Lincoln Diaz-Balart

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. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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 a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations act. The House passed this veterans affairs and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even refused to name conferees. Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has such bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto, actually, the veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.'' Fortunately, that purely political move failed last week when the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill from the Labor-HHS bill. Recently the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law. Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than that; they deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding. I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose 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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues about Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Dr. Garcia Paneque is a surgeon by training, an independent journalist and a member of the Cuban Independent Medical Association. As a director of the independent news agency Libertad, and administrator of the Carlos J. Finlay independent library in Las Tunas, Cuba, Dr. Garcia Paneque has devoted his life efforts to exposing the truth about the horrors inflicted upon the Cuban people by the dictatorship in Havana. Dr. Garcia Paneque was arrested on March 18, 2003 as part of the tyrant's island wide crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists. On April 4, 2003, in a sham trial, Dr. Garcia Paneque was sentenced to 24 years in totalitarian squalor for no reason other than that he is a supporter of freedom and democracy who has worked to expose the depraved horror that is the Cuban tyranny. Since his initial incarceration in the subhuman conditions of the tyranny's totalitarian dungeons, Dr. Garcia Paneque's weight has dropped from a healthy 190 pounds to an emaciated 110 pounds. Dr. Garcia Paneque has been thrown in the hellish dungeons to languish in conditions so abhorrent that he has had to be hospitalized multiple times while incarcerated. Currently, he suffers from chronic diarrhea, severe abdominal pain, and poor intestinal absorption, resulting from what can only be described as a chronic malnutrition. While imprisoned in the totalitarian dungeon, Dr. Garcia Paneque has endured constant physical and psychological torture at the hands of regime thugs. Although he has not committed a crime, he is forced to live with common prisoners who have gone as far as to have made threats against his life, threats that the regime's thugs refuse to acknowledge as part of their constant effort to avoid having to take action to ensure his safety. After months of writhing in pain it was discovered that Dr. Garcia Paneque had developed a 36 to 38-mm cyst on one of his kidneys. The prison doctors, who had previously ignored his cries for medical attention, claimed that surgery to remove the cyst would be required. Although his condition is perilous and there exists a serious risk that Dr. Garcia Paneque may not survive the abdominal surgery, regime authorities refuse to grant him a consultation with doctors not affiliated with the prison, and he has yet to receive proper medical treatment for his condition. Members of Dr. Garcia Paneque's family, including his four children, have been repeatedly harassed. In August 2006, a regime mob of more than 50 people armed with sticks and stones surrounded the family's home, chanting insults and threatening to burn it down. In March of 2007, fearing for the life of her children who had already endured innumerous acts of psychological torture, Dr. Garcia Paneque's wife, Yamile Llanes Labrada, an active member of the Ladies in White, was forced to flee Cuba with her children. This is another tragic example of life under the totalitarian regime in Cuba. On October 24, 2007, Dr. Garcia Paneque's wife, and his daughter Shirlen, were received and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House, where the President publicly called upon the regime to release Dr. Garcia Paneque forthwith. The President informed me personally after his meeting with Dr. Garcia Paneque's family that he was deeply impressed and moved by their heroic examples of courage and patriotism. Despite the gangster tactics and heinous threats against him, Dr. Garcia Paneque continues to demand human rights and dignity for the people of Cuba. He is languishing in the squalor of the infernal gulag, at the whim of a merciless tyrant, simply because he believes in freedom, truth, democracy, and human rights for the people of Cuba. Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that journalists and physicians like Dr. Garcia Paneque are locked in dungeons for writing the truth. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee stated that this rule was passed by a 13-0 vote. I was not able to be present at that rules meeting, and neither was Mr. Dreier. I believe Ms. Sutton was not either. So it would not have been a 13-0 vote. That could not have been possible. Mr. Speaker, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Armed Forces have been deployed in two major theaters of operation. Too many of our noble servicemembers have given what Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion to the Nation. Many more of these brave men and women bear the physical and mental scars of battle which will last their lifetimes. As a Congress, we must continue to work to ensure that our military has all the equipment and training necessary to successfully and safely complete their missions. I commend the members of the conference committee for working in a bipartisan manner to meet the needs of our military and veterans in the conference report on the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. The $459 billion in the bill will provide the necessary resources to our Armed Forces and continue the investments that we have made to make certain that the American military is the finest in the world. The conference report provides $23.5 billion, over $2.2 billion above the fiscal 2007 level, for Defense health programs. The bill improves the Pentagon's electronic medical records and enables better coordination between DOD and the VA. It also enhances preventative medicine programs and increases investments in medical research. I'd like to highlight that $138 million has been allocated for breast cancer research and $80 million for prostate cancer research. To support our soldiers' families, the bill provides $2.6 billion for family advocacy and other programs to support families affected by the rigors of war. The conference report also gives all of our military personnel a much deserved pay raise, as was mentioned by the distinguished chairman, 3.5 percent, and fully funds the efforts to increase our Armed Forces, including equipping and training costs for 7,000 new members of the Army and 5,000 new marines. The bill also protects our soldiers in combat by providing $11.6 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles and increases funding for body armor and other protective equipment. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority has yet to send the President any appropriations bill this year to sign into law. This is the longest Congress has taken to finish even one appropriation bill in over 20 years. Because the majority has failed to complete its work on these important appropriations bills, funding for the Federal Government is set to expire on November 16. This conference report will extend the current continuing resolution through December 14 so that the government can continue to remain open. The CR, the continuing resolution, also provides $6.4 billion in emergency spending, including $2.9 billion for FEMA's disaster relief fund, $500 million for fighting wildfires, and $3 billion for the gulf coast Road Home hurricane rebuilding program. It also increases funding to prepare for the 2010 census, as well as another $2.9 billion to bring VA funding up to the President's fiscal year 2008 request. Obviously, I support this important piece of legislation that the rule brings to the floor today, but I think that it falls short on one major issue, providing a bridge fund for our troops in theater. Without a bridge fund, the Department of Defense will be forced to make some very difficult decisions: Will they cut funding for the troops in theater to carry out the worthwhile projects and funding increases in this bill, or will they send funding to troops and put major projects in this bill on hold? The Department of Defense should not have to make such decisions, Mr. Speaker. This conference report should fund both the important projects in the bill and provide our troops in the theater with funding. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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 will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. As Mr. Wicker explained just a few minutes ago, the House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even refused to name conferees. Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has such a bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to the President so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as, and I quote, an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program. Unfortunately, that evidently political move failed yesterday when the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act from the Labor-HHS bill. Recently, Republican Leader Boehner took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker of the House must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law. Every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans, Mr. Speaker, deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding their funding back. I urge my colleagues to move this important legislation, to allow it to move, and oppose the previous question. Mr. Speaker, at this time 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. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend and I thank you, Mr. Speaker. The goal, Mr. Speaker, of our trade policy should be free trade among free peoples. And this agreement that we bring to the floor today, I think, is so important for many ways. If there is a nation that not only is a friend, but that has withstood extraordinary challenges, including violence, terrorism, extraordinary attacks to its free institutions, it is our neighbor and our friend, Peru. And they have, the prior administration with President Toledo, now the administration of President Alan Garcia, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they wish to deepen their relations with the United States, that they wish to tie their economic future to the United States. And tonight is our opportunity to respond and say to our friend, Peru, we recognize the steps you have made. We recognize not only the good-faith efforts that you've made to come to this agreement and to, by the way, renegotiate it after the political dynamic change. The situation changed here a year ago, and a renegotiation was required by the new leadership in this Congress of President Garcia. And the Peruvian Government demonstrated once again good faith and walked the extra mile to come to this agreement. This agreement is in the interest of the United States, of the workers in the United States, and it's in the interest of Peru. When I say ``free trade among free peoples,'' Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to realize that peoples throughout the world should have an opportunity to raise their voices, to be heard, to form civil society, environmental groups, labor groups, to fight for their rights, to fight for their human rights, for their legal rights. In Peru, despite extraordinary challenges, there is freedom, and people can organize, as they can in the United States, in civil society, in environmental organizations and labor organizations and others to demand their rights and speak up when their rights are violated. That's the great difference when we, for example, trade with a democracy with great challenges like India or a tyranny like, for example, Communist China. I always like to point out the difference. Free trade with free peoples. Tonight we enter into an agreement with a free people that is, in addition to being free, a great friend of the United States. So it is my privilege tonight to ask for our colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Mike Lowell of the World Champion Boston Red Sox, for being named the 2007 World Series Most Valuable Player. Mike grew up in Miami where he was a high school baseball star at Coral Gables Senior High School. He made the All-Dade First Team and was an All-State/All-Star in 1992. He did all this while maintaining a 4.0 GPA. Mike was offered a full scholarship by Florida International University, FIU, where he excelled both as a student and an athlete and was honored as an Academic All-American. In 1995, he was drafted by the New York Yankees and quickly moved up the minor league system. His parents, Carl and Beatriz, always stressed the importance of a good education, and after being drafted, he returned to FIU. He graduated magna cum laude in 1996 with a degree in finance. In 1999, he was traded back home to play for the Florida Marlins. However, less than three weeks later, Mike's plans were put on hold by a startling discovery. While undergoing a regular physical examination, Mike was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The surgery and three weeks of radiation were successful. Mike recovered with the love and support of his family, including his lovely wife Bertica, and today he remains cancer-free. Mike created the Mike Lowell Foundation, which helps raise funds for cancer research and helps pay for medical care to low income cancer patients. While a member of the Marlins, he was a key contributor to their exciting 2003 World Series Championship. Mike was a 2002 and 2003 All- Star and won the 2003 National League Silver Slugger Award, which is given to the top