Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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 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 majority 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 was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill. This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress and provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark rule is nothing more than a fig leaf. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, before closing, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, who would like to make some other remarks.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, in a few minutes I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule to allow the House to consider a change to the Rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule. Now, by defeating the previous question, we wouldn't be derailing consideration of this important legislation today. But we would be fixing an unfairness, rectifying an unfairness in the House Rules. And we believe very strongly in this. At this time, Madam Speaker, and I had an opportunity in the Rules Committee yesterday to point out to Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays that, as I've stated before, on the floor of this House today, I oppose the substance of the amendment that they brought before us, but I certainly support it and support, at this time, their right to be heard. It's unfortunate that the rule, the closed rule bringing the legislation to the floor today, has closed out all of the Members of the House, including Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays. Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, while reiterating my support for the underlying legislation, which I think is worthy legislation and has been thoroughly studied, I think it is most unfortunate that it has been brought forth with a totally closed rule. I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating 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. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my good friend from New York for the time. Madam Speaker, the State of North Carolina formally recognized the Lumbee tribe in 1885. Since 1888, the Lumbee tribe has been waiting for full Federal recognition. Over the years, many bills were introduced in Congress to provide the Lumbees with Federal recognition, but these bills never reached the President's desk for signature. Finally, the Lumbee Act of 1956 recognized the Lumbee as a Native American tribe but denied them the Federal aid that comes with full status as a federally recognized tribe. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process is reserved for tribes whose legitimacy must be established. This, however, is not the case with the Lumbees. The Department of the Interior since 1913 has studied the identity of the Lumbee Indians 11 times, and each report has concluded that the Lumbees are a Native American tribe descended from the Cheraw Indians. Furthermore, the Lumbee Act of 1956 actually prohibited the tribe from going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process. Congressional action is thus needed for Federal recognition so the Lumbee tribe can be eligible for the full benefits that they are entitled to. I wish to express my thanks to Mr. McIntyre for his strong leadership really on many issues affecting Native Americans as well as other important issues before this Congress and specifically for his perseverance and the brilliance that he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor today. Even though I support the underlying legislation, Madam Speaker, I must oppose the closed rule under which the majority brings forth this bill. One of the central tenets of our friends in the majority of their campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.'' Here we are 6 months later, 6 months later, considering the second closed rule of the day. It seems that the campaign promise was just that, a hollow promise. But this closed rule, the second of the day, is not an isolated incident, obviously. So far in the 110th Congress, we have considered a total of 25 closed rules, 25 closed rules in about 5 months. Compare that to the 109th Congress where at this point we had considered six closed rules. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to refute this fact by claiming that they have offered a number of open rules, but that's not the case. The former very distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Moakley, a Democrat, said, and I quote, ``Open rules are silent on the amendment structure.'' By that definition, the Democrats have offered only one open rule this Congress. The majority on the Rules Committee had the opportunity to increase the number of open rules to two yesterday. However, they denied a motion that I made to amend this rule and allow an open rule. Not only did they deny our proposal for an open rule, they even denied an attempt to allow a bipartisan amendment offered by Representative Shuler, that even though I opposed that amendment on the merits, it came to the Rules Committee where Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays sat for a long, long period of time, and then they very diligently and respectfully explained their amendment. I happened to disagree with it, but as I stated in the Rules Committee, as strongly as I disagree with their amendment, I think they should have the right to present it. Yet not only did our friends, the majority in the Rules Committee, decide to close the rule absolutely, they even disallowed the bipartisan amendment by Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays from being considered today by the full House. I think the Democrats should live up to their campaign promises and offer a more open process. I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule, while, again, on the underlying substance of legislation, expressing my support for it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words. What I had been referring to before with regard to the process is that I don't believe that any harm would have been done if the majority would have kept its promise of open rules. It is the majority that promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a significant amount, as many as possible, of bills to the floor under open rules. And this is a noncontroversial bill, and, yes, they made the amendments in order by the Members who went to the Rules Committee, and that is appreciated. So what harm would it have caused if this legislation would have been brought forth under an open rule, as was proposed, in amendment form, by the ranking member of Rules? That is what my point was. No harm would have been done. And, simply, I would like to remind the majority of the promises that the majority made during the campaign of bringing forth legislation under open rules. So I don't believe that any harm would have accrued if they would have kept their promise. That's all. But with regard to the apology, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words, Mr. Speaker. And, again, with regard to this underlying legislation, which is of extreme importance, there is a national consensus