Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the chairman. My amendment is quite simple. It removes the 100 percent increase and possible flood insurance rate increases from the underlying bill. Currently, rate increases are capped at 10 percent a year; yet this bill would double that to 20 percent per year. Homeowners in this down-turned economy can little afford to have this looming possibility. One in four Floridians is covered under the National Flood Insurance Program, and they collectively pay nearly $900 million in premiums per year. Since 1978, Florida policyholders have paid $14.1 billion in premiums and have received only $3.6 billion in payments. That is 3.9 times more in premiums than they received in claims. Our residents, usually in high-risk flood areas, pay disproportionately more in premiums than they will likely ever see in payments on claims. Despite this fact, Floridians were near the cap of a 10 percent increase in the premium rates from the years 2009 and 2010, while the average national increase during the same time was 8 percent. Despite these problems, the residents in my area say they need this program, but they need this cap where it is. People outside of at-risk areas file over 20 percent of NFIP claims and receive one-third of disaster assistance for flooding. Floridians, my constituents, know that the doubling of the amount that FEMA can charge for their flood insurance is aimed at them. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which is one that will prevent unnecessary and unprecedented rate hikes for hardworking Americans on their flood insurance bills. I yield the balance of my time to my good friend from Florida (Ms. Wilson). (Ms. WILSON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this week a true Miami landmark celebrates its 40th anniversary. Versailles restaurant has been a beloved institution in my South Florida community for decades. Felipe Valls, Sr., opened Versailles in 1971. From the very beginning, Versailles has been a family affair. Early on, his son, Felipe Valls, Jr., bussed tables and worked with maintenance crews after school. From these humble beginnings, Versailles has become a franchise with restaurants throughout Miami, Doral and even Pembroke Pines. The secret to Versailles' success has been its family-oriented atmosphere and its simplicity. Its menu of traditional Cuban cuisine has enriched the cultural palate of South Florida. From ropa vieja to its house-made fried plantains and yes, even its famed ``cafecito,'' Versailles has become a culinary delight for its patrons. Versailles allowed many Cuban-Americans to reconnect with their heritage. For countless Cuban exiles, Versailles is much more than a restaurant. It is a tangible piece of what they left behind when they fled Castro's gulag. As a Cuban-American, I know the cultural and emotional link Versailles has with so many members of our community. Versailles is a place where the Cuban community can come together and discuss topics as far ranging as politics, sports or the latest gossip or ``chisme.'' But Versailles has also become a destination for individuals from all backgrounds. Its status as a cultural landmark has brought politicians, artists and celebrities of all stripes to its doors. Today the Valls family is celebrating 40 years of Versailles. Despite all their success, family is still the most important component in their lives. It is also the reason why Versailles resonates with so many members of my community. It reflects the love and devotion the Valls family has for one another and their community. I congratulate Felipe Valls and the entire Valls family on this milestone.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 515) to reauthorize the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004, as amended.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 515.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Chairman Bachus for their cooperation in allowing this bill to proceed so swiftly to the floor. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 515, the Belarus Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2011. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague and friend, Mr. Smith, for introducing this timely and important measure. Belarus has been correctly deemed the last dictatorship of Europe. Under the iron hand of Lukashenko, the Belarusian people have endured the systemic denial and violation of their basic freedoms and human rights. The authorities in Belarus have severely restricted free speech and independent media. Prodemocracy political activists are subject to beatings and imprisonment. The regime's heavy-handed tactics were fully utilized in last December's fraudulent election for president. According to our own Department of State's Human Rights Report: ``Authorities denied citizens the right to change their government, manipulating the December 19 presidential election to ensure that the president would not be seriously challenged. ``Security forces beat detainees and protesters, used excessive force to disperse peaceful demonstrators, and reportedly used torture during investigations. ``A crackdown on post-election demonstrations led to the arrest of over 700 activists, including criminal charges against five presidential candidates and numerous activists and journalists.'' Unfortunately, the regime, despite its repeated promises of reform, continues this campaign of repression against its own people. In response to the rumors that peaceful protesters were planning to gather on Belarusian Independence Day, July 3, just recently, to show their opposition to the regime by clapping their hands, the dictator stated, ``Stomping, clapping, bellowing and roaring on squares and streets cannot solve problems. The state has the resources and power to pacify those who violate the law and the constitution.'' We have now seen Lukashenko did indeed use the state's power to pacify the demonstrators. How? He ordered the authorities to start by firing tear gas at the protesters, followed by the violent beating and imprisonment of those who dared to clap their hands. Over 300 activist were arrested and today 140 were convicted on such dubious charges as being hooligans or participating in unsanctioned demonstrations. This unrelenting persecution of the Belarusian people by the regime is simply unacceptable. The U.S. and other responsible nations must support the prodemocracy forces in Belarus and hold the authoritarian regime in Minsk accountable for its growing abuses. That's why I am pleased to support this important measure which, among other things, condemns the conduct of the recent presidential elections and the crackdown on opposition candidates and activists, expresses a sense of Congress that the President should continue to support radio, television and Internet broadcasting to the people of Belarus and expand on existing sanctions, including the denial of visas to any member of the Belarusian Government who participated in the crackdown on opposition leaders, journalists, and peaceful protesters that occurred in connection with the December elections. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 5, 2011. Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Ros-Lehtinen: I am writing in response to your letter concerning H.R. 515, the ``Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' which the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported favorably. As a result of your having consulted with us on provisions in H.R. 515 that fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, we are able to agree to discharging our Committee from further consideration of this bill in order that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. The Judiciary Committee takes this action with our mutual understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 515 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. Our Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or similar legislation, and requests your support for any such request. I appreciate your including our exchange of letters on this matter in your committee report, or in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 515. Sincerely, Lamar Smith, Chairman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 268) reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 268.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 268, sponsored by Majority Leader Cantor and Minority Whip Hoyer, and would like to thank them for their leadership in bringing this important resolution to the floor today. We face a perilous juncture in the history of the Middle East. Our adversaries are far from dormant, and are focused on an international effort to isolate and demonize Israel. That is why it is all the more important for the United States to stand by our democratic ally at this critical time. So let's get the facts straight, Madam Speaker. As even Secretary Clinton noted, this Israeli Government has made unprecedented concessions in pursuit of peace. Israel has always been willing and able to make the tough sacrifices. Israel has proven its commitment to peace. Unfortunately, Israel does not have a partner for peace and security as the Palestinian leadership continues to never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Abu Mazen can utter all the right words to the Obama administration and the Europeans, who appear gullible enough to believe him; but the problem is, whenever the Palestinian leadership, past and present, has actually been asked to sign a peace agreement with Israel, it has always refused. Abu Mazen also continues to refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, yet demands that Israel recognize a Palestinian state; and the media he controls through the Palestinian Authority publishes a nonstop barrage of anti-Semitic propaganda. The Palestinian Authority has rejected every offer of peace from Israel. The PA has refused to negotiate directly with Israel. The PA has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. It has failed to crack down on violent extremism and anti-Israel incitement. Indeed, it has even tolerated and encouraged such behavior. It has also supported boycotts of Israeli goods, and the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, whom some consider to be a moderate, even participated in a mass burning of such goods. Instead of negotiating directly with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is pursuing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, from various foreign governments, with an eye to recognition of such a state by the U.N. this fall. Palestinian leaders also keep threatening violence to extract concessions. Abu Mazen has not only failed to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, but recently signed a coalition agreement with Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction. To demonstrate that they are true partners for peace, what Palestinian leaders must do is simple, Madam Speaker--the opposite of what they have been doing: sit down and negotiate directly with Israel, without preconditions; encourage Palestinians to accept Israel instead of tolerating and encouraging violent extremism and anti-Israel incitement; and recognize Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state. We must no longer demand that Israel take actions or make additional unilateral concessions that would compromise our democratic ally's safety and security. Recent calls for Israel to return to the 1967 borders are unacceptable and dangerous. Continuing to provide assistance to the Palestinians--assistance amounting to $2.5 billion in the last 5 years alone--is certainly not the answer. Congress must not agree to the administration's 2012 budget request, which would provide yet another $400 million bailout to the West Bank and Gaza, including another $200 million directly to the PA. There are also many other steps that Congress and the administration can and must take to support our ally Israel and to encourage the advancement of peace and security in the region: The U.S. could show its support for the Jewish state's sovereignty and right to exist by moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel's eternal and undivided capital. We should demand that the United Nations stop its relentless activities to demonize Israel and the Jewish people, and put our money where our mouth is. The most recent example of this bias is a cartoon posted by Richard Falk, which was apparently taken down just minutes ago. The U.N. Human Rights Council has appointed Mr. Falk as an ``expert'' to investigate and condemn Israel. I'm sure that the viewers could see or they could pull it up on the Internet what this cartoon depicts. It depicts Americans and Jews as bloodthirsty dogs. This is not the first time that Mr. Falk has spread such venom. He has compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust, and has questioned the veracity of the 9/11 attacks, but he continues to work for the U.N. Human Rights Council, with over 20 percent of his expenses and staff support paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Has the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights ever condemned Falk and demanded that he resign