Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995. Mr. Chairman, history has only begun to tell the story of the need for our country to have a viable merchant marine fleet. During the Vietnam war, the demand was not always met by the merchant marine fleet because some of the vessels that were flagged in other countries had crews that refused to crew the fleet during this conflict. More recently, during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, trained mariners were ready to go to sea, but because they had no rehire rights they could not take a chance on losing their civilian jobs. Because of this lack of reemployment, the United States had to rely on pensioners who were in their 60's, 70's and even 80's to service these cargo and supply vessels. H.R. 1350 reverses a trend and ensures the existence of a fleet of militarily useful U.S.-flag commercial vessels and their American citizen crews, necessary for the military security requirements of our Nation. Fortunately there is consensus in Congress that H.R. 1350 needs to be enacted into law as soon as possible. The Maritime Security Act is supported by all segments of the U.S.-flag maritime industry--the American seafarers and the American shipbuilders. I am proud to be supporting H.R. 1350 with enthusiasm.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, in the post-cold-war era, security considerations that used to be commonly-debated are almost never part of our political or civic discourse. The threat of the Soviet Union, with its thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at American cities and military installations, with its dozens of army divisions poised to strike Europe, with its surrogate incursions into Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, and its financial support for terrorist groups throughout much of the world--the Soviet Union provided us all with a common enemy that kept our attention focused on the most serious security concerns of our time. But the world has not become a safe place simply because the Soviet Union collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed above all else because Mikhail Gorbachev failed to understand that ultimate ruthlessness and the obvious willingness to utilize terror in a consistent and systematic manner, are necessary for the retention of power by Marxist- Leninist regimes. Gorbachev believed that he could be a civilized communist, at least somewhat respectful of the rights of his citizens, and so the Soviet Union rapidly collapsed as people throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union realized that they could attempt to be free without the guarantee of fierce and merciless, forceful retaliation by their totalitarian states. Many of the threats to the security of the United States that existed before the Soviet collapse have not gone away, however; what more shocking example of this can exist than the story of the spy for the KGB, Aldridge Ames, whose activities were directly responsible for the deaths of numerous American agents in various places throughout the world? Ames continued to spy for Russia even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and until the very moment that he was apprehended by U.S. counterintelligence personnel. So the attitude that I believe can often be perceived from the actions of the Clinton Administration, that all is well with regard to people who would have been clearly objectionable for delicate positions in our security structure during the existence of the Soviet Union-- that attitude that the past acts of former Marxists or anti-American agitators should be excused or understood as ``youthful indiscretions''--that attitude that I clearly perceive as too-often characteristic of the Clinton Administration, is risky at best. We need to look at the latest example of that Clinton Administration attitude: the appointment of Javier Solana as Secretary General of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO, of course, is the military wing of the Western Alliance. It was greatly responsible for maintaining the security of Europe throughout the Cold War, and today we are poised to intervene militarily in an armed conflict in Europe for the first time since World War II, in the Balkans, under the military shield and utilizing the military structure of NATO. Thus, though NATO was always important, it perhaps is even more so today. So, who is the man who was named yesterday in Brussels as the new Secretary General--the Chief--of NATO? Javier Solana is the Foreign Minister of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party government. Mr. Solana opposed NATO with vehemence throughout the 1970's and 1980's. As late as 1986, when the Socialist-sponsored referendum was held in Spain to determine whether it would remain in NATO, Mr. Solana, then Culture Minister, was one of the most outspoken opponents of Spain remaining in NATO. Solana also opposed the presence of U.S. military bases on Spanish soil. As late as 1985, he contemptuously stated while discussing the issue of U.S. bases, ``if need be, we'll send a copy of the Spanish Constitution to Washington so they'll know what a sovereign country is.'' Until September 29, 1979, Mr. Solana was formally a Marxist. That is the date that his party, the Socialist Workers Party, erased the word ``Marxist'' from its political program so as to help it win the next Spanish general election. Despite the opposition of much of Western Europe, the Clinton administration insisted upon Mr. Solana to be the new NATO Secretary General. Much of the military and intelligence community of the NATO countries simply could not understand why the Clinton administration would insist on Solana as the new NATO head with other available candidates in contention, such as Mr. Ruud Lubbers, the former Dutch Prime Minister, who was endorsed by France, Germany and Great Britain. Mr. Lubbers is a lifelong and dedicated supporter of NATO with exemplary security credentials. The Clinton administration insisted on imposing the Spanish Socialist Solana as we prepare to use NATO to intervene militarily in Europe for the first time since World War II, despite the fact that the Spanish government is being wracked by scandals that involve massive governmental corruption that includes even the assassination of opponents by government-created death squads, and despite, perhaps most importantly, that Spain since the Socialist-proposed referendum in Spain on the issue of NATO in 1986, that country is officially not part of NATO's military structure. That Foreign Minister, of that country that is not part of NATO's military structure, was the Clinton administration's imposed choice for NATO Secretary General.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is precisely because the President and Congress are known to occasionally have a disagreement that the President when he submitted his budget recommended that the Congressional Budget Office be utilized to score his budget. All we are saying is that within the next 7 years when we balance the budget, we should use the Congressional Budget Office. That is the entity, because of its seriousness and its history and its competence, the President recommended be used when he came before us here to submit his own budgets. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished new Member, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller], a dynamic and distinguished new Member. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished and experienced gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the distinguished chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], my distinguished colleague.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 276 waives clause 4(b) of rule XI, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee, against the same-day consideration of resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, on or before the legislative day of November 23, 1995. This resolution covers special rules that provide for the consideration or disposition of the bill, H.R. 2491, providing for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996, any amendment, any conference report, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference report thereon; and, to the consideration or disposition of any measure making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. Mr. Speaker, as mentioned when the House first considered the two- thirds waiver for the continuing appropriations resolution which the House passed on Thursday, November 16, House Resolution 276 is an expedited procedure to facilitate the same-day consideration of urgent legislative matters. Facilitating the passage of appropriations bills, and adopting a balance budget plan that will eliminate the Federal deficit in 7 years, are clearly urgent fiscal, legislative matters. The sooner we can pass the individual spending bills, the sooner Federal employees can be assured of a paycheck. [[Page H 13300]] The House has now passed all 13 requisite appropriations bills, and 4 have now been signed into law: Military construction, agriculture, energy and water, and transportation. Soon, the President will have the opportunity to sign legislation to fund Treasury, postal, executive branch, and legislative branch employees, and I am hopeful that excessive partisanship will not keep him from signing this important legislation. While spending priorities are continuing to be negotiated with both the Senate and the President, it is important that the House be able to act immediately on the floor to consider any rule that deals with balancing the Federal budget and with any measure providing funds for expired appropriations. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished new Member, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], the distinguished subcommittee chairman. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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. Speaker, House Resolution 267 is a rule waiving points of order for the conference report to accompany H.R. 2020, the Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. H.R. 2020 provides funds for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies. The rule waives points of order against the conference agreement and its consideration. In addition, the rule disposes of the amendment in disagreement by including a provision which considers the House's insistence on its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, numbered 132, as adopted with the conference report's adoption. In other words, to demonstrate the resolve of the House, the rule self-executes out the amendment in disagreement so that the conference report can be passed expeditiously by both Chambers and sent to the President without further delay. The amendment in disagreement concerned language prohibiting the use of funds for political advocacy by certain Federal grant recipients, and the conferees were unable to decide on advocacy language between Senator Simpson's version and Congressman Istook's proposed compromise. The President has indicated that a veto would be likely if this political advocacy language were to be included with the Treasury, Postal bill, and, in a spirit of compromise and in order to get this bill signed as soon as possible, without risking another trip back from the Senate in the interim, this lone amendment in disagreement is disposed of in the rule. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 2020 provides $11.6 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 1996, which is $646 million less than the fiscal year 1995 level. Thus, this bill saves money and keeps us on a glidepath to a balanced budget in 7 years. There has been some bipartisan cooperation in getting this bill to the floor today, and it is responsible legislation. More importantly, it covers 192,000 Federal employees, which is a full 10 percent of the total Federal work force. By adopting this rule and the conference report today, we will be one step closer to completing the appropriations process and we will be resolving the critical problem of a substantial portion of the Federal work force. I would like to commend subcommittee Chairman Lightfoot, Chairman Livingston, subcommittee ranking member Hoyer, and full committee ranking member Obey for their hard work on this bill. I urge adoption of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 267 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize what we are voting on at this time. We have got a rule before us that such distinguished Members on the other side of the aisle as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] have said that they will support, and they have worked hard to get this bill before us. They admit that it is not a perfect bill from their vantage point; and from our vantage point it is not a perfect bill, but we are making progress. So we have to ask ourselves at what point, if we are making progress on an appropriations bill, and there are significant Members on the other side of the aisle, a percentage of Members on the other side of the aisle that have worked hard in making it possible for this bill to come to the floor and actually will support the rule, why it is that there is an effort to defeat the rule, which is what defeating the previous question would be? So I just want to put this in context once again. Many important issues have been brought out in this debate, but I think it is important to realize that we are talking about a rule that will be supported by many on the other side of the aisle, as well as on this side of the aisle, to bring before us a bill that will be supported on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)