[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9328-H9356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 225 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 225

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution, the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 927) to seek international sanctions against 
     the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a 
     transition government leading to a democratically elected 
     government in Cuba, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two and one half 
     hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
     Relations. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on International 
     Relations now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 2347. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. Points of order against that amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule 
     XVI are waived. Before consideration of any other amendment 
     it shall be in order to consider a further amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute by Representative Hamilton of Indiana 
     or his designee. Such a further amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. If 
     such a further amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
     rejected or not offered, then no further amendment shall be 
     in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each further amendment 
     may be considered only in the order printed in the report, 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for twenty 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     reduce to not less than five minutes the time for voting by 
     electronic device on any postponed question that immediately 
     follows another vote by electronic device without intervening 
     business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
     device on the first in any series of questions shall be not 
     less than fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration 
     of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  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.
                              {time}  1915

  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:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                           [As of September 20, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 47                 74
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 15                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H 9330]]
                                                                                                                
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 64                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                           [As of September 20, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/   
 95).                                                              Protection Act.            95).              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95).              
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95).     
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95).              
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95).              
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95). 
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/   
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.        95).              
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95).              
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95).    
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95).              
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95).    
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95).    
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95).    
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95).    
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95).    
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95).    
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95).    
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95).    
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95).              
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95).              
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95).              
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95).              
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95).
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      A: 255-156 (8/2/   
                                                                   1995.                      95).              
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     A: 323-104 (8/2/   
                                                                   1996.                      95).              
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)  O...................  H.R. 1594...........  Economically Targeted      A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Investments.               95).              
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1655...........  Intelligence               A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Authorization FY 1996.     95).              
H. Res. 218 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1162...........  Deficit Reduction Lockbox  A: voice vote (9/13/
 95).                                                                                         95).              
H. Res. 219 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1670...........  Federal Acquisition        A: 414-0 (9/13/95).
 95).                                                              Reform Act.                                  
H. Res. 222 (9/18/    O...................  H.R. 1617...........  CAREERS Act..............  A: 388-2 (9/19/95).
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 224 (9/19/    O...................  H.R. 2274...........  Natl. Highway System.....  PQ: 241-173 A: 375-
 95).                                                                                         39-1 (9/20/95).   
H. Res. 225 (9/19/    MC..................  H.R. 927............  Cuban Liberty & Dem.       ...................
 95).                                                              Solidarity.                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. Diaz-Balart], 
for yielding the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we oppose this rule in the strongest possible terms. It 
is an unfair and an unreasonable rule for the consideration of a major 
piece of legislation that would, if enacted, have serious effects on 
our foreign and domestic policy interests.
  Procedurally, Mr. Speaker, this rule and the bill it makes in order 
have been handled in a most unfair and unusual manner. First, the rule 
itself: Last Thursday, September 14, the gentleman from California, 
[Mr. Dreier] made an announcement on the floor for the Committee on 
Rules describing the proposed treatment of amendments for H.R. 927. 
That was Thursday afternoon, when I remind my colleagues, Members were 
getting ready to leave or had already left Washington to return to 
their homes and to their districts.
  At that time Mr. Dreier informed Members, and I quote him, ``A 
preprinting option will likely be included,'' in the rule for the Cuban 
liberty bill. He went on to inform us, ``It is not necessary for 
Members to file their amendments with the Committee on Rules or to 
testify.''

[[Page H 9331]]

  That was the information that Members had and accepted in good faith 
when they left Washington on Thursday to return before votes on 
Tuesday, at which time, according to Mr. Dreier, who was speaking for 
the leadership, Members should not expect votes before 11 a.m.
  Mr. Speaker, we were not privy to the discussions that led to the 
reversal of this policy that had been stated on the House floor, but an 
extreme reversal it was nonetheless.
  On Monday, September 18, when most Members had not returned to 
Washington from their work in the districts they represent, since we 
were to have no votes that day here in Washington, the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], our good friend, the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, and a motion fair and decent gentleman he is, 
sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter announcing the postponement of the 
Committee on Rules hearing scheduled for Monday on H.R. 927 and 
rescheduling it for 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 19. We were told the 
letter was not delivered in the morning mail, so Members could not
 have received it before 2 p.m. on Monday, and it was undoubtedly 
delivered to many offices much later.

  His letter also contained a stunning reversal, Mr. Solomon, of the 
original leadership announcement of September 14. According to this new 
policy, the House would consider H.R. 927 under a structured rule, 
making in order only amendments prefiled by the Committee on Rules. 
Moreover, Members who wished to offer those amendments were required to 
file those amendments by 1 p.m. on Tuesday, September 19, less than 24 
hours after the receipt of the letter.
  Mr. Speaker, while we object in principle to the prefiling 
requirement, our objection would have been relatively constrained. It 
is usable, and properly so, I think, under some circumstances. What we 
strongly protest, however, is the fact that Members had been given such 
short notice of this extremely restrictive requirement.
  Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps even more unfairly, if I may 
say so, the majority of our friends on the Committee on Rules, who 
should have known full well that many Members would be unable to quite 
meet this deadline, refused to give any leeway or grace at all to 
Members who filed their amendments even a few minutes beyond the 1 p.m. 
deadline. We were, to put it bluntly, astounded that a majority on the 
committee refused to extend this courtesy, which has been a customary 
practice in the past on the Committee on Rules, even though members 
were already operating under severe and unreasonable time constraints.
  Several Members who drafted and then prefiled their amendments with 
the Committee on Rules have in fact been shut out of the amendment 
process on this very significant and controversial piece of 
legislation. And if those Members who learned somehow of the change in 
the rule and were attempting to comply with it are being denied the 
right to offer their amendments, we can only assume that others who 
would have wished to take part in this important debate were also 
denied that right because of the unexpected and untimely prefiling 
announcement which arrived when they were out of town.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is the situation: Because of this 
unreasonable restriction, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], 
whose two amendments on the importance of ultra high frequency capable 
television and the Television Marti service were received in the 
Committee on Rules only 15
 minutes after the 1 p.m. deadline; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart], our good friend over there, whose amendment on U.S. 
telecommunications payments to Cuban governments, was received 20 
minutes after 1 o'clock; and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
McDermott], whose amendment making an exception to the trade embargo 
for medical supplies and staple foods and other emergency supplies was 
filed 40 minutes late, these gentleman will be unable to have their 
amendments debated separately during this historic debate.

  Mr. Speaker, with respect to how the bill itself was considered, the 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the 
gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Hamilton], testified very convincingly of 
his concerns with not only the substance of the bill but also in the 
manner in which the bill moved from his committee to the Committee on 
Rules. We think we should all be concerned about those procedures, 
which are being used more and more frequently and are in effect 
subverting the committee process.
  First of all, we are rushing to judgment on an important bill that is 
not time sensitive in any way that we can know about. The original 
intention was to bring this bill to the floor in October. It has now 
appeared suddenly on the House Calendar this week, giving Members 
little warning that the legislation had been put on the fast track.
  But more important, more important by far, the committees which have 
jurisdiction over the bulk of this bill, the committees with the real 
expertise on the questions of import policy, visa exclusions, and, most 
importantly, Federal Court jurisdiction, which is touched upon to some 
great degree in this bill, abdicated their responsibility to even 
consider this bill. That means that the Committee on Ways and Means and 
the Committee on the Judiciary, who have jurisdiction, have not 
considered, have never considered, have never considered, some very 
complicated and controversial legislative provisions that will be found 
in this bill. The House clearly generally would have benefited greatly 
from the work of those committees on a bill of this importance and of 
this magnitude.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have a modified closed rule, and we have major 
committees waiving consideration of the substantive bill. That means we 
have lost contribution of too many Members who have the
 expertise to monitor a bill of this nature, and we are, with the 
prefiling requirement, preventing them from contributing their 
knowledge and expertise to improving the bill on the floor.

  The report of the Congressional Budget Office on this bill is highly 
unusual as well. CBO wrote that the bill as reported, ``could have a 
significant budgetary impact through its authorization of discretionary 
appropriations.''
  Appropriations, it said, could exceed $1 billion. But amazingly, CBO 
goes on to say, ``We understand from committee staff that a committee 
amendment would be offered on the House floor that would strip the bill 
of an open-ended authorization of appropriations, and that would make 
certain other provisions subject to further authorization and 
appropriations action. Such an amendment would reduce the bill's 
budgetary impact to relatively small amounts.''
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, CBO ignored the committee reported bill. 
That is a practice we hope will not become customary. Members deserve 
to know the accurate estimates for action that was actually taken by 
committee, and not for amendments that might or in fact will be offered 
on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we might not be so strongly opposed to this modified 
closed rule with its restrictive prefiling requirements on amendments 
if the legislation itself did not mark such a radical shift in U.S. 
policy, especially foreign policy. Some of us, probably not the 
majority certainly, believe that we should be loosening the American 
economic embargo on Cuba, not tightening its restrictions even further. 
But that will be debated in the times to come.
  But as the New York Times editorialized in opposing this legislation, 
and I quote from them, too, briefly if I may, ``Cuba has kept its 
commitments to the United States on immigration. With the end of the 
Cold War, it posts no security threat to the United Stares, yet the 
restrictions on Havana are tighter than those imposed on Iraq.''
  The President, to his credit I think, has sensibly threatened to veto 
this bill. It is a bill that should alarm our allies, and apparently 
has, and the business interests of this country. The way we consider a 
bill of this magnitude, whatever our differences of opinion may be with 
respect to it, a bill which would have such far-reaching and serious
 consequences, should be open and fair and reasonable. Instead, we are 
being asked to take up a measure under a closed rule and to rush it 

[[Page H 9332]]
through in just a day and a half. We do not support this procedure.

  Mr. Speaker, we urge that the rule for H.R. 927 be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time. I want to congratulate him for his tireless 
effort in bringing this very, very important piece of legislation to 
the floor. Let me also commend the Committee on International Relations 
for the bipartisan spirit in which they have carried this bill to where 
it is today, along with the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen], a member of the Committee on International Relations, who 
has played such an important role, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that while this is a structured rule, it 
does provide for a very thorough debate of the major issues associated 
with this bill, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solitary Act of 1995. 
As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has said, the House 
will be provided a full 2\1/2\ hours of general debate on this 
legislation in which to discuss the provisions of this bill, and it is 
a narrowly focused bill, so that is, believe me, more than ample time. 
This will allow Members from both sides of the aisle to engage in what 
I would consider to be a meaningful discourse on this issue. We have 
allowed exactly the time that was requested from those that would be in 
opposition to the bill.
  Furthermore, the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
International Relations, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], an 
opponent of the bill, is granted the opportunity to offer an entire 
substitute bill in which he could address all of his issues of 
disagreement and those issues that were brought up by the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson]. That amendment will then be 
subject to another full hour of debate, which is more than ample and 
agreed to by both sides of the aisle.
  In addition to these 3\1/2\ hours of debate, the rule also makes in 
order three other amendments, each debatable for 20 minutes, to focus 
the House's attention on three specific elements of the bill, and 20 
minutes each was agreed to by both sides of the aisle. No one wanted 
more time than the 20 minutes. Therefore, this rule is fair, it is very 
reasonable.
  Mr. Speaker, in reference to the bill itself, I would like to voice 
my strong support for two areas of the bill in particular. First, the 
bill would prohibit support for Cuba from international organizations 
or countries that receive funding from the United States. That means 
U.S. taxpayers' dollars. This prohibition is crucial to prevent the 
reoccurrence of foreign countries, and even foreign international 
organizations that we give U.S. taxpayer dollars to, exporting 
totalitarian rule and communism to this hemisphere.
  Second, the bill would require the President to reduce United States 
assistance to the states of the former Soviet Union by an equal amount 
to any assistance or even credits provided by that state to the Castro 
regime in Cuba.
                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SOLOMON. You know, we watch what is happening in Bosnia and we 
give the United States aid, again United States taxpayers' dollars to 
the former Soviet Union, the country of Russia in particular. They in 
turn take those dollars we are giving them. They manufacture weapons, 
they give it to the Serbs, to the country of Serbia who then in turn 
gives it over, in spite of the sanctions and embargoes, they give it to 
the Bosnian Serbs to carry on the genocide that has been happening in 
that country there. That is just plain outrageous.
  The provision in this bill would prevent that. This even tighter 
restriction on the former Soviet Union will send the message that the 
days of Soviet meddling in the affairs of fledgling Central and South 
American nations is over. It is over and done with. We will not and we 
cannot stand by and continue to send billions of dollars of taxpayers' 
money to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, only 
to have these taxpayers' dollars rerouted to this despicable Communist 
regime of Castro for use against the very democratic pillars of our own 
Nation and against his own people which he persecutes in his country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to support this fair 
rule and to support this very important piece of legislation so that 
our Nation can take a firm stand against the last bastion of communism 
in this hemisphere, and that is Cuba.
  I really do thank the gentleman and commend him for all his tireless 
work on this effort.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Hamilton].
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act, and to the rule which is now before the 
House.
  Many Members remain quite unfamiliar with the details of this bill. I 
will speak during the general debate about why I think this bill 
represents the wrong approach to U.S. policy toward Cuba.
  I am not concerned only with the substance of this bill. I am deeply 
concerned that this bill has been and will today be considered in a 
manner that subverts appropriate processes in the House. This statement 
is not one I make lightly or easily.


                      timing: rushed to the floor

  I was informed only last Thursday that this bill would be scheduled 
for consideration on the House floor this week. We had asked repeatedly 
over the last month and were told repeatedly that it would not be 
considered by the House until October.
  I do not understand the sudden rush to place this serious piece of 
legislation before the House this week. Those of us who oppose the bill 
would have liked a little more notice about its rapid jump to the top 
of the legislative calendar.


                       other committees bypassed

  Let me describe the process by which this bill comes before the 
House.
  The  great  bulk  of  the  bill  lies  in the jurisdiction of the 
Ways and Means and Judiciary Committees--committees with real expertise 
that the International Relations Committee cannot claim on questions of 
import policy, visa exclusions, and Federal court jurisdiction. Titles 
III and IV of the bill--more than 50 percent of its content--are almost 
entirely within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. These 
titles contain very complicated provisions that will have a tremendous 
impact on the federal court system.
  Yet both Judiciary and Ways and Means waived consideration of the 
bill. Now I understand that is well within the prerogative of a 
committee chairman, but I believe that waiving consideration on a bill 
of this magnitude is, to put it gently, not appropriate.
  Let's be clear: when you combine waiving consideration with a closed 
rule--like the one we are considering now which makes only 4 amendments 
in order--you have shut out those Members of the House with the 
greatest ability to improve the legislation.
  Additionally, the bill being considered before the House is not the 
bill reported by the International Relations Committee, the only 
committee to act. The text made in order by this rule include changes 
requested by another committee chairman, without any committee action. 
The bill reported to the House by the only committee to consider it 
included a section further regulating sugar imports. The bill to be 
considered under this rule does not contain that provision.
  The bill before the House also makes significant changes in title II, 
the only title exclusively in the jurisdiction of our committee. The 
bill reported out of the Committee contained an authorization for 
assistance to a Cuba in transition. The bill that we will consider on 
the floor has no authorization. In fact, the bill before the House 
includes changes almost identical to those contained in an amendment 
offered in 

[[Page H 9333]]
committee that was rejected by the Committee.
  The changes made to title II appear to result directly from the cost 
estimate submitted by the Congressional Budget Office. That estimate 
itself is proof of the extent to which the role of committee 
consideration and the weight of a reported bill are being ignored.
  The CBO letter states that appropriations for the bill as ordered 
reported ``could exceed $1 billion'' but prior to providing this 
estimate, it states that

       CBO understands from Committee staff that a Committee 
     amendment will be offered on the House floor that would strip 
     the bill of an openended authorization of appropriations and 
     would make certain other provisions subject to further 
     authorization and appropriations action. Such an amendment 
     would reduce the bill's budgetary impact to relatively small 
     amounts.

