Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 545 is a rule waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2002 and 2003, and against its consideration. The underlying legislation has taken on a new meaning, Mr. Speaker, this year. The United States is leading a worldwide war against terrorism. This is a very difficult task, which requires a careful combination of strength as well as diplomacy. The legislation that we will consider today supports the needs of President Bush and his administration to conduct the foreign relations of the United States while keeping our citizens abroad safe from harm. It provides $13.8 billion in fiscal year 2003 to help achieve these goals, including $5.2 billion for counterterrorism assistance to our allies and $1.6 billion for security at our embassies abroad. I am very pleased to see that this report includes increased authorization levelings for human rights monitoring as part of our effort in Congress to promote human rights around the world. This legislation also requires State Department officials to work to reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, whose membership includes some of the world's worst human rights violators. The underlying legislation will also help promote our Nation's message of freedom and support for democracy by providing new authorities to our international broadcasting entities, with an emphasis on those countries whose governments obviously do not permit freedom of the press. I am pleased to see a continued commitment to our friends in Israel. Every country under international law has the right to designate its capital city. In fact, however, this has not been the case with Israel. This legislation requires compliance with existing U.S. law that recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which has been the capital of that country since 1950. This legislation also enacts the Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002, which requires the President to formally determine whether the Palestinian Authority is complying with its commitments under international agreements, including the absolute renunciation of terrorism and violence. It is important, Mr. Speaker, we continue to support our democratic allies around the world. For example, Taiwan has demonstrated its continued commitment to a democratic path even under the constant threat just miles off its shores. The administration has shown that they have a clear understanding of Taiwan's security needs by requesting four Kidd class destroyers which this bill provides for. Mr. Speaker, as we continue our efforts to prevent future acts of terror, it is important that we provide the administration with the necessary tools to continue to bring the world's community on board. I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, and all the members of the Committee on International Relations for in effect making the tough decisions required to produce thoughtful legislation that meets our most important priorities in this field, the field of foreign affairs. I urge all of my colleagues to support this straightforward rule, noncontroversial rule as well as this very important underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 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. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the opposition to this legislation. I am trying to figure it out, but I do not understand it, because education is supposed to be a top issue for everybody, important for everybody. So a bill that says that if a family makes less than $40,000 a year they get a tax deduction of up to $3,000 for education expenses, it would seem to me that if education is an important issue, this is a bill that should be important to them. We just heard the dear friend who spoke before say that one could even get a car paid for with this tax deduction. I am not sure about that because the school has to certify first that it is education- related, the cost, before they can get a tax deduction. But let us say a family does have a situation where they do not have transportation, let us say, because in that school district, for whatever reason, there is no transportation. I do not think there is a situation like that; I do not think that a school is going to certify a car. But if there would be a need for that family to have transportation and that $3,000 tax deduction to solve that transportation problem, I think it is a worthy thing to do, like I also think it would be worthy to help a family with academic tutoring or books or uniforms or supplies, which clearly would be said by the school to be education related. That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about families who make $40,000 or less, helping them out with their needs. Other things should be done as well on education. Sign us up, of course. By the way, we got together in a bipartisan fashion, which is the way in which we should work, and the way I thought we would work with this legislation, as well, when we are talking about education. We passed the legislation that was proposed initially by the President. It was modified here. So I would ask my colleagues to realize that we are talking about education and we are talking about families who make less than $40,000, and to at least move the process forward, so hopefully, and whether or not the Senate acts, I do not know if the Senate is going to act, but I know education is important. So I would say, let us move forward and let us improve upon the legislation if necessary, instead of minimizing it like we are hearing with the opposition. This is a good bill. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for it.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, today we remember. The pain has not subsided. The memories of those lost will not be forgotten. Today we honor their lives and their sacrifice. The terrorists have failed. Blinded by their hatred, the true result of the attacks on September 11th were things they could never have anticipated. America responded with courage--not fear. America responded with love--demonstrated by the thousands of rescue workers. America responded with resolve--as we continue to hunt evil doers around the globe. We must pay our highest tribute to the unsung heroes who have labored this past year--our first responders, our men and women in the armed services. I also would like to thank our President for showing true leadership in the face of this challenge thrust upon us. Our job is not completed. While we have responded to the events of September 11th we have not taken the final step to ensure Americans are safe. We are faced with great decisions. But we do so with great resolve. We will continue to show that the values and principles America stands for--the values and principles our brave Americans died for-- will overcome those who would kill innocent civilians. God bless and keep those who were lost one year ago today. God bless America--beacon of freedom.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule, which will allow for consideration of the Trade Act of 2002 conference report. It has been a long and arduous process that has brought us here this evening. The House originally passed the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act on November 16, 2001 and then followed with the passage of the Trade Promotion Authority on December 6. It is now more than 8 months since the passage of the first bill, and I believe that we have a product today that is of extreme importance really in the national security of the United States. We have a unique opportunity to strengthen democracies under great pressure in this hemisphere. Nations in this hemisphere are facing numerous challenges that threaten their fledgling democracies, including narco trafficking and terrorism. One of the surest ways to support democracies under extreme pressure in our hemisphere is by facilitating the emergence of a Common Market of the Americas, the free trade area of the Americas. Free trade among free peoples is good policy and good for the people of the Western hemisphere. To achieve a Free Trade Area of the Americas, Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we approve this conference report and finally give the President the authority he needs to get this process going and to make it a reality. I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill due also to another provision that has been very needed for a long time. This bill includes the extension of the Andean Trade Preference Act. Due to the ATPA, the U.S. and the Andean nations have enjoyed an $18 billion beneficial trade relationship for the last decade. The extension of the ATPA is not merely a matter of economic or trade policy, but it is a decision with consequences for U.S. foreign and national security policy in this hemisphere. Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador are nations that we must continue to help. They have indicated over the past decade that they wish to be strong members of a free and democratic hemisphere, a hemisphere that will one day be free of terrorism and free of tyranny. Continuing ATPA will help the Andean nations fight poverty, terrorism and drug protection, as well as protect democracy and promote human rights. ATPA promotes job creation in a region with where the alternative for many workers is easily a life devoted to drug promotion. Promoting development in this region is crucial to a U.S. foreign policy that seeks to support countries fighting against terrorism and fighting against the drug trade. I urge my colleagues to consider the benefits of extending ATPA, not only to our South American neighbors, but also because of the effect on the American consumers, who will enjoy a wide variety of product choice with fewer artificial constraints and restrictions. Extending and improving ATPA is a decisive step toward improved relations with this hemisphere. This legislation will foster the expression of a mutually supported and beneficial relation between the U.S. and the democracies of the Western hemisphere. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and those who have worked so hard to finally bring to a reality before us tonight. I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this fair and balanced rule that has been crafted to facilitate that historic act. For weeks now the House has been working its will through committee after committee markup. The House further worked its will by agreeing to the creation of a Select Committee on Homeland Security to review the recommendations of all the committees of jurisdiction. And now the Committee on Rules has been given the task to preserve the efforts that have been made to keep this a fair and open process, and that is exactly what we have done. The terrorists and dictators of the world who seek the demise of the United States thought that September 11 would change America, but Americans have not changed. This Nation is full of true heros. Brave men and women who love freedom and will not tolerate those who wish to destroy the freedoms we hold dear. But there has been a change the terrorists did not expect. We are reorganizing. Just as this country has done after previous disasters, we are meeting the challenges before us. This Act reforms our response to threats at home just as we reformed the military following World War II to meet threats abroad. I am very pleased to see that a strong intelligence analysis component is included in the underlying bill so that the information generated by the intelligence community will best serve our national security. Additionally, given the enormous flow of goods and services that we see coming through our community in South Florida, I have long been a proponent of strengthening the resources of Customs agents to support the enormous task they are entrusted with. I am pleased to see the steps taken to strengthen this role, and I will continue to work to ensure that all of our Nation's airports and ports of entry have the resources to keep America safe. Mr. Speaker, we are meeting the challenge. I urge strong support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You know it is true. You know it is true.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. We have a policy goal, and it is a policy that has been set not only by the President but by the Congress and codified into law and clearly espoused by President Bush in repeated statements: A free Cuba, achieved through a democratic transition, with the release of all political prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, the press and labor unions, and the scheduling of free internationally supervised elections. Now that free Cuba will not oppress its people and it will not threaten its neighbors. The intelligence community, as I stated before, has said that ever since 1999 it has come to the conclusion that there is an offensive biological weapons program being developed by the Cuban regime. That has been made public now by the intelligence community, but the conclusion was reached as of 1999. Now, the director of the Soviet biological weapons program, Dr. Alibek, has written in his book that by 1990, the Soviets were absolutely convinced that Castro had an offensive biological weapons program. But we are led to believe by the people who are arguing to open up all