in the United States that we not only have an obligation, but we must do everything in our power so that the democratically elected government in Afghanistan survives, and that is what this legislation is about. We will have other continuing debates on nearby countries and what our obligations are or what is, rather, in our national interest with regard to the stability in neighboring countries of Afghanistan as well and in trying to prevent neighboring countries from becoming basically safe harbors for international terrorism. Those are legitimate debates. Today, the legislation being brought forth, Mr. Speaker, is one where there is a national consensus in the United States, thank God, fortunately, and that is that with regard to that country that was for so long oppressed by the brutal Taliban and that had given sanctuary to the terrorists that carried out the mass murders of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America, that we certainly have an obligation to do everything we can to make certain that the people of Afghanistan have as much ability, that they have the wherewithal to proceed along a path towards a consolidated, representative democracy in peace and with prosperity. That is why we agree that this legislation is very important; and it reauthorizes critical programs, programs of critical importance with regard to our assistance to Afghanistan that were authorized initially and appropriated by the Congress of the United States in 2002 and 2004. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, after the defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, the brutal Taliban took over the country. The Taliban ruled that country through terror, through systematic assassination, torture, intimidation. They denied Afghans all personal freedoms and made women fifth-class citizens. They also provided safe harbor to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It is from that safe harbor that al Qaeda was able to plan and train for the horrendous attack of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America. Following the fall of the Taliban, due in large part to the heroic assistance of the United States Armed Forces and coalition forces from many, many countries throughout the world, the international community worked together under the auspices of the Bonn Compact to make possible what was really a wonderful, historic accomplishment, a democratically elected government in Afghanistan. In 2004, Afghanistan adopted a new constitution and held successful presidential elections. Parliamentary elections followed in 2005. Factions that once fought on the battlefield now, after decades of violence, debate and resolve their differences in parliament with ballots instead of bullets. However, Mr. Speaker, there are remnants of the former Taliban regime, along with al Qaeda, that are intent on overthrowing the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. The Taliban is using suicide bombings against U.S. and NATO troops, against Afghan officials, against civilians, both international and Afghan humanitarian workers, assistance workers. Opium poppy cultivation and drug trafficking have become significant negative factors in Afghanistan's fragile political and economic order. Afghanistan currently accounts, unfortunately, for a majority of the world's illicit opium production. As the democratically elected government faces grave challenges, we must not turn our backs on that young democracy. We must continue our support as that country moves from a brutal dictatorship to a consolidated democracy. In 2002, this Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. That law provided both economic and military aid to the young Afghan democracy. This legislation will reauthorize the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act through the year 2010. The programs reauthorized in this bill focus on countering narcotics production and boost security efforts to protect United States and NATO forces as well as Afghan officials and international assistance workers. This legislation calls for the President to set out a detailed strategy for Afghanistan and provide reports on progress there. The Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007, this legislation that we bring to the floor today, builds on congressional initiatives enacted in 2002 and 2004; and I again congratulate the leaders, who in those Congresses back in 2002 and 2004, worked so hard to ensure that these initiatives that are being reauthorized today were passed. And these initiatives now are, as I say, reauthorized in this legislation, H.R. 2466, that will be before the House today. Among those initiatives passed in 2002, 2004 are the creation of multiple programs, but this legislation calls for the creation of a coordinator role for the development of a coherent, consistent counter- narcotics strategy, and to strengthen the fight against the drug trade's links to totalitarian Islamic terrorism. We also insured in this legislation that initiatives passed in 2002 and 2004 continued, such as prohibition on assistance to Afghan officials who are found to be supporting criminal activities such as narcotics trafficking. This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker. This bill reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghanistan in its transition to a stable, representative democracy. This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we bring to the floor today, authorizes the appropriation of $1.7 billion annually for humanitarian and economic assistance and $320 million annually for military assistance during fiscal 2008 to 2010. This is important legislation. It's important legislation for the fight against the international drug trade and totalitarian Islamists, dangerous remnants of the defeated Taliban, the Taliban who were overthrown, thank God. Remnants of the Taliban are festering, and they use deadly tactics against United States and NATO forces, as well as Afghans and humanitarian workers. Those people have no scruples, and we only have to remember, Mr. Speaker what they did to the Afghan people when they were in power. So they use horrendous tactics, brutal tactics without limits against our troops and other international forces that are in Afghanistan pursuant to the request of the democratically elected government to secure the peace. And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, poppy cultivation and opium production continue to directly support insurgents, militias and terrorist groups. In the face of these very difficult challenges, we cannot allow that fledgling democracy, that budding democracy striving to be a stable society, to fail. With regard to process, our friends on the other side of the aisle, again, the majority had another opportunity yesterday in the Rules Committee to open the process and comfort with an open rule. They voted down an amendment by our ranking member of the Committee on Rules to bring this legislation forth under an open rule. Yes, they made in order all of the amendments that were presented before the committee, and that's commendable. But why not come forth with an open rule? I think that was disappointing. Let's not fail to see, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is, this underlying legislation that's being brought forward is extremely important. It's a very important piece of legislation. And by the way, with regard, again, to process, precisely since it's such an important project that as a Nation we're working on and there's great national consensus on the need to do everything we can to consolidate, to help consolidate the representative democracy and the peace in Afghanistan, precisely I think there would have been no harm in allowing, as this debate proceeds, to allow any Member who's hearing the debate who has an idea for an amendment to bring it forth. That's why an open rule is appropriate. I'd like to thank, Mr. Speaker, the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his hard work on this important facet of our foreign policy and the legislation that's being brought forth today, as also the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who's also worked very hard on this legislation, and other members of the International Relations Committee. I want to thank them for their hard work on this important issue, which constitutes, as I said, a project where the American people, in consensus fashion, are moving forward and doing everything possible so that our friends and allies in Afghanistan can survive and defeat the brutal Taliban and al Qaeda. This legislation brought forward today is an important bill. It is of the utmost importance to our national security and obviously to the region where Afghanistan is and, of course, to the people, to the noble people of Afghanistan, as they continue their efforts to consolidate their representative democracy and achieve peace and prosperity in their great country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to inform Congress about Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, a valiant prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Hernandez, an independent journalist and the director of the Camaguey College of Independent Journalists in Cuba, has been a chronicler of truth amid the lies and deceit of the Cuban totalitarian regime. Because he is a journalist who exposed the deplorable conditions, ruthless repression and failed policies of the totalitarian tyranny, Castro's thugs have continuously harassed Mr. Hernandez. He has been detained and released miles from his home on various occasions and his telephone service has been cut off since June 15, 2002. In Cuba, men and women who seek truth or freedom are considered enemies of the state. In March 2003, as part of the tyrant's heinous island wide crackdown on peaceful prodemocracy activists, Mr. Hernandez was arrested by the tyranny. In a sham trial, he was sentenced to 25 years in the totalitarian gulag, for the crime of preparing reports, in which he attacked the health system, and the education provided in this country, questioned the justice system, tourism, culture, agriculture. Following his incarceration, Mr. Hernandez has been kept is solitary confinement and allowed only 4 hours of sunlight a week. All communication with his family has been severely restricted and according to Yarai Reyes, his wife, he has been fed rotten food, refused all medical care and has been kept in a cell with no electricity. When Mr. Hernandez participated in a hunger strike to protest the deplorable prison conditions, he was transferred to another prison over 400 miles away from his family and loved ones. In this prison, he languishes in a rat and insect infected dungeon which he shares with common prisoners, many of which are considered dangerous and unstable. Mr. Hernandez is routinely beaten and denied access to the outside world. Madam Speaker, on April 30, 2007, the PEN American Center, which works to advance literature, defend free expression, and to foster international literary fellowship, named Mr. Hernandez the recipient of its 2007 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award honoring international literary figures that have been imprisoned or persecuted for defending the basic human right of expression. Let me be clear, Mr. Hernandez is confined in an infernal dungeon for reporting truth instead of the mandated lies of the dictatorship in Cuba. My colleagues, it is unconscionable and condemnable that just miles from our shores, a grotesque gangster regime keeps thousands behind bars simply for supporting freedom and democracy. I ask all members of this great Congress to demand with one, united, voice, the immediate release of Normando Hernandez Gonzalez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of my colleagues Alcee L. Hastings, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz- Balart to introduce an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment recommends that the Secretary of the Navy establish and maintain a Navy Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, ROTC, program at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. Mr. Chairman, the University of Miami is committed to assisting in the education of the armed services officer corps. The university currently houses Army and Air Force ROTC programs with great success. In fact, the university has recently committed to build a new ROTC-only facility should a Navy program be added. This would provide the best environment for college education and officer training for our Armed Forces. The south Florida community is an ideal place for a Navy ROTC program. The proximity to important military installations such as the Key West Naval Air Station and the United States Southern Command only serves to advance the real world training to which senior reserve officers are exposed during their military education. Mr. Chairman, a Navy ROTC program at the University of Miami will further the Navy's continued mission to diversify their officer corps through increased recruitment, retention, and career development in minority populations. With a 50 percent minority student body, the university is well-situated to help the Navy achieve its laudable goal. Miami is the ``gateway'' to the Americas. The diversity of our community and the knowledge of our hemisphere would greatly augment the quality of officer training for our military. Mr. Chairman, for these and other reasons, I am pleased to introduce this amendment with my colleagues and urge all members to support this important Navy ROTC program at the University of Miami.