideration of those amendments.

Over my nearly three decades here, Mr. Speaker, I've seen that happen on a regular basis. Guess what? It has worked out pretty doggone well. Now, there are people who are disturbed over the fact that 127 amendments were filed yesterday at the Rules Committee to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. That was not necessary. That was not necessary, and it would not have happened had we had the standard open amendment process for the consideration of measures.

Yes, there are a number of very important issues that I and my colleagues believe should be addressed in this appropriations bill. I will say that it could be done under an open amendment process, but unfortunately, the majority has decided to not only have a preprinting requirement but to set an arbitrary deadline so that, if appropriations bills may be considered more than a day or so later, one could not file additional amendments for the consideration of the measure. In our attempt to get a commitment that we would simply be able to allow Members to make germane modifications to their amendments, we have been denied that.

In fact, we had a vote in the Rules Committee last night. I know, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. This is very inside baseball. I know I may not be quite on message, but I think the message is a very clear one: It's fairness in dealing with the challenges that the American people are facing. So we had

a party-line vote, Mr. Speaker. We had this vote, and we were denied the opportunity to allow Members to even make germane modifications to amendments that had been submitted to the Rules Committee.

Now, Mr. Diaz-Balart is going to make an attempt to defeat the previous question. This vote on the previous question is one that will simply say that we, as an institution, want the American people, through their elected Representatives, to have the chance to think about, to deliberate and to vote on the measures included in this appropriations bill and we hope in the other I guess it is 11 now appropriations bills, in addition to the one that we're considering here today.

It is a troubling pattern which undermines deliberative democracy. Now, it's not unusual, but it is very troubling. I don't know how many amendments would have been offered if we'd had an open amendment process; but guess what? I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, for a second that 127 amendments would have been offered. I think there would have been many, many fewer than that. When the Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike, are told that they can't even make germane modifications to their amendments, there is little choice other than to have Members file many, many, many different amendments so that we will at least be able to allow this process to proceed.

Chairman Obey referred to the fact that the issue of global climate change and the issue of health care are both issues that the Democratic majority wants to bring to the forefront in the next couple of months. We understand that elections have consequences, and those are issues that they clearly have a right to bring up. I want to address those issues. On our side, we want to address those issues in a slightly different way, but we don't believe that we should be addressing those issues at the expense of the very important process enshrined in article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, and that is the power of the purse: the appropriations process.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to join Mr. Diaz- Balart, the gentleman from Miami, in attempting to defeat the previous question in the name of deliberative democracy so that we can allow elected representatives to in fact represent their constituents. And if by chance the previous question is passed, I am going to urge my colleagues to join in opposition to the rule because we can do a better job.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding, and I appreciate his kind remarks. And I will say that the gentleman is relatively new to the institution. And I would say that, frankly, since the gentleman has been here, we have not really had as many open rules as we should. I know that there has been an attempt made to define a modified open rule as an open rule----

I thank my friend for yielding. I look forward to getting some time from my friend from Miami.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my California colleague, the gentleman from Glendale, Mr. Schiff, for his thoughtful remarks. And I want to say that he and I share our commitment to NASA and the very important programs that take place at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. And that's the point. I mean, there are many important items in this bill which continue to be priorities.

I would like to say to my friend from Utica, who, again, is working very hard, he is very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, he has never had to serve in the United States House of Representatives as a member of the minority. My dream is that one day he might be able to serve as a member of the minority, and who knows how that will come out. I mean, it's always up to the voters to make that determination.

But I would say that those 127 amendments about which my friend referred and then I referred when I was in the well are amendments that I had to encourage our colleagues to file. Why? First, there were only 2 days, 2 legislative days, that this bill was out there. And if we had had an open amendment process, as I said, I can say with absolute certainty there would not be 127 amendments filed to this measure; again, maybe half that, maybe many fewer than that. And many of those amendments are duplicative. And the reason is that Members might find themselves in the same position as Mr.

Buyer did. And that's why I say my friend has served exclusively as a member of the majority; but if one day he is serving here as a member of the minority and were to receive the word that he could not make a minor, germane modification to his amendment, I think that he would understand the concern that we have.

Members on this side of the aisle represent just a little less than half of the American people. And they all have just as much right to be heard as Members of the majority. I recognize that the majority does rule in this place, but that does not mean that we should prevent Members from being able to participate in this process.

Mr. Diaz-Balart has entered into the Record a document that was put forward in the 108th Congress by the now-chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, the then-ranking minority member. She, at that time, held the position that I have. And the document describes what we are using as our procedure for consideration of this measure as a ``restrictive process.''

Now, traditionally, Democrats and Republicans alike have called it a modified open rule. But the preprinting requirement, according to this document, blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the course of the debate. Now, those are not my words; those are the words of Ms. Slaughter when she was ranking minority member on the Committee on Rules.

And so all I'm arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that in the name of deliberative democracy, this notion of saying that every Member has had an opportunity to look at this--2 legislative days--and the fact that 127 amendments were filed meant that there was this exhaustive analysis of the bill, I think, is not an accurate way to characterize it.

The 127 amendments were filed--I believe that many of those 127 amendments were filed because we are not having what has been the longstanding tradition allowed to Members of this House, and that is an open amendment process for consideration of the measure. And that's why, again, I urge my colleagues to vote with Mr. Diaz-Balart in opposition to the previous question. And when that is defeated, make in order his amendment that would simply allow Members to have the right to make germane modifications to their amendments.

I also submit for the Record a copy of the announcement I posted on the Committee on Rules Republican web site, instructing Members of the restrictions created by a restrictive pre-printing rule and giving them guidance about how best to preserve their right to have amendments considered.

