Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would make that request.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's been a good debate. It's unfortunate there is not more fairness, procedural fairness in this rule with regard to what is traditionally a bipartisan bill. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time and Mr. Quigley for introducing this important resolution. The Community of Democracies, a global intergovernmental coalition of over 100 democratic states, has proven its support for the promotion of democracy in civil society over the decade since its founding. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight, as Ms. Ros- Lehtinen appropriately mentioned before, the leadership of the Republic of Lithuania, which took over the presidency of the Community of Democracies in July 2009. Lithuania has shown remarkable leadership in pressing forward with the Community's agenda of promoting democracy, human rights, and freedom in oppressed lands such as Burma, Belarus, and Cuba. Under the guidance of Ambassador Zygimantas Pavilionis, chief coordinator of Lithuania's presidency of the Community of Democracies, the Community created a Parliamentary Forum in March of this year. I have been impressed by Ambassador Pavilionis' exceptional leadership and commitment to strengthening the role of the Community of Democracies in fulfilling its mission of promoting democratic institutions and civil society. In March of this year, I was privileged to attend the convening meeting of the Parliamentary Forum of the Community of Democracies in Vilnius, Lithuania. At the first meeting of the Parliamentary Forum, Emanuelis Zingeris, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Seimas of Lithuania, was elected as the first president of the Parliamentary Forum of the Community of Democracies. Mr. Zingeris is a charismatic and brilliant leader who will doubtless be an effective president of the Parliamentary Forum throughout his term. Also at the Parliamentary Forum, I had the great honor of being elected one of the seven vice presidents of the new entity, along with fellow vice presidents Michal Tomasz Kaminski, Polish member of the European Parliament and chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists in the European Parliament; Michael Gahler, German member of the European Parliament of the Group of the European People's Party; Alexandr Vondra, a senator from the Czech Republic; Adriana Gonzalez Carrillo, a senator of the Republic of Mexico; David Kilgour, former member of Parliament and a well-known human rights activist in Canada; and David Bakradze, speaker of the Parliament of Georgia. Notably, the Parliamentary Forum's first adopted resolution at its convening meeting on March 12, 2010, called for the support of Cuba's pro-democracy movement. I have a copy of that resolution, Mr. Speaker here. I will insert it into the Record. And the Parliamentary Forum's international solidarity, as demonstrated by this resolution, a strong and very appropriate, well- written resolution that, for example, honors, and I read from it, Cuban pro-democracy fighters such as the martyr Orlando Zapata Tamayo and expresses its admiration for the efforts of other heroes such as Guillermo Farinas. This is a concrete, specific demonstration of genuine solidarity by the Parliamentary Forum of the Community of Democracies with the suffering people of Cuba and the freedom fighters who, within Cuba, are struggling to bring democracy and freedom to that land. Orlando Zapata Tamayo was assassinated by the Cuban dictatorship, and he died after over 80 days on a hunger strike protesting the tortures that he was continuously subjected to as a political prisoner. And Guillermo Farinas is, as we speak, on a hunger strike in Cuba. This institution, the Parliamentary Forum of the Community of Democracies, expressed its solidarity with these Cuban rights fighters, fighters for freedom. And in that way, demonstrated its genuine commitment to furthering democratic institutions and assisting those who are fighting for freedom. The resolution today, Mr. Speaker, that will be passed by the Congress of the United States in support of commending the Community of Democracies on its 10th anniversary is timely. I wholeheartedly support it. I commend the Community of Democracies for 10 years of leadership, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution. Again, thank you, Mr. Engel. Thank you Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. This is an important and timely resolution. These are friends of freedom that we're commending today, an institution that, as Ms. Ros-Lehtinen pointed out, is not there for cocktail parties or press releases. And it doesn't allow itself to be tarnished, like abominable institutions such as the so-called Human Rights Council of the United Nations, to be tarnished by, in effect, defending tyrannies. The Community of Democracies is that, a community of democracies that stands for and believes in freedom and democracy. That's why it's appropriate to commend them on their 10th anniversary. The Community of Democracies Parliamentary Forum resolution calling for support of Cuba's pro-democracy movement, The convening meeting, 2010 March 12 Whereas the pro-democracy movement in Cuba has grown at a rapid pace over the last three years, and specific expressions of the movement are evident today in the explosion of bloggers on the island, independent journalists, musicians, artists, writers, and others, who are using their talents to denounce the atrocities of the dictatorship all while putting forth new ideas for the transition to democracy; Whereas there are still extraordinary obstacles to overcome such as the continued repression by the totalitarian dictatorship, extremely limited access to the Internet and ``texting'' capabilities, and a lack of a coherent message of solidarity from the international community; Whereas the dictatorship is fearful of the growth of the pro-democracy movement; Whereas the message of the Movement is coherent and clear in demanding freedom for all Cuban political prisoners, beginning with those who are gravely ill inside the prison, freedom of expression and free, fair multi-party elections with international supervision; Whereas this common position of the Cuban pro-democracy movement requires greater recognition, dissemination and solidarity on the part of the Community of Democracies; Whereas now more than ever the Cuban pro-democracy movement requires that the democratic community takes concrete steps to demonstrate its solidarity; Now, therefore be it Resolved, That the Community of Democracies Parliamentary Forum-- condemns the brutality of the Cuban regime against Cuban political prisoners; expresses its full support for the Cuban pro-democracy movement; honors Cuban pro-democracy fighters such as the martyr Orlando Zapata Tamayo and expresses its admiration for the efforts of other heroes such as Guillermo Farifias; calls for the immediate release of all Cuban political prisoners and free multiparty elections in Cuba; and calls on the democratic community to take concrete steps in demonstrating their solidarity with the Cuban pro-democracy movement by providing humanitarian and technological assistance to the pro-democratic movement, urging certain foreign diplomatic posts in Havana to strengthen contacts with pro-democratic activists on the island, encouraging foreign dignitaries to visit Cuba for the sole purpose of meeting with pro-democratic activists, and looking for opportunities to reiterate and support the common position of the Cuban pro-democracy movement in the international community.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for reminding us of the Clinton years. I was elected to Congress when President Clinton was elected President. Two years later, we, the Republicans, captured the majority here in the Congress, and I remember how we had to fight tooth and nail to balance the budget. President Clinton never submitted a budget with a deficit less than $200 billion a year. I remember ad infinitum his budgets at least had $200 billion of deficits. It used to be, Madam Speaker, that $200 billion was a lot of money for a deficit. And I remember how this Congress had to fight day in and day out, and we finally achieved, in very arduous negotiations with the executive, a balanced budget. So that's the record. I would like, at this point, to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, we have great differences, great disagreements often here on the floor of this House. Rare is the occasion when there is no debate, when there are no differences. Muftiah McCartin enjoys the admiration of all Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked with her. She personifies the best of this institution. She personifies competence, professionalism, and courtesy. And as someone who has had the privilege of working with her, I thank her for her service and commend her for her professionalism, competence, and that courtesy. So the best to you, Muftiah, and your family as you move on to other endeavors. You are an example of the wonderful men and women who have through the years made possible what this Congress gets accomplished. And so I join all of my colleagues in wishing Muftiah the best. I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. In order for the United States to compete in today's global marketplace and to spur long-term growth, we must invest in basic science research and development. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, collectively known as the National Academies, published the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report concluded that the United States faces a serious challenge with regard to our future competitiveness and standard of living. That report led to the bipartisan enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which implemented the report's recommendations. Today we are set to consider H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The bill reauthorizes the America COMPETES Act for 5 years, increases authorization spending levels to $86 billion, and creates new programs. I understand and I support the underlying principles of the America COMPETES Act, prioritizing and strengthening investments in basic research and development and STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. But we need to have an economic strategy that encourages companies, businesses in the United States, to compete, to grow, and to hire new workers, a strategy that includes the streamlining of burdensome regulations, a strategy that reduces taxation, that brings our Federal spending under control, and controls the spiraling national debt. So, Madam Speaker, as much as I would prefer to support the underlying legislation, I believe that at this time of severe budgetary constraints, the underlying legislation includes excessive spending levels. The bill has an overall authorization of nearly $86 billion, which represents approximately $20 billion in new funding above the fiscal base of this year. That is a significant increase when we're facing record budget deficits. And that is after the so-called stimulus bill injected 6 billion additional dollars into the agencies funded by this bill. The current national debt projections and the majority's insatiable appetite for spending are unsustainable. And if we continue on that trajectory, the America that we know, love, and admire will be severely threatened. Our excessive spending