Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee (Ms. Slaughter) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the Founding Fathers of the Nation, whose likeness is above your chair, Madam Speaker, George Mason, said that ``the freedom of the press is a great bulwark of liberty.'' It does act as a bulwark of liberty by often checking governmental power. In order to gather and publish news stories, journalists often find it necessary to protect their sources. So if a journalist is forced to reveal his or her sources through legal proceedings, that has a chilling effect on other sources. And such a chilling effect ultimately may harm the public interest. Under current law, Madam Speaker, courts have the power to force testimony from individuals unless they can cite a specific ground, such as the lawyer-client or the physician-patient privilege. It is in the public interest to have such privileges, and I think it should be possible to provide journalists, that's what this legislation is trying to do, and their sources with some reasonable protections, because currently there is no privilege for journalists to refuse to appear and testify in legal proceedings. As the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee stated, 49 States and the District of Columbia have various statutes or follow judicial decisions that have the effect of protecting reporters from being compelled to testify or disclose their sources. The underlying legislation would set a national standard similar to those that are in effect in the various States. In determining whether to require testimony by a member of the news media, it is appropriate to strike a balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice. So the underlying legislation attempts to strike this balance by providing a privilege to journalists that prevents them from being forced to testify or disclose sources in legal proceedings. But, however, the privilege is not absolute. It contains exceptions where it is necessary to reveal a source to prevent an act of terrorism or other significant and specified harm to national security or imminent death or significant bodily harm. I think it's appropriate, and I want to emphasize my gratitude to Representative Pence for his hard work and dedication on this important issue. He has been not only studying it, but working on this critical issue, really, a critical issue related to our freedom for years, and so as I thank him, I urge Members to support the legislation that he's been working on so diligently for so long. The rule we are debating now, Madam Speaker, only allows for a manager's amendment, which, as you know, is an amendment for the majority to make final changes in a bill. So the rule is essentially a closed rule. Only one other amendment was submitted to the Rules Committee, but the majority decided, on a party-line vote, to exclude the amendment and not make possible the debate of that amendment on the floor. I understand that the authors of the bill feel that that amendment, which was submitted by the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Smith), the authors of the bill believe that that amendment would go counter, would be counter to much of the essence of the bill. But, in my view, that doesn't mean that we should preclude or prevent consideration of the amendment. Even Mr. Pence, the author and champion of the underlying legislation, who opposes the Smith amendment, testified at the Rules Committee that the amendment should definitely have an opportunity to be considered by the House. The amendment includes many of the concerns that the Justice Department has had throughout the long period of time with parts of the underlying legislation. It is a serious amendment, and it certainly deserves to be debated on the floor. So I think it is unfortunate, and as we bring this important legislation once again, it is an example of bringing important legislation to the floor excluding, making impossible, serious debate of ideas that differ by Members of this House. So that's unfortunate, and that is why I oppose the rule that is bringing forth this important legislation. I certainly support the underlying legislation, but I think that it is unfortunate that we once again have an overly restrictive process for bringing forth this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege at this time to yield 3 minutes to a great leader in this House, our colleague from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 8 minutes to someone who has been working long and hard on this important issue and deserves much commendation, my dear friend Mr. Pence of Indiana. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of the 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 new Rules Committee majority 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 would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian John Sullivan recently sent to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to the distinguished chairman, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.'' I will insert this letter from the House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, into the Record. 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, Parliamentarian. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restore the accountability and the enforceability 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 urge my colleagues to close this loophole 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. One of the great privileges in the daily honor of being able to serve in the Congress of the United States is the privilege of being able to meet extraordinary people on a constant basis here in these Halls. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to remember and pay tribute to a dear friend who was one of those truly extraordinary people whom I have had the privilege of meeting in my 15 years here in these Halls of Congress, Jo Ann Davis. We will always remember her not only as the gracious and dignified and wonderful lady that she was, but as the effective representative for her constituents and the great American patriot, who every day gave her all to defend our Nation and to honor and protect, to the best of her ability, those who protect us and our freedom, our men and women in uniform. I am deeply comforted, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that Jo Ann Davis had such a profound faith in God. It was her strength. At this time, it is especially comforting to know that she is now with the Lord. I enjoyed my conversations with Jo Ann, the fellowship, her sense of humor. She was a wonderful, wonderful human being. How her eyes would light up, Mr. Speaker, when the subject of her granddaughter would be brought up, Charlotte. I had the privilege of getting to know her son, Charlie, very well. He was a member of my staff, an extraordinary young man, who did his job day in and day out. Each day he worked in our office in a marvelous manner with total devotion to this Congress, to the people of the United States. I am deeply grateful for his service. I extend to him, my friend, Charlie, and his family, obviously his wife, his daughter, Charlotte, his brother, Jo Ann's other son, Chris, and of course, Chuck, Jo Ann's husband, my deepest sympathy and condolences at this time. We will never forget her, that wonderful, wonderful colleague, that wonderful friend, that wonderful lady who not only graced these Halls but served her constituents of the First District of Virginia so effectively, so well, and indeed served all of America so well. As I say, I will never forget her and consider it a great privilege to have been able to meet and to be a friend of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.

