[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H4337-H4341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658, DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1213 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1213

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2009 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
     year 2009, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services. After general 
     debate, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. 
     No further consideration of the bill shall be in order except 
     pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For the purpose of debate only, Mr. Speaker, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my 
good friend, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1213 provides for consideration of 
general debate for H.R. 5658. This debate will come under a structured 
rule.
  The rule provides 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against the 
bill's consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
XXI.
  As the chairwoman of the Rules Committee announced yesterday evening, 
the committee intends to meet later today to report out an additional 
rule which will provide for the remaining consideration of the bill, 
including amendments and final passage.
  This two-part process has been used over the years to ensure that the 
Rules Committee has ample time to consider the amendments submitted to 
the committee, and there were a substantial number of amendments 
offered.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the 
most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation that the House 
considers each year. The overwhelmingly bipartisan support for this 
bill is proof that we understand our obligation as legislators to 
support our military and ensure our national security by coming 
together and producing quality measures.
  I am proud that the chairman and ranking Republican of the Armed 
Services Committee introduced the underlying legislation together. 
Chairman Skelton and Representative Hunter are to be congratulated for 
a job well done. Without their work, the unanimous support for the bill 
with a vote of 61-0 in the Armed Services Committee would not have been 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, for too long, President Bush's administration has 
neglected the needs of our military. I was just in Baghdad 2 days ago, 
and I saw evidence of this neglect. While the President has shown 
little hesitation to send troops into harm's way, his refusal to take 
care of them and their families when they return is downright 
despicable.
  The underlying National Defense Authorization Act gives our 
servicemen and -women and their families the resources that they need 
and deserve. That includes providing a 3.9 percent pay raise for all 
servicemembers and expands the authority of the Defense Department to 
offer bonuses.
  This bill takes care of our soldiers and their families by increasing 
access to financial aid for education, expanding survivor benefits, and 
enhancing health care services. And it rejects President Bush's 
proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases 
and other increases in health care costs for soldiers.
  The bill also strengthens our national security by providing our 
troops with state-of-the-art equipment and authorizes the expansion of 
the military.
  It includes fiscally responsible provisions that are designed to 
increase efficiency and accountability in the military.
  The bill cracks down on the Blackwaters of the world and requires the 
Department of Defense to put into place policies and systems under 
which contractors are held accountable for their actions.
  The underlying legislation also addresses the issue of readiness. Our 
Armed Forces are hurting today because we continue to ask them to do 
more with less.
  Under this bill, Congress is making it clear that at least one of the 
three branches of government will not allow rhetorical and ideological 
policies to stand in the way of doing the right thing by our troops.
  We continue to send our brave young men and women into battle without 
proper equipment or protection. The National Defense Authorization Act 
authorizes nearly $800 million for personal body armor, as well as $2.6 
billion for mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles for our troops in 
the Middle East.

[[Page H4338]]

