Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the next 2 days, the House is set to consider three separate bills that would approve and ratify tribal claims to water rights made by the White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona and the Pueblos of Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Tesuque, and Taos in New Mexico. The bills would also restore and protect some environmentally sensitive land and watersheds, and require the maintenance of the water systems in question until they are conveyed to the respective tribes.

I support these bills when the McClintock amendments are included because I believe that the settlements will bring long-term certainty and stability to the respective tribes and water users in the affected areas.

Mr. Speaker, last night the majority in the Rules Committee decided to allow for consideration all three of the amendments submitted to the three bills we are set to consider this week. I wish to thank them for their uncharacteristic generosity in allowing minority amendments. These important amendments would prevent the bill from taking effect until the Attorney General assures Congress in writing that the settlements in these bills would represent a net benefit to the U.S. taxpayer based on the costs and risks of litigation and the odds the tribes would prevail in the litigation. I believe these amendments are important because they require the Attorney General to conduct a cost- benefit analysis of the settlements and make sure that they are fiscally responsible before the settlement funds can be paid.

Now, I assume that the other side of the aisle will highlight that this rule allows debate on all of the amendments which were submitted to the Rules Committee, but it restricts any and all possible further amendments from consideration. It is not an open rule. The majority campaigned on a promise to allow open and bipartisan debates in

Congress, yet this year they have yet to allow even one open rule. That is correct, not one open rule. And that, Mr. Speaker, includes even the traditionally open appropriations process.

They could have changed that glaring and unfortunate statistic by allowing an open rule on the underlying, uncontroversial bill, but the majority in the Rules Committee decided to continue to make this the most closed Congress in history.

Now, let's look at the possible reasons the majority on the Rules Committee decided to vote against an open rule for these bills. Could it be that there is not enough time on the House schedule this week? Well, the House, until last night, was scheduled to be in session until Friday. And this rule, as proposed, only allows for a total of 3\1/2\ hours of total debate time for all three bills and all three amendments.

Even though we are now scheduled to leave on Thursday, we still have more than enough time to complete the three bills with an open rule. I sincerely doubt that an open rule would garner more than a handful of amendments. It would allow the majority to say for the first time, and to prove, at least offer some evidence, that they are living up to their pledge to run an open Congress.

I believe the real reason is that the majority is afraid of an open debate even on uncontroversial bills, and so they restrict debate consistently. It has become their standard operating procedure to close debate in the House. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Well, it is not a question of talking points, it is a question of fact. We will move on.

I at this point yield, Mr. Speaker, 5 minutes, to my distinguished friend from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Well, Mr. Speaker, we saw last night that the blame game no longer works. And if we want to look at the past, we will see that when we cut taxes, we made it a reality; the recession after 9/11 was the shortest recession in history.

Now, unfortunately, the policies that are being followed now are totally different. They're increasing debt massively. The deficit as a percentage of GDP after TARP--that I opposed, but it can be said that it was a bipartisan decision, TARP--after TARP, the deficit as a percentage of GDP was 4 percent. Today, 1 year after the Democrats took the Presidency and they had already taken the House and the Senate, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is almost 12 percent, Mr. Speaker.

We are running in a dangerous direction, heading toward a collision with a fiscal crisis of unprecedented proportion. But, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats just don't get it. They don't see it. The American people sent a message last night that they had better, but it still remains to be seen if they received the message.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

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

Mr. Speaker, as we wait for the Republican leader, let me say that I have enjoyed this debate. These are noncontroversial bills that are being brought to the floor, and yet they're important. And, also, there are issues that have been brought out and that will be brought out now. I will oppose the previous question to bring out the issue that Mr. Buchanan talked about and bring it to a floor vote this morning.

Since the Democrats regained the majority in the House, I have heard a number of Members come down to the floor and quote Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant. I think that quote is fitting. It's fitting today considering, as Mr. Buchanan pointed out, that as we speak, the majority is drafting, behind closed doors with no sunshine in sight, health care legislation that will affect every American.

So I think the question is begged, what is going on behind those closed doors? We don't know. We do not even know who is at the table. The American people deserve to know what is going on behind closed doors.

We need to bring sunlight, sunshine, into a process that is shrouded with secrecy. That is why I, along with a bipartisan group of 163 Members of this House, have cosponsored House Resolution 847, a resolution by my friend and colleague, Representative Buchanan, that expresses the sense of the House that any meetings held to determine the final contents of sweeping health care legislation be held in public view and not behind closed doors. Mr. Buchanan pointed out the fact that C-SPAN has offered, in fulfillment of a campaign promise by the President, to be present at the negotiations.

Now, in order to help bring in sunshine to a process that the majority continues to hide from public view, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to continue the Buchanan transparency resolution. This vote will give Members of the majority a chance to live up to their promise, as the distinguished Speaker said, ``to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.''

Madam Speaker, I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize consideration of the water rights bills and of the settlement bills that are being brought to the floor today; but I wish to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate consideration of the Buchanan transparency resolution within 3 days so we can vote on the water rights bills and then, once we are done, so that we can consider the Buchanan transparency resolution, H. Res. 847.

I have been informed that the Republican leader will not be coming down to the floor at this time.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the Iraqi authorities not to forcibly remove Camp Ashraf residents from the home where they have lived for over twenty years. International human rights groups such as Amnesty International have warned that forcibly relocating the Camp Ashraf residents will put the Iranian opposition group ``at risk of arbitrary arrest, torture or other forms of ill-treatment, and unlawful killing.''

On July 29 of this year, I spoke out against the brutal attack that began on July 28 carried out by Iraqi security forces who were acting at the behest of the Iranian regime. The Iraqi security forces rolled over unarmed Camp Ashraf residents with tanks and beat them with sticks, killing at least nine residents and injuring many more. An injustice of this magnitude must not happen again.

If the Iraqi government forcibly moves these residents from their Camp Ashraf home, it will be breaking its promise to the United States and violating its obligations under international law. When these Iranian exiles voluntarily surrendered their weapons to U.S. forces in 2003, they did so in exchange for a promise that the U.S. would protect them. When the United States withdrew from the Camp Ashraf region, the United States and Iraq signed an agreement that the Iraqi government would continue to ensure their safety. Furthermore, Camp Ashraf residents are also shielded by international law because they are ``protected persons'' under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This attempt to move the Camp Ashraf residents to a remote prison in the middle of the deserts appears to be an ugly attempt by the Iraqi government to appease the Iranian regime. Groups such as Amnesty International warn that it may even lead to their forcible return to Iran. If returned to Iran, these members of the Iranian opposition would face almost certain torture and even death.

Madam Speaker, I call on the Iraqi government to keep its promise to the United States and uphold its obligations under international law. Attempting to mollify the tyrannical, illegitimate Iranian regime at the expense of these pro-democracy activists would be a tragic mistake. I call on the Iraqi government to ensure the protection that these exiles were promised and to which they are entitled under international law.

Madam Speaker, Senator Bob Menendez gave an important speech last Thursday, December 10, opposing concessions to the dictatorship of Cuba.

In his speech Senator Menendez read out loud an open letter which had been sent by one of Cuba's true heroes--a giant of the resistance to the Cuban tyranny--Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez,'' here photographed with his wife, Yris Perez Aguilera, a letter to the titular Cuban dictator, Raul Castro, on Tuesday, December 8.

``Mr. Raul Castro,'' Antunez wrote, ``for months now my wife Yris Tamara Perez Aguilera and I have been kept in extrajudicial house arrest by your political police. Mr. Dictator, let me ask you some questions that may help clarify some doubts for those fellow countrymen of mine who may at some point have had hope your government would reduce the repression or even carry out democratic openings.

``What do you feel when you incite or allow people who call themselves men to beat and drag through the streets women like Damaris Moya Portieles, Maria Diaz Rondon, Ana Alfonso Arteaga, Sara Marta Fonseca, Yris Perez and now more recently the blogger Yoani Sanchez?

``How can you sleep after your subordinates cruelly beat, more than once, Idania Yanez Contreras while she was pregnant?

``How can you and your government talk about the battle of ideas, when ideas constantly face repression with beatings and arrests and years of imprisonment?

``Maybe your followers will not dare respond, but I who am in the long list of those who do not fear you, will answer:

``You act like that because you are a cruel man, insensitive to the pain and suffering of others; because, loyal to your anti-democratic and dictatorial vocation, you are convinced that dictatorships such as yours can only sustain themselves by fear and torture, and that even the most minimal of openings can end the only thing that interests you: staying in power.

``And finally, speaking of my case in particular, I will respond to you without the need to first ask of you the motives for such focused repression against my person.''

Antunez, by the way, Madam Speaker, now 45 years old, was a political prisoner for 17 years until 2007.

He continued to write, ``Your government and its lackey-repressive forces cannot forgive my two great and only crimes. First, that for almost two decades of torture and cruelties during my unjust and severe imprisonment, you were not able to break my dignity and my position as a political prisoner. Second, because despite all the violence and harassment--and above all the risk of returning to prison--I have decided to not abandon my country, where I will continue fighting for a change I believe to be as necessary as it is inevitable.''

Signed, in the City of Placetas, by Jorge Luis Garcia Perez ``Antunez'', Tuesday, December 8.

On Friday, December 11, Antunez and his wife, Yris Perez Aguilera, she is a heroine, were violently arrested. The doctrine of Fidel Castro's hero Adolf Hitler was again devoutly followed: ``The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.''

``This is kidnapping,'' yelled Yris. ``Long live human rights,'' shouted Antunez as they were being beaten and taken away by the Castros' political police on Friday.

I condemn the brutal arrest of these two heroes by the Castros' cowardly thugs. The days of the Castros' racist totalitarian tyranny in Cuba are coming to an end. Those who have collaborated with the violence and brutality of the racist regime will face justice and eternal shame. Antunez, Yris Perez Aguilera, her brother, Mario Perez Aguilera, Oscar Elias Biscet, Darsi Ferrer and many other heroic political prisoners of Cuba will be elected the leaders of free Cuba. That change is as necessary as it is inevitable. Because of heroes like Antunez and Yris Perez Aguilera, the day of freedom in Cuba is approaching.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The underlying legislation of H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009, extends for 1 year a number of noncontroversial, temporary tax- relief provisions that are set to expire at the end of this year. These provisions will benefit individual taxpayers, students, teachers, small businesses, and other companies that invest in research and development.

While I support these temporary tax-relief extensions, I believe that these tax provisions should be made permanent, or that at the very least they should be extended for more than 1 year. For example, the bill includes a 1-year extension of the sales tax deduction. This provision is very important in Florida, the State that I'm honored to represent, because without this deduction, Floridians would end up paying significantly more taxes to the Federal Government than the taxpayers with similar profiles in different States.

These year-to-year extensions, while better than no extension, fail to provide the predictability and the certainty that small businesses and families need to plan their budgets. Leaving these important tax- relief provisions to the last minute, also, I believe, is most unfortunate. It unnecessarily places an additional burden on families and small businesses that are already struggling in this economy.

I also oppose the inclusion in this legislation of a permanent tax to pay for temporary tax relief. The bill would raise the tax rate on investment gains received from an investment services partnership interest, which is currently taxed at a rate of 15 percent, to a rate as high as 35 percent at the end of 2010, and then the tax will rise to 39 percent.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this is a tax on Wall Street venture funds; but as our friend, Congressman Kevin Brady, explained last night when he testified before the Rules Committee, about half of that tax will be paid by real estate partnerships that build apartments, homes and shopping centers in our communities. Those real estate partnerships invest in new infrastructure in our communities and they help create jobs in the construction industry. Yet once this tax hits those partnerships, they may very well reconsider their investment decisions and abandon their partnerships for other investments, further hurting our communities and hampering possible economic recovery.

The construction industry has been hit very hard, Mr. Speaker, in the community that I am honored to represent, and too many jobs have been lost. What we need to be doing is providing incentives for job growth and investment in the construction industry. Unfortunately, we are doing the opposite with this legislation.

During his first inaugural address, President Reagan said, It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work, work for us, not over us, stand by our side, not right on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

The legislation being brought to the floor today will not do what President Reagan said we need to do.

With unemployment at 10 percent and an economy struggling to recover, this is not the time to raise taxes, particularly a tax on capital investments that help create jobs. This new tax will discourage the entrepreneurial risk-taking that our economy desperately needs right now in order to create new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, for centuries the United States prospered because we have been the safest place in the world to invest. It was good for business to invest in the United States, to create new businesses, in other words, to create jobs in the United States. We are moving away from that philosophy that made this country the most prosperous Nation in the history of the world. Because of that, our economy will continue to suffer. We are moving away from that.