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. And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend Mr. Cardoza's point about the tradition with tax bills, yes, there has been a tradition to bring tax bills to the floor under a restricted rule. That has not precluded in the past, as we did often, the ability of the minority to offer a substitute amendment. So what I was talking about with regard to process is that there was a clear promise to move in a more open direction, to move toward more openness and more transparency and more rights for the minority. And what has happened is exactly the opposite, a doubling by the majority of closed rules that absolutely close out, in other words, prohibit, all Members from proposing amendments on this floor. So that great contrast between the promise and the performance is what I was alluding to, that unfortunate contrast. Now, on substance, again, I think that today is an example of something very positive. The congressional majority has decided to work with the minority and the President on an issue that is of importance to this legislation. And so we see legislation, much of which was proposed by the President of the United States, coming to the floor today to solve a major problem facing the American people. So while I reiterate the great disappointment that we in the minority feel with regard to the lack of performance by the majority with regard to its promise to open this House to more fairness on substance, I think it's commendable that for once there is an issue of importance to the American people that the congressional majority has decided to work with the President on and with the minority in Congress. I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, 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 would like to direct our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, the distinguished John Sullivan, recently sent to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, 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 stated 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 role 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. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restore the accountability and enforceability 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 urge my colleagues to close this loophole 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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume. In August, over 165,000 properties in Florida alone entered foreclosure, 50 percent more than the previous month. The situation is most acute in the part of Florida that I am honored to represent. Miami-Dade County ranks in the top five counties in the Nation among major metropolitan areas where homes are entering some stage of foreclosure. Broward County ranks third in the Nation. This great cause for concern in the housing market has prompted anxiety over the tax consequences associated with discharges of indebtedness, debt forgiveness, in connection with restructuring acquisition indebtedness and home foreclosures. As the gentleman from California pointed out, under current law, when a lender forgives some or all of the mortgage debt, Mr. Speaker, the borrower is required to treat the forgiven debt as taxable income, taxed at ordinary rates. In today's marketplace, declining property values have left some sellers in the position of having to sell their homes for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage. Even if the loss of value occurs through no fault of their own, if the lender forgives the shortfall, that amount is taxable income for sellers. This phantom income tax places a heavy burden on a family that has incurred a significant economic loss. This legislation will help protect those homeowners from an unexpected and unfair tax bill. The bill also extends the deduction for private mortgage insurance for 7 years. Current law limits the deduction for private mortgage insurance to payments made prior to the end of 2007. This provision will be helpful, especially to young families purchasing their first home. There is some concern that the bill may go beyond what is needed during this time. The administration and some in the minority here in Congress have stated that the relief should be temporary to assist homeowners during the current mortgage market transition period, avoiding as much as possible distorting consumer and lender decisions on new mortgage loans. But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the underlying legislation being brought forth today for consideration by this House is an example of what can happen, the good that can happen, the progress that can be made when the congressional majority decides to work with the administration, with the President and the minority in Congress on an important issue such as this. Much of the legislation that we will be considering today was proposed, the substance of that legislation was proposed by President Bush. And so this is an example of what progress can be made on important issues when the congressional majority decides to work with the minority and the administration. Now, on process, Mr. Speaker, in a document called The New Direction for America, the new congressional majority laid out its campaign promises to the American people last year. Included in that document was a promise, and I quote, that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute. But with this rule today that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the rule is what brings to the floor the underlying substantive legislation that will be considered