Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Water is the most essential and basic natural resource to sustain life. The single greatest factor that has contributed most to the spread of public health in the United States is access to clean water. Across the country, approximately 40 billion gallons of water are used each day for industrial purposes, for home landscaping, for personal hygiene, for thirst, and for many other uses. The average American uses about 100 gallons of water per day. As our cities and communities continue to expand, one of the greatest challenges faced by local governments is finding ways to sustain adequate clean water supplies to meet the growing demand. However, our knowledge about water resources and conservation is based on research conducted in the middle of the last century. The underlying legislation being brought to the floor now, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act, will help bring our knowledge of water resources into this century by coordinating national research and development efforts to ensure adequate water supplies through greater efficiency and conservation programs. Specifically, the bill establishes an interagency committee to develop a national water research and assessment plan in coordination with State, local and tribal governments, and it will also coordinate all research development data and other activities related to water, and it will ensure the optimal use of resources and expertise by avoiding duplicity through better intergovernmental cooperation. I had the privilege during the last district work period of meeting with constituents throughout my district about issues that matter to them. No one mentioned anything related to this bill. It's an important bill; it's an important issue, but there are other issues that are much more pressing, issues that, I think, we should be debating, instead of spending an entire week on a water bill that enjoys absolute consensus, bipartisan support in this Congress. We should be working on issues that really matter the most to our constituents--the pressing and critical issues Americans deal with on a daily basis. For example, we could be working to help the people of our great Nation to rebuild their retirement, college and personal savings accounts. Earlier this week, the Inspector General of the Treasury Department released a report confirming the lack of oversight and accounting of taxpayer money in the TARP program. By the way, in my almost 17 years here, Mr. Speaker, there is no vote that I'm happier to have cast a ``no'' on than for that of the TARP program. I knew the future would be lined with scandal. Less than one-half of 1 percent of that TARP program has gone to the State that I'm honored to represent, really Ground Zero in the housing crisis, Florida. Less than one-half of 1 percent. Wall Street was more than taken care of. Yet, troubled assets, that was what we were told was the purpose of that legislation, troubled assets recovery. I don't think one troubled asset has been purchased. Those are the kinds of issues we should be dealing with. So the question I would ask you, why doesn't the majority address those critical issues? For example, bring forth legislation to increase transparency in that TARP program. Water is an important issue, but we could bring it here summarily on suspension. It doesn't need to take a week of the precious time of this Congress. By the time we finish debating this rule, Mr. Speaker--there is a clock there over your head and we see the minutes passing--the Federal Government will have spent over $400 million just during the minutes that have ticked during this debate. That's four times what President Obama has asked his Cabinet to cut earlier this week. We could have spent this time helping cut Federal waste and reducing the debt being piled on our children and their children. It's another example of the issues that we should be debating in this Congress. Yet, instead of addressing the challenges that confront the American people, the majority has chosen to devote precious floor time and, in effect, to take an entire congressional week to consider a noncontroversial water bill. That's the way this majority has chosen to run Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Summit of the Americas held this last weekend in Trinidad and Tobago constituted an embarrassment for this hemisphere. Fidel Castro in Cuba is a psychopath and a serial killer, but he has long had a plan. His long-term goal has been to have the United States apologize to him and for the United States to bankroll his oppressive totalitarian apparatus before he dies. He wants the United States to apologize for having kept the U.S. market and its millions of tourists and billions of dollars in financing from him and for having denied him full diplomatic relations for decades. In order to achieve his goal, Fidel Castro has been recruiting advocates for years. The ideological and psychological fascination and dependency that Hugo Chavez has on Fidel Castro has allowed Castro to utilize Chavez's billions of petrodollars to purchase many important advocates. It is part of the public record that a suitcase of Chavez-cash heading to Mrs. Kirchner in Argentina was accidentally intercepted by authorities before reaching its intended destination. Castro has purchased advocates through the years via the always present threat of blackmail after trips to totalitarian Cuba where the regime tapes visitors in ``compromising'' situations, as confirmed by Interior Ministry defector Roberto Hernandez del Llano and Cuban Counter-Intelligence defector Major Roberto Ortega. Castro also serves as a ``banker'' for illicit money possessed by those who seek to avoid detection by the anti-laundering mechanisms set up by the international community. It matters not if the money's source is political corruption or narcotrafficking. Hugo Chavez's absolute dependency on Fidel Castro for every major decision, even for his phrases and gestures in international forums, is unprecedented. While the Soviet Union used to send Castro economic aid and also orders and instructions, Chavez sends Castro billions of dollars and receives orders from him. What the world witnessed at this last weekend's Summit of the Americas was a culmination of years of preparation in the purchase and cultivation of advocates by Fidel Castro. The goal of the advocates: mass American tourism with its billions of dollars a year and U.S. trade financing, so that the U.S. taxpayer ultimately bails out and bankrolls Fidel Castro. Castro's advocates know very well that article III of the Charter of the Organization of American States requires the existence of representative democracy in all the countries of our hemisphere, and that the Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001 even spells out the collective steps to be taken when an American republic's democracy is usurped. They know that Cuba, under Castro, was the only country in our hemisphere where free elections have not been held in over 50 years, and where dungeons are full of nonviolent political prisoners. They know that under Castro, Cuba is a personal island-estate, a ranch, a personal land holding or homestead, a totalitarian fiefdom, owned by one man, with a brother who enjoys the title of head of state and carefully carries out his brother's orders. Any goods the people on the island purchase must be purchased in the island fiefdom's ``company stores'' and with worthless ``vouchers'' called ``convertible pesos'' sold by the regime. Castro takes 30 percent of all hard currency ``off the top'' at the time island residents purchase the ``vouchers,'' and all hard currency must be spent with purchased ``vouchers'' in his ``company stores.'' The inducement for child prostitution on the island-fiefdom is unparalleled in the world, because no matter how hard island residents work, only foreign ``hard'' currency allows them to purchase the ``vouchers,'' the ``convertible pesos,'' for use in the stores that sell everything, from food to clothes to soap to toothpaste. Equally, only foreign ``hard'' currency allows residents to purchase medicines. The shelves in the old stores and pharmacies where residents used to be able to purchase Soviet-bloc supplies with their ration cards are simply empty since there is no money to be made there by the dictator. The Castro advocates at the weekend ``Summit'' knew all this, like when Mrs. Kirchner called for the U.S. to make amends with ``our sister republic, Cuba.'' Or when Mr. Ortega condemned the U.S. for organizing the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Somehow they knew that President Obama would refer to Castro's totalitarian fiefdom as ``Cuba.'' Somehow they knew that President Obama would not respond to Mr. Ortega that at the Bay of Pigs, Cubans bravely fought to spare their country half a century of totalitarian oppression. President Obama said, ``I'm grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old.'' Somehow they knew President Obama would not make clear that, as per U.S. law, the U.S. embargo will go away when all of Castro's political prisoners are freed and when there is freedom of expression and multi-party elections scheduled in Cuba. Of course they knew. President Obama had just unilaterally granted the fiefdom's owner hundreds of millions of dollars a year, in exchange for nothing.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I expected to come to the floor today to speak about the good of volunteerism and to support the underlying legislation, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. However, I must now oppose the legislation because of the removal of important provisions that were supported, by the way, by an overwhelming majority of the House on both sides of the aisle, including a majority of Democrats. When the House voted to approve the underlying legislation earlier in the month, it included the Republican motion to recommit. The provisions in the Republican motion made organizations that are co- located with those that promote or provide abortions, as well as political parties and lobbyists, ineligible from receiving funds provided through the legislation. It also prohibited funds from going to organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges. However, the version of the legislation before the House today was stripped of those protections, even though those very provisions passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 318-105. I really don't understand why the majority leadership would force the House to consider legislation that will allow organizations that have been indicted on voter fraud charges to receive taxpayer funds, especially when the House overwhelmingly voted to forbid the use of taxpayer funds for such organizations. It is my sincere belief that if those provisions would have been kept in the legislation, over two-thirds of the House would have voted to pass the legislation today, legislation that, yes, otherwise does help communities by recruiting 250,000 volunteers for AmeriCorps. But we will never know if I'm right because the majority is rushing to get this bill passed and is prohibiting Members on both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments to once again include the commonsense bipartisan provisions that passed previously in the House. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the majority leadership of the events 2 weeks ago, when we learned that legislation that the majority also rushed to the floor without proper review included a provision that allowed AIG executives to receive multimillion-dollar bonuses with taxpayer funds. I know the majority will say that we are trying to obstruct important legislation today. That is far from the truth. Many of us in the minority were ready to support the legislation and, in fact, many of us did so before. What we in the minority are saying today, what we are trying to do, is to prevent the majority from once again wasting taxpayer dollars and embarrassing Congress. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I have no further requests for time at this time, and 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated this discussion, and again, I thank Ranking Member Hastings for having come down during the time of debate on the rule. He has perhaps a very unique perspective having served on the Rules Committee for so many years. He knows the importance of process to the functioning of the House. And in addition, obviously, now he is an expert, he always has been, but especially now that he is day in and day out working on these issues in the Resources Committee, he is very much an expert on the underlying legislation. Hearing the discussion, one thing comes to mind. Mr. Hastings pointed, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that we recognize, and I agree with him, we recognize that the majority obviously has a right to carry forth its agenda and obviously a right under the rules to pass out resolutions establishing the framework for debate. But some things I think are important to point out with regard to that. In this Congress, I mentioned there has been a pattern, really an excessive pattern. I don't believe we have passed out an open rule. In other words, I don't think any legislation in this Congress; am I correct? I don't remember any open rules. That's really breaking with tradition. Let me explain that, Mr. Speaker. Open rules are, as Mr. Hastings said, frameworks by which bills are brought to the floor, where any Member can have an amendment, and any Member can speak on any amendment, for 5 minutes. And we have not seen that at all in this Congress. Now, that is a very significant and, I believe, unfair pattern that's been set. Now, even having said that, there is another point that I think should be brought out. And I think our colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has made this point more than once, and I think he's made it very eloquently. Issues of genuine contention, all of such issues should be able to be debated. Now, in other words, if the majority doesn't want to have an open rule, doesn't want every amendment possible to be presented, at least issues of contention that were taken before the Rules Committee in the form of amendments should be allowed to be heard. Mr. Hastings has pointed out that there is an issue in this with regard to this legislation, and this is consensus legislation. The underlying legislation has support from both sides of the aisle. But there is an issue of contention that was brought before the committee, and that is on fire prevention. Apparently, and I'm not an expert on this area. But apparently, there are objections from the extreme environmental lobby with regard to fire prevention being able to be debated. And the majority party, listening to that extreme lobby, has not allowed that issue of contention which should be brought before this floor to be even debated. And I think that's unfortunate. So beyond even the pattern of unfairness that has been set by this majority, where not even one piece of legislation has been brought under an open rule where everybody can file, every Member of this House can file amendments, beyond that even, significant issues of contention that Mr. Frank of Massachusetts has made clear, and I've heard him. He's been very explicit and, I think, eloquent when he said, no, no, all such issues of contention should be allowed by the Rules Committee. And he's gone so far even to protest his own leadership excluding genuine issues of contention from prior bills brought before this House, and I think that he deserves commendation for that. So, here's another example. Mr. Hastings talks about an issue of contention that has been shut out by the Rules Committee. So yes, Mr. Hastings may have had three amendments made in order, but two amendments that deal with the issues of contention have not been made in order, and that's unfortunate. That's what I'm saying with regard to it being, I believe, unfortunate to see unnecessary, totally unnecessary closing of the process, shutting out debate by the majority, even on noncontroversial underlying pieces of legislation like the one we're bringing to the floor today. So we have no further speakers. Again, I thank my friend from Colorado for his courtesy. At this time, since we have no further speakers, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the former member of the Rules Committee, who now is the ranking member of the Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. 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. With the serious conditions in our Nation's forests, drought and more and more development closer to our forests, the size and severity of wildfires have dramatically increased. The costs to our public lands, wildlife, private property, and, most importantly, to human life have been tragic. Federal fire suppression spending has grown substantially over the past several years, with approximately 48 percent of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service budget now accounting for these activities. Just over a decade ago, only 18 percent of the Forest Service budget was dedicated to fire suppression. Much to the detriment of other important programs, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have been forced to borrow funds from other agency accounts to cover these emergency costs. When agencies transfer funds from other accounts, they must reimburse those accounts when additional funds become available, usually through emergency supplement appropriations. This legislation that is being brought to the floor today establishes a fund that will be separate from budgeted wildland fire suppression funding for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. This fund will only be used for the suppression of catastrophic emergency wildland fires. The annual agency budgets will continue to fund anticipated and predicted wildland fire suppression activities. Thus, this fund will help ensure that fire prevention resources of the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are not completely overwhelmed by emergency firefighting expenses. Appropriations for the fund will be based on the average costs incurred by these agencies to suppress catastrophic emergency wildland fires over the proceeding 5 fiscal years. Although I support the underlying legislation, I know there is concern that the legislation is reactive and not proactive. A number of Members in the minority have expressed their concern that the legislation only addresses one aspect of the problem, the suppression funding side, without providing real relief and dealing with the underlying problem to help prevent wildfires. I hope that the Natural Resources Committee will review these concerns and work to prevent these devastating fires. Last week, I had the honor of addressing the International Association of Firefighters, IAFF. It was a great honor to stand before those courageous men and women to thank them for their noble service to the Nation. Firefighters put their lives in danger in order to rescue their fellow citizens from peril and to protect our communities. Our heartfelt gratitude goes out to them, and I am pleased that the underlying legislation recognizes the selfless acts of bravery of these men and women by ensuring that our firefighters have the resources necessary and readily available to combat the catastrophic fires that ravage our public lands and threaten surrounding communities. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Hastings for their bipartisan work on the legislation. Unfortunately, in what is becoming quite a familiar pattern, the House majority leadership and the majority on the Rules Committee continue to block an open debate even on noncontroversial legislation. This legislation passed the House of Representatives by a unanimous voice vote last Congress. That vote clearly shows that this legislation has broad support from both sides of the aisle. Yet, the majority is apparently so afraid of losing control of the debate that even on something with obvious consensus support the majority blocks Members from offering amendments to improve the legislation. I reviewed some of the amendments blocked by the majority, and I cannot understand what is so objectionable. One amendment, for example, by Representative Herger would have required that any wildlife suppression funds in excess of amounts annually appropriated be made available for hazardous fuels reduction projects. Another amendment by Ranking Member Hastings that was blocked would have included fire prevention activities as part of the fire management strategy. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the rest of the amendments, but none of them seem so objectionable that the House should be prevented from even considering them. The pattern is clear. The pattern of procedural unfairness by this majority continues. It is petty and it is unfortunate. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I don't have any other speakers, but I have not yielded back.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for the time. I am honored to speak on this resolution commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. This resolution reaffirms the United States' commitment to the Republic of China on Taiwan and describes the Taiwan Relations Act as the ``cornerstone'' of U.S.