Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is our duty to do all we can to provide future generations a better world in which to live. Our Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but there is still much more to do. We must continue to decrease carbon emissions and invest in multiple forms of energy-efficient technologies to help preserve the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. For our national security, we must make investments to increase clean energy sources and increase domestic energy supplies. From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable domestic energy sources. They included the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. The underlying legislation, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, further promotes research and development into next-generation energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and marine energy. Furthermore, it authorizes almost $3 billion for energy storage and development programs to make renewable energy sources more effective. But we must keep in mind that right now, alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist. I am pleased that incentives for the domestic production of oil and gas have been retained in this final legislation. These incentives are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of these incentives, which were included in earlier versions of this legislation, would have driven up the costs of oil and natural gas to American consumers even further and increased our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the strongman/clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. I am also pleased that a provision that would have taxed domestic oil companies at higher rates than the Chavez-controlled oil company was removed. This legislation also provides for the H-Prize. The H-Prize will award cash prices to individuals, universities and businesses making significant advances in the field of hydrogen energy. Hydrogen is a clean domestic energy source that produces no emissions other than water. The use of hydrogen as an energy source will simultaneously reduce dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Unfortunately, this bill has taken almost a year to make it to the President's desk because the majority decided to shut out the minority from deliberations for much of the year. When this bill first came before the House in the opening days of the 110th Congress, the majority blocked all amendments with a closed rule. In August when we considered H.R. 3221, the majority shut out over 90 amendments and allowed only five minority amendments out of 23 amendments. Just last week, we considered Senate amendments to H.R. 6, and once again the majority blocked the minority from providing amendments. If the majority had just decided to follow its campaign promise and allow the minority to participate in the formulation of this legislation, this bill could have been signed into law months ago. I would also point out that the majority brings this legislation to the floor as a Senate amendment instead of as a conference report. As such, it fits into one of the loopholes of the majority's earmark rule, just as it did last week. Because the earmark rule did not apply to the legislation last week, it wasn't possible to find out that the bill contained earmarks until after the bill passed the House. So we wonder if the legislation we are considering today also contains earmarks. Unfortunately, we will not know, because the legislation is not subject to the earmark rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a prior colleague who spoke said that this 34-pound bill was that size and weight because of our photocopying. I just want to make clear for the Record that it was handed to us by the majority like that. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 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. I would reserve at this time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule while closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months. Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a ``question of consideration.'' But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill. The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept ``amendments between the Houses,'' such as with this legislation, the omnibus appropriations bill. Because the omnibus is not a conference report, the bill falls squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks contained in the legislation. Any action as announced previously by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is at his discretion. I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to Rules Chairwoman Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.'' Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 2, 2007. Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have advised the committee that language waiving all points of order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9. In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process. Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment-- whether they be floor amendments during initial House consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of a special rule.) The question of order on September 25 involved a special rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It had no application to the motion in the first instance. Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no application to the amendment in the first instance, the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The same would be true in the more common case of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment. In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the question whether a special rule waives the application of clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any application. In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all points of order except those arising under that rule--when none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its negative implication would be that such a point of order might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all points of order against provisions of an authorization bill except those that can only arise in the case of a general appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use language that yields a misleading implication. I appreciate your consideration and trust that this response is to be shared among all members of the committee. Our office will share it with all inquiring parties. Sincerely, John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian. Mr. Speaker, my amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. This morning I woke up to the news that