subsequently by the House; with this rule today, the majority has broken its own promise in two ways. First, they denied the minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment. My colleague, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dreier, offered two amendments Tuesday in Rules to allow Ways and Means Ranking Member McCrery the ability to offer a substitute amendment on this legislation. But on a party-line vote, the majority rejected the minority's ability to offer a substitute. The majority claims that they are running the House in a more open manner than we did in the 109th Congress, but this rule today once again demonstrates that they are not moving toward a more open process, but instead moving backwards. This rule closes out all amendments. So every Member of the House is precluded from in any way offering their ideas to improve this bill. So far this year, the majority has offered 34 closed rules on bills, closing out all amendments, far surpassing the number from the 109th Congress at this point, as a matter of fact, more than double the amount of closed rules. At this point in the 109th Congress there had been 16 closed rules. And remember the promise: the promise was to move in the other direction, and instead, more than double the amount of closed rules; clearly, moving backwards. What this rule today really represents, Mr. Speaker, is a missed opportunity. If the majority had offered an open rule, the majority could have doubled their number of open rules on nonappropriations bills to a whopping two; instead, they've permitted only one open rule on nonappropriations bills, thus continuously violating their claim to be a more open and bipartisan Congress. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my dear friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it's sad to have to take the floor to discuss the issue that we are discussing this evening. We recognize we are in the minority, and in this great representative democracy, as in all representative democracies, the majority gets to rule. We recognize that. But as indispensable and a key ingredient of representative democracy as the rule of the majority is respect for the minority. So what we are speaking about this evening, Mr. Speaker, first, I would say it's the great contrast, the extraordinary contrast between the promises made by the new majority they would institute fairness and transparency as they ran and when they ran the House of Representatives. The contrast between those promises and the performance of almost now the entire first year of this Congress, first session of this 110th Congress, the contrast between the promise and the performance is really extraordinary. I would like to read a quote by the now distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee last December. She stated, ``We are going to give people an honest and contemplative body that they can be proud of once more. We are going to have a much more open process.'' Mr. Dreier, our ranking member, stated how the number of closed rules in this first year of the rule of the new majority, closed rules being rules that bring bills to the floor to this great body that do not permit amendments by any and all Members of this body. Rules that permit amendment by any Member of this great body are called open rules. Closed rules, obviously, are the opposite. The number of closed rules, of exclusivist rules, rules that close out debate by this body on bills, have more than doubled, more than doubled in this first year by--they have more than doubled during this first year of rule by the new majority that promised to go in the other direction, in other words, to increase the amount of transparency and openness. So it's sad, it's sad, Mr. Speaker, to have to point out that extraordinary contrast between their promise and their performance.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I think the ranking member is pointing to a very important point, and that is that as the time approached and when we issued our report, and I think it's important to point out that that report was put online last week. I think other distinguished members of the Rules Committee are going to point out the problems that we had with regard to even getting authority to have a Web page.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Barton pointed out with regard to the issue of legal immigrant children and pregnant women, he would have been there in the conference room had he been allowed to be in the conference advocating for the position. In summary, as I yield back to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Speaker, I would say that an excessively restrictive process is not only technical; it leads to bad policy in addition to being most unfair. What is truly sad is that this majority promised time and again to be the most fair, the most open, and the most transparent majority as it ran, in the way in which it ran this House in history, and in effect, it has been exactly the opposite.