Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Carlos Manuel Hernandez Reyes, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Carlos Manuel Hernandez Reyes is a member of the John Paul II Peace and Justice Movement and a member of the Pedro Luis Boitel Civic Resistance Movement, an organization named for a legendary, heroic Cuban political figure who died in a hunger strike in 1972. The primary objective of the movement is to urge the Cuban tyranny to grant amnesty to all prisoners of conscience and to abolish ``political'' crimes in totalitarian Cuba. Because of Mr. Hernandez Reyes' steadfast belief in human liberty and his dream of freedom for the people of Cuba, who have for too long been enslaved by the nightmare that is the totalitarian regime, he has been a constant target of the tyranny's repressive machinery.

Because of his belief in inalienable rights and his dream that the people of Cuba deserve freedom and democracy, Mr. Hernandez Reyes was arrested by state security thugs on March 15, 2007 on grotesque charges of ``disrespect,'' which amounted to nothing more than refusing to live out the regime's mandated propaganda. For his supposed ``crime'' Mr. Hernandez Reyes was maliciously ``sentenced'' to one year in the totalitarian gulag.

I remind my colleagues that, under the Cuban totalitarian regime, any freedom of expression or effort to display truth or opinion that is not in step with the regime's mandated lies, is met with swift and violent repression. Upon his ``sentencing'' Mr. Hernandez Reyes was moved by mule to the Tres Veredas concentration camp in Guantanamo, Cuba. Madam Speaker, Tres Veredas is an infernal dungeon where men are herded and treated as animals, with little if any contact with the outside world, the camp being a three to four hour walk from the nearest town and almost only reachable by mule.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Hernandez Reyes languishes in an unventilated, dank, and rancid smelling room without water, electricity, or sunlight. Recently, Mr. Hernandez Reyes was able to communicate to human rights activist Francisco Hernandez Gomez that there was a rampant outbreak of diarrhea among the prisoners. No one bothered to investigate the source of their illness or make the minimal effort of transporting prisoners to a hospital or clinic for diagnosis. Instead they were ``treated'' by a nurse at the facility itself without access even to electricity.

Madam Speaker, this is only one episode of the criminally abhorrent injustices continually carried out on countless innocent Cubans just 90 miles from our shores. And yet, though the tyranny has attempted to destroy Mr. Hernandez Reyes, he will never cease in his commitment to freedom for Cuba. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Carlos Manuel Hernandez Reyes and all prisoners of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, more commonly known as section 8, helps provide housing assistance to around 2 million low- income families and individuals each year. The program began in 1974, primarily as a project-based rental assistance program. By the next decade, it had become evident that the project-based model was too costly and concentrated families in high poverty areas, thereby making it harder to break the cycle of poverty.

In 1983, Congress stopped providing project-based section 8 contracts and created vouchers as a replacement. The voucher program allows families with a voucher to find and lease a unit in the private sector, instead of being limited to certain section 8 housing complexes. Recipients pay a portion of their rent, based on their income, while the voucher covers the remaining portion of the rent.

In 1998, the program consumed 42 percent of HUD's annual budget. By 2005, it had grown to over 62 percent of HUD's budget. If the growth in the program is not addressed and reformed, we could face a situation where deserving low-income families would be unable to receive any assistance.

The underlying bill makes a number of improvements to the section 8 program to reform and simplify regulations of local public housing agencies, while preserving essential tenant protection. H.R. 1851 aims to simplify rent calculation and inspection requirements for section 8 vouchers, project-based assistance and public housing, and to promote self sufficiency on the part of assisted families through work incentives and home ownership opportunities.

This bill can make good changes to the section 8 voucher program. The funding allocation formula included in the bill codifies the formula change made in the continuing resolution,

February 2007. It uses the public housing agencies' vouchers costs and utilization rates from the last 12 months, instead of the 2004 numbers for a quarter of that year.

Under current law, HUD is required to recapture the amount in excess of each public housing agency's reserve limits, funds that are left over after the renewal of vouchers. If the PHA does not use all the money that the government has authorized, then the government reallocates those funds to another PHA the following year.

The community that I'm honored to represent has lost millions of dollars to other public housing agencies under the change in law made by this Congress. The current funding formula neglects the coverage costs of litigation issues or weather damage, of living facilities which were financed by the excess funds.

The manager's amendment, Mr. Speaker, which will be debated later today, will allow public housing agencies to retain, to keep 12.5 percent of their reserve funds during the first year of the formula change. After the transition, PHAs will remain with 5 percent of their reserve funds in a given year. The manager's amendment aims to somewhat compensate for losses faced by public housing agencies such as those in my community.

I commend the Financial Services Committee, its chairman and ranking member, and all of its members, for working in a bipartisan manner to make improvements to the section 8 program. I look forward to the committee's continued efforts to improve the program, and to addressing the concerns I have mentioned with the funding formula.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the bipartisan nature with which and under which the Financial Services Committee has worked this bill, the majority in the Rules Committee failed to live up to that same standard. There were 23 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. The majority on the Rules Committee made only six amendments in order. Yes, half of them, a whopping three, were Republican amendments, but there were 12 Republican amendments that had been submitted.

During consideration of this rule, the minority made attempts to make several other Republican amendments in order, but the majority blocked each amendment by party line vote. That's quite a contrast to how the Financial Services Committee has worked.

My colleague on the Rules Committee from Texas, Mr. Sessions, also offered an amendment to the rule that would have made this an open rule, Mr. Speaker. The majority on the Rules Committee blocked our efforts for an open rule. This is contrary to how the majority promised to run the House of Representatives, and it is most unfortunate.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes

to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia did offer this amendment in committee, and it was rejected. What he wanted was to be able to present it before the full House. And he was pointing out that the promise that had been made by the majority was that there would be more openness during the consideration of legislation such as this. And that's what the gentleman from Georgia was trying to point out.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished leader on this issue and many others, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the distinguished colleagues who have participated in this debate. Obviously this is a very, very important piece of legislation that is being brought forth today.

We have concerns with regard to the process, not in the creation of the legislation itself but in the way in which it has been brought forth to the floor and the rule that brings the legislation to the floor and establishes the terms of debate for the legislation.