  CBO apparently no longer even accords committees enough respect to 
provide a cost estimate specifically on the action the committee has 
taken.
  These changes represent nothing short of a rewriting of the bill 
between the
 committee vote and floor consideration. In my view, changing the bill 
as it was reported from the committee in this manner is unacceptable.


                            the rule itself

  With respect to the Rules process, Members were first told last 
Thursday that it was ``likely'' that amendments pre-printed in the 
Congressional Record would be accorded preference in floor 
consideration. Mr. Drier stated at that time that there was no need for 
Members to file their amendments with the Rules Committee.
  It was also announced that amendments should be drafted to a 
substitute that Mr. Burton had included in Thursday's Congressional 
Record. This announcement implied that most Members would have the 
ability to amend the bill.
  Then, at noon on Monday--a day when no votes were scheduled--Chairman 
Solomon announced that Members should expect that the Rules Committee 
might report a structured rule, that amendments now had to be filed 
with the committee by 1 pm on Tuesday, and that those amendment should 
be drafted not to the Friday substitute, but to a bill that Mr. Burton 
introduced that day. Effectively, this meant that Members--most of whom 
did not arrive back in Washington until Tuesday morning--were given 
only a few hours to submit their amendments to this new bill, all 79 
pages worth.
  Several Members were actually able to get amendments to the Rules 
Committee by Tuesday afternoon, prior to the start of the Rules hearing 
on this bill. And yet, not all amendments that the Rules Committee 
received were made in order. In fact, Mr. Skaggs and Mr. McDermott were 
shut out entirely because their amendments arrived at Rules after 1 pm.
  However, it is my understanding that Mr. Burton's three amendments 
were late as well. But one of those amendments was made in order by the 
rule, giving special treatment to the Member that wrote the bill--the 
Member who needs special treatment the least.
  The Rule does make a Hamilton substitute in order. Now that's fine. 
But I never requested that the Rules Committee make in order such a 
substitute and I do not intend to offer a substitute. I simply do not 
understand why the committee would make in order a substitute that they 
know I do not have while denying other Members the ability to offer 
amendments that they had drafted and ready to go.
  At the Rules Committee hearing, several of my colleagues stated that 
this very restricted rule was acceptable on this bill, because all the 
elements of the bill had been considered many times before. I take 
issue with that statement. To the best of my knowledge, easily one half 
of the bill--all the property and visa provisions--are without 
precedent. We are creating new rights of action, we are creating new 
reasons to exclude entry to the United States. And we are doing so 
under an exceedingly restrictive process.


                               conclusion

  I think I have made clear the extent of my deep concerns about the 
process by which this bill comes before the House.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  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].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. This legislation 
is critical if we are to help the Cuban people break the chains that 
have denied them the most basic freedom for 36 years. Today the 
situation in Cuba seems to belong in the pages of a novel of terror. 
The millions of people who inhabit the island have no civil or human 
rights. They do not have the opportunity to freely elect their 
representatives. Instead, they are forced to belong to a failed 
Communist party which controls all activities. While tourists and 
foreigners enjoy lavish foods and amenities, the Cuban people are left 
to struggle daily for simple sustenance. Castro feeds the tourists. He 
starves the natives.
  The people hunger for the truth. He feeds them lies. Dissidents are 
systematically persecuted, harassed and arrested. All this to satisfy 
the thirst for power of one man, Fidel Castro. For 36 years, this 
dictator and his Communist thugs have turned a once prosperous and 
developing nation into what analysts called an ``undeveloping nation.'' 
The roads which were once filled with new cars are now invaded by 
inferior bicycles. The soil, once plentiful with food, is now desolate 
and barren, a tragic symbol of Castro's failed Marxist ideology. In 
Cuba today, the repression of the regime remains unabated in all 
sectors of society. Religious persecution has increased in recent 
months.
  One of the most notable victims is Reverend Orson Vila Santoyo, a 
prominent evangelical leader who was arrested and sentenced to 2 years 
in prison for allowing religious services in his home. He was simply 
one of the victims in a large-scale harassment of religious 
institutions in that island. And persecution and harassment against 
journalists have also increased in Cuba. July saw a crackdown by the 
Castro dictatorship on independent journalists. During the first 2 
weeks of that month, it was reported that Rafael Solano Morales, the 
founder of a clandestine independent news agency, Havanas Press, and 
Jose Rivero Garcia, of the Cuban Council of Independent Journalists, 
were arrested by Castro's police state. Solano Morales stated, ``This 
is harassment and attempted intimidation of the free press in Cuba, but 
it will not have the desired effect.'' He is one of the 47 dissident 
leaders inside
 Cuba who have publicly endorsed this bill.

  In a letter which Jesse Helms received from Elizardo Sampedro Marin, 
and I quote,

       We support the alternative you propose. Its approval will 
     mean a definite turn in our favor. We thank you sincerely for 
     what you are doing and we are sure that those who criticize 
     you today will congratulate you tomorrow for your 
     contribution to the process of democratic transformation in 
     Cuba.

  It is valiantly signed by 47 dissidents of 30 groups at great 
personal risk to these individuals. We know that more groups would like 
to come out and more voices would like to be heard but, similarly, 
harassment against human rights activists has also increased. Last May 
we saw a nationwide harassment and detainment of these activists and 
this crackdown was described by the Human Rights/American Watch 
organization as ``a kind of serious crackdown. It seems they, the 
Castro regime, is trying to scare them into leaving the country.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Castro will not change voluntarily. He 
will 

[[Page H 9334]]
not reform himself if it means reducing his absolute power. Castro has 
to be eliminated, not by redundant dialogue but through swift and firm 
policies against him as embodied in this bill.
  Today we will hear from opponents of this legislation that Castro is 
reforming. We may hear about foreign investments in Cuba and how these 
investors are gaining a windfall from these investments and how us in 
the United States, we are losing millions. But what you will not hear 
from them is who benefits from these investments or the conditions 
under which the Cuban people must work in order to satisfy these 
unscrupulous and immoral investors.
  The reality is that Cuba today has brought back serfdom to our 
hemisphere. This is the best way to describe the slave-like conditions 
of the Cuban worker, for while Castro obtains the hard currency he 
needs from foreign investors, he pays the Cuban worker, at his whim, 
sometimes less than 5 percent of this money. Moreover, Castro is 
attracting foreign investors by promoting the repression that 
subjugates the Cuban worker. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, we must pass 
this rule and we must pass this bill today, in order to affirm the 
rights of these individuals, to say we are against this repression, and 
we dedicate this bill in their memory tonight.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
                              {time}  1945

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, but 
before I state my reasons, I just want to make it abundantly clear that 
I have the utmost respect for those Members of Congress that seek to 
find democracy, as probably all of the Members of this Congress would 
want to see. I must admit that many of them have stronger ties to Cuba 
and therefore their feelings would be a lot more emotional.
  By saying that, however, it does not mean that I have any lesser 
feelings for democracy. Certainly I am the beneficiary of the democracy 
of this great Nation, and I have fought when my country has asked me to 
preserve democracies in other countries, specifically South Korea.
  I too have stood up in seeking to change dictatorships and hostile 
governments that oppressed the rights of people, yes, in Haiti and 
South Africa, and suggested the tools of using embargoes when the 
family of nations thought that this was an adequate thing to do in 
order to bring down those people who have a complete disregard of the 
rights of other people.
  When I thought it was not working in Haiti, and before the President 
made up his mind that he was going to send in troops, I shared with the 
President of the United States that I thought it was time for us to 
review our embargo against the people in Haiti.
  Certainly in South Africa there were nations all around the world who 
jointed with us. As a result of the initiatives that we have taken, and 
even the small role that I played in the Committee on Ways and Means to 
deny tax deductions to U.S. companies in South Africa that were 
deducting the taxes they paid to the fascist government of South Africa 
from their taxes, when that was denied I supported it, and democracy 
ultimately came.
  If I thought for 1 minute that the family of nations thought the 
embargo was the way to go, and that 34 years of an embargo could 
ultimately lead to democracy in Cuba, I would be standing with my 
colleagues saying, yes, let us tighten it. Not only do I think the 
embargo is not working, but I think that we are now trying different 
ways to see how we can just show who is more for democracy, who is more 
against communism.
  We do not find this feeling on the floor when we are talking about 
Communist China. We do not find this sense of being against communists 
when we talk about North Vietnam. We do not find this sense of 
communism when we talk about the people in North Korea. No, then we 
hear that America has to free people through trade.
  I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, which has some jurisdiction 
as it involves trade. I am there, and I am led to understand that the 
North American Free Trade Agreement is going to be good for America, 
that it is going to create jobs as we tear down the barriers of trade 
between nations.
  I hear in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, these poor countries, that 
we should not give them fish, we should teach them how to fish, they 
should be able to trade with us. Trade, not aid.
  Except for this little island there called Cuba. They are excluded 
from that. They are excluded from the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, not by other nations.
  So we are being asked right here to say that we want to trade with 
everybody. We are the leaders in promoting free trade, except we say we 
are prepared to punish our trading partners if they see fit, in their 
national interest, to trade with Cuba.
  How arrogant. How outrageous. Who is the United States of America to 
tell other people, people that we are begging to sit down at the 
negotiating table to trade with us and other countries, that they 
should not trade?
  But why do I oppose this rule? I do not care how you cut it, 
something in here deals with trade.
  I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I have worked here a quarter 
of a century in the Congress and the Committee on Ways and Means. Now 
for the first time I am on the Subcommittee on Trade. Better than that, 
I am the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade in the Committee 
on Ways and Means. Even though I am not nearly as important as I used 
to be, trade issues come by my committee, unless Republican chairman 
talk with Republican chairmen and change certain things.
  So along comes this bill, and where would they send the bill? To a 
lot of committees, but one of them was the Committee on Ways and Means. 
I could not wait for the bill. I could not wait for it, until I found 
out that the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means got 
together with the Republican chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs and said, can we take out anything that would allow us to have 
any interest at all in your trade bill?
  Sure enough, they did it, and without a meeting, without discussion. 
Chairman Archer sends a letter to Chairman Gilman, and therefore 
ranking member Rangel never sees the bill. So we got a rule to tighten 
the trade screws on this Communist nation, Cuba. We have got to make 
certain anyone that trades with her is punished. If anybody, foreign, 
American, it does not make any difference, believes that Castro took 
any property, come to the U.S. courts and sue.
  God forbid if other people start suing America in foreign courts and 
expect to get a return on it, but distinguished chairman of Judiciary 
Committees and things like that would straighten out those little 
international law matters, I am certain. Because in this Congress you 
do not need a lot of hearings, you do not need a lot of debate. All you 
need is a lot of votes, and the majority has got it.
  Let me say this. This bill has nothing to do with this mean-spirited 
dictator Castro. It has nothing to do with punishing our trading 
partners who we beg to come to the Uruguay round, to come to the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement. All this bill has to do is to see how 
mean you can be in showing who likes democracy best.
  May the record indicate, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting 
democracy in this country around the world, I want to stand up with 
those fighters. But this is a bad bill at the wrong time. It is not in 
our national interest. The President is begging that you do not put it 
on his desk. He is going to veto it, and everybody who has worked in 
any State Department, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, 
knows that this is not in the national interest of the United States of 
America.
  I ask that we oppose this rule and that we defeat this rule and get 
on with our Nation's business.
  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. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that my good friend, the gentleman 
from 

[[Page H 9335]]
New York [Mr. Rangel], was eloquent as usual. He is always.
  I just want to say one thing to the gentleman. He talks about it 
being arrogant, trying to dictate trade policy from other countries. 
But there is a big difference, and I mentioned it in my remarks. When 
we are giving them U.S. tax dollars, we then have an in to tell them 
what they ought to be doing. If we do not want to give them the tax 
dollars, the gentleman is right, then we should not be trying to 
dictate to them.
  Another thing is, he talked about the NAFTA, whether or not that was 
good. That is bad in my opinion. It has been bad for upstate New York. 
It has been disastrous, We are losing jobs every single day.
  He talked about North Korea. He talked about China. There are some 
Republicans on this side of the aisle that do not think we ought to be 
doing business with China because of their terrible human rights 
record. The same thing with North Korea. The same thing with Vietnam 
and other countries. I just wanted to point that out to my good friend.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
my dear friend and I know his strong feelings about protecting 
democracies, wherever they are, and, using trade to do it.
  I would just like to say that I share those feelings, but I think 
that we only have one President at a time. I do not care whether it is 
Republican or Democrat. When it comes to trade and our international 
interests, I think we ought to give this President a chance, as we did 
President Bush and President Reagan. Our President asked at this time, 
do not put this on his desk, and I think he should be respected.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  (Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if the debate was just about the Torricelli 
bill, the Cuban embargo bill, then I think some of the comments that 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] made would be quite relevant. 
But what I ask my colleagues to do is to at least read part of the bill 
or at least go through the index of the bill, the table of contents or 
the committee report on the bill. Because as the bill is now in front 
of us as a substitute, this bill is relatively narrow.
  Let us talk about the specifics of what it does. It only deals with 
foreign companies, non-U.S. companies that have in some way 
ascertained, purchased, illegally confiscated property in Cuba. That is 
all that it deals with in its present form in front of us. That is the 
bill. That is the issue in front of the United States Congress.
  Let us just again talk about what that means, the specifics. It is a 
factory in Cuba, a refinery in Cuba that was owned by an American 
citizen--someone has left Cuba, now in America, or maybe even an 
American citizen prior to the change in government--that was 
expropriated illegally by the Castro government and then sold to a 
company, sold to a
 non-United States company. That company now is producing in that 
factory and getting the benefits of the production of that facility, 
and an injustice is occurring.

  What this bill says is there is a way to right that wrong. The way to 
right that wrong is to say and use some pretty strong sanctions, and I 
agree that there are strong sanctions.
  My colleagues have mentioned some of the strong sanctions: giving 
access to the United States courts to the person or, for that matter, 
the company that has had their property illegally expropriated and then 
sold to a foreign, non-U.S. company. One of the sanctions deals with 
visa rights of non-U.S. citizens to even come to the United States of 
America. There are some strong sanctions in this bill to prevent this 
from happening, but what I would say is those are needed.
  What we have seen, and again I point out to my colleagues, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] as well, that the Cuban embargo is 
really the Torricelli bill that has been in effect several years, not 
35 years. The changes that we have seen, and I know Members speak to 
people in Cuba and I have the opportunity to speak to people, as well, 
who are visiting the island, who have seen the island, the reality is 
that Castro is holding on by his fingernails, barely holding on by his 
fingernails.
  I urge the adoption of the rule and urge the support of the bill.
  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. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 225, the rule 
making in order consideration of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] for their decisive 
leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 225 is a fair rule that permits the 
House to take decisive action on one of the most important foreign 
policy issues in the Americas. This rule provides ample time for 
general debate--2\1/2\ hours--which will be evenly divided between 
proponents and opponents of the measure.
  I welcome the decision of the Rules Committee to provide for a rule 
that allows us to act on H.R. 927 despite the crush of business at the 
end of the fiscal year.
  Our committee held a lengthy mark-up on this bill, affording the 
minority ample time to offer and debate amendments fully. In fact, we 
acted on a dozen amendments that dealt with all of the key issues in 
this legislation. The bill, as amended, won a strong bipartisan vote of 
28 to 9.
  In response to concerns raised by several other committees of 
jurisdiction, substantial modifications are reflected in the final text 
coming to the floor.
  H.R. 927 is a sound and important bill. I ask my colleagues to 
support the rule so we can bring this important issue to the floor

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], the distinguished member from the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding, especially since I rise to support the rule and the 
legislation. I appreciate him yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to strongly support H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act. I have worked tirelessly on this 
legislation since its introduction and written significant parts of it.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation strongly endorses the proposition that 
our policy toward the Cuban dictatorship must address the hard and 
disturbing realities of Castro's tyranny, not the unwarranted hopes for 
this dictatorship that some will maintain. It just as strongly rejects 
the notion that we must formulate policy toward Cuba's dictatorship as 
if it were not a dictatorship, as if it were a civilized member of the 
international community. It is not. There is no debate about Cuba's 
horrendous human rights record, its refusal to allow free and 
democratic elections, and its wanton disregard for the well-being of 
its people.
  I support a structured rule on this vital piece of legislation. The 
reason that I support a structured rule in relation to this legislation 
is simple. Unlike other far reaching legislation, which covers a broad 
scope of issues--this legislation is issue specific and narrowly 
tailored to produce a designed result. It can be accepted or rejected 
on the House floor. I believe it will receive broad bipartisan support.
  Do we want to be positive agents for democratic change in Cuba or do 
we want to squander the opportunity to promote democratic institutions 
and 

[[Page H 9336]]
free markets? I am concerned that misplaced good intentions will delay 
the establishment of important transitional organizations that will 
promote freedom in this much oppressed country. I hope that the debate 
and amendments on this carefully crafted language will present 
constructive steps to promote democratization and not rehash cold war 
rhetoric.
  This is not the time to abandon the bipartisan policy behind which 
the Nation united for 50 years and led to the ultimate defeat of 
totalitarianism. Ten Presidents have waited for the opportunity to 
bring freedom to America's only neighbor that suffers under 
dictatorship. It is time to render this regime to the dustbin of 
history and welcome a new neighbor to the fraternity of free nations.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 927. I 
am from Miami, FL, and for the past 36 years I have supported the Cuban 
people. They live in Miami, a lot of them do. They are excellent 
citizens. They work very hard. I have bled with them, I have wiped 
their tears, I have listened to their pleas, and for many years I have 
represented them on the floor of the Florida House, even when there 
were no Cubans on the floor of the Florida House.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent them now on the floor of this Congress, and 
say to my colleagues that this particular rule should be supported 
tonight, if for no other reason but for humanitarian reasons; if for no 
other reasons than to say we do not need a dictator in Cuba; if for no 
other reason to say that if one particular facet of our country is 
bleeding, the Cuban people in Miami and all over this country, then all 
of us are bleeding.
  Mr. Speaker, Castro is the last remaining dictatorship in the Western 
Hemisphere and it is a brutal place. The Cuban people will tell us. Do 
they need freedom? I say yes. And why this rule? By whatever means 
necessary. By whatever means necessary to get Castro out of Cuba and to 
free Cuba for the Cuban people, instead of for him.
   Mr. Speaker, my colleagues' vote will hasten final removal of Castro 
from power. We must use some action other than talk against Castro. So 
by whatever means necessary, let us remove him.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing may I simply say, especially to my Democratic 
colleagues and especially to those amongst this side of the aisle who 
support the bill, everyone obviously is free to vote as he or she may 
desire. But however my colleagues feel about the bill, the rule does 
not deserve their support.
   Mr. Speaker, not only is it not a fair rule, but many Members were 
actively misled as to what the provisions of the rule would be and what 
would be required of them if they were to have their wish to have their 
amendments made in order.
  There are perfectly fair ways, there were and still would be 
perfectly fair ways in which to handle this controversial and difficult 
piece of legislation in the same amount of time. We did not need to 
close down the rule this way and in this particular manner. It is 
unfair to many who are interested in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members, however they feel about the bill, 
to vote against this rule so that in the least we might have a fair 
rule under which to discuss the bill.
  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. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong favor of the 
proposed rule.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 304, 
nays 118, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 681]

                               YEAS--304

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin

[[Page H 9337]]

     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--118

     Abercrombie
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bonior
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bateman
     Dicks
     Hilliard
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Riggs
     Sisisky
     Stark
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Yates

                              {time}  2030

  Messrs. WISE, POMEROY, GEPHARDT, FAZIO of California, and HOYER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                              {time}  2031

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torkildsen). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 225 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 927.


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
927) to seek international sanctions against the Castro government in 
Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a 
democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Duncan in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] each will be recognized for 1 
hour and 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we received a copy of a letter today from over 100 
people in Cuba, not Cuban-Americans, but Cubans, and in that letter, 
they stated their support for what we are trying to accomplish here 
tonight. Some people in this Chamber have indicated that the Cuban 
people were not for the Burton-Helms or Helms-Burton bill, but the fact 
of the matter is, many, many, many are. I submit to you that a majority 
of the people of Cuba want freedom, democracy, and human rights and 
that is spelled out very vividly in this letter, and I would like to 
quote very briefly from this letter one paragraph.
  Mr. Chairman, it says, ``The economic embargo maintained by 
subsequent American administrations has begun to make its influence, 
felt not against the people, but against those who cling to power.'' 
And he is talking there about Fidel Castro, Raoul Castro and the rest 
of that Communist dictatorship down there.
  Mr. Chairman, I would further like to say that I am very happy that a 
member of the Kennedy family, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Kennedy], has chosen to endorse this piece of legislation, and I noted 
in
 the rule that just took place that both the gentleman from Rhode 
Island [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
supported the rule, and I would like to read from a statement by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], the nephew of one of our 
great Presidents, John F. Kennedy.

       Mr. Chairman, he said, and I quote, ``The bill is a clear 
     statement that the American people stand arm in arm with the 
     people of Cuba in their struggle against a repressive 
     dictator, and that we will not back away from being partners 
     in our common fight for freedom begun by my uncle, President 
     Kennedy.
       ``We won the cold war because we never gave into communism. 
     By standing firm, we brought down the iron curtain and saw 
     communism collapse in Europe.
       ``The conditions which prompted President Kennedy to start 
     the embargo have not changed.
       ``Now is not the time to offer relief to the Castro regime, 
     especially relief at the expense of American citizens who had 
     their property seized when Castro took power.
       ``This bill prevents the Castro regime and foreign 
     corporations from profiting off the confiscated property of 
     Americans.

[[Page H 9338]]

       ``Let's be clear, foreign investment in Cuba means one 
     thing, it is a lifeline to the Castro regime.
       ``It will legitimize an illegitimate government.
       ``It will offer protection to a man who must be brought 
     down, just like the communist dictators of Eastern Europe.
       ``It will postpone the day that the people of Cuba will 
     live in freedom and democracy.
       ``President Kennedy looked forward to the day Cubans would 
     live in freedom. I share this hope for the future and this 
     bill will help that day come soon.''

  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. 
I do not know if he is here tonight, but I want to congratulate him for 
that statement and for supporting what his uncle started back in the 
1960s.
  Mr. Chairman, our great Nation has always played a leading role in 
the promotion of freedom around the world. The inspiration of our 
Founding Fathers and the model of our Constitution are revered from 
Tokyo to Timbuktu, from Manila to Managua. Though our example is 
followed all over the globe, it is in our own hemisphere naturally that 
the American vision of freedom and democracy has had the most 
resonance.
  Mr. Chairman, it is therefore a particular tragedy that the island of 
Cuba, so close to the shores of the United States and with which our 
Nation has such a long shared history and interaction, is still captive 
to the whims of a megalomaniacal dictator, Fidel Castro.
  Freedom in Cuba is a concern not only for Cuban-Americans but for all 
Americans. Cuba is the last dictatorship in this hemisphere and the 
only holdout against a democratic tide. A free Cuba will benefit not 
only its own people, but the people of the Caribbean and Latin America.
  The economic potential of Cuba is absolutely tremendous. Before the 
communist revolution, the Cuban people enjoyed one of the highest 
standards of living in Latin America, but today, after 36 years of 
Castro's mismanagement and communism, corruption, and the communist 
failure, the Cuban people suffer with the lowest per capita income in 
the Western Hemisphere, with the possible exception of Haiti. Let me 
restate that. They were the best economy in Latin America when Castro 
took power and now they are the absolute worst. That tells us what 
communism does.
  The people of Cuba deserve to join the ranks of the millions of 
people around the world freed in recent years from the communist yoke. 
They yearn to be able to enjoy the benefits of the free market, of free 
trade, of investment and opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, with Castro in power, such dreams are impossible. 
Castro is determined to hold on to power no matter what the cost to his 
own people. His motto is still, and he said this just recently, 
socialism or death. That tells you he is in no mood to change. It is 
quite clear that he is not at all interested in reform, economic or 
political, for such a move would spell the end of his cruel and vicious 
dictatorship.
  Oscar Arias said not too long ago, ``There is no will to reform in 
the Castro regime.'' The changes that have been made in recent years by 
the Castro regime have been taken out of desperation and are only 
intended to perpetuate Castro's rule. The fall of the Soviet Union and 
the East Bloc, the so-called evil empire, meant the end of an annual $6 
billion in subsidies to Castro. This means that the Cuban economy is in 
free fall today, having declined by 60 percent since 1989.
  Castro is increasingly desperate for foreign currency. The only thing 
that can keep his regime in power. This is precisely the reason that he 
has embarked on a campaign to encourage foreign investment at the 
expense of Americans who had their property confiscated. It is this 
very lifeline that we must deny to this cruel dictatorship. Our bill is 
the tool that will deny him his last hope for keeping his regime in 
power.
  Let no one believe the silly argument that the continuation of the 
embargo harms American business. What kind of business opportunities 
exist in a pathetic dictatorship where no respect for property rights 
exists, where investment from the outside is tightly controlled, and 
where the economy is moving backward at a very rapid rate, I might add, 
a process that has been described as dedevelopment.
  Mr. Chairman, Freedom House rated Cuba dead last, dead last, even 
behind Somalia in terms of economic freedom in the entire world. Cuba 
is dead last in the world as far as business opportunity is concerned. 
It seems to me that despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, Cuba is 
just not a good business risk as long as Castro is in power. This is 
especially so given his track record. This is the same guy who 
confiscated $2 billion, that is 2,000 million dollars worth of U.S. 
property in 1962 dollars.
  Even without these obvious risks, companies investing in Castro's 
Cuba today should remember that they will probably not be welcome in a 
Democratic Cuba tomorrow. I think that point needs to be made. Those 
who invest in Cuba today, who buy confiscated real estate and property, 
they are certainly not going to be welcome by those who are in a freely 
and democratically elected government in Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, besides the business dimension, there is a very serious 
moral dimension involved. Cuba, according to every single international 
human rights organization, every one without exception, is one of the 
worst violators in the world. Hundreds are still in prison for their 
political beliefs. Since Castro seized power, thousands have been 
imprisoned, killed, exiled and tortured.
  Just last year, and this is very important--I hope my colleagues will 
pay attention to this--just last year, a tug boat called the March 
13th, full of men, women, and children, was purposely rammed and sunk 
by Castro's thugs. Over 70 innocent women and
 children and men drowned. They pulled their boat up, the navy of 
Castro, alongside this boat with women holding their children over 
their heads and they directed the hoses at them. When the women took 
the children down into the hold of the boat, they pulled up alongside, 
directed their hoses into the hold and drowned those innocent women and 
children just like rats.

  Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of government we are talking about. 
The Cuban people continue to have their basic rights denied and there 
is no hope for change under Castro. He has made that very clear. He 
referred to Gorbachev as a traitor to communism. This is not a man who 
will ever reform.
  Our bill, Mr. Chairman, is a beacon of hope for the people of Cuba. I 
have here a letter written by the leader of a major democracy movement 
I alluded to a moment ago and signed by well over 100 activists. They 
state very clearly once again that the Cuban people support what we are 
trying to do here and take comfort from it.
  There are two major reasons to support our bipartisan bill, Mr. 
Chairman. First, it is in the U.S. interest to do so. Democracy in our 
hemisphere is beneficial to all of us and Cuba is today the skunk in 
the garden party of hemispheric democracy. Our bill will hasten 
democracy in Cuba. It is also in our interests because American 
citizens deserve the right, deserve the right, as was stated by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] a few moments ago, to sue to 
recover their stolen property. Our bill will give them that right.
  The second major reason to support the bill is that morally it is the 
right thing to do and America always tries to do what is right and 
just. Our Founding Fathers firmly believed that freedom is the deserved 
legacy of all people wherever they may be around the world. In 
promoting freedom for the people of Cuba, our neighbors, our brothers, 
we do nothing less than follow in the hallowed footsteps of our own 
Founding Fathers.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support 
H.R. 927. I acknowledge the sponsor's intention in hastening Castro's 
downfall, which I would like also, yet I believe that both the premises 
and the specifics of the bill are fatally flawed.
  I believe sincerely that the bill will backfire. First, the bill will 
give Castro the nationalist card again that he always plays. He has 
learned to thrive in the face of U.S. hostility.
                              {time}  2045

  Let us not give him another chance to rally his people around the 
American imperialist threat. The measures 

[[Page H 9339]]
in this bill will give Castro another chance to play the victim. Every 
time we have him on the ropes, we allow him to escape with another 
embargo. We are the only country in the world that has embargoed this 
nation. This dictator will again blame the United States for Cuba's 
economic problems and he will likely throw open his borders again for 
another boatlift across the Florida Straits, inundating South Florida.
  As a representative of south Florida and a native there, I am very 
concerned about the strain of the boatlift again. This is like the Tale 
of Two Cities. It is the best of times and the worst of times. The best 
of times is the quality of the people who have come to the United 
States from Cuba, three of whom are in the Chambers tonight, the 
gentleman from Florida, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, the gentlewoman from 
Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Bob 
Menendez.
  The worst of times is the quantity of people who have come from Cuba 
to the United States. Over 10 percent of the Cuban population, 700,000 
people, now reside in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach County. As they say, 
they are great citizens, but the strain of the infrastructure from any 
large immigration of that nature puts a great strain on the 
infrastructure. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. They could be 
Norwegian or Japanese or Germans, but 700,000, 10 percent, is too many, 
and I again am afraid it would open the doors.
  I lived in south Florida in 1959 when Batista fell. I was in there in 
1980 for Mariel, and I still live there. The provisions of this bill 
play right into his hands, and Cuba's communism will pass of a natural 
cause. It seems to me that every time he gets in trouble, we throw him 
a life jacket.
  Let us not continue to prop up Castro with another self-defeating 
measure as this resolution. According to Carl Hiaasen, a respected 
columnist for the Miami Herald, and I quote, ``The man has outlasted 
eight United States presidents and the trade embargo sits in Havana 
waiting for the next page of his script. He has been acting the same 
sorry play for 35 years because we keep giving him the material.'' 
Castro's material is the nationalist trump card, and let us not give it 
to him again.
  Second, this legislation is based on a false premise that cutting off 
Cuba economically and politically will expedite his fall. To the 
contrary, I believe that a free flow of political and economic ideas is 
critical to the downfall of communism, just like it was in Eastern 
Europe when we allowed the Hungarians and the Rumanians and the Poles 
to look over the fence, they threw over communism and they threw over 
their dictator.
  We have had this embargo in place now, as I said, eight presidents 
and now 33 years, and Castro is still with us. The way to get rid of 
him is, and I quote now from Stephen Rosenfeld of the Washington Post, 
``We had reason for concern in the days of Soviet adventurism and Cuba 
revisionism and subversion. But now Cuba represents no threat and it is 
a failed revolution to boot. The embargo has been on for 33 years. Is 
not a third of a century a sufficient test of whether our policy is 
working?''
  I believe it is time to change. It is time to lift the embargo. We 
should seek a policy of positive engagement with the Cuban people, not 
with Fidel Castro, a policy which has demonstrated a track record in 
lessening and weakening the grip of communism. We share all the goals 
of encouraging a peaceful transition in Cuba, a transition with as 
little human suffering as possible.
  I have talked to Cuban-Americans in south Florida who believe that if 
we had changed our policy earlier, Mariel would have never happened and 
Castro would have been long gone. Simply put, the embargo has failed. 
Clearly, my major objection to the bill is philosophical. Yet I have 
another one with somewhat more objective specifics. Several provisions 
of the bill call for extraterritorial reach of the United States law 
which is highly questionable under international law.
  I strongly urge that this bill be defeated.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
very competent and fine leader of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity [LIBERTAD] 
Act does more than ``stiffen sanctions'' on Cuba. It has three 
constructive objectives:
  To bring an early end to the Castro regime by cutting off capital 
that keeps the regime afloat;
  To start planning now for United States support to a democratic 
transition in Cuba;
  And, to help protect property confiscated from United States citizens 
that is being exploited today by foreign companies that are profiting 
at the expense of the Cuban people.
  By passing this LIBERTAD Act with wide bipartisan support, Congress 
will force the Clinton administration to turn its energies to bringing 
about genuine, fundamental change that we all want in Cuba.
  This legislation advocates a responsible course to encourage and 
support genuine, fundamental reforms in Cuba. And, in the meantime, it 
helps protect the property of U.S. citizens until they can reclaim it 
under a democratic government.
  Mr. Burton has worked with a strong bipartisan coalition. With the 
help of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. 
Torricelli, he has fashioned a sound piece of legislation.
  The Burton bill will make a difference for the better in Cuba and 
advance one of our most critical foreign policy objectives in the 
Americas.
  Some critics of this legislation have argued that we should abandon 
our embargo as a relic of the cold war. I disagreed with these 
activists when they advocated a softer line on Castro when he still had 
troops in Africa and surrogates in Latin America. And I disagree with 
those critics today.
  However, we do agree that it is immoral to accept the status quo 
without taking new measures now to hasten definitive change in Cuba. 
Based on a fair reading of the facts, I believe the Burton bill leads 
in the right direction.
  We must consider that Castro did not feel the brunt of our embargo 
until the $4 to $5 billion in annual Soviet support dried up in the 
last few years. To put the size of this Soviet support in perspective, 
total United States economic assistance to all of Latin America and the 
Caribbean, with 40 times Cuba's population, exceeded $2 billion in only 
7 of the last 35 years. Deprived of the Soviet subsidy, Cuba's economy 
has shrunk by 50 percent since 1989.
  Those who have tried to cajole Castro toward reform have failed 
miserably. For decades he has flatly rebuffed the approaches of such 
friends as Mexico and Spain. And he has rejected the trend to democracy 
and respect for human rights in the Americas.
  Despite their efforts to encourage reform through dialog, Castro's 
eager trading partners in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere are left to 
grumble about continued systematic, omnipresent repression in Cuba.
  The 1994 report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
observed:

       The human rights situation in Cuba is extremely serious * * 
     *. The deterioration in living conditions, the repressive 
     control exercised by the state through the security agencies 
     against individuals and groups who differ with the regime, 
     and the extreme economic difficulties * * * caused a mass 
     exodus of persons who put out to sea on makeshift rafts in 
     search of new horizons, despite the fact that they were 
     taking their lives in their hands by doing so.

  For those who are quick to blame Cuba's desperate condition on United 
States policy, the Commission, which is respected for its fierce 
independence, observed, ``The Cuban crisis has, primarily, deep 
internal roots.''
  However, instead of adopting genuine reforms that would liberate an 
economy that flourished before his revolution, on September 5 Castro 
approved a foreign investment law in a desperate effort to raise 
capital.
  His so-called reform does just enough to attract unscrupulous 
investors with the opportunity to exploit Cuban workers who are paid a 
slave's wages and forbidden to strike. These investors are also 
attracted by property that was illegally confiscated from Americans. 

[[Page H 9340]]
Ironically, even the corporate scavengers who have been looking to make 
a quick buck in Cuba have panned Castro's new foreign investment law:
  The reason is that private property still does not exist in Cuba, so 
investors cannot take title to property. Castro retains absolute right 
to cancel all ventures, with the property involved reverting to the 
state. And, the regime will continue to control the labor supply and 
dictate contract terms.
  These are not real reforms that benefit the Cuban people. By 
thwarting Castro's effort to hold on to power, we are sparing the Cuban 
people further exploitation and helping bring their dictator down.
  How does the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act propose to 
break this tragic status quo?
  First, it reaffirms longstanding United States policy toward Cuba, 
turning back efforts within the Clinton administration to warm 
relations with the regime.
  Second, it requires the President to plan now to support a democratic 
transition, and it sets principled conditions under which the embargo 
will be suspended and certain types of U.S. assistance could be 
provided to a new government.
  Third, it allows U.S. nationals to sue foreigners who exploit 
property stolen from them by the Castro regime. The simple purpose of 
this provision is to pose a stark choice between trading with Castro 
and trading with the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, it simply makes no sense to lift our embargo just as 
the Castro regime is on the ropes like never before.
  Normalizing relations without verifying fundamental political and 
economic reforms would merely resuscitate a fading dictator who is the 
chief obstacle to real reform. Trade with Cuba today only benefits the 
repressive ruling class, prolongs Cuba's anguish and structural 
poverty, and destroys United States credibility with the Cuban people.
  Mr. TORRECELLI. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong support for this 
legislation and to acknowledge the bipartisan support of the 
legislation by the gentlemen from Indiana, Mr. Burton, and to thank my 
friends, the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. 
Menendez, for their excellent leadership on this issue.
  If we have learned anything in the last 10 years, we learned that 
America's greatest asset is not our military might or our industrial or 
economic strength. It is the power of our ideals and the impact that 
those ideals have on people around the world. Some people argue against 
this bill by saying America should not be out their by ourselves. I was 
proud that we were the first to step forward in many ways and lead the 
effort to dismantle the apartheid regime in South Africa. We did things 
by ourselves in that effort that we should have done. On the day, Mr. 
Speaker, that I took office as a Member of Congress, Nelson Mandela was 
in prison. Today, he is president of his country in a free election.
  There are those who say that the best policy is incremental change, 
negotiation with those who would suppress human rights, as Castro has 
done. There were those who said that about the Soviet Union, and I 
think that one of the lessons of the 1980s is that where you meet 
tyranny with appeasement, where you meet tyranny with incremental 
change, you get more tyranny, not more progress.
  There are those, and this is the toughest argument, who would oppose 
this bill because they talk of the very real plight and very real 
suffering of the Cuban people. Certainly we are sympathetic to that but 
we have come to this conclusion. As we did with the people of Eastern 
Europe where there was suffering, when we stood firm against the 
tyranny of the former Communist rulers in Eastern Europe, when we took 
the side of freedom and human rights, we have today achieved a result 
where we are no longer worried about leaders exploiting the freedom of 
their people. We are worried about people exploiting their freedom to 
the best use of their countryman and countrywomen.
  The time has come for us to once again take the lead on the 
international scene, to stand behind our principles with our actions 
and our dollars and to support this piece of legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, our own enlightened self-interest ought to be our guide 
to a pragmatic policy with respect to Cuba. Instead, we have in this 
bill yet another iteration of an outdated, outmoded ideology, mindless 
isolation. What is the United States self-interest here? What should be 
our objective? It should be a peaceful transition to a Cuba with an 
open economic system and a democratic political system. What is the 
best way to achieve that objective? I submit that our recent experience 
is instructive here, our experience with the Soviet Union, our 
experience with Eastern Europe, our experience with China and even 
Vietnam, and that is an experience of engagement; engagement 
economically with trade and investment, showing the virtues of our 
economic system on the ground, in person, in their face.
  Engagement ideologically with the free exchange of information and 
people, unimpeded travel of human beings and ideas. Our engagement 
culturally, cultural exchange, humanitarian involvement.
  What are we afraid of here? We should be so encouraged by the 
ultimate success that we have enjoyed with the former Communist world 
and that we will enjoy with the soon-to-be former Communist world that 
we should be itching to apply the same lessons, the same strategy in 
Cuba. What are we afraid of? A small island nation with no strategic 
allies and a failed economic and political system.
  Only a few weeks ago this House accepted the wisdom of a strategy 
that began with Richard Nixon, a strategy of engagement with respect to 
China in extending MFN another year. As much as we despise the human 
rights abuses, the political tyranny and all the rest that is 
objectionable in China, we understand that it is in our self-interest 
to engage with them on a broad range of activities, just as we did with 
the Soviets.
                              {time}  2100

  Just as we did with the Soviets, we understand that with regard to 
China that ultimately poses much greater risks to this country than 
Cuba, and we acted on that understanding precisely because we know that 
engagement politically, economically, culturally, that engagement holds 
out the best hope of avoiding those very risks, economic or military.
  Why is that strategy not just as valid for Cuba? Perhaps because U.S. 
policy with respect to Cuba has for too long been captive of a hard-
line ideology, an ideology driven by a group that may be more 
interested in settling old scores than setting a new course.
  This bill takes U.S. policy in Cuba in exactly the wrong direction. 
It is absolutely contrary to the long-term self-interests of the United 
States. It will increase the prospect of a violent change that could 
present a real security and immigration crisis for the United States.
  Let us learn from recent history, Mr. Chairman. Have the courage to 
say ``no'' to narrow ideology, to say ``no'' to special-interest-group 
domination of U.S. policy toward Cuba, and ``no'' to this bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  We had an embargo against South Africa, against Haiti just recently, 
against Libya. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of 
whom have spoken already, supported those embargoes. This is a more 
important embargo in my opinion than any of those.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

