[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 96 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H5287-H5294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6063, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1257 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1257
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. 6063) to authorize the programs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 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 one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Science and Technology. After general debate the bill shall
be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Science and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising
under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of
rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report 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 except those arising under clause 9 or
10 of rule XXI. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 6063
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend from
Florida, Representative Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous
consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members be given 5 legislative days in
which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1257.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1257 provides
for consideration of H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
Committee on Science and Technology. It also waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
The rule makes in order the 12 amendments listed in the Rules
Committee report accompanying the resolution. Finally, the rule
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1815
Mr. Speaker, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act is a commonsense and fiscally responsible
authorization plan for NASA that will strengthen our ability to improve
our Nation's economy, communities and programs, as well as our national
security.
The bill authorizes $20.21 billion for NASA for fiscal year 2009.
This includes $1 billion in funding to accelerate the development of
the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and Ares 1 Crew Launch Vehicle. This
ensures that we do not lose ground to Russia and China as we work to
build the next generation of space flight vehicles.
[[Page H5288]]
I would take a point of personal privilege to point out, Mr. Speaker,
that the husband of a Member of the House of Representatives, Gabrielle
Giffords, is on the present space vehicle that is in outer space. I
learned from, we call her ``Gabby,'' that her husband will be home
Saturday, and we wish him and the crew all safety and Godspeed.
Additionally, the underlying bill provides for programs in human
space flight and exploration, aeronautics research and development and
scientific research, including Earth observations and research.
The bill authorizes an additional Space Shuttle flight to deliver the
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the International Space Station.
Lastly, the underlying bill contains important provisions related to
education, space traffic management and astronaut health care.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill's bipartisan support is a testament
to the fact that my colleagues on both sides understand the tremendous
importance of supporting NASA. However, in this time of soaring drug
and food prices, a plummeting economy and war, some are asking why
Congress should invest in our Nation's space program. To put it another
way, why are we going in space when I don't have gas to get to the
grocery store? While I wholeheartedly disagree, I would be remiss if I
did not at least acknowledge their concerns.
It provides us with the opportunity to recount the many lifesaving
and life-altering methods and products that were made possible through
space technology.
Mr. Speaker, people of all ages know that putting men on the moon in
1969 was one of NASA's pioneering achievements. Missions to space have
given us all a sense of national pride and allow us to better
understand the universe in which we live. Few know, however, that for
50 years space technology has laid the foundation for consumer products
that help businesses run more efficiently and allow everyday people to
live safer, longer and better lives.
Think about it. The United States has some of the most cutting-edge
medical technology in the world because of NASA. The pacemaker, voice-
controlled wheelchairs and the MRI all rely on technology that was
first developed for space exploration.
More than 560,000 Americans will die from cancer this year, including
over 40,000 in my home State of Florida. Space technology has led to
life-saving advanced screening and treatment methods for breast cancer
that are more accurate, cost-effective and less invasive.
Do you want more? We have all come to realize the consequences of not
protecting our environment and conserving our resources. NASA has made
significant contributions to the way that we adopt environmentally-
friendly practices in our homes, businesses and everyday lives. It has
been at the forefront of documenting climate change.
Further, solar energy, environmental control sensors that monitor
emission levels and water purification systems that could save millions
in poorer countries from developing deadly and debilitating water-borne
diseases were all made possible because of space technology.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I would be remiss if I didn't
mention the microwave oven, food products and drinks that have been
developed because of space technology.
The past 7 years have made us acutely aware, Mr. Speaker, of the
importance of having the infrastructure and tools to respond to natural
and man-made disasters. There too, NASA has played a crucial role in
national security by providing the resources and technology to make our
communities, borders, waterways and airways safer. We owe wireless
technology, storm warning devices and radiation hazard detection in
part to space technology that was developed and tested under NASA
programs.
Mr. Speaker, for me, the future of the U.S. space program hits close
to home. The Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral has a profound
impact on Florida's economy and well-being, and my colleague in the
minority, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and I know this all too well.
Again a point of personal privilege. Where Cape Canaveral, Cape
Kennedy is, Mr. Speaker, as a child I fished there in the Haulover
Canal, and I can't tell you what a tremendous, scintillating experience
for me it is to see an area that was and still is pristine, now the
place where our national pride is raised every time a space vehicle is
launched.
In 2006 alone, the space program contributed nearly $1.7 billion to
Florida's economy. It provides thousands of direct and indirect jobs,
encourages businesses and recreational travel, and also helps groom the
next generation of mathematicians and scientists by providing learning
and research opportunities for students of all ages.