I think it has been a good debate. I think we've been able to express certainly our concern with the process, as well as in the case of most Members that I have certainly heard on this debate, the evident awareness of the importance of the underlying legislation and the issue dealt with by the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this OFAC, Office of Foreign Assets Control, regulation clarifying the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, this regulation that the amendment before us seeks to prohibit enforcement of, stemmed from requests by U.S. financial institutions that were becoming concerned by the increasingly slow rate of payment for agricultural sales by the Cuban regime. The financial institutions requested OFAC to clarify the legislative intent of cash in advance, which is in the law, in order to protect the interests of those financial institutions on their claims.

The Cuban regime's entity in charge of agricultural purchases has an abysmal record of not paying its creditors and has been known to extort or seek to extort agricultural associations in order to increase the regime's lobbying pressure in favor of the unconditional lifting of sanctions, which is sought by the regime. The regime promises more agriculture purchases if agriculture interests lobby Congress for what the regime seeks, an end to sanctions. In effect, the opening of mass U.S. tourism and trade finance.

Currently, Mr. Chairman, the Cuban regime's foreign debt represents close to 800 percent of its GDP, and it is ranked by international credit agencies as the second worst, if not the worst, credit risk in the world. Countries throughout the world are taking extreme measures to obtain restitution for billions of dollars they are owed, which the Cuban regime refuses to pay.

In one example, a 15,000-ton Cuban regime-owned ship was held in the port of Conakry in Guinea, while a Canadian company armed with legal judgments pursued partial payment for the Cuban Government's defaulted debt.

And those are the types of actions, Mr. Chairman, that U.S. companies and ultimately U.S. taxpayers would inevitably have to resort to if Congress were to authorize credit for sales to the Cuban regime. The Congress, Mr. Chairman, must not allow the American taxpayer to become another victim of the Cuban regime's nonpayment to its creditors.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my friend from Kansas if he has any further speakers.

I would inquire of the chairman as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate that this clarifying regulation by OFAC stems from concerns and requests of U.S. financial institutions that were concerned because of a pattern they were noticing of delays in payment. So this regulation is precisely to carry out the legislation and implement the legislation of the year 2000 as, again, is a consequence and pursuant to the request of U.S. financial institutions that sought protection, and through clarification.

So with that in mind, I oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Kansas.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Jose Gabriel Ramon Castillo a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Ramon Castillo was a respected professor of mechanical theory at Alvaro Barriel Cruz Polytechnic. As a professor, he was committed to his students and to helping them advance in their studies. After becoming more and more aware of the propaganda mandated by the dictatorship, he was unable to continue with the charade of manipulating young students with the lies and treachery of a tyrannical regime. Because of his strong belief and commitment to truth and democracy for the Cuban people, Mr. Ramon Castillo eventually became the director of the Independent Culture and Democracy Institute. As part of his efforts to bring international attention to the crimes committed against the people of Cuba, he began to work as an independent journalist to chronicle the reality of deprivation and misery that characterizes life under the totalitarian regime.

Mr. Ramon Castillo was repeatedly subjected to persecution and harassment by the dictatorship from the beginning of his involvement in the movement to make possible a free and democratic Cuba. On March 19, 2003, Mr. Ramon Castillo was arrested as part of the dictatorship's monstrous crackdown of that year on peaceful pro-democracy activists. In a sham trial, he was unjustly ``sentenced'' to 20 years in the tyrant's sub-human dungeons.

Confined in the infernal squalor of Boniato prison in eastern Cuba, Mr. Ramon Castillo

currently suffers from numerous medical afflictions, afflictions only worsened by the grotesquely inhuman quarters in which he is forced to survive. In November 2005, Mr. Ramon Castillo was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver. His family pleaded to prison officials that he be conditionally released to attend to his rapidly deteriorating health. Their pleas went unanswered and in February 2007 prison personnel explained that he would be scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic biopsy of his liver; a procedure that Mr. Ramon Castillo had already endured in 2005 and that the prison thugs knew he would be forced to refuse because he is too weak to undergo the procedure because of malnutrition, lack of medical attention, and the seriousness of his diabetes and other illnesses.

It is unconscionable for any man to be confined in the grotesquely inhuman Castro dungeons for his belief in democracy. Mr. Ramon Castillo is one of the many heroes of the Cuban pro-democracy movement who are chained in the dungeons of the dictatorship for their beliefs. Mr. Ramon Castillo represents the best of the Cuban nation, a nation oppressed but not destroyed, bound and gagged but not resigned to live in tyranny.

Madam Speaker, it is intolerable that Mr. Ramon Castillo is languishing in the totalitarian gulag 90 miles from our shore simply because he believes in freedom and democracy. He is a symbol of freedom and democracy who will always be remembered when freedom reigns again in Cuba. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate release of Jose Gabriel Ramon Castillo, and every prisoner of conscience suffering in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, coauthored by my good friend, Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey, restores funds for Cuba democracy assistance to the administration's requested level of $45 million by offsetting $36 million from the Department of State General Administration Budget.

Unfortunately, as this chart so well demonstrates, the committee, while generally meeting or far exceeding the administration's requests for the rest of Latin America, something that I support, the bill funds Cuba democracy programs at approximately 20 percent of the President's request of $45 million; 20 percent for assistance for those brave men and women who risk their lives and their families' safety, unarmed, in a hard-line totalitarian police state to peacefully press for democracy in Cuba; human rights activists, independent journalists, independent librarians, independent physicians. This aid goes to them and to their families, to the families of political prisoners.

As explained, Mr. Chairman, in the letter from nine members of the pro-democracy movement to the six Cuban American Members of Congress, they attest and affirm that the assistance is key, and that it reaches them and that it has made and is making a great difference for the pro- democracy movement at this time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this effort asked for a GAO report on these programs, and I thank them for it.

First, the GAO report, after 18 months of thorough investigation, confirmed that the program is working. And I quote from the GAO report. ``Dissidents we interviewed in Cuba said that they appreciated the range and types of U.S. democracy assistance; that this assistance was useful in their work, and that it demonstrates the U.S. Government's commitment to democracy in Cuba.''

Mr. Chairman, the GAO report detailed many successes, despite emphasizing the great challenges posed by the totalitarian police state for aid distribution. It talked about the GAO report, 385,000 pounds of medicines, food and clothing have been delivered to the pro-democracy movement and their families; more than 23,000 shortwave radios, millions of books, newsletters and other informational material.