Just yesterday the President, for example, called for increased capital investments in small businesses. Yet here we are today, ironically, increasing taxes on capital investments that could help small businesses grow and provide them the capital to hire new workers.

During yesterday's Rules Committee hearing, we heard testimony from my friend and distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Cao) regarding a proposed amendment that he wished to have the House debate today. His amendment would extend the time for making low-income housing credit allocations under the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act by 2 years. According to Mr. Cao, this extension is needed to preserve the availability of financing for affordable housing projects in the Gulf States. This amendment is just another example of Mr. Cao's thoughtful efforts continuously on behalf of his constituents.

Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided that once again they would block all amendments from consideration, including Mr. Cao's, as well as amendments submitted for consideration by Mr. Brady, Mr. Reichert and Mr. Geoff Davis of Kentucky. It's unfortunate the majority continuously closes down the process and blocks consideration of amendments.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, they campaigned on the promise of openness. They said they would open this process as it had never before been opened, that there would be a transparency that had never before been seen; and what we have seen is exactly the opposite.

They have closed the process like never before. The majority should have allowed consideration of all the amendments to the legislation that were submitted before the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Louisiana, an extraordinarily thoughtful member of this House, Mr. Cao.

Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the overwhelming majority of Americans do, that Members of Congress should have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. It shouldn't be an issue, frankly, because the majority and the distinguished Speaker during the campaign, the political campaign, said that they would have the most open Congress in history and that Members would have at least, should have at least, 24 hours to examine bills before those bills are considered on the floor.

But that hasn't been the case. I remember in the Rules Committee one early morning at 3 a.m. we were handed a 900-page amendment, called the manager's amendment, to energy legislation, the so-called cap-and-trade legislation that we considered a few hours later, just a few hours later here on the floor of the House. No one had any opportunity to vote on that legislation. And then we had similar situations with very significant and extensive pieces of legislation. So the American people were, I think, rightfully so, outraged when they saw those examples of very important and extensive pieces of legislation being brought to the floor without Members of Congress being able to even read them. And they should really be posted online so that not only Members of Congress but the American people in general could read them.

That's why legislation has been filed by a bipartisan group of 182 Members that have signed right there, right at that desk in front of you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition, it's called. They go up there and they sign. I signed. 182 Members have signed the discharge petition to bring to the floor legislation saying that Members should have 3 days, that there should be 72 hours, once it's filed, before legislation is brought to a vote on the floor.

So that's why I am asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so that we can consider that legislation that 182 Members have gone to the desk there and signed, bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Baird and Culberson. It would not interrupt this legislation that is being brought to the floor at this time, the tax extenders legislation, because if the motion passes, the motion I'm making, it provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we could vote on the tax extender bill and then, once we have done that, consider that legislation requiring the 72-hour timeframe for Members to be able to study legislation and, quite frankly, for the American people to read legislation before it's voted on.

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

Thanking my friend Mr. Arcuri for his courtesy, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I would like to thank my friend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the time.

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

Eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Republican-led Congress passed legislation that provided over $1.3 trillion in tax relief by, among others, gradually increasing the exemption for the estate tax while decreasing the tax rate itself. As part of that legislation, the estate tax, also known as the death tax, is set to disappear next year. The underlying bill would undo the repeal of the death tax and instead bring back the tax, extend the estate tax rate of 45 percent, and include an unindexed exemption.

I believe these are excessively high rates of taxation, especially when we realize that the tax is imposed at the end of a lifetime of work on which taxes were paid throughout the stages in which income was made. It is wrong, I believe, to tax individuals who have spent their entire lives working to provide their families with some financial security, and so that's why I oppose the underlying legislation.

This double taxation, which is really what we're talking about today, I believe is destructive to family-owned businesses and farms, which are often torn apart or need to be liquidated entirely just to pay those burdensome taxes at the time of death. Americans who work hard and pay taxes all of their lives I don't think should be punished for responsibly saving with yet another tax when they pass away.

When the country has double-digit unemployment, the current majority in Congress is threatening small businesses, the engines of economic growth and job creation in the Nation, with even higher tax burdens. Small businesses are often struggling to survive, to meet payroll and avoid layoffs, and yet this is another example, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that the majority time and time again is proposing legislation that hampers the ability of small businesses to thrive and to hire new workers.

It's unfortunate that the majority feels that they can continuously impact, hit small businesses with tax after tax and expect them to survive

and thrive and retain their workers. That's not the way the economy works.

Even if small business owners do not receive an estate tax bill, they still spend resources on estate tax compliance. According to a recent survey of small and medium-sized manufacturers, those small businesses spend an average of $94,000 on fees and estate planning costs in preparation for an estate tax bill. Imagine what a small business, Mr. Speaker, could do with that money. They could invest it in their company to grow their business. They could add more workers. Instead, the majority prefers placing more and more burdens. And this is but one example, the legislation being brought forth to the floor today, of the majority's incessant endeavor to place more and more burdens on the engines of our economic growth.

Small businesses are responsible for 60 to 80 percent of all new net jobs that were created in the last decade. If the majority continues with their current policies, if they continue on this track of placing more and more burdens on small business, the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise.

I think what we should be doing is everything possible to lower unemployment, to spur investment and job growth. That's where we should be heading.

So I believe what we should be doing is extending the repeal of the death tax. And many of us in this Congress, especially on this side of the aisle, we feel very strongly on this issue. Short of passing the permanent repeal, which I support, at the very least I think we should enact legislation that sets a reasonable rate, provides an appropriate exemption amount, and indexes that amount for inflation. We already saw with the alternative minimum tax what not indexing is capable of doing when Congress acts in that manner. So, unfortunately, the bill does nothing of what I just said, a reasonable rate and indexing an exemption amount.

Yet we on our side of the aisle will not be able to have a debate on legislation, on a proposal to do just that, to index an exemption amount and set a reasonable rate indefinitely into the future. We won't be able to do that because the majority again is closing down the process, shutting down debate. They promised to do quite the opposite, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

So let's contrast what the current majority is doing today with the estate tax rule that we passed when we were in the majority. That rule allowed our distinguished colleague Mr. Pomeroy to offer his substitute amendment. Today we in the minority will be treated much differently.

We will not be given the opportunity that we gave the current majority and Mr. Pomeroy. We will not be allowed to debate our substitute proposal. We will not be afforded a vote on our alternative legislation.

The difference in treatment is not an isolated incident but the standard operating procedure for this majority. They continuously close down the process. They shut out Members from both sides of the aisle from being able to introduce and have debated their amendments, and I think it is unfortunate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), my distinguished friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.

I yield 30 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade ranking member, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my dear friend from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the courtesy, and my friend, Mr. Polis, for his courtesy and all those who have participated in this debate. And I think the essence of the contrast of ideas that has been shown today is that we on this side of the aisle believe that we should be focused like a laser on job creation. I think Mr. Hensarling said it very well, Will this legislation create jobs?

We don't think so. As a matter of fact, we are convinced that it will continue to take the country in the wrong direction with regard to employment. Unemployment continues to rise, and the majority brings more regulation, more taxes, and further stifles small business at a time when we should be encouraging jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we believe, as the overwhelming majority of the American people do, that Members should have the ability to read bills before they vote on them. It really shouldn't be an issue because that was promised by the distinguished Speaker during the campaign when the majority was campaigning to take the majority. And even on her Web site, you'll read Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills before floor consideration.

But that hasn't been the case. I remember when the Rules Committee-- at 3 in the morning we were handed a 900-page amendment to the so- called cap-and-trade energy legislation that we had to vote on simply hours afterward. And the American people were rightfully outraged about examples such as that. That's why there's legislation that's been filed by a bipartisan group that has 182 Members that have signed, right up there, right in front of you, Mr. Speaker, a discharge petition to have legislation brought to the floor requiring at least 72 hours before the legislation has to be voted on by this House.

So that's why today I'm asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can consider that legislation, bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Baird and Culberson. It's not going to interrupt the death tax debate, the estate tax bill, because if the motion passes, the motion I'm making provides for separate consideration of the

Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can vote on the estate tax bill and then, once we're done, consider that legislation requiring the 72 hours.

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 today to honor a leader in my community, Miami-Dade County Police Department Director Bobby Parker. After serving honorably in the Army, Director Parker joined the Miami-Dade Police Department in 1976 and worked his way up the ranks, culminating in his promotion to director in April, 2004.

The Miami-Dade Police Department is the eighth-largest in the Nation, with over 4,700 personnel, serving almost 2.5 million residents and countless visitors to our community. Under Director Parker's leadership, the department has been at the forefront of effective law enforcement, and he's implemented numerous programs that have had a major effect in ensuring the safety and quality of life of our citizens.

Director Parker retired from the department earlier this month. His leadership and vision will be sorely missed, but his standard of excellence will surely carry on. On behalf of a grateful community, I wish to thank Director Parker for his outstanding service and wish him well in his future endeavors. May you long enjoy your retirement with family and friends, Director Bobby Parker.

Madam Speaker, the international press, including almost all the press in the United States, continues to ignore the suffering of the oppressed people of Cuba. Yes, there are exceptions, such as the National Review's Jay Nordlinger, the premier defender of human rights in the American press, or The Miami Herald's Juan Tamayo or Wilfredo Cancio, and occasionally there are other dignified exceptions. But the almost totality of the U.S. press systematically ignores what goes on in Cuba.

Despite 50 years of tyranny there, despite Cuba being 90 miles from our shores, despite hundreds of prisoners of conscience languishing in dungeons simply because of their peaceful advocacy for freedoms, including freedom of the press, which should not be denied to any people, and thousands of others imprisoned for crimes which are only illegal in the totalitarian fiefdom of a demented despot--crimes like ``dangerousness'' or ``illegally attempting to leave the country''--the press continues to ignore the reality of Cuba. Their irresponsibility in doing so is absolutely indefensible.

Jewish friends have told me that they understand what I'm talking about when I refer to the concept of the nonperson. For countless generations, for 1,800 years, Jews were subject to exile, to pogroms, persecution, discrimination. And their suffering was ignored in countries throughout the world. They were nonpersons. When their suffering was not ignored it was often minimized or ridiculed. Jews know that the recovery of their homeland, the establishment of their state in 1948 was absolutely necessary. That was the only way to guarantee the end of the nonperson status, to guarantee an end to pogroms, to discrimination, to persecution.

Cubans have been stateless nonpersons for over 51 years. Their suffering is systematically ignored. Their unity of purpose is continuously questioned or ridiculed. Even the torture of their heroes, of the heroic political prisoners, is ignored. Martha Beatriz Roque, a respected economist, leading Cuban dissident and former political prisoner who was only released from prison so that she would not die due to her many illnesses in prison and embarrass Castro, she is close to death in Havana due to complications arising from a hunger strike that she's engaged in.

Dozens of other brave dissidents are also on hunger strikes in the home of one of Cuba's other extremely respected pro-democracy leaders, Vladimiro Roca. Cubans, unlike the Jews, have not yet recovered their state. They will. But they haven't yet.

I ask the press, Madam Speaker, the media to please cease treating Cuba's pro-democracy activists as though they didn't exist. Stop treating Martha Beatriz Roque as a nonperson. Why do you continue to absolutely ignore Cuba's brave prisoners of conscience? Why don't you at least write about the elderly prisoners of conscience in Cuba, such as Hector Maseda Gutierrez or Arnaldo Ramos Lauzurique, or about the severely handicapped prisoners of conscience such as Miguel Galvan Gutierrez, or most especially about the gravely ill Cuban prisoners of conscience in the gulag such as Ariel Sigler or Normando Hernandez or Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, or Dr. Alfredo Pulido Lopez, or Pedro Arguelles Moran?

Members of the press, have you no conscience? Do not continue to treat the suffering oppressed people of Cuba and their heroes as nonpersons. Please, do your duty.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Congress needs to make reforms to expand health care coverage so that everyone in this great Nation has health insurance. The problem with the legislation the majority is bringing to the floor today is that it will seriously and unnecessarily hurt our economy. It will cause severe job losses, and that's most unfortunate.

The Republican alternative has some very good aspects. It will expand health care coverage to millions who currently do not have it, and it does

not include the fatal flaw in the Democrats' bill--massive tax increases on small businesses; tax increases and regulations that will kill jobs.

The Republican alternative allows small businesses to pool together, allows people to buy insurance across State lines. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it actually brings down the cost of health care premiums.

The Democrats' bill will raise taxes, according to the CBO by over $700 billion and cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. It will make much worse our economic situation, increase unemployment, take the country in the wrong direction at a time when unemployment is already over 10 percent.

Especially, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that there is a bipartisan consensus in this Nation on the need to increase access to health insurance to those who do not have it today, it is sad that this destructive legislative product is being brought to the floor.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for the time.

In 2006, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security the authority to promulgate risk-based security performance standards for chemical facilities that use or store chemicals.

I am glad that Mr. Lungren of California is here, because he was intimately involved with the legislation that ultimately became law.

The DHS subsequently issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), requiring chemical facilities to report the types and amounts of chemicals housed on sites. The legislative authority for CFATS was scheduled to sunset this year in October. The underlying bill, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, makes permanent the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate security at chemical plants.

I believe it's important to address the sunsetting of the existing CFATS program at the Department of Homeland Security. However, I have concerns that this bill fails to enhance our security and, at a time when we are facing 10 percent unemployment, perhaps even higher unemployment in the future, that it could endanger economic recovery.

Of particular concern is the IST, the inherently safer technology, provisions included in this legislation. IST allows the Federal Government to mandate the use of certain chemicals and technologies regardless of the efficiency and effectiveness of the IST. This was all the more worrisome when a witness from the Department of Homeland Security testified that the Department employs no specialists with IST expertise and that there is no future funding planned.

Now, I first learned how IST may hurt job creation and how, in fact, it may increase unemployment from a small business in my district, Allied Universal Corporation, that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.

I was informed that the IST is an attempt by the Federal Government to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to a complicated and disparate sector of our economy. It will cost Allied alone, this corporation that employs people in my community, hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and in staff time alone.

It is not a good use of resources. It has no tangible benefit as manufacturing struggles to survive in this economy. Furthermore, the underlying bill reduces existing protections on information regarding chemical facilities, and it reduces the penalties for the disclosure of security information.

These regulations that we are talking about today were thoughtfully included following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The primary responsibility, Mr. Speaker, of our government is to protect the citizenry. By making chemical facilities less secure, we endanger the security of our neighborhoods and of our communities. By easing penalties for unlawfully disclosing sensitive information, we increase our vulnerability. To make matters worse, the majority includes these provisions in a bill that is supposed to help prevent attacks.

As I said before, I am glad Mr. Lungren is here. He can explain the process by which the current regulations came into being, the amount of discussion, negotiation, and consensus that led to those regulations coming into effect, and really how unfortunate now this attempt at an imposition of further or different regulations is.

Mr. Speaker, later this week the Congress is expected to consider health care bills. I would like to take this moment to compare today's rule on the chemical facility bill with the rule expected on the health care bills.

Today's rule allows 10 amendments, five from the majority and five from the minority, on a bill that costs approximately $900 million. Although the rule is not open, it's important to admit that the rule allows some debate on the underlying issues. The rule expected later this week on the health care legislation will probably include an amendment written by the Speaker. Perhaps that's the only amendment that will be allowed. We'll see. And that bill spends about $1.3 trillion, I believe.

It seems that the more money Congress spends, the more likely we seem to have a closed debate process. And that, I believe, is contrary to the way the majority promised to run this House.

On the opening day of the 110th Congress, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee came to the floor and said that the new majority would ``begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.'' That pledge was echoed in a document written by the distinguished Speaker called a New Direction for America, where she stated, and, by the way, the statement is still on her Web site: ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate.''

After contrasting today's rule with the expected health care rule in a few days, today's rule might look fair, but really it's not. It blocks amendments from both sides of the aisle from receiving a full and fair debate on the House floor that was, as I pointed out, promised by the Speaker.

During the hearing in the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, made a motion to allow an open rule on this legislation that's being brought to the floor; in other words, a rule that would allow all Members the ability to offer any amendment for a vote by the full House. If the Rules Committee had approved the motion, it would have been their first open rule this Congress. Unfortunately, the motion was voted down by a majority on the Rules Committee. The majority used to criticize us when we were in the majority for not allowing more open rules. They have offered none.

This rule that is bringing the underlying legislation to the floor today also gives the majority the authority to allow consideration of bills under suspension of the rules until Saturday. Suspension bills, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are usually noncontroversial bills, but the suspension authority has in the past been used to pass bills with obviously minimal debate and sometimes as a way to block the minority from offering amendments or a motion to recommit.

Now, in the past, a senior member of the majority on the Rules Committee referred to that process as ``outside the normal parameters of the way the House should conduct its business. It effectively curtails our responsibilities and rights as serious legislators.''

It's interesting how it's wrong when they're in the minority, but once they're in the majority, it's right.

Allied Universal Corporation,

Miami, FL, October 23, 2009.

Re H.R. 2868.

Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Diaz-Balart: My company is a small

business as defined by the U.S. Small Business

Administration. It operates a chemical manufacturing and

distribution facility in your district (8350 NW 93 Street,

Miami, FL). employing individuals and providing materials to

a number of industries critical to our nation's and state's

economy and public health. I am writing to express my

opposition to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism

Act, which will be scheduled for a House floor vote within

days. This legislation will make significant changes to the

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), which

took effect just two and a half years ago.

Security is a major priority for Allied Universal Corp. We

are members of the Chlorine Institute and National

Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD). which requires

our participation in the Responsible Distribution Process, an

environmental, health. safety. and security management

program. My company has spent substantial resources on

security upgrades in recent years. and will continue to do so

going forward under the current CFATS regulations. I do not

embellish when I state that a significant amount of our

company's capital budget and personnel time has been spent on

security improvement projects. and will continue to be spent

as Allied works to address the Department of Homeland

Security's identified security risks for our facility.

I am concerned that H.R. 2868 is too prescriptive and

includes requirements that are not appropriate for all

facilities. Security is very important, but a command and

control type regulation would not benefit the nation let

alone the thousands of businesses that must comply with the

regulation. For example, the requirement to conduct an

assessment of inherently safer technologies (1ST). or Methods

to Reduce the Consequences of a Terrorist Attack, could

easily cost my company hundreds of thousands of dollars in

consulting fees and staff time. This is not a good use of

resources for a chemical manufacturing and distribution

facility like mine, which stocks products based on our

customers' needs and operates on extremely tight margins. I

am also concerned about other mandates in the bill and the

fact that state and local measures are not preempted, which

is critical for a national security program. No federal

preemption would cause much confusion, not to mention

additional staff time and resources that could otherwise be

allocated to other pressing needs (i.e. one state may have

stricter regulations, causing my company to allocate more

resources to the facility in that state rather than say a

facility in a state with less restrictions. but more

significant security concerns or risks such as a high

population area).

Therefore, I urge you to oppose H.R 2868 unless the

following changes are made:

(1) All 1ST assessment and implementation mandates must be

removed.

(2) Specific requirements regarding drills, employee and

union involvement in SVA and SSP development, and other areas

must be removed. A Risk Based Performance Standards approach

should be continued as in the current CFATS regulations.

(3) The federal standards must preempt state and local

requirements.

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to

contact me if you have questions or would like more details

on how H.R. 2868 would impact my company.

Sincerely,

Robert Namoff,

Chairman of the Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Dr. King said in my favorite of his speeches, longevity has its place. And in Congress we have some Members who have been here for many years. I would like to yield to one such distinguished Member who was here for many years, then left us but then returned, which is even more unusual. But he has the historical knowledge with regard to this legislation, which, by the way, was in this decade that he worked on and that led to the regulations that the majority seeks to amend drastically, change drastically today.

I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.

I recognize the gentleman for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.

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

Mr. Speaker, before closing, I will yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, the American people are demanding that we have at least 72 hours on any legislation and every piece of legislation, to read it and study it before it is brought to the floor; 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that.

That is why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, offered by Representatives Baird and Culberson, requiring 72 hours on every piece of legislation before it is taken to a vote.

If anyone is concerned, Mr. Speaker, that that would jeopardize the chemical security bill, be not concerned, because the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so we can vote on the chemical security bill and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 554. The American people are demanding that on every piece of legislation there should be 72 hours to study it and read it thoroughly before it is voted on.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege a few days ago to speak by telephone with one of the great heroes that fight for democracy and human rights in Cuba, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, ``Antunez.'' He is in the city of Placetas in Cuba. His house is surrounded by thugs of the dictatorship. He is continuously harassed, often detained, has spent 17 years as a political prisoner, and was recently released. Yet he continues his fight, peacefully, nonviolently, against the totalitarian system in Cuba, in that island that has been forgotten by the world, and yet its people continue to suffer under the yoke of a brutal, totalitarian, nightmarish regime led by a dictator who is infirm now, he is sick. By virtue of that, he has turned over some titles, titles of power to his brother, but yet he retains, Fidel Castro, retains absolute personal power, total power in that totalitarian fiefdom.

His brother receives visitors, heads of state and has some titles of power, but be not mistaken, the totalitarian power remains in the hands of Fidel Castro, who, for example, is the one that orders that heroes like Antunez be detained or released, that heroes such as Oscar Elias Biscet or Rolando Arroyo or Pedro Arguelles Moran or Normando Hernandez or Ariel Sigler Amaya or Librado Linares or Horacio Pina or Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso or Hector Maceda or Felix Navarro or Rafael Ibarra and countless others be retained in the gulag being tortured simply because those heroes support the ability for the Cuban people to have the rights, for example, that the American people, or free people throughout the world have.

Jorge Luis Garcia Perez told me, when I spoke to him on the phone about the fact that his wife's brother, his wife is Iris Perez Aguilera, and she is also a fantastic, formidable freedom fighter. Her brother, Mario Perez Aguilera, is in the gulag being tortured, and is being denied access, visits by his family. In other words, Iris cannot visit her brother who is in horrible physical condition. We don't know how gravely ill, but we know he is very ill, and he is being denied access. His family cannot visit them.

So I told Antunez that I would come to this floor and use the great privilege

given to me by my constituents to tell the world about the brutality that Mario Perez Aguilera, that political prisoner, and the many others, that they are facing day in and day out, and the added inhumanity of not being able to be seen by their family members.

The island that the world ignores. And what is most tragic is that it is 90 miles from our shores and for over 50 years, it has been in the grasp of a demented despot who orders such actions as the ones I have discussed this evening.

So I will continue to denounce the brutality, the inhumanity, and I will also continue to remind the world that despite that brutality, Cuba will soon be free.

To be continued.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Speaker introduced her so-called health reform bill that will cost over $1.2 trillion and will be paid for by massive taxes on small business and cuts to Medicare.

With unemployment at 10 percent and small businesses throughout the country struggling to survive, it is irresponsible to pass legislation that will place a higher tax burden on small businesses. President Obama has pledged to let the Bush tax cuts expire. So small businesses can expect at least two tax hits in 2 years.

A radio journalist from back home asked me this morning if measures are being taken in Congress to alleviate unemployment. My reply was, no, unfortunately there is a kind of war on free enterprise going on in Washington right now. Until that war is ended, unemployment will not drop. We should be encouraging job growth and not destroying jobs with bills like this so-called health reform.

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

Always Ready. That's the motto of the United States Coast Guard. Since its establishment in 1790 by Alexander Hamilton, the Coast Guard is the only branch in our military that is always deployed.

As part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is tasked with maritime law enforcement, search and rescue for those in peril at sea, patrolling and protecting our ports, harbors and sea borders, marine environmental protection, helping manage offshore spills, facilitating maritime navigation and commerce, and so much more. In times of war, the Coast Guard also deploys with other service branches overseas.

The underlying legislation, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, being brought to the floor today authorizes approximately $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. It increases the authorized end-strength by 1,500 members to a total of 47,000 personnel. The legislation also authorizes additional Coast Guard maritime security response teams to assist in detecting explosives and drug interdiction.

The Coast Guard is currently undergoing the largest single acquisition program in its history in order to upgrade and modernize its surface and air assets. The program currently known as Deepwater includes 91 new cutters, 124 new small boats, and 247 new or modernized airplanes, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

According to the most recent acquisition program baseline, the Deepwater acquisitions are projected to cost $24 billion and take 25 years to complete. The underlying legislation includes $1.2 billion for acquisition of new vessels, aircraft and support systems under the Deepwater program for 2010.

The legislation also requires the Coast Guard to be responsible for the enforcement of any Federal security zone established around terminals and around tankers transporting ``especially hazardous materials.'' The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Coast Guard, to conduct a pilot program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals to enhance our border security.

The legislation establishes a pilot program to test and deploy preventative radiological or nuclear detection equipment on Coast Guard vessels and fixed locations in port areas. It establishes a congressional nomination system for admission to the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. That process is similar to those already in place for the other service academies. Mr. Speaker, in south Florida we are all admirers of the Coast Guard. We see it day in and day out save lives and help citizens.

While I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor. The last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule that allowed consideration of the bill under a modified open process, a modified open rule. That type of rule allows any Member of the House to offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment is preprinted in the Congressional Record. That's why it is known as a modified open rule; any amendment can be brought forward, but you have to preprint it.

Even though we historically considered this bill under a modified open rule, today the majority has brought that precedent to an end. It has decided that that precedent should be disregarded and that the right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted. Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, we in the minority asked for the traditional modified open rule, and yet the majority voted it down on a party-line vote. I thought that was somewhat ironic. The last time the House considered this legislation under the traditional modified open rule, we were criticized for offering a modified open rule. That was called restrictive. Well, now we have again--unnecessarily and breaking with precedent--a structured rule; in other words, only those amendments made in order can be considered.

So here we are, Mr. Speaker, yet again with another example of how the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all Members of this body.

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

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

I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Taylor brought out a very relevant and important example of why it was appropriate and important to follow what has been a decades-long tradition of allowing all Members with amendments to introduce them for consideration by the entire House simply by preprinting them in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Taylor should not have had to go to the Rules Committee and wait, and then ask, request, permission to have his amendment considered. In addition to having to wait and then ask for permission, he was denied permission to have his amendment considered, which is an important amendment.

He explained it in detail before the Rules Committee. In representation of his constituents and having developed an expertise throughout many years of service here, he communicated with the Coast Guard and basically came to an agreement on interpreting existing law, law that was passed before we entered into GATT and the international commitments that were referenced by my dear friend Ms. Matsui. Existing law before those commitments is what Mr. Taylor is trying to refine, to technically make clear, in pursuance of the interests of his constituents and our Nation.

That idea should have been able to be debated. His proposal should be able to be debated and considered by the entire House. It is another example, and a concrete example, an important example, of why I believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, to limit the procedural rights of the Members of this House.

I thank my friend Ms. Matsui for her courtesy, and all of those who have participated in this debate. I want to point out, and then I will reserve our time again--I believe you have more speakers--that when I refer to the breaking of tradition by the majority, in this instance the reversal of the tradition that allowed for Members to preprint their amendments and have them considered by the entire House, when we maintained that tradition, when we followed that tradition that is now reversed, we were criticized for not allowing in this instance a fully open rule, again because we maintained the tradition of the preprinting requirement known as the modified open rule, and we were criticized by the then-minority. And they promised, Mr. Speaker, to open the process further, to improve the process, to make it more transparent.

Well, that was another promise broken, because instead of improving, making more transparent the process that we were criticized for, instead of improving that process, they have further closed it. It is unfortunate.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui, for her courtesy during this debate with regard to this important underlying legislation that's being brought to the floor. I also thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member LoBiondo.

I'd like to, before proceeding, yield 5 minutes to my friend from Miami, Florida, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

No, and I will wrap up my remarks shortly.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui.

Over the past few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress, or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings, asking their Congress Members whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people were outraged finding out that the majority has forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and often very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read them. For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill; or on the cap-and-trade bill, that one we were provided at 3 in the morning, and then a few hours later it was here on the floor. In some instances, much less than 24 hours.

That's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset. I think they should be. The distinguished Speaker said, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet time and again, the distinguished Speaker and the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.

That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members and the general public for 72 hours before being brought to the House floor for a vote.

So that's why today I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

Now, Members may be concerned that this motion would jeopardize the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, but I want to make clear the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on the Coast Guard bill, and then once we're done, consider H. Res. 554.

I would ask, thus, Mr. Speaker, for the previous question to be defeated.

Amendment to H. Res. 853 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) One hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

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

Well, I want to thank you for calling this Special Order, convoking it and focusing in on this very important, really critical subject. Winston Churchill talked about the fact that facts are better than dreams. There are facts with regard to the crisis in Honduras. The people of Honduras acted constitutionally. Their institutions acted constitutionally in removing a President who was acting unconstitutionally, and they removed him. The institutions, the democratic institutions of Honduras removed a President who had been acting unconstitutionally on June 28. Those are facts.

The Obama administration is wrong when, in this case, it sides with Chavez and Castro, Ortega, Correa, the other anti-democratic elements in this hemisphere who are pressuring for the imposition of the President who had violated the Constitution in Honduras for his return, his forceful return, unconstitutionally to power. The Obama administration is wrong. That's a fact.

Now, there's another fact that is of importance, and that is we saw a number of Members of Congress here almost at midnight, because of the importance of this issue, tell the American people that after thorough study, they have come to the conclusion that the Obama administration is wrong and that the Honduran people acted appropriately. It's a fact that there is a growing number of Members of Congress who are becoming involved, educated and are expressing themselves with regard to this issue. That's a fact that the Obama administration needs to take into consideration, because as was mentioned before, even if the situation were different, and even if the Hondurans had acted unconstitutionally in removing President Zelaya from power, the solution to the crisis should be evident to all: free and fair elections, especially when the candidates were chosen before the crisis began by all of the political parties.

So what is most not only incorrect, but almost inconceivable, Madam Speaker, is that the Obama administration is not only wrong with regard to what happened in Honduras, is not only wrong with regard to whom it is siding with and whom it is siding against, but that even if the administration were not wrong with regard to what has happened, the evident solution being the elections of November 29, are not being supported by the Obama administration, but the Obama administration is saying that they will not recognize the will of the Honduran people as expressed on November 29.

That is inconceivable--beyond wrong. That is inconceivable, Madam Speaker.

So, facts: Congress is aware of how wrong the administration is. Congress is aware that the Honduran people are proceeding with an election on November 29. The reason that the majority leadership is not bringing to the floor of this House a resolution to express support for the elections, the resolution was filed by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and others, expressing support for the elections that are going to be held November 29, the reason the majority leadership does not bring that resolution to the floor is because it would win a majority vote, because the fact is a growing number of Members of Congress, I maintain by now a majority of this House, are aware of the gross unfairness with which that small nation is being treated by this administration.

