Floor Statements

I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Vermont, my friend Mr. Welch, for the time, and yield myself such time as I may consume.

On August 24, 1992, I remember Hurricane Andrew, category 5 storm, devastated my community, with wind gusts of over 200 miles per hour. That storm caused over $26 billion of damage to south Florida. Entire communities were destroyed. Hurricane Andrew caused 43 deaths, destroyed over 125,000 homes, left approximately 180,000 people homeless, and wiped out approximately 80 percent of the area's farms. Until Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast in 2005, Hurricane Andrew was the costliest natural disaster in the United States' history.

We in south Florida were very fortunate to receive generous assistance from fellow Americans in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. I know that assistance was essential for recovery, as it is for recovery in the gulf coast.

As someone who experienced Hurricane Andrew firsthand, I have an idea of the trials that confront those who live through horrific storms. The road to recovery is long and difficult. It doesn't come easy. But communities must come together and put all of their efforts into rebuilding and meeting the needs of the residents. We cannot walk away from our obligations to our fellow Americans. And, just as we did after Andrew, together we must build, together we must recover, together we must be better and stronger than before.

Immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the Republican majority in this Congress committed over $100 billion to help the area confront the immediate aftermath of the storm and to deal with the recovery effort. Included in that were $16.7 billion, almost $17 billion for the Community Development Block Grant programs. States applied for those funds through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. So far, HUD has approved under $11 billion of those funds to affected States.

Madam Speaker, we all agree that those who wish to return to New Orleans or other devastated areas should be able to do so. This is the position of Mr. Alphonso Jackson, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary, which he reiterated in August when he said during a visit to New Orleans, ``Every family who wants to come home should have the opportunity to come back.'' We should all do what we can to make certain that we rebuild, that we see communities rebuild and become even more robust and safer communities.

The underlying legislation seeks to assist in the provision of affordable housing to low-income families affected by Hurricane Katrina. There is some concern, Madam Speaker, that the legislation goes beyond the scope of the bill's stated intent. For example,

the legislation seeks to turn what is currently a temporary disaster voucher program into a permanent voucher, and to require HUD to provide tenant replacement vouchers for all public housing units not brought back on line, including those slated for demolition prior to the storms.

The American people have demonstrated their resiliency before and will do so again. Obviously our prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families of these horrific natural disasters. The spirit of community, generosity, and goodwill across the country continues to give me confidence that Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, just as Florida did before, will recover from these tragedies stronger and better than before.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He listened to the needs of Miami-Dade County with regard to how the distribution formula for HUD section 8, when it was changed in the CR that this Congress passed some weeks back. There was damage, damage cost, and the chairman is ameliorating and alleviating that damage, and we are grateful for that.

Now, Mrs. Biggert, our colleague from Illinois, went before the Rules Committee with an amendment to hold harmless all of the public housing agents from the damage done by the change in the formula in the CR, to hold harmless all the agencies through this calendar year. I am sorry, I truly am, that the majority in the Rules Committee refused to make in order Mrs. Biggert's amendment, and that is one of the reasons why we are opposing the rule today.

I think it is appropriate to point out that the majority is failing to live up to its commitment to run the House in an open and fair manner. The majority sent a notice to Members that they had until Monday at 10 a.m. to file amendments with the Rules Committee in order to be considered; however, the official committee report accompanying this bill was not filed until Friday, giving Members less than 1 business day to review the report and file amendments for consideration, not to mention the fact that most Members were already in their districts or traveling back home on Friday.

So I think it is fair to ask the question, how can the majority expect Members to review the actions of the Committee on Financial Services in a timely manner when they barely give them a chance to review the committee report?

The majority also promised to provide more open rules. Yes, they have provided several open rules on noncontroversial bills. I think it is important to ask, what about on bills where both sides do not necessarily agree on all aspects of the legislation? Will the majority continue to block amendments from the minority? What will they do on the supplemental appropriations bill? We shall soon find out.

I believe it is fair to say, if the majority is serious about their commitment to openness, they should allow for open rules on the underlying legislation and the supplemental appropriations bill which is coming forth soon. Members of the minority are concerned that this bill, as I stated before, turns a temporary disaster voucher program into a permanent one, and the concern that of the $110 billion appropriated by the 109th Congress, only a small portion has been distributed to those in need. In response to these concerns, they offered several thoughtful and germane amendments to the Rules Committee to address their concerns; however, the majority once again closed them out. I think that is unfortunate, and, again, that is why, Madam Speaker, we oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend from Georgia.

I think a fundamental part of the role of the opposition of the minority is to hold the majority accountable, not only to history, which our friend from Massachusetts is making reference to, but accountable with regard to the promises made by the majority.

And so it was the majority that reiterated that they would bring an open process. And, for example, we are already seeing not only, we have seen in bill after bill after bill, the minority closed out. But also, for example, rules passed by the majority, for example, requiring 3 days for people to view legislation before it comes to the floor, rules like that being waived.

So let's see, for example, what is done on the supplemental appropriations bill. Are they going to waive the rule passed by the majority requiring 3 days? Are they going to waive it with regard to that legislation as well?

And my friends on the other side of the aisle point out that, I think they said this is almost an open rule. It is not an open rule.

Mrs. Biggert, I mentioned before, had an amendment to hold harmless the public housing agencies from the effects of the change in the formula in the middle of the fiscal year with regard to section 8. And her amendment was not made in order.

So it is important to point that out. No, this is not an open rule nor an almost open rule nor a semi- or a pseudo-open rule. It is not an open rule.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I don't know exactly where the standard is in height. I will say that the promise was an open process, and that process does not exist, and that promise has not been kept. And in bill after bill after bill, the minority is closed out.

Now, it is true that some open rules have been permitted on legislation that we would bring forth under suspension. Madam Speaker, when bills are noncontroversial, many times they are brought forth under a process called suspension of the rules when there is mostly unanimity or often unanimity or almost unanimity in this House. Yes. So in bills like that we have seen some open rules where the minority has been able to have the amendments that it wishes to be considered.

But I just want to remind colleagues that may be listening to this debate, Madam Speaker, that when I point to Mrs. Biggert, it is not a theoretical, you know, height issue, whether so much height of a promise has been met. No. No. Mrs. Biggert is here and Mrs. Biggert is a colleague, and she went before the Rules Committee with an amendment that I thought was an important amendment and that she has worked hard on, and she was closed out.

As a matter of fact, I would like to recognize, at this point, another colleague, and then I will recognize Mrs. Biggert. I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, Dr. Price, who also had an amendment, a germane amendment, that he has worked on, that he has given thought and effort to and he brought to the Rules Committee so that we here could consider it today. And he was closed out.

So, again, not theory, not height, not almost closed, almost open. The gentleman from Georgia exists.

I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Price.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), who also had an amendment that was closed out, closed out by the majority in the Rules Committee.

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

We are grateful for the tolerance in the gentleman's committee with regard to the amendment presented by Mrs. Biggert. The Rules Committee could have been equally tolerant. Let us be clear.

In other words, the Rules Committee waives points of order, Madam Speaker, with regard to the whole bill; so, obviously, they could have waived a point of order with regard to the issue of germaneness for Mrs. Biggert. So the Rules Committee could have been amply tolerant. And that is one of the reasons, since the Rules Committee majority was not, with regard to our colleague who has put so much work into this issue to hold harmless the public housing agencies for the remainder of this year from the mistake made by the majority in the so-called continuing resolution, that we believe that she should have been able to make her point before all of the Members.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman and all who have participated in this debate for having done so. I think it has been a good debate.

I simply want to reiterate that on such an important issue, I am sorry that we do not have a truly open rule, one that obviously would satisfy any definition of the word. Under an open rule, for example, Mrs. Biggert could have had her hold-harmless amendment discussed and debated by the full House, as well as Dr. Price and others who wanted to have their amendments debated and discussed.

I would simply urge and request of my friends on the other side of the aisle that not only on noncontroversial bills should we have the ability for the minority to be heard, not only on noncontroversial bills or bills of consensus should there be open rules, but rather there should be open rules on other legislation, legislation where there will be genuine debate and even disagreement and discussion.

Madam Speaker, having said that, having no other speakers, and reiterating our opposition to the rule, and looking forward to the debate on the underlying legislation, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Jose Antonio Mola Porro, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

I would like to thank my friend from Florida for the time.

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

Congress has the constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch. In order to discharge our constitutional oversight responsibility, Congress depends on information obtained through agency reports and direct communication from Department heads. However, we also depend on information provided directly from employees within the agencies who are witnesses to the misuse of taxpayer dollars and alert Congress of the possible corruption or incompetence in management.

In 1989, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in an effort to strengthen statutory protections for Federal employees who assist in the elimination of fraud, waste, abuse, illegality or corruption.

H.R. 985 would modernize and expand this protection to Federal employees, with added whistleblower protection.

For example, the bill would extend protection to FBI agents, CIA agents, employees of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial Agency and the National Security Agency.

I think it is important to have whistleblower protection for the intelligence community. I would like to point out, however, that Congress has already passed such legislation. In 1998, Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to encourage the reporting to Congress of wrongdoing within the intelligence agencies.

In crafting the 1998 legislation, Congress sought to balance the need for information with national security requirements, giving intelligence community whistleblowers access to Congress but through the intelligence committees.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee denied the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hoekstra, from offering an amendment striking section 10 of the bill. Section 10 conflicts with the provisions of the existing Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.

The amendment, I believe, should have been made in order. National security is obviously one of the most important issues that we deal with. Before we make changes to how Congress handles intelligence oversight, we should have a full and complete debate on that particular provision. We could have done that if the majority had made the Hoekstra amendment in order.

Under the bill, defendants in whistleblower cases will now be able to make their cases to any Federal district court if the Merit Systems Protection Board does not take action within 180 days.

Part of this provision will allow claims to be processed on a more timely basis than they are now. However, there are possible problems with the provision.

Yesterday, Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Davis asked the Rules Committee that his amendment be made in order. His amendment sought to retain uniformity in the consideration of whistleblower cases in the Federal courts by keeping in place the current requirement that all whistleblower appeals go through the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rather than opening up appeals to all circuits.

Without the amendment, Federal employee whistleblowers could end up possessing a different set of rights and protections, depending on where they file their claim. However, unfortunately, the majority decided to close down the debate process on that issue, and refused to allow the House to debate that very important and meaningful amendment.

I believe the majority should have made those amendments, the Hoekstra amendment and the Davis amendment, in order, along with other important amendments brought before the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank again my distinguished friend from Florida for his courtesy in yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, we will oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order the amendment offered yesterday in the Rules Committee by the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Hoekstra.

The Hoekstra amendment would safeguard our national intelligence and allow the Intelligence Committee to appropriately address whistleblower concerns through regular order. While the Tierney amendment which was made in order, as was pointed out by my good friend, attempts to address these concerns, it still allows the possible disemination, we believe, of highly sensitive information to individuals outside of the Intelligence Community and, therefore, may put our security at risk.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Rene Montes de Oca Martija, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Montes de Oca Martija, Secretary General of the Pro Human Rights Party in Cuba, is a peaceful pro-democracy and human rights activist who has courageously denounced the cruel policies of the dictatorship and demanded freedom for the Cuban people. Although he has been a constant target of the brutal tyrant's machinery of repression, he has remained steadfast in his demands for freedom, democracy, and that the people of Cuba be allowed their inalienable rights.

Mr. Montes de Oca Martija, as early as the age of 8, has been a target of the dictator's villainous regime. On more than one occasion as a child he was persecuted and denied the most basic of human dignity in treatment simply because his mother was a Jehovah's Witness and considered a threat to the totalitarian regime. Although he has been jailed and detained on numerous occasions, Mr. Montes de Oca has always maintained his steadfast opposition to Castro's tyranny.

Most recently, on July 13, 2005, Rene Montes de Oca Martija was wrongfully arrested during a peaceful demonstration in Havana honoring the victims of the 13 de Marzo tugboat massacre of 1994 in which 72 men, women, and children attempting to flee the Cuban dictatorship in search of freedom, were chased down and attacked by Castro's security thugs, who mercilessly sank the 13 de Marzo. More than half of the unarmed refugees on the tugboat were systematically assassinated by drowning at the direct order of Castro while they were fighting to stay alive in the waters.

On December 13, 2006, Amnesty International reported their concern that Mr. Montes de Oca would not receive a fair trial in totalitarian Cuba since the right to a fair trial is severely limited in Cuba, with the courts and prosecutors under government control. Amnesty International went on to say that they believed that Mr. Montes de Oca had been detained solely for exercising his most basic human rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.

On February 27, 2007, after being locked in the totalitarian gulag for nearly 2 years, without ever being convicted of any genuine crime, Mr. Montes de Oca Martija was sentenced to 2 years on trumped-up charges of public disorder and locked in a dungeon in deplorable, life threatening conditions.

Mr. Montes de Oca Martija is one of the many heroes of the Cuban pro- democracy movement who are locked in the dungeons of the dictatorship for their beliefs. My Colleagues, we must not stand by in acquiescence while pro-democracy activists are suffering in the depraved prisons of tyrants. We must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Rene Montes de Oca Martija and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that our colleagues that may be watching this debate realize what is being debated. That is, that at the beginning of this Congress, as we all know because we voted on it, the Congress, pursuant to the request of the new majority and the Rules of the House, significantly increased the responsibilities of the Ethics Committee.

And yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Ethics Committee and the distinguished ranking member sought to have an amendment made in order in this legislation before us today, which is funding of the committees, to sufficiently fund the Ethics Committee, especially now that it has new significant additional responsibilities. That amendment was not made in order.

So what we are saying is, let's defeat the previous question so that the Ethics Committee, with all of its additional new responsibilities, can be funded because you can't have the newspaper article saying, oh, we're increasing all these requirements, ethics requirements, that are going to be supervised and executed by the Ethics Committee and then not fund the Ethics Committee sufficiently.

That is what our distinguished friends in the majority are doing. They get the headlines, but then they don't want to fund the Ethics Committee sufficiently so it can do its job correctly.

So what we are saying is, defeat the previous question and let's not support this rule because we need to fund the Ethics Committee sufficiently so it can do its job.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from California, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, American taxpayers have invested billions in sewage treatment infrastructure, resulting in decades of progress in reducing waterborne illness from contaminated drinking water and beach closures and shellfish bed closures.

Unfortunately, whenever there is an accidental breach in sewage treatment facilities, we see the repercussions of polluted water to human health, to our communities, and also to important industries such as tourism. That is why it is sound economic and environmental policy to invest in effective sewage treatment that ensures that the United States has a healthy and vibrant aquatic ecosystem and clean water.

But the costs for these sewer systems is very expensive. In 2003, the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department in my community evaluated its wastewater needs through the year 2020 and determined that in order to maintain adequate transmission systems capability, treatment, disposal and the prevention of sanitary sewer overflows that department alone would have to spend over $2 billion.

The cause of many sanitary sewer overflow events is that the infrastructure is failing due to structural deterioration and corrosion. Federal funding, such as is provided in this legislation, could give an additional incentive to proactively identify the infrastructure requiring replacement prior to failure.

In 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add section 221. Section 221 authorized appropriations of $750 billion for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to the Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to States and municipalities for controlling combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. This authorization was conditioned upon the receipt of at least $1.3 billion in appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds. No funds were appropriated for sewer overflow grants in either fiscal year 2002 or 2003.

This legislation that we bring to the floor today reauthorizes section 221 of the Clean Water Act which provides authority to help municipalities and

States control combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. Grants provided by this bill will help keep our water safe and healthy and will also keep our ecosystem clean of wastewater.

I know the majority party likes to pat themselves on the back for bringing another bill under a modified open rule. I wish to point out for the record that, once again, the majority does so only on bills that are clearly noncontroversial.

Let's take a close look at the bills that they previously allowed to be considered under an open rule. Both were clearly bipartisan bills, each of which was originally authorized by the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt. One passed the House of Representatives unanimously, the other by voice vote.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the majority really wants to live up to its campaign promise of more open process, they should provide open rules on bills that would be a bit more debatable.

Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, I strongly support the underlying legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding the time.

Madam Speaker, I come to this debate as a strong supporter of the right of collective bargaining. I, in my personal experience not only as a lawyer but someone obviously who has been long interested in issues related to our rule of law including the right of collective bargaining, have witnessed examples of coercion in the workplace and many more examples I have witnessed actually coming from management than from labor. And I think that that is unacceptable. As a matter of fact, as I told the distinguished author of this legislation when he appeared before the Rules Committee, I think there are important aspects of this legislation, from my vantage point, that are positive, such as increased enforcement with regard to unfair labor practices that I would like to see move forward and actually could very much support because I think that coercion goes at the heart and attacks, attacks our rule of law in a most insidious manner.

But I also think that the right to the secret ballot is extraordinarily important. And I know that my good friend

Mr. Sessions made reference to a letter, which I think is important because the letter deserves not only attention but respect, a letter that was sent by the distinguished author of this legislation and other distinguished Members of this House just a few years ago when there was an organizing campaign going on in the state of Puebla in Mexico, and this letter was sent to the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado of the state of Puebla. I guess that could be translated as the mediation and arbitration board of that state.

And the distinguished signers pointed out not only, and I quote, ``We encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections,'' but the letter goes on to say, ``We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union that might not otherwise be their choice.''

Now, it is important to recognize, as I did before, that I think there are more examples of intimidation from management than from unions, but the reality of the matter is that in this life I have never met a saint, much less an angel, and intimidation is a fact of life. And that is why in our human development, our imperfect human development, what we have achieved in terms of the ability for men and women to express their true sentiments is the secret ballot. And current law, by the way, permits, yes, it can be negotiated away. We give great weight and credence in our system to the right to contract, and the right to the secret ballot can be contracted, can be negotiated away. But it has to be mutually agreed to, according to current law, or if it is not mutually agreed to by employer and employees, then according to current law, 30 percent of the employees, if they sign cards, can have an election. So 30 percent of the workers in a unit can, by signing cards, get an election scheduled.

Now, I think we should work on expediting elections by the NLRB, and we should work to make sure that elections for certification are as expedited as they are for decertification. That is another issue that I would like to work with my colleagues on. But I cannot support this legislation which goes to the heart of that most essential aspect of the right of human beings to express themselves in private, which is the secret ballot.

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

Mr. Velazquez is a pro-democracy activist and independent journalist for Libertad, a small independent news agency founded by Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a political prisoner jailed during the condemnable March 2003 ``Black Spring'' crackdown. His peaceful activities and truthful articles have helped expose the nightmarish reality that is the Castro regime. Unfortunately, for this very reason he has been targeted by the tyrant's machinery of repression, as part of its effort to silence the brave men and women of Cuba's pro-democracy movement.

On December 10, 2006, International Human Rights Day, Mr. Velazquez Toranzo, began a march for Cuban Dignity in Eastern Cuba at the shrine of Our Lady of Charity, Cuba's patron saint, demanding freedom for all Cuban political prisoners, respect for human rights, and the cessation of repression against peaceful pro-democracy activists. Mr. Velazquez Toranzo, who was marching with his wife, Barbara Gonzalez Cruz, and his daughter, Rufina Velazquez Gonzalez, intended to travel 950 kilometers by foot in hope of ending their march for freedom in Havana.

On their journey, Mr. Velazquez Toranzo, his family and other marchers were detained twice in Ciego de Avila and Camaguey, Cuba, for peacefully advocating for the most basic freedoms for the Cuban people. Despite being detained, nearly being run over twice by State Security Thugs, and knowing full well the brutal consequences that await those who speak the truth under the nightmare that is the Castro tyranny, they continued their peaceful march for human rights and dignity.

On January 23, 2007, 18 days after beginning his peaceful march for dignity, Mr. Velazquez Toranzo and his family were arrested for a third time in the city of Ciego de Avila. His wife and daughter were released but Mr. Velazquez Toranzo was held at a police station and then transferred to the ``El Tipico'' provincial prison. And there, after months of harassment by State Security thugs, Mr. Velazquez Toranzo was ``sentenced'' to suffer 3 years of horror in the squalor of a subhuman gulag for his supposed crime, ``anti-social conduct.''

Madam Speaker, Mr. Velazquez Toranzo is languishing in an infernal gulag just 90 miles from our shores. It is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that, while the world stands by in silence and acquiescence, independent journalists who write the truth about totalitarianism are jailed and tortured simply for exposing truth. We must demand immediate freedom for Ramon Velazquez Toranzo and all political prisoners in totalitarian Cuba.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 161 provides that it will be in order at any time on the legislative day of today to consider H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a suspension of the rules.

The passage of these tax cuts for small businesses across the country is very important. Small business, Mr. Speaker, is the engine that drives our economy. Small businesses employ over half of all private- sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of all United States private payroll.

Over the last decade, small businesses have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs each year. Hispanic small businesses now number over 2 million, Mr. Speaker, and their number has been growing at three times the average of non-Hispanic businesses.

But we must not take the extraordinary performance of small businesses for granted. They still face considerable hurdles, so it is appropriate that steps be taken to ensure that small businesses are able to continue to grow and employ more and more Americans.

The Small Business Tax Relief Act will provide extraordinary savings to small businesses in the United States through targeted tax cuts. The bill increases the amount that small businesses will be able to deduct for equipment purchases and extends the deduction to the year 2010. It also extends the work opportunities tax credit for another year and expands three categories of the eligible workers to encourage employers to hire disabled veterans, high-risk youth, and individuals with disabilities.

Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, businesses will be able to use their FICA tax tip credit against their regular and AMT liability, saving small businesses over $500 million over 10 years.

The Small Business Tax Relief Act also allows spouses who operate a business together to file as a sole proprietorship, without penalty. It allows both spouses to claim Medicare and Social Security taxes. This is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It will help our small businesses continue their admirable growth and job creation.

I would like to commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, and the ranking member, Mr. McCrery, and all of those who, in a bipartisan manner, have worked to quickly bring this important bill to the floor for debate.

I look forward to the debate on H.R. 976. However, Mr. Speaker, we could have done more. On Wednesday, at the hearing of the Rules Committee and the markup of this rule, Mr. Sessions, my dear colleague from Texas, the gentleman from Texas, offered an amendment to the rule that would have allowed us to consider H.R. 60 under suspension of the rules today.