the trades and open up all the credits and the tourism for the Castro dictatorship that not only our intelligence community is lying, not only is our intelligence community now not telling the truth, but the director of the Soviet program, who defected and who our experts say has provided more information on Soviet biological and chemical weapons programs than any other defector, that he is lying as well. So all of those people are lying and we should make that leap of faith and proceed to provide billions of dollars in trade and credit to the dictatorship. Now, the denial of the U.S. market to the Cuban regime and the conditioning of democratic reforms for the end of the embargo constitutes the most important leverage that exists for the democratic transition to take place. In a totally personalized dictatorship, like the Cuban one, when the dictator is gone from the scene, when he dies, or however he is gone from the scene, that situation invariably will change. It is like when Franco disappeared from the scene in Spain, or Oliveira, after 50 years of dictatorship in Portugal. Inevitably, those regimes were faced with a different dynamic. But in each of those cases where there was a democratic transition, there was some form of external pressure, some form of solidarity with those people demanding, requesting, encouraging, incentivizing a democratic transition. If we give the dictatorship the trade and tourism dollars it seeks now, Mr. Chairman, unilaterally, in exchange for no democratic reform, like the people proposing this amendment are saying, that we should unilaterally, without getting any sort of democratic reform for the Cuban people in exchange, if we do that, Mr. Chairman, we risk making that regime permanent. We risk the possibility of that regime outliving the dictator. Now, in addition, it is important to realize that the U.S. embargo has had collateral successes. The denial of resources for the dictatorship has made it much more difficult for the dictatorship to cooperate with terrorist organizations or to develop biological weapons. The denial of resources, the limitation of resources to the dictatorship has helped. But, in addition to that, and the most important aspect, is the leverage that must be retained for a democratic transition. Just like Europe insisted on democracy in Spain or Portugal, before Spain and Portugal could become part of what was then the European Economic Community, today we are saying liberate the political prisoners, legalize political parties, labor unions and the press, and hold an election. Now, why is the issue not the Cuban people's right to be free like everyone else in the hemisphere? Why is the issue not the Cuban people deserving to be free, just like in country after country after country colleagues have come to this floor asking for solidarity with those people? But, no, in the case of Cuba, it is different. In the case of Cuba, it is 43 years of dictatorship and of oppression, and the efforts are to get more trade and more dollars and more oxygen to that regime, instead of talking about the torture and the political prisoners. That is the reality. But the reality of the matter is that only in this hemisphere, Mr. Chairman, is there an international law requiring representative democracy. We always talk about examples from other hemispheres. There are multiple differences from the decentralization that has existed in other dictatorships in other hemispheres to the fact that in this hemisphere, and only in this hemisphere, does international law require representative democracy. I want to point out one other thing, and that is as follows, and I never thought I would come to this floor quoting the editorial board of The Washington Post, but I guess Ronald Reagan used to say never say never. Well, The Washington Post has, in a very dignified manner, has focused in on the efforts of the Cuban dissidents over the last year to call for reforms internally. Now, they have been very mild reforms that the dissidents have called for, and despite that the regime has answered with, if you will, a Maoist-style cultural revolution. The Washington Post has said that if Castro, as he has been, is unwilling to permit more political and economic freedom, then loosening the embargo risks strengthening and enriching Mr. Castro and the apparatchiks who surround him, while accomplishing little else. And with regard to that dissident petition, in which Castro answered with his Maoist-style cultural revolution, The Washington Post said, until it is granted, and obviously it has not been granted, no further easing of the embargo should be considered. Now this is a good-faith editorial board. And I would wish that some people would realize that times have changed and that the Cuban people deserve, like The Washington Post editorial board has said, solidarity.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, by hearing the other side on this issue, we would seem to believe that they were talking with Costa Rica or Panama or some other country where there is a functioning democracy where there is no state sponsorship of terrorism. The reality is that Fidel Castro is the only world leader who has ever called for a nuclear first strike against the United States. He is the only world leader who has ever called for a first strike against the United States, but they may say he is a kindly old grandfather now. He is a good guy, so let us reward him. That is what the Rangel amendment is seeking to do. But wait a minute, 2 days ago in Greece, the head terrorist that was arrested there, Alexandros Yiotopoulos, for bombing numerous people in Greece and throughout that part of the world, where was he trained? He was trained by Fidel Castro's Cuba. And the Jewish community center bombed in Argentina in 1994 by the Iranians, where did they assemble? They assembled in Cuba, flew to Paraguay, crossed the border with fake passports, and fled back to Cuba after the attack. The bombers hid in Cuba for several months after the attack, and still have impugnity. And the kindly old grandfather goes further. In 2001, the IRA terrorists arrested in Colombia for training the FARC terrorists there in sophisticated urban bomb warfare, where were they based? In Cuba. Reward Castro for torturing the Cuban people and oppressing the Cuban people and being the only state sponsor of terrorism in this hemisphere, vote no on the Rangel amendment. Vote yes on Goss, no on the other amendments.