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Yes. And I would, Mr. Speaker, highly recommend to our colleagues that they read this report. Because as I'm sure will be explained, it was difficult for the minority even to get the report posted because we couldn't have a Web page until last week. What the ranking member has been pointing to is that that posting of the report, making public of our report with regard to the great contrast between the promise and the performance, the promise of open transparency and the promise, the reality of further closing the process and making it even more unfair, as the date approached when we were going to make public that report, the number of closed rules increased. And we've seen, the ranking member pointed out, that the day, that same day, Mr. Speaker, that we made public that report explaining the reality of closed rules and the excessively exclusivist process during this entire year, the first year of the new majority's rule, that day, when we made the report public, as the ranking member pointed out, not one amendment by the minority, not one Republican amendment was allowed in legislation that was nonpartisan. Even the chairman, the ranking member said that in his 27 years he has never seen something like that. In my 15 years I've never seen something like that. The chairman of the committee stated that it was unfair, that it was unjustified. He is a very eloquent Member of this Congress. So I'm not going to quote him. I don't aspire to remember word for word what he said, but I do remember that the chairman said that it was unfair for the rule to have closed out every single Republican amendment. And he didn't vote for the rule. That's something I've never experienced in my 15 years here. I've never seen that. That was so dramatic. So I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, two examples. We have distinguished colleagues waiting to speak. One I have never seen in my 15 years here. I was appointed to the Rules Committee in December of 1994. During the entire time that I served in majority in the Rules Committee, I never saw anything like this. A Member came to introduce an amendment. Now, obviously, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there are many chairs here. This is a House of 435. The reason that on that second day of the first Congress the Rules Committee was established, even though the House was not as large in membership, it still was a large body even then, on the second day of the Congress of the United States, the first Congress, the Rules Committee was created so that this body could function. It is understood by every Member of this House that if every Member on every bill, on every piece of legislation could debate an amendment or two, that would, in effect, constitute a filibuster, because 435 Members, obviously, even though they had only one amendment per bill, would take up days and days of this body. So the Rules Committee was devised. It was created on that second day of the first Congress to manage this House. Now, most of the time, at least much of the time, it is understood by the membership that you are not going to be able to have your amendment debated here on the floor of this great test, Congress, in the world. But you have somewhere where you can go when you've worked hard and you have an idea to improve legislation. When you have an amendment, there's somewhere you can go. It is right above here. We are on the second floor. It is on the third floor right over there. You can go to the Rules Committee with your idea, with the product of your work and study, your idea to improve a bill in the form of an amendment. Your colleagues there, the majority and the minority, they have to listen to you, hopefully with respect, listen to your idea, listen to your amendment, and really pass judgment on it in the sense, in the process of managing this House, either making in order or not making in order your amendment. But there is that place where you can go, and that is the Rules Committee. When I saw that one of our colleagues this year, a distinguished colleague, Todd Akin, was, because he was a few minutes late and he got to the Rules Committee with the product of his hard work and dedication to improve legislation, it was somewhat technical, Mr. Speaker, it was called a second-degree amendment, in other words an amendment to an amendment. Obviously, he could not draft that amendment to an amendment until he had seen the amendments. So he didn't have time to get there before the deadline. Well, as the ranking member said, and we don't espouse to have been perfect, but one thing I never saw, and never thought I would see, is that Mr. Akin, when he arrived with the product of his hard work and dedication, because he was literally a few minutes late, he wasn't even allowed to enter the committee room to file the amendment. That is something that is very sad. So I will say, Mr. Speaker, this may seem technical and overly procedural to some of our colleagues perhaps who may be listening to the debate, or others, the American people, perhaps, it may seem like a technical debate. But it is important for the following reason: When Mr. Akin is not allowed to enter the committee room to present, to introduce his amendment because he is a few minutes late, that affects policy. That is profoundly unfair. As I said before, it is just as important to democracy, to representative democracy, for there to be rule of the majority, as it is for there to be respect of the minority. One final example, just last week, before us came legislation that the distinguished ranking member referred to as ``consensus'' legislation. We all support, or almost all, certainly in this body, support the health insurance program for children of economically disadvantaged families. It is called SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a consensus here of support, bipartisan support for that program. Unfortunately, the Democrats have come with a massive increase in the program, and we were debating that, the ranking member pointed out, the first time we debated it was late at night or early in the morning, and we sought to have input for debate. I was most disappointed in the last version that, in my view, excessively and unreasonably increases taxes, and while massively expanding that program, did not include something that I thought was elementally responsible to include, and appropriate to include in a massive increase of the program, and that is legal immigrant children. I pointed that out, how disappointed I was. I had an amendment so that the House could debate that issue. Well, the amendment was not made in order. But in addition to that, in something that I think was very unfair, the ranking member, the lead Republican in the Energy and Commerce Committee, he had been shut out from the discussions, it is called conference committee, the final discussions on formulation of the bill, of the legislation. And he pointed out, because, when I said how sad and unfortunate it is that in this massive expansion of this program, you are not including legal, I repeat, legal immigrant children and pregnant women, and friends on the other side of the aisle pointed out, well, the Senate in conference didn't want that, so it is not in the bill. Well, the lead Republican minority member from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, said, you know, if I would have been called into the room to the conference meeting, I would have pushed the Senate. Did you say the Senate Republicans didn't want that? Well, the House Republican leadership, I, Mr. Barton, said this, in the Rules Committee, when we met, would have been pushing that issue because we separate the issue of illegal and legal immigration. While there is opposition to illegal immigrants receiving benefits, Mr. Barton said, with regard to legal immigrant children and pregnant mothers, pregnant women, I would have been there, Mr. Barton said.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, pro-democracy activists inside Cuba report that an undetermined number of dissidents were detained by the dictatorship on the morning of September 27. The dissidents were on their way to participate in peaceful activities to request the release of political prisoners. Those detained in Cuba on September 27 include Martha Beatriz Roque, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' Blas Augusto Fortun Martinez, Yubi Diosenegui Pernet Perez, Alicia Martinez Guevara, Alejandro Gabriel Martinez Martinez, Guillermo Perez Year, Amado Ruiz Moreno, Carlos Cordero Paez, Idania Yanes Contreras, Yesmi Elena Mena Silvano, Jose Diaz Silva, Georgina Noa Montes, Arturo Montgomery Alonso, Roberto de Jesus Guerra Perez, Yunieski Garcia Lopez, Lester Fernandez Zamora, Felix Reyes Gutierrez, Yoel Espinosa Medrano, Ariel Orama Martin, Angel Raul Perez Gavilan, Javier Delgado Torres, Carlos Michael Morales Rodriguez, and others whose names I do not have. At this time it is unknown how many of the detained dissidents have been released and how many will be kept in confinement. It is up to the whim of the ailing tyrant. The list of political prisoners languishing in Cuban prisons is long, Madam Speaker. Sixty dissidents who were peacefully expressing their opposition to the dictatorship remain in prison since the regime's brutal crackdown of March 2003, joining hundreds of other political prisoners. Reporters Without Borders reports that there are at least 23 journalists languishing in abysmal conditions in Cuban prisons. The Miami Herald today published a very important editorial about one such journalist. I think it's an editorial that deserves commendation and attention. It reads as follows: Normando Hernandez Gonzalez may die for exercising free speech in Cuba. An independent journalist, he has been imprisoned since Cuba's crackdown on dissidents in April 2003. Now he is so critically ill that he was transferred to a Havana military hospital last week. It is bad enough that Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez, 39, is serving a 25-year sentence for criticizing the government, something people in free countries do every day. Yet things could get worse. Returning him to prison would be a death sentence. This is where he contracted serious ailments, chronic digestive disorders and tuberculosis among them. Even if his condition were to improve in the hospital, he would not last long in the filthy cells and eating the food given to political prisoners. The hope now is that Cuba will free Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez and allow him to leave the country and soon. International pressure is needed. To their credit, legislators in Costa Rica granted Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez a humanitarian visa in April. Cuban authorities refused to honor the visa. But a recent move appeared to get Cuba's attention. Jose Manuel Echandi Meza, a Costa Rican lawmaker, filed a formal complaint with the U.N. Human Rights Commission two weeks ago that accuses Cuba of torturing Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez by denying him proper medical treatment. The following day, he was sent to the Havana hospital. He appears to be getting some medical treatment, according to his wife. That wasn't the case before. Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez has been deteriorating since his first year in prison. He has been beaten, placed in solitary confinement and repeatedly denied access to basic medical care. He blames overcrowded, vermin-filled cells and contaminated food and water for his multiple illnesses. He suffers nausea, diarrhea, fever, fainting spells and weight loss. Last December, he was rushed from his prison to a hospital in Camaguey. There he was placed in a room with no furniture. His food was thrown under the door. He returned to prison untreated. While Cuba boasts of its health care system, it denies political prisoners basic care. PEN, a writers advocacy group, awarded Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez its prestigious Freedom to Write Award earlier this year. For more information on his case, go to PEN's Web site at www.pen.org. Let the world know that Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez and hundreds of other political prisoners haven't been forgotten. All of them should be released.'' Now, Madam Speaker, the same week that approximately 30 dissidents were rounded up and thrown in dungeons by the Cuban dictatorship, the Spanish Government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero decided to unilaterally break the European Union's ``Common Position'' on Cuba, by entering into a cooperation agreement with the Cuban tyranny. Mr. Rodriguez Zapatero and his government thus continue to act as the Castro brothers' most zealous advocates in Europe, and they deserve the condemnation of all freedom-loving men and women for their disgraceful actions. I renew tonight my call for the immediate liberation of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in totalitarian Cuba and urge international solidarity for them and for their right to be released immediately and unconditionally, all of them, now.

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. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 2693, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor today, directs the Secretary of Labor to establish an interim standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl that applies to flavor manufacturers as well as all microwave popcorn production and packaging establishments that use diacetyl. Diacetyl is a chemical found in trace amounts in nature and can be found in such foods and beverages as beer and wine and some forms of chicken. The compound is also used in the production of the artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn. Since 2000, several organizations, including the NIOSH, the OSHA, have raised concerns regarding health effects of diacetyl on workers in manufacturing plants that use the chemical. Mr. Speaker, we all want to make sure that our workers are able to work in a safe environment. We also want to make certain that the policy that we enact is best for workers. We certainly want to make sure that in the end it doesn't harm them more. That's why a significant number of Members on our side of the aisle are concerned that this legislation may be premature. I just received a letter from the American Bakers Association, which I will submit for the Record. Its president, the American Bakers Association president, says, ``On behalf of the American Bakers Association, I am writing to express our opposition to the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, which the House of Representatives is expected to consider this week. Passage of the legislation ``would significantly short circuit the appropriate regulatory process by mandating that OSHA implement a regulation, including a permissible exposure limit, PEL, applicable to all sectors of the food industry, and based on limited scientific data.'' Mr. Speaker, even though OSHA has raised concerns about diacetyl, the agency itself has also said, ``At this time, insufficient data exists on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommend exposure limits for butter flavorings.'' So we believe that it is important to give OSHA time to complete a scientific study of diacetyl exposure or to issue a recommended exposure limit for the use of that chemical. Without a complete study, Congress may push manufacturers to use different chemicals that could be even more directly responsible for diseases. Yesterday, the minority in the Rules Committee offered an amendment to the rule to allow for an open rule so that any Member who wished to bring forth amendments, ideas for legislative changes would have the opportunity to do so. Especially after listening to the commencement of this debate and if they have some expertise or perhaps they are in touch with some people with expertise, Members could bring forth amendments to improve this legislation. That is what we sought in the Rules Committee, and we offered an amendment to the rule to allow for an open rule. The majority voted down an open rule on a party-line vote. We think it's unfortunate that the majority did not want to consider this bill under an open rule. Now, considering that only two amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee prior to consideration, I really do not believe that we would have faced an avalanche of amendments. But the reason that it would have been important is that any of our Members and/or their staffs, listening to the commencement of this debate, if they have expertise, they could bring that expertise forth in the form of ideas, legislative ideas, amendments, for improving this legislation. Unfortunately, that will not be possible because the majority in the Rules Committee shut down debate, did not allow that open rule. I think an open rule would have been an easy lift on this legislation. Instead, we have this structured rule. So it is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker. If the majority would have offered an open rule, as a matter of fact, they would have doubled the number of open rules for this session on nonappropriation bills, because they have only brought forth one. So they had an opportunity to double the amount of open rules. It would have been an easy lift. So an unfortunate opportunity was missed.

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. Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report or manager's amendment 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. This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability 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. Last year, the distinguished new Speaker said that if she would become Speaker, she would require all earmarks to be publicly disclosed and would ``put it in writing.'' However, the new majority is falling quite short of the promise. Certainly this week, this is the second rule we are considering this week, and the second time the majority has disregarded earmark transparency. That's 0 for 2 this week, not a good week for transparency. Certainly it could be said it's a good week for hidden earmarks. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise with the same sadness that was manifested by the ranking member, Mr. Dreier of the Rules Committee, when he spoke about the fact that on an issue like this, if there is ever an issue where we should be able to come together and extend a program, it is this one. But as we saw last night, with the long, thorough testimony before the Rules Committee, the excessively exclusivist process that has been engaged in by the majority really has affected, in a significant and unfortunate way, the product before us. And Mr. Barton pointed out, as has already been explained, that he was excluded from the process. And for example, on an issue, despite the fact that it's a major expansion of SCHIP, that we're facing a major expansion here of SCHIP on a very important issue which is the inclusion, for example, of legal immigrant children, they have not been included. For example, that's why we have the National Hispanic Medical Association saying we do not support this legislation, this SCHIP bill that does not include legal immigrant children. You have the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda: ``We cannot support legislation that extends health coverage to some children while explicitly excluding legal immigrant children.'' The National Council of La Raza: ``We are particularly disheartened that a congressional debate focused on expanding access to health care to children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants.'' Now, one thing would be, Mr. Speaker, if due to limited resources we were simply extending this program, a program that we all agree is so necessary and important. But to see an expansion of the program that excludes legal, and I reiterate, legal immigrant children and pregnant women is most unfortunate. That's why I would include into the Record, Mr. Speaker, these letters. My distinguished friend Mr. Pallone last night was saying, well, you know, some people in the Senate didn't want that; that's why we don't do it. Mr. Barton pointed out in Rules that he would have been happy to be there supporting this provision for legal, and I repeat, legal immigrant children. Perhaps that would have been the difference in being able to solve this problem. Again, exclusivist process leads to an unfortunate result in policy. If there's ever been an example of that, we're seeing it this afternoon. So I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, and, at this stage, this unsatisfactory product that is being brought before us and that we should vote down today. National Council of La Raza, Washington, DC, September 24, 2007. Dear Member of Congress: The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., urges you to vote ``No'' on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization conference report, legislation that we had hoped to support. The SCHIP conference report deliberately deletes a provision previously approved by the House of Representatives to restore health care coverage for Latino and other legal immigrant children. We cannot support legislation that extends health coverage to some children while explicitly excluding legal immigrant children. We urge Congress to reject the conference report and go back to the drawing board to develop SCHIP reauthorization legislation which will provide health care coverage equitably. Latino children, who represent two-fifths of uninsured children, are overwhelmingly disconnected from health coverage, so it remains essential for Congress to address the core barriers that prevent them from gaining access to health care. While we acknowledge that the bill has some provisions that will broaden coverage opportunities for some of America's children, including some Latinos, we are deeply dismayed that it fails to include the language of the ``Legal Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA),'' which was passed by the House of Representatives with widespread bipartisan support. This important proposal addresses arbitrary restrictions to Medicaid and SCHIP for legal immigrant children and pregnant women and has the potential to extend coverage for hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children. We are particularly disheartened that a congressional debate which is focused on expanding access to health care to children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants. It is disingenuous to say to the Latino community that health care is being expanded when a significant proportion of our children are not included. We cannot accept this unjust and unnecessary inequity. We urge you to oppose the SCHIP conference report and redraft a reauthorization which includes the provisions of ``Legal ICHIA.'' We will recommend that votes associated with this legislation are included in the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda (NHLA) congressional scorecard. Sincerely, Janet Murguia President and CEO.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Who would have thought, back in 1903, at Kitty Hawk, that an experiment could have had such an incredible series of effects on our daily lives. Today, air travel helps make the world a smaller place, allowing for an ease of travel and commerce that incentivates extraordinary economic growth and job creation. But if U.S. air travel is to continue its fundamental role in the global economy, we have to make certain that we have the safest, most modern and efficient transportation system in the world. By reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration funding and safety oversight programs, the underlying bill takes an important step towards addressing those needs. Too many Americans have faced too many flight delays recently, Madam Speaker. According to the FAA, those delays are, unfortunately, on the rise, up almost 20 percent from last summer. Part of that, obviously, is due to increased passenger traffic at airports. That issue is particularly prevalent at airports such as the one that I'm honored to represent. The district that I'm honored to represent includes within it Miami International Airport. And so airports that are experiencing growth, such as Miami International and Ft. Lauderdale International, are facing this issue of how to deal with increased traffic. For example, in 2006, almost 33 million passengers passed through Miami International Airport; 45 percent of those passengers were international passengers, going to destinations beyond south Florida. But MIA is not only a hub for international travel; but it also plays an integral role in trade, in global trade. The airport leads the Nation in international cargo, with almost 2 million tons, a record 2 million tons of cargo processed in 2006. Also, MIA handled 80 percent of all air imports and almost 80 percent of all air exports between U.S. and Latin America and the Caribbean. Because it is both an international hub for passengers and cargo, it provides the community that I'm honored to represent with an economic contribution of over $25 billion annually, generating almost 300,000 jobs, $638 million in Federal aviation tax revenue, and $956 million in State, county, and municipal tax revenue. These are all attributable to MIA. If MIA is going to continue to play such an important role as a trade gateway, it obviously must continue to grow. The airport is currently in the midst of a $6.22 billion capital improvement program that has seen delays and large cost increases due to construction material and labor in south Florida. This capital program has expanded the terminal and concourses by 2.7 million square feet and added cargo facilities which now measure 2.7 million square feet of space in 17 new buildings. I'd like to thank the authorizing committee for authorizing $15.8 billion for the airport improvement program. These much-needed funds will go a long way in helping, for example, MIA complete its capital improvement program. H.R. 2881, the underlying legislation, would also authorize appropriations of $51 billion, mainly over the 2008-2011 period for activities of the FAA. The bill authorizes funding for FAA operations, facilities and equipment, and for the FAA to hire additional staff to inspect various aspects of the aviation system. Currently there is a contract dispute between the air traffic controllers and the Federal Aviation Administration. Air traffic controllers are highly trained and hardworking people. I am honored to know those in South Florida and I am very proud of them for their extraordinary work. Under great pressure with no room for error, they manage our skies and keep the traveling public safe. I am pleased that the Transportation Committee has acknowledged the dispute and taken steps to resolve the issue. Madam Speaker, I have some concerns with the rule that brings the underlying legislation to the floor. The bill does not include any financing provisions to comply with the majority's PAYGO rule. So in order to get around PAYGO, the Rules Committee self-executed a provision to pay for the bill. A self-executing amendment is a way of circumventing the democratic process by automatically making an amendment part of a bill without a vote on the amendment on the floor. And that is not, in my view, an appropriate way to include provisions into bills, especially tax-increasing provisions. This rule also only makes in order, Madam Speaker, less than half, eight out of 22 amendments, that were submitted to the Rules Committee. This is an important bill that is being brought to the floor today, and in my view, the Rules Committee should have permitted a full and open debate allowing discussion by the membership of this House on all of the amendments submitted to the committee. Madam Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

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