CARS Act of 2008

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

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.

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.

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,

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.

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).

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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.''

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.

Madam Speaker, before finishing my remarks, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1157 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 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 that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1157.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1157 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor, and makes in order the committee-reported substitute. It also makes in order two amendments printed in the Rules report, with a manager's amendment debatable for 10 minutes and the Wilson substitute debatable for 30 minutes.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5522, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act of 2008. It directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue rules regulating combustible industrial dust that can build up to hazardous levels and explode.

Combustible dust has caused deaths and injuries to workers in our Nation, deaths and injuries that could have been prevented. Most recently, everyone can recall the enormous explosion in February at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Savannah, Georgia, which claimed the lives of 13 workers and injured over 60. Many of these workers remain hospitalized today, receiving care for the severe burns they received on that awful day.

While OSHA has marginally improved dust inspection procedures, this legislation goes further to bring combustible dust emissions under control by establishing stronger standards. Included are engineering controls, hazardous inspection, security assessments, housekeeping and explosion protection standards.

Specifically, the Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Act requires OSHA to issue an interim final standard to control the risk of combustible dust explosions. The standard would contain provisions for housekeeping, engineering controls, and worker training.

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, there was a series of similar explosions at various factories due to combustible dust. The U.S. government undertook a study carried out by the Chemical Safety Board to determine the causes and make recommendations to OSHA. That report came out 2 years ago in 2006. OSHA has yet to issue standards to control the risks to workers and companies on the hazards of combustible dust.

For this reason, the bill requires an interim standard to be issued. OSHA would then be required to issue a final standard within 18 months through its regular procedures. OSHA would be required to ``include relevant and appropriate provisions of National Fire Protection Association combustible dust standards.''

H.R. 5522 would also direct OSHA to explicitly list combustible dusts as a ``physical hazard'' in the Hazard Communication Standard, which requires employers to train workers about the chemical hazards that they are exposed to.

Mr. Speaker, every worker in this country deserves a safe and healthy work environment. The AFL-CIO, the UAW, the International Association of Firefighters, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union all strongly support this important legislation.

By establishing stronger protections and safer standards, this legislation better ensures thousands of workers in refineries, mills, and plants from risk of death or injury.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I support the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

I will reserve my time and let the gentleman close.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that the underlying bill that we are dealing with is a bill that would actually protect workers in the workplace, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act of 2008, and it's a bill that responds to a terrible tragedy that has killed a number of workers and injured a number of workers. We need to pass this bill, and I hope we will pass the rule and pass the underlying bill.

But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is almost laughable to hear a member of the minority get up and talk about energy prices. The Republicans have controlled the White House for 8 years. They controlled the Congress for 12 years, and we have seen energy costs rise and rise and rise under their leadership; and we have seen their policy, which is to give more subsidies and more tax breaks to Big Oil, and they have fought us consistently in trying to invest resources into alternative sources of energy, into forms of energy to help make us more independent from foreign oil.

Speaker Pelosi called on President Bush to suspend purchases of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve temporarily. You know, filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Mr. Speaker, takes 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day even though the reserve is 97 percent full with enough to meet our national security needs. That's a good idea. Republicans opposed that.

At a time of record gas prices, suspending these government purchases, as we have done in the past, could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon, a critical first step for America's families, businesses and the economy.

For years, Mr. Speaker, Democrats fought to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America. Yet with Republican obstructionism, American consumers and businesses have had more pain at the pump paying a record $3.56 a gallon.

President Bush and congressional Republicans have spent all of their time in power doling out billions and billions and billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil companies instead of working for energy independence plans for America.

We have had a number of important pieces of legislation that we have brought to the floor such as H.R. 1252, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, to crack down on gas price gouging, something that is a reality in this market.

It was opposed by 140 Republicans.

We had a bill, H.R. 2264, the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, to hold OPEC accountable for oil price fixing. That was opposed by 67 Republicans, including almost the entire Republican leadership.

