Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. It is very important work. It is needed help for America's farmers. It is the product of many, many hours of hard work by multiple Members of this House. I thanked previously my colleagues; I thank them at this point. I do not have enough time to mention them again. It is very important that this legislation be passed. With regard to the sanctions, it is a compromise. No one is 100 percent happy, but there is no financing for the dictatorship in Cuba, and there is no bartering and there is no financing, whether it is private or public. In addition to that, there is no expansion of travel dollars for that thug fascist dictatorship. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and to pass the underlying legislation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from south Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my very good friend and distinguished colleague.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) how many speakers he has on his side that wish to speak.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the reality of the matter is that, first of all, as I stated in my statement previously, there is a difference of opinion with regard to the travel issue. By the way, the travel issue was brought to the floor here on a limitation amendment, not a substantive amendment, a limitation amendment. Yet even assuming that that was an amendment wherein or whereby the House spoke, there was not a limitation amendment, but a substantive amendment before the Senate, a different result. So it is important that it be brought out that there is a difference of opinion with regard to that issue in recent votes between the House and Senate. With regard to the examples brought out about academics and others being able to travel, that is under the current restrictions, under the current regulations permitted. So what is not permitted under this legislation is an expansion of further travel and initiative with the purpose of the most immediate, what would constitute the most immediate generator of hard currency for the regime. It is estimated that massive American tourism would produce up to $5 billion a year for the Cuban regime. Right now we are in a situation where, if my distinguished colleagues would read the wires, for example, with regard to the very little coverage that there is of the internal situation of Cuba, there is a crackdown as we speak against dissidents and other peaceful pro-democracy activists in Cuba. There are sentences being handed out of 15 years or 10 years as we speak. So is this the moment, then, to expand accepted gestures towards the regime. Now, we are saying to the farmers, you can go and sell if Castro pays, but the U.S. taxpayer is not going to. The U.S. taxpayer is not going to finance Castro. No, no, no. For that, there is no consensus. There is no majority here, I can assure my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. taxpayer financing substituting for the Soviet Union, no. That is not something that American farmers want. They want to be able to go and compete, but they do not want Castro and his regime of thugs to be subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. No. That is not the issue. Now, some in this Congress would like that. Some in this Congress would like the U.S. taxpayer to become the new Soviet Union and subsidize Castro, but that is not what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) a tough negotiator and a tough advocate, but a friend.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), a distinguished colleague, a tremendous negotiator and advocate.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the critically-needed legislation introduced by my colleague, Ms. Ros- Lehtinen (H.R. 4838). This legislation would remove an onerous obstacle for those persons with disabilities who are legal permanent residents, but because of their disabilities, are foreclosed from obtaining citizenship because they cannot recite the naturalization oath. This legislation gives the Attorney General the authority to waive the oath of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization for individuals with cognitive disabilities, or children who are unable to understand the meaning of the oath. Accordingly, this legislation will enable thousands of families in our nation who have loved ones with autism, down syndrome, Alzheimer's and other neurological disorders to realize American citizenship for their loved ones. It will also give them peace of mind in that their loved ones will be able to attain citizenship and thereby secure the benefits and security accorded to United States citizens. This legislation will also enable disabled people the opportunity, as citizens, to develop their abilities so that they can be the most productive citizens they possibly can be. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this worthwhile legislation and I applaud my colleagues Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith for advancing it to the House suspension calendar for a vote today.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes 514, 515, 516, 517 and 518, I was absent. I was in my district, touring flood damage in the Presidentially-declared federal disaster area, with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of those votes.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 584 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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 584 is a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4919, the Security Assistance Act of 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this rule which provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4919, an act to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Control Act, to make improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions under those acts, and to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries. H.R. 4919 seeks to increase the funds spent from the foreign military financing account to build security ties with more areas of the world. The conference report authorizes $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2001 and $3.6 billion in 2002 for the foreign military financing program. In addition, it makes several improvements to defense and security assistance provisions, such as authorizing $2 million in nonproliferation and export control funding for training and education of personnel from friendly countries in the United States as well as authorizing $55 million in 2001 and $65 million in 2002 to carry out international military education and training of military and related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The legislation represents the first time since 1985 that the security assistance programs of the United States have been fully authorized. Passing this conference report is an important step in achieving this goal which can help us toward a safer world. This bill, H.R. 4919, passed under suspension of the rules and passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. I believe this conference report is an excellent product. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for his leadership and hard work in bringing forth this legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, urging support for the rule, it is a fair rule, bringing forth this conference report and the underlying legislation, I also 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 myself such time as I may consume. This is very important legislation which again I reiterate my support for and urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, the leader behind this important effort is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. On the issue of Israel, for example, that the distinguished gentleman from Ohio brought up, there is certainly without any doubt no stronger supporter of that critical ally of the United States than the chairman of the Committee on International Relations and also on issue after issue whether it be military education that stresses loyalty to civilian control and human rights and so many other issues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is at the forefront leading the best efforts of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) in order to clarify the points that have been brought up by the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 486, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Act, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I chaired a Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing on ``Victims of Civil War: The Refugees of Colombia and Peru.'' I would hereby like to share the agenda and my opening statement at the hearing with the House for my colleagues' information.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 482, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, addressing the point of order, this applies as well to future agreements. So my point is, is action in concert sufficient to constitute a future agreement under this amendment, or is a written bilateral agreement necessary? This amendment, without any doubt, Mr. Chairman, applies to future agreements.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), in my view, violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the House rules by, in effect, legislating on an appropriations bill. The amendment would add significant new responsibilities and duties to the Treasury Department, for example, to determine whether there are agreements when it refers to in the last sentence of the amendment, ``pursuant to agreement with one or more countries, the Treasury Department would have to determine whether there are agreements to whether such agreements could grant legal authority for the President to take legal action.'' What is meant by an agreement? Does it have to be a written agreement, a treaty, or is an action in concert sufficient? I guess I would ask of the author of the amendment, is an action in concert sufficient? Is that what he seeks to mean by agreement? Even U.N. multilateral embargoes, Mr. Chairman, for example, they require the U.N. Participation Act to grant the President the legal authority to impose any sanctions agreed upon by the United Nations. So for those reasons, and I ask the question in the context of making the point of order, is action in concert sufficient, or is a written bilateral agreement necessary? Due to that, I believe, especially since it is unclear, that there is a significant possibility, and I believe it does constitute legislating on an appropriations bill.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, his measure, if passed, would constitute the most significant hard currency generator for the Cuban dictatorship that we could pass in this Congress. Secondly, it would in that way contribute more than any other measure to the oppression by the repression machinery of the Cuban people by the dictatorship. I would remind the gentleman from South Carolina when just a few years ago we were in Guantanamo we met with 35,000 refugees. For the first time in 35 years, they were able to elect a council. The council said, tighten sanctions, do not ease them. Then I asked him here, right here where the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is right now, just a few weeks ago, is there any difference between the views of the people they met in Cuba and the people they met in Guantanamo? And the gentleman said no. So with all respect, I do not understand the change in the gentleman from South Carolina. Do not agree to this amendment, defeat it. It would be the singular, the most significant way in which we could increase hard currency to the dictatorship. Defeat the Sanford amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)