offensive players at each position. In 2005, he won his first Rawlings Gold Glove Award for his ``superior fielding performance'' at third base. On November 21, 2005, the Marlins traded Mike to the Boston Red Sox. He was voted onto the 2007 American League All-Star Team by his peers. In the 2007 season, he had a .324 batting average, hit 21 home runs and was the Red Sox team leader with 120 RBIs. In the post-season, Mike was truly ``El Senor Octubre''. In the American League Divisional Series and the American League Championship Series, Mike batted in 11 runs for Boston as they defeated the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Cleveland Indians. But it was on baseball's grandest stage that Mike Lowell shined brightest. During the World Series, Mike batted .400, scored 6 runs and drove in 4, including a home run in the decisive Game 4 against the Colorado Rockies. For his extraordinary performance, he was named the 2007 World Series Most Valuable Player. I wish to congratulate Mike for his extraordinary accomplishments. He has earned the profound respect and affection of millions of baseball fans, and shown the entire Nation what the south Florida community has known for a long time, that Mike Lowell is an extremely talented, intelligent, and decent man. I am truly honored to be able to call Mike Lowell my friend.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, we reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask my friend if he has no other speakers.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask my dear friend how many speakers he has remaining.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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 a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. The House of Representatives passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6 of this year. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move forward on this bill and name conferees. Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill, with bipartisan support, because that's what this is. This legislation has extraordinary bipartisan support. It was almost unanimously passed by this House. Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill forward? Well, according to several publications, Madam Speaker, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold back from sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of one such bill, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as an, and I quote, ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.'' So for purely partisan tactical reasons, Madam Speaker, the majority is holding back from sending to the President legislation to fund our veterans and military construction. Now, recently, Madam Speaker, Republican Leader Boehner took a step towards naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi should follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law. Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act to move this legislation forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than partisan bickering holding back their funding. So I urge my colleagues to help move this important bipartisan legislation forward. But, frankly, Madam Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact to have to report that this is the first time in 20 years where we have reached this date, end of October, and we are still waiting for the first spending bill to be sent to the President for his signature. It is most unfortunate. Most unfortunate. So I urge my colleagues to help move the important legislation, the spending bill with regard to veterans and military construction, to move it forward, to send it to the President, to appoint conferees so that the final product can be sent to the President. For that reason, Madam Speaker, we oppose the previous question and urge all of our colleagues to join us in doing so. 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, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the time, and I would yield myself such time as I may consume. Small business is the engine that drives our economic strength. The almost 26 million small businesses in the United States employ over half of all private sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Over the last decade, small businesses have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. Congress, for decades, has acknowledged the important role small businesses play in the Federal procurement process. This is evident in the Small Business Act of 1953. The Act says that, and I quote, ``it is the declared policy of the Congress that the government should aid, counsel, assist and protect . . . the interests of small business concerns in order to preserve free competitive enterprise and to ensure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for property and services for the government . . . be placed with small business enterprises.'' In 2006, the Federal Government spent over $400 billion on goods and services in over 8 million separate contracts. Small businesses won about 80 billion worth of those contracts, a little over 20 percent. The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 established a goal of 3 percent for Federal contracts awarded to service-disabled veterans. Unfortunately, we have yet to meet that worthy goal. The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, H.R. 3867, the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act, seeks to expand procurement opportunities for businesses owned by service-disabled veterans by placing these businesses at the top of the priority list for receiving Federal contracts. The legislation adjusts the net worth standard for businesses in the 8(a) program for the first time in about 20 years, to $550,000, so it is more consistent with inflation. To take part in the 8(a) program a business must be owned by citizens who are socially and economically disadvantaged. Participants in the program are eligible for sole source and limited competition government contracts. They also can receive a 10 percent cost advantage in some procurements. As part of their campaign, Madam Speaker, the new majority spoke often about taking the House of Representatives in a new direction. Unfortunately, that direction seems to be backwards because now the Rules Committee no longer allows Members to present their amendments even if they're a few minutes late. That is a departure from the practice of the Rules Committee under the prior majority. Last week, several Members attempted to file amendments with the Rules Committee. The majority denied the Members even the ability to file the amendment because they were a few minutes late, thereby denying Members the right even to come before the Rules Committee to speak about the merits of their respective amendments. Representative King attempted to file his amendment on-line as required by the committee; however, due to technical issues, he was not able to file the amendment on-line. Representative King was told by the majority on the Rules Committee that they would waive the electronic filing requirement; however, because he had spent time trying to get the amendment filed electronically, he missed by a few minutes the deadline to physically file the amendment. It's disappointing that the majority would not allow Representative King to offer his amendment when it was clear he was trying to comply with the filing requirements. Because of technical issues, he was delayed. I understand the need the majority may have in issuing a deadline. But in the prior majority, Madam Speaker, we always allowed Members to at least file their amendments even if they were past the deadline, and even made some of those amendments in order. It is a shame that the new majority has decided to take a step back and not allow some discretion in this matter. This new hard-and-fast time requirement is particularly difficult, if not impossible, when a Member is trying to file a second-degree amendment. As you know, Madam Speaker, a second-degree amendment is written to amend an amendment, so that it is not possible to draft such an amendment until the initial amendment was made public, and that list of amendments filed is not made public until after the amendment deadline. We already saw how the new majority's requirement blocks amendments when, during a previous rule, Representative Akin was not allowed to offer a second-degree amendment. It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, by not allowing Members to even offer amendments in the Rules Committee, we believe that the majority is, in effect, silencing the voices of millions of Americans. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your courtesy. I thank my good friend Ms. Matsui for hers as well. Again, with regard to the underlying legislation, it's important legislation. I think it's a good work product that's come forth from compromise, people reaching out from both sides of the aisle and working together. But the rule, unfortunately, is most unfair, as is typically the case with this new majority. 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. 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. I'd like to direct our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, Mr. John Sullivan, recently sent to the Rules Chair, Ms. 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 proposition at all stages of the legislative process.'' I will insert this letter in the Record at this point. 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 enforceability and accountability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I would urge all my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question. Mr. Speaker, at this time, 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inform my friend that we do not.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Federal Railroad Administration was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, is charged with overseeing the Federal rail safety program. As all of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, railroads crisscross every congressional district, and their safe operation is of national importance, especially since they play such an integral part in our national economy by transporting products and people to and from ports, and in the instance of products, from manufacturers, to suppliers, to the consumers. Since 1978, there's been a dramatic decline in the number of railway accidents. Last year, there were just over 2,800 such accidents, obviously too many, but a significant decline compared to the past. Obviously more can be done to reduce the number of accidents and save lives, and more should be done. FRA classifies the causes of train accidents into five categories: human factors, track and structures, equipment, signal and train control, and miscellaneous. Of those categories, human factors and track are responsible for the majority of train accidents. Last year, 2006, over 70 percent of such accidents were caused by human factors or track defects. Most rail-related deaths are to pedestrians on rail lines, trying to cross obviously, and motorists colliding with trains at grade crossings. While there are nearly 1,000 rail-related deaths each year, about 20 to 30 rail employees unfortunately are killed while on duty each year. The underlying legislation being brought forward by this rule, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, seeks to reduce the number of accidents caused by human fatigue by strengthening the hours of service law for signalmen and train crews. The legislation makes changes to what is known as limbo time, which is the wait period when locomotive crews wait for pickup after a day's run. Specifically, the bill phases down limbo time over 3 years, 40 to 30 to 10 hours per month. The bill also creates new exceptions to limbo time in the case of an accident, track obstruction, weather delays or natural disasters. It gives signal and train workers additional hours of rest, 10 hours in 24, and mandatory days off, 1 in 7. The Department of Transportation estimates that by 2020 the amount of freight moved by rail, measured by weight, will increase by approximately 50 percent. Furthermore, many local governments are interested in establishing, or expanding, commuter rail operations, which often operate on the freight rail network. As a result, the number of train miles on the Nation's freight rail network will significantly increase in the coming years. If train accident rates do not improve, this will lead obviously to an increased number of accidents, injuries and fatalities and some of the gains of the past decade may be lost, and obviously we'd like to avoid that. I'd like to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their bipartisan work on this legislation, especially on this issue of the limbo time. I think it goes to show that when people are willing to work together across the aisle to try to come up with compromises that good progress can be made. Now, unlike the bipartisan nature by which the Transportation Committee worked on this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee did not live up to that standard. Only four out of 10 amendments. There were 10 amendments proposed. A lot of time those amendments take a lot of work by Members, a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of dedication, and only four out of the 10 amendments that Members brought to the Rules Committee were made in order, and of those, only one was an amendment by a Member of the Republican side of the aisle. During consideration of this rule, Mr. Speaker, the minority made several attempts to make Republican amendments in order, but in the Rules Committee, the majority blocked each amendment by a party-line vote, and I think that's unfortunate. It's quite a contrast to how the Transportation Committee worked and some other committees in this Congress. It's unfortunate, especially when we take into account the promises made by the majority that they would bring transparency and openness and fairness to the process. We see time and time and time again exactly the opposite. This is really sad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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