[[Page H 9341]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act. I want to commend Chairman Burton and 
Chairman Gilman for moving this very important piece of legislation.
  Perhaps the gentleman from Colorado does not recall, but I certainly 
do, that it was not engagement that collapsed the Soviet Union and the 
Soviet empire. It was containment. That is the policy that we are 
exercising in Cuba, especially with the passage of this act.
  Cuba today continues under Fidel Castro to be an oppressive Communist 
relic of the Cold War. Castro retains his backward totalitarian regime 
only 90 miles from our shore. He continues to imprison his opponents 
and to imprison human rights activists and persecute them unmercifully 
in the country of Cuba.
  Basic freedoms are routinely repressed. Cuban prisons are full of 
political prisoners. I have met them by the tens, almost hundreds. I 
have to say that some of them have stayed and lived for 10, 15, 17, 
perhaps as long as 20 years in single cubicles. I have been astounded 
by the tales of torture and imprisonment and abuse of human rights. Yet 
we see that his failed economic policies are collapsing the country. I 
cannot believe what I hear, that the opponents of this legislation say 
it is time to engage with Castro. The fact is it is time to tighten the 
sanctions and end Castro ruthless dictatorship.
  Since the cutoff of Soviet assistance in 1991, he has launched a 
desperate campaign to lure foreign investment to Cuba, to generate hard 
currency to sustain his repressive apparatus. We must not allow Castro 
to prop up his failed government with foreign investment and properties 
which were confiscated from U.S. citizens. H.R. 927 permits American 
citizens to recover damages from foreign investors who are profiting 
from their stolen property in Cuba. This bill will block the foreign 
investment lifeline which still keeps Castro's regime alive and it will 
create a right for U.S. citizens to sue any individual or corporation 
which knowingly and intentionally trafficks in confiscated property of 
U.S. nationals. It also denies entry to the United States of any person 
who trafficks in such confiscated property. These are logical steps 
which compel international companies to confront a very fundamental 
choice. You can either ignore U.S. property rights to engage in 
business as usual with Castro or you can retain access to the world's 
largest market.
  Only by ending Castro's access to foreign capital will we succeed in 
bringing his dictatorial rule to a halt.
  While I strongly support the stick approach of increased economic 
sanctions to force Castro from power, I also support the carrots which 
are included in this legislation. I urge the adoption of this bill. It 
is needed and Castro's rule must come to an end.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 927.
  At this time in our history, when we take such pride in declaring the 
end of the cold war, we should be moving toward demilitarization, 
breaking down cultural, economic and social barriers, and extending a 
peaceful hand to our neighbors worldwide. Instead, with this bill, we 
are choosing to escalate economic war on a small country that poses 
absolutely no threat to our country.
  The United States cut off trade and travel between the United States 
and Cuba in 1960, in retaliation against Fidel Castro and his Cuban 
revolution. Thirty-five years later, it is clear that the embargo has 
failed.
  H.R. 927 now calls for even tighter restrictions. But let us take a 
closer look at the facts.
  At the same time we are moving to establish diplomatic relations and 
open new markets with Vietnam, this bill will further restrict United 
States companies and loan institutions from trading freely with other 
countries and foreign companies. It will violate GATT and NAFTA by 
denying visas to people doing business with Cuba. And it will cost the 
taxpayers millions of dollars by committing our Federal court system to 
thousands of additional claims for expropriated Cuban-owned property.
  The only tangible result of the embargo has been the resentment of 
average Cuban citizens. Rather than discrediting Castro, Uncle Sam has 
gotten the blame for the island's hardships. It is time to end the 
embargo, and bring this cruel legacy of the cold war to an end.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished and helpful gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, the debate here tonight reminds me of 
the remarks by Benjamin Franklin, who once said, ``There is nothing so 
tragic as the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts.'' 
What the opponents of this bill have is a beautiful theory: that Castro 
will reform if only you treat him nicely, that repression is easing in 
Cuba, and that economic liberalization is commencing.
  But the brutal facts are that the repression is increasing, that 
worker exploitation in Cuba has returned serfdom to our hemisphere, and 
that the struggle for freedom for the Cuban people against the Castro 
dictatorship remains as difficult as ever.
  But do not take my word for it. Listen to Castro's own spokesmen. 
Castro's Foreign Minister, Roberto Robaina, who said just recently, 
``For our enemies, the ideal would be to see us multiseparated, 
multidivided, and for that, they demand that we return to a multiparty 
system. That will not happen.''
  Trabajadores, one of Castro's journalistic puppets, recently said 
about the new foreign investment law in the country, ``There is nothing 
in the investment law which weakens the leading role of our communist 
party.'' Clearly, these new cosmetic steps by Castro are not toward 
political or economic liberalization, but toward the extension of his 
cruel regime.
  Opponents of this legislation talk about investments in Cuba, the 
millions of American dollars that should be going out to the investment 
market in Cuba. However, such talk misses the point, for the bottom 
line is that the situation in Cuba is not about investment or 
profiteering. It is, and should be, about the lack of freedom and human 
rights for the people of that island nation just 100 miles from my 
community of Miami.
  What is the reality of Cuba? Unfortunately, the answer to this 
question is quite simple. For Cuba, under the Castro dictatorship, 
instead of progressing is regressing, not only economically but in the 
development of freedoms and liberties for its people. The Castro regime 
attracts investment by highlighting its repression of their workers. A 
Castro economic minister recently said, ``We are free from labor 
conflict. Nowhere else in the world could you get this tranquility.''
  Mr. Chairman, Cuba has become one of the last
   bastions of tyranny in the world. Amnesty International describes 
the human rights situation in Cuba as ``Members of unofficial 
political, human rights and trade union groups continued to face 
imprisonment, short-term detention, and frequent harassment.''

  The State Department and Human Rights report states that, ``The 
authorities were responsible for the extrajudicial killings of citizens 
fleeing the country. The government sharply restricts basic political 
and civil rights, including the rights of citizens to change their 
government; the freedom of speech, press, association, assembly and 
movement; as well as the right to privacy and various workers rights.''
  These are just 2 examples of the human rights situation on the 
island, but Castro's long list of dubious achievements does not stop 
here. We should not forget that Castro's regime remains listed by our 
State Department as a state that promotes terrorism, and the FBI has 
acknowledged that the tyrant holds dozens of fugitives from American 
justice.
  For decades the United Nations and foreign nations have refused to 
hear the cries of the desperate Cuban people. Even some of our 
colleagues who have supported economic embargoes to help 

[[Page H 9342]]
the aspirations of freedom in other nations turn a blind eye toward 
Cuba.
  This Congress, this country, should not engage in similar immoral 
conduct. This bill that we propose here today signals that the Congress 
of the United States will not sit idly by as unscrupulous investors and 
nations choose to make a quick dollar and conduct their dirty business 
with Castro, at the expense of the freedom and livelihood of the 
suffering people of Cuba.
  As I have said, this legislation sends a clear and simple message. If 
you invest in Cuba by trafficking in confiscated American property, you 
can forget about doing business in the United States. Already, Mr. 
Chairman, this legislation even before it has been implemented is 
having the desired effect. The June 23 edition of the Miami Herald 
reported that investment in Cuba has been decreasing because of the 
threat that investors feel about this legislation.
  No wonder that the Castro regime has mounted an unprecedented 
international propaganda campaign against this bill. The reason is 
because it threatens to cut its lifeline that maintains this evil 
regime in
 existence.

  Mr. Chairman, it is highly cynical to believe that Castro and his 
henchmen, after more than three decades of absolute rule, will 
transform overnight into George Washingtons. This simply is not 
reality, it is a pure fantasy.
  I urge my colleagues to support freedom and democracy in Cuba by 
supporting this legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill 
is not likely to lead to democratization or political or social reform 
in Cuba. What it will do is create tremendous legal, business, and 
foreign policy problems.
  In terms of legal problems, the idea of settling foreign land 
settlements, claims, in our courts sets an unbelievably bad example. 
Not only will it clog up our courts, but the precedent it sets for 
other immigrant Americans who have had their property seized I think is 
a wrong one and one that we will live to regret.
  Of course, most of those settlements will result in default 
judgments, but it is precisely the kind of thing that will strengthen 
Castro's hand. The threat of all these land claims being settled in 
favor of the claimant is just what Castro needs to stay in power. It 
will create business problems. Those American corporations that hold 
the key to advancing the free enterprise system in Cuba will be 
prevented from being able to deal with Cuba when a transitional 
government begins, as it inevitably will, in Cuba.
                              {time}  2115

  It will create tremendous foreign policy problems. In fact, just at 
the point when the President will need to be able to help a 
transitional government in Cuba, it ties his hands with unbelievably 
rigid requirements.
  It also completely undermines NAFTA that we just passed on the floor 
of this House. Our relationship with Mexico, with Canada, with our 
European allies, will all be undermined.
  This bill does not advance the national interest of the United 
States. We ought to work on an approach to pressure Cuba on human 
rights and provide support to post-Castro Cuba. But this bill does just 
the opposite.
  It would be better to support democratization in Cuba by encouraging 
the free flow of information and dialogue between the United States and 
Cuba and working with our allies and nongovernmental organizations to 
pressure Cuba for human rights and Democratic reforms. That is how we 
have shown success in our dealings with other countries, the Soviet 
Union in particular. We know what works and we know what does not work.
  Those who support the increased isolationism of Cuba should explain 
how and why they think this policy can work, after it did not with 
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. And, in fact it was that beginning 
of openness, that Perestroika, that enabled communism to go down to 
defeat, just as Castro's communism will go down to defeat one day if we 
play it smart.
  Mr. Chairman, I should also say that it is the attitude on the part 
of some people promoting this bill that is precisely the same attitude 
that contributed to the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba. The classism, the 
racism, the elitism, the greed. That is why we have Castro 90 miles 
from our shore.
  This is not a bill that is in the interests of the United States. It 
is in contradiction to our foreign policy. It is in contradiction to 
our attempts to open trade with both our allies and with countries who 
have the potential to develop a free enterprise system.
  Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not in the interests of our U.S. 
judicial system to create a precedent that will clog up our court 
inappropriately. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and to 
take the kind of constructive steps we have taken in the past to remove 
Castro and to establish a Democratic free enterprise system of 
government in Cuba.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Deutsch] I want only to say as a Member of this House who 
has given several years of my career to working against Fidel Castro 
and for freedom for Cuba, it is only out of profound respect for the 
gentleman of Virginia [Mr. Moran] that I did not rise in opposition or, 
indeed, objection in having our motives questioned or being compared 
with the Bastista regime in our using this vehicle to fight for freedom 
in Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for about 2\1/2\ hours 
listening to a variety of debate about Cuba and free trade and about 
the cold war and what I would point out to my colleagues is that all of 
that is wonderfully interesting debate, but it just did not have a heck 
of a lot to do with this resolution that is in front of us.
  This resolution deals with some very specific things. It does not 
deal with global cold war policy. What it does specifically is it deals 
with non-U.S. companies that have purchased illegally seized property 
and gives them a right to seek justice in American courts. That is what 
this legislation does. That is what it does.
  Mr. Chairman, it does not deal, again, with the cold war, with big 
picture stuff. And there are plenty of issues that we can debate, and 
there may very well be other bills to debate those on. But I tell my 
colleagues, it is kind of hard to argue against what this bill does.
  Think about it. Just simple justice for Americans who might have 
owned property in Cuba, or Cubans who left Cuba and became Americans, 
who are American citizens now. They owned a factory in Cuba, and they 
left because of the repressive regime. It could have been in the 50s or 
the 60s, or it could have been in the 80s for that matter, and then a 
non-U.S. company bought that factory or bought that refinery that was 
illegally seized from the government that illegally took that factory 
and is making money off of that factory.
  Mr. Chairman, what this bill then says, if it is adopted into law, is 
that that U.S. citizen, or for that matter that U.S. company, has a 
right to seek justice, to seek compensation for what occurred. Yes, 
there are sanctions for those companies that bought illegally seized 
property and those sanctions are really somewhat severe. They deal with 
visa restrictions and a variety of other things. But for this to work, 
that is what we must do.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that Castro is holding on by his 
fingernails in terms of his economy. He is using this expropriation and 
property thing even today. And for us not to pass this legislation is 
really effectively to support his regime. That is the effective result 
of failure to adopt this legislation would do.
  Mr. Chairman, the message that it sends to Castro in particular is 
that he can seize property of Americans and get away with it. It is 
wrong. We need to adopt this legislation. We need to understand the 
specifics of it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of the 
legislation.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H 9343]]

