Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished representative from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who is very concerned on this issue representing her constituents.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. During an interview last week, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, said that he is opposed to a lame-duck session, and that he is committed to adjournment sine die by the previously announced date of September 26. If the majority decides to follow that commitment to adjourn the 110th Congress on September 26, then Congress has only 7 weeks of session left to complete its work for the year. And so as Congress begins its last 7 weeks of work before recessing, what important pieces of legislation are at the top of the majority's priority list? Well, maybe it's passing the 12 appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, or maybe energy legislation to deal with the record gasoline prices consumers are paying each day. No, Mr. Speaker, they've decided that those problems can wait for another day, for another Congress. Instead, their legislative priorities are to designate a 600-mile historic trail and to require preservation of electronic records. I spent most of last week meeting and speaking with constituents in my district about the issues that matter to them; and, Mr. Speaker, no one mentioned anything closely related to these two bills. These bills may be important in their own right, but there certainly are other issues that are much more pressing issues that we should be debating, that we should be dealing with. When Americans are paying over $4 per gallon for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, and reducing our reliance on unstable foreign energy. France produces approximately 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, and yet the United States has not built a new nuclear plant in about 30 years. Why does the majority refuse to consider legislation to deal with our energy and other serious problems? According to an article published in the newspaper The Hill on Tuesday, the majority, and I quote, ``has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess.'' Why doesn't the majority schedule energy legislation for debate? Maybe it's because they don't have a real plan. If you read the rest of The Hill article, you find out what a Democratic aid called the majority's plan: ``Right now, our strategy on gas prices is to drive small cars and wait for the wind.'' That's most unfortunate. That ``non-plan'' ignores the urgent call of Americans for Congress to pass serious energy legislation. I know the majority will claim that they expect to take up energy legislation soon and the committees of jurisdiction are considering possible legislation, but they already pulled legislation they expected to consider after the July 4 recess, and we still have to consider 12 appropriations bills, housing legislation, the Medicare payment fix for physicians, an alternative minimum tax fix, and numerous conference reports. That doesn't leave much time for energy legislation. Maybe if the majority had different priorities, we would be considering energy legislation today instead of legislation designating a 600-mile historic trail and legislation requiring promulgation of regulations to preserve electronic records. I wish to take this occasion to congratulate the majority on breaking their own record of most closed rules. The proposed rule we are considering now marks the 59th closed rule of this Congress, the most of any Congress in the history of the Nation. It didn't have to be that way. Before the new majority took over control of the House they laid out their promises for a more civil, more open, and more transparent House in a document entitled ``The New Direction for America.'' The document provides clear guidelines for how legislation should move through the House. One of the promises made in the document is that ``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate, consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute,'' yet here we are with a closed process that doesn't allow Members from either party the ability to offer amendments. The majority continues to break their promise on allowing an open, full, and fair debate and their promise to consider energy legislation after the July 4 recess. So much for their promises. Energy Bill Out of Gas (By Jared Allen and Mike Soraghan) House Democrats are in a bind on the focal point of their energy plan. Worried that a floor vote on any energy-related measure would trigger a Republican-forced vote on domestic drilling, the leadership has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess. Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a number of energy bills--including overwhelming passage of a bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation. Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar--their ``use it or lose it bill'' to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back--saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers. And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their energy message, would be back. ``We've taken some bold steps this week, and we're going to build on that [after recess] with the bills we take up,'' Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John Larson (Conn.) said at the press conference. But, as of Monday afternoon, neither ``use it or lose it'' nor any other energy measure had been scheduled for floor action this week. Democrats said they were simply taking a different approach to passing their top energy-related priorities. Nadeam Elshami, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said energy activity this week is taking place at the committee level, noting that there are four hearings planned on the issue of speculation in oil trading. ``Different members have different ideas,'' Elshami said. ``We'll bring forward the best piece of legislation based on the recommendations and hearings we are having this week.'' Republicans pounced, saying Democrats were backtracking after realizing they would