Lincoln Diaz-Balart

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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, House Resolution 169 is a structured rule, providing for the consideration of H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. The rule waives section 302(f), prohibiting consideration of legislation which exceeds a committee's allocation of new entitlement authority, and section 308(a) which requires a cost estimate in committee reports on new entitlement authority of the Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also waives clause 2, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations of legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, and clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations, of rule XXI against provisions in the bill. In addition, the rule makes in order only the amendments printed in the report on the rule, to be offered only in the order printed, by the Member specified, and debatable for the time specified in the report. The amendments are considered as read and are not subject to amendment or a demand for a division of the question in the House or Committee of the Whole. Also, all points of order are waived against the amendments. House Resolution 169 permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and to reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the first of a series of votes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, as in last year's legislative branch appropriations rule, House Resolution 169 is a fairly standard structured rule to allow for the consideration of H.R. 1854. Amendments were made in order that allow the full House to make changes in areas where there are true differences of opinion. Last year, a total of 43 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee and 12 of those were made in order. This year, 33 amendments were filed at the Rules Committee, and House Resolution 169 makes 11 in order. Of this year's group of filed amendments, less than one-half, by the way, Mr. Speaker, of the amendments filed were submitted on time and several were repetitive. A full dozen of these amendments dealt with franked mail and the Rules Committee made three amendments that affect Members mailings in order. We also allow amendments that would restore functions that some Members want to retain. In addition, we allow the full House to vote on an amendment that would allow Members to return unspent portions of their office expense allotments to the Treasury to be used for deficit reduction. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege in being the only Member of Congress to currently serve 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 based on the recommendations by House Oversight. We had some tough choices to make, but getting our own House in order and tightening our own buckles is a necessary step if we are ever going to achieve a balanced Federal budget; which is, of course, our goal. H.R. 1854 incorporates House Oversight plans to revolutionize 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. H.R. 1854 eliminates, consolidates and reduces, paving the way for privatization of functions that will likely be less costly when performed in some instances by the private sector. Quite frankly, House Oversight and the legislative branch subcommittee did such a fine job that there really is not much room for improvement by way of further reductions on the floor. I would like at this time to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Committee on House Oversight, as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative, and of course the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations, for their excellent work in bringing this bill forward. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that House Resolution 169 is a necessarily structured and yet fair rule, and I would urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me this time. Chairman Gilman has done an extraordinary job, along with the other members of the Committee on International Relations, and they should all be commended for this fine piece of legislation, as should Chairman Solomon and my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for bringing forth a fair rule, Mr. Speaker, a fair rule. It permits any amendment that any Member may have to be brought to the floor. We have 2 hours of general debate after this hour on the rule, and then we have got another 10 hours for debating this bill. This is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. You know, when you project it over the 7-year balanced budget glidepath, this bill is expected to save $21 billion of taxpayer money at the same time that it lays forth the framework for continued American leadership in the world. At this time, Mr. Speaker, when we are commencing the critical fiscal battle to save America's economic future by balancing the budget, this bill will prohibit foreign aid to countries that engage in intelligence activities within the United States, harmful to the national security of our country, that provide lethal military equipment to a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism or countries that consistently oppose the United States in the United Nations. I think it is about time we take these steps. I want to commend Chairman Gilman for including these important matters in this critical legislation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich budget resolution and would like to applaud Chairman Kasich for his tremendous efforts and the work of his committee in developing the Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1996. I applaud the chairman for his efforts in the arduous task of balancing the Federal budget by 2002. We all have a difficult road ahead of us in attacking the enormous Federal deficit, and although I have some differences in how I would achieve this deficit reduction, I certainly agree that we need to be fiscally responsible. For the Record, I would like to submit the attached editorial which appeared in the Tuesday, May 16 Miami Herald. I call your attention to the lessons learned in Latin America, where inflation tamers in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Peru continue to win election or reelection. These leaders took steps to avoid impending national bankruptcy. A steadily increasing Federal debt in the United States would not only be destructive, the destruction that it would cause would be our responsibility if we do not act now. The sacrifice that will be required now is minimal when we compare it with what would be required later if we do not act. We are not talking about the actual cutbacks in the size of the public sector and the recessionary increases in taxes that Latin American-style shock therapies after meltdowns have entailed. If we act now, we need only reduce the rate of growth of the Federal Government. We are at a fork in the road of our national destiny. If we embark upon the road sought by those who want to maintain the status quo, if we adopt the position of the ostrich and continue to hide our head in the sand, as the administration has done by not submitting a budget that is balanced at any time in the future, we will be doing an extraordinary disservice to our children and to their children. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge a ``yea'' vote on the Kasich budget resolution. [From the Miami Hearld, May 16, 1995] Inflation-Buster Wins Again It used to be said of French voters that they kept their hearts on the left and their wallets on the right. The seesawing between heart and wallet tended to have a predictable outcome at election time: enough change to keep the romantic passion alive, but with the bottom line always firmly in control. Argentine President Carlos Saul Menem's solid victory in Sunday's presidential elections confirms a significant Latin American variation on the French theme: Argentines' fearsome memories of inflation overrode their other concerns, including some traditional emotional hot-buttons. A late surge by challenger Jose Octavio Bordon not only failed to force a runoff, but actually shriveled as the election hour neared. Throughout the hemisphere, it seems, inflation tamers keep winning elections and wisdom, which until recently maintained that the extreme fiscal severity of anti-inflation ``shock therapy'' would induce a backlash of desperate social protest. That assumption was wrong. Once severe fiscal measure are implemented, Latin Americans have endured their high, recessionary price-tag with remarkable fortitude. Nowhere was this clearer than in Brazil's presidential election last year, where former finance minister Fernando Henrique Cardoso saw his poll ratings soar in proportion to the success of his anti-inflation Plan Real. His charismatic leftist rival could only watch in impotence as a once- handsome lead slipped away. Inflation-taming has been so strongly endorsed by Latin American voters that it has even conferred a thick Teflon coating on the neo-liberals of the hard-money school. Both Peru's Alberto Fujimori and Mr. Menem have emerged relatively unscathed from embarrassing political accusations, largely because of their economic successes. But post-inflation presidents are sure to face tougher terms. Having rewarded stability and fiscal discipline for a long, difficult spell, Latin American voters will soon take up once again their long-deferred hopes of growth, better income distribution, and honest government. The inflation- fighters' success thus far makes those hopes seem more realistic than before. Before long, though, it will become clear that politicians can keep voters hearts only by thickening their wallets.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the secretly negotiated agreement between the Clinton administration and Fidel Castro, announced yesterday, to return Cuban refugees to Castro's state security is unprecedented as well as immoral. As Speaker Gingrich declared yesterday, for the first time in history, the U.S. Government has agreed to cooperate with a Communist dictatorship's security forces in order to carry out the forced return of refugees who managed to escape. The administration now says that Castro has given it assurances that those refugees turned over to state security will not be persecuted, and yet they did not even ask Castro to abrogate his own law that requires jailtime for those caught trying to leave without permission. An administration official told me yesterday not to worry, that Castro has prosecutorial discretion. This, Mr. Speaker, this incident, this agreement, is shameful. It is another attempt to appease a totalitarian dictator who will still not be satisfied by the McGovernites who now control American foreign policy.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the Belen Jesuit School Key Club and their continuing meritorious service and assistance in providing relief to refugees from tyranny. As my colleagues are aware, the massive Cuban exodus that occurred last summer has been just the latest sad chapter of a 36-year saga. The suffering faced by those brave rafters did not end when they were rescued from their rafts or when the television crews went home. Because of circumstances beyond their control, many are still suffering today from privations and indefinite detention. From the onset of this latest crisis, the young men of the Belen Jesuit Key Club have been sacrificing and working to help alleviate the many hardships faced by these brave Cubans. Among other things, these selfless high school students have bottled water to be dropped to rafters while they were still at sea, collected donations for pillows, pencils, and paper for those in the camps, and traveled themselves to the camps to help distribute aid. Most importantly Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that these young men continue to demonstrate time and time again their concern and humanity towards those who are suffering. They truly exemplify the Jesuit ideal and can be called ``men for others''. We as a country must be proud to have such men in our society. I for one am privileged that they reside in my community.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have four speakers who have asked to address the House. I will begin by yielding 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished new Member, the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 authored by our distinguished colleague from Florida, [Mr. Shaw]. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the requirements for seniors-only housing by removing the ``significant facilities and services'' requirement for housing for older persons from the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3631. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against families with children, and as the father of two young boys, I am a strong supporter of the rights of families with children of any age. However, current law also allows for seniors-only housing if it meets certain requirements, including the provision of ``significant facilities and services.'' It is my understanding that compliance with the regulations that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has devised to meet this requirement are often vague and sometimes very expensive to meet. Mr. Speaker, I would defer to the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and to others, other members of the Committee on the Judiciary and Members who have worked diligently on this legislation, which of course the Committee on the Judiciary reported this bill, to speak to the details, to the bill's merits. I will speak to the rule with which the Committee on Rules brings this bill to the floor. It is, I believe, an extremely fair rule; it is an open rule. Two amendments were offered by members of the minority in the Committee on the Judiciary, amendments that failed on recorded vote, and there may be other Members of Congress and not on the Committee on the Judiciary that may wish to amend this bill. Under this open rule any Member of Congress, regardless of committee or party affiliation, has the opportunity to offer any germane amendment. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5- minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126, I believe, is exemplary, it is a totally fair, completely open rule, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], who, along with the sponsor, the gentleman fro Florida [Mr. Shaw], has worked extremely hard and very diligently on this legislation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is amazing to see the campaign on behalf of one of the last remaining tyrants in the world that is engaged upon by our local newspaper here, the Washington Post. In the last 3 days, we have five articles or op-ed pieces in this newspaper desperately trying to defend Castro, desperately trying. ``Proposed Republican Bill on Cuba Could Hurt Canadian Economy.'' That is one article. ``U.S. Alarms Canada with Cuba Shift.'' ``Adrift on Cuba.'' ``Get off Cuba's Back.'' ``A Bill That Will Help Castro.'' By the way, this bill that has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Helms and here by Congressman Burton already with a substantial number of us cosponsoring it, this bill that this op-ed piece in the Washington Post from yesterday, under the headline ``A Bill That Will Help Castro,'' this theory that this bill helps Castro, it is interesting. It happens to be Castro's main objective in terms of defeat. Yet article after article after article, we see allegations that, for example, two things, and this is another op-ed in the Washington Post from today. This op-ed says, ``Two things seem to be driving our anti-Castro policy. Cubans in Florida and sheer vengeance.'' Where do we see, for example, when black Americans try to influence policy on Haiti and on South Africa and Irish-Americans try to influence policy with regard to Northern Ireland and Jewish-Americans try to influence policy with regard to the Middle East, where are five articles or op-ed pieces in the Washington Post in 3 days criticizing that? I think that this has to be called what it is. This is despicable. If it were targeted on the Irish-American community or the black community or the Jewish community, it would be rightfully called for what it is, it would be called racist. Yet it is all right to say that Cuban-Americans cannot lobby in the United States so that the country where they were born in and where relatives of theirs still have to live is free. That is incorrect according to article after article and op-ed after op-ed. Let me just say to these folks at the Washington Post, a little balance would perhaps be logical. If you are going to have five articles and op-eds in 3 days defending Castro, for example, one of them here ``Adrift on Cuba,'' a savage attack on an American patriot who happens to be in the State Department, Ambassador Michael Skol, a savage attack, probably leaked by someone in the National Security Council, notice this, attacks Michael Skol because Skol testified here in Congress that Castro last July had ordered over 40 men, women, and children sent to their deaths when he ordered the sinking of a tugboat that has been reported after pleas and pleas and pleas from this Congress and elsewhere, it was finally reported in the media. And Michael Skol pointed it out. Look at what this article says. ``But neither the National Security Council nor the intelligence community has evidence that the sinking was ordered according to U.S. officials,'' probably Mr. Morton Halperin at the National Security Council, probably once again the folks around the President who continue to try to pressure the President into throwing a signal of friendship, sending a signal of friendship to the Cuban tyrant. Listen to this. ``Because the Cuban government insists the sinking was accidental, Skol's testimony was taken by Cuban officials as an accusation that Castro had personally ordered it.'' Well, what happened if that was not the case? If anyone knows anything about the Cuban situation, you know that nothing happens in Cuba, much less do security officials dare to sink purposefully as the evidence has conclusively pointed to, much less do they purposely sink a ship with over 70 refugees if they do not have the direct order of their commander in chief. All the evidence points to that and Ambassador Skol is criticized. We are going to continue talking about this, Mr. speaker. But this is very serious and apparently continues to come out of the Clinton National Security Council and something has got to be done about it.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very important that I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros- Lehtinen], for having introduced this amendment that I have cosponsored. It is very important that at the very least those who are physically or mentally disabled not be excludable from benefits even after being legally in this country because of their disability, and that is what this amendment, this very fine amendment, seeks to do. I am very disappointed that a ban on SSI and AFDC and food stamps and Medicaid remains in the legislation, in the bill, with regard to legal residents. I think that ban is unfair. I think it is unnecessary. I think there is somewhat of an element of irrationality involved because a great percentage of those who may be ineligible, because they are not citizens, will become citizens, so the savings will be minimal at best from the point of view of those who say this ban will save the Government money. So it is unfortunate it is in. We will continue fighting against the ban, against legal residents of the United States, from services and will continue working with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and, of course, Members on the other side of the aisle to remedy this in the conference process. But this inclusion, the ban's inclusion in the bill, makes it imperative certainly that people that feel like I do, as strongly as I do, and I know the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] does on this issue, it is imperative that we oppose this legislation in its current form.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the following article by Ivan Arellanes be included in the Record. I believe that ``The Revolution and Its Children'' provides a worthwhile insight into problems that unfortunately many have chosen to ignore. The Revolution and Its Children (By Ivan Arellanes) One of the most disquieting aspects of my recent trip to Cuba was learning about how young people my age live. Despite living in a country where most information concerning the West, and particularly the U.S., is censored, they are aware and even have some contact with the ``materialist, capitalist, imperialist'' culture, as Fidel Castro might categorize it. I wanted to meet those young people who, although they were children of the Cuban Revolution and had been indoctrinated from childhood, had many of the same concerns, interests and ideas that I or any other young person might have. I arrived in Cuba with this in mind, and my first impression was disappointing: children and young adults were asking for money, food, candy, pencils or any item we tourists might want to give them, as we got off the bus that had brought us from the airport to the hotel. I wasn't surprised to see beggars, since this is not an occurrence unique to Cuba, but rather by the fact that there were so many everywhere. Next I encountered the much-reported phenomenon of prostitution. Without going into too much detail, let me just say that I saw a sea of men, women and children selling themselves to the highest bidder. The only way I can describe what I saw is to call Havana an enormous brothel. My first night in Havana, I was lucky enough to meet a group of five young people between twenty-four and twenty- eight years old. I spoke at length with two of them, Ronie and Ernesto. One of the main topics of conversation was entertainment. What did they do for fun? (I met them sitting next to the hotel.) They answered, ``This is what we do, sit here and watch people go by.'' They also like to bring some rum to a friend's house and dance to salsa music all night. But since the start of the daily blackouts, twelve hours long in some cases, It is no longer possible to have such parties. There is also nowhere to buy the very expensive alcoholic beverages unless you have dollars. Both, Ronie and Ernesto are professionals; one is a biologist at a hospital. Though head of his shift at the time, he was just ``hanging out'' because there was no light and no supplies to help the sick. Both laughed when I asked them where there might be a restaurant, not for tourists, but where one could find only Cubans. One asked, ``Why do you want to eat with Cubans? Why don't you eat in this nice hotel that has everything, where we aren't allowed to enter?'' They were surprised that I hadn't come, like other tourists, for sex. They told me openly of their resentment, disillusionment and hatred of the revolution, which according to them lied about its supposed achievements. Later on I realized that in order to enjoy a better life than most Cubans (they earn the equivalent of $6 a month) they hooked up with tourists who would take them to discos, dinner, hotels, and who would buy them clothing in exchange for certain favors. On my second day in Havana, I talked at length with a couple who were thirty-three and twenty-nine, respectively. They have a daughter who suffers from acute anemia owing to the lack of food. The husband works at the University of Havana and earns the equivalent of $5 a month, while his wife stays at home. They excused themselves for not offering me anything to eat or drink, because the only thing in their refrigerator was water and some old rice. She told me that sometimes days, even weeks go by when they eat only sugar water, so that they could give their daughter what little food they had. We talked politics. Checking often to make sure the neighbors couldn't hear, they told me openly of their opinions on the Castro regime and the desperate living conditions in Cuba. I asked them to consider the extreme poverty, injustice and corruption in other countries, such as Haiti, and then asked them whether they would rather live in Cuba or Haiti. In a few words they summed up their disillusionment with the Castro regime: ``Let me put it to you this way. We would rather live in the worst country on earth, anywhere but Cuba.'' During our conversation we listened to music by their favorite artists: Willy Chirino, Gloria Estefan and Jon Secada. I would also talk to another person who practically broke my heart. His name is Yojiro, a thirteen-year-old boy who came up to me on the street and began to walk with me. He told me that his classmates were doing agricultural work, and that he hadn't been able to go because he had injured his foot. He also told me his favorite music was rap and Michael Jackson. When I asked him if he had ever seen Fidel Castro, he told me that Castro never got close to the ``common'' people and could only be seen from a distance. As with all the young people I had met previously, his major interest was in knowing what the United States was like, what we did for fun, what we thought of Cuba. Nevertheless, what most endeared him to me was that he would not accept any gifts from me. He just wanted to talk, to be treated like an equal and not a beggar, to go into a restaurant with me and sit at a table without having the waiters bother him, in short, to feel like a human being. When I returned from my trip to Cuba, friends and relatives asked me if I had liked it, if I had enjoyed myself. I answered that it had been the worst vacation I had ever had, that I hated Cuba--not the country and certainly not the people--but the injustice forced upon them by the dictatorship they live under.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, back in December, my office began to get reports from within the Clinton administration that advisers, foreign policy advisers to the President, were advising him to send a gesture of friendship to Castro. After I got the third report from within the administration that foreign policy advisers to the President were pressuring the President to do that, to send a gesture of friendship to Castro, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and I sent a letter to the President, where we expressed our deep concern about those reports, and I have got that letter here and I would like to read it if I can. ``Mr. President''--this was back in December-- We have received deeply disturbing reports from within your administration concerning efforts by Mr. Morton Halperin to achieve the implementation of a policy initiative by the White House that would benefit the Cuban communist dictatorship. These reports are made even more alarming by the fact that Mr. Halperin is the member of your National Security Council staff, whose nomination to a sensitive Department of Defense position had to be withdrawn when the Democratic-controlled Senate would not confirm him. Throughout his career, Mr. Halperin has shown faulty judgment in relation to threats emanating from Castro's Cuba. After Castro's incursions into Angola and Ethiopia, for example, Mr. Halperin inaccurately wrote that ``every action which the Soviet Union and Cuba have taken in Africa has been consistent with the principles of international law. The Cubans have come in only when invited by a government and have remained only at their request.'' ``As you know, Mr. President''--we continue in the letter, in December-- On August 5th of this year, approximately 30,000 Cubans spontaneously took to the streets in Havana demanding freedom. Despite a terrible crackdown by the regime, Cubans throughout the island are demanding democracy in ever-bolder forms of action. Sugar production and Castro's ability to purchase oil are at an all time low, the sanctions you implemented last August 20th are having a strong effect, and numerous signs point to the inevitable collapse of the communist tyranny. Any gesture along the lines being sought by Mr. Halperin at this time, such as authorizing U.S. business to engage in the unrestricted sale and financing of medicine, medical supplies, medical equipment or food to Castro; lifting your August 20th sanctions, banning charter flights and remittances; allowing financial transactions or travel for so-called academic, cultural and scientific exchange, public exhibitions or performances or activities of alleged religious organizations; loosening travel restrictions to allow unrestricted travel by U.S. citizens or allowing business or tourist travel; allowing the establishment of U.S. news bureaus in Cuba or Cuban news bureaus in the United States; or ceasing to regulate financial transactions related to the establishment of news bureaus in communist Cuba; entering into so-called negotiations with the government to settle U.S. property claims or any other friendly gesture toward Castro at this time of almost unprecedented repression would constitute a form of the complicity with the ferocious oppression of the Cuban communist dictatorship against its people. We hope that you will remain firm in the enforcement of our sanctions against the Cuban dictatorship by resisting the pressures of those who would throw in the moribund Cuban totalitarian regime. He very courteously answers in January, stating, ``I assure you that our Cuban policy will remain focused on bringing about a peaceful transition to a democratic regime and will be guided by the Cuban Democracy Act.'' Basically, he goes on saying that we won't be pressured. Then he says, please