Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our distinguished colleagues who have worked so diligently and so exhaustively on this issue: The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]; of course the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf], the tireless champion for human rights throughout the world; the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] who has distinguished herself in her career for her advocacy on behalf of democracy and human rights in China; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my chairman and dear friend; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] who is here and who has worked so tirelessly on this issue as has the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and others. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. I rise in support of it. I would prefer today to see a vote on the denial of the extension of MFN to China. But I will support the Bereuter legislation. I think it is a fair, well-thought-out piece of legislation. What we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, here today on this issue really I think is related to the following question: What is the goal, or what should be the goal of our public policy? The maximization of profit for our businesses at all costs, even at the cost of ignoring, of not even mentioning the Orwellian nature of the Chinese regime? I know, Mr. Speaker, the geopolitics involved when we analyze China. I know that China is the historical adversary of Russia, and I know the size of China and the great number of human beings that reside there. May I recommend to our colleagues the book by our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk], written with regard to his experience when he was United States Ambassdaor to Romania under Ceausescu, his brilliant synthesis of how those rogue regimes look to most-favored-nation status as legitimization of their conduct. They know who they are, but they want to be told by the leader of the free world, the United States in effect, and we do that with MFN, ``You're normal. We are ignoring your rogue status. We are ignoring the nature of your brutality.'' That is what MFN is. When we deny MFN, there are no tariffs involved. It is simply a political statement which tells rogue regimes, in this case the Chinese regime, that they are not what they really are. That, in effect, is what MFN is. I think that we have to realize and ask this question about ourselves: Are we willing to go through the trouble of at least mentioning, of at least telling the tyrants in China, ``We know who you are'' or ``We know your genuine nature.'' ``We know that you murder prisoners and that you sell their organs. We know that you use slave labor. We know that you force women to have abortions.'' By not extending MFN, we would simply be telling the Chinese tyrants, ``We know who you are and we're telling the world who you are. Recognizing the geopolitics, which we are not ignoring, we're telling you who you are.'' I wish that we would have that vote today. If not, I think we are making at least some progress with the well-thought-through and negotiated legislation presented by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. But this is an issue that will not go away until China truly is normal. Then we can tell the world community they are not a rogue regime. They are normal.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed today's debate. I think it is important to emphasize, to recall that what we are bringing forth this morning is the rule to guide the debate on the appropriations bill for the Treasury Department, the Postal Service and the Office of the President. This is not a tax bill. This is the appropriations bill for those agencies of the Federal Government. With regard to the lockbox issue that was debated, I think very well and at length, I would simply like to remind Members that day after tomorrow the Committee on Rules will hold a markup precisely on the issue of the lockbox. There is specific legislation to address that issue that has been worked on at considerable length that, of course, is always improvable but that we feel confident achieves the purposes that those who have worked so hard on this issue propose to achieve, and so we will be dealing with that issue with specific legislation that will be marked up in the Committee on Rules, as the chairman of the committee has committed to the day after tomorrow. So this rule, Mr. Speaker, for the deliberation, the debate on the appropriations legislation, the appropriations bill for the Treasury, the Postal Service and the Office of the President, as I stated before, is an open rule. It is a fair rule. I would urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I do not believe we have any other speakers on this side of the aisle, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], someone who has arrived recently in the House and yet in the short time that he has been here has already distinguished himself on a number of issues and especially this issue of requiring deficit reduction by a specific mechanism that will be targeted to that purpose. Of course it has become known as the lockbox issue. As the chairman of the Committee on Rules has stated, on Thursday, just the day after tomorrow, we are going to mark up in the Committee on Rules specific legislation to carry this out.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, someone, if there is anyone, who proves that where there is a will, there is a way with regard to fiscal responsibility, so much so that on Thursday, just 2 days from now, he has scheduled a markup precisely of legislation on this lockbox issue. I am very proud of that. I know we have other Members on the floor such as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] here who have worked very hard on this issue. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for scheduling that markup and for working so hard and diligently with such extraordinary leadership on this issue.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 190 is an open rule, providing for the consideration of 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 United States Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certainly independent agencies. The rule waives clause 2, prohibiting unauthorized and legislative provisions, and clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations, of rule XXI against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule. The rule also provides for the reading of the bill by title, rather than by section, for amendment, and each title is considered as read. In addition, the Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition to members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. I would like to stress that this rule is an open rule, so open that it does not even restrict dilatory tactics. We are hopeful that Members will not utilize stalling techniques that do not advance debate nor improve the substance of legislation. This rule does not provide waivers of the rules for any amendments to H.R. 2020. It is a standard open rule, and Members who want to move funds around or reduce funding for certain programs will be able to do so within the parameters of House rules. Any battles regarding the level of funding for particular programs or projects can be decided on the floor in a deliberative manner. I would like to commend Subcommittee Chairman Lightfoot and Chairman Livingston for their hard work on this bill. As an open rule on this $23 billion measure, House Resolution 190 could not be more fair, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, I include the following information regarding amendments:

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. For purposes of debate only, Mr. Speaker, 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 purposes of debate only. (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order, if I may.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson]. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks by saying that I respect extraordinarily the patriotism of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], who has also expressed here his support of this substitute, but I think that they are extremely incorrect by supporting this substitute. Let's be clear with regard to what we are talking about. The Menendez amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply states that there will be a deduction, a dollar-for-dollar deduction of our aid to Russia if Russia--if and when, if and when, it conditions that--if and when Russia gives aid for the completion of this powerplant that, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] has pointed out, is extraordinarily dangerous; as the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] pointed out, the same kind of powerplant, that same model, it was called VVER, they were the export powerplants that the Soviets used to build throughout Eastern Europe, those same model power plants were closed in Germany immediately after reunification because of their inherent danger. Now, last month Castro and the Russians announced that they have come up with a formula to get the money to complete the first of those two plants, that same model that was closed down in Germany because there was an explosion of protest by the environmental movement in Europe and they closed down those plants. By the way, the remaining plants in Eastern Europe, the environmental movement in Europe has mobilized to close them down because they are ticking time bombs for explosions, for accidents, those plants. Castro announces, as I say, Mr. Chairman, that he has found the formula with the Russians to complete the first of these plants. The Menendez amendment says if they do that, if they provide assistance, we will then deduct dollar-for-dollar our assistance, our taxpayer money, for the completion of that powerplant which is a risk, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] pointed out, to half of the United States, just about. If you look at the map, you see that just about all the southern States, all the way, and especially up the eastern coast, all the way to the Nation's capital are directly threatened if there is an accident or an incident at the nuclear powerplant. Then my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], gets up and he says his amendment is so as to not insult the dignity of the Russian democrats. Wait a minute. How do we get the message across to the Russians? Do we vote for the amendment that says we do not want the plant built with our money? Or do we vote for the amendment that says we do not want to insult the sensitivities of the Russian democrats? The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], my good friend, great American patriot, I know he is a ranking member. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] is the chairman of the subcommittee, and they have to fulfill a roll. I understand that. I respect that. But their amendment, the Russian democrats' sensitivity amendment, is not the way to convey the message that we cannot be more concerned about the completion of this power plant than we are. The Menendez amendment, the reason we have to defeat the substitute and vote for the Menendez amendment is because this is not an issue of Russian sensitivity. This is an issue, the Clinton administration has got to understand, it has got to be at the top of our agenda in our dealings with Russia and we have got to tell them they cannot build the plants that were closed down in Germany, that we are closing down, that are being closed throughout eastern Europe and yet Castro wants to complete them in Cuba. That is not acceptable to the national security of the United States of America. So, let us keep in mind what the Wilson-Obey substitute is, the Russian sensitivity amendment. That is what it is, the Russian sensitivity amendment. That we do not want to disturb their sensitivity on balance the Democrats versus the whatever. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is if we vote in favor of the sensitivity amendment, what we are saying is that we are not concerned about that powerplant; that we will deal with it, like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] said, diplomatically. Mr. Chairman, we have heard enough of diplomatically. Let Warren Christopher convince, with sensitivity, the Russians that we are concerned about this plant, even if we vote against the Menendez amendment. Let us see if that makes sense. If we vote for the substitute, the sensitivity substitute, then we are putting our faith in Mr. Warren Christoper that he will say: The Congress did not support the amendment to cut, dollar for dollar, Russian aid if you go ahead and build. They were more concerned about sensitivity. That is why they sent me here, to sensitively tell you Russians that even though the Congress did not support the Menendez amendment, we are, I think, concerned about the plant. I guess that is what the sensitivity amendment means. What the Menendez amendment is, and we have to vote down the Wilson- Obey sensitivity amendment, is very clear. It is on the highest priority for our national security. That plant cannot threaten the people of the United States, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment varies substantially and significantly the amendment that was ruled in order by the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules made in order the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Mendendez, which, as he has stated, calls for a dollar for dollar reduction in aid if Russia gives credits or assistance for the completion of a power plant. What the substitute says is totally different. It says that the actual dollar, the actual dollar that we give to Russia, this dollar, if we give it to Russia, Mr. Chairman, we have to trace it and find that it goes to Cuba in order for us to ask for it to bet back to us. That is a totally different amendment, Mr. Chairman. This is not the amendment that was made in order by the Committee on Rules, and I would submit to the Chair that it would violate the rules. They did not go to the Committee on Rules with this amendment. It is a totally different amendment. The one we made in order in the Committee on Rules is the Menendez amendment, which is totally different. This one is out of order, therefore.