Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with all that has been said by each and every one of my distinguished colleagues who have risen in support of the need for us to insist upon the House position that aid to Central America be provided forthwith. It would be a grave foreign policy mistake for the United States, while taking care of undoubted needs that we have with regard to the operation in Kosovo, and there is no doubt that it is absolutely indispensable that our men and women in uniform not be further abandoned and that every assistance must be provided to our Armed Forces due to the operation that has been going on now for almost 2 months in Kosovo, and while we do that, our eyes are focused upon Europe in a most humane way and necessary way, but it would be a mistake if we forgot to look at and if we forgot the importance of our closest friends and neighbors in their hour of need. Central America was hit in a devastating way by the natural disaster known as Hurricane Mitch. The United States made a commitment to Central America, rooted in humanitarian reasons, that we would go to the aid of our friends and neighbors in Central America. It is necessary, therefore, not only for humanitarian reasons but because of the foreign policy interests of the United States, that we not ignore this hemisphere. A wrong message would be going out to our friends and neighbors in this hemisphere if at the time that we address concerns in Europe that we fail to address even the most elemental and needed of concerns here in this hemisphere in Central America. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank publicly the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his leadership on this issue. He has reiterated his support of what we are advocating this evening. I also would like to especially thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, who has committed, along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), of the appropriation subcommittee, who have also publicly and privately committed to making sure that this issue is resolved as soon as possible. They are demonstrating leadership, they are demonstrating their concern, they are demonstrating their compassion and their understanding not only of the humanitarian interests involved in this issue but also the foreign policy concerns of the United States that are involved in this matter. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will soon be seeing, even in this package that is being negotiated right now, fundamentally rooted toward the needs in Europe as a consequence of the operation in Kosovo, in that same appropriations vehicle, I am fully confident that we will see the issue that we are addressing this evening fully addressed. But, again, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who has been very persevering and demonstrated great interest and leadership on this issue for bringing forth the motion to instruct, which I think is an appropriate reminder that many of us in this Congress feel very strongly about this issue. Honduras was destroyed by Mitch, Salvador was hit very hard, as was Guatemala and as was Nicaragua. Fortunately, Costa Rica was not hit hard and Panama was not as well. But so many of our friends and neighbors were hit directly by this tragedy that we must in this hour of need remember them. I think it is important we take this opportunity to remind the people of those countries and their governments that we do not forget them; that we continue to work for what is essentially in the national interest of the United States and also very much a humanitarian necessity; that we extend our hand of assistance to our neighbors. I also want to address an issue that my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) touched on that I think is very important. We are very grateful to the Central American countries for their consistent support of United States foreign policy on so many issues through the years. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) pointed out, Central America, in this hemisphere, is somewhere that we can point to as an obvious and genuine success story. Central America was challenged by wars and by dictatorships and by totalitarian aggression just a decade ago, and the success story is there for all of us to see. There are democracies in all of those countries. They need our help, they need our support, they need our solidarity, and in this hour of need they need this very concrete assistance that we will be sending them. We were disappointed, as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) stated, with the vote of just a few days ago by Guatemala and El Salvador with regard specifically to the resolution that was introduced by the Czech Republic in the United Nations Human Rights Commission. It was a very appropriate and very necessary and very human resolution at this time, calling upon the international community to recall, to take note of, and to express its concern for the human rights violations in Cuba for the political prisoners, for the fact that the four best-known political prisoners in Cuba were now re- sentenced, in effect, to long prison terms for publishing a document calling for free elections. That resolution, filed at the United Nations Human Rights Commission by the Government of President Havel of the Czech Republic, cosponsored by the Polish Government, succeeded, it passed, but only by one vote. And it was very disappointing to see the Government of Guatemala and the Government of El Salvador abstain in something that broke tradition with them. It certainly broke with the spirit of solidarity toward a neighboring people in this hemisphere that have been suffering a dictatorship for 40 years. And so, while I express my disappointment, very strong disappointment, I ask President Flores of Honduras and President-Elect Flores, a young statesman who I have not had the pleasure of meeting personally but I have seen him and read of him and he is most impressive, President-Elect Flores of El Salvador, as well as President Arzu of Guatemala and President Rodriguez of Costa Rica and all of our neighbors who are part of the so-called Ibero-American Summit, to please think about what it means to attend a summit at a place, at a country, that has been suffering a dictatorship for 40 years, a totalitarian dictatorship that has increased its repression in the last 6 months, flaunting its intention not to permit any sort of political opening even after a visit by His Holiness the Pope. And so, I would ask the presidents of Honduras and of all our neighbors of El Salvador and Guatemala to follow the example already set by President Aleman of Nicaragua, who very courageously has stated that he will not attend that summit because it will take place at a place where there has been a 40-year-old dictatorship. And I ask then that our other neighbors follow the example of President Aleman and his courage and his statesmanship and also to follow the example of President Rodriguez of Costa Rica, who has not made a decision on whether to attend or not but has been very forthright and very public in his condemnation of the human rights situation being suffered by the Cuban people. Now, of course, this matter should demonstrate, despite my disappointment and the disappointment of a number of us here in Congress on this issue, the fact that we are pushing as resolutely and as intensely for this aid package to Central America that shows, number one, that we know that, over and above decisions of governments, the interests of people are even more important, in this case the suffering people of Central America, and that we also hope that the governments of friendly nations, such as the ones that we have mentioned, will utilize this upcoming opportunity to reconsider their attendance at a summit such as the one that we have made reference to. And so, I join all of my colleagues again in reiterating the need that this aid to Central America be included in the appropriations vehicle that is now being negotiated and again commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) for bringing forth this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on this side of the aisle?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise for two reasons this evening. First, I want to say, I would like to say, how embarrassed I was for the drug czar, Mr. McCaffrey, recently when I read wire reports that he continues to cover up the well-known, established, reiterated, longstanding participation by the Castro dictatorship in drug trafficking. This is an extremely serious reality, but the drug czar and other officials of this administration continue to cover it up. And so I make reference once again to the letter that, along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), I sent General McCaffrey in November of 1996 in detail relating the evidence that has been made public; it is not classified, it is well known; of the longstanding and reiterated participation of the Cuban dictatorship in facilitating the importation of tons of Columbian cartel cocaine into the United States. And I asked that he answer, the drug czar, Mr. McCaffrey, our letters, that letter and subsequent letters, with the seriousness that this issue deserves. clinton administration refuses to return ``the human rights''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I also rise, Mr. Speaker, because a very distinguished friend of mine in South Florida at this point is on a hunger strike. He is the leader of a movement known as the Democracy Movement. It is a peaceful movement that advocates change, democratic change, in Cuba. And they have two vessels, and on December 10 they were heading south, and, pursuant to an executive order issued by the President, the Coast Guard boarded the vessel. It is known, it is called, The Human Rights, and it was the day that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was being commemorated, the anniversary of it, the 50th anniversary, in fact, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the Coast Guard boarded it and found some documents that referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and since that day dissidents within Cuba had announced that they were going to attempt to demonstrate peacefully in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. This vessel, The Human Rights, was boarded by the Coast Guard and confiscated, and to this date the Clinton administration refuses to give it back. Mr. Speaker, it is really unconscionable. More than even unfortunate, it is unconscionable. So I asked the administration to note the hunger strike by Ramon Saul Sanchez to return The Human Rights vessel that was confiscated, as I say, for the crime, in quotes, of being found on the high seas with documents in support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and here is the official communication of the Department of Treasury. The Coast Guard received information; this is to Mr. Sanchez; that you planned to disembark in Cuba, received information, by the way, from the Castro government, and that you planned to join a demonstration in support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. During the boarding it was determined that there was sufficient evidence indicating that the vessel was intending to enter Cuban waters, and a decision was made to seize the vessel. By the way, the evidence that the Clinton administration says existed with regard to intent to enter Cuban waters was finding documents that contained the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is happening in this country at this time because of this administration. It is shameful, and it is time to release the vessel The Human Rights.