Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, today the House resumes consideration of the American Overseas Interests Act. This bill reduces spending by $3 billion over the next 2 years, and reforms our foreign policy institutions by folding three agencies into the State Department. Five recent Secretaries of State--Eagleburger, Baker, Shultz, Haig, and Kissinger--endorse this plan. The bill addresses important policy issues. It stops aid to countries that supply weapons to terrorist States and those who vote consistently against us in the United Nations. It cuts off aid to countries that provide aid to the Castro regime or which engage in subsidized trade with the Cuban dictatorship. Tomorrow, freedom-loving people are rallying at noon in Lafayette Park in front of the White House to protest the administration's policy of forcible repatriation of Cuban refugees. I encourage all of my colleagues to join in this protest and to demand a reaffirmation of this country's commitment to freedom and democracy in Cuba, and please support our bill this week.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I support the Chabot amendment to the en bloc, which would increase funding for the Development Fund for Africa, because there are important developmental and humanitarian assistance needs on that continent. I am also pleased that the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] on slavery in Mauritania has been accepted. It is long past time for us to take action against any Nation that tolerates slavery. The State Department reports that there may be up to 90,000 slaves in that country. Just one person held as a slave is reason enough for us, I believe, to refuse aid to the government that permits slavery to exist. Finally, I commend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for his amendment to allow some of the funds authorized for the War Crimes Tribunal in Yugoslavia to be used for a similar tribunal in Rwanda. We must bring to justice those guilty of the crime of genocide in Rwanda. I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman, for including these important Africa-related amendments in the en bloc amendments.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, absolutely, we agreed. That is part of the basis of my speech. All of the programs are being cut. In fact, the Africa program, in relation to the other programs that are being cut, is not nearly cut as much. I think that is the point that I was making; all of the programs are cut, just as we are cutting domestic programs, so we should cut foreign programs.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of Members come forward in support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I must remain opposed to the Hastings amendment. It is a budget buster. Without making corresponding cuts in other accounts, this amendment deviates from our plan to balance our Federal budget by the year 2002. Many Members have talked about the importance of development in Africa. I agree. Chairman Gilman agrees. That is why, in this bill, aid to Africa is cut less than any other region. Those who say that the majority in this body do not care about Africa are wrong. As my good friend Mr. Payne noted, the majority kept the Subcommittee on Africa despite a reduction from seven subcommittees to five. The Development Fund for Africa, the DFA, is maintained in this bill. Mr. Chairman, the American Overseas Interests Act is an excellent bill. It keeps the United States engaged throughout the world, including the continent of Africa. It does so while complying with our plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. Chairman Gilman deserves great credit for this accomplishment. I regret very much that I cannot support this amendment, but I firmly believe that this bill maintains our United States commitment to Africa.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance that I rise to oppose this amendment to increase the funding level for aid to Africa. If we had an unlimited amount of money to allocate to foreign aid, I would join Mr. Hastings in supporting $802 million for the Development Fund for Africa. Mr. Hastings has been a good friend, both as a fellow member of the Florida delegation, and, as one of the most active members of the Subcommittee on Africa. Whenever we have a subcommittee meeting--not just at the hearings or formal briefings, but in the many informal, private activities we have, such as meetings with foreign officials or the local members of the African diplomatic corps--I can always count on Mr. Hastings to be there and to be a very active participant. And, as someone who is new to the assignment on the Africa Subcommittee, I have found that Mr. Hastings is a very valuable resource as I study the issues of American policy toward Africa. But we don't live in an age of unlimited resources. We live in a time of fiscal austerity and we have to make the hard decisions on how to allocate limited resources among the various spending priorities. It was in that context of competing priorities that the committee, while considering the bill at our mark up sessions, gave a great deal of attention to the funding of the Development Fund for Africa. While the budget climate required that all programs contribute their fair share to the deficit reduction effort, we cut aid to Africa less than other development assistance programs. Aid for Latin America and the Caribbean, areas of the world also of great concern to every member of the Florida delegation, has not been protected with funds destined as a separate line item in this bill. What will happen is that by raising the aid for Africa without specifying the source of the funds, eventually it could hurt the poor nations of the Caribbean and Latin America whose development assistance programs will be cut or perhaps other areas will be cut. This has been the history of the aid program over the last few years--as other regions of the world have received increased development assistance funding, at least some part of the money to provide that assistance has been taken from the aid programs in Latin America and the Caribbean or other areas of the globe. I think this would be a mistake. We are trying to help countries in the Caribbean to improve their standard of living, just as we are trying to help Africa, Latin America, Europe and on and on. Economic development programs in Latin America are an important part of our overall efforts to control the illegal immigration and drug trafficking that has had an impact on the people of Florida and other southern States. There was an intensive debate in Committee, and the bill's funding level of $629 million for the Development Fund for Africa is one that was given great care. We had to find other programs in the bill and forced them to accept disproportionately large cuts in order to provide this level of aid to Africa. I should note that the Development Fund for Africa is not the only source of funding for aid programs in Africa. It is important to keep this in mind. President Clinton has the authority to take funds from the PL-480 program and channel PL-480 resources to Africa. He also has the authority to allocate general development assistance funds and apply them to projects and programs in Africa. In addition to the DFA funding, Africa projects are funded by A.I.D., through its Global Programs Bureau and out of regular Development Assistance funding. About $60 million a year in Peace Corps programs, and a quarter billion dollars of PL-480 programs, are also provided to Africa each year. [[Page H5546]] One should, in the current climate of cutbacks in all programs, allow the administration some flexibility in managing these program cuts. Increasing the funding for Africa will actually deprive President Clinton, and his Secretary of State, of the flexibility they need to manage the program cutbacks in accord with their foreign policy needs and priorities. I therefore urge Members to vote against this amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations, under the excellent leadership of our chairman, Ben Gilman, has brought to the floor a bill that combines wise policy guidance with sound fiscal discipline. The bill represents a substantial cutback in the level of discretionary spending proposed by the administration in its 1996 budget request. It is fair that the foreign affairs programs of this Government join with the domestic programs in making the sacrifices that are necessary to bring our Federal budget into balance by the year 2002. It is the administration's responsibility to manage the program entrusted [[Page H5487]] to it so that these cutbacks in funding levels produce a leaner and more effective set of programs. I am convinced that with better management and more cost- consciousness, these cuts can be absorbed without major harm to our overseas interests. We have allowed the Administration a great deal of management flexibility to make these program changes. Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman for the responsible bill he has brought to the floor and urge its adoption.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge passage of this rule, which I believe is very fair to all Members of the House. It is important to move quickly on passage of the American Overseas Interest Act, which sets forth a bold and far-reaching reorganization and consolidation of the foreign affairs agencies of our country. This bill begins a measured, deliberate process of reducing expenditures in the field of foreign affairs, which is consistent with the overall plan to bring our budget into balance by the year 2002. The consolidation of the agencies by eliminating duplication and blurred lines of authority and responsibility will contribute to the Secretary of State's ability to adapt the foreign policy programs of this Government to the new era of fiscal austerity. I believe this is a very positive constructive approach to the challenges that we face in reducing our Federal deficit. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic impulse to oppose change has led some in the administration and elsewhere to attempt to oppose the consolidation of these agencies by labeling supporters of the committee bill as isolationists or new isolationists. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the consolidation proposal has a very long history. One of the greatest international statesmen that this country produced strongly believed that the foreign affairs programs of this country should be an integral part of the State Department's programs. In fact, in 1945 when the then Assistant Secretary was offered a substantial promotion to become the Director of the Independent Foreign Aid Agency, Dean Acheson turned down the job because he insisted that neither the job nor the agency should exist, that foreign aid should be run as part of the State Department. There is a delicious irony in the fact that we should now call this proposal the Republican plan. The Acheson plan is what it really is. It sometimes has been called the Helms plan. It is to consolidate these agencies. This should be done. I mention this because it seems to me these issues are neither partisan nor ideological. They should be addressed in an atmosphere which is the focus of one question and one question only: What is the best thing for our country to do? I congratulate the gentleman from New York, Chairman Gilman, for bringing this bill to the floor in such a prompt manner. He has provided strong leadership for those of us in the committee, helping us to cope with the fundamental changes in this world. The world has been changing dramatically since the start of this decade, and this fresh approach embodied in our bill is an appropriate response to these changes. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of our colleagues urge a ``yes'' vote in the adoption of this rule.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, the bill brought to the floor by the Committee on International Relations contains dramatic changes in the organization and structure of our foreign affairs programs. These changes are long overdue, and reflect the major changes that have taken place in the world since the United States assumed the responsibilities of world leadership in the post-World War II era. Under Chairman Gilman's very able leadership, the committee has drafted and reported a bill that well deserves the support of everyone in the U.S. House of Representatives. In view of the enormous changes in the realities with which we conduct our foreign affairs, we in the committee have studied the organizations of these institutions, and we have concluded that they must change as dramatically as the world in which they must cope. The administration is incorrectly stonewalling our efforts to promote change in the foreign affairs agencies. When we held hearings on these structural changes, the most recent Secretaries of State--Secretaries Eagleburger, Baker, and Shultz-- endorsed these organizational changes. They are needed to respond to the much changed circumstances in the world. The second major challenge in crafting this bill was to cope with the clear message of the American people that financial undiscipline and massive budget deficits were no longer acceptable. The bill makes major cuts in the cost of foreign affairs activities of our Government--cuts that are in line with the sacrifices that other Government programs are being asked to make. The program funding cuts in this bill as responsible cuts--they are significant without being draconian. If the program managers responsible for executing our Nation's foreign affairs programs set their minds to it, I am convinced that our Nation's foreign affairs interests can be fully protected, as these funding cuts are made. The administration has launched its own strategic management initiative, which it claims will reinvent government. [[Page H5404]] Unfortunately, the results of that reinventing government effort, have been very disappointing. Too may good ideas have been rejected or compromised away. There are many people in the foreign affairs agencies who have tried to get agency management to stop the waste of public funds and to make cuts in the agencies' operations. There are people in the State Department, for instance, who questioned the need for us to have more State Department political officers in Belize than the Government of Belize has in its own foreign ministry. Proposals have been made to cut back on these overly expensive programs, but the proposals have been rejected. There just has not been the will at the senior level to make the hard decisions that are inherently necessary if we are ever to balance the budget. Now with the cuts in funding in this bill, and the cuts that I am sure will be contained in the appropriations bills, these changes are coming. I think that in the end, with the leaner and more efficient foreign policy program that will emerge from this bill, our country will be better off. I, therefore, urge all Members to support this bill.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the Clinton administration's decision to use this great American institution, the U.S. Coast Guard, to serve the purposes of a tyrant. We in south Florida are very knowledgeable about the Coast Guard because of the wonderful work they perform during periods of natural disasters such as during Hurricane Andrew where they played a crucial role in the rescue operations. Those of us who are residents of south Florida also know the Coast Guard as a humanitarian institution because, for years, the Coast Guard has rescued freedom-seeking Cubans from the waters of the Florida Straits while on their journey to freedom. This humanitarian aspect of the Coast Guard, for which all of America should be proud, was surprisingly reversed last week when the Clinton administration announced the United Stated will now repatriate freedom- seeking Cubans back to the island prison they risked their lives to escape. The President has now made the Coast Guard an extension of the Cuban authorities, in order to keep the Cuban people under the Castro repression. Just this afternoon, the first victims of the President's latest flipflop were turned over to the bloody henchmen of Castro. Mr. Speaker, this change of policy is an embarrassment to the longstanding record of the United States as the beacon of hope and freedom for the oppressed of the world. With one swift and misguided decision, the Clinton administration has successfully allied itself with the bloodiest tyrant the Americas has ever known, and has crushed the aspirations of freedom for millions of Cubans. The administration has once again proven that it does not comprehend how to deal with Cuba. Instead of attacking the root of the problem, Fidel Castro, the President continues to treat Cuba as an immigration problem, not as legitimate foreign policy matter. Most disturbing is that the President is using the Coast Guard to help maintain Cubans under the oppressive hand of Castro. This accord, Mr. Speaker, was reached in secret negotiations led by Assistant Secretary of State, Peter Tarnoff. Not even the head of the Cuban Affairs desk of the U.S. Department of State knew about these dealings, nor the Assistant Secretary for Interamerican Affairs at State. Moreover, Congress was never consulted on the matter and the administration has been stalling on details about the talks. Many questions still remain unanswered such as what concessions were given to Castro, and whether it is just a simple coincidence that, just few days before the new policy announcement, the administration publicly declared its opposition to the Helms-Burton bill. The administration must come forth with answers to these and other questions which are critical to untangling the purpose of this new policy. Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has been an exemplary institution of this country for decades. We should not allow the administration to use it as a tool to aid a totalitarian tyrant. I urge my colleagues to raise their voices against this distortion of the Coast Guard's mission.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support an increase in the Social Security earnings limit and to ask for the repeal of the Clinton tax hike on Social Security benefits. Both are included in H.R. 1215. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security earnings limit is an unfair and detrimental burden on all senior citizens who find it necessary to work. A fixed Social Security income alone, or a planned savings program designed to supplement income during retirement, does not in any way provide sufficient financial security for senior citizens to live in the current world of rising prices. Moreover, and equally important, after being accustomed to bring in the work force for various decades, retirement leaves many seniors with a feeling of worthlessness and a lack of identity, hence there need for employment. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, instead of repealing the earnings test which he once felt was punitive, President Clinton failed to even increase the earnings limit. Last year, his Social Security Administrator testified that only a $1,000 increase was possible. Under current law, senior citizens lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above $11,280. The earnings limit translates into an added effective tax of 33 percent, combined with a 7.65-percent FICA withholding tax, and a 15- percent Federal income tax. This combines into a preposterous effective marginal tax rate of 55.65 percent--twice the tax rate of millionaires. This, Mr. Speaker, is outrageous, because it keeps people from working and I feel that no one person should be discouraged from working or, worse yet, penalized for trying to be financially independent. That is why I favor H.R. 1215, which eliminates the bias against older Americans who continue to work in order to help themselves and to create a better future for all. This legislation phases an increase in the earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2000 and allows seniors to earn $4,000 more each year. An increase in the earnings limit is synonymous with positive benefits for senior citizens and for the overall welfare of this Nation. An increase in the earnings limit will provide for increased economic growth resulting from the wealth of expertise gained from seniors who possess decades of workplace experience, not to mention a strong work ethic, punctuality, and flexibility. We need the expertise and manpower that our seniors provide, in addition to the billions of dollars in the annual output of goods and services which their manpower renders. The implementation of the earnings limit is a complicated procedure which requires that seniors produce estimates of their earnings for the upcoming year so that the Social Security Administration can reduce their checks. Any incorrect estimate, however, translates into a lump sum reduction in benefits or, worse yet, increased costs for these seniors if they have to employ tax accountants to determine the changes in their tax rates. As if these limits to earnings were not enough, Mr. Speaker, current tax laws serve to place even harsher penalties on America's seniors, specifically those who continue to work, be it 65. By requiring America's seniors who earn more than $34,000 as individuals, or $44,000 as couples, to pay income taxes on 85 percent of their Social Security benefits, the 1993 Clinton tax hike on Social Security benefits placed a heavier economic burden on millions of middle- and low-income senior citizens. The bill repeals the Clinton tax hike in a 5-year period. By the year 2000 the percentage of the tax on Social Security benefits will be lowered to 50 percent. This was the amount originally in effect before the 1993 tax increase. H.R. 1215 is designed to grant tax fairness for millions of American families and, more importantly, for those who have made this country what it is today, our elders. By increasing the earnings limit seniors can receive, and eliminating the 1993 tax hikes to which they are exposed to, this legislation will serve to lift the financial burden of our older Americans and will grant them a feeling of usefulness and contribution as the continue to produce in the workplace.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, America has a secret weapon in the dog-eat-dog world of global, economic competition: language. If you don't believe me ask the Japanese. When asked what was the most important language for world trade, a Japanese businessman once replied, ``The most useful international language for world trade is not necessarily English, but rather the language of your client.'' It makes perfect sense. Customers would much rather buy a product from someone who speaks in a language they can understand. America's secret weapon is the 9.9 million children who come from homes where a language other than English is spoken. These children can help America crack Japanese, Russian, and Latin American markets by speaking to global customers in languages they understand. Our biggest mistake would be to waste our tremendous language resources by following the simplistic drumbeat of English-only narrow mindedness. Support American competitiveness and reject English-only.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman. Yes, it is a shame; we had the language drawn up. I think it would have addressed the concerns that some individuals had about who specifically would be exempt from this exam. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the chairman. We have in fact been working with the staff this afternoon to try to work up the language that specifically tracks section 312(a) of the Immigration an Naturalization Act, which already gives such waivers to those individuals who are suffering from disabilities. Our attempt is not to broaden that current waiver any more than it is already on the books. It is not to say that anyone who is a drug addict and anyone who is an alcoholic would not be exempt from taking the exam and would then be able to apply for benefits. That is not the intent, nor does I think that the scourge has been unfair in the way they were calculating the effects, and in fact in our last discussion the calculations were that that scourge was going to come down considerably once they understood that section 312(a) already has similar language which exempts these individuals. This amendment merely puts it in this welfare reform package so that it is clear to the INS officials that these individuals are also going to be exempt from the citizenship requirement if their disabilities are such that it will render them unable, physically, mentally unable, to take the exam. We have an amendment already drawn up which would be acceptable, that we hope in conference would be accepted, to further specify that this is a very narrow limitation, and that the budget considerations are not as extreme as some would have us believe, and we are very confident that that is true because section 312(a) refers to naturalization. What we want to do is make sure that we have it refer now to the exemption from welfare benefits for those people who suffer from these debilitating diseases.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a straightforward, simple humanitarian amendment, which would exempt any U.S. legal permanent residents who cannot take the naturalization exam because they suffer from mental disorders and physical impairments or disabilities. Under title IV of H.R. 4 these people would be cut off from Federal benefits simply because they are not American citizens. These individuals would not be able to resolve this problem because of their inability to take the naturalization exam. H.R. 4 currently makes no exemption for these individuals who would be the most affected by the elimination of these benefits. The elderly who suffer from Alzheimer's disease cannot possibly pass the citizenship exam given their debilitating disease. They cannot remember or memorize questions, nor are they physically able to present themselves many times before the citizenship examination. Under this legislation these people unfortunately would be unfairly cut off. The same goes for a person who because of a physical disability cannot leave his or her home to take the naturalization exam. These individuals, many of whom have contributed years of hard work and labor to this country, would now be denied benefits simply because they cannot because of physically tormenting disabilities take the citizenship exam. Under my amendment the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be able to have the ability to determine if the person is unfit to take the naturalization exam due to this serious disability. Mr. Speaker, in my south Florida community and indeed around our great Nation, many U.S. permanent residents, especially the elderly, suffering from such terrible diseases as Alzheimer's are unable to take the citizenship test because of their illnesses. This amendment would help these most vulnerable permanent residents, many of whom after years of hard work and making wonderful contributions to our great Nation rely on these benefits for their well-being. This humanitarian amendment would exempt those who are the most vulnerable by allowing them in a calculated and limited manner to not have to take the unfair exam that they are unable to take. This will allow them to not be cut from the benefits they need in order to survive. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members will support this humanitariian amendment to at least allow those individuals who are physically and mentally disabled to take their benefits that they deserve that they have worked hard to get. I hope we can see clearly through this anti-immigrant, anti-refugee feeling and get on with the real issue of helping those people regardless of their citizenship status.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman and hopefully, when we have more time, we will be able to address the underlying motives behind this issue in this legislation. I thank the gentlewoman.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], who is a cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this morning we were blessed by hearing Auxiliary Bishop Augustin Roman of the Archdiocese of Miami deliver the opening invocation. My colleagues, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Bob Menendez, and I welcome him. We have recently come to the floor to remind our colleagues of the great contribution that immigrants make to this country. Bishop Roman is another perfect example. Bishop Roman arrived in the United States in 1966, after having been expelled from Cuba by the tyrannical regime of Fidel Castro. In 1979, Bishop Roman became the first Cuban in 200 years to be named a bishop in the United States. The bishop holds advanced degrees in theology and human resources and serves as director of the ``Ermita de la Caridad,'' a shrine to Our Lady of Charity, which he helped create. He has been a spiritual guide for the people of south Florida during troubled times. Bishop Roman is also active in seeking freedom for the Cuban rafters detained at Guantanamo. When called by the local press a hero, the bishop humbly responded that ``a bishop, a priest is a servant, not a hero.'' This humility and compassion is what has made the bishop of one south Florida's heroes, or as he would put it, its servant.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, earlier today, we were privileged to have had the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Miami, Agustin Roman, deliver the opening invocation. In addition to being a model human being and a great role model for our south Florida community, Bishop Roman is one of the many victims of the Castro regime. You see, the bishop, who is a native of Cuba, was expelled from his own country in 1961 after armed militia men entered his church and at gunpoint led Bishop Roman and 132 other priests out of the country. Since then, the bishop has made it his personal mission to diffuse God's word around the world and to bring liberty and democracy to Cuba. Of Course, Bishop Roman was not the first nor the last victim of the tyrant who has ruled Cuba for 36 years. As we saw in this summer's rafter exodus, millions of Cubans still linger in the misery and oppression which Fidel Castro and his band of goons have imposed on the island. Most of these Cubans have fled the island this summer and risked their lives in hopes of reaching the shores of freedom, and they remain today detained like common criminals behind the barbed wire of their Guantanamo Base refugee camps. This policy by the Clinton administration has been a very unfortunate shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, which previously gave the oppressed Cuban people the opportunity to begin a new and productive life in the United States, and at the onset of this policy the President promised tougher sanctions against Castro. But as today's front page story in the Washington Post reports, advisers to the President are considering proposing a plan to the President which calls for the easing of sanctions against Cuba and which promises Castro to consider further relaxation of the embargo if Castro makes what they consider to be a positive move toward democracy. Madam Speaker, this is the height of naivete and an utter denial of the reality of the way that Castro operates. For 36 years, the United States has been waiting for concessions from Castro and we have gotten none. In the 1960's, all we got were screams of ``paredon, paredon,'' announcing the execution of yet another Cuban. In the 1970's, we got the exportation of revolution, not only to Latin America, but also to Africa, where thousands of young Cubans were sent to their deaths in the name of the revolution. And in the 1980's, we got rectification and a special period of peace, which squeezed the Cuban people to mere subsistence. Today, we get word of reforms, cosmetic reforms, which are just a mask of the sad reality, the utter failure of Castro and of his Communist revolution. However, through all these decades, one element of the Cuban regime has remained intact, the absolute control of Castro over the island of Cuba and the denial of political and civil rights to the Cuban people. Unbelievably and apparently, some within the Clinton administration still believe that Castro can reform and that it is somehow the fault of the United States that Castro has remained unwilling to change. Just today, at an International Relations hearing, I was once again surprised by a member of the administration on the policy toward Cuba. On a hearing on the Mexico bailout plan, a state official made the incredible statement that Mexico does not ``provide assistance to the government of Cuba.'' This is a disingenuous statement, considering that Mexico is one of the leading investment countries in Cuba and that the Mexican Government actively encourages Mexican investors to invest in the island. Thus Mexico, through its policy of investment promotion in Cuba, directly encourages the subsidizing of the repression of the Cuban people. Leave it to the Clinton administration officials to once again ignore the obvious. Furthermore, we have still not heard a word from the President on the recently introduced Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act introduced by Senator Jesse Helms and Congressman Dan Burton, and this bipartisan legislation is a joint effort by Democrats and Republicans to tighten the Cuban embargo against Castro. However, as of today, the President has remained silent. Madam Speaker, on a recent trip to Guantanamo, led by a very knowledgeable chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Congressman Dan Burton, as well as with Congressmen Lincoln Diaz- Balart, Bob Menendez, Mark Sanford, Vic Frazer, and John Mica, we were able to once again visit with the victims of the revolution as Castro has called them, and they are now his main adversaries. Madam Speaker, I call on the President to understand that dialogue and concessions are not the answer. Tougher sanctions are, and that is where U.S. policy should be directed. The stronger religion grows, the harder it may be for Castro to keep his monopoly on power.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as a person who came to this country at the young age of 7 as a refugee fleeing the Communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro in Cuba, I know first hand the generosity and opportunities this great country has offered immigrants from around the world. Unfortunately, I am afraid that today, an anti-immigrant sentiment is growing from an unreal perception that immigrants only come to the United States to take advantage of our generous society and become a burden on the state while never integrating nor becoming productive citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. Immigrants have contributed cultural, and political fields. I appeal to my colleagues to not be swayed by those who would place all of the problems of this Nation on the backs of immigrants. Let us look at immigrants for what they are: hard working, god fearing, law- abiding, honest residents, who like native born Americans, want to provide themselves and their children a better future.