Floor Statements

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

I rise in objection to the Democratic motion to instruct. Let me first state that if it is such a politically expedient way in which to do things, why do they drop the date of allowing this credit to continue? The Democrats actually have a window. It is right after the election of 2004 where the $1,000 credit drops to $700. I do not know why we would frame a bill that has such an expiration date. If it is such a great idea, let us continue to give this credit past the election of 2004 to many families who desperately need this help in raising their children.

As a result of their bill, millions of low- and middle-income families will receive a smaller child tax credit right after the election. The House-passed bill ensures that the child credit remain at the $1,000 level throughout the decade. The Democratic motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty and the child credit until 2010. And even then it only does so for 1 year. Under the Democratic motion, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married.

The House bill benefits middle-income families by eliminating the child credit immediately. The House bill does not deny that credit to military families. Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a refundable child credit under the House-passed bill. The Democratic motion to instruct would only increase the refundable child credit for some military families by allowing them to take into account tax-free income when they compute their refundable credit. The House-passed bill provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million of military tax benefits that were not passed by the other Chamber. These provisions passed the House on numerous occasions, and they are waiting action in the Senate.

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

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

Let me first state, and I want to be emphatic here about the payroll tax provisions. Payroll taxes are there for the purposes of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The payroll taxes that are contributed by those workers earning $26,000 and below are there for their future, to protect them in their old age, to provide health care benefits, and to provide a retirement payment month by month. Those payroll taxes that are paid by those workers earning less than $26,000 and the payments they receive once they retire are proportionally higher than those paying a higher amount of money. We have blended the system to allow those taxpayers who have been struggling with incomes to retire at least with a check that gives them some security and safety.

I have heard a lot of talk around here about getting rid of payroll taxes; let us suspend payroll taxes. And yet, at the same time, I hear from the same people advocating that we have to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare. I agree we need to preserve those. But sometimes I hear the arguments made by the other side of the aisle, and it really does not wash with common sense. If somebody goes to McDonald's and there are two burgers for a dollar, they cannot go to the window and say, you know what, I earn so little money, give me the burger and I am not going to give you the dollar. We are clearly taking care of people in the lower rungs who are working hard by earned income tax credits and other devices. There are things offered in the school programs such as free and reduced lunches. We have community centers set up for families for health care benefits. In so many of our bills we are providing community health services for those who are either disenfranchised or do not have insurance. We have worked hard in a bipartisan fashion to provide for the vulnerable in our society. And this constant harangue, if you will, that we are so mean-spirited on this side of the aisle, strikes me as just a political attack, rather than a sensible debate on public policy. If their tax credit is so good, why do they not extend it past 2004? Maybe there are some Senators who need to vote for reelection. Let us give it and let us take it away after we have been successfully reelected.

So as we debate this, let us continue to discuss this, and I agree with the gentlewoman from California. Those people that are making $26,000 or below are paying sales tax. Regrettably, we cannot afford to deduct sales taxes from our income tax. If one lives in a city or a county or a State that has an income tax, you can deduct that income tax against your liabilities for Federal income tax purposes. So if we are going to have this conversation, maybe we should get into the discussion of sales tax deductibility.

So I continue to assert that we have provided for particularly military personnel, and I continue to rise in objection to the Democratic motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will proceed immediately to allow the gentleman to have the remainder of his time, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues for their courteous debate. Obviously, we know the hour is late. I know the people in Hawaii probably enjoy us speaking, but those who are working for the House chamber certainly need to get home to their families, and I certainly want to congratulate the Members for caring about all American families.

There is no question people are struggling at all ends of the spectrum: teachers, police officers, married couples, single individuals. We hope to find balance in the tax bills, and we certainly think we have found balance in most of them. We can disagree on certain provisions, but I do again appreciate them taking time to come to the floor and addressing their concerns, and as we continue to negotiate these bills, I am certain we will reach some reasonable compromises that will benefit all of society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) who have worked and labored over this bill for quite some time. I want to thank them for their dedication to a number of key principles in this bill; but I first must take some exception because it seems no matter what we are talking about on this floor, it is always not enough. There is never enough provided for the bills that they would like to pass on to the taxpayers.

We keep hearing about deficits, and I know they know a lot about deficits on the other side because for 40 years they rolled the deficits up to a $5.7 trillion mortgage on America's future. We talk about giving some tax relief to American taxpayers, but we have a disconnect because we talk in this Capitol like it is our money rather than theirs.

Now, the first case of anthrax and the first death of anthrax happened in my county, in Palm Beach County, JFK Medical Center. So I know firsthand the efforts our local public health officials and the CDC and others had in grappling with this emerging concern and epidemic, at least at that time, a concern that panicked many Americans. And thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and this committee, they have added substantially to the budgets for the Centers for Disease Control, for Community Health Centers, for the National Institutes of Health. In almost every one category we look at, significant and substantial increases in every category. Monies for special education grants, more money for title I. Prioritizing Reading First fully funds the program at the requested level of $1.15 billion. Improving teacher quality. It is not about how many teachers we have. It is the quality of those teaching. My father was a teacher and principal in the public school systems, so I know a little bit of what I speak. And when I see the improvements to help teachers grapple with the ever-changing dynamics, we are particularly proud of the fact that this bill does, in fact, have increased funding. Yes, an increase of 4 percent from fiscal year 2003.

Now, I guess if the other side had their choice, it would be 20 percent; and we would pass the bill on to those same taxpayers that they are seeming so critically concerned about when it comes to deficit spending. If you are in college and you have a Pell grant, we are maintaining that level at the highest maximum grant in the program's history. Infectious diseases, enhances CDC resources for preventing and controlling emerging infectious diseases. Threats such as SARS, West Nile Virus and monkey pox; 24 million of new, additional dollars in that category alone. Homeland security, bio-defense program supported at $1.625 billion dollars in NIH. Ryan White increase of $24 million for a total funding of $2 billion.

How can anyone say this bill does not meet the test of time? Faith- based and community initiatives increasing the compassion capital fund at $50 million, and mentoring children of prisoners at $25 million. Abstinence education, which is important.

So as we scan the bill and as people listen to our voices, I hope they will not be dissuaded by some of the harsh rhetoric. Yes, we are having some tax relief for taxpayers. We are, in fact, having a chance to give those very hardworking Americans a chance to make their ends meets, to pay their bills, to be able to spend on their families. I do not think that there is anything wrong with a firefighter and a teacher who work side by side, husband and wife, who are raising kids, to have a little bit of tax relief. In fact, I do not hear anybody from the other side of the aisle offering to rebate their tax funds to the Treasury. I think it is fair to help balance the budget. I think it is fair to help fund programs that are important to America. I think it is important to give tax relief to American families.

I think we can do it all. This is not about single choices. This is about balancing our priorities and our needs. This bill, the full committee bill on Labor-HHS and Education does that dramatically, does it efficiently, does it effectively, and provides for the kind of programs that I think Americans have long come to expect of their Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and to both chairmen who have brought this bill to the floor, I congratulate them for this landmark legislation.

During the rule debate, it was a little depressing to me to hear so many people refer to the fact that our seniors would not be able to figure these programs out. These people we are talking about survived the Depression, they fought in World War II and Korea, they taught us how to read and write, they taught us how to ride our bikes and drive our cars. They are our parents. They are smart enough to figure this out.

I come from a district in Florida, the fifth largest population of Medicare recipients in the Nation, the fifth largest Medicare recipients in the Nation. When I go to town hall meetings, they do not ask for anything free. They want a break. They want a discount. They want an opportunity to shop. They want freedom in the marketplace. But they want security to know they will not go broke. This bill provides that.

The bill provides for a discount card that I helped author, along with Senator Hagel, which provides immediate access to discount pharmaceutical prices. Real reforms in Medicare allowing generics, something I have heard about on this floor repeatedly from the other side of the aisle. We have to get generics to the market place sooner, faster, quicker, cheaper. That is in this bill.

This bill provides for increased rural funding for hospitals, which is an incredibly important thing for people in my community and rural communities like Glades, Okeechobee, Hendry, and Highlands County. These are Medicare reforms that will save billions of dollars.

Yes, this is an historic night, not one to be celebrating fear and animosity or negative pessimism about our seniors, but rejoicing in the fact that we are helping them provide for themselves and their families.

Yes, there is a phenomenal opportunity tonight to pass a bill that will help seniors in my community. And the instructions they gave me when I first ran for office and have continued to give me is do not make it free, do not make it cheap, do not make it for political purposes, make it so it works. This bill works, and I applaud the leadership for giving us a chance to make history tonight on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. I want to respond briefly relative to the mandate which is constantly mentioned throughout the debate. We do not mandate that the States adopt. In fact, the Treasury has been working with the States to try and find ways for compliance.

Obviously, in some States it requires legislative consent, and many of the legislators have returned home to their districts. Some are working with private providers, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and others, getting a waiver for them to make the changes to comply. So I think we have to make certain as we discuss this issue it does not sound like a forced issue on the States. We are working cooperatively with those States.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the gentleman from Washington would in fact delete the health care provisions contained in the bill before the House. These provisions are extremely important and reflect a good- faith effort to make sure the previously adopted 65 percent tax credit for health insurance purchased by eligible TAA and PBGC beneficiaries is able to be used by all qualified individuals.

What will the effect of the Democratic amendment be? It will virtually deny tens of thousands of laid-off workers any chance of getting the 65 percent tax credit for payments they made for health care. It will mean in about 21 States, which was mentioned by my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), in 21 States there would be no qualified plan and, consequently, no tax credit for laid- off workers. So their amendment is, in our view, antiworker and antihealth care.

Let me restate the effect of removing from the bill the health care provision. The waiver provision will mean substantial numbers of additional policies will be in place for workers and their families while States continue, again let me underscore, States continue to work on developing compliant program options. Not mandates, develop compliant program options.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, an additional 12,000 individuals will exercise the waiver option in 2004 and utilize the tax credit to obtain health insurance for themselves and their families that would not be available under present law. A lot of families would be covered under this option.

The choice here is clear: if we do not provide TAA and PBGC beneficiaries with an option they control in States which do not offer compliant policy, these people will simply be unable to take advantage of health insurance tax credits. We intend in our bill to provide a benefit to these eligible individuals when we pass the trade act.

Let me inform my colleagues that we changed and improved the provisions that are now in the committee bill. First, the waiver will apply only to preexisting conditions and guaranteed-issue protections. It is narrowly tailored to remove obstacles to an individual's access to a qualified option. Second, the waiver will only apply in States that do not have a qualified option. Thus, the provision would benefit those who have no other opportunity to obtain health care coverage. And third, the waiver period is shorter. The waiver is a temporary provision designed to provide immediate access to health care tax credits. It is only available until December 31, 2004, which will allow States time to establish a qualified insurance plan.

Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for her excellent work on this important bill.

It is a little disingenuous to use the deficit as a reason not to pass this bill. When we inherited this Congress in 1994, they had racked up $5.7 trillion worth of debt. So let us not start blaming the national debt on this bill or the Republicans. Now they are holding up the Gates family as a paragon of virtue on this issue; yet 2 years ago the Clinton Administration was pursuing the same Gates family for monopolistic practices. Now they use Warren Buffett. Now Warren Buffett, of all people, has billions of dollars. He can step up to the voluntary tax payment window if he so chooses.

The people we are talking about today have paid excise taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, income taxes. It is being described here as they are getting an unfair or free ride. These are the hard-working Americans. We learned in our youth to strive to struggle and make something of our life and maybe we could pass on those virtues and values to the next generation.

The rich know how to shelter their income. They are very good at creating trust and remainderman trust. In fact, one of the premier families in America, the Kennedy family, has 40 or 60 or 80 trusts that were established to pass the money into different hands to avoid, I am sure, the estate tax liability. These are families that have properly prepared, but it has been expensive. It has been time consuming, and it is complicated.

We can have a debate and pick sides. The Democrats are obviously offering a $7 million package in a minute; so I do not know the difference between a $7 million estate or a $10 million estate, but somehow they reconciled that $7 million may not be rich. They keep claiming today in this debate they are for the little guy. If they are little and have worked hard and have earned some money, there is a penalty box for them under their plan. They take away what they have earned. They give it and redistribute it to someone else.

This is about fairness. This is about family farms. This is about a lot of people. But to sit here and speculate somehow we are going to implode or explode the deficit is simply wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and all Members working together on this very, very important resolution, House Resolution 231.

My grandfather, my father and brother-in-law all served as police officers, and, thank the Lord, they did so without injury or death. But there are thousands who have sacrificed their lives in order to protect the peace and tranquility of our community.

The President spoke last week here on our Capitol grounds relative to a tribute to fallen police officers, and it is fitting that we now memorialize this on the House floor.

There is no finer occupation, and I am torn between several that I admire greatly, with public education and teachers being one. But law enforcement personnel and fire fighters are true heroes in the sense that they go to work each and every day not knowing what to anticipate at the end of their shift or during their shift. They patrol back alleys, they come across frightening situations. They are constantly putting their lives on the line for the betterment of humanity.

Young fire fighters and police officers went racing up the World Trade Center without worrying about their own lives, but making certain they served those who were trapped, and tried to rescue as many as possible. Those are heroes.

Whether it is helping a student across a playground or a crossing zone, or intercepting a murderer, or more recently, the 21-year-old police officer that apprehended the Atlanta bomber, these are vigilant, dedicated, risk-taking public servants whose first goal is to make certain we are safe.

So I hope, as we vote on this resolution, that those listening to our voices take a moment to thank those serving today, who have made it through without risk of injury or death, thank their family members who sacrifice each and every day, for their husband or wife, for their son or daughter, sister, brother, who choose to do this work and arm themselves to protect the citizens of our communities, give them a thumb's up and a hearty handshake and thanks for their job well done.

For those who rest in peace, your sacrifice and devotion to our Nation and the security of this Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, the tourism and hospitality industry is important to the State of Florida. I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 172, a bill I introduced along with my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), recognizing the 20th annual National Tourism Week.

I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has joined us on the floor today.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and I from Florida both have worked with our colleagues to try to educate them about the importance of travel and tourism. It is the lifeblood of many States, like Florida and California, New York, and Nevada, to just name a few.

There are currently 7.4 million people in the food service, hospitality, and travel-related industries that rely on America's vibrant and thriving travel industry, which generates $170 billion in travel-related payroll.

National Tourism Week was first established in 1983, when the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution designating the week to be celebrated in May, 1984. This annual event gives us an opportunity to recognize the significant importance that the travel and tourism industry has on our economy.

As America's third largest retail sales industry, $96 billion was generated in tax revenues for our local, State, and Federal governments in 2002 alone. In addition, there were $7.5 billion in balance of trade surplus for the United States, making the industry one of our largest service exports.

It is clear, every congressional district is impacted, that is, every district with a restaurant, and all have them; a hotel, and all have them; a museum, and I am certain most have them; national parks; stadiums; theaters; campgrounds; and beaches. All obviously help local economies and local communities thrive.

As some of us begin our summer travel, let us remember the tremendous impact that the travel and tourism industry makes on all of our lives. I want to spend a moment, too, to commend this administration, President Bush; and the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Evans; Brenda Becker, Assistant Secretary of Commerce; Senator Ted Stevens; as well as my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), in our recent quest to put $50 million in the budget in order to help stimulate, if you will, international tourism back to the United States.

As I am sure the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) will tell us, our States have been hurt badly by September 11 and terrorism in general. People are nervous and they are fearful. We are doing everything we can to ensure airline safety and that when they arrive at a destination that they will be safe.

But we have lost, in Orlando alone, some 35 percent of the business that was occurring in that region of the State; so this is a very important issue. It is an important topic. It is one we are wrestling with.

Also, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) talks about his idea that he brought to us that hopefully will catch on where each Member of Congress writes in a book, if you will, a destination that they favor; they may not want to be that specific, but some of the joys and bounties and benefits of living in that community.

I know I have some of the greatest beaches. I have the Everglades. We have agricultural tourism, ecotourism. Certainly, we have things throughout the State, like Busch Gardens and Universal Theme Park and Disney. We

have the Latin music industry, where the capital of the world is Miami. We have South Beach.

I could go on and on, but now I am going to get in trouble because I am probably missing some of the important destinations: Destin; and all of the beaches in Jacksonville.

But suffice it to say that tourism is an important, important industry. Whether one is the CEO of a company or doing dishes in a restaurant, as I did when I was 13 years old, we are all playing a critical role in people's impressions of our State, whether they had a good visit, whether they enjoyed themselves, whether they will return again.

So I salute everyone, from the bellboy to the bell hop to the rental car agencies, who make the traveling experience fun, productive, and enjoyable for America's families and those visitors from outside the Continental United States.

With that, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for his indulgence and certainly thank the committee for reporting this to the floor. I urge all Members to support this 20th Annual National Tourism Week represented by House Concurrent Resolution 172.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, Lisa Barkovic from my staff is with me. She, as well as your staff, I know have done a tremendous job in organizing several of our events.

I was remiss for not recognizing our individual staff. She is on the floor with me today. I know we have worked very closely with the gentleman's office; and the professional staff, those who work in our offices, do a tremendous job in helping us get ready for floor activity. I wanted to share that with the gentleman and with her, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is known as Mr. Health in Florida, for the gentleman's help on this important issue.

I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 147, a bill recognizing the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Orphan Drug Act and the creation of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

For many years, 25 million plus Americans suffering from more than 6,000 rare diseases and disorders, including Huntington's disease, ALS, known as Lou Gehrig's disease, Tourettes syndrome and muscular dystrophy, were denied access to effective medicines because prescription drug manufacturers could rarely make a profit from marketing drugs for such small groups of patients.

A rare disease is a disease that affects a population of less than 200,000 people. Currently, one in nine Americans have a rare disease. Due to the low number of affected patients, the prescription drug industry did not adequately fund research into such treatments. Despite the urgent health need for these medicines, they became known as orphan drugs because no company would commercialize them.

On January 4, 1983, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Orphan Drug Act. This legislation created financial incentives for research and production of such orphan drugs. In addition, a new Federal program at the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration encouraged clinical research and commercial product development for products that target rare diseases.

As a result of this incredible law, which was produced in coordination with Congress, the White House and the pharmaceutical industry, over 238 drugs, biologics, foods and devices now exist, as compared to less than 40 therapies that existed before the law was enacted. Undoubtedly, this can easily be described as one of the most effective laws this Chamber has ever passed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize an organization which has been committed to bringing a voice to the most underserved medical population in the world, those suffering from rare diseases, the National Organization for Rare Diseases.

NORD, established soon after the signing of the Orphan Drug Act, is a federation of voluntary health organizations dedicated to helping people with orphan diseases and conditions and assisting the organizations that serve them.

NORD has been and will continue to be committed to the identification, treatment, and cure of orphan diseases and conditions through programs of education, advocacy, research and service.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for their effective work and advocacy of this issue. I would also like to thank Bradley Schrieber, my legislation counsel, who joins me on the floor today, who first brought this legislation to my attention.

For me, it is a personal sense of pride, because it was the first bill that was a freestanding bill that I authored that was signed into law, and I have the momentous pen in my office. I can look back on my career in Congress and know that in some small way we played a critical role in helping those voices who may be in the minority but are suffering just as those who are suffering from better-known diseases, if you will. I am delighted to be part of this, and I am glad it was brought to the floor today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing this very important year for the millions of men and women and children in this medical minority.

