Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, they cannot have it both ways on Castro. Here, Business Week quotes a fellow named Andreas who is a businessman who is lobbying for Castro. It says the embargo has been a total failure; it ought to be ended. Then you have got Time Magazine saying the purpose of Castro's visit to New York was very specific: He is desperate to end the embargo. With no more subsidies from the Soviet Union, the economy has ground to a halt. Normalized trade with a huge market 90 miles north would make all the difference for Castro. If the embargo is not working, why is Castro so desperate to get rid of it? We have got two groups lobbying for Castro. We have the capitalists who want to take advantage of the slave economy and exploit Cuban workers, and we have the ideologues, like a couple of our colleagues, who drooled all over Castro to give him gifts when he went to New York. They are in concert now. They are in coalition. But we will press forward with Helms-Burton. The American people cannot stand Castro. They know what he is doing to the Cuban people. We are going to succeed, in stopping him. We are going to succeed in passing Helms-Burton and preventing this coalition of capitalists and ideologues from saving him.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, could my colleagues imagine if during the Holocaust there had been a visit here by Hitler, and the press would have asked him ``Who designs your suits? What is your favorite sport in the Olympics?'' That is what we just saw during the visit by the Cuban tyrant, where some of our colleagues, as a matter of fact, met with him, and say now they are going to lead CODELS to go down there and lobby for the end of sanctions against him. Some businessmen met with Castro and are asking him, ``How many jobs can we transfer to your slave economy to take away from American workers?'' That is the reality of this visit that we just saw, the pathetic visit we just saw. The answer of this House, and I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as the leadership, for inserting in the bill that we are going to be discussing today, the answer of the American people and their representatives to the disgusting visit by the Cuban tyrant, is the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. It is going to be passed again today, and it is the answer to this disgusting visit by the American people.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my colleagues an interesting wire that was just handed to me, a news wire that was just handed to me: cuba provides help for affected islands Cuba is providing $47,000 in medicines to assist islands of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) affected by the recent hurricanes. The emergency aid will go to Antigua and Barbuds, Dominica, and St. Kitts and Nevis, according to Barbados-based Cuban Ambassador Lazaro Cabezas. Cabezas is accredited to a number of CARICOM states, including Trinidad and Tobago, where Cuba plans to open a diplomatic mission by the end of the year. Castro is not denied, as the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros- Lehtinen] said, medicine. He has all the medicines he wants to buy with the dollars he gets, but he does not give them to the Cuban people. If my colleagues want to go to one of the most luxurious medical centers in the world, go to the medical center that Castro provides for the tourists. He has got a thriving industry to collect dollars from tourists from throughout the world, medical tourism. The Cuban people cannot go to those medical centers. The Cuban people do not have medicines and do not have any of the amenities that the tourists have because of Castro's policies, not because of the United States. So we continue to blame America first in this instance, blame America for the lack of medicines that Castro does not permit the Cuban people to have. Let us defeat this gutting amendment. Let us move forward.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is important to point out what this amendment is striking. Let us start off by reading what it says. ``Strike all after the enacting clause and insert'' their food and medicine provision, so-called food and medicine provision. In other words, no more requests for elections, no more demand for freedom, no more trying to get at Castro's lifeline or foreign investment. No, no. I am sure that when the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] goes down to Cuba, I bet he does not ask for elections there either. He is certainly not asking for elections in this substitute amendment. I really think after 37 years, and I say this to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when are you going to demand elections for the Cuban people? When? You demanded elections in South Africa. I joined you. And when the President of my party, at that time President Reagan, was unclear or incorrect with regard to the need to come down hard on the South African regime, I criticized that. When are you going to ask for elections in Cuba? In your substitute amendment, which is here, you delete everything in the bill that stands for freedom in Cuba. So you come before us, speaker after speaker after speaker, saying ``Oh, we support elections.'' When have you made a statement, Mr. McDermott? Show me when you have gone to Cuba to demand of the regime there that you go and visit and have elections? I will tell you this, sir: I think that it is most unfortunate that, after 37 years, you still come down here and in effect pay lip service to your supposed support for freedom for our closest neighbors, and yet come here and throw red herrings into this legislation. A point was made by the distinguished gentleman from Colorado about the fact that other embargoes do not include food sales. The embargo, for example, on Iraq, or Serbia-Montenegro, those are international embargoes. If the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] or the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] joined us in going down to the White House and asking that the leadership of this Nation be utilized to seek an international embargo against the Castro regime, we will be the first ones in an international embargo to obviously exclude the food issue, like in the embargoes against Serbia or Iraq. You not only are not seeking an international embargo against a 37- year-old dictatorship of Castro. No. You are coming here and gutting a bill which is trying to prevent the flow of dollars to a regime that, after the loss of the Soviet subsidy, is hanging on by the sale of a slave economy, a slave economy, and the denial of all labor rights and all workers' rights. And you in effect are trying to gut our attempt to stop the flow of dollars to Castro's repressive machinery by his continued offer to international capitalism of the slave economy and the slave conditions of the Cuban worker. That is what you are doing. That is what you are doing. So do not come here and say that you are for freedom, when you are not asking for elections. Do not come here and say that you are for elections, when you go down to Cuba, and I have not seen any statement that you make there in demanding elections. So let us be honest. If you want to defend the regime, say so. Then I will have more respect for you.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to take issue very briefly with the distinguished gentleman from Indiana with regard to his analysis of how the bill has reached the floor and specifically his analysis of the changes that were made after the bill as reported from the Committee on International Relations and its arrival at the Committee on Rules where it was reported favorably yesterday. As I attempted to state earlier, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means made some minor recommendations that (a) make certain that the bill does not violate international agreements; (b) made discretionary some of the bill's recommendations for assistance to a post-Castro democratic Cuba; and, as been stated by the CBO letter, ended the bill's fiscal impact. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague and dear friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, a great ally of freedom throughout the world and specifically of the Cuban people in their quest for democracy.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak to a number of issues that have been brought out in the last minutes. A whole gamut of arguments have been leveled, have been produced to try to defeat this legislation. Earlier in the evening we heard some simpler arguments. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations has just, in his typically eloquent way, gone into depth, espousing the position of the Clinton administration that I know he shares with regard to this legislation, and I think he has done so very effectively. There are a number of points that I think need to be rebutted that the distinguished gentleman brought out, because I take issue with them, and I think that it is important to attempt to set the record straight. I will be brief in attempting to do so. For example, he stated that the bill would permit people to incorporate a legal entity, and then, based on the cause of action being created by this legislation, go into court and try to sue traffickers of American property. That is not correct. The American citizen, individual, or legal entity, would have to exist before the enactment, be a person, before the enactment of this legislation in order to take advantage of the cause of action. Other things were stated, for example, with regard to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which I think I need to make reference to, because again I take issue with what was said. The argument was made that this legislation in some way would hamper or interfere with the process of certified claims under the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. That is not the case. That process remains untouched. Only those certified claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission need to be represented by the U.S. Government. The new cause of action created by this legislation will be private with regard to nonresidential property in Cuba, and will lie solely against the traffickers in stolen United States property, and will end upon the occurrence of free and fair elections in Cuba. Now, the arguments that were made earlier, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, were more difficult to remain calm upon hearing them, because some of them I think were very unfair. But, in a democracy, one respects all points of view, even the most differing points of view. I think it is important to the democratic process that debate be able to take place respectfully. Again, we heard, even after the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] spoke, the allegation that a somehow narrow interest has to do with this legislation, a narrow interest because Cuban-Americans support this legislation, despite the fact that we see speaking just a few minutes ago the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford], despite the fact that the sponsor, the gentleman [Mr. Burton], is from Indiana. It is the narrow interest of Cuban-Americans. So, as my dear colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] said, we do not hear that on this floor when Americans of Jewish descent or heritage speak about their very passionately held views on the Middle East, or when Irish-Americans speak about American policy with regard to Northern Ireland. We do not hear about that being a narrow interest. But even after the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] spoke, we again heard that here. But again, Mr. Chairman, we have learned not to take those points, those assertions personally, and, rather, try to stick to the legislation in this instance. We put up with and listen respectfully to statements, misstatements that are made or allegations that are unfair. We do so conscious of the fact that it is a privilege to serve in this body and to represent almost 600,000 constituents, and at the same time to dream of and fight for the freedom of 11 million people who, for 37 years, have been bound and gagged by a tyrant who refuses to grant them that elemental right to self-determination, which can only be exercised through free and fair elections. We think and we pray for the oppressed people of Cuba, and we work for the day that they can be free, conscious, when we come here and we listen to unfair accusations, that when we compare that, the discomfort that unfair accusations can cause. When we compare that to, for example, what it means when the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] earlier made reference to this letter that we received today from, I believe it is 47 or 49 leaders of the dissident movement from within Cuba supporting this legislation, when we compare discomfort that may be caused to us by unfair allegations with what it means for these people and their families to, on the record, send us this letter on this debate, obviously, with the full knowledge and expectation that this letter will be used in this debate to help let the American people know about what the feelings of the oppressed Cuban people are. They know very well that the Cuban tyrant personally is watching this debate. They know that he has representatives here in the gallery watching this debate. Those poor petrified souls, they are probably more scared of the tyrant than anyone can conceive of, because they head of the intersection here was just fired because he was not able to prevent this legislation from coming to the floor, despite the express orders of the tyrant and the Clinton administration. And I say this with all respect. All of the arguments that we have heard them advance are prompted very simply by one reality. They were threatened by Castro in the summer of 1994 with an immigration crisis. Castro felt that President Clinton would respond to the blackmail by sitting down at the negotiation table, and he was correct. Then when he saw that the party that I am honored to belong to won the elections in 1994, and he saw that we filed this legislation, and he saw that the possibility existed, despite the feeling of outrage expressed by our colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], that it will never become law, when the tyrant of Cuba sees that he has to fire his intersection chief and that this very well may become law, he again threatened the Clinton administration. He said, you must veto this, or that immigration agreement that we sat down and negotiated, where I promised to become in effect a collaborator, Castro said of the United States, in holding back refugees because of the anti-immigrant feeling now in the United States. Oh, Castro said to Clinton, now again, if you do not stop this bill, I will abrogate the agreement and unleash, once again, immigration blackmail. A little history, Mr. Chairman, I think would be helpful at this time with regard to democratic transitions. I wanted to say, by the way, in wrapping up that concept that I have hope that the President of the United States will reconsider this position and that this letter that was sent to us today by the Secretary of State will tell Mr. Castro that the superpower is the United States, and that moribund dictatorship is the Castro regime. I am confident that the President will reconsider his position and do with the letter sent to us by Mr. Christopher today what I think is required of him, which is to reject that advice, and reject the blackmail and the threats of the Cuban tyrant. I am confident that the President of the United States, really that any President of the United States representing the great people of this Nation, the only superpower remaining in the world, will reconsider and tell the Cuban tyrant what he has to be told. [[Page H 9354]] Now, as I stated, a little history with regard to democratic transitions would be helpful at this point, I think, Mr. Chairman. In every case where there has been a transition from a dictatorship in the last 40 years in the world to a democracy, it has been because, and I want to, if I may, speak separately about the Soviet Empire, because we have heard tonight that the Soviet Empire collapsed because of engagement. I happen to believe that the Soviet Empire, as I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] mentioned before, collapsed when two factors came into being. First, the dictator that happened to take power in the Soviet Union in 1985 thought that he could make communism effective and efficient, and came up with a concept of glasnost and perestroika, in other words, that communism somehow, with some sort of human face, in other words, that he could be a dictator, a Communist dictator without killing. When we combine that with having run into Ronald Reagan, this Strategic Defense Initiative, and the fact that the Soviet Union tried to match the United States and remain a military superpower, the Soviet Union exploded like a balloon full of hot air. So that is with regard to the Soviet Empire. But let us look at the other democratic transitions. The Dominican Republic, after 32 years, the dictator Trujillo was assassinated. The Organization of America States had imposed sanctions and was in the process of expelling the Dominican Republic. The new regime, faced with the international sanctions, let the exiled opposition movement return, the Dominican Revolutionary Party, and agreed to hold elections in 1962 in Spain. There the dictator was not assassinated, but his hand-picked successor was, and then he died of natural causes in 1975. I lived in Spain in my high school years. I recall the isolationism that Franco was subjected to. At the beginning of his regime he was actually expelled from the United Nations. All Ambassadors were withdrawn, and he was never admitted back into the European Community. And to the very end of his days, Franco had to, even with foreign investments coming in, had to live with the reality of absolute diplomatic exclusion and by charter, the European Community, which was then called the Common Market, stated that only representative democracies would be admitted into that organization. What happened? The dictator physically disappeared. The regime agreed to legalize political activity and to hold elections. The Greece of the colonels in the 1960s and 1970s, again excluded from the mechanism of the European Community, and nobody would have dreamt to advocate constructive engagement or letting the Greece of the colonels back into the incipient European Community organizations. The South Africa of the apartheid regime, this Congress and the world community imposed international sanctions, and we saw that there, voluntarily, the dictatorship agreed to hold free and fair elections. The chief of Chile, Pinochet, the world community again continued to condemn time after time and isolate the regime. Could it have been conceived of that Pinochet would have been invited to any conference of Latin American leaders? That any Latin American or European or any other leaders would have invited him to the table to sit down and be treated by like a democratically elected President? No. That dictatorship voluntarily, like the South African dictatorship, agreed to a change. Mr. Chairman, where have there not been democratic transitions, where constructive engagement has not been accompanied by even political sanctions? China and Vietnam that we hear about all the time. The advocates of engagement, who coincidentally happen to be those who led the fight for sanctions in South Africa, led the fight for sanctions in Haiti, led the fight for sanctions against Chile, but with regard to Castro's Cuba are seeking so-called engagement. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] said that policy is working in China. What I see working in China is that Mao Tse Tung died and the communist dictators are still in power and there is no pressure for a democratic transition because if you get all the investment and you don't get any of the political sanctions or economic sanctions, you can be there, call yourself what you want to call yourself. Franco called himself a Phalangist. The Chinese fascist thugs still call themselves, I believe they still call themselves Marxist- Leninists. They are thugs, they are dictators. They demonstrated in Tiananmen Square just a few years ago. So that is a little history that I think is important to realize. Mr. Chairman, the Cuban people are bound and gagged. The Cuban people, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] said when we went with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], when we went to meet with the democratically elected representatives of the Cuban people who had arrived weeks before at Guantanamo, 30,000 of them were there and they had elected their leaders, one of the few elections, the only election that had taken place on Cuban soil in many, many years, they told us, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] said, why can you not get the Spaniards and the rest of the Europeans and the Mexicans to stop trading and join in international sanctions? Well, we may not be able to get them to show any ethics in the United Nations. I think, by the way, and this bill calls for, the President to seek an international embargo at the U.N. Security Council. The administration comes back and says, ``Well, even our unilateral embargo gets condemned.'' I had to hold my laughter when members of the National Security Council gave me that argument. I said, please do not tell me that when Mr. Aristide, in custody of the Secret Service in his Georgetown exile, votes to condemn American policy, that you are using much advocacy or really trying to convince Mr. Aristide not to condemn American policy in the General Assembly, and they could not answer it. Do not tell me that when you cannot get Mr. Balaguer of the Dominican Republic or the President of Guatemala or the President of Honduras to vote with the United States in the United Nations General Assembly that you are using a lot of political capital or advocacy. That is a farce. Mr. Chairman, I think that every year the administration picks two or three countries not to condemn or embargo. That is my personal belief, no proof of it. But I think we could convince Guatemala and Honduras not to condemn us. I truly believe so, that our State Department could do that. So the Cuban people, bound and gagged, for 37 years disarmed, one of the first things that Castro did was say when he arrived in Havana, the issue of racism was brought up, some people referred to him at that time as the great white hope. Another issue for discussion perhaps another day. He said, armas por que, arms for what? The people who had arms turned them over before they realized what kind of a totalitarian system this man was going to institute. They are unarmed, they are bound and gagged, they want the right to free elections. When we hear our colleagues say that we all support free elections, what are we willing to do about it? What the American people are willing to do about it, number one, is tell our business community that they cannot trade and profit from the oppression of Castro, and now we are telling the international business community that if they want to go in there and purchase the property that used to belong to American citizens, nonresidential, Castro continues to lie about that, that then they will have consequences in this market. The practical effect: Choose. Cooperate with the more abundant dictatorship or have access to the American market. I think the American people are going to be proud of this bill. It is in the best traditions of the American people. The American people are the only people that helped the Cuban people in the 19th century after a hundred years of struggle when the Cubans were fighting against Spanish colonialism and the American people were proud of that chapter in American history. [[Page H 9355]] They are going to be proud of the fact that the Cuban people, when they get over this nightmare, they will be able to look in the eye each and every American citizen and say that you and each and every American citizen will be proud of the fact that their representatives followed a policy throughout this era that can make them proud. And that stands with the Cuban people, and on the issue of Cuba, the only people we have to be worried about standing with are the Cuban people.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 225 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 include extraneous material.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 225 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995. House Resolution 225 provides a very generous 2\1/2\ hours of general debate, increased from the standard 1 hour to accommodate various views on both sides of the aisle, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment in the nature of a substitute the text of H.R. 2347. House Resolution 225 provides that prior to consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider a further amendment in the nature of a substitute, if offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] or his designee, which would be debatable for 1 hour equally divided between a proponent and an opponent. It also provides that the amendment shall be considered as read and that the amendment shall not be subject to amendment. House Resolution 225 makes in order the amendments printed in part one of the Committee on Rules report and debatable for 20 minutes for each amendment equally divided between a proponent and an opponent and provides that the amendment shall be considered as read. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone and/or to cluster votes on amendments and, finally, provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate the differences of opinion on both sides of the aisle, we agreed, as I stated earlier, to increase the general debate time from 1 hour to 2\1/2\ hours. I believe that the debate will be important, and I look forward to its commencement. At this time I would like to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], and the many others who are too countless to name for their exemplary efforts in bringing this bill forward. I would also like to publicly thank the leaders of our House, the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay, for finding time in the House's schedule this week and for all the assistance they have provided in ensuring its consideration in a timely manner. Mr. Speaker, this legislation constitutes a powerful and very effective mechanism for accelerating the liberation of the Cuban people from the oppression that the dictatorship there has been carrying out against the Cuban people for over three decades. Mr. Speaker, the Cuban people are facing an avalanche of collaborationism by governments and investors in the international community who are seriously considering, and in a few instances, accepting, the Cuban dictator's invitation to come in and partake of his oppression of Cuban workers, his guaranteed denial of all labor rights, and his fire sale of the island at dirt cheap prices to foreign capitalists who agree to collaborate with him by purchasing commercial property, property that in many instances was stolen from U.S. citizens. This bill will stop the flow, Mr. Speaker. This bill will stop the flow of foreign capital to Castro. His last lifeline after the collapse of the Soviet Union is creating a cause of action in United States courts for United States [[Page H 9329]] citizens against foreigners who traffic in property that Castro stole from those United States citizens. In other words, and I would like to quote the Speaker of the House on this: ``If anyone else in the world buys expropriated American property from Castro and they have property here in the United States, we can then sue them in American courts to make them pay the money they just gave Castro for the property that was expropriated by Castro from American citizens.'' In effect, this will end Castro's possibility of obtaining the cash that he needs to keep his repressive machinery going, Mr. Speaker. With this legislation, the American people's Representatives will be saying very clearly to those who are dealing in property stolen from Americans by the Cuban dictator: Do not do it, it is morally wrong, and if you nonetheless traffic in property stolen from American citizens, you will have to suffer consequences in the United States for your actions. We will hear during the process of this debate many arguments, I am sure, that we have already heard at length during actually 3 days of debate, seemingly never-ending, on just a handful of amendments in the Committee on International Relations and again in the Committee on Rules yesterday. We will hear of course that this rule is unfair from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, though we are providing, Mr. Speaker, about six times more time for debate with this rule than the last time that a bill regarding Cuba was brought to the floor of the House 3 years ago under a majority from the Democratic side of the aisle. We are also providing about 500 percent more of an opportunity to amend the legislation than when the Democrats were in the majority. As we will recall, Mr. Speaker, they brought the Cuban Democracy Act to the House floor under a suspension calendar. So we are providing for what is, when you count up the amount of time that we are providing for debate on this important issue, about 6 hours of debate. Mr. Speaker, in the context of the debate, we will probably hear things said like, for example, that constructive engagement is the way to treat the Cuban dictatorship. Interestingly enough, many people who were the leaders against constructive engagement with regard to the dictatorships in South Africa or the dictatorship in Haiti or the dictatorship in Chile, many of the people who were against so-called constructive engagement with regard to those dictatorships will probably be advocating for constructive engagement with regard to the dictatorship in Cuba. They will probably say that it was constructive engagement that freed the peoples of Eastern Europe, when the fact Eastern Europe was freed when the Soviet empire could not compete with the United States as it attempted to maintain military parity with us, and superpower status, and we denied them the political legitimacy that they sought with MFN in contrast to the prior policy of so-called detente. And then we will hear, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the United States is acting alone, that we are standing by the Cuban people, but the rest of the world, whether it is the Europeans or our NAFTA partners, are busy trying to collaborate and trade with the Cuban dictatorship. We will hear that we are standing alone. We will hear, for example, of the Canadian company, I am sure, Sherritt Mining, the largest publicly held Canadian mining company that has worked out a deal with the Cuban dictator by which they mine nickel, that mineral, in eastern Cuba. They take it to Canada for processing, and then the chemical waste, the chemical waste from that process, Castro agrees that Sherritt Mining consented, back to Cuba to be dumped on Cuban soil and Cuban waters. We will probably hear of that as an example of constructive engagement and one way to help bring freedom and democracy to the Cuban people. We will rebut each and every allegation with regard to arguments that I am sure will be made that the time has come to treat Castro nicely, that the time has come to treat Castro like we are treating the communist Chinese or the Vietnamese. The last argument that came to my attention, Mr. Speaker, was that this bill was going to cost a lot of money, because there would be many, many lawsuits brought by Americans in U.S. courts to defend their properties stolen by Castro. I want to make clear from the very outset that all residential property in Cuba is excluded from even possible consideration for the Federal courts under this legislation, and I want to make very clear that the CBO, and I have the letter here, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office, points out that the fiscal impact of this legislation is virtually zero. That is very important to point out, because we have heard in the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Rules many distortions with regard to that. One other distortion is, I am sure, the bill is different than the bill reported in the Committee on International Relations. There were very minor changes requested by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the significant change was the deletion of the fiscal impact, which is important to bring out from the very beginning. I think of all the arguments, though, that I have heard against a firm policy by the United States on behalf of the Cuban people and against the dictatorship, we will hear it I am sure over and over again, everybody seems to say that they want Castro to go, that they want democracy for Cuba, but that they are against anything to achieve it. In fact, some of our colleagues on the other side will be arguing that the way to achieve a democratization in Cuba is by giving Castro cash, giving Castro access to credits. One thing that I think is particularly insidious, and I would say ethically objectionable, is when the same leaders who spearheaded sanctions against dictatorships in South Africa, and even in this hemisphere, in Haiti, call for help for Castro, trade for Castro, credits for Castro, that double standard is particularly, as I say, Mr. Speaker, insidious, hypocritical, and objectionable. So we will debate this openly. The bill is fair. It provides, as I say, for approximately 6 hours of debate, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, in a communication in writing, as well as verbally to the Members of this House, stated a very firm deadline for amendments to be presented before the Committee on Rules for consideration, and the amendments that came in at that time that were timely were permitted for consideration. I must say that I was one who had an amendment, it did not come in pursuant to the guidelines set by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and that amendment was not made in order and I accept responsibility and I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for setting such a fair way of managing our committee. So I want to commend the gentleman for that. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to debate on this rule. I believe that the rule for this legislation is fair, and I urge its adoption. I include the following information from the Committee on Rules:

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings]. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues from New York, Mr. Rangel, that I dream of the day when 2 members of parliament who disagree as deeply and as passionately on an issue, that obviously is very close to my heart, will be able to have discussions like we have in this Chamber in a free and Democratic Cuba. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is what can we do as representatives of the great American people to accelerate the inevitable liberation of the people of Cuba from the dictatorship that for over three decades has tortured them and oppressed them. Now, after losing the subsidy of the Soviet Union, it is clinging on to power, holding on to power with that last card available to the dictator, foreign investment with his fire sale at dirt-cheap prices of the entire island. Mr. Speaker, the action we are taking today in passing this rule and debating and passing this legislation will, without any doubt, accelerate the liberation of the Cuban people. One issue that the gentleman from New York brought up, I think, is very important to end with. The issue is that we are acting alone at this time in supporting the Cuban people. But throughout history, it is not the first time that the United States has acted alone and it is not the first time that a great power has stood alone in the world in support of an oppressed people. Mr. Speaker, I remember reading the history of the American War of Independence. At that time, Great Britain was the great superpower and most of the world was aligned with Great Britain against the struggle of the American people for freedom and independence, and it was basically France and the Cubans at that time, who were forming as a nation and who were still under the flag of colonial Spain, who came to the help of the American people. Here we have in this Chamber the picture, the portrait of Lafayette, that great French general, who along with other countrymen of his, and Spanish people, people under the Spanish flag in the forming Cuban nation, helped this Nation. So, Mr. Speaker, we do not have to be ashamed that we are alone standing with the Cuban people. On the issue of Cuba, we only have to be concerned about standing with one people. On the issue of Cuba, we have to be concerned with standing with the Cuban people. We will be proving that we are with the Cuban people, and that is enough for the great American people for their conscience and their history that will reaffirm the greatness of this Nation, that in the 19th century alone stood with the Cuban people after the Cubans fought Spanish colonialism for half a century. Again, in this era it is telling the international community if they go in there and try to prolong the ruthless dictatorship of Castro, they are going to have consequences against them in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, let us support this rule and pass it and let us pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded as for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forth the first of the 13 appropriations bills that has made it through the conference process. This rule is very simple--it merely waives points of order against the consideration of the conference report. Specifically, the rule contains waivers for three items that go beyond the scope of the conference, thereby waiving clause 3 of rule XXVIII. There are also a few legislative items which necessitate a waiver of clause 2 of rule XX. There was very little discussion at the hearing to grant the rule and I do not believe there should be much controversy surrounding it. Before the district work period, I read press accounts that the President may be considering a veto of this conference report, not because he disagrees with any of its substance, but rather because it is the first of the necessary 13 spending measures to reach his desk, and he may, apparently, wish to protest against some other bills that he does not have substantive objections to. I think that action by the President would be very unfortunate--but we need to proceed with the responsibilities that we have, like passing the appropriations bills. And with this bill we are setting the example of moving toward a balanced budget by reducing our own budget first. As a Member of Congress who serves on both of the Speaker-appointed committees, and in my role on the Committee on House Oversight, I am very proud of the reforms achieved in H.R. 1854 and retained in this conference report, based on the recommendations by House Oversight. We had some tough choices to make, but getting our own House in order and cutting our own budget was a necessary and important first step in the long and difficult road toward achieving a balanced Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, as you will recall from the House's consideration of this bill in June, H.R. 1854 incorporates House Oversight plans to greatly reform the internal workings of the House of Representatives, and over the next few months alone, save the taxpayers $7 million by streamlining operations. This bill is below the subcommittee's 602(B) allocation and is over 8 percent below last year's spending level. Additionally, H.R. 1854 eliminates, consolidates and reduces, and paves the way for the privatization of some functions that may be less costly when performed by the private sector. I would like to commend Chairman Thomas, Chairman Packard, Ranking Member Fazio and of course Chairman Livingston, for their excellent work in bringing this conference report forward. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 206 is necessary to preserve the agreements reached in conference on legislative branch appropriations I urge adoption of both the rule and the conference report. Rule for Legislative Branch Appropriation Conference Report Specific Waivers Included in the General Waiver items beyond the scope of conference (clause 3, rule xxviii) Amendment #10 adds new features to the Senate proposal for 60 days of severance pay for employees of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), such as entitlement to health benefits. The House had no comparable provision. Amendment #34 includes a provision directing the Public Printer to propose a [[Page H 8556]] means to create cost incentives for publishing agencies, including Congress, to migrate from print-on paper products to electronic format. This is a different approach from that recommended by the House. There was no Senate provision on this subject. Amendment #55 drops a Senate provision regarding reductions in facility energy costs. There was no comparable House provision. Then three new provisions were inserted as follows: (1) to specify the law enforcement authority of the House Sergeant at Arms, (2) to clarify existing authority of the Committee on House Oversight to consolidate representational allowances of House Members, and (3) to establish an account to pay settlements under the Congressional Accountability Act and to require that specified Congressional agencies submit proposals to reduce facility energy costs. legislative items on an appropriation conference report (clause 2, rule xx)--example Amendment #10 establishes a new procedure for the phase out of OTA employees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to that distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)