[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.

                          ____________________