Floor Statements

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), for the time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the House considered, under suspension of the rules, H.R. 2442, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009. But the bill failed to get the necessary two-thirds to pass.

The reason that bill failed was not because Members objected to the substance of the legislation, but because the majority leadership brought forth the underlying legislation that provides water projects for the San Francisco area for consideration by the House while blocking the House from debating the desperate need for water in another part of California, the San Joaquin Valley.

On numerous occasions, my colleague from California, Mr. Devin Nunes, has submitted amendments to the Rules Committee so that those amendments could be debated and voted on by the full House. His amendments would restrict the implementation of the December 15, 2008, biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the June 4, 2009, biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. However, the majority on the Rules Committee routinely blocked consideration of the amendments, twice on the Interior appropriations bill and three times on the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

The reason Mr. Nunes has so steadfastly sought to have the House debate the restriction on those two opinions is that they have diverted water from the San Joaquin Valley, practically turning that area into a dust bowl.

Madam Speaker, why should Congress be concerned with what may look like a simple water issue? The valley is home to a $20 billion crop industry, and the region produces more in agricultural sales than any other State in the country. It can be argued that no agricultural area in the country is more productive and is, therefore, more important to our Nation's food security. If we continue to allow the diversion of water from the valley, food prices are going to increase; and we are also going to put our food security, national security in jeopardy.

According to a recent University of California Davis study, the water reductions have led to revenue losses of over $2 billion, and this year will lead to 80,000 jobs lost. The area now has an unemployment rate of about 20 percent. Some of its communities have an unemployment rate of nearly 40 percent.

Today, the majority comes to the floor with a rule that the House will once again consider the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act without giving the House the opportunity to consider amendments, including those proposed by Mr. Nunes. That is most unfortunate.

It is time that the House be given the opportunity to debate the San Joaquin Valley water issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue that's been debated, one thing continues to come to mind: the merits of this issue, this water issue of such importance to people in the San Joaquin Valley in California, have been debated during this rule debate because there is no other option.

The substantive legislation, two amendments that Mr. Nunes came to the Rules Committee and asked to be authorized for debate by the House, they were denied; they were not made in order. So there is no other option but during the time when we are debating the rule, the terms of debate for an underlying bill that will subsequently be debated, this is the only time when Mr. Nunes and the others who know this issue so intimately and feel it, appropriately, so passionately in representation of their constituents, it's the only opportunity that they have to be able to bring out the issue, to educate us. And it's a shame because the Congress as a whole, the House as a whole, should be able to debate this issue and consider it and decide it.

Mr. Speaker, over the last few months, the American people have written and called many of us and made their opinions known at meetings asking us whether we pledge to read bills before we vote on them. The reason is that many people were outraged when they found out that the majority leadership forced the Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read the bills.

For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill and on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on a cap-and-trade bill. I remember that one was presented to us at three in the morning in the Rules Committee, and a few hours after that we had it here on the floor. All those bills were passed without Members being able to read them, having time to do so. That's no way to run the House, and so our constituents are rightfully upset.

You would think that this issue of sufficient time to read legislation should not be controversial. The distinguished Speaker stated, and I quote, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration,'' and yet that has not been the case time after time after time.

So 182 Members have signed a discharge petition at the front desk that

would require all legislation to be available to Members of Congress for at least 72 hours before the legislation is brought to the House floor for a vote.

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

Now, with regard to any Members being concerned that that may jeopardize consideration of the underlying legislation, I want to make it clear that this motion provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on this underlying legislation, the water bill, and then once we're done, consider House Resolution 544.

Having said that, 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.

I thank my friend, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today the House will consider the bipartisan conference report for the 2010 National Defense Authorization legislation. With this important legislation, I think we are sending the message to our men and women in uniform that we support them and that we deeply appreciate their service.

The conference report authorizes over $550 billion for the activities of the Department of Defense. It also provides approximately $130 billion to support our combat operations in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of the war on international terrorism.

