Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before closing, I will yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding that we have at least 72 hours on any legislation and every piece of legislation, to read it and study it before it is brought to the floor; 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that. That is why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, offered by Representatives Baird and Culberson, requiring 72 hours on every piece of legislation before it is taken to a vote. If anyone is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that that would jeopardize the chemical security bill, be not concerned, because the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so we can vote on the chemical security bill and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 554. The American people are demanding that on every piece of legislation there should be 72 hours to study it and read it thoroughly before it is voted on. 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. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I had the privilege a few days ago to speak by telephone with one of the great heroes that fight for democracy and human rights in Cuba, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, ``Antunez.'' He is in the city of Placetas in Cuba. His house is surrounded by thugs of the dictatorship. He is continuously harassed, often detained, has spent 17 years as a political prisoner, and was recently released. Yet he continues his fight, peacefully, nonviolently, against the totalitarian system in Cuba, in that island that has been forgotten by the world, and yet its people continue to suffer under the yoke of a brutal, totalitarian, nightmarish regime led by a dictator who is infirm now, he is sick. By virtue of that, he has turned over some titles, titles of power to his brother, but yet he retains, Fidel Castro, retains absolute personal power, total power in that totalitarian fiefdom. His brother receives visitors, heads of state and has some titles of power, but be not mistaken, the totalitarian power remains in the hands of Fidel Castro, who, for example, is the one that orders that heroes like Antunez be detained or released, that heroes such as Oscar Elias Biscet or Rolando Arroyo or Pedro Arguelles Moran or Normando Hernandez or Ariel Sigler Amaya or Librado Linares or Horacio Pina or Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso or Hector Maceda or Felix Navarro or Rafael Ibarra and countless others be retained in the gulag being tortured simply because those heroes support the ability for the Cuban people to have the rights, for example, that the American people, or free people throughout the world have. Jorge Luis Garcia Perez told me, when I spoke to him on the phone about the fact that his wife's brother, his wife is Iris Perez Aguilera, and she is also a fantastic, formidable freedom fighter. Her brother, Mario Perez Aguilera, is in the gulag being tortured, and is being denied access, visits by his family. In other words, Iris cannot visit her brother who is in horrible physical condition. We don't know how gravely ill, but we know he is very ill, and he is being denied access. His family cannot visit them. So I told Antunez that I would come to this floor and use the great privilege given to me by my constituents to tell the world about the brutality that Mario Perez Aguilera, that political prisoner, and the many others, that they are facing day in and day out, and the added inhumanity of not being able to be seen by their family members. The island that the world ignores. And what is most tragic is that it is 90 miles from our shores and for over 50 years, it has been in the grasp of a demented despot who orders such actions as the ones I have discussed this evening. So I will continue to denounce the brutality, the inhumanity, and I will also continue to remind the world that despite that brutality, Cuba will soon be free. To be continued.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Speaker introduced her so-called health reform bill that will cost over $1.2 trillion and will be paid for by massive taxes on small business and cuts to Medicare. With unemployment at 10 percent and small businesses throughout the country struggling to survive, it is irresponsible to pass legislation that will place a higher tax burden on small businesses. President Obama has pledged to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So small businesses can expect at least two tax hits in 2 years. A radio journalist from back home asked me this morning if measures are being taken in Congress to alleviate unemployment. My reply was, no, unfortunately there is a kind of war on free enterprise going on in Washington right now. Until that war is ended, unemployment will not drop. We should be encouraging job growth and not destroying jobs with bills like this so-called health reform.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Always Ready. That's the motto of the United States Coast Guard. Since its establishment in 1790 by Alexander Hamilton, the Coast Guard is the only branch in our military that is always deployed. As part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is tasked with maritime law enforcement, search and rescue for those in peril at sea, patrolling and protecting our ports, harbors and sea borders, marine environmental protection, helping manage offshore spills, facilitating maritime navigation and commerce, and so much more. In times of war, the Coast Guard also deploys with other service branches overseas. The underlying legislation, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, being brought to the floor today authorizes approximately $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. It increases the authorized end-strength by 1,500 members to a total of 47,000 personnel. The legislation also authorizes additional Coast Guard maritime security response teams to assist in detecting explosives and drug interdiction. The Coast Guard is currently undergoing the largest single acquisition program in its history in order to upgrade and modernize its surface and air assets. The program currently known as Deepwater includes 91 new cutters, 124 new small boats, and 247 new or modernized airplanes, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles. According to the most recent acquisition program baseline, the Deepwater acquisitions are projected to cost $24 billion and take 25 years to complete. The underlying legislation includes $1.2 billion for acquisition of new vessels, aircraft and support systems under the Deepwater program for 2010. The legislation also requires the Coast Guard to be responsible for the enforcement of any Federal security zone established around terminals and around tankers transporting ``especially hazardous materials.'' The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Coast Guard, to conduct a pilot program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals to enhance our border security. The legislation establishes a pilot program to test and deploy preventative radiological or nuclear detection equipment on Coast Guard vessels and fixed locations in port areas. It establishes a congressional nomination system for admission to the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. That process is similar to those already in place for the other service academies. Mr. Speaker, in south Florida we are all admirers of the Coast Guard. We see it day in and day out save lives and help citizens. While I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor. The last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule that allowed consideration of the bill under a modified open process, a modified open rule. That type of rule allows any Member of the House to offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment is preprinted in the Congressional Record. That's why it is known as a modified open rule; any amendment can be brought forward, but you have to preprint it. Even though we historically considered this bill under a modified open rule, today the majority has brought that precedent to an end. It has decided that that precedent should be disregarded and that the right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted. Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, we in the minority asked for the traditional modified open rule, and yet the majority voted it down on a party-line vote. I thought that was somewhat ironic. The last time the House considered this legislation under the traditional modified open rule, we were criticized for offering a modified open rule. That was called restrictive. Well, now we have again--unnecessarily and breaking with precedent--a structured rule; in other words, only those amendments made in order can be considered. So here we are, Mr. Speaker, yet again with another example of how the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all Members of this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friend, Ms. Matsui, that when she says the amendments that were asked to be made in order before the Rules Committee were made in order, yes, that's correct. The tradition, as I pointed out earlier, of this House for many decades with regard to this legislation--especially since it's legislation that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support--the tradition is that Members didn't have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated if they simply preprinted those amendments in the Congressional Record. That was another important tradition in this House that has been violated unnecessarily, that has been reversed, ended unnecessarily by the new majority. That's what I pointed out. I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee.

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Taylor brought out a very relevant and important example of why it was appropriate and important to follow what has been a decades-long tradition of allowing all Members with amendments to introduce them for consideration by the entire House simply by preprinting them in the Congressional Record. Mr. Taylor should not have had to go to the Rules Committee and wait, and then ask, request, permission to have his amendment considered. In addition to having to wait and then ask for permission, he was denied permission to have his amendment considered, which is an important amendment. He explained it in detail before the Rules Committee. In representation of his constituents and having developed an expertise throughout many years of service here, he communicated with the Coast Guard and basically came to an agreement on interpreting existing law, law that was passed before we entered into GATT and the international commitments that were referenced by my dear friend Ms. Matsui. Existing law before those commitments is what Mr. Taylor is trying to refine, to technically make clear, in pursuance of the interests of his constituents and our Nation. That idea should have been able to be debated. His proposal should be able to be debated and considered by the entire House. It is another example, and a concrete example, an important example, of why I believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, to limit the procedural rights of the Members of this House. I thank my friend Ms. Matsui for her courtesy, and all of those who have participated in this debate. I want to point out, and then I will reserve our time again--I believe you have more speakers--that when I refer to the breaking of tradition by the majority, in this instance the reversal of the tradition that allowed for Members to preprint their amendments and have them considered by the entire House, when we maintained that tradition, when we followed that tradition that is now reversed, we were criticized for not allowing in this instance a fully open rule, again because we maintained the tradition of the preprinting requirement known as the modified open rule, and we were criticized by the then-minority. And they promised, Mr. Speaker, to open the process further, to improve the process, to make it more transparent. Well, that was another promise broken, because instead of improving, making more transparent the process that we were criticized for, instead of improving that process, they have further closed it. It is unfortunate. I reserve my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui, for her courtesy during this debate with regard to this important underlying legislation that's being brought to the floor. I also thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member LoBiondo. I'd like to, before proceeding, yield 5 minutes to my friend from Miami, Florida, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. No, and I will wrap up my remarks shortly.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui. Over the past few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress, or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings, asking their Congress Members whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people were outraged finding out that the majority has forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and often very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read them. For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill; or on the cap-and-trade bill, that one we were provided at 3 in the morning, and then a few hours later it was here on the floor. In some instances, much less than 24 hours. That's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset. I think they should be. The distinguished Speaker said, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet time and again, the distinguished Speaker and the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members and the general public for 72 hours before being brought to the House floor for a vote. So that's why today I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson. Now, Members may be concerned that this motion would jeopardize the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, but I want to make clear the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on the Coast Guard bill, and then once we're done, consider H. Res. 554. I would ask, thus, Mr. Speaker, for the previous question to be defeated. Amendment to H. Res. 853 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, insert the following new section: Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that legislation and conference reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) One hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 554.

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. Well, I want to thank you for calling this Special Order, convoking it and focusing in on this very important, really critical subject. Winston Churchill talked about the fact that facts are better than dreams. There are facts with regard to the crisis in Honduras. The people of Honduras acted constitutionally. Their institutions acted constitutionally in removing a President who was acting unconstitutionally, and they removed him. The institutions, the democratic institutions of Honduras removed a President who had been acting unconstitutionally on June 28. Those are facts. The Obama administration is wrong when, in this case, it sides with Chavez and Castro, Ortega, Correa, the other anti-democratic elements in this hemisphere who are pressuring for the imposition of the President who had violated the Constitution in Honduras for his return, his forceful return, unconstitutionally to power. The Obama administration is wrong. That's a fact. Now, there's another fact that is of importance, and that is we saw a number of Members of Congress here almost at midnight, because of the importance of this issue, tell the American people that after thorough study, they have come to the conclusion that the Obama administration is wrong and that the Honduran people acted appropriately. It's a fact that there is a growing number of Members of Congress who are becoming involved, educated and are expressing themselves with regard to this issue. That's a fact that the Obama administration needs to take into consideration, because as was mentioned before, even if the situation were different, and even if the Hondurans had acted unconstitutionally in removing President Zelaya from power, the solution to the crisis should be evident to all: free and fair elections, especially when the candidates were chosen before the crisis began by all of the political parties. So what is most not only incorrect, but almost inconceivable, Madam Speaker, is that the Obama administration is not only wrong with regard to what happened in Honduras, is not only wrong with regard to whom it is siding with and whom it is siding against, but that even if the administration were not wrong with regard to what has happened, the evident solution being the elections of November 29, are not being supported by the Obama administration, but the Obama administration is saying that they will not recognize the will of the Honduran people as expressed on November 29. That is inconceivable--beyond wrong. That is inconceivable, Madam Speaker. So, facts: Congress is aware of how wrong the administration is. Congress is aware that the Honduran people are proceeding with an election on November 29. The reason that the majority leadership is not bringing to the floor of this House a resolution to express support for the elections, the resolution was filed by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and others, expressing support for the elections that are going to be held November 29, the reason the majority leadership does not bring that resolution to the floor is because it would win a majority vote, because the fact is a growing number of Members of Congress, I maintain by now a majority of this House, are aware of the gross unfairness with which that small nation is being treated by this administration. So I think it's important for the administration, Madam Speaker, to take note, tonight, almost at midnight, that Honduras, despite the pressure, despite the fact that it's a small country, is moving forward with elections. Those elections deserve not only support and respect, but commendation. And further efforts to deny the Honduran people their right of self-determination, their right to express themselves freely by secret ballot on November 29 is wrong. That's a fact. More and more people in this Congress are learning the facts. And I hope, Madam Speaker, that the administration takes note and reverses itself, backs off from not supporting elections, from not supporting free determination and, rather, supports the Honduran people. I thank you, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, for focusing attention, for your leadership role on this critical issue. Not only do the people of Honduras deserve it, but the hemisphere requires the further attention of the American people to this critical issue. Thank you very much.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow cochairman of the Florida Congressional Delegation, Mr. Hastings, for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, several years ago I had the distinct privilege to bring to this floor, first, the rule bringing the legislation to the floor that created the Department of Homeland Security, and then the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has begun to mature. It has improved the process for which it was created, the oversight of and coordination of many departments related to the safety of the Nation. As we know, the department was created in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to organize the government to the best of its ability to secure the homeland from further terrorist attacks, to protect the Nation's borders, and to prepare for natural disasters. And thanks to our new concerted approach, I think we've made key investments to secure the United States from further terrorist attacks. But clearly we must not let our guard down. Just a few weeks ago, we heard about a disrupted terrorist attack in New York City. The Attorney General of the United States has called the plot, ``one of the most serious in the United States since September 11, 2001.'' That is why I am pleased that the underlying legislation provides the Department with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the Nation from other terrorist attacks. We must not lose our focus. We must continue our efforts to protect the United States from deadly attacks. This legislation will provide much-needed funding to help secure our borders, with $800 million for Southwest border investments, over $3 billion for the Border Patrol, including over 20,000 Border agents, an increase of more than 50 percent since 2006. The State that I am honored to represent, Florida, has seen, as my dear friend has pointed out, its share of natural disasters, from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to the series of very disastrous back-to-back hurricanes in the middle of this decade. That is why having a prepared and professional staff at FEMA, ready to coordinate disaster preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts, is of vital importance to Florida. I am pleased the conference report will provide FEMA and the new FEMA administrator--we Floridians are very proud of him, Craig Fugate--the resources needed to help in the aftermath of any natural disaster, whether it's a hurricane in Florida, an earthquake in California, or the flooding in the Midwest. The terrorist attacks of September 11 heightened concerns regarding aviation security. In response, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. That legislation established a Federal screener workforce and required the screening of all checked baggage using explosive detection systems, EDS. EDS machines can quickly determine if a baggage contains a potential threat. If a weapon or explosive is detected, the machines alert security officers so they can manage the baggage appropriately. Funding and reimbursement for EDS installation, however, continues to be a serious concern. Miami International Airport, which is in my congressional district, has incurred over $78 million in