- Taiwan relations. The Taiwan Relations Act stresses the concept of peace through strength. It has served as a key impediment to Communist Chinese military aggression and its attempts at forced reunification under communism with the people on Taiwan. As Members of the United States Congress, we will do all that is necessary so that the Republic of China on Taiwan continues to have the tools it needs to defend itself. This resolution is especially important because over the past 30 years, through six administrations, Congress has remained a steady and loyal friend and ally of the Republic of China on Taiwan. The strong support of Congress was evident once again by the fact that over 120 Members of Congress rushed to lend their name to this resolution in less than 1 month. As the 30th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act is just a few weeks away, the action by the United States Congress today reaffirms, once again, the close relationship between Taiwan and the United States. Although the Republic of China on Taiwan has achieved the tremendous economic successes of a flourishing market-based economy and one of the highest standards of living in the world, the U.S.-Taiwan friendship rests on much more than shared economic interests and trade. Our friendship stems from a shared commitment to the fundamental ideals of the rule of law, freedom and opposition to totalitarianism. The United States of America must never waiver in our support of the Republic of China on Taiwan. We must, and we will, continue to remind the world that Taiwan's security is of the utmost importance to the United States Congress, to the American Government, and to the American people. I have always had tremendous admiration for the Republic of China, for its history in China and its renaissance on Taiwan. And I look forward to continuing to work to deepen cooperation between the United States and the Republic of China on Taiwan.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. This last Friday, I had the honor of being able to speak by telephone with five brave human rights activists, pro-democracy leaders, inside the totalitarian nightmare that is Castro's Cuba. One of the great heroes of the pro-democracy movement inside the Cuban totalitarian nightmare is Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez. A black man now in his 40s, Antunez was first imprisoned while he was in high school because of his support for democracy and his opposition to totalitarianism. For 17 years, Antunez was regularly beaten as a political prisoner in Castro's gulag. He never gave in. He was released from the gulag last year, but since he never surrenders, he doesn't stop denouncing the thugs and pirates who have destroyed, impoverished and oppressed the Cuban people for 50 years, Antunez has been routinely detained, dozens of times, thrown into a dungeon and subsequently released, since his release from the gulag. Some days ago, Antunez began a hunger strike in his city of Placetas, in Sancti Spiritus province, Cuba, calling for the end of the death threats being leveled against Cuban political prisoner Mario Alberto Perez Aguilera; an end to the physical and psychological torture of all Cuban political prisoners; and the cruel and cynical prohibition by the dictatorship against Antunez's sister, Caridad Garcia Perez, being able to rebuild her own house. They don't allow her to rebuild her own house, which was destroyed by one of the devastating hurricanes that passed by Cuba. Accompanying the hero Antunez when I was able to contact him by telephone on Friday, March 19, was his wife, the pro-democracy leader, Iris Perez Aguilera, whose brother, Mario Alberto Perez Aguilera, is a political prisoner receiving death threats, I'm sure one of many, but the one specified by Antunez, receiving death threats by his jailers. And I also spoke to pro-democracy leaders, Carlos Michael Morales Rodriguez, Alejandro Tur Valladares and Ernesto Mederos. It was my honor to speak with all of them. Antunez's house was surrounded by state security thugs while we spoke. And he and his colleagues knew very well that our telephone conversation was being monitored by the thug-regime. The courage of these pro-democracy leaders is simply awe-inspiring. They all explained their human rights work and reiterated their commitment to freedom. I told Antunez that I would be speaking in the U.S. Congress this week about him, about his hunger strike, about his heroic struggle for freedom and the heroic struggle of the other pro-democracy leaders I spoke to, and about all of Cuba's political prisoners. Fidel Castro and his brother, who now has some titles because of the dictator's intestinal illness, constitute the historical revenge of the brutal, racist European colonialism that the Cubans fought to overthrow for almost a century. But they ultimately prevailed. Antunez, Biscet and the other pro-democracy leaders who continue to fight the Castros' dyarchy represent today's version of Maceo, Banderas, Moncada and all the freedom fighters who ultimately obtained freedom for Cuba. Now one of the disgusting realities of today is that the fight of the unarmed Cuban people doesn't exist for the international media and the press, with very dignified exceptions. Why are