Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of Members who may have amendments that they would like to proffer, the Committee on Rules would suggest that any Members that would wish to engage in colloquies for the purpose of making legislative history should consider doing so during general debate. That way the time taken for such colloquies, of course, would not be counted against the time on the amendment process, the 10 hours of the amendment process. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. There is no Member of this House who may have a suggestion to improve this legislation who would like to bring it forth in the form of an amendment who is precluded from doing so under this rule. It is a completely open rule. There is a 10-hour time limit after the 2 hours of general debate for the bringing forth of amendments, but no one is precluded, as I have stated, from bringing forth any amendments.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the distinguished vice chairman of the full Committee on Commerce. (Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment. (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], chairman of a subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I know some antics can somehow get some very clear things confused. We are all trying to focus in on the words that were stated before when it was stated in the last session by our colleagues on the other side that we had 4 hours of debate without restricting what amendments could be introduced, and during those 4 hours it was all an open rule, and today we are permitting in addition to the 3 hours for the rule and the 2 hours for general debate, in other words, 1 plus 2 and 3 hours, we are permitting 10 hours for amendments, and now our colleagues are saying that that is not open. I think either it is unclear or there is an element of unfairness. Beyond that, at this point, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is yield 1 minute to a distinguished new Member of the House, the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand], a member of the Committee on Science. (Mrs. SEASTRAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, today we properly focus upon how much we have accomplished in just 50 days. The list is impressive: A balanced budget amendment, a line-item veto, a tough and commonsense crime bill, unfunded Federal mandates reform, and setting priorities for America's foreign policy and national defense. Now, Americans may ask how will this affect me? Let me answer. A balanced budget amendment means your children and grandchildren will have a brighter future because they will not have to shoulder a huge Federal debt and the economy of our country will remain strong for future generations. A line-item veto means the President can eliminate unnecessary spending so your tax dollars are used wisely. A crime bill means the streets will be safer and the criminals will be punished for their crimes. Unfunded Federal mandate reform means you will no longer have to pay the hidden taxes from the Federal Government passing down mandates to State and local governments. Setting national security priorities ensures that America will maintain its strong leadership in the world in future generations. Mr. Speaker, we are making real changes, changes that will help the American people, and we will continue.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding time to me. This is obviously a very serious issue. It is an issue that is not to be taken lightly, and I have extraordinary respect for Members on both sides of this issue. I think that what we are facing here really is something that is somewhat the use of a hatchet or an axe or a sword, when we can and we should use a scalpel. The reality of the matter is that in 1978, it has been stated, less than half a percent of radio and television stations in this country were owned by blacks or Hispanics. Not 20 percent, which should be the quota, that is not what we sought by this FCC policy permitted under this section of the law. No one is talking about a quota. But, rather, an encouragement for people like in my community, who literally got off the boat a couple of decades ago, have been saving and with a lot of hard work and perseverance, are able to buy, a couple of them, have been able to buy radio stations because of 1071. So I am not an expert on this, but I know that it worked with regard to people that have the ability to permit the first amendment to be a reality and not simply a piece of paper in the telecommunications age. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with the decibels low, with respect for all points of view in this issue, without raising the decibels with accusations, which I think are unwarranted, like racism and this kind of thing, I do think, though, that this is a very serious issue, and that we should address it seriously. in Roll Call, and I agree with him: We would do well to approach the coming conflict in a spirit of reform. . . . We would be better off to amend preferences rather than sweep them away. . . . This society is already angry enough. I think we should remember those words as we face these issues, especially with successful programs that have permitted, as I have said before, the first amendment to be a reality in the telecommunications age.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Reclaiming my time, I have here a list that the chairman of the Committee on Rules will expand upon of numerous instances where on national security matters your party, sir, limited debate extraordinarily. If I may, sir, if I may, I yielded, and now I have the opportunity to reply, where your party limited debate in an extraordinary fashion, cutting off time, time and time again, on issues such as the strategic defense initiative and Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia, and with regard to this debate today, we have 13 hours. Let the debate begin.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Let me write them down. Your questions tend to be long.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I had a professor in school who would tell us that when you are going to argue a case in court, if you can, first argue the law. If you cannot argue the law, then argue the facts, if you can. And if you cannot do that either, then argue lack of fairness. And I remember that, because today my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle are arguing, and I think will be arguing, not so much the law or the facts, but we have already begun to hear them argue lack of fairness, lack of equity, and quite frankly, I would submit that that argument is unfair, that the argument that we are not being fair today is unfair when we analyze the facts with regard to this proposed law. We are calling for in this rule, Mr. Speaker, not only 1 hour, for 1 hour of debate on this rule, which will guide the debate with regard to the remainder of this process, but we are calling for 2 additional hours of general debate on the proposal, and an additional 10 hours for the amendment process. That is for a total today on this one bill of 13 hours, 13 hours in addition to the fact that we had almost 1 hour already of debate on this supposed lack of fairness when we debated just a few days ago on a motion made by the majority leader to permit committees in this House to sit while the House is meeting today on this particular rule.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would make an inquiry of the Chair with regard to the time remaining on each side for this rule.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time, again commending Chairman Solomon and all of the members of the Committee on Rules for bringing forth this very important piece of legislation, with the opportunity of all Members of this House to bring forth all amendments they wish to be considered on behalf of their constituents, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I grant such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 61 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 666, legislation to control crime by means of reforming the exclusionary rule. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, after which time any Member will have the opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill under the 5-minute rule. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. As with the rule for H.R. 665, which we recently debated, this rule also includes a provision allowing the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to give priority in recognition to Members who have printed their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. I feel that this option of pre-printing is a common courtesy that enables Members to see what amendments their colleagues may be offering. Any Member's amendment, pre-printed or not, will still have the opportunity to be offered and heard on its merits. Mr. Speaker, the fourth amendment to the Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated * * * The Founding Fathers did not provide that law enforcement officers could not rely on their common sense and reasonable judgment to fight crime. But, that is what has happened wrong when, in a State where 2 license plates on automobiles are required, a policeman stops a car with only one plate, finds 240 pounds of cocaine in the car, and the evidence is thrown out--excluded under the ``exclusionary rule''--because the judge says that the car was registered in a State that only issues one license plate. Who gets hurt when that drug dealer walks? The police officer? No, the children of that community, the people, society gets hurt. In 1984, in United States versus Leon, the Supreme Court created the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In Leon, the Court held that even if a search warrant was ultimately held to be invalid, the evidence gathered by police using that warrant could be permitted at trial, so long as the prosecution could demonstrate that the police believed, in good faith, at the time of the search, that the warrant was valid. The Court stated that since the exclusionary rule had been created to deter law enforcement officials from violating the fourth amendment, excluding evidence gathered by those who believed in good faith that they were acting in accordance with the Constitution served no legitimate purpose. H.R. 666 would limit the effect of the exclusionary rule, and give Federal judges more latitude to admit evidence seized from those accused of crimes, so long as the search and seizure in question took place under circumstances providing the law enforcement officer conducting the search with an objectively reasonable belief that his actions were in fact lawful and constitutional. Moreover, H.R. 666 establishes a shift in the burden of proof. If a search is conducted within the scope of a warrant, the defendant will have the burden of providing that the law enforcement officer could not have reasonably believed that he was acting in conformity with the fourth amendment. H.R. 666 builds upon Leon by codifying its holding. A Federal judge may still suppress evidence if it was seized in knowing or negligent violation of the Constitution. Evidence gathered in violation of any statute, administrative rule or regulation, or rule of procedure would be admissible unless a statute specifically authorizes exclusion of evidence. But, the good faith exception would apply and may render such evidence usable. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 and urge adoption of this open rule for its consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 61 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and say, as chairman of the Rules Committee, you were instrumental and really decisive in the fact that passage of the line-item veto was accomplished on President Reagan's birthday, and I think that that was so appropriate because, as you have mentioned, he fought so long for passage of that, that weapon in the arsenal that will be needed to balance the Federal budget, and what an appropriate birthday present it was for President Reagan. Mr. Speaker, at each moment in the history of the United States, when the Nation has been in danger, great leaders have risen to guide the Nation to safety. I think, as Chairman Solomon pointed out so wisely, it is appropriate and really necessary to think back upon the condition of the Nation and the world at the time that Ronald Reagan became President, at the time that he was elected to the Presidency in 1980. I think it is important to think back a minute to that moment. The Soviets, as Chairman Solomon has mentioned, felt so emboldened, felt so unthreatened and so unchecked, that for the first time in history, even after so many instances and examples of aggression that they had committed, for the first time in history they rolled their own tanks directly into a nation not even in the Warsaw Pact, a nation that was not even a slave nation, a satellite nation of the Soviet Union, into Afghanistan. They just directly rolled their tanks in there and surrounded, as you will recall, the Presidential palace, and they blasted away, killed the President and first family there in Afghanistan, and they just felt that they were completely unchecked. That is along with the capture of our Embassy in Iran by those thugs, as you so well mentioned, I think that illustrates where we were at that point, the lack of respect with which the United States was held in the world, and internally what was reflected, creating that lack of respect, the era of malaise, as Chairman Solomon pointed out.We saw in that era also how, for example, just a few years before the Soviets felt so unchecked that they moved into Africa through the Cuban Castro surrogates, in violation of an agreement after so many years of struggle, for example, in Angola, between the--against the colonial forces, the three different groups there had an arrangement. Yet the communist group, the MPLA, felt so unchecked, unthreatened, that they broke the arrangement and called in the Soviets and Cubans, and they were taking over