threatens the very foundation of our economy and our way of life. We could very well find ourselves in a position, soon, similar to today's Greece. As we saw last week when the House considered the legislation on credits for refurbishing homes by my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch), Congress is beginning to realize the magnitude of the Nation's fiscal problem--though the congressional majority leadership has not yet realized it or simply does not care. I may have voted in favor of the underlying legislation if the majority, nevertheless, had allowed the House to consider and vote on amendments that would have reduced the spending levels on the bill. For example, my colleague Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida came before the Rules Committee yesterday to request that the committee allow the House to consider his amendment to cut the authorization of the bill from 5 years to 3 years. His amendment would have lowered the cost of the overall bill. It would also have given Congress the ability to come back in 3 years and determine if the legislation was achieving its intended purpose. Perhaps if that amendment had been allowed, a number of Members like myself who are concerned about the uncontrolled spending of this majority could have voted for the bill. Instead, the majority in the Rules Committee decided that they would block consideration of the Mario Diaz-Balart amendment and also the Sessions amendment, amendments that sought to reduce the spending in the bill. Not only did they block the Diaz-Balart and Sessions amendments, they blocked out almost three- fourths of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, while allowing nearly 90 percent of the Democrat amendments. So today we will consider four Republican amendments and 48 Democrat amendments. That's quite a contrast. It's especially glaring when you consider that we were told that it would not be this way. The distinguished Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most open and bipartisan Congress in history; yet week after week the majority continues to block an open process. We have yet to consider even one open rule during this entire Congress--not even on the historically open appropriations process. It is quite sad. I reserve my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

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

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

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for his courtesy and for his management on the majority side of this rule. While reiterating that I am so pleased that Members on both sides of the aisle have joined to commend and wish the best to Muftiah McCartin, with regard to the legislation that we are bringing to the floor with this rule, I would say, Mr. Speaker, while not minimizing its importance because I think it's obviously dealing with a very important set of subjects that enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, I would bring to the attention once again of all Members what we saw last week with legislation on--I believe it was a $6 billion tax credit to allow--I remember it was a credit for home refurbishings, brought to the floor by my good friend Mr. Welch. And I noticed at that time a--I think it was a change in attitude. I was impressed. I was certainly impacted by what I perceived as a change in the Congress on what normally I think would have faced little opposition. Certainly it would have been expected that that legislation would have faced little opposition. We saw--what I saw, what I perceived was a ground swell of concern on the spending. You know, refurbishing one's home and encouraging citizens to refurbish their homes to keep them energy efficient, you know, that's not something that in itself would have opposition. It was the spending that touched a nerve because of the moment we're living. And so with the legislation that we bring to the floor today that is being increased from the basic spending by about $20 billion, I certainly would not be surprised if we see a similar nerve being touched. That doesn't mean that the subject is not of great importance. Science, education, keeping the U.S. leading edge, cutting edge in so many ways, that is obviously something that has enjoyed bipartisan support, and it should. But I think the majority is failing to sense that moment that the Nation at large and the Congress now is finally manifesting or reacting to. There is concern about the path we are on with regard to spending. Having said that, I again thank Mr. Perlmutter for his courtesy and management of this rule, as well as thanking all who have participated in this debate today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my dear friend Ms. Ros- Lehtinen and also my friend Mr. Engel for their help in getting this resolution to the floor and their strong support of this important resolution. I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the United Kingdom's new Prime Minister, David Cameron, as he, as head of the Conservative Party, forms a new government with the Liberal Democrats. We wish him and all of the British people all the best. It's important that we in Congress take the time to recognize that great friend and ally of the United States. It is important that we recognize the special friendship and all that the United Kingdom has done to stand with the United States. This resolution recognizes the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. It points out the strong influence that English philosophers, economists, jurists and other leaders have had on American political thought, on the United States legal system and on our government. This strong special relationship, founded on our shared history, continues into