Mr. Speaker, between the Senate's attempt to raise taxes and the Democrats' desire to spend more of your money, we will never see economic growth in this country. There is a reason the Joint Economic Committee calls this bill near-term stimulus and long-term growth.

I understand on the other side of the aisle their Small Business Caucus must be very small because they must have missed the business and investment incentives: Bonus depreciation, small business expensing, net operating loss carryback. They must have missed for children and families the child tax credit which increases to $1,000 the credit available for parents trying to raise their children. An expansion of the 10 percent bracket. Marriage penalty relief. These are good things to stimulate the economy. Yet the only thing they can come up with is a complaint that our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief landed his plane on an aircraft carrier.

People need jobs. This bill is about jobs. People need tax relief. This bill is about tax relief. I owned a small business. I know how to work our way out of a difficult economy. I wish we had more cooperation. I wish we had more participation.

Mr. Speaker, today at 12:30 I, along with my Democratic cosponsor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), and Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman will introduce our legislation to help Holocaust survivors and their families collect on Holocaust-era insurance policies.

Mr. Speaker, I am fed up watching insurance companies thumb their noses at Holocaust survivors. I urge the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the survivors and their heirs in a case pending before the Supreme Court.

Holocaust survivors and their heirs are being denied what is rightfully theirs. This is nothing more than white collar theft, and it is morally reprehensible. These heirs and survivors deserve what is rightfully theirs, and we will not give up until they are fully compensated.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, I was at the White House for a bill signing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass a very important resolution I will be introducing today. My bill expresses the sense of the House that the United Nations must call for the U.N. to remove Cuba from the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

The U.N. Human Rights Commission is the primary world body responsible for protecting the inalienable rights of all people to live free from harm and oppression. However, with some of the world's most egregious human rights violators on the panel, like Libya and Cuba, it is unlikely that it can effectively carry out its mission.

Whether it is Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro, the U.N. has repeatedly protected tyrants, torturers, and murderers. Allowing Cuba to stay on the Human Rights Commission is like honoring Saddam Hussein with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Today I was shocked to learn that Cuba once again was put on the panel. For over 40 years Fidel Castro has time and time again shown his reprehensible disregard for the safety and welfare of his own people. His tyrannical regime has forced countless innocent people to risk their lives to seek the shores of the United States. But what is worse is that these people will go to the furthest of extremes to hurt their own people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a truly stirring song, ``A Tribute to America--A 21st Century Anthem.'' Written by Ann Miller and performed by her son, Ted Maliaris--both from South Florida--this song serves as an inspiration for all Americans during the war on terrorism.

``A Tribute to America'' was written with the hopes of uniting the country after the attacks on September 11, 2001. The purpose of the song was to heal the emotional wounds received that September day. The song continues to accomplish just that.

From Francis Scott Key's ``Star Spangled Banner'' during the War of 1812 to Irving Berlin's ``God Bless America'' during World War I, history provides examples of how music contributes to the steadfastness of America in the face of adversity. Even as we sang ``God Bless America'' on the Capitol steps just one day after the terrorist attacks, the United States regained its resolve to defeat terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head.

Please join me in recognizing the help that ``A Tribute to America'' has given in the healing process, and in thanking Ann Miller and Ted Maliaris for providing ``A Tribute to America.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today once again to talk about one of the last hostile regimes on the planet, an island 90 miles to the south of my home State of Florida, Cuba.

For well over 40-plus years, Fidel Castro has time and time again shown his reprehensible disregard for the safety and welfare of his own people. His tyrannical regime has forced countless innocent people to risk their lives to seek the shores of the United States. What is worse, these people go to the furtherest of extremes, even placing other countrymen at risk in order to seek freedom.

On April 2, in another one of the countless stories of Cubans trying to seek refuge, a group of three men attempted to take over a ferry ship and force it to go to the United States. Though I am in no way supportive of hijacking or putting others at risk, it is clear from our history with this oppressive Nation that its people will do almost anything for just a taste of freedom.

