Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue that's been debated, one thing continues to come to mind: the merits of this issue, this water issue of such importance to people in the San Joaquin Valley in California, have been debated during this rule debate because there is no other option. The substantive legislation, two amendments that Mr. Nunes came to the Rules Committee and asked to be authorized for debate by the House, they were denied; they were not made in order. So there is no other option but during the time when we are debating the rule, the terms of debate for an underlying bill that will subsequently be debated, this is the only time when Mr. Nunes and the others who know this issue so intimately and feel it, appropriately, so passionately in representation of their constituents, it's the only opportunity that they have to be able to bring out the issue, to educate us. And it's a shame because the Congress as a whole, the House as a whole, should be able to debate this issue and consider it and decide it. Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called many of us and made their opinions known at meetings asking us whether we pledge to read bills before we vote on them. The reason is that many people were outraged when they found out that the majority leadership forced the Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read the bills. For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on a cap-and-trade bill. I remember that one was presented to us at three in the morning in the Rules Committee, and a few hours after that we had it here on the floor. All those bills were passed without Members being able to read them, having time to do so. That's no way to run the House, and so our constituents are rightfully upset. You would think that this issue of sufficient time to read legislation should not be controversial. The distinguished Speaker stated, and I quote, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration,'' and yet that has not been the case time after time after time. So 182 Members have signed a discharge petition at the front desk that would require all legislation to be available to Members of Congress for at least 72 hours before the legislation is brought to the House floor for a vote. So, accordingly, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend the rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, House Resolution 544, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson. Now, with regard to any Members being concerned that that may jeopardize consideration of the underlying legislation, I want to make it clear that this motion provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on this underlying legislation, the water bill, and then once we're done, consider House Resolution 544. Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the House will consider the bipartisan conference report for the 2010 National Defense Authorization legislation. With this important legislation, I think we are sending the message to our men and women in uniform that we support them and that we deeply appreciate their service. The conference report authorizes over $550 billion for the activities of the Department of Defense. It also provides approximately $130 billion to support our combat operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of the war on international terrorism. I wish to commend both the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. Skelton, and the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, both good friends and admired colleagues, for their commitment that they have demonstrated in this legislation to put partisanship aside in order to get this important legislation to the President. While I support the conference report, I know it is not perfect. No human endeavor is. But I believe that the conference report will strengthen our national security and help modernize our military. It will provide servicemembers and their families with improved health care, support, and quality-of-life programs. I'm pleased that it includes the House-passed 3.4 percent pay raise for our troops instead of the lower request that had come from the President. Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE coverage 180 days before they go on active duty and will prevent increases in copayments for inpatient care at civilian hospitals under TRICARE. The bill provides over $2 billion for family housing programs to expand and improve the quality of military housing. The legislation authorizes the expansion of our military by 30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, and over 14,000 Air Force personnel and approximately 2,500 members of the Navy. I would like to thank the members of the conference committee for including my request for authorization for funding for the finalization of construction of a new permanent headquarters for the United States Southern Command that is located in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Currently, the Department of Defense is leasing the land for SOUTHCOM from a private individual. The funds authorized in this legislation will be used to complete construction of the new headquarters on land adjacent to the current location and lease it from the State of Florida for the sum of $1 per year. This provision is extremely important to my community because SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida's economy. As a supporter of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I am pleased to see that it was included in the underlying legislation, though I wish that the provision would have been expanded to include also more serious penalties for crimes against members of the armed services and their families. There are people who hate our armed services for what they symbolize, and our armed services, I think, deserve the additional protection from crimes of violence. There are aspects of this legislation, obviously, with which I disagree, Mr. Speaker. Since the beginning of military aviation, the United States has very wisely invested in our military air superiority. In recent military operations, we've clearly seen that our investments pay off. Our military air superiority saves the lives of our men and women in uniform, and it saves the lives of countless civilians. That's why I am very disappointed that the underlying legislation fails to include funding for the F-22, the world's most advanced fighter plane and one that we may very well need in future operations. Obviously not against ragtag terrorists, but against the superpowers of the future. I hope and pray that this shortsighted decision will not hurt the long-term safety of our Nation and our men and women in uniform. I also have deep reservations about the decision to block full funding restoration for missile defense. This unwise decision, in my opinion, comes at a time when the demented despot of North Korea continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and threatens the United States and our friends and allies with destruction. The Iranian tyranny, while it continues to massacre its people in the streets perhaps today in a less public manner than a few months ago, nevertheless continues to massacre its people. It also threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map. It's clear to me that the world faces a grave and I believe imminent threat from the dictatorships in North Korea and Iran, and now is not the time to cut missile defense. Unfortunately, because of the request from the executive branch and acquiescence here on the part of the leadership, it is occurring, and I think it is a mistake. I would have liked to have seen included in this legislation section 1226 of the Senate version of the bill, which would have required a report to Congress on the Republic of China's--that's free China, Taiwan--defense capabilities. That report would have greatly enhanced the ability of Congress and the administration to assess their obligations to sell defense articles as required under the Taiwan Relations Act, ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' The peace in that area has been maintained because this Congress, throughout the decades ever since the betrayal of Taiwan, this Congress has insisted on the United States selling, making available for purchase by the Republic of China, the military equipment and technology necessary to deter an armed attack. So I am sorry that that provision that was in the Senate legislation is not included in the final conference report. Again, despite the aspects of the legislation with which I do not agree, I feel that overall this legislation is necessary and that we pass it. Obviously although it's not perfect, it helps modernize and it supports our military forces. It provides our men and women in uniform with support they need and deserve. So I would ask my colleagues, as I have done, to look further than the aspects with which one may disagree within the legislation and pass it. I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished leader from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the great Texan, Judge Carter.