the modern day. The United Kingdom has repeatedly demonstrated the strength of its camaraderie with the United States. Within the last decade, the United Kingdom joined forces with us against the Taliban as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, and U.K. soldiers have fought alongside American soldiers in Iraq. The United Kingdom has suffered a tragic loss of life as a result. As of March, 273 U.K. military and civilian personnel have given their lives in Afghanistan, and 179 have given the last full measure of devotion in Iraq. I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to have introduced this resolution, highlighting the strong ties that bind our countries together. The United Kingdom is a great friend and ally of the United States. Reflecting on our relationship, Winston Churchill said, ``In this century of storm and tragedy, I contemplate with high satisfaction the constant factor of the interwoven and upward progress of our peoples. Our comradeship and our brotherhood in war were unexampled. We stood together, and because of that fact, the free world now stands. Nor has our partnership any exclusive nature: the Atlantic community is a dream that can well be fulfilled to the detriment of none and to the enduring benefit and honor of the great democracies.'' During the most trying times in the history of the United States, we have had no truer friend than the United Kingdom. I sincerely hope that our futures will continue to reflect our histories, deepen our friendship and continually refresh our commitment to the shared values of the rule of law and democratic principles. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important and, I believe, timely resolution.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an admirable educator and scholar from Bogota, Colombia, Dr. Rodrigo Noguera Calderon. During his long and highly acclaimed professional career after receiving a doctorate in law with a specialization in socioeconomic sciences from the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, he has been an exceptional jurist and academician. His humanistic formation led him to defend from the outset the values and principles of western civilization, the defense of which is today manifested in the formation of professionals educated with the same principles. As a corollary of his humanistic formation, Dr. Noguera has been an ardent defender of democracy and of its liberties, and he has been a fighter against totalitarian and so-called ``populist'' regimes which seek to destabilize democratic governments. Dr. Noguera has also stood out for his unwavering and constant defense of the principles on which human rights are based and for the correct application of international norms that regulate them against those who, in the name of human rights, violate the very principles they say they seek to protect. To further this cause, Dr. Noguera established the Human Rights Institute in collaboration with academic institutions on three continents. Regarding the United States of America, his positions and those of the Universidad Sergio Arboleda, which is the university founded in 1984 by his father, Rodrigo Noguera Laborde, and at which he has presided since 2003, have always been of friendship and in defense of the postulates and values of this great Nation. The Universidad Sergio Arboleda was the main academic institution in Colombia that supported and assisted with the entire negotiation process of the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Colombia. The Universidad Sergio Arboleda also maintains very close relationships, by means of specific shared programs and projects, with many American universities, such as Florida International University, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown University, American University, and the New York University School of Law. The Universidad Sergio Arboleda was a leader in the creation of joint degree programs with American universities. It was also a leader in other innovative and groundbreaking agreements, which have benefited both the United States and Colombia. The Congressional Hispanic Leadership Institute, of which I am honored to chair, will also enter into an agreement of collaboration with the Universidad Sergio Arboleda. Dr. Noguera has held very prestigious public-sector positions by presidential appointment, including supervisor of corporations, national electoral council judge, and associate judge of the National Constitutional Court of Colombia. He was presently named by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as a member of the Committee on Political Reform. He has received many important distinctions, including the Order of Democracy Simon Bolivar in the degree of Cruz Gran Caballero, which is one of the highest civilian honors of Colombia, granted by the Colombian House of Representatives. For my late father, for my brothers, and for me and my wife, our friendship with Rodrigo Noguera and his wife, Zayda Barrero de Noguera, is an extraordinary honor.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, first of all, thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The underlying legislation, H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009, is a fair and appropriate way for the people of Puerto Rico to express themselves at the ballot box regarding the critical issue of their permanent status. The legislation would allow a plebiscite whereby the people of Puerto Rico will decide whether to maintain their current political status or have a different status. If a majority favors a different status, the Government of Puerto Rico would be authorized to conduct a second plebiscite among three nonterritorial status options recognized under United States and international law: independence, United States statehood, or sovereignty in association with the United States. They would, obviously, have to be worked out between sovereign Puerto Rico and sovereign United States. The legislation does not dictate an outcome for the people of Puerto Rico. Congress will not take sides by voting for this legislation. Congress will only be asking the Puerto Rican people to vote on the issue of their permanent status. This process is absolutely respectful of the Puerto Rican people's right to decide their future status. I wish to commend Resident Commissioner Pierluisi and my dear friend and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, for extraordinary leadership on this issue. Both of them have earned the admiration of both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress and deserve commendation for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, I understand that some Members of Congress have concerns that the results of the election would be automatically implemented. I was discussing with my colleague, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, some falsehoods that are being said on radio and other media that the vote today is one that would set up a process that would automatically be implemented. That is not the case. The results of the plebiscites are nonbinding on Congress. So in order for the results to be put into effect, whatever the results of the referendum would be, Congress would need to debate again and, again, pass legislation. In other words, new legislation. My position with regard to the status of Puerto Rico is that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to decide the political and legal status of their wonderful island through a fair, neutral, as well as federally recognized, plebiscite. I have ultimate admiration for the people of Puerto Rico. They are a wonderful people. If the people of Puerto Rico ultimately vote to request admission to the United States of America as a State of the American Union, there will be no stronger defender of their right to be the 51st American State than me. If they vote to remain in their current status, there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. And if they vote for independence, there will be no stronger defender of their decision than me. This legislation is a self-determination vehicle, and I support self- determination. I support democracy everywhere. The Puerto Rican people should be able to decide their permanent status themselves. The House last addressed this issue in 1998. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that I had the honor of chairing that debate in the House when H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, after much leadership and advocacy by Resident Commissioner Romero-Barcelo, was brought to the floor under a Republican majority. I was a member of the Rules Committee at that time, and I am proud to say that our majority, the Republican majority, allowed that bill to proceed under an open rule, a rule that allows Members from both parties to have their amendments to the legislation debated on the House floor without having to get approval from the Rules Committee. This is an important issue, and if there's ever been legislation that deserves an open debate process, it's this legislation. I remind the House of the process that we used when we were the majority because today the current majority has decided to restrict debate on this issue, on this very same issue that we allowed an open debate process on in 1998. And not only on this legislation, but on every piece of legislation brought before this Congress. This majority has not allowed any open rules, any open debate process in over 2\1/2\ years. Since they regained the majority, they have allowed only one open rule, apart from appropriations bills. And even on appropriations bills, they have restricted debate. Now I disagree with some of the amendments that were presented before the Rules Committee yesterday, and if, by chance, the majority would have allowed their consideration by the full Congress, I would have voted against those amendments. I may have even debated against those amendments. But just because I disagree with amendments that were brought before the Rules Committee, asking the Rules Committee to allow consideration by the full House does not mean that I believe that those Members of the House do not deserve the right to be heard. I believe the House should be allowed to work its will. Now, unlike the current majority, I believe in open debate. Let amendments stand or fall on their merits. Just about every week I have the honor to come to the floor of this House to help manage rules debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time I come to the floor, I criticize the current majority for systematically blocking open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill that we consider. Even on appropriations bills, which have long been brought to the floor under a tradition of open rules, they blocked debate. Today they could have easily upheld the tradition set by the Republican majority to allow an open debate on the extremely important issue of Puerto Rico's political status; yet the current majority, they can't bear to do something so abhorrent to them, to permit an open debate process. They cling, Mr. Speaker, they cling to their modus operandi, restricting debate, restricting debate. So they've done so again today. Now, that doesn't negate the historic nature of what the Congress of the United States is doing today. Today whatever the outcome of this legislation, Congress will send its greeting, its support and admiration for the wonderful people of ``La Isla del Encanto,'' Puerto Rico. I reserve the balance of my time.