Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, every year we mark the anniversary of a terrible event that took place over the years of 1915-1923, during the First World War, when 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered and over half a million survivors were forced to leave a homeland they had inhabited for over two millennia. Today marks the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

I am a cosponsor of H. Res. 106, a resolution which simply affirms a historical fact. The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive records, open to the public, which meticulously document the Armenian genocide. Furthermore, the post- World War I Turkish government indicted leaders who were involved in these killings which

it labeled a ``massacre.'' On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers of England, France, and Russia issued a statement charging the Ottoman government of committing a ``crime against humanity.'' President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, said, ``like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it--and like too many other persecutions of too many other people--the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.''

The Armenian genocide resolution is offensive to some simply because it characterizes that massacre as ``genocide.'' We do not use that term loosely, but violence on such a tremendous scale has earned that terrible title. These deaths were not caused by the inevitable hostility of war, but by systematic murder aimed at eliminating a people. We gain nothing by pretending it was anything less.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum includes a quote from Adolf Hitler who justified his own atrocities by saying, ``[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' Shortly thereafter, the world would learn of the horrors of the Holocaust.

I wonder whether the horrors of the Second World War may have been averted had people loudly and with conviction condemned the Armenian genocide of the First World War. We cannot erase the events of history, and we ignore them at our peril. In the United States, we are still dealing with the consequences of slavery--a blight on our own historical record. But we cannot be committed to the principle of ``never again'' if we do not acknowledge the evil that first committed us to make that vow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Israel as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. Israel is not only a close military ally and trade partner, it is also a true friend of the United States.

The United States shares Israel's commitment to peace and freedom. We share a commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and we share a culture that honors life--not that glamorizes death. Perhaps more than any other people, Israel understands the insidiousness of evil and the need for good people to remain vigilant against it. We share a great deal, Madam Speaker. It is no accident that the United States and Israel are such great friends.

Despite frequent and cowardly attacks, this young country has withstood every missile, every grenade, every car bomb, every suicide bomber. Israel has weathered the violence of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have vowed Israel's destruction and which receive copious funding from Iran and Syria. Israel must combat these constant and cowardly attacks, but rarely does the world acknowledge the restraint shown by Israel in defending itself, trying always to wage this war of survival with reverence for innocent life.

While rockets rain down on Israel from terrorists operating in Gaza, Israel continues to allow the delivery of food and medicines across the Gaza border. Although Hamas seizes humanitarian aid for its own nefarious uses and exploits humanitarian vehicles to smuggle weapons and explosives, Israel continues to allow aid to flow across its border with Gaza. While Israel's enemies purposely target the innocent, Israel responds with tactical strikes against terrorists, their weapons bases, and their command centers to protect the innocent. While the forces of extremism and terrorism continue to barrage freedom-loving people in Israel and around the globe, I am heartened to see that the forces of evil have failed to destroy the basic goodness of those who struggle against terror so that they may live in peace and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary, I am honored to have this opportunity to congratulate Israel for its tremendous contributions to the world and to express my profound gratitude for Israel's unwavering friendship with the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of Victor Yunier Fernandez Martinez, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Fernandez Martinez, a young man of only 24 years of age and a member of the Popular Republican Party, was not even charged with committing any crime, even by the Orwellian standards and whims that make up the ``legal system'' in that enslaved island. Instead, he was hauled away to the gulag simply under the pretext of being a ``pre- criminal social danger.''

Agents of the tyranny's secret police said that they suspected Mr. Fernandez Martinez was involved in a graffiti campaign in Havana to promote freedom of expression. In fact, there was no link between Mr. Fernandez Martinez and these actions, but that did not stop the oppressive forces from detaining him and testing him for paint residue, which they did not find. This incident was cited 2 years later when he was sentenced to 3 years in the gulag because of the paranoiac perception of the dictatorship that Mr. Fernandez Martinez, a peaceful dissident, is a ``dangerous man.''

Madam Speaker, Mr. Fernandez Martinez's mother has visited him in prison and has reported that even though conscious of the profound injustice of his incarceration he was in good spirits, a true testament of the spirit and drive of the heroes who are confined in the Cuban totalitarian gulag.

