Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It has been an interesting debate. Basically I have heard two contradictory arguments. One is that when the Republicans were in the majority, we didn't spend enough on social programs. I remember every year of our majority, for example, increasing veterans spending. As a matter of fact, there has been significant criticism of Republicans when we were in the majority for too much spending globally and in general. I have heard basically two different theories. So I wish that our friends on the other side the aisle would kind of choose which of the two scripts to read. Either we spent too much, or we spent too little. The reality is that in the Democrats' budget, basically it is a blindfold budget, Mr. Speaker, because the minefields that are laying before the future of this Nation, the needs that we do have to look at and see how we are going to address, the major problems facing this Nation, for example, entitlement reform, all the objective, nonpartisan economists and other experts will tell us that we need to look at such matters in the future of this Nation. But they are not even touched upon, not even mentioned, by the majority in its budget. Obviously they have a tremendous amount of increased spending. It is evident. They don't call them tax increases, they call them the end of tax cuts. But there are massive tax increases that will be required to fund the Democrats' budget, and then the great problems facing this Nation are simply in blindfold fashion ignored. So it is a very shortsighted budget, it is fiscally irresponsible, and certainly we hope that all Members will oppose it. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides obviously for consideration of the budget conference report. Budgets inevitably are a very important issue, and especially to many Americans who are taking nowadays a deeper, more careful look into their own budgets, because every day the rising cost of gasoline is taking more and more of their hard-earned income. Part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil while avoiding development of domestic energy sources. I learned the other day how more than 80 percent of the electricity generated in France, for example, is from nuclear power. There is a very strong environmental movement in France, and yet in consensus fashion there they have moved forward with nuclear energy. Imagine if we had built nuclear power plants. We haven't in about 30 years, nor any refineries. Imagine the amount of oil that we would be saving, how consumption would be reduced, if we also had had the vision and the determination to build nuclear power plants, safe, new nuclear plants in this country to substitute for oil. Well, we haven't. So part of the reason that we are seeing increasing gas prices is because we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil, while avoiding developing domestic energy sources. Now, one important source of domestic energy is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. However, efforts to develop just a tiny portion of ANWR have been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy independence, even though the people of Alaska, Mr. Speaker, are overwhelmingly in favor of searching for energy there. With the price of gasoline reaching records every day, we should be looking to do all we can to lower the price of gasoline, and that includes domestic exploration, when the people of a State wish to search for energy. Today I will be asking each of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider an amendment that would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil, by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as the people of that great State and their Senators and Representative here in Congress wish to do. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis of California. (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel prices and our reliance on foreign energy sources. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are only two ways to balance the budget: You can either spend less or you can increase the amount of money coming in. The majority, as reflected in their budget, have rejected the first option and instead have chosen higher spending, higher taxes, and a bigger Federal Government. Republicans have chosen a more responsible approach by committing to spending less and letting workers, families, and small businesses keep more of their hard-earned income to save, invest, and spend as they see fit. While Republicans have faith in the ability of workers and families to decide how best to use their paychecks, the majority budget reflects the majority's belief that the Federal Government can make better choices at spending money than individual Americans. That is a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. In order for the majority to fund their government spending, their budget raises taxes by two-thirds of a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. That is almost $700 billion. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. Two-thirds of a trillion dollars. At a time of an economic slowdown and increased cost of living, American families everywhere are tightening their belts and carefully budgeting their hard-earned money. This is not the time for the majority to be forcing American families to send more of their hard- earned money to Washington. Instead, we should be passing pro-growth policies to help create jobs and economic prosperity. Mr. Speaker, tax increases are not a pro-growth policy. They are anti-growth, anti-small business, anti-job creation, and we should reject them. Now you can call this a tax increase or you can call it letting tax cuts expire, but the reality is that under the majority's budget, every American will pay more of their paycheck to the Federal Government. That includes many middle class families, small business owners, and entrepreneurs. Although Democrats try to claim otherwise, the numbers in their own budget document show that taxes will increase nearly three times more than when the largest enacted tax hike to date was passed, making this the largest tax increase in American history. While the majority claims their budget will protect middle class families, their budget numbers tell a different story. Under the massive tax