We have had a bill to repeal the subsidies to profit-rich big oil companies and invest in renewable energy, which was H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. It passed on February 27, 236-182. One hundred seventy-four Republicans opposed that, including the President of the United States. Now, get this, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have opposed a measure that would take away the taxpayer-funded subsidies from the five biggest oil companies in this country that are making record profits, historic profits, it would take those subsidies and put it into renewable energy to help us become more energy independent, and they opposed it, and the President said he would veto it. And they have stopped progress on that measure.

They opposed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which would be an energy independence law with a market manipulation ban and new vehicle mileage standards. Again, the majority of the Republicans stood up and opposed these commonsense measures to help us become more energy independent and to help bring these gas prices down.

So their record is clear. It has been one of obstructionism. And it has been a record that has always been in the corner of Big Oil and against investing properly in some of these new technologies.

So President Bush and the Republicans have blocked our efforts virtually every step of the way. I hope that that will change after the next election. I expect that will change after the next election. But it is time for the Republicans to change their habit of saying ``no'' to consumers and American business on gas prices and always saying ``yes'' to Big Oil.

Enough is enough. It is time for House Republicans to provide the critical votes needed for a veto-proof majority for the legislation that I have outlined here today.

Americans are paying a heavy price for the obstructionism of the Republicans in this Congress and the President of the United States. They don't want to give any more taxpayer subsidies to the big oil companies. They want us to redirect those resources into commonsense, clean, renewable, alternative sources of energy. If we do that, Mr. Speaker, then we will get these gas prices under control, and we will also take a big step forward in cleaning up our environment.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Amendment To H. Res. 1157 Offered By Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balarat 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 substitute

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.

Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall

introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill

to provide a common sense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the

appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1

of rule X.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1257 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, a member of the Rules Committee and my good friend from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

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.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

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

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.

I will yield to my friend.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the House is set to consider H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization or repair of public educational facilities. It also would require the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard.

Tomorrow, we are scheduled to consider H.R. 5540, to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network.

I spent last week, Mr. Speaker, meeting and speaking with constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them, and no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. Both of these bills may be important in their own right, but I believe there are other issues that are much more pressing, issues we should be debating.

When Americans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign energy.

France produces over 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and there's a strong environmental movement in France. And yet the United States hasn't built a nuclear power plant in 30 years.

When our military forces are running out of personnel, operation and maintenance funds, we should be working to bring bipartisan legislation to the President's desk that he can quickly sign and fund the troops.

When the intelligence community is stripped of one of their key tools in the fight against international terrorism because the majority let the Protect America Act expire, we should be working to give our intelligence officials the tools they need to stop terrorist attacks.

Instead, the majority has decided to work on a green schools bill and a water trails network reauthorization. These are not exactly the pressing issues facing Americans every day. These are not the issues our constituents want us working on today.

One of the central tenets of the Democrats' campaign in 2006, Mr. Speaker, was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``we promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.''

However, that promise has yet to come to fruition as the majority has consistently blocked an open process through the Rules Committee. A prime example of how they've consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship is by the number of open rules that they've allowed in the 110th Congress. We're three-quarters of the way through the 110th Congress, and so far the majority has allowed only one open rule. One open rule, Mr. Speaker, in 18 months.

They had a chance to double to two the open rules last night, but by a party line vote they decided that they would once again use a restrictive rule process in making only four Republican amendments in order. They struck down 15 Republican amendments that had been introduced, including one from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for the open process they promised.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

Mr. Speaker, first it's important to set the record straight. Ten years ago, this Congress passed drilling in the ANWR, and it faced a Presidential veto by then- President Clinton, and imagine if it hadn't faced a veto how much of a difference we would have been able to make.

Now we're seeing the consequences of that, as Mr. Price of Georgia pointed out. Effort after effort that we've engaged in to try to increase the production of energy, the supply of energy has been opposed by the other side of the aisle and I think nowhere more dramatically than when we were able to pass legislation to have production in Alaska, and it was vetoed by the last President, a Democratic President.

So these things have to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker, because now with $4 gas the record counts, and the record is of interest to all Americans, and it will be more and more of interest every day.

Mr. Speaker, back on April 24, 2006, just over 2 years ago, now- Speaker 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 are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 a gallon today. Yet here we are this week debating bills on green schools and watertrails network instead of working on legislation to reduce the price of gasoline and increase supply. Now, the price of gasoline is at $4 gallon now.

Reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront that issue, just over a month ago the newspaper Investors 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.''

[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.''

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% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% 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% by 2030, including a 28% 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, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and require the Speaker of the House to submit a plan to lower gas prices.

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

I am so pleased that our colleague Dr. Price pointed out on issue after issue, whether it's ANWR exploration or coal-to-liquid or oil shale exploration or refinery increased capacity or on the issue of nuclear power. There is a strong environmental movement in France, but over 80 percent of their electricity is generated from nuclear power. Yet we haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years.

It's time to face the issue of energy independence in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Again, Mr. Speaker, we're asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question to be able to address the energy issue. If we're ever going to address it, it's time to start doing so with $4 a gallon gasoline.

Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and insist that the energy issue be addressed seriously by voting ``no'' on the previous question. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On February 7, 2008, a terrible explosion occurred at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery in the community of Port Wentworth, Georgia. The explosion killed 13 people, injured over 40 refinery workers. That explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery pointed to the danger of combustible dust in the workplace. It's a very serious concern, and we must take every possible step to protect workers from those dangers.

The underlying legislation, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act, would require OSHA to issue an interim final combustible dust standard within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It also

lists a specific number of items that would be required under the Interim Final Standard including a written dust control program, hazard assessment, worker training and employee participation in the development and conduct of the dust control program. OSHA would also be required to include combustible dust in the definition of physical hazards in OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard.

It is quite disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, that on an issue as important as workplace safety, the majority is only allowing the House of Representatives to consider one amendment by the minority, one Republican amendment. The majority campaign platform said they would run the House of Representatives in an open and bipartisan manner, yet they systematically and consistently block the minority time and time again from offering amendments.

All Members of this representative institution wish to do the most they can to provide workers a safe working environment, Mr. Speaker. And it is most unfortunate that the majority blocks Members from offering their proposals. Instead of offering such a tightly structured rule, the majority should be allowing every Member the opportunity to offer their thoughts and proposals to the House for consideration.

As important as the underlying legislation may be, I believe there are other issues that are on the minds of Americans at this point that are pressing to Americans: For example, confronting the rising cost of gasoline.

On Monday, hundreds of truckers drove through the streets of this capital city to protest in desperation the rising cost of diesel fuel. They are not the only ones desperate due to the rising oil prices. All consumers are paying more for gasoline, which also causes price increases in virtually every consumer product, including food. A recent policy found that 44 percent of Americans find paying for gasoline to be their top personal economic problem.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gasoline has skyrocketed. According to AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gas has gone up $1.20 during that time. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

But oil prices don't have to be so high, Mr. Speaker, because I understand the majority claims to have a plan, a plan to reduce oil prices. Just over 2 years ago, April 2006, now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats, ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Two weeks after that press release, then- Minority Leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would lower the price at the pump. That was 2 years ago.

Democrats have controlled Congress for a year and a half, and we have yet to see them act on their ``commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Instead of empty promises, Republicans are working on providing relief to consumers faced with the constantly rising cost of gasoline. For example, last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, introduced H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, the prime sponsor of which is Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. That legislation would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses. That important legislation will actually help taxpayers with the rising cost of gasoline, unlike the majority's ``mystery plan,'' the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker, that we have not yet seen.

At this time, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank Mr. McGovern for the time. Back in April of 2006, as I just said, over 2 years ago, the now distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, issued the following statement, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubberstamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.''

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 for a gallon of gasoline.

In the same press release, the distinguished Speaker went on to say, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.''

Well, while I hear they have a plan, I haven't seen the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Instead, while we wait for the majority to act, the cost of fuel continues to rise with the average cost of a gallon of gasoline now being over $3.60, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go to fill up their cars, reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline.

Today, 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.''

Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Congressional Record that editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 30, 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.''

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% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% 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% by 2030, including a 28% 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 my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question for this rule, Mr. Speaker. 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, which would give

commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and actually help alleviate the price of energy for the consumer. It will also give the majority the chance to introduce, Mr. Speaker, the ``mystery plan'' that they claim to have.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and demand that the majority act on their plan. The majority said they had a plan. Let's see the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's see the mystery plan.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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