the Cubans non-persons for so much of the media? Their racial discrimination is as shameful as it is condemnable. But Antunez, Biscet and the other Cuban freedom fighters will prevail. They are the future leaders of free Cuba. Antunez's last words to me on Friday said it all. ``Tell your colleagues, the representative of the American people, Antunez ni se rinde, ni se va.'' ``Antunez neither surrenders, nor leaves.'' Some are advocating that the new administration agree to the expulsion from Cuba to the U.S. of Biscet, Antunez and other future leaders of Cuba in exchange for some Castro spies currently in U.S. Federal prisons, serving time for conspiring to murder U.S. citizens. That would be a condemnable act that would violate international law as well as the elemental human rights of Cuba's future leaders. From the floor of the U.S. Congress, I reiterate my admiration for those leaders who confront the totalitarian monster from within Cuba today and who will lead free Cuba tomorrow.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Ms. Pingree, for yielding the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume. What concerns me about this scandalous AIG bonus issue is that the Obama administration was asleep at the wheel. Two weeks ago, the President's press secretary was asked, is the administration confident that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars given to AIG? The response from the President's press secretary was, ``It is confident.'' Yesterday, we learned that the Obama administration asked the Senate Banking Committee chairman, Mr. Dodd, to insert a provision in last month's so-called economic stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing AIG's bonuses. First, that gentleman who I just referred to said that he didn't know how the bonus authorization had made it into the legislation, but the next day he said yes, he authorized it after being asked to do so by the Obama administration. Was the administration complicit? I think this is an issue that Congress needs to investigate. Yesterday, I made a motion on this floor that would have allowed debate on H.R. 1577, a bill introduced by my colleague, Representative Paulsen, and the rest of the Republican freshmen, to deal with the AIG bonus scandal. My motion was defeated, but it garnered bipartisan support. Every Republican voted for it, and so did eight Democrats on what is a procedural motion--very interesting. Although the motion failed, I am pleased that it attracted the attention of the majority leadership and they finally decided to take action on this scandal. So, here we are today. Although I support the bills we will consider today, I find it quite unfortunate the way in which the majority leadership has decided to handle this scandal. The heavy-handed process they are using will block all Members of this House from offering amendments. It will also block every procedural right the minority has to shape legislation, including the motion to recommit. It will even limit debate on this important issue to a total of 40 minutes. Why is the majority refusing Members to participate in the legislative process, Mr. Speaker? This is an issue that Members on both sides of the aisle feel outrage about, so why not allow Members to participate? Is it because the majority is afraid of the minority's thoughtful ideas? Actually, as Congress debated the so-called stimulus bill, it was the Republicans--the thoughtful opposition--who advocated for transparency and accountability, but again, the majority blocked effort after effort by the minority to participate in the legislative process. That is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am asking all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. It won't preclude consideration of the other suspension bills we expect to consider today, but it will give the administration another way to recover the taxpayer funds given in those outrageous bonuses to AIG, and it will also help prevent another bonus scandal, as Mr. Paulsen, the author of the legislation that I wish would be able to be debated, has just explained. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, really, to say enough is enough with regard not only with the scandalous misuse of taxpayer funds, but the abuse of the process by the majority; because on an issue like this, where there is outrage on both sides of the aisle, there should be no problem with discussion and debate and consideration of ideas from other Members, not just the office of the leadership here, the majority leadership. And with regard to what we have heard about blaming the prior administration, it is going to be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see how long that lasts. I am sure they will try to make it last for 4 years, but how long will it be effective? Because the authorization for the bonuses was in the so-called stimulus package voted for by the majority. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, who has legislation filed and who has been working diligently on this issue, Mr. Paulsen.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I again urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 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 distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

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