Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 477 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Further, the rule waives points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of Rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative appropriations in general appropriations bills, and clause 6 of Rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in general appropriations bills. Further, Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given priority recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. In addition, the rule grants the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole the authority to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes, provided that the first vote in a series is not less than 15 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, because we are still without a budget resolution conference report, the rule provides that the allocations required by the Budget Act, section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that sets out the process requiring those numbers, shall be considered as made to the Committee on Appropriations. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are using last year's budget resolution numbers, as adjusted for economic assumptions. The Committee on Rules hearing was cordial and bipartisan, which I am told is a reflection of how the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations has acted during the stewardship of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the ranking member. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) has been a tremendous asset to this House, and his contributions to a better quality of life for our men and women in uniform are truly commendable. I support this open rule as well as the underlying bill. The bill funds military construction, family housing and base closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999. The spending level represents a reduction in the underlying bill of $1 billion from last year's bill, $8.2 billion this year versus $9.2 billion for 1998, a reduction from last year's bill, and I believe that the bill contains a reasonable amount of spending, with the majority of the money going to family housing. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for their hard work and cooperation in bringing forward this Military Construction Appropriations bill, and I would urge the adoption of both the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What we have been alleging and bringing forth, the military construction bill, is not bald-faced horsefeathers, or some other regional folkloric terminology the gentleman from Wisconsin is so good at using. It is a very serious matter, this legislation, and it is very important to the national security of this country. And these arguments, I think, we have refuted most effectively, in terms of this having been supposedly surreptitious or unprecedented. That is not true. It is not true, and I feel very proud of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and of the chairman of the Committee on Rules in bringing forth this legislation under an open rule. And we have a very distinguished and admirable record of bringing forth important pieces of legislation, and most legislation, under open rules. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that, first of all, it is important to reiterate, because we have heard so often today it being alleged that we are doing something stealthily, that not only did we have a hearing and a markup in the Committee on Rules for this resolution that we are bringing to the floor today, in order to bring before us the underlying legislation of the military construction appropriations bill, but, today, in our presentation, our initial presentation, we talked about how we are complying with the Budget Act of 1974 through this procedure. And then with regard to the so-called unprecedented nature of what we are doing, my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), just said that we are, in effect, to paraphrase him, getting rid of the budget process. Our friends, when they controlled the majority in 1985, did this. Because at that time a conference report on the budget had not been passed as well. But they did not do it in June. They did not do it on June 19. No, it was July 24 that year that the budget process had not been completed. And they also brought a rule forward, in order to comply with the Budget Act, doing the same thing, deeming last year's numbers for this year's. So the reality is it has neither been done in a stealthy way, much less in an unprecedented way. But I want to point out one very important point, because speaker, after speaker, after speaker on the other side have mentioned they have nothing against this military construction bill. Oh, no, no, no, this military construction bill is very good, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), of course, has to be congratulated, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). And speaker, after speaker, after speaker reiterate the fact they have nothing against the military construction bill; that it is very important to pass the military construction bill. Let us keep one thing in mind. If our distinguished friends manage to defeat this rule today, if our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle manage to defeat this rule, what they will be doing is denying our men and women in uniform the military construction bill. And let there be no doubt that all this fancy debate and imaginative performance that we have seen here today will have, if it is successful, the outcome, the effect, of denying the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from California the opportunity to come to the floor today and to present a piece of legislation which is very necessary to our men and women in uniform throughout this country and those who are serving in so-called peacekeeping missions like in Bosnia. So have no doubt, distinguished colleagues, as to what we are doing. This is not unprecedented. It was done in 1985, and not in June but in July. It was not stealthily done. It was publicly done in the Committee on Rules under the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). And again today we brought it out in our oral statement at the very beginning. What we are dealing with is bringing forth legislation that is critical to the national security of this country. So let us clarify and make clear exactly where we are and what we are dealing with. If we want to continue talking as though we were in the model United Nations, like I was in college, because that is what I have been reminded of today with some of the speeches on the other side of the aisle, very theoretical and nice sounding speeches, but we are not talking model United Nations or model parliaments like when we were in high school or college. This is the military construction bill of the United States that we are bringing to the floor today. It is about time that we get to this legislation, and it is about time that we pass it today, and that is why I urge passage of the rule and passage of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. So the bottom line is this is an open rule, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of this open rule. It is a lot better than the other side did when they controlled the majority. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. In the Committee on Rules, neither you there nor anyone else was asking to change this rule.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If the gentleman wants to interrupt me before I can even answer my questions, then that is his prerogative. I am not going to be answering with constant interruptions. The gentleman thinks he is funny by getting up and saying, will you yield, and before I can even answer, he does not even allow me to answer.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, what I am most impacted by at this point----

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That the gentleman can oppose the previous question on this rule and make that point precisely to oppose the previous question.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The gentleman, as one of the most distinguished Members of this House and someone who is extraordinarily knowledgeable of the rules of the House knows----

