Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, every week I rise to speak about the brave men and women who are languishing in prisons in totalitarian Cuba, that island that has been for 44 years oppressed by a totalitarian dictator. Each week I bring forth specific cases to remind our colleagues and all those who will listen about the horrors taking place just 90 miles from the shores of the United States.

This week, I rise to speak about Rafael Ibarra. Rafael Ibarra heads the 30th of November Democratic Party, an island wide opposition movement to the Castro tyranny. In 1994 he was sentenced to 20 years in prison and is currently at the prison known as Combinado del Este, after having spent 3 years in an isolation cell in Camaguey, hundreds of miles from his family. In 1997 his wife at the time, Maritza Lugo, also a highly respected pro-democracy activist, was arrested and incarcerated for 2 years; leaving their two daughters without their parents. On multiple occasions after 1999, Maritza would continue to be arrested and harassed by the Castro regime. Even when Maritza and Rafael were in prison at the same time, the dictator, Fidel Castro, sought to evict their two girls from their small farm house, which had become a gathering point for human rights and pro-democracy meetings.

Rafael Ibarra was one of the political prisoners who recently signed the Cuban flag painted on a pillow case and sent it to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

Maritza and her two daughters, at Rafael's request, fled Cuba as refugees in 2002 to the United States so that the two girls would be able to live in freedom.

Next year will mark 10 years that Rafael has been imprisoned. While other fathers have been able to watch and guide their daughters as they grow up, Rafael has been confined in Castro's Gulag for daring to work on behalf of a democratic Cuba.

Our thoughts and prayers are with him, as is our solidarity and our profound admiration.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and truly an honor this morning to welcome to the United States House of Representatives my friend, Father Michael Greer. Michael Greer is truly a wonderful human being and our community in South Florida is so very privileged that he lives and works with us.

Father Greer has been a teacher of theology. He possesses extraordinary academic credentials, with degrees in theological and liturgical studies from various institutions of higher learning, including the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, Father Greer's hometown. Father Greer has taught at the St. Vincent De Paul Seminary and Florida International University. But most of all Michael Greer has become known and beloved in our community by and through his work as the pastor of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church in Miami for the last 16 years.

The Good Shepherd community has flourished during Father Greer's years there. Love, compassion and mercy toward our fellow human beings are not only practiced at Good Shepherd, their presence there is perceived by our entire diverse community.

Michael Greer does not only believe in diversity, he lives it each day in his work, including his constant visits to the sick and his masses, in English, Spanish and Creole.

Good Shepherd now has a wonderful school, also. We are privileged today to have the presence as well of the school's distinguished principal, Dr. Maria Elena Lopez.

Mr. Speaker, the Congress of the United States is honored today by the visit of a humble and great man, Father Michael Greer of Miami.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hard work that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has put into this, along with, obviously, the leadership of the Committee on International Relations that have made it possible, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for this resolution to come forward in a timely basis.

Timeliness is critical here. Time is of the essence because of what the Chinese Communist regime is seeking to do precisely in these weeks in Hong Kong. It seems as though, Mr. Speaker, tyranny knows only one modus operandi, to repress the people by any means necessary to prevent dissent. We have seen this all too clearly with the dictator only 90 miles off our shores here, off the shores of the United States. And now a bastion of freedom in the face of one of the most tyrannical regimes in the world is facing a dire threat. Hong Kong may soon have its important freedoms destroyed by the so-called People's Republic of China, the PRC.

In an act of complete cowardice and desperation, the PRC has prepared new legislation called article 23 of the Basic Law which seeks to severely restrict the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong. The communist government in Beijing is pressuring the local government in Hong Kong to pass this legislation before July 9. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are in great jeopardy because of this legislation. The actions of the Chinese regime fly in the face of promise made by Beijing of ``one country, two systems,'' a 50-year commitment that was made to the world to preserve Hong Kong's respect for human liberties. But a mere 6 years after the British handed Hong Kong to the Communist Chinese, we see that the totalitarianism has no patience. It cannot stand to see the failures of its regime in the very face of the shining example that Hong Kong has been of freedom and civil liberties.

The elimination of freedom of speech holds countless dangers. For example, the recent SARS outbreak in China and many parts of the world was hastened in fact by the PRC's inability to deal with the truths. The regime's lies and deception hamstrung the world from dealing effectively with the crisis. The truths about the epidemic's extent were unclear; totalitarianism simply could not face or did not know how to face reality. Now, this created a grave health threat in Hong Kong and really for the rest of the world.

Freedom of speech, Mr. Speaker, is important for every aspect of life. It protects individual citizens from the deception that we saw in the example of the SARS crisis by offering multiple important sources of information. The PRC claims that this law it is seeking to impose on the people of Hong Kong is a means to ensure its national security. The rest of the world rightly sees it for what it is, an attempts to roll back liberties that Hong Kong has to thwart any pressure for greater liberties throughout the rest of China.

