Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Louis N. Haddad, a fine public servant and dear family friend who passed away on April 21, 2006. Throughout his 82 years, Lou served in the U.S. military, realized professional success, held numerous public offices, involved himself in various community groups, and raised a wonderful family with his wife, Martha.

Born in Beggs, OK, in 1923, Lou joined the Army in 1940 at age of 16. As a member of the 12th Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division during World War II, Lou saw action in the North African campaign, the capture of Sicily, and the invasions of Anzio and southern France. He also served honorably in the Korean war as a member of the Green Berets. Lou followed his lengthy and distinguished military career by entering the professional world, successfully embarking on a second career as private businessman.

Lou later began what would become a long and interesting career as a public servant. He served the city of Seaside as planning commissioner and Architectural Review Board member from 1962 to 1964, and became the Area Planning Commission chairman from 1966 to 1967. Lou was a city councilman from 1964 to 1966 and then again from 1978 to 1980. He was the mayor of Seaside from

1966 to 1972. Lou served as vice chair for Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and Monterey County Local Agencies Formation Commission, chairman of the Tri-County Board of the California Council on Justice, director of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Lou's public service was not limited to government agencies but extended to the greater community as well.

Lou always remained very involved in community organizations, serving as president of both the Rotary and Lions Clubs. He was a member of the Elks Lodge, Knights of Columbus, and the Kiwanis Club, as well as a charter member of the Monterey Peninsula Boys and Girls Club and director for the Alliance on the Aging. Lou was also a member of the Military Order of the World Wars, U.S. Navy League, and the Nisei Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Lou spent much of his life serving his fellow citizens, He proudly fought for the United States of America in two wars, devoted his time and energy to multiple public offices, and supported his community through his membership in numerous citizen groups. Lou Haddad, through the life he led and the person he became, demonstrated the potential impact that one individual can have on his community and country. He influenced people and events on so many levels, and came to represent the positive, compassionate and, above all, human force that many strive for but few actually become. I enjoyed being on his talk shows and working on many of his projects. He was a citizen of public service.

While Lou is remembered for his success as a soldier, businessman, public servant, and community activist, he will be remembered most as a loving and supportive husband and father to his wife, Martha, and his children, Charles, Shirley, and Carole.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to honor the many accomplishments of Louis N. Haddad and express sincere gratitude for his accomplishments and contributions to our community and our country.

Madam Speaker, I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East. I am pleased that H. Res. 921 expresses Congress's ``condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence.''

The United States is faced with a harsh reality that peace in the Middle East has been so elusive. Yet we cannot, we must not, stop trying to broker peace. The U.S. cannot turn its back on the families in the Middle East and must not conclude that constant war is inevitable. The U.S. must step up to the challenge of engaging the Israelis, Palestinians, and Lebanese and all the Middle East nations who want a lasting peace. I am not willing to give up hope that peace in the region can be achieved and nor should this administration.

It is imperative to remember that this region is very complex, and that there are forces working for peace and forces that crave war. Benjamin Franklin once said, ``There was never a good war or a bad peace.'' It is time for this administration to remember these important words. The Middle East conflict has largely been pushed to the back burner by this administration with serious repercussions for U.S. national security interests. The U.S. must stop performing band-aid diplomacy and focus on long-term solutions to move toward peace. History should have taught us that violence only begets more violence and all actors involved need to recognize the mutual benefits of peace.

We are faced with a vital question--where can we go from here? First and foremost, Hezbollah and Hamas must disarm and recognize Israel's right to exist. Armed political parties that use brute force do not foster peaceful solutions. Israel has survived five major wars since its inception. This country lives in constant defense mode because terrorist organizations surrounding it still harbor hope of its destruction. The U.S. must continue its steadfast support of Israel, and all countries in the region must abide by U.N. resolutions that promote a two-state solution.

The loss of civilian lives in the Middle East is tragic and continued violence makes the challenge of achieving peace more difficult. The U.S. must renew a serious diplomatic effort in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the California State Parks Asilomar Conference Center in Pacific Grove, CA. Ordinarily, one would not expect a Member to rise on the floor to acknowledge the birthday of a conference grounds, but Asilomar is no ordinary place. For starters, Asilomar is nestled in the coastal dunes of the Monterey Peninsula. The name itself is Spanish for refuge by the sea.

Asilomar also boasts an extraordinary history. It began life in 1912 as the western regional conference grounds for the YWCA on 30 acres of beach front property donated by the precursor of the Pebble Beach Company. Within a year, the YWCA hired the pioneering San Francisco architect Julia Morgan. By 1921, additional land had been donated and many buildings were completed, including the centerpiece Phoebe Hearst grand meeting hall. The center could by then accommodate up to 500 people at a time. Over the course of the 20s, Asilomar grew not only as a site for YWCA activities but also as a center for religious retreats, Scouting events, and very popular summer camps. All of that ended with the Depression. Unable to pay its bills, the YWCA decided in 1934 to cease operating Asilomar. For almost 20 years Asilomar floundered along under various concession or cooperative agreements until the YWCA finally decided to sell the property in 1951.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Asilomar is part of my own family's story. In 1955, my father Fred Farr entered the California State Senate. And while it is true that my father cared deeply about the future of Asilomar, it is also true that my mother Janet would have never let him ignore the question of its future. That year my father authored legislation along with his Assembly counterpart, Alan Patee, directing the State Parks Department to purchase Asilomar for the now unbelievably low amount of $350,000. The bill, SB 2007, passed both houses of the legislature without opposition. Unfortunately, Governor Knight then vetoed every park bill before him that summer. Needless to say, that act did not make the Governor a very popular man on the Monterey Peninsula. The uproar over the veto forced the administration to rethink its position. In December 1955, the Governor reversed his opposition to Asilomar's purchase. In the ensuing

months, my father helped to broker a purchase and operating agreement between the YWCA, Pacific Grove, and the State. Those efforts culminated in the July 1, 1956 transfer of Asilomar to the State of California.

Asilomar has since grown into one of the most unique public interest conference grounds in the world. It hosts conference groups as diverse as the annual Eco Farm conference, the Nation's largest annual organic farming gathering and an annual national gathering of electronic intelligence specialists. Last year, Asilomar saw over 175,000 guests from 1,000 different groups who netted the State over $3 million in fee revenues.

It is a legacy that my father remained supremely proud of throughout the remainder of his life. When he passed away in 1997, he had spent over 20 years on the park's official advisory commission and had spent countless hours offering formal and informal advice on the management and future of Asilomar. So while this anniversary is a celebration of a unique public park, it is also the celebration of one of my father's most cherished personal achievements.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the United Nations.

The mission of the U.N. today is as relevant as it was in 1945 when this global forum was established: preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Cutting U.S. funding to the U.N. not only undermines the efforts of the U.N. but also reduces the United State's ability to influence reform at the U.N. Government entities by their very own definition are not perfect institutions, and the U.N. is no exception. But the U.N. is actively engaged in review and assessment of its organizations to ensure that they are effective and consistent with the core mission. The U.N. has already taken some important steps in much needed reform, like the creation of an ethics office. It has created new bodies to address the new threats of the 21st century, like the Peacebuilding Commission that will work to assist countries in the difficult transition from conflict to sustainable peace. I believe that the U.S. must be an active participant in the U.N., and push for appropriate reforms that make the U.N. more responsive to the changing challenges of the 21st century. The U.S. and Congress in particular, can support these reform efforts by robustly funding the U.N. and not undermining U.S. standing at the U.N. with amendments and rhetoric that unnecessarily criticize the U.N. without assigning any value to the important work they do.

Now more than ever, the world needs the United Nations to be successful.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This bill is an ignorant bill. This bill is a greed bill. It ignores getting away from the oil addiction. If oil is the street drug addiction, why at a time of energy independence are we increasing the addiction? You don't give alcoholics more alcohol to get them cured.

It is a greed-producing bill. Mr. Markey pointed out that 80 percent of the drillable Federal land is already in the oil companies' hands.

The bill steals State and local control. Why would the author go against his own State legislature, his own Governor, who opposes this legislation? Why would the President sign a bill such as this, which has a direct conflict with our own U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy which recommended that oil-gas leasing revenues be dedicated to ocean and coastal resources? There is no dedication in this bill.

This bill is a financial and environmental disaster. A ``no'' vote allows improvement.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Representatives Michael Honda and Anna Eshoo, I rise today to note, sadly, the tragic passing of Denice Dee Denton, Chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, UCSC. We have lost a colleague of immeasurable creativity and intellect. Our hearts go out to her family and loved ones in this incomprehensible time. In her memory, we stand today to pay homage to her commitment and sacrifice and pledge to further her legacy of equity, diversity and academic excellence.

Chancellor Denton dedicated her professional and personal energy to increasing the presence of women and minorities in typically male- dominated academic fields. While pursuing four advanced degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, including a Ph.D., she often encountered and fought against prevailing attitudes that were quietly or openly hostile to women in science. Remarkably, her academic career was just beginning to blossom. She held academic appointments at the University of Massachusetts, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she worked from 1987, leaving as professor in the Departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Chemistry. Beginning in 1996, Chancellor Denton was appointed Dean of the College of Engineering and Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington, the first woman to hold the position at a National Research Council-designated Research One university.

On December 14, 2004, Denice Denton was appointed by the University of California Regents as the ninth Chancellor of UCSC. While Chancellor, Denice incorporated the philosophy of achieving excellence through diversity in her agenda. She championed causes on an international level to engage the academic community in a dialogue pursuing equity and advancement in science, math and engineering. Also, as the university's first openly gay Chancellor, Denice embraced her identity and empowered young people and professionals across many disciplines to do the same. Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that we speak in memory of a life so full of promise and future achievement. But we do so secure in the knowledge of a life already lived so full of accomplishment. Denice Denton was just 46 years old at the time of her death. But in that short time she paved the way for so many to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Elaine Cass, whose law career represents success, accomplishment, and community service. Throughout an illustrious career spanning both the professional and academic realms of law, Elaine's tireless dedication has provided inspiration for friends and colleagues alike. As City Attorney, Elaine represented citizens and their elected representatives on behalf of the cities of Hollister and Seaside.

Elaine was born and raised in Toronto, Canada, graduating from William Lyon Mackenzie High School in 1968. She attended the University of California, Berkeley where she received her Bachelor of the Arts degree in English literature. In 1975 she received her law degree from Santa Clara University and was admitted to the California State Bar the following year. Wasting no time, Elaine immediately embarked upon her law career working for the next six years with Legal Aid Society of Monterey County. Elaine returned to academia in 1978, becoming a law lecturer at both Santa Clara University and Monterey College of Law. While she continued to practice law throughout her university lecturing years, Elaine's educational contributions did nothing to diminish her professional ambition. If anything, lecturing on the ethical nature of law seemed to enhance her already impressive career trajectory.

Elaine served as the City Attorney for Seaside for 11 years. She also served in the same capacity for the City of Hollister, where she initiated the first code enforcement program with an emphasis on substandard housing. It was later expanded to include a relocation program which requires landlords to compensate tenants displaced by such housing. Always mindful of community interests and individual concerns, Elaine successfully blended responsibility and conscientiousness to be an attorney who is both respected by her colleagues and admired by the people she represents.

Elaine is married to Robert Zweben, and has two children, with her first grandchild on the way. Masterfully balancing family, career, and the desire to give back to society, Elaine's many achievements cannot be overstated.

Mr. Speaker, throughout her career, Elaine has made significant contributions, both professionally and academically, to the study of law. On behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to congratulate the accomplishments of Elaine Cass and express my sincere gratitude for her commitment to her community.

Mr. Speaker, FDR once said, ``Do what you can with what you got where you are.''

We have west coast salmon fishermen that can't fish because of the government's stupidity. The administration released water in the Upper Klamath Basin to water intensive crops that killed the downstream fish, the breeding stock of wild salmon. The result is that fishermen can't fish.

The governments of the States have asked the administration to call for an emergency declaration to aid these fishermen. They have refused.

Today, the House of Representatives will hear about the plight of the fishermen and the failure of the GOP leadership to help them. We will do what we can with what we got where we are.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I recognize Chairman Wolf's hard work on the SSJC bill, H.R. 5672. However, as one of six co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, I was deeply concerned when I saw the degree to which NOAA was grossly under- funded, especially its wet programs within the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). The reductions proposed in the bill are about 31 percent compared to FY06 and 36 percent compared to FY05 enacted levels, totaling about $783 million over the last 2 funding cycles. The House mark represents a major setback in protecting our Nation's ocean and coastal resources. Given that NOAA is the lead Federal agency for ocean-related management and activities, this void will not be filled elsewhere.

The direct and indirect impacts the oceans and coasts have on our lives and livelihoods are paramount. They are, by far, our greatest natural resource and the life support of our only planet. Yet, we fail to see the ocean for the waves when we cut more than half a billion dollars from the NOAA budget. Over half of the U.S. population lives in coastal states. Coastal and marine waters support over 2.8 million jobs and produce one-third of the nation's GDP. The culture, economy, and security of our Nation depend on the health and sustainability of these assets, yet we are not sufficiently managing and protecting them. Though the budget this year is more constrained than ever, the decision not to make ocean funding a priority will cost the U.S. economy more than $1 billion in direct losses, and even more indirectly. Instead, an increased and sustained investment now would enhance the benefits we reap in the future, a need highlighted by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) in their 2004 report and by the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative in their recent list of ocean policy priorities for Congress.

Along those lines, I want to emphasize the invaluable services and programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the lead federal agency for ocean-related management and activities. Among these are the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the Integrated Ocean Observing Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, and the Protected Species Research and Management Program, just to name a few. Combined, the many NOAA activities support necessary ocean protection, research, exploration, and education. Therefore, the significant cuts that are proposed in this bill are unacceptable and would seriously impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. To allow cuts would be a step in the wrong direction and would sustain the ``failing grade'' received on this year's U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card released by the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.

Furthermore, it is about time for the ``blue'' of our world's oceans to get at least as much attention as the ``blue'' above us. After all, our planet of more than 70 percent water is largely unexplored. The amendment being offered by Mr. Gilchrest on behalf of the House Ocean Caucus is one way to start showing recognition for our need to reprioritize. The amount requested here ($783 million) would come out of NASA's Exploration Systems which was marked to more than $3.8 billion--more than NOAA's entire budget for the year! The cost of just one NASA mission could restore 2 years worth of funding cuts to all of NOAA, without compromising basic science and research conducted by

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Wolf.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see language in the SSJC appropriations report giving directives to NOAA and the Secretary of Commerce regarding the salmon in the Klamath River.

Though the river does not flow directly through my district, my salmon fishermen and related industries are greatly impacted. The National Marine Fisheries Service severely restricted the 2006 salmon season, after significantly cutting the 2005 season. This has caused undue financial hardships for local fishing communities, causing the Governors of both California and Oregon to declare it a fishery disaster.

There is definitely an immediate need to provide emergency funding to those impacted. However, we need to start addressing long-term needs to restore the habitat and rebuild the salmon population so that we do not find ourselves with a crisis every year. It would take a relatively small amount to curb much greater economic losses in the future.

