Bob Menendez

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules abuses the rights of Members by not allowing an amendment supported by Republicans and Democrats alike to keep the National Endowment for the Arts alive. That is undemocratic, and the President will veto it if it comes to him in that way. I know the value of the arts to my communities in New Jersey, in Jersey City, Hoboken, Newark. They have revitalized downtown businesses, attracting conferences, conventions, increased tourism, new business, boosting the value of commercial and residential real estate. They are a powerful, positive economic ripple effect in our communities. To eliminate that funding hurts our communities. They are important for the education of our children. They move beyond math and science to something equally important, imagination and creativity, allowing students to interpret their community and the world around them. And the arts are a bridge to cross-cultural understanding, bringing us together as a nation. The NEA brings the richness of our people to the poorest in our communities. So vote no on the rule. Vote to save the arts and vote to preserve our rights as Members in this House.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Second, Mr. Chairman, I would ask if the gentleman will work with us to seek a resolution with the Navy on this matter in order to ensure that the taxpayers' money is well spent and we are going to the most appropriate place.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, if I may, what I am trying to accomplish in lieu of an amendment that I intended to offer in this colloquy with the chairman is based on an issue that arises from my district where the Military Ocean Terminal in Bayonne, NJ is going to close. That is a foregone conclusion. We understand that. But as part of this process, the BRAC Commissioners voted to take the Military Sealift Command that was there and have them relocate to a base X, an undisclosed base. My understanding is that there would be a financial feasibility as to what would be the most appropriate place to have the Military Sealift Command be relocated to. The Navy has gone off unreined to determine that they want to go to a location that does not in fact substantiate itself with any study as to what is the financial cost and whether it is the most financially feasible cost. Consequently we have learned that they intend to go to Camp Pendleton, VA. In January of this year, I asked for a GAO report simply to find out whether or not they have done a study and if not what is the most appropriate place in terms of the consequences of the financial impact of moving this and is this the most financially feasible both for the Navy and for the U.S. taxpayers. We are expecting the design phase of that, to have it within the next 2 weeks, but it will take a little more time to have a final report. What I am trying to accomplish, Mr. Chairman, in this colloquy is, first of all, I understand that there is no money in this bill for such a transfer of the Military Sealift Command. Am I correct in that statement?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a special gentleman, Raphael Vitale, who has distinguished himself through his continuous dedication to the residents of my district. Mr. Vitale will be honored by his family and friends on June 29, 1997 at Anthony's Restaurant in his hometown of Hoboken, NJ. Sunday's celebration recognizes his long history of selfless service to his community. Throughout his long career, Mr. Vitale has been a religious man, a model citizen and devoted family man. He entered the St. Francis Seminary in New York at the age of 17. He later joined the film and production industry as a member of the Spotlight Production Co. in New York. In 1941, he became the production coordinator for Koven's in Dover, NJ where he supervised the production of military equipment for our country's effort in World War II. Mr. Vitale embarked on his public career in 1959 when he took his first assignment as a park attendant, helping to ensure the safety of his community. In 1961, he assumed the responsibilities of deputy director of health and welfare, and pursued the high safety and health standards of our area's restaurants, hospitals and clinics. In 1963, he started his tenure as Hoboken's director of Public Works, Revenue and Finance. In 1979, Mr. Vitale began serving Hudson County, as its production coordinator. In this position, he was the county troubleshooter for numerous vital issues, particularly budgeting and allocation of public funds. His 19 years of service to Hoboken and his 9 years to Hudson County are an example of commitment and loyal service. His record stands on its own. He is a firm believer that hard work is the best way to meet the challenges of the future. Family has always played a major role in Mr. Vitale's life. This year Mr. Vitale's wife, Lina, his three sons, Michael, William and Joseph, and his two stepsons, Michael and Matthew Canarozzi, celebrated his 80th birthday on June 2, 1997. Raphael and Lina are the proud grandparents of nine grandchildren and the great grandparents of one child. Mr. Vitale epitomizes excellence in community service, and has had a positive impact on many lives. It is an honor and pleasure to have such a remarkable individual residing in my district.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. No wonder 60 percent of the American public said the Democratic tax cutting plan is the plan that they want, because we address working and tax-paying families in our plan. What we do in that respect is try to provide greater tax relief for lower- and middle-income families, immediate estate tax relief for farms and small family owned businesses, a capital gains tax cut for small businesses and also for being able to sell your home. To the extent that over 1.1 million New Jerseyans, children, get absolutely no relief under this bill and to the extent that there are real families like Anna Gonzalez, who just sent me a fax and said, I am employed as a medical office technologist for the Bayonne Dental Group. I have been working there for a year, making over $20,000 in 1997. I have three kids. I pay for child care. Unfortunately, the Republican child tax credit gives me no benefit at all. That is a real person, a real family struggling to stay off welfare, to be working, to produce for this country. This is the family-friendly Congress supposedly. Yet the Republican tax plan works against working families, tax-paying families, families who we should be preserving in this tax cutting bill. That is why Democrats stand up for tax cutting for working families. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred: Anna L. Gonzalez, Bayonne, NJ, June 23, 1997. Due to my job responsibilities, I am unable to appear in person for this News Conference. I would like to show my concern in regard to the guidelines for receiving the proposed Child Tax Credit. As a single mother of three children, living on a single income, I would like to stress the importance of how a Child Tax Credit would help to alleviate some of the financial burdens that come with raising a family on a single income. I am employed as a Medical Office Technologist for the Bayonne Group of Bayonne, New Jersey. I've been working there for 1 year, and will earn $20,202 in 1997. I pay $93 per week for child care which totals to $4,836 per year. I pay for the child care in order to be able to work. Unfortunately, the Republican Child Tax Credit proposal is targeted against those who need it most, those who are an inch away from going into the welfare system. We are the working poor, who work to pay for child care, food, and a roof over our family's heads and not much more. The Child Tax Credit should be given to financially benefit the children, and I think the children from a low-income family would benefit greatly by receiving this Credit. However, my family would receive NO BENEFIT AT ALL from the proposed Child Tax Credit. I am eligible for a Dependent Care Tax Credit that reduces my income tax liability to zero. Therefore, I would receive no benefit from the Child Tax Credit passed by the Ways and Means Committee. Sincerely, Anna L. Gonzalez. Mr. Chairman, Democrats want greater tax relief for lower- and middle-income families, immediate estate tax relief for farms and small family-owned businesses, a capital gains tax cut for small businesses, and help for post-secondary education. The Republican tax bill is like the deal to divide the gold mine. The rich Republicans get the gold and the American people get the shaft. More than half of the benefits of the Republican tax plan go to the wealthiest 5 percent--people making an average of $250,000 a year. Under the Democratic plan 71 percent of the tax benefits go to families earning less than $100,000. The Republican plan would cover only half of tuition costs for the first 2 years of college. The only tax relief for the third and fourth years comes from savings plans that only wealthier families can afford to join. Under the Democratic plan, HOPE Scholarship credits would be available for all 4 years of post-secondary-education. After the first 2 years, a scholarship credit of 20 percent of tuition costs is available. These HOPE scholarship credits are available to all students who live in families with incomes under $80,000. The HOPE scholarship credits are not reduced by a student's Pell Grant and other nontaxable Federal scholarships. The Democratic plan makes permanent the tax-free treatment of employer-provided education assistance. The Republican bill denies the $500 per child tax credit to 15 million families, by refusing to extend the credit to many working parents who qualify for an earned income tax credit, or to families who only pay payroll taxes. More than one-half of the children in New Jersey would be completely ineligible. The Democratic plan allows families to offset payroll and income taxes and would continue the existing day care credit. The Republican plan grants massive tax breaks to wealthy people who make money by selling their stocks, bonds, art works and antiques. Republicans also have designed their proposal so that it explodes over time and could wreck the balanced budget. The Democratic Plan targets capital gains relief to homeowners, not mansion owners. The Republican plan provides large estate tax breaks to very wealthy families. Only 1.5 percent of families currently pay any estate taxes. The Democratic plan gives relief for those who dedicated their lives to building the family farm or small business. The Democratic tax package is a better deal for more people. It gives the most tax relief to lower and middle-income families: immediate estate tax relief for farms and mom-and-pop businesses, a capital gains tax cut for small businesses, and provides $40 billion in for kids to get a college education. Remember who is making the greatest contribution to reducing the deficit, it is the vast majority of Americans. I can only speak for my district. Most of my people are honest, hard working people who don't have capital gains on their art collectibles. They don't have lavish deductions for business expenses. They will never make enough money to ever worry about estate taxes. They would love the opportunity to pay a minimum alternative tax. The Republican tax bill abandons 60 percent of all families, giving them a miserly 12 percent of the tax cuts. The Democratic tax cut substitute looks out for my people and their families. That is why the American people favored the Democratic tax plan by more than 2 to 1 when asked by the Wall Street Journal/NBC new poll. Support the Democratic substitute.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. I had great hopes of transcending pointless ideological bickering and producing a model of consensus. But this bill is not the deal Republicans made with the President. The Republican budget bill weakens protection for workfare workers against race, sex, ethnic, and religious discrimination. It creates a two-tiered workplace with a permanently disadvantaged underclass. It does not protect legal residents. It endangers children's hospitals and those serving a disproportionate share of the poor and uninsured. It slashes support for 2.7 million disabled people, and it destroys individual rights to recovery for medical malpractice. These are radical changes. These adventures in radicalism were never in the bipartisan budget agreement, and they are not needed. I hope my New Jersey colleagues know that this legislation will devastate New Jersey hospitals who have continued with their mission to treat all who enter their hospitals' emergency rooms or clinics including the indigent and uninsured. And it would send some of them into bankruptcy. New Jersey is prepared to accept its share of the national burden in the name of a balanced budget, but this bill treats New Jersey and its hospitals in an inequitable manner. It punishes New Jersey for demonstrating a commitment to providing a lifesaving safety net for its most vulnerable residents. As my colleagues know, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty, over 120,000 children under 6 years of age in New Jersey, 17 percent live in families with incomes at or below the poverty level, and yet under this agreement New Jersey is one of the States that receives a disproportionately smaller share of the block grant. Finally, this proposal leaves out a legal immigrant who has a stroke, becomes paralyzed, contracts Alzheimer's disease after August of last year. It eliminates the safety net for law-abiding, hard-working, taxpaying elderly legal immigrants. Mr. Speaker, it is a deal breaker. Let us not have a deal for the sake of a deal. Let us have a deal that is also balanced on the principles.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Democrats want tax cuts, but the Republican tax proposal is the tax policy equivalent of Peter Pan's never-never land. It is an expression of the desire to never grow old and never die. Why are there billions of tax cuts going to the dead and the immortal? Republican estate tax proposals would have the J.P. Morgan estate paying no taxes if he were able to take advantage of it. And just like Peter Pan, corporations live forever and many would pay no taxes, and many corporations would make shamefully little contributions to the Nation that is the source of their vast wealth. What does the average worker have in common with the wealthy dead and the eternal life of corporations? Nothing, except that they would be paying more taxes. We want to vote for tax cuts for the living. The Democratic substitute provides tax cuts for real live people, for education, for reducing taxes, on buying and selling your home or transferring a small business to family members, and for working families. That is tax cuts that we can support.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding woman, Ms. Lydia Trinidad, who has distinguished herself through selfless dedication to the residents of my home State of New Jersey. Ms. Trinidad's efforts to further the course of personal development will be recognized at the 17th Annual Humanitarian Awards Dinner of the central New Jersey Chapter of the National Conference on June 12 at the Landmark Inn in Woodbridge, NJ. Tomorrow's celebration is another milestone in a lifetime of service to others. For 23 years, Ms. Trinidad has worked tirelessly as an advocate for the lives of low-income families and individuals, a segment of our society whose needs are often overlooked. In 1980 Ms. Trinidad joined the Puerto Rican Association for Human Development [PRAHD], then a small community organization. As executive director since 1981, she expanded PRAHD to the comprehensive social services agency it is today, serving 12,000 people annually through its 18 programs. Ms. Trinidad's firm commitment to individual development, family advocacy, and the need for intergenerational interaction permeates every facet of this highly respected organization. Under Ms. Trinidad's direction, PRAHD has become a significant source of employment in the central New Jersey area. Born on the island of Puerto Rico, Ms. Trinidad moved to Perth Amboy, NJ, in 1959 where she still resides. Ms. Trinidad graduated from Montclair State University with a degree in psychology and a minor in sociology. She has chosen to further her education through participation in a number of training programs and seminars in social work, management, business, and bilingual education. Prior to her tenure with PRAHD, Ms. Trinidad served as a counselor/advocate at the Middlesex County shelter as well as assistant manager of the Community Chapel Home in Perth Amboy. Personally active in the community, Ms. Trinidad sits on various boards, committees, and civic groups including: the William Paterson College Board of Trustees, the Raritan Bay Medical Center Board of Directors, State of New Jersey Department of Human Services Hispanic Advisory Committee, the Central N.J. Chapter of the National Conference--formerly National Conference of Christians and Jews--the Middlesex County REACH Advisory Committee, the State of New Jersey Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program Advisory Council, and the Puerto Rican Congress of New Jersey as board secretary. Ms. Trinidad has been recognized for her achievements by various awards, including the William Paterson College Presidents Medal; the City of Perth Amboy's Key to the City; the Community Empowerment Award from the National Conference of Puerto Rican Women, Inc.; Woman of Excellence Award for the Middlesex County Commission of the Status of Women, and the Ariel Trophy from the American Association of Writers Journalists. It is a privilege to have such a considerate and caring person and working on behalf of the residents of my district. Ms. Trinidad exemplifies the ideal of community service at its best. I am certain my colleagues will rise with me and honor this remarkable individual.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as one of the cosponsors of this resolution, I rise in strong support of it. The flag of the United States of America is unique among all the symbols of this great Nation. No other symbol of our country is so universally recognized or beloved by its people. Since it was first flown more than 200 years ago, it has represented our unity as a people, our unity based upon the diversity of a people whose heritage traces back from all parts of the world. Some of our families came to America to escape religious persecution. Some, like my own parents, came here to escape political repression. But under the protection of the American flag, we have been one people with a common bond, regardless of our individual ancestries. Our flag has been carried into battle since the Revolutionary War. Thousands have died for the American flag and what it represents, and in turn have had it draped on their coffins in a silent but powerful recognition of their ultimate sacrifice. We honor it annually on Flag Day. We in the House of Representatives begin each day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance that begins: ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.'' Our commitment to it is a reflection of our country's commitment to its people. The American flag is a symbol of American might and resolve, but it is also a symbol of hope and freedom. It is a symbol of the freedom secured by so many at such a great price. To desecrate it is to desecrate the memory of those who died for it. To burn it is to incite the general public. Clearly we have created legitimate limitations on speech: fire in a theater, the burning of a cross, the painting of swastikas; those have been determined as crimes. I ask my colleagues, in special recognition of that history, that we give it the special protection that it deserves today.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my colleague's amendment, an amendment that I believe is shortsighted. Mr. Chairman, foreign aid is not a frivolous expense of the United States tax dollar, especially when it is in the form of funds to support the State Department and our embassies abroad which serve to represent U.S. political and economic interests overseas. The men and women who work in our missions overseas are not living in the lap of luxury. To the contrary, let me tell my colleagues, I was recently in Angola where our embassy staff, American citizens, both work and reside in trailer homes inside a heavily-guarded concrete compound where electricity and water are often cut off. These individuals live under these circumstances so that the United States might have some impact with the new government of that country, and to protect the millions of the many U.S. investments that exist in that country. Those of my colleagues who would find it politically expedient to vote to cut foreign aid and operating expenses for our foreign service agencies fail to understand that there clearly is a price for leadership, and that price is far less, far less, than the cost of any military engagement that we can avoid through our diplomatic efforts, far less than a terrorist attack, far less than even a trade war in terms of dollars and lives. Although the cold war is over, America has to remain alert to new threats, political instability, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, epidemic diseases. All of these are things that we face in the context of this funding that we are trying to authorize. Continued U.S. engagement in international organizations and through unilateral and multilateral actions allow us to exert among our allies and our foes to diminish the threats to our political and economic security. Despite the rhetoric about the excesses of foreign policy budget and foreign affairs, the fact of the matter is, we are talking about 1 percent, 1 percent of the total Federal budget in contrast to the defense budget, which is about 18 percent of this Federal budget. Despite what Members may have heard, annual expenditures for our assistance abroad is quite small and provide a big bang for our buck. In fact, many foreign assistance dollars never get abroad. Eighty percent of U.S. aid contracts and grants go to U.S.-based organizations and firms, and 95 percent of all food aid purchases, for those of the Members who are farmers in the Midwest, are made in the United States, 95 percent of all of those purchases. Nearly all of our military assistance is spent on U.S. goods and services for those who have the suppliers in their districts who create these particular goods. Those Members who are considering supporting this amendment should consider this: Isolationism is a far greater threat to the U.S. economy and to American workers than the meager expenditures that we are doing under this agreement. Even opponents of foreign aid must agree that we have economic interests overseas, including economic interests where people are employed here in the United States by what we promote abroad. The Commerce Department estimates that for every 1 billion dollars' worth of exports, we generate over 20,000 U.S. jobs here at home. In that regard, U.S. assistance to promote economic and political stability in developing countries is very, very dramatic. As we approach the 21st century, we have to understand, as Madeleine Albright, our Secretary of State, has said, we cannot have foreign policy on the cheap. I am talking about looking at the bottom line, our interests here at home. Our interests here at home are fueled by the meager expenditure we make in this regard in the context of our entire budget. In fact, being able to dictate what the new technologies are at Geneva in the respective organizations that we are participating in; promote U.S. interests abroad; promote the technological advancements that we have set in this service economy, that we have the ability to make a difference in; promote, as I just did in our trip to Africa and South Africa the hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures by the pharmaceutical industry that are under threat because of a change in South African law as it relates to that pharmaceutical industry, so important to my State of New Jersey, we cannot be engaged in those arguments if we do not have the proper representation at our embassies abroad.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Diaz-Balart perfecting amendment and to oppose the Miller amendment of my colleague from California. I have respect for his desire and the desire of a lot of people in this country who want to smoke a Cuban cigar. I understand that. I understand that. But the nature of the question is, What has worked to move the Castro regime to make some positive changes? And the fact of the matter is, I would quote to the body the realities that our policy, which is to deny the regime hard currency, thereby forcing it to move toward a greater opening, hopefully, for democracy and human rights, has been a policy that has begun to work, especially over the last several years for which the loss of the Soviet Union $6 billion a year and the tightening of our embargo, ending the loopholes and the Libertad legislation, have taken effect so much so that we hear the regime constantly, daily speak against them, and they would not even pay attention to it if it was not having an impact. Now, the fact of the matter is that our policy has created some very significant things. It has reduced the third largest army in the Western Hemisphere after the United States and Brazil per capita, good for the people in Cuba. Less of a military means more food for Cuban families, less of a military means less instability throughout the Americas, and certainly it is a good action. That has happened because of the necessity created on the regime. What else has happened? The fact of the matter is that international investment, limited as it is in Cuba, has only been created and accepted over the last couple of years out of necessity, necessity by the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists and no longer does their aid flow to the regime, and at the same time our policy. So in fact, whatever we believe, for those of us who even disagree with the policy that economic opportunities would create democratic movements, that has been created by necessity. Lastly, the American dollar, the most hated symbol of the revolution, illegal to own until a couple years ago, is now actively sought within Cuba. So the fact of the matter, it is our policy of denying the regime hard currency that has moved them, albeit ever so slowly and ever so limitedly, that has moved them to the only positive openings that we have seen. The other thing is, I know that my colleagues, especially on this side of the aisle, are in strong support of labor rights. A laborer in Cuba, particularly in the tobacco industry and the cigar and leaf- producing and cigar-making industry, does not have the right in Cuba to receive resources directly from a foreign company investment in terms of a salary. That is to say, the foreign company comes into Cuba producing cigars for export and in fact they cannot be paid directly by that foreign company. In fact, they pay the regime. The regime takes the overwhelming amount of the salary and gives a subsistence wage to the worker. I am sure that my colleagues do not want to be part of an enterprise, as we talk about China and the people's army there, and products produced there and other parts of the world, I am sure that we do not want to exploit Cuban workers who are not able to fully receive the benefits, working conditions and the salary of their sweat and labor. In fact, by doing this, we would do that. We would permit hard currency to go to the regime. We would not improve the life of workers. On the contrary, we would continue to promote the subsistence wages that they get. We would continue to promote the under class that in fact they slave in on behalf of the regime, and we would permit the regime to be able to continue to oppress its people because it would have resources flowing into it in very significant dollars. While this is only a sense of the Congress, I think it is the wrong sense. Right now at this very moment, I just finished getting off of Radio Marti, doing a program in which people from the islands are connected to people through Radio Marti. When we think of the work of independent journalists who get arrested every day for trying to report what is going on in Cuba, if we think about the dissidents that are active in Cuba, the fact of the matter is, this debate even makes a mockery of what they are trying to accomplish every day. Just a little while ago the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney] offered an amendment pertaining to Libya. No Member here would consider offering an amendment to allow any single Libyan product to enter the United States because of Libya's actions. I can think about that replicated in a whole series of countries across the globe, that we say we will not permit their products to come in because of the nature of forced labor, prison camp labor, or in fact the exploitation of workers. I have heard many of my colleagues passionately speak about those rights. And so I would urge my colleagues to support the Diaz-Balart amendment. Let Cuban cigars in when freedom and democracy come to the people of Cuba, and when workers are not exploited and they can share in the benefits of proceeds received from the work of their labor.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It was adopted in the original committee bill that came before the Committee on Rules. This language which I seek to include was included in the foreign operations appropriations bill last year. It creates no increase in authority or money, but simply put, it is a firewall to protect development assistance funds for Latin America and Asia from being reprogrammed. The Asia and the Pacific region is home to 60 percent of the world's population and 75 percent of the world's poor. Since 1993, the Latin American, Caribbean, Asian, and Pacific regions have taken drastic funding cuts. Development assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean region dropped nearly in half, to half the level, which does not, I believe, reflect the commitment of this Congress or the government to the region. Simply because of its proximity, Latin America should always be considered a priority region for the United States. The political and economic problems of the region manifest themselves in problems which affect our country and our future here at home: illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking. As I listen to Members speak about the impact of immigration and drugs in our country, I cannot help but think our efforts to combat these problems at their root are insufficient. With 50 percent of Latin America and the Caribbean living below the poverty line, we will not see a decline in illegal immigration as long as the economic outlook to our south remains depressed. Similarly, we cannot expect a decline in the drug trade when the reality for many poor and rural farmers is that cocoa is the only crop by which they support and feed their families. We need to create an alternative. Development assistance in the context of economic development, agricultural development, and education works to combat the problems which plague the streets of America. Instead of fighting a war of words, we would be better served by a forward-looking policy toward these countries which includes enhanced development assistance. Latin America is an important economic and trade partner. Democracy has swept through the region. Today only one country, Cuba, remains outside of that hemispheric commitment to democracy and free trade. In view of those facts, in view that Mickey Kantor has told us when he was the Trade Representative that Latin American trade between the United States and Latin America equaled trade to the entire Pacific Rim minus Japan, it tells us what we should be doing. So if Members support business, they seek to create jobs, promote economic growth, if they oppose illegal immigration and narcotics trafficking, they should support this amendment, which again simply puts a firewall to protect development assistance for Latin America and Asia from being reprogrammed, creates no new increase in authority or money, but makes sure that we are engaged with an important region of the world.

Mr. MENENDEZ

Mr. MENENDEZ. If the gentleman would yield so I can deal with his comment, the fact of the matter is in the fine hotels of Cuba, in which people who are Cubans cannot go to, yes, a satellite opportunity is there, and those who may work there receive it, but the average Cuban cannot.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, it is not lack of interest of the Cuban people but the jamming which has prevented it, and we have means to circumvent that. The fact of the matter is that if in fact we move to the UHF opportunity, broadcasting to Cuba would neither interfere with Cuban broadcasting nor United States stations. The Cuban Government would have no present jamming capacity on a UHF process. These broadcasts could occur at any time. And it is both technically feasible and cost effective to switch TV Marti to UHF. The fact of the matter is we have an opportunity for peaceful diplomacy to the people of Cuba. The same messages that we used to use in Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, those are the types of messages we want to send to TV Marti. We have never accepted another country's jamming of our surrogate broadcasting to be a reason to stop that broadcasting. We should not do it in the case of Television Marti. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give the President of the United States the opportunity to truly pursue his foreign policy goals. If he believes, as he said to me in that letter and has said time and time again, that it is in the national interests of the United States to do so, he should be given that opportunity. It is a fair compromise on this issue. We have had an independent panel. They said we need the surrogate broadcasting. We should not let this regime undermine our efforts. I urge my colleagues to support the Diaz-Balart amendment.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any Member of this House, including my dear colleagues from Florida, that still have family in Cuba, but I do. So when people talk about some of these issues, they talk in the abstract. I deal with the reality. Every time I get up in this well and speak about issues that affect the people of Cuba, my family gets visited by Castro's rapid response brigade. My communications with them, which I always asked them never to let anyone know that they were my family, so in fact they would not be confronted with the realities they are confronted with today, being harassed, being denied employment opportunities, but they told me, ``We're not going to deny you, and we don't intend for you to stop speaking out.'' The fact of the matter is my distinguished colleague from Connecticut raises a point of view which I disagree with but respect. However, the facts are quite different. The reality is that the regime in Cuba has only changed out of necessity, necessity created by the loss of the Soviet Union's aid, $6 billion a year, at which time the Cuban people did not receive more food on the plates of Cuban families but developed the third largest military in the entire Western Hemisphere after the United States and Brazil per capita. Now that that money is gone, and with the legislation that we have passed, 3 dramatic things have happened. That third largest army has been reduced, important to the people in Cuba, important to the people in the hemisphere. More money should be going to Cuban families to put food on their table, but is not because the regime continues to use whatever resources they have to oppress people. Second, the American dollar, the most hated symbol of the revolution, is now freely traded in Cuba and accepted, again out of necessity, not desire. And, third, the fact of the matter is that the international investment that some herald which has made no real change in democracy in Cuba, from Canada, from Mexico, from Spain and every place else, the fact of the matter is that is now accepted for the last several years again out of necessity. Necessity, not desire. So in fact the changes that we have seen, limited as they are, are changes that come from necessity, the necessity that we have created in our legislation. Now I want to speak to the Skaggs amendment, which I oppose, and the Diaz-Balart amendment, which I support. I cannot understand Democrats who would not give the President the flexibility in foreign policy that they decry does not exist in the underlying bill. That is the reality. They do not want to give the President flexibility in foreign policy that they decry in the underlying bill. That in essence is what the Diaz-Balart amendment would do. The President has spoken clearly about the need to support the vital broadcasting services to Cuba of both Radio and Television Marti. In a letter to me the President stated, and I quote, ``By strongly supporting Radio and TV Marti, I want to send a clear signal to those everywhere who struggle against tyranny. Radio and TV Marti make genuine contributions to the cause of human rights and democracy in the hemisphere. Both help promote short and long-term U.S. foreign policy goals.'' That is the President of the United States. Those of us with a strong interest in this issue agreed to a compromise which established having an advisory panel on Radio and TV Marti in the last Congress. The panel members were agreeable to all the parties involved, I believe, including the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs]. The panel was charged with assessing and reporting on the purposes, policies and practices of radio and TV broadcasting to Cuba. In fact, it was done so we could avoid the political hot potato that some have alleged exists, so we could take it out of the realm of politics, so we gave it to an independent panel. What did that panel come and say? Their verdict was very clear. They said now more than ever we must retain intact the services of both Radio and Television Marti. I encourage the Members to seek out the executive summary of the advisory panel's report. Let me underscore some of the more salient conclusions of the report. It said, ``Cuban Government officials and elites regularly listen to Radio Marti and tune into TV Marti. When we want to speak to that elite, when we want them to make a change in their government, this is a direct way of communicating with them, a way to create peaceful change in Cuba.'' Our United States interest section in Cuba, which thousands of average Cubans go into every day, they have the opportunity to see all of the programming of Television Marti that is done in the lobby as people try to get visas.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Just a point about CNN. Of course the gentleman understands that for CNN one needs a satellite, and satellite dishes are illegal in Cuba, and therefore the average Cuban cannot see a satellite transmission of CNN because they do not have satellite dishes.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is not the understanding I have.