Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2693, the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor today, directs the Secretary of Labor to establish an interim standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl that applies to flavor manufacturers as well as all microwave popcorn production and packaging establishments that use diacetyl.

Diacetyl is a chemical found in trace amounts in nature and can be found in such foods and beverages as beer and wine and some forms of chicken. The compound is also used in the production of the artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn. Since 2000, several organizations, including the NIOSH, the OSHA, have raised concerns regarding health effects of diacetyl on workers in manufacturing plants that use the chemical.

Mr. Speaker, we all want to make sure that our workers are able to work in a safe environment. We also want to make certain that the policy that we enact is best for workers. We certainly want to make sure that in the end it doesn't harm them more. That's why a significant number of Members on our side of the aisle are concerned that this legislation may be premature.

I just received a letter from the American Bakers Association, which I will submit for the Record. Its president, the American Bakers Association president, says, ``On behalf of the American Bakers Association, I am writing to express our opposition to the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, which the House of Representatives is expected to consider this week. Passage of the legislation ``would significantly short circuit the appropriate regulatory process by mandating that OSHA implement a regulation, including a permissible exposure limit, PEL, applicable to all sectors of the food industry, and based on limited scientific data.''

Mr. Speaker, even though OSHA has raised concerns about diacetyl, the agency itself has also said, ``At this time, insufficient data exists on which to base workplace exposure standards or recommend exposure limits for butter flavorings.''

So we believe that it is important to give OSHA time to complete a scientific study of diacetyl exposure or to issue a recommended exposure limit for the use of that chemical. Without a complete study, Congress may push manufacturers to use different chemicals that could be even more directly responsible for diseases.

Yesterday, the minority in the Rules Committee offered an amendment to the rule to allow for an open rule so that any Member who wished to bring forth amendments, ideas for legislative changes would have the opportunity to do so. Especially after listening to the commencement of this debate and if they have some expertise or perhaps they are in touch with some people with expertise, Members could bring forth amendments to improve this legislation. That is what we sought in the Rules Committee, and we offered an amendment to the rule to allow for an open rule.

The majority voted down an open rule on a party-line vote. We think it's unfortunate that the majority did not want to consider this bill under an open rule. Now, considering that only two amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee prior to consideration, I really do not believe that we would have faced an avalanche of amendments. But the reason that it would have been important is that any of our Members and/or their staffs, listening to the commencement of this debate, if they have expertise, they could bring that expertise forth in the form of ideas, legislative ideas, amendments, for improving this legislation. Unfortunately, that will not be possible because the majority in the Rules Committee shut down debate, did not allow that open rule.

I think an open rule would have been an easy lift on this legislation. Instead, we have this structured rule. So it is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

If the majority would have offered an open rule, as a matter of fact, they would have doubled the number of open rules for this session on nonappropriation bills, because they have only brought forth one. So they had an opportunity to double the amount of open rules. It would have been an easy lift. So an unfortunate opportunity was missed.

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

This amendment 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.

Last year, the distinguished new Speaker said that if she would become Speaker, she would require all earmarks to be publicly disclosed and would ``put it in writing.'' However, the new majority is falling quite short of the promise. Certainly this week, this is the second rule we are considering this week, and the second time the majority has disregarded earmark transparency. That's 0 for 2 this week, not a good week for transparency. Certainly it could be said it's a good week for hidden earmarks.

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 rise with the same sadness that was manifested by the ranking member, Mr. Dreier of the Rules Committee, when he spoke about the fact that on an issue like this, if there is ever an issue where we should be able to come together and extend a program, it is this one.

But as we saw last night, with the long, thorough testimony before the Rules Committee, the excessively exclusivist process that has been engaged in by the majority really has affected, in a significant and unfortunate way, the product before us. And Mr. Barton pointed out, as has already been explained, that he was excluded from the process. And for example, on an issue, despite the fact that it's a major expansion of SCHIP, that we're facing a major expansion here of SCHIP on a very important issue which is the inclusion, for example, of legal immigrant children, they have not been included. For example, that's why we have the National Hispanic Medical Association saying we do not support this legislation, this SCHIP bill that does not include legal immigrant children.

