Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 454 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I believe that even in the short period of time that we have discussed this rule it has become apparent, especially because of the significance of the date that we bring this rule to the floor, the date that we are acting, it has become apparent, the importance of this statement that the House will be making very clearly pursuant to the resolution that is being brought to the floor by this rule. This is a date, the 4th of June, that will forever be recalled as an infamous date, as a date where unarmed people who represented the dignity of an entire nation were slaughtered by the weapons in possession of a totalitarian dictatorship that is still in power, that, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) stated, has not only not acknowledged its crime but continues to perpetuate crimes. We have recently learned that the Chinese government is in the business of selling organs, human organs from prisoners, and if the price is right they will simply shoot the prisoner and sell the organ. That is the regime we are talking about. It is a regime that now Mr. Clinton, the President of the United States, is going to visit, and even though I still find it hard to believe, he apparently is going to be received officially for his state visit at the square where those thousands of Chinese innocent students were slaughtered. What pleasure, what profound and limitless pleasure would be obtained by the Chinese murderers if the President of the United States, the elected leader not only of the only superpower in the world but the ethical and moral leader of the world, agrees to be received by that regime of thugs in the same physical place where thousands of students were murdered for believing in the ideals that are also the ideals of the United States of America. And so what we will be saying in this resolution is, ``No, Mr. President, if you think you have to go, and we think you shouldn't, but if you think you have to go, at the very least do not give the Chinese thugs the ultimate pleasure of showing their people that the President of the United States of America is willing to receive honors in the same place where the blood of the Chinese people flowed in rivers simply some years ago, a few years ago now. No, that is unacceptable.'' That is what we are saying in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inform the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) we have no other speakers, and I would inquire as to whether he does.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and granted a closed rule to House Concurrent Resolution 285. The rule provides for consideration of the concurrent resolution in the House with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader, or his designee, and a Member opposed. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, today is the ninth anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. It was on June 4, 1989, that the Chinese tyranny killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of students who were peacefully calling for democracy in that square. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in a letter asked us if we might wear a sign, and I am wearing here on my lapel a sign of memory, in memory of, the valiant students who were massacred that day, the unarmed representatives of the Chinese people who were massacred that day. It is a date that will be recalled by history in infamous terms, in the most infamous of terms. This month, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States seeks to become the first U.S. President to visit China since the brutal massacre of 1989, and we are informed that the President of the United States plans to commence his visit to China by attending ceremonies with the Chinese hierarchy precisely at Tiananmen Square. That act, if in fact it takes place, that the President of the United States take part in a ceremony in Tiananmen Square, that act, if it takes place, will be a condemnable act, Mr. Speaker. Now in the past weeks we have learned that the President of the United States may, may have turned a blind eye as wealthy campaign contributors harmed our national security by helping the Chinese communists improve their ballistic warheads. We have learned that the President of the United States may have accepted campaign donations from the Chinese army, the communist Chinese army, at the same time that he changed United States policy to benefit the Chinese Communist missile program. We have learned that the President of the United States may have ignored his own Secretary of State and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon and allowed his campaign donors to help the Chinese communist military. And we have also learned that the President of the United States may have intervened personally to stop the Department of Justice's investigation into this matter. Now the facts as we are learning them are deeply disturbing, and it is quite obvious that we do not know all the facts. These are serious matters, Mr. Speaker. The Chinese government, the Chinese Communist government, has at least 13 missiles aimed right now at United States cities. It would indeed be shocking if the President of the United States helped China to make those missiles more accurate. It is clear that the American people deserve a thorough and complete explanation of the facts, and so unless and until we get such an explanation, we believe that the President should reconsider his visit at the very least to Tiananmen Square. We think that the Tiananmen Square visit is without any justification and is inherently not only unjustifiable but insensitive as well. And so that is what the resolution that is being brought to the floor today in essence is all about, Mr. Speaker. It expresses the sense of Congress that President Clinton should reconsider his decision to be formally received by the Chinese tyranny in Tiananmen Square until the Government of China, of the Peoples Republic of China, acknowledges that Tiananmen Square massacre, pledges that such atrocities will never happen again, and releases those Chinese students that still to this moment remain in prison for supporting freedom and democracy in China. Nine years ago today thousands of Chinese students peacefully gathered in Tiananmen Square to demonstrate their support for freedom and for democracy while soldiers of the Chinese regime, the Chinese Communist regime, were ordered to fire machine guns and tanks on unarmed civilians. Now according to the Chinese Red Cross, more than 2,000 Chinese pro democracy activists, demonstrators, Chinese citizens who believed in the right of the Chinese people to have self determination and freedom, thousands died that day at the hands of the Chinese tyrants. And so that is why this simple resolution is just and proper, and that is why on this anniversary that we bring it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 3630, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 3808, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 168, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Amendment A-3 Offered By Mr. Hefley

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 430, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and others, and especially the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) who worked so hard on this legislation, so diligently. In the last weeks we have witnessed a series of diplomatic gestures which served as blank checks of acceptance for the actions of tyrants and thugs. The U.N. Human Rights Commission failed to take up a resolution on China completely. The U.N. Human Rights Commission voted down a resolution condemning the tyranny in Cuba, despite an increase in repression there in recent months. The President, as I mentioned before, is going to be received officially in the next weeks when he goes to Communist China at Tiananmen Square. There can be no clearer message to the Chinese people of what that means in terms of acquiescence to the conduct of that regime, of brutality, and of inhumanity. This very week the First Lady is going to stay in the same hotel in Geneva as the Cuban tyrant. Is there no other hotel that could have been chosen by the Government of the United States in Switzerland? What kind of message does that send to the ongoing repression that is being suffered at this point by the Cuban people? I remember Dr. Veguilla, a constituent of mine now, who was expelled from Cuba because he was an evangelical; and he still is an evangelical minister. Because of his religion and his activities in Cuba, he was placed by the Cuban dictatorship in a cell with a bear as a form of tyranny. It is to the Dr. Veguillas of the world who, today we say, we remember you, the United States of America stands with you and the conduct of brutal regimes made up of thugs will not only not be acquiesced, but will be condemned by the people's House, in representation of the sovereign people of the United States of America. I would urge passage of this rule and passage of the underlying legislation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has said. I think we have to recognize that we have a coalition of interests opposing us that, in effect, want there to be absolutely no sanctions on any sort of conduct anywhere in the world, and that the law of the world should be if there is a buck to be made anywhere, no matter what the conditions, no matter under what the circumstances, no matter if it is dealing in or contributing to the most horrendous conduct conceivable, that that is acceptable. That is the coalition against us. The message that we will send out today to that coalition, to the world and to those who are imprisoned, is that we will not be defeated, and that we are going to continue to make progress. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my dear friend, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), a leader in human rights throughout the world.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, 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, this rule, House Resolution 430, is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2431, The Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1998. The admirable purpose of this legislation is to reduce the widespread and ongoing religious persecution taking place, unfortunately, in many places in the world today. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, which had primary jurisdiction over the legislation. Because the bill was referred to five committees for their consideration, and three of those committees reported varying versions of the bill, a new bill for the purpose of amendment, H.R. 3806, was introduced last week. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules announced on the House floor on May 7 that the bill, H.R. 3806, would be used as the base text for purposes of amendment. The rule, therefore, makes in order as an original bill for purposes of amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3806 as modified by the amendments in Part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which allows for a broad range of amendments on a very narrowly focused bill. The goal of the bill is to combat religious persecution, and clearly all forms of persecution are to be condemned. But the crafters of this bill, as I stated, created a very focused religion-specific bill to make clear that we are focusing on one particular aspect of unacceptable persecution which must, must be combated. Thus, the bill was not brought with an amendment, for example, from the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) who offered an amendment which would have expanded the scope of the bill to cover all forms of persecution prohibited by the Geneva Convention. It was felt by the framers of the legislation, however, that this bill, to have an opportunity to be considered and to have an opportunity for passage, should be framed as specifically and narrowly as it has been. I believe that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), when he moves forward, if he does, with his concept, will get tremendous support on a bipartisan basis. I certainly would be supportive of the effort by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), but I think that it is important to keep in mind what the purpose of this bill is. It is a very focused, I would maintain, modest and reasonable and, hopefully, achievable piece of legislation to focus on upon that egregious and condemnable practice which occurs all too often in different parts of the world, religious persecution. I would urge my colleagues to support both this fair rule and the underlying bill. The bill prohibits Federal agencies and U.S. persons from exporting goods to entities engaged in religious persecution. I think that is an important step to demonstrate that we are serious about condemning and opposing that unconscionable practice. Mr. Speaker, though the bill has been limited in the process of amendment and of discussion, this is a very important piece of legislation that we are dealing with today. I would say it is somewhat of a definitional piece of legislation for this Congress at this particular moment in our history. I often think about what we have witnessed in the last years and the fact that we are in a transitional moment. I often think about the fact that, while doubtless, we saw an ``evil empire,'' as President Reagan often called it, collapse, I wonder what it is that has won. What is it that has won? And what kind of world is it that we are walking into at this stage in our history? In a certain sense that is what we are discussing. That is what will be discussed and debated with this particular legislation. We have to decide, ultimately, if what we accept and what we wish to embrace as a society and as a world, as an international community, is ethics as some sort of guide, some sort of factor in human conduct; or whether we are officially going to embrace the law of the jungle, if we are going to simply embrace the concept, as Dostoyevsky said when he pointed out that in his belief, those who say that God does not exist in effect are saying that anything is possible. In other words, if the concept of ethics will have no relevance whatsoever, then we might as well officially proclaim that in this era in which we are living. So what the framers have done, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), and so many others who have worked so tirelessly on this legislation, through this legislation, this very focused legislation, is to say that that particular egregious conduct, religious persecution, torture, being put into a dungeon, into a cage, being tortured or killed because of a human being's religious beliefs and practices is going to be officially, by the United States Congress, condemned today. Even though there are all sorts of waivers, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) stated earlier, and he will state subsequently, in his legislation for the President, the same President who will be, according to what I am told, standing, in just a few weeks, at Tiananmen Square, being received officially by the Chinese Government with all the symbolism that that means in the world of diplomacy, that there could be no other place to be received in Beijing except Tiananmen Square. Even though this bill, as focused as it is, as limited as it is, grants multiple waiver authority to the President of the United States, it is, nonetheless, a very important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is going to be watched. What we do today is going to be watched throughout the world and, most especially, by those who languish in dungeons and in caves and who are tortured and oppressed because of their religious views and practices. So I would urge my colleagues to not only support this fair rule, but the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend the framers of the legislation. I have great admiration for all of them: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), of course, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), who is here, my dear friend on the other side of the aisle and to whom I have yielded the customary 30 minutes on this rule, a tireless champion, as well, for human rights and human decency throughout this world. I thank them all for their hard work on this legislation and other similar pieces of legislation that have dignified this Congress in the past. So I would urge my colleagues to support the rule. I know that we have the distinguished presence here of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) who will be speaking on the rule, also, by the way, an extraordinary fighter for human rights. 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), my distinguished colleague and friend.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes, we can certainly attempt to discuss the substantive legislation that that rule is bringing forward.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The rule brings this legislation to the floor.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Not under the rule, no.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No, the rule does not.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, that is not a question on the rule, that is a question on the Commission set up by the legislation that is brought to the floor on the rule. If the gentleman says he has a question on the rule, I will be glad to answer it.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) from our side had asked for time to speak. I do not see him here at this time. I saw previously the chairman from the Committee on Ways and Means. We are more than ready to commence when the other side wishes the 3 hours of general debate that we have incorporated into the rule provided by the rule on this issue. And as I have stated, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, will be here throughout that entire period to answer any questions on the legislation that distinguished Members from the other side of the aisle may have.

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 the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 410 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration in the House of H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for a national dialogue on Social Security and to establish a very important bipartisan panel to design a long-range solution for Social Security. The rule provides for 3 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides for the consideration of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record, if offered by the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which shall be considered as read and debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this discussion on Social Security. I think it is an issue of vital importance not only to America's seniors but to all Americans. Social Security is not only a cherished program, it is perhaps the most popularly supported as well as vital of government programs. I wish to remind my colleagues that we are debating legislation to create a national dialogue on this issue, but we are not at this time proposing actual changes in the Social Security system. Because of this, I am of the belief that 3 hours of debate on the bill, plus 1 hour on this rule, in other words, 4 hours of debate on this issue, is more than enough time to debate this important issue. This is not a controversial piece of legislation. If the minority wishes to amend this bill, they will have two opportunities to do so, as I have stated, with an amendment which is printed in the Congressional Record already. And, additionally, they could attempt to do so with a motion to recommit with instructions. We were given, Mr. Speaker, some good news with Tuesday's annual report of the board of trustees of the Social Security program: The board's projection that we will have 3 more years than originally anticipated before Social Security pays out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes. That is encouraging data. However, I think that it drives home the point that we need to work together as a Nation on a bipartisan basis, putting aside partisan politics, to create a stable, a long-term, thoughtful and effective solution to the retirement security system in the United States. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support H.R. 3546, the National Dialogue on Social Security Act of 1998. I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), for his hard work on this legislation and urge my colleagues to support the rule. 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 410 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Certainly. And any other questions, I would be willing to attempt to answer them. But the chairman is here, and the 3 hours will be controlled by the chairman on the substantive measure that we brought to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.