  Finally, the bill prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in 
Iraq, requires the Iraqis to invest in the reconstruction of their own 
country, and I, for one, have emphasized this repeatedly since the 
beginning of this adventure in Iraq. And this bill provides funds to 
help train both Iraqi and Afghani security forces.
  Mr. Speaker, no one political party holds a monopoly on national 
security. The underlying legislation is clear evidence that, under new 
leadership, Congress is addressing the needs of our armed services.
  America cannot afford to continue to make the same mistakes we have 
made in the past. The stakes are too great, and the world is too 
dangerous.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes to discuss part one of the proposed rule for the 
consideration of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 
of 2009, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which was 
approved by the Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 61-0, 
as my friend from Florida mentioned, would make a number of very 
positive improvements to our armed services, and I think this entire 
House should be particularly proud of the committee's bipartisan 
efforts to improve the quality of life and safety of those serving our 
country in the armed services and their families.
  This legislation would authorize $600 billion in spending for our 
Nation's Armed Forces, including $530 billion in spending for defense 
programs at the Pentagon and Energy Departments and $70 billion to 
bolster the success of ongoing military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan for part of 2009.
  It would authorize $783 million for continued procurement and 
enhancement of current body armor systems; $1 billion for the training 
and support of the Iraqi security forces; and nearly $2 billion for 
unfunded readiness initiatives as requested by the services.
  It increases Active Duty Army personnel, Mr. Speaker, by 7,000 and 
Active Duty Marine Corps personnel by 5,000, while also providing our 
uniformed servicemembers with a much-deserved pay raise of 3.9 percent.
  And for our active duty troops and veterans who have already done so 
much to serve our country, it prohibits increased copayments and 
premiums for TRICARE recipients, and expands suicide prevention 
efforts.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires the Secretary of 
Defense to provide an annual report on Iran's nuclear capabilities so 
that this Congress can take a proactive role on recognizing the 
potential of this threat and be made aware of the threat that these 
capabilities pose to America and our allies.
  While this legislation does a great deal to improve our armed 
services and to provide them with the resources that they need--and it 
accomplishes much of this in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion--there 
are a few areas that I think could still be greatly improved.
  While the Rules Committee has not yet reported out a rule governing 
amendment debate on this legislation--we will do that this afternoon--I 
want to take this opportunity to make clear that there are a number of 
areas that I and a number of my Republican colleagues believe can be 
used to improve this bill through the amendment process.
  First, it is my hope that the amendment process for this year's 
authorization bill, while it will be a structured rule, will still be 
as open as it has been under Republican majority, when between 30 and 
40 amendments were regularly allowed to be debated and decided by the 
entire House of Representatives.
  Of particular concern is the reduction in funds and focus that the 
Armed Services Committee chose to provide in this bill for protecting 
America from the threat posed by ballistic missiles.
  In the Armed Services Committee, my colleague Terry Everett from 
Alabama offered amendments to both authorize the President's request 
fully for missile defense and allow procurement to go forward and to 
restore half of the $10 million that the committee eliminated from the 
request for the study of a space test bed.
  Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a fellow cochairman of the 
Missile Defense Caucus, offered his own amendment to add $100 million 
to a program to launch multiple interceptor missiles at once to defeat 
multiple incoming missiles or decoys in the event of an attack.
  While these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were defeated in committee, I 
believe that the entire House should have the opportunity to hear their 
arguments and make their own decisions on these issues, as well as the 
amendment by my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Sessions of Texas, to 
state the sense of Congress that we need to support the development, 
testing, and fielding of the capability to intercept ballistic missiles 
in their boost phase to protect America's interests.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, while this rule provides for 2 hours of general 
debate on the bill, there are areas that this House needs and deserves 
to address through the amendment process. That will be addressed in the 
second rule that we will discuss in the Rules Committee tonight and 
will presumably be on the floor tomorrow. I certainly hope that the 
House is given a full and fair chance to consider these issues that 
I've highlighted, as well as others.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to 
the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, my good friend, 
Representative Skelton, 4 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  I appreciate the fact that we will be again having a rule taken up in 
the Rules Committee. I look forward to the second rule for tomorrow.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, in favor of the rule. This is an excellent bill. 
It is, of course, the annual defense authorization bill, bipartisan I 
should say, very bipartisan in nature because the vote on final passage 
out of our committee was 61 Members to none. And I cannot be more 
pleased with the work that our committee has done, the ranking members, 
the subcommittee chairmen who really did yeoman's work, and I want to 
thank them for all their excellent and successful efforts.