You have the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda: ``We cannot support legislation that extends health coverage to some children while explicitly excluding legal immigrant children.''

The National Council of La Raza: ``We are particularly disheartened that a congressional debate focused on expanding access to health care to children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants.''

Now, one thing would be, Mr. Speaker, if due to limited resources we were simply extending this program, a program that we all agree is so necessary and important. But to see an expansion of the program that excludes legal, and I reiterate, legal immigrant children and pregnant women is most unfortunate. That's why I would include into the Record, Mr. Speaker, these letters.

My distinguished friend Mr. Pallone last night was saying, well, you know, some people in the Senate didn't want that; that's why we don't do it. Mr. Barton pointed out in Rules that he would have been happy to be there supporting this provision for legal, and I repeat, legal immigrant children. Perhaps that would have been the difference in being able to solve this problem.

Again, exclusivist process leads to an unfortunate result in policy. If there's ever been an example of that, we're seeing it this afternoon. So I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, and, at this stage, this unsatisfactory product that is being brought before us and that we should vote down today.

National Council of La Raza,

Washington, DC, September 24, 2007.

Dear Member of Congress: The National Council of La Raza

(NCLR), the largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy

organization in the U.S., urges you to vote ``No'' on the

State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

reauthorization conference report, legislation that we had

hoped to support. The SCHIP conference report deliberately

deletes a provision previously approved by the House of

Representatives to restore health care coverage for Latino

and other legal immigrant children. We cannot support

legislation that extends health coverage to some children

while explicitly excluding legal immigrant children. We urge

Congress to reject the conference report and go back to the

drawing board to develop SCHIP reauthorization legislation

which will provide health care coverage equitably.

Latino children, who represent two-fifths of uninsured

children, are overwhelmingly disconnected from health

coverage, so it remains essential for Congress to address the

core barriers that prevent them from gaining access to health

care. While we acknowledge that the bill has some provisions

that will broaden coverage opportunities for some of

America's children, including some Latinos, we are deeply

dismayed that it fails to include the language of the ``Legal

Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act (Legal ICHIA),''

which was passed by the House of Representatives with

widespread bipartisan support. This important proposal

addresses arbitrary restrictions to Medicaid and SCHIP for

legal immigrant children and pregnant women and has the

potential to extend coverage for hundreds of thousands of

vulnerable children.

We are particularly disheartened that a congressional

debate which is focused on expanding access to health care to

children would perpetuate an exclusion for legal immigrants.

It is disingenuous to say to the Latino community that health

care is being expanded when a significant proportion of our

children are not included.

We cannot accept this unjust and unnecessary inequity. We

urge you to oppose the SCHIP conference report and redraft a

reauthorization which includes the provisions of ``Legal

ICHIA.'' We will recommend that votes associated with this

legislation are included in the National Hispanic Leadership

Agenda (NHLA) congressional scorecard.

Sincerely,

Janet Murguia

President and CEO.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Who would have thought, back in 1903, at Kitty Hawk, that an experiment could have had such an incredible series of effects on our daily lives. Today, air travel helps make the world a smaller place, allowing for an ease of travel and commerce that incentivates extraordinary economic growth and job creation.

But if U.S. air travel is to continue its fundamental role in the global economy, we have to make certain that we have the safest, most modern and efficient transportation system in the world. By reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration funding and safety oversight programs, the underlying bill takes an important step towards addressing those needs.

Too many Americans have faced too many flight delays recently, Madam Speaker. According to the FAA, those delays are, unfortunately, on the rise, up almost 20 percent from last summer. Part of that, obviously, is due to increased passenger traffic at airports. That issue is particularly prevalent at airports such as the one that I'm honored to represent. The district that I'm honored to represent includes within it Miami International Airport. And so airports that are experiencing growth, such as Miami International and Ft. Lauderdale International, are facing this issue of how to deal with increased traffic.

For example, in 2006, almost 33 million passengers passed through Miami International Airport; 45 percent of those passengers were international passengers, going to destinations beyond south Florida.

But MIA is not only a hub for international travel; but it also plays an integral role in trade, in global trade. The airport leads the Nation in international cargo, with almost 2 million tons, a record 2 million tons of cargo processed in 2006. Also, MIA handled 80 percent of all air imports and almost 80 percent of all air exports between U.S. and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Because it is both an international hub for passengers and cargo, it provides the community that I'm honored to represent with an economic contribution of over $25 billion annually, generating almost 300,000 jobs, $638 million in Federal aviation tax revenue, and $956 million in State, county, and municipal tax revenue. These are all attributable to

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for the consideration of House Resolution 479, the earmark accountability rule.

At the beginning of this Congress, we all heard about the new majority's so-called improved earmark rules. As the Congress has worn on, we have noticed that while the new majority's rules changes perhaps look good on paper, they haven't actually accomplished much since the majority has turned the other way when it comes to the actual enforcement of the new earmark rules. Granted, the majority has had to acquiesce to several demands of the minority when it came to appropriation conference reports; yet we have continued to hear reports of nondisclosed earmarks appearing in all sorts of bills, not just appropriations bills.

This rules change would simply allow the House to openly and honestly debate the validity and accuracy of asserted earmarks contained in all bills, not just appropriations bills. If we defeat the previous question, we can address that issue today and restore the credibility of this Congress when it comes to the enforcement of its own earmarking rules.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Madam Speaker, reiterating our opposition to the previous question and the rule, urging all of our colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Lazaro Alejandro Garcia Farah, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Garcia Farah is a pro-democracy activist currently imprisoned in the tyrant's gulag because of his belief in freedom, democracy, and human rights. Unfortunately, because Mr. Garcia Farah has been a supporter of the cause of bringing liberty to an island shackled by a tyrant's brutal machinery of repression, and has attempted to shed light on the vicious crimes committed against the Cuban people, he has been persecuted by the totalitarian regime.

Mr. Garcia Farah's aspirations for freedom and a better future were cut short when he and others attempted to divert a boat, the ``Baragua'', in an attempt to escape the suffocating grasp of the maniacal regime that maintains Cuba enchained. On August 4, 1994, Mr. Garcia Farah was arrested and in a sham trial ``sentenced'' to 25 years confinement in the infernal totalitarian dungeons on charges of ``piracy'' and attempting to exit the country without ``proper permission''.

In 1998, Pope John Paul II visited Cuba and brought with him a list of political prisoners for which he asked clemency. The petition was ignored. Mr. Garcia Farah, whose name was on the list, denounced and protested the manner in which the totalitarian regime ignored the Pope's petition. The regime's thugs immediately placed Mr. Garcia Farah into solitary confinement in an attempt to silence his calls for justice.

Mr. Garcia Farah is in constant danger of being placed in solitary confinement while in the gulag, yet he rejects allowing himself to be silenced. In 2000 he refused to participate in political ``indoctrination'' classes and was consequently denied visitation rights from November 2000 until February 2001. More recently, in a communication with the Cuban Foundation for Human Rights, Mr. Garcia Farah denounced the horrific conditions to which political prisoners are subjected and explained that prisoners are given drinking water infested with parasites and filthy residues and are incessantly denied their rights to correspondence and religious assistance.

Madam Speaker, Lazaro Alejandro Garcia Farah languishes within the confines of hellish squalor and the injustice of the dictatorship's gulag, although he has done nothing other than desire that the long- suffering people of Cuba live in freedom with fundamental human rights and dignity. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Lazaro Alejandro Garcia Farah and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Arturo Suarez Ramos, a long suffering and heroic prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Suarez Ramos is a member of the Cuban Pro-Human Rights Committee and a leader of the pro-democracy movement in totalitarian Cuba. Because he believes that freedom is the birthright of every person, he has steadfastly demanded freedom, democracy and human rights for the Cuban people. He has bravely denounced the cruel policies of the dictatorship, its apartheid-style discrimination against Cubans, and its constant indoctrination campaign, and demanded that the

Cuban people be allowed to exercise their inalienable rights. Unfortunately, because the dictatorship forcefully represses those who bravely support freedom, he has repeatedly been a target of the regime's henchmen.

Mr. Suarez Ramos rejected the regime's mandated lies and propaganda early in his life and was therefore denied by the dictatorship the opportunity to pursue a higher education. Knowing full well that in a totalitarian Cuba there was no future, only dire consequences, for those who voiced dissent, he refused to allow his cries for freedom to be silenced. In 1985 Mr. Suarez Ramos was arrested by state security thugs and in a sham trial ``sentenced'' to 18 months in the totalitarian gulag for being a ``menace to society'' by attempting to leave the country without ``proper permission''.

Although Mr. Suarez Ramos was eventually released, his time outside the infernal totalitarian gulag was brief. On October 3, 1987, Mr. Suarez Ramos was again arrested, this time on charges of ``piracy'' and ``illegal exit'' from the country. Although he was initially sentenced to death by firing squad for attempting to divert a plane to the United States, the dictator decided to ``commute'' his sentence to thirty years in his dungeons.

Mr. Suarez Ramos has participated in several hunger strikes demanding his release and to draw attention to the abhorrent conditions in which political prisoners are kept. Currently, Mr. Suarez Ramos, among Cuba's longest serving political prisoners, suffers from migraines, loss of vision, severe back pains, chronic stomach pains, diarrhea and various other ailments. These maladies are brought on and compounded by the depraved, subhuman conditions to which he is subjected. Mr. Suarez Ramos has never relinquished his dream of freedom for the Cuban people. He continues to advocate for freedom and justice while locked in the hellish squalor of the dictatorship's dungeons and courageously endures countless attacks at the hands of his brutal jailers.

No matter how intense the repression, no matter how horrifically brutal the consequences of a dignified struggle for liberty, the totalitarian gulags are full of men and women who represent the best of the Cuban nation. Madam Speaker, it is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that Mr. Suarez Ramos continues to be systematically tortured because of his belief in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Arturo Suarez Ramos and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When the Founders of this great Republic drafted our Constitution, they had the revolutionary vision that brought us this great and vibrant representative democracy that has lasted over 200 years. Included in the landmark Constitution that has served our Nation so marvelously is a provision that gives us, the Congress, the power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' This provision receives little attention; but over the last two centuries it has played a critical part in the growth of the economy and the power, the wealth of the United States. Today, American intellectual property is worth over $5 trillion, more than that of any other country in the world. It also comprises more than half of all U.S. exports, driving almost half of the Nation's economic growth.

As Mr. Welch so eloquently stated, the last time Congress overhauled the patent system was over 50 years ago. Since then the fundamental underpinnings of our economy have undergone dramatic changes. But the patent system has remained generally static and now faces some difficulty in meeting the needs of our dynamic economy. So we must reform our patent system in order to meet the needs of our economy here and in the global marketplace, but we must do so in a way that protects, that continues to protect the intellectual property rights of all inventors and industries.

Today we are debating changing the system that President Abraham Lincoln called one of the three most important developments in world history. Yet on such a truly significant piece of legislation, legislation that will affect our economy for decades, the Rules Committee majority has severely restricted the input of Members of this House, the input that they can have on this extraordinarily important piece of legislation.

The rule brought forth by the majority allows only five amendments, five of the 14 amendments submitted. I submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, that is no way for the House to debate this important legislation. The majority should bring this bill to the floor with the opportunity for all Members to present their ideas, their proposals, their amendments, for the consideration of all of our colleagues. The majority should bring this legislation to the floor under an open rule.

I remind our friends of one of the central tenets of their campaign last fall. They said they would run the Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. In fact, on December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker, Congresswoman Pelosi, reiterated her campaign promise. She said: ``We promised to the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.''

Here we are again with a restrictive rule, even on such a significant piece of legislation as the reform of our patent system.

The majority, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately is not living up to its promises, and it is the duty of the minority to remind the majority of when the majority falls short of the majority's promises.

It was quite clear from the testimony at the Rules Committee yesterday, very interesting testimony, very enlightening. It's been years in the making this legislation. There are Members of our Congress that have put a tremendous amount of effort and study and time into this critically important issue.

It was evident at the Rules Committee that this bill was drafted in an open manner, in a bipartisan manner. Why not thus continue the bipartisanship that has forged this important piece of legislation, why not continue that bipartisanship here on the floor today with an open rule?

Notwithstanding how Members may feel about the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of our colleagues to vote against this rule, vote against this rule so that we can have a full and open debate on this important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of our colleagues who have participated in this debate; thank Chairman Conyers for his kind words.

This obviously is very important legislation. And even though my very good friend, Mr. Issa, just stated that most of the amendments had been made in order by the Rules Committee, that's not the case. Five amendments were made in order, and nine, nine were denied.

I have very little time. I will yield.

Reclaiming my time. A number of important amendments have not been made in order. And on legislation this important, we think that it should have been brought forth with an open rule. And so that's why we oppose the rule, and would urge that the majority of the Rules Committee bring forth this legislation again with the opportunity of all Members of the House to offer all amendments based on their work product for consideration by all of our colleagues.

And so with that, I urge the defeat of this unfair rule.

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, the gentlewoman from Ohio, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This rule that the majority brings forth today, Mr. Speaker, is a standard

rule for a conference report. But yesterday the minority on the Rules Committee voted against this rule because of the unsatisfactory manner in which the conference report was put together.

In his submitted testimony to the Rules Committee yesterday, Education and Labor Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon expressed concern with the process the majority used of the conference committee. The minority was informed at 9:30 p.m. that the conference committee would meet at 11:30 a.m. the following morning. However, the majority did not provide the minority with the text of the conference report at the time the meeting was announced and even kept the text away from Republicans at the meeting itself.

Republican conferees were, in effect, left in the dark. They had no way to know what was in the report. As such, it was impossible for members of the minority to propose amendments to the report and thus play any meaningful part in the conference.

Democrats did not even allow Republicans to see the conference report at the end of the meeting. Instead, Republicans had to wait until later in the evening hours after the conference committee had ended.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle campaigned, and they did so repeatedly, on an open, fair, and bipartisan process, including a promise to provide members of conference committees with texts of conference reports. They also said that they will allow members of the conference committee to vote on all amendments.

During consideration of the rules package for this new Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee said, ``Never again will any Member of the Congress have to fight to find out where the conference to which he or she has been appointed is meeting.''

Well, in this instance, Members did not have to fight to find the conference committee location, but they certainly did have to fight to get the text of the conference report; and even after fighting, they did not get to see it. By keeping the text of the conference report away from the minority, Democrats were essentially locking out Republican Members from the conference committee, which is exactly what the Democrats said they would not do.

So, Mr. Speaker, because of the manner, the way the majority kept the text of the conference report from Republicans and thus committed, if you will, a process foul, we oppose this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. McKeon.

Mr. Speaker, we reiterate that the process by which this conference report was composed was not fair. And it, in effect, violated the promises made by the other side of the aisle very recently, very recently made and reiterated. The process was profoundly unfair. I stressed that in my previous remarks, and I reiterate it now.

In addition, we've heard from the distinguished ranking member with regard to grave concerns by many of those who have been working on this issue, such as Mr. McKeon, for many years.

So for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we oppose this rule and would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize a man who has been a leader in the media and a strong visionary for the future.

With four decades of experience as a journalist and executive, Don Browne is currently the president of the Telemundo Network. He oversees all functions of the Telemundo television network and its 16 owned-and- operated stations.

In a very short time, Mr. Browne led Telemundo from zero original programming to more than 1,000 hours of original prime-time productions a year produced out of Telemundo Studios' production center based in South Florida. During his tenure, Mr. Browne has set in motion numerous initiatives that have further solidified and defined the network's position within the Spanish-language television landscape, and has helped make it the world's second largest producer of Spanish-language content. Thanks to Mr. Browne's commitment to original programming, Telemundo has carved a unique competitive position in the market, syndicating its programming properties to over 60 countries in more than 20 different languages and distributing its content in a variety of emerging digital media platforms.

Furthermore, Mr. Browne has earned for himself a national reputation for being particularly active in the recruitment and career development of women and minorities. For example, Mr. Browne is the visionary behind the creation and expansion of the bicoastal ``Taller Telemundo,'' an innovative educational program designed to discover, recruit and train the next generation of ``telenovela'' writers and actors. He is also cofounder and board member of the ``Women of Tomorrow Mentor and Scholarship Program'' for at risk high school girls. He was a charter member of the NBC News Taskforce on Women and Minorities and currently serves as a member of NBC's Taskforce on Diversity.

For these efforts, he has been correctly recognized with numerous awards for community service such as the prestigious Ida B. Wells Award for his commitment to promote diversity in the workplace and Governor of Florida's Points of Light Award for exemplary service to his community.

I am proud to call Don Browne, his beautiful and brilliant Cuban-born wife, Maria, and their sons Chris and Ryan, my friends, and I am honored to celebrate his 40 years in broadcasting. On behalf of a grateful community, I rise to thank this giant of the television industry for his service, his vision and his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the majority on the Rules Committee passed a rule that in an extreme fashion limits debate on our national energy policy. The rule only allows for debate on 23 amendments to H.R. 3221, out of 106 amendments sought to be debated by Members of both parties in this House. And out of those 23 amendments made in order, only five are Republican amendments.

What is even more unfortunate is that in the same rule they completely shut out both Republicans and Democrats from offering any amendments to H.R. 2776. Between the two bills, Mr. Speaker, a total of 94 amendments were prohibited from being considered by this House. And to add insult to injury, the majority also denied the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refresh the majority of a campaign promise they made. The distinguished Speaker said, ``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 a right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

They promised openness. They promised bipartisanship. Some openness. Some bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this body, I firmly believe, seeks to leave our children and grandchildren a better world in which to live. This great Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but clearly we can do more.

From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic renewable energy sources. This includes sources such as cellulosic ethanol, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. But we must always keep in mind that alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and, without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist.

Mr. Speaker, that is something that I must say our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to not grasp. Ignoring this lesson will result in our continued dependence on foreign supplies, using U.S. dollars to line the pockets of thugs and dictators like Chavez in Venezuela as he spreads anti-American

propaganda and actions throughout this hemisphere and the world.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, by inclusion of the production tax credit in H.R. 2776. That PTC provides a tax credit for electricity produced from renewable energy facilities. Sources such as wind, solar and biomass are included under the tax credit.

Since its enactment in 1992, the credit has encouraged the development of thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable electric generation facilities. Florida, for example, Mr. Speaker, is home to Florida Power & Light, owner and operator of two of the largest solar projects in the world and the Nation's largest wind energy company. Because of the long-term commitment to renewable energies by this Congress, companies like FPL have made significant, needed investments to advance non-emitting forms of energy, and that is the kind of work that we must continue.

Now, the majority, Mr. Speaker, promised that it would run the House in an open and bipartisan manner. If this is an open and bipartisan process, I would hate to see a closed one. Later today I fear the majority will break precedent again and come to the floor to close the open amendment process on the Department of Defense appropriations bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a difficult week for both sides of the aisle, but moving forward with restrictive rules such as this on important issues only makes matters worse. It is most unwise, as well as unfortunate.

This rule is unnecessarily unfair and should be soundly defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to defeat the previous question so that I may amend the rule to provide for the adoption of H. Res. 622, a resolution introduced by Mr. Blunt to correct the injustice done to all Members of this House on August 2, 2007.

As my colleagues know, the majority engaged in a manipulation of the vote on the motion to recommit the Agriculture appropriations bill to reverse the outcome.

If we defeat the previous question, the resolution will direct the Clerk to retrieve the Agriculture appropriations bill from the Senate, add in the amendments that should have been included in the bill, and return the bill to the Senate.

While we took the important step yesterday to establish a select committee to investigate the reasons why this injustice occurred, the Agriculture appropriations bill will continue through the legislative process well before the select committee's final report is complete; meaning that we must act now to correct this injustice.

I ask my colleagues to support me in defeating the previous question and righting this wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed just prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues in a responsible manner, realizing the historic importance of what has transpired this week, to defeat the previous question, allow this wrong to be righted, to defeat the previous question and defeat also this unfair rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chairman, the agricultural issue in this amendment is really a subterfuge, because if we read, for example, the spokesman of U.S. Agribusiness, Mr. Radlow, he states that in the 5 years that we have been selling products to Cuba, the political hurdles have never hurt. We know how to deal with third-party banks.

People use the hurdles as an excuse for not getting a contract. It is legal to sell agricultural products to the Castro regime since the year 2000. But as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) pointed out, ever since 2001 and the attacks of 2001, we have been making sure that U.S. financial institutions, to the greatest extent we can achieve it, are protected from state sponsors of terrorism. And as a matter of fact, the regulation being discussed today was requested by U.S. financial institutions.

So let's not get confused. This amendment would allow a state sponsor of terrorism on the list of state sponsors of terrorism U.S. bank accounts and visas for their agents, over a dozen of which have been convicted in recent years alone of spying against United States interests. So let's vote down resoundingly this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recall the tragic anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

On July 20, 1974, Turkey brutally attacked the Republic of Cyprus. To my deep regret, the shameful legacy of this despicable act remains. To this day, Turkish troops illegally occupy Cyprus, splitting the island into two areas, and continuing the oppression of the people of Cyprus which has remained since that infamous day.

Reminiscent of the infamous Berlin Wall, Cyprus has remained divided by ``the green line,'' a 113-mile barbed-wire fence that has run across the island for the past 33-years. Despite pressure from the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations, Cyprus remains one of the most militarized areas in the world.

Although Cyprus remains divided, there is reason for optimism that the nation will one day be made whole. In late April of 2004, the people of Cyprus went to the polls to vote on a plan of reunification. Unfortunately, this reunification proposal was rushed, allegedly to coincide with the ascension of Cyprus into the European Union. Because of many legitimate concerns, including security, and in a demonstration of great courage and independence, approximately 75 percent of Greek Cypriots opposed the plan. However, this rushed and unfortunate effort must not, and will not, be the end of attempts to reunify the island. A lasting and equitable solution for the people of Cyprus, and the goal of a united Cyprus, is too important to abandon.

I firmly support the efforts begun with the bicommunal agreement reached at the meeting of July 8, 2006. The framework of July 8 established guiding principles to accomplish the goal reunifying the two halves of Cyprus within a bizonal, bicommunal federation. I urge both parties to proceed with establishing working groups so that there can be movement forward in implementing these principles. The remarkable achievement of the July 8 agreement gives me great reason to be hopeful that a solution is near. Yet so long as Cyprus remains divided, we have great work ahead of us.

I remain committed to achieving a solution to this problem so that we never have to gather again to commemorate an anniversary of this condemnable invasion. Madam Speaker, I pray that this will be the last year of a divided Cyprus. It is my fervent hope that, 33 years after Cyprus was torn asunder, all Cypriots can be reunited, living in peace and freedom forever.