Mr. Speaker, by supporting this rule and the underlying bill, we are
investing in the welfare of our great country and installing the next
chapter in the American book of creativity and innovation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for
the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, next month we are set to celebrate the 50th anniversary
of the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
NASA, in the beginning of its mission ``to pioneer the future in space
exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.''
Since then, NASA has sent men to the moon, established a permanent
human presence in space aboard the International Space Station, sent
robots to explore Mars for signs of life, and launched the Hubble
Telescope that revolutionized astronomy by providing unprecedented deep
and clear views of the universe. One can only imagine what NASA will
accomplish in the next 50 years as we begin working building a
permanent base on the moon and eventually sending astronauts to explore
Mars and beyond.
Since the creation of the Kennedy Space Center in 1962, as my good
friend Mr. Hastings has explained, Florida has played an integral role
supporting NASA's mission through a partnership between Florida's
academic and business sectors. Florida will continue to play an
important role as the space flights to the moon and Mars begin their
journey of exploration at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I am
pleased that the underlying legislation, H.R. 6063, will continue this
successful partnership.
Three years ago, Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
which provided policy and programmatic guidance for NASA that made
clear that NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency, with a
balanced portfolio of programs in space, aeronautics and human space
flight, including human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
Today's legislation reaffirms those basic principles, while
emphasizing the importance of NASA leadership and Earth observations
and research, aeronautics research and development to address critical
national needs, and an exploration program strengthened by
international cooperation under strong United States leadership.
The underlying legislation authorizes $20.21 billion in funding for
fiscal year 2009. That is a 2.8 percent increase in investment from
fiscal year 2008.
As we all know, NASA intends to retire the shuttle fleet in 2010. The
shuttle will be replaced with a 21st century exploration system, the
Constellation Program, that will be cost-effective, reliable,
versatile, and, most importantly, safe for our brave and brilliant
astronauts.
Until the Constellation Program is ready for lift off in 2015, we
will be reliant upon Russia to ferry our crews and equipment to the
International Space Station. NASA has agreements to pay Russia $760
million, and those costs could rise as high as $2.8 billion during the
gap. To reduce our reliance on Russia, the bill authorizes an
additional $1 billion to accelerate the development of the replacement
Orion and Ares rockets and reduce the 5-year gap. Doing that will help
retain thousands of well-paying aerospace, engineering and technician
jobs and maintain American expertise in those areas.
The legislation also fully authorizes the administration's request
for the International Space Station to ensure
[[Page H5289]]
its safety and long-term viability and funds additional shuttle
missions, including one to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. The
spectrometer is designed to search for unusual matter by measuring
cosmic rays. Its experiments will help researchers study and unlock the
mysteries of the formation of the universe.
This legislation fully authorizes NASA's Education Program, which
seeks to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics. I believe it is vital to keep
the United States competitive in science, math and engineering. Our
children are our future, and by seriously funding math and science
programs we ensure that our future generations will continue to excel,
explore and discover.
I would like to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall and
Subcommittee Chairman Udall and Ranking Member Feeney for their
bipartisan work in the Science Committee on this important
reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that bipartisan
spirit didn't make it past the doors of the Rules Committee, where the
majority only allowed one Republican amendment, while allowing 10
Democratic amendments. It is a new ratio, 10 to 1. And that one
Republican amendment is just a sense of Congress, while many of the
Democratic amendments call for substantive changes in policy.
One example of how the majority consistently blocks Republicans but
allows Democratic amendments is illustrated with the disparate
treatment of the Lampson and Gingrey amendments. The majority on the
Rules Committee made in order the Lampson amendment exempting NASA from
section 526(a) of the Energy Independence and Security Act, and yet
when Representative Gingrey submitted two amendments to the Rules
Committee regarding the same issue, they were both rejected.
So far this year, the majority on the Rules Committee has issued a
record 54 closed rules, while only allowing one open rule. The majority
had an opportunity yesterday to change their ways and provide an open
rule for this legislation, thus doubling their amount of open rules,
but instead they decided by a party-line vote that they are quite
content blocking an open debate.
An open debate on the NASA reauthorization would be particularly
helpful in getting this legislation signed into law. Prior to the
hearing in the Rules Committee, the administration issued its Statement
of Administrative Policy, or SAP, as it is known. The SAP stated that
the administration has several areas of concern with the legislation.
By allowing an open debate process, we could vet the areas of concern
so we can produce a bill that can be signed into law. However, the
majority decided against an open and fair debate, and now this
important reauthorization may be delayed.
{time} 1830
It didn't have to be like that. One of the central tenets of the
Democrats' campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more
open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, Speaker Pelosi
reiterated her campaign promise. She said, and I quote, ``We promised
the American people that we would have the most honest and open
government, and we will.''
Yet here we are, three-fourths of the way through the 110th Congress,
and the majority has come forth with one open rule. What a shame that
their promises were left on the campaign trail.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman, a member of the Rules Committee and my good
friend from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR. I thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) who is
a strong supporter of the space program.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6063, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 2008.
NASA is celebrating its 50-year anniversary this year, and I salute
and congratulate everyone at NASA for their contributions to American
life and science. Space exploration and research comprised the
foundation of technological advances in America that have greatly
improved all of our lives.
For example, in early NASA missions, large-scale integrated circuits
were created that today are the basis for all modern computers, and how
would we live without computers today? NASA also helps the United
States maintain its competitive edge in the global marketplace. More
engineers now come from outside the United States that are produced by
our colleges and universities.
America can do better. NASA is one of the keys to doing so. NASA
scientists and researchers keep America focused on innovation and
better-paying jobs. In addition, fewer and fewer children are
interested in entering science fields, even though our world today is
dominated by science and technology. We must encourage young people and
students to stay interested in science and enter scientific fields of
study. The fantastic NASA missions and research also plays a vital role
here.
There are currently seven astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle
Discovery preparing to return to earth after a highly successful
mission. I had the privilege of watching the successful launch of the
Space Shuttle Discovery a week and a half ago at the Kennedy Space
Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. I was thrilled to share that day
with our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, as her husband,
Mark Kelly, is the commander of the Space Shuttle Discovery.
Congratulations to the Discovery crew, the mission team on the ground
as well, as they have successfully delivered the Japanese Kibo
scientific lab to the International Space Station and have now
completed their mission. The personnel at the Kennedy Space Center and
their partners throughout Florida have an unmatched dedication to our
country's space program.
They are a highly trained workforce with a record of achievement and
tradition that cannot be matched. That's why it troubles me that
President Bush has threatened a veto of this important NASA bill.
I urge President Bush to reflect on these facts before he picks up
his veto pen, which he threatened to do yesterday in a letter to us.
Before President Bush vetoes this outstanding NASA reauthorization
bill, I would urge the White House to consider the economic impact of
such a bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Clarke). The time of the gentlelady has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman.
Before President Bush picks up his veto pen to veto this outstanding
NASA reauthorization bill, I urge the White House to consider the
economic impact of such a veto on the State of Florida, Florida's
economy, and aeronautic research and science throughout this country.
I congratulate Chairman Udall and all in the committee for this
fantastic bill. Congratulations to everyone at NASA for their 50-year
anniversary.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I
would like to insert into the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2008,
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 6063--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2008
(Rep. Udall (D) Colorado and 7 cosponsors)
The Administration supports maintaining a strong national
civil space science and aeronautics enterprise and is
committed to advancing the quest for new knowledge,
discovery, and exploration that is embodied in NASA programs
and activities. However, the Administration strongly opposes
H.R. 6063 because it mandates specific Space Shuttle flights
that greatly threaten NASA's ability to retire the Shuttle in
2010, an action that is critical to implementing the
President's Vision for Space Exploration. In addition, the
Administration has other serious objections to several
provisions of H.R. 6063 that must be satisfactorily addressed
prior to final congressional action on reauthorization
legislation.
The bill contains provisions that mandate two contingency
logistics flights and an additional Shuttle flight for the
Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and require that these flights
take place before Shuttle retirement,
[[Page H5290]]
thus effectively superseding the 2010 Shuttle retirement date
that is a critical step to enabling successful development of
the Crew Exploration Vehicle as called for by the President's
Vision for Space Exploration. Consistent with the Vision, the
current Space Shuttle flight manifest is a measured and
carefully balanced plan to allow the completion of the
International Space Station (ISS), a safe and orderly
retirement of the Shuttle, and the smooth transition of
facilities and personnel to Exploration Systems programs by
September 2010. The direction in this section would almost
certainly result in several serious impacts and risks to
NASA's exploration programs and other activities, including:
(1) significantly increasing costs of the Shuttle program,
not including potential recertification activities; (2)
delaying the operational capability of the Orion CEV well
beyond its current projected dates; (3) exacerbating
transition challenges, including facilities and workforce;
and (4) exposing astronaut crews to increased risks. In
addition, statutorily mandating additional flights regardless
of safety assessments and costs sets a dangerous and unwise
precedent.
The Space Shuttle must be retired by the end of 2010, and
the NASA Administrator's authority to make the final
determination on Shuttle flights based on safety
considerations must be preserved. In addition, any increased
cost of an additional Shuttle flight must be satisfactorily
accommodated within the President's proposed discretionary
spending total.
The FY 2009 budget request of $17.6 billion is sufficient
to achieve NASA's goals, and the additional $2.6 billion
authorized in the bill above the President's request is
inconsistent with the Administration's fiscal policies.
Accordingly, the Administration opposes this increased
authorization level.
In addition, H.R. 6063 directs several specific activities
under the assumption that additional funding will be
appropriated, making it likely they will become unfunded
mandates. Directing activities in this manner would severely
disrupt the budgets for NASA's ongoing, carefully-balanced
programs and Centers linked to other high-priority goals and
activities. For this reason and in view of associated
problematic policy implications, the following requirements
should either be removed from the bill or appropriately
modified: (1) carrying out an additional procurement for
Commercial Orbital Transfer Services (COTS) crew
capabilities, and mandating that NASA purchase commercial
services regardless of cost; (2) establishing an Exploration-
related technology research and development program that
would draw funding away from the Orion CEV, delaying its
availability; (3) establishing a cross-cutting technology
development program within the Science Mission Directorate at
a level of five percent of the Directorate's budget; (4)
requiring the continued operation and utilization of the ISS
by the United States after 2016, without first mitigating
significant budget implications in the outyears; and (5)
prescribing specific roles and responsibilities regarding
NASA's work with various advisory and external review
committees and other Federal agencies that the Administration
believes would be problematic and duplicative of already
well-established roles and responsibilities.
The Administration also is concerned with the proposed
wording of certain provisions and strongly urges that these
provisions be modified before passage of the bill. For
example, the direction in the bill to limit NASA's ability to
dispose of Space Shuttle-related hardware is likely to
severely disrupt ongoing Shuttle retirement and transition
activities. Similarly, the specific wording of other
provisions in H.R. 6063, including requiring all space
observatories to be serviceable regardless of practicality;
overly-prescribed aeronautics research goals; and
unproductive astronaut health surveys could lead to serious
unintended consequences, including greatly increased costs to
carry out these mandates. The Administration calls on
Congress to modify these provisions to provide NASA
sufficient flexibility to make programmatic and management
decisions as necessary.
In addition, the bill directs NASA to initiate discussions
with foreign nations on ``space traffic management.'' This
provision directly infringes upon the President's authority
to conduct foreign affairs. The United States already
actively promotes international cooperation to enhance
spaceflight safety and supports consideration of voluntary
transparency and confidence building measures in appropriate
venues under the leadership of the Department of State, with
appropriate assistance from the Department of Defense. These
provisions accordingly should be removed. A similar
objectionable provision is contained in the bill's section
governing ``exploration crew rescue.''
Finally, in addition to the significant concerns
highlighted above that must be satisfactorily addressed prior
to final congressional action, the Administration has an
overarching concern about the highly prescriptive nature of
the bill and the significant number of reports and studies
that this legislation would require. The Administration
understands the need for timely information for Congress to
conduct its oversight responsibilities; however, the burden
that would be placed on various agencies of the Executive
Branch, including NASA, is of concern. The Administration
looks forward to working with Congress to modify these
aspects of the bill.
The President does not threaten to veto the legislation. He
enumerates in this statement a number of concerns with the legislation
and finalizes the statement by saying that the administration looks
forward to working with Congress to modify these aspects of the bill.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a
distinguished colleague from Michigan, whose father was an aeronautical
engineer and always has demonstrated great leadership on the issue of
NASA and cutting-edge space technology, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman
yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, I am opposed to the rule, but I do wholeheartedly
support the underlying bill.
As my colleague said, my dad was an aeronautical engineer and
actually worked for the Chrysler missile plant that was down at
Redstone with Wernher von Braun and was one of the original rocket
scientists. So I certainly have always marveled at everything that NASA
has done.
I do support this bill, H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2008. I think a strong and a vital
space program is absolutely crucial to ensuring America's place at the
forefront of technological advancement. Most people today take for
granted so many of the incredible contributions that our space program
had made toward improving the quality of our every day lives.
Many of them have been articulated today, but we certainly recognize
GPS, global positioning systems, and weather forecasting and advanced
medicine, cell phones or BlackBerries, satellite TV and even microwave
ovens. They all exist today in large measure due to America's space
program.
From Mercury, to Gemini, to Apollo, to the Skylab, to the space
shuttle, to the International Space Station, NASA has led the way in
sending Americans from the earth to the moon and our technology to
heights unimagined, I think, by previous generations.
We currently are on the edge of a very exciting new scientific
breakthrough as NASA begins to shift, really, to the technologically
advanced Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and to the new Ares I Crew
Launch Vehicle, which could eventually lead to a manned mission to
Mars.