the majority had posted on the Rules Committee Web site the omnibus appropriations bill that we are considering tonight. The majority posted this bill, approximately 3,500-page bill, after many Members had retired for the night. So that effectively made it impossible for many of us to even begin to see what was in this legislation obviously until many hours after that. When the new majority took over, they promised, Mr. Speaker, that they would give at least 24 hours to review legislation before it comes to the floor for a vote. The rules of the House require 3 days. Oftentimes the Rules Committee through the years has waived that requirement, and that's why it's very interesting to note and I think very relevant to note that the majority made a promise that at least 24 hours would be provided for Members to review, to attempt to understand legislation to make sure that the legislation doesn't have provisions that Members would oppose. During testimony 2 weeks ago at the Rules Committee, Members from the minority expressed our concern with the prospect that the majority would rush through a very large appropriation bill spending, as in this case, approximately a half a trillion dollars without giving Members time to properly read and understand the bill. One particular area of concern was with the possible inclusion of earmarks that Members would not have an opportunity to review before voting on them. On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, addressed the House to speak about the majority's changes to the House rules. During her speech, she addressed the issue of earmarks and how the majority claimed to deal with the issue. Today, as we consider this rule for this omnibus bill, I think it's appropriate to look back and see what the distinguished chairwoman said the majority would do to bring transparency to the earmark process. ``The rules that Thomas Jefferson first wrote down two centuries ago provide for order and discipline in the House. They provide for transparency and accountability. If they are followed, corruption will be exposed before it has a chance to take root. Democrats are going to follow the long-established rules of the House, instead of treating them as impediments to be avoided. We are going to allow Members to read bills before voting on them and prevent them from being altered at the last minute. ``The rules package will finally shed light on an earmarking process that has greased the wheels of corrupt House machinery. It requires the full disclosure of earmarks on all bills and conference reports before Members are asked to vote on them.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, let's compare those promises with today's rule. The rule provides for consideration of this legislation, H.R. 2764. But because the majority is moving the appropriations bill as an amendment between Houses and not a conference report, the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule, and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that may be contained in the legislation. So this bill is not subject to the earmark rule which the majority claimed would bring transparency and accountability to the earmark process. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include numerous earmarks that no one has vetted and no one has seen. We've already seen this loophole in action when we debated H.R. 6, the energy bill. The legislation came to the floor also as an amendment between the Houses; and as such, it too was exempt from the earmark rule. Yet it included earmarks that were not discovered until after passage. So, yes, the majority ``directs the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the remainder of the first session of the 110th Congress such material as he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal year,'' but there may be problems with that provision. I did see that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee did list earmarks in the bill, but the requirement does not say exactly what material the chairman is required to insert, just what ``he may deem explanatory.'' It does not require him to list all earmarks. So earmarks in the bill could have been omitted from the statement. Second, the provision allows the chairman to insert the explanation into the Congressional Record at any time during the first session of the 110th Congress. So in theory, the chairman may still have some time to insert an explanation after both Houses of Congress pass the legislation and the President signs the legislation into law. We were so concerned with this procedural loophole during a recent markup that in the Rules Committee Mr. Dreier offered an amendment to the rule to require that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee provide the list of earmarks required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus appropriations bill. Unfortunately, that amendment to the rule was rejected along partisan lines. Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, have sent a letter to Chairman Obey asking him to ``adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior to consideration by the Rules Committee.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit that letter into the Congressional Record at this point. Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 6, 2007. Hon. David R. Obey, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a ``martial law'' rule to provide for the same day consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That measure also includes a provision giving you the option of inserting extraneous explanatory material in the Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the remainder of this session. During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment to the rule to require that you provide the list of earmarks required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the rule was rejected along partisan lines. Mr. Chairman, we know that you have made an effort during this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained in bills coming through your committee. However, because the omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate amendment to a House bill, it falls squarely within one of the loopholes of the earmark rule and the Rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, the energy bill, you are well aware that no list of earmarks was provided for that measure because it fell within the same loophole. We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of disclosure will be in the best interest of the House, its Members, and the Nation. We appreciate your willingness to consider our request. Respectfully, David Dreier. Doc Hastings. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Peter Sessions. I would simply say that as of today we have not received a response to that letter. Mr. Speaker, I ask when it is appropriate to do so, where is the transparency and the accountability promised when the majority in effect, in practice continues to systematically circumvent its own rules and violate its own promises? Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished former member of the Rules Committee, my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend how many speakers she has remaining.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I may have been able to lift it up, but I have not had the opportunity to absorb the legislation, as I think as important a bit of legislation needs to be reviewed. Now, as I was saying, Madam Speaker, that rule, the requirement of 3 days for Members of this House to review legislation, is often waived by the Rules Committee. That is why the new majority made a promise during the campaign to at least provide 24 hours so that Members could review, study, attempt to absorb legislation at least with 24 hours. So that is why it is most sad, most unfortunate that the new majority is not living up to its own promises. Because I think there is a legitimate, it is a legitimate point of concern when the 3-day rule is waived. And that is why the promise was made. So I think it is most unfortunate that the promise of the new majority to at least allow the House 24 hours to review legislation, especially as important a piece of legislation as this omnibus appropriations legislation is, that promise is not kept. Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule while closing loopholes that we have found over the last few months, that under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as is it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill. The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept amendments between Houses, such as they plan to do with this omnibus appropriations bill. Because the omnibus appropriations bill is not a conference report, it will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule, and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that are contained in this legislation. I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian John Sullivan recently sent to Rules Chairwoman Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.'' House of Representatives, Office of the Parliamentarian, Washington, DC, October 2, 2007. Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have advised the committee that language waiving all points of order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI'' should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules, notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9. In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause 9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process. Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment'' to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment-- whether they be floor amendments during initial House consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of a special rule.) The question of order on September 25 involved a special rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It had no application to the motion in the first instance. Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no application to the amendment in the first instance, the special rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a). The same would be true in the more common case of a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text for the purpose of further amendment. Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment. In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the question whether a special rule waives the application of clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any application. In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all points of order except those arising under that rule--when none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its negative implication would be that such a point of order might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all points of order against provisions of an authorization bill except those that can only arise in the case of a general appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use language that yields a misleading implication. I appreciate your consideration and trust that this response is to be shared among all members of the committee. Our office will share it with all inquiring parties. Sincerely, John V. Sullivan. This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule. And so, accordingly, I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question. 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, the gentleman from Massachusetts spoke earlier about the fact that my previous comments were focused upon process; and that is correct, they were, because process is a fundamental aspect of a representative democracy. The legislation that the majority made available early this morning, this bill, Madam Speaker, I was in the district today and I had the opportunity and privilege of having various meetings with constituents, and I have arrived here this evening, and I must admit, Madam Speaker, that I have not had the time to absorb this bill. Now, process is important because it is our responsibility, Madam Speaker, to represent the American people in a responsible way. Now, the rules of the House call for, and it is true, and the former chairman mentioned it, and I admit, I have made mistakes, as well, the rules of the House call for 3 days for Members to be able to review bills.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, ``I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule and in opposition to the outrageous process that continues to plague this House. We have before us a martial law rule that allows the leadership to once again ignore the rules of the House and the procedures and the traditions of this House. Martial law is no way to run a democracy no matter what your ideology, no matter what your party affiliation.'' Madam Speaker, those are not my words; those are the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts. He spoke those words on the floor on several occasions last year regarding what he eloquently called a ``martial law rule.'' So, although they are not my words, they are quite relevant to this debate. Since I have already used some of the gentleman's words, I will continue to point out one more comment that the gentleman made on martial law rules. I think this one quote is particularly interesting because it was given on December 7, 2006, just a month before the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. It speaks