Floor Statements

Thank you very much. I want to commend you and all of the distinguished colleagues who have spoken in this hour on this special order on this ultimately important matter, especially always important, but especially in this week when we recall one of the greatly tragic dates in our history.

There have been other dates in our history that have been tragic, but in terms of an attack on unarmed civilians, September 11, 2001, is without precedent in terms of not only the cruelty with which harm was inflicted that day upon thousands of families, upon our great Nation, but in a cowardly way, in this way of unfortunately the new war, the war upon values, the war upon our way of life, the war where civilians are not only fair game, but the primary objective of the enemy.

We have to learn from history in order to be able to act as effectively as possible to protect the homeland. We have to learn from history. Sometimes we even have to learn from the strangest sources, most unorthodox sources, the animal kingdom. The ostrich, for example.

The ostrich, when in fear, adopts a curious position. It hides its head in the soil. Not only by doing so does it adopt physically a peculiar position, but it diminishes its security by doing so because it has not the ability to see what is happening in its surroundings.

So even from sources as unorthodox and unexpected as the animal kingdom, specifically with the ostrich, we have to learn, because I would maintain, always respectfully, that some have adopted the position of the ostrich with regard to political positions and positions with regard to public policy, even as important as with regard to our national security. Hiding our heads in the soil, in the sand, to avoid seeing the fact that we have many enemies, is not an appropriate, not only physical position, but one that is conducive to security.

On the contrary, we have many enemies. In recent history the enemy was acting with impunity. When the enemy acted in 1993, I remember I had just arrived in this Congress, Mr. Speaker. I had just arrived and we were meeting.

I remember the Speaker-to-be Newt Gingrich, who at that time was not yet Speaker, was addressing us in a retreat in February of 1993. I had just arrived the previous month to this Congress. As he spoke, the news arrived about a dreadful terrorist attack upon civilians in New York City. I recall how then Congressman Newt Gingrich, who was to be the Speaker in the next Congress, addressed us and very calmly and with great wisdom told us that we were living in a new era, an era that included the savage attacks upon unarmed civilians by cowardly enemies. February 1993.

The reality of the matter is that the enemy saw that it could act with impunity. And the years passed, and the enemy attacked again with impunity. And the enemy attacked again with impunity, attacked American embassies in different countries with impunity. The enemy went so far as to attack a vessel of the United States Navy, killing many sailors of the USS Cole, inflicting great harm upon the United States.

The enemy acted with impunity. The enemy was convinced that it could continue to act with impunity, so it organized what became the most horrendous attack upon unarmed civilians in the history of the United States.

And the enemy was convinced that it could continue to act with impunity. The enemy miscalculated because a new day had arrived in the United States of America and thus a new day had arrived in the world. The free world led as it is, and it must be by the United States of America. The enemy miscalculated.

So from where the enemy had prepared the most horrendous attack upon civilians in history, thousands of miles away in terrorist training camps in a desolate country with a great people and a great history but a country that has suffered much, in Afghanistan.

The enemy was convinced that geography, distance, and history, especially the lessons of recent history, would continue to protect it. But a new day had arrived, and, of course, the enemy did not act on September 11, 2001, with impunity. It acted in a cowardly way but not with impunity. And the United States of America, led by the Commander in Chief, attacked the enemy in Afghanistan and subsequently attacked the enemy in Iraq.

And today the reality of the matter is that those who would like to and who dream and who, if they can, they actually plan to attack unarmed civilians in American towns and cities, those terrorists to a great extent today are occupied, trying to defeat, trying to inflict damage upon the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and our allies in Iraq, not in American towns and cities. And the fact that there has been no attack upon American civilians, American towns and cities for 5 years, the anniversary that we commemorate this year, is not by chance nor is it by luck. It is by hard work.

Mr. Garrett, I am so glad that he spoke, whom I admire so much, like Mr. Wamp, who is here also. And Mr. Garrett talked about the actions of this Congress. I was tasked by Speaker Hastert in the last Congress to chair the subcommittee of the then temporary Homeland Security Committee that Speaker Hastert created. I was tasked with the job, a difficult job, among the most difficult jobs I have ever had because it is always difficult when you are dealing with committee chairmen and jurisdiction. It is a very difficult task. But he asked me to help him to create a permanent Homeland Security Committee. And in the last Congress that was what took up most of my time, and we succeeded, with the leadership of Speaker Hastert and with the help of the majority of our colleagues. We succeeded. We created a permanent Homeland Security Committee.

And we have taken other steps that Mr. Garrett outlined, the PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization and many other steps, to try to make the homeland, the people of the United States of America as secure as possible. And we are more secure. We are safer today than we were 5 years ago.

But when we see, as was pointed out, and it does not surprise me, but it is very rare to see the media talking about the fact that 90 miles from the shores of the United States this week, celebrating the fifth anniversary of 9/11, all of the state sponsors of terrorism throughout the world have gathered, and they are now gathering, receiving instructions and receiving orientation and inspiration from themselves and coordinating. They are today 90 miles from the shores of the United States. I think it is called, under the umbrella of the United Nations, the Summit of Nonaligned Countries. How interesting. Nonaligned.

You have Mr. Ahmadinejad, who does not stop in his extraordinary pursuit of the atomic weapon and publicly says that he wishes to wipe from the face of the map a democracy and friend of the United States, Israel. You have Mr. Ahmadinejad now receiving inspiration as we speak, receiving inspiration and guidance from the other state sponsors of terrorism. And, of course, the state sponsor of terrorism with all that experience, the dictator in Havana with 47 years of experience exporting terrorism, attacking the United States of America in every form and every way possible as long as he can protect his totalitarian power.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is there now, as is Mr. Chavez and all of the other state sponsors of terrorism. They are there. The North Koreans, the Syrians. You name them, Mr. Speaker, they are there.

So the enemies, our enemies, the enemies of freedom, they haven't stopped in their efforts. So we must not stop either, working to protect not only the national security of this great land but the security and the safety of the people of this great land and of all of the freedom-loving people in the world as we work to expand that sacred right of freedom that all people are entitled to, including those who are oppressed by those state sponsors of terrorism. They may be oppressed by totalitarian states, but they have freedom in their hearts and they long to be free, and they deserve our support and they always will have it.

I appreciate your convening us this evening on this ultimately important subject.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Felix Gerardo Vega Ruiz, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Vega Ruiz is a member of the Cuban Democratic Workers Union and the Pro Human Rights party. As a courageous member of the opposition, he has steadfastly demanded freedom, democracy, and human rights for the Cuban people. He has bravely denounced the cruel policies of the tyrant and demanded that the people of Cuba be allowed their inalienable rights.

According to The Assembly to Promote Civil Society, Mr. Vega Ruiz was arrested by the dictatorship in 2003 and, after a sham trial, thrown into the totalitarian gulag. According to multiple sources, Mr. Vega Ruiz was sentenced to 7 years in the gulag. Let me be very clear, Mr. Vega Ruiz has been incarcerated in the gulag for daring to dream of and to work on behalf of a democratic Cuba.

According to NetforCuba, Mr. Vega Ruiz has continued to oppose the tyrannical regime while locked in the gulag. He has conducted hunger strikes, including one that lasted 83 days and nearly killed him, to call attention to the horrific abuses of the dictatorship. He has also been stabbed while in the gulag. Let me say that again, Mr. Vega Ruiz has been stabbed while he languishes in the abhorrent gulag, and yet he continues to steadfastly oppose the gangster regime in Havana.

Mr. Vega Ruiz is a brilliant example of the heroism of the Cuban people. Mr. Vega Ruiz knows the violence, abuse, and repression that will be used to try to break him. Yet he stands strong in the strength of his conviction that the people of Cuba should be and will be free. Mr. Vega Ruiz is one of the many heroes of the Cuban democratic movement who are locked in the dungeons of the dictatorship for their beliefs. They are symbols of freedom and democracy who will always be remembered with respect and admiration when freedom reigns again in Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, this courageous man is locked in the tyrant's gulag for failing to keep silent about the nightmare that is the Castro regime. It is unacceptable that, while the world stands by in silence and acquiescence, pro democracy activists like Mr. Vega Ruiz are systematically tortured. My Colleagues, we must never forget those who are locked in gulags because of their desire for freedom for their countries. We must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Felix Gerardo Vega Ruiz and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 981 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Horse meat is generally not consumed by people in the United States, but more than approximately 90,000 were slaughtered for human consumption in 2005. Virtually all of those horses were slaughtered for export and sent to the largest markets for that product, to countries such as France and Belgium, where it is commonly served to humans. Another 30,000 were transported from the United States to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. A number of States currently have laws that prohibit slaughter or facilitating the slaughter of horses for human consumption, but there is not a nationwide ban.

Last year during consideration of the fiscal 2006 agriculture appropriations bill, my good friends, distinguished Members Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Whitfield, offered an amendment to that bill that would have prohibited the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for slaughter plant and horse meat inspections, effectively ending the practice. The amendment passed the House with bipartisan support by a strong 269-158 vote. A similar amendment also passed the Senate. However, horse slaughter plants petitioned the USDA to allow fee-for-service inspections whereby the plants pay for the inspections. The USDA granted the request. To get around the limitation amendment, horse slaughter plants made that petition to the USDA to allow for inspections.

The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act would prohibit an individual from slaughtering a horse for human consumption in the United States and would also prevent the transportation of horses from the

United States to Canada or Mexico for the purpose of slaughter for human food.

This legislation, H.R. 503, was introduced by Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Whitfield. I commend both of them for their hard work on this issue, an issue that obviously is very important to them and their constituents.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a prime author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Goodlatte.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who has done so much to bring this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Alexander Santos Hernandez, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Santos Hernandez is a member of the pro-democracy opposition that seeks to return sovereignty, democracy and human rights to the Cuban people. According to reports, he is a member of the Cuban Liberal Movement, the director of an independent library and the national coordinator for the Eastern Democratic Alliance. Independent librarians in Cuba, such as Mr. Santos Hernandez, provide the indispensable service of circulating truth. These vital librarians loan out the classics of anti-totalitarian literature, including authors such as Vaclav Havel and Martin Luther King, Jr.

As an outspoken opponent of tyranny who believes that liberty is an inalienable right, Mr. Santos Hernandez has been constantly targeted by the regime's machinery of repression. According to reports, in Nov. 2004, Mr. Santos Hernandez spent six months in the totalitarian gulag because he was ``convicted'' for ``disobedience.'' Despite the regime's constant gangster style repression, Mr. Santos Hernandez continued his efforts to bring freedom to Cuba.

According to a report published on June 5, 2006, on Directorio.org, Mr. Santos Hernandez was recently ``convicted'' in another sham trial for the ``crime'' of ``social dangerousness.'' He was sentenced to 4 years in the abhorrent, subhuman, totalitarian gulag. The U.S. State Department reports that police and prison officials beat, neglect, isolate, and deny medical treatment to detainees and prisoners, including those convicted of political crimes. It is a crime of the highest order that people who work for freedom are imprisoned in these grotesque conditions.

Freedom and democracy are on the march to inevitable victory in Cuba. Courageous leaders like Mr. Santos Hernandez defy the dictator's machinery of repression and, despite every threat and obstacle, demand liberty for the people of Cuba. Because of their unwavering commitment, and the works of thousands of other Cuban patriots, Cuba will be free again.

Mr. Speaker, it is a profound embarrassment for mankind that the world stands by in silence and acquiescence while political prisoners are systematically tortured because of their belief in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We can never forget those who are locked in gulags because of their desire to be free. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Alexander Santos Hernandez and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 952 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate with 35 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 25 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the information age has greatly changed our economy by bringing about increased efficiencies in productivity. Virtually every sector of our economy benefits from the use of new information technologies.

Right here in Congress, for example, the use of technology has opened up access to the workings of our democracy like never before. Technology allows our constituents to quickly view the status of a bill or to look up our voting records.

Mr. Speaker, the health care industry has not fully embraced the advantages and benefits of information technology. According to a study by the RAND Corporation, only 15 percent of physicians and 20 percent of hospitals use computerized patient files.

Broad use of information technology in the health care system would certainly improve the quality and efficiency of health care delivery.

The use of health information technology is increasingly necessary to deliver the best care possible to individuals with chronic illnesses. The use of health care IT would also promote interoperability between providers and payers.

Efficiencies from coordinated development of health IT will accelerate and advance private and public efforts to improve quality, lower costs, reduce fraud and abuse, and promote the coordination of care. The synergy of these efficiencies will help achieve better health outcomes for patients.

The Health Information Technology Promotion Act, which we bring to the floor today, will improve the quality of care Americans receive through national adoption of electronic medical records and e- prescribing systems.

The legislation promotes the adoption and use of interoperable health information technology that prevents medical and prescription errors and costly duplicate tests, eliminates lost medical records, simplifies our administrative system, and improves medical care and the treatment of chronic illnesses.

The legislation we bring to the floor today provides grants for the use of health information technology to coordinate care among the uninsured and to implement technology in small physician practices. It also updates diagnostic coding, systems for the digital age, and provides for an expedited process to update standards.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson, my dear friend, who is a true expert in the field of health care. It was reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We believe it is time that the health care industry moves to a digital future, and this legislation is an important step in seeing that to reality.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congresswoman Johnson and Chairman Barton and Chairman Thomas for

their leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support the rule that brings this legislation forth as well as the underlying legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Yeats wrote many wonderful, beautiful things. We in the Rules Committee deal with reality. The reality of the rule that we bring to the floor today in order to bring the underlying legislation on information technology for the health care industry brings forth and authorizes six amendments, six amendments to be debated by this House.

Our function is to listen, and we listened hour after hour after hour after hour, with great respect, in the Rules Committee to our colleagues who come forth with multiple ideas. We bring forth six amendments for the consideration of this entire body today. Of the six amendments, four are authored by Members of the opposition, of the Democrat Party; one is a bipartisan amendment, Republican and Democrat; and one is a Republican amendment. We think we are being fair, Mr. Speaker.

So we seek not to bring forth the beauty of Yeats, but in dealing with reality, in dealing with listening to hours of testimony from our colleagues, in authorizing four amendments of Democrats, one of a Republican, one of a bipartisan nature, we think we have done a fair job. And that is what we have authorized for consideration, for debate by this House in the rule that brings forward this very important legislation that we will be hearing about, and we will be hearing about as the authors of the legislation explain it in detail.

I am very proud to be a supporter of the legislation. It is important that information technology reach as much of the health care industry, patients, as possible so that mistakes are avoided, and so that access to the great advances of technology are made available to the largest number of people. There are important issues that this legislation is going to be bringing forth and dealing with and that this debate will entail.

Now, obviously in order for debate to begin, we have to pass the rule which sets the terms of the debate. We are proud of those terms of debate, the extraordinarily fair nature of the terms of that debate. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, four amendments made in order are Democrat amendments, one is a Republican amendment, one is a bipartisan amendment.

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

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

I thank all of my colleagues who have participated in this very interesting debate today. Much has been made by opponents of the legislation of arguments with regard to privacy protections. I think it is relevant and should be pointed out that the very significant and extensive privacy protections contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 are not reduced in any way by this legislation that we bring forth to the floor today.

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Mental Health Association have said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee, ``The Energy and Commerce language ensures that the current protections in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 are maintained, and we wish to commend the approach to privacy protections that the Energy and Commerce Committee proposes to take.''

I mean, it is relevant to point this out because much has been said that would seem or could be interpreted to contradict what I have just read from the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Mental Health Association, very responsible entities that look out for the interests of many citizens who receive health care.

So, Mr. Speaker, urging the support of the underlying legislation, I also urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, which is very fair, makes more than twice as many amendments by Democrats than by Republicans in order. It is precisely in our interest to go the extra mile for fairness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Virgilio Mantilla Arango, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Mantilla Arango is a pro-democracy leader in totalitarian Cuba. Because of his steadfast conviction in human liberty and his constant work to bring freedom to an island enslaved by the nightmare that is the Castro regime, he has been a constant target of the dictatorship.

According to multiple reports, Mr. Mantilla Arango was arrested on March 4, 2002, for peacefully protesting at a provincial hospital. The reports outline how, at the hospital, the group shouted ``Long live human rights'' and sat on the floor. After 2 years in the gulag, and after a sham trial in April 2004, Human Rights Watch reports that Mr. Mantilla Arango was ``sentenced'' to 7 years in the totalitarian gulag. The ``sentence'' included 4 years for his participation in the March 2002 protest and 3 years for continuing to peacefully protest against the nightmare that is the Castro regime during his time in the gulag before his ``trial.''

The U.S. Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices--2005, describes the deplorable conditions in the totalitarian gulag as, ``harsh and life threatening.'' Sadly, this is all too true for Mr. Mantilla Arango. According to reports published on Net For Cuba, Mr. Mantilla Arango has suffered savage beatings by dictatorship thugs for denouncing the tyranny and hanging signs above his bed that say ``Down with Fidel'' and ``We Need Freedom.'' In July, Mr. Mantilla Arango informed the Cuban Human Rights Foundation that he has been in brutal, solitary confinement since putting on a T-shirt last month that carried the words, ``Down with Fidel.''

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Mantilla Arango is the face of the real Cuba. No matter how intense the beatings, no matter how remorseless the repression, no matter how inhumane the conditions, he will never relent in his belief that the people of Cuba should be and will be free.

Mr. Speaker, it is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that, in the 21st century and only 90 miles from our shore, brave men and women are locked in grotesque dungeons because they believe that all people have basic human rights. It is a profound embarrassment for mankind that the world stands by in silence and acquiescence while political prisoners are systematically tortured because of their belief in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Virgilio Mantilla Arango and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 921.

Let us be very clear from the outset of this debate: the current conflict was caused by the violent attacks of two terrorist organizations on Israel, in Israel. Israel has the sovereign right and responsibility to protect and defend itself from these terrorists.

The roots of this problem must be addressed if there is to be any true cessation of violence. Iran and Syria must cease their financial and military support of terrorist organizations. Hezbollah must be disarmed and no longer be allowed to operate. U.N. Resolution 1559 must be fully implemented. The government of Lebanon must be allowed to govern the whole of its territories. President Abbas must guarantee peace, exercise full control over the Palestinian-controlled territory and the Hamas terrorist attacks originating in Palestinian-controlled territory must be permanently stopped. This latest violence only confirms what we have known since 9/11: the forces of extremism and terrorism must no longer be allowed to terrorize peoples and countries who desire to live in peace and freedom.

The approach taken by President Bush has been appropriate. Without an end to terrorist operations by Hamas, Hezbollah, and other enemies of Israel, there will be no hope for peace.

The United States should not negotiate with terrorists and neither should Israel. Despite the recent set-backs, however, we should continue to try to promote peace in the Middle East because it is vitally important to the safety and security of America. We must continue to encourage peace, but all parties must be willing to truly accept Israel's existence and come to the table if peace is to have a chance. Unfortunately, without an end to terrorist operations against Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah, there is no hope for a lasting peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 910 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and it also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to begin by quoting the 15th amendment to the United States Constitution: ``The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.''

As enshrined by the 15th amendment, there really is no more fundamental right in our democratic system than the right to vote. However, the history of the United States is marked with occasions where minorities were in multiple ways, and by multiple ways, blocked from having their voices heard at the ballot box.

One of the great advancements in our American democracy was and is the Voting Rights Act. This historic legislation was the first comprehensive Federal statute to enforce minorities' constitutional right to vote. The provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act provided swift relief to those citizens who were victims of discriminatory voting tactics and provided them access in a concrete and effective way to the voting booth.

Since it was enacted, the Voting Rights Act has enfranchised millions of racial, ethnic, and language minority citizens to have access to that sacred right that is voting by breaking down barriers and permitting increased minority participation in elections for candidates at all levels of government.

After 41 years of breaking down walls, walls to participation in our democratic process, the Voting Rights Act would soon expire if not reauthorized. With this in mind, the Committee on the Judiciary began hearings to determine whether the legislation is still needed. The committee held 12 hearings on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, listening to testimony from State and local elected officials, scholars, lawyers, representatives from the voting and civil rights communities. The testimony and evidence presented before the committee brought to light the fact that even though we have made great strides to stop the discriminatory practices of the past, there still is ample evidence that minorities today face discriminatory practices at the ballot box.

Mr. Speaker, in my community for decades we saw the voting power of minorities diluted to the point that they were for many years unable to elect the representatives of their preference. The Voting Rights Act helped correct that wrong, helped enfranchise countless citizens into our democratic political system. The underlying legislation will reauthorize the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years.

I would like to point out one provision which I think is very important, especially to my community, as well as communities throughout the country. The bill extends section 203, the existing language assistance requirements that provide that election materials be provided in select languages in covered jurisdictions. These provisions of the Voting Rights Act require that non-English voting materials be made available in jurisdictions where 5 percent of the citizen voting age population consists of a single language, limited English proficient minority and in which there is a literacy rate below the national average, or more than 10,000 citizens who meet those criteria reside. These provisions, brought out in the hearings, cover approximately 12 percent of the counties in the United States. It certainly has benefited the counties that I am honored to represent.

The bilingual language assistance provisions play a critical role in assisting both native-born and naturalized citizens to fully participate in our democratic form of government. Older residents, Mr. Speaker, who have been legal residents of the United States for many years when they apply for citizenship, they are exempt when they take their citizenship exam to become United States citizens. They are exempt under our law from the English requirements. In other words, they take those elderly legal residents of the United States who have been here for many, many years, they are allowed to take, if they so wish, the naturalization exam to become a United States citizen in the language of their origin.

In addition, many native-born citizens have limited English skills because they primarily speak other languages and they require assistance. These citizens should be given the opportunity to understand the ballot. Whether it is a simple, but critically important, choice between two or among candidates or a complicated ballot initiative, those citizens of the United States should have the opportunity to fully participate, fully understand what they are voting on and that way be active participants in our democratic system. That is what the legislation does.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 9 was introduced by Chairman Sensenbrenner, Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Pelosi, and reported out of the Committee on the Judiciary by an overwhelming vote of 33-1. It is good legislation, and I am very proud to be bringing it to the floor today.

I hope and expect that we are going to see a very significant bipartisan show of support for this legislation today. I think it is fair and appropriate to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for his determination and his leadership and strength of character in moving forward this legislation. And also the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for his hard work, diligence, and leadership as well on this legislation. I know they put long hours into this process with determination, perseverance, and extraordinary good faith.

I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and good friend on the Rules Committee, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, a champion for human rights wherever it is threatened in the world and here in the United States as well, Mr. Chabot of Ohio.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and distinguished leader from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from south Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), someone whom I love like a brother.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the remaining time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 910 and insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have brought forth this legislation today. It is historic legislation. The Voting Rights Act was one of the great advancements of American democracy, something that we all should, and I think we do, feel very proud about. And we are bringing it forth today, we are extending it for 25 more years, because more work needs to be done, even though there has been extraordinary progress in the last 40 years in this country.

I want to thank again Chairman Sensenbrenner. I admire him. I think he has done an extraordinary job facing great pressures. Of course he is such a man of character, the pressure does not even get to him.

I admire him for that and many other qualities. Again, I thank Ranking Member Conyers and all those who have worked hard to bring this legislation forward. I think we are all cognizant of the historic nature of what we as the House of Representatives are doing today.

And so I would urge support for this rule, which is fair. It makes in order some amendments that I oppose, but I think it is appropriate that the House be able to debate even items that many of us in the Rules Committee don't agree with. But we are going to have a fair debate today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I would like to preface my remarks by expressing my profound admiration for the author of this amendment who I think is a great American patriot. In the Rules Committee, I supported his right to be heard on the floor today.

And I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think that we have made great progress. One of the beauties of America is we are constantly improving as a Nation. We have improved to the point that citizens, for example naturalized citizens, it is important to point out that the elderly, pursuant to our laws, when they have been residents, legal residents of the United States for many years and they seek to become an American citizen, according to our laws, they can take the exam to become an American citizen in their language of preference, their language of origin.

What we said in amendments to the Voting Rights Act, those people have a right to understand what they are voting on. Whether it is a simple choice of candidate or a complex ballot issue, elderly citizens who are naturalized have a right to understand what they are voting on.

Also, there are millions of native-born Americans whose language, primary language, is not the English language. And so we believe, just like we certainly are extremely proud of those citizens, whether they are naturalized or en route to be naturalized or native born and they defend this country, and we are certainly grateful to them and proud of them when they do so, we think they should have the right when they vote to be able to understand the ballot initiatives that they are voting on or other questions.

So I really think, Mr. Chairman, that the fairer we are as a society, the greater we are. The more fair our country is, the greater our country is. This is an example. We have opened an opportunity for full participation, for citizens whose primary language is other than English, to the ballot box. And I think we should be proud of that as a country.

So I again commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for bringing forth this legislation and oppose the amendment before us at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my Colleagues about Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Paneque, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Dr. Garcia Paneque is a leader of the opposition movement in Cuba. He is a surgeon by training, and a member of the Cuban Independent Medical Association. He is also a leading independent journalist. As a director of the independent news agency Libertad and a member of the Manuel Marquez Sterling Journalists Society, Dr. Garcia Paneque has also devoted his efforts to letting the world know the truth about the nightmare that is the Castro regime.

On March 18, 2003, as part of the tyrant's heinous island wide crackdown on peaceful, pro-democracy activists, Dr. Garcia Paneque was arrested. After a sham trial, he was sentenced to 24 years in the totalitarian gulag. Let me be very clear, Dr. Garcia Paneque is a young doctor in a dungeon because he is a supporter of freedom, democracy, and because he worked to shine the light of truth on the depravity and horror that is the Cuban tyranny.

The U.S. Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices--2005, describes the deplorable conditions in the totalitarian gulag, ``Prison conditions continued to be harsh and life threatening.'' Unfortunately, this is far too true for Dr. Garcia Paneque. According to various reports, he has lost over 40 kilograms while in prison. He has had to be hospitalized multiple times while incarcerated. The latest reports are especially disturbing. Once again hospitalized because of the depraved conditions in the totalitarian gulag, he is now suffering from various life threatening maladies.

The Castro tyranny is not only murdering Dr. Garcia Paneque because he believes in liberty, they are also attacking his family. According to a report filed by Yamilet de los Angeles Llanes Labrada, ``Dr. Garcia Paneque's four children are psychologically affected by their father's imprisonment and by the constant harassment they are forced to sustain. At least three times a week, groups cry out dictatorship slogans from outside Garcia Paneque's home.'' This is the grotesque reality of living under Castro's tyranny: if you demonstrate your belief in freedom, the tyrant will lock you in a dungeon and regime thugs will mercilessly attack your family.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Garcia Paneque is the face of the real Cuba. Despite these gangster tactics, heinous threats, and life threatening illness, Dr. Garcia Paneque continues to demand human rights for the people of Cuba. He is languishing in an infernal gulag because he believes in freedom, truth, democracy, and human rights. His family is being constantly threatened because of these ``dangerous'' beliefs.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that journalists and physicians like Dr. Garcia Paneque are locked in dungeons for writing the truth. At the dawn of the 21st Century, it must no longer be acceptable for anyone in the world, anywhere in the world, to be locked in a gulag for reporting the facts. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Jose Luis Garcia Paneque and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Rafael Corrales Alonso, political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Corrales Alonso is a pro-democracy activist and a member of the 30 November Democratic Party, an island wide movement dedicated to the establishment of a democratic society, in opposition to the Castro tyranny. Unfortunately, those who believe that freedom, and human rights are the birthright of all men and women, are targeted by the tyrant's machinery of repression.

According to Amnesty International, on February 28, 2002, Mr. Corrales Alonso was arrested by the dictatorship. More than 2 years later he was tried on the supposed ``crime'' of ``contempt'' and, in a sham trial, Mr. Corrales Alonso was sentenced to 5 years in the totalitarian gulag.

Let me be very clear, Mr. Corrales Alonso is currently languishing in the depraved conditions of the totalitarian gulag for his belief in freedom. The U.S. State Department describes the conditions in the gulag as, ``harsh and life threatening.'' The State Department also reports that police and prison officials beat, neglect, isolate, and deny medical treatment to detainees and prisoners. It is a crime of the highest order that people are imprisoned in these nightmarish conditions simply for their belief in democracy and freedom.

Mr. Corrales Alonso is one of the many heroes of the peaceful Cuban democratic movement who are locked in the dungeons of the dictatorship for their beliefs. They are symbols of freedom and democracy who will always be remembered when freedom reigns again in Cuba. President Bush addressed those brave men and women who spread the light of freedom in the darkest corners of the world when he said, in his second inaugural address, ``Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.''

Mr. Corrales Alonso represents the very best of the Cuban people: No matter how intense the beatings, no matter how remorseless the repression, no matter how inhumane the conditions, he will never relent in his belief that the people of Cuba should be and will be free.

Mr. Speaker, it is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that, in the 21st century and only 90 miles from our shore, brave men and women are locked in grotesque dungeons because they believe that all people have basic human rights. It is a profound embarrassment for mankind that the world stands by in silence and acquiescence while political prisoners are systematically tortured because of their belief in freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Rafael Corrales Alonso and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, because I firmly oppose drilling for oil off the coasts of Florida, I believe that it is critical that a permanent, state-controlled ban on drilling around the entire state becomes law as soon as possible. This is why I believe the Pombo-Putnam compromise in H.R. 4761, the Domestic Energy Production through Offshore Exploration and Equitable Treatment of State Holdings Act of 2006, is essential in order to protect Florida's beaches.

The Pombo-Putnam compromise would allow Florida to prohibit drilling for 100 miles. In negotiations with the legislation's authors and in the House Rules Committee, I worked to further protect Florida's environmental treasures. As successfully amended, the compromise would also codify the ban on drilling within the ``military mission line''-- approximately 234 miles from Tampa--to provide even more protection for Florida's west coast.

This plan, in many ways, is better than a bill that the Florida delegation almost unanimously cosponsored in 1997. That bipartisan legislation sought to prohibit any leasing or drilling within 100 miles of Florida's coasts, but did not include the added protection provided by the ``military mission line.'' It also lacked the factor of state control of the drilling issue. Former Governor Lawton Chiles also supported, in writing, a 100-mile ban on drilling.

Presently, Florida's only protections against offshore oil drilling reside with an expiring presidential promise (known as the ``moratoria'') and a year-to-year appropriations limitation amendment-- a technical legislative maneuver that prohibits Federal funds from being used to conduct offshore leasing.

The stark reality Florida faces is not only the expiring ``moratoria,'' but also a strong push in Congress to allow drilling as close as 20 miles from our shores. On May 18 of this year, the House passed an amendment by a close 217-203 vote to prevent drilling as close as three miles from Florida's east coast and nine miles from Florida's west coast. Eight cosponsors of a bill (H.R. 4318) to allow drilling just 20 miles off Florida's coasts voted for this amendment because they felt that three miles was just too close. Had those eight cosponsors voted against that amendment, the vote would have been lost 211-209, and drilling would have been allowed as close as three miles from Florida's coast. Although they voted for this particular amendment, our colleagues assured us that they would vote in favor of legislation to allow drilling at 20 miles. Instead of relying on votes from over 400 Congressmen from outside of Florida, I support placing the fate of Florida's beaches in the hands of Floridians.

In 2005, Congressional passage of a plan was possible that would have permanently banned drilling within 125 miles of our beaches. On June 29, 2006, we learned, by a vote of 65 to 353, that a majority in Congress no longer supports a 125-mile ban. Last year's offer of 125 miles has now been reduced to 100 miles from our coastline. The next step could very well be a horrible 20 miles. As a strong opponent of drilling, I believe that our window of opportunity in Congress for a permanent ban on offshore drilling is closing. This is why I support the Pombo-Putnam compromise.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend, whom I admire in an extraordinary fashion, Mr. Stearns.

One of the great advancements, Mr. Chairman, in our American democracy and of our American democracy was precisely the Voting Rights Act that made it possible, in effect, for millions of American citizens, minority American citizens, to have access to that sacred right that is voting. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we keep in mind that this is not an immigration debate, as Mr. Stearns said. We are talking about American citizens and only about American citizens.

There are, Mr. Chairman, millions of native born American citizens that speak languages other than English. For example, there are over 4 million native born American citizens from Puerto Rico who speak Spanish. Many speak English; others do not. They speak primarily Spanish. It is our belief and it was a great advancement of American democracy to say that American citizens whose primary language is not English should also be able to understand ballots, even the most complicated or simple of ballot initiatives, petitions, ballots with candidates.

What this section of the Voting Rights Act says is when there is a community that has a significant number of people whose language is other than English, that that community should have access to ballots in their language of preference, in their language of most fluency.

In addition to the fact that there are millions of American citizens who are native born and who speak languages other than English, our laws also establish and call for elderly resident aliens, residents of the United States, immigrants, who have resided legally in the United States for more than 15 years, our law says that they can take the exam to become a citizen of the United States in their native language.

So there are many elderly American citizens, naturalized American citizens, who are allowed, according to our laws, the laws of our Congress, to take their naturalization exam to become a proud American citizen in languages other than English. They should also, Mr. Chairman, be allowed to vote, and they should also be allowed to understand even the most complicated of ballot initiatives. So that is what the law does.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

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

Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is a great advancement in our democracy that we should be proud of. We are talking only about the rights of American citizens. American citizens whose primary language is other than English should also be able to vote.

As a Nation, we took an important step forward that, as I say, we all should be proud of when we facilitated that sacred right to vote to American citizens whose primary language, whose most fluent language, is one other than English.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Reinaldo Miguel Labrada Pena, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Labrada Pena is a peaceful pro-democracy activist and a member of the Christian Liberation Movement. His life is dedicated to the proposition that the men and women of Cuba must be free: free to learn, free to worship, free to enjoy their inalienable human rights. Unfortunately, the nightmare that is the Castro regime continues to violently oppress the people of Cuba, including those that bravely make known the atrocities committed against the Cuban people for the world to see.

In March 2003, as part of the regime's heinous crackdown on peaceful, pro-democracy activists, Mr. Labrada Pena was arrested. In a sham trial, he was sentenced to 6 years in the totalitarian gulag.

Mr. Labrada Pena is languishing in an inhuman, grotesque gulag simply because of his religious convictions and his desire to live in liberty. According to Amnesty International, he has been denied access to religious services and has inadequate ventilation in his squalid cell.

Mr. Labrada Pena is representative of the fighting spirit of the Cuban people: of their rejection of the brutality, discrimination, depravity, and oppression of the totalitarian tyranny. Thousands languish in the gulag because, like Mr. Labrada Pena, they refuse to accept the tyrannical dictatorship in Cuba today. It is reprehensible that, at the dawn of the 21st Century, men and women like Mr. Labrada Pena are still locked in dank dungeons because of the tenets of their faith.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that peaceful Cubans of all genders, creeds and colors are locked in Castro's barbarous gulag because they believe in a tree Cuba. While the entire world sits by and ignores the suffering of the Cuban people, brave men and women like Mr. Labrada Pena represent the best of mankind. My Colleagues, we must demand freedom and human rights for all people, including those who live under the darkness of totalitarian regimes. We must demand immediate and unconditional freedom for Reinaldo Miguel Labrada Pena and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of chairing the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Rules Committee. My Subcommittee was the first to address this legislation with a hearing last March, shortly after the measure was introduced.

During our hearing, we heard from two distinguished Members of the House, including the bill's sponsor, Representative Paul Ryan, as well as Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee. And we heard the administration's position from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Deputy Director, now Deputy Chief of Staff for the President, Joel Kaplan. Finally, we received historical perspective on this issue from Donald Marron, the Acting Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Several problems were brought out with regard to the legislation. I believe that the Committees of jurisdiction have worked diligently with the author of the resolution to appropriately address most problems. Among the concerns brought out during our Subcommittee hearing were:

The number of special messages that could be submitted by the President on each annual Appropriations law.

The amount of time that the President could withhold funding for requested rescissions.

The scope of the rescission request, specifically tax benefits and mandatory spending.

I am pleased that input was welcomed by Representative Ryan and that these concerns

have been addressed. Parameters have been included that will lessen the potential legislative burden on the Congress and prevent the possibility of excessive delaying tactics by the President.

I certainly do not believe that the underlying legislation is perfect. Despite the recent changes, I think that five special messages per bill may still be too many. Think about 50 possible expedited special messages that Congress would have to consider after passing 10 appropriations bills. The legislative burden may be extraordinary.

In balance, however, since the bill gives us another tool to promote good stewardship of the people's money, I urge my colleagues to support the Rule and the underlying legislation. I look forward to a full debate on efforts such as this to increase fiscal discipline in the Congress' budget process.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 886--The Rule Providing for Consideration

of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution,

the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill

(H.R. 5667) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited

consideration of certain proposed rescissions of

discretionary budget authority, promote fiscal

responsibility, reinstate Pay-As-You-Go rules, require

responsible use of reconciliation procedures, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

the Budget. The bill shall be considered as read. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Sec. 3. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution of the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of Rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.''