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my friend, the great leader from Indiana, Mr. Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people really were outraged, often finding out the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or really even to read the bills. For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and- trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances, much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset. A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe legislation should be posted online in final form and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation. You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would not be an issue, as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site; yet, time and time again, the distinguished Speaker and majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and the general public for 72 hours before they be brought to the House floor for a vote. That's why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson. I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the Department of Defense Authorization Act. But I want to make clear, the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird- Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can pass the Defense authorization bill today and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 544. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and the extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 766 provides that it will be in order at any time on the legislative day of today to consider H.R. 3631, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act. That underlying legislation would freeze the Medicare part B premium for 2010 at the 2009 rate for beneficiaries who, under current law, will see a premium increase, along with an expected freeze in the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for 2010 and 2011. Both of those combined would leave seniors with less income next year if Congress does not act. So I support underlying legislation. Although I support the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor under this rule, I have reservations with the process the majority is proposing today. And I'm not the only one who has reservations with that process. In the past, a senior member of the current majority on the Rules Committee referred to this process as ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our rights and responsibilities as serious legislators.'' The reason members of the majority previously opposed rules such as this is because they block Members from offering amendments and the minority from offering a motion to recommit. That, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a very important procedural vehicle. Yet today, the majority considers this process to be completely legitimate. So it's interesting how they thought it was wrong when they were in the minority, but once in the majority, it's a fine process. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my dear friend, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, and also Ms. Watson. And I would like to thank my distinguished cochairman of the Taiwan Congressional Caucus, Dr. Gingrey, for introducing this very timely resolution. I see Ms. Berkley here also, the other cochairman, along with Mr. Wexler. We hold very deep in our hearts our relationship, the United States' relationship with the Republic of China. The people of the Republic of China, Taiwan, have suffered tremendously due to this horrible typhoon. As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen pointed out, from our military base in Japan, the United States Armed Forces, representing the people of the United States, took humanitarian assistance to the Republic of China, Taiwan. We will always, in this Congress, stand with our friends, our allies. We have no better friend than the people of the Republic of China, Taiwan. So we take this opportunity, as our hearts go out here to the victims of the flooding in Georgia and the United States, to remember the victims of the horrible flooding in the typhoon of August on the island of Taiwan, and we reaffirm our friendship and solidarity with the people of the Republic of China, Taiwan.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The transportation sector of our economy accounts for a considerable portion of U.S. energy use and oil consumption. Our economy is extremely dependent on foreign sources of oil. We are subject to the extreme volatility of the gasoline market, not to mention the whims of dictators like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. That is why last year Members on this side of the aisle pushed for greater energy independence by advocating for new domestic energy sources as well as investments in the clean technologies of the future. Unfortunately, our efforts were ignored or shut down by the majority. Although the majority decided to ignore and shut down our efforts to promote domestic energy sources, I believe we have to continue to work on this important issue. Congress must continue to make investments in alternative energy and promote its development and implementation. We need to have a diverse energy portfolio to sustain our economic growth. We must encourage the development of vehicles that run on electric, natural gas, and other alternative fuels. We can move away from our dependence on foreign oil as a primary source of energy. Doing this is in our national interest, in terms of security, as well as our environmental interests. For over two decades, the Department of Energy has funded various clean energy research activities on passenger vehicles and heavy duty trucks. While those programs have produced mixed results, I believe that Federal vehicle technology research and development programs will only be effective through robust partnerships with a wide variety of vehicle technology developers and manufacturers. Madam Speaker, I have met with various experts in the energy field to discuss the development of sustainable transportation in the United States. In my conversations with those experts, including this last weekend with Michael Granoff with Better Place, I was educated regarding the efforts by our friends, the Israelis, to completely replace oil as an energy source in their economy. Israel's efforts to replace oil are serious and extraordinary. We have to listen to experts like Mr. Granoff. We have to implement policies immediately that will lead to the development of electric automobiles. Massively throughout our economy, it needs to be done and it needs to be done now. Unfortunately, Communist China is well advanced in the practical application and development of electric automobile technology. We are about to be overtaken by a dangerous competitor in a major technology of the future, which may very well decide if we are able to remain an economic superpower. This is not something that we can take lightly. It's serious, and it deserves our urgent attention. The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act, takes a small step in the right direction. It reiterates the importance of the Federal Government's role in funding and in coordinating research activities and in disseminating research findings in order to bring clean technology to passenger vehicles and to heavy trucks to reduce our Nation's dependence on petroleum, thus reducing emissions. The legislation authorizes approximately $3 billion over the next 5 years for the Department of Energy to create a research program to help develop technologies that will substantially reduce or eliminate petroleum use in the Nation's vehicles. As part of this new program, the Department of Energy is required to collaborate with numerous sectors of the automotive industry. Now, during yesterday's hearing in the Rules Committee, we heard testimony from both sides of the aisle on the underlying legislation. It was clear from the testimony that this legislation has great bipartisan support. Yet the majority in the Rules Committee felt it was necessary to offer a restrictive rule. I really don't know why. I know that the rule allows both of the minority amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee; but, unfortunately, it forbids the consideration of three amendments submitted by Members of the majority party. I believe we should have allowed those amendments. We should have considered, in effect, this legislation under an open rule, a rule that allows for a truly free and full debate. The majority blocked our attempts to have such an open debate. Really, I think it's a shame that the majority has, once again, blocked an open debate. Since this majority took over, Madam Speaker, in 2007, they have had one open rule on a nonappropriations bill. Unfortunately, it is standard operating procedure for this majority to block open debate on the House floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.