                              {time}  1200

  I might mention at the outset that this defense authorization bill, 
which is for 2009, is named in honor of former chairman, now ranking 
member, who will not be returning to us next year, the gentleman from 
California, Duncan Hunter. That is certainly fitting and proper that we 
do so to recognize his efforts on national security through the many 
years he served on the committee, as well as the leadership positions.
  This bill authorizes $531 billion in spending for the defense and 
national security functions of the Department of Energy. It also 
authorizes a $70 billion bridge fund, which will be considered shortly.
  The pay raise to the troops, 3.9 percent, is five-tenths of a percent 
more than the administration recommended. And it rolls back the 
administration's proposed fee increases on health care as well as 
pharmacy costs. It increases the size of the military, something I have 
been urging since 1995. It increases the size of the Army by 7,000 and 
the Marines by 5,000. They're overburdened and they're strained, and 
this is one step towards relieving that strain.
  A major problem today is that of readiness, or a lack of readiness. 
We restore a great deal of readiness to the military in this bill in 
various manners, essentially in training and equipment.
  There is $800 million in National Guard and Reserve equipment; $650 
million to upgrade military barracks for those trainees that are coming 
through. It improves our efforts in Afghanistan. It bans permanent 
bases in Iraq. It requires Iraq to do more for itself in the 
reconstruction area, establishing a formula by which they, with their 
oil surplus, will have to contribute toward that end.
  There are additional steps regarding contractor oversight.

[[Page H4339]]

  Regarding nuclear nonproliferation, we increase the funding by $245 
million. That's a very major step. The European missile defense effort 
was cut by $370 million. It does a great deal toward national security.
  I want to take this opportunity to support the rule, and of course 
when the time comes, to support the bill itself. Hopefully we will have 
some excellent amendments that will be considered tomorrow. And we will 
send this on to the Senate and hopefully have an excellent bill at the 
end of the day.
  The young people in uniform, of whom we're so very, very proud, 
deserve the best. This is one way we in Congress can make sure they get 
the very best through this defense authorization bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California, a person in whose name this 
defense bill is named after. I would join my friend from Missouri, the 
chairman of the committee, suggesting and acknowledging that it is an 
honor that is well, well deserved.
  I had an opportunity to serve on the committee for 2 years, my first 
2 years in Congress. There are probably few, if any, that are more 
knowledgeable on these issues surrounding defending our country than 
the namesake of this defense authorization bill.
  I now yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. And I do want to say there is a 
gentleman here who's got more knowledge than I have on this defense 
bill, and he just spoke. I want to give my thanks to Chairman Skelton 
for doing a great job of putting together an excellent bill which 
passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee.
  He followed very strongly what I call the two tracks that we're on. 
The first track is to provide for the warfighters in the theaters that 
are currently in progress in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world, 
where we're fighting the global war against terror. We do so very well 
in this bill in terms of putting in lots of extra money for MRAPs, for 
force protection, for defense against mortars, against roadside bombs, 
and all the other things that are important aspects and dimensions of 
force protection.
  Then we also provide for what I call over the horizon. That means 
that we've provided, with the very able chairmen of the subcommittees 
and the ranking members, for continued equipment buys in critical areas 
and put in extra money for submarines, which we will have low numbers 
in the next 5 to 10 years, but are a very important part of American 
leverage in foreign policy and a very important component of 
warfighting. Putting in extra money for C-17s, for that airlift that is 
so critical, for giving a good solid buy on F-22s this year and Joint 
Strike Fighter.
  Also the report that I've received back from the Marines is that the 
first V-22s are now in theater in Iraq and that they're working very 
well. The Marines like that doubling of speeds that they now have over 
the CH-46 helicopters. That's accruing to their benefit in lots and 