It is unconscionable that the world simply stands by, in the 21st century, and silently acquiesces to the torture, oppression and denigration of a noble people only 90 miles from the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, Victor Fernandez represents the best of the new generation in Cuba; a generation that has known only oppression and misery but that will play a central role in the transformation of Cuba from a totalitarian nightmare to a representative democracy with the rule of law for all of its citizens. We must demand the release of all those who are persecuted for their democratic ideals. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate

and unconditional release of Victor Yunier Fernandez Martinez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

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

Madam Speaker, we've all heard about how the housing crisis is really creating a credit crisis as well. And the credit crisis is not limited to the mortgage industry but is spreading to the many sectors of our economy. And one sector that the credit crisis has hit hard is the student loan industry.

Companies that offer student loans are finding it difficult to have access to the capital needed to finance student loans. There's over $340 billion in outstanding Federal and non-Federal student loans currently funded through capital markets with another $130 billion waiting in the pipeline to be funded by the markets. Because of the current conditions, a good portion of that $130 billion may never make it through the process.

As a result of the credit situation, the difficulty in the credit market, 18 of the top 100 lenders have left the Federal Family Education Loan program, FFEL, while another 45 smaller lenders have suspended their participation or left the program. In total, those lenders account for about 12 percent of the total of Stafford and PLUS student loans. Another 11 lenders have left the non-Federal loan program.

So what does that instability in the credit markets mean for students and parents? Less competition and choice and higher costs through increased interest rates and reduction of repayment benefits and increased fees.

So the Congress should not stand by and let the credit crisis have a detrimental effect on student loan programs. Those programs open the door of higher education to millions of students. And that's why I'm very pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor has decided, in a bipartisan manner, to really try to prevent the credit market instability from producing a crisis in student loan programs. And the underlying legislation, called the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, will help provide new protections and clarify those in current law that ensure students and families have continued access to Federal loans despite the challenges created by current conditions in the credit market.

Specifically, legislation will increase adding loan limits for unsubsidized Stafford loans by $2,000 for each year of undergraduate and graduate school and increase aggregate limits accordingly. It also permits the Secretary of Education to give an entire institution the authority to become a lender of last resort. This will ensure all students and parents will be eligible to receive lender-of-last-resort loans. The Secretary of Education will also be given temporary authority to negotiate with lenders to purchase new loans, thereby freeing up capital.

I think it's appropriate, and I am pleased to commend the chairman of the committee, Chairman Miller, and also the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, who have worked in a bipartisan fashion, very diligently, on this very important issue, and they are to be commended, as is the committee generally.

Although the Education and Labor Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this important legislation, that bipartisan spirit did not make it past the doors of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee hit a new record of 50 closed rules. They had the chance to offer an open rule today on the underlying legislation, but instead, by party-line vote, the majority voted against an open rule and also blocked a number of Republican amendments from being offered, including an amendment from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon.

So much for bipartisanship in the Rules Committee.

At this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was a day commonly known as ``Tax Day,'' a day that millions of Americans headed down to their local post office to send their hard-earned money to the Federal Government. It's not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined the day on which the average American has finally earned enough to pay this year's tax obligations to the Federal, State and local governments, which unfortunately will not arrive this year until next week, April 23.

In recognition of those two important days on every taxpayer's calendar, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg). That legislation would repeal the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and make the tax reductions enacted by that law permanent. I'll say it again. It means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make certain that all American taxpayers will not have to pay an increase in taxes.

So I will provide Members the opportunity to make those tax cuts permanent and to make certain that our Tax Code encourages economic growth and job creation. It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, which is particularly important in States such as Florida that I'm honored to represent. It also includes a tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax credit for increasing research activities.

In summary, Madam Speaker, what it will do is to maintain, in a time of economic uncertainty, the ability for the Nation's economy to continue to create jobs and compete globally. On the other hand, if Members are for tax increases, if they want taxpayers to pay more in taxes, then they will simply vote with the majority.

Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system.

Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer.

By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay the underlying student loan legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief to Americans.

I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question on behalf of taxpayers who wish to continue economic growth.

Madam Speaker, 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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Florida is the number one travel destination in the world, with over 80 million visitors last year. They contributed over $60 billion to the economy of the State.

Part of the reason so many people come to Florida is because of the over 1,200 miles of beautiful beaches throughout the State. Florida's great beaches provide an endless wealth of recreational opportunities. But in order for everyone to enjoy those great beaches we have to make sure that the waters are safe and that they are clean.

In 2000, Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. That legislation was passed to limit and prevent human exposure to polluted coastal recreation waters by assisting States and local governments to implement beach monitoring assessment and public notification programs. In addition, that act required States and tribes with coastal recreation waters to adopt minimum water quality standards for pathogens and pathogen indicators.

