[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 61 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4076-H4077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    POST MOUNTS CAMPAIGN FOR CASTRO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  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.
     [[Page H4077]] ECONOMIC UPDATES FROM JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to announce to the House that 
over the last several days, together with my Joint Economic Committee 
staff, we have prepared five papers that demonstrate very well why all 
Members of the House should support this week the final element of the 
Contract With America. These are five papers which are very easy 
reading and I would just like to tell you what the five papers are and 
if you are interested in having a copy, you can call my office and 
obtain one.
  The first one is ``The Contract and Economic Growth.'' The first 
paper makes note that economic growth has been forecast by the Clinton 
administration over the coming years to grow at only about 2.3 to 2.5 
percent. We point out in this that the economic policies that are 
contained in this week's tax package will promote the kind of growth 
that will get us back to where we need to be. You do not have to ask 
us, because this issue has been studied by others and many others from 
outside the Congress agree that that will happen.
  The second paper is ``The Contract Means More Personal Incomes for 
Families.'' As the economy grows and expands, everybody's share will be 
bigger, from low-income people to high-income people. As a matter of 
fact, by the year 2002, it is projected that our economy will be $1.1 
trillion larger than it is today.
  The claims of supporters of the contract are realistic. Several 
studies, including those by DRI/McGraw-Hill, Laurence Meyers and 
Associates, and the Institute for Policy Innovation all agree.
  The third paper is ``The Contract and Take Home Pay.'' It is 
important to make note that the $500 per child tax credit helps those 
families that need it the most. For example, we point out in this paper 
that if you are a family with an income of $25,000, a family of four, 
that 100 percent of your tax, remaining tax liability will be 
alleviated by the $500 tax credit. If you are in the $30,000 tax 
bracket, 48 percent of your tax liability will be alleviated with the 
Contract With America. If you are in the $45,000 incomes category for a 
family of four, your tax liability will be reduced by 21.5 percent. And 
if you are in the whopping $50,000 category, your tax liability will be 
reduced by 17.8 percent. Very significant for today's families.
  We also point out in paper No. 4 entitled ``The Contract and Victory 
Over Government Day,'' for those of you who have not heard, Victory 
Over Government Day is the day when we finally get on our own to earn a 
living for our family and do not have to send any more money to the 
Government, this year Victory Over Government Day will be June 4. Under 
President Clinton's proposed budget by the year 2002, Victory Over 
Government Day will be 3 days later, on June 7.
  Under the provisions of the contract and the tax package we will pass 
this week, Victory Over Government Day will shrink back to May 26, a 
difference of 12 days that the American family can work for themselves 
instead of sending money to Government.
                              {time}  1815

  Finally, the paper, the fifth paper, entitled ``The Contract and the 
Future,'' points out that the contract helps parents provide for their 
children's future and for their inheritance in four important ways.
  First, the contract improves take-home pay for families because with 
an expanding economy we can all expect to make more.
  Second, the contract provides for the super-IRA provision and, in so 
doing, allows increased savings. The contract allows the family to plan 
more efficiently for college or for retirement.
  Third, the contract helps families plan for their future by reducing 
the benefits tax on seniors who work. As we all know, in 1993 President 
Clinton and the Democrats increased the taxes on senior citizens' 
Social Security, and of course that is repealed.
  The fourth and final way the contract helps families provide is by 
reducing the estate tax and thereby reducing the taxes on inheritance. 
And, of course, that allows parents to pass more along to their 
children to help them in the outyears.
  So these are five papers that we have spent a lot of time 
researching, writing, putting together, verifying. They are important 
points I think that are made in these papers, and we will be more than 
happy to provide them to any Member who wishes to have them.

                          ____________________