And I recognize that while some might debate the cost of the space
program, or they might argue that money can be better spent elsewhere,
I would also respond with the fact that those same arguments were
presented more than a generation ago. Where would we be today if in the
1960s America had not answered President Kennedy's call to reach for
the stars?
In fact, I would bet that Columbus may have had some debate with the
Queen of Spain that the Spanish Treasury needed to finance his
exploration of the New World when everybody was absolutely convinced
that the world was, in fact, flat.
So who knows what discoveries or advances to the world that we might
miss if we do not continue to challenge the scientific and creative
imaginations of the entire world? I absolutely believe that it is in
the best interest of this Nation to continue our commitment to space
exploration, and I wholeheartedly support this bill.
Again, I do oppose the rule. I am distressed that it has been brought
to the floor like this, but I certainly would urge all of my colleagues
to support the underlying legislation and to continue to reach for the
stars.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am the last speaker for
this side. I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for
his side and yielded back his time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my good friend.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to a
great leader from the State of Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I came down a couple of minutes ago and listened to
the opening comments of the distinguished gentleman from Florida as he
went through the litany of successes of the space program in the past,
and it was a good recitation and a good reflection
[[Page H5291]]
on those things that we can really be proud of as Americans that the
space program has accomplished. I jotted down a couple of notes, the
pacemaker, solar energy, environmental control systems, MRIs,
microwaves, wireless technology and so forth and so on.
I am here as a supporter of the space program and as someone who
wants to see that innovation and that creativity deployed in a way that
not only has an impact on these types of things, but also has an impact
on the great struggle that we are facing as a country and that my
district and many, many other districts around the country are facing,
and that is the cost of aviation fuel. I had an amendment that I
offered to the Rules Committee that unfortunately was just swatted away
in a partisan fashion, and I was very disappointed in that. Not a
single Democrat was willing to vote for it, and I was just
disappointed.
My sense is let's take the NASA program and develop that talent and
tilt that talent that the gentleman from Florida cited so eloquently a
few minutes ago, and let's get it working on alternative fuels as it
relates to aviation. Because, you see, I represent O'Hare Airport in
the Chicago metropolitan area. I represent thousands and thousands of
passengers, thousands of airline employees.
The airline industry is now under the crushing weight of excessive
costs of aviation fuel. Fuel is up 40 percent to the point of a ticket
price, 40 percent now is that of the ticket price, of the ticket on an
airplane, up from only 15 percent back in the year 2000. American
Airlines spent $61 billion this year in fuel, whereas last year they
spent only $41 billion.
My amendment simply said this, to direct NASA, to say, look, don't
allocate resources at this time when we can't afford it, to the Deep
Space Climate Observatory. Instead, direct those resources to
alternative fuels for commercial aviation with a three-prong test, the
need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, the need to
develop a fuel that will provide greater stability for the airline
industry and also that will reduce the emissions.
I think that's an area where the entire Congress can come together.
For the life of me, I don't understand why it was swatted away in such
a partisan fashion, and I hope that on future evaluations by the Rules
Committee that they will have a little bit of an open mind.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my privilege
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and the previous
gentleman that spoke, the gentleman from Illinois, talking about those
airline prices. There is no question what's causing that is the cost of
jet fuel.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule where the
Democratic majority has once again denied the American people a full
debate on the ramifications of our Federal policies on American energy
independence. Unfortunately the rule for H.R. 6063, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, made
only one Republican amendment in order and has effectively shut down
debate once again, breaking the promise, as my distinguished colleague
from Florida said, that Speaker Pelosi made that this would be the most
open and honest Congress in history.
I, along with several of my Republican colleagues, offered two of the
amendments that were not made in order. Our amendments would have
worked to correct a misguided provision of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007, section 526, that prevents the Federal Government
from developing and implementing alternative fuels from domestic
sources that could help NASA reduce fuel costs.
Over the past 5 years NASA has seen an increase of almost 400 percent
in spending for jet fuel from $4.5 million in fiscal year 2003 to $18.3
million in fiscal year 2007. Put simply, this growth is out of control.
NASA has been actively researching alternative fuel sources to help
reduce fuel costs, not only for itself, but for other Federal agencies
as well. Indeed, listen to this, the Department of Defense uses 380,000
barrels of refined products per day, 380,000 barrels.
{time} 1845
They estimate that its increased cost of fuel in 2008 will be
approximately $10 billion. Now this is just the delta. This is just the
increase because of ballooning oil prices.
