Floor Statements

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.

In a world often plagued by selfishness, those who commit themselves to the service of others through volunteerism really serve as a beacon of compassion and hope for all.

Community service is one of the most gratifying, rewarding, fulfilling ways people can give back to their communities. Community service has always been a vital pillar of our society. Volunteers all over the Nation dedicate millions of hours to their contemporaries, all in the hope of making people's lives better. Through their selfless work and tireless effort, volunteers help improve the lives of millions of Americans.

In 1993, Congress, with my support, passed legislation creating AmeriCorps and the Corporation for National and Community Service to administer and coordinate Federal community service programs. Since then, almost 500,000 Americans have served with thousands of nonprofit organizations, public agencies, and faith-based organizations nationwide.

These citizens tutor and mentor children, they coordinate after- school programs, they build homes for the needy, they conduct neighborhood patrols, restore the environment, respond to disasters, build nonprofit capacity, recruit and manage volunteers. They do, oftentimes, exemplary work.

The underlying legislation, Madam Speaker, H.R. 2857, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, will reauthorize the national service programs administered by the Cooperation for National Community Service. This reauthorization will help increase the number of volunteers in AmeriCorps to over 100,000 by 2012. It will also create service opportunities for middle school and high school students through the Summer of Service program.

The legislation emphasizes the critical role of service in meeting the national priorities of emergency and disaster preparedness. I do believe it will help improve program integrity.

I am pleased that the committee, the Committee on Education and Labor, worked in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize this program and to include provisions that will make these programs more effective and efficient, responding to State and local needs, and performance- oriented. It goes to show, Madam Speaker, that when we are willing to work together and negotiate, we can bring forth good pieces of legislation with bipartisan support.

Now, I know the majority is trumpeting this rule with which we bring this underlying legislation to the floor because it will allow Members to debate all the amendments to the Rules Committee. But I remind my colleagues, Madam Speaker, the majority does this only when the underlying legislation is noncontroversial, even though the majority promised to be the most open Congress in history. If the majority is so proud of this rule, it should allow open rules on controversial bills as well.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge Americans everywhere, regardless of whether they take part in a AmeriCorps, to volunteer and give back to their communities. The rewards are extraordinary to both the volunteer and to the community. As Winston Churchill said, ``We make a living by what we do, but we make a life by what we give.''

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no other speakers. I am ready to make my final remarks.

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

Although the reauthorization of AmeriCorps certainly is an important matter and one that deserves our attention, I must express my disappointment that the majority decided to take up this legislation before we finish our work on bipartisan legislation to protect Americans from international terrorism.

On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a President's 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. Because of the inaction of the majority, the United States is more vulnerable to terrorist attack.

This didn't have to happen, Madam Speaker. Earlier last month, the Senate passed, by a bipartisan vote, really an extraordinary vote of 68-29, a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, a bill that the chairman, Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, and I quote, ``is the right way to go in terms of the security of the Nation.''

We could have easily considered that legislation, but the majority in the House instead decided to head home. The House should vote on the Senate measure, and the House should vote on the Senate measure now.

Madam Speaker, we must always try to stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm Americans. Now is not the time to in any way tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance is a critical national security priority.

I am pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition, Democrats, sent a letter to the distinguished Speaker in support of the Senate Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we 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 across 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 the members of the Blue Dog Coalition that signed the letter to the distinguished 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 remind my colleagues that defeating the previous question will not prohibit consideration of the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today, the GIVE Act, but would merely require that we first take a vote on FISA modernization.

Madam 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 long-term solution that helps protect American lives from international terrorism.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, after thousands of kidnappings and murders inside Colombia carried out by the terrorist organization known by its initials as FARC, Colombia finally had enough. And when it learned that key heads of the terrorist group that were being given sanctuary inside Ecuador by the government of that country, when Colombia learned that the terrorists were 1,800 meters from Colombia, Colombia decided to strike. It did so from Colombian airspace. And, in fact, the FARC shot at the Colombian Air Force, which permitted the Colombian Air Force to pinpoint the exact spot where the FARC terrorists were, where they had been, and from where they were attacking Colombia.

