Lincoln Diaz-Balart

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.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Again, I thank my friend. Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing the conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act that I made reference to a few minutes ago. The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2. The Senate followed suit and named conferees on September 6 of this year. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. They have even refused to name conferees. Instead, the majority plans to include the veterans funding in the massive omnibus appropriations legislation. But the status of the omnibus is still in doubt. Negotiations apparently are ongoing, but we all know there is one bill that has extraordinarily wide bipartisan support and that the President will quickly sign it into law, the Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. We already know that we are going to be here next week. We should pass the Veterans Affairs appropriation bill and provide the veterans the funding they deserve. I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question. Our veterans deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding. 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, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend again for yielding and all of those who participated in this debate on this rule that is so critical in the sense that it is bringing forth legislation of extraordinary importance to the Nation. Unfortunately, it has been brought forth in a process that has been most unfair and ultimately exclusivist, and that does not lead to good policy. I have a friend who always remarks that in government, personnel is policy. I have realized now how process becomes policy when it is so exclusivist, not allowing the genuine will of the House to move forward. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing an AMT patch for the millions of American taxpayers who face the unintended consequences of that tax. The AMT was enacted in 1969 to prevent a small number of wealthy taxpayers from using legitimate deductions and credits to avoid paying taxes altogether. Back then, the tax affected only 155 people, the ``super rich.'' The AMT was never adjusted to match inflation; therefore, the AMT is affecting more and more taxpayers. Without fixing the AMT problem, 25 million taxpayers will be hit by the AMT, costing the average taxpayer an additional $2,000. In Florida alone, it will affect over 1 million taxpayers, 6.5 times more than in 2005. The longer we wait to fix the AMT, the longer it will take for the IRS to make the necessary changes to tax forms and to process tax returns under any changes to the law. As of now, the majority's failure to pass an AMT fix will force the IRS to delay processing tax refunds until mid March at the earliest. This is likely to delay returns for 21 million taxpayers who currently will be subject to the AMT but who, with the patch, would not have to pay the AMT. That comes out to about a $75 billion interest-free loan to the Federal Government paid for by the American taxpayer. We urgently need to fix the AMT so that American taxpayers will not have to wait to get their hard-earned money back from the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont, my friend, Mr. Welch, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, bipartisanship, those are just some of the words the new majority used to describe the way they were going to run the 110th Congress. Today, just as we have seen during much of the new majority's stewardship of the House during this year, those have been, at best, hollow promises. The rule we are considering is being called something similar to a standard conference report rule by the majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, normally considering a conference report under such a rule would not cause much controversy, but this is not a conference report. It never went through the usual conference process. The majority never named conferees, never held a conference meeting nor gave the minority the chance to offer a motion to instruct conferees. Last night in the Rules Committee, we met until late. We heard from our friends on the other side the aisle that, well, it is not a conference report because Republicans in the Senate didn't want a conference. But Mr. Barton was there. He is, as you know, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and he said ``I certainly wanted to be part of it. I wanted to be part of the conference.'' So, again, the blame was on the Republicans, even though, last I heard in November, it was the Democrats that won the majority in the House and in the Senate. During their campaign, the new majority promised that they would allow for regular order for legislation. They even put their campaign promise in a book called ``A New Direction for America,'' and yet they have consistently broken their campaign promises. And today is no exception. Now, the rule specifically breaks two promises made by the majority during the campaign. First, they said in ``A New Direction for America,'' ``House-Senate conference committees should hold regular meetings at least weekly of all conference committee members. All duly appointed conferees should be informed of the schedule of conference committee activities in a timely manner and given ample opportunity for input and debate as decisions are made toward final bill language.'' Now, why is it important, this difference between a conference report and what is being brought forth today? Again, the majority is saying that because the Senate couldn't go to conference, they were using this procedure in lieu of a conference, of a real conference. Now, debate is structured like a conference report, and they are trying to argue that we are treating this bill like a conference report. But here is how this process differs: Republican Members were never given an opportunity to review the entire text, as conferees would have been; this bill is being considered with less than the 24 hours promised by the new majority for conference reports; there is no list of earmarks in the bill, as would be required in a conference report; and there is no list of air-dropped earmarks, as would be required in a conference report. That is why it is important, what we are dealing with. It seems somewhat technical, but it is extremely important that a mechanism is being used that has circumvented the conference process. Circumventing the conference committee not only blocks Members from debating and amending the legislation in the committee, but it blocks the minority from using one of the few legislative tools at our disposal, which is, obviously, as I have said, the motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, the one time we considered such a rule in the 109th Congress, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, closed his speech opposing the rule by saying things would be different under the new majority. I think his words are particularly relevant today. He said, ``We should have a more open process. We should have regular order. We should have hearings. We should have committee markups. We should do this the right way. I hope that in the next Congress that we will set a new standard, one that we can all be proud of, Democrats and Republicans alike.'' Well, as I said, I think those words are particularly relevant today, because they point to the vast difference between what was promised and the reality of the performance of the majority in this Congress, and we are already 1 year into that performance of the new Congress. Mr. Speaker, this is not regular order, certainly not what the majority promised. I urge my colleagues to oppose this transparent procedural ploy so that we may have a full and open debate on this critical issue of importance to the Nation. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if this were the serious effort that our distinguished colleague has just mentioned, the majority would permit amendments, would permit discussion, would permit a conference on this critical issue, if it were the serious effort that has been described by the previous speaker. Instead, we see a process to shut out debate, to shut out amendments, to shut out ideas. That is not the serious effort just described. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With regard to the protests, really the outrage that is being heard from this side of the aisle, the origin of that is because of the unfairness of the process, the fact that the minority has been, as was very, I think, clearly explained by the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee when he just spoke, Mr. Barton, the minority has been shut out. And this is an extremely important issue for the Nation. And if there is going to be a new energy policy, the new energy policy must be developed by the representatives of the American people in a way that represents, not only a strict numerical majority that controls the process of the House by virtue of the existence of the Rules Committee, et cetera, the ability to close out debate, but that it has to reflect genuine majority opinion. And that is reflected in the United States of America when there is dialogue, discussion, and agreement in a bipartisan fashion. So that's where the complaining, the outrage is coming from. And I would remind our friends on the other side of the aisle that this is too important an issue to have such an exclusivist process being used to develop it. Apparently, there is no genuine interest in passing a law, in having a law passed, become law, legislation become law; but, rather, there is interest in the exercise of press releases, of passage by the House, perhaps like we've seen with much of the appropriations process where, certainly in the 15 years that I've been here, I don't recall one bill having been sent and signed at this stage of the session. But anyway, I wanted to remind my colleagues as to the origin of the outrage, of the discontent felt by the minority side of the aisle. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished leader on the issue of energy in this Congress, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I will continue looking, then.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, if he would be so kind, I have been reviewing the bill since it was made available to us last night, and I was wondering, that earmark that he referred to, if he has any idea where it would be.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend for yielding. When we see significant changes in law included in the rule as we see this morning, in other words, self-executed in the rule, it's important that these questions be asked during the debate on the rule, because after this rule is passed, changes in the law will already have been made. The changes in the law are included in the rule. I have some serious questions. Some of them were already brought out by the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. For example, there is this section, section 18 in the legislation being brought to us today. Basically it says, warrantless surveillance is authorized by this legislation on any undocumented person in the United States. Now, that's in the law. And I would ask any colleague listening to this, it's in the self-executing part of this rule, section 18, ``This act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of any alien not permitted to be in or remain in the United States.'' Now, how do you know, Mr. Speaker, if they're undocumented or not? Thus, now, this will give the right to surveillance, warrantless surveillance with regard to any household where there may be an undocumented worker? This is extremely serious. The question needs to be asked. The ranking member of the Intelligence Committee pointed out, that's why this needs to be vetted, to be discussed, and not to be included in a rule where we find out about this the morning that the rule is on the floor and the rule makes it law, because it includes in the rule changes in the law that we hadn't even been able to see before. Now, other questions. There is a prior section in the legislation, section 3, that creates what they call basket warrants for terrorists throughout the world. But wait a minute. Section 18 says that if you are someone not permitted to be in the United States, it should not be construed to prohibit surveillance. My question is, does that section void the prior basket warrant section? I don't know. What I know is that it's in the rule. When we vote on the rule in a few minutes, we will be self-executing legislation, because these changes in the law are in the rule to be self-executed, to be made already part of the law. So these are serious questions. I wish that there would have been an opportunity for the gentleman from Michigan, along with the chairman, to be vetting these issues, because they're serious issues, serious questions, like the one I asked before. Now, unlimited, warrantless surveillance for the undocumented. And those who live with the undocumented, I would ask? Those who share a residence with the undocumented? Those who share a workplace with the undocumented and who are citizens, are legal immigrants in the United States? These are serious questions. And now we can ask them on the morning that the legislation is on the floor. And, by the way, it's being included in the rule, so that as soon as we vote on the rule, we will already have voted on this legislation. No, this is not the way to run this place, Mr. Speaker. It's another example of an excessively exclusivist process keeping out debate affecting legislation, including extremely serious legislation, like this legislation that should be protecting the American people, and that's why this is most unfortunate, this process today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the record brought out today by the Roll Call editorial, that I am very pleased, by the way, that our ranking member brought forth and read into the Record, I think is important for a number of reasons. Again, I was also here when the distinguished Speaker was elected in January. I recall the promises at that time and during the campaign, the electoral campaign that preceded that ceremony in January. The promises were, and I am sure they will be recalled, to have a more open process, a more transparent House. So the reason why I think it is most appropriate now to bring out the record that Roll Call in an editorial has outlined is that instead of seeing, during this year, this first year of this Congress, a more open process, a more transparent process, a more democratic process, what we have seen is a more than doubling of the closed rules, of the gag rules, if you will, the gag rules that don't permit any amendments on legislation. Since we are discussing the rule, by the way, on legislation that is an example of bipartisanship, the Head Start program is one that has been supported from its inception in a bipartisan manner, but we are discussing the rule, the means to debate this legislation, the procedure, if you will, to debate the legislation, I think it's appropriate to bring out the more than doubling by a majority that promised more transparency and more democracy in the running of the House, a more than doubling of gag rules that prohibit debate, that prohibit any amendments for debate. So I think that is appropriate to bring forth. And I commend Roll Call that, yes, was very critical when we were in the majority of many of the things that happened at that time. But a doubling, more than doubling of the impropriety, of the gag rules by a majority that promised more transparency is not only important to bring out but I think it is most unfortunate. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished colleague who has worked so much on this legislation in an admirable way, as he has on many issues of great importance to the American people, Mr. Castle of Delaware.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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