NASA, as my colleagues have pointed out, has historically been on the
cutting edge of innovation with contributions that have been mentioned
here, technologies this Nation uses on a daily basis. What a lot of
people don't know, currently NASA is partnering with the Air Force on
aggressive research to convert domestic energy sources--domestic, that
means right here in River City--on aggressive research to convert
things like coal, natural gas, biomass, oil shale into cleaner, yes,
cleaner, and more economic alternatives to traditional jet fuel.
Gas prices continue to rise, and yet the Democratic majority, and I
don't blame my colleague from Florida in the majority who I enjoyed
thoroughly serving with on the Rules Committee, I blame the Democratic
leadership. They have effectively stymied innovation at NASA that could
potentially help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
We have this great opportunity, and yet the leadership of the
Democratic Party has turned their back on the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an
additional minute.
Mr. GINGREY. My amendments, by either repealing section 526 or by
providing a full waiver to NASA, just to that one agency as my
amendments would have done, we could allow the agency to continue its
ongoing work to develop emerging technologies and not be held hostage
to baseless policies driven by out-of-control environmental extremists.
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Democratic majority again
chooses to deny an open debate on important energy issues. So I urge my
colleagues to defeat the previous question and this rule so we can help
the Democratic majority live up to its promise to conduct the most open
and honest Congress in history.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my
time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, back on April 24,
2006, just over 2 years ago, now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the
following statement: ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that
the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubber-stamp
Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican Big Oil and gas
company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon for
regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price
than when President Bush first came into office.''
Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying
$2.91 a gallon today instead of over $4 a gallon.
Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high
price of gasoline, just over a month ago the newspaper Investor's
Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress ``is possibly
the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when
it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''
Madam Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record the editorial
from the Investor's Business Daily.
[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]
Congress Vs. You
We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress
is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is
especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional
energy policy.
The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its
failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an
ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from
understanding how free markets and supply and demand really
work. Sad, but true.
So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling
out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-
ranging press conference Tuesday.
``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues
affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to
mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to
their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,
on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''
[[Page H5292]]
Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just
generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of
congressional energy inaction, including:
Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,
estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from
this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and
diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of
the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so
your representative can raise campaign cash.
Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one
since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''
fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem
at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price
spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.
Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with
advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems
have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--
the same as a decade ago--producing just 19 percent of our
total energy. (Many European nations produce 40 percent or
more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power
plants are expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce
energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35
for natural gas.
Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic
understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and
needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.
So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy
companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy
situation worse.
These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all
while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add
more than a million barrels of new demand each and every
year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand
growing 40 percent by 2030, including a 28 percent increase
in the U.S.
Americans who are worried about the direction of their
country, including runaway energy and food prices, should
keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing
a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.
The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker
who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two
years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and
irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.
Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I
will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any
amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for
consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act introduced by Congressman
Mario Diaz-Balart, which would give commuters a tax break on their
commuting expenses.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, before finishing
my remarks, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my
colleague on the Rules Committee yielding to me, and it is nice to see
my buddies on the other side of the aisle looking so bright and
cheerful tonight.
You know, if we don't do something about the price of gasoline and
fuel, we will be able to go to the moon cheaper than we can drive down
to the corner drugstore. I know that may sound like a joke, but the
cost of fuel is going up so rapidly that everybody I have met, and I am
talking about Democrats, Republicans, people on the street, everybody
that I have met when I ask them what do you think about the price of
fuel and gasoline, they say we have got to do something about it.
And I ask, What do you think about drilling here in the United States
and the territorial possessions of the United States and offshore on
the Outer Continental Shelf, and they say drill wherever you have to;
drill wherever you have to, but get my gas prices down. And that is
about 80-some percent of the American people that are saying that.
Everyone I have talked to has said that.
You know, last night I spoke on the floor and as I left the floor, I
talked to some of the people who work here. I am not going to tell you
who they were because I don't want to get them in trouble, but a couple
of them told me that they drive about 35 or 40 miles to work every day,
and they can't afford to do it because the price of gasoline has gone
up so rapidly. One of them told me he was going to buy a blow-up
mattress so he can sleep someplace around here in the Capitol because
he can't afford to go home at night. Now this isn't baloney.
People can't survive with gasoline at the prices they are right now.
And not only that, the transportation of foodstuffs and other
commodities are going up as well because of the cost of transportation.