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a friend who recently passed away. Dr. Francisco G. Tudela was a great man and a caring physician whose devotion to the sanctity and dignity of life will be greatly missed. Dr. Tudela was born in Guantanamo, Cuba on July 19, 1919. Despite that fact that Dr. Tudela had risen to the position of Director of the Guantanamo City Hospital in Cuba, he went into exile because of his commitment to Liberty and Freedom. In 1960, Dr. Tudela moved with his family to the United States and practiced his speciality of Obstetrics- Gynecology in Newport News, Virginia before eventually settling in Miami, Florida. Dr. Tudela was well-known for his opposition to abortion and always said that ``Doctors are to save babies, not to kill them.'' He is credited with delivering more than 8,000 babies--many of whom owe their lives to his medical knowledge and care. Dr. Tudela came from a family that has a long history of service to mankind. He was the son of the renowned Cuban physician, Dr. Francisco J. Tudela who graduated from the University of Chicago School of Medicine. He was also the grandson and grand-nephew of two valiant Cuban heroes of the Cuban War of Independence, Colonels Jose Enrique Tudela and Francisco Jose Tudela. Dr. Tudela and his devoted wife, Mrs. Josefa Gonzalez Tudela, loving raised their two sons to continue the family commitment to medicine and children. Both sons, Dr. Jose Angel Tudela, a pediatrician, and Dr. Francisco G. Tudela, Jr., an obstetrician-gynecologist, are outstanding physicians in Miami-Dade County. I will miss the friendship and wise counsel of Dr. Tudela. He always had a kind and encouraging word and I was filled with optimism after every opportunity I had to speak with him. I would like to express my profound condolences to Mrs. Tudela and her two sons at this difficult time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, distinguished colleagues, as I grieved along with the rest of America this last Sunday, this weekend, about the senseless bloodshed, the condemnable violence against innocent victims last week in Littleton, Colorado, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families, I was reading some news reports from various wire services. I noted two news reports that I placed copies of in my files. One was titled ``Portugal Concerned Young People Will Forget Coup of 1974.'' It is an Associated Press wire. ``Bloodless Action Toppled Dictator, Brought Democracy. Lisbon, Portugal. The coup was swift, bloodless and effective, so smooth and neat that as Portugal marks the 25th anniversary of the Army coup that brought it democracy, some citizens fear it is at risk of being forgotten. An older generation that lived under dictator Antonio de Oliveira Salazar's heavy hand, proudly recalls the courage of the dissidents and the outpouring of joy when disgruntled Army officers led the coup that toppled the dictatorship.'' The article went on, ``The coup paved the way for the country, Portugal, to join the European Union in 1986, a coming of age that accelerated the pace of change as development funds poured in and Portugal scrambled to make up for lost time. Portugal crammed into 10 years social and economic development that had taken other countries decades to accomplish.'' Another news wire that caught my eye, and I filed it, read, ``Two Bills to Seek End of Cuban Embargo. Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat, Connecticut, will file a bill this week jointly with Senator John Warner, Republican, Virginia, seeking an end to the embargo in Cuba. At the same time, Representative Jose Serrano, Democrat of New York, will file a similar bill in the House,'' Dodd said. Dodd made the announcement Friday as the keynote speaker during the 17th Annual Journalists and Editors Workshop on Latin America held in Miami, Florida. ``The time has come to lift the trade sanctions in Cuba,'' Dodd said, adding that the embargo has been ineffective, counterproductive, inhumane and a failure. According to DOD, the 4-decade-old embargo has not yielded the result it intended. I found an interesting contrast in the two articles, because during the decades-long dictatorships in Portugal and in Spain, or during the dictatorship of the 1960s and the 1970s in Greece, no one ever complained that the European Union, which was then known as the European Community, made it absolutely clear that its doors would remain closed, remain airtight; that there could be no conceivable entry into the European Union by Spain or Portugal or Greece until they were democracies. No one ever complained. No legislative or diplomatic initiatives to say, let Spain and Portugal and Greece in, were ever initiated. No one filed bills in any of the democratic parliaments of Europe saying the Olivera Salazar regime in Portugal has lasted 50 years or the Franco regime in Spain has lasted 40 years; our policy of isolation has failed. Let us end their isolation, because they have lasted so long. No, no one ever filed bills or initiated initiatives such as those. On the contrary, during the last year of Franco's dictatorship there was a mobilization in the international community to reimpose a blockade such as the one that the United Nations had imposed on Franco decades earlier. And at the time of Franco's death in 1975 in Spain, that posture, similarly at the time of the coup referred to in this Associated Press article in Portugal in 1974, that posture, that policy by Europe was decisive in the political openings and democratic transitions that took place in those countries that had long been oppressed by dictatorships. Political parties were liberated. Political prisoners were liberated first. Political parties were legalized. Long-term exiles, those who had survived, were able to return. Along with the legalization of political parties came the legalization of the independent press and independent labor unions, and free elections were authorized, they were then organized, and then they were held. In other words, freedom returned. That precisely is the goal of our policy with regard to Cuba. That is why we maintain a trade and tourism embargo on the Cuban dictatorship. That is why we deny the U.S. market to the Cuban dictatorship, a regime that has kept itself in power through terror and through repression for 40 years. Because first, we believe that it is in the national interests of the United States for there to be a democratic transition in Cuba. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who was just talking about the narcotics trafficking problem in this hemisphere, how for example the Mexican governor of the province of Quintana Roo, the Yucatan Peninsula, has just sought refuge. Just before he was about to be arrested for being a major drug trafficker, he sought refuge and he is in Cuba today, as is Robert Vesco and over 90 other fugitives on the FBI's Most Wanted List. So we believe for many reasons that it is in the United States' national interest for there to be a democratic transition in Cuba. Second, we believe that just as in Europe, in the cases of the democratic transitions that occurred in Spain or Portugal or Greece, or in the transitions that took place in South Africa or Chile or the Dominican Republic, it is absolutely critical that there be some form of external pressure for a democratic transition to take place in Cuba once the dictator is no longer on the scene. Either because, like in the case of Franco in Spain, the dictator dies, or if it occurs through a coup, for example, like in Portugal, or by way of a coup followed by the death of a dictator, if it occurs as in Romania. However it occurs, whatever way it occurs, at the time of the disappearance from the scene of the Cuban dictator, that is when it will be absolutely critical for the U.S. embargo to be in place as it is today, with its lifting being conditioned, as it is by law, on three fundamental developments in Cuba. Number one, the liberation of all political prisoners. Number two, the legalization of all political parties, independent labor unions and the independent press. And number three, the scheduling of free, internationally supervised elections. The exact same conditions that brought about the democratic transitions in Portugal and in Spain and in South Africa, and in Chile and in the Dominican Republic and in so many others. At the time of the disappearance of the dictator in Cuba, the U.S. embargo, with its lifting being conditioned on those three developments, as it is by law, will constitute critical leverage for the Cuban people to achieve those three conditions. In other words, for them to achieve their freedom, like the South Africans and the Spaniards and the Chileans