increases in the majority's budget, the average taxpayer in the State of Florida, for example, will see his or her annual bill increase by over $3,000. The majority's budget lets the current tax cuts expire, and some of those tax cuts are very important to Americans, to our economy. For example, seniors could see taxes on their investments and savings income double. Forty-eight million married couples could once again face a marriage tax penalty, costing them $3,000 per year. Young families could see a reduction in the child tax credit. States such as Florida may not get an extension of the State sales tax deduction. The majority's budget may even manage to resurrect the death tax. This will particularly hurt the small businesses in the district that I'm honored to represent, which provide the majority of the community's jobs. It may even hit 26 million additional middle class taxpayers with the alternative minimum tax. Their budget also assumes that 6 million Americans who currently do not pay any taxes, will once again have to pay taxes. Mr. Speaker, in order to boost our economy, increase investment in the United States, create jobs, Congress should not be raising taxes by the largest amount in history. At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify my vote on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for the Conference Report on S. Con. Res. 70, the Budget Resolution. In the 109th Congress, the Florida delegation, on a bi-partisan basis, worked hard to protect Florida's environmental treasures. The bill we achieved passage of, Public Law 109-432 (HR 6111), provided Florida with 125 mile protection off our coast. Furthermore, the legislation codified the ban on drilling within the ``military mission line''--approximately 234 miles from Tampa--to provide even more protection for Florida's west coast through the year 2022. I strongly support the current ban. I also believe other states should have the right to search for energy if they wish to do so.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. On February 7, 2008, a terrible explosion occurred at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery in the community of Port Wentworth, Georgia. The explosion killed 13 people, injured over 40 refinery workers. That explosion at the Imperial Sugar Company refinery pointed to the danger of combustible dust in the workplace. It's a very serious concern, and we must take every possible step to protect workers from those dangers. The underlying legislation, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act, would require OSHA to issue an interim final combustible dust standard within 90 days and a permanent standard within 18 months. It also lists a specific number of items that would be required under the Interim Final Standard including a written dust control program, hazard assessment, worker training and employee participation in the development and conduct of the dust control program. OSHA would also be required to include combustible dust in the definition of physical hazards in OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard. It is quite disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, that on an issue as important as workplace safety, the majority is only allowing the House of Representatives to consider one amendment by the minority, one Republican amendment. The majority campaign platform said they would run the House of Representatives in an open and bipartisan manner, yet they systematically and consistently block the minority time and time again from offering amendments. All Members of this representative institution wish to do the most they can to provide workers a safe working environment, Mr. Speaker. And it is most unfortunate that the majority blocks Members from offering their proposals. Instead of offering such a tightly structured rule, the majority should be allowing every Member the opportunity to offer their thoughts and proposals to the House for consideration. As important as the underlying legislation may be, I believe there are other issues that are on the minds of Americans at this point that are pressing to Americans: For example, confronting the rising cost of gasoline. On Monday, hundreds of truckers drove through the streets of this capital city to protest in desperation the rising cost of diesel fuel. They are not the only ones desperate due to the rising oil prices. All consumers are paying more for gasoline, which also causes price increases in virtually every consumer product, including food. A recent policy found that 44 percent of Americans find paying for gasoline to be their top personal economic problem. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gasoline has skyrocketed. According to AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gas has gone up $1.20 during that time. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years. But oil prices don't have to be so high, Mr. Speaker, because I understand the majority claims to have a plan, a plan to reduce oil prices. Just over 2 years ago, April 2006, now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats, ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Two weeks after that press release, then- Minority Leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would lower the price at the pump. That was 2 years ago. Democrats have controlled Congress for a year and a half, and we have yet to see them act on their ``commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Instead of empty promises, Republicans are working on providing relief to consumers faced with the constantly rising cost of gasoline. For example, last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, introduced H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, the prime sponsor of which is Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart. That legislation would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses. That important legislation will actually help taxpayers with the rising cost of gasoline, unlike the majority's ``mystery plan,'' the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker, that we have not yet seen. At this time, I reserve my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank Mr. McGovern for the time. Back in April of 2006, as I just said, over 2 years ago, the now