So when I say, you know, that it may cost more to go to the store
than it does to go to the moon, I am being facetious, of course, but it
sure sets the point in hard concrete. The cost is unbelievable, and the
American people want us to do something about it. And my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, you are not listening. You are not
listening to the American people. They want to drill in the United
States. They want energy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. May I have another 30 seconds?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman another 30
seconds.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. People in this country want their energy
prices to go down, and they want them to go down now. You are not doing
anything, and a lot of you guys are my friends, but I am going to tell
you right now, this is going to be one of the major issues if not the
major issue in this fall's campaign.
I talk about immigration and everything else. This dwarfs immigration
and all of the other issues we talk about because it is hitting people
right where they live in their pocketbook and we must not be controlled
by the lobbyists around here that are concerned about the environment.
There has to be some balance between the economy and the environment in
this country, and you guys need to do something about the price of
gasoline. You're the ones who are holding it up.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, precisely. In
order to be able to take up legislation to give a tax break to
commuters for the expenses, their expenses, rising expenses, daily
rising expenses of getting to and back from work, I am going to ask all
of our distinguished colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question
so that we can take a stand against these high fuel prices and begin to
give commuters a break in this country. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
previous question.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time, and I won't use it all.
Madam Speaker, this is a good rule for a great bill. And I was
getting very confused as I heard my colleagues talking. The bill is the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2008. This measure has received overwhelming support across the
political spectrum because it balances fiscal responsibility, oversight
and advancement.
My colleagues protest rightly the accelerating price of gasoline for
consumers in this country. And heating oil can't be far behind when
winter comes.
But to stand and say that the Speaker of the House of Representatives
has not done anything about this particular matter ignores the fact
that in the other body on just about every measure that has been
proposed, some that have passed out of this body, the other body in the
minority have stopped them in their tracks. Now I know back in April
that the Speaker called on the President to suspend purchases of oil
for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I regret that I am buying into
the notion that you have accelerated that this good space bill now has
become something to do with gas.
As you know, the ranking Republican of the Science and Technology
Committee, Representative Mr. Hall, and the ranking Republican on the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Representative Feeney, are both
original sponsors of this bill. In fact, Representative Feeney praised
the Democratic members and staff for crafting the bill in a bipartisan
fashion from the beginning. And I too join with praising the staff on
both sides for this measure.
The underlying bill authorizes funds that will maintain NASA's
current operations while allowing it to lay down
[[Page H5293]]
the foundation to achieve future goals in the areas of space
exploration and scientific research.
Furthermore, the bill provides our need and desire for a better
environment, educational opportunities, and improved national security.
When we invest in quality programs like NASA, we are investing in the
American people and the future of our country. NASA has undoubtedly
contributed to the tremendous successes that America experienced in
science and technology in the later part of the 20th century. If
properly funded, NASA will ensure that America remains a world leader
in science, space travel, and technology in the 21st century and
beyond.
Madam Speaker, I want to take just one more moment to respond to my
friends who want us to lower gas prices. They are correct, but this
body has, through the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, sought to crack down
on oil price gouging, hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing, and
repeal subsidies for profit-rich Big Oil so we can invest in a
renewable energy future. I want you to know that those measures alone
have passed out of this House.
Now let's just be for real here and stop scaring the American public.
There is no Member of the House of Representatives or the United States
Senate that does not want gas prices in this country to be lower. There
is no Member that does not want food prices to be lower. All of us need
to understand something, there is no short-term fix for the problem
that we have gotten ourselves into, and the majority are the people
that got us in most of this fix that we are in, and it is Democrats
under Nancy Pelosi that are trying to pull us out of this hole that we
got ourselves in.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I will yield to my friend.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I just want to ask you one question.
You are right, this is a major problem, energy, and you can blame
anybody you want to all of the way back to the Carter administration
and Reagan. But what do you think about drilling in the ANWR or off the
Continental Shelf to get some of our oil? What do you think about that?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend. Reclaiming my time,
I think my good friend knows and doubtless has heard me talk about my
opposition to oil drilling in ANWR.
What I would say in response to my friend, if we started drilling in
ANWR today, it would be 10 years before a drop of oil would enter into
an automobile if that is what we are still using. We need energy
conservation. We need renewable energy. We need all of the things that
everybody is talking about, and we need to understand that nothing is
going to happen in the morning. It is going to take a very long time
and an awful lot of sacrifice. And I personally just get tired of
people beating up on people here in this body. That is what leads to
the partisan rancor. That is not what we are asking for.
I believe that we can get out of this problem. They ought to lock all
535 of us up here in this Capitol and require us to work together and
require businesses to stop gouging people as they are doing.
Now this ain't the energy bill. This is the space bill, and this rule
is about space.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the rule for H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act of 2008. As we mark the 50th
anniversary of the establishment of the United States space program,
this legislation reaffirms the ever growing and changing role of NASA,
providing resources to carry the agency forward with its ambitious
agenda of research, exploration, and discovery. I would like to thank
Congressman Udall for introducing this important legislation, as well
as Science Committee Chairman Gordon for his leadership in bringing
this bill to the floor today.