be unable to defeat a Republican vote on increased domestic oil drilling in new areas. ``It's panic time for Democrats,'' said a senior Republican aide. ``They are on the wrong side of three-quarters of the American people who support increased production of American- made energy.'' While Democrats were in their districts advocating their plans to end gas price-gouging, rein in speculation, pass ``use it or lose it'' and even call for President Bush to release millions of barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), Republicans were touting polls showing that a healthy majority of Americans now support increased domestic energy production. That is proving to be a particular concern for Democrats in that any non-suspension-calendar energy vote would be subject to a Republican alternative, almost certainly calling for offshore and Arctic drilling, that would very likely pass. ``If we could send deepwater drilling over, it would pass the Senate,'' said a Republican leadership aide, highlighting just how much an energy vote could backfire on Democrats. A senior Democratic leadership aide acknowledged this week that there are plenty of members of the majority caucus ``who want to drill and want to drill where Republicans want to drill.'' Even if Democratic leaders could beat back a GOP motion on drilling, the vote could be used as political ammunition against their vulnerable members this fall. The Democratic setbacks come after they scored a political victory this spring when they overwhelmingly passed an SPR bill over initial White House objections. But Republicans now claim they have the upper hand, noting that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is citing drilling repeatedly on the campaign trail. Further complicating matters for Democrats is the growing number of pro-drilling Democrats who are becoming increasingly worried that voters might throw them in with their anti-drilling leadership. One pro-drilling Democrat predicted that the backlash against Congress for gas prices could rival the outrage voters felt about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. Another, Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-La.), is frustrated at not being listened to. ``My concern with my leadership is that they're not letting all the people in the room to present the facts,'' said Melancon, a proponent of more offshore drilling. ``Where are all the pro-oil legislators? I'm not in the room. I don't know who is. My feeling is we are not being all-inclusive to pass legislation that can get through the Senate and avoid a veto.'' For now, though, there will be no legislation to pass, as the only energy-related action this week will occur at the committee level. Republicans may try to continue a strategy they demonstrated before recess by forcing drilling votes as energy amendments to bills being considered at the committee level, including appropriations bills. And Republicans may go one step further by trying to get amendments added to the energy and water appropriations bill, a likely contender to see the floor this week. ``We're going to demand a pro-production energy vote before Congress goes home for the month of August,'' said House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.). ``We've tried to highlight efforts to solve America's energy problem a thousand ways to Sunday, and [Democrats] keep pulling them from committee, pulling them from the floor and kicking the can down the road.'' Exactly when Democrats will change their present course and bring an energy bill to the floor remains uncertain. ``Right now, our strategy on gas prices is `Drive small cars and wait for the wind,' '' said a Democratic aide. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and for doing something about them. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I thank my friend from Vermont for his courtesy in yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline; yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor to lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy. It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and addressing the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So today I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2208, the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act. This legislation would encourage the use of clean coal-to-liquid technology, authorizing the Secretary of Energy to enter into loan agreements with coal-to-liquid projects that produce innovative transportation fuel. 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.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished lady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. With gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, more and more Americans are using public transportation for their commuting needs. Reports from Metropolitan transit systems throughout the country are showing a significant increase in ridership, in some cases as much as 15 percent--and perhaps even higher--over last year's figures. At the same time, highway vehicle miles traveled declined by 2 percent. Meeting this increased demand for public transportation is causing a burden on local transit agencies which, just like commuters, must pay record fuel prices to pay for buses and subway trains and light rail. To help meet this increased demand for public transportation, the underlying legislation, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, would provide $1.7 billion in funding to increase public transportation use across the United States. Transit agencies would be able to use those funds to reduce transit fares or expand transit services. I think this funding is important for communities throughout the country, certainly the community I'm honored to represent. Recently, Miami-Dade County, the 12th largest public transit agency in the country, announced that bus routes would be cut and others adjusted due to the rising cost of fuel. So this at a time when more and more commuters are looking to use public transportation, but public transportation systems are definitely being affected by