So I think it's important for the administration, Madam Speaker, to take note, tonight, almost at midnight, that Honduras, despite the pressure, despite the fact that it's a small country, is moving forward with elections. Those elections deserve not only support and respect, but commendation. And further efforts to deny the Honduran people their right of self-determination, their right to express themselves freely by secret ballot on November 29 is wrong.

That's a fact.

More and more people in this Congress are learning the facts. And I hope, Madam Speaker, that the administration takes note and reverses itself, backs off from not supporting elections, from not supporting free determination and, rather, supports the Honduran people.

I thank you, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, for focusing attention, for your leadership role on this critical issue. Not only do the people of Honduras deserve it, but the hemisphere requires the further attention of the American people to this critical issue. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank my good friend and fellow cochairman of the Florida Congressional Delegation, Mr. Hastings, for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, several years ago I had the distinct privilege to bring to this floor, first, the rule bringing the legislation to the floor that created the Department of Homeland Security, and then the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has begun to mature. It has improved the process for which it was created, the oversight of and coordination of many departments related to the safety of the Nation.

As we know, the department was created in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to organize the government to the best of its ability to secure the homeland from further terrorist attacks, to protect the Nation's borders, and to prepare for natural disasters. And thanks to our new concerted approach, I think we've made key investments to secure the United States from further terrorist attacks.

But clearly we must not let our guard down.

Just a few weeks ago, we heard about a disrupted terrorist attack in New York City. The Attorney General of the United States has called the plot, ``one of the most serious in the United States since September 11, 2001.'' That is why I am pleased that the underlying legislation provides the Department with the tools and resources that it needs in order to continue to help to protect the Nation from other terrorist attacks. We must not lose our focus. We must continue our efforts to protect the United States from deadly attacks.

This legislation will provide much-needed funding to help secure our borders, with $800 million for Southwest border investments, over $3 billion for the Border Patrol, including over 20,000 Border agents, an increase of more than 50 percent since 2006.

The State that I am honored to represent, Florida, has seen, as my dear friend has pointed out, its share of natural disasters, from Hurricane Andrew in 1992 to the series of very disastrous back-to-back hurricanes in the middle of this decade. That is why having a prepared and professional staff at FEMA, ready to coordinate disaster preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation efforts, is of vital importance to Florida.

I am pleased the conference report will provide FEMA and the new FEMA administrator--we Floridians are very proud of him, Craig Fugate--the resources needed to help in the aftermath of any natural disaster, whether it's a hurricane in Florida, an earthquake in California, or the flooding in the Midwest.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 heightened concerns regarding aviation security. In response, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. That legislation established a Federal screener workforce and required the screening of all checked baggage using explosive detection systems, EDS. EDS machines can quickly determine if a baggage contains a potential threat. If a weapon or explosive is detected, the machines alert security officers so they can manage the baggage appropriately.

Funding and reimbursement for EDS installation, however, continues to be a serious concern. Miami International Airport, which is in my congressional district, has incurred over $78 million in in-line EDS terminal modification costs and continues to seek reimbursement for the Federal share of those costs. I am pleased that this conference report provides $778 million in discretionary funding to purchase and install EDS at airports. Those funds will help reimburse Miami International Airport and other airports in their efforts to complete EDS installations.

Our Nation's maritime industry contributes approximately $750 billion to the gross domestic product each year. Florida has some of the largest ports in the country. The Port of Miami serves as the primary maritime gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a strategic hub for international commerce throughout the hemisphere, and obviously it is the cruise ship capital of the word.

Since 9/11, the Port of Miami has faced unprecedented security costs due to the expense of complying with Federal security mandates. While ports across the Nation are facing similar challenges, the problem at the Port of Miami is particularly serious. Annual operating security costs at the Port of Miami have increased from just over $4 million in 2001 to over $20 million today.

The legislation we are bringing to the floor provides $300 million in grants to assist ports in enhancing their security measures to prevent, detect, and respond to possible terrorist attacks.

So I wish to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their clearly bipartisan work on this conference report that makes critical investments in the priorities facing the Department of Homeland Security, including securing our transportation

systems, strong border security, a well-prepared and able FEMA, and so much more.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the contributions during this debate, enlightening our colleagues with regard to the merits of the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today.

You know, one of the, I think, most interesting aspects of the American representative democracy is that we differ from other representative democracies probably because our two parties are, in effect, great coalitions. We have a two-party system by virtue of that; both parties represent different coalitions of thought on numerous issues.

So it's interesting that today, for example, while my friend and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed an opinion contrary to the position maintained by the President of the United States on an important issue--and I think it's appropriate to do so--I commend the President of the United States for his position with regard to the release of detainee photos.

The legislation before us codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos. I commend the President because, obviously, his leadership and support on that aspect has been decisive in the inclusion of that provision in this legislation.

So our system is unique. This constant manifestation of our two great coalitions is fascinating to me as a student of comparative politics. It is another reason I am so proud of this body--the great sovereign Congress of the United States which represents the most sovereign and the freest people in the world, the American people.

Madam Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at meetings throughout the Nation. They've asked their Members of Congress whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is, I think, that people were outraged after finding out that the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or to really even read the bills.

I remember a very glaring example of that when we on the Rules Committee were faced with an entire new bill on this legislation that was known as cap-and-trade, which in effect became a manager's amendment to the legislation at 3 o'clock in the morning, and a few hours after that, we were here voting on it. We were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill and, as I mentioned, on that cap-and-trade bill with less than 24 hours to read them--in some instances, as I mentioned before with regard to cap-and-trade, much, much less than 24 hours. Many people believe that that is no way to run the House, and many constituents are rightly upset.

A recent survey found that over 80 percent of Americans believe that legislation should be posted online and in final form and should be available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation. You would think, Madam Speaker, that this would really not be an issue as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet, often, the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.

That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of this House has signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and to the general public for 72 hours before they are brought to the House floor for a vote.

So, today, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation--House Resolution 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues and friends, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the Department of Homeland Security's Appropriations conference report, but I would like to make clear that the motion I am making provides for the separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can pass the conference report today funding the Department of Homeland Security. Then, once we are done, we would consider House Resolution 544.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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