U.S. assistance reported independent journalists and including the publication of approximately 23,000 reports by those independent journalists.

Mr. Chairman, I would call attention to the fact that the GAO report, while making absolutely no recommendation for any cut whatsoever in this program, does point out and make clear the case that it is an important and effective program; and after the GAO report, it has been significantly improved.

I call the attention of all of my colleagues to the reply to the GAO report by the administrating agency, the USAID, where it delineates that all the GAO report's recommendations have been implemented. All of the recommendations have been implemented. That has made an effective and important program even more effective and important.

Mr. Chairman, let us not turn our backs on the Cuban internal opposition. They will play a key role in the inevitable democratic transition that is approaching, and we must do all we can so that they can survive the brutality of a totalitarian police state, of violence and terror that, fortunately, to a great extent because of the pro- democracy movement in Cuba, will soon be but a tragic and perverse historical memory.

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

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished coauthor of the amendment, Mr. Sires.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind my colleagues what if the policies advocated by those who are against this program had succeeded during the 1980s in Poland and Eastern Europe? Just ask yourself that question and remember when we did what we are doing here in the 1980s, what happened in Eastern Europe.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to a distinguished leader and human rights activist from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the Congressman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

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

Let's see what the dissidents in Cuba, in a letter and knowing full well the risks they take by sending a letter to Members of Congress about this issue today, what they say about the aid that this program has sent to Cuba and is sending:

``We can affirm that the aid that for many years has flowed to the pro-democracy movement takes into account the vast range of needs, from medicine to keep a political prisoner or dissident from dying, to food, water filters, medical equipment, clothing, shoes, coats, toys for the children of political prisoners who suffer doubly the loss of a loved one and social repression on the streets and in school, essential vitamins, office supplies, the tools of democracy, computers printers, phones, fax machines, among others that account for the long list of articles and materials that have been made possible in Cuba.''

And they thank the American people in the same way in which the people of Poland and the people of Eastern and Central Europe will be eternally grateful to the American people, including the Congress of the United States, for the support in their difficult days. The dissidents and the pro-democracy movement in Cuba thank the American people for this aid. And what President Bush has requested for the rest of the hemisphere is either being funded or exceeded, and yet for the only totalitarian police state in the hemisphere, the committee has funded it at 19 percent. That is not justifiable, Mr. Chairman. That is why we are asking for the funding fully offset to be at the requested level by the administration.

Please support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wolf has

said it all. This is an amendment not only of conscience, this is an amendment to help people who are risking their lives. Thousands who are in prison, hundreds recognized as prisoners of conscience by international organizations such as Amnesty International. They are risking their lives and their families' lives to peacefully advocate for freedom and democracy as those heroes mentioned by Mr. Wolf advocated and risked their lives in Eastern and Central Europe in the 1980s, and they finally achieved freedom. And have no doubt that the dissidents in the pro-democracy movement in Cuba will be fundamental in the transition. They will be leaders in the future tomorrow, perhaps received in this Congress as the sovereign and elected leader of the Republic of Cuba, perhaps one of those political prisoners, I have no doubt, or those opposition leaders.

So it is time to help them and, as Mr. Wolf said, send a message of solidarity and not retreat at this critical time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Hastings, for the time. I would also like to thank Chairwoman Lowey and Ranking Member Wolf for their efforts on this undeniably important piece of legislation.

This bill funds a number of U.S. Government programs and activities, including the State Department, the United States Agency for International Development, foreign, economic and military assistance, contributions to international organizations and international broadcasting programs.

Even though aspects of this bill have clearly bipartisan support, there are significant areas of concern with some of the priorities that the majority has set forth in this legislation.

Just over a year ago, the people of Colombia reelected President Uribe to a second term with over 62 percent of the vote. President Uribe is the first President in over 100 years to be reelected by the Colombian people. His reelection and his extraordinarily high current approval ratings are a testament to his efforts to curb terrorism, corruption and narcotrafficking in Colombia.

For years, designated terrorist organizations in Colombia have hampered efforts by the people of that great country to live in a peaceful democracy. Proactive action must continue to be taken to ensure that armed terrorists are not allowed to create social unrest through violence. With the current landscape in the world today, foreign assistance, Mr. Speaker, is as strategically important to our national interest as it is morally just.

I am concerned that the underlying legislation cuts funding for Plan Colombia $59 million below the President's request and $86.5 million below fiscal year 2007. Plan Colombia has achieved significant results. When it began, that country was facing a civil war that was tearing it apart. Now that the plan has had time to take effect, and with President Uribe's leadership, kidnappings have fallen by 75 percent and the gross domestic product of Colombia has increased to 7 percent annually.

We must not take progress in the Andean region for granted, however. If the United States turns its back on the region, it will falter and create a scenario that will require greater U.S. investment and sacrifice at a time when obviously we have significant responsibilities worldwide, not to mention that we would be spurning a democratically elected ally that has bravely fought corruption and narcotrafficking.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank President Bush for his continued support for a democratic transition in Cuba. Pursuant to the recommendations of his Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, the President requested $45 million in economic support funds for Cuba pro- democracy activities. These funds would support efforts for a transition to democracy in the Western Hemisphere's only totalitarian dictatorship through support for dissidents, human rights activists, independent librarians and others who risk their lives each day for freedom in that enslaved island. Unfortunately, the bill brought forth by the majority is cutting the funds needed to support pro-democracy efforts in Cuba and funding less than 20 percent of the President's request.

I would note that under the bill, the other countries in the Western Hemisphere will receive over 95 percent of the funds requested by the President, and I think that is good. Yet funds to support a democratic transition in the Western Hemisphere's only totalitarian dictatorship constitute approximately 19 percent of the President's request.

Mr. Speaker, these acts include from staging a hunger strike; to demanded access to e-mail and the Internet and going to prison for it; to having the audacity of possessing books by Gandhi and Orwell and Martin Luther King in their homes and offering those books as an independent library to their neighbors, an act of great courage that is met by the dictatorship's goon squads with violence, confiscation of the books and often prison time; to the independent journalists who risk their lives and their families' safety by writing the truth about life under the totalitarian nightmare, and who need paper and typewriters and faxes and telephones to send their stories out; to the children of political prisoners who have received the only toys they have ever seen because of the solidarity of this United States program of assistance; to those from all walks of life who dare to join a human rights organization in a totalitarian police state; to the physicians who open their homes to their neighbors for the practice of medicine and dispense medicines, risking prison for breaking the rules of the totalitarian state, the only employer in the country, or the physicians who refuse to perform the forced abortions ordered by the state when there is any indication whatsoever of a problematic pregnancy, so the regime can keep its infant mortality statistics low.