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the seriousness of this subject. Any time that we are proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States, it is a serious subject that merits and requires treatment with the utmost consideration and seriousness. Precisely I think because we are such a diverse nation, multiethnic nation, in fact, we are a multilingual nation, the symbol, the environment of our sovereignty, the symbol of our Nation, the symbol of our national unity, I think deserves protection. There should certainly be no bar to protection of that symbol of our Nation and our national unity and that environment of our sovereignty itself. There should be no bar to protection by Congress or the States to that most important symbol of our national unity. What we are proposing with this constitutional amendment is precisely to eliminate the prohibition against the protection of that enshrinement of our sovereignty. That is what we are seeking to do. So that is why it is so important. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for having brought forth this amendment. I think it is appropriate and important, and I would say that it is compelling and I would say that it is necessary, precisely because of our diversity and because of the great not only ethnic, but linguistic diversity and reality of our Nation. So, with respect to the arguments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], I would disagree with him. I would say that it is precisely compelling that we go forth and propose this amendment and let the States decide, because this is a symbol that deserves our protection and should not be prohibited. That protection should not be prohibited. That is what we are doing today.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for these 2 minutes. I do not think I will need 2 minutes. I just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his support on the substantive issue. I say to the gentleman, ``If over and above our efforts you have further suggestions, we are more than open to receive your suggestions on how to make sure that those powerplants won't be completed in Cuba and how to make sure that democracy is continued and furthered and protected in Haiti. We happen to believe that this is not only an appropriate vehicle, but a most appropriate vehicle to put maximum pressure on both of these situations with regard to the national interests of the United States, but if over and above these efforts you have additional suggestions, we will be more than open to review them and hopefully work together with you.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we do not want these----

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding me this time. I think it is curious that we just heard that the issue that was made in order by virtue of the Menendez amendment having been made in order by the Committee on Rules, and I am going to try to paraphrase, is a narrow issue that will tie our relationship to [[Page H 6236]] the Soviet Union to an incident or a situation in Cuba. To call a nuclear power plant that is being built 180 miles from the United States, and that is being built of a model that after the reunification of Germany four nuclear power plants which had been built by the Soviets there of that same model were immediately closed down by the Government of Germany because of their lack of safety, to call the national interests of the United States that that kind of nuclear power plant not be completed 180 miles from our shore a narrow interest is quite a curiosity. That is precisely, however, why the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] came before the Committee on Rules, because of the grave nature of the threat to the U.S. national security that would ensue if this nuclear power plant were completed. That is why the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] came before the Committee on Rules and asked we make in order, and we did, his amendment which will simply say to Russia that, if they contribute to the completion of that nuclear power plant 180 miles from the United States in Cuba, that the amount that Russia contributes to that nuclear power plant's completion on a dollar-for-dollar basis will be deducted from United States taxpayer assistance to Russia. Now that is not, Mr. Speaker, I would maintain, nor did the majority of the Committee on Rules maintain, a narrow interest. It is the national security interests of the United States being protected by this Congress in making sure that we make the strongest possible statement to Russia that we will not accept a VVER, a VVER model nuclear power plant being completed a hundred 180 miles from the soil of the United States. Now in Europe the entire environmental movement is mobilized at this point to close down the other VVER power plants that are still in operation throughout Eastern Europe that the Soviets had constructed, and they are able to close them down. They have been able to close already all of them down in Germany, and they are making substantial progress in closing down the other ones. This is not a narrow interest. This is something that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] I think brought forth very correctly, and I think he has to be commended for bringing it forth in this bill as an amendment. He brought it to our attention in the Committee in Rules, and we made it in order, as we made in order the request of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] that, if we are going to send taxpayer dollars to Haiti, that they have to have free elections. Now I think it would be really an extreme absurdity if we were going to continue to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to Haiti if a government there, whatever the government is, proceeds to steal elections. So that is all we are saying, and it is not a narrow interest. It is something that is in our national interest. It is something that is in our national interest, and that is why, despite the possible, the possible allegations that some points of order could conceivably, and we are not sure, be made with regard to those amendments, the Committee on Rules made them in order. It is a good rule, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask for my colleagues' support of this fair rule.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 169 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] bring up that very important subject which we have permitted to be addressed by virtue of making in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] that will allow Members to return unspent portions of their office expense accounts to the Treasury to be used specifically for deficit reduction. This is a fair rule, Mr. Speaker. It has been a rule that has been well thought through. There has been very close work and cooperation between the Legislative Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on House Oversight, and the Committee on Rules. I think it is a good piece of work that we have brought before the floor today, before our colleagues today, and I would urge that our colleagues adopt this rule and move this bill onto the floor. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a table reflecting the amendment process under special rules reported by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman form Georgia [Mr. Linder].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations.