Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 is an open rule, and I am proud to be part of the Committee on Rules under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) who is pursuing and succeeding in a policy of bringing forward an almost unprecedented percentage of open rules. This one provides for the consideration of H.R. 2910, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, Amendments Act of 1999. The purpose of the legislation is to reauthorize the NTSB for fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002. House Resolution 312 provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule also makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, modified by the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The bill will be open for amendment by section. Further, the Chair is authorized to grant priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, if otherwise consistent with House rules. In addition, the rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question, if a vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the NTSB, which was last authorized in 1996, is an independent agency that is charged with determining the probable causes of transportation accidents and with promoting transportation safety. Many of my distinguished colleagues will recall the NTSB's involvement in the investigation of the tragic ValuJet crash in the Everglades and the TWA Flight 800 tragedy. And in addition to investigating aviation, marine and major highway accidents, the NTSB conducts safety studies, evaluates the effectiveness of other government agencies' programs for prevention of transportation accidents, and coordinates all Federal assistance for families of victims of catastrophic accidents. It is truly an important, a fundamental, and indispensable Federal agency. So, Mr. Speaker, this Resolution 312, this rule, is a fair rule. It is a completely open rule and permits any Member of the body to bring forth any germane amendment, and I certainly would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to your attention the following insightful editorial, which recently appeared in the Miami Herald. I believe they make an excellent case as to why financed sales to the Cuban dictatorship would not benefit the Cuban people. Food Sales to Cuba Will Benefit Only the Repressive Regime The idea of allowing U.S. firms freely to sell food and medicine to Cuba seems unassailable from afar, a humanitarian gesture toward deprived people, as well as good business for American farmers. But that's a huckster's pitch being promulgated by U.S. business interests that either misunderstand the way Cuba's politically regimented economy works, or that are trying to break the U.S. trade embargo. Congress shouldn't fall for the pitch to legalize unrestricted food and medicine sales to Cuba. This isn't about humanitarianism: Selling supplies to the totalitarian regime responsible for so much human misery in no way ensures that any benefits would trickle down to the people of Cuba. This is about money--including money for the regime's repressive machinery. In Washington this week, the U.S. farm lobby is bringing to a climax its orchestrated campaign against trade sanctions in general and to open Cuba to grain sales specifically. Dreaming about yearly sales that they think could reach $2 billion within five years, farm groups appear eager to extend plenty of credits and take Cuban sugar or rum in barter. Listen to David Frey, the Kansas Wheat Commission administrator: ``With Cuba's stressed economic situation, we are talking about a long-term deal before they are paying cash for a lot of wheat. There will be a time when they will be able . . . to pay cash.'' Mr. Frey and his allies are deluding themselves if they believe that selling wheat to a government with no hard currency and a history of stiffing business partners is going to save America's farmers. Equally deluded are those well meaning people who think that selling such materials will alleviate the suffering of the average Cuban. Remember that this is the regime that ruined Cuban agriculture and other industry in the first place. While Cuba's fertile soil and waters no longer produce enough to feed its ration-card weary people, the regime serves lobster to tourists. While Cuban children can't get asthma medication on any given night, foreigners paying for surgery get first- world medicines. Measures to allow licensed sales of food and medicine were attached to an agriculture appropriations bill by the Senate last month. U.S. Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros- Lehtinen, both from Miami, helped kill the deal by attaching a provision that would make such sales contingent on Cuba having free elections. That should end it. Better access to food and medicine isn't going to solve Cuba's biggest problem. Ridding itself of an odious state will.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, a number of us have prepared a letter that we will be sending tomorrow, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez); the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch); and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). We are certain many others will sign tomorrow. We have prepared a letter, and we are sending it to the Speaker tomorrow and it reads as follows: ``Dear Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about a controversial section of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bill which would effectively reverse a quarter century's worth of steadfast resistance to terrorism. Language inserted by Senator Ashcroft would allow the direct sale of broadly defined agricultural commodities to terrorist States which have American blood on their hands. ``We would have thought that by now Members of Congress would understand the evil of appeasement and danger of conducting business as usual with terrorist governments. Americans continue to suffer attacks by terrorists and die worldwide, yet certain Members of Congress push for trade with and financing for terrorist States. Inclusion in the conference report of this language would underscore a basic lack of commitment to fight terrorism and open the door to broader unrestricted trade with terrorist States. ``The controversial Ashcroft language is not included in the House version of the bill. However, Senate conferees have rejected earnest efforts to compromise and, in doing so, have needlessly made this section increasingly controversial and unacceptable. ``Mr. Speaker, there is more to America than the drive to make money at any cost. Profit from business with terrorist governments is blood money and is simply not acceptable.'' Now, according to the State Department's overview of State-sponsored terrorism, the 1998, the latest version available, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria are the seven governments that the U.S. Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of international terrorism. They would be the seven states to which, if this Senate language is passed, is accepted, we could start selling to, and financing would be permitted. According to the State Department, and I read here, ``Cuba maintains close ties to other state sponsors of terrorism and leftist insurgent groups and continues to provide safe haven to a number of international terrorists. ``Iran continues to plan and conduct terrorist attacks, including the assassination of dissidents abroad. It supports a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals, including several that opposed the Middle East Peace Process, by providing varying degrees of money, training, safe haven and weapons. ``Iraq provides safe haven to terrorists and rejectionist groups, and continues its efforts to rebuild its intelligence network, which it used previously to support international terrorism. The leader of the Abu Nidal organization may have relocated to Baghdad in late 1998.'' Libya harbors suspects in the bombing of the UTA Flight 772, although French authorities agreed to try the six in absentia. Several Middle Eastern terrorist groups continue to receive support from Libya, including the PIJ and the PFLP-GC. North Korea, though not linked definitively to any act of international terrorism in the last couple of years, continues to provide safehaven to terrorists who highjacked a Japanese airliner to North Korea. Sudan provides safehaven to some of the world's most violent terrorist groups, including Usama Bin Ladin's al-Qaida, and the Hezbollah, the PIJ, and the ANO and HAMAS. The Sudanese Government also refuses to comply with the United Nations Security Council demands that it hand over for trial fugitives linked to the assassination attempt against the president of Egypt. Syria continues to provide sanctuary and support for a number of terrorist groups that seek to disrupt the Middle East peace process. These are the states which if that Senate language remains in the Committee on Agriculture conference report, if it is included in that conference report, will be eligible for American sales and financing from the United States. I would remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that it is unreasonable, I would say naive, to assume that there will not be a cost, a political cost, as well as an ethical cost, to be paid for helping terrorists states. The American people are not naive. The American people are not stupid. The American people are going to reject authorization of American sales and American financing to terrorist states. I wanted tonight, Mr. Speaker, to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues and the American people through C-SPAN of the urgency of the moment so that they will get in contact immediately with their Members of Congress here in the House and tell them, reject the Ashcroft language, reject the pro-terrorism language that Senator Ashcroft included in the Senate agricultural appropriations bill, reject the pro-terrorist state language. The House continues to insist in that rejection. The American people need to make their opinions heard right now.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 293.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to you the attached article from earlier this summer written by Mr. Frank Calzon, entitled ``Behind Castro: Money laundering, drug smuggling.'' Mr. Calzon is the executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C. and is a tireless fighter for democratic causes. I encourage my colleagues to learn from his insightful article. Behind Castro: Money Laundering, Drug Smuggling State Department and Coast Guard officials last week flew to Havana seeking ``to improve U.S.-Cuban cooperation on drug interdiction.'' If the Clinton administration would look to history, it would have known that it was a vain mission and would set about probing instead the relationship between Colombia's drug trade and the guerrilla movements over which Fidel Castro exercises inordinate influence. Havana complains that it lacks resources to combat drug trafficking. But, even if one accepts this at face value, it is unclear how the United States should respond. Should we provide resources to the Cuban Ministry of the Interior-- Havana's KGB-Gestapo? Do it while holding in federal custody Cuban spies charged with gathering information about military bases in Florida and linked to the shootdown of the Brothers to the Rescue pilots? Havana has managed to purchase state-of-the-art radio- jamming equipment and foot the bill for thousands of foreigners to visit the island and condemn the U.S. embargo. Could it be that inadequate funding for drug interdiction is simply the result of Castro's misguided priorities? In 1982 a federal grand jury indicted four high-ranking Cuba government officials, including a vice admiral of the Cuban navy and a former Cuban ambassador to Colombia. They were charged with facilitating the smuggling of drugs into the United States. In 1983 then-President Ronald Reagan said that there was ``strong evidence'' of drug smuggling by high-level Cuban government officials. And in 1989 Castro executed several Ministry of the Interior officials and Cuba's most decorated army officer, Gen. Arnaldo Ochoa, allegedly involved in the drug trade. Castro did so after years of suggesting that U.S. accusations of drug smuggling were lies ``concocted by the CIA.'' He has never explained how widespread Cuba's involvement with narcotrafficking was then or how a military and national hero such as Ochoa, with no oversight over Cuba's harbors or airspace, could have been involved. Then there is the mystery of how several hundred million dollars appeared in the coffers of Cuba's National Bank. Castro's American supporters assert that $800 million is sent by the Cuban-American community every year to relatives. However, given the relatively small number of Cuban- American households who still have relatives in Cuba, it is mathematically impossible for that community to generate such funds. The amount is approximately equivalent to the income Cubs derived in 1997-98 from its main export: sugar. Money laundering and drug smuggling are the logical sources of this mysterious income. It should be noted that, despite major narcotics charges brought against Ochoa and the other Interior Ministry officers, no accounting was ever presented of what should have been multimillion-dollar payoffs. Claims of Castro's cooperation with U.S. anti-narcotics efforts are a rerun of the Noriega saga. Panamanian strongman Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega currently is serving a long, federal sentence for his role in the drug trade. He had extensive ties to the Cuban dictator. Evidence was presented at his trial that Castro once mediated a dispute between Noriega and the Medellin drug cartel. Nevertheless, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's drug czar, recently said that there is ``no conclusive evidence to indicate that the Cuban leadership is currently involved in this criminal activity.'' The general seems to be unaware of a report released by his own office in March, titled ``1998 Annual Assessment of Cocaine Movement.'' It states: ``Noncommercial air movements from Colombia to the Bahamas were most prolific in 1998. Most flights fly either east or west of Jamaica, and subsequently fly over Cuban land mass.'' It adds that the cocaine flown over Cuban territory is dropped ``in or near Cuban territorial waters.'' Given Castro's sensitivity concerning unidentified aircraft flying over Cuba, as evidenced by the Brothers to the Rescue shootdown, it is inexplicable that not one drug-smuggling airplane has ever been shot down over the island. There are those who believe that the Cuban leopard has changed his spots. Maybe. But the consequences of taking Castro at his word can be tragic. The impact of the drug epidemic on America's youth is far too important to allow the facts linking Castro to the drug trade to be swept under the rug.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to you the attached article written by Mr. Frank Calzon, entitled ``Blame Castro, not the Cubans.'' Mr. Calzon is the executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, DC, and is a tireless fighter for democratic causes. I believe Mr. Calzon makes an excellent case in his article and I encourage my colleagues to learn from it. Blame Castro, Not the Cubans Although prejudice can be found anywhere, Americans might be shocked that bigotry has raised its ugly head in the upper reaches of the Clinton administration. The pugnacious debate about Cuba has grown uglier since The New York Times quoted unnamed administration officials asserting that Cuban Americans hold U.S.-Cuba policy hostage. If this were said about the NAACP's interest in South Africa, or the Jewish-American community's concerns about Israel, cries of outrage against such bigotry would resound across America. While critics might object to the influence of Cuban Americans, interest groups (ethnic, regional, professional, corporate, etc.) are simply a fact of life. When Cuban Americans write to their members of Congress, they are exercising their right to petition the government for redress of grievances. When my sisters attend a political rally, they are enjoying the right of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution. Until now, I believed that when my parents register and vote, they are fulfilling a civic responsibility. But now I know that ``a senior government official'' thinks that what they are really doing is ``holding U.S. policy hostage.'' To note the virulent attacks on the Cuban-American community is not to assert that its members are exempt from responsibility for the shrillness of the debate. We are not. But it might be instructive to remember that whether it was workers attempting to unionize 100 years ago, African Americans demanding an end to discrimination in the 1960s, or women struggling to achieve equality today, the victims of great injustices are sometimes a nuisance to those not interested in their plight. What could Cuban Americans say that would be so objectionable? That the administration's accords with Fidel Castro have been negotiated in such secrecy that sometimes not even the Cuba desk at the Department of State is informed. That the ``adjustments'' in Cuba policy are often presented as fait accompli, ignoring the Congress and U.S. laws. That the government's spinning and lawyerly hair-splitting over-shadow Cuba policy, promoting a mind-set that believes in giving Castro the benefit of the doubt. The most recent example: the suggestion that a legal opinion is needed to determine whether the embargo statutes prohibit not only American sales to the Cuban government but also sales through the Cuban regime The debate provides a sobering commentary on the values held by some American elites on the eve of the 21st Century. For some, Castro is the one remaining beacon in a pantheon that once included Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh. As long as Castro or North Korea's Kim Iong Il, the son of the deceased Kim Il Sung, remain in power, it can be said that the socialist experiment has not been a complete fiasco. Yet the American people have an instinctive aversion to tyranny and object to providing assistance that could lengthen Castro's rule. Most Americans agree that the problem is Castro, not the Cuban Americans. Because Castro refuses to base U.S.-Cuban relations on any--sort of reciprocity-and certainly because of his abhorrent human-rights record--those seeking to soften the sanctions rely on ``spinning'' policy, redefining the meaning of the law and slandering the Cuban- American community. How did it come to be, that without further congressional action, the Cuban Adjustment Act--which protected Cuban refugees since the mid-1960s--now has a different meaning? Furthermore, what prevents other laws from being subjected to similar whims of the executive branch? What prevents other communities--blacks interested in South Africa, Irish-Americans concerned about Ireland and Jewish- Americans following events in Israel, for instance--from being accused by unnamed government officials of holding American policy hostage because they disagree with the government? The implications of this issue obviously extend beyond Cuban Americans.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to you the article written by Mr. Frank Calzon, entitled ``Foreign Policy: Words as powerful as actions.'' Mr. Calzon is the executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C. and is a tireless fighter for democratic causes. I encourage my colleagues to benefit from his excellent article. Foreign Policy: Words as Powerful as Actions (By Frank Calzon) ``Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you'' is fine advice for the young, but it will never cut mustard in foreign policy. History is full of tragedies that could have been prevented, but for the thoughtlessness of a policy pronouncement. Children's rhymes were the last thing on the mind of Secretary of State Dean Acheson when, preoccupied with Stalin's expansion into Central Europe, he spoke at the National Press Club in Washington on Jan. 12, 1950. In the speech, which had been approved by the White House, Acheson outlined America's ``defense perimeter'' in the Pacific, clearly leaving out the Korean peninsula. Five months later, Kim II Sung's armies, confident that Washington wouldn't intervene, invaded South Korea. Thus began the Korean War, a conflict in which thousands of Americans lost their lives. Acheson's blunder came to mind recently while reading a July 7 article in The New York Times in which an unidentified Clinton-administration official talked about ``a conscious decision in this administration to do what need to be done.'' The Times ominously explained that to mean ``American officials say they are now determined to go forward [with their commitment to relaxing U.S. sanctions against Fidel Castro's regime] even if Mr. Castro responds by cracking down on dissent.'' Ironically, the statement coincides with a reappraisal of Canada's longstanding policy of ``constructive engagement'' with Havana. Despite tourism, trade and foreign aid, Castro remains oblivious to Canada's pleadings on behalf of human rights. Canada's most influential media have called for a tougher stand vis a vis Castro, and a not-so-subtle message to that effect was delivered recently. The new Cuban ambassador presented credentials in Ottawa in an elegant room in which almost all of the chairs set up for official guests were empty. The new U.S. policy--assuming the report is accurate--is at odds with Americans humanitarian impulse. It could have serious consequences for U.S. policy in the Americas because President Clinton's hemispheric policy is predicated on support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. One can only wonder what the consequences would have been had the United States told Moscow that, regardless of its mistreatment of human-rights dissidents, Washington cooperation would remain on track. Or what might have been Poland's fate had the United States signaled to Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski that it was all right for him to crack down on dissents. Instead, to its credit, the Reagan administration imposed trade sanctions on Warsaw when it tried to crack down on Solidarity. Years earlier Jimmy Carter had electrified the world with his call for worldwide respect for human rights. Due both to its source and its content, the idea that greater repression in Cuba will not impact U.S. policy undermines Clinton's publicly stated views and Secretary of State Madeline Albright's repeated and principled efforts to mobilize international support for the victims of Castro's repression. Like Kim II Sung almost 50 years ago, Castro will interpret the statements attributed to the Clinton administration as a green light for whatever steps he takes. Also, foreign governments that would rather not confront Castro's rhetoric (at the United Nations in Geneva, Cuban diplomats labeled those concerned about human rights in Cuba ``lackeys'' of the United States) now will find it even easier to turn to deaf ear to the Cuban people's cries for help. Is it really in America's national interest to broadcast such fickleness to our enemies, repeating Acheson's error? It certainly is not. However, this is exactly what is occurring when senior Clinton-administration officials tell Castro that U.S. policy will not be affected by a crackdown on Cuba's courageous and beleaguered opposition. How can the Clinton administration claim that it cares about the Cuban people's fate while erasing whatever remaining uncertainty Castro may have about America's intentions? How many ways are there to spell disaster? Several weeks have passed, but it is not too late for the President to order an investigation and reaffirm his commitment to supporting the Cuban people's aspirations for freedom.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my warmest congratulations to the dental community in Florida for their great success with Project: Dentists Care (PDC), which facilitates access to dental care for indigent or underserved populations throughout the State. In a typical year, over 700 dentists donate more than 10,000 hours to treat 6,000-7,000 patients, providing close to a million dollars worth of dentistry, all at no charge. Project: Dentists Care Began in Palm Beach County in 1992, and now enjoys success throughout the State. Money raised from fund raisers such as the annual Dentist's Day in October, including the ball, the silent auction and art sales, helps buy supplies and equipment needed for the programs. I am pleased to support the efforts of Project: Dentists Care, and I urge my colleagues to join me as I extend my support and best wishes for a successful Dentist Day.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding time to me. I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and all the people who worked so hard on the Committee on Appropriations, for bringing this bill forward. It is a good bill. The rule we brought forth to bring it to the floor is a fair rule. It is an open rule. We brought more open rules than any time before in the history of this Congress to the floor. We are very proud of that. Someone spoke before, a colleague, and talked about the fact that he was opposed to the fact that we in the House are not going to lift sanctions on the Castro dictatorship until the three conditions that are within U.S. law are met, very simple conditions: the liberation of all political prisoners; the legalization of all political parties, labor unions, and the independent press; and the scheduling of three elections, internationally supervised. Since we are going to insist on that, I think it is important to remind our colleagues and the American people through C-Span that we have those conditions. We do not have sanctions on that dictatorship 90 miles from our shores of people who have been suffering 40 years of oppression simply for the sake of having sanctions, but rather, because we are going to insist on a democratic transition that we know is going to come. Cuba is going to be free. We also do not want, at this point, to give Castro access to American agricultural products and financing, and further exacerbate the plight of the American farmer. Do we want Castro to be able to dump citrus and rice and tobacco and sugar on the American market, exacerbate the condition of the American farmer with U.S. financing? I do not think we should do that. The House is not going to do that. I also want to talk about four reasons why we maintain our sanctions. Rene Gomez Manzano, Marta Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, and Felix Bonne, distinguished professionals all. They wrote an article 2\1/2\ years ago called ``The Homeland Belongs To All,'' where they called for that great crime in the eyes of Castro, the right to free elections. They were thrown in the dungeon where they are today, languishing along with thousands of other political prisoners in a rodent-infested dungeon and 120-degree heat without access to health care or even light. Those are reasons. We have many reasons. What we will say, until Cuba is free, no access to the U.S. market, and the Cuban people will forever remember, and that will be glory and dignity and honor, it will mean, for the generous American people.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that I am extremely sorry that our distinguished colleague from California (Ms. Pelosi) will not be supporting the rule. The Committee on Rules made a very strong effort to be fair. We believe that we have been fair, that we are fair in this rule. It is an open rule. The issue of legislation, not appropriations measures, is always a difficult one. We do not like generally in the Committee on Rules to see, and we usually do not make in order, legislative proposals for debate on appropriations bills. Within this bill, within the context of the bill, within the text of the bill that came to us, there are 58 provisions that constitute legislating, many of which, almost 30, are unauthorized. So I am sure the members of the Committee on Appropriations also recognize the difficulty of this and they have to deal with it also on a daily basis. What I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, is that the rule is fair, that it is an open rule, that as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) mentioned, we do need to be expediting this issue, moving it forward, and we believe on the Committee on Rules that we are doing so in a very fair way. 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, the Committee on Rules has gone the extra mile. We bring forth this measure not only with a fair rule, but an open rule. Any amendment any Member wants to come up with, as long as it is germane, can be presented. So we feel really good about our work. We ask for the support of the House on both sides of the aisle for the rule. Reiterating that, I support this rule, and urge my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 263 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2606, the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. In addition, the rule provides the bill be open to amendment by paragraph. The rule also waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failing to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule provides that before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report only in the order printed in the report. These amendments relate to limitations on the use of international population funds. Further, the rule provides the amendment printed in part B of the report may be offered only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill. The amendment concerns child survival funding. In addition, the rule provides for consideration of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report to be offered only by a Member designated in the report. The amendments shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule waives points of order against the amendments which were printed in the Committee on Rules report, but also grants the chairman of the Committee of the Whole 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. In addition, the rule provides that Members who have pre-printed 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. And finally the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a fair, a very 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 abortions and the so-called Mexico City policy which prohibits U.S. assistance to foreign organizations that perform abortions, violate abortion laws, or engage in lobbying activities to change such laws. While I personally am a strong advocate for the rights of the unborn, our committee is providing for amendments which cover both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides of the issue. I commend my colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) who is chairman, Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for his tireless work to protect the rights of the unborn. I certainly will support his amendment on this important issue. To clarify that two amendments referred to in part A of the Committee on Rules report, one to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the other to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) let me explain that each of these amendments has been made in order as a freestanding amendment. Although they represent different aspects of the use of population assistance funds they are not necessarily inconsistent. Should they both prevail, any inconsistencies can and will be worked out in conference. I support the rule. I also support the underlying bill. There are many important programs which are being funded. And because there are no country earmarks, the President and the Secretary of State are afforded maximum flexibility to conduct foreign policy. I am pleased to see that this is the tenth appropriations bill to come before the House. It is within, it is even below, the committee's budget allocation. I thank and commend not only the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) but also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for their hard work on this important bill, and I urge adoption of both the rule and the bill. 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 think we all should be very proud of the work the Committee on Appropriations has done this year, and a great measure, to a great degree the responsibility for the marvelous work that the committee has been doing and is doing lies at the office and in the office of the chairman, and I want to commend the chairman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 29, 1999.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, supporting the underlying legislation, as well as the rule, 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER 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 Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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 247 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 1999. 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. In addition, the rule provides that before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the first amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) or his designee. This amendment, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment. Further, this amendment shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and all points of order are waived against that amendment. The rule also provides that no further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in the Committee on Rules report and the amendments en bloc described in section 2 of this resolution. The rule provides that each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. Each amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Further, the rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on International Relations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendment numbered 4 through 41 printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, or germane modifications of any such amendment which shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be reported, and shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and control by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations or their designees. The en bloc amendments shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. 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. Also, the rule provides 1 motion to recommit, with or without instructions. The rule further provides that after passage of H.R. 2415, it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill, S. 886, and to consider the Senate bill in the House. The rule waives all points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration. Finally, the rule provides that it shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 2415 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are waived. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain why we are making H.R. 2415, the American Embassy Security Act of 1999, in order as the base text. Unfortunately, H.R. 1211, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, as reported by the Committee on International Relations, increased discretionary spending in excess of what the committee was allowed to spend under the budget. In full consultation with the minority on the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) introduced H.R. 2415 on July 1 to make their bill comply with the budget. Also on July 1, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) announced on the House floor and the Committee on Rules sent out a Dear Colleague informing Members of the likely consideration of this new bill, H.R. 2415, this week. In this announcement, Members were advised that their amendments should be drafted to 2415 and not 1211. I hope that this clears up any confusion over the process involved with with today's legislation. In considering amendments, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules was as fair and open as possible, while keeping the commitment made to refrain from allowing any U.N. arrearages amendments or Mexico City policy amendments. Aside from the manager's amendment, which was given waivers so that it may be considered separately, as opposed to being self-executed by the rule, only amendments which would have otherwise been in order under an open rule were allowed. In fact, of the 50 amendments filed before the Committee on Rules, we were able to make 41 of them in order. Twenty-two from Democrats, 12 from Republicans, and 7 bipartisan amendments have been made in order. I believe this is a generous composition, and I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and my colleagues on the committee for reaching this balance. I am pleased to support, Mr. Speaker, this fair rule, which brings forth very important legislation aimed at providing U.S. diplomats, security agents, and law enforcement personnel the ability to safely defend U.S. interests around the world. Among the many strong points in this legislation, I am pleased to see that we are taking effective steps toward enhancing security at our embassies. I know none of us would like to relive the tragedies that occurred almost a year ago in some of our embassies in Africa, and I believe H.R. 2415 will provide necessary resources to help prevent such acts of terrorism. I am also encouraged that the bill is moving in the right direction in our fight against narco-trafficking by requiring the Clinton administration to inform Congress on the extent, the genuine extent of international narcotics trafficking through Cuba. Mr. Speaker, the bill also correctly expresses the sense of Congress, and I would like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on this, that the U.S. should increase its support for pro-democracy and human rights activists in Cuba. The time has clearly come to implement a plan to assist the brave internal opposition in Cuba like the administration of President Reagan did with such brilliance with the Polish opposition during the dark years of martial law there. This rule is not without precedent, Mr. Speaker. In the 103rd Congress, at the request of the Committee on International Relations chairman, the State Department authorization bill was considered under a structured rule. I look forward to a vigorous debate on this bill. I see that a primary author, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is here and will address us, as well as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). It is an honor to serve with both of them in this House, and I look forward to listening to them, as I am sure all of our colleagues do, as well. 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 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be delivered to each Member's office tomorrow notifying them of the plan of the Committee on Rules to meet the week of July 19 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 1995, the ``Teacher Empowerment Act.'' Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Monday, July 19, to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The bill is available at the Committee on Education and the Workforce and is expected to be available on their committee web site tomorrow morning. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to make sure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.