I wish to commend both the Armed Services Committee chairman, Mr. Skelton, and the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, both good friends and admired colleagues, for their commitment that they have demonstrated in this legislation to put partisanship aside in order to get this important legislation to the President.

While I support the conference report, I know it is not perfect. No human endeavor is. But I believe that the conference report will strengthen our national security and help modernize our military. It will provide servicemembers and their families with improved health care, support, and quality-of-life programs. I'm pleased that it includes the House-passed 3.4 percent pay raise for our troops instead of the lower request that had come from the President.

Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE coverage 180 days before they go on active duty and will prevent increases in copayments for inpatient care at civilian hospitals under TRICARE. The bill provides over $2 billion for family housing programs to expand and improve the quality of military housing.

The legislation authorizes the expansion of our military by 30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, and over 14,000 Air Force personnel and approximately 2,500 members of the Navy.

I would like to thank the members of the conference committee for including my request for authorization for funding for the finalization of construction of a new permanent headquarters for the United States Southern Command that is located in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Currently, the Department of Defense is leasing the land for SOUTHCOM from a private individual. The funds authorized in this legislation will be used to complete construction of the new headquarters on land adjacent to the current location and lease it from the State of Florida for the sum of $1 per year.

This provision is extremely important to my community because SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida's economy.

As a supporter of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, I am pleased to see that it was included in the underlying legislation, though I wish that the provision would have been expanded to include also more serious penalties for crimes against members of the armed services and their families. There are people who hate our armed services for what they symbolize, and our armed services, I think, deserve the additional protection from crimes of violence.

There are aspects of this legislation, obviously, with which I disagree, Mr. Speaker. Since the beginning of military aviation, the United States has very wisely invested in our military air superiority. In recent military operations, we've clearly seen that our investments pay off. Our military air superiority saves the lives of our men and women in uniform, and it saves the lives of countless civilians. That's why I am very disappointed that the underlying legislation fails to include funding for the F-22, the world's most advanced fighter plane and one that we may very well need in future operations. Obviously not against ragtag terrorists, but against the superpowers of the future.

I hope and pray that this shortsighted decision will not hurt the long-term safety of our Nation and our men and women in uniform.

I also have deep reservations about the decision to block full funding restoration for missile defense. This unwise decision, in my opinion, comes at a time when the demented despot of North Korea continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and threatens the United States and our friends and allies with destruction.

The Iranian tyranny, while it continues to massacre its people in the streets perhaps today in a less public manner than a few months ago, nevertheless continues to massacre its people. It also threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map. It's clear to me that the world faces a grave and I believe imminent threat from the dictatorships in North Korea and Iran, and now is not the time to cut missile defense. Unfortunately, because of the request from the executive branch and

acquiescence here on the part of the leadership, it is occurring, and I think it is a mistake.

I would have liked to have seen included in this legislation section 1226 of the Senate version of the bill, which would have required a report to Congress on the Republic of China's--that's free China, Taiwan--defense capabilities. That report would have greatly enhanced the ability of Congress and the administration to assess their obligations to sell defense articles as required under the Taiwan Relations Act, ``as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.''

The peace in that area has been maintained because this Congress, throughout the decades ever since the betrayal of Taiwan, this Congress has insisted on the United States selling, making available for purchase by the Republic of China, the military equipment and technology necessary to deter an armed attack. So I am sorry that that provision that was in the Senate legislation is not included in the final conference report.

Again, despite the aspects of the legislation with which I do not agree, I feel that overall this legislation is necessary and that we pass it. Obviously although it's not perfect, it helps modernize and it supports our military forces. It provides our men and women in uniform with support they need and deserve.

So I would ask my colleagues, as I have done, to look further than the aspects with which one may disagree within the legislation and pass it.

I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished leader from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the great Texan, Judge Carter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my friend, the great leader from Indiana, Mr. Pence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people really were outraged, often finding out the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or really even to read the bills.

For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and- trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances, much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset.

A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans believe legislation should be posted online in final form and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on legislation.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would 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, time and time again, the distinguished Speaker and majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge. That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have 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 the general public for 72 hours before they be brought to the House floor for a vote.

That's why 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, H. Res. 544, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

I know that Members are concerned that this motion may jeopardize the Department of Defense Authorization Act. But I want to make clear, the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird- Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can pass the Defense authorization bill today and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 544.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

House Resolution 766 provides that it will be in order at any time on the legislative day of today to consider H.R. 3631, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act. That underlying legislation would freeze the Medicare part B premium for 2010 at the 2009 rate for beneficiaries who, under current law, will see a premium increase, along with an expected freeze in the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment, COLA, for 2010 and 2011. Both of those combined would leave seniors with less income next year if Congress does not act. So I support underlying legislation.

Although I support the underlying legislation that is being brought to the floor under this rule, I have reservations with the process the majority is proposing today. And I'm not the only one who has reservations with that process.

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

The reason members of the majority previously opposed rules such as this is because they block Members from offering amendments and the minority from offering a motion to recommit. That, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is a very important procedural vehicle. Yet today, the majority considers this process to be completely legitimate.

So it's interesting how they thought it was wrong when they were in the minority, but once in the majority, it's a fine process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my dear friend, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, and also Ms. Watson. And I would like to thank my distinguished cochairman of the Taiwan Congressional Caucus, Dr. Gingrey, for introducing this very timely resolution. I see Ms. Berkley here also, the other cochairman, along with Mr. Wexler.

We hold very deep in our hearts our relationship, the United States' relationship with the Republic of China. The people of the Republic of China, Taiwan, have suffered tremendously due to this horrible typhoon. As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen pointed out, from our military base in Japan, the United States Armed Forces, representing the people of the United States, took humanitarian assistance to the Republic of China, Taiwan. We will always, in this Congress, stand with our friends, our allies. We have no better friend than the people of the Republic of China, Taiwan.

So we take this opportunity, as our hearts go out here to the victims of the flooding in Georgia and the United States, to remember the victims of the horrible flooding in the typhoon of August on the island of Taiwan, and we reaffirm our friendship and solidarity with the people of the Republic of China, Taiwan.

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

The transportation sector of our economy accounts for a considerable portion of U.S. energy use and oil consumption. Our economy is extremely dependent on foreign sources of oil. We are subject to the extreme volatility of the gasoline market, not to mention the whims of dictators like Ahmadinejad and Chavez. That is why last year Members on this side of the aisle pushed for greater energy independence by advocating for new domestic energy sources as well as investments in the clean technologies of the future. Unfortunately, our efforts were ignored or shut down by the majority.

Although the majority decided to ignore and shut down our efforts to promote domestic energy sources, I believe we have to continue to work on this important issue. Congress must continue to make investments in alternative energy and promote its development and implementation. We need to have a diverse energy portfolio to sustain our economic growth. We must encourage the development of vehicles that run on electric, natural gas, and other alternative fuels.

We can move away from our dependence on foreign oil as a primary source of energy. Doing this is in our national interest, in terms of security, as well as our environmental interests.

For over two decades, the Department of Energy has funded various clean energy research activities on passenger vehicles and heavy duty trucks. While those programs have produced mixed results, I believe that Federal vehicle technology research and development programs will only be effective through robust partnerships with a wide variety of vehicle technology developers and manufacturers.

Madam Speaker, I have met with various experts in the energy field to discuss the development of sustainable transportation in the United States. In my conversations with those experts, including this last weekend with Michael Granoff with Better Place, I was educated regarding the efforts by our friends, the Israelis, to completely replace oil as an energy source in their economy.

Israel's efforts to replace oil are serious and extraordinary. We have to listen to experts like Mr. Granoff. We have to implement policies immediately that will lead to the development of electric automobiles. Massively throughout our economy, it needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

Unfortunately, Communist China is well advanced in the practical application and development of electric automobile technology. We are about to be

overtaken by a dangerous competitor in a major technology of the future, which may very well decide if we are able to remain an economic superpower. This is not something that we can take lightly. It's serious, and it deserves our urgent attention.

The underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, H.R. 3246, the Advanced Vehicle Technology Act, takes a small step in the right direction. It reiterates the importance of the Federal Government's role in funding and in coordinating research activities and in disseminating research findings in order to bring clean technology to passenger vehicles and to heavy trucks to reduce our Nation's dependence on petroleum, thus reducing emissions.

The legislation authorizes approximately $3 billion over the next 5 years for the Department of Energy to create a research program to help develop technologies that will substantially reduce or eliminate petroleum use in the Nation's vehicles. As part of this new program, the Department of Energy is required to collaborate with numerous sectors of the automotive industry.

Now, during yesterday's hearing in the Rules Committee, we heard testimony from both sides of the aisle on the underlying legislation. It was clear from the testimony that this legislation has great bipartisan support. Yet the majority in the Rules Committee felt it was necessary to offer a restrictive rule. I really don't know why. I know that the rule allows both of the minority amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee; but, unfortunately, it forbids the consideration of three amendments submitted by Members of the majority party. I believe we should have allowed those amendments. We should have considered, in effect, this legislation under an open rule, a rule that allows for a truly free and full debate. The majority blocked our attempts to have such an open debate.

Really, I think it's a shame that the majority has, once again, blocked an open debate. Since this majority took over, Madam Speaker, in 2007, they have had one open rule on a nonappropriations bill. Unfortunately, it is standard operating procedure for this majority to block open debate on the House floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank my dear friend, Ranking Member Lucas, for the time as well as Mr. Holden, and they've summarized the legislation well. I introduced this bill, H.R. 3175, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell approximately 2 acres to Miami-Dade County so that a fire station can be built. It is an issue of great importance to the community. The southern portion of the district that I'm honored to represent, covering the village of Palmetto Bay and the city of Pinecrest, continues to grow rapidly. Due to the population growth, public services have been stretched, and fire response times, as Mr. Lucas pointed out, have fallen below the district average.

This morning I met with distinguished leaders from the village of Palmetto Bay. They reiterated to me the urgent need for this fire station in our south Miami-Dade County community. So this problem really deals with the issue that new construction for public services in Miami-Dade is confronting a lack of available land. The USDA station currently occupies, as Mr. Holden pointed out, approximately 200 acres in southeast Florida with plenty of land to spare.

So, Mr. Speaker, the citizens of my community were not asking for a handout, as Mr. Lucas was pointing out. The county is going to pay fair market value for the land, along with all associated fees, and they have committed to completely funding the construction of the fire station. The CBO has scored the bill at no cost to the taxpayer. So again, I would like to thank Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Lucas for their prompt action on the bill. I also wish to thank my dear colleagues from south Florida who have cosponsored the bill, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, who will shortly address the House, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, and Kendrick Meek. I urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, my good friend, Mr. Arcuri, for the time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is spending 1 hour debating the rule that will be used to consider the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, the Chesapeake Bay Watertrails Continuing Authorization Act. That simple and noncontroversial legislation, barely two pages in length, passed last Congress, as my good friend has mentioned, by an overwhelming vote. In fact, it passed by 321-86. That is a pretty impressive margin. I believe it will pass today by, at the very least, that margin.

So I would ask why the majority is going through all of this trouble of having the House consider a special rule for a two-page bill. Why is the House going to spend 2 hours today, approximately, discussing a bill that could have been handled in just a few minutes under suspension and ultimately pass by an overwhelming majority vote in this House?

I'm not sure of the answer. But I think it's noteworthy that the majority spends a week's worth of Congress' precious time on water trails and the Chesapeake while Americans face unemployment levels we have not seen in 26 years.

The majority is requiring the House today to consider the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act, a bill that spends $5 million over 5 years through a process that requires hours of debate. But yesterday, we considered the Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009 with only 40 minutes total of debate, and that bill authorized the expenditure of $1 billion.