Majority Restricts Amendment Process for Commerce, Justice, Science

Appropriations Bill

Earlier today, the Majority announced that next week the

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 544 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 544.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 544 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2847, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and ranking member for reporting out this bill that does not pay mere lip service to making communities safer, but makes critical investments in our Nation's communities.

The bill provides $802 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, which we know as the COPS program, 45 percent above the current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire and train new officers, to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crimefighting techniques and technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.

So often State and local governments are critical of the Federal Government's programs because they pass down mandates without funding them. But this bill appropriates money to put more police on the street, funds successful drug court programs, and increases Byrne funding to help develop new and innovative law enforcement techniques which put violent criminals in jail and keep our streets safe for our children.

This funding includes $298 million for the COPS hiring grants program, which help our local law enforcement agencies put more police on the street. When combined with the $1 billion provided in the Recovery Act for the COPS hiring grants, the funding in H.R. 2847 will enable the hiring of more than 7,000 police officers. Those are officers in each and every State in this country.

Increasing the number of police on the street will help local law enforcement agencies to reduce violence and get illegal guns off the street. As a former prosecutor, I know that the vast majority of the violent crimes committed with guns in this country are committed with illegal guns, not legal guns. By putting more police officers on the street, it will give officers the ability to better enforce the laws on the books, not by creating new laws, but by reducing the number of illegal guns, which is the cause of the majority of gun violence in this country.

This bill provides $15 million for the Weed and Seed program. Weed and Seed helps localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime and then take the all-important step often left out, that is, seeding the formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in sites and communities such as my home in Utica and Rome, New York, cities which I represent.

H.R. 2847 also includes $384 million for Juvenile Justice programs, $11 million above the 2009 level. This underscores the strong Federal commitment to supporting States and communities in their efforts to develop and implement prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety and holds offenders accountable while also providing rehabilitative services that are tailored to meet the needs of juveniles and their families.

Additionally, the underlying bill includes $45 million for grants, technical assistance, and training to State and local governments to develop dedicated drug courts that subject nonviolent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives and sanctions.

As a district attorney, I quickly learned that no matter what initiatives law enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it never really affected the demand for drugs, which never seemed to go down and therefore created a market for drug dealers. One thing I saw is that reducing the supply can work, but reducing the demand for drugs always works.

When my office established a drug court program, I realized the powerful effect that the program had on helping enrolled participants get control of their addiction, thereby freeing them and their families from their awful addiction and reducing the demand for drugs. The appropriation of $45 million for drug courts provided by H.R. 2847 is 12.5 percent more than the current level, and I congratulate the committee on that increase.

The bill also includes funding for upgrades to emergency communications systems around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important programs for which H.R. 2847 would appropriate funds. My remarks are focused on the criminal justice aspects of this bill, but there are many other important areas addressed in this legislation.

It provides funding for critical scientific research, including programs to keep America on the cutting edge of technology, innovation and those that study climate change as well as funding the Department of Commerce and Economic Development Administration. The Appropriations Committee has approved a bill which would provide funding for these critical programs, and I once again thank them for their work and welcome the chance to vote in favor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey.

I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio, a former colleague from the Rules Committee (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for sharing with us his thoughts. Clearly, his institutional knowledge of this grand institution is second to none. But there is one point that I think is important to clear up, and that is the fact that this bill has a preprinting requirement that in no way, shape, fashion, or form means that anyone is precluded or prevented from filing an amendment. What it does, however, mean is that any amendment that an individual Representative files has to be filed by a certain period of time, and that was yesterday. That does one thing. And I would submit that that enables our constituents to have the very, very best legislation that they can because it does one thing, it gives the Representatives an opportunity to read that amendment to see what that amendment means and to have an opportunity to interpret it and determine whether or not it is the best thing for the bill or, in fact, whether it should be pulled.

If I could finish my thought.

So I would submit that, in fact, it is a good thing to have a preprinting requirement in this particular bill, and I would yield to my friend.

If I may reclaim my time----

The point of it is that this allows individuals to file. In fact, the fact that we have 127 amendments filed, much more than we've had in the past, certainly indicates that in fact Representatives have had an opportunity to file.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, Mr. Schiff.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for his courtesies in this debate and for his very able management of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, on my opening remarks, I chose to focus on the criminal justice programs that are funded under H.R. 2847, but there are many other important areas addressed in this legislation, and we have heard about many of those during the debate. In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss another of these that is of utmost importance to America.

The bill includes $293 million for the Economic Development Administration, which is $20 million above the amount enacted in 2009. The EDA administers several economic programs, including public works grants for upgrading infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment assistance for communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to other countries.

H.R. 2847 includes more than $158 million for the Economic Development Administration's Public Works Program, $25 million more than last year. H.R. 2847 also makes critical investments in scientific research and NASA's space program. The bill includes $6.9 billion for the National Science Foundation. This level of funding will support the doubling of NSF's budget over the next 10 years and represents a true commitment to investment in basic research and development which will provide for innovation and future technologies to help the United States be competitive.

H.R. 2847 includes over $18.2 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery in aeronautics research, and this appropriation enables them to accomplish this mission. This recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of NASA's Mars exploration and provides funds for the completion of the Mars science laboratory to launch in 2011. Exploration has always been critical to mankind. We live in America today because of exploration. We must continue to explore the new frontier for future generations.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues that so far we have discussed only a handful of the important programs that are funded by the fiscal year 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2847. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

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

On page 2, line 21, after ``if printed.'' insert the

following new sentence, ``The proponent of each such

amendment may make germane modifications to such amendment.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.