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to oppose this 
legislation. It shows that in this great country people can have the 
same goals, but that in these halls that we can debate the manner in 
which we hope to achieve it.
  Mr. Chairman, after the last debate on the bill, one of my friends 
that took an opposite side on the rule said, ``If you are really 
concerned about freedom in Cuba, if you are really concerned about 
getting rid of Castro, why do you not talk more about that?'' So, Mr. 
Chairman, I elect to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, ``Hey, Mr. Castro it is all over 
for dictators. Communism has failed. Stop blaming America and stop 
blaming the embargo. Stop fooling the Cuban people in believing that it 
is the United States' embargo that has denied the Cuban people an 
opportunity to dream and to think that they can aspire to improve the 
quality of life.''
  ``Stop telling the American people over here in New Jersey, and the 
people in Miami, to keep putting up this embargo so that you can stay 
there as long as you want. Yes, Mr. Castro, stop making it appear as 
though that it is the United States of America, and allow us in these 
halls of the United States Congress to be able to say that we think the 
way to get rid of this guy is to let some sunshine in.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us see what is happening in human rights. Is the 
way to show the violation in human rights in Cuba to have a handful of 
people in Cuba say we cannot go there? Give me a break. We are creating 
somebody out there. We are responsible for that dictator.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to get rid of him, open up the doors of 
trade. Let in students and doctors and artists. Let us exchange, show 
them that America is the showcase of democracy. Do not have this bum 
running around saying, ``Americans in the United States Congress say we 
cannot sell you food, we cannot sell you medicine, we cannot allow your 
kids to come here. You cannot come to the United States of America.''
  What kind of country is the United States of America that we are 
going to be afraid of a handful of socialists, or whatever they call 
themselves over there?
  This great republic can stand up against the Communists in all of 
what used to be the Soviet Union, and we are scared of a handful of 
people that Castro has got over there? We are out of our minds.
  This great Nation can stand up against a billion Communist Chinese, 
run over there and spend their money, but we are scared of a handful of 
guys in uniform in Cuba?
  This great Nation can go to North Vietnam and North Korea and have 
our businesspeople trade and have our students sing, laugh, trade 
information, and come back as Americans and not be afraid of them, but 
we are scared to death of this bum Castro?
  Why not let America's voice be heard by what we sell best? We sell 
democracy. We sell contracts. We sell food. We sell medicine. We sell 
ideas. And we win at it.
  Do you colleagues know why we win at it? Because that is why we got 
the North American Free-Trade Agreement. That is why we have got GATT. 
That is why the United States of America leads in trade. That is why we 
have got Ron Brown. That is why we have got the Department of Commerce. 
We are salesmen. We produce and the world buys.
  But when my colleagues say ``embargo,'' it means do not talk, do not 
send reporters, do not let people see, Hey, America has got a great 
country. Let us see it. Let us see what is going on in Cuba. Who are we 
to tell Americans that they cannot go to Cuba? That we cannot have 
protection in Cuba? Are we afraid of this little island country in the 
Caribbean? They must be selling something that we better take a good 
look at.
  Let us stop saying that we are afraid of Castro. The only way to get 
freedom in Cuba is to act as though America has got so much of it, so 
proud of it, that we can go any place and everyone would say, ``I want 
to be like you.''
  But if we cannot allow them to come and listen to our music, our 
poets, our educators; if we cannot listen to their scientists and their 
doctors; if we cannot prove to them that America has more to offer than 
this overweight, old bearded guy that runs around there in combat 
boots, what kind of republic are we?
  Mr. Chairman, I challenge my friends on the other side, tell the 
people in Cuba that it is not the American people that are doing this 
to them. We want to send them our food, our medicine, and our scholars. 
I think this bill separates Americans from Cuba and it is an impediment 
to democracy in Cuba.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Rangel], my learned colleague, we are not afraid of Fidel Castro. I do 
not know where the gentleman got that idea, that we are afraid of Fidel 
Castro. But we certainly are not afraid of Fidel Castro.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are concerned about is what he has done to the 
Cuban people; what he has done to the American people who had 
investment down there, whose property was confiscated, that he took 
away and is now trying to sell for hard currency so he can survive.
  We are concerned with people like Armando Valdarez, a patriot that 
stood up against Castro who spent 22 years in the Cuban gulag, was 
tortured, and has told all sorts of stories about what goes on down 
there. He wrote a book called, ``Against All Hope.'' I read it on an 
airplane and started crying, because of the atrocities perpetrated by 
Castro. People on the plane thought I was nuts, but the horrible things 
that he has done were so earth shaking to most people with heart that 
they say, ``Some monster like that has to go.'' He continues that same 
policy today.
  Mr. Chairman, he is not fit to rule. He rules by coercion. He rules 
by brute strength and power. That kind of thing we cannot tolerate. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] says he is against embargo. The 
gentleman voted for the embargo on Haiti and for the embargo on South 
Africa. My colleague cannot have it both ways. The gentleman does not 
believe in this embargo.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the money that goes to 
Fidel Castro's regime for a hotel that is built down there for the 
employee, he equates the currency of Cuba with the dollar.
                              {time}  2130

  He says that they are equal in value. The actual fact of the matter 
is, it is a 70 to 81 differential. And he takes money from people that 
pay the salaries of Cubans who work in these hotels, let us say it is 
$400 or $500 a month, and he pays them back in pesos, which equates to 
$3 to $4 a month.
  If we read what the American Institute For Free labor said in part, 
the growing number of partnerships between foreign investors and Cuban 
Government agencies has not improved a lot of workers or provided them 
with greater autonomy. Instead, the Cuban Government has used the 
exploitation of working people and the absence of free association as a 
lure to attract investors, often to the detriment of workers in 
neighboring countries.
  The fact of the matter is, Castro believes in socialism or death. He 
does not care about the working people down there. Their plight has 
gone straight downhill since he took power. The only way it is going to 
change is for him to exit the scene, for him to exit the scene. The 
fact of the matter is, he was getting $4 to $6 billion a year from the 
old Soviet Union; he is not getting it anymore. The only time the 
embargo has started to work is in the last 2 to 3 years when the Cuban 
Democracy and Freedom Act sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Torricelli] passed. That is when the embargo started to take hold 
and have teeth and work, and Castro has been on the ropes ever since.
  He is scared to death. He had people in the Committee on Rules 
yesterday watching what went on, because he knows, if this bill passes, 
he is not going to be able to get the hard currency he needs to 
survive. His days are numbered, and we should not throw him a lifeline, 
we should throw him an anchor. And I submit to you, this bill is an 
anchor.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  
[[Page H 9344]]

  Mr. BURTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York for just a moment.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, All I am saying is that I share the same feelings about 
this person who is a dictator, and I hope that that would be 
understood. I have more feeling that this country has more power than 
any Communist, whether they were in China, whether they are in the 
Soviet Union, wherever they are, I have confidence in my Government.
  When the President of the United States says that this is not in our 
national interests, when our Secretary of State says this is not in our 
national interest, as an American, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] said, one President at a time, and that is my only point.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I might just 
say that I believe we are going to find that the President may have a 
position and the Secretary of State may have a position, but I will 
submit that tomorrow probably 300 Members of this body will have a 
different position, because we studied the issue and we want that man 
out of power.
  This is going to pass overwhelmingly, because the people of this 
hemisphere and the people of this country want freedom, democracy and 
human rights for the people who have suffered over 30 years in Cuba.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, this will 
never become law in this country, and the gentleman knows it. It is 
going to be vetoed and will not be overridden. The gentleman knows and 
I know that this is theatrics, and it will never become law.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say 
that I do not believe that. I believe it will become law and we will 
just see.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 927 and urge its 
passage.
  The cold war was worth fighting. The cold war was worth the cost, and 
we won. But one of the last outposts of the evil empire still remains 
only 90 miles south of us, and we cannot forget that. Cuba is still 
Communist, Cuba is still totalitarian, and Fidel Castro still scorns 
the principles of freedom and democracy.
  The men, women, and children of Cuba continue to suffer as a result 
of a tyrant who is utterly insensitive to the rights and the lives of 
his own people. Now, after 36 years, we are finally in a position to 
put an end to Castro's vicious regime. Now of all times is not the time 
to dither or to duck.
  For the sake of democracy and for the sake of so many people whose 
lives have been torn asunder by a reprehensible dictatorship, I urge my 
colleagues to support the Libertad Act.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres].
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to my colleague, Mr. 
Hamilton, for this opportunity to explain why the passage of Mr. 
Burton's legislation, would be, in my opinion, not only a grave policy 
mistake by this body, but, would set in motion actions which would 
deliberately inflict upon the Cuban people suffering and deprivation. 
At worst, this legislation is a cruel attempt by Members in both 
bodies--who are still fighting the cold war--to provoke civil disorder 
in Cuba. Today we need to send a wake-up call to those cold warriors in 
our midst--the cold war has ended. We won--remember.
  What threat does the Government of Cuba present to the territory or 
people of the United States which would justify unleashing further pain 
and suffering and, I would warn, possible bloodshed, among the people 
of Cuba.
  The United States is the only world superpower. Our military might 
dwarfs that of the combined armies and navies of Europe and certainly 
of the Americas. We maintain an armed, military presence, on the Island 
of Cuba--how many of you appreciate this reality.
  This country maintains an armed, military base on Cuba's southern 
coast. The U.S. controls 45 square miles of southern Cuba, including a 
harbor, naval docking and ship repair facilities ordinance, supplies 
and administrative facilities--we even have two water distillation 
plants. This U.S. military base includes both a naval and an air 
station. Over all--the United States military has a base right inside 
of Cuba which is three-quarters the total land area of the District of 
Columbia. One of the stated military mission for our base in Cuba is to 
serve as beachhead in case the United States decides to invade the 
Island. It costs the American taxpayer over $45 million a year to 
maintain this military base.
  Now, it looks to me like the military threat is reversed--it appears 
to me that this island presents no military or strategic threat to the 
territory of the U.S. Why then are we considering legislation which 
appears to some to be designed to make economic and social conditions 
in Cuba so difficult for the average citizens, that these difficulties 
would create civic disorder, which would then provoke the Castro 
government to take measures against its population, which will result 
in increased violence and disorder on the island, which will be used as 
a pretext for United States military intervention.
  At best, this legislation will have no effect upon the Cuban 
Government's hold on power, but will reveal to the international 
community the mindset of United States elected officials--who are so 
trapped, by old ways of thinking and by false pride, that they would 
act against a foreign government which poses no threat or danger to the 
national security of the United States of America. Now, Cuba has always 
been a peculiarly emotional issue in United States foreign policy. Past 
United States interests with regard to Cuba were of a security nature 
and had more to do with Washington's global rivalry with Moscow than 
with Cuba itself. In the early sixties, United States officials 
maintained that it was not the socialist nature of Cuba's system which 
drove United States opposition rather it was our Government's concern 
with Cuba's interventionist foreign policy and its military ties to the 
former Soviet Union.
  The Carter administration added to this list, its demands that Cuba 
demonstrate greater respect for human rights.
  As recently as 5 years ago United States barriers to improved 
relationships with Cuba were still conditioned by Cuba's commitment to 
the export of armed revolution and its close military ties to the 
Soviet Union. For 33 years the primary United States policy initiative 
responding to our criticisms of Cuba's foreign policy has been to 
maintain an economic embargo against Cuba. In one form or another this 
United States economic embargo against Cuba has been the policy of the 
last nine United States Presidents.
  Since H.R. 927 is designated to tighten the economic blockade against 
the Cuban people, it behooves those who would agree to such action to 
examine more closely the history of our current embargo and to know in 
detail the outcomes of tightening this economic noose which is around 
Cuba.
  The Burton bill proposes to tighten this embargo and to reinforce 
sanctions against our allies to stop trading with Cuba.
  I feel that we ought to be able to examine now whether this past 
embargo has furthered U.S. policy goals. In terms of the stated U.S. 
security concerns we observe the following: Cuban troops are out of 
Africa; Cuba is no longer supporting revolutionary movements; and its 
military ties to Russia are virtually nonexistent--and certainly, not a 
threat to the United States.
  So, if the intent of our embargo was to guarantee certain U.S. 
security interests, and if these concerns have been met, why are we now 
proposing to tightened the effects of our 33-year-old embargo, and 
ironically, provide Fidel Castro with fresh reasons for showing how his 
nation's economic problems are not his fault? I would maintain that 
United States policy interests toward Cuba are no longer based upon 
United States security issues, but rather are attempts to effect 
internal changes in Cuba. If the United States is now seeking internal 
political and economic changes in Cuba, does the Burton bill serve 
these ends? Certainly, 33 years of economic embargo have not toppled 
the Castro regime; there has 

[[Page H 9345]]
been a renovation of the top political leadership; the government 
appears to have been able to impose severe economic restrictions 
because most Cubans, despite the hardships, have adjusted successfully; 
the state's security forces remain loyal and effective; compensation 
for United States property seized has not been reached; Cuba has not 
been isolated internationally; and the United States embargo--
particularly the enactment of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, gave 
Cuban leaders a vehicle for mobilizing patriotic support to elicit the 
sacrifice necessary to make the economic adjustment. And, as I 
mentioned earlier, this act provided the Cuban Government with a target 
for blaming the United States Government as a cause of Cuba's many 
calamities. For a moment, let us suppose that the U.S. trade embargo 
were to be lifted tomorrow in its entirety.
  What would be the effect on Cuba's economy in the short run? It is 
quite probable that not much would happen immediately to the Cuban 
economy: Cuba could not import more goods because it lacks the foreign 
exchange to pay for them. Cuba's principal product sugar, is over-
supplied worldwide and is traded internationally at low prices in a 
residual market. The major impact of removing the embargo would be 
political: the Cuban government would be held responsible for the 
nation's economic problems. It seems to me that the United States' 
trade embargo policy is assisting the continuation of the Castro 
government--and the miseries of its people. I trust that others will 
speak to the suffering which has been visited on the Cuban people by 
our outdated trade embargo. I maintain that it is time for a new vision 
in United States policy toward Cuba.
  As part of this ``new vision'' I would make the following 
suggestions: the Clinton administration should define United States 
interest in Cuba in simple and clear terms. Washington should consult 
with our democratic Latin American allies in shaping our own policy 
toward Cuba. Our policy should include the following elements:
  To foster a respect for human rights and a transition to pluralized 
democracy;
  To make clear that the United States has no intention of invading 
Cuba and to condemn violent actions by exile groups;
  To facilitate the flow of international information into Cuba: This 
should include continuing the facilitation of telephone communications 
between our two countries; facilitate direct mail, cultural and 
academic exchanges, establish news bureaus, travel by United States 
citizens to Cuba;
  In order to make credible United States claims that our objection is 
to Cuba's government, and not to hurt its people, the Untied States 
should indicate its readiness to remove aspect of the embargo if Cuba 
opens up its politics in specified ways.
  In this way, the United States will signal its desire to respond to 
changes that the Cuban government chooses to adopt on its own; and
  To remove all punitive measures from the Cuban Democracy Act which 
interfere with the normal exerciser of sovereign jurisdiction in other 
countries. Our economic relationships with Canada, Mexico and the 
European Community are of vital importance, and outweigh any remaining 
objectives the United States may have toward Cuba.
  Furthermore, United States-Cuban policy provides a window of doubt 
for other governments to question United States ability to provide 
creative leadership in the post cold war world.
  By adopting H.R. 927 the United States will violate international law 
and treaties, that we have signed, ratified, and promised to uphold. 
Furthermore, if adopted, this legislation would cause serious problems 
in our relations with our closest friends and trading partners. This 
bill would hurt U.S. business interests abroad. Our courts would become 
tied up
 with thousands of non-dismissable lawsuits, and, this bill will not 
advance democracy in Cuba.

  This bill is a credit to bullies and dictators--not a democratic 
people, who are confident of their might and economic and political 
system. Indeed, this bill isolates the United States--provides 
ammunition to those who maintain that United States foreign policy is 
being made through campaign contributions, and that the United States 
has lost it belief in itself and in the inevitability of a peaceful 
transition to democracy in Cuba.
  The Burton bill does not convey honor to this institution, nor to the 
American people. It is a mean spirited, vengeful, politically motivated 
measure which may in fact, itself, pose a danger to United States 
national interests in Cuba. For if this act is passed and if the misery 
and hardships which it is designed to create in Cuba, comes to pass 
then the prospects of prolonged violence could provoke mass migration 
and, even, United States military action.
  This is the wrong bill, sending the wrong message, at the wrong time. 
Surely, a country which holds its democratic practices and traditions 
so high, would not stoop so low as to provoke economic and social 
hardships against innocent citizens of an independent republic.
  Once again, old men and women with old ideas, are trying to force 
old, and bankrupt solutions. Why not trust the process of openness and 
of democracy. Let us reduce the hostility in United States-Cuban 
relations, let us encourage private markets the rule of law and 
independent organizations and let us promote pragmatic exchange between 
the United States and the Government of Cuba.
  I urge you to return this outdated and poorly constructed bill to the 
dust bin of history. In name of integrity and honor, I urge the defeat 
of this bad bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my good friend and colleague.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 927, legislation 
that refocuses attention on the root of the problem in Cuba--Fidel 
Castro. His willingness to use his people as a leverage point, by 
deliberately manufacturing refugee crises, has been his greatest 
weapon. He has done a much better job of using this weapon than we have 
using ours--the embargo. But today Fidel Castro's regime is struggling 
to collect the hard currency it needs to survive. H.R. 927 ups the 
economic pressure on Castro by cutting off the currency supply line, in 
particular by sanctioning foreign investors willfully trafficking in 
the confiscated property of American citizens. The bill goes further to 
address some of gaps left by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act regarding 
U.S. policy for the transition period after Fidel Castro's departure 
and before democratic elections. It is time for America to stand its 
ground and it is time for Castro to go--only then will we be able to 
re-embrace the closest of our hemispheric neighbors. I look forward to 
that. And that is what H.R. 927 is about. I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], one of the architects of 
this legislation, and one of the most important voices in this Congress 
on Cuban-American affairs.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I came with prepared remarks, but let me just say, I 
understand the fire of this institution. I understand debate, but I do 
not understand the comments of some of my colleagues. I would wonder 
how my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano] or the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Torres] who spoke before would feel if 
he heard, as we heard from one of our colleagues from Florida, that 
there are too many Cubans, you have to shut it down.
  That is a hell of a statement. I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
words towards me, but that does not wipe that statement clean.
  They have come to this country and contributed, they have worked 
hard, they have played by the rules, they have helped build up cities, 
and they have suffered. I do not understand that comment.
  I do not understand the comments of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs] about the special narrow interest groups. Over 300 Members of 
this House voted for the rule, over 72 Democratic Members, nearly one-
third of the 

[[Page H 9346]]
Democratic Caucus voted for a rule. Is that a narrow interest?
  Why is it that when we talk about Cuban Americans it is a narrow 
interest? Was NAFTA a narrow interest for Mexican-Americans? Was the 
issue of Israel a narrow interest for those who are Americans of Jewish 
descent? No, we accept that.
  I keep hearing that we violate NAFTA and GATT. This bill does not 
have anything to do what that. It did maybe with the sugar provisions. 
Those are out. Where is NAFTA and GATT involved here? I know that is an 
intent to lure the free traders away, but that is not in here.
  I heard the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a colleague, upset 
me again. He paints with a broad brush. He said, the people who are 
about this, who support this are about elitism and greed. Well, I will 
have the gentleman know that my family was poor in Cuba and it was poor 
when it came to the United States. No one in my family graduated from 
college until I went to school here in the United States, and I resent 
those remarks.
  The gentleman may have a divergence of view on policy, but the 
gentleman has no right to paint a group of people in such a manner, no 
right.
  I listened to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] who I respect 
at least in the context that he finally called Fidel Castro what he is, 
a dictator, which too many people who come here make believe that the 
United States are the bad guys. What about the dictatorship?
  The one thing I have that none of the people who have spoken here, 
except for my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) have, is family in 
Cuba. Everybody else talks about it abstractly. Everybody else talks 
about it in the context that we are creating suffering and oppression 
of people in Cuba.
  The only person who is doing that is Fidel Castro. And I say that as 
someone who has family there. No one else who spoke before, other than 
the people I have mentioned, can say that. And they still suffer. But 
they do not suffer because of what I do in the United States Congress. 
They suffer because of a person that has chosen a course of action that 
keeps them oppressed, not only from political liberties, but from 
economic reforms that would make their lives better.
                              {time}  2145

  I rarely talk about my family in these debates because I do not need 
them to suffer any more as a result of what I do here in this House, 
but my efforts are not to hurt my family. They are to try to liberate 
them, and I am upset to hear, upset to hear that what we seek is pain 
and bloodshed. The only blood that can be spilt in Cuba is the arms of 
Fidel Castro. He has the guns, he has the army, he has the security 
forces, and only he can turn those arms against the people of Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, let's talk about him. I understand differences in 
opinions as to how we proceed, but I do not accept the comments of some 
of my colleagues who say that there are too many Cubans here, that is 
why we have got to shut down the door. I do not accept the comments of 
some of my colleagues who call this a narrow interest of view when we 
have such a wide range of support. I do not accept those comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I start with a very basic premise. It has always been, 
and I believe always will be, in the national interest of the United 
States to promote a change to peaceful and ultimately democratic change 
in Cuba. It is in our national interest. I speak as an American when I 
say it is in our national interest because Cuba has the third largest 
army in the entire Western Hemisphere under the command of a 
dictatorship. It is in our national interest because Castro seeks to 
finish a nuclear power plant 90 miles away from the United States of a 
Chernobyl type. We do not need another Chernobyl 90 miles away from the 
United States. It is in our national interest because Castro continues 
to violate the human rights of his people through political repression, 
incarceration, and yes, firing squads, and it is this political 
repression and the lack of economic reform that causes Cubans to flee 
their homeland that my colleague from Florida so much cares about and 
seek refuge in the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of this bill would have us believe that it is 
the United States that is the villain, not Castro. And yet, we all 
agree that it is Castro who denies his people the right to free and 
democratic elections. It is Castro who permits the continuation of 
human rights abuses, and it is Castro who could end the suffering of 
the Cuban people tomorrow if he chose to.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the debate in the Committee on Rules, 
one member suggested that by ignoring Castro, we have heard that on the 
floor today, perhaps it would resolve itself, that perhaps absent U.S. 
attention, Castro would change his ways.
  Mr. Chairman, Fidel Castro could change this instant. He can call 
elections today. He could allow alternative political parties to form 
today. He could release Cuba's political prisoners today. He could make 
substantive economic and market reforms that would help the Cuban 
people. Forget about anybody else. Help the Cuban people put more food 
on Cuban tables. Fidel Castro could make this bill irrelevant today, 
but instead, he chooses tyranny as his form of government, a choice he 
could easily reverse.
  Mr. Chairman, with this in mind, nearly two years ago I suggested 
that we develop a proactive policy towards the Cuban people, that we 
prepare today for a change in Cuba tomorrow, that we combine our 
principled and firm opposition to Cuba's oppressors with a beacon of 
light to the Cuban people to say clearly to them, we are in solidarity 
with you, we want to help you, but we do not want to assist those who 
deprive you of your basic rights.
  So I introduced with broad bipartisan support the Free and 
Independent Cuba Assistance Act, which is incorporated under Title II. 
It is not about pain and bloodshed. It is about assisting the Cuban 
people, sending out a blueprint from the United States of assistance to 
a government in transition, and ultimately, a government that is 
democratically elected, and it says to the Cuban people, here is how we 
want to help, and for the first time in foreign policy, it is 
proactive.
  Finally, the second part of the bill really deals with the right of 
American citizens and the right of American companies to be able to sue 
in our courts for their confiscated properties illegally confiscated in 
Cuba. If my colleagues want to stand up for American citizens, if my 
colleagues want to stand up for American companies simply to have a 
right to go to court and sue some foreign company that wants to buy 
those properties that were illegally confiscated from Cuba, my 
colleagues will support this bill. No matter how much hocus-pocus we 
have here, no matter how much clouding of the issue we want to make it, 
that is the basic line. Help the people in Cuba, blueprint for a 
transition, the ability to sue so that they can therefore make sure 
that their confiscated properties do not become the illegal fruits of 
Fidel Castro.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Serrano].
  (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first preface my comments by saying 
that the beauty of democracy is the ability to disagree. For me, the 
pain of democracy tonight is to have to disagree with colleagues of 
mine from the Cuban-American community who have a special emotional 
involvement in this issue.
  I come tonight not only as a person who was born an American citizen, 
but with a special feeling in my heart for having been born in an 
American city in the island of Puerto Rico, for those two islands, Cuba 
and Puerto Rico, hold historical and cultural bonds that some people in 
this body may just not understand. If the people in Cuba hurt, then I 
hurt, and I wonder how much of their pain is caused by us, not by their 
leadership.
  So I think it is important for us to be honest with ourselves, at 
least in private if we do not say it out loud. This is not about 
democracy. It cannot be about democracy. Our country at this moment in 
its foreign policy statements has no moral grounds to say that this 
issue is about democracy, not when we are dealing with China and 
Vietnam and with Korea and with other countries, not when we see 
elections in the Caribbean, democratic 

[[Page H 9347]]
elections that are very questionable in terms of how they were 
conducted and we look the other way.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is about, in my opinion, is, in fact, a 
response to a well organized lobby in two parts of our country, in 
Florida and in New Jersey, which has taken their emotions and their 
ability to lobby well and made a lot of people feel that this is the 
kind of legislation we need. As much as I oppose the law of the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], we could say there is this 
law already on the books, why do we need this, as the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] said tonight, admitting that his law does 
not work. I have done that in the past. It is not an easy thing to 
admit.
  What this is about is a group of people in this country, Members of 
Congress, who kneejerk immediately to the thought of getting to this 
quote, unquote, last communist left. How do we do it? By squeezing the 
Cuban people. If we squeeze them to a point where they are hungry on 
the streets, they will rise up against their government.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a scholar in world history,
   but I do not remember the last revolution led by hungry people. I do 
not remember the last revolution led and put together by people who 
cannot feed their family. It is usually the middle class and the upper 
class that leads these revolutions.

  What do we do? We lie. We lie to ourselves because we say that the 
Cuban people support the embargo. Let me see if I get this straight. A 
mother in Cuba who does not know where she is going to feed and how she 
is going to feed her children tomorrow calls her sister in Miami. Her 
sister interrupts her dinner, pushes aside a plate of white rice or 
black beans, fried plantains, and a Coca-Cola, not to mention a little 
pork or beef and says, ``Yes, what do you want, my dear?'' She says, 
``Listen, I don't know how I am going to feed my children tomorrow, but 
I want you to support the embargo so I can get this guy off my back.''
  Are mothers in Cuba different from mothers throughout the world? 
Would a mother do that to her children? Give me a break. It is people 
here who support the embargo because the embargo will bring about a 
crisis in Cuba eventually they hope which will allow them to move in 
and play a role in a new Cuba, for if we lift the embargo and negotiate 
with the Cuban Government, there will be a transition because Cuba 
already is on a road that will never turn away from where it is going 
now.
  Mr. Chairman, do we know what will happen? The new Cuban Government 
will be composed of people who live in Cuba now, and that is bad news 
for people who want to go back to Cuba, not to visit relatives, but to 
run the government.
  Let me say what I think is happening here and this is what I am 
afraid of. We in our profession like to make the predications and be 
right. I make this predication and I pray to God that I am wrong. We 
will squeeze the Cuban people more and there will be a crisis in Cuba, 
and it will become an immigration crisis for us, and that is when we 
really react negatively toward Cubans because we do not want any more 
Cubans in this country. We are anti-immigrants all of a sudden. So we 
will have to blockage Cuba and someone will fire a shot somewhere and 
we will be there the way we always know how to be with troops.
  Mr. Chairman, the lawsuits allowing people who were not citizens at 
the time that their property was dealt with to now sue, the whole idea 
of telling a CEO from a foreign corporation, if you are dealing in Cuba 
with these properties, your children and you, your relatives, cannot 
enter this country, not even for a kidney transplant, what the heck are 
we talking about here?
  Mr. Chairman, there are children in Cuba tonight who are on the road 
to more suffering. Can we be proud of that? Can we be proud of that? I 
started to say where I came from. A great poet once wrote that Cuba and 
Puerto Rico are of one bird; it is two wings. Both hurt in different 
ways. One is a colony and one with much pain. I would like it to end. 
It can end if we get off this machismo trip we are on, stop our 
obsession with one individual and deal with the Cuban people for the 
human beings they are.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act. This is an extreme bill that continues and 
strengthens diplomatic policies that have never been successful, and 
introduces troubling new policies that will adversely affect U.S. 
businesses, the court system in the United States, damage our relations 
with our closest allies, and, most important, increase the suffering of 
the Cuban people.
  The existing Cuban embargo has not resulted in any change in Cuba's 
Government. The imposition of even stricter sanctions against Cuba 
would only exacerbate the already critical economic situation in Cuba 
and cause even more hardship to the real victims of this embargo, the 
Cuban people.
  Cuba does not pose a threat to our democratic government, and the 
United States Government should not pursue the policy, contained in 
this legislation, which would serve to further increase Cuba's 
isolation. We should instead have the courage to develop and expand a 
constructive relationship with Cuba.
  The existing Cuban embargo and current United States policy toward 
Cuba does not have the support of the world community. This support is 
vital for a successful foreign policy. H.R. 927 would even further 
damage our relationships with our allies, and violate the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement.
  Passage of this legislation would have a very negative impact on the 
court system in the United States. This bill would allow any United 
States citizen, or any company organized under United States law, whose 
property was expropriated by the Cuban Government, to sue Cuba or any 
foreign business that is using the property today. The result will 
probably be the filing of thousands--maybe even hundreds of thousands--
of lawsuits in U.S. courts. If the estimate of $4,500 in administrative 
costs per case (as provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts) is correct, the resulting cost to the U.S. court system and the 
taxpayers of the United States is tremendous.
  Finally, the current trade embargo is already harming businesses in 
the United States. American businesses are banned from doing business 
in Cuba, and this has meant that European and Latin American investors 
are able to enjoy new business opportunities without any competition 
from United States business interests.
  It is ironic that countries well known for their human rights 
violations are our trade partners. We have opened the doors of commerce 
with Vietnam and North Korea, and yet we continue to follow a policy 
that has no moral grounds and damages the national interests of the 
United States with respect to Cuba. I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against H.R. 927, a bill that moves U.S. foreign policy even further in 
the wrong direction. We should instead take the first steps in the path 
of bringing economic recovery to our neighbor, and building a 
productive and peaceful relationship.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just say, we are the largest 
donator of food to the people of Cuba. I hope my colleague will hear 
that. We do not prohibit food or humanitarian assistance to go to Cuba. 
It is going down there every day. In fact, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart] has helped organize getting food into Cuba so that 
lady we are talking about whose child is going to be starving and all 
that sort of thing will not be as a result of the people of the United 
States because we are the largest donator of food in Cuba.
  It was also said that there might be somebody who would have a child 
who would need a kidney transplant who could not come to this country 
because we would not allow them to have a visa because their parents 
were trafficking in confiscated U.S. property. That is untrue because 
there is a presidential waiver provision in this bill. The Secretary of 
State and our embassies can waive that provision for any humanitarian 
purpose. They can do it on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. Chairman, those two arguments are like a sieve. They do not hold 
water.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
[Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this act. I 
think that we have heard a lot of discussion tonight, different 
opinions on, for instance, what is in the strategic best interest of 
our country and I think we would all agree that having a totalitarian 
regime with the third largest Army in the Western Hemisphere 90 miles 
from our coast is not a good idea.
  Mr. Chairman, we have talked about what is it that will lead toward 
peaceful transition, away from Castro, and toward a democratically 
elected government. We have had discussion on 