Angola. and you mentioned El Salvador and Nicaragua. In fact, I recall, at the time that President Reagan took office, an analysis about El Salvador that pointed out the collapse of El Salvador was imminent. There was nothing we could do. And in Nicaragua, of course, the communists had already taken over. In Grenada, here in the Caribbean as well, the communists had taken over. And then Ronald Reagan became President. And he called the Soviet Union what it was. I remember like you described him, Mr. Chairman, the experts, when they laughed at President Reagan for calling the Soviet Union what it was, the evil empire. Now, if you ask the people of Russia or the other captive nations at that time whether the Soviet Union was the evil empire, they certainly knew the answer. But a lot of the so-called experts laughed at President Reagan when he called the Soviet Union what it was. And he worked in such a close alliance with that other figure, as we were speaking before at the beginning of this special order, the other instrumental figure in world history in this century, Pope John Paul II. And he worked in close concert, in such a close relationship with the Pope. And I remember reading a report after the Reagan Presidency about how he put the intelligence community and every instrument of American power that he could at the service of the Pope. And he said: You listen to the Pope, because the Pope knows what is going on in Eastern Europe and he knows how to deal with those Communists. Listen to him. That relationship between Ronald Reagan and John Paul II was a decisive relationship in the history of the world, and we saw what happened. And he announced the strategic defense initiative. And the experts laughed at him again and said that is not possible. And we know now, just a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that it was the Strategic Defense Initiative, along with the rest of the Reagan policies that directly led to the explosion that occurred, the collapse of the evil empire. And he liberated Grenada. I was not in Congress, but I know, Mr. Chairman, that you were, as was the Speaker and others, and how you had to put up, and I see Congressman Hunter here as well that was in Congress at that time, and how you had to put up defending at that time the liberation of Grenada that the President had accomplished, had carried out, against such ruthless attacks, ruthless attacks, from Members in this body as well as in the media who did not want to recognize the truth and the fact that Ronald Reagan was right, as Chairman Solomon stated so eloquently this evening. And he armed El Salvador, and he saved El Salvador; and he armed the Afghanistan people, and he saved Afghanistan, and he armed the Africans fighting against the Communists, and he saved them as well; and he armed the Nicaraguans against all the pressures, and forced even the Communists in Nicaragua to have elections there, the last thing that they would have ever wanted to do. A great man had risen to lead the greatest Nation on earth to safety, and to save the world. And the rest is history now. The year that Ronald Reagan left the Presidency, the Berlin Wall collapsed. And then the Soviet empire itself, the evil empire itself came tumbling down. Now, some will say that it was among the greatest miracles of all time, and it certainly was. Of course, the hand of providence was involved. But it would not have happened without the direct participation and the leadership of Ronald Reagan. Chairman Solomon and Mr. Speaker, he inspired me. President Reagan inspired me to become a Member of our party, as he inspired millions of Americans throughout our country in so many important ways. And I thank him from the bottom of my heart for all that he did for the United States of America, and for freedom and for our posterity. Thank you so much, Chairman Solomon.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the last two distinguished colleagues from the other side of the aisle who spoke thanked the majority on the Committee on Rules for issuing an open rule, especially after there had been so much confusion brought forth previously with regard to, and with much imagination, I might add, imagination with regard to the fact, for example, yesterday a number of bills were brought to the floor with open rules; in other words, with the ability of any Member to present any amendment that any Member wishes to, and yet, with a lot of imagination, objection was made to that. It was said, ``Well, you should not do that. You should waive the rules,'' and put it on something called the suspension calendar or something. And there was imagination used today on this floor, with good faith I am sure, that this open rule was maybe not an open rule, it was something else because we want to give notice to colleagues here on the floor by urging, by encouraging Members who are going to present an amendment to notify Members beforehand by publishing them beforehand that they plan to introduce an amendment, not requiring, but giving incentive, giving encouragement to Members to provide our colleagues with notification. So again I am glad that the two last distinguished Members thanked the majority, Chairman Solomon and the majority of the Committee on Rules for permitting--and this is important, this is procedural, but it is important--any Member of this Congress to bring forth any amendment with regard to this very important measure, which is the line-item veto. It is something that was almost extraordinarily, extraordinarily I would say, but not unheard of, but extraordinarily unique in previous Congresses. This time the Members representing their constituents can bring forth any amendments, even on as important a measure as this, any amendments that they wish. This is serious business that we are doing today. There is no doubt. I am one of those who is of the belief that our constitutional Presidency in the United States is not only a strong Presidency, it could be categorized as an imperial Presidency. We have a Presidency where the President can send troops to die in any foreign country, can even pledge billions and billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury, with the full faith and credit of the American people, to foreign countries unilaterally. So talking about a strong Presidency, it is a strong Presidency. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we need every--albeit in this case small weapon, the line-item veto for the task at hand--every weapon available for the task at hand during the next 5 to 7 years, and that is to balance the Federal budget. It is not going to be easy. It is going to be extraordinarily difficult, in fact. But this is one very necessary, I believe, weapon, and it has been seen in State after State of our Union that it is useful to the chief executives, and I am sure it will be useful to the Chief Executive of either party, of both parties in the United States in helping us balance the budget, which is necessary for future generations to maintain our strength economically into our posterity.