Colombia struck, and the second-ranking FARC terrorist head, Luis Edgar Devia-Silva, alias Raul Reyes, was killed. Reyes was killed along with approximately 20 other terrorists. Unfortunately, one brave Colombian soldier fighting in defense of freedom, Carlos Hernandez Leon, was also killed during the operation.

It is as tragic as it is condemnable. It is, in fact, criminal for the Governments of Ecuador and Venezuela to provide sanctuary for terrorists who systemically commit murder and kidnappings inside Colombia, and then those terrorists return to Venezuelan and Ecuadorian soil.

President Bush and the United States of America have stood by and are firmly standing by our great democratic ally and friend Colombia and its twice overwhelmingly elected President Alvaro Uribe. Unfortunately, that is not the case with much of the rest of our hemisphere. I commend President Bush for his steadfast support of our great ally President Uribe.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to act. We need to renew and to increase our security aid to Colombia, which has been known for a decade as Plan Colombia, and the majority leadership of this Congress must immediately schedule a vote on U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, an agreement that is in the interest both of the American and the Colombian peoples.

The majority leadership of this House must stop preventing a vote on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The position on that critical issue of the majority leadership of this Congress is petty and is ultimately irresponsible. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was quoted recently as saying, referring to trips that Members of Congress have been taking to Colombia to find out for themselves how the Free Trade Agreement would affect our two countries: ``It is not the facts on the ground that are important; it is the politics in the air.'' How sad, Mr. Speaker. How sad.

It is time for this Congress to send a clear sign of support and solidarity to our good friend Colombia. It is time to stop blocking the FTA with Colombia and for the majority leadership of Congress to schedule a vote on the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia now.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Juan Bermudez Toranzo, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Juan Bermudez Toranzo is vice president of the Cuban Foundation for Human Rights. On November 21, 2007, Mr. Bermudez was participating in a peaceful fast at his home in support of the political prisoners kept in repressive and inhumane conditions in Cuba's gulags. That evening 30 police and state security thugs stormed Mr. Bermudez's home and dragged him into a police car.

According to Amnesty International the arrest of Mr. Bermudez was part of an increasingly arbitrary crackdown against dissidents because of their involvement in peaceful protests. The unjustified arrests by the totalitarian regime's goons were aimed at discouraging demonstrations against the government, particularly on December 10, International Human Rights Day. International Human Rights Day honors the day of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first global declaration of human rights.

Just last month a sham regime court held proceedings in secret, ``convicting'' Mr. Bermudez of ``revealing state secrets,'' and sentencing him to 12 years in prison. But the regime hooligans were not content with the 12-year prison sentence. They wanted to send a message to future political dissidents by first putting Mr. Bermudez in a punishment cell and denying him clothes and water. They also constantly subjected Mr. Bermudez to psychological torture.

The inhumane conditions in the totalitarian regime's prisons took their toll on Mr. Bermudez and he allegedly attempted to commit suicide.

This is not the first time Mr. Bermudez has faced the brutality of the Cuban totalitarian- gangster regime. Last March while leaving the Rosa Parks Independent Library at the U.S. Interests Section, the regime's secret police arrested Mr. Bermudez. After his release he said that he would continue his opposition to the dictatorship and his work for human rights.

After Mr. Bermudez's arrest by regime thugs, known as the ``National Revolutionary Police Unit,'' between 15 and 25 human rights activists carried out a sit-in in front of the ``National Revolutionary Police Unit,'' demanding the release of Juan Bermudez Toranzo. The sit-in included Ms. Nery Castillo, the wife of Mr. Bermudez Toranzo. Because of her participation she has been subjected to harsh intimidation by regime goons. These goons warned her that if she did not leave the sit- in they would take away her children.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that human beings are locked in a barbarously inhumane gulag because they believe that all men and women have a right to freedom and democracy. My colleagues, we must demand freedom and human rights for all people, including those who live under the darkness of totalitarian tyrannies. We must demand immediate and unconditional freedom for Juan Bermudez Toranzo and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. I know the majority calls this a structured rule, but it's a closed rule. Technically the majority gave the minority the ability to offer a substitute amendment if the substitute amendment was printed in the Congressional Record before the end of the legislative day. The rule giving the minority the opportunity to draft a substitute was passed out of the Rules Committee at about 5:20 yesterday evening. The House finished its legislative day at 5:57, giving the minority 37 minutes in which to draft a substitute to a very complex tax issue while meeting PAYGO and germaneness requirements. I understand that at the time the House went out of session last night, minority staff from the Ways and Means Committee were talking to the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Joint Committee on Taxation in hopes of drafting a substitute amendment. But since they couldn't get all their work done in 37 minutes, the minority, in fact, was closed out and prohibited from offering any amendments under this closed rule.

What is even more disturbing is that I am informed that during consideration of the rule yesterday, the distinguished chairwoman, Ms. Slaughter, informed Ranking Member Dreier that the majority would keep the House in session so that the minority would have ample time to complete work on a substitute amendment. But the question must be asked of the majority at this time: How is 37 minutes enough time to draft legislation, especially on something as complicated as an energy tax bill?

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough time. It is most unfortunate that the majority did not give the minority time to complete its work and that we are now proceeding under this closed process.

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

From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper and more reliable domestic renewable energy sources. This included sources such as cellulosic ethanol, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.

I am pleased by the inclusion of the production tax credit, the PTC, in the underlying legislation being brought to the floor today. The PTC provides a tax credit for electricity produced from renewable energy facilities. Sources such as wind, solar and biomass are included under the tax credit. Since its enactment in 1992, the credit has encouraged the development of thousands of megawatts of clean, renewable electric generation facilities.

But we must keep in mind that alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy resources. Without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist, and this bill, the legislation being brought to the floor today under this rule, will do nothing to lower gas prices.

Unfortunately, the majority has included in H.R. 5351, the underlying legislation, more than $17 billion in tax increases, including a repeal of the section 199 manufacturing deduction. This tax incentive in current law is aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. By removing this incentive for the domestic production of oil and natural gas, we would increase the incentive to look overseas for those energy resources. How would that be in our national interest? How does increasing the cost of doing business in the United States decrease the cost of gasoline for Americans? Why would we want to deincentivize investment in a sector of our economy with 1.8 million well-paying jobs in the United States of America?

Removal of these incentives will drive up prices to the American consumer even further and increase our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the buffoon Hugo Chavez, who earlier this month cut off oil sales to ExxonMobil and threatened once again to cut off all oil sales to the United States.

And while the buffoon Chavez makes those threats to our energy supplies, the majority has decided that his company, Citgo, would continue to receive a tax break that the majority in the underlying legislation seeks to take away from American companies.

Yes, under this legislation, three American oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, will lose their current deduction while Citgo will continue to get theirs. That's unbelievable.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished friend from New York pointed out earlier that this rule that we are debating is on the energy bill. She pointed that out because we have been stressing the need to debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, to our colleagues that the rule that we are debating today, this rule lays on the table, it tables H. Res. 983, authority to address legislation concerning foreign intelligence surveillance. So it's quite germane and relevant in discussing and debating this rule to be insisting upon a debate on

I will reserve then.

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

Mr. Speaker, it's disappointing that the majority has decided really to waste the time of this Congress with legislation that three times has failed to make it through the Senate and that observers covering Congress have called a rerun. Instead of wasting time on legislation that will never make it into law, we should be considering bipartisan legislation that will protect Americans from international terrorism.

On February 14, the majority decided to leave Washington to take a Presidents Day recess and allow the Protect America Act to expire 2 days later, rendering U.S. intelligence officials unable to begin new terrorist surveillance without cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles. Because of the deliberate inaction of the majority, the United States today is more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And this did not have to happen.

Earlier this month, the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote of 68-29 a bill updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a bill that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee said, `` . . . it's the right way to go in terms of the security of the Nation.''

Mr. Speaker, we would have easily considered that legislation, but the majority decided instead to head home. The House should vote on the Senate measure and we should do it now, instead of debating this legislation which will not become law and is really nothing more than a rerun.

We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish harm on Americans. Now is not the time to, in any way, in any way tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into this century is a critical national security priority.

I'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle also agree. On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to the Speaker in support of the Senate 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 across the globe and save American lives in the United States.''

Today I will give all Members of this House an opportunity to vote on the bipartisan long-term modernization of FISA. I call on all of 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.