and the Portuguese and the Dominicans achieved theirs during the last four decades. It should not seem that complicated. Wherever there has been some form of external pressure, there has been a democratic transition. Where there has been acquiescence, financing, trade, oxygen for the regimes such as in China, there is no democratic transition. It is very simple. So when we see some asking for an end to the embargo against Castro now, before the three conditions, we have to then ask which of the three conditions do the Cuban people not deserve? Do they not deserve the liberation of all political prisoners, the legalization of political parties, the press, labor unions, or do they not deserve free elections? Which of the three conditions do the Cuban people not deserve? We must ask those who want to lift the embargo now, unilaterally. There is another question. Why else, why in addition to the ethical reasons, in addition to the profound immorality of sitting by while our closest neighbors are ignored year after year after year, while they are oppressed year after year, decade after decade, by a degrading and humiliating military dictatorship that has implanted a system of economic and political apartheid against its own people. A system where people are thrown in prison for their thoughts, where refugees are killed for leaving the country without permission, the most glaring, horrible example being July 13, 1994 where a tugboat, an old tugboat full of refugees was systematically attacked and sunk, and over 40 women and children, along with some adult men, were murdered, over 20 children were murdered. A system where, to use another example, the pharmacies, the drugstores, if a Cuban citizen has a child with a fever or another medical problem, they can only purchase medicines in the pharmacies if they have dollars and if they are foreigners. In other words, they have to get a foreigner to go in and purchase the medicine and they need a foreign currency, dollars, to be able to do that. To cite a very well written report by the respected human rights organization PAX Christi Netherlands of February of this year, a system where the criminal code, even in its pre-February 1999 form, before the draconian new law that Castro had his public parliament pass that established up to 30 years in prison for peaceful pro-democracy activity; even before the February 1999 law, the criminal code was used as a means to silence political dissent by charging opponents of the regime with, for example, ``contempt for authority'' or ``dangerousness'' or ``enemy propaganda.'' In Cuba, where the judiciary is directly controlled by the communist party, the right to a fair trial is not guaranteed. Sometimes political proponents remain detained for prolonged periods, months, even years without any charge, much less a trial. And PAX Christi Netherlands continues in its Human Rights Report, February 1999, a list exists, drawn up by the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and Reconciliation, of approximately 300 political prisoners. What is often overlooked, though, is that this is only a partial list. The Cuban Government does not disclose any data on the number of those imprisoned for political offenses such as rebellion, disrespect or enemy propaganda. Human rights organizations, therefore, will have to depend on other sources to report a political imprisonment to them. In actual fact, there are anywhere, and this is according to PAX Christi Netherlands, in actual fact, there are anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000 political prisoners. There is an additional problem in the form of people that are in prison under the pretext of, for instance, economic offenses, while the real reason is political. We can only guess at the numbers, says PAX Christi Netherlands. And it continues: Prisoners are put under great psychological pressure and at times they are beaten up. Prison conditions are generally bad. Inmates are undernourished and have no blankets, sanitary facilities or legal representation. There are frequent reports of political prisoners being denied medical attention in the case of illness. An example is political prisoner Jorge Luis Garci-Perez Antunez, 33 years old and imprisoned for 18 years, accused of enemy propaganda. In the beginning of 1999 he was brutally beaten to unconsciousness by prison officers. According to his sister, one of these officers at the prison stated that they were authorized to beat prisoners. Actually, Antunez is in a very poor state of health, as he is denied medical treatment for his injuries and for his illnesses, a kidney insufficiency, angina pectoris and hypoglycemia. Until this writing, his sister has not been allowed to give her brother the necessary medicines, from PAX Christi Netherlands, February 1999. So why, in addition to the moral imperative, I was asking, is it in the national interest of the United States for Cuba to be free? I think it is important that we touch upon just a few of the reasons. We in Washington have the ability to receive research from many so- called think tanks. They are institutes of research. One of the most respected and certainly well informed of those research institutes is the William Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy. In a recent report, November 1998, they wrote, ``American advocates of normalization contend that Cuba no longer poses any threat 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, reports the Center for Security Policy, ignores the abiding menacing character of the Castro regime. This is all the more remarkable given the emphasis Secretary of Defense William Cohen, among other Clinton administration officials, have placed on asymmetric threats, the very sorts of threats Cuba continues to pose to American citizens and interests. These include the following: Thanks to the vast signal intelligence facilities operated near Lourdes by Havana's and Moscow's intelligence services, facilities that permit the wholesale collection of sensitive U.S. military diplomatic and commercial data and the invasion of millions of Americans' privacy, the Cuban regime 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 was recently provided by former Soviet military intelligence Colonel Stanislav Lunev. As one of the most senior Russian military intelligence officials to come to this country, Lunev revealed that in 1990 the Soviet Union acquired America's most sensitive Desert Storm battle plans, including General Norman Schwarzkopf's famed Hail Mary flanking maneuver, prior to the launch of the U.S. ground war on the Persian Gulf. Moscow's penetration of such closely-guarded American military planning via its Cuban ally may have jeopardized the lives of literally thousands of U.S. troops in the event the intelligence had been forwarded to Saddam Hussein by then Soviet Premier Gorbachev. By the way, Moscow pays $200 million to this day. Even though they get a lot of money from the U.S. taxpayers, they turn around and pay $200 million a year to Castro for the intelligence facilities that Moscow maintains in Havana. 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 the Russians maintain and the intelligence-gathering operations that Castro maintains with the help of the Russians, that these same concerns remain and have remained during our recent operations in Iraq and our current operation in Serbia. The Center for Security Policy, in their report in February, 1999, continue talking about the Cuban threat, and specifically mention the following. According to a January 29 article in the Financial Times of London, drug traffickers have capitalized, drug traffickers, have capitalized on the increased flow of European and Latin American tourism and trade with Cuba in the post-Soviet period, as well as the Castro regime's rampant official corruption and its ideologically- driven desire to damage its economic enemies. These operations use Cuba both for a drug market for the tourists that go there, and as a favored cleansing route employed to reduce the opportunities for detection. Several instances reported in the Financial Times of London illustrate this alarming development. For example, the frequency of drug cargoes dropped by air traffickers into Cuban waters for pick-up by smugglers more than doubled in 1998 over previous years. On December 3 of 1998, a 7-ton shipment of cocaine bound for Cuba was seized in Columbia by the Columbian police. Further evidence of such offensive, albeit asymmetrical activities, and indications that the Clinton administration is finding this behavior to be inconvenient, and therefore to be suppressed, was presented in Robert Novak's syndicated column in the Washington Post on February 1, 1999. Such is the concern of the Committee on International Relations, led by its chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ben Gilman) about the actual status of Cuban drug running that the committee asked the State Department to place Havana on its narcotics blacklist. For its part, the administration, in the person of the drug czar, General McCaffrey, has denied any suggestion that it is downplaying or concealing Castro's Cuba's involvement in narco-trafficking. But the problem is that they have not answered our concerns. They have not answered our concerns, Madam Speaker. I sent a letter, along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton), to General McCaffrey in November of 1996 on the issue of Castro's participation in the drug trade and the lack of a policy, even the lack of acknowledgment by the administration that it is going on. We specifically said in the letter: ``There is no doubt that the Castro dictatorship allows Cuba to be used as a transshipment point for drugs. We were deeply disappointed when DEA administrator Thomas Constantine, testifying before the House International Relations Committee in June, said that `there is no evidence that the government of Cuba is complicit' in drug smuggling ventures. On the contrary, there is no doubt that the Castro dictatorship is in the drug business. Your appearance,'' this was addressed to General McCaffrey, ``before the committee that day was also very disappointing on this critical issue. ``Castro and his top aides