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, what is new is that some hijackers smashed into the World Trade Center killing thousands of people and killed some heroes also in the Pentagon. What is new is that the administration has made public for the first time something that the intelligence community came to the conclusion about in 1999, and that is there is a biological weapons program in Castro's Cuba. That is what is new. It is not a fetish, I think that is word of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), or fad, when we are talking about protecting American citizens. If the Flake amendment passes without the Goss amendment, it is not going to be a SCUD missile. Let us say that Castro happens to be wrong and that his denial of the fact that he has biological weapons is a lie, like he denied 40 years ago that he had another kind of weapon. I think it was a nuclear weapon, he was denying that. Happened to be wrong. Let us say that he happens to be wrong again and that he does have biological weapons, as our intelligence community says so and has said so repeatedly, not just Mr. Bolton, Mr. Ford, the head of the State Department intelligence department, the intelligence community. By the way, they have both said that there is a lot more that the intelligence community does not let them say. There is a lot more that we know. Let us say that Castro does have biological weapons. Let us just say. It is not a fad now. Let us just say. He is not going to use Scud missiles. He has got a lot of travelers going back and forth. This guy, this gentleman here, who happens to be in prison, his name is Padilla, because he was preparing a dirty bomb that he wanted to throw here in Washington, and let us say that he is able to get out of prison and he wants to go where there are already thousands of other terrorists given safe harbor by the only terrorist regime in this hemisphere. Under the Flake amendment if Goss does not pass and the President is out of the picture, this man, or any other man, cannot be licensed, cannot be checked, cannot be reviewed, suitcases cannot be opened; he gets to go to the only terrorist state 90 miles from here without our Treasury Department, where we are spending 40 percent of the money of the Federal Government for security on this bill. Not one cent can be spent to check him or any other terrorist that wants to go to the only terrorist state in this hemisphere. That is what the Flake amendment would do if Goss does not pass. What does Goss say? That the President has to be in the mix, that the President has the authority, has to have the authority in this war on terrorism to check this man and to check his suitcase and to license him. It is not illegal to go to Cuba. A number of colleagues went to Cuba. Here is the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). Here is the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). They love to go to Cuba. They love the mojitos on the beach where the Cubans cannot go. But this man, this man, this man----

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, the Chair has stated that the opposition to the amendment has 6 minutes and the proponents of the amendment have 6 minutes, and we have the right to close. There is 6 minutes in opposition to the Goss amendment, and I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and then I will close.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I am still trying to get an answer as to whether the proponent of the amendment has the right to close. That is the first question I would like answered. As the proponent of the amendment, do I get the right to close?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. As the designee of the proponent of the amendment, do I have the right to close?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairman, as the designee of the proponent of the amendment, am I correct that I will, as the person controlling the 6 minutes, have the right to close?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I understand I was not out of order. I certainly meant no offense. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) insist on his demand?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the Speaker for the clarification. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again, because I have been trying to follow the arguments that have been coming from the other side, and I saw in one of the publications here on the Hill today that they have all gotten their orders and they are going to talk on this issue from now until eternity, no matter what the matter at hand is about. I want to point out that the amendment from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) was requested of the Committee on Rules. We did not impose it on the gentleman. We did not in the Committee on Rules say we are going to force the amendment down onto the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). He requested of us, and we made it in order. We have made the Moran amendment in order precisely because of the fervor with which it was made clear that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) wanted it to be heard and discussed. With regard to the statement of a colleague who got up, I forget who he was, and said that we were hiding something, this report, not only are we not hiding anything, this report is of the Joint Tax Committee. The chairman of the Joint Tax Committee, it is my understanding, is Mr. Baucus, a Senator from, I believe it is Montana. I would hope and assume that they would talk with the chairman of the committee that they think is hiding something. It happens to be a member of their party. But I saw in the paper today what the strategy is, and that is part of the process. But also part of the process is something serious, which is the legislative branch appropriations bill, including the Capitol Police, that we have brought to the floor and, as I said before, with commendations and admiration for the men and women of the Capitol Police. So I would urge my colleagues to pass this rule and pass the underlying legislation, get on with the business, despite what we see in the little papers about strategies and tactics and dreams; everyone is entitled to dreams. Let us get on with the Nation's business, and let us pass the rule.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire, has all the time on the other side expired?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, we have made the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) in order. I think it is appropriate that we get to the underlying legislation and that we fund the legislative branch, which is what the business of today is. Despite the hay we have heard, they had more than half their time on the floor here. 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 gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)