be--``Please be assured as well that I have confidence in the advice that I am being given on Cuba. That advice has and will continue to reflect the administration policy and the principles of the Cuban Democracy Act. I look forward to working with Congress in pursuit of our common objective of a free and Democratic Cuba.'' Now, today the Washington Post on the front page has an article, Clinton may ease sanctions on Cuba. Talk about a direct leak. President Clinton's foreign policy advisers are recommending, this is not--we hear it is possible, there are reports, no, beginning of the article, front page of the Washington Post, President Clinton's foreign policy advisers are recommending he take steps towards easing relations from Cuba by revoking some economic sanctions adopted against the Nation in August, administration's officials said yesterday. This is the Washington Post today. So how does one reconcile the letter from the President, where he says, I am not yielding to pressure, we are going to maintain our sanctions, please be assured that I have confidence in the advice I am getting, and this article. We need to continue talking about this. This is very serious, very serious. This is not the time to throw a lifeline to Castro. It is the time to go the other direction and to help Cuban people to gain their freedom.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART

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 the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 96 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995. The purpose of this legislation is to provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and the environment through scientifically objective and unbiased risk assessments and through the consideration of costs and benefits in major rules. In addition to the 1 hour of debate on this rule, the rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, with 1 hour equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, and 1 hour equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Science Committee. After general debate is completed, the bill will be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule, for a period of time not to exceed 10 hours. I would like to emphasize that any Member will have the opportunity to offer an amendment of the bill under the 5-minute rule. I believe this is a fair process, in that, again, it will allow any Member with a suggestion for improvement of this legislation, to bring it up for consideration by the full House in the form of an amendment. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 96 brings to the floor H.R. 1022, a bill which is the product of intense negotiations to reconcile the differences between bills marked up and reported out by the Committee on Science and the Committee on Commerce. Both committees had jurisdiction over title III of H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act, and I believe that this compromise legislation is a balanced and appropriate vehicle for floor consideration for purposes of amendment to achieve the goal of setting a comprehensive risk assessment policy for the Federal Government. This legislation, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995, consists of six major provisions. Title I deals with presenting the public, and Federal executive branch decisionmakers, with the most scientifically objective and unbiased information concerning the nature and magnitude of health, safety, and environmental risks in order to provide for sound regulatory decisions and public education. Title II requires Federal agencies to prepare information regarding costs and benefits for each major rule within a program designed to protect human health, safety, or the environment Title III establishes peer review requirements for rules that are likely to increase annual costs by $100 million and calls for the establishment of national peer-review panels to review agency practices concerning risk and cost assessments. Title IV sets up the applicable judicial review requirements. Title V requires each covered Federal agency to publish a plan concerning procedures for receiving and considering new information and revising risk assessments or rules where appropriate. And finally, title VI requires the President to issue biennial reports addressing risk reduction priorities among Federal regulatory programs designed to protect human health. All too often, although well-intentioned, Federal regulatory costs are vastly out of proportion to the concerns that the regulations were meant to address. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1022 reforms the Federal regulatory process in a sound some of the unintended consequences we have encountered in the past. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 1022 is a good bill, and I defer to the judgment of the chairmen of the committees that reported this bill, who have stated that 10 hours is ample time for the amendment process. If we work together in a spirit of cooperation and comity, and do not resort to dilatory tactics, we should be able to have a thoughtful amendment process to enable us to improve the bill from its current form, in necessary. I strongly support the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 and urge adoption of this open rule for its consideration. 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 96 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is, to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, is that we have 2 hours now for general debate, after which there is 10 hours for Members who have amendments to bring them forth. There is preclusion. They do not have to have printed them anywhwere in order to bring them forth. If there are no dilatory tactics, if Members who have serious amendments wish to bring them forward during the next 2 days, 10 hours of debate, they can do so. gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.