Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished friend from New York pointed out earlier that this rule that we are debating is on the energy bill. She pointed that out because we have been stressing the need to debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues that the rule that we are debating today, this rule lays on the table, it tables H. Res. 983, authority to address legislation concerning foreign intelligence surveillance. So it's quite germane and relevant in discussing and debating this rule to be insisting upon a debate on FISA. And with that in mind and having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will reserve then.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Actually I will yield myself 2 minutes at this time. The actions of the majority today are unprecedented. We have checked with the House Parliamentarian, and they are absolutely and totally unprecedented, that privileged resolutions would be taken to the floor in this fashion, in effect, avoiding even the floor by virtue of the fact that when the rule is passed, the rule that we are debating, automatically the two privileged resolutions of contempt will be considered adopted. That is absolutely unprecedented as well as uncalled for. And the nature of the actions of the majority today are most, most unfortunate. I had the recent opportunity to speak at Florida International University's law school. Professor Levitt asked me to speak there about the rule of law. In studying, restudying the issue, the rule of law, I stressed how the independence of the judiciary is perhaps the key, or certainly one of the fundamental keys, to the rule of law. And judicial restraint has permitted the judiciary to remain independent throughout these two-plus centuries. All of the branches, Madam Speaker, must exercise restraint. And the actions of the majority today manifest the opposite, not only restraint, but I would say unprecedented, uncalled for, an unprecedented and uncalled for manner of dealing with even an issue of this importance. As I stated, the majority is not even allowing debate on the resolutions of contempt, not even permitting votes on the resolutions of contempt.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask the distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask the distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve at this time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask the distinguished chairwoman if she has no other speakers, obviously besides herself.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith of Texas.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I was in the funeral of our distinguished friend and colleague, Congressman Lantos, someone whom I admired very, very much and who was a personal friend. I was standing by the ranking member of the Rules Committee. At the time during the funeral, the House was in recess subject to the call of the Chair under the understanding that we would not come back into session until after the funeral. And I was most disturbed and hurt and pained when, even though the funeral was still proceeding and distinguished guests were speaking, the bells rang that the House was going back into session and I had to leave. Because of my obligation today, I have the assignment, as a member of the Rules Committee, to be here during this rule. I had to leave the funeral to be here today. It's most unfortunate, and I'm very, very sorry that the day has begun in that ultimately unfortunate fashion. Madam Speaker, today the majority proposes that the House consider a rule that, according to the Parliamentarian, is unprecedented in the history of this institution. It will prevent any and all debate on two contempt motions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. A contempt resolution is a privileged matter because it directly concerns the constitutional rights and privileges of the House. Chapter 17, section 2 of House Practice states, ``Such a resolution may be offered from the floor as privileged, because the privileges of the House are involved.'' The action of the majority today is most unfortunate. Never before in the history of this House has a contempt resolution, one of the highest questions regarding the rights and privileges of this institution, been treated in such an underhanded manner. If this rule is adopted, there will be no debate, no vote, and the contempt resolutions will magically and automatically be hereby adopted when this rule is adopted. Now, if the majority believes the contempt resolution to be correct, the just and proper course of action to assert the rights of this institution would be to debate and vote on the resolution. The majority leadership is subverting the rights of every Member of this House, allegedly in order to assert the rights of this House. The irony can escape no one. These are the constitutional rights of this institution that are in question, and not one Member of this institution is going to be allowed to discuss it or vote, to have a vote on these resolutions. The majority's attempt to rush this contempt resolution through the House will have repercussions that many Members may not be aware of. And so I urge my colleagues to pay close attention because, by this action, the House majority risks causing great harm. It risks causing grave harm and undermining Congress's oversight authority for generations to come, and here is why. The administration is claiming executive privilege, and any attempt to force testimony from the President's former counsel and his Chief of Staff will be fought by the administration within the courts. This could very possibly lead to the courts ruling that Congress does not have civil contempt authority, for example; that the U.S. Attorney, for example, does not have to prosecute criminal citations against executive officials or that the President's senior advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress. Any of those rulings would weaken Congress's ability to conduct oversight in the future, and a weakened Congress means a strengthened executive. This is not an extreme or farfetched theory, Madam Speaker. Administrations from both parties have claimed executive privilege for many decades. The former Attorney General, for example, Janet Reno, stated, and I quote, ``the President and his immediate advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee, because subjecting a senior Presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to his constitutionally assigned functions.'' What the majority is doing today is needlessly tempting a court loss that could gravely undermine Congress's oversight authority, the very authority the majority is allegedly seeking to protect. If Congress loses in the courts, we could forever disable one of our most important powers, the power of oversight. And for what in return, Madam Speaker? Harriet