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 will help protect American lives from international terrorism.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I was in the funeral of our distinguished friend and colleague, Congressman Lantos, someone whom I admired very, very much and who was a personal friend. I was standing by the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

At the time during the funeral, the House was in recess subject to the call of the Chair under the understanding that we would not come back into session until after the funeral. And I was most disturbed and hurt and pained when, even though the funeral was still proceeding and distinguished guests were speaking, the bells rang that the House was going back into session and I had to leave.

Because of my obligation today, I have the assignment, as a member of the Rules Committee, to be here during this rule. I had to leave the funeral to be here today. It's most unfortunate, and I'm very, very sorry that the day has begun in that ultimately unfortunate fashion.

Madam Speaker, today the majority proposes that the House consider a rule that, according to the Parliamentarian, is unprecedented in the history of this institution. It will prevent any and all debate on two contempt motions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

A contempt resolution is a privileged matter because it directly concerns the constitutional rights and privileges of

the House. Chapter 17, section 2 of House Practice states, ``Such a resolution may be offered from the floor as privileged, because the privileges of the House are involved.''

The action of the majority today is most unfortunate. Never before in the history of this House has a contempt resolution, one of the highest questions regarding the rights and privileges of this institution, been treated in such an underhanded manner. If this rule is adopted, there will be no debate, no vote, and the contempt resolutions will magically and automatically be hereby adopted when this rule is adopted.

Now, if the majority believes the contempt resolution to be correct, the just and proper course of action to assert the rights of this institution would be to debate and vote on the resolution.

The majority leadership is subverting the rights of every Member of this House, allegedly in order to assert the rights of this House. The irony can escape no one. These are the constitutional rights of this institution that are in question, and not one Member of this institution is going to be allowed to discuss it or vote, to have a vote on these resolutions.

The majority's attempt to rush this contempt resolution through the House will have repercussions that many Members may not be aware of. And so I urge my colleagues to pay close attention because, by this action, the House majority risks causing great harm. It risks causing grave harm and undermining Congress's oversight authority for generations to come, and here is why.

The administration is claiming executive privilege, and any attempt to force testimony from the President's former counsel and his Chief of Staff will be fought by the administration within the courts. This could very possibly lead to the courts ruling that Congress does not have civil contempt authority, for example; that the U.S. Attorney, for example, does not have to prosecute criminal citations against executive officials or that the President's senior advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress. Any of those rulings would weaken Congress's ability to conduct oversight in the future, and a weakened Congress means a strengthened executive.

This is not an extreme or farfetched theory, Madam Speaker. Administrations from both parties have claimed executive privilege for many decades. The former Attorney General, for example, Janet Reno, stated, and I quote, ``the President and his immediate advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee, because subjecting a senior Presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to his constitutionally assigned functions.''

What the majority is doing today is needlessly tempting a court loss that could gravely undermine Congress's oversight authority, the very authority the majority is allegedly seeking to protect. If Congress loses in the courts, we could forever disable one of our most important powers, the power of oversight. And for what in return, Madam Speaker? Harriet Miers is no longer with the administration; Alberto Gonzales is no longer Attorney General. But the majority, with its action today, risks quite a bit.

Let's remember, Members will not even get the opportunity to vote on these resolutions today. And that's not only uncalled for, but absolutely unprecedented. Members will only be able to vote on this rule. Once the rule passes, so do the two resolutions and so does the majority's gamble.

So, back in July, the Judiciary Committee cited both Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers for contempt of Congress. Now, here we are, 8 months later, considering these two contempt resolutions, but not really, just the rule. By passing the rule, automatically those contempt resolution will be passed, after an emergency Rules Committee meeting last night.

So the question is, why the rush? For some reason the majority feels that after 8 months, now this is a pressing issue. But I can think of a large list of other issues that I feel that Americans would rather we address; none more than considering the FISA bill that the Senate approved this week to give the administration the ability to protect the United States from terrorist attacks.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, taught us many lessons, and one of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm America, and now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. And the majority seeks to leave today and go home without addressing this issue.

The modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critically important national priority, and I'm pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree as well.

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, and I quote, ``The Senate FISA Rockefeller-Bond legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support the 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 across the globe and save American lives here at home.''

