Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this to the floor today. I appreciate my friend Ms. Jackson-Lee for her support of the legislation.

I think, as Chairman Sensenbrenner pointed out, we are living in a different time now. It is a different era. We are in a different kind of struggle.

There are different regimes, and I happen to believe that the genocide in Darfur is an affront to the entire civilized world. It is estimated over 300,000 people have been murdered there. I think we need to bring the power of sunshine to the strategies and the actions of regimes such as that. The American people need to know, I think they deserve to know, when a regime like that is paying for representation here in Washington and what contacts are being made here in Washington by representatives of a regime like that to attempt to influence officials here.

So I think it is important legislation, especially as we move forward on this area of transparency in the legislative process, improving transparency in the legislative process. I think this is an appropriate thing to do.

As Chairman Sensenbrenner brought out, there are really two legs to this stool. You have the so-called diplomats of these regimes, and in order to be accredited here, to receive their accreditation, they would have to agree to fulfill this requirement. So obviously if they don't fulfill it, that could be a reason for seeing those so-called diplomats off, ending their accreditation.

But equally as important is that regimes such as that pay people in the

United States, and we want to know who those lobbyists are and what contacts they have with the legislative branch. So we are adding to existing legislation this requirement, as Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and despite an erroneous report in one of the publications that cover the Hill today, there are significant penalties, Mr. Speaker.

As Chairman Sensenbrenner pointed out, if you are a lobbyist and don't fulfill these requirements, you can be subjected to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment or both. So it is a serious bill.

I thank Ms. Jackson-Lee for her support and urge all colleagues to support this legislation, especially at this time when we are in a different era, a very dangerous and challenging one.

Again, I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his help and his support.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Members to realize and focus on precisely what we are talking about here.

First of all, there is no requirement on Members of the House, Members of Congress, to report. The requirement is on the lobbyist firm who has been hired by one of a handful, five of, I would like to repeat it, state sponsors of terrorism.

What this bill says is if you are hired by one of those state sponsors of terrorism, you should report, especially in this era, your contacts. So it is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is one that will contribute to the national security.

I think the American people have a right to know the contacts by those paid lobbyists from state sponsors of terrorism. And so, with that in mind, and cognizant of the era that we are living in, I have brought forth this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Ricardo Pupo Sierra, political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Pupo Sierra is a member of the Cuban Human Rights Party and a pro-democracy activist. Mr. Pupo Sierra has been a constant advocate for human rights for those currently toiling under the nightmare of repression called the Castro regime. He has bravely denounced the cruel policies of the tyrant and demanded that the people of Cuba be allowed their inalienable rights.

Mr. Pupo Sierra was arrested by the dictatorship and, after a sham trial, thrown into the totalitarian gulag. According to Prima News, in August 2005, Mr. Pupo conducted a hunger strike to protest the abhorrent treatment of prisoners in the grotesque gulag. According to Directorio, he began a hunger strike on June 9, 2006, to demand access to religious services.

Mr. Pupo Sierra also sent this message to the Cuban people saying: ``Do not be afraid of the regime. Do not allow yourself to continue being deceived: dissent. Speak the truth without fear. Do not be discouraged. We are reaching the final point of the ruling system in Cuba. We will soon have a free, democratic Cuba with the rule of law.''

Mr. Pupo Sierra is a brilliant example of the heroism of the Cuban people. His message exemplifies the Cuban desire to live in liberty, free of the tyrannical repression imposed on them by the murderous despot. Mr. Pupo Sierra 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: ``We will soon have a free, democratic Cuba with the rule of law.'' Mr. Pupo Sierra is an apostle of freedom for Cuba.

Despite incessant repression, harassment, incarceration and abuse, he remains committed to the conviction that liberty and human

rights are the birthright of the Cuban people. It is a crime against humanity that Castro's totalitarian gulags are full of men and women, like Mr. Pupo Sierra, who represent the best of the Cuban nation.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear, Mr. Pupo Sierra is languishing in the grotesque squalor of the gulag because he desires freedom for all Cubans. My Colleagues, read his message often. We must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Ricardo Pupo Sierra and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, I remember the inexorable slide towards the absolute irrelevance of the international system during the decade of the 1990s and the first few years of this decade, Saddam Hussein having in fact purchased just about every relevant United Nations leader and world leader, in fact, even in our friendly continent of Europe, except of course for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar. Saddam Hussein and, we must remember, Mr. Speaker, the Oil-for-Food program and its billions of dollars siphoned off to purchase world and United Nations leaders. Saddam Hussein flouted his disdain for the international community and its, according to him, silly norms, laws, and resolutions. Almost 20 of them, Mr. Speaker, he systematically ignored and laughed at.

He called in al Zarqawi of al Qaeda to Iraq, joining next door Afghanistan as a state dedicated to welcoming and fostering international terrorists. In Afghanistan, as my late father Rafael Diaz-Balart would tell me, my late father whose wisdom far exceeded his formal education of five degrees from universities in Europe and one on this continent, he would tell me, ``There in Afghanistan is the Taliban, the Taliban who torture women and who have opened that country to the training camps of international terrorists.''

And in 1993, we saw the attacks coming from those terrorists to here, to New York City, the World Trade Center, and then the bombings of American embassies in Africa, and even an attack on a United States ship, the Cole. Nothing happened. But then came 9/11, Mr. Speaker, and it became evident that we could no longer allow despots like Saddam and the Taliban to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council, no matter how many billions of dollars they spent purchasing world leaders.

This is, Mr. Speaker, the debate of our era. We cannot wait until international terrorism attacks us. We must

take the war to international terrorism and defeat international terrorism before the terrorists attack us. That is the debate of our era, as President Bush has reiterated so often. And that is a debate that we as a country and as a Congress must engage in, and I am pleased to see that we are doing so today.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is one of various amendments that will be brought forth, I believe, today with regard to the issue of our policy toward the Communist totalitarianism in Cuba. In fact, this amendment was brought up by Mr. Flake a year ago, and it was one of the amendments brought up last year. Since it was brought to the floor last year, the pro-democracy movement in Cuba, and I think it is of relevance to point out, had an opportunity, despite the extraordinary difficulties of speaking out with regard to issues of public policy, either in Cuba or anywhere else, the pro- democracy movement had an opportunity to speak with regard to the amendments that were introduced last year in this Congress. I think it is of relevance and I would like to make note of their position.

We have a letter from the leaders of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society. Unbelievably, a year ago they were able to hold a convention for the first time in totalitarian Cuba. Many of their delegates were not allowed to arrive at the convention. They were detained. They were harassed. They were stopped before they left their house. Others were arrested. The assembly elected leaders, something which is extraordinary in a totalitarian state, and those leaders signed a letter which I would like to introduce into the Record, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendments that were brought forth that were made, that were introduced last year. And I would just like to say that as those leaders, one of the three, by the way, has since been arrested, is Mr. Rene Gomez Manzano, who signed this letter, subsequently was thrown in the gulag where he is today, despite not having been charged but he is there today in the gulag. And they said, as they expressed their opposition to the amendments that were filed last year, including this amendment by Mr. Flake, that the adoption of any unilateral measure to completely or partially lift the existing sanctions of the United States could be interpreted by the Cuban regime in Havana, which has given continuous examples of its absolute immovability and of its repressive and anti-democratic vocation as a policy of accommodation. Now, this is the position of the brave pro-democracy movement in Cuba, which I think it is of relevance to listen to. As I say, one of them was thrown in the gulag after making known this position with regard to amendments that were filed last year, including Mr. Flake's.

Another point I would like to bring out which I think of is relevance, the Flake amendment, he admits that it is legal to travel for religious purposes to

Cuba. I want to reiterate that. It is legal. One of the existing categories for travel to Cuba is religious travel. The administration does fight fraud and abuse, people who go and say, use even the most sacred of subterfuges, including the religious travel mantle. The administration does fight against abuse, and regulations are in place to make sure that people who are going for religious travel go for religious purposes.

Now, that must be reiterated, the fact that it is legal to travel for religious purposes. The Flake amendment says, no funds could be spent to change the current authorization, regulation that authorizes religious travel. So if a future administration wished to change the regulation, make it stricter, make it easier to travel, the regulations couldn't be changed under Mr. Flake's amendment.

So I simply, as I oppose this amendment, reiterate that it is legal. One of the 13 categories of travel, legal travel to Communist Cuba is for religious purposes. The Flake amendment is confusing, contingent, prospective, and thus difficult really to analyze with regard to its possible effects on the future.

But, for me, the most important factor in this debate is that the people who are suffering the repression today and who risk their lives when they make a statement like Rene Gomez Manzano did a year ago in opposition of this amendment, they are clear in their opposition. So I reiterate their position and oppose the Flake amendment.

Havana, June 24, 2005.

Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,

Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart,

Hon. Bob Menendez,

Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Distinguished Compatriots: We have recently learned that,

at present, the Honorable House of Representatives of which

you are members is considering several proposals--introduced

by various Congressmen--seeking to prevent or hinder the

implementation of diverse measures related to the embargo

decreed by the United States against the totalitarian regime

in Havana.

Of course, we respect any decision that sovereign Congress

takes on this matter.

However, we do not wish that anyone pretend that such

proposals count with the support of the generality of those

who within Cuba oppose the ruling system and who fight

peacefully for change.

As you know, the signatories of this letter form the

Secretariat of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society in Cuba

(a group that on May 20 and 21 successfully held in Havana

the first congress of Cuban democrats and which is comprised

by the majority of the independent entities located in Cuba);

and as such we can assure you--and through you the Congress

of that great nation--that our coalition does not support the

adoption of unilateral measures to completely or partially

lift the existing embargo of the United States, which could

be interpreted by the Cuban regime in Havana (which has given

continuous examples of its absolute immovability, and of its

repressive and antidemocratic vocation) as a policy of

accommodation.

Respectfully,

Felix Antonio Bonne Carcasses.

Rene de Jesus Gomez Manzano.

Martha Roque Cabello.

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

Mr. Chairman, I negotiated the agreement that Mr. Moran made reference to, along with my dear colleagues, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mrs. Emerson. At that time Mr. Nethercutt was here. And the agreement stands.

The agreement authorized sales to the Cuban regime as long as payments were made, cash in advance. Now, the Cuban regime, and let us be clear when we talk about trade with Cuba that we are dealing, there are no Cubans, there are no Cubans who can buy, because it is a totalitarian state, the regime.

Now the dictator started to make purchases after the law was passed in October of 2000. And as is to be expected, then he started engaging in delaying tactics, precisely to create leverage and pressure so that we would see something like we see today. Sure enough, the delaying tactics began by the dictator.

And U.S. financial institutions asked for clarification of what ``cash in advance'' is. Now, it should not surprise us that the dictator started his delaying tactics, when we see the billions and billions of dollars that he owes to anyone who has given him credit.

It should not surprise anyone that he started, he began delaying tactics. The reality of the matter is, cash sales are allowed. The reality of the matter is that U.S. financial institutions asked for this clarification.

And also I want to make a separate point. President Bush is right, and I thank him once again for, today, having issued another very clear statement of administration policy, when he has stated from the first day of his administration that he has promised to veto any legislation that enriches the Cuban dictatorship or benefits the Cuban dictator's regime.

The President is right. I stand with him. I thank him once again. And I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to another negotiator of the deal, of the agreement that still stands and has not been changed by this regulation by President Bush, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Knollenberg.

I was pleased to hear that our colleague from the other side of the aisle said that, I think he said something like he would vote for democracy in Cuba. When we have had opportunities in this Chamber, as late as May of 2005, to condemn the human rights violations, I see that he has voted ``no.'' So I am glad that perhaps some progress on that issue may be being made.

Mr. Chairman, which of the conditions that Ms. Ros-Lehtinen mentioned, which are in our law for the immediate lifting of U.S. sanctions, the sweeping of trade, the arrival of massive trade and tourism and financing, which of the conditions in our law that make that access to the U.S. market, that are contingent for that access to the U.S. market, which are the conditions mentioned by our colleague, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? The liberation of all political prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, labor unions, the press and the holding of free elections, which of those conditions are objectionable?

We want to see the sanctions lifted. What we want to see are the people of Cuba, 90 miles from our shores and oppressed for 47 years by a totalitarian tyrant, we want to see them freed. We want the political prisoners freed. We want their political parties legalized. We want to see them with free elections. Which of the conditions are objectionable?

Is it correct to lift, to reward that tyranny now, unilaterally, while the prisons are full of men and women, prisoners of conscience, who peacefully advocate for freedom and democracy, the freedom that we are here exercising today? For example, one of them, an independent journalist, Guillermo Farinas, is on the verge of death as we speak because he entered a hunger strike 4 months ago for the right as an independent journalist to access the Internet and to be able to have and send e-mail, and he is on a hunger strike, on the verge of death as we speak.

What is objectionable with our insistence to that tyranny that that political prisoner be released and all the others and political parties be legalized and the Cuban people have access like the rest of this hemisphere has to free and fair elections, multiparty elections? What is so objectionable? Why the different treatment? Why is it that we insist on free elections for countries throughout the world, but our neighbors 90 miles away, no, no; for them let us unilaterally reward the tyrant and give him what he seeks.

No, this amendment must be defeated once again, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I noted with interest that the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee stated that he was interested in this intellectual exercise. Perhaps this could be because we are in a free Parliament, in a democracy, and it could be interpreted as an intellectual exercise.

But I will tell you for whom this issue is not an intellectual exercise. When a year ago, despite the totalitarian nature of the Cuban regime, over 100 delegates from the peaceful prodemocracy movement managed to meet. Many others were not able to meet. They were stopped. They were arrested. For many reasons many others were not allowed, but over 100 did manage to meet in assembly. And they elected leaders and principles.

Those leaders sent us a year ago, after their assembly, after this amendment, the same amendment and a few others had been filed, a statement of position with regard to the amendments, including this one that was filed a year ago.

Now, of these three leaders, the elected leaders of the prodemocracy leader in Cuba, one was thrown in the gulag after sending this letter, where he is today. He remains uncharged. Who knows if the dictator will ever charge him? He was sent to the gulag and he is today in that inferno gulag after sending us his position. That is not an intellectual exercise; it is an exercise of extraordinary heroism.

And they stated in the letter that those amendments, and one of them was this one, if any of them would be passed, that Cuban regime in Havana, which has given continuous examples of its absolute immovability and of its repressive and antidemocratic vocation, would consider such amendments unilateral actions by this Congress as a policy of accommodation with the regime. So this is not an intellectual exercise.

We are dealing with a tyranny of 47 years. And let no one be confused. Despite the 47-year duration of that tyranny, let no one be confused that for one single day the Cuban people have failed to fight for their freedom. And they will be free and the tyrant who is about to celebrate his 80th birthday will soon be elsewhere and the Cuban people will be free.

By the way, statements like the resolution that was mentioned recently, that only 22 Members of this House voted against, in support of the prodemocracy movement and in condemnation of the violation of the human rights of the Cuban people, those statements and manifestations by this Congress will always be seen as admirable, admirable statements of solidarity of the people who deserve to be free and who will be free despite 47 years of oppression.

So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again stand for the rights of the Cuban people to live in freedom. And these amendments, like this one which seeks to confuse, because it is already legal for Americans with educational purposes to get a license and study in Cuban, but not to engage in child prostitution and not to engage in the endeavors of the regime, like our State Department has stated publicly just a few days ago on the record, Ambassador John R. Miller, Ambassador-at-Large on International Slavery: Cuba has a tourism industry, government operated or affiliated, which engages in promoting child prostitution, which is not only trafficking under United States law but under United Nations protocol, and it is done very openly.

That is among the realities, the horrible realities of the Cuban tyranny which will soon come to an end but that we must continue to condemn and we must continue to reject unilateral rewards for. So I ask my colleagues to vote down this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 862, and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend 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, House Resolution 862 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules. House Resolution 862 will allow the House to consider the rule for consideration of the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007.

The Rules Committee received numerous requests from the authorizing committees to expose portions of the bill that they feel represent legislating on appropriations bills. We are working through those requests now. Later today the Rules Committee will meet to thoroughly consider these requests and report out a rule.

Although we have not passed a final rule on this bill yet, Mr. Speaker, historically appropriations bills have come to the House floor governed by an open rule. I expect that we will continue to do so in order to allow each and every Member of this House the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration, obviously, as long as they comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this same-day rule so we can move forward to the rule on this important appropriation bill as soon as the rule is ready.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply note that the Transportation, Treasury, HUD bill passed the full Appropriations Committee by a voice vote on June 6. In other words, without opposition, without noted opposition; and the bill was filed on June 9. It has been available for everyone to see and review for days now. It was also on the schedule since last week.

I have no further speakers on this side of the aisle. I would ask my good friend if he has any other speakers.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 865 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 1 hour of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

I would like to take a moment to reiterate that we bring this rule forward under an open rule. Historically, appropriations legislation has come to the House governed by open rules, and we continue to do so in order to allow each and every Member of the House the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration as long as they comply with the rules of the House.

The legislation that we bring to the floor today appropriates over $67 billion for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and independent agencies, an increase of 6 percent over last year. And yet the bill is fiscally sound. It also represents our commitment to provide the necessary resources for programs and projects across the Nation ranging from transportation to housing, the judiciary, the executive office of the President, and the District of Columbia.

The Nation's transportation infrastructure is the backbone of the economy. Its continued strength is essential to foster economic growth, and the bill that we bring to the floor today ensures that we have a reliable and stable transportation infrastructure, that we continue to do so, so that the economy can continue to grow.

The bill includes $39.1 billion in funds for our highway system, representing an increase of $3.5 billion. Included in the bill is $900 million for Amtrak. It includes significant financial and management reforms. In addition, the DOT Inspector General is required to report back regularly to Congress on Amtrak's progress on financial reforms.

The bill that we bring to the floor also includes over $15 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $1.4 billion. Included in that amount is $16 million to hire and train 132 new air traffic controllers. That is vitally important as air traffic controllers begin to retire and yet air traffic continues to grow. This is essential, for example, in my district, which is the home of Miami National Airport, the third largest international airport in the country. Without an increase in the number of air traffic controllers, Miami International would not be able to continue its projected growth and continue to serve as the Hub of the Americas.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is funded at $35 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion. These funds will permit the Department to administer programs and assist the public with their housing needs, economic and community development and fair housing opportunities. Under HUD the bill includes funding for such important programs as Tenant Based Rental Assistance, also known as section 8, and project-based rental assistance. These two programs serve almost 3.5 million households with vouchers and project-based housing. The bill includes over $21 billion in funds for the program, an increase of over $800 million.

H.R. 5576 provides $6.1 billion for the Federal Judiciary, an increase, Mr. Speaker, of almost 6 percent. This funding will enable the courts to effectively process priority criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases.

This legislation was introduced by Chairman Joe Knollenberg and reported out of the Appropriations Committee on June 6 by a voice vote. It is good legislation, essential to our continued commitment to the security and safety of all citizens and residents of the United States; and we bring it forth, as I stated before, under a fair and open rule.

I would like to thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver for their leadership on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply would reiterate that the legislation we bring to the floor today by this rule appropriates 6 percent more for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and Housing and Urban Development, and the Judiciary and District of Columbia and other agencies, 6 percent more than last year.

And we are proud of the legislation we bring forth. I know that Chairman Knollenberg has worked long and hard, as well as many of our members of the Appropriations Committee on this legislation, to prioritize needs and to bring forth as fair a piece of legislation as possible.

With regard to the area of housing, the bill, as I stated before, includes funding for important programs such as the tenant-based rental assistance, also known as Section 8, and as a matter of fact, the bill includes over $21 billion for the program, an increases of over $800 million from last year.

I think Chairman Knollenberg has done a very good job, and he deserves our commendation, as do the other members of the committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate that we bring this legislation forth with an open rule, which means that any Member of the House who has an idea for more funding for one program, less funding for another, they can bring forth any amendment as long as they obviously follow the rules of the House.

So we are bringing forth this appropriations bill with an open rule, we look forward to debate. We think it is good legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side of the aisle, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I am very proud of the work of Chairman Knollenberg and the rest of the Members who have worked hard on this appropriation bill. We think it is a good bill. It is fair. We bring it forward to an open rule, which permits any germane amendment to be introduced, discussed, debated by this House.

I look forward to the debate. We are proud of the underlying legislation as well as the rule that we bring it forth with.

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 Armando Betancourt Reina, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Betancourt Reina is an independent journalist and has been a chronicler of truth amid the lies and deceit of Castor's villainous regime. Mr. Betancourt Reina works and writes to inform the world about the nightmare that is the Castro regime. Unfortunately, writing and reporting the truth is not allowed under Castro's tyrannical dictatorship. All attempts to portray the absolute lack of freedom in totalitarian Cuba are viciously attacked and their authors are imprisoned and harassed.

According to Directorio and the Committee to Protect Journalists, Mr. Betancourt Reina was detained on May 23, 2006, in the city of Camaguey where the police were carrying out violent evictions. He was covering yet another atrocity committed by the regime against the Cuban people. In an attempt to suppress the truth about these violent evictions from the world, Castro's thugs arrested and imprisoned Mr. Betancourt Reina. Mr. Betancourt is locked in the totalitarian gulag, but he has not yet been charged with a ``crime.''

I remind my colleagues that, under Castro's totalitarian regime, any freedom of the press, any effort to display the atrocities of the regime under the spotlight of truth, is met with swift and violent repression.

Let me be very clear, Mr. Betancourt Reina is currently languishing in the depraved conditions of the totalitarian gulag for his truthful articles. 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 reporting the facts.

Mr. Betancourt Reina is a brilliant example of the heroism of the Cuban people. Despite incessant repression, harassment, incarceration and abuse, he remains committed to the conviction that freedom of the press and democracy are the inalienable right of the Cuban people. Let us never forget and always support those who are struggling to liberate people from the grip of tyranny.

Mr. Speaker, it is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that, while the world stands by in silence and acquiescence, independent journalists who write the truth about totalitarian regimes are systematically tortured. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and

unconditional release of Armando Betancourt Reina and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 851 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 1 hour of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that we bring this legislation to the floor under an open rule. Historically, appropriations legislation has come to the House governed by an open rule, and we continue to do so, in order to allow each Member of this House the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration as long as they comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today appropriates over $21 billion, an increase of $600 million over last year, for operations across the globe. The bill is fiscally sound while at the same time compassionate and globally responsive to needs of those plagued by disease, famine, and disaster.

H.R. 5522, the legislation that we bring to the floor today, bolsters the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation to $2 billion, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars more than in fiscal year 2006. This expansion of assistance is meant to encourage transparency in government and to fight corruption in some of the world's poorest nations.

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 the Millennium Challenge Corporation are linked to greater responsibility from developing nations.

The new responsibilities these developing nations accept and exchange for funds ensue that the monies we provide do not go to waste and will have the greatest possible impact on those who need help the most.

Three years ago in his State of the Union address, President Bush announced for President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the largest international health initiative in history initiated by a single government to address one disease. This bill demonstrates Congress's continued support of the fight against HIV/AIDS as it includes over $3.4 billion to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is an increase of over $750 million. I congratulate the committee on the sizeable increase for this program. It demonstrates our resolve, our determination to help all those across the globe who fight this disease.

In other foreign assistance, H.R. 5522 funds the Andean Counter Drug Initiative at the President's request $721 million. Economic growth in the area since the start of Plan Colombia is proof that the assistance we have provided Colombia has made a difference in that country. President Uribe has made great strides to combat narco-terrorism in Colombia. Under his leadership, Colombia is now neutralizing guerilla forces and prosecuting those who are implicated in serious crimes.

However, we must not take progress in the Andean region for granted. If the United States turns its back on the region, a scenario could ensue that would require greater U.S. investment at a time when we have significant responsibilities worldwide.

The underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker, also provides about $2.5 billion for military and economic assistance to Israel. We must and we will continue to ensure that our friends and allies remain secure. A strong Israel is necessary to the United States national interests and to stability in the Middle East. We are committed to doing everything we can so that Israel is safe and secure within her border, especially as the terrorist group now in the government in the Palestinian Authority and also the Iranian dictatorship continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the map, something that will not happen and we would never permit.

The particular concern to my district is funding for the Republic of Haiti. That country has undergone a tumultuous few years of political instability as well as being hit by a natural disaster. The bill fully funds the President's request of $164 million in funding for Haiti.

Over the last two decades, an estimated 2 million people in Sudan have died due to war-related causes and famine, and millions have been displaced from their homes. This bill fully funds the President's request of $450 million, with $137 million devoted to Darfur. Assistance is conditional; it will only be given to the coalition government if that assistance is in direct support of the comprehensive peace agreement or the Darfur peace agreement.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5522 was introduced and worked on in a very detailed and serious way by Chairman Kolbe and reported out of the Appropriations Committee on May 26 by a voice vote. It is a good piece of legislation, important to our continued commitment to the security and safety of all citizens and residents of the United States, and we bring it forth under an open and fair rule.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Lewis and Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey for their leadership on this important issue. I would like to point out that this is Chairman Kolbe's final appropriations bill as chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. It has been truly a pleasure to work with Chairman Kolbe on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill and on many other important legislative projects throughout his distinguished career in this House. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

I also take this opportunity, I think it is very appropriate and just to do so as we discuss legislation that furthers the U.S. national interests in our foreign policy, to commend our forces in Iraq who have managed that great victory of the elimination of the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network there, who had caused so much pain and suffering, not only to our forces, but to the people of Iraq.

The action of the American Armed Forces is to be commended, as well as admired, and freedom-loving people throughout the world, I know, are joining us today in congratulating the U.S. Armed Forces for the great success in the elimination of the terrorist head in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the prime author of the legislation that we are bringing forth today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Hastings, and all who have participated in this debate. We are very proud to bring forth this appropriation bill with an open rule. Very proud of the underlying legislation, with over $21 billion in assistance for countries throughout the world to help with disease and with poverty.

The American people are very generous, year after year after year, and I am very proud to be a Representative here in this House of that generous people.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 850 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question before us is not whether we should eliminate any mandates, but whether we should consider this bill at all.

The one thing that is clear is that we need national video competition. Prices will fall and consumers will benefit.

The opponents of this legislation would have you believe that the current locality-by-locality method of video franchise helps consumers. The track record is just the opposite. Consumers benefit when there are low barriers to entry for competition.

The distinguished proponent of this point of order wants to keep those barriers in place. If you vote against this question, you are voting not to proceed with consideration of the rule and of the bill. That means you are voting to deprive the American consumer of video competition, lower prices, and new services.

Americans who are demanding this competition for these services. We need to move forward with this bill and with this rule so that we can debate the best ways to deliver what our constituents are asking for. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this maneuver and vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we had this opportunity. I think it is appropriate for the minority to use the rights available to it. It is part of the democratic process, very proud of that, zealously need to defend that.

At the same time, it is important for the facts to come out, and Chairman Barton has explained how this bill provides the cities with an option to get another percent, to charge a fee of another percent that they can't charge under current law. That sounds to me like more funds than less. And yet it is called an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to Chairman Barton.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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, this rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, for virtually every telecommunications service, consumers have a choice over which service they can obtain. They can comparison shop and get the deal they feel is best for their family based on service and on price.

The reason that consumers can choose the best telecommunications deal for their family is because most telecommunications services are part of a competitive business. However, unfortunately, this is not true for video services. The lack of competition for cable television service means poorer service, higher prices, and less innovation for new products and services.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we allow competition for video services. The Federal Communications Commission has found that less than 2 percent of markets have face-to-face cable television competition. In the other 98 percent of markets where there is no face-to-face competition, cable rates have increased approximately 85 percent since 1995.

When there is competition, cable rates drop. According to the General Accounting Office, cable competition leads to a 15 percent decrease in costs for consumers. Bringing competition to long distance and wireless services has brought lower costs for consumers. For example, since 1995, the cost for long distance telephone service has fallen approximately 50 percent. The cost of wireless minutes has fallen approximately 77 percent.

This act, the COPE Act, removes barriers to entry for new competitors in the video services market by establishing clear Federal standards to replace the outdated local franchise approval process. There are over 34,000 local franchise authorities. Negotiating just one local franchise can take years.

Now, imagine, Mr. Speaker, negotiating 34,000 such agreements. One company official testified that, for example, if AT&T signed a franchise agreement every day, it would take more than 7 years to complete its deployment plan. Signing all of these agreements is prohibitively expensive to companies interested in offering video service.

This system impedes entry by new competitors, and consumers end up paying the price. Even though companies will be able to get a national or a State franchise instead of negotiating with each of the local authorities, the local authorities will still retain many of their rights under the current system. The local franchise authorities, for example, will still have the right to manage their rights-of-way.

They will receive a franchise fee of up to 5 percent of gross revenues. In addition to the franchise fee, they can receive an additional 1 percent for public, educational and governmental, so called PEG, channels and institutional networks.

This bill includes stringent antidiscrimination provisions. A cable operator will not be able to deny access to its cable service to any group of potential residential cable service subscribers in a franchise area because of the income of that group.

Any complaint filed by a local authority with the FCC must be completed in 60 days. If the FCC finds discriminatory practices against a group, the FCC must ensure that the cable operator extends access to that group within a reasonable period of time. The FCC may also order that the cable operator pay penalties of up to $500,000 per day, per violation to the franchise authority.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, to improving cable competition, this legislation also provides the FCC with explicit authority to enforce its broadband policy statement. The statement has four principles that the FCC can enforce with regard to net neutrality.

Those are that consumers are entitled to, first, access to lawful Internet content of their choice; two, run applications and services of their choice subject to the needs of law enforcement; three, connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and, four, competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Consumers are entitled to that as well.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced by Chairman Barton and reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee by a bipartisan vote of 42-12. Most impressive. This is good legislation that will bring competition to cable television finally in this country and lower the price of video services to consumers.

I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Chairman Upton and Representative Rush for their hard work and their leadership on this very important issue.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have fashioned a very fair rule, very fair. Mr. Markey's amendment, he has worked long and hard on it, was in order on net neutrality, a very important issue. We look forward to considering it. My distinguished friend, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, his problem was that amendment was not germane.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

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

We are very proud of this bill. We were very proud of the rule that brings it forth. Three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments have been made in order by the rule that we bring this legislation to the floor with than Republican amendments, three times.

In addition, the cities were heard repeatedly. I have a list here, Mr. Speaker, of concern after concern after concern of the cities that were dealt with by the legislation, are dealt with by the legislation. It is good legislation for the consumers.

Finally, there is going to be competition in this country for cable television, something the consumers have been demanding for many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), my distinguished friend and colleague.

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

That, Mr. Speaker, after having made his amendment in order. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of misstatements that were just made; and first of all, I want to reiterate that this is an extremely fair rule that we have brought forth the underlying legislation with. There are three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments has Republican amendments, including the amendment of the gentleman that just spoke.

What I am going to do now is yield 4 minutes to one of the prime authors of this legislation to hopefully clarify a number of the misstatements, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, there are strong antidiscrimination provisions in this legislation. And a prime author of this legislation, who has worked very diligently, precisely on this issue, as well as others, and the gentleman who I had the privilege of coming to Congress with, a classmate, Mr. Rush of Illinois. I yield him 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee made in order three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments as Republican amendments. This is an extremely fair rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the rule and we are very proud of the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are again very proud of the rule that we have brought this legislation forth under. A colleague on my side of the aisle asked me why is it you are making three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments in order as Republican amendments, and my rely was we want to be as fair as possible. That is what we are doing today.

We are very proud of the process and the rule. We are very proud of the underlying legislation. It is extremely pro-consumer and is going to bring relief to consumers, to our constituents throughout the country.

It is finally going to bring competition to the cable television process in this country. So it is very important legislation. It has been made possible by hard work and study and perseverance by numerous Members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard a good debate. I think the key, first with regard to the process, the rule. Obviously every piece of legislation is brought forth for consideration by rule that sets the terms of the debate, how many amendments can be made in order, how long they be can be debated, et cetera.

As I said before, a colleague of mine on my side of the aisle said, why have we made under this rule three times as many Democrat or bipartisan amendments than Republican amendments? I said, because we want to be fair. It is an important issue; want to make sure that everybody gets a chance, that the key issues, the key issues have a chance to move forward in a fair way. So we are being exceptionally fair. It is an exceptionally important issue.

There is finally going to be competition for cable television in this country. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I have constituents through the years complain about their lack of choice with regard to cable, the fact that rates continue to rise. There is no competition. There is no alternatives for consumers with regard to cable television.

Finally, there is going to be, because of this legislation. So it is an important piece of legislation. That is why we wanted to be as fair as possible with regard to the terms of debate. That is why we made three times as many amendments, Democrat or bipartisan amendments in order than Republican amendments.

We have still heard complaints. Obviously it is a free country. But Mr. Speaker, we are proud of the rule, proud of the process, of the hard work that has been put into this legislation, starting with Chairman Barton, Mr. Rush of Illinois, Mr. Upton, so many others, Mr. Pickering, who have worked so hard on this piece of legislation, and we bring it forth in a very fair process with a very fair rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 11 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 842 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we have seen gasoline prices increase steadily in the United States. The rising cost of gasoline can be attributed to several factors, including increased demand in the United States and in other countries such as China and elsewhere, decreases in oil production in politically unstable countries, including Venezuela and Nigeria, and a lack of refinery capacity in the United States.

In the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped from 18.62 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a day. This at the same time that our gross domestic product has increased in current dollars from 3.1 trillion to 12.4 trillion. Because of the sustained growth of our economy and the fact that we have not built a new refinery in almost 30 years, we are now forced to import over 4 million barrels a day in refined products, and that is when our refineries are running at full capacity.

Any changes in our refinery capacity can cause supply constraints and price spikes, especially in the gulf coast, where we have approximately half of our refinery capacity. And that is exactly what happened when the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, causing gasoline prices to rise almost 50 cent a gallon. 2 months after the storms hit we still had lost almost about 18 percent of our refining capacity, leading to sharp price increases.

In order to prevent the steep increases in gasoline prices that we saw after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to try to moderate the continuing price increase, we must make certain that we build new refineries to meet our current demand and to prevent a loss of capacity due to another hurricane, or a terrorist attack for that matter. Without an increase in our refinery capacity, we will be at the mercy of countries such as Venezuela for the importation of refined oil products. Now, these countries are not reliable sources of refined products due to their politically unstable and/or unfriendly governments.

One of the biggest challenges to the building of new refineries was pointed out by Daniel Yergin of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates during a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Yergin stated that, and I quote, ``the building of new refineries has been hampered by costs, citing and permitting.''

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5254 would help alleviate some of the problems associated with the building of new refineries. The legislation directs the President to appoint a Federal coordinator to manage the multi- agency refinery permitting process. Working with the governor of any State where a refinery is proposed, the coordinator will begin by identifying and then convening all relevant agencies to coordinate the schedules for action so that no process called for in statute or regulation is short-changed, and public input opportunities are preserved, but also to allow the project to proceed as fast as otherwise possible. The goal of this legislation is to eliminate needless delay from agencies that are either dragging their feet or simply acting in sequence when parallel action would be more efficient.

Bringing new refineries online will ease our reliance on foreign sources of refined products and will also allow us to have enough refinery capacity to meet the needs of our growing economy while providing a back up if any of our refineries are shut down for an extended period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the House has already taken steps to help lower the cost of gasoline. Last month we passed legislation to combat price gouging as well as legislation to open up ANWR to environmentally friendly energy development. However, more must be done. The underlying legislation is just another step in our continued efforts to provide relief from the high cost of gasoline.

H.R. 5254 was introduced by Representative Bass. A majority of the House has already voted in favor of this legislation. However, the bill did not pass because it was brought up under suspension of the rules and it did not obtain a two-thirds majority. Now we have another chance to pass this bill which is important to our energy needs and our growing economy.

I would like to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Bass for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the author of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of our distinguished colleagues that have spoken on this rule today. It brings to the floor an important piece of legislation, a bill that this House considered and voted with the solid majority under suspension of the rules just some weeks ago, but it did not obtain the two-thirds vote necessary to pass under suspension of the rules. That is why we have brought it forth again under the regular order with a rule.

It will help. It will contribute to helping our country with the energy crisis that we face, when we recognize the fact that the economy has grown, as it has so tremendously in the last 30 years and yet not one single refinery has been constructed. Evidently, there is a problem. This seeks to do something about it.

So that is why we are bringing again this legislation for consideration of the House under this rule. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, in order to consider that legislation, we have brought this rule forward, and I would ask all of my colleagues to support it as well as the underlying legislation.

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 congratulate Mr. Jim Padilla on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Padilla dedicated 40 years of his life to the progress of Ford Motor Company and prepared it for the challenges of the 21st century. I wholeheartedly commend Mr. Padilla for his hard work and dedication to such a deeply cherished American legacy as Ford Motor Company.

Mr. Padilla first joined the Ford family as a quality control engineer. Through years of hard work that spanned three continents, Mr. Padilla consistently proved himself a capable leader. Over those 40 years his steady climb through the company rungs ultimately led him to the top as president and chief executive officer.

Mr. Padilla's career is worthy of yet another distinction: He became Ford Motor Company's first Hispanic president and CEO. By taking the helm of one of America's top 10 corporations, Mr. Padilla shattered stereotypes and showed that all Americans have the potential of realizing tremendous success. It is fitting that Ford's Hispanic Network Group has created a scholarship program in his name, the ``Padilla Scholars,'' to benefit deserving college-bound students. Mr. Padilla has proven that in our country, a person who works hard and accepts no limits can reach any goal. His life is an inspiration to young Hispanics and all young Americans as they commence the steady climb toward their dreams.

I know that Ford Motor Company will deeply miss Mr. Padilla's leadership. I also know that his numerous contributions over the last four decades have helped to transform that company into the modem powerhouse that it is today. Mr. Padilla has earned himself a permanent place in the rich history and great American heritage that Ford Motor Company represents. Like the company he so effectively led, Mr. Padilla is a true American success story.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the loss of an exceptional member of my community, the beloved Fausto Miranda. On Tuesday, May 9th, Mr. Miranda, the renowned Cuban sports reporter, passed away at the age of 91.

He was born on July 4, 1914 in the Cuban eastern city of Puerto Padre. He was forced to work odd jobs to survive. He worked as a street salesman, notary clerk, prison guard, band manager, janitor and a variety of other jobs. It was Mr. Miranda's resilience that enabled him to overcome the many obstacles he faced throughout this life.

After arriving in Havana in 1933, he began his life long contribution to journalism. Mr. Miranda worked with several Cuban newspapers: Informacion, EI Crisol, Alerta and Diario de la Marina and he was a fixture on the radio. Soon after the arrival of the communist dictatorship, Mr. Miranda sought political asylum in New York. For fifteen years, he worked as a doorman. However, Mr. Miranda did not abandon his commitment to journalism. He simultaneously started working for the well known newspaper La Prensa.

In 1975, Mr. Miranda moved to Miami. A year later, he reached a high point in his career by founding the sports pages of EI Nuevo Herald. Subsequently, he managed the sports department of the Miami Herald/EI Nuevo Herald for close to twenty years.

After his retirement in 1995, Mr. Miranda was known for his famous column ``You are old, truly old, if.'' In his last year, although he was very weak due to multiple respiratory and cardiac complications, the legendary writer submitted his weekly column every Monday. The Monday before he passed away was no exception. His passion and dedication for journalism, sports and Cuba, were unwavering even throughout his deteriorating health.

Mr. Miranda's life is the personification of the American Dream and a testament to the love Cubans share for Cuba. Mr. Miranda's dedication and ability allowed him to leave his mark on two countries. He witnessed Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. He captured the athletic eloquence of Mohammed Ali in his prose. An entire community opened their newspapers to read his account of the sporting events of the day. And later we relied on his column to recall the glory of the Cuban Republic. He became an integral part of the Cuban and the larger South Florida community. Miami-Dade County celebrated his 50th anniversary in journalism by declaring a ``Fausto Miranda Day,'' on December 12, 1992. Mr. Miranda's remarkable life and columns will inspire generations to come.

I will forever remember the great Fausto Miranda!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Egberto Angel Escobedo Morales, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. Escobedo Morales is a member of the National Council for Democratic Transition. He has dedicated his life to opposing the tyrant who enslaves the people of Cuba. He was arrested in 1995 and in sham ``trial'' was sentenced to 20 years in the totalitarian gulag. According the U.S. Department of State, in July 2000, Mr. Escobedo Morales was tried again for ``obstruction of police'' and ``disrespect of government officials.''

He has been incarcerated for over 10 years in the most inhuman conditions imaginable. Despite incessant repression, harassment, and abuse, Mr. Escobedo Morales remains committed to the conviction that democracy and individual liberty are the birthright of the Cuban people.

In February 2006, Mr. Escobedo Morales, along with four other political prisoners, courageously signed a letter containing the truth about Cuba under Castro. The letter was printed on Cubanet, ``Cuba has become an island prison. All Cubans in the street just have conditional freedom and those of us in prison are in solitary confinement cells.''

The solitary confinement cells that Mr. Escobedo Morales mentions in his letter are described in the U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices--2005 as, ``Prison conditions which continued to be harsh and life threatening. Prisoners sometimes were held in ``punishment cells,'' which usually were located in the basement of a prison, with continuous semi-dark conditions, no available water, and only a hole for a toilet.''

Mr. Escobedo Morales 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. Escobedo Morales, they refuse to accept the tyrannical dictatorship in Cuba today. Mr. Escobedo Morales is also representative of the best of the Cuban people, of the dignity of the Cuban people.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that, in the 21st century, brave men and women are chained to filth because of their belief in democracy, freedom, and the sanctity of human rights for every person. My Colleagues, we must never forget those who are locked in gulags because of their desire for freedom. My Colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Egberto Angel Escobedo Morales and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.

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

Mr. Jimenez Posada is a lawyer and Director of the Democratic Human Rights Center. As a pro-democracy activist, Mr. Jimenez Posada has committed himself to portraying the true horrors of life under the tyrant in Cuba. Because of his vigorous opposition activities, the regime fired him from his job.

According to Amnesty International, 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 commemorate the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he and several others were beaten and pushed into police vehicles and then dumped in remote areas. 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, Castro's thugs told him that he would be imprisoned if he continued carrying out public activities in support of political prisoners.

Despite the horrific harassment and constant threats, Mr. Jimenez Posada never wavered in his convictions. He was arrested and thrown in the gulag on April 25, 2003. According to Amnesty International, he is still awaiting ``formal charges'' and a ``trial.''

Let me be clear, Mr. Jimenez Posada has been locked in sub-human conditions for over three years without ``charges'' and without even a farce of a ``trial.'' Simply because Mr. Jimenez Posada does not subscribe to the lies and propaganda demanded by the communist dictatorship, he is locked in a miserable dungeon. Mr. Jimenez Posada 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 with respect and admiration when freedom reigns again in Cuba.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jimenez Posada is languishing in the repulsive squalor of the tyranny's gulag because he believes in truth and freedom. It is detestable that at the dawn of the 21st century, and a mere 90 miles from our shore, honorable men and women are imprisoned in repugnant gulags for believing that all men have an inherent right to live in freedom. My colleagues, we must demand the immediate and unconditional release of Rolando Jimenez Posada and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.