have worked as accomplices for the Columbian drug cartels and Cuba is a key transshipment point. In fact,'' in 1996, ``sources in the DEA's Miami Field Office stated to the media that more than 50% of the drug trafficking detected by the U.S. in the Caribbean proceeds from or through Cuba. ``Since the 1980's, substantial evidence in the public domain has mounted showing that the Castro dictatorship is aggressively involved in narco-trafficking. In 1982, four senior aides to Castro were indicted by a Florida grand jury for drug smuggling in the U.S. They were Vice Admiral Aldo Santamaria, a member of the Cuban Communist Party Central Committee who supervised military protection for, and the resupply of, ships transporting drugs to the US; Ambassador to Columbia Fernando Ravelo, who was in charge of the arms for drugs connection with the Columbian M-19 guerillas and the Medellin Cartel; Minister Counselor Gonzalo Bassols-Suarez, assigned to the Cuban Embassy in Bogota, Columbia; and Rene Rodriguez-Cruz, a senior official of the DGI (Cuban Intelligence Service) and a member of the Communist Party Central Committee. ``In 1987, the U.S. Attorney in Miami won convictions of 17 South Florida drug smugglers who used Cuban military air bases to smuggle at least 2,000 pounds of Columbian cocaine into Florida with the direct logistical assistance of the Cuban Armed Forces. Evidence in this case was developed by an undercover government agent who flew a drug smuggling flight into Cuba with a MIG fighter escort. In 1988, Federal law enforcement authorities captured an 8,800 pound load of cocaine imported into the United States through Cuba. In 1989, U.S. authorities captured 1,060 pounds of cocaine sent through Cuba to the United States. ``Prior administrations have correctly identified the Castro regime as an enemy in the interdiction battle. As early as March 12, 1982, Thomas Enders, then Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, stated before the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of the Senate Judiciary Committee that `We now also have detailed and reliable information linking Cuba to trafficking in narcotics as well as arms.' '' On April 30, 1983, James Michel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, testified before the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His remarks validated prior findings: ``The United States has developed new evidence from a variety of independent sources confirming that Cuban officials have facilitated narcotics trafficking through the Caribbean. . . . They have done so by developing a relationship with key Columbian drug runners who, on Cuba's behalf, purchased arms and smuggled them to Cuban-backed insurgent groups in Columbia. In return, the traffickers received safe passage of ships carrying cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs through Cuban waters to the U.S.'' ``On July 26, 1989, Ambassador Melvin Levitsky, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters, testified that, 'There is no doubt that Cuba is a transit point in the illegal drug flow. . . . We have made a major commitment to interdicting this traffic. . . . Although it is difficult to gauge the amount of trafficking that takes place in Cuba, we note a marked increase in reported drug trafficking incidents in Cuban territory during the first half of 1989.'. ``We are sure that while in Panama,'' we wrote General McCaffrey, ``as Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, you became aware of General Noriega's close relationship with Castro, and of Castro's intimate relationship with the Columbian drug cartels. ``Because past administrations identified Cuba as a major transshipment point for narcotics traffic, it was integrated into the larger interdiction effort. By contrast, under the existing strategy'' of this administration, ``no aggressive efforts have been made to cut off this pipeline despite the growing awareness of its existence. ``In April, 1993, the Miami Herald reported that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had drafted an indictment charging the Cuban government as a racketeering enterprise, and Cuban Defense Minister Raul Castro as the chief of a ten-year conspiracy to send tons of Columbian cartel cocaine through Cuba to the United States. Fifteen Cuban officials were named as co-conspirators, and the Defense and Interior Ministries cited as criminal organizations.'' The indictment was shelved. It was placed in a drawer by the Clinton administration. ``In 1996, the prosecution of a drug trafficker, Jorge Cabrera, a convicted drug dealer, brought to light additional information regarding narco-trafficking by the Castro dictatorship. Cabrera was convicted of transporting almost 6,000 pounds of cocaine in the United States, and he was sentenced to 19 years in prison and fined over $1 million. Cabrera has made repeated, specific claims confirming cooperation between Cuban officials and the Columbian cartels. His defense counsel has publicly stated that Cabrera offered to arrange a trip, under Coast Guard surveillance, that would `pro-actively implicate the Cuban government.' '' That investigation was shelved. It was put in a drawer by the Clinton administration. ``Overwhelming evidence points,'' we continued in our letter,'' to ongoing involvement of the Castro dictatorship in narco-trafficking. The Congress remains gravely concerned about this issue.'' We ended the letter by saying, ``We are deeply disappointed that the Administration continues to publicly ignore this critical matter.'' General McCaffrey sent us back a form letter that he sends to schools and people who ask for the ability to have input throughout the country into the Nation's drug policy. The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform in the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dan Burton) then sent a letter to General McCaffrey. I signed the letter, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen): ``Dear General McCaffrey, we write in response to your letter,'' your form letter, ``asking for comments in regard to updates.'' ``We have included herewith a letter which we sent to you November 18, 1996. You subsequently replied to us with a form letter. . . . ``We hereby reiterate our request that you address the issue of the Cuban government's participation in narco-trafficking and take all necessary actions to end the Clinton Administration's cover-up of that reality. ``We look forward to receiving a specific and detailed response to the information and points raised in our correspondence. Thank you in advance for your personal attention to this request.'' General McCaffrey wrote back saying that we had impugned his integrity or his commitment to the country, something that we never did. We remain focused on what we asked for. As the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Dan Burton) stated in his reply to General McCaffrey on March 16, 1999, ``Simply put, your response was insufficient. I unequivocally disagree with your assessment of the Cuban government,'' because the General maintains that the Cuban government is not involved with drug trafficking. Despite all the evidence that he knows of and we provided publicly to him, it is part of the public record, he continues to say, no, the Cuban government is not involved with drug trafficking, and/or is unable to monitor or patrol its territory. Chairman Burton continued, ``I have never questioned your service or dedication to our country. Your military career was long, and you indeed rose to four star (CINC) status, and I salute you for that.'' That is not the issue. The issue is that we sent a detailed letter that I just read from the Congress of the United States, once again asking for what the policy is of the administration with regard to concrete evidence of decades-long participation by the Cuban regime in narco-trafficking into the United States; in other words, a systematic campaign to poison the youth in the United States. What is the policy of this administration? It is not an issue of whether General McCaffrey had a good military record or not. Nobody is questioning that. It is, what is the policy of the administration now? Why is there an obvious attempt to cover up the involvement of the Cuban regime in narco-trafficking into this country? The Center for Security Policy, in its February, 1999, report, stated, with regard to Cuba's two VVER 440 Soviet-designed nuclear reactors, that assurances from the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy to the effect that these reactors are ``in excellent condition and meet all contemporary safety requirements'' are unconvincing. The Center for Security Policy continued: ``In fact, many Western experts, including the U.S., the General Accounting Office, and Cuban defectors from the Juragua complex have warned about myriad design and construction flaws. ``Among the items of concern are the fact that much of the facility's sensitive equipment has been exposed to corrosive tropical weather conditions for almost 6 years, and a large percentage of the structural components, building materials, and fabrication, for example, of critical welds, has been defective.'' The Pentagon is currently constructing a so-called Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System, known as CREWS, around the southern United States downwind from these Cuban reactors. According to Norm Dunkin, the lead contractor on CREWS, this system will monitor the activity of the reactors being built in Cuba in the event of an accident. Mr. Dunkin states that the CREWS system would allow for an immediate response. Now, just what that immediate response would be remains far from clear. We are talking about two Soviet-designed nuclear power plants that Castro is committed to completing in Cuba. So will this ``early warning system'' enable the mass evacuation of as many as 80 million Americans who might, according to U.S. official estimates, be exposed to Cuban radiation within days of a meltdown? And even if that extraordinary logistical feat could be accomplished, what would happen to the food supply, animals, and property left behind? This is the Center for Security Policy in its report of 1999, February. I think it is important, Madam Speaker, that we point out what we are talking about specifically here with regard to these Cuban power plants. These are Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. We just remembered the horrible accident at Chernobyl, where so many innocent lives were lost and radiation caused damage to millions and millions of people in the Ukraine. Well, what we are talking about here is Cuba. We are not talking about the Ukraine. We are talking about Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. They are known as the VVER 440. Soviet designed nuclear reactors. There are two of them. Here. Here is Key West. Here are the nuclear power plants. We are talking about less than 200 miles. These reactors, the VVER 440s, were all shut down when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Iron Curtain came down in Europe. All of the newly-freed countries of Eastern Europe, without exception, starting with East Germany but going throughout the entire continent, immediately moved to shut them all down because they are inherently dangerous. But in addition to that, engineers and workers who worked on the initial stages of these two Cuban nuclear power plants have testified here in Congress and before Federal executive agencies that not only are these plants defective because of their design but because of the great mistakes that were committed, the great flaws in the construction, the initial construction of these plants that Castro is determined to complete. Now, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that prepared this chart for my office, if the winds happened to be blowing north, in this direction, where we are right now, here, Washington, D.C., and even further north, as far north as Pennsylvania and New York, within 2 days of an accident in one of these plants, or an incident, because the Cuban dictator would be able to create an incident if he would so decide, within 2 days, if the winds were blowing north, the radiation would expose most of the eastern coast of the United States. If it were blowing in this direction, obviously, the central United States. It would take longer, obviously, to get to Texas and the West. But 80 million Americans reside in this area, and within 2 days, if the winds were blowing this way, if these plants were completed and if there were an accident, and we obviously had an accident in Chernobyl, we are not talking theory here, these are Soviet-designed plants, it would expose up to 80 million Americans to grave risk. And this chart, as I say, was provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We are all concerned about Kosovo. It is a great humanitarian crisis and tragedy, but this is here. These plants are less than 200 miles from the United States. What is the President doing? What is the Clinton administration doing to prevent this? Well, they have come forth with something called, as I mentioned before, CREWS, the Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System. I have never seen, to be diplomatic I will say, a less logical idea. Because this CREWS system, Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System, is designed to monitor the activity of these reactors in the event of an accident, this system would, quote, allow for an immediate response. The radiation would be picked up by the system. Is that what our policy has to be? I think that is inconceivable. I think our policy needs to be a policy of simply letting the Cuban regime know that under no circumstances can those plants be completed. The United States of America has to make it clear to Mr. Castro that those plants cannot be completed. It means putting at risk, if they are completed, 80 million Americans plus the entire Cuban people, plus the neighbor, if the winds happen to go this way, Mexico. If the winds happen to go this way, it is Central America. The United States has to be telling the Cuban Government that those plants will not be completed. But, no, the Clinton administration came up with CREWS, the Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System, that will allow for an immediate response because radiation will be detected if there is an accident. That is not acceptable. I ask all of my colleagues and the American people watching through C-SPAN to contact their Congressman or Congresswoman and tell him or her that they must tell the President of the United States that he must unequivocally state that these plants, these nuclear power plants in Cuba, cannot, will not, under any circumstances, be completed. This is an issue of extraordinary importance. With regard to the matters we are touching upon, which are why it is in the national interest of the United States, in addition to the moral prerequisites, the reasons for there to be a democratic transition in Cuba, Inside Magazine, Inside Magazine here in Washington, published an article last month and I would like to quote from it. It is a very brief article. Fidel Castro was, quote, among the principal sponsors of international terrorist Carlos the Jackal, according to a former senior Cuban Interior Ministry official. Juan Antonio Rodriguez Menier, who has lived under police protection in the United States for the past 13 years, told investigators that Castro supplied Carlos, that is the name this well-known terrorist goes by, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, with money, passports and apartments in Paris. Menier, this former Cuban intelligence official, alleges that the Cuban President, referring to Castro, organized drug trafficking in the United States, France, the Netherlands and elsewhere, and that Carlos was used by Castro to, ``put pressure on and execute the people he designated.'' Carlos, this terrorist, is serving a life sentence in France for the murder of two secret policemen and an informant. These are what threats exist. What are the reasons, again, Madam Speaker? The question is, in addition to the moral imperative, what are the reasons why it is in the national interest of the United States for there to be a democratic transition in Cuba? Why do we have an embargo on Castro that provides not only the only sanction against his brutality but the only leverage for the Cuban opposition, for the Cuban people to achieve a Democratic transition once Castro is gone from the scene? Why do we maintain an embargo? For all these reasons. Why is it in the United States' national interest for there to be a democratic transition in Cuba? For all these reasons that I have been mentioning. There was an unprecedented act of state terrorism against American citizens a little over 3 years ago. Castro ordered his own air force, not talking about Carlos the terrorist, but his own air force to shoot down American civil planes over international waters. That is the only time it has ever been done. Not even Saddam or the North Koreans have done that. Civilian planes over international waters by an act of state terrorism directly by an air force. The only time it has been done. It is unprecedented, as was noted by Judge Lawrence King in his wise and erudite decision in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida. In an unprecedented act, Castro ordered the murders by his own air force of U.S. citizens over international waters 3 years ago. Well, sometimes it is important to go back and read what was said at the time. This is March 11, 1996, 3 years ago. Time Magazine. In an exclusive conversation with Reginald Brack, chairman of Time, Joelle Addinger, Time's chief of correspondence, and Cathy Booth, the Miami bureau chief, Castro tried to explain and justify shooting down two defenseless planes. Question: What was the chain of command? Here is Castro's answer: We discussed it with Raul. That is his brother, head of the air defense forces in the military. We gave the order to the head of the air force. Castro continued saying, I take responsibility for what happened. Castro admits, he takes responsibility publicly for shooting down unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters. Unprecedented act of state terrorism. Where is the administration? The Clinton administration signed the codification of the embargo, that is true, and ever since then has systematically waived every part of the legislation that the administration has been able to waive. Sometimes it is important to realize why things were done. We are not talking about 30 years ago but 3 years ago. Now, Madam Speaker, it is important, I think, to go back to what the Center for Security Policy stated in its February 1999 report. Bottom line, it ended, the report, saying, ``In short, Fidel Castro's Cuba continues to represent a significant, if asymmetric, threat to the United States. The Clinton administration needs to be honest with the American people about these and other dangers, perhaps including the menace of biological or information warfare, which the President says he has seized. The Clinton administration must dispense with further efforts to cover up or low-ball them. Under these and foreseeable circumstances, it would be irresponsible to ease the U.S. embargo, and thereby not only legitimate, but offer life support to the still offensively oriented Castro regime.'' That was the Center for Security Policy, February 1999. Madam Speaker, I would ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The dictatorship in Cuba is economically bankrupt and obviously desperate. That is part of the danger, the desperation angle. For example, the fact that Castro would be so committed to completing two nuclear power plants whose design is so inherently faulty that everywhere where they had been completed in Eastern Europe they were closed down, proves he is desperate. He wants it complete, even those nuclear power plants. The dictatorship is bankrupt and desperate. The clear signs of that, for example, are that just a few days ago he went to the Dominican Republic, where the very mediocre President of the Republic there, who falls all over himself when he sees Castro, literally, just about; he drools in admiration. Castro was there and all of a sudden his number two bodyguard, and it is important to know what these bodyguards are in the context of Cuban society. They are the ones who have everything the people do not have, starting with the food and all the privileges and benefits. His personal bodyguards. Well, his number two personal bodyguard defected; responsible for waking Castro up and taking care of his life. If he cannot trust his number two bodyguard, of the hundreds of bodyguards he has, who can he trust? Obviously, he knows, no one. That is a sign of desperation. That is a sign of where the dictatorship is. People say, well, the policy has not functioned. What do they mean it has not functioned, when it has to be in place; conditioned, our embargo conditioned, its lifting conditioned on the three key developments that have to occur in Cuba, and that will occur in Cuba? In other words, the liberation of all political prisoners, legalization of political parties, labor unions and the press, and the scheduling of free elections. This is a desperate, bankrupt dictatorship that, obviously, everyone knows, even the supporters of the dictatorship, that it cannot survive the life of the dictator if we maintain the embargo, the leverage. Obviously, the dictatorship is desperate and bankrupt. Now, there is something I need to say, because I think it is fair. The UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva passed a resolution this last Friday condemning the human rights violations by the Castro regime. And I want to publicly commend, congratulate and show my admiration for the Czech Republic, who was the prime sponsor of the resolution, and the Polish Government as well. In other words, the Czech president, Vaclav Havel, and Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek, who were the prime sponsors of this resolution, this marvelous resolution, standing firm on the side of the Cuban people. And, really, those who voted for the governments, who voted for it, constitute a hall of fame and dignity at this time. And those who voted against it really constitute a hall of shame. It only passed by one vote, by the way, but it passed. Obviously, too many people, when we realize it passed by one vote, are in the hall of shame. But, nevertheless, the hall of fame prevailed. In favor: Argentina; Austria; Canada; Chile; the Czech Republic; Ecuador; France; Germany; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Latvia; Luxembourg; Morocco. By the way, I want to thank His Royal Highness King Hassan and the distinguished and brilliant Foreign Minister Mohammad Benaisa Benahista for their courageous stand. Norway; Poland; the Republic of Korea; Romania, that wonderful, heroic people; the United Kingdom, the United States of America; and Uruguay. A significant development in this last year, because there was a defeat in this resolution a year ago, a significant development was the naming by Secretary Albright of Assistant Secretary Coe, Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. He did a wonderful job, and he is to be commended. And then of course voting against, and I am not going to go into the entire list, but the fact that Latin American neighbors of the Cuban people, two of them voted against, Mexico and Brazil. The Mexican Government remains consistent in its policy of corruption in all aspects. And the new Venezuelan President, who wrote a letter by the way to Carlos the Jackal, the terrorist that I referred to previously, well, the new Venezuelan President wrote him a letter the other day congratulating him. That is the new President of Venezuela. And then abstaining, in other words, those who say, yes, I see the horrible violations of human rights but I do not have the courage or the whatever to vote to condemn them, abstaining was Colombia, El Salvador, and Guatemala. They may not be in the hall of shame but they sure are near. Madam Speaker, I think in addition to congratulating the people who those governments have voted for this resolution, and noting our disillusionment with those who abstained, and of course, our condemnation of those who voted against, I remain convinced that a great problem that the Cuban people face, the reason why there have been so many years of dictatorship there, one of the great reasons is the lack of press coverage. I ask my colleagues, I ask the American people watching on C-SPAN, did they read or see coverage of Castro's bodyguard defecting, the No. 2 bodyguard of a dictator that has been in power for 40 years? Did they read about it, hear about it? Was it in the news? Did they hear about this resolution that condemned the human rights violations? Did they read or hear about, did they see coverage about the crackdown that Castro was involved in against the Cuban people, the new law calling for up to 30 years of imprisonment for peaceful pro- democracy activity? Have they read about that? Have they seen coverage? Do they know about the four best known dissidents in Cuba, the, in effect, Vaclav Havels and Lech Walesas of Cuba, who bravely refused freedom in lieu of prison and were just sentenced to long prison terms for writing a document asking for free elections and criticizing one- party government? Have they read about their names: Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne, Rene Gomez Manzano, Marta Beatriz Roque? Had they heard about the prisoner that I referred to before, that PAX Christi Netherlands talked about his repeated beatings, a 33-year-old man condemned to 18 years in prison for peacefully advocating for democracy? Had they heard about Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez? Did they know about Oscar Elias Biscet or Leonel Morejon Almagro, who has been nominated by over 60 Members of this House for the Nobel Peace Prize, or Vicky Ruiz or the hundreds of other pro-democracy activists in Cuba, or the independent press who bravely each day fight for democracy or work to inform the world about the horrors, about what is going on? Have they read about that? Or did they read about the Baltimore Orioles or the Harlem Globetrotters playing with Cuba's national teams? Is that what we read about? That is the only thing that the press covers with regard to Cuba. How cute, the Baltimore Orioles or the Harlem Globetrotters playing Castro's designated national team. That is the only coverage, in essence, with very rare exceptions. It is time to help the internal opposition, Madam Speaker. A number of us are filing, we prepared legislation that basically tells the President of the United States, we in the Congress, we passed a law 3 years ago saying he is authorized to help the internal opposition in Cuba, to find ways to do it like we did in Poland, and he has not done it, and it is time that we do it and we are filing legislation to do so. It is time that the world learn the names of the Vaclav Havels and the Lech Walesas of Cuba. It is time that the world be able to put faces to those names and names to those faces. It is time to help the internal opposition. We will be filing this legislation. We need the support of our colleagues. It does not deal with the embargo. They can be pro-trade, anti-trade, or in the middle. They can stand for the Cuban people's right to be free by supporting this legislation that calls on the President to devise a plan, like was done by President Reagan in Poland, to help the internal opposition. And we talk to those now members of parliament in Poland or the President in the Czech Republic and they will tell us what it meant when we had a President in the United States who stood with them and found ways to help them when they were dissidents and when they were being persecuted by their communist totalitarian regimes. That is what we need to do in the case of Cuba. Cuba will be free. The Congress has always been on the side of the Cuban people. What we need is the President to speak up on this issue on these people 90 miles away, our closest friends, our closest neighbors, to stand on their side and against the repressor. We need the administration to be heard. The Congress is heard, will continue to be heard, has been heard. And we are going to file our legislation, and we need the support of our colleagues. I know we have it, because always the Congress of the United States have stood with the Cuban people. And the Cuban people, when they are free, they will remember this Congress for having stood always for their right to be free, for self-determination, for freedom for dignity, for free elections and against the horrors of their 40-year totalitarian nightmare.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Houston on this very sad day. In Colorado, parents are grieving their murdered sons and daughters. In the Balkans, Albanian refugees are running for their lives, having been kicked out of their homes by Serbian thugs who rape, torture, and kill their former neighbors. In central Africa, civil wars are rocking the Cargo furthering the horror started there by the genocidal murders of Hutus and Tutsis. In China, North Korea and Cuba, communist dictators continue to deny their citizens basic human rights and imprison anyone who dissents. That is the world today. But I rise, joining my colleagues, to remind the world of a genocide that happened 84 years ago in the part of the world we now call Turkey. On April 24, 1915 more than 200 Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders from Constantinople--what is Istanbul--were arrested and sent into exile. By silencing the leading representatives of the Armenian people, the government of the Ottoman Empire was able to proceed with its premeditated and methodical extermination of the Armenian people. Between 1915 and 1923, more than 1.5 million Armenian men, women and children were deported, forced into slave labor concentration camps, tortured, and murdered. The goal of this atrocity was to remove all traces of the Armenian people and their rich heritage from Anatolia. At the time, the world had not coined such terms as concentration camps, genocide, ethnic cleansing or holocaust. It is tragic that in this century we have had to come up with new words to describe Man's inhumanity to Man. And it is tragic that as we end this century, history is repeating itself as Serbs in Yugoslavia unleash their cruelty upon the Kosovar people. It is vital that we remember the countless victims of the Turkish genocide against the Armenians. We honor the memory of those killed and the bravery of those who, having been forced out of their homes and off their land, traveled throughout the world and re-established themselves in distant lands far from home. We remember, Mr. Speaker. We remember and we speak here today so that History will record that 80 years later, the victims of this genocide are not forgotten. It is important that people like Mr. Slobodan Milosevic and other tyrants around the world realize that we do not forget and we will not let the world forget the evils they perpetrate against their own people.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, a great poet, Dr. Justo Rodriguez Santos, recently passed away in New York. Dr. Rodriguez Santos was a man of extraordinary talent and sensitivity whose commitment to democracy and his fellow man will be enormously missed. Born in Santiago, Cuba in 1915, he received his doctorate in philosophy and literature from the University of Havana. His writings capture the human experience and demonstrate the triumph of the human spirit. Through his poetry and writings, he communicated his vision of the world with grace and flair. His wisdom and generous spirit will live on in the poems he left for us. He was a great Cuban who will always be remembered as a lover of freedom. I am privileged to personally know Mari R. Ichaso and Leon Ichaso, the very talented daughter and son of Dr. Rodriguez Santos. I send them and Dr. Rodriguez Santos' widow, Mrs. Antonia Ichaso Rodriguez, my sympathy and deep affection of this difficult time. Below is the obituary from the New York Times, dated April 13, 1999, that details further the life of this great Cuban poet. Justo Rodriguez Santos, 83, Expatriate Cuban Poet (By Nick Ravo) New York.--Justo Rodriguez Santos, a Cuban poet who became disenchanted with Fidel Castro in the 1960s, exiled himself from his native land and became an advertising executive in the United States, died on Wednesday at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan. He was 83. Rodriguez Santos was a minor member of Origenes, a prominent group of writers and painters founded by the poet Jose Lezema Lima in the 1930s and loosely linked to the American poet Wallace Stevens. The name Origenes was a play on words, meaning both origins and a church father; the group's work was strongly influenced by the Roman Catholic faith. Origenes was also the name the artists chose for an influential literary magazine they published from 1944 to 1954. ``It was a very important journal in the history of Latin American culture,'' said Roberto Gonzalez Echevarria, a professor of Hispanic and comparative literature at Yale University. Rodriguez Santos was born in Santiago, Cuba, on Sept. 28, 1915, and moved to Havana at an early age. He earned a degree at the University of La Salle in Havana and a doctorate in philosophy and literature from the University of Havana. He also worked in television and radio in Cuba. His books of poetry include ``Luz Cautiva'' (``Captive Light,'' 1936), ``La Belleza Que el Cielo No Amortaja'' (``The Beauty the Sky Will Not Shroud,'' 1950), ``El Diapason del Ventisquero'' (``Echoes of a Whirlwind,'' 1976), Los Naipes Conjurados y las Operas del Sueno'' (``The Conjured Cards and the Operas of Dreams,'' 1979 and 1989). He also wrote a nonfiction account of the Cuban revolution, ``The Moncada Epic: Poetry of History,'' in 1963. ``It was translated into several languages, and it was a favorite of Mao's,'' said Rodriguez Santos' daughter, Mari Rodriguez Ichaso of Manhattan. After the Cuban revolution in 1959, Rodriguez Santos wanted to stay in Cuba, although his wife and children left in 1963. In 1967, though, after a disheatening trip to China, he asked permission to emigrate. ``He was very in favor of democracy and felt betrayed by what he felt were the excess of the revolution,'' Ms. Rodriguez Ichaso said. Instead of receiving permission to leave, he was sent to a work on a tobacco farm, his books were withdrawn from library shelves and he was banned from the Cuban Writers Union. ``They converted him into a nonentity, a nonperson,'' Ms. Rodriguez Ichaso said. A year later and ailing, Rodriguez Santos was permitted to leave Cuba and settled in New York. In 1972, he was hired as director of advertising for Goya Foods in Secaucus, NJ. He retired from Goya in 1991. Besides his daughter, he is survived by his wife, Antonia Ichaso Rodriguez, and a son, Leon Ichaso, of New York.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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. House Resolution 136 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1143, the Microenterprise for Self-Reliance Act of 1999. The purpose of the legislation is to establish a program to provide assistance for programs of credit and other financial services for microenterprises in developing countries. The rule provides for the customary 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule waives clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report against consideration of the bill. In addition, the rule provides that the bill shall be read by section. The rule permits the Chair to grant priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments and considers them as read. Further, as has become standard practice in this Congress, the Chair is allowed to postpone recorded votes and to reduce the time for electronic voting on postponed votes, and finally the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, to keep with our record of fair rules for the 106th Congress, I am pleased to report that this resolution is yet another open rule that affords any Member the opportunity to offer any germane amendments. House Resolution 1143 is much needed legislation to enhance credit opportunities for microenterprises in developing countries. These businesses are so small, 10 or fewer employees, and the average loan is so low; most are less than $300; that they are thought of as microenterprises as opposed to small businesses. Microenterprises are the economy of the very poorest segment of the economy in developing countries, and estimates of their number range from one-third to perhaps one-half of the world's businesses. Microenterprises have been an area of interest for U.S. foreign assistance for many years. In 1994, the USIA, USAID, formally launched the microenterprise initiative in partnership with Congress to expand funding for that department's microenterprise programs. The summit's goal for that year was to target half of the microenterprise resources to serve the poorest with loans under $300. The ability to obtain credit is one of the most important factors in starting or expanding a microenterprise. Often these loan amounts are so low that a commercial bank would not find them profitable, or an entrepreneur has very little in the way of collateral, so the bank would consider them too risky. Yet most micro-loan institutions boast repayment rates of 97 percent or better, putting them at least on a par with major banks who lend to more affluent and traditional borrowers. I believe that supporting microentrepreneurs is an excellent investment in dramatically improving the quality of life of millions throughout the world. Providing access to loans can help low-income entrepreneurs expand their inventory or even hire additional employees and can truly enhance a person's self-esteem by giving him or her a genuine opportunity in life. In addition, microfinance can serve as a powerful tool for building a more inclusive financial sector which serves the broad majority of the world's population, including the very poor and women, and thus generates more social stability and prosperity. This legislation states that the United States should coordinate among the G-7 nations to bolster support for the microenterprise sector by leveraging our investment with that of other donor nations. H.R. 1143 appropriately makes microenterprise development an important component of U.S. foreign economic policy and assistance by expanding on the commitment of the USAID in its 1994 microenterprise initiative. I believe that in improving the access of the poorest, especially women, to much needed financial resources in developing countries will lead to the development of free, open and equitable international economic systems and contribute to the spread of freedom and human dignity in the world. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my dear colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and the others who have worked so hard on this legislation for their efforts in bringing this very important bipartisan bill forward. I strongly support H.R. 1143 and urge all of my colleagues to support both this open rule and the underlying important bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the distinguished chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and all the speakers who have so eloquently portrayed why the underlying legislation is so important and why we need to move forward with it today. I also support the rule. It is a fully open 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.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and achievements of Father Marcellin Champagnat (1789-1840), Founder of the Marist Brothers of the Schools. Born in France in 1789, Marcellin Champagnat grew up in an isolated rural area, where education was in a sorry state. Remembering his own intellectual deprivation as a child, he insisted to his companions, ``We must have Brothers, to catechize poor children and give them a basic education!'' That conviction became the driving force in his life and led to the foundation of a new teaching congregation in the Catholic church, the Marist Brother of the Schools. He began his dream in 1817, with two young parishioners, one that was illiterate and the other only fifteen years old. Dividing his time between his parish duties and his two new disciples he began to succeed little by little and by 1824, he had been released from parish duties in order to devote all his time and energy to the Brother and to the rapidly growing network of Marist Schools in France. Through it all, Father Champagnat displayed the same attitude as had St. Paul: ``We are often troubled, but not crushed; sometimes in doubt, but never in despair; there are many enemies, but we are never without a friend; and though badly hurt at times, we are not destroyed'' (2 Cor 4:8-9). Even after Father Champagnat's death, the Marist family continued to grow. In 1886 they came to the United States, where they now carry on their educational ministry in fourteen states and several overseas missions. On April 18th, Marcellin Champagnat will be honored by the Catholic Church when he will be canonized in a ceremony at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It is fitting and proper that we, too, honor Father Marcellin Champagnat.