Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for its deliberation. I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) on one thing he said today. Today is an important date. It is a date that is infamous. It is the only time that the United States has sent back over the Berlin Wall a child whose mother died to bring him to freedom, and in that sense I agree that today is a date that will be remembered by history. Mark my words, yes, soon we will have trade with Cuba. Soon there will be a Cuba whose concentration camp doors will be open and you, yes you, will have to see what you have been purposefully ignoring. There will be, there will be a----

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 538 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 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 waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Further, the rule waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, except as specified in the rule. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and further, it allows the Chairman to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 513 is laid on the table. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this open rule which provides for the consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The primary difference between this rule and the one reported by our committee last month, House Resolution 513, is the removal of the amendment which would have offset funds provided for relief to apple and potato farmers. Due to the reallocation of funds by the Committee on Appropriations, which now keeps this funding within the subcommittee's budget limits, the offset amendment is no longer necessary. A substantive legislative provision which constitutes a change in current law has been exposed to a point of order by this rule, title VIII of the bill, a provision which would, in my view, undermine U.S. foreign policy goals with regard to terrorist states by eliminating restrictions on the sale of agricultural commodities to the terrorist states, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea. Mr. Speaker, the reason why the House rules preclude major changes in substantive legislative policy on appropriations bills is that the appropriations process has hearings and is set up for deliberation on appropriations issues, while the authorizing process, the authorizing committees, have hearings on major legislative policy changes, and they are set up to concentrate on and improve major, substantive legislative policy proposals. I think that an example of why the House has this rule is in fact before us today. My friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), included an amendment in the appropriations bill, as I mentioned, to end restrictions on the sale of agricultural commodities to rogue regimes. The legislation allegedly precluded exports from the terrorist states to the United States, and prohibited Federal financing of sales to those States. After reviewing the legislation carefully, however, the Congressional Research Service, for example, informed my office that that is not necessarily correct. It was not clear, for example, that exports to the United States from the terrorist states would be precluded, and secondly, with regard to Federal financing, at least one significant credit program would have become available to any of those rogue regimes if the administration simply deleted them from the State Department terrorist list; something, by the way, Mr. Speaker, that the administration has admitted it is considering doing with a number of terrorist states, despite the fact that some of these States have recently carried out the murders of United States citizens. In fact, only last week Secretary of State Albright tinkered with the terminology by declaring that the terrorist states are no longer rogue states, but rather, states of concern. It is obvious that various or all of these terrorist regimes will soon be taken off the terrorist list by the current administration. I informed my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), of these concerns. But in the appropriations process, we simply cannot amend this legislation pursuant to and after the necessary study to make certain that we are not doing what even the legislation's proponents do not wish to do. In addition, in my view, the timing of the legislation offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has been unfortunate. We are dealing here with states that have engaged in acts of terrorism against Americans in recent years. We are dealing with states against which American victims of terrorism, their surviving family members, have obtained judgments in the Federal courts under the Antiterrorism Act of 1996 for the murders of their family members by those terrorist regimes. We are dealing with regimes which harbor murderers, terrorists, drug dealers, and other fugitives from United States justice. We are dealing with the terrible message that we would be sending, for example, to the regime in Iran if we were to pass the legislation as is, the legislation which is left exposed to a point of order by this rule. In a letter just a few days ago by, for example, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the timing of this legislative language, the unfortunate timing of the language, was made clear. The letter reads, ``We have serious concerns regarding the Nethercutt language. Our concerns center on the changes in U.S. export policy towards Iran that the legislation would require, changes which we believe are unjustified. Such changes would be particularly untimely, coming at the very time that the government of Iran is engaged in a major show trial of 13 Iranian Jews. We are deeply troubled by the direction that trial is taking. Any action taken to help Iran at this moment would send exactly the wrong message to the Iranian regime, particularly coming on the heels of the outrageous decision last month by the World Bank to proceed with new loans to Iran. Now is the wrong time to be seen as helping Iran.'' Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more serious than simply the purported attempt to open some markets for American food products. We must remember that the ingredients, for example, in the deadly car bombs which killed hundreds of our brave troops in Beirut, or the Oklahoma City car bombing, ingredients from fertilizers to other chemicals, also in the opinion of experts may fall within the definition of ``agricultural commodities'' which would become available to terrorist states. If the language were to become law as it passed out of the Committee on Appropriations, the only option available to a United States president to counter the development of chemical or biological weapons by a terrorist state in effect would be military action. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this issue is much more complicated and serious than it seems at first glance. The Committee on Rules did its duty pursuant to House rules in exposing the language to a point of order in this rule. The issue will, under the rule, certainly be open for resolution in conference. I am pleased that we have been able to reach a compromise on the Nethercutt language which I believe contains some improvements over current law. However, in this particular bill today, the agriculture appropriations bill, that original language is subject to a point of order. I support wholeheartedly including the compromise language in either the conference report on this bill or another legislative vehicle to get it to the President's desk as soon as possible, but to get to that stage, Mr. Speaker, we must first pass the open rule that is before the House this evening. This is a fair rule, and I ask for all of my colleagues' support for it today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I vigorously, obviously, disagree with the merits of what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has just said. The gentleman from Massachusetts has a number of others who are here ready to speak and consistently come forth with subterfuges to hide their support for a brutal regime that has maintained itself for 40 years. He has a right, and they have a right, to admire and to support that regime. But I will not accept from the gentleman . . . There is no community in this United States, sir, that would accept a Member of Congress getting up and saying, like you have said, ``the Miami community got word of it.'' No community. No community in the United States. No ethnic community in the United States would accept that, whether it is the Boston Irish community or any community in any city, and I do not accept it. And you owe, sir--you can have all the views you wish, but you owe an apology to that community in South Florida . . .

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a distinguished leader, who, in the short period of time he has been in Congress, has already left quite a mark on a number of critical issues to South Florida.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I too wish to add my voice of congratulations to the distinguished gentleman from the Florida Keys (Mr. Deutsch) who has worked so hard on this critical issue, as well as all the other colleagues who have worked on this matter, which is of such importance to that extraordinary treasure, national treasure, which is the Florida Keys. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule, to support the underlying very important legislation. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 483 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); 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 483 is an open rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives clause 4(a) of Rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report against consideration of the bill. The rule also makes in order the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. In addition, Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer their amendment if otherwise consistent with House rules. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this open rule which provides for the full and fair consideration of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this very important legislation, which authorizes grants for wastewater and storm water management projects to address the need for infrastructure improvements in the beautiful Florida Keys. I am extremely proud of the Florida Keys, a unique marine environment which includes the only living coral reef barrier ecosystem in North America. This chain of over 800 individual islands, or keys, provides significant recreational and commercial opportunities and are a favorite among scuba divers, anglers, bird watchers, and tourists of all kinds. In 1990, Congress passed the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act, which directed the EPA and the State of Florida to establish a water quality steering committee for the sanctuary and develop a comprehensive water quality protection program. That steering committee identified inadequate wastewater and storm water management systems as the largest man-made sources of pollution in the near shore waters off the Florida Keys. The cost of needed wastewater improvements is between $184 to $418 million, and the cost of necessary storm water management proposals is between $370 and $680 million. This legislation, which will help preserve our national treasure, authorizes $212 million in EPA grants to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, or other agencies of the State of Florida or of Monroe County, for projects to replace inadequate wastewater treatment systems and establish, replace, or improve storm water systems in Monroe County, Florida; and it requires that the non-Federal cost share for projects carried out under this bill shall be not less than 25 percent of the total. I believe it is entirely appropriate for there to be a Federal role in cleaning up and preserving the delicate ecosystem in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary so that our children and their children, as well as generations of visitors from throughout the world, may be able to enjoy this extraordinary living coral reef barrier ecosystem, the only one in North America. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both this open rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 673, the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act of 2000. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my distinguished colleague, the vice-chairman of the Committee on Rules, a fighter for the environment, and one of the leading advocates for environmental causes in this Congress and especially in Florida. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it has become evident that one thing that is never in short supply on the other side of the aisle is partisanship. We are trying to get something serious done here today. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost); 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 445 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act 2000. The rule makes in order the Committee on International Relations amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, modified by striking section 6(c). 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. Further, the rule provides the bill shall be open for amendment by section, and makes in order only those amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record, to be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and each amendment shall be considered as read. In addition, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on votes following a 15-minute vote. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Last Thursday an announcement was made advising Members of the preprinting requirements for amendments, and I believe that House Resolution 445 is a fair approach in order to provide a forum in which to debate the current situation regarding the rising price of oil and its causes. Because the bill is narrowly tailored and deals only with foreign and not domestic oil, it is important all Members have the opportunity to review amendments prior to their being offered in order to ensure that they are germane. I am sure all of us have been bothered, Mr. Speaker, by the high price of fuel when we have gone to the pump to fill our automobile tanks in the past few weeks, and especially we have been disturbed to see the effect these oil price increases are having on low-income Americans and people trying to live within a family budget each week. Clearly, oil prices have almost tripled in the past year, and yet the administration failed to respond strongly enough to the OPEC production costs at the time of their institution. The Oil Price Reduction Act provides that it shall be the policy of the United States to consider the extent to which major net oil exporting countries engage in oil price-fixing to be an important determinant in the overall political, economic, and security relationship between these countries. It also provides that it shall be the policy of the United States to work multilaterally with other nations that are major oil importers to bring about the complete dismantlement of oil price-fixing arrangements. In addition, the bill requires the President to report to Congress on the overall academic and security relationship between the United States and major oil exporting countries, and also how coordination among these countries with respect to oil production and pricing has affected the U.S. economy in global energy supplies; all the assistance programs under the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act and the 1975 Arms Export Control Act that are provided to oil-producing countries and which countries are engaged in oil price-fixing that harms the U.S. economy. Further, the bill requires the President after he submits his report to undertake a diplomatic campaign to attempt to persuade any country engaged in price-fixing that the current oil price levels are simply unsustainable and that they will negatively affect global economic growth rates in oil-consuming, as well as developing countries. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) of the Committee on International Relations introduced the Oil Price Reduction Act in response to concerns about rapidly rising oil prices and the role that the intentional increase in oil-producing OPEC countries may have played in this price increase, excessive price increase. This is an important first step, Mr. Speaker. Passing this bill today will send a message to the international community prior to Energy Secretary Richardson's meeting next week with OPEC members, that the Congress of the United States is serious about finding solutions to the problem of excessive fuel prices. I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 445 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have an interesting dilemma always in the Committee on Rules when we seek to be fair, and we do a good job of it under the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier). Some Members, as we have seen, want us to do more. Some want us to do less. One example is the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

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

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any remaining speakers.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. This is an open rule, so long as one preprinted one's amendment in the Congressional Record. With regard to one of the last statements from the distinguished gentleman from Texas, specifically in response to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), when the gentleman from Texas said that the Committee on Rules deleted the sanctions section and the gentleman from Ohio had not found out about it, the gentleman from Texas voted for the deletion of the sanctions section in a voice vote. But this is important legislation. The OPEC countries are about to meet. They are following this vote. The message must be sent clearly that Congress stands firm behind a policy that says that this must be taken with all due seriousness, despite the fact that there has been no one at the helm on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. So I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that will be ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. So the vote is without substance. The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever. At this point in the Record I insert an explanation of the previous question. The Previous Question Vote Dear Republican Colleague: In light of recent public statements regarding the intent of the minority to utilize all available procedural options to advance their legislative endeavors, I believe it is important to understand that the vote on the previous question is strictly a procedural vote that has no substantive policy implications. The previous question is a motion made in order under House Rule XIX, and accorded precedence under clause 4 of Rule XVI, and is the only parliamentary device in the House used for both closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect of adopting the previous question is to bring the pending proposition or question to an immediate, final vote. The motion is most often made at the conclusion of debate on a special rule, motion or legislation considered in the House prior to a vote on final passage. A Member might think about ordering the previous question in terms of answering the question ``is the House ready to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the pending question?'' Furthermore, in order to amend a special rule (other than by the managers offering an amendment to it or by the manager yielding for the purpose of amendment), the House must vote against ordering the previous question. If the motion for the previous question is defeated, the House is, in effect, turning control of the Floor over to the Member who led the opposition (usually a Member of the minority party). The Speaker then recognizes the Member who led the opposition (usually a minority member of the Rules Committee) to control an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment may be offered to the rule. This minority Member then controls the House Floor for the hour. The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and amendment on the legislation it would make in order. Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no substantive legislative or policy implications. Sincerely, Deborah Pryce, Member of Congress.