distinguished Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, issued the following statement, ``With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican rubberstamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline, 33 cents higher than last month and double the price than when President Bush first came into office.'' Mr. Speaker, most Americans would be happy if they were paying $2.91 for a gallon of gasoline. In the same press release, the distinguished Speaker went on to say, ``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' Well, while I hear they have a plan, I haven't seen the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Instead, while we wait for the majority to act, the cost of fuel continues to rise with the average cost of a gallon of gasoline now being over $3.60, hitting consumers at the pump every time they go to fill up their cars, reinforcing the fact that the majority has yet to confront the high price of gasoline. Today, Investor's Business Daily in an editorial said that this Congress is ``possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.'' Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Congressional Record that editorial from Investor's Business Daily. [From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 30, 2008] Congress Vs. You We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy. The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from understanding how free markets and supply and demand really work. Sad, but true. So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide- ranging press conference Tuesday. ``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately, on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.'' Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of congressional energy inaction, including: Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash. Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique'' fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this. Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants-- the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas. Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy situation worse. These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S. Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress. The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election. Today, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question for this rule, Mr. Speaker. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider any amendment that would actually do something to reduce gas prices for consumers, such as H.R. 5905, the CARS Act, which would give commuters a tax break on their commuting expenses and actually help alleviate the price of energy for the consumer. It will also give the majority the chance to introduce, Mr. Speaker, the ``mystery plan'' that they claim to have. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members can take a stand against these high fuel prices and demand that the majority act on their plan. The majority said they had a plan. Let's see the mystery plan, Mr. Speaker. Let's see the mystery plan. I encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to posthumously honor Jose de Armas y Cardenas, a prominent Cuban journalist who wrote under the pseudonym Justo de Lara. From the time of his birth in 1866 in Guanabacoa, Cuba, Mr. de Armas y Cardenas was taught the fundamentals of journalism and literature by his parents Jose de Armas y Cespedes, the editor of La Nacion newspaper and his mother Fermina de Cardenas, a noted feminist, who founded and was the editor of the Pink Pages newspaper. After being educated as a lawyer Mr. de Armas y Cardenas began his remarkable and prolific journalistic career at his father's newspaper, La Nacion. He then went on to found El Peregrino magazine in Madrid, Spain, and La Avispa magazine in Havana and New York. He also served as a journalist for The New York Sun and New York Herald newspapers. While working for The Sun during Cuban War of Independence and later during the Spanish-American War he became an official translator of conversations between Cuban General Calixto Garcia and U.S. Lt. Colonel Theodore Roosevelt. But his career as a journalist was not enough to satisfy Mr. de Armas y Cardenas' intellectual curiosity. Mr. de Armas y Cardenas was fluent in Spanish, Italian, French and English. He also became a distinguished Cervantes scholar and in 1916 was the only Spanish-speaking person to be named by the Government of the United Kingdom to be a member of a commission responsible for the celebration of the life and work of William Shakespeare. Although Mr. de Armas y Cardenas passed away in 1919 he continues to posthumously serve as an example to all true journalists throughout the world. So much so that the Florida House of Representatives recently honored Mr. de Armas y Cardenas by designating March 28, 2008 as ``Spanish Language Journalism Day in Honor of Justo de Lara.'' Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my fellow Floridians in honoring Mr. de Armas y Cardenas for being an exemplary model for journalists of calling everywhere.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Israel as it celebrates its 60th anniversary. Israel is not only a close military ally and trade partner, it is also a true friend of the United States. The United States shares Israel's commitment to peace and freedom. We share a commitment to democracy, the Rule of Law and we share a culture that honors life--not that glamorizes death. Perhaps more than any other people, Israel understands the insidiousness of evil and the need for good people to remain vigilant against it. We share a great deal, Madam Speaker. It is no accident that the United States and Israel are such great friends. Despite frequent and cowardly attacks, this young country has withstood every missile, every grenade, every car bomb, every suicide bomber. Israel has weathered the violence of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have vowed Israel's destruction and which receive copious funding from Iran and Syria. Israel must combat these constant and cowardly attacks, but rarely does the world acknowledge the restraint shown by Israel in defending itself, trying always to wage this war of survival with reverence for innocent life. While rockets rain down on Israel from terrorists operating in Gaza, Israel continues to allow the delivery of food and medicines across the Gaza border. Although Hamas seizes humanitarian aid for its own nefarious uses and exploits humanitarian vehicles to smuggle weapons and explosives, Israel continues to allow aid to flow across its border with Gaza. While Israel's enemies purposely target the innocent, Israel responds with tactical strikes against terrorists, their weapons bases, and their command centers to protect the innocent. While the forces of extremism and terrorism continue to barrage freedom-loving people in Israel and around the globe, I am heartened to see that the forces of evil have failed to destroy the basic goodness of those who struggle against terror so that they may live in peace and freedom. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary, I am honored to have this opportunity to congratulate Israel for its tremendous contributions to the world and to express my profound gratitude for Israel's unwavering friendship with the United States.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, every year we mark the anniversary of a terrible event that took place over the years of 1915-1923, during the First World War, when 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered and over half a million survivors were forced to leave a homeland they had inhabited for over two millennia. Today marks the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I am a cosponsor of H. Res. 106, a resolution which simply affirms a historical fact. The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive records, open to the public, which meticulously document the Armenian genocide. Furthermore, the post- World War I Turkish government indicted leaders who were involved in these killings which it labeled a ``massacre.'' On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers of England, France, and Russia issued a statement charging the Ottoman government of committing a ``crime against humanity.'' President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, said, ``like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it--and like too many other persecutions of too many other people--the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.'' The Armenian genocide resolution is offensive to some simply because it characterizes that massacre as ``genocide.'' We do not use that term loosely, but violence on such a tremendous scale has earned that terrible title. These deaths were not caused by the inevitable hostility of war, but by systematic murder aimed at eliminating a people. We gain nothing by pretending it was anything less. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum includes a quote from Adolf Hitler who justified his own atrocities by saying, ``[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' Shortly thereafter, the world would learn of the horrors of the Holocaust. I wonder whether the horrors of the Second World War may have been averted had people loudly and with conviction condemned the Armenian genocide of the First World War. We cannot erase the events of history, and we ignore them at our peril. In the United States, we are still dealing with the consequences of slavery--a blight on our own historical record. But we cannot be committed to the principle of ``never again'' if we do not acknowledge the evil that first committed us to make that vow.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of Victor Yunier Fernandez Martinez, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Fernandez Martinez, a young man of only 24 years of age and a member of the Popular Republican Party, was not even charged with committing any crime, even by the Orwellian standards and whims that make up the ``legal system'' in that enslaved island. Instead, he was hauled away to the gulag simply under the pretext of being a ``pre- criminal social danger.'' Agents of the tyranny's secret police said that they suspected Mr. Fernandez Martinez was involved in a graffiti campaign in Havana to promote freedom of expression. In fact, there was no link between Mr. Fernandez Martinez and these actions, but that did not stop the oppressive forces from detaining him and testing him for paint residue, which they did not find. This incident was cited 2 years later when he was sentenced to 3 years in the gulag because of the paranoiac perception of the dictatorship that Mr. Fernandez Martinez, a peaceful dissident, is a ``dangerous man.'' Madam Speaker, Mr. Fernandez Martinez's mother has visited him in prison and has reported that even though conscious of the profound injustice of his incarceration he was in good spirits, a true testament of the spirit and drive of the heroes who are confined in the Cuban totalitarian gulag. It is unconscionable that the world simply stands by, in the 21st century, and silently acquiesces to the torture, oppression and denigration of a noble people only 90 miles from the United States of America. Madam Speaker, Victor Fernandez represents the best of the new generation in Cuba; a generation that has known only oppression and misery but that will play a central role in the transformation of Cuba from a totalitarian nightmare to a representative democracy with the rule of law for all of its citizens. We must demand the release of all those who are persecuted for their democratic ideals. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Victor Yunier Fernandez Martinez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, yesterday was a day commonly known as ``Tax Day,'' a day that millions of Americans headed down to their local post office to send their hard-earned money to the Federal Government. It's not to be confused with Tax Freedom Day, which the Tax Freedom Foundation has defined the day on which the average American has finally earned enough to pay this year's tax obligations to the Federal, State and local governments, which unfortunately will not arrive this year until next week, April 23. In recognition of those two important days on every taxpayer's calendar, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question to this rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make it in order for the House to consider H.R. 2734, a bill offered by my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg). That legislation would repeal the sunset date of the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and make the tax reductions enacted by that law permanent. I'll say it again. It means that we will make the tax cuts permanent to make certain that all American taxpayers will not have to pay an increase in taxes. So I will provide Members the opportunity to make those tax cuts permanent and to make certain that our Tax Code encourages economic growth and job creation. It also repeals the termination date for provisions of the 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, reducing income tax rates on dividends and capital gains. It amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for State and local sales taxes, which is particularly important in States such as Florida that I'm honored to represent. It also includes a tax deduction for tuition and related expenses, the increased expensing allowance for small business assets and related provisions, and the tax credit for increasing research activities. In summary, Madam Speaker, what it will do is to maintain, in a time of economic uncertainty, the ability for the Nation's economy to continue to create jobs and compete globally. On the other hand, if Members are for tax increases, if they want taxpayers to pay more in taxes, then they will simply vote with the majority. Finally, it expresses the sense of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Ways and Means that they should report legislation on or before the end of the year to simplify the Federal income tax system. Madam Speaker, I can think of no more fitting action for Congress during the week between Tax Day and Tax Freedom Day to provide this kind of certainty to the American taxpayer. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members will not be voting to kill or delay the underlying student loan legislation. They will simply be voting to provide tax relief to Americans. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question on behalf of taxpayers who wish to continue economic growth. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we've all heard about how the housing crisis is really creating a credit crisis as well. And the credit crisis is not limited to the mortgage industry but is spreading to the many sectors of our economy. And one sector that the credit crisis has hit hard is the student loan industry. Companies that offer student loans are finding it difficult to have access to the capital needed to finance student loans. There's over $340 billion in outstanding Federal and non-Federal student loans currently funded through capital markets with another $130 billion waiting in the pipeline to be funded by the markets. Because of the current conditions, a good portion of that $130 billion may never make it through the process. As a result of the credit situation, the difficulty in the credit market, 18 of the top 100 lenders have left the Federal Family Education Loan program, FFEL, while another 45 smaller lenders have suspended their participation or left the program. In total, those lenders account for about 12 percent of the total of Stafford and PLUS student loans. Another 11 lenders have left the non-Federal loan program. So what does that instability in the credit markets mean for students and parents? Less competition and choice and higher costs through increased interest rates and reduction of repayment benefits and increased fees. So the Congress should not stand by and let the credit crisis have a detrimental effect on student loan programs. Those programs open the door of higher education to millions of students. And that's why I'm very pleased that the Committee on Education and Labor has decided, in a bipartisan manner, to really try to prevent the credit market instability from producing a crisis in student loan programs. And the underlying legislation, called the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008, will help provide new protections and clarify those in current law that ensure students and families have continued access to Federal loans despite the challenges created by current conditions in the credit market. Specifically, legislation will increase adding loan limits for unsubsidized Stafford loans by $2,000 for each year of undergraduate and graduate school and increase aggregate limits accordingly. It also permits the Secretary of Education to give an entire institution the authority to become a lender of last resort. This will ensure all students and parents will be eligible to receive lender-of-last-resort loans. The Secretary of Education will also be given temporary authority to negotiate with lenders to purchase new loans, thereby freeing up capital. I think it's appropriate, and I am pleased to commend the chairman of the committee, Chairman Miller, and also the ranking member, Mr. McKeon, who have worked in a bipartisan fashion, very diligently, on this very important issue, and they are to be commended, as is the committee generally. Although the Education and Labor Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this important legislation, that bipartisan spirit did not make it past the doors of the Rules Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee hit a new record of 50 closed rules. They had the chance to offer an open rule today on the underlying legislation, but instead, by party-line vote, the majority voted against an open rule and also blocked a number of Republican amendments from being offered, including an amendment from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. McKeon. So much for bipartisanship in the Rules Committee. At this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. We have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciated the debate. Obviously, the legislation is of importance, the subject is of importance. We do need to preserve, protect that great treasure that our beaches are, but there are a number of issues that do need to be discussed that are not being discussed. Unfortunately, one issue that should not be discussed is going to be discussed today which is to single out and discriminate against Colombia, our best friend in this hemisphere, in a shocking way, ultimately an unfortunate way. We have no further speakers on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.