Would the chairman be willing to work toward increasing the amount of funding from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to be used for the Klamath River restoration projects and salmon recovery? This important granting fund has already been reduced by almost $47 million below what the President requested in the fiscal year `06 enacted levels, so I further ask the chairman to work to restore funding during the conference committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your cooperation and for all the hard work on this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher- Paul-Farr amendment.

Mr. Chairman, every year we bring this amendment to the floor. So far it has never passed. Some may ask, well, why are we doing this again? Well, the answer is because of the statements that have been made already by Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Obey about compassion for people who are suffering.

We offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS victims, for persons who suffer chronic pain. We offer this amendment not only to protect those people; we offer this amendment to protect these States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical options to those who need it.

So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to define marriage. So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to set abortion policies. So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to determine education curricula and standards.

But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical scope of practice, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer have the right to determine what is best for their citizens when it includes medical marijuana.

The Hinchey amendment does not change Federal law. It does not change drug policy. It does protect States' rights. For those of you who come from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in this amendment will affect your State. Everything in your State remains status quo.

For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana laws, very little in this amendment will impact your State. The only difference now is that your State will be able to implement its laws without little old ladies being busted by Federal cops. I support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous public career of Dr. Richard Elster who will retire this year from his post as the Naval Postgraduate School's provost and academic dean.

As many of my colleagues know, the Naval Postgraduate School, NPS, located in Monterey, CA, is this Nation's premier institution for graduate level military education and research. While its name points to its origins as a Navy facility, NPS in fact graduates masters and Ph.D. candidates from every U.S. military service and many allied foreign militaries. It also houses a pioneer program to research and grant masters degrees in homeland security.

Dr. Elster has been associated with NPS since 1969, when he joined the faculty as an assistant professor. Since then he has at various times served at NPS as an associate professor, professor, chairman of the Department of Administrative Sciences, dean of instruction, and finally the provost and academic dean position from which he is retiring. In the last 10 years, under Dr. Elster's tenure in this last position, NPS has seen a burst of activity, not only in the areas mentioned above but in many small ways that make it a key component of our Nation's security. Under Dr. Elster's leadership, much of the academic work of NPS students and faculty responds directly to real world defense mission needs. It's a marriage of top notch academics and military mission that no other institution in the U.S., or the world for that matter, can duplicate.

Considered on its own, Dr. Elster's academic career sets a remarkable standard of achievement. However, interspersed through his time at NPS, Dr. Elster served in several high ranking Pentagon positions. Starting in 1975 as a special advisor to the Secretary of Defense for Manpower and reserve affairs, Dr. Elster also held positions as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Resource Management and Support. This record of service reflects both Dr. Elster's keen intelligence and leadership qualities, but also his absolute dedication to public service. The combination of these qualities and his achievements in national security management and in the classroom allow Dr. Elster to leave more than several lifetimes of achievement upon his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to say that Dr. Elster's retirement from NPS will leave a void that will be hard to fill. That much is obvious. What is also apparent to me and many others is that he has over these past 30 years set so powerful an example that there are many men and women in public service today who can fill that role by virtue of Dr. Elster's example. It is my privilege to share with Dr. Elster the thanks of this House on the occasion of this retirement and to offer him and his family our best wishes on his life and work to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Just Run program of Monterey County that has been a collaboration of the Big Sur International Marathon as well as other local organizations.

Designed to assist school and other youth organizations in providing vital fitness programs to youth in Monterey County, Just Run is a group running program that teaches children activity, fitness principles, goal setting, and physical development with the help of teachers and parent volunteers.

This program engages local fitness and running experts, such as future Olympic runners from the Big Sur Distance Project, to work with students at free on-site clinics and serve as role models and motivators. In conjunction with running and physical activity, the program also promotes good citizenship and good deeds by emphasizing a drug-free and healthy active lifestyle. In a time when it has become so easy for children to make unhealthy choices, this program is a much needed reminder to our kids of the importance of fitness.