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would simply reiterate that we are fully complying with the Budget Act of 1974 and all other laws and obviously the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I must commend my dear friends on the other side of the aisle for their extraordinary imagination and parliamentary ability, parliamentary ability which obviously is connected to imagination. A number of points have just been made that were fascinating. Number one, that a mysterious provision has been buried in this rule. That was said more than one. Very interesting. My recollection this morning was that the Speaker recognized me first and that I granted time to my dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) was here on the floor first, so I granted time to the gentleman from Massachusetts and then the gentleman from Ohio has been controlling the time for our distinguished friends on the other side of the aisle. Now, when the Speaker recognized me and I made a brief statement this morning describing the rule, this open rule with which we are bringing the underlying legislation to the floor, it is not only in the rule but I mentioned on the floor and I will repeat, because we are still without a budget resolution conference report the rule provides that the allocations required by the Budget Act, section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that sets out the process requiring those numbers, shall be considered as made to the Committee on Appropriations. In other words, we are using last year's budget resolution numbers as adjusted for economic assumptions.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time. I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply reiterate that the underlying legislation being brought to the floor this morning has a cut in it, a reduction in funding of $1 billion. That is not a reduction in growth, that is an actual cut of $1 billion from last year's bill, and that the Budget Act of 1974 is complied with with the procedure that we are following this morning. Equally as important, the legislation that we are bringing to the floor this morning is under an open rule where every Member will have the opportunity to propose any amendment that the membership may wish to. We are striving to bring as many pieces of legislation to the floor with open rules as possible. We are proud of our record in that regard, and we will continue to bring as much legislation as possible to the floor under this open rule process which grants every Member the opportunity to bring forth any amendment that is germane. So with that in mind and stating it once again that this is an open rule, I would urge the adoption of the rule and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have complied not only with the spirit but with the letter of the law, the Budget Act. And I have in my possession, and I would be glad to give my distinguished friend a copy, a letter from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations where the following among other things is stated: This procedure that we are using, that complies not only with the spirit but with the letter of the Budget Act, has been done in previous years when the conference on the budget resolution was late. And further, the chair of the Committee on Appropriations states if the conference agreement on the budget resolution should adjust these numbers that we are using in this appropriations bill that is brought to the floor today, the committee will adjust, the Committee on Appropriations will adjust its allocation and reflect such changes in further suballocations for later bills. But what I wanted to make reference to was in regard to the great imagination showed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they talk about the stealth procedures that are being utilized. Stealth procedures. When I brought out, the Committee on Rules brought out in his rule in writing for everyone interested to read, but I brought out in my oral statement this morning opening this debate what we are doing fully in compliance with the Budget Act of 1974. So that is something I think is important to point out. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that was stated more than once by our distinguished friends that we are raising spending. I remember I used to be in the State legislature in Florida and a lot of times when discussions would occur with regard to reductions in the growth of government spending, those would be called cuts. Here in Washington in the 6 years since I have been here, often we have seen that when reductions in the growth of government are referred to, they are called cuts. And yet the underlying legislation that we are bringing this morning to the floor, the military construction bill, does not reflect a reduction in the growth of government spending. No, no. It brings to the floor an actual cut in the budget of a billion dollars, from $9.2 billion to $8.2 billion. So what I am saying is obviously what we are seeing this morning is great talent, imagination, parliamentary ability. But I think that I certainly have never seen in the context of an open rule being brought to the floor for legislation so that all these amendments and all these ideas and all this imagination can be reflected in the context of an open rule, where every Member can come to the floor and debate ad infinitum if they wish in the context of our open rule, Mr. Speaker, which is something that was very rare when the other side controlled the majority, we are seeing all these signs of imagination. All of these signs of parliamentary ability. All of these signs of talent. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why not wait and during the open rule which we are granting, which is something that they rarely gave to us, why not wait during all the time in the world that we are granting for all of this maneuvering on the open floor? Instead, they bring it during the open rule to obfuscate the fact that we are bringing an open rule. To obfuscate the fact that they rarely brought an open rule. To divert the attention of the membership to the fact that this Republican majority has a much higher percentage of open rules that it brings to the floor than the Democrats when they were in the majority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 477 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Fine.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would be glad to.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That is the letter that I have before me.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I am not in possession of that letter. But what I do know is that the procedure set forth by the Budget Act has been fully complied with, and that the Budget Act contemplates the possibility that we are dealing with at this time. This is not the first time we are dealing with it and in that contemplation, if I may answer----

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Then I cannot answer the gentleman's question if he will not give me the time to answer his question.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I obviously support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is an open rule. It is important to bring the underlying legislation to the floor as soon as possible. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has stated that we will have it on the next legislative day, on Monday, on the floor if we pass this rule. So I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.