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, what is it that we are condemning today? Among the many things that have already been mentioned in terms of human rights violations, we must add the law that Castro and his puppet parliament passed last month that the Cuban people, by the way, have coined with the definition of the ``Titanic Law'' because they know that the regime, as the tyrant knows as well and those around him, that the regime dictatorship is going down. So Cuban people have called it the ``Titanic law,'' but, nevertheless, it is a savage law. It threatens with up to 30 years of imprisonment anyone who cooperates with the United States, whatever that means; in other words, anyone who peacefully, according to the slanderous regime, advocates or works for a democratization of Cuba. In addition, the regime arrested March 1 over 100 dissidents and journalists and took to trial the four best-known opposition leaders in the country and then sentenced them, as my colleagues have mentioned. So these specifically are among the actions that we in Congress are condemning formally today. How are we doing it? We are condemning in the strongest possible terms the ongoing crackdown on internal opposition in the independent press, specifying that actions such as the sentencing of Rene Gomez Manzano and Vladimiro Roca and Marta Beatriz Roque and Felix Bonne, the sentencing of those four best-known opposition leaders and the crackdown must be condemned in the strongest possible terms, as also the crackdown on the brave independent press. We also reaffirm the profound admiration and strong solidarity in support of the Congress of the United States of the internal opposition. We reaffirm our support for the Cuban people's right to be free by demanding three very clear specific actions of the Cuban dictatorship. We demand that the Cuban dictatorship liberate all political prisoners, legalize all political parties, the press and labor unions, and agree to free and fair elections. We, as my colleagues have stated, urge the administration as well to increase its efforts to secure a resolution of condemnation of the regime for its human rights violations in Geneva, and ask that the administration also appoint an official to advocate throughout the international community for the reestablishment of the rule of law in Cuba. Today, the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker, reaffirms its historic support for the Cuban people's right to be free, something that, to the credit and honor of this Congress, that Congress has done since 1898. So in the best tradition of the United States Congress, we stand once again with the Cuban people, demand freedom, free elections, democracy for the Cuban people, and reiterate to the world that we will continue to stand with the Cuban people until they are free, and they will soon be free.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on International Relations at this time is marking up a very important resolution condemning the Cuban government, the dictator Castro, for its latest and ongoing Stalinist crackdown against the internal opposition and the independent press. Among the scores and scores and scores of well-known dissidents and independent press members who have been arrested in recent weeks are the most distinguished members of the internal opposition in Cuba, and the four best known and also very distinguished members of the internal opposition, Felix Bonne Carcasses, Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, Vladimioro Roca Antunez, and Rene Gomez Manzano. These individuals were tried in a farcical and secret proceeding on March 1, and only a few days ago, this week in fact, Castro announced the sentences: 5 and 4 and 3\1/2\ year sentences for those dissidents. Now, the internal opposition is working intensely and valiantly in Cuba to draw international attention to Castro's deplorable human rights violations and continues to strengthen and grow in its opposition to the dictatorship. At this time of great repression, it is indeed proper and necessary that the international community, as this Congress is doing at this time and will do next week, demonstrates its firm and unwavering support and solidarity with the internal opposition and the independent press. What is remarkable and unexplainable and condemnable is that while, correctly so, even many of Castro's best commercial allies, such as Canada and the European Union and Latin American states, have rightfully condemned Castro's recent crackdown, and the government of Spain is reevaluating its decision to send the king of Spain there in the next weeks, and the members of the Ibero-American Summit are reevaluating their decision to go to the summit in Havana later on this year, while all that is taking place based on this crackdown by the Cuban dictator, what is the Clinton-Gore administration doing? The Clinton-Gore administration has reiterated its intent to send the Baltimore Orioles to Cuba. I know that is unbelievable at this stage as well as in ultimate bad taste. I would say it demonstrates a perfidious bad faith. Because while the Clinton-Gore team says that it is a people-to-people exchange, the Baltimore Orioles will be going to Cuba to a stadium filled by Castro's people. Castro will decide who gets to go to the stadium, Castro will be at the stadium, and he will receive the public relations banquets that will be provided to him by virtue of the fact of this diplomatic gesture of the Clinton-Gore administration. So I call upon the Clinton-Gore administration to stop its hypocrisy. If the administration is going to condemn the crackdown, condemn the crackdown. They should not say they are going to condemn the crackdown and then say they are sending the Baltimore Orioles, which is what they are doing. So I denounce that as hypocritical, and I denounce that as unconscionable. At this time, more than ever, the Cuban people deserve and merit and require the unwavering support of the international community, including the government of the United States. I call upon this government to act in a way consistent with its moral and legal obligations to stop its hypocrisy; to cancel this game of Mr. Angelos and the other supercapitalists who want to go and do business with the apartheid economy of Castro, and to say that this is not the time, while the dictatorship is in its last gasps, to be sending little baseball games for the pleasure, entertainment and publicity feast of a moribund dictatorship. So if there is any dignity left in that White House, I say cancel the Orioles' little game and be consistent with the ethical and constitutional and legal requirements of the moment and stand with a people who have suffered for 40 years and are deserving of the same democracy and self-determination and human rights that has spread throughout the rest of the hemisphere. Mr. Speaker, It is a privilege for me to join my distinguished colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in sponsoring this important and timely resolution along with its other distinguished sponsors from both sides of the isle. The Cuban dictatorship's repressive crackdown against the brave internal opposition and the independent press must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The internal opposition and independent press of Cuba have our profound admiration and firm solidarity. This resolution by the United States House of Representatives condemns Castro's stalinist crackdown on the brave internal opposition and the independent press, and demands of the Cuban dictatorship, as the entire international community must, the release of all political prisoners, the legalization of all political parties, labor unions and the press, and the scheduling of free and fair, internationally supervised elections. Martin Luther King rightfully declared that an injustice anywhere constitutes an affront to justice everywhere. Now more than ever it is incumbent upon the entire international community, as the U.S. House of Representatives is hereby doing, to demonstrate its firm solidarity with the oppressed people of Cuba and with the brave Cuban internal opposition and the independent press.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I feel obliged to reject the allegation that Congress would be responsible for atrocities based on the fact that we are bringing forth this resolution as a sovereign representative body of the American people. I am unaccustomed to citing, to quoting The Washington Post, Mr. Speaker, but I feel at this time that I must. The Washington Post editorial today says, ``It is a bad time for Congress to debate whether the United States should send troops to help police any peace reached in Kosovo. But there is no better time left, and Congress has good reason to proceed.'' The Washington Post continues by saying, ``The President ought to be asking forthrightly for congressional approval, not trying to evade a congressional judgment on his policy in Kosovo.'' So with all respect, I tell my colleagues that it is not fair, based on a policy disagreement, which is genuine and which is most appropriate to say that we would be responsible for atrocities or horrors that are based on unexplainable and historical reasons in that part of the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes 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, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 103 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble). (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)