So I would ask, how is it appropriate for the majority to require up to 2 hours of debate to spend $5 million, but it authorizes 40 minutes of debate for $1 billion? It may not be appropriate, but it is certainly common practice under this majority to rush important legislation through the House. I fear we may see that again when the House considers the majority's health care reform legislation.

Consider that this Chesapeake Bay water trails bill was introduced in February; it has remained unchanged since then, giving Members months to consider and read the two-page bill. And that is consistent with the Speaker's pledge, still on her Web site, that ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports and texts prior to floor consideration.'' But will the majority live up to their pledge to allow Members time to read the health care bill when it finally comes together?

Perhaps if the majority had lived up to their promise, Members would have had time to properly read and consider the cap-and-tax as well as the so-called ``stimulus'' bill and voted them down. So let's see, Mr. Speaker, let's see if they live up to their promise when we consider the health care legislation. I won't be holding my breath.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the brutal attack on the residents of Camp Ashraf, Iranian exiles, by the Iraqi police forces. Yesterday I learned that Iraqi police forces are beating unarmed Camp Ashraf residents and that they have been brutally assaulting them. I have been informed that this attack has resulted in at least eight deaths and over 400 injuries. This beating of unarmed men and women is despicable, and my understanding is that the unjustifiable attack is still underway.

These Iranian exiles are unarmed today because they voluntarily surrendered their weapons to United States forces in exchange for a U.S. guarantee of their security in 2003. They are protected persons under Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The attack on these unarmed persons violates not only international law but also basic human rights. The European Parliament, Amnesty International and other international organizations have expressed deep concern about the safety of these Iranian exiles. Furthermore, when United States forces withdrew from Camp Ashraf, the United States and Iraq signed an agreement that the Iraqi Government would guarantee their safety. The Iraqi Government is not keeping its promise, and it is not upholding its obligations under international law.

The Iranian dictatorship's fingerprints are all over this attack. The residents of Camp Ashraf are enemies of the Iranian regime. Camp Ashraf residents have been a vital source of intelligence information on the Iranian regime's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and other important intelligence information. As a result, the Iranian regime, under the direction of the tyrannical so-called Supreme Leader, is putting immense pressure on the Iraq Government to hand over the Iranian exiles in Camp Ashraf. In a meeting on February 28 of this year, the Supreme Leader urged the Iraqi president to expel the Iranian exiles at Camp Ashraf immediately.

This incursion by Iraqi forces appears to be an ugly attempt by the Iraqi Government to appease the Iranian regime. They may even return these exiles to Iran. That would be a condemnable and cowardly act. In a public statement on August 28, 2008, Amnesty International expressed profound concern that those Iranian exiles would suffer torture and even death if they were forced to return. And as we've seen since the sham election on June 12 of this year, the Iranian dictatorship's deep hatred of those who oppose its cruelty and repression would mean almost certain death for the Iranian exiles and their families if they are repatriated to Iran. We must do everything in our power to prevent such an atrocity from taking place.

Already, the Congressional Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the European Parliament's Friends of a Free Iran, the European Parliament's International Committee in Search of Justice and others have expressed deep concern over the treatment of Camp Ashraf residents at the hands of the Iraqi Government. Today Iranian Americans from around the United States have begun a hunger strike at the White House to demand that these attacks be stopped, that abducted Camp Ashraf residents be returned and that international groups such as the United Nations and the Red Cross who want to be able to get into Camp Ashraf be permitted to do so.

I call on President Obama to demand that the Iraqi Government immediately put an end to this attack. We must not stand by and allow physical aggression against unarmed Iranians in exile. We must stand with the Iranian pro-democracy activists, both in exile and inside Iran, who work for the day when the people of Iran can live free, free from fear and free from oppression. We must ensure that the protection that the Iranian exiles were promised by the United States is given to them and that this aggression cease.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of the H.R. 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, FY2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Bill Number: H.R. 3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act,

Mr. Speaker, the American people have every right to ask where the jobs are. They know we are losing a half million jobs each month, and yet they saw this Democratic majority pass an energy bill that will raise utility rates for every American. Now they see the Obama White House and the Democrats pushing to drastically cut Medicare and massively raise taxes on small businesses to pay for their government takeover of health care. The people know that will mean millions more jobs lost.