lots of operations.
  The chairman and the chairmen of the subcommittees and the ranking 
members I think have done a great job of filling out both tracks of 
both the near term and the long term in this bill.
  I thank Mr. Skelton for his kind words. Let me tell you, one of the 
real blessings in serving in this body is to be able to serve with a 
great partner, whether you're the chairman or the ranking member. The 
chairman has done a wonderful job in putting this bill together. The 
man from Missouri is an outstanding leader in national security, and I 
applaud him for his great career.
  I know we also have two members retiring, Mr. Saxton, who for many 
years chaired the Special Operations Subcommittee, very important 
subcommittee, is now ranking on Air Land. And Mr. Everett, who is 
ranking on Strategic. Jim Saxton, I have watched him go around the 
world visiting with our special operators, ensuring that they had what 
they needed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his great service on the Armed Services Committee. You can trade up 
anytime you want to and come back off that old Rules Committee and come 
back to Armed Services.
  But Mr. Saxton has done yeomen's work in providing for special 
operations, for operations that aren't given ticker-tape parades in 
which a number of people know about and are briefed on, but which are 
crucial to our Nation's security. Those men and women who serve in 
those very important positions in special operations can be thankful 
they had Jim Saxton over these years to be supportive of them. And he 
is still supportive of them in his job as ranking member to Mr. 
Abercrombie on Air Land.
  Similarly, Mr. Everett has an insight and understanding of matters 
relating to space and missile defense that I think are matched by very 
few people in this country. And Terry Everett is the master of the 
closed briefing. He makes very few speeches. Terry Everett is not a guy 
you look to for long speeches, he's a guy you look to for hard work, 
for thoughtful analysis, and for doing the right thing when it comes to 
making sure that as we move into the next 5 to 10 years, we have what 
it takes in missile defense and in space to ensure America's security.
  I want to applaud those retiring members of the committee and once 
again thank my chairman and all the members of the Armed Services 
Committee who make this such a great bipartisan committee.
  I think we need to support this rule and move this great package down 
the road.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).
  Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
for the National Defense Authorization Act and the underlying 
legislation.
  As Congress authorizes this critical funding for the defense of our 
Nation and its interests abroad, we also have an opportunity to make 
sure that the current nationwide mortgage housing situation does not 
adversely affect our veterans.
  Current law provides some protections from bankruptcy and foreclosure 
for the men and women in uniform while serving in harm's way. But it 
does not provide for debt forgiveness or other relief from contractual 
obligations of servicemembers who have been called to active duty.
  Given the frequency with which military homeowners are forced to move 
to different bases throughout the country and overseas, our brave 
service men and women should not have to worry about forestalling or 
even preventing mortgage foreclosure.
  I commend Chairman Skelton and Mr. Hastings and ranking members for 
including provisions of a bill that I authored that calls upon the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a mortgage foreclosure and credit 
counseling program for members of the armed services and those who are 
returning from overseas.
  Credit counseling is available from many sources, including State and 
local governmental agencies, but not all counseling services are the 
same or even legitimate. Providing veterans with credible information 
through the Department of Defense will enhance their ability to make 
sound financial decisions during difficult times and to provide 
assistance before a potential problem or crisis arises.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Conaway.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for 
yielding some time.
  I did vote for the underlying bill that this rule is associated with 
and intend to vote for it on the floor as it is currently drafted. But 
I'm going to speak against the rule and intend to vote against the 
rule, should we get that vote.
  While the Defense Authorization Act doesn't have much public policy 
in relation to energy in it, it is a beneficiary of good, sound 
national energy policy.