Miers is no longer with the administration; Alberto Gonzales is no longer Attorney General. But the majority, with its action today, risks quite a bit. Let's remember, Members will not even get the opportunity to vote on these resolutions today. And that's not only uncalled for, but absolutely unprecedented. Members will only be able to vote on this rule. Once the rule passes, so do the two resolutions and so does the majority's gamble. So, back in July, the Judiciary Committee cited both Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers for contempt of Congress. Now, here we are, 8 months later, considering these two contempt resolutions, but not really, just the rule. By passing the rule, automatically those contempt resolution will be passed, after an emergency Rules Committee meeting last night. So the question is, why the rush? For some reason the majority feels that after 8 months, now this is a pressing issue. But I can think of a large list of other issues that I feel that Americans would rather we address; none more than considering the FISA bill that the Senate approved this week to give the administration the ability to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, taught us many lessons, and one of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm America, and now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. And the majority seeks to leave today and go home without addressing this issue. The modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critically important national priority, and I'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree as well. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``The Senate FISA Rockefeller-Bond legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support the measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here at home.'' Madam Speaker, I will insert the letter sent by the Blue Dogs to the Speaker into the Record. Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President before the Protect America Act expires in February. It is our belief that such legislation should include the following provisions: Require individualized warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad; Clarify that no court order is required to conduct surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs. The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country. It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing such a measure could place our national security at undue risk. Sincerely, Leonard L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie Melancon, Christopher P. Carney. The extension of this important program is set to expire at 11:59 p.m. tomorrow night. After that, our ability to conduct surveillance on foreign terrorists will be severely hampered. It's time to make our country safer, and Congress needs to act today. The House should vote on the Senate measure, and we should do it now, instead of debating these contempt motions in an unprecedented and uncalled-for fashion. Today I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on my colleagues to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law before the current law expires and our Nation is at greater risk. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that one of the reasons why the minority is outraged with the conduct of the majority today is that we are not even allowed to debate nor vote on the contempt resolutions, but rather on a rule that will self-adopt, automatically adopt even resolutions of this magnitude of importance; totally unprecedented and uncalled for. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is with great regret, but I must rise today for a question of personal privilege. An article appeared today, Madam Speaker, on the Web site of a publication called The Politico reprinting a statement by a spokesperson for the majority leader of this House describing actions of mine as ``incomprehensible'' and ``unjustifiable'' and insinuating that I purposely brought disrespect to the House and to the memory of my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos. It was not my actions which were incomprehensible or unjustifiable, Madam Speaker, but rather the actions of the majority which deprived all Members of this House the opportunity to debate or even consider or vote on the contempt resolutions brought to the floor today by the majority in an absolutely totally unprecedented fashion. The majority knows that the rule we considered earlier is totally and absolutely unprecedented. Its sole purpose was to prevent us from even debating or voting on these contempt resolutions. And further, the majority denied us the opportunity to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments passed by the Senate, which we feel very strongly are in the supreme national interest of the United States. The majority knew that the minority was strongly of the belief that the only options available to us were procedural votes. The majority knew that we intended to utilize our procedural options to register our displeasure with this uncalled-for process. We purposely refrained from all procedural motions during the opening moments of the session today precisely to show respect for our friend and departed colleague. We were assured by the majority that we would not begin consideration of the rule, in other words, that the House would not reconvene until 11:30 a.m. or the conclusion of Mr. Lantos' memorial service. Tom Lantos, Madam Speaker, was an extraordinary man, a great man, and he was my friend. It was an honor for me to be present today at his memorial service in Statuary Hall. I was suddenly summoned out of the memorial service for my friend Mr. Lantos to perform my responsibilities as a member of the Rules Committee, to manage the rule for the minority side for the contempt resolutions. The majority had decided to resume the session during the memorial service. Madam Speaker, I am a member of the minority. Neither I nor my leadership control when the House convenes. What we saw today was an uncalled-for effort by the majority to force the minority to give up our rights to protest a process we feel is blatantly unfair. The majority's decision to reconvene the House interrupted the tribute to my good friend Mr. Lantos. It is the majority that decides when to convene the House. It is the majority that chose to convene the House even though many speakers remained to speak in the memorial for Mr. Lantos. I was told by my good friend Mr. Dreier that he does not recall any memorial being interrupted by a House session, and he has been here more years than I have. I have been here 15, and obviously I don't recall any either. Madam Speaker, the statement attacking me today by a spokesperson for the majority leader was totally uncalled for and unacceptable. I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio.