Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this morning, another set of apparently coordinated attacks took place on the London subway and bus system. So, once again, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of London, and our minds should be riveted back here in the United States: Madrid should have been our wake-up call; the bombings in London should have been our reminder.

How much longer must we wait for this Congress to act to secure the over 14 million Americans who use a public transit system every day to get to work? What are the consequences in the loss of lives and the economic ripple effect upon an attack on such a system?

And instead of acting on a wake-up call, the Congress seems to be hitting the snooze button. In fact, we seem to be moving backwards. Just last week, the Senate voted to cut transit security funding by one-third. How many warnings do we need before we take action? And who among us will be satisfied to say, well, we did not act fast enough, when someone we know, some constituent, some family member dies in a transit attack?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

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

I rise in strong support of this amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for his leadership on it and the cosponsorship of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

I have, as the ranking Democrat on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, been for some time pursuing fugitives from the American justice system back from Cuba for several years. The case of Joanne Chesimard is, of course, of particular importance to New Jerseyans, but I would venture to say to all Americans who believe in justice.

Thirty-two years ago, Joanne Chesimard shot New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster in cold blood. Castro's subsequent refusal to return her to the United States has left the Foerster family not only without a husband and a father but with an open wound that can only be completely healed when Joanne Chesimard is brought back to justice.

Castro has turned Cuba into a safe haven for American fugitives. There are many. There is a whole list from the FBI whose crimes have ranged from air piracy to possession of explosives to murder. These are not benign criminals, and they should not be allowed to evade justice any longer.

Ironically, Castro provides these criminals greater liberty than he provides to his own people. These individuals, convicted in the United States of horrendous crimes, are allowed to live freely in Cuba while Castro imprisons Cuban opposition leaders for nothing more than having a different point of view.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. These fugitives will continue to enjoy the lives of freedom and liberty as long as Cubans are unaware of their presence or the rewards for their capture. This amendment simply requires the United States Interests Section in Havana to publicize the names of these fugitives and make sure Cubans are aware that there is a reward for helping them to bring these criminals to justice. The FBI is currently offering $1 million for Joanne Chesimard's capture. Mr. Chairman, $1 million is a very powerful incentive, but the incentive only works if people know about it.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to help bring some measure of justice to the Foerster family and the countless other families whose quest for justice has been obstructed by Castro's regime. I urge my colleagues to support these families in New Jersey and around the country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear from the very beginning. Democrats are strong supporters of our Nation's Armed Forces, of the men and women, the sons and daughters, who defend our freedom and protect our interests while in harm's way. Therefore, as Members of Congress, it is our duty, our moral obligation and our responsibility to the American people and to those very troops to ensure that our country has a success strategy for Iraq so that we can eventually bring our troops home. However, I am not referring to a hard and fast timetable or date certain that our troops have to be withdrawn by.

But, unfortunately, the bill we have before us today, as amended, fails the American people because it does not clearly define the benchmarks for that success strategy. Unless we adopt this motion to recommit, we have no defined goals, no defined measurable standards, and no strategy for success in Iraq.

Without a clearly defined strategy for success in Iraq, this administration has no accountability to the Congress, our troops in Iraq, their families here at home, or the American people. Right now, this bill does not define what the American and Iraqi people should expect from our engagement in Iraq. If you do not know where you are going, how can you possibly know when you will get there?

This administration possesses the information, the means and the wherewithal to produce a defined plan for success in Iraq, and has failed to do so. They should come not only to Congress, but also to the American people and lay out their benchmarks so we know exactly what we need to do to achieve success in Iraq.

Up to this point, Congress has abdicated its responsibility on Iraq. The Republican leadership has provided the administration with a blank check when it comes to Iraq. And with over 1,760 American soldiers dead, more than 13,500 others wounded, many of them severely, and over $200 billion appropriated, that simply cannot continue.

It is also important that the Iraqis understand our goals and what benchmarks we will use to determine the fulfillment of those goals. By establishing easily understandable benchmarks, which include creating a functioning Iraqi security force, the writing of a constitution, holding free and fair elections, we let the Iraqi people know that we are not occupiers. By establishing such standards, we show the Iraqi people that we have no plans to permanently remain in Iraq and, in doing so, possibly diminish support for the insurgency. Without these benchmarks, many will question what our purpose is in Iraq and how long we will be there.

Clearly, our current policy could hardly be called a success. Iraq has become not only ground zero for terrorism, but also the breeding and training ground for those that can and very well may seek to carry out future terrorist attacks throughout the world.

That is why we must have clearly defined benchmarks that are detailed and specific. These benchmarks must be in distinct areas such as security and troop levels and Iraqi governance and democracy, because right now we are unsure of how this administration would define success.

Republicans advocate for established standards and tests to measure success in education. They expect this of our children. Well, why should we not expect the same type of measurable standards from the administration when it comes to Iraq?

The administration refuses to define success. Tell us what it looks like, because there is no way in that form in which we will know when we have achieved it.

Are we talking about the quantity of Iraqi troops? Do we know the true number of Iraqi troops and security forces that will be needed to provide security for the entire nation of Iraq? Is it 160,000? Is it 300,000? Are we talking about the quality of Iraqi troops? Do we know how many battalions of Iraqi troops are currently able to fight without the direct support of American forces? It has been reported that only three Iraqi battalions are fully operational, meaning that over 100 battalions cannot handle the job of providing security for Iraq.

Does democracy simply mean holding elections, or does democracy mean holding free and fair elections based on a fully functioning constitution? We are not quibbling over details here. These critical questions go to the core issues that will determine success in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can have a clear and well-defined strategy for success in Iraq. Without a plan for success, we are doomed to failure. The administration is keeping us in an open-ended engagement with no clear end in sight.

As we ask the sons and daughters of America to stand in harm's way, we must ensure that they are doing so no longer than it is necessary to ensure success. Vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow collegues and Greek Cypriots through the world in remembering the 31st anniversary of the tragic invasion and occupation of Cyprus by Turkish armed forces.

On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded the sovereign Republic of Cyprus and placed 37 percent of its territory under military occupation. Over the past 31 years, two hundred thousand Greek Cypriots have been expelled from their homes and forced to live as refugees. This illegal occupation persists today, infringing upon principles of national sovereignty and violating the Cypriots' natural right of self- determination.

On this day, as we remember the victims of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, I urge my colleagues and the world to support the Greek Cypriot concerns about the reunification process. Greek Cypriots want Cyprus united under a plan that will provide a just, fair, and long-term solution to the Cypriot problem. And they deserve nothing less. Any reunification plan must uphold democratic and human rights for all Cypriots. It must resolve property rights issues for Greek Cypriots and it must significantly demilitarize the island. Let me be clear--a plan that is unacceptable to 76 percent of Greek Cypriots cannot be acceptable to the United States or to the international community.

I also urge Congress to use this day of remembrance to honor other victims of Turkish injustice. Today, Turkey continues to violate the religious rights and freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarch, spiritual leader to millions of Orthodox Christians around the world. The Government of Turkey refuses to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate's international status, continues to impede training for the clergy, refuses to reopen the theological institute at Halki, and has confiscated or levied retroactive taxes on Ecumenical Patriarchal properties.

I am pleased that I was able to include language on the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which passed the House of Representatives today. This language calls on Turkey to immediately eliminate all forms of discrimination, particularly those based on race or religion. It also calls on Turkey to pledge to maintain and protect religious and human rights without compromise.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in solemnly commemorating the 31st anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus. I further ask you to stand firmly with the people of Cyprus in their quest to achieve reunification and justice for Cyprus. The U.S. should not turn its back on the peaceful aspirations of the Cypriot people. Justice dictates that Turkish troops should leave the occupied parts of northern Cyprus, and that the Cypriot people--both Greek and Turkish alike--can reunify and enjoy the benefits of peace with justice and the benefits of being member of the EU.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the Committee on Rules did not make my

amendment in order. Our amendment on global climate change, which passed both the House and the Senate in a previous version, simply says that the United States must lead the world in the fight against global warming.

In this Chamber of democratic ideals, the House of Representatives is supposed to be the place where we take a stand on the issues. If one disagrees, for example, with my amendments, fine. Then stand up and vote against them.

The fact is that global warming exists and is fully acknowledged by the scientific community. The fact is that a report which President Bush himself commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences says that human activity causes global warming. The truth is that the United States should lead on climate change, not avoid it.

Let me be clear. I was not advocating for the Kyoto Protocol. Other countries took the lead when we backed out, and it entered into force earlier this year. But just because we rejected Kyoto does not absolve us from working with other countries on climate change. Actually, it means that we have to take the lead, be creative and find a solution. The G-8 statement on climate change is a start, by acknowledging that climate change is a serious challenge that human activities are contributing to. Unfortunately, the administration reportedly exerted a considerable amount of pressure to water down the G-8 statement and the document falls far short of making a call for strong and immediate action.

The truth is that the world's future depends on our actions today. Global warming could devastate our environment and our economy. President Bush's administration, in a report to the United Nations, said that global climate change could mean greater storm surges on the coasts, reduced snowpack and water supplies in the West, declining water levels in the Great Lakes, stronger hurricanes, more extreme weather events, and greater risk of both flooding and drought. If that is not an incentive for the administration to act, nothing will be.

Finally, I am also concerned that the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) amendment on the demobilization process in Colombia was not made in order. The current Colombian demobilization framework, as discussed in the bill, does not provide minimal guarantees on at least three basic points. First, terrorist leaders who are under standing indictments in our country for serious crimes can escape extradition to the United States. Second, the bill does not require that these terrorists provide complete information on their networks so they could be dismantled. And, lastly, the law does not build in adequate monitoring mechanisms to ensure that those who have forsworn violence do not return to their terrorist activities.

We must address these issues before we authorize assistance to a process that could cost the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $80 million over 3 years. The Colombia and global climate change amendments should have been made in order so that Members would have had the opportunity to debate and vote on these important issues.

I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his gracious comments.

I rise to support H.R. 2601 in its present form and to comment on some of the positive elements of this bill.

Iran's nuclear program continues to threaten the world, the United States, and Israel. For nearly 2 decades, Iran has pursued a clandestine nuclear program while claiming it had to keep this program hidden from the international community because of the sanctions against it.

Let us be clear. Iran is a country with huge oil and natural gas reserves. They do not need nuclear power for energy consumption. That is why I am glad the bill includes my language that makes it clear that Russia needs to stop helping Iran develop nuclear energy plants.

This bill also includes language I offered on the religious freedom and rights of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Turkey. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world. Yet the Government of Turkey has refused to recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch's international status and its significant status and its significance to Orthodox Christians.

That is why my language states that Turkey must immediately eliminate all forms of discrimination, particularly those based on race or religion.

This bill also provides funds to make sure that the State Department looks like the rest of America. As was mentioned in the report language in the bill, Kean University in New Jersey runs a model program which is specifically designed to increase the number of minorities in the foreign service.

Finally, I believe the Hyde U.N. amendment will not solve the real problems at the United Nations. Instead, this amendment sets the United Nations up to fail by creating a series of requirements that will be almost impossible to meet and then requiring mandatory withholding of 50 percent of the U.S. dues. This bill is medicine that may kill the patient rather than cure a specific disease. I am particularly concerned that the bill keeps the United States from supporting any new peacekeeping mission until far-reaching reforms have been implemented, even in extreme cases.

That amendment could very well condemn us to lose only American lives, shed only American blood, and spend only American capital instead of having the world share this responsibility with us.

As I said in the beginning, this bill has many positive components, but we should not attach the U.N. amendment to this bill that undermines that world body and undermines our ability to participate and have others participate with us in global security and other initiatives. If we reject that, then we can be on our way to a very good State Department authorization.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ask, why did Karl Rove, the President's Deputy Chief of Staff, reveal the identity of a CIA agent? The Republican National Committee has issued furiously spun talking points that suggest that Karl Rove was merely trying to keep an inaccurate story out of the paper. That is absolutely preposterous. Should the government start giving out secret information to reporters as background information? Of course not. No, the real reason Karl Rove outed a CIA agent was because the administration did not like the story. They did not like that they were being caught perpetuating a false story about nuclear materials from Niger in order to justify their run-up to war, so they tried to change the subject.

Karl Rove only knows one way to change the subject, attack the messenger. Normally these are just despicable political dirty tricks, but in this case it was a threat to national security by deliberately outing a CIA agent. Karl Rove has demonstrated that he is not beyond using classified information to further his political agenda, and it is time for him to be stripped of his security clearance and shown the door.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is going to be accepted by the committee so I will keep my remarks brief.

This is an amendment that would authorize the Army Corps to perform environmental restoration activities at

Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable report is issued by the Chief of Engineers.

Liberty State Park is one of the crown jewels of the State of New Jersey. It is an oasis in an urban setting right by the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island, a gateway to a lot of America's history, but at the same time there are the remnants of the history of industrial use in the vast interior section of the park which is currently fenced off from the public because of residual contamination.

There is a restoration plan that would return 230 acres of the park to a state of ecological health. It is vital not only to the people of my State, but to literally tens of thousands of Americans who visit the park as a portal to the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island.

I thank the leadership of the committee for working with me to clear up some confusion between our district corps office and headquarters, and I commend the leadership of the committee for putting this bill together. I look forward to working with the committee as we go to conference and as the bill is signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would authorize the Army Corps to perform environmental restoration activities at Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable report is issued by the Chief of Engineers. This amendment is very simple and straightforward, and I thank the leadership of the committee for working with me as we cleared up some confusion between our district Corps office and headquarters.

Liberty State Park is one of the jewels of the State of New Jersey. A reclaimed rail yard in the shadow of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, the Park is rich in both history and scenic beauty. For over 60 years, the Central Railroad of New Jersey train terminal was the first stop for immigrants after passing through Ellis Island. It was from this historic terminal that they caught trains that would bring them throughout the country to begin their new lives. In more recent times and under a less joyful setting, the park hosted thousands of evacuees from Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.

As railroad traffic declined in the middle of the 20th Century, the area fell into disrepair. But through a tremendous amount of hard work, Liberty State Park was born, and has become an oasis in the heart of a densely packed metropolitan area, visited by over 4 million people each year. The residents of my district don't have a lot of open space to enjoy, but at Liberty State Park they have miles of walkways and bike paths, educational centers, over 100 acres of green space, and sweeping views of the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan.

However, the remnants of a history of industrial use remain over the vast interior section of the park, which is currently fenced off from the public because of residual contamination. The Army Corps is currently finishing the study of a restoration plan that would return over 230 acres of the park to a state of ecological health. New tidal wetlands will be created, invasive species will be removed, and the Park will become a prototype for ecological restoration in an urban environment.

Liberty State Park is just one example of why the Army Corps is getting a good reputation in my district for their environmental protection and restoration work. Their work on the Lower Passaic River, the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, at Minish Park and elsewhere has the potential to make a major difference in the quality of the land and water throughout New Jersey. This bill will help them continue and expand their environmental restoration work, and I appreciate the chairman and ranking member including so many projects that are important to my district.

This bill is also about economic growth. The ongoing deepening project in New York Harbor and Newark Bay will ensure that the world's largest container ships can continue to dock at the east coast's largest port. These ships carry far more than just products for store shelves. They bring jobs and economic growth, and help fuel an economic engine whose power is felt up and down the eastern seaboard, and deep into the nation's heartland.

There are a number of provisions in this bill that will be very helpful for the Harbor Deepening project, particularly in the handling and use of dredged material. The bill includes new financing tools for non-Federal agencies to create dredged material storage and handling facilities, and expands the allowed beneficial uses of that material to include environmental protection and restoration projects. New Jersey has thousands of sites--particularly Brownfields sites--that could benefit from this provision.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for their work on it. I also thank them for their willingness to accept this amendment which is so important to my district, and look forward to working with them to move this bill forward through what I hope will be an imminent conference.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the House voted on H. Con. Res. 191, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of the war in the Pacific and honoring veterans of both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of the Second World War. On rollcall vote 379, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. As a cosponsor of this resolution, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, raising questions about national security is not partisanship; it is patriotism.

Now that we know that Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House outed a CIA agent, Republicans have begun to try to forgive the unforgivable, to explain the unexplainable. And to suggest that Karl Rove was simply trying to set a news story straight as a reason for outing a CIA agent is unacceptable.

CIA agents operate in secret so they can protect America from its enemies, from terrorism here at home. When their identity is revealed, not only are they put at risk, but America is also put at risk.

Whether Karl Rove violated the law or not is a question for the special prosecutor; but the White House said they had a higher standard, and it is the standard that should be enforced with Mr. Rove.

Former CIA agents have said that if this is not treacherous, it might very well be treasonous. Either way, it is time for the White House to clean up its house.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to be joined by several of my colleagues in introducing the Healthy School Bus Act, which calls attention to a serious but overlooked health threat that our children face every day that they ride to school in a bus.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments because we recognized the tremendous health risks of breathing polluted air. Children are particularly at risk because their lungs are still developing and

they breathe more air per pound of body weight than adults do. Nearly 4.5 million American children suffer from asthma, and air pollution is believed to be a serious contributing factor in asthma attacks, bronchitis, and emergency room visits.

One of the most insidious forms of air pollution is diesel exhaust, which contains over 40 potential carcinogens, as well as fine soot particles that can get lodged deep in the lung. The Clean Air Task Force recently released a report which found that fine particle pollution shortens the lives of nearly 21,000 people each year, and leads to lung cancer, heart attacks, and asthma attacks. For New Jersey's children alone, the report linked diesel pollution to over 540 emergency room visits due to asthma and nearly 1,300 cases of acute bronchitis each year.

Although school buses are far and away the safest way for children to travel to school, the diesel exhaust from school buses puts our children at unnecessary risk. A number of programs already exist to try to cut down our children's exposure to school bus exhaust, such as New Jersey's ``Stop the Soot'' initiative to reduce bus idling, and the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean School Bus campaign, which provides grants for school districts to purchase new, cleaner buses, or to retrofit old buses with pollution control equipment.

These programs are doing an excellent job reducing the amount of pollution our children are exposed to while they're waiting for the bus or just playing outside. But some recent studies have made it clear that our children have more to worry about inside a school bus than just who to sit next to. Researchers from Yale University, the University of Connecticut, the University of California, and Purdue University have found that the concentration of air pollution inside school buses can in some cases be far higher than outside the bus. And the evidence suggests most of the pollution is coming from the bus' own exhaust. One study published in March of this year suggests that in some cases the amount of exhaust inhaled by children on a school bus is greater than the amount of that bus' exhaust inhaled by all other people in a metropolitan area.

We know a lot about how to control emissions from the tailpipe. But we don't know a lot about how to control emissions inside the bus. We don't know how the pollution gets into the bus, and we don't know the best ways to stop it. That's why I'm introducing this legislation, which will direct EPA to do a comprehensive study of air quality inside school buses, and come up with the most effective strategies for keeping the pollution out. This bill also greatly increases the authorization level of EPA's Clean School Bus program, and makes sure that school districts can use grant money from that program to implement the strategies that fight in-bus pollution.

Mr. Speaker, this bill calls attention to an overlooked aspect of our fight for clean air, and it is targeted at those people who are most vulnerable to air pollution--our children. It creates no new requirements on school districts or municipalities; it simply gives them the tools necessary to make their school buses as healthy for children as possible. I ask my colleagues to join in me supporting this legislation, because dirt in a school bus should mean mud in the aisles, and not soot in the air.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort (CARE) Act. This bill addresses the needs of families that are making sacrifices to care for their loved ones by making long-term care more affordable. It would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family

Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons.

There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home state of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country. To respond to the needs of our country and my state, I am introducing legislation that will help all American families and all New Jersey families afford to provide the care that their loved ones need and deserve.

As the father of college-age children and the son of a mother with Alzheimer's, I understand first-hand the challenges of putting children through college while providing long-term care for a loved one. Caregiving families face unique strains. They are burdened with additional costs and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work and sacrifice.

The challenge of caring for our aging population will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges of providing affordable long-term care, encourage future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, and strengthen our existing programs to address this growing need. Please join me in supporting this legislation and helping all families afford to care for the ones they love.

Mr. Speaker, now that we know Karl Rove was one of the White House officials who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame, it is time for President Bush to hold his right-hand man accountable and ask for Rove's resignation. This is, after all, what members of his own administration stated would happen when the President learned the identity of those responsible for the leak.

In September of 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClelland told reporters, ``If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.''

Pushed further a reporter asked him if the leaker should be fired. And he answered, ``If a source leaked information of this nature, yes.''

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said, I do not believe it would be hard for President Bush to ask the person to walk the plank. The fact that Karl Rove remains at the White House speaks volumes. It is certainly not the way the White House should operate.

The White House should not aid and abet those within it in exposing CIA agents who work for this country and defend it to danger, and therefore it is time for Karl Rove to walk the plank.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on this last roll call vote. Had I been here to vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I was attending my daughter's graduation from Harvard and I regret missing rollcall votes 230-240 on June 8 and 9, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall vote No. 230, on Agreeing to the Weiner amendment to H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006; I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 232, on Agreeing to the Hinchey amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 233, on Agreeing to the Sweeney amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 234, on Agreeing to the Blumenauer amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 235, on Agreeing to the Chabot amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 236, on Agreeing to the Hefley amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 237, on Agreeing to the Garrett amendment to H.R. 2744; I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 238, passage of H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2006; I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 239, passage of H.J. Res. 27, withdrawing the approval of the United States from the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization; I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 240, on Motion to Table H. Res. 310; I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Florida's amendment.

A year ago I too had concerns about the changes in the regulations on family travel when they were first introduced, and I voted with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) because I believed that Cuban Americans had virtually no notice that the regulations were about to be changed and they could not plan their travel to Cuba accordingly. But a year later my view of these concerns no longer applies.

So now the question becomes the focus on the impact of travel to Cuba, and I would like to share with Members of the House a letter that many of us recently received from the leading Cuban opposition leaders: Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Rene de Jesus Gomez Manzano, Felix Antonio Bonne Carcasses. These are the same opposition leaders who, on May 20 of this year, organized an historic Assembly to Promote Civil Society on the 103rd anniversary of Cuban independence.

This event brought many civil society organizations together for the first time to discuss democracy in Cuba. And as we learned in a hearing earlier this year in the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, of which I am the ranking Democrat, the organizers and the participants in this event risked their personal freedom for the freedom of the Cuban people. In fact, these leaders have already suffered in Castro's jails for speaking out on behalf of the Cuban people. And it is the same group of leaders who risked their lives for democracy in Cuba, not those here in the diaspora, but those who are inside of Castro's Cuba, who ask this Congress in their letter not to adopt any changes, any changes, which would either partially or totally change the nature of the embargo.

In fact, they clearly state that any such change would be interpreted as a new policy of compromise with the Castro regime and cite that nothing has been done by the regime to move forward to an accommodation with that element of civil society that ultimately seeks to change the fundamental basics of human rights that we seek to promote throughout the world. And I think we have to heed the warning that they are sending, and we must send a clear message to the Castro regime that we will not compromise when it comes to human rights, freedom, and democracy in Cuba; that we will not dilute the embargo in any way and that we must respect the voices of those very same Cubans who suffer under the regime.

And, finally, let me just say that one cannot seek political asylum from a country and then constantly travel back to it. One is either a political asylee or one is not. One cannot keep traveling back to a country from which they are a political asylee.

And, lastly, we all know the great difficulties, those of us who are not only Cuban Americans but who represent 99 percent of all Cuban Americans in the country; and they have one voice, and that voice is to do everything we can to end the suffering of the Cuban people.

We hear those voices from Cuba. We should listen to them.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arizona's amendment is very dangerous. Let me tell you why. Read the amendment. It says none of the funds made available in this Act can be used to amend this section relating to religious activities. If the administration or any future administration, if this amendment were adopted, wanted to increase the flow of religious activity into Cuba, which is permitted under existing law by license, is permitted under existing law by license, if there came a point in time in which the floodgates wanted to be open, the gentleman from Arizona's amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from doing so.

That is a prohibition that is not in the national interest, security or in the foreign policy of the United States, and it is very clear that religious institutions right now have all the wherewithal and have been traveling to Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, we have had sanctions in different parts of the world: Jackson-Vanik with Soviet Jewry, disinvestment in South Africa. There are those who would seek disinvestment and sanctions in the Sudan and many other parts of the world, so we understand that these are ways that we can ultimately bring the end of totalitarian regimes and democracies to those people, yet we hear no voices in opposition to that.

After 2 million people visit Cuba every year, spending $2.3 billion, this regime has become more repressive, not less repressive. Let us not add to that repression.