Now, if the world does not stand up to the PRC now, this will only be the beginning of the tightening of its totalitarian grip on the people of Hong Kong. The United States Government has an obligation to stand with the people of Hong Kong. The State Department must not fail to show the outrage of the American people at the destruction of the most basic liberties which have survived up to now on the island of freedom that is Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) had a wonderful idea the other week. We should speak every single week about the men and women who are languishing in prisons in the totalitarian state of Cuba, that island that has been for 44 years oppressed by a totalitarian dictator. So each week we bring forth, a number of us here, different political prisoners and speak specifically about their cases to remind our colleagues and those who will listen about the horrors just 90 miles from the shores of the United States.

The following are excerpts, Mr. Speaker, from a letter from dissident Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leyva who is blind. These excerpts of a letter were sent out of his prison in Holguin, Cuba, as recorded by his wife Maritza Calderin. The letter was sent to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

To Sylvia Iriondo of mothers and Women Against Repression. This is a letter, Mr. Speaker, sent out of prison by Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leyva.

After 13 months in prison, I have not been tried or sentenced by any court even as efforts have been made to persuade me to betray God and human rights and collaborate with the dictatorship. Since mid-December, State security used inmate Joe Prado, as he calls himself, to throw in my cell a substance that produced a burning sensation on the skin and nasal congestion, a great deal of phlegm and bronchial inflammation. The situation still continues.

Since January, they have added another substance to the sawdust they throw at me. This one gives me the sensation of millions of bugs constantly running all over me. It causes a great deal of itching and prevents me from sleeping. I do not know if this is a biological substance or chemical agent, but I know it is not insects because when I touch my skin there are no actual bugs that I can feel, although this sensation is palpable.

Normally the sawdust shower is a daily occurrence. Yesterday it started around 6:00 p.m. when I was on my knees praying. The sensation is that of a multitude of bugs suddenly coming down on my face and my body. This torment continues until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.

The inmate follows me everywhere. I have to eat out of a can that I try to keep covered all the time because he will throw the nausea- provoking substance into the food.

Sometimes I feel as if I have a chain attached to my body and the weight of the world on my shoulders. I feel that I am going to collapse, that I cannot take this anymore, but I pray to God, and Jesus Christ gives me strength. It is a constant struggle, a constant torture.

On February 1, I placed my mattress in front of the cell's iron bar doors to get some fresh air. Officer Fabu, the unit chief, snatched the mattress away from me, threw me on the floor, took me by the neck and dragged me. He told me that if I wanted to sleep, I could sleep on the bare floor with the dirt, other prisoner's shoes, roaches, ants, mice, et cetera.

One night they threw so much of the substance into the cell that it was as if the walls were boiling. So I had to retreat to my bed and resign myself to do without the little bit of fresh air I was getting through the iron bars.

The substance also causes acute pain in both of my eye sockets. The pain is so severe that at times it seems my eyes are popping out. Every day the unit chief threatens me with death if I continue the hunger strike to protest the prosecution's request of 8 years in prison.

They do not allow me to speak to my lawyer and I do not have religious assistance or access to any information. I am only allowed to listen to the round tables and the State-run newscasts. For the skeptics, I can say that hell does exist and Satan shows all of his faces here.

In here, I listen to the weeping of young and old women, their terrible and frightful laments forever embedded in my mind. They plead because they are locked in cells that are like drawers where are held men, women and the elderly, the sick and the incapacitated. They plead because the four walls become a grave site.

These are catacombs where people scream but the sound is drowned out by a hermetically sealed metal door. When the women plead, the prison guards laugh and say, ``What they want is a man.''

I trust God and our Lord, Jesus Christ, to give me the strength to face any situation, whether to live in squalor, as I live now, or to die and meet my Lord and my God.

The political prisoner of Cuba, Mr. Speaker, 90 miles from the shores of the United States, an island that has suffered 44 years of totalitarian and oppression while the world does nothing, but we do not forget and we will not continue denouncing the horrors of the totalitarianism that the people in Cuba suffer and we will not stop struggling until Cuba is free.

Mr. Speaker, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 represented a monumental undertaking to reorganize multiple Federal agencies with various jurisdictions. This legislation, as amended by the Select Committee on Homeland Security, is an important step in the committee's oversight of the newly created department. Among other things, the technical corrections in H.R. 1416 further clarify the powers and duties of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General.

Further, the gentleman from California's (Chairman Cox) mark addressed concerns raised about the original bill's language that would have potentially placed jurisdiction of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Under Secretary of Border and Transportation. These corrections provide guidance and more accountability by creating a clearer chain of command.

By abolishing the INS and reorganizing its functions, the Homeland Security Act I think made tremendous strides toward achieving a delicate balance between protecting our country from those who might do it harm and those properly seeking admission into the United States.

I look forward to continuing to work through the select committee under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and also with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and all of our colleagues to

continue to strike an important balance that we did in the example mentioned of Immigration and Border Control. Under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox), we are taking the first of many steps to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security is appropriately organized to not only help prevent terrorist attacks through heightened security and preparedness but also to respond effectively in times of need.

Our successes, Mr. Speaker, will depend much on the foundation which we have laid in the framework for this new department, and we will continue to work to ensure that we do so as effectively as possible.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking member, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 293 is an open rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2555, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

As we begin the cycle, the 2004 appropriations cycle, I think it is fitting that the first bill that the House considers will be the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act. It has been now approaching 2 years since the Nation was severely hurt by the cowardly attacks of September 11, 2001. Appropriate decisive and necessary steps in our defense and our foreign policy have been evident under the leadership of President Bush through successful efforts to rid Afghanistan of al Qaeda and the oppressive Taliban regime and recently to remove a ruthless dictator from power in Iraq. The United States military has performed and succeeded with extraordinary distinction each and every time that it has been called upon.

Now I look forward to the fair debate that is provided under this rule and the eventual passage of this legislation so that we can continue to act as well on local, State and Federal levels to reinforce the security of the United States of America. Funding from this Congress to protect the homeland in this legislation, the underlying legislation, is $29.4 billion, $1 billion over President Bush's request, and this legislation will provide $4.4 billion to the Office of Domestic Preparedness.

I have seen firsthand the work of Federal dollars when supplemented with State and local funding to make our communities safer. In south Florida the local governments and municipalities have taken extensive steps to secure the safety of airports and seaports, utilities and water supplies, but they certainly need the supplemental funding and grants that this bill makes available. With over 7,500 miles of land border and 361 seaports, the local authorities obviously, Mr. Speaker, will always be the front line of defense. First responders are the key to the effective protection of our communities. The Office of Domestic Preparedness has seen an increase in grants and aid of 1,400 percent since September 11, 2001. Through fiscal year 2004, this Congress has enacted or proposed over $17 billion in funding for local emergency work. Although much of the funding goes through State governments for distribution, of those funds 80 percent must be sent, passed on to the local municipalities by the States within 45 days.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. PENCE), truly one of the most thoughtful and really an extraordinary leader in this House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my good friend.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the legislation being brought forth today by the Committee on Appropriations. I know that the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), worked long and hard on this bill and deserves commendation by all of us as well as all the other Members that have worked so hard on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there are $29.4 billion in this underlying legislation for the Department of Homeland Security. That includes $4.4 billion for the Office of

Domestic Preparedness. Now, the resources that the Congress is appropriating for the Office of Domestic Preparedness constitutes an increase of 1,400 percent for that critically important issue since September 11, 2001. The Congress is doing its job.

I think all of us should and I am sure do praise the work of the Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Border Security, that has permitted them to bring forth this legislation. There is a very important initiative of the many new initiatives to protect the Nation that is being funded by this legislation, the Container Security Initiative, so that commerce, trade that we see in all the ports of America, those containers sent from abroad, that they be inspected before they leave the ports that they come from so that the security of the Nation is significantly augmented in that fashion. That Container Security Initiative is funded in this bill.

There are many other reasons why we should pass this legislation. I feel very proud of the underlying legislation and the fact that we are moving forward to increase the security of the American people. I urge support for the underlying legislation and this totally fair, open rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I will just say the following: The topic of immigration is a very much sensitive topic and it is emotional. It is perceived with a lot of emotion in the immigrant communities in this country. And so what I would ask is that we have the opportunity to review this amendment. I asked my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for a copy, and he said that the only copy is on the desk, so I have not had an opportunity to even read this amendment.

What I do know is the following, that this is a sensitive issue; that it requires that this House deliberate on it, and if it is an amendment that we have not even had an opportunity to read, then my suggestion would be to my friend that he give an opportunity to this House, through the regular process, for this to be studied; and if he will not, then I will vote against this amendment. I say so because this is a sensitive issue. This is an issue of extraordinary sensitivity to the immigrant communities in this country; and so I ask both sides of the aisle, if the amendment is not withdrawn, to vote it down.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 is a rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 660, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2003. The resolution makes in order a minority party substitute that provides ample opportunity to discuss this important legislation before us, while addressing certainly the concerns of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

This is a bipartisan bill. In fact, the legislation has 162 cosponsors on a bipartisan basis, and many, many groups that are interested in this issue are supporting this legislation.