in-line EDS terminal modification costs and continues to seek reimbursement for the Federal share of those costs. I am pleased that this conference report provides $778 million in discretionary funding to purchase and install EDS at airports. Those funds will help reimburse Miami International Airport and other airports in their efforts to complete EDS installations. Our Nation's maritime industry contributes approximately $750 billion to the gross domestic product each year. Florida has some of the largest ports in the country. The Port of Miami serves as the primary maritime gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a strategic hub for international commerce throughout the hemisphere, and obviously it is the cruise ship capital of the word. Since 9/11, the Port of Miami has faced unprecedented security costs due to the expense of complying with Federal security mandates. While ports across the Nation are facing similar challenges, the problem at the Port of Miami is particularly serious. Annual operating security costs at the Port of Miami have increased from just over $4 million in 2001 to over $20 million today. The legislation we are bringing to the floor provides $300 million in grants to assist ports in enhancing their security measures to prevent, detect, and respond to possible terrorist attacks. So I wish to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their clearly bipartisan work on this conference report that makes critical investments in the priorities facing the Department of Homeland Security, including securing our transportation systems, strong border security, a well-prepared and able FEMA, and so much more. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the contributions during this debate, enlightening our colleagues with regard to the merits of the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today. You know, one of the, I think, most interesting aspects of the American representative democracy is that we differ from other representative democracies probably because our two parties are, in effect, great coalitions. We have a two-party system by virtue of that; both parties represent different coalitions of thought on numerous issues. So it's interesting that today, for example, while my friend and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed an opinion contrary to the position maintained by the President of the United States on an important issue--and I think it's appropriate to do so--I commend the President of the United States for his position with regard to the release of detainee photos. The legislation before us codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos. I commend the President because, obviously, his leadership and support on that aspect has been decisive in the inclusion of that provision in this legislation. So our system is unique. This constant manifestation of our two great coalitions is fascinating to me as a student of comparative politics. It is another reason I am so proud of this body--the great sovereign Congress of the United States which represents the most sovereign and the freest people in the world, the American people. Madam Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at meetings throughout the Nation. They've asked their Members of Congress whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is, I think, that people were outraged after finding out that the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or to really even read the bills. I remember a very glaring example of that when we on the Rules Committee were faced with an entire new bill on this legislation that was known as cap-and-trade, which in effect became a manager's amendment to the legislation at 3 o'clock in the morning, and a few hours after that, we were here voting on it. We were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill and, as I mentioned, on that cap-and-trade bill with less than 24 hours to read them--in some instances, as I mentioned before with regard to cap-and-trade, much, much less than 24 hours. Many people believe that that is no way to run the House, and many constituents are rightly upset. A recent survey found that over 80 percent of Americans believe that legislation should be posted online and in final form and should be available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation. You would think, Madam Speaker, that this would really not be an issue as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet, often, the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of this House has signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and to the general public for 72 hours before they are brought to the House floor for a vote. So, today, 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 that legislation--House Resolution 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues and friends, Representatives Baird and Culberson. I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the Department of Homeland Security's Appropriations conference report, but I would like to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can pass the conference report today funding the Department of Homeland Security. Then, once we are done, we would consider House Resolution 544. Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the House considered, under suspension of the rules, H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009. But the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds to pass. The reason that bill failed was not because Members objected to the substance of the legislation, but because the majority leadership brought forth the underlying legislation that provides water projects for the San Francisco area for consideration by the House while blocking the House from debating the desperate need for water in another part of California, the San Joaquin Valley. On numerous occasions, my colleague from California, Mr. Devin Nunes, has submitted amendments to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His amendments would restrict the implementation of the December 15, 2008, biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the June 4, 2009, biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. However, the majority on the Rules Committee routinely blocked consideration of the amendments, twice on the Interior appropriations bill and three times on the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a dust bowl. Madam Speaker, why should Congress be concerned with what may look like a simple water issue? The valley is home to a $20 billion crop industry, and the region produces more in agricultural sales than any other State in the country. It can be argued that no agricultural area in the country is more productive and is, therefore, more important to our Nation's food security. If we continue to allow the diversion of water from the valley, food prices are going to increase; and we are also going to put our food security, national security in jeopardy. According to a recent University of California Davis study, the water reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of about 20 percent. Some of its communities have an unemployment rate of nearly 40 percent. Today, the majority comes to the floor with a rule that the House will once again consider the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act without giving the House the opportunity to consider amendments, including those proposed by Mr. Nunes. That is most unfortunate. It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San Joaquin Valley water issue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).