We need tax credits, Mr. Speaker, to help make health care more affordable and accessible, not massive tax hikes. We need job creation. We need more jobs, not massive layoffs caused by massive tax increases.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the H.R. 3293, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Bill Number: H.R. 3293, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

Madam 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. Last month, in the middle of the night, the majority called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee in order to withdraw a modified open rule which had previously been passed by the committee regarding the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill and to replace it with a draconian rule that severely limited the ability of Members from both sides of the aisle to bring amendments to the floor for debate and a vote.

That unnecessary and unfortunate procedure began the process of overturning over two centuries of precedent of open debate on appropriations bills in this House. Historically, appropriations bills, such as the one being brought to the floor today, have come to the floor under an open rule, a rule that allows any Member, from either side of the aisle, to offer amendments if the amendments are germane. Now the majority has unwisely ended that hallowed tradition and is using the Rules Committee to repress the ability of Members to offer amendments.

Each and every appropriations bill considered since that late night, or should I say early morning, meeting has restricted the prerogative of Members to offer amendments. Instead, the Speaker and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, through the majority on the Rules Committee, decide who will offer amendments, and they decide exactly who shapes the way Congress spends the taxpayers' dollars. As of the last count, that doctrine, the Pelosi-Obey doctrine, has blocked over 600 amendments. Six hundred times already Members on both sides of the aisle in this House have been denied the ability to represent their constituents on appropriations bills.

The new doctrine and process not only breaks two centuries of tradition and precedent in the House; it also runs contrary to one of the central tenets of the Democrats' election campaign. During the 2006 campaign, they claimed that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. On December 6 of that year, Speaker Pelosi reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government, and we will.'' But here we are today, with Congress for the first time in history completely shutting down the previously open appropriations process.

When the process was first closed down last month, I explained to the majority that they should be cognizant of the repercussions of overturning two centuries of precedent. They did not listen. They have continued to bring to this floor restrictive rule after restrictive rule, 10 so far. Although I feel that the majority has caused lasting damage to the traditions of the House, there's still a chance for the majority to return to the long-held tradition of fairness and openness of debate on appropriations bills. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that we can return to regular order, to restore the long- held tradition of the House of openness on appropriations bills.

I once again remind my colleagues that majorities are never eternal. The precedent being set now may be used by majorities in the future. And this is not the appropriate way to run the House. It is unnecessary. It is inappropriate. It is unfair. I think it's time, Madam Speaker, that we overturn that doctrine, the Pelosi-Obey doctrine, and restore the tradition of openness in the appropriations process.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to yield 4 minutes to my friend from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I would ask my friend if he has any additional speakers.

I thank my friend. This has been an interesting debate. Apparently, there are some discussions, Madam Speaker, going on with our friends on the other side of the aisle.

What I will do at this point is reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would simply inquire of my friend if it is the intention of the majority to try to amend the rule.

On your time.

If I may, Madam Speaker, I thank my friend. Obviously, I have great respect for him, and I know that he will continue to speak on the merits of the legislation being brought to the floor today.

As confirmed by my friend, it seems that the majority is considering amending the rule, I am told, to eliminate the provision which allows Members to modify the amendatory instructions in their amendments to account for changes in the bill that occurred during the printing process.

It is my understanding that the majority fears that the minority will exploit that provision to change our amendments even though that has not happened thus far.

If this were to take place, I think it would be another example of how the majority is rushing legislation to the floor without giving this system the necessary time to work. If we had an extra day, we wouldn't need this provision at all because the bill would be printed, and the Members could read the bill; but because the Rules Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee are determined to push legislation through without sufficient time for the House to review the legislation, we need this provision in the rule to account for clerical problems. Rather than actually giving Members time to read the bill, they want to run the risk that Members' amendments might not be in order.