The legislation being brought to the floor today with this rule would reauthorize the BEACH Act through 2012 and increase the annual authorized appropriation from $30 million to $40 million.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the majority likes to proclaim that they have offered yet another bill under what they call an open rule; but this is not an open rule, this is a restrictive rule.

According to a Survey of Activities of the House Committee on Rules from the 104th Congress, an open rule is defined as ``one under which any Member may offer an amendment that complies with the standing rules of the House and the Budget Act.''

A modified open rule, requiring preprinting in the Congressional Record, is defined as a type of rule that permits the offering only of those amendments printed in the Congressional Record. Because Members under this rule must submit their amendments prior to floor consideration, they are prohibited from offering amendments on the floor as the debate progresses.

So if a Member is watching the debate and has an idea to improve the bill, this rule prevents that Member from offering their amendment. So by its very nature, this rule is restrictive. It is not an open rule and the majority should stop calling it that.

I also would like to point out that once again the majority offers even this modified open rule, or modified restrictive rule on noncontroversial bills, bills with obvious bipartisan support. For example, the underlying legislation passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by a unanimous vote.

If the majority really wants to live up to their campaign promise of a more open and bipartisan Congress, then they should offer a truly open rule on this bill, and on bills where there is some controversy as well.

On Tuesday, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), offered an amendment to the rule which would have allowed the House to consider this noncontroversial bill under a truly open rule. However, that amendment was defeated.

So instead, here we are 16 months into the new majority under another restrictive rule. Other than on appropriations bills, the new majority has allowed only one open rule. Today they had the chance to double the number of open rules; but instead, they decided to use a restrictive process for a noncontroversial bill.

I don't know what they are afraid of. The original BEACH Act was considered under a true open rule. We should have considered this bill under suspension of the rules which doesn't even require a rule, it just goes automatically to the floor because it is noncontroversial, and we should have instead finished our work on bipartisan legislation to protect Americans from international terrorism, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act known as FISA.

Or we could have considered legislation to postponed the scheduled 10.1 percent cut in Medicare payments for physicians and other health care professionals.

Instead, what we are doing today, Mr. Speaker, what the majority leadership has decided to do today is to make this a day of legislative action that will live in infamy. Ever since 1974, legislation has existed, Mr. Speaker, to permit agreements that are negotiated with foreign governments by the United States, trade agreements, to come to this floor under the Trade Act of 1974 that established trade promotion authority, certainty in the rules process for when an agreement is negotiated so that our negotiating partners, countries we are negotiating with, know that there are certain rules. That if the United States makes a deal, enters into an agreement, that that agreement will be brought to the floor.

And so what the majority leadership in this Congress has done today is to say yes, yes, yes, but for and except Colombia. Colombia, that happens to be our best ally and friend in this hemisphere, under the measure today being brought to the floor by the majority leadership of this House, they are being insulted. And so our trade rules apply, yes; but for Colombia, Mr. Speaker. That is what the majority leadership has decided to do today.

What they have told Colombia, in the midst of a war against narcotraffickers, financed by narcotrafficking,

the enemies of Colombia, what the Democratic leadership of this House is telling the democratically elected government of Colombia today is: We don't care; we don't care. The trade rules apply to the world, but not to you.

Well, fortunately, there is an administration, an executive branch that is standing with the people of Colombia and their democratically elected government and President, President Alvaro Uribe. And there are a lot of Members in this House, Mr. Speaker, who also stand with the people of Colombia as they fight the terrorists, as they bravely confront the terrorists. There are a lot of us in this House who stand with the people of Colombia, and a lot of us in the Senate who do also. But unfortunately, the majority leadership has said to Colombia today: No, you're on your own.

Well, I want the people of Colombia to know that they are not alone. We will continue to stand with the people of Colombia and their democratically elected government despite this day of legislative action that will live in infamy because that is what the majority leadership has scheduled today. The exception, the legislative exception for, in this instance, the best ally that the United States has in this hemisphere, Colombia. And that's more than unfortunate.

Now, with regard to the legislation on beaches that is absolutely noncontroversial, it should have been brought to the floor automatically. Obviously we are all in support of that legislation, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just the State I am honored to represent alone, Florida, exports are expected to jump by over $160 million, and 1,700 jobs are to be created in the first year alone if the agreement with Colombia is ratified. That is just the State that I am honored to represent alone.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Yes. We have an additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciated the debate. Obviously, the legislation is of importance, the subject is of importance. We do need to preserve, protect that great treasure that our beaches are, but there are a number of issues that do need to be discussed that are not being discussed.

Unfortunately, one issue that should not be discussed is going to be discussed today which is to single out and discriminate against Colombia, our best friend in this hemisphere, in a shocking way, ultimately an unfortunate way.

We have no further speakers on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, what the majority leadership of this Congress, what this rule is saying to Colombia today is you voted to tie your economy to the United States, but, sorry, we don't care.

You are at war with narcoterrorists armed to the teeth by drug money and given sanctuary by neighboring governments. Sorry, we don't care.

You have voted, not once, twice, overwhelmingly, to support your brave President and his government and the Colombian armed forces as they fight the narcoterrorists and defend your rule of law. Sorry, we don't care.

Well, I say to the people of Colombia, like the President of the United States, many of us here in Congress are with you, and you are not alone despite this day of legislative action that will live in infamy.

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

During his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush outlined a bold new plan to confront and combat the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Congress followed through and passed the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act, known as the President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief, PEPFAR, authorizing $15 billion in assistance to combat these diseases for fiscal years 2004 through 2008. That was the largest commitment ever by any nation for an international health initiative fighting a single disease.

Since its enactment in 2003, the programs created by this landmark legislation have made admirable progress in combating those horrible diseases.

So far more than 1.4 million people have received life-preserving antiretroviral treatment, over 2.7 million HIV/AIDS-affected orphans have received care, and many millions more have received instruction on how to protect themselves from infection. Tens of millions of people have received malaria and tuberculosis prevention or treatment services.

Even though this program has achieved remarkable successes, there is more that we can do. Tuberculosis still kills an estimated 2 million people each year and is the leading cause of death for people with AIDS. One million people die from malaria each year. AIDS is the world's fourth leading cause of death.

The devastating consequences of these diseases are plaguing sub- Saharan Africa. Over 22.5 million people are living with HIV, and approximately 1.7 million additional sub-Saharan Africans were infected with HIV last year. Just last year this horrible AIDS epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 1.6 million people in that region. More than 11 million children have been orphaned by AIDS. Many families are losing their income earners. Health services are overburdened. Life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa is now 47 years. Economic activity and social progress is impeded.

We must do all we can to prevent these tragedies.

The underlying legislation, justly and appropriately named the Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, will dramatically augment our commitment to fight these horrible diseases with an increase of approximately $35 billion in funding for a total of $50 billion over 5 years.

Some of my constituents are immigrants from Haiti and have family and friends in their land of origin. I often hear about the disastrous effects that HIV/AIDS is having on that country. As of 2007, Haiti had an HIV rate of almost 4 percent. Thankfully, since Congress passed PEPFAR we have invested over $300 million to help Haiti combat the AIDS pandemic by building on existing clinic and community-based health resources; expanding a network of satellite connections to the Centers of Excellence to permit instant review of difficult cases; training staff members of health care facilities that provide prenatal, gynecological and maternity care in provision of prevention of mother- to-child HIV transmission; and enhancing the lab network for clinical sites to support the diagnosis and treatment of HIV and other associated infections. I am pleased the legislation will also now cover several other countries that were previously not part of PEPFAR.

As I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, when we look upon our work in Congress many years from now, I can think of nothing that we or anyone else will be able to point to that is of more importance than this admirable effort by the great and generous American people, this massive effort proposed by President Bush here in the United States House of Representatives during his State of the Union Address of 2003, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

I would like to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Payne and Ranking Member Smith for their marvelous bipartisan, very hard work on this important issue. I also wish to thank them for naming this landmark program for two ultimately respected colleagues of ours who have recently left us, Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos. This is truly a fitting tribute for two remarkable human beings and public servants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs who has had such an important role and hand in this legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a physician who does so much on issues of health day in and day out throughout the United States, and, as on this issue, throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, also a physician, Dr. Weldon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to Mr. Culberson of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Puerto Rico, who is a leader on issues of health and has so much contributed to this important legislation, Mr. Fortuno.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds, Mr. Speaker.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

I would ask my friend if he has any other speakers.

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

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or the sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or manager's amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in a bill or a report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

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

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

Last year the distinguished new Speaker said that if she were to become Speaker of the House, she would require all earmarks to be publicly disclosed and would ``put it in writing.'' However, as we have seen, this Congress, the majority have not fulfilled their promise.