the rise in energy costs. So it is my hope that the $36 million this legislation would provide South Florida would help reestablish some of the routes that were cut and would expand others so that commuters would have a more reliable public transportation system. To further promote the use of public transportation, the legislation establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and requires all Federal agencies to offer transit passes to Federal employees working in urbanized areas with fixed route transit systems. To help alleviate the reliance on gasoline to power our transit systems, the bill will increase the Federal share for clean and alternative fuel transit projects. This will also have the beneficial effect of reducing transportation-related emissions. I would like to congratulate Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for working together to draft a bipartisan bill that both sides of the aisle can support. This legislation, the underlying legislation, will be a great benefit to transit systems throughout the country at a time when they are needing additional funding. Madam Speaker, once again, the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the underlying legislation, never made it past the doors of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee only allowed one minority amendment to be debated today, while allowing three amendments from the majority. Before the new majority took control of the House in January of 2007, they published a document called ``A New Direction for America,'' which set out their promises to the American people. Page 24 of that document says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute.'' Yet here we are today with a process that, contrary to their promise to the American people, blocks a full and fair debate and allows only one minority amendment. Actually, this one minority amendment is the only one the majority has allowed the minority to offer all week. Four bills, one amendment. Actually, it is more like six bills, one amendment, because this rule will allow the House to debate two additional bills under suspension of the rules, one against speculation in the oil market, and we have to speculate on what it says because we haven't seen it. And the majority's bringing those bills to floor without allowing the minority to offer any amendments or a motion to recommit. So, at a time when gas prices are hitting almost daily records, the majority should be offering a ``full and fair debate'' on this critical issue, a debate that considers ideas from both sides of the aisle, of all Members of this House, to help reduce gasoline prices. Polls across the country are consistent with a recent poll that I saw that said 71 percent want their elected leaders in Washington to focus on ``increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the cost of gasoline and electricity.'' But instead, the majority is offering no-new-energy legislation, obstructing debate, and impeding solutions to the energy crisis, contrary to what the American people wish. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule, which continues to block the minority from offering more than one amendment and blocks a thorough debate on the critical energy situation facing the Nation. At this time, I reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank again my distinguished friend for having yielded me the time this morning, and I thank all of those who have come to debate on this important legislation. Madam Speaker, the problem is, when the process by which legislation is brought to the floor is unfair, especially when the issue being dealt with by the legislation is as important as is the issue today, many Members' ideas are shut out, oftentimes ideas on which they have worked for months or years, and in this instance, they are ideas and proposals to bring down the cost of energy and the cost of gasoline. That's why process, something that may sound often theoretical, can have a significant impact on policy. In this instance, an unfair process is denying Members the opportunity to bring concrete ideas to the floor, for debate, to lower the price of energy. That's one of the reasons we are so disturbed, why we think it's so unfortunate that the process on an issue as important as this that the majority has chosen to utilize to bring this legislation to the floor is so unfair. On almost a daily basis, Madam Speaker, the cost of gasoline is breaking new records. Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline. Yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor that will actually lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy. We believe it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing cost of gasoline. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to rising energy costs. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternatives fuels, introduced by Mr. Hensarling of Texas. This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid technology. 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.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, by voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and in favor of debating legislation to actually deal with that crisis. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this previous question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I assume from my friend that he has no further speakers on the rule.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, back on April 24 of 2006, just over 2 years ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement, which I quote: ``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 on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price when President Bush first came into office.'' Madam Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 today for a gallon of gasoline. When Americans are paying over $4 for gasoline, we should be working on legislation to lower the cost of gasoline, increasing domestic energy exploration, reducing our reliance on unstable foreign sources of oil. So today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this House can immediately consider solutions to rising energy costs. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 2279, Expanding American Refinery Capacity on Closed Military Installations, introduced by Representative Pitts. This legislation would significantly reduce the cost of gasoline by streamlining the refinery application process. It will also require the President to open at least three closed military installations for the purpose of siting new and reliable American refineries. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and in favor of taking action to confront that problem. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), for the time and yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when families send their children to private residential treatment facilities, they expect their children to receive proper treatment for their emotional and behavioral problems. Unfortunately, some of these treatment facilities have not provided the treatment these children need. Instead, we have heard reports of abuse, neglect and even death. The Government Accountability Office recently looked into these reports of child abuse. While researching the reports, the GAO found that the current patchwork of Federal legislation and oversight addressing youth well- being have led to a substantial disparity in protecting the well-being and civil rights of some of the Nation's most vulnerable youth. The safety and well-being of these vulnerable children is of great importance, and we must do all we can to stop child abuse and neglect at residential treatment facilities. For that reason I am pleased that the underlying legislation, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act, seeks to help remedy the issues addressed in the GAO report. The legislation seeks to ensure effective regulation, monitoring and enforcement of residential treatment programs by the States, with the Federal Government playing an oversight role. I would like to commend Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for working to bridge their differences on this legislation. I think they should be commended for coming up with a compromise acceptable to both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, unlike the Education and Labor Committee, compromise and bipartisanship are concepts that do not make it past the door of the majority in the Rules Committee, because the majority there has blocked all Republican amendments. The majority might call this a structured rule, but for members on the minority side of the aisle, this might as well be the 55th closed rule in this Congress. Not only does this rule completely undermine the spirit of bipartisanship that Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon worked so hard to achieve, it also stands in stark contrast to how the new majority promised they would run the House of Representatives. Before the new majority took over control of the House, they laid out their promises for a more civil, more open, more transparent House in a document they entitled ``The New Direction for America.'' The document provides clear guidelines for how legislation should move through the House. One of the promises made in the document is, and I quote, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, including a substitute. Yet here we are today with a process that completely shuts out the minority from offering any amendments. Obviously the majority left their campaign promises on the campaign trail. I would ask all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule which completely contradicts the majority's rhetoric about running the most open, honest, and transparent Congress in history. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to address a separate issue. Last week we received the desperate plea of a father in Cuba. The father's name, Pedro Andres Ferrera, concerns his 21-year-old son, Yuselin Ferrera, who at this time, as we speak, is being tortured in the psychiatric hospital in Sagua la Grande, Cuba, the San Luis psychiatric hospital. His crime--a bracelet like the one I am wearing, that has the word ``change'' in it. This young man, 21 years old, supports freedom and democracy. For that crime, at this moment, he is in the San Luis psychiatric hospital in Sagua la Grande, Cuba, being tortured. His father's plea, which is really extraordinary, describes continuous interrogations that the young man is being subjected to, with the objective of changing his way of thinking so that he will renounce, give up his probative democracy beliefs. His father, in his desperation, said that he makes responsible for the consequences that may ensue to his son the Cuban dictatorship and, specifically, its state security apparatus. I, at this time, join with Pedro Andres Ferrera, the father of that young man, 21-year-old Yuselin Ferrera, to also make responsible publicly the jailers, so-called doctors, torturers of the young man, Yuselin Ferrera. Let them not think even for one instant that we will forget this crime. Let them not think even for one moment that this crime against humanity will be subject to any sort of statute of limitations. There will be justice for criminals such as those so- called doctors in the psychiatric hospital torturing that 21-year-old man simply for supporting a peaceful campaign of change within the totalitarian state of Cuba. I ask my friend, my dear friend, also a strong supporter of freedom wherever there is injustice anywhere in the world, Dennis Cardoza, to join me in a bipartisan spirit also denouncing those torturers and putting them on notice that we will not forget their crimes against that young man. At this time, Madam Speaker, and returning to the subject of the legislation, I see that Chairman Miller is here, and I thank him again, along with Ranking Member McKeon, for their important work and especially in making possible this bipartisan legislation that is coming to the floor today, the underlying legislation that we bring to the floor today. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend if he has any additional speakers on the rule.