Mr. Speaker, that is how one of my heroes, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet began his heroic journey as a pro-democracy activist. He subsequently has become a great pro-democracy leader. I carry a card with his photograph with me at all times. He is currently in a dark and damp dungeon, sentenced to 25 years in the gulag for having the audacity of peacefully advocating for democracy and free elections in Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot send aid to him in prison. The regime will not allow it. But we can help his family and his colleagues in the struggle for freedom.

These are the acts of civic resistance that have grown exponentially in recent years, despite a tremendous increase in the dictatorship's brutal repression, and those are the people, the heroes that I have mentioned, that we help with this program, that we will seek to increase funding for through the President's requested level by an amendment that I will introduce with my friend and colleague Representative Albio Sires of New Jersey, and that I will ask all freedom-loving Members of this House to support.

Last February, Mr. Speaker, the six Cuban American Members of this Congress, Bob Menendez, Mel Martinez, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Albio Sires, Mario Diaz-Balart and myself, received a letter from nine pro-democracy leaders in Cuba. They know the risks that they were and are taking by sending us that letter. They knew that it would be utilized publicly in forums such as today's.

In that letter, that group of dissidents and pro-democracy leaders, representing an extraordinarily wide spectrum of ideology and opinion, some with whom I have had disagreements in the past, came together and told us of the importance of this aid that we will be debating in this bill. They stated in their letter, ``We can affirm that the aid that for years has flowed to the pro-democracy movement takes into account the vast range of needs, from medicine to keep a political prisoner or dissident from dying, to food, water filters, medical equipment, clothing, shoes, coats, toys for the children of political prisoners, who suffer doubly the loss of a loved one and social repression on the streets and in school, essential vitamins, office supplies, and the tools of democracy, computers, printers, phones, fax machines, among others, that account for a long list of articles and materials that have been made possible in Cuba.''

Today, with the amendment that I have filed along with Representative Sires, we reply to the letter sent in February by those pro-democracy leaders, and, as I stated, Mr. Speaker, we will ask all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the aid requested by those pro-democracy leaders in that letter, the assistance for the pro- democracy movement.

Mr. Speaker, on other subjects in this important legislation, the bill cuts by approximately 40 percent the President's request for the Millennium Challenge account. The Millennium Challenge, which President Bush called a new compact for global development, provides assistance through a competitive selection process to developing nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms in three areas: ruling justly, investing in people, and fostering economic freedom. Contributions from that account are linked to greater responsibility from developing nations. The new responsibilities these nations accept in exchange for the funds ensure that the funds we provide do not go to waste and have the greatest possible impact on those who need the help the most.

That account encourages transparency, and it is a good aspect of our foreign policy, and it is very important that it be increased as this legislation moves forward.

Lastly, I would mention that this bill faces a veto threat by the President because of language which may undermine what is known as the Mexico City policy. The Mexico City policy currently in effect requires that foreign NGOs agree as a condition of receipt of Federal funds for family-planning activities that the organization will neither perform nor promote abortion as a method of family planning. The Mexico City policy applies only to family-planning programs and is designed to protect the integrity of U.S.-funded international family-planning programs by creating a bright line of separation between abortion and family planning.

There is concern by the President and many Members in this Congress that U.S. taxpayer family-planning funds could possibly go to NGOs that promote or provide abortions under the language in the underlying legislation.

I understand the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) will introduce an amendment to address this issue, and I urge Members to consider that very important amendment.

The majority correctly currently brings this important legislation to the floor under an open rule. The House has traditionally considered appropriations bills under open rules in order to allow each Member an opportunity to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendments or receive approval from the Rules Committee. I hope that the majority will live up to their campaign promise of running a transparent House and will continue our tradition of open rules with the rest of the appropriations bills this year.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my dear friend for yielding me the time initially.

I would like to, with regard to the issue of the amendment that I made reference to previously, note that I will be bringing to the floor along with my friend and colleague, Representative Sires, to restore to the President's request by offsetting funds from the administration account billions of dollars of the State Department, approximately $30 million, to bring to the President's request level the assistance for Cuban democracy programs.

Not today on the floor in the context of the rule but last night in the Rules Committee, a colleague who previously spoke made reference to a GAO report to impugn and to impeach the program of assistance to the Cuban pro-democracy movement and oppose efforts to restore the level to the President's request.

I have in my office and I highly recommend to all colleagues precisely that GAO report. We would inform colleagues where to download it. It is a very important report, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out from the report that is used to impeach or attempt to impeach the program and impugn the program, criticize the program, of assistance to the dissidents in Cuba.

The GAO report found that from 1996 to 2006, the Cuba program provided the following assistance:

385,000 pounds of medicine, food, and clothing to the pro-democracy movement.

More than 23,000 shortwave radios.

Millions of books, newsletters and other informational materials.

U.S. assistance, the GAO found, supported journalism correspondence courses for more than 200 Cuban journalists.

The publication of approximately 23,000 reports by independent journalists in Cuba.

And with regard to the recommendations of the GAO report, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the GAO often when it reviews in-depth, as it does, a government program or agency, it often recommends cuts in that program, and the GAO makes no recommendation of a cut. It makes recommendations for the more efficient running of the Cuban democracy programs.

And in response to the GAO report, and I have this letter in my office and it's available to any Member who would like to read it and I highly recommend it, the agency that administers these programs, the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, in a letter dated January 16 of this

year, responding to the GAO report, informs specifically, with specificity, how all of the recommendations of the GAO report have been implemented.

And so I highly recommend the reading of the GAO report and also the response by the administrating agency with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the GAO report, Mr. Speaker.

It's important that we help those who risk their lives and the safety of their families day in and day out to achieve freedom, a democratic transition in our closest neighbor, 90 miles away, that at this time is a state sponsor of terrorism and an anti-American totalitarian regime. And what those heroes of the pro-democracy movement are risking their lives and their families' freedom for is a democratic transition to a reality with the rule of law, obviously a democratically elected government that will no longer be allied with state sponsors of terrorism, anti-American state sponsors of terrorism but that will, rather, be worried and working for the needs to better the lives of the long oppressed people within Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my good friend Mr. Hastings for yielding the time. I thank any of my colleagues who may have been listening to this debate for their attention. Once again I would plead that they join from both sides of the aisle to bring up to the President's request the assistance for the Cuba pro-democracy movement.

With that, Mr. Speaker, and acknowledging the complexities and yet the importance of the underlying legislation brought to the floor today by this rule, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Amendment No. 28: Page 2, line 22, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $36,700,000)''.

Page 40, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $36,700,000)''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Lazaro Joaquin Alonso Roman, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Alonso Roman is a peaceful pro-democracy activist who desires freedom for the people of Cuba. His dream is that all Cubans be allowed to freely exercise their fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, the nightmare that is the totalitarian dictatorship specifically targets those courageous men and women who bravely risk their lives and the safety of their families to shed light on the realities of totalitarian Cuba.

On July 13, 2005, Mr. Alonso Roman was shamefully arrested while participating in a peaceful pro-democracy demonstration in Havana honoring the victims of the ``13 of March'' tugboat massacre of 1994 in which 72 men, women and children were chased down and attacked by the regime's security thugs for attempting to flee the dictatorship in search of freedom. More than half of the unarmed refugees on the tugboat were systematically drowned at the direct order of the tyrant while they struggled to stay alive in the ocean waters.

After serving 21 months of a two-year ``sentence'' for ``public disorder, rebellion and reckless endangerment'', Mr. Alonso Roman was released from the infernal dungeons on April 24, 2007. On May 19, less than a month later, Mr. Alonso Roman was thrown back in the dictatorship's hellish gulag for expressing concern over why the regime's gangster thugs were deliberately harassing him and demanding to see his identification papers. According to his wife, Juana Delma Ruiz, his mere questions were enough for the regime's thugs to brutally handcuff and shove her husband into a police car and drag him to Dragones Prison in Havana.

Once in the irons of Dragones Mr. Alonso Roman was informed that he would be ``tried'' on trumped-up charges of ``resisting arrest and contempt'' which would lead to more undeserved misery and suffering of the confines of a totalitarian dungeon. Let me be clear, Mr. Alonso Roman is being caged simply for questioning the injustice with which he is treated.

An injustice anywhere is an affront to justice everywhere, said Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Alonso Roman is representative of the longing for freedom of the Cuban people and their rejection of the brutality, depravity and oppression of the totalitarian regime. It is reprehensible that thousands of men and women like Mr. Alonso Roman are languishing in hellish conditions because they refuse to accept the tyrannical dictatorship in Cuba today.

Madam Speaker, it is unconscionable that peaceful Cubans are locked in a tyrant's dungeons for believing in a free Cuba. My Colleagues, we must demand freedom and human rights for all people, including those who live under the vicious and unforgiving darkness of totalitarian regimes. We must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Lazaro Joaquin Alonso Roman and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for the time. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Several years ago, Mr. Speaker, I had the distinct privilege to bring forth the first rule for a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Since then, the Department of Homeland Security has grown and begun to mature under the bipartisan oversight of the Appropriations Committee and of the Committee on Homeland Security. In fact, Ms. Slaughter and I worked together, when I was the chairman and she the ranking member of the select Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Rules, to make certain that the committee became the permanent standing committee that it is today.

As we know, the Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, to help mobilize and to organize the Federal Government to the best of our ability to secure the homeland from further terrorist attacks.

Thanks to our new concerted approach to security, and I think it is important to recognize, to the 180,000 hardworking employees of the Department of Homeland Security, we have not suffered further attacks. But we must not let our guard down. Within the last month alone, Mr. Speaker, we have seen several plans thwarted to attack both Fort Dix and a major airport in New York City. We must not lose our focus. We must continue our efforts to protect the United States from yet another deadly attack.

There is an item in this legislation that helps fulfill a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and that will provide additional security to districts that many of us represent throughout the country, including the one that I am honored to represent, districts with large airports. In its report, the 9/11 Commission recommended that the Transportation Security Agency expedite the installation of advanced in-line baggage screening equipment.

Miami International Airport, which is in the district that I am honored to represent, is a high-security, category 10 airport on the front line of homeland security defense. Miami International Airport has approximately 1,160 international flights each week, more than any other airport in the United States. Miami International Airport has over 900 flights a week from Latin America, more than all other U.S. airports combined. Miami International ranks third in overall international passenger traffic.

The Miami-Dade Aviation Department, which operates Miami International Airport, is currently building two new terminals at MIA and is incurring over $100 million in in-line Explosive Detection System, EDS, terminal modification costs. In 2005, TSA committed $20 million in Other Transaction Agreement funds which will almost cover the 75 percent Federal share for the south terminal project.

As Miami International Airport begins the installation process of EDS in its north terminal, the airport still requires an additional funding agreement to cover the Federal share of the $79 million modification project. For fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Miami-Dade Aviation Department is projected to spend $28.8 million on the north terminal modifications, $21.6 million of which falls under the Federal Government's cost share.

I wish to commend the Appropriations Committee for allocating $560 million for Explosive Detection System, EDS, procurement and installations. These funds will help reimburse Miami International Airport in its efforts to complete its EDS installations.

Mr. Speaker, there are still some concerns with this bill, as Ranking Member Rogers has stated publicly. There is concern about the rapid growth of funding represented by the bill, for example. And although the Appropriations Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill, there is concern from many Members of this House about the process. As we know, the Appropriations Committee has announced that earmarks were not included in this bill and will only be added during the conference process with the Senate. It is not until that point that Members and the public will be able to see the earmarks. By adding earmarking during the conference process, Members will not have the opportunity to make amendments to remove or adjust earmarks approved by the majority on the Appropriations Committee.

The announced procedure protects earmarks from what during the opening of the 110th Congress some refer to as the ``disinfectant of sunshine.'' This procedure for earmarks is in effect reversing a traditionally more open appropriations process. I urge our colleagues in the majority to reconsider this procedure and allow for an open appropriations process.

I would like to commend the majority for bringing this important appropriations bill to the floor under an open rule. The House, as Ms. Slaughter mentioned, has historically considered appropriations bills under open rules in order to allow each Member the ability to offer germane amendments without having to preprint their amendments or receive approval from the Rules Committee.

I hope that the majority will live up to their campaign promise of running a transparent House and continue our tradition of open rules with the rest of the appropriations bills this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank all of my colleagues who have taken part in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question, so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report or manager's amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report, or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress to provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark rule, in effect, is nothing more than a fig leaf.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Antonio Ramon Diaz Sanchez, a prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Diaz Sanchez, an electrician by profession, is a member of the Christian Liberation Movement and a peaceful pro-democracy activist who desires to exercise his basic human rights and who supports freedom, democracy and the Rule of Law for the people of Cuba. Unfortunately, the nightmare that is the totalitarian regime continues to oppress the men and women of Cuba, especially those who work to shed light on the vicious crimes committed against the Cuban people by the tyrant.

In March 2003, as part of the tyrant's condemnable crackdown on peaceful, pro-democracy activists, Mr. Diaz Sanchez was arrested simply for expressing his opinions. Mr. Diaz Sanchez was subjected to a sham trial where he was ``sentenced'' to 20 years of confinement in the infernal totalitarian dungeons of the brutal regime.

Mr. Diaz Sanchez has continued to advocate for freedom and justice while locked in the hellish squalor of the dictatorship's gulag. He has participated in various hunger strikes to draw attention to the horrific conditions that political prisoners are subjected to in the gulag. He is routinely denied medical treatment although he currently suffers from painful colitis and has been denied a biopsy for a rapidly growing tumor on his prostrate.

According to Mr. Diaz Sanchez's nephew, NGOs have offered Mr. Diaz anti-inflammatory medications to relieve his symptoms but as of yet neither he nor his family have received any such medications to relieve his symptoms. The burden of the cruel treatment he has received and the physical strain of the subhuman conditions in which Mr. Diaz Sanchez is forced to live have completely drained him of his desire to nourish himself. He survives on barely on a few spoonfuls of putrid food each day.

In the face of such horrific mistreatment, the regime's henchmen refuse to provide Mr. Diaz or his family with medical diagnoses. Madam Speaker, let me be very clear, Mr. Diaz Sanchez is suffering at the whim of a monstrous regime just 90 miles from our shore, although he has done nothing other than desire that his children and the long- suffering people of Cuba live in freedom with fundamental human rights and dignity.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Diaz Sanchez has courageously risked his life in order to bring a semblance of humane treatment to those confined in the nightmare that is the totalitarian gulag. His example shines a light of courage on the abominable disregard for human rights in that oppressed island. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Antonio Ramon Diaz Sanchez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

I thank my good friend from New York for the time.

Madam Speaker, the State of North Carolina formally recognized the Lumbee tribe in 1885. Since 1888, the Lumbee tribe has been waiting for full Federal recognition.

Over the years, many bills were introduced in Congress to provide the Lumbees with Federal recognition, but these bills never reached the President's desk for signature. Finally, the Lumbee Act of 1956 recognized the Lumbee as a Native American tribe but denied them the Federal aid that comes with full status as a federally recognized tribe.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process is reserved for tribes whose legitimacy must be established. This, however, is not the case with the Lumbees.

The Department of the Interior since 1913 has studied the identity of the Lumbee Indians 11 times, and each report has concluded that the Lumbees are a Native American tribe descended from the Cheraw Indians.

Furthermore, the Lumbee Act of 1956 actually prohibited the tribe from going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process. Congressional action is thus needed for Federal recognition so the Lumbee tribe can be eligible for the full benefits that they are entitled to.

I wish to express my thanks to Mr. McIntyre for his strong leadership really on many issues affecting Native Americans as well as other important issues before this Congress and specifically for his perseverance and the brilliance that he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Even though I support the underlying legislation, Madam Speaker, I must oppose the closed rule under which the majority brings forth this bill. One of the central tenets of our friends in the majority of their campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner.

On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.''

Here we are 6 months later, 6 months later, considering the second closed rule of the day. It seems that the campaign promise was just that, a hollow promise. But this closed rule, the second of the day, is not an isolated incident, obviously. So far in the 110th Congress, we have considered a total of 25 closed rules, 25 closed rules in about 5 months. Compare that to the 109th Congress where at this point we had considered six closed rules.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to refute this fact by claiming that they have offered a number of open rules, but that's not the case. The former very distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Moakley, a Democrat, said, and I quote, ``Open rules are silent on the amendment structure.''

By that definition, the Democrats have offered only one open rule this Congress. The majority on the Rules Committee had the opportunity to increase the number of open rules to two yesterday. However, they denied a motion that I made to amend this rule and allow an open rule. Not only did they deny our proposal for an open rule, they even denied an attempt to allow a bipartisan amendment offered by Representative Shuler, that even though I opposed that amendment on the merits, it came to the Rules Committee where Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays sat for a long, long period of time, and then they very diligently and respectfully explained their amendment.

I happened to disagree with it, but as I stated in the Rules Committee, as strongly as I disagree with their amendment, I think they should have the right to present it. Yet not only did our friends, the majority in the Rules Committee, decide to close the rule absolutely, they even disallowed the bipartisan amendment by Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays from being considered today by the full House. I think the Democrats should live up to their campaign promises and offer a more open process.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule, while, again, on the underlying substance of legislation, expressing my support for it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure at this time to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, in a few minutes I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule to allow the House to consider a change to the Rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Now, by defeating the previous question, we wouldn't be derailing consideration of this important legislation today. But we would be fixing an unfairness, rectifying an unfairness in the House Rules. And we believe very strongly in this.

At this time, Madam Speaker, and I had an opportunity in the Rules Committee yesterday to point out to Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays that, as I've stated before, on the floor of this House today, I oppose the substance of the amendment that they brought before us, but I certainly support it and support, at this time, their right to be heard.

It's unfortunate that the rule, the closed rule bringing the legislation to the floor today, has closed out all of the Members of the House, including Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, before closing, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, who would like to make some other remarks.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or manager's amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic majority Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress and provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark rule is nothing more than a fig leaf.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, at this time, while reiterating my support for the underlying legislation, which I think is worthy legislation and has been thoroughly studied, I think it is most unfortunate that it has been brought forth with a totally closed rule.

I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, after the defeat of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, the brutal Taliban took over the country. The Taliban ruled that country through terror, through systematic assassination, torture, intimidation. They denied Afghans all personal freedoms and made women fifth-class citizens. They also provided safe harbor to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It is from that safe harbor that al Qaeda was able to plan and train for the horrendous attack of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America.

Following the fall of the Taliban, due in large part to the heroic assistance of the United States Armed Forces and coalition forces from many, many countries throughout the world, the international community worked together under the auspices of the Bonn Compact to make possible what was really a wonderful, historic accomplishment, a democratically elected government in Afghanistan.

In 2004, Afghanistan adopted a new constitution and held successful presidential elections. Parliamentary elections followed in 2005. Factions that once fought on the battlefield now, after decades of violence, debate and resolve their differences in parliament with ballots instead of bullets.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are remnants of the former Taliban regime, along with al Qaeda, that are intent on overthrowing the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. The Taliban is using suicide bombings against U.S. and NATO troops, against Afghan officials, against civilians, both international and Afghan humanitarian workers, assistance workers.

Opium poppy cultivation and drug trafficking have become significant negative factors in Afghanistan's fragile political and economic order. Afghanistan currently accounts, unfortunately, for a majority of the world's illicit opium production.

As the democratically elected government faces grave challenges, we must not turn our backs on that young democracy. We must continue our support as that country moves from a brutal dictatorship to a consolidated democracy.

In 2002, this Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act. That law provided both economic and military aid to the young Afghan democracy.

This legislation will reauthorize the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act through the year 2010. The programs reauthorized in this bill focus on countering narcotics production and boost security efforts to protect United States and NATO forces as well as Afghan officials and international assistance workers. This legislation calls for the President to set out a detailed strategy for Afghanistan and provide reports on progress there.

The Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007, this legislation that we bring to the floor today, builds on congressional initiatives enacted in 2002 and 2004; and I again congratulate the leaders, who in those Congresses back in 2002 and 2004, worked so hard to ensure that these initiatives that are being reauthorized today were passed. And these initiatives now are, as I say, reauthorized in this legislation, H.R. 2466, that will be before the House today.

Among those initiatives passed in 2002, 2004 are the creation of multiple programs, but this legislation calls for the creation of a coordinator role for the development of a coherent, consistent counter- narcotics strategy, and to strengthen the fight against the drug trade's links to totalitarian Islamic terrorism.

We also insured in this legislation that initiatives passed in 2002 and 2004 continued, such as prohibition on assistance to Afghan officials who are

found to be supporting criminal activities such as narcotics trafficking.

This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker. This bill reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghanistan in its transition to a stable, representative democracy.

This bill, good legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we bring to the floor today, authorizes the appropriation of $1.7 billion annually for humanitarian and economic assistance and $320 million annually for military assistance during fiscal 2008 to 2010.

This is important legislation. It's important legislation for the fight against the international drug trade and totalitarian Islamists, dangerous remnants of the defeated Taliban, the Taliban who were overthrown, thank God.

Remnants of the Taliban are festering, and they use deadly tactics against United States and NATO forces, as well as Afghans and humanitarian workers. Those people have no scruples, and we only have to remember, Mr. Speaker what they did to the Afghan people when they were in power. So they use horrendous tactics, brutal tactics without limits against our troops and other international forces that are in Afghanistan pursuant to the request of the democratically elected government to secure the peace.

And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, poppy cultivation and opium production continue to directly support insurgents, militias and terrorist groups. In the face of these very difficult challenges, we cannot allow that fledgling democracy, that budding democracy striving to be a stable society, to fail.

With regard to process, our friends on the other side of the aisle, again, the majority had another opportunity yesterday in the Rules Committee to open the process and comfort with an open rule. They voted down an amendment by our ranking member of the Committee on Rules to bring this legislation forth under an open rule. Yes, they made in order all of the amendments that were presented before the committee, and that's commendable. But why not come forth with an open rule? I think that was disappointing.

Let's not fail to see, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is, this underlying legislation that's being brought forward is extremely important. It's a very important piece of legislation.

And by the way, with regard, again, to process, precisely since it's such an important project that as a Nation we're working on and there's great national consensus on the need to do everything we can to consolidate, to help consolidate the representative democracy and the peace in Afghanistan, precisely I think there would have been no harm in allowing, as this debate proceeds, to allow any Member who's hearing the debate who has an idea for an amendment to bring it forth. That's why an open rule is appropriate.

I'd like to thank, Mr. Speaker, the chairman, the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Lantos, for his hard work on this important facet of our foreign policy and the legislation that's being brought forth today, as also the distinguished ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who's also worked very hard on this legislation, and other members of the International Relations Committee. I want to thank them for their hard work on this important issue, which constitutes, as I said, a project where the American people, in consensus fashion, are moving forward and doing everything possible so that our friends and allies in Afghanistan can survive and defeat the brutal Taliban and al Qaeda.

This legislation brought forward today is an important bill. It is of the utmost importance to our national security and obviously to the region where Afghanistan is and, of course, to the people, to the noble people of Afghanistan, as they continue their efforts to consolidate their representative democracy and achieve peace and prosperity in their great country.

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words. What I had been referring to before with regard to the process is that I don't believe that any harm would have been done if the majority would have kept its promise of open rules. It is the majority that promised during the campaign that they were going to bring a significant amount, as many as possible, of bills to the floor under open rules. And this is a noncontroversial bill, and, yes, they made the amendments in order by the Members who went to the Rules Committee, and that is appreciated.

So what harm would it have caused if this legislation would have been brought forth under an open rule, as was proposed, in amendment form, by the ranking member of Rules? That is what my point was. No harm would have been done.

And, simply, I would like to remind the majority of the promises that the majority made during the campaign of bringing forth legislation under open rules. So I don't believe that any harm would have accrued if they would have kept their promise. That's all.

But with regard to the apology, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' kind words, Mr. Speaker.

And, again, with regard to this underlying legislation, which is of extreme importance, there is a national consensus in the United States that we not only have an obligation, but we must do everything in our power so that the democratically elected government in Afghanistan survives, and that is what this legislation is about. We will have other continuing debates on nearby countries and what our obligations are or what is, rather, in our national interest with regard to the stability in neighboring countries of Afghanistan as well and in trying to prevent neighboring countries from becoming basically safe harbors for international terrorism.

Those are legitimate debates.

Today, the legislation being brought forth, Mr. Speaker, is one where there is a national consensus in the United States, thank God, fortunately, and that is that with regard to that country that was for so long oppressed by the brutal Taliban and that had given sanctuary to the terrorists that carried out the mass murders of September 11, 2001, against the United States of America, that we certainly have an obligation to do everything we can to make certain that the people of Afghanistan have as much ability, that they have the wherewithal to proceed along a path towards a consolidated, representative democracy in peace and with prosperity.

That is why we agree that this legislation is very important; and it reauthorizes critical programs, programs of critical importance with regard to our assistance to Afghanistan that were authorized initially and appropriated by the Congress of the United States in 2002 and 2004.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to inform Congress about Normando Hernandez Gonzalez, a valiant prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Hernandez, an independent journalist and the director of the Camaguey College of Independent Journalists in Cuba, has been a chronicler of truth amid the lies and deceit of the Cuban totalitarian regime. Because he is a journalist who exposed the deplorable conditions, ruthless repression and failed policies of the totalitarian tyranny, Castro's thugs have continuously harassed Mr. Hernandez. He has been detained and released miles from his home on various occasions and his telephone service has been cut off since June 15, 2002. In Cuba, men and women who seek truth or freedom are considered enemies of the state.

In March 2003, as part of the tyrant's heinous island wide crackdown on peaceful prodemocracy activists, Mr. Hernandez was arrested by the tyranny. In a sham trial, he was sentenced to 25 years in the totalitarian gulag, for the crime of preparing reports, in which he attacked the health system, and the education provided in this country, questioned the justice system, tourism, culture, agriculture. Following his incarceration, Mr. Hernandez has been kept is solitary confinement and allowed only

4 hours of sunlight a week. All communication with his family has been severely restricted and according to Yarai Reyes, his wife, he has been fed rotten food, refused all medical care and has been kept in a cell with no electricity.

When Mr. Hernandez participated in a hunger strike to protest the deplorable prison conditions, he was transferred to another prison over 400 miles away from his family and loved ones. In this prison, he languishes in a rat and insect infected dungeon which he shares with common prisoners, many of which are considered dangerous and unstable. Mr. Hernandez is routinely beaten and denied access to the outside world.

Madam Speaker, on April 30, 2007, the PEN American Center, which works to advance literature, defend free expression, and to foster international literary fellowship, named Mr. Hernandez the recipient of its 2007 PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award honoring international literary figures that have been imprisoned or persecuted for defending the basic human right of expression. Let me be clear, Mr. Hernandez is confined in an infernal dungeon for reporting truth instead of the mandated lies of the dictatorship in Cuba.

My colleagues, it is unconscionable and condemnable that just miles from our shores, a grotesque gangster regime keeps thousands behind bars simply for supporting freedom and democracy. I ask all members of this great Congress to demand with one, united, voice, the immediate release of Normando Hernandez Gonzalez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of my colleagues Alcee L. Hastings, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz- Balart to introduce an amendment to H.R. 1585, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The amendment recommends that the Secretary of the Navy establish and maintain a Navy Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, ROTC, program at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

Mr. Chairman, the University of Miami is committed to assisting in the education of the armed services officer corps. The university currently houses Army and Air Force ROTC programs with great success. In fact, the university has recently committed to build a new ROTC-only facility should a Navy program be added. This would provide the best environment for college education and officer training for our Armed Forces.

The south Florida community is an ideal place for a Navy ROTC program. The proximity to important military installations such as the Key West Naval Air Station and the United States Southern Command only serves to advance the real world training to which senior reserve officers are exposed during their military education.

Mr. Chairman, a Navy ROTC program at the University of Miami will further the Navy's continued mission to diversify their officer corps through increased recruitment, retention, and career development in minority populations. With a 50 percent minority student body, the university is well-situated to help the Navy achieve its laudable goal. Miami is the ``gateway'' to the Americas. The diversity of our community and the knowledge of our hemisphere would greatly augment the quality of officer training for our military.

Mr. Chairman, for these and other reasons, I am pleased to introduce this amendment with my colleagues and urge all members to support this important Navy ROTC program at the University of Miami.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about Rolando Jimenez Posada, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Jimenez Posada is a lawyer and a director of the Democratic Human Rights Center. As a pro-democracy activist, Mr. Jimenez Posada has devoted himself to portraying the genuine terror of life in totalitarian Cuba. Because of his brave commitment to freedom for the Cuban people and his activities as a pro-democracy activist, the regime began by firing him from his job.

Mr. Jimenez Posada has been detained and threatened numerous times over the past years. On December 10, 2001, while taking part in a peaceful celebration to observe the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he and several others were beaten and pushed into police vehicles and then discarded in remote areas as a means of psychological torture. Amnesty International reports that in July 2002 Mr. Jimenez Posada was threatened at his home after handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Later, the tyrant's thugs told him that he would be imprisoned if he continued carrying out public activities in support of Cuba's political prisoners.

Despite harassment and the continuous threats, Mr. Jimenez Posada never wavered in his conviction. On April 25, 2003, he was arrested and thrown in the gulag on accusations of ``disrespecting the commander'' (the tyrant) and ``revealing state secrets''. For 4 years, he languished in sub-human conditions awaiting ``formal charges'' and a ``trial'' for his ``crime'' of believing that all men have an inherent right to live in freedom.

On April 6, 2007, Mr. Jimenez Posada was ``sentenced'' to 12 years in a second secret trial in less than a week. His family and loved ones were never notified of his trial date, and when he even so much as attempted to voice concerns about the lack of defense counsel he was summarily thrown into a dungeon once again and prohibited all forms of legal defense. Let me be clear, Mr. Jimenez Posada rejects the gangster regime's constant propaganda and its lies. For that reason, he languishes in the most infernal conditions in the tyrant's dungeons.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Jimenez Posada suffers in the repulsive squalor of the totalitarian regime's gulag because he believes in truth and fundamental human rights for the Cuban people. It constitutes a crime of the highest order that a mere 90 miles from our shores, honorable men and women are jailed in dungeons simply for their desire to make known the truth of Cuba's tragic reality and for believing that all Cubans are deserving of human rights. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Rolando Jimenez Posada and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.