H.R. 660 was introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). It has the strong support of the Speaker, of the Committee on Small Business chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), and the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Association Health Plans, or AHPs, allow access to needed health insurance for many who do not have health insurance. The House, I believe, Mr. Speaker, must act now to pass this long overdue legislation.

Really, the Nation is at a crossroads. We currently have over 40 million Americans without health insurance, approximately 60 percent of whom work or depend on small employers who often cannot afford these very important and needed benefits. This bill will help small business, in turn, help working families.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660 will allow for small businesses across the country to band together through established and respected trade or professional organizations to lower health care costs. This same model already works for large companies. We believe that small businesses should also be allowed to benefit from it.

Estimates predict that anywhere from 350,000 to 8 million uninsured workers will receive health care benefits through these AHPs even at the lowest projection, and that means positive progress for many currently uninsured men and women.

Now, we may hear all sorts of arguments concerning, for example, state-by-state regulations. We have already, however, seen many large companies provide health insurance because they

are allowed these procedures. These same benefits will now be obtainable through collective bargaining by the AHPs while, at the same time, reducing burdensome administration fees, precisely by having to comply with only one set of Federal regulations and not 50 individual sets of State regulations.

This bill also ensures that AHPs adhere to the important regulations in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, meaning that coverage cannot be denied based on health or claims experience.

I am very pleased that the Committee on Rules did a fine job in providing a full and fair process of debate through, among other things, permitting a Democrat substitute that addresses many of the points brought out through testimony in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660 is a good bill and House Resolution 283 is a fair rule. It is very important to the over 40 million uninsured Americans and the vitality of small business in the United States. Through this legislation, the House of Representatives continues its work to relieve many of the existing burdens on American families.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today, what it does is that it gives small businesses the ability to come together and have

the purchasing power and the leverage, if you will, that currently only large corporations have with the concept, with the goal of bringing down health care costs and offering products, offering health insurance, to those workers who work the overwhelming majority of workers in the United States who work for small businesses. That is what we are trying to do.

I heard my friend on the other side of the aisle say that they have other ideas. Well, we granted the Democrats the ability to bring forth to the floor today their substitute, and so let the debate begin. And if the membership believes that concerns are better addressed in their substitute, the membership may be swayed to support the substitute. We happen to believe our legislation is better. But that is why we will have this debate. So we granted the substitute. And we strongly believe that small businesses should have that ability to come together across State lines and acquire much more leverage and much more purchasing power when they are trying to provide health insurance for their workers. That is what we are trying to do today.

So we hear all sorts of things because we live in a wonderful democracy and everything can be brought out under the sun. But that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to lower health care costs. We are trying to provide health insurance to more people in this country by permitting small businesses to come together. That is what we are trying to do today. Democrats say they have a better idea. That is why we granted their substitute. We do not happen to believe they have a better idea, but we allowed the debate.

After hearing all sorts of confusing things, I wanted to, in case somebody is listening to the debate, get back to what we are actually trying to do, Mr. Speaker.

We think it is a fair rule. We think it is fair in this case to provide the opportunity to debate by making in order the minority party's substitute and we think we have a good product. A lot of Members have worked hard on this product. So we want to get to the debate and we would urge support for the rule by the membership.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation that we are bringing to the floor today is very important, as I stated before. We believe in small business. We believe in the fact that the overwhelming majority of workers in this country work in small businesses, and we want to incentivate those small businesses in providing health care, health insurance to their workers.

I think it is important to reduce the over 40 million number of workers in this country who do not have insurance. We think we are going to do so in a significant way with this legislation.

With regards to some of the allegations my friend from Texas, the previous speaker, said with regard to the low income tax credit, we passed that last week and we really do not believe, her words were, ``a white whale'' we passed. We do not think it is a white whale to pass the legislation that we passed. We do not think it is a white whale to include, as we did, tax breaks for military families. We do not think it is a whale to include tax breaks, as we did, for victims of the Shuttle crash tragedy. We do not think it is a whale to extend, as we did last week, in precisely the low income tax credit legislation, the child tax credit until the year 2010. We do not believe that is a whale. We believe it is important legislation.

But back to the point of what we are doing this week, because that we did last week, despite the fact that our

friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it, but it is a free country. What we are doing this week is bringing forth with this rule, that permits the Democratic substitute, legislation that will permit small businesses to come together and pool their resources and increase their leverage so that they can provide, so that they can provide to the millions of workers who work for small businesses and do not have health insurance, health insurance at better rates and with better terms. That is what we are doing.

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

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

I think it is important to point out, because my dear friend who just spoke stated that the President of the United States opposed, that is what the gentleman said, the legislation that we here in the House passed last week to provide precisely the low-income child tax credit and, in addition to that, provide tax breaks for military families and for families of the shuttle crash tragedy and extending the child tax credit through the year 2010.

The President supports the legislation. In fact, I am handed here the statement officially put out by the administration in support of the legislation that the House passed. This official statement of administration policy is dated June 12. So I wanted to make that clear on the record.

We are very proud of what we did last week, and we hope and certainly would encourage those who are now resolving any differences that may exist with our friends in the other body that they get that legislation to the floor of both bodies as soon as possible. That is what we did last week.

What we are doing this week is we are providing incentives for small businesses to provide health insurance to the millions of Americans who work for small businesses in this country and do not have health insurance. We think there are few issues as important as that issue. That is why we want to bring that legislation to the floor as soon as possible, and that is why we have brought a fair rule to the floor to be able to do so, a rule that makes in order the Democratic substitute and makes in order, in addition to that, a Democratic motion to recommit.

So we have been doubly fair in this rule and are very proud of the underlying legislation, the work product of Members that have worked long and hard to reduce the number, those millions of Americans who do not have health insurance and who work for small businesses. We want small businesses to have the same leverage, to have the same opportunities to pool their resources, to come together and do so like large corporations can do so today. That is why we feel so strongly about this legislation and are in support of it, and that is why we have brought it forward under a fair rule.

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

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

First of all, I would tell my dear friend the legislation that we passed last week, number one, is not a whale; and, number two, it is not languishing. And I am informed, I know I am not supposed to mention the other body, but I would wonder how I could get this fact across without doing so, the conference has begun. The conference has begun this morning. Or they have agreed to go to conference. Today there has been the agreement to go to conference precisely on the legislation that is not a whale. And, thus, the whale that is not is not languishing.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, again I do not know the answer to that, but I would say the following:

I would say to my good friend that, number one, I cannot get into the brain of all the conferees. I think we have to allow them to meet so that there will be a meeting of the minds, number one. But we certainly do not think that it is a whale to increase the child tax credit of $1,000 per child through the year 2010. We do not think that is a whale. We do not think it is a whale to eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit. We do not think it is a whale to accelerate the increase in the refundable child credit. We do not think it is a whale to provide tax relief and enhance tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. We do not think it is a whale to suspend the tax exempt status of designated terrorist organizations or to provide tax relief for astronauts' families, those who died on the space mission. So we think it is very important what the House did last week.

Now, another statement was made before by one of our friends on the other side of the aisle that the President does not support the measure that the House passed last week. Oh, no, no, no. The President is fully in support of the measure that the House passed last week. So the legislation that we passed last week we are extremely proud of and the President supports it.

But we are also very proud of and we are also strongly in support of what we are trying to do this week, Mr. Speaker. Because we believe that it should not only be the large corporations that have the ability to use their great leverage of numbers to offer health insurance to their workers with the best possible terms. We think small business, which is the backbone of the American economy, and hires the majority, employs the majority of the workers in this country, that small business also should have the opportunity to pool their numbers to acquire leverage in negotiating terms with those insurance companies and bring down the rates and offer the best possible terms to the millions of workers precisely because they work for the backbone of the American economy, small business. That is what we are doing this week.

So, no, what we did last week is not a whale. What we did last week is something we are very proud of, and we have the support of the President of the United States. But what we are doing this week is also very important, Mr. Speaker, and that is why, with all due respect, I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle that we have brought this important piece of legislation to the floor today with a rule that is fair, a rule that provides the minority party a substitute, the opportunity to bring forth any concerns they may have in the form of a substitute; and, in addition, to be doubly fair, we grant our friends on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to present a motion to recommit with any further and additional concerns they may have.

So we are very fair this morning, Mr. Speaker. We are very proud of the legislation that we are bringing to the floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, precisely because we are concerned about and care about the majority of the workers of this country who happen to work for small businesses, that we want to create the possibility that they will be able to have health insurance just like those who work for large corporations have health insurance, so precisely to mention some of the people who were mentioned by my friend, the previous speaker, yes, we think if someone is a janitor or a maid or work in a restaurant or drive a truck or deliver packages, you should also have health insurance, and your employer should be able to pool its resources to acquire the leverage and the purchasing power that large corporations have when they get into the room to negotiate terms and conditions with the insurance companies. That is what we are trying to do today.

I am very pleased that this debate has given us the opportunity to point out to our colleagues and to the American people what precisely the hard-working Members who have brought forth this work product, this legislation today, are allowing the Congress to do for the American people. And that is the majority of workers in this country who work for small businesses should also have the right to have health insurance, should also have the right to have their employer have the purchasing power and the leverage and negotiating terms and conditions for health insurance for the workers of America that the large companies have.

So that is the essence of what we are doing this week with regard to what we did last week, which was to provide the low-income child tax credit and to also provide an increase in the child credit through the year 2010 and eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit and accelerate the increase in the refundable child credit, provide tax relief and enhanced tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces, suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, provide tax relief for the families of astronauts who die on space missions. We think it is important to do that, and that is what we did last week.

They have agreed to go to conference today on that important piece of legislation, but let us not focus on one important piece of legislation to the detriment of another important piece of legislation, which is the one we are bringing forth today, and that is let us allow small business to have the leverage, have the purchasing power to face health insurance like large companies can. That is what we are doing today. We are proud of it, and we want to get to a debate under a fair rule which provides the Democrats a substitute and a motion to recommit. That is what we are doing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, we say vote yes. We say vote yes to allowing small businesses to have the leverage and purchasing power that large businesses have, to increase significantly the number of American workers, the majority of whom work for small businesses, who can have health insurance. We think the issue is that important that we should vote yes. Vote yes on the previous question, vote yes on the rule, and let us get to the underlying legislation, legislation which is as important as the legislation we passed last week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today I bring to

the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives the case of Cuban political prisoner Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, known as Antunez.

This young man has been in Castro's gulag since 1990, since his high school days, for failing to keep silent. An extraordinary leader of unlimited courage, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez was sentenced to 18 years in prison for so-called ``verbal enemy propaganda.''

Antunez, Mr. Speaker, is the face of the real Cuba.

Those who visit Cuba to have a good time, to take advantage of the regime-encouraged child prostitution, or simply to dine with the tyrant, may avoid seeing Antunez these days. But, sooner or later, Antunez will be free, Cuba will be free, and those who collaborated with his jailers and torturers will have to face him and many others like him.

Mr. Speaker, today we speak of a heroine, an extraordinary woman and leader who languishes in Castro's gulag, Marta Beatriz Roque, sentenced to 25 years for speaking her mind on behalf of freedom and democracy.

To those who wish to send billions of dollars to the dictatorship in Cuba by sending U.S. tourists to savor tropical drinks in the tourism apartheid resorts and take advantage of the regime-encouraged child prostitution, I think it is worthwhile to listen to Marta Beatriz, one of the last statements before she was picked up and sent to a gulag for 25 years.

We exhort all the governments of the civilized world not to prolong the agony of the Cuban people, not to finance the tyranny, not to support the tyranny; that they condemn the tourism apartheid, that they condemn the exploitation of laborers, the prostitution of our youth, the traffic of stolen property, the plunder of the Cuban nation. Solidarity is required today with those who advocated freedom in Cuba and those who also advocated freedom in exile.

Marta Beatriz Roque and all of the Cuban political prisoners, we do not forget you for one day. We will continue to fight until you are free and until all Cubans are free.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 265 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of 2115, the Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides ample opportunity to discuss this important reauthorization before us today.

H.R. 2115 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). This reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, appropriately titled for the 100th anniversary of powered flight, continues a tradition of funding the promotion of safety in our skies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some of the important provisions in the underlying legislation.

First, this legislation reauthorizes the FAA at $3.4 billion next year raising $200 million in the year after that. The FAA, nearly 45 years after it was created, takes an ever-present role as we take important steps to ensure America's security. The FAA is primarily responsible for the safety of our Nation's skies through activities ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the development of new air space technologies.

Within my district is Miami International Airport, which I have the privilege to represent, and is consistently one of the Nation's busiest for

both international and domestic travel. I am impressed by the level of public-private cooperation between organizations such as the FAA and Miami International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our Nation's airports and airlines were forced to deal with the ever- growing and obvious problem of security. I believe that this bill contributes to this endeavor while ensuring that those affected by these horrible acts are helped.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2115 provides for an extension of war risk insurance for both international and domestic flights while ensuring that this important insurance is extended to manufacturers and airline vendors through the Department of Transportation.

This Congress was quick to assist airlines following September 11, and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movements of people and goods that airlines provide, I think, demanded our attention. I think we also have to consider that smaller aircraft that were restricted for months following September 11 would also need attention of the Congress. Congress, I think, should act, and I think it will through this underlying legislation to help general aviation return to some stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their businesses. The bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators that were also greatly affected by increased security requirements.

H.R. 2115 is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is important to the continued needs of the FAA, obviously, and to the flying public. The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of the committee by voice vote.

I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman, for his great leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member.

Due to the importance of the FAA's role in the security of the United States, as well as in the economic well-being of the United States, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. I think it is important that we move forward and reauthorize the FAA, and we are doing that today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in case some colleagues are perhaps listening to the debate on television in their offices, we have brought forth the rule to consider the aviation reauthorization bill, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Federal Aviation Administration is of extreme importance to the safety of not only the flying public in the United States, but really to the economy of the United States. One of the pillars of the economy of the United States is precisely the superb system of aviation that we have.

But that does not happen by chance. We have an obligation to fund and reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and this legislation that we are attempting to get to today with this rule not only does that, but deals with a number of very important collateral issues in the area of aviation.

So, again, to be clear with regard to what we are attempting to do today, what the Committee on Rules has done, we have passed a rule to bring to the floor legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration in the context of very important legislation entitled Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. That is what we are discussing today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, in case somebody would like to determine what we have brought to the floor today, because obviously any students of political science who may have been watching this debate will have confirmed today that there is certainly no rule requiring germaneness in debate in the House of Representatives, the issue that we have brought to the floor today, that the Committee on Rules passed a rule in order to be able to do so, we did so yesterday, is the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

In order to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, the relevant committees worked long and hard on a very important piece of aviation legislation which we bring to the floor today. It is H.R. 2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. So that is what we are doing.

Now, since there is obviously no germaneness requirement with regard to debate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about other issues, and they are certainly welcome to do so. The semantic of the day had to do with the word ``tax.''

We are very proud of our record since we were honored by the American people with the majority in this Chamber with regard to the issue of taxes. I remember in my first term here, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member, we were still in the minority and our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled the agenda, they were the majority, being faced with one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. We on this side of the aisle opposed that tax increase, and our friends on the other side of the aisle pushed very hard, and at that time they had a Member of their party in the White House, to impose that record tax increase on the American people.

Every time we have been able to since we were given the majority by the American people, we have tried to do the opposite. We have tried to lessen the tax burden on the American people, and we are very proud of that.

So with regard to when it is germane to the debate on taxes, we are extremely proud of our record. That debate will continue, and I think it is a fundamental difference between the parties. We believe in and have every time we have been able to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

But today the debate that we bring forward, the legislation that we bring forward, is the important reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance of the Federal Aviation Administration, not only to the flying public and to the aviation industry in this country, but to the economy of the United States, as well as to our national security, that we should move forward and reauthorize that very important Federal agency, as well as effectuate the other important programs and initiatives that are included in this very significant piece of legislation.

With that in mind, I remind our colleagues what we are doing, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 249 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 249 waives clause (6)(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules.

The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the legislative day of May 22, 2003, providing for consideration or disposition of the bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution, any conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

This rule is the starting block to allow the House to consider legislation that will infuse our economy with job-creating tax relief, investment incentives, and overall economic growth. The House initially passed the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act earlier this month, and with today's action we can demonstrate our continued commitment to spurring economic expansion and providing stability to American workers, businesses and families.

Our economy needs a healthy dose of meaningful relief. This Congress has once before exhibited the leadership and sense of purpose needed to create jobs and protect workers. If we delay, we put American jobs and the strength of our economy at risk.

As we prepare to consider legislation extending unemployment compensation, I can think of no better complimentary action for Congress to adopt than legislation to boost employment levels, lower the tax burden, and grow the economy. It is imperative that we move forward at once. Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can proceed with a debate on this very important legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe it is important to move this legislation forward to grow our economy, to create jobs, help people who do not have jobs find jobs; and we strongly support it and strongly support this rule.

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

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

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

We are seeing a very clear difference in philosophy and opinion on the floor of the House today between the parties. It was said before by one of our friends on the other side of the aisle that when we cut taxes, when we reduce the burden of taxation on the American people, that that is an imposition. That was the word. We impose this. Congress, it was said, will impose a tax cut on the American people.

We believe that when we relieve the tax burden on the American people, that that is not an imposition on the American people. We believe it is their money in the first place, and we are relieving the tax burden on the American people. We are imposing less taxes from Washington.

So it is an interesting difference of opinion, and I think it is a fundamental difference of opinion. I think the American people are seeing it today. What we believe is that we should return as much as we can of the people's money to the people, and that they are best suited and know best how to spend their own money. So it is a fundamental difference.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing some interesting arguments today. I thought it was very interesting that one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that by virtue of the fact that the tax cut is set to expire, or parts of it at the end of the year 2008, that that will diminish the incentive for people to invest in the stock market and have the stock market thus increase and contribute to economic growth.

But what was failed to be pointed out is that the opponents of the tax cut have so diligently fought the tax cut that they were able to reduce the amount of the tax cut for the American people, the reduction of taxes for the American people; and thus that portion will expire previously before we would have wanted it to have expired. I do not think it is logical to be able to say I am going to fight the tax cut. You reduce it, and then they say since it expires sooner than it was meant to, then its effectiveness is to be questioned. Wait a minute, do you want the tax cut or do you not want the tax cut?

In a sense I thought that was somewhat incoherent, that argument; but of course there is a right to make any argument in this wonderful body.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

That is correct.

Yes, there is no doubt about that. But what I was pointing to was that the argument was made that the incentive to invest in the stock market is reduced by virtue of the fact that that tax cut, that tax incentive, is sunsetted.

What I am saying is it is people who oppose the tax cut, from whatever party, and the argument was made against the effectiveness of the tax cut with regard to the dividends part by my distinguished colleague who is a Democrat. I was pointing out that I think it is inconsistent to want to have it both ways and then to say it sunsets, so it is not effective. I thought there was an inconsistency there, and some incoherence.

But the gentleman is right, there are Republicans in the other body that are responsible for reducing the effectiveness of what we are talking about. But what we strongly believe and what we want to do, and we are doing it to the best of our ability, is to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pointed out previously that the debt burden may be increased. We want to reduce the debt burden by incentivizing economic growth which will not only create jobs now, but also lessen the debt burden in the future.

That is what I was pointing out with regard to the point on the effectiveness of the dividend part. If you are against the tax cut, but then say it sunsets, so it is not effective, I thought that was an incoherent argument.

I am not sure if it is. What we are doing with this rule is making possible for us to have that debate today, and obviously the people who have been involved in the negotiations will explain the details of what they ultimately end up with. We are trying to have that debate today, and that is why we have this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe it is very important to be able to get to this debate. We need to pass this rule, and then we will debate this matter further. It is obviously a fundamental matter. We believe that we need to do everything that we can to incentivize economic growth and job creation. That is why we are bringing this matter to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 248 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 248 is a closed rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 2185, an extension of the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This is a fair rule and one that will expedite the debate of this important extension so that we can provide needed economic security to the unemployed.

H.R. 2185 will provide for a 13-week extension of benefits for the unemployed. This legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated ``high unemployment'' States.

The extension of benefits under the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program is set to have expired at the end of this month. I am pleased to bring this rule to the floor as this House responds to those who are without work. With passage of this bill, we ensure there is no break in essential benefits to families across the country.

H.R. 2185 provides over $7 billion in extended Federal unemployment benefits in addition to the $16 billion that this Congress has previously approved for both State and Federal unemployment. With the original legislation in March of 2002 and the first extension in January of this year, Congress has succeeded in assuring those families in need will have the funds precisely to put food on the table and pay for child care so that they can focus on becoming employed once again. In fact, this extension will help 2.5 million people in addition to the 5 million that have been helped through previous extensions.

I would like to highlight the previous work by this body to not only provide Federal unemployment benefits but also $8 billion to the individual States for use in their individual unemployment programs.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) for his leadership and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for sponsoring this important legislation. H.R. 2185 is important legislation, important to the continued economic health of families in all of the 50 States.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully this should be a bipartisan effort to provide benefits to the unemployed, and this rule allows this Chamber to consider it and consider it today. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate and make clear that the legislation before us that we are bringing to the floor with this rule will provide for a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits in the Nation, and the legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated high-unemployment States.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the imagination on the other side of the aisle. In case somebody is watching this debate or listening to it, I would like to get us back to what we are debating.

H.R. 2185 will provide for a 13-week extension of benefits for the unemployed in the United States, and the legislation once again provides a total of 26 weeks of benefits to those in designated high- unemployment States.

I recall the debate we had last week when the ``theme du jour'' was that these unemployment benefits were going to expire before the end of May. Well, we are acting today so that they will not expire, and there will be another 13 weeks of benefits, plus 26 weeks in the high- unemployment States that are designated as such.

So that is what is before us today. It is an important piece of legislation. That is why I will continue to urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, simply to reiterate what we are about today, we are extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks throughout the Nation and for 26 weeks in the States that are classified as high-unemployment States. We have also provided previously $8 billion to the individual States for use in their individual unemployment programs, and almost $6 billion of those $8 billion that the Federal Government has provided to the States are still available to the States for use for their unemployment programs.

It is important to realize what we are talking about today with this legislation; this is not theory. We have legislation before us, we are bringing to the floor legislation to help 2.5 million unemployed people in this country. And we think that is an important piece of legislation, and we think that it should be passed. And that is why we seek to bring it forward with this rule. And that is why we urge support for this rule and then for the subsequent underlying legislation, to get that aid, that continued aid to 2.5 million people in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will close.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are extending the unemployment benefits for 2\1/2\ million Americans, and in doing so this Congress is appropriating $7 billion for that purpose. Again, it is 2\1/2\ million Americans who are unemployed that this legislation will help. That is in addition to the $16 billion that we have appropriated before for that purpose.

This is important legislation. It is to help people who need help, and I feel proud to have brought forward this rule. I urge support for the rule and that then we get to the underlying legislation and that we pass the underlying legislation to get extended unemployment benefits to 2\1/2\ million people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.