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, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Randy Cabrera Mayor, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Cabrera Mayor was imprisoned by the Cuban totalitarian dictatorship in 1989, a month before his 19th birthday. for his refusal to join the dictatorship's armed forces.

Eight months after his imprisonment, Mr. Cabrera Mayor courageously escaped the atrocious confinement facility known as ``Ganusa'', located in San Jose de las Lajas. He promptly built himself a makeshift boat and attempted to reach freedom in the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. Cabrera Mayor was caught ten miles off the coast of Matanzas by agents of the communist dictatorship. He was convicted by a sham tribunal on charges of ``treason'' and ``illegal departure from the island.'' This would mark the first of many unsuccessful attempts by this brave political prisoner to achieve his god-given right to freedom.

My colleagues, I wish to bring to your attention the inhumane conditions Mr. Cabrera Mayor is currently living in. The food he is being provided is consistently under an advanced stage of decomposition to the point that it is propagating intestinal diseases. He spends long periods of time in solitary confinement without access to a bathroom and shackles have been attached to his ankles to hinder his movements. When not in solitary confinement, Mr. Cabrera Mayor and other political prisoners are held in the same cells as common criminals of the most dangerous kinds.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Randy Cabrera Mayor has engaged in numerous hunger strikes to

protest his conditions and those of other prisoners, and he has been met with threats of beatings and withholding of sustenance, all in accordance with the usual treatments that the brutal regime that currently oppresses Cuba affords its political opponents in the dark and cruel world of Castro's gulags.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, the conditions in which prisoners of conscience in Cuba are held are abominable and condemnable. We must demand the immediate release of Mr. Cabrera Mayor and all unjustly incarcerated prisoners, including all the political prisoners in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance a budget, whether it's your family budget or the Federal budget. You can either spend less, or you can increase the amount of money coming in. The majority, as reflected in their budget, have flat out rejected option one and have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and an ever-growing Federal Government.

The Republicans have chosen what I believe is a more responsible approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save, invest, and spend as they see fit.

While Republicans have faith in the ability of families and workers to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects their belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at spending money than individual Americans. And that's really a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans.

In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their budget raises taxes, Mr. Speaker, by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. Let me repeat that, two-thirds of a trillion dollars.

Now, you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax cuts expire, but the bottom line is that under the Democrats' budget every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government.

Although the majority will try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more under their budget than the largest enacted tax increase to date in history, making this the largest tax increase in American history.

While the majority claims that their budget will protect middle-class families, their budget numbers tell a different story. Under the massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in the State of Florida, for example, will see their annual tax bill rise over $3,000.

The majority's budget does not extend tax relief from the marriage tax penalty. This means approximately 48 million married couples will face an average tax increase of $3,000 a year. It does not extend the $1,000 tax credit that many young families use. The majority's budget would cut that credit in half. It doesn't extend the State sales tax deductibility fairness. The majority's budget, Mr. Speaker, even manages to resurrect the death tax. It doesn't fix the alternative minimum tax for middle-class families. It does not protect those who pay the lowest tax rate either. It would again impose taxes on six million lower income Americans who now pay no taxes thanks to the 2001 tax relief law passed by Congress.

Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy to incentivize growth, increase investment in the United States and create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history. This critically important tax relief should not be repealed or allowed to expire to pay for the majority's spending plan. It should be made permanent.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, ranking member of the Budget Committee, in my view, the premier economic mind in the Congress of the United States (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. McGovern if he has any additional speakers.

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

On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a Presidents Day recess and allowed the Protect America Act to expire 2 days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. At the end of this week, the House and Senate plan to adjourn for a 2-week district work period. Therefore, we only have a few days left to address one very important issue, and that is taking action on permanently modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

This didn't have to happen, Mr. Speaker. In February, the Senate passed, by a bipartisan vote of 68-29, legislation updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, a bill that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said ``is the right way to go, in terms of the security of the Nation.''

We could have easily considered that legislation. But the majority, instead, decided to head home. And they may just do that again this week. The House should vote on the Senate measure, and we should do it now. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, tie the

hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority.

I am pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The letter states, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism around the globe and save American lives here in our country.''

Today, I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all my colleagues, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to the Speaker, to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to the President to be signed into law.

I will remind my colleagues that defeating the previous question will not prohibit consideration of the budget, but would merely require that we first take a vote on FISA.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that helps protect American lives from international terrorism.

With 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.