Madam Speaker, I will insert the letter sent by the Blue Dogs to the Speaker into the Record.

Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being

considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a

FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly

consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President

before the Protect America Act expires in February.

It is our belief that such legislation should include the

following provisions: Require individualized warrants for

surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;

Clarify that no court order is required to conduct

surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are

routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight

by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel

compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court

of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers

that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.

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

across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a

timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect

America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a

limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical

surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace

the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,

bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed

into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing

such a measure could place our national security at undue

risk.

Sincerely,

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith of Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

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

Madam Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that one of the reasons why the minority is outraged with the conduct of the majority today is that we are not even allowed to debate nor vote on the contempt resolutions, but rather on a rule that will self-adopt, automatically adopt even resolutions of this magnitude of importance; totally unprecedented and uncalled for.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I would ask the distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.

I reserve at this time.

I continue to reserve, Madam Speaker.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.

I would ask the distinguished chairwoman if she has no other speakers, obviously besides herself.

Actually I will yield myself 2 minutes at this time.

The actions of the majority today are unprecedented. We have checked with the House Parliamentarian, and they are absolutely and totally unprecedented, that privileged resolutions would be taken to the floor in this fashion, in effect, avoiding even the floor by virtue of the fact that when the rule is passed, the rule that we are debating, automatically the two privileged resolutions of contempt will be considered adopted. That is absolutely unprecedented as well as uncalled for.

And the nature of the actions of the majority today are most, most unfortunate. I had the recent opportunity to speak at Florida International University's law school. Professor Levitt asked me to speak there about the rule of law. In studying, restudying the issue, the rule of law, I stressed how the independence of the judiciary is perhaps the key, or certainly one of the fundamental keys, to the rule of law. And judicial restraint has permitted the judiciary to remain independent throughout these two-plus centuries. All of the branches, Madam Speaker, must exercise restraint.

And the actions of the majority today manifest the opposite, not only restraint, but I would say unprecedented, uncalled for, an unprecedented and uncalled for manner of dealing with even an issue of this importance.

As I stated, the majority is not even allowing debate on the resolutions of contempt, not even permitting votes on the resolutions of contempt.

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

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

I yield the balance of our time to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Madam Speaker, it is with great regret, but I must rise today for a question of personal privilege. An article appeared today, Madam Speaker, on the Web site of a publication called The Politico reprinting a statement by a spokesperson for the majority leader of this House describing actions of mine as ``incomprehensible'' and ``unjustifiable'' and insinuating that I purposely brought disrespect to the House and to the memory of my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos.

It was not my actions which were incomprehensible or unjustifiable, Madam Speaker, but rather the actions of the majority which deprived all Members of this House the opportunity to debate or even consider or vote on the contempt resolutions brought to the floor today by the majority in an absolutely totally unprecedented fashion.

The majority knows that the rule we considered earlier is totally and absolutely unprecedented. Its sole purpose was to prevent us from even debating or voting on these contempt resolutions. And further, the majority denied us the opportunity to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments passed by the Senate, which we feel very strongly are in the supreme national interest of the United States.

The majority knew that the minority was strongly of the belief that the only options available to us were procedural votes. The majority knew that we intended to utilize our procedural options to register our displeasure with this uncalled-for process.

We purposely refrained from all procedural motions during the opening moments of the session today precisely to show respect for our friend and departed colleague.

We were assured by the majority that we would not begin consideration of the rule, in other words, that the House would not reconvene until 11:30 a.m. or the conclusion of Mr. Lantos' memorial service.

Tom Lantos, Madam Speaker, was an extraordinary man, a great man, and he was my friend. It was an honor for me to be present today at his memorial service in Statuary Hall. I was suddenly summoned out of the memorial service for my friend Mr. Lantos to perform my responsibilities as a member of the Rules Committee, to manage the rule for the minority side for the contempt resolutions. The majority had decided to resume the session during the memorial service.

Madam Speaker, I am a member of the minority. Neither I nor my leadership control when the House convenes. What we saw today was an uncalled-for effort by the majority to force the minority to give up our rights to protest a process we feel is blatantly unfair.

The majority's decision to reconvene the House interrupted the tribute to my good friend Mr. Lantos. It is the majority that decides when to convene the House. It is the majority that chose to convene the House even though many speakers remained to speak in the memorial for Mr. Lantos.

I was told by my good friend Mr. Dreier that he does not recall any memorial being interrupted by a House session, and he has been here more years than I have. I have been here 15, and obviously I don't recall any either.

Madam Speaker, the statement attacking me today by a spokesperson for the majority leader was totally uncalled for and unacceptable.

I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I utilized the opportunity of the rules to rise to a question of personal privilege due to the statements attributed in the press that I mentioned before to a spokesperson, which I stated and restated I believe were totally uncalled for and unacceptable.

I thank all of you for having listened to me with such courtesy. It is for someone who arrived as a 4-year-old refugee with his family fleeing oppression, an extraordinary moment in the midst of the sadness of the day, and the offense that I felt, it is an extraordinary moment to be able to rise and invoke the rules of the House to seek the attention of the representatives of this extraordinary Nation. So I thank each and every one of you for your patience and your courtesy.

At this point, after thanking Mr. Dreier, thanking Mr. Blunt, and thanking the majority leader for their kind words, I simply end remembering a friend who everyone in this room can agree enriched our lives. My son mentioned the other day this week when we were talking about the sad news, he said, Dad, do you remember when I was a little kid and you wanted me to get my posture up, what you would tell me? I will never forget, he told me. Lantos. Your posture. That is one of the first things that impressed me about Tom Lantos, even before I learned about his zealous extraordinary commitment to the oppressed everywhere where people are still longing to be free.

So let us all then end this recollection of what I believe was a very unfortunate moment remembering someone who we can all agree was extraordinary, enriched our lives, and was a great Member of Congress and a great American. Thank you all very much.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues about Carlos Martin Gomez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba who continues his struggle to bring human rights and dignity to the people of Cuba.

In 2000 Cuban regime thugs arrested Mr. Martin for ``desecrating'' the thug-in-chief Fidel Castro. How exactly does one desecrate a tyrannical despot? In Mr. Martin's case by going to the Jose Marti Airport and calling out loud for the end of Fidel Castro's oppression of the Cuban people. Such a brave act earned Mr. Martin a 4-year sentence in the gulag.

The regime may have thought they could quiet Mr. Martin's calls for the end to the dictatorship by throwing him into a prison to suffer under unbearable conditions. But Mr. Martin would not let the walls of the gulag suffocate his continued calls for a free Cuba. Because of his continued crusade to bring freedom to

the Cuban people, the regime added somewhere between 14 years and 37 years to his sentence.

Now the dictatorship is trying a different tactic to silence Mr. Martin, they are refusing to provide him with adequate medical care after a fish bone got caught in his throat. According to his sister, Mr. Martin has lost considerable weight as he is only able to ingest liquids due to his untreated throat condition.

Despite the gangster tactics and heinous threats against him, Mr. Martin refuses to back down and be silenced by the totalitarian regime. He still bravely continues to demand human rights and dignity for the Cuban people. On November 5, 2007, Mr. Martin released the following statement for the Cuban people from his prison:

Cuba is a big prison which the regime has filled with

prisons, poverty, famine and disease. The communist thugs

have subjected us to this for 48 years. Hopefully, soon we

will see freedom in the beautiful land of our birth, and that

nobody has to flee . . . I reiterate my affection, respect

and love, from the No. 3 cell of the Melena del Sur prison,

in Havana province, to all who in one form or another,

struggle for the independence and freedom of Cuba.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that Carlos Martin Gomez is locked in a filthy dungeon for calling for human rights and freedom for the Cuban people. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Carlos Martin Gomez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of our colleagues the unjustified arrest of yet another dissident, Juan Pedroso Esquivel, by the totalitarian dictatorship in Cuba.

Recently dictatorship thugs working to stifle free speech raided Mr. Pedroso's home after

someone in the city of Colon posted stickers declaring ``CAMBIO,'' meaning change in Spanish. The regime charged Mr. Pedroso on January 7 with the crime of possessing ``subversive propaganda.'' It is not known yet how long a sentence Mr. Pedroso will face for this so-called crime. This may be because the tyrannical regime is attempting to scare other peaceful political dissenters by making an example with the unjust arrest of Mr. Pedroso.

Mr. Pedroso is a member of the Pedro Luis Boitel Democratic Party. He has a long history of nonviolent political dissent and has previously faced time inside the repressive gulags of the Cuban tyranny.

Even outside prison the regime's thugs have repeatedly harassed Mr. Pedroso. According to reports, in September 1998, Mr. Pedroso was threatened by the despotic chief of police in San Jose de los Ramos, Matanzas province. The policeman publicly said that he had orders to shoot Mr. Pedroso in the head and then a few days later said he had his gun ready.

A few months later Mr. Pedroso was summoned to the headquarters of the Sistema Unico de Vigilancia y Proteccion, SUVP, Unified Vigilance and Protection System, where he was told that he needed to stop his human rights work and ``get a job'' or he would be charged with the crime of ``dangerousness.'' However, Mr. Pedroso was unable to find employment because of his past peaceful political activities. One week later, he was arrested and ``convicted'' of ``dangerousness'' and received a two-year sentence in the gulag.

My colleagues, it is unconscionable that someone can be sent to a gulag just because a dictatorship suspected he was posting stickers with the word ``CAMBIO.'' Why are they so afraid of the word ``change''? What has them so scared of such a simple and peaceful word? What they are really scared of is anyone in any way challenging their tenuous grip on the Cuban people and putting a spotlight on their condemnable, abhorrent treatment of the Cuban people.

Madam Speaker, the arrest of Mr. Pedroso is yet another example of the totalitarian dictatorship's total disregard for human rights in that enslaved island. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Juan Pedroso Esquivel and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to again remind my colleagues about Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. The reason I rise once again to bring attention to Dr. Garcia Paneque's imprisonment is because I have been told that his medical condition in Castro's gulag has seriously deteriorated.

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

On March 18, 2003, the totalitarian Cuban regime began an island-wide crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists in order to stifle nonviolent political dissent. As part of the crackdown the regime arrested Dr. Garcia Paneque and charged him with ``acts against the independence or territorial integrity of the state'' because of his work with the unofficial Cuban Medical Association. Just weeks after his arrest, in what was nothing more than a farce of a judicial proceeding, Dr. Garcia Paneque was sentenced to 24 years in the totalitarian gulag. The real reason he was arrested is that he is a supporter of freedom and

democracy who has worked to expose the depraved horror that is the Cuban tyranny.

Since his initial incarceration in the subhuman conditions of the tyranny's totalitarian dungeons, Dr. Garcia Paneque's weight has dropped from a healthy 190 pounds to an emaciated 100 pounds. Since last year prison authorities at the Las Mangas Prison have not allowed Dr. Garcia Paneque access to fresh air or sunlight.

According to his mother, Dr. Garcia Paneque suffers from dizziness due to a serious episode of diarrhea and profuse rectal bleeding and may be suffering from a duodenal ulcer. It is reported that the bleeding is a complication related to an eating disorder known as Malabsorption Syndrome, which he developed in prison. The condition does not allow food he ingests to nourish his body.

Dr. Garcia Paneque's health while languishing in a hellish dungeon has been a point of constant concern for some time now. In June Dr. Garcia Paneque was diagnosed with a kidney tumor and pneumonia. As a result of the pneumonia, he suffers from pleural effusion of the right lung and constant chest colds. Yet as Dr. Garcia Paneque's condition continues to deteriorate, his jailers have refused to allow him consultation with doctors not affiliated with the prison or even provide him adequate medical care.

Madam Speaker, this is a textbook case of how the Cuban totalitarian regime treats prisoners of conscience who dare speak the truth and call for democracy and human rights.

But this cruel and inhumane treatment is not confined to those inside the regime's gulags. Since Dr. Garcia Paneque's arrest, his wife and four young children faced intense harassments and attacks by angry mobs on their home. They have since fled Cuba and were granted asylum in the United States. His wife says that Dr. Garcia Paneque ``takes great comfort from his Bible . . . which he reads every day.'' While his wife says his physical health continues to suffer, his ``spiritual health is strong.''

On October 24, 2007, Dr. Garcia Paneque's wife and his daughter Shirlen were received and honored by President George W. Bush at the White House, where the President publicly called upon the regime to release Dr. Garcia Paneque forthwith.

Even though Dr. Garcia Paneque has endured constant physical and psychological torture at the hands of regime thugs, he continues to demand human rights and dignity for the people of Cuba. He is languishing in the squalor of the infernal gulag at the whim of a merciless tyrant, simply because he believes in freedom, truth, democracy, and human rights for the people of Cuba.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that journalists and physicians like Dr. Garcia Paneque are locked in dungeons for writing the truth. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque before his prison sentence turns into a death sentence.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Raudel Martinez Gomez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Martinez Gomez is a member of the Plantados Movement for Cuban Freedom. He along with fellow dissidents Victor Yunier Ferenandez Martinez and Joenny Alonso Asiz, were arrested in February 2006 for a crime the Cuban dictatorship calls ``dangerousness.'' In sham trials they were each convicted, with Mr. Martinez Gomez sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Unfortunately, his imprisonment for what is really political dissent is nothing new for his family. While Mr. Martinez Gomez was facing trial before the dictatorship's facade of a judicial system, his father was imprisoned in a Cuban gulag for nothing more than participating in a peaceful pro-democracy protest outside the French embassy in Havana. The Cuban regime released his father this past May without formally charging him with any crime.

Shortly after his father's arrest, the local chief of the so-called ``Committee for the Defense of the Revolution'' came to the home Mr. Martinez Gomez shared with his father. Mr. Martinez Gomez was forced out of his home along with his wife, who was 7 months pregnant at the time. But these local vigilance committee goons were not content with forcing Martinez Gomez and his pregnant wife from their home, they wanted to add insult to injury. So they sent a group of ruffians to shout insults and obscenities at Martinez Gomez and his wife as they left the home they had known for the last 11 years.

What exactly did Mr. Martinez Gomez do to cause his conviction for the so-called crime of ``dangerouness?'' This is impossible to fully know in the totalitarian circus of present day Cuba but perhaps the regime was afraid of the courage repeatedly demonstrated by Mr. Martinez Gomez.

Madam Speaker, this is just another condemnable occurrence in the constant pattern of brutality by the totalitarian tyranny just 90 miles from our shores. And yet, though the tyranny has attempted to stop Mr. Martinez Gomez, he will never cease in his commitment to freedom for Cuba. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Raudel Martinez Gomez and all prisoners of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Carlos Jesus Menendez Cervera, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Menendez Cervera is a member of the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN), Executive Secretary of the Social Democratic Party and an interim director of the Independent Libraries Project. He is a peaceful pro-democracy activist who believes that Cuba must be free, that all Cubans must be free to learn, free to worship, and free to enjoy human rights and the Rule of Law. Accordingly, Mr. Menendez Cervera has been targeted by the totalitarian regime.

Because of his steadfast belief in freedom and democracy, Mr. Menendez Cervera has been harassed and detained numerous times. In February 2007 Mr. Menendez Cervera was detained and thrown into a police vehicle after he was seen exiting the U.S. Interests Section's Center for Information Services. He was locked inside the vehicle and interrogated for nearly an hour before being driven to a nearby police station. At the station, where a member of the Cuban political police further interrogated him, his short wave radio and a photocopy of a Miami Herald article he carried were confiscated. Regime thugs attempted to incriminate Mr. Menendez Cervera but he was eventually released.

According to the CCDHRN, plainclothes members of the regime's secret police arrested Mr. Menendez Cervera on November 15, 2007. The CCDHRN said that Mr. Menendez Cervera was arrested when he entered the home of a well-known former prisoner of conscience, Mr. Hector Palacio, one of the ``Group of 75'' arrested as part of the Cuban dictatorship's heinous island-wide crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists in March 2003. Mr. Palacio, who was serving a 25-year sentence, was released from prison due to health concerns.

Mr. Menendez Cervera represents the best of the Cuban nation, a nation that, though oppressed for 49 years by a totalitarian tyranny, has never stopped fighting for its freedom and for the Rule of Law.

Madam Speaker, we must speak out and act against these arbitrary harassments and arrests, and the abominable disregard for human rights, human dignity, and human freedom just 90 miles from our shores. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Carlos Jesus Menendez Cervera and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.