Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my profound respect for the Delegates in this House, and most especially for their constituents. But above all, I rise, Mr. Speaker, with profound respect for the documents that we all swear to uphold when we are elected, when we take possession of this awesome responsibility, an honor granted to us by our constituents. I think there can be few parts of the United States Constitution that are clearer when Article I, section 2 state ``that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' Now, when in 1970, as you know Mr. Speaker, before there had been by law and precedent, Delegates of territories had been given some privileges in this House. And then in 1970 there was a clarification of those privileges. The vote was given to Delegates in standing committees in 1970. At that time, when the vote was given to Delegates in standing committees, there was some concern that that may be unconstitutional. In fact, there was a colloquy on this floor where Congressman B.F. Sisk of California asked future Speaker, then Representative Tom Foley, about that issue. And I would like to read what future Speaker Foley said. ``Now, it is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give the Resident Commissioner,'' and he is speaking about all of the Delegates, ``a vote in the Committee of the Whole or the full House.'' The point is that the constitutional issue does not touch preliminary advisory votes, which is what standing committee votes are, but only the votes which are cast in the Committee of the Whole or the full House. Those votes, Mr. Foley said, can be cast only by Members of Congress. Now the appellate court, interestingly enough, and I really find it difficult to believe that it was not appealed to the Supreme Court, because the appellate court said, well, true, but we are not dealing with votes in this rule, we are dealing with a figment of our imagination related to votes because they do not count. If they do count in the outcome of an amendment, there is an automatic revote. So they are not really votes. So since they are not really votes, they are not really constitutional. I think that was not a serious, I respectfully say this, ruling by the district court. But obviously this time if it does pass, I would assume that it will go to the Supreme Court where perhaps there will be a more serious ruling.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we are so concerned about and opposed to this process of having closed out all of the Members from bringing forth their ideas to improve this legislation is because we seriously believe that this legislation, as drafted, if it were to become law, would increase our dependence on foreign oil. That is why we are so adamant in our opposition to the unfairness of the process, because of the product that this process has brought forward. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this closed rule and allow the House to consider H.R. 6 under a fair and open process. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to consider H.R. 6 under an open rule. This is the least we can do for the Members of this Congress who have had absolutely no input into this far-reaching piece of legislation, or any other piece of legislation that has been brought to the House floor so far. By considering this bill under an open rule, Members will be finally afforded an opportunity, for the first time in the 110th Congress, to offer meaningful amendments to this bill. For the new majority it is a novel concept, I know. In fact, it is the very concept, though, on which they campaigned. This vote on the previous question represents their last opportunity to live up to their promise to join together in these first 100 hours to make this Congress, in their words, the most honest and open Congress in history; and yet they have closed the process completely down and allowed no amendments by no Member from either side of the aisle. According to the official 100-hour clock, and I see the clock there, Mr. Speaker, we are only about 35 hours into the first 100 hours. That means we have approximately 65 hours left. If this is, as we are informed, the last item of the Six in '06, 100 hours in '06, agenda, it seems to me that we have plenty of time to consider this bill under an open and fair rule, rather than closing out all the Members and rushing it to the floor as they have. By defeating the previous question, we will give the Democrats the opportunity to live up to their campaign promises of a more open and transparent legislative process. Let's allow all Members, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to create a real energy bill with real answers to diminish, not increase, our dependence on foreign oil. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, 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 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I have received it now. I certainly see no reason to object, and I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. Fairness, openness, sunshine, transparency, bipartisanship, those are just some of the words that the new majority used to describe the way they were going to run the 110th Congress. But today, as we begin debate on the sixth bill of the Democrats' ``100 Hours for 6'' or 100 hours agenda, we have seen all too clearly, Mr. Speaker, the truth about those promises. They have been, at best, hollow promises. On Tuesday of this week, the Committee on Rules met to take testimony and report a rule on the legislation that has been brought to the floor today. Before any testimony was even taken, the distinguished chairwoman of the committee announced that the committee's majority would report out a closed rule. After the chairwoman's declaration, there really was not any need for testimony or debate on any amendments. The Rules Committee had been closed for business. The majority had already made up its mind to block amendments despite any merits of all possible amendments that could be brought before the committee. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how you can claim an open and transparent process when you block all amendments before they are even brought before the committee. During consideration of the bills that comprised the Contract with America in 1995, we Republicans allowed consideration of 154 Democrat amendments; 48 Democrat amendments eventually passed the House and were included in the Contract with America bills that passed the House of Representatives. But that is not what we see happening today, Mr. Speaker. Today as we consider the last of the new majority's 100 hour agenda, we have not had the chance to debate one amendment, not even one. From either party, they have been consistent, they close out their Members as well. They promised openness, they promised transparency. Some openness, some transparency. According to the majority leader's office, Mr. Speaker, we have over 65 hours left in the so-called 100 hours for 2006. The reality is that we have more than enough time, more than enough time to debate some thoughtful amendments. What does the majority plan to do with the rest of their 100 hours? Are we to expect more closed rules? The 100 hours for 2006 campaign means that six people make all the decisions, apparently. I would imagine it is the Speaker, the majority leader, the whip, the caucus chairman and two others, six for '06 and six for '07 and six for '08, but then the American people get to speak again. Now, Democrats claim that Congress already debated the bills last year, the bills that are being brought forth to the floor. While it is true that some provisions have come before the Congress in other legislation in previous Congresses, provisions that may be in legislation brought before us under these closed rules that shut out all the amendments, there are many aspects of the bills, including the bill today, that have never seen the light of day. Even more important is that our 54 new colleagues, they were not here for any of our previous debates. Four committees of jurisdiction have jurisdiction over the bill that the majority brings to the floor at this time, Ways and Means, Resources, Budget and Rules. Yet the majority did not allow any of those committees of jurisdiction to hold any hearings or debate the bill. I am honored to serve as the ranking member on the Rules Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process, which has jurisdiction over parts of this underlying consideration. The subcommittee has never held a hearing on the bill. The majority decided it was better if the bill never saw the light of day in any committee process. I think it is important to recall why we have committees, why we have a committee process. The committee process allows Members to understand the merits and implications of bills and to vet, refine and amend legislation. Completely shutting out committees of jurisdiction is certainly not healthy for the democratic process. This year we have already seen what happens when you bypass the committee process and blindly bring legislation to the floor. We get outcomes, such as the one in the minimum wage bill that ends up exempting companies from paying the minimum wage in American Samoa. If it had gone through the committee process, at least we would have known about that aspect of the bill. If we had held hearings on the underlying bill before us today, we would learn some of the consequences of this bill. For example, some bill would cut back on incentives for domestic production of oil and gas. Those incentives are aimed, and the existing incentives, are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of those incentives will drive up the cost, obviously, for those who search for oil and gas and thus increase our dependence on foreign suppliers, such as Venezuela and Nigeria. Those countries, I would maintain, are not reliable sources. In the case of Venezuela, its government is clearly anti-American. Do we really want to rely on those countries? Apparently the majority today is saying yes. Republicans are committed to increasing clean energy supplies and increasing our domestic energy sources. Since 2001, we have seen the investment of nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic energy sources. This includes the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. You know, we hear my friend from Massachusetts talking about the fact that some tax breaks or unfair tax breaks were given to the oil and gas companies. It is interesting, because I was seeing a report from the Congressional Research Service that talks about despite the fact that there has been a lot of talk and there continues to be a lot of talk over the tax breaks given to big oil in the energy bill that we passed in 2005, in reality, that energy bill substantially raised taxes on the oil and gas industry $300 million. There was a $300 million tax increase, according to the Congressional Research Service, while at the same time, giving more than almost $9 billion in tax incentives for alternative clean and renewable energy resources. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we should not be considering closed rule after closed rule after closed rule and systematically bypassing the committee process. This constant bypass operation that our friends on the other side of the aisle have become enamored to, the constant bypass operation, it really constitutes an affront, I would say, to the democratic spirit as well as, obviously, to the promises that were repeated and repeated by our friends on the other side of the aisle before they arrived and constituted and instituted the continuous, constant bypass operation, bypass the committees, bypass the Members, bypass the possibility of amendments, and go straight to the floor with legislation that no one has seen. That is not healthy. That is not healthy, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reserving my right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I may not object, but I don't have a copy of what the gentleman, my friend, was talking about. If the gentleman would explain the motion, because I was not shown a copy before.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Raymundo Perdigon Brito, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Perdigon Brito is an independent journalist in Cuba who is striving to create a society that tolerates human rights, freedom, and democracy. He has been a peaceful supporter of bringing the most fundamental of human rights to a people shackled by a tyrant's brutal machinery of repression. Unfortunately, because of his unwavering support of freedom for the people of Cuba Mr. Perdigon Brito has been targeted by the dictatorship. In November of 2006, Mr. Perdigonn, his sister Ana Margarita Perdigon and several other journalists launched the Yayabo Press news agency. On November 29, 2006, just 12 days after its launch, Mr. Perdigon Brito was arrested by State Security thugs and told to cease his journalistic activities or that he would be sent to prison. Mr. Perdigon Brito was always aware of the risks he was taking as a journalist and he was well aware of his many colleagues serving long prison terms in Castro's hellish gulags, yet rather than allow his voice to be silenced, he preferred to fight for the cause of freedom and democracy on that enslaved island. On December 5, 2006, Mr. Perdigon Brito was ``sentenced'' to 4 years in the inhuman squalor of Castro's gulags on charges that he posed a ``pre-criminal danger to society''. A charge often used to detain pro- democracy activists, even when they have committed no offense, simply because the regime regards them a potential threat to its grotesquely brutal and repressive totalitarian control. In Mr. Perdigon's absence, his sister, Ana Margarita Perdigon, replaced him as Editor of Yayabo Press. This development did not pass unchecked or unnoticed within the inner circles of the regime's henchmen. According to a dissident journalist who spoke to Reporters Without Borders, ``The political police knew this and did everything to ensure the news agency is disbanded as soon as possible''. On the morning of December 5, 2006, as Mr. Perdigon Brito's relatives were leaving the courthouse in the central province of Sancti Spiritus, Cuba, nearly 100 regime thugs attacked them viciously. This barbarous and vile hate crime was carried out with such regimented violence that Mr. Perdigon Brito's father was hospitalized due to serious injuries sustained during the attack. Madam Speaker, it is repulsive that only 90 miles from our shore, brave souls like that of Mr. Perdigon are locked in dungeons because they too believe in the freedoms we hold sacred to our way of life. My colleagues, let us remember those whose suffer under the totalitarian nightmare that is the Castro regime. Let us demand the immediate release of Raymundo Perdigon Brito and every prisoner of conscience in the dungeons of totalitarian despots.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, a political prisoner totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Herrera Acosta is a tireless advocate for the freedom of Cuba and has dedicated much of his life to the cause of freedom for the Cuban people. He believes that every trapped citizen in totalitarian Cuba deserves to live with the most basic and fundamental human rights and protections of individual liberty. Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta is an independent journalist with the Agencia de Prensa Libre Oriental (APLO) in Santiago, Cuba and national coordinator for the Cuban Youth Movement for Democracy. He was arrested on March 20, 2003, as part of the despicable island-wide crackdown on peaceful human rights activists and independent journalists. In April of 2003, he was wrongfully sentenced on trumped-up charges claiming that he undermined ``national independence and territorial integrity'' and served the ``imperialist ends'' of the United States, to 20 years in a hellish totalitarian gulag. In reality his only ``crime'' was challenging a corrupt, brutal, and repressive system that robs its citizens of every freedom. Reporters Without Borders reported that on August 29, 2006, Mr. Herrera Acosta was severely beaten and dragged along the prison's corridors by two regime henchmen because he reiterated a demand to be allowed to make a phone call--a right the dictatorship has routinely denied him. According to Directorio, Mr. Herrera Acosta has undertaken numerous hunger strikes while in prison to protest the deplorable, inhumane and degrading conditions in which prisoners of conscience in Cuba are held. Most recently, in an urgent declaration read aloud to the Cuban Democratic Directorate by Rolando Rodriguez Lobaina, executive member of the Cuban Youth Movement for Democracy, Mr. Herrera Acosta reaffirmed his commitment to the cause of freedom for the Cuban people: I fight because the light of truth and liberty reaches this land converted into a feudal estate before a Caesar that bleeds her dry. As a dignified son of this country, I am willing to offer my life if it is necessary to defend pacifism, so that peace and concordance would thrive in the land of Varela and Marti. I do not discard the possibility that a clinically induced death, at the hands of the commissars of terror, will truncate my life. But as long as I have strength and my heart is beating, I will continue to fight from inside the monstrous womb of Castro's prisons. I will never lower myself to bow down, nor will I live on my knees, and as Jose Marti would express, I reiterate: ``I want the first law of our Republic to be the respect of Cubans for the plain dignity of man.'' The price to pay has been very high. Pain, grief, and exile constitute the panacea that is Castro's reign of terror. But I do not resign to live condemned, I am simply continuing the dignified example of the historical Cuban political prisoners. Freedom for Cuba! God, Country, and Liberty! May human rights thrive and prevail in my country! Let me be very clear, Mr. Herrera Acosta is imprisoned because he refuses to accept the Castro brothers' dictatorship today. Madam Speaker, Mr. Herrera Acosta is representative of the fighting spirit of the Cuban people: of their rejection of the brutality, discrimination, depravity, and oppression of the totalitarian tyranny. We must speak out against the abominable violations of human rights, dignity, and freedom on that oppressed island. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta and every other political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Ofelia Tabares-Fernandez for her outstanding contributions to the south Florida community. Both in her professional and private life, Dr. Tabares-Fernandez has dedicated countless hours to enriching our community culturally and economically. I wholeheartedly commend Dr. Tabares-Fernandez for her hard work and dedication on behalf of south Florida. Through years of hard work spanning three decades, Dr. Tabares- Fernandez consistently proved herself a capable leader and an extraordinarily active volunteer. Her professional successes, of which there are many, include her career as a banker and marketing consultant, college trustee, research associate for the Cuban Research project, and director of the College Center for Latin American Studies. Dr. Tabares-Fernandez earned many civic distinctions as well. To name only a few, she founded the Cuban Patriotic Education Board and the Cuban Women's Club, where she also served as president, and founded the Spanish Speaking Volunteer Service at Jackson Memorial Hospital. To promote and preserve Cuban culture, she produced and directed a local weekly television show, ``Cuban Culture,'' and founded the Cuban Museum of Arts and Culture. Her contributions have earned her numerous awards including ``Outstanding Woman Citizen of the Year'' from Florida International University and the ``Community Headliner Award.'' The life of Dr. Tabares-Fernandez is an inspiration to us all. I am certain that her children, Pepita, Raul, Jr., Aurelio, Patricia, Cesareo, Maria, Juan, Sheila, Jose, and Ximena, are proud of her as well. Her professional choices, as well as the projects she has enthusiastically undertaken in her free time, reveal Dr. Tabares- Fernandez's life to be one of tireless public service. Her numerous contributions have helped to make our community the extraordinary multicultural metropolis that it is today. As a result, Dr. Tabares- Fernandez has earned herself a very special place in the rich Cuban- American history of South Florida. Dr. Ofelia Tabares-Fernandez is a true humanitarian whose work has permanently impacted our community in a wonderful way.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, I have not.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. So not only can we not have an hour, but now we have to finish our debate before hearing our opponents. No, again, we heard ``the disinfectant of sunlight'' has arrived. An interesting definition for what has arrived, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, what we are voting on today, this rules package, this provision, this title V, constitutes serious retrogression from progress made in this Congress throughout generations of work, of reform, from both parties, that has brought openness and transparency. The Rules Committee now is closed off from the public, and closed rules are brought to this floor in this rules package before we have even seen legislation. Most unfortunate, Madam Speaker.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, since the title of the rules package that we are seeking to debate now includes five closed rules for legislation that we haven't seen and we only have 10 minutes to debate this title, I ask unanimous consent for 1 hour of debate, at least 1 hour of debate, for these, in effect, five closed rules.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``The disinfectant of sunlight,'' Madam Speaker. I just heard that term. The alternation of power can sometimes be healthy, often be healthy in democracy. Progress is made by the cumulative efforts and reforms of succeeding generations in this Congress, often from both parties. But retrogression, Madam Speaker, from progress is neither healthy nor certainly commendable. As I mentioned before, in this section of the rules package brought forth by the new majority, first of all, the Rules Committee will no longer be required to disclose roll call votes on rules brought forth or amendments in committee. I believe, and I haven't heard it from the other side because no pretext has even been brought forth here in the House, but I believe that the pretext is for closing out sunshine completely in the Rules Committee, that some mistakes were made reporting in the past roll calls. In the last 12 years, there were over 1,300 recorded votes in the Committee on Rules, and not once, Madam Speaker, did the committee file a report with incorrect vote totals. And then, as I made reference before, this title of the rules package that the majority brings forth includes five closed rules for legislation that we still haven't seen. And we have received a lot of criticism. I have heard a lot of criticism over the last years when we have come to the floor from the Rules Committee with closed rules, but at least we have had Rules Committees meetings and there has been an opportunity for Members to go to the Rules Committee and present amendments. Well, now we are, in this rules package, in a totally unprecedented manner, seeing that the majority is bringing forth five closed rules for bills that we haven't seen. And in addition, they are waiving all points of order, all points of order, against all of those five bills that we haven't even seen. So that is most unfortunate, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.