So, in short, Madam Speaker, if this amendment to the rule were to take place, I think it would be another example of how the Speaker and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee value their schedules over the rights of Members to be heard on the floor.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we are ready to close, but my understanding is that the majority hasn't finalized its amendment to further restrict this process.

For example, with regard to this Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, the original schedule that was put out by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, before the decision was made to end two centuries of precedent and not permit open rules on appropriations bills, called for 2 days of debate, but the rule they're bringing to the floor limits it, obviously, to 1 day of debate. Now they have an amendment to the rule that, apparently, they want to bring forth to further limit debate. So I am waiting until our colleagues have finalized their amendment to further restrict this process before, obviously, I close.

Having said that, I would ask my friend and colleague if he is ready with his further restrictive amendment. I will yield for the answer.

The question is: With regard to the amendment to the rule, are you ready with your amendment to the rule?

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if the amendment is so simple, as my friend has pointed out, where is it?

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my friend. He had described the amendment, and I had argued against it. Now the decision has come not to make it, not to propose the amendment further limiting this process. So I thank my friend for having obtained a decision from his side of the aisle.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

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

I ask my friend, he has no additional speakers?

Again, I thank him for obtaining a decision from his leadership and in effect not moving forward with an amendment to further limit, further restrict a restrictive rule.

I'm going to be asking for a ``no'' on the previous question, Madam Speaker, so that we can amend this rule so we can go back to regular order, so that we can allow for an open process of debate. There is no question that this rule that the majority has brought forth will help or contribute to cementing a dangerous precedent that the majority continued to set last month. It will further damage bipartisanship and comity in this body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can uphold the tradition of this House, return to the tradition of this House, of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. I think, if we do not do so, the majority will come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

I think it's more unfortunate what the majority has done, and they realize overturning two centuries of precedent is a significant action, and it will inure to the detriment of each and every Member and the constituents of each and every Member of this House forever.

As I said before, majorities are never permanent. My distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee who's serving his first term, member of the majority party said, I've never seen an open rule on an appropriations process--I'm paraphrasing him--but I don't expect to be in the majority forever, and so one day I expect to see an open rule on an appropriations bill.

Well, that was an illustrative statement in many ways, one that he recognizes that the trend that has been set by the majority of restricting the debate process on appropriations bills has now been set in a fairly definitive form, but he expects that in the future majorities will act differently. And that may not be the case, because once precedents are broken, new precedent exists for future majorities, and that would be most unfortunate if forever the Members of this House are denied the ability to introduce amendments in an open process on appropriations bills.

So, Madam Speaker, I thank you for your courtesy, and 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.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of the H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Bill Number: H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010

Account: Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Priorities

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Hialeah

Address of Requesting Entity: 501 Palm Avenue, Hialeah, FL 33010

Description of Request: I am proud to have secured $400,000 to implement the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Program. Specifically, funding will be used to improve the West 24th Avenue corridor between 52nd Street and 76th Street. The City of Hialeah has a rapidly aging infrastructure with some areas facing more than 50 years since any work has been done in repairs/reconstruction. Areas have been chosen throughout the city, based on roadway need, drainage concerns, areas that have not been reconstructed for over three decades.

Requesting Member: Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Bill Number: H.R. 3288, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, FY2010

Account: Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Priorities

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Doral

Address of Requesting Entity: 8300 NW 53rd Street, Suite 100, Doral,

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recall the tragic anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus that occurred on July 20, 1974.

Thirty-five years ago, Turkey attacked the Republic of Cyprus. Tragically, the legacy of that brutal act--43,000 Turkish occupation troops on Cypriot soil--continues to this day. Turkish troops, in blatant disregard for the Rule of Law and the basic rights of the Cypriot people, continue to illegally divide the island into two areas. As a result, the Republic of Cyprus is one of the most militarized areas in the world.

I strongly urge both sides to fully comply with the guiding principles of the July 8, 2006 agreement. This agreement sought to establish working groups to operate together to reunify Cyprus into one bizonal, bicommunal federation. Since September 3, 2008, the leaders of the two communities have held more than 35 rounds of direct talks and those talks are continuing regularly. The July 8 agreement is an important achievement that has given both parties the framework to work toward a permanently unified and free Cyprus.

I commend the opening of Ledra Street in Nicosia that occurred on April 3, 2008 and the recent agreement between the Turkish and Cypriot leaders to open the Limnitis crossing point to Kokkina. These are positive steps toward realizing the goals of the July 8 agreement and toward liberating the Cypriot people.

While the international community may certainly support the Cypriot and Turkish leaders as they work toward a solution, the solution to the illegal occupation of Cyprus must be solved by the Cypriots themselves and any solution must serve the interests of the people of Cyprus. A solution cannot be imposed by outside parties or subject to arbitrary timelines.

Madam Speaker, I remain committed to the goal of a united and free Cyprus. After thirty-five years of illegal occupation, the Cypriot people deserve to be free from division and oppression at last.

Madam Speaker, through their annual rally this week, Falun Gong practitioners and sympathizers have focused international attention on the horrible suffering of so many Falun Gong practitioners in Communist China. At that rally, I stood in warm, heartfelt solidarity with them and I will continue to do so until the Chinese people are free. On the occasion of this rally denouncing 10 years of persecution against the Falun Gong, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the names of several students, professors and lawyers who have suffered for their opposition to Communist China's brutal tyranny.

Currently, twelve professors and students from the prestigious Tsinghua University are known to be detained in Communist China under deplorable conditions due to their Falun Gong beliefs:

1. Mr. Bai Rongchun

2. Ms. Zhu Tong

3. Ms. Cong Dayang

4. Ms. Liu Zhimei

5. Ms. Yao Yue

6. Mr. Meng Jun

7. Mr. Wang Xin

8. Mr. Wang Weiyu

9. Mr. Yu Chao

10. Mr. Zang Lianjun

11. Mr. Yuping

12. Mr. Bao Weizhong

I would also like to commend and thank the handful of brave human rights lawyers who have accepted the challenge of representing Falun Gong adherents, as well as other oppressed citizens, and who themselves have been subjected to harassment, disbarment, detention and even torture as a result. Madam Speaker, these attorneys have taken an enormous risk for their fellow countrymen and I commend and admire their honorable efforts:

1. Zhang Kai

2. Li Chunfu

3. Wei Liangyue

4. Tang Jitian

5. Lan Zhixue

6. Jiang Tianyong

7. Li Heping

8. Li Xiongbing

9. Li Fangping

10. Pu Zhiqiang

11. Zhang Kai

12. Jiang Tianyong

13. Li Heping

14. Li Xiongbing

15. Li Chunfu

16. Wang Yajun of Globe-Law in Beijing

17. Cheng Hai

18. Tang Jitian

19. Yang Huiwen of Anhui Law Firm in Beijing

20. Xie Yanyi

21. Li Dunyong of Gongxin Law Firm in Beijing

22. Wen Haibo

23. Liu Wei of Shunhe Law Firm in Beijing

24. Zhang Lihui of Beijing G&G (Giant and Goal) Law Firm in Beijing

25. Li Jinglin of Jiurui Law Firm in Beijing

26. Wei Liangyue of Jiaodian Law Firm in Heilongjiang

27. Yang Zaixin of Baijuming Law Firm in Guangxi

28. Sun Wenbing of Xinhe Law Firm

Most recently, sometime between July 2 and July 8, these three brave lawyers were arrested for their efforts to defend Falun Gong practitioners:

29. Ruping Liu

30. Wang

31. Wang Ping Yonghang

Madam Speaker, the ruthless, despicable persecution against Falun Gong practioners and other oppressed minorities must end and these brave prisoners of conscience must be released immediately.