The men were prosecuted on Tuesday, those three men, in summary trials for very grave acts of terrorism and given only a few days to appeal their sentences. This pathetic excuse for a judicial system never gave these men a chance. I must report to this body that, earlier today, these three men were executed.

Mr. Speaker, these actions were not that of terrorists but those of people seeking freedom. It is clear that these men never intended to harm anyone. All they wanted was a chance at what millions of Cubans have been thirsting for since Fidel Castro took control and took power, and that is freedom, a right we in this country enjoy and a right we are fighting for today in Iraq. Though these acts should have been punished, the penalty was extreme, barbarous, even by the most strict of standards.

I have fought on this floor against terrorism all my life, and I will not accept it in any form, but this execution today was clearly a message to the Cuban people that freedom is not an option.

To those colleagues of mine who have suggested over the past year- and-a-half that we open trade and opportunity with Fidel Castro, they need to look at this material and see that this man executed three people today. Would these same Members offer a peaceful resolution to Saddam Hussein who I consider equally heinous as Fidel Castro? Would they suggest going to do trade with Saddam? Let us look at what Fidel Castro is all about, and let us recognize what danger he puts his own people in.

We must continue what we do by upholding the sanctions and further limiting U.S. government involvement with this rogue Nation. The people of Cuba deserve a democracy. Their leader is a tyrant, a dictator and now, based on this evidence, a murderer. Many of us have known that. My colleagues, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), have all been telling this body about the horrors of the oppression, of the silencing of people merely trying to get a democracy in place in that Nation.

Mr. Speaker, if anyone must be put in front of a firing squad it is Mr. Castro himself for these despicable acts.

So I ask and urge my colleagues to be as outraged as we are in Florida. This was murder of three citizens. This was murder, a trial of 3 days, an appeal of 24 hours and a firing squad a day later.

This is the Nation we want to do business with? This is the Nation we want to trade with? This is a person my colleagues want to ship goods and medicine to? Prop up his regime? I think not.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this rule, and I rise in support of the rule for S. 151, which is aimed at combating child exploitation and abuse. As co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), I know full well the need for new and increased penalties and the need to expend more resources to enforce current law.

I would like to commend the work of both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the conference committee for bringing this outstanding package to the floor today. With provisions like Two Strikes and You're Out for repeat child sex offenders, penalties for international sex tourism, the doubling of funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, expanding the relationship between the United States Secret Service and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and of course the AMBER Alert Act, all make this legislation another nail in the coffin of those who prey on the most innocent in our society, our children.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help bring pedophiles and others who intend to do children harm to justice. I would, however, like to take a moment to express some concern I have about one of the provisions that was put into the final package relating to the Volunteers for Children Act. This law, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and I championed, was designed to provide further protection for our Nation's children by allowing youth-serving nonprofit organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club, the National Council for Youth Sports, and the National Mentoring Group to request national fingerprint background checks in the absence of State laws providing such access.

However, since the Volunteers for Children Act was enacted in 1998, only a very few States have complied with this law.

As a result, for the past year, I have been working towards a permanent solution with the Senate and the chairman to correct this problem once and for all.

Though I applaud both the chairman and the conference committee on recognizing the need to address this longstanding problem, the efforts to correct it leave much to be done. I hope that we can work with the chairman to provide the necessary protection to millions of children participating in both the local and nationwide after-school and volunteer-run programs by giving these groups the access they need to criminal background checks of their volunteers.

We have tried it in Florida. It has been immensely successful. It has been applauded by child advocate groups. It has been applauded by the FDLE, Florida Department of Law Enforcement's head, Tim Moore. We have used it extensively to provide protection for our children and volunteer organizations.

The fingerprint check is the only absolute way we can ensure that those working with our children are, in fact, clean of past histories that would cause them to come into difficult situations with our children.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I do offer my full support for the overall package and encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and, of course, for the underlying bill.