about how the Democrats proposed to run the House, and it is in sharp contrast to how they are actually running the House. This is what the gentleman said: ``There is a better way to run this body. The truth is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debates on the issues that come before this body.'' Now, I ask, Madam Speaker, where is that openness and fairness my colleague spoke about? Where is the openness on the energy bill rule, where over 90 amendments were closed out, including a Republican substitute? Where was that openness when we considered SCHIP reauthorization under two closed rules, shutting out all amendments? Where is that openness today when we are asked to consider a 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill with less than 24 hours to review the legislation? I know where it is, Madam Speaker. They left it on the campaign trail. It was an empty promise, and it became evident that it was a false, hollow promise on the opening day of their new majority, when the Democrats wrote into the rules of the House closed rules for the consideration of the first six bills that they were to take up, in effect discharging the Rules Committee from its duties for the first six bills they were to bring to the floor. So their remedy for examples of unfairness they had criticized in the Rules Committee was: no Rules Committee. And that trend, started, sadly, that day, continues to this day. As my colleague has said, yes, and I quote, ``There is a better way to run this body. The truth is that the American people expect and deserve better. That is why the 110th Congress must be different. I believe we need to rediscover openness and fairness in this House. We must insist on full and fair debates on the issues that come before this body.'' How right my colleague was. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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. Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, here we are 74 days into the new fiscal year, and the new majority is requesting their third continuing resolution to fund the government because they failed to pass the necessary appropriations bills. As of today, only one appropriations bill funding the Department of Defense has been signed into law. What is the status of the rest? Well, another one has made it to a conference committee, and the rest of the appropriations bills wait for the majority to decide what to do. They control both Houses of Congress, and yet they still have to decide what to do. They had a chance to bring their record to two appropriations bills signed into law. But instead, the majority decided to play politics with a bill that had extraordinary bipartisan support, the Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, because the majority thought they could use it as a campaign ploy. The new majority promised that they would finish their appropriations work. About a year ago, my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, came to the floor and said things would be different under the leadership of the new majority. She said, and I quote, ``The House will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its most basic duties.'' Well, today we see that that has not been possible. Next week, the majority is expected to propose an omnibus appropriations bill for all the appropriations bills that haven't been finished. That bill will probably run into the thousands of pages and spend nearly half a trillion dollars. Members may not have enough time to read and digest that legislation before they are asked to vote on it. And unless the majority decides to move the omnibus appropriations bill through a conference committee, that bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the majority's earmark rule, and the rules of the House then would not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in that massive omnibus appropriations bill. The majority should not be asking Members to vote on a bill that may include numerous earmarks that no one is going to be able to vet and that most won't even be able to see. Because of this loophole in the earmark rule, I, along with Mr. Dreier, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Sessions, sent a letter to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, asking him to ``adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior to the consideration by the Rules Committee.'' I sincerely hope that Chairman Obey will comply with our request. If he does, that would, to an extent, provide Members with a bit of comfort when the bill comes to the floor. Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 6, 2007. Hon. David R. Obey, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Obey: Today the Committee on Rules reported a ``martial law'' rule to provide for the same day consideration of an omnibus appropriations vehicle. That measure also includes a provision giving you the option of inserting extraneous explanatory material in the Congressional Record for appropriations measures for the remainder of this session. During the markup of that measure, we offered an amendment to the rule to require that you provide the list of earmarks required by clause 9 of rule XXI for the omnibus appropriations measure. Unfortunately, that amendment to the rule was rejected along partisan lines. Mr. Chairman, we know that you have made an effort during this Congress to provide transparency for earmarks contained in bills coming through your committee. However, because the omnibus appropriations bill will be considered as a Senate amendment to a House bill, it falls squarely within one of the loopholes of the earmark rule and the Rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained therein. As you were the presiding officer over the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, the energy bill, you are well aware that no list of earmarks was provided for that measure because it fell within the same loophole. We respectfully request that you adhere not just to the letter of clause 9 of rule XXI, but to its spirit as well and provide the Rules Committee and the House with a list of earmarks contained in the omnibus appropriations bill prior to consideration by the Rules Committee. That kind of disclosure will be in the best interest of the House, its Members, and the Nation. We appreciate your willingness to consider our request. Respectfully, David Dreier, Doc Hastings, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Pete Sessions. Madam Speaker, the new majority, again, has failed to live up to their promises to finish their work on time and many others, and the underlying third continuing resolution is just another example of their failure to lead. I reserve the balance of my time.