H.R. 60, authored by our colleague, Mr. Baird, a Democrat, would make the local and State sales tax deduction permanent. This sales tax deduction is set to expire at the end of this year. Without passage of this bipartisan legislation to extend the deduction, millions of individuals and States without an income tax, such as Texas, Washington, Nevada, Tennessee, South Dakota, Wyoming and Florida, will face an unnecessary and unfortunate tax increase. However, the majority in the Committee on Rules voted against allowing us to debate and pass this widely supported bipartisan piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Florida, who has worked so hard to make the sales tax a deductible and who is obviously extremely concerned about the fact that we cannot vote on it today, Ms. Brown-Waite.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of yielding 5 minutes to my colleague, who, in the Rules Committee, made the motion for us to debate today the sales tax deduction to allow us to consider legislation by Mr. Baird, a Democrat. Unfortunately, the majority of the Rules Committee did not allow that motion to go forward, voted it down, that amendment.

But it is my pleasure to recognize for 5 minutes not only a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, but a great leader in this House whom I am honored to serve with, Mr. Sessions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everybody who participated in this debate and all of those who worked so hard to bring forth this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.

I will be asking for a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker, on the previous question, so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider H.R. 60, a bill by our colleague, Mr. Baird, under suspension of the rules.

As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed last year the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which included State and local sales tax deductions.

Over the last 2 years, the sales tax deduction has resulted in billions of dollars in tax savings to millions of hardworking taxpayers throughout the United States. These tax savings have meant a boost to the economy of seven important States affected by the deduction: Washington, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, South Dakota and Wyoming. However, that important tax deduction will expire at the end of this year. Failure to extend the sales tax deduction will mean that our constituents may face an unfortunate tax increase.

By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote on H.R. 60. Without passage of this important legislation that extends the sales tax deduction, millions in States without an income tax, Washington, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, South Dakota and Wyoming, will face a tax increase.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Rafael Benitez Chui, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Rafael Benitez Chui is a father of three and a peaceful pro- democracy activist in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Benitez Chui knows with complete certainty that Cuba must be liberated from the nightmare that is the Castro regime in order for his children and for all the children of Cuba to be able to live in freedom, with the ability to exercise their most basic human rights. Because of his belief in freedom, democracy and a better future for his children, Mr. Benitez Chui became a target for the tyrant's machinery of repression.

As a result of the dictator's condemnable March 2003 crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy activists, Mr. Benitez Chui, along with his wife Migdalia Hernandez Enamorado, went to a police unit in Guantanamo to protest the arrest of two of their fellow pro-democracy leaders, Manuel Ubals and Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta. Unfortunately, on March 19, 2003 shortly after arriving at the police unit, dictatorship thugs arrested both Mr. Benitez Chui and his wife while they peacefully protested the unjust treatment of their fellow human rights activists.

Unfortunately, their peaceful protest was justification enough for the communist regime to incarcerate Mr. Benitez. On September 18, 2003, after 7 months confinement to a hellish existence in the totalitarian gulag, 7 months after his initial detention, Mr. Benitez Chui was finally, in a sham trial, ``sentenced'' to 4 years for the alleged crime of ``contempt''.

Since his incarceration, Mr. Benitez Chui has endured an inhuman horror in the dictatorship's gulags. In 2004, he was severely beaten by regime thugs and robbed of his few personal belongings. When Mr. Benitez Chui attempted to defend himself against the brutal assault, he was placed in a so-called ``punishment cell''. These ``punishment cells'' are usually located in the basements of prisons, with continuous dark conditions, no available water, and a hole in the ground for a toilet.

Despite nearly 4 years of brutal, life threatening conditions and continued psychological torture, Mr. Benitez Chui has never wavered in his commitment to the freedom of all the Cuban people. He has never lost his hope that one day his three children will live in a democratic Cuba free of the murderous totalitarian regime that has oppressed Cuba for almost half a century. Mr. Benitez is one of the many heroes of the Cuban pro-democracy movement who are locked up in the dungeons of the dictatorship for believing in a better life for the Cuban people, all of whom are trapped in the horror of the brutal tyranny.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Benitez Chui is representative of the best of the Cuban people, their dignity and their thirst for freedom and democracy. It is unconscionable, in the 21st century, for the world to stand by in silence while valiant men and women are caged by a demented and vile oppressor simply for peacefully expressing opinions. We must demand the immediate freedom of Mr. Benitez Chui and all the prisoners of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my dear friend from California, for the time.

Mr. Speaker, after the debate in the Rules Committee last night where I hoped, and I made clear that it was my hope, that there would be an opportunity for the minority to present an alternative to this debate in the form of an alternative motion, an amendment, it was disappointing that that was not made possible. So now we are faced with a resolution before us that we cannot seek to amend with regard to that extraordinarily serious problem facing the United States of America: the crisis in Iraq.

Iraq presents the United States, Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the free world, with very difficult options, tough options. None of the options before us are simple nor easy. Clearly, as in every war in history, mistakes have been made. I believe, for example, that we should have learned the lessons from a neighbor of Iraq, from the creation in the 20th century of the Turkish state, modern Turkish state, by Ataturk, the father of that state, where the ability of religious parties, for example, to insert themselves into the political process was significantly limited. I think we could have done things such as that.

I admit, we all must admit, that mistakes have been made. But, Mr. Speaker, as the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset said: ``Man is man plus his circumstances,'' and our circumstances in Iraq today constitute our options.

What are our options? One option is partition. I do not believe that it is reasonable nor appropriate nor acceptable to very important realities in the region and factors in the region, I don't think that is a reasonable alternative. Another alternative is to withdraw before the situation is stabilized, before the democratically elected government in Iraq is stable. That is an option.

I happen to believe that the resolution before us, in effect, says this is the beginning of withdrawal. That is what the resolution says in effect. Melt it down. The resolution states this is the beginning of withdrawal, despite the fact that the situation in Iraq by the democratically elected government has not been stabilized.

So what will occur if we withdraw prematurely? Ethnic cleansing on a massive scale; obviously, the collapse of the current government; the creation of an ideal vacuum in power, a power vacuum for international terrorism. We would see the creation of terrorist camps that would dwarf what we saw in Afghanistan before 9/11. Inevitably a surge in influence and the projection of power by the Iranian dictatorship. That uncontrolled projection of power in its quest to acquire, by the way, a nuclear weapon, that uncontrolled projection of power by Iran may very possibly lead to a regional war, Mr. Speaker, because the reality of the matter is that that region of the world cannot permit the uncontrolled projection of power by the Iranian dictatorship.

Now, the withdrawal could be, as I have stated, either announced and immediate or announced and phased. The reality of the matter is what the new congressional majority is bringing to the floor today is an announcement of withdrawal irrespective of what the situation may be on the ground in Iraq.

Another alternative, Mr. Speaker, is the President of the United States' attempt to stabilize the situation, to provide sufficient order, sufficient absence of chaos, for the government of Iraq to survive, for the sake not only of Iraq but of our national security. That is an option the President of the United States is trying to convert into a reality for the sake of our national security.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the options before us are not difficult. The resolution before us constitutes the wrong message at the wrong time in the wrong manner.

Mr. Speaker, I have got some very important visitors in my office at this time, but I mentioned to them, and I know they understand, that I wanted to come down to speak a minute on someone who has long been south Florida's treasure and really became the national treasure, Max Mayfield, who has saved countless lives.

And with his demeanor and professionalism even in those extraordinarily tense moments, Mr. Speaker, when storms are approaching or have arrived, Max was that great sea of tranquility that helped our communities wherever those storms were approaching through those tense moments. And he is really an extraordinary human being with a wonderful team. So my heart goes out to that team that he helped build and is still there doing great work.

And to Max, as he begins this new chapter in his life, Godspeed, with our profound gratitude for having helped so many for so many years with your very important work, Max Mayfield.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Manuel Ubals Gonzalez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Ubals Gonzalez, President of the Political Prisoners and Ex- Prisoners Club in Guantanamo, Cuba, is a peaceful pro-democracy activist who has worked for basic human rights for the people of Cuba. The persistent repression of human rights on that oppressed island forced Mr. Ubals Gonzales to choose between a life without rights or fighting for the cause of liberty for the Cuban people. Mr. Ubals Gonzalez admirably chose to dedicate his life to the battle for freedom for the Cuban people.

He joined his fellow Cuban pro-democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders and committed himself to helping shed light on the atrocities committed by the brutal tyrant and to help put an end to the abhorrent nightmare that is the Castro regime. On March 20, 2003, as part of the totalitarian regime's ruthless crackdown on pro- democracy activists, Mr. Ubals Gonzalez was arrested and, after a farce trial, ``sentenced'' to 20 years in the totalitarian gulag.

After this sham trial, Mr. Ubals Gonzalez was sentenced to 20 years in Castro's maniacal dungeon for nothing other than a peaceful exercise of his fundamental right to voice his opinion. Let me be very clear, Mr. Ubals Gonzalez in suffering in depraved conditions that the U.S. State Department describes as, ``Harsh and life threatening'' in which ``police and prison officials beat, neglect, isolate and deny medical treatment to detainees and prisoners.''

As always with prisoners of conscience in Cuba, Mr. Ubals Gonzalez does not suffer this torture alone. According to the International Committee for Democracy in Cuba, his wife, Mayelin Bolivar Gonzalez, must travel by train with her three children to visit her husband in prison. However, since the train does not stop at the prison, Mrs. Ubals is forced to watch her two oldest children jump from a moving train before following suit, holding the youngest in her arms every single time she attempts to visit her husband.

Mr. Ubals Gonzalez is a brilliant example of the fighting spirit of the Cuban people: of their rejection of the brutality, discrimination and depravity of the totalitarian despot. He is languishing in repulsive squalor because he does not subscribe to the lies and propaganda forced upon Cuba by the communist regime.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that human beings just 90 miles from our shore are locked in a barbarously cruel gulag because they believe they have a right to freedom and a democratic government. My Colleagues, we must demand freedom and human rights for all people, especially those who live under the darkness of totalitarian regimes. We must demand the unconditional freedom for Manuel Ubals Gonzalez and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Arroyo Carmona is an independent journalist in a country oppressed by a regime that mandates official propaganda and prohibits news of the truth. He believes in writing and speaking the truth about the monstrous regime and that Cuba should and will be free from the totalitarian nightmare that is the Castro dictatorship. Because he believes in freedom for the Cuban people and because he actively and peacefully advocates for change, Mr. Arroyo Carmona has been repeatedly harassed and incarcerated by the tyrant's machinery.

According to Human Rights Watch, Mr. Arroyo Carmona has been detained numerous times for his pro-democracy activism. In January 1995, he was beaten and jailed for 9 days after organizing a ceremony commemorating the birth of Jose Marti. In January 2000, he was charged with ``hoarding'' and ``sentenced'' to 18 months in the hellish totalitarian gulag for organizing a toy drive and distributing toys to needy Cuban children. He served 6 months of his sentence before being released only to be severely beaten on three separate occasions in October of that same year.

Subsequently, on March 18, 2003, as part of the dictator's condemnable crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy advocates, Mr. Arroyo Carmona was arrested because of his belief in liberty over repression. In a sham trial, he was ``sentenced'' on trumped-up charges that he ``undermined national independence and territorial integrity'' to 26 years in the condemnable totalitarian gulag.

Mr. Arroyo Carmona has bravely participated in hunger strikes to protest the abhorrent conditions in the gulag and the depraved treatment of fellow political prisoners. Tragically, his daily struggle and suffering in an infernal roach infested gulag with hardly any contact with the outside world is not enough for the Cuban dictatorship, a regime of gangsters, by gangsters, and for gangsters, run by a gangster in chief. According to Reporters Without Borders, Mr. Arroyo is subjected to constant humiliation, physical torture and threats that he will never leave prison alive.

Mr. Arroyo Carmona is just one of the many heroes of the peaceful pro-democracy opposition on that oppressed island. Despite incessant harassment, incarceration and abuse, he remains committed to the conviction that freedom and democracy are inalienable rights of the Cuban people.

Madam Speaker, it remains categorically offensive that men and women who demand freedom from tyranny are locked in the dungeons of monsters. Here, under the dome that represents representative democracy, we must demand the liberation of all who suffer in the darkness of totalitarianism. My colleagues we must demand the immediate release of Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my profound respect for the Delegates in this House, and most especially for their constituents. But above all, I rise, Mr. Speaker, with profound respect for the documents that we all swear to uphold when we are elected, when we take possession of this awesome responsibility, an honor granted to us by our constituents.

I think there can be few parts of the United States Constitution that are clearer when Article I, section 2 state ``that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''

Now, when in 1970, as you know Mr. Speaker, before there had been by law and precedent, Delegates of territories had been given some privileges in this House. And then in 1970 there was a clarification of those privileges. The vote was given to Delegates in standing committees in 1970. At that time, when the vote was given to Delegates in standing committees, there was some concern that that may be unconstitutional.

In fact, there was a colloquy on this floor where Congressman B.F. Sisk of California asked future Speaker, then Representative Tom Foley, about that issue. And I would like to read what future Speaker Foley said. ``Now, it is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give the Resident Commissioner,'' and he is speaking about all of the Delegates, ``a vote in the Committee of the Whole or the full House.''

The point is that the constitutional issue does not touch preliminary advisory votes, which is what standing committee votes are, but only the votes which are cast in the Committee of the Whole or the full House.

Those votes, Mr. Foley said, can be cast only by Members of Congress. Now the appellate court, interestingly enough, and I really find it difficult to believe that it was not appealed to the Supreme Court, because the appellate court said, well, true, but we are not dealing with votes in this rule, we are dealing with a figment of our imagination related to votes because they do not count.

If they do count in the outcome of an amendment, there is an automatic revote. So they are not really votes. So since they are not really votes, they are not really constitutional. I think that was not a serious, I respectfully say this, ruling by the district court. But obviously this time if it does pass, I would assume that it will go to the Supreme Court where perhaps there will be a more serious ruling.