his U.N. post? Never. To the contrary, her office has published an attack by Falk on his critics. I understand that he says now that his account was hacked into and that he has taken that drawing down, but I say enough is enough. The administration should withdraw from the biased Human Rights Council, and Congress should withhold funding from the council and other U.N. bodies that do not advance our national security interests and condition U.S. contributions on real reforms. What a concept. Finally, Madam Speaker, instead of dealing directly with the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks Israel's destruction and condemned the killing of bin Laden, the U.S. should deny all legitimacy to that group no matter what fake name or label it now uses as it tries to camouflage itself into a legitimate political party in Egypt. I am glad that this body is doing the right thing today, Madam Speaker. We have much more to do to defend our national security interests and our indispensable ally, Israel. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, our distinguished majority leader, for authoring this important resolution. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 1 minute to our esteemed majority leader and coauthor of this resolution, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am so honored to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is also the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is also the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague, Colonel West, an American hero.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like to yield 2 minutes to another Florida colleague (Mrs. Adams), a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar). (Mr. GOSAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia in our Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 328, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 68) authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 68.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not support a complete U.S. withdrawal from NATO's Operation Unified Protector. I believe that it is necessary for U.S. Armed Forces to remain engaged in a limited capacity. However, I cannot support an authorization which constitutes our current level of engagement for an entire year. This is what is proposed in H.J. Res. 69, offered by my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and I therefore must rise in opposition to his resolution. This resolution not only authorizes U.S. military engagement in Libya far beyond even the 90-day NATO extension, but it justifies U.S. military engagement in Libya as undertaken to enforce a United Nations Security Council resolution and at the request of the Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the Arab League. So we must ask: Where is the United States Congress in this equation? If an authorization resolution had been put forward in February, I might have been able to support it. I understand the mission. But in the intervening period, conditions have changed significantly on the ground in Libya, within NATO, with our NATO partners, and here in the U.S. Decisive action with congressional authorization at the outset might have solved this problem quickly, but now we have drifted into an apparently open-ended commitment with goals that remain only vaguely defined. And that is at the heart of the problem, Mr. Speaker. The President asserted, ``These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope.'' Well, it is now day 97--97--of our involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities regarding Libya; yet Qadhafi still clings to power and the opposition appears to be no closer to a decisive victory. Command for the military operation has been transferred to NATO; yet the constrained role the President has said is being played by U.S. forces in Libya still includes nearly one- quarter of the total sorties flown in Libya; suppression of the enemy air defense through missile strikes; strikes by unmanned Predators on Qadhafi targets; nearly 70 percent of the mission's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and over 75 percent of all aerial refueling. Yet the President has yet to explain just what American interests are at stake and just what outcomes he is hoping to achieve. The resolution offered by our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, and adopted by this Chamber on June 3 posed specific questions that required straight answers. Instead, we received a letter and accompanying documents from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs, which stated that U.S. actions in Libya were ``taken in response to direct appeals from the Libyan people and acting with a mandate from the United Nations.'' The administration proceeded to justify its current policy by asserting that U.S. military operations in Libya do not constitute hostilities. This argument is so incredulous that even the attorneys in the Office of the Legal Counsel do not agree. Therefore, I am not optimistic that the reporting provisions in the resolution we are considering today, which calls for ``a full and updated explanation of the President's legal and constitutional rationale for conducting military operations in Libya,'' will be fulfilled in a fulsome manner, respectful of congressional prerogatives. Again, I must underscore that I do not support a complete withdrawal from our commitments concerning Libya. That would be dangerous. That would be ill-advised. A complete withdrawal of all U.S. military assets from the Libya operations would undermine our intelligence efforts and our foreign policy goals, and would all but assure a victory for Qadhafi. It can lead to greater instability, which could affect NATO operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at a critical stage of transition. There are also proliferation concerns at stake, particularly as an increasing number of weapons have moved into the region and reportedly fallen into the hands of extremist organizations, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The Qadhafi regime is an unpredictable regime that has chemical weapons, including mustard and possibly sarin gas. While a complete withdrawal is unacceptable, the resolution before us is also unacceptable. The resolution effectively ratifies all that the President has done, and it would grant him the blessings of Congress to continue on his present course. The resolution before us would enable mission creep, rather than setting clear parameters for U.S. engagement. I must therefore oppose this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.