Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there are, I'm certain, very important programs that are funded by the legislation being brought forth today. And without any doubt, the Transportation and HUD appropriations bill is one of the most important appropriations bills that we face and we consider and we pass every year.

What is unfortunate is that it has been brought forth, it has been brought to this floor by the majority in a manner that is consistent with a pattern that is most unfortunate, objectionable.

As a matter of fact, that pattern, another aspect of that pattern is the subject of an editorial today by a newspaper that analyzes and informs on a daily basis with regard to this Congress. The newspaper is called Roll Call, and it has an editorial today about another aspect of the pattern that is most unfortunate and that we're seeing with the way in which this, albeit, very important piece of legislation is being brought forth today. Because it wasn't until, and we'll talk a little bit about the other aspect of the pattern that is the object of the Roll Call editorial in a minute. But with regard to this legislation, it was publicly available at 7 p.m., approximately, last night for the first time.

By the way, not in a very accessible way, in a format that's not very accessible: it was put online. There was no way to look at all of the legislation in that manner, in the format in which it was made available around 7 p.m. last night.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the rules of the House, there is a requirement that before an appropriations bill is considered by this House, 3 days, 72 hours, must pass. That rule was waived by the majority in the Rules Committee last night.

Now, in addition to that rule, there is a custom and a custom that is repeatedly made reference to. As a matter of fact, it's not only custom, but in the promises made by the new majority in a document during the campaign the last election, the new majority in a document entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' they talked about that at the very least, if not 3 days for an appropriations bill to be able to be considered by the membership before it is brought forth that there should be at least 24 hours. I read from the document ``A New Direction for America": ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bill and conference reports texts prior to floor consideration.''

So not only do we not have the 3 days because that's waived by the rule, it's a rule but it was waived by the majority of the Rules Committee, which is what we saw last night, but, in addition, not even the 24 hours now for Members to be able to look at the legislation that is before them. Most unfortunate. It violates the promise of the majority in addition to what I would say is an elemental required fairness for this process to work.

Now, I talked about the pattern. It's not just the lack of 24-hour notice; it's a pattern. Let's look at Roll Call today. They talk about the fact that there have been multiple threats by the majority to restrict something that hasn't been restricted since 1822, and that is one of the few legislative means, procedural means by which the minority can seek to amend legislation, and it's called, Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit. And that hasn't been restricted since 1822. The majority has repeatedly now during this year, the first year of this Congress, this year that is already coming to an end, it's talked about that it wants to restrict that right that the minority has, one of the few vehicles that the minority has had since 1822 to try to amend legislation.

Roll Call, a newspaper, Mr. Speaker, that covers what we do here, observes us very carefully, has an editorial in today's edition: ``Despite promises to manage the House on a more open basis than Republicans did during their 12-year rule,'' Roll Call says today in an editorial, ``Democrats have prohibited any floor amendments at more than double the rate of the previous Congress.''

And then Roll Call goes on to ask the Democrats not to do what they have threatened to do, and that is restrict the procedural vehicle that has been available and unrestricted since 1822, the motion to recommit. So note, Mr. Speaker, the pattern.

Now, I wish, I really wish, because of the importance of the programs funded by this legislation that we could discuss those programs. But when we are seeing this pattern of unfairness, of constant tightening, restricting the legislative process despite, and in contrast to, the promises made by the majority included in this ``A New Direction for America'' where they said, well, if we're not going to give 3 days, which is what the rules require, because sometimes we might have to waive that in the interest of time, then at least 24 hours. So, no, this legislation, the first time it was posted was 7 p.m. That's when it could be seen.

By the way, I am informed by people who are a lot more expert than I am at the format by which the legislation was posted at 7 p.m. that at 7 p.m. with that format, the details of the legislation could not be accessed. So really, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a lot less than even that time if we wouldn't have come to the floor until 7 p.m., which is what the New Direction for America promised, the majority repeatedly promised, and which would have been elementally fair in addition to in compliance with the promise of the majority.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask my friend, and he is my friend, Mr. Arcuri from New York, how many speakers he has wishing to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.

The House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. They have even refused to name conferees.

Now, the question that is begged, Mr. Speaker, is why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that obviously has such bipartisan support. Well, according to several publications, including this one, Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use the veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.''

Yes, I will yield to my distinguished friend.

Roll Call.

Reclaiming my time, fortunately that purely political move, Mr. Speaker, failed last week when the Senate removed the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill from the Labor-HHS bill.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the distinguished Speaker must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding.

I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question.

I will yield to my friend.

I thank my friend. I think that it is critically important that we get this legislation passed as soon as possible and sent to the President. It is the 12th time that we have attempted in this House to get this bill sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, obviously this is critically important legislation, a critically important moment. And so I urge my colleagues to help move the important veterans legislation along by opposing the previous question.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry is as follows: When I asked the gentleman if he had any further speakers before yielding back the reminder of our time, I was informed that he did not. Is it correct for the gentleman to say that he has no further speakers, and then after, based on that statement, I yield back our time, he yields to someone else in contradiction to what he has told me?

Is that appropriate, Mr. Speaker?

Is that appropriate, Mr. Speaker?

I didn't recognize. I yielded. No. No.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the previous question.

THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentleman cast a vote on the prevailing side?

Mr. Speaker, yes, I did.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the resolution.

Yes, I did.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues about Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Dr. Garcia Paneque is a surgeon by training, an independent journalist and a member of the Cuban Independent Medical Association. As a director of the independent news agency Libertad, and administrator of the Carlos J. Finlay independent library in Las Tunas, Cuba, Dr. Garcia Paneque has devoted his life efforts to exposing the truth about the horrors inflicted upon the Cuban people by the dictatorship in Havana.

Dr. Garcia Paneque was arrested on March 18, 2003 as part of the tyrant's island wide crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists. On April 4, 2003, in a sham trial, Dr. Garcia Paneque was sentenced to 24 years in totalitarian squalor for no reason other than that he is a supporter of freedom and democracy who has worked to expose the depraved horror that is the Cuban tyranny.

Since his initial incarceration in the subhuman conditions of the tyranny's totalitarian dungeons, Dr. Garcia Paneque's weight has dropped from a healthy 190 pounds to an emaciated 110 pounds. Dr. Garcia Paneque has been thrown in the hellish dungeons to languish in conditions so abhorrent that he has had to be hospitalized multiple times while incarcerated. Currently, he suffers from chronic diarrhea, severe abdominal pain, and poor intestinal absorption, resulting from what can only be described as a chronic malnutrition.

While imprisoned in the totalitarian dungeon, Dr. Garcia Paneque has endured constant physical and psychological torture at the hands of regime thugs. Although he has not committed a crime, he is forced to live with common prisoners who have gone as far as to have made threats against his life, threats that the regime's thugs refuse to acknowledge as part of their constant effort to avoid having to take action to ensure his safety. After months of writhing in pain it was discovered that Dr. Garcia Paneque had developed a 36 to 38-mm cyst on one of his kidneys. The prison doctors, who had previously ignored his cries for medical attention, claimed that surgery to remove the cyst would be required. Although his condition is perilous and there exists a serious risk that Dr. Garcia Paneque may not survive the abdominal surgery, regime authorities refuse to grant him a consultation with doctors not affiliated with the prison, and he has yet to receive proper medical treatment for his condition.

Members of Dr. Garcia Paneque's family, including his four children, have been repeatedly harassed. In August 2006, a regime mob of more than 50 people armed with sticks and stones surrounded the family's home, chanting insults and threatening to burn it down. In March of 2007, fearing for the life of her children who had already endured innumerous acts of psychological torture, Dr. Garcia Paneque's wife, Yamile Llanes Labrada, an active member of the Ladies in White, was forced to flee Cuba with her children. This is another tragic example of life under the totalitarian regime in Cuba.

On October 24, 2007, Dr. Garcia Paneque's wife, and his daughter Shirlen, were received and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House, where the President publicly called upon the regime to release Dr. Garcia Paneque forthwith. The President informed me personally after his meeting with Dr. Garcia Paneque's family that he was deeply impressed and moved by their heroic examples of courage and patriotism.

Despite the gangster tactics and heinous threats against him, Dr. Garcia Paneque continues to demand human rights and dignity for the people of Cuba. He is languishing in the squalor of the infernal gulag, at the whim of a merciless tyrant, simply because he believes in freedom, truth, democracy, and human rights for the people of Cuba.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that journalists and physicians like Dr. Garcia Paneque are locked in dungeons for writing the truth. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I believe the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee stated that this rule was passed by a 13-0 vote. I was not able to be present at that rules meeting, and neither was Mr. Dreier. I believe Ms. Sutton was not either.

So it would not have been a 13-0 vote. That could not have been possible.

Mr. Speaker, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Armed Forces have been deployed in two major theaters of operation. Too many of our noble servicemembers have given what Abraham Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion to the Nation. Many more of these brave men and women bear the physical and mental scars of battle which will last their lifetimes.

As a Congress, we must continue to work to ensure that our military has all the equipment and training necessary to successfully and safely complete their missions.

I commend the members of the conference committee for working in a bipartisan manner to meet the needs of our military and veterans in the conference report on the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008. The $459 billion in the bill will provide the necessary resources to our Armed Forces and continue the investments that we have made to make certain that the American military is the finest in the world.

The conference report provides $23.5 billion, over $2.2 billion above the fiscal 2007 level, for Defense health programs. The bill improves the Pentagon's electronic medical records and enables better coordination between DOD and the VA. It also enhances preventative medicine programs and increases investments in medical research. I'd like to highlight that $138 million has been allocated for breast cancer research and $80 million for prostate cancer research.

To support our soldiers' families, the bill provides $2.6 billion for family advocacy and other programs to support families affected by the rigors of war.

The conference report also gives all of our military personnel a much deserved pay raise, as was mentioned by the distinguished chairman, 3.5 percent, and fully funds the efforts to increase our Armed Forces, including equipping and training costs for 7,000 new members of the Army and 5,000 new marines.

The bill also protects our soldiers in combat by providing $11.6 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles and increases funding for body armor and other protective equipment.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the majority has yet to send the President any appropriations bill this year to sign into law. This is the longest Congress has taken to finish even one appropriation bill in over 20 years. Because the majority has failed to complete its work on these important appropriations bills, funding for the Federal Government is set to expire on November 16. This conference report will extend the current continuing resolution through December 14 so that the government can continue to remain open.

The CR, the continuing resolution, also provides $6.4 billion in emergency spending, including $2.9 billion for FEMA's disaster relief fund, $500 million for fighting wildfires, and $3 billion for the gulf coast Road Home hurricane rebuilding program. It also increases funding to prepare for the 2010 census, as well as another $2.9 billion to bring VA funding up to the President's fiscal year 2008 request.

Obviously, I support this important piece of legislation that the rule brings to the floor today, but I think that it

falls short on one major issue, providing a bridge fund for our troops in theater.

Without a bridge fund, the Department of Defense will be forced to make some very difficult decisions: Will they cut funding for the troops in theater to carry out the worthwhile projects and funding increases in this bill, or will they send funding to troops and put major projects in this bill on hold? The Department of Defense should not have to make such decisions, Mr. Speaker. This conference report should fund both the important projects in the bill and provide our troops in the theater with funding.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.

As Mr. Wicker explained just a few minutes ago, the House passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even refused to name conferees.

Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has such a bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to the President so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as, and I quote, an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.

Unfortunately, that evidently political move failed yesterday when the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act from the Labor-HHS bill.

Recently, Republican Leader Boehner took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker of the House must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

Every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans, Mr. Speaker, deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding their funding back.

I urge my colleagues to move this important legislation, to allow it to move, and oppose the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my friend and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The goal, Mr. Speaker, of our trade policy should be free trade among free peoples. And this agreement that we bring to the floor today, I think, is so important for many ways. If there is a nation that not only is a friend, but that has withstood extraordinary challenges, including violence, terrorism, extraordinary attacks to its free institutions, it is our neighbor and our friend, Peru. And they have, the prior administration with President Toledo, now the administration of President Alan Garcia, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they wish to deepen their relations with the United States, that they wish to tie their economic future to the United States. And tonight is our opportunity to respond and say to our friend, Peru, we recognize the steps you have made. We recognize not only the good-faith efforts that you've made to come to this agreement and to, by the way, renegotiate it after the political dynamic change. The situation changed here a year ago, and a renegotiation was required by the new leadership in this Congress of President Garcia.

And the Peruvian Government demonstrated once again good faith and walked the extra mile to come to this agreement. This agreement is in the interest of the United States, of the workers in the United States, and it's in the interest of Peru.

When I say ``free trade among free peoples,'' Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to realize that peoples throughout the world should have an opportunity to raise their voices, to be heard, to form civil society, environmental groups, labor groups, to fight for their rights, to fight for their human rights, for their legal rights. In Peru, despite extraordinary challenges, there is freedom, and people can organize, as they can in the United States,

in civil society, in environmental organizations and labor organizations and others to demand their rights and speak up when their rights are violated. That's the great difference when we, for example, trade with a democracy with great challenges like India or a tyranny like, for example, Communist China. I always like to point out the difference. Free trade with free peoples.

Tonight we enter into an agreement with a free people that is, in addition to being free, a great friend of the United States. So it is my privilege tonight to ask for our colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Mike Lowell of the World Champion Boston Red Sox, for being named the 2007 World Series Most Valuable Player.

Mike grew up in Miami where he was a high school baseball star at Coral Gables Senior High School. He made the All-Dade First Team and was an All-State/All-Star in 1992. He did all this while maintaining a 4.0 GPA.

Mike was offered a full scholarship by Florida International University, FIU, where he excelled both as a student and an athlete and was honored as an Academic All-American.

In 1995, he was drafted by the New York Yankees and quickly moved up the minor league system. His parents, Carl and Beatriz, always stressed the importance of a good education, and after being drafted, he returned to FIU. He graduated magna cum laude in 1996 with a degree in finance.

In 1999, he was traded back home to play for the Florida Marlins. However, less than three weeks later, Mike's plans were put on hold by a startling discovery. While undergoing a regular physical examination, Mike was diagnosed with testicular cancer. The surgery and three weeks of radiation were successful. Mike recovered with the love and support of his family, including his lovely wife Bertica, and today he remains cancer-free.

Mike created the Mike Lowell Foundation, which helps raise funds for cancer research and helps pay for medical care to low income cancer patients.

While a member of the Marlins, he was a key contributor to their exciting 2003 World Series Championship. Mike was a 2002 and 2003 All- Star and won the 2003 National League Silver Slugger Award, which is given to the top offensive players at each position. In 2005, he won his first Rawlings Gold Glove Award for his ``superior fielding performance'' at third base.

On November 21, 2005, the Marlins traded Mike to the Boston Red Sox. He was voted onto the 2007 American League All-Star Team by his peers. In the 2007 season, he had a .324 batting average, hit 21 home runs and was the Red Sox team leader with 120 RBIs.

In the post-season, Mike was truly ``El Senor Octubre''. In the American League Divisional Series and the American League Championship Series, Mike batted in 11 runs for Boston as they defeated the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Cleveland Indians.

But it was on baseball's grandest stage that Mike Lowell shined brightest. During the World Series, Mike batted .400, scored 6 runs and drove in 4, including a home run in the decisive Game 4 against the Colorado Rockies. For his extraordinary performance, he was named the 2007 World Series Most Valuable Player.

I wish to congratulate Mike for his extraordinary accomplishments. He has earned the profound respect and affection of millions of baseball fans, and shown the entire Nation what the south Florida community has known for a long time, that Mike Lowell is an extremely talented, intelligent, and decent man. I am truly honored to be able to call Mike Lowell my friend.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for the time, and I would 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 net new jobs annually.

Congress, for decades, has acknowledged the important role small businesses play in the Federal procurement process. This is evident in the Small Business Act of 1953. The Act says that, and I quote, ``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 $400 billion on goods and services in over 8 million separate contracts. Small businesses won about 80 billion worth of those contracts, a little over 20 percent.

The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 established a goal of 3 percent for Federal contracts awarded to service-disabled veterans. Unfortunately, we have yet to meet that worthy goal.

The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, H.R. 3867, the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act, seeks to expand procurement opportunities for businesses owned by service-disabled veterans by placing these businesses at the top of the priority list for receiving Federal contracts.

The legislation adjusts the net worth standard for businesses in the 8(a) program for the first time in about 20 years, to $550,000, so it is more consistent with inflation. To take part in the 8(a) program a business must be owned by citizens who are socially and economically disadvantaged. Participants in the program are eligible for sole source and limited competition government contracts. They also can receive a 10 percent cost advantage in some procurements.

As part of their campaign, Madam Speaker, the new majority spoke often about taking the House of Representatives in a new direction. Unfortunately, that direction seems to be backwards because now the Rules Committee no longer allows Members to present their amendments even if they're a few minutes late. That is a departure from the practice of the Rules Committee under the prior majority.

Last week, several Members attempted to file amendments with the Rules Committee. The majority denied the Members even the ability to file the amendment because they were a few minutes late, thereby denying Members the right even to come before the Rules Committee to speak about the merits of their respective amendments.

Representative King attempted to file his amendment on-line as required by the committee; however, due to technical issues, he was not able to file the amendment on-line. Representative King was told by the majority on the Rules Committee that they would waive the electronic filing requirement; however, because he had spent time trying to get the amendment filed electronically, he missed by a few minutes the deadline to physically file the amendment. It's disappointing that the majority would not allow Representative King to offer his amendment when it was clear he was trying to comply with the filing requirements. Because of technical issues, he was delayed.

I understand the need the majority may have in issuing a deadline. But in the prior majority, Madam Speaker, we always allowed Members to at least file their amendments even if they were past the deadline, and even made some of those amendments in order. It is a shame that the new majority has decided to take a step back and not allow some discretion in this matter.

This new hard-and-fast time requirement is particularly difficult, if not impossible, when a Member is trying to file a second-degree amendment. As you know, Madam Speaker, a second-degree amendment is written to amend an amendment, so that it is not possible to draft such an amendment until the initial amendment was made public, and that list of amendments filed is not made public until after the amendment deadline.

We already saw how the new majority's requirement blocks amendments when, during a previous rule, Representative Akin was not allowed to offer a second-degree amendment.

It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, by not allowing Members to even offer amendments in the Rules Committee, we believe that the majority is, in effect, silencing the voices of millions of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my dear friend how many speakers he has remaining.

Madam Speaker, we reserve.

I would ask my friend if he has no other speakers.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act.

The House of Representatives passed the veterans and military funding bill on June 15 of this year by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6 of this year. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move forward on this bill and name conferees.

Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill, with bipartisan support, because that's what this is. This legislation has extraordinary bipartisan support. It was almost unanimously passed by this House.

Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill forward?

Well, according to several publications, Madam Speaker, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold back from sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of one such bill, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to serve as an, and I quote, ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.''

So for purely partisan tactical reasons, Madam Speaker, the majority is holding back from sending to the President legislation to fund our veterans and military construction.

Now, recently, Madam Speaker, Republican Leader Boehner took a step towards naming House Republican conferees. Now, Speaker Pelosi should follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act to move this legislation forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than partisan bickering holding back their funding. So I urge my colleagues to help move this important bipartisan legislation forward.

But, frankly, Madam Speaker, it is an unfortunate fact to have to report that this is the first time in 20 years where we have reached this date, end of October, and we are still waiting for the first spending bill to be sent to the President for his signature. It is most unfortunate. Most unfortunate.

So I urge my colleagues to help move the important legislation, the spending bill with regard to veterans and military construction, to move it forward, to send it to the President, to appoint conferees so that the final product can be sent to the President.

For that reason, Madam Speaker, we oppose the previous question and urge all of our colleagues to join us in doing so.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Federal Railroad Administration was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, is charged with overseeing the Federal rail safety program.

As all of our colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, railroads crisscross every congressional district, and their safe operation is of national importance, especially since they play such an integral part in our national economy by transporting products and people to and from ports, and in the instance of products, from manufacturers, to suppliers, to the consumers.

Since 1978, there's been a dramatic decline in the number of railway accidents. Last year, there were just over 2,800 such accidents, obviously too many, but a significant decline compared to the past. Obviously more can be done to reduce the number of accidents and save lives, and more should be done.

FRA classifies the causes of train accidents into five categories: human factors, track and structures, equipment, signal and train control, and miscellaneous. Of those categories, human factors and track are responsible for the majority of train accidents. Last year, 2006, over 70 percent of such accidents were caused by human factors or track defects.

Most rail-related deaths are to pedestrians on rail lines, trying to cross obviously, and motorists colliding with trains at grade crossings. While there are nearly 1,000 rail-related deaths each year, about 20 to 30 rail employees unfortunately are killed while on duty each year.

The underlying legislation being brought forward by this rule, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007, seeks to reduce the number of accidents caused by human fatigue by strengthening the hours of service law for signalmen and train crews. The legislation makes changes to what is known as limbo time, which is the wait period when locomotive crews wait for pickup after a day's run. Specifically, the bill phases down limbo time over 3 years, 40 to 30 to 10 hours per month. The bill also creates new exceptions to limbo time in the case of an accident, track obstruction, weather delays or natural disasters. It gives signal and train workers additional hours of rest, 10 hours in 24, and mandatory days off, 1 in 7.

The Department of Transportation estimates that by 2020 the amount of freight moved by rail, measured by weight, will increase by approximately 50 percent. Furthermore, many local governments are interested in establishing, or expanding, commuter rail operations, which often operate on the freight rail network. As a result, the number of train miles on the Nation's freight rail network will significantly increase in the coming years. If train accident rates do not improve, this will lead obviously to an increased number of accidents, injuries and fatalities and some of the gains of the past decade may be lost, and obviously we'd like to avoid that.

I'd like to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their bipartisan work on this legislation, especially on this issue of the limbo time. I think it goes to show that when people are willing to work together across the aisle to try to come up with compromises that good progress can be made.

Now, unlike the bipartisan nature by which the Transportation Committee worked on this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee did not live up to that standard. Only four out of 10 amendments. There were 10 amendments proposed. A lot of time those amendments take a lot of work by Members, a lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of dedication, and only four out of the 10 amendments that Members brought to the Rules Committee were made in order, and of those, only one was an amendment by a Member of the Republican side of the aisle.

During consideration of this rule, Mr. Speaker, the minority made several attempts to make Republican amendments in order, but in the Rules Committee, the majority blocked each amendment by a party-line vote, and I think that's unfortunate. It's quite a contrast to how the Transportation Committee worked and some other committees in this Congress.

It's unfortunate, especially when we take into account the promises made by the majority that they would bring transparency and openness and fairness to the process. We see time and time and time again exactly the opposite. This is really sad.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would inform my friend that we do not.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your courtesy. I thank my good friend Ms. Matsui for hers as well.

Again, with regard to the underlying legislation, it's important legislation. I think it's a good work product that's come forth from compromise, people reaching out from both sides of the aisle and working together. But the rule, unfortunately, is most unfair, as is typically the case with this new majority.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

I'd like to direct our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, Mr. John Sullivan, recently sent to the Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states

that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative proposition at all stages of the legislative process.''

I will insert this letter in the Record at this point.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan.

This amendment will restore the enforceability and accountability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I would urge all my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Ernesto Duran Rodriguez, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Duran Rodriguez is a pro-democracy activist currently imprisoned in a dungeon for his peaceful work to liberate Cuba from the grasp of the terrorist totalitarian regime. His insistence on freedom, fundamental human rights and speaking openly about the plight of the Cuban people under the tyranny's machinery of repression has made him a target of the totalitarian regime.

Mr. Duran Rodriguez has been repeatedly harassed and detained by regime thugs since 1995, when he was first arrested and in a farcical trial ``sentenced'' to 22 years in the regime's heinous gulag on charges of ``evasion'' and attempting to exit the country without ``proper permission''. Let me be very clear, Mr. Duran Rodriguez has been thrown in the gulag for daring to dream of and working on behalf of a democratic Cuba.

On August 8, 2002, Mr. Duran Rodriguez and another political prisoner, Leoncio Rodriguez Ponce were brutally beaten by regime thugs and thrown into the wretched squalor of punishment cells. On August 28 of that year, both men were tried on trumped-up charges that they had ``disrespected'' the demented tyrant. Both men were denied the right to a defense, and although the exact motive for their second trial is unknown, the so-called ``court'' found ``sufficient cause'' to increase their prison terms by two years.

While incarcerated in the squalor of the heinous gulag, Mr. Duran Rodriguez has suffered beatings, lack of medical treatment and being persistently denied the opportunity to communicate with his family. On January 29, 2006, prison thugs without warning entered his cell during the early morning hours and placed him in shackles on mere suspicion that he might have circulated leaflets in the prison. With his movement constricted, they proceeded to ransack his cell, stealing what few documents he kept and leaving his few precious personal effects thrown throughout his cell.

Mr. Duran Rodriguez is one of the many heroes of the Cuban pro- democracy movement who are locked in the dungeons of an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship for their beliefs. These men and women are symbols of freedom and democracy who will always be remembered when freedom returns to Cuba. Mr. Duran Rodriguez's courage in defiance of tyranny serves as an inspiring reminder that the tyranny's gulags are full men and women who represent the best of the Cuban nation.

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely unacceptable that peaceful pro- democracy activists are languishing in the heinous and depraved prisons of tyrants. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Ernesto Duran Rodriguez and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee (Ms. Slaughter) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One of the Founding Fathers of the Nation, whose likeness is above your chair, Madam Speaker, George Mason, said that ``the freedom of the press is a great bulwark of liberty.''

It does act as a bulwark of liberty by often checking governmental power. In order to gather and publish news stories, journalists often find it necessary to protect their sources. So if a journalist is forced to reveal his or her sources through legal proceedings, that has a chilling effect on other sources. And such a chilling effect ultimately may harm the public interest.

Under current law, Madam Speaker, courts have the power to force testimony from individuals unless they can cite a specific ground, such as the lawyer-client or the physician-patient privilege. It is in the public interest to have such privileges, and I think it should be possible to provide journalists, that's what this legislation is trying to do, and their sources with some reasonable protections, because currently there is no privilege for journalists to refuse to appear and testify in legal proceedings.

As the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee stated, 49 States and the District of Columbia have various statutes or follow judicial decisions that have the effect of protecting reporters from being compelled to testify or disclose their sources. The underlying legislation would set a national standard similar to those that are in effect in the various States.

In determining whether to require testimony by a member of the news media, it is appropriate to strike a balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice.

So the underlying legislation attempts to strike this balance by providing a privilege to journalists that prevents them from being forced to testify or disclose sources in legal proceedings. But, however, the privilege is not absolute. It contains exceptions where it is necessary to reveal a source to prevent an act of terrorism or other significant and specified harm to national security or imminent death or significant bodily harm.

I think it's appropriate, and I want to emphasize my gratitude to Representative Pence for his hard work and dedication on this important issue. He has been not only studying it, but working on this critical issue, really, a critical issue related to our freedom for years, and so as I thank him, I urge Members to support the legislation that he's been working on so diligently for so long.

The rule we are debating now, Madam Speaker, only allows for a manager's amendment, which, as you know, is an amendment for the majority to make final changes in a bill. So the rule is essentially a closed rule. Only one other amendment was submitted to the Rules Committee, but the majority decided, on a party-line vote, to exclude the amendment and not make possible the debate of that amendment on the floor.

I understand that the authors of the bill feel that that amendment, which was submitted by the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Smith), the authors of the bill believe that that amendment would go counter, would be counter to much of the essence of the bill. But, in my view, that doesn't mean that we should preclude or prevent consideration of the amendment.

Even Mr. Pence, the author and champion of the underlying legislation, who opposes the Smith amendment, testified at the Rules Committee that the amendment should definitely have an opportunity to be considered by the House.

The amendment includes many of the concerns that the Justice Department has had throughout the long period of time with parts of the underlying legislation. It is a serious amendment, and it certainly deserves to be debated on the floor.

So I think it is unfortunate, and as we bring this important legislation once again, it is an example of bringing important legislation to the floor excluding, making impossible, serious debate of ideas that differ by Members of this House. So that's unfortunate, and that is why I oppose the rule that is bringing forth this important legislation. I certainly support the underlying legislation, but I think that it is unfortunate that we once again have an overly restrictive process for bringing forth this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 8 minutes to someone who has been working long and hard on this important issue and deserves much commendation, my dear friend Mr. Pence of Indiana.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of the Committee of Jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the new Rules Committee majority specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian John Sullivan recently sent to the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes.

In his letter to the distinguished chairman, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

I will insert this letter from the House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, into the Record.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The. question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as

confusing as a waiver of all points of order against

provisions of an authorization bill except those that can

only arise in the case of a general appropriation bill (e.g.,

clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this area and as a general

principle, we try hard not to use language that yields a

misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restore the accountability and the enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress, to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote.

I urge my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

One of the great privileges in the daily honor of being able to serve in the Congress of the United States is the privilege of being able to meet extraordinary people on a constant basis here in these Halls.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to remember and pay tribute to a dear friend who was one of those truly extraordinary people whom I have had the privilege of meeting in my 15 years here in these Halls of Congress, Jo Ann Davis. We will always remember her not only as the gracious and dignified and wonderful lady that she was, but as the effective representative for her constituents and the great American patriot, who every day gave her all to defend our Nation and to honor and protect, to the best of her ability, those who protect us and our freedom, our men and women in uniform.

I am deeply comforted, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that Jo Ann Davis had such a profound faith in God. It was her strength. At this time, it is especially comforting to know that she is now with the Lord.

I enjoyed my conversations with Jo Ann, the fellowship, her sense of humor. She was a wonderful, wonderful human being. How her eyes would light up, Mr. Speaker, when the subject of her granddaughter would be brought up, Charlotte. I had the privilege of getting to know her son, Charlie, very well. He was a member of my staff, an extraordinary young man, who did his job day in and day out. Each day he worked in our office in a marvelous manner with total devotion to this Congress, to the people of the United States. I am deeply grateful for his service. I extend to him, my friend, Charlie, and his family, obviously his wife, his daughter, Charlotte, his brother, Jo Ann's other son, Chris, and of course, Chuck, Jo Ann's husband, my deepest sympathy and condolences at this time.

We will never forget her, that wonderful, wonderful colleague, that wonderful friend, that wonderful lady who not only graced these Halls but served her constituents of the First District of Virginia so effectively, so well, and indeed served all of America so well.

As I say, I will never forget her and consider it a great privilege to have been able to meet and to be a friend of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for the time and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In August, over 165,000 properties in Florida alone entered foreclosure, 50 percent more than the previous month. The situation is most acute in the part of Florida that I am honored to represent. Miami-Dade County ranks in the top five counties in the Nation among major metropolitan areas where homes are entering some stage of foreclosure. Broward County ranks third in the Nation. This great cause for concern in the housing market has prompted anxiety over the tax consequences associated with discharges of indebtedness, debt forgiveness, in connection with restructuring acquisition indebtedness and home foreclosures.

As the gentleman from California pointed out, under current law, when a lender forgives some or all of the mortgage debt, Mr. Speaker, the borrower is required to treat the forgiven debt as taxable income, taxed at ordinary rates. In today's marketplace, declining property values have left some sellers in the position of having to sell their homes for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage. Even if the loss of value occurs through no fault of their own, if the lender forgives the shortfall, that amount is taxable income for sellers. This phantom income tax places a heavy burden on a family that has incurred a significant economic loss. This legislation will help protect those homeowners from an unexpected and unfair tax bill.

The bill also extends the deduction for private mortgage insurance for 7 years. Current law limits the deduction for private mortgage insurance to payments made prior to the end of 2007. This provision will be helpful, especially to young families purchasing their first home.

There is some concern that the bill may go beyond what is needed during this time. The administration and some in the minority here in Congress have stated that the relief should be temporary to assist homeowners during the current mortgage market transition period, avoiding as much as possible distorting consumer and lender decisions on new mortgage loans. But, Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the underlying legislation being brought forth today for consideration by this House is an example of what can happen, the good that can happen, the progress that can be made when the congressional majority decides to work with the administration, with the President and the minority in Congress on an important issue such as this. Much of the legislation that we will be considering today was proposed, the substance of that legislation was proposed by President Bush. And so this is an example of what progress can be made on important issues when the congressional majority decides to work with the minority and the administration.

Now, on process, Mr. Speaker, in a document called The New Direction for America, the new congressional majority laid out its campaign promises to

the American people last year. Included in that document was a promise, and I quote, that bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.

But with this rule today that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the rule is what brings to the floor the underlying substantive legislation that will be considered subsequently by the House; with this rule today, the majority has broken its own promise in two ways. First, they denied the minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment. My colleague, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Dreier, offered two amendments Tuesday in Rules to allow Ways and Means Ranking Member McCrery the ability to offer a substitute amendment on this legislation. But on a party-line vote, the majority rejected the minority's ability to offer a substitute.

The majority claims that they are running the House in a more open manner than we did in the 109th Congress, but this rule today once again demonstrates that they are not moving toward a more open process, but instead moving backwards. This rule closes out all amendments. So every Member of the House is precluded from in any way offering their ideas to improve this bill.

So far this year, the majority has offered 34 closed rules on bills, closing out all amendments, far surpassing the number from the 109th Congress at this point, as a matter of fact, more than double the amount of closed rules. At this point in the 109th Congress there had been 16 closed rules. And remember the promise: the promise was to move in the other direction, and instead, more than double the amount of closed rules; clearly, moving backwards.

What this rule today really represents, Mr. Speaker, is a missed opportunity. If the majority had offered an open rule, the majority could have doubled their number of open rules on nonappropriations bills to a whopping two; instead, they've permitted only one open rule on nonappropriations bills, thus continuously violating their claim to be a more open and bipartisan Congress.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend Mr. Cardoza's point about the tradition with tax bills, yes, there has been a tradition to bring tax bills to the floor under a restricted rule. That has not precluded in the past, as we did often, the ability of the minority to offer a substitute amendment.

So what I was talking about with regard to process is that there was a clear promise to move in a more open direction, to move toward more openness and more transparency and more rights for the minority. And what has happened is exactly the opposite, a doubling by the majority of closed rules that absolutely close out, in other words, prohibit, all Members from proposing amendments on this floor. So that great contrast between the promise and the performance is what I was alluding to, that unfortunate contrast.

Now, on substance, again, I think that today is an example of something very positive. The congressional majority has decided to work with the minority and the President on an issue that is of importance to this legislation. And so we see legislation, much of

which was proposed by the President of the United States, coming to the floor today to solve a major problem facing the American people.

So while I reiterate the great disappointment that we in the minority feel with regard to the lack of performance by the majority with regard to its promise to open this House to more fairness on substance, I think it's commendable that for once there is an issue of importance to the American people that the congressional majority has decided to work with the President on and with the minority in Congress.

I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress. However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

I would like to direct our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to a letter that the House Parliamentarian, the distinguished John Sullivan, recently sent to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, which confirms what we have been saying since January, that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian stated that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of role XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress, to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my dear friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it's sad to have to take the floor to discuss the issue that we are discussing this evening. We recognize we are in the minority, and in this great representative democracy, as in all representative democracies, the majority gets to rule. We recognize that. But as indispensable and a key ingredient of representative democracy as the rule of the majority is respect for the minority.

So what we are speaking about this evening, Mr. Speaker, first, I would say it's the great contrast, the extraordinary contrast between the promises made by the new majority they would institute fairness and transparency as they ran and when they ran the House of Representatives. The contrast between those promises and the performance of almost now the entire first year of this Congress, first session of this 110th Congress, the contrast between the promise and the performance is really extraordinary.

I would like to read a quote by the now distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee last December. She stated, ``We are going to give people an honest and contemplative body that they can be proud of once more. We are going to have a much more open process.''

Mr. Dreier, our ranking member, stated how the number of closed rules in this first year of the rule of the new majority, closed rules being rules that bring bills to the floor to this great body that do not permit amendments by any and all Members of this body. Rules that permit amendment by any Member of this great body are called open rules. Closed rules, obviously, are the opposite. The number of closed rules, of exclusivist rules, rules that close out debate by this body on bills, have more than doubled, more than doubled in this first year by--they have more than doubled during this first year of rule by the new majority that promised to go in the other direction, in other words, to increase the amount

of transparency and openness. So it's sad, it's sad, Mr. Speaker, to have to point out that extraordinary contrast between their promise and their performance.

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

Yes. And I would, Mr. Speaker, highly recommend to our colleagues that they read this report. Because as I'm sure will be explained, it was difficult for the minority even to get the report posted because we couldn't have a Web page until last week.

What the ranking member has been pointing to is that that posting of the report, making public of our report with regard to the great contrast between the promise and the performance, the promise of open transparency and the promise, the reality of further closing the process and making it even more unfair, as the date approached when we were going to make public that report, the number of closed rules increased. And we've seen, the ranking member pointed out, that the day, that same day, Mr. Speaker, that we made public that report explaining the reality of closed rules and the excessively exclusivist process during this entire year, the first year of the new majority's rule, that day, when we made the report public, as the ranking member pointed out, not one amendment by the minority, not one Republican amendment was allowed in legislation that was nonpartisan. Even the chairman, the ranking member said that in his 27 years he has never seen something like that. In my 15 years I've never seen something like that. The chairman of the committee stated that it was unfair, that it was unjustified. He is a very eloquent Member of this Congress. So I'm not going to quote him. I don't aspire to remember word for word what he said, but I do remember that the chairman said that it was unfair for the rule to have closed out every single Republican amendment. And he didn't vote for the rule. That's something I've never experienced in my 15 years here. I've never seen that. That was so dramatic.

So I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, two examples. We have distinguished colleagues waiting to speak. One I have never seen in my 15 years here. I was appointed to the Rules Committee in December of 1994. During the entire time that I served in majority in the Rules Committee, I never saw anything like this. A Member came to introduce an amendment. Now, obviously, Mr. Speaker, as you can see, there are many chairs here. This is a House of 435. The reason that on that second day of the first Congress the Rules Committee was established, even though the House was not as large in membership, it still was a large body even then, on the second day of the Congress of the United States, the first Congress, the Rules Committee was created so that this body could function. It is understood by every Member of this House that if every Member on every bill, on every piece of legislation could debate an amendment or two, that would, in effect, constitute a filibuster, because 435 Members, obviously, even though they had only one amendment per bill, would take up days and days of this body. So the Rules Committee was devised. It was created on that second day of the first Congress to manage this House.

Now, most of the time, at least much of the time, it is understood by the membership that you are not going to be able to have your amendment debated here on the floor of this great test, Congress, in the world. But you have somewhere where you can go when you've worked hard and you have an idea to improve legislation.

When you have an amendment, there's somewhere you can go. It is right above here. We are on the second floor. It is on the third floor right over there. You can go to the Rules Committee with your idea, with the product of your work and study, your idea to improve a bill in the form of an amendment. Your colleagues there, the majority and the minority, they have to listen to you, hopefully with respect, listen to your idea, listen to your amendment, and really pass judgment on it in the sense, in the process of managing this House, either making in order or not making in order your amendment. But there is that place where you can go, and that is the Rules Committee.

When I saw that one of our colleagues this year, a distinguished colleague, Todd Akin, was, because he was a few minutes late and he got to the Rules Committee with the product of his hard work and dedication to improve legislation, it was somewhat technical, Mr. Speaker, it was called a second-degree amendment, in other words an amendment to an amendment. Obviously, he could not draft that amendment to an amendment until he had seen the amendments. So he didn't have time to get there before the deadline. Well, as the ranking member said, and we don't espouse to have been perfect, but one thing I never saw, and never thought I would see, is that Mr. Akin, when he arrived with the product of his hard work and dedication, because he was literally a few minutes late, he wasn't even allowed to enter the committee room to file the amendment. That is something that is very sad.

So I will say, Mr. Speaker, this may seem technical and overly procedural to some of our colleagues perhaps who may be listening to the debate, or others, the American people, perhaps, it may seem like a technical debate. But it is important for the following reason: When Mr. Akin is not allowed to enter the committee room to present, to introduce his amendment because he is a few minutes late, that affects policy. That is profoundly unfair. As I said before, it is just as important to democracy, to representative democracy, for there to be rule of the majority, as it is for there to be respect of the minority.

One final example, just last week, before us came legislation that the distinguished ranking member referred to as ``consensus'' legislation. We all support, or almost all, certainly in this body, support the health insurance program for children of economically disadvantaged families. It is called SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a consensus here of support, bipartisan support for that program.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have come with a massive increase in the program, and we were debating that, the ranking member pointed out, the first time we debated it was late at night or early in the morning, and we sought to have input for debate. I was most disappointed in the last version that, in my view, excessively and unreasonably increases taxes, and while massively expanding that program, did not include something that I thought was elementally responsible to include, and appropriate to include in a massive increase of the program, and that is legal immigrant children.

I pointed that out, how disappointed I was. I had an amendment so that the House could debate that issue. Well, the amendment was not made in order. But in addition to that, in something that I think was very unfair, the ranking member, the lead Republican in the Energy and Commerce Committee, he had been shut out from the discussions, it is called conference committee, the final discussions on formulation of the bill, of the legislation. And he pointed out, because, when I said how sad and unfortunate it is that in this massive expansion of this program, you are not including legal, I repeat, legal immigrant children and pregnant women,

and friends on the other side of the aisle pointed out, well, the Senate in conference didn't want that, so it is not in the bill.

Well, the lead Republican minority member from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, said, you know, if I would have been called into the room to the conference meeting, I would have pushed the Senate. Did you say the Senate Republicans didn't want that? Well, the House Republican leadership, I, Mr. Barton, said this, in the Rules Committee, when we met, would have been pushing that issue because we separate the issue of illegal and legal immigration. While there is opposition to illegal immigrants receiving benefits, Mr. Barton said, with regard to legal immigrant children and pregnant mothers, pregnant women, I would have been there, Mr. Barton said.

Mr. Barton pointed out with regard to the issue of legal immigrant children and pregnant women, he would have been there in the conference room had he been allowed to be in the conference advocating for the position.

In summary, as I yield back to the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Speaker, I would say that an excessively restrictive process is not only technical; it leads to bad policy in addition to being most unfair. What is truly sad is that this majority promised time and again to be the most fair, the most open, and the most transparent majority as it ran, in the way in which it ran this House in history, and in effect, it has been exactly the opposite.

Madam Speaker, pro-democracy activists inside Cuba report that an undetermined number of dissidents were detained by the dictatorship on the morning of September 27. The dissidents were on their way to participate in peaceful activities to request the release of political prisoners.

Those detained in Cuba on September 27 include Martha Beatriz Roque, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' Blas Augusto Fortun Martinez, Yubi Diosenegui Pernet Perez, Alicia Martinez Guevara, Alejandro Gabriel Martinez Martinez, Guillermo Perez Year, Amado Ruiz Moreno, Carlos Cordero Paez, Idania Yanes Contreras, Yesmi Elena Mena Silvano, Jose Diaz Silva, Georgina Noa Montes, Arturo Montgomery Alonso, Roberto de Jesus Guerra Perez, Yunieski Garcia Lopez, Lester Fernandez Zamora, Felix Reyes Gutierrez, Yoel Espinosa Medrano, Ariel Orama Martin, Angel Raul Perez Gavilan, Javier Delgado Torres, Carlos Michael Morales Rodriguez, and others whose names I do not have. At this time it is unknown how many of the detained dissidents have been released and how many will be kept in confinement. It is up to the whim of the ailing tyrant.

The list of political prisoners languishing in Cuban prisons is long, Madam Speaker. Sixty dissidents who were peacefully expressing their opposition to the dictatorship remain in prison since the regime's brutal crackdown of March 2003, joining hundreds of other political prisoners. Reporters Without Borders reports that there are at least 23 journalists languishing in abysmal conditions in Cuban prisons.

The Miami Herald today published a very important editorial about one such journalist. I think it's an editorial that deserves commendation and attention. It reads as follows:

Normando Hernandez Gonzalez may die for exercising free

speech in Cuba. An independent journalist, he has been

imprisoned since Cuba's crackdown on dissidents in April

2003. Now he is so critically ill that he was transferred to

a Havana military hospital last week.

It is bad enough that Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez, 39, is

serving a 25-year sentence for criticizing the government,

something people in free countries do every day. Yet things

could get worse. Returning him to prison would be a death

sentence. This is where he contracted serious ailments,

chronic digestive disorders and tuberculosis among them. Even

if his condition were to improve in the hospital, he would

not last long in the filthy cells and eating the food given

to political prisoners.

The hope now is that Cuba will free Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez

and allow him to leave the country and soon. International

pressure is needed.

To their credit, legislators in Costa Rica granted Mr.

Hernandez Gonzalez a humanitarian visa in April. Cuban

authorities refused to honor the visa. But a recent move

appeared to get Cuba's attention. Jose Manuel Echandi Meza, a

Costa Rican lawmaker, filed a formal complaint with the U.N.

Human Rights Commission two weeks ago that accuses Cuba of

torturing Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez by denying him proper

medical treatment. The following day, he was sent to the

Havana hospital. He appears to be getting some medical

treatment, according to his wife.

That wasn't the case before. Mr. Hernandez Gonzalez has

been deteriorating since his first year in prison. He has

been beaten, placed in solitary confinement and repeatedly

denied access to basic medical care. He blames overcrowded,

vermin-filled cells and contaminated food and water for his

multiple illnesses. He suffers nausea, diarrhea, fever,

fainting spells and weight loss.

Last December, he was rushed from his prison to a hospital

in Camaguey. There he was placed in a room with no furniture.

His food was thrown under the door. He returned to prison

untreated. While Cuba boasts of its health care system, it

denies political prisoners basic care.

PEN, a writers advocacy group, awarded Mr. Hernandez

Gonzalez its prestigious Freedom to Write Award earlier this

year. For more information on his case, go to PEN's Web site

at www.pen.org. Let the world know that Mr. Hernandez

Gonzalez and hundreds of other political prisoners haven't

been forgotten. All of them should be released.''

Now, Madam Speaker, the same week that approximately 30 dissidents were rounded up and thrown in dungeons by the Cuban dictatorship, the Spanish Government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero decided to unilaterally break the European Union's ``Common Position'' on Cuba, by entering into a cooperation agreement with the Cuban tyranny.

Mr. Rodriguez Zapatero and his government thus continue to act as the Castro brothers' most zealous advocates in Europe, and they deserve the condemnation of all freedom-loving men and women for their disgraceful actions.

I renew tonight my call for the immediate liberation of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in totalitarian Cuba and urge international solidarity for them and for their right to be released immediately and unconditionally, all of them, now.