This structured rule allows for the consideration of 14 amendments,
including one that I offered. I would also like to thank Chairman
Gordon for his support of my amendment, which modifies section 1108 of
the bill, and it states:
(1) in subsection (a), strike ``small businesses'' and insert
``small, minority-owned, and women-owned businesses''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), insert ``, giving preference to socially
and economically disadvantaged small business concerns, small business
concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, and HUBZone
small business concerns'' after ``to small businesses.''
My amendment clarifies that the NASA Outreach and Technology
Assistance Program will include small, minority-owned, and women-owned
businesses. It would also give preference, in selection of businesses
to participate in the program, to socially and economically
disadvantaged small business concerns, small business concerns owned
and controlled by service-disabled veterans, and HUBZone small business
concerns. I would like to thank my colleague and fellow Texan,
Congressman Lampson, for his leadership in authoring the important
section describing the NASA Outreach and Technology Assistance Program,
and for supporting my amendment.
Madam Speaker, today's legislation will allow NASA to continue to
push the boundaries of what is possible, keeping our Nation on the
forefront of innovation and exploration. After the Columbia disaster,
NASA stands at a pivotal moment in its history. It is the
responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is
one of continued progress. Space exploration remains a part of our
national destiny. It inspires our children to look to the stars and
dream of what they too, one day, may achieve. Space exploration allows
us to push the bounds of our scientific knowledge, as we carry out
research projects not possible within the constraints of the planet
Earth. As a nation, we have made tremendous strides forward in the
pursuit of space exploration since President John F. Kennedy set the
course for our Nation in 1962, calling it the ``greatest adventure on
which man has ever embarked.'' Despite the setbacks of recent years,
including the tragedy that befell the Space Shuttle Columbia, NASA and
the American people have refused to abandon the pursuit of knowledge of
our universe. On October 1, 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration began operation. At the time it consisted of only about
8,000 employees and an annual budget of $100 million. Over the next 50
years, NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have been involved in
many defining events that occurred which have shaped the course of
human history and demonstrated to the world the character of the people
of the United States.
Many of us remember how inspired we were when on May 25, 1961,
President John F. Kennedy proclaimed: ``I believe this Nation should
commitment itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of
landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. No single
space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or
more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will
be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.'' The success of the United
States space exploration program in the 20th century augurs well for
its continued leadership in the 21st century. This success is largely
attributable to the remarkable and indispensable partnership between
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its 10 space and
research centers. One of these important research centers is located in
my home city of Houston. The Johnson Space Center, which manages the
development, testing, production, and delivery of all United States
human spacecraft and all human spacecraft-related functions, is one of
the crown jewels of the Houston area.
Today, NASA is the Nation's primary civil space and aeronautics
research and development agency, and its current activities employ over
18,000 Americans. Today's legislation reaffirms the fundamental
operating principles of NASA, emphasizes the importance of NASA
leadership in a range of endeavors such as Earth observations and
research, aeronautics reach and development, and an exploration
program. It authorizes $20.21 billion in NASA funding for FY 2009.
Madam Speaker, in addition to this funding, H.R. 6063 begins to
address what many of us believe is a serious problem that we will face
in the coming years. Between 2010, when the space shuttle will be
phased out, and 2015, when the next-generation human spaceflight
vehicle is likely to become operational, the United States will have no
method of transportation to the International Space Station, which we
have already invested a great deal of American resources in. This
legislation allows for an additional space shuttle flight to the
International Space Station, to deliver important hardware (the Alpha
Magnetic Spectrometer). The bill also authorizes $1 billion in
augmented funding to accelerate the development of the Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle, the successor to the space shuttle, in hopes of
narrowing the gap.
Always on the forefront of technological innovation, NASA has been
home to countless ``firsts'' in the field of space exploration. America
has, countless times, proven itself to be a leader in innovation, and
many technologies that have become part of our everyday lives were
developed by NASA scientists. The benefits of NASA's programming and
innovation
[[Page H5294]]
are felt far beyond scientific and academic spheres. Space technologies
provide practical, tangible benefits to society, and NASA provides
valuable opportunities to businesses in our community.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
legislation, and in support of the future of American innovation and
exploration.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1257
Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or the operation of the previous question, it
shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which
the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of
lowering the national average price per gallon of regular
unleaded gasoline. 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 except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For
purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a
statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record
by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration
shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam 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.
____________________