I also want to highlight Just Run's involvement in supporting the new initiative in Monterey County called HELP (Healthy Eating Lifestyle Principles) that works towards including more healthy fruit and vegetables in school lunch programs as well as an increased role for physical activity in school. The Central Coast is an ideal area for the implementation of this policy because of the abundance of fresh produce cultivated within the 17th district. Students learn that eating fresh fruits and vegetables, in addition to participating in the Just Run program are both steps in the right direction to fostering a healthier lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Just Run program and its affiliates for their outstanding work whose benefits will be reaped throughout our community.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight, I have been watching this on TV and listening all day long. I am really kind of saddened by the fact that it seems to be an issue between making excuses for why we are in Iraq, and the other side is cut and run.

I remember being in the Congress before we voted on this resolution. I remember being summoned into a hearing with all of the intelligence agencies there. I remember a colleague asking these intelligence agencies, is Iraq an immediate threat to the United States, yes or no? Every single one of those intelligence agencies represented, every one said no.

And here we are 3 years later with all of the loss of life. Some say, just stay the course. Stay the course for what? There is not even a plan. Mr. Weldon was right, we had a plan in Kosovo, we had a plan in Bosnia, we had plans. Where is the plan?

We have a plan by Mr. Murtha. There is no cut and run date in it. There are no specifics on it. But it is a plan. Why are we not debating a plan?

It is embarrassing that we are here this far into the war, people watching us and having Congress without the ability to exercise democracy, without the ability to have a vote on the only resolution that is ready for a vote, which is Mr. Murtha's. I associate myself with the remarks he made about what he saw and what we experienced going into Iraq.

I wish the majority in this House would have allowed a debate on Mr. Murtha's resolution.

I rise to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Murtha and to everyone who supports our men and women in uniform. We all support the troops and the sacrifices they and their families have made. But, that's not what this debate is about.

I've been listening all day to this debate and find Members are still making excuses for why we got into Iraq in the first place.

You are not hearing what the intelligence community really told this house.

Before the vote on authorization of the war all the intelligence agencies were gathered together for a Congressional briefing. One of my colleagues asked the question:

``Is Iraq an immediate threat to the United States, tell us Yes . . . or No?''

It was surprising to me that each intelligence community representative said--``No, Iraq is not a threat to our national security.''

And even more shocking to see was that so few of my colleagues were listening.

So, why have we been sucked into a war that was not necessary to protect our national security?

And here we are 3 years later. Over 20,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed or wounded in Iraq.

The loss of American lives is tragic and unnecessary.

Especially because Iraq never was a threat to the United States, nor is it now.

So, today, why aren't we discussing an end to wasteful spending, to unnecessary loss of lives and building a stronger America?

We can't because, as you have heard so often today, the majority has stopped listening.

They have made up their minds. They are just as wrong today as they were 3 years ago.

Look--we need a plan. Congressman Murtha is the only one with a plan. Congressman Murtha's bill, H.J. Res 73, is doable and its implementation would be respected by the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the President is listening to this debate. And more importantly I hope he implements the Murtha plan.

The world would be better off for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rangel amendment.

If we want an effective foreign policy that prepares the United States for a post-Castro transition, we need to engage with our Cuban neighbors.

Until very recently this Administration has not engaged with Iran--to the detriment of U.S. national security interests.

Similarly, not engaging with Cuba has resulted in the loss of trade opportunities for U.S. manufacturers and the U.S. agricultural industry, and prevented the opportunity to develop a civil society within Cuba that is sympathetic to U.S. interests.

We need to recognize the failure of silent diplomacy.

This deafening silence will prevent a smooth transition to a post- Castro government--both for Cubans and for U.S. national security.

Now is the time to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba--lifting the embargo will:

Encourage cultural exchanges that build understanding between Americans and Cubans;

Enable Cuban Americans to visit their relatives just like other Americans whose relatives live in places other than Cuba; and

Engage democratic reform.

I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel Amendment and end the embargo against Cuba.