[[Page H4340]]

  DOD is the single largest department purchaser of energy of any of 
the Federal agencies that this Congress oversees. It would benefit 
dramatically by decreases in costs of energy, as would every consumer, 
every American home would as well. And conversely, its budgets are 
dramatically negatively impacted with rampant run-up in costs. We fly 
jets, we drive tanks and Humvees and other vehicles, and we have to buy 
that fuel to get that done. These increased costs as a result of an 
unsound national policy on energy are a detriment to the Department of 
Defense.
  A sound national policy on energy should promote additional supplies 
of domestically produced sources, both fossil fuel sources as well as 
unconventional sources. It's not an either/or, it ought to be both. And 
this Democratically led House has consistently, over the last 16 
months, had a very negative bias against fossil fuel sources.
  Every rational projection of energy usage over the next 20 to 30 
years shows that we will continue to be reliant on crude oil and 
natural gas for that entire time frame. The larger the domestic supply 
of crude oil and natural gas we have, the less dependent we are on 
foreign sources and the cheaper it will be. There is an action in 
economic law for supply and demand that says if you restrict the 
supply, then your costs are going up. And increased costs of energy and 
fuel to the Department of Defense is a negative that we ought to 
address.
  If you punish the producers of crude oil and natural gas, you're 
going to get less of it. The bill we passed yesterday, which unleashes 
the Department of Justice on an unwarranted witch hunt against the oil 
and gas industry, will increase costs and will, therefore, have a 
negative impact on the operations of the Defense Department, which this 
authorization bill governs. Those increased costs are not in the best 
interests of Americans and not in the best interests of the Department 
of Defense.
  So while this bill and this rule do not specifically address our 
national energy policy, a policy that is sound and promotes domestic 
production of both crude oil and natural gas as well as unconventional 
sources of energy to supply our Department of Defense with the energy 
it needs to fly those airplanes, drive those tanks, drive those 
Humvees, and light the offices at the Pentagon, as well as the housing 
associated with the Department of Defense, is in all of our best 
interests. I would urge our colleagues to look at that as we approach 
these issues.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado, my friend, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, Mr. Udall.
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and this bill. I 
want to start by applauding Chairman Skelton for his leadership and 
also Ranking Member Hunter. They have done a tremendous job as have 
their expert staff.
  I am particularly grateful to Chairman Skelton and Chairman Smith for 
working with me to provide an important provision for Colorado. The 
bill prohibits the Department of Defense from transporting away from 
the Pueblo chemical depot in the 2009 fiscal year the hazardous wastes 
left after the chemical treatment of mustard agent.
  This language is necessary because the DOD continues to look at 
treating these secondary wastes offsite despite studies showing that 
shipping these wastes will not yield benefits and despite the clear 
preferences expressed by the community of Pueblo to treat these wastes 
onsite.
  Last year, Congress mandated that the DOD complete all chemical 
weapons destruction activities, including the destruction of 2,600 tons 
of liquid mustard agent housed at the Pueblo depot by 2017. The 
Department of Defense should get on with this approved plan to treat 
the secondary wastes at the depot and not delay this program any 
further.

                              {time}  1215

  More broadly, our bill focuses on our military's readiness needs. 
After more than 5 years at war, both the Active Duty and Reserve forces 
are stretched to their limits. Our bill will provide what's needed to 
respond, including funds to address equipment shortages for Active Duty 
and Reserve forces, improve the quality of our military barracks, 
ammunition maintenance, and expand training opportunities, among other 
important readiness needs. It increases Army end strength, consistent 
with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And, 
importantly, it will provide for a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay 
raise for servicemembers, boost funding for the defense health program, 
and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill, carefully drafted and 
bipartisan, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Once again I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that, with the high price of gasoline that all Americans 
have experienced, by defeating the previous question, this House can 
finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous 
question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not 
rewrite the entire rule, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 
5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by my 
colleague from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as well as ``any amendment 
which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of 
lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded 
gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by 
permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.''
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question once again so that we can consider this 
vitally important issue for America's families, workers, truckers, 
small businesses, and, for that matter, the entire economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when Democrats were elected to the majority in 2006, we 
promised America that we would govern responsibly, with conviction and 
in a bipartisan fashion.
  The Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, 
named appropriately after our colleague from California, is a bill that 
is a perfect example of all three of these things. It is further proof 
of how things have changed here in the House in a very short period of 
time.
  The bill continues the necessary cleaning up of the mess created by 
the Bush administration by modernizing our forces and restoring 
readiness to our military. It gives our Armed Forces the tools they 
need to get the job done abroad while taking care of our soldiers and 
their families here at home.
  This is a good rule for a great bill. I urge my colleagues to support 
both.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1213 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
     shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the 
     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984) 
     to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
     limited continuation of clean energy production incentives 
     and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to 
     prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result form a 
     lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All

[[Page H4341]]

     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except any amendment 
     which the proponent asserts. if enacted, would have the 
     effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of 
     regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the 
     domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in 
     the Outer Continental Shelf. Such amendments shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 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. 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 he 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
                                  ____

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

         The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

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

                          ____________________