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Rolando Jimenez Posada, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Jimenez Posada is a lawyer and a director of the Democratic Human Rights Center. As a pro-democracy activist, Mr. Jimenez Posada has devoted himself to portraying the genuine terror of life in totalitarian Cuba. Because of his brave commitment to freedom for the Cuban people and his activities as a pro-democracy activist, the regime began by firing him from his job. Mr. Jimenez Posada has been detained and threatened numerous times over the past years. On December 10, 2001, while taking part in a peaceful celebration to observe the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he and several others were beaten and pushed into police vehicles and then discarded in remote areas as a means of psychological torture. Amnesty International reports that in July 2002 Mr. Jimenez Posada was threatened at his home after handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Later, the tyrant's thugs told him that he would be imprisoned if he continued carrying out public activities in support of Cuba's political prisoners. Despite harassment and the continuous threats, Mr. Jimenez Posada never wavered in his conviction. On April 25, 2003, he was arrested and thrown in the gulag on accusations of ``disrespecting the commander'' (the tyrant) and ``revealing state secrets''. For 4 years, he languished in sub-human conditions awaiting ``formal charges'' and a ``trial'' for his ``crime'' of believing that all men have an inherent right to live in freedom. On April 6, 2007, Mr. Jimenez Posada was ``sentenced'' to 12 years in a second secret trial in less than a week. His family and loved ones were never notified of his trial date, and when he even so much as attempted to voice concerns about the lack of defense counsel he was summarily thrown into a dungeon once again and prohibited all forms of legal defense. Let me be clear, Mr. Jimenez Posada rejects the gangster regime's constant propaganda and its lies. For that reason, he languishes in the most infernal conditions in the tyrant's dungeons. Madam Speaker, Mr. Jimenez Posada suffers in the repulsive squalor of the totalitarian regime's gulag because he believes in truth and fundamental human rights for the Cuban people. It constitutes a crime of the highest order that a mere 90 miles from our shores, honorable men and women are jailed in dungeons simply for their desire to make known the truth of Cuba's tragic reality and for believing that all Cubans are deserving of human rights. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Rolando Jimenez Posada and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the time, and I 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 new jobs each year. Congress, for many decades, has acknowledged the important role small businesses play in the Federal procurement process. That is evidenced in the Small Business Act of 1953 which states: ``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 $417 billion on goods and services in 8.3 million separate contracts. Small businesses won a little over 21 percent of those contracts. H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, seeks to assist small businesses' participation in the Federal procurement process. Among its provisions, it expands and clarifies the definition of contract bundling to try to ensure that small businesses can fairly compete for Federal contracts. Contract bundling combines two or more contracts into a single larger package. Bundling can put small businesses at a disadvantage in the procurement process because the bid price usually goes beyond what small businesses can afford. This legislation, the underlying legislation, sets a target of 25 percent for the overall number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses and a target of 8 percent for contracts awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses. The bill also provides a mechanism for the SBA to work with Congress when it believes that the Federal contract was improperly bundled. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the majority on the Rules Committee reported out yet another restrictive rule, going back once again on the promise for a more open and fair legislative process. What makes this rule most unfortunate is that it does not include even one Republican amendment. So I think the question is begged, how can the majority claim to be fostering an open legislative process when it totally shuts out the minority? During testimony at the Rules Committee, Small Business Ranking Member Chabot explained that the Government Oversight Committee subsequently made several major changes to the bill that would harm small businesses. He proposed several amendments to strike the harmful provisions and restore those in the original bill that came out of the Small Business Committee. Now these amendments were even supported by the Small Business Committee chairwoman, Ms. Velazquez, but the majority in the Rules Committee ignored both Committee Chairwoman Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot and did not make the amendments in order. That was totally uncalled for, and Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank Mr. Cardoza, my good friend, and all those who have spoken during this debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate my call for the defeat of this restrictive rule. It is an unfair rule, it is unnecessarily restrictive, and it closes down debate. For that reason, I urge the defeat of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend, my colleague from California, for having admitted on the record that the new majority has seen fit during this Congress to pass one open rule, and that was on the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act, and I think that's important to be noted. Now, rules where there are requirements with having to print amendments before the debate begins are not open rules, even though our friends on the majority side have tried to redefine definitions, redraft definitions. But the reality of the matter is that there has been an admission on the floor that there has been one open rule with regard to a noncontroversial bill, and that's the fact. Now, why is that important? Because they were the party that campaigned on opening the process. So that's why it's a relevant fact that there has been one open rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend, a great leader from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to see that now it is important for the minority to pair with members from the majority party in order to be considered, that pairing with someone from the other side makes the denial of amendments to all Republican amendments apparently fair. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. At this time, 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, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of Georgia 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 I can amend this restrictive rule to make in order the amendment offered by Representative Hayes of North Carolina which would strike section 407 of the bill, the section requiring DHS to buy American textiles and apparel, protective gear, badges and ID cards. The amendment would instead require that DHS buy items specified in the amendment only when those items are connected to national security functions within the Department. This amendment also includes language to ensure that these provisions comply with the World Trade Organization rules. Mr. Speaker, this thoughtful amendment submitted by Mr. Hayes was unfortunately denied yesterday at the Rules Committee. If the previous question is defeated, the Hayes amendment would be made in order and the House would be able to have a full discussion on its merits. 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, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished leader from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).