Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend, whom I admire in an extraordinary fashion, Mr. Stearns. One of the great advancements, Mr. Chairman, in our American democracy and of our American democracy was precisely the Voting Rights Act that made it possible, in effect, for millions of American citizens, minority American citizens, to have access to that sacred right that is voting. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we keep in mind that this is not an immigration debate, as Mr. Stearns said. We are talking about American citizens and only about American citizens. There are, Mr. Chairman, millions of native born American citizens that speak languages other than English. For example, there are over 4 million native born American citizens from Puerto Rico who speak Spanish. Many speak English; others do not. They speak primarily Spanish. It is our belief and it was a great advancement of American democracy to say that American citizens whose primary language is not English should also be able to understand ballots, even the most complicated or simple of ballot initiatives, petitions, ballots with candidates. What this section of the Voting Rights Act says is when there is a community that has a significant number of people whose language is other than English, that that community should have access to ballots in their language of preference, in their language of most fluency. In addition to the fact that there are millions of American citizens who are native born and who speak languages other than English, our laws also establish and call for elderly resident aliens, residents of the United States, immigrants, who have resided legally in the United States for more than 15 years, our law says that they can take the exam to become a citizen of the United States in their native language. So there are many elderly American citizens, naturalized American citizens, who are allowed, according to our laws, the laws of our Congress, to take their naturalization exam to become a proud American citizen in languages other than English. They should also, Mr. Chairman, be allowed to vote, and they should also be allowed to understand even the most complicated of ballot initiatives. So that is what the law does. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is a great advancement in our democracy that we should be proud of. We are talking only about the rights of American citizens. American citizens whose primary language is other than English should also be able to vote. As a Nation, we took an important step forward that, as I say, we all should be proud of when we facilitated that sacred right to vote to American citizens whose primary language, whose most fluent language, is one other than English. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Reinaldo Miguel Labrada Pena, a political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba. Mr. Labrada Pena is a peaceful pro-democracy activist and a member of the Christian Liberation Movement. His life is dedicated to the proposition that the men and women of Cuba must be free: free to learn, free to worship, free to enjoy their inalienable human rights. Unfortunately, the nightmare that is the Castro regime continues to violently oppress the people of Cuba, including those that bravely make known the atrocities committed against the Cuban people for the world to see. In March 2003, as part of the regime's heinous crackdown on peaceful, pro-democracy activists, Mr. Labrada Pena was arrested. In a sham trial, he was sentenced to 6 years in the totalitarian gulag. Mr. Labrada Pena is languishing in an inhuman, grotesque gulag simply because of his religious convictions and his desire to live in liberty. According to Amnesty International, he has been denied access to religious services and has inadequate ventilation in his squalid cell. Mr. Labrada Pena is representative of the fighting spirit of the Cuban people: of their rejection of the brutality, discrimination, depravity, and oppression of the totalitarian tyranny. Thousands languish in the gulag because, like Mr. Labrada Pena, they refuse to accept the tyrannical dictatorship in Cuba today. It is reprehensible that, at the dawn of the 21st Century, men and women like Mr. Labrada Pena are still locked in dank dungeons because of the tenets of their faith. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that peaceful Cubans of all genders, creeds and colors are locked in Castro's barbarous gulag because they believe in a tree Cuba. While the entire world sits by and ignores the suffering of the Cuban people, brave men and women like Mr. Labrada Pena represent the best of mankind. My Colleagues, we must demand freedom and human rights for all people, including those who live under the darkness of totalitarian regimes. We must demand immediate and unconditional freedom for Reinaldo Miguel Labrada Pena and every prisoner of conscience in totalitarian Cuba.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of chairing the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Rules Committee. My Subcommittee was the first to address this legislation with a hearing last March, shortly after the measure was introduced. During our hearing, we heard from two distinguished Members of the House, including the bill's sponsor, Representative Paul Ryan, as well as Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee. And we heard the administration's position from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Deputy Director, now Deputy Chief of Staff for the President, Joel Kaplan. Finally, we received historical perspective on this issue from Donald Marron, the Acting Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Several problems were brought out with regard to the legislation. I believe that the Committees of jurisdiction have worked diligently with the author of the resolution to appropriately address most problems. Among the concerns brought out during our Subcommittee hearing were: The number of special messages that could be submitted by the President on each annual Appropriations law. The amount of time that the President could withhold funding for requested rescissions. The scope of the rescission request, specifically tax benefits and mandatory spending. I am pleased that input was welcomed by Representative Ryan and that these concerns have been addressed. Parameters have been included that will lessen the potential legislative burden on the Congress and prevent the possibility of excessive delaying tactics by the President. I certainly do not believe that the underlying legislation is perfect. Despite the recent changes, I think that five special messages per bill may still be too many. Think about 50 possible expedited special messages that Congress would have to consider after passing 10 appropriations bills. The legislative burden may be extraordinary. In balance, however, since the bill gives us another tool to promote good stewardship of the people's money, I urge my colleagues to support the Rule and the underlying legislation. I look forward to a full debate on efforts such as this to increase fiscal discipline in the Congress' budget process. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 886--The Rule Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4890, Legislative Line Item Veto At the end of the resolution add the following new section: ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution, the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5667) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide for the expedited consideration of certain proposed rescissions of discretionary budget authority, promote fiscal responsibility, reinstate Pay-As-You-Go rules, require responsible use of reconciliation procedures, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The bill shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 3. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution of the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of Rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.''

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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