Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 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 126 is an open rule providing for the consideration of House Resolution 1273, the National Science Foundation Act of 1997. The purpose of this legislation is to authorize the activities of the National Science Foundation for the fiscal years 1998 and 1999. House Resolution 126 provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. After general debate, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill. Each title shall be considered as read. Further, the Chair will be authorized to grant priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record, and the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. As is well known, Mr. Speaker, the National Science Foundation funds research and education activities in all fields of science and engineering at colleges and universities throughout the United States, and, Mr. Speaker, similar to the previous rule, the rule that we just adopted, this rule, 126, is open, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I am placing the Council of Khalistan's press release on a recent tragedy into the Record. Press reports have recently stated that in attempting to capture an alleged terrorist, Indian police officers killed two adults and a 3-year-old child. The death of a 3-year-old child must shock the conscience of the international community. I call on the Indian Government to conduct a full and exhaustive investigation into this tragedy and to punish all those responsible. Justice delayed is, truly, justice denied. We must always remember, in the eloquent words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that an injustice anywhere is an affront to justice everywhere. [From the Council of Khalistan, Dec. 17, 1996] Indian Regime Murders 3\1/2\-Year-Old Labels Toddler ``Terrorist'' Washington, DC.--A story in the December 10 issue of The Hitavada, an Indian newspaper, reported that a 3\1/2\-year- old Sikh boy was murdered by the police, then the police claimed that he was a ``terrorist'' who was killed in an ``encounter.'' According to the story, the police murdered little Arvinder Singh, his father Jaswinder Singh, and the young boy's maternal uncle along the Grand Trunk Road to collect bounty money which was offered for the killing of militants. These Sikhs were not militants. The family has not been given the bodies because they were cremated. The police attached phony identities to the bodies of these victims using the names of known militants. Then they claimed bounty money for killing these militants. When the boy's grandfather brought a complaint against the police, Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Iqbal Singh stated that a three-year-old boy could not be a ``terrorist,'' according to the article. According to the Hitavada article, witnesses were coerced into supporting the police version of the incident by testifying that the bullets which killed these Sikhs did not come from the police weapons. The court ordered India's Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the killing of little Arvinder Singh and to submit its report promptly. ``If India has to murder a 3\1/2\-year-old child to keep its brutal, corrupt empire together, then freedom for Khalistan cannot be far behind,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. Khalistan is the Sikh homeland which declared its independence on October 7, 1987. ``This incident is a clear reflection of the immorality of the Indian regime and the character of the Punjab Police, who do not hesitate to kill their brothers and sisters to make themselves rich,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``They do not realize that they are pushing future generations into the darkness of continued repression,'' he added. Dr. Aulakh called on the U.S. government to take strong measures to punish this brutality. ``I urge the Administration and Congress to cut off U.S. aid to India, place an embargo on India like the one America had on South Africa before Apartheid ended, and support freedom for Khalistan and all the other freedom-seeking nations of the subcontinent,'' he said. ``This kind of brutal repression is unacceptable. Freedom-loving nations like the United States must not tolerate it,'' he said. ``If Indian police are killing toddlers like Arvinder Singh and labelling them as terrorists,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``Then the world has a moral and legal obligation to isolate India until they are ready to join the ranks of civilized nations and peacefully end its occupation of Khalistan and other South Asian nations; so that democracy in South Asia can be a reality and not a well cultivated lie.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time. I am sorry that my friends on the other side of the aisle do not seem to grasp that one of the essences of democracy is permanent dissatisfaction. I am among those who believe that the resolution that came out of the Committee on International Relations, decertifying the Mexican Government for its blatant and obvious actions, is not fulfilling the responsibilities of all governments in fighting drug trafficking. I would have supported that resolution if I had been in the Committee on International Relations, and would have preferred that it be the final product today in this House. But as a consequence of a negotiation, a bipartisan negotiation, a very intense negotiation over the last couple of days, there is an amendment that is made in order by this rule that I fully support, an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], that while not satisfying many of us, I think at least moves forward in a way that both sides of the aisle and all positions should appreciate this morning. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] says that it postpones decertification of the Mexican Government for 90 days, and gives an opportunity to the Mexican Government to show good faith in very concrete ways in the field against the fight against narcotrafficking within these 90 days, and avoid decertification if those steps are taken. I think that is a reasonable measure, a reasonable measure that both sides of the aisle should support. People from the border States as well as from the rest of the country should support and express gratitude to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] and the Speaker and all others who have so diligently worked for that compromise on both sides of the aisle. However, I think that even a more important aspect of the Hastert amendment is that this obviously hypocritical and fatally flawed certification process is put under the microscope, and a commission will be created to look at this process, a process that while it says that the Colombian Government, and obviously there is a very serious allegation of the President of Colombia having taken money directly from drug traffickers during his campaign, that is a very serious allegation; while Colombia is decertified, though Colombia has perhaps given the largest quota of blood against the narcotraffickers, the soldiers, the policemen of Colombia, they have given the largest quota of blood against the drug traffickers programs in the entire hemisphere, yet they are decertified. At the same time, the Mexican Government, infiltrated to the teeth by narcotraffickers, infiltrated to the extent that hours after our President certified Mexico, a major drug trafficker was let out and apparently given a Mercedes to leave, despite that, Mexico was certified and Colombia is decertified. And wait a minute. The most corrupt government in the hemisphere, even more corrupt than the PRI government, the government of gangsters, by gangsters and for gangsters, the government of the dictator Castro, no, our Government said no, they should not be on the list of people that have to be certified. They are cooperating, Castro is cooperating. That is what the administration says, despite the fact that I have on video our local drug-fighting authorities in south Florida saying that over 50 percent of the cocaine that comes in through the Caribbean comes by and through Cuba, and yet the Clinton administration says no, they should not be on the list. This certification process is flawed, it is hypocritical, it is discriminatory, it has to be put under the microscope. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] does that. Let us look at this process, let us see if there is a better way to cut back on drug trafficking, to reduce consumption and avoid the politicization of this process which is obviously occurring, and I think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would agree. So let us support the Hastert amendment, let us be bipartisan, let us be serious, and let us avoid petty politics.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, a plea has gone out by the President of the National Commission, Jose Marti, the National Commission on Human Rights in Cuba, Professor Amador Blanco Hernandez, for three political prisoners who are in a very, very difficult situation right now. They have been on a hunger strike since February 20 because of the brutal, inconceivably inhumane conditions that they have been facing. One of them, and I will read their names, Juan Bruno Lopez Vazquez, Herminio Gonzalez Torna, and one of them, Levin Cordova Garcia, is near death. Now, Professor Blanco Hernandez is seeking some signs of solidarity and outrage in the international community. I today remember and my thoughts go out to all the Cuban political prisoners, but especially to these three, such dignified representatives of the Cuban people who are facing that extraordinarily difficult situation, and have had to embark on hunger strikes to try to get some attention of the world community so that their conditions will be looked at and pressure will be put on the Cuban dictatorship so that their conditions can improve. Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since President Clinton signed the Helms-Burton law, March 12, 1996. Sometimes it seems difficult to believe that it has been only a year, considering all that has happened since. Not just Castro but all those who seek to take advantage of the degradation and exploitation imposed by the dictator on the Cuban people received a blow by the adoption of Helms-Burton. With urgency, those who have invested or who are thinking of doing so in Castro's feudal, antiworker, slave economy have had to reconsider their actions or their intentions in light of the risk of being physically excluded from the world's largest market, the United States. That is why the European Union, in an act that classifies it as an unscrupulous merchandiser, has taken its complaint against U.S. sanctions to the World Trade Organization. The strongest blow in Helms-Burton against those who seek the definitive consolidation of the degradation of the Cuban people, of the oppression and the humiliation that they have to bear at the hands of the Castro brothers and the handful of their minions who also live the ``dolce vita,'' however, is not what is most discussed and debated about Helms-Burton. It has nothing to do with the exclusion of foreigners from the United States who knowingly traffic in properties stolen from Americans, nor with lawsuits against those traffickers. What is most painful for those who seek the permanence of the oppression of the Cuban people is that the United States sanctions against the dictatorship can no longer be lifted by the President until there is a genuine Democratic transition on the island. Castro's defenders and the unscrupulous merchandisers had great hopes for President Clinton. They saw how he, in coordination with some large business interests, lifted the embargo on Vietnam and reestablished diplomatic relations with that country. With normalization of relations, a wide gamut of credits and other financing possibilities are opened to those who seek to do business with a recently legitimized regime. They sought the same for Cuba. It does not matter that Castro has no money to buy anything from the unscrupulous merchandisers. The financing mechanisms would take care of that. That is what they are there for. That is why those financing mechanisms have money from the United States taxpayer. Ever since Helms-Burton, the dreams that some had of being able to obtain massive financing for lucrative business deals with the Cuban dictator have gone down the drain. Congress has made absolutely clear that the President cannot lift the embargo and facilitate credits for those who seek to profit from deals in Cuba, nor authorize massive United States tourism to Cuba, until there is a government in Cuba that respects the Cuban people, a government that liberates all political prisoners, that legalizes all political activity and that agrees to hold free and fair elections. That requirement in Helms-Burton, known as the codification of the embargo, is definitive and will be decisive in Cuba's salvation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of being a member of a delegation from our Congress to the European Parliament. Occasionally meetings take place between parliamentarians from Europe and from the United States. As I say, I had the privilege of being part of our delegation, led by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. I had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians and leaders from various capitals of the European Union to delve, to dive into a number of very difficult challenges facing Europe at this moment. For example, there was the issue of the necessary peace in Northern Ireland, an extraordinarily difficult challenge for the good people of that area, and the amount of learning that I did was truly, I think, interesting on that very complicated issue because of the importance that this issue holds, not only for, obviously, the people of Ireland but for the people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, what was interesting about every single meeting, what was constant about every single meeting that we had with leaders from different capitals in the European Union, is that with regard to our legislation, the legislation that we in Congress here in the United States adopted a year ago on Cuba, there is a tremendous amount of disinformation, misinformation, lack of knowledge, as I say, Mr. Speaker, that was manifested time and time again in meetings that we held with European leaders from throughout the capitals of the European Union. It was extraordinary that time and time again, we had to explain to the Europeans that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act passed by this Congress, commonly referred to as the Helms-Burton legislation, when it sanctions foreigners who traffic in stolen property, property stolen by the Cuban dictator, we had to explain time and time again to European leaders that the legislation deals with and applies to only property stolen from American citizens. I was flabbergasted at the ignorance demonstrated time and time again by the European leaders on this issue. They talked about what they referred to as the extraterritoriality of our legislation. We would tell them that even though we would have liked to see a ban on investment in the slave economy that Castro in Cuba maintains, we cannot do that, and we did not do that in the legislation we passed a year ago; legislation, by the way, Mr. Speaker, which was exactly 1 year ago today, February 26, endorsed by President Clinton after, 2 days earlier, four American citizens or residents of the United States were cruelly, viciously, unjustifiably murdered over international waters in unarmed civilian aircraft by the Castro dictatorship, pursuant to the direct and explicit order previously given by the Cuban dictator. So it was 2 days after that happened, that act of terrorism, which was subsequently found to be an act of terrorism, totally unjustified, unjustifiable by the United Nations, it was 2 days after that act of terrorism by the Cuban dictator that President Clinton endorsed publicly what was then a bill, legislation pending before Congress, and a few days after that, on March 12, 1996, President Clinton signed the legislation into law. What was amazing, Mr. Speaker, was that in meeting after meeting Europeans did not know, when they would refer to extraterritoriality, that the only extraterritoriality in this debate, the only extraterritorial conduct in this debate is what the Europeans now are seeking to justify, which is that their investors, they say, should have the right to knowingly go into Cuba and traffic in property stolen from American citizens. That conduct is extraterritorial, Mr. Speaker. That is not conduct that is taking place in Europe. That conduct which they are seeking to defend, that indefensible conduct, is extraterritorial. It is taking place in another hemisphere, in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in the oppressed island of Cuba. That is the only extraterritorial conduct at issue in this debate, the unjustifiable conduct they are trying to defend. What our law does, what our law says in its immigration chapter, is that if you are a foreigner who knowingly traffics, deals in property stolen from an American citizen, and after having the opportunity to divest from that stolen property you fail to do so, in other words, you knowingly and purposefully, and after having the opportunity to divest do not do so, continue to deal in stolen property from American citizens, that then under our immigration laws you are excluded from the United States. We have said we do not want people to be admitted to the United States who knowingly deal in stolen property from American citizens. So we had to explain that to Europeans, and we were, as I say, shocked at the amount of ignorance they manifested in meeting after meeting. But they not only have manifested ignorance on this issue, Mr. Speaker. They have gone so far as to take this issue, this foreign policy decision made by the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States to respond to the acts of terrorism by the Cuban regime, the legislation that was signed into law, they have taken that law and they have challenged it formally, filed a grievance, a suit, if you will, formally against that legislation in a trade organization, in the World Trade Organization. As Members know, the World Trade Organization was founded, was created in the last round of what is known as or was known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT. There were many years of negotiations that culminated in what is known as the Uruguay Round, and that negotiation set up the World Trade Organization. It is to settle trade disputes when a country sets tariffs unjustifiably on another country. Mr. Speaker, in response to an act of terrorism by a state that is on our list of terrorist nations--and there are only a handful of states on our list of terrorist states in the State Department, there is Iraq and there is Libya, there is North Korea, and there is Iran, and Communist Cuba--in response to an act of terrorism over international waters by that dictatorship, we passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act a year ago. I think the most important thing we did in that legislation was that we set forth a blueprint for relations by the United States with not only the dictatorship now in Cuba, but during the transition and reconstruction after the inevitable collapse of the dictatorship in Cuba. We said that there have to be, by the Cuban transitional government at the time of precisely the transition, there have to be three main conditions that have to be met before the President of the United States is authorized to normalize relations with a Cuban transitional government, and then to offer not only the lifting of sanctions, obviously, but the generosity of the American people, and we are confident of the international community at that time as well, to reconstruct Cuba from the destruction that has been brought about by this horrible regime that has oppressed and continues to oppress the Cuban people for more than three decades. That is what we did in the legislation. We said that for the President of the United States to be able to normalize relations with a Cuban transitional government, that Cuban transitional government has to free all political prisoners, agree to legalize all political activity--that is, not interfere with people's opinions, not jail them because of their beliefs--and agree to hold free and fair elections within a reasonable time. That is the only thing we are saying has to occur before the President of the United States can normalize relations with a Cuban transitional government. That I think is the most important thing we did in the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, the Helms-Burton law, because it will be very important at the time of the transition in Cuba for there to be, once there is no longer a situation where there is a demented tyrant ruling over Cuba, a situation where they know, whoever is in a transition situation in Cuba, that not only will the U.S. sanctions be lifted, but there will be access to the U.S. market, and everything else we have included in that blueprint for relations between the United States and Cuba. All they have to do, all the Cuban transitional government would have to do basically is to respect the Cuban people with those essential conditions I have outlined; no more political prisoners, no more prohibition on political activity, and the commitment to hold free and fair elections. We had to explain this time and time again to the Europeans. They did not know this. They have read in the media, in press and heard in the media, that we have what they say is an extraterritorial ban on investment in Cuba. We would have to point out, as I say, time and time again, no, it is just that we say that if a foreigner knowingly traffics in property stolen from Americans, then pursuant to our immigration laws we do not want that foreigner in the United States. No country has ever committed itself under the WTO, World Trade Organization, or its precursor, GATT, to an immigration policy. No country has ever committed itself with regard to who it admits in its borders and who it excludes from its borders. Those agreements, GATT before and the WTO now, are trade agreements on goods and services, not on immigration policy. So this challenge that the European Union is now bringing before the WTO based against our foreign policy, that foreign policy with regard to the Cuban dictatorship and the transition that I have briefly outlined and our immigration policy, the statement we have made that we do not want foreigners who knowingly deal in stolen property from American citizens to come into the United States, and they have to have the opportunity to divest before they come into the United States, and they have to say no, I am not going to divest from the property stolen from American citizens, to be excluded from the United States--that is our immigration law--the Europeans are challenging that at the trade organization, at the WTO. They are making a serious mistake, Mr. Speaker. We told them in Europe, I do not think you have thought it through. I do not think you Europeans have thought through what it is to get involved in the immigration debate in the United States. I do not think you have thought through what it is to use the World Trade Organization to challenge American foreign policy with regard to its closest neighbor, the oppressed island of Cuba, and American immigration policy with regard to those who knowingly traffic in property stolen from American citizens. I do not think you have thought that through, Europeans. And we would tell them this, and again they manifested a tremendous amount of ignorance with regard to what our law really does, what our law is and what our law is not. The fact of the matter is that they have proceeded at the WTO and they have filed a challenge. I want to commend at this time our Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and the Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, Ben Gilman, and the committee, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Dan Burton, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Helms. And my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Policy and Trade of the Committee on International Relations, and Senator Bob Graham from Florida, and Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, and Congressman Robert Menendez of New Jersey, and Senator Connie Mack of Florida for joining in the letter that I signed as well, a letter to our United States Trade Representative saying, since the Europeans have decided to bring forth this challenge, this ill-advised and reckless and irresponsible challenge in the trade organization against our foreign policy to our closest neighbor, the oppressed people of Cuba and our immigration policy with regard to those who knowingly traffic in property stolen from American citizens, it is imperative, and I will refer directly to the letter sent to our United States Trade Representative: ``We are writing to emphasize the importance we attach to victory by the United States in any proceeding brought within the World Trade Organization challenging U.S. policy toward Cuba. ``We strongly agree with the administration's view that `the World Trade Organization was established to manage trade relations between member governments, not diplomatic or security relations that may have incidental trade or investment effects.' Therefore, it is imperative that the United States interpose all available defenses, including the national security defense provided under Article 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to avoid an adverse WTO decision. ``The United States has a strong interest in promoting international trade. It is precisely for this reason that we must do everything possible to prevent the WTO from undermining its own credibility by reaching a decision on a nontrade matter that purports to circumscribe our ability to adopt policies essential to our national security. ``We understand, of course, that the United States has a compelling defense on the merits to any WTO complaint challenging our policy toward Cuba and should prevail without invoking the national security exception. Nevertheless, we think it would be irresponsible for the United States not to offer every available defense in a proceeding that could constrain our country's ability to defend its vital national security interests. ``We defer to your office regarding the best timing for putting forward the various defenses available to the United States, but we believe that the earliest possible use of the strongest defense is appropriate.'' Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the letter to which I referred. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, February 18, 1997. Hon. Charlene Barshefsky, Acting U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC. Dear Ambassador Barshefsky: We are writing to emphasize the importance we attach to victory by the United States in any proceeding brought within the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenging U.S. policy toward Cuba. We strongly agree with the Administration's view that ``the WTO was established to manage trade relations between member governments--not diplomatic or security relations that may have incidental trade or investment effects.'' Therefore, it is imperative that the United States interpose all available defenses, including the national security exception provided under Article 21 of the GATT, to avoid an adverse WTO decision. The United States has a strong interest in promoting international trade. It is precisely for this reason that we must do everything possible to prevent the WTO from undermining its own credibility by reaching a decision on a non-trade matter that purports to circumscribe our ability to adopt policies essential to our national security. We understand, of course, that the United States has a compelling defense on the merits to any WTO complaint challenging our policy toward Cuba and should prevail without invoking the national security exception. Nevertheless, we think it would be irresponsible for the United States not to offer every available defense in a proceeding that could constrain our country's ability to defend its vital national security interests. We defer to your office regarding the best timing for putting forward the various defenses available to the United States, but we believe that the earliest possible use of the strongest defense is appropriate. With best wishes, Sincerely, Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Benjamin A. Gilman, Jesse Helms, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Bob Graham, Robert Torricelli, Robert Menendez, Connie Mack. The issue before us at this point, Mr. Speaker, is really an important one because the European policy--the American people realize that the Europeans are using the World Trade Organization to affect our foreign policy and our immigration policy. What is that going to do to the support by the American people toward precisely the World Trade Organization? I have had disagreements, many disagreements in the past with proposals put forward by, for example, Pat Buchanan, but he has a wonderful article today, a very insightful column in numerous newspapers around the country today, including the Washington Times here in Washington, where he says, the title of his column is European Assault on U.S. Policy. And he ends his article, talks about this WTO challenge, and he ends his column saying Congress should make it very clear: ``The WTO treaty provides for `security exemptions,' and Helms- Burton is a security issue. Thus, we will not participate in your hearings or abide by your decision. If sanctions are imposed on us, we will withdraw from the WTO. ``As the Europeans are the ones who escalated, by taking Helms-Burton to the WTO, warning us of a conviction in absentia, let us accept the challenge and tell them: There will be no back-channel discussions on Helms-Burton, no compromises, no capitulation. America's right to use her power to advance her foreign policy is nonnegotiable.'' This is a very strong and important statement, and it brings us to the issue really before us at this time. I have been speaking to numerous Members of Congress. For example, I was speaking to Congressman Manzullo from Illinois. I have not met a stronger supporter of the WTO and of free trade in this Congress than Congressman Manzullo. He brings out and emphasizes the facts that support in this institution as well as among the American people in the country at large, for American participation in the WTO is going to diminish dramatically when the American people begin to understand that the Europeans are using that trade organization to further their position with regard to a disagreement that they have with the United States on our foreign policy and our immigration policy. It is a reckless, irresponsible action taken by the Europeans. Now especially, we can realize the recklessness of this action taken by the Europeans and really the hypocrisy of the action taken by the Europeans. They are saying: ``No, the United States, you should not use the national security defense.'' How interesting. First of all, we have used it in the past more than once. President Reagan in 1985 used the national security defense with regard to the Sandinista complaints against United States sanctions on Nicaragua. But national security interests were also alleged in many other well- known cases: for example, in 1949 Czechoslovakian complaints against United States military railroad export controls; 1975, the Swedes said that their right to control their footwear market was absolutely indispensable to their national security. Talk about a stretch of the argument. In 1982, this is the ultimate hypocrisy, the European Union, at that time the European community, used the national security defense to defend itself against an Argentinian complaint against Europe for sanctions that were placed on Argentina during the Falkland crisis. In 1991, the Europeans also used the national security defense against the Yugoslavian complaints brought, brought about after sanctions were imposed on Yugoslavia. In all of those cases and in others, national security was invoked by the nations imposing economic sanctions against other countries. Now, with regard to our legislation, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, national security concerns are much more evident and have significantly more to do with passage of the law than in any of those cases that I cited. The essential purpose of the act is precisely to defend the United States and its citizens from the dangers to our national security posed by the Communist dictatorship just 90 miles from our shores. To quote directly from the act: ``For the past 36 years the Cuban government has posed and continues to pose a national security threat to the United States.'' The purpose of the act, the purpose of the act is to provide for the continued national security of the United States in the face of continued threats from the Castro government of terrorism, theft of property from United States nationals by the Castro government, and the political manipulation by the Castro government of the desire of Cubans to escape that results in mass migration to the United States. The act is necessary in view of the threat, I continue to quote directly from the act, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about Swedish footwear here. We are talking about the act itself that we passed. The act is necessary in view of the threat to the national security posed by the operation of any nuclear facility by the Castro regime. Mr. Speaker, Castro is trying to complete two nuclear power plants just a little over 100 miles from Florida. Those nuclear power plants are of the same model of the nuclear power plants that were closed immediately upon German reunification in east Germany and upon liberation in all the countries of the former Soviet Union. That same model, that same model nuclear power plant, VVR 440 is its exact description, that is the model of the nuclear power plants that Castro is trying to complete in Cuba. All European countries, as soon as communism fell, they closed down near those nuclear power plants because of their inherent dangers. Talk about a national security issue. One of the main facets of our legislation is to stop assistance, all assistance to Castro for completion of those nuclear power plants. That is a national security issue if I have ever heard of a national security issue. Many other references are made throughout the statute itself, specifically to national security as the fundamental motivation and purpose of the act. The role of the Castro regime in activities that constitute severe dangers to United States national security such as narcotrafficking, the DEA field office in Miami and customs made clear to local media there just a few months ago that over 50 percent of the cocaine that comes into the United States from the Caribbean area comes through or from Castro's Cuba. Now, the role of the Castro regime in activities such as narco-trafficking are specifically referred to as reasons for the legislation in the legislation. And as I stated before, Mr. Speaker, it should never be forgotten that the law was passed with President Clinton's support just a few days after the premeditated, brutal, unjustified murder in cold blood of American citizens by the Castro dictatorship over international waters. Now, in addition to constituting a travesty of justice, an adverse ruling by the World Trade Organization against our law would have serious consequences for the support within this institution, within Congress and by the American people, for the world trade structure, and for U.S. membership in the WTO. I think that it is obvious that we need to be not only ready, willing, and able to use the national security defense but that we have to go ahead and do so. We have to go ahead and do so. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. We will continue talking about it in the weeks ahead because the sovereignty of the United States is at issue. The Europeans now have said they had a meeting of their foreign ministers on Monday. They said publicly after that meeting, we have a ban on furs, animal skins to the United States. We will consider lifting our ban on animal skins, the importation of animal skins from the United States into Europe if the United States lifts its ban on foreigners who knowingly traffic in property stolen from American citizens. That is an unbelievable statement that the Europeans have made, demonstrating not only a tremendous lack of knowledge of what this issue is about and about what our law is about, what it is and is not, but a tremendous lack of sensitivity as well. Now, this issue will need to be spoken of in the next months. When the American people come to realize that the Europeans are using, that this supernational trade body, the World Trade Organization, to deal with an issue that is not trade related, that is a foreign policy decision of the American Congress and the American President with regard to its closest neighbor, the oppressed people of Cuba and the immigration law of the United States, that the Europeans are politicizing the World Trade Organization for political purposes, the support within this Congress and in the American people at large for the World Trade Organization and our participation in it is going to diminish very rapidly. I do not know if the Europeans have realized that. Nevertheless they have proceeded recklessly with this complaint. I think the important issue, the important reality at this matter with regard to this debate is that our Government must immediately invoke national security like President Reagan did in 1985 when the Sandinistas brought similar complaints. President Reagan invoked national security and the complaint fizzled away. We not only have to say we are willing to invoke national security. We have to invoke national security. I did not criticize for one second the administration when I was in Europe, because I do not believe in criticizing the administration when you are not on United States soil. But I will say this. It is time for the administration not only to say they are going to invoke the national security defense but to go ahead and mean it. I think if Europeans believed that we meant it, this case would not have proceeded. So there are issues that we have to continue debating and discussing. I think the American people when they realize in the next months that the Europeans are utilizing the World Trade Organization for political purposes in a reckless way, they are going to have a lot of questions to ask about, No. 1, what is this World Trade Organization, how did we get into this World Trade Organization, do we have a veto in this World Trade Organization like we have in the U.N. Security Council? The answer is no. We are one vote, and Castro was one vote in the World Trade Organization. And the Europeans, of course, have more than two dozen votes, because they have more than two dozen nation states. So this is a very serious issue and we will continue talking about it. I think it is important that the alarm be sounded, that this is not an issue that is neither simple nor that lacks in importance and that we will continue talking about it in the weeks and months ahead. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my distinguished colleague, also from the State of Florida, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, who so brilliantly defended this legislation and explained it time and time again in those meetings that we had last week in Europe.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentlewoman. I think that the Europeans have misunderstood the American character. Americans do not yield to blackmail. The American people, and I would think that the American people will be contacted, and I would certainly urge the American people to contact their Members of Congress to let them know once again the need to tell the Europeans that they cannot dictate American immigration policy, that they cannot dictate American national security policy. The American people, through their Congress and through their President, have a right to protect themselves against nuclear powerplants being built 100 miles from Florida, that in the case of an incident by the Cuban dictator, a purposeful incident because he likes to create crises to try to blackmail and threaten other countries, or, in the case of an accident, like in Chernobyl, it would be absolutely disastrous for not only Florida but the whole southern United States, all the way, according to nuclear experts, all the way here into northern Virginia and actually the Nation's capital. So the American people have a right to protect themselves against national security threats, to decide their immigration policy, and I am fully convinced, and I would ask the gentlewoman's comments on this issue, because I am fully convinced that the American people in the next weeks and months are going to be outraged when they learn that the Europeans are using a trade forum to try to pressure and blackmail the American people into changing immigration law, because that is what they are concerned about. The gentlewoman is correct, they have thrown everything into that case, from President Kennedy's cutting off the Cuban sugar quota as a sanction against the confiscation of property and other acts, illegal acts taken by Castro, to the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992, to the Helms- Burton law. They are actually after one thing, and that was made clear to us in meeting after meeting. They want to change the immigration policy of the United States because they are mad that an investor of theirs knowingly can traffic in United States property in Cuba and get notice, get a right to divest, and yet they want to continue trafficking knowingly and dealing in stolen property from American citizens. Then under the U.S. immigration laws, they are excluded from the United States, and they are mad about that. So that is what they want to change. They want to change U.S. immigration law, and when the American people realize in the next weeks and months what this debate is all about, I think they will be outraged. Does the gentlewoman agree?

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. As the gentlewoman has stated numerous times, this is a campaign, Mr. Speaker, that just begins today to inform the American people and to reiterate what the Europeans really are out to do, and that is to change U.S. immigration law in a world trade forum, totally inappropriately, totally recklessly, and totally unjustifiably, but, nevertheless, they are trying to do it. I do not know if they think they can get away with it, but the bottom line is, I know the American people, and the American people will not let themselves be blackmailed. And the American people will tell their Members of Congress and tell the Europeans that if they think they can use the World Trade Organization, this supernational World Trade Organization, to influence the policy decisions of the American people with regard to immigration law or national security matters, they do not know the American people, Mr. Speaker, but we do. So I think the Europeans have made a dreadful mistake. They have this trade commissioner, whose name is Sir Leon Britten. He is acting like a zealot on this issue. I do not know why. I will not speculate why he is acting like a zealot on this issue. But despite the fact that it has been explained to him that under our immigration law the only foreigners who are excluded under that chapter are those who knowingly deal in stolen property from American citizens and have been given the right to divest of their stolen property and refuse to do so, this Sir Leon Britten, trade commissioner for Europe, continues to act irresponsibly on this subject. I think it is time for the American people to start having their voices heard and they let their Members of Congress know it is time to let the Europeans know the character of the American people once again. This Nation saved the Europeans twice in this century alone. And when we go to Europe, we see the thousands of graves, the thousands of markers of brave soldiers who gave their lives to save the European continent, and we are so proud of those soldiers. And for the Europeans to be saying now that they can take this new organization, the World Trade Organization, which is supposed to deal and is explicitly limited to trade issues--for example, if a country unfairly puts tariffs on another country or excludes products of that country from another country, hurting the business of that other country, then that other country that is hurt is supposed to file a complaint and is justified in filing a complaint before the World Trade Organization. Whose businessmen according to our law are prohibited from making money from Castro's slave economy? The Europeans? No, the Americans. We are the ones telling our own business people, and we have made that bipartisan decision, but we do not want to make money, we do not want blood money from the Castro tyranny and the Castro slave economy. We do not want blood money from the Iranian terrorist state with all the oil in the world they can have. We do not want that blood money. So if there is anybody who should be concerned about business being lost, it is Americans. And yet we because of ethics are saying we do not want that blood money, and yet if there has ever been proof that what the Europeans are doing is fully based on politics, irresponsible politicalization of the world trade body, they who are going in and making blood money, not only in Iran but in Castro's Cuba, they are the ones bringing this political complaint in front of the World Trade Organization. This is outrageous as well as extraordinarily irresponsible, extraordinarily irresponsible on the part of the Europeans. We inform them and I am sure the American people will let their Members of Congress know that all of us should be telling the Europeans in the weeks and months ahead that this irresponsible action on their part is not going to succeed. It is going to reinforce the will and it is going to reinforce the commitment of the United States and the representatives of the United States to be able to control our sovereign policies with regard to national security and immigration. The Europeans will not dictate national security and immigration policy for our Congress, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to rise today in memory of Frank Tejeda, a very special man who became a special friend during the last 4 years. We were both elected in 1992. I was aware at the time of our election of his heroic record in combat in our Armed Forces. I was also aware at the time of our election of his extraordinarily impressive academic achievements, the fact that he had been at Yale and Harvard and succeeded there and in many other academic endeavors. I did not know, however, at the time of our election, what I subsequently was able to learn by getting to know Frank Tejeda personally. He was a man of great faith, a man who revered family and who revered friendship. I was most impressed every time, just about every time I had the opportunity to speak to Frank, especially in the last years, when he was battling his illness, how he would say: I am fine, Lincoln, I am fine. As a matter of fact, Diosito has protected me even from pain. He would refer to God in that marvelous way which I would translate only as: My dearest God, my dearest God. He had great love for God as well as for family and for country and for freedom. I wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that his family knows not only how much Frank will be missed here in the Halls of Congress but that his friends here will not only miss him but look forward to being in touch with his family and that his family know that we long to be their friends, as we were, of Frank Tejeda. We will miss him, that very special man of patriotism, of grace and character and honor and integrity, of courage and optimism and strength and decency, that exemplary man who we had the honor and the privilege of getting to know personally during the last 4 years, Frank Tejeda. Hasta luego, caro amigo.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise today to pay tribute to Officer Rick Wentlandt, a retired police officer who is a real-life hero. I was honored to have the opportunity to meet Officer Wentlandt's family at the dedication ceremony for the Officer Rick Wentlandt Survival City, which will continue the efforts that Officer Wentlandt began after surviving his own personal tragedy. In 1981, Officer Rick Wentlandt of the Metro-Dade Police Department was severely wounded while on duty and forced to retire. After miraculously surviving this tragic incident, in which he interrupted an armed rape and managed to save a woman's life while he was shot six times in the process, Officer Wentlandt took what he learned from this experience and began teaching a class on Officer Survival Mindset Training. His teachings have been used to train law enforcement officers, police trainers, and mental health professionals from around the country about mastering the mental aspects of survival. Even after his injuries forced him to retire from the police department, Officer Wentlandt continued to volunteer his time, logging hundreds of hours teaching survival skills to veteran officers and new recruits. I feel extremely fortunate to have met Officer Rick Wentlandt's family and sincerely appreciate the contributions he had made to South Florida. It is important that we learn from his experiences and take his teachings to heart.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miami Free Zone and to encourage the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary to look favorably upon the Free Zone next Congress. The Free Zone processes an average of $1.35 billion in merchandise each year and employs directly 70 people. Its over 140 tenants generate employment for an additional 1,400 at the facility, and additional Miami employment, as a result of the Free Zone's activities, is estimated to be 2,150. In order to support this enterprise, the Miami Free Zone must maintain extensive 24-hour security for its 860,000 square feet of warehousing, showroom and office space. This security costs over $500,000 per year in addition to $800,000 in yearly property tax. The Free Zone must pay these taxes even though the U.S. Customs Service is a tenant on the property. These costs are putting the Free Zone at a considerable competitive disadvantage over privately owned bonded warehouse operations throughout the State which offer the same advantages to foreign distributors without the security and strict, on-site customs regulations under which the Free Zone must operate. The result is a loss of control for U.S. Customs and security as well as a loss of economic benefits generated by the Miami Free Zone. Exacerbating this scenario are foreign trade zones which have been recently approved in the federally designated Enterprise Zone area of south Dade--only 10 miles from the current Miami Free Zone. The advantages of the Enterprise Zone designation include a 96 percent property tax credit, a 97 percent sales tax refund on machinery, equipment and building materials; and a 100 percent reimbursement of impact fees. Clearly these advantages will create unfair competition with the current, established Miami Free Zone. Further, these business disadvantages have resulted in the necessity of the Free Zone taking out $23 million in loans to provide a competitive environment which will continue to attract foreign business to the more expensive property. It is the debt service on these necessary loans which is now causing the Free Zone to lose money with disastrous economic consequences for south Florida. Given the complexity of this problem, I am convinced that congressional assistance is necessary in order to maintain current Free Zone operations in a secure, compliant environment. I believe the current burden on the Miami Free Zone could be lessened in several ways which would be fair to all parties involved and with no actual cost to the Federal Government. A Federal guarantee through the Small Business Administration Loan program for the Free Zone's $23 million in loans, or a large piece of it, would lessen the debt burden through lower interest. This could be done at no real cost to the Federal Government. It is therefore my desire that the Small Business Administration work with the subcommittee to support a loan guarantee. The Miami Free Zone, technically a small business, has been a driving force in south Florida's emergence as a global trade center since the late 1970's and is an important focal point for the generation of new small- to medium-sized businesses and the creation of new jobs in South Florida. This is a case that cries out for special assistance; and I, therefore, urge your support to examine and help resolve this issue. Thank you.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the economic development project planned in Florida for the Homestead Motorsports Complex. The international motorsports museum and tourist attraction will be a major, year-round economic development engine which will go a long way toward revitalizing the Homestead and South Dade communities. The museum and tourist attraction will bring in more than half a million tourists per year and generate more than 100 jobs in a wide variety of areas. The project is also a true public-private partnership, with the private sector committed to contributing one-third of the development costs, state and local governments another third and the Federal Government the remaining third. Mr. Speaker, in light of the economic distress which continues to plague Homestead and South Dade and the strong economic development potential of the proposed motorsports museum, I strongly believe that this project deserves grant support from EDA in fiscal year 1997. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations in the 105th Congress to advance this promising initiative.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the real President Clinton showed himself by his appointment of Alan Sagner to head the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Sagner is proud of having been a founder of the so-called ``Fair Play for Cuba Committee,'' the most active U.S. pro-Castro group in the history of the Castro regime. In fact, Sagner formed this group during the worst moments of Castro's mass murders and confiscations. It would have been expected that by this time Sagner would at least admit his mistake, recognize that he failed to see Castro at the beginning of his dictatorship for what he was, a murderer, which he still is. But no, to this day Sagner proudly defends the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Here is a fellow who still refuses to acknowledge the gulags, the mass executions, the political prisons, the totalitarian oppression, as the essence of the Castro regime; and he is now the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Shameful appointment, Mr. President. Find someone else.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to commemorate the 46th year of the first edition of TEMAS magazine, and I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations for the wonderful job that for these more than four decades TEMAS has performed for Spanish-speaking communities throughout the United States. TEMAS' philosophy, under expert supervision and with the collaboration of a distinguished staff, has always contributed to social peace in our communities, progress and brotherhood within our diverse society. People of all ethnic backgrounds invariably find an effective and honest fighter for their rights in TEMAS. For all this, and much more, I would like to publicly congratulate TEMAS and pledge my continued support for their efforts. I wish Lolita de la Vega, Ana Maria Perera, their staff and TEMAS continued success and good fortune.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, in commemorating the 46th year of the first edition of TEMAS magazine, I would like to extend my sincerest congratulations for the wonderful job that for these more than four decades TEMAS has performed for Spanish-speaking communities throughout the United States. TEMAS' philosophy, under expert supervision and with the collaboration of a distinguished staff, has always contributed to social peace in our communities, progress and brotherhood within our diverse society. People of all ethnic backgrounds invariably find an effective and honest fighter for their rights in TEMAS. For all this, and much more, I would like to publicly congratulate TEMAS and pledge my continued support for their efforts. I wish Ana Perera, her staff, and TEMAS continued success and good fortune.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 393, I was inadvertently detained and missed the rollcall vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating how a vantage point affects one's view. One of the most difficult challenges that I face, that my wife and I face, with two young boys that we are raising is, for their own benefit, to do everything in our power so they will retain the Spanish language. It is extraordinarily difficult, despite the fact that they even joke with me often that every perhaps four or five words I say ``Espanol.'' reminding them of the necessity, of the importance, that they keep a second tongue; for their own benefit, for their cultural enhancement and enrichment, for their economic competitiveness in the future, how important it is that they retain a second tongue. The gentlewoman from Florida. Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, my dear colleague, sitting here with her young daughter, Amanda, I know she faces the same challenge. How often do I hear Ileana with her daughters say, ``Espanol.'' Why? Because in this great country, Mr. Chairman, the pressures, the incredible forces for assimilation, for acculturation, for acceptance of the primary language of English is extraordinary. I do not think it has ever been equaled in the history of mankind, that power, the power of English in this culture, which is spreading across, through Hollywood and the other instruments, that the American culture has, spreading across. And now with technology, it is spreading across the world. To think of what is under attack in the United States, English? No. A study in our community in south Florida just showed that in the first generation here of people who are arriving on our shores, they are losing Spanish at an alarming rate, so much so that our competitiveness in south Florida is being undermined, and our ability to be effective in the international economy. So I think it is impossible, it is really difficult to understand the viewpoint that what is threatened is not the second and third languages that we should be encouraging our children to learn in this country, for their own benefit and for our economic future, but rather, what is threatened is the English language? I am confused. Let us not be confused, Mr. Chairman, with regard to what this bill is doing. People have often, speakers before us, have referred often, time and time again, to bill 123. What we have before us is bill 3898. It is a combination of bill 123, offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], which I may say, with all respect, and I want to reiterate that I not only do not impugn but would never doubt the intentions and the good faith of my dear friends who disagree with me on this issue. But I will say that I have never seen a bill such as 123, half of the legislation before us, that seeks to do so much to address so little, because the problem before us is with regard to that legislation, that part of the bill, the invisible problem, the invisible problem, Mr. Chairman. But there is another aspect to this legislation, which is H.R. 351, which was incorporated into 3898. And there we are not talking about a problem to address an invisible problem, an unnecessary bill. No. There we are talking about an unfortunate, unwarranted, unwise, uncalled for constitutional regression. Our constitutional Republic, Mr. Chairman, is not perfect, but it is perfectible. After 189 years of Republic, almost 200 years after the founding of our Republic, Mr. Chairman, this Congress stood tall in 1965 and granted the right to vote to black citizens. That was 1965. Ten-years later, after passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Congress extended protections to American citizens who are not proficient in English in the Voting Rights Act, and said that citizens that are not proficient in English have a right to understand what they are voting on. That was what was done through the amendments of 1975 to the Voting Rights Act. Let it be clear that this bill before us today eliminates the protections of 1975 for linguistic minorities in the United States. This is a vote not only on the issues that have been debated before, this is a vote on destroying a significant portion of the Voting Rights Act. When we hear about 85 percent issues, I just want to make two points, because my friend, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] made the point previously about the fact this is an 85- percent issue. I would say perhaps it is an 85-percent issue to declare English as the official language, such as was done in Florida. That would not have been half as controversial, by the way, declaring English as the official language. But that is not what we are doing. We are putting a bunch of restrictions. I want to say, if I may, even if it were an 85-percent issue, Democracy not only requires governing by the majority, but it is respect for the minority. I say that that portion, the Voting Rights Act portion of this legislation, which constitutes aggression on linguistic minorities in this country, is anti-Democratic, anti- Democratic, and it constitutes congressional regression. That is why I oppose it.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Miami Herald revealed vast new evidence of Cuban dictator Castro's personal involvement in cocaine trafficking into the United States. Drug dealers busted with thousands of pounds of cocaine from Cuba not only say the cocaine was brought into the United States with Castro's coordination, there are photos of Castro with the traffickers and video of Castro-assisted drug operations. Mr. Speaker, our DEA and Customs people on the front line are doing an admirable job, but until when is the Clinton administration going to cover up the fact that Castro is today a major cocaine trafficker? Where are the indictments against Castro's henchmen for trafficking that the U.S. Attorney in south Florida has had ready for issuance for 3 years? I know this administration would like the drug problem to just go away, but the cover-up on Castro's role in drug trafficking will not hold any longer. President Clinton must face up to this issue of grave consequences to the American people.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton yesterday once again succumbed to international pressure, this time by suspending part of the important sanctions on the Castro dictatorship that 80 percent of this Congress voted for just a few months ago after Castro killed four Americans over international waters. Incredibly, the President who vetoed tort reform, citing the rights of Americans to sue Americans, yesterday took away the right of Americans to sue foreigners who traffic in property stolen by those foreigners from Americans. President Clinton showed once again what pressure can get you during this American presidency if you are an enemy of the United States. The North Koreans got billions of United States taxpayer dollars by saying that they would otherwise build nuclear powerplants. Iraq was allowed to sell billions of dollars of oil again. Iran was invited into Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, a weak, indecisive White House such as the current one is hazardous to the safety of the Nation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would beg indulgence of the Chair to simply at this point convey my sincere and heartfelt condolences to our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Tony Hall] for the passing of his beloved son. Our thoughts are with him and his family, and our prayers are for his family and for the soul of her dear son at this time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 475 is an open rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 3756, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. H.R. 3756 provides funds for the Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain independent agencies. The rule waives three provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against consideration of the bill. These provisions include section 302(f), prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new entitlement authority in excess of a committee's allocation; section 308(a), requiring a CBO cost estimate in the committee report on legislation containing new entitlement spending; and section 401(b), prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new entitlement authority which becomes effective during the fiscal year which ends in the calendar year in which the bill is reported. In addition, the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides for the adoption in the House and in the Committee of the Whole of the amendment printed in part 1 of the Rules Committee report relating to certain expedited procedures under the Rules Committee's jurisdiction. This clarifies that certain expedited procedures apply only to the Senate for resolutions of disapproval with respect to extensions of loans or credit to foreign governments. The rule waives clause 2--prohibiting unauthorized and legislative provisions--and clause 6--prohibiting reappropriations--of rule XXI against provisions of the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule. Further, the rule provides for consideration before any other amendment of those amendments printed in part 2 of the Rules Committee report, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. In addition, the Chair is authorized to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Also, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Furthermore, the rule provides that a motion to rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted shall have precedence over a motion to amend, if offered by the majority leader or a designee after the reading of the final lines of the bill. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that House Resolution 475 is an open rule, and was reported out of the Rules Committee without opposition. The Budget waivers are technical in nature, dealing primarily with entitlement program changes regarding retirement benefits. Mr. Speaker, in addition to being an open rule that allows any Member who chooses to offer an appropriate amendment to cut or reallocate spending priorities the ability to do so, the rule allows for consideration of three additional amendments which are legislative in nature but have no objections by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction. These amendments allow members to consider, first, restoring employees at the Office of National Drug Control Policy; second, freezing the pay of Members of Congress and senior officials of the executive and judicial branches of government; and third, requiring the President, through OMB, to cap the number of political appointees in the executive branch. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well a the bill. H.R. 3756 is a fiscally responsible bill, achieving deficit savings of $513 million from 1996 enacted levels. Although there are some controversial areas within this bill, such as cuts to the Internal Revenue Service's troubled Computer Modernization Program, the Treasury Department's law enforcement functions have enjoyed broad bipartisan support. In addition, the bill provides $12 million in supplemental appropriations for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to investigate church fires. The House has overwhelmingly voted to condemn church arson and I commend the appropriations committee for providing financial resources to help fight this atrocity. Although there may be some differences of opinion on the bill itself, I believe that the rule is fair and should easily be adopted. I would like to commend subcommittee Chairman Lightfoot, ranking member Hoyer, Chairman Livingston, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for their hard work on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 475. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following tables.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we on the majority side believe that the functions funded by this bill are sufficiently supported. At the same time we are very proud of the fact that we have achieved a savings of over $500 million from last year's bill alone. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend and fellow Floridian on the Rules Committee, Mr. Goss. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my Florida colleagues in supporting H.R. 1856, the Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act. As the east coast battens down the hatches to brace for Hurricane Bertha, the time is ripe for passing legislation designed to promote a responsible Federal disaster policy. Last Congress, in the aftermath of the Northridge, CA, earthquake, the bipartisan House leadership appointed a task force on disasters on which I was proud to serve. As part of this task force, we met with various experts on disaster management policy, and through the leadership of Bill Emerson, we were able to turn many of this task force's recommendations into legislative language in the form of H.R. 1856, the Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act. I believe all of us here today recognize the need for an efficient, effective Federal disaster policy. There is no doubt that we must assist victims when a disaster strikes, but business as usual just isn't acceptable now as our enormous Federal deficit continues to grow. Those of us in Florida who survived Hurricane Andrew know firsthand how destructive the forces of nature can be, and how costly. Hurricane Andrew, at the time the task force was formed, had the illustrious honor at roughly $20 billion of being the costliest federally declared natural disaster of all time in the United States. By emphasizing personal responsibility through private insurance, promoting sensible, cost-effective disaster loss mitigation programs and encouraging the creation of a privately-funded pooling mechanism that allows for the spreading of disaster risk and minimizes the liability of the Federal Government, we can lessen the costs incurred by the Federal Government and in turn the individual taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Natural disaster Protection Act and helping the Federal Government achieve a sound national disaster policy that can help prevent loss of life and personal injury as well as reduce costs.