Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, just a few years ago, the Cuban dictator shot down two unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters killing three United States citizens including a Vietnam war hero and a legal resident of the United States. Castro publicly admitted that he ordered the murders. Time Magazine, March 11, 1996: ``I personally ordered the shootdowns,'' he said. In lieu of military action against Castro's Cuba, President Clinton agreed to sign the codification of our embargo against Castro's regime. Castro's act of terrorism against Americans was an unprecedented act of direct state terrorism. Not even Iraq or North Korea or Iran have done this, or Syria. He did not pay or train terrorists to kill Americans. He did so with his own air force under his own orders. This was not 40 years ago. This was not during the Cold War. This was 4 years ago after as many of our colleagues say he no longer poses a threat to anyone. Now, what has Castro done to merit the consideration and the courtesies that our colleagues seek to bestow upon him today? For us to send a signal saying, in effect, he can kill American citizens; do not worry about military action. And in 4 years we might want to make a buck from them? What has he done except for his dinners and his banquets when he tries to charm visitors with his so-called wit during his 10-hour dinners? Increased repression. Thousands of political prisoners languish at this moment in his dungeons. And he continues to harbor U.S. fugitives from justice, including murderers of policemen. I include for the Record, Mr. Chairman, the following letter received yesterday from the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police: Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC., July 19, 2000. Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the more than 290,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our strong concern about amendments to various appropriations measures which would ``normalize'' trade and relations with the Communist dictator in Cuba. It is well known that the Cuban government is harboring scores of criminals wanted in the United States. Perhaps the most notorious case involves Joanne Chesimard, who murdered New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and severely wounded his partner, Trooper James Harper. She escaped a maximum security prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba, where she now lives under the protection of the Cuban government as an example of ``political repression'' in the United States. Fidel Castro also plays host to at least two members of a group called the ``Republic of New Africa,'' who murdered New Mexican State Trooper Robert Rosenbloom. And while some Members of Congress may see no problem normalizing relations with Cuba, the Fraternal Order of Police believes strongly that before any normal relations--trade or otherwise--are considered, Fidel Castro must return those wanted fugitives. We ought not to reward the Cuban policy of providing a safe haven for the murderers of Americans. I realize that relationships with other governments are sensitive and complex, which require compromise and nuanced accommodation. However, the American people and the Fraternal Order of Police do not feel that we must compromise our system of justice and the fabric of our society to foreign dictators like Fidel Castro. I ask that the Senate reject any and all amendments which would normalize relations between the United States and Cuba unless the issue of these murderous fugitives are resolved to our satisfaction. Trade bought with the blood of American law enforcement officers doing their job on American soil is too high a price to pay. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance on this or any other issue. Sincerely, Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President. After going through a number of State troopers, for example, State Trooper Werner Foerstar, murdered by someone who Castro has given ``asylum'' to and today is receiving his protection in Cuba; and State Trooper James Harper, who was maimed; State Trooper Robert Rosenbloom. The Fraternal Order of Police writes yesterday: ``The Fraternal Order of Police believes strongly that before any normal relations, trade or otherwise, are considered, Fidel Castro must return those wanted fugitives. We ought not to reward the Cuban policy of providing a safe haven for the murderers of Americans. Trade bought with the blood of American law enforcement officers doing their job on American soil is too high a price to pay.'' This is the Fraternal Order of Police yesterday. I reject the argument that we hear over and over again that the embargo has not worked. Number one, as leverage for a democratic transition after Castro is no longer on the scene, it is not supposed to work yet. Just like the European Union's demand of democracy for Franco's Spain or for Oliveira's Portugal did not work until they were gone from the scene, but it sure as heck worked when they were gone from the scene. And those countries are now part of the fully democratic European Union. But with regard to other key aspects, the embargo has already worked. The embargo constitutes a red line to the kind of massive investments in credit and hard currency including, yes, through mass U.S. tourism that would give Castro an extraordinary economic boost if it were lifted. Imagine the Cuban dictator with unlimited investments and credits with the kind of cash that he had when the Soviets were a superpower, with the kind of cash that he would have if the Rangel amendment were adopted, with the kind of cash that would be available if U.S. tourism were available. It was just a few years ago, Mr. Chairman, just a few years ago that Castro had armies in Africa, surrogate armies throughout this hemisphere. Imagine Castro's support for international terrorists if he once again had the cash. Imagine the export arms industry that he would have developed, the chemical or biological weapons he would have manufactured if only he had the cash. It certainly would not be like it is today. Because of our policy and because of Castro's brutality and his ineptness, his regime is a bankrupt tyranny condemned yearly by the United Nations Human Rights Commission with a radically diminished offensive capability, a radically diminished offensive capability that did not happen because of osmosis but that happened because of a wise bipartisan policy that this Congress and every administration has maintained because of the national security threat that his regime has signified. U.S. sanctions, Mr. Chairman, have hurt the Cuban tyranny and denied the regime precious resources that Castro will use to work to overthrow elected governments, spread violence and terrorism, and work to defeat democracy throughout the hemisphere and indeed other hemispheres. So I ask not that we stay on these pretexts; but rather, that we recognize, Mr. Chairman, there are three steps that U.S. law and policy call for for an end to all sanctions, for all American tourists to be able to go there, for all the billions that many seek to see and go to Cuba, go ahead and go there, only three steps that we call for in U.S. law: freedom for all the political prisoners, those languishing in prison today; legalization of political parties, labor unions and the press; and the scheduling of free elections. We are the first to want to see an end to those sanctions, Mr. Chairman. Simply join us, we ask our colleagues, in demanding those three steps. And if not, just stop the pretext and admit that what is being sought is to bolster a regime that has oppressed our closest neighbors brutally for 41 years, that has killed Americans, and that continues to harbor fugitives from American justice, including murderers of U.S. policemen. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, to those who support the dictatorship, I am not addressing these words but, rather, to those who think that American business is being somehow left out of Cuba at this point by not dealing with the dictatorship. The Cuban people, since this Congress 100 years ago, stood alone in the world after the Cubans had been fighting for 100 years for independence with the Cuban people, ever since then they have had great respect and admiration for the American people, including for American business. Those who want to go in now and do business with the apartheid economic system and the dictatorship are, in effect, seeking to lose the good will that American business will have in the future in a democratic future if they now go in and become tainted like the Europeans and others who are participating in creating and helping to prop up the apartheid economy. So for business sense, not for those who idealogically support the dictatorship, I am not talking to them. For those who think that American business is losing out, no, keep the good will, stand on the side of the Cuban people and against the oppressor of the Cuban people; and that will be, for those who are so interested in business, good business in the future. Defeat this amendment. Defeat this amendment that is defeating the good will of the American people and would defeat the good will of the American business community in the future democratic Cuba.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, is a verbal agreement by the President with any other country sufficient to constitute an agreement? Or is a bilateral written agreement or multilateral written agreement necessary? That is my question.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, as well as the underlying legislation. I commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss), and especially my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the legislation, for their hard work in bringing forth this important bill to prohibit rescheduling of debt to Russia until it removes its intelligence personnel and closes the personnel base, the spying facility, in Cuba. Almost a decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a Communist dictator continues to oppress and brutalize a country only 90 miles from our shores, denying the people of Cuba the most basic freedoms, including the freedom of speech, the right to assemble, the right to democratic elections, the right to participate in political parties and labor unions, the right to a free press; in other words, Mr. Speaker, the right of self-determination and the rule of law. Cuba is going to be free, it is inevitable. But I think it is without any doubt in the national interests of the United States for Cuba to be free as soon as possible. I think it is important that we touch upon just a few of the reasons why. We in Congress have the ability to receive research from many so- called think tanks. Obviously, they are institutions of research. One of the most respected, I believe, and certainly well-informed of those research institutes is the William Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy. In a recent report, they wrote, ``American advocates of normalization contend that Cuba no longer poses any threats to the United States, and that the U.S. embargo is therefore basically an obsolete and harmful relic of the Cold War. Unfortunately, this view ignores the abiding menacing character of the Cuban dictatorship. ``This is all the more remarkable given the emphasis Secretary of Defense William Cohen, among other Clinton administration officials, has placed on asymmetric threats, the very sort of threats that Castro's Cuba continues to pose to American citizens and interests.'' The Russian intelligence-gathering facilities in Cuba, which is what this legislation is dealing with, specifically, the vast signal intelligence facilities operated near Lourdes by Havana's and Moscow's intelligence services, permit the wholesale collection of sensitive United States military, diplomatic, and commercial data, and the invasion of millions of Americans' privacy. The Cuban regime, with Russia's help, has the capability to conduct sustained and systematic information warfare against the United States. A stunning example of the potentially devastating consequences of this capability that this legislation is dealing with was recently provided by former Soviet military intelligence Colonel Stanislav Lunev. As one of the most senior Russian military intelligence officers to come to this country, Lunev revealed that in 1990 the Soviet Union acquired America's most sensitive Desert Storm battle plans, including General Schwarzkopf's famed ``Hail Mary'' flanking maneuver, prior to the launch of the U.S. ground war in the Persian Gulf. Moscow's penetration of such closely-guarded American military planning via its Cuban facility, which this legislation is dealing with, may have jeopardized the lives of literally thousands of U.S. troops in the event that the intelligence had been forwarded to Saddam Hussein at that time by Soviet premier Gorbachev. By the way, Moscow pays over $200 million a year to this day to the Castro regime for the intelligence-gathering post, for the Russian intelligence-gathering post 90 miles from the shores of the United States. Even though they get a lot of money from the U.S. taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, the Russians turn around and pay over $200 million a year to Castro for the intelligence facility that the Russians maintain in Cuba. Recent news reports have brought forth that the same types of concerns that existed during Desert Storm due to the intelligence- gathering operations in Cuba that this legislation is dealing with, the same types of concerns that existed during Desert Storm due to the intelligence-gathering operations in Cuba that the Russians maintain and the intelligence-gathering operations that Castro maintains with the help of the Russians, these same concerns remained during our recent operations in Iraq and in Kosovo. Drug trafficking, money-laundering, assistance to narcoterrorists in Colombia and elsewhere, harboring murderers and many other fugitives from U.S. justice, those are but a few of the actions of the Cuban dictatorship which point out why a free and democratic Cuba as soon as possible is definitely in the national interests of the United States, as well, obviously, as in the national interests of Cuba. But the intelligence post that we are dealing with today specifically, and that is the issue today brought forth by the legislation of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), is certainly another very key reason. In conclusion, I urge both the adoption of the rule and the underlying bill, for which I commend my colleagues, and especially the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for bringing forward.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), for whom I have great respect, and also all the Members who have spoken this afternoon on this issue. I know that there is always more money that could be spent. There are always more things that could be done by Government. But I am not ashamed of what the American people, through their Congress, do in foreign aid. We are spending $13.340 billion. That is $13,340 billion in this bill for assistance for peoples in other countries, for the poor and the needy in other countries. I think that is something that the American people have to be very proud of and that is something in the tradition of generosity of the American people. And so, I support this legislation. I thank all of those who have worked so hard on it, especially the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). Mr. Speaker, I urge at this point support also for this rule, which will bring to the floor the legislation for consideration of debate in an open rule permitting any amendment that is germane and pursuant to the House rules. So I support this rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 546 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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 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 546 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4811, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislating in a general appropriations bill or prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, except as specified by the rule. The rule leaves exposed to points of order, two legislative provisions and one earmark restriction, areas under the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The rule also waives points of order against amendments to the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI, prohibiting nonemergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation. The rule also grants the chairman of the Committee of the Whole the authority to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes provided that the first vote in a series is not less than 15 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in addition, the rule provides that Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendments, if otherwise consistent with House rules. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides a fair approach for the consideration of the foreign aid appropriations bill. One controversial area, which always lends itself to important debate on the floor involves family planning funds and their potential use for performing or promoting abortion, and the so-called Mexico City policy which prohibits U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform abortions, or engage in lobbying activities to change such laws. While I am personally strongly pro-life, under the regular rules of the House, a Member will have the opportunity to strike the section in the bill related to the Mexico City policy and the full House will have an opportunity to debate and vote on this issue. Although several Members requested waivers for legislative amendments, the Committee on Rules chose to report a standard, open rule without granting waivers to any amendments. So no particular area is given special consideration. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and also the underlying legislation. A lot of work has gone into it. I am pleased to see that this is the 11th appropriations bill to come before the House, and that this bill is within the committee's budget allocation. I think the pace of the work for the House this Congress has been truly remarkable. I think that the Speaker needs to be commended and congratulated especially for this, as well as all of those who have worked so hard in bringing forth the appropriations bills. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their hard work on this important bill. I urge adoption of both the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on our side of the aisle. We look forward to getting to the debate on the underlying legislation. It is a good bill. We have $13.340 billion in this bill for foreign aid, a lot of important programs we want to get to work on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against this amendment on the ground that it violates clause 7 of rule XVI on the issue of germaneness. Mr. Chairman, the amendment references a number 9, as a matter of fact, programs and/or laws. All of the programs, certainly not even the overwhelming majority of them that are referenced, are either administered or enforced or regulated or in any way funded by this bill that we are considering this evening. There is clearly an issue of germaneness, so under clause 7 of rule XVI, I raise the point of order.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against title VIII. Mr. Chairman, I believe that title VIII violates clause 2 of rule XXI concerning legislating on an appropriations bill. Title VIII is legislative in nature because it changes existing law by lifting sanctions against terrorist states in violation of a number of laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Cuban Democracy Act, and the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act, among other laws.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words with regard to the attribution of ethnic slur.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before yielding to my distinguished friend from Missouri. I think that we, in the words of the gentleman from Wisconsin, saw an example of where we have significant disagreements, but the disagreements have been stated in a respectful way and not in a way that, certainly as before, I considered personally offensive. So I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for that. As the gentleman from Washington stated previously, a number of us have had very significant and strong disagreements, but I think in a frank and respectful way we have been able to come to an agreement that improves on current law and that is in the national interest of the United States, protecting this country from business transactions which may accrue to the benefit of terrorist states. And I think that in the agreement that we have achieved that is accomplished. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), an individual who has been a formidable negotiator, who has been very strong in her views and has demonstrated great leadership in bringing forth what she believes in, and who I have had disagreements with. I wish to publicly recognize the seriousness and the forthrightness with which she addresses issues such as this.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement made by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who just spoke, no, there is no comparison between what is going on here this evening and what goes on in Castro's Cuba. I wish that I could show the gentleman a card that I carry with me from a political prisoner. He snuck it out of prison and sent it to me. I wish I could show it to him. I will not because making public his name would cost him, in all likelihood, his life. That political prisoner is in a gulag because of an opinion, a belief. No, there is no comparison between what is going on this evening here and what goes on in Castro's Cuba. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish that once, just once, the colleagues who get up and with such passion, and the word ``passion'' has been used so often this evening, talk about their objection to financing and credits and trade with that brutal dictatorship that has oppressed a noble people, our closest neighbors, for 41 years. Just once I wish, Mr. Speaker, that they would come and demand and ask for free elections, the rule of law, the liberation of the political prisoners, including the political prisoner who had the courage to sneak out a card to send me. What is wrong about demanding, just once the liberation of those people in a gulag rotting away because of their belief and support for the rule of law and for democracy? Why not ask for the legalization of political parties and labor unions and the press, the press that has the freedom in this country and in so many other countries in the world to cover what we say without censorship? Never, Mr. Speaker, never do we hear any of these colleagues who come and defend with such passion that dictatorship 41 years in power. Not even when I was away, not even once have we heard them come and demand the rule of law in elections. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I do not attack other Members, I attack injustice. I attack oppression. I believe in those words, ``In God We Trust,'' not ``In Gold We Trust.'' I believe that the people who have come here and defended the embargoes against South Africa, and I defended the embargo against South Africa, should not have the double standard that they show. I believe that Cuba will be free, and I believe that the American people will be proud of this Congress having stood with the freedom and the aspirations of the Cuban people. This is an important rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.