[[Page H 9348]]
what is it that will actually end Castro's control, his lock-neck 
control of Cuba, a control so tight that Amnesty International has 
rated him on the top of the charts in terms of nonhumanitarian work 
toward other humans, but I would like to suggest that in all these 
different options that we have heard tonight, maybe the real answer 
that is never suggested on the floor of the House is that maybe we do 
not know. Maybe we do not know.
  I had the good fortune of actually visiting with refugees with the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and others 5 months ago, and in 
that visit we had conversations with refugees who said the way to solve 
the Castro problem is not by sending more tourists that will lead to 
replenishment of his bank accounts, not by sending him more plant and 
equipment which will lead toward greater industry, which will replenish 
his bank accounts, not by allowing him to sell off pieces of the island 
of Cuba which will lead toward him being able to replenish his bank 
accounts.
                              {time}  2200

  Instead, the only way that you solve the Castro problem is by 
tightening the noose.
  These were people who had risked their lives and left behind all 
possessions that they owned for one simple thought, and that is the 
idea of freedom. Yet these were the people saying it is my cousin, my 
aunt, my uncle who will be the one hurt the worst as you tighten the 
noose, but do it because it is the only way to solve the problem.
  With that, I would simply like to say that if the people most 
affected by the decision that we are contemplating say this is the way 
to solve the problem, then maybe in this case they are the ones that 
know the answer.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of heartfelt discussion, debate 
tonight, and I do not think that either side should question anybody's 
motives. Let me just say that I supported the embargo against 
apartheid, racist South Africa. I support the embargo against the 
Serbian regime. I support the embargo against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, 
an embargo in Iran, and I support the embargo against Castro's Cuba 
because I think that embargoes have been and can be effective tools in 
bringing down governments.
  Castro has been in power a long, long time. Here it is 35 years 
later. He shows no signs of change, no signs of instituting political 
pluralism, no signs of instituting democracy. Why would we want to prop 
up an aging dictator in his waning years? I am opposed to 
dictatorships. Frankly, I do not care if they are right-wing or left-
wing. If they do not give people the ability to express themselves 
politically, if they do not have a free-market economy, if they do not 
have a semblance of political pluralism, I do not want to apologize for 
them.
  This bill attempts to deny Castro foreign
   capital. Is it a perfect bill? I have not seen any perfect 
legislation in the 7 years that I have been here, but it is an attempt 
to deny him the capital to help bring down his regime. Will it work? 
Time will tell. But I think this country ought to be on the side of 
trying to bring down his regime. I think this bill takes a step in that 
direction.

  Here it is 1995. Castro brings people to the island and he shows them 
around and tells people how wonderful it is. But the fact of the matter 
is he is dealing much the same way he dealt throughout the 1960's and 
1970's and 1980's. At a time when other countries have thrown off the 
yoke of oppression, Castro still has a noose around his people's neck.
  Some people will argue that the American embargo has not worked all 
these years, so why would a tighter, more difficult embargo work now? 
The fact is that for years Castro had the Soviet Union prop him up and 
infuse capital into his country. The Soviet Union is gone now. There is 
no one to prop him up anymore. He is exposed for the world to see, and 
he is hurting.
  I think that is what makes the difference. I think that is what will 
lead to the toppling of his regime. I think this act is something that 
ought to be voted upon. I think that Castro has to go. Why does he not 
just go and let his people have democracy and then there would be no 
need for this kind of bill? He will not do it because he cares about 
his regime. He cares about outdated ideas. The poor Cuban people have 
to suffer as a result.
  I think we should have a bipartisan vote for this bill, and I support 
it.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is a finer 
group of Members of this House than those who are in the room tonight 
and I include in that our adversaries in this debate.
  I am opposed to this bill. I do think it is fair, however, for me to 
respond to a couple of things that have been said by the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and 
perhaps others, along the lines of the fact that somehow those of us 
that believe this bill is a mistake are trying to assert that somehow 
the United States has been the villain. No one has said that and no one 
believes that. We all are here to try to achieve the same purpose. Nor 
does anyone want to prop up any dictator anyplace. And I think in your 
hearts you know that is the case.
  What we are saying is that perhaps the United States has followed the 
wrong policy for a very long time and that perhaps those of you who, in 
a heartfelt and sincere way, advocate this bill and have advocated 
other politics, frankly, which I have voted for in the past, perhaps 
are blinded by your deep-seated feelings to the fact that the policy 
which you have advocated has simply not worked.
  The question tonight is whether we are going to act in the interest 
of the people of the United States, in the interest of this Nation as a 
whole, or whether we are going to continue to ignore common sense and 
history and the wisdom of the entire rest of the world that opposes 
this bill and our policy, and pass a bill that at bottom caters to the 
deep-seated sentiments of some of the people in our country and to the 
political dynamics of South Florida and New Jersey.
  That is really what the question tonight is. It was not legislation 
like this that freed the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 
nor was it an embargo that freed them. It was, rather, the inability of 
those governments to isolate their people from the cultural, commercial 
and political influences of the West. They could not close it out.
  Yet what do they bring to us tonight? A bill which would further 
isolate the Cuban people from the political and economic culture of our 
country and the rest of the hemisphere and the rest of the world, 
exposure to which would hasten the end of tyranny in Cuba.
  It makes no sense. It denies logic. It defies history. We have tried 
it your way for 30 years.
 What happened? Seeking to help people who were fleeing tyranny, we 
invited all Cubans who could get out to come to the United States and 
thereby drain the country of all of its natural opposition to the 
government that is there today.

  Those people that have come here have been wonderful citizens, more 
productive than the average citizen. They have made great Members of 
Congress. We must recognize the fact that we have drained the island of 
its opposition.
  What else did we do? We helped Casto convince its people that we were 
the villains, not his form of government, as ridiculous as that is, but 
he has managed to make the case. Why? Because we are the only nation in 
the entire world that pursues a policy like this toward Cuba, nobody 
else.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], talked about South Africa, 
and I heard somebody mention the other embargoes that we have carried 
out in the past. We did that with the help of all the rest of the 
world. We have no help in this policy. The entire world is calling us 
and saying do not pass this legislation that is on the floor tonight. 
In spite of the failure of this policy, tonight you ask us to make our 
policy even more restrictive, to ignore the President, ignore the 
Secretary of State, ignore pleas from all the world's government and 
take another step in 

[[Page H 9349]]
the wrong direction, the same direction we have been going without any 
success for 30 years.
  This bill, simply put, is an orgy of illogical zealotry and 
individual political ambition all coming up at the same time. Who is 
going to pay for it? The kids in Cuba that would like to get a regular 
meal three times a day and cannot, the creative people there that would 
like to be somehow involved in our culture, to be more exposed to it, 
the budding entrepreneurs, and they are budding there if you read any 
of the authoritative reports, that would like to be involved in 
commerce with us. Having been made more prosperous, as the gentleman 
from New York, [Mr. Serrano] said, would therefore be more influential 
and more able to speak for freedom and justice and openness in Cuba.
  I urge the Members of the house to reject this backward step, to 
recognize where we have been, where we have made mistakes and not go 
even further in the wrong direction. Tonight is an opportunity to say 
no to a narrow interest and to speak for the American people.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Let me just say, briefly, Mr. Chairman, the embargo that 
everybody has been alluding to has been in place since the Cuban 
Democracy Act was passed several years ago by an overwhelming majority 
of this House. This does not have anything to do with the embargo. What 
this does is it puts pressure on people who traffic in confiscated U.S. 
property by denying them visas, No. 1, and by providing a cause of 
action in U.S. courts for restitution if they buy confiscated U.S. 
property or traffic in it. That is what this does. So when I keep 
hearing my colleagues keep talking about this being an expansion of the 
embargo, all we are doing is saying that people who had their property 
confiscated have a right, a cause of action, and that people who deal 
in confiscated property should not be allowed to make a profit by 
coming to the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following articles from 
the Herald of September 20, 1995:
  The articles referred to are as follows:

    Viewpoints on United States-Cuba Relations--Find a Common Ground

       The following is excerpted from a July letter to President 
     Clinton from Oscar Arias, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and 
     former president of Costa Rica:
       On June 26 I had the privilege of hearing your words at the 
     commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations 
     Charter in San Francisco. I congratulate you for your 
     inspiring message. It is satisfying to hear the president of 
     the most powerful nation in the world remind us that the 
     signatories of the U.N. Charter thought that ``merely 
     punishing the enemy was self-defeating.''
       Encouraged by your words and actions, I write to discuss a 
     topic that directly concerns all inhabitants of our 
     continent: the relationship between the United States and 
     Cuba. My immediate concern is the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity Act (Helms-Burton bill), which openly 
     contradicts the principles so eloquently expressed in your 
     speech in San Francisco.
       I fervently hope that Congress will not pass such 
     pernicious legislation. But, as unfortunate as that would be, 
     I am confident that you will veto this bill.
       This hope does not mean that I approve of the restrictions 
     of liberty or the violations of human rights practiced by 
     Fidel Castro's regime. Indeed, I have long been an outspoken 
     critic of that regime. However, if ``merely punishing the 
     enemy is self-defeating,'' to punish the people who are 
     victims of this enemy is abominable.
       There is no longer any moral or ideological justification 
     for the U.S. embargo. The United States and Cuba should set 
     pride aside. Both nations should look not to the past but 
     toward the horizons of the future. The stronger of the two 
     sides, the one with the least to lose by opening up, would 
     gain greater moral strength through such a tremendous act of 
     political courage.
       The embargo has served the Cuban government as an excuse 
     for its own political and economic failures. The Helms-Burton 
     bill would strengthen the hands of Marxist hard-liners in 
     Cuba. Rather than promoting dialogue and encouraging change, 
     strengthening the embargo will only freeze the United States 
     and Cuba into fixed political positions, devoid of openness.
       You have said that ``normalization and increased contact 
     between Americans and Vietnamese will advance the cause of 
     freedom in Vietnam just as it did in Eastern Europe and the 
     former Soviet Union. The same principle applies to Cuba. And 
     if the United States makes clear that it would not resort to 
     any form of economic or military sanctions against Cuba, the 
     international community will, without a doubt exert even 
     stronger pressure upon Castro to initiate an opening of 
     democracy on the island. I would personally work hard to 
     achieve that.
       Mr. President, I ask you to begin negotiating a new era of 
     U.S.-Cuban relations. Only then can democracy begin to 
     glimmer as a possibility in Cuba. Cuban leaders have already 
     expressed their readiness to enter into immediate negotiation 
     over common problems, such as immigration. Why not test 
     whether this is true? Why not consider the possibility of 
     successively opening topics such as the fight against drug 
     trafficking, the protection of the environment, the problem 
     of human rights violations, and above all, the political and 
     economic transition of Cuban government and society?


                           let us begin anew

       I invite you, then, Mr. President, to recall the words of 
     President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural speech of 1961: 
     ``So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that 
     civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always 
     subject of proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let 
     us never fear to negotiate.''
       I am sure, Mr. President, that every effort you make to 
     alleviate the tensions between the United States and Cuba, to 
     ease the sufferings of the Cuban people, and to create the 
     necessary conditions for a nonviolent transition toward 
     democracy will be appreciated by present and future 
     generations.
       By ending the U.S. isolation of Cuba, you would gain the 
     warm support and appreciation of every Latin American 
     government. As you said in San Francisco: ``Let us say No to 
     isolation.'' You have put aside bitterness and resentment 
     toward Vietnam in order to move beyond a painful past. In the 
     same spirit of that grand gesture the community of nations 
     calls upon you to seek a common ground with the Cuban people.
                                                                    ____

                          Tighten the Embargo

       (U.S. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ill., is chairman of the House 
     Foreign Affairs Committee's Western Hemisphere Subcommittee 
     and House author of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity Act of 1995.)
       Today the House will debate the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995, also known as the Burton-
     Helms Bill. This bill will be an effective tool for promoting 
     freedom and democracy in Cuba. It will be of great benefit 
     not only to the people of Cuba but to the entire hemisphere.
       After 36 years of dictatorial rule Fidel Castro shows 
     absolutely no sign of having learned the lessons of history 
     or of having changed at all. His motto is still: ``Socialism 
     or Death!'' He is a megalomaniac who views himself as 
     inseparable from Cuba's destiny. His legacy is a sorry one 
     indeed. Before Castro's 1959 revolution, Cuba was, per 
     capita, one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America. 
     Today it is one of the poorest, a testimony to communism's 
     abject failure.
       The Castro strategy for achieving longevity is simple: 
     Cling to power at all cost, and do whatever it takes to 
     attract foreign currency. His regime has developed one of the 
     world's most brutal, repressive, and efficient control 
     systems. It seems capable of keeping him in control for now.
       Nonetheless, as economic conditions continue to 
     deteriorate, Castro is becoming increasingly desperate for 
     foreign currency. Thus the Cuban regime is now encouraging 
     massive foreign investment for the first time. Property and 
     businesses, many confiscated in the early 1960s from American 
     citizens, are being sold at bargain prices to Mexicans, 
     Canadians, and Europeans.
       Some pundits contend that massive investment, including and 
     especially from the United States, is the way to bring about 
     reform in Cuba. They point to Eastern Europe and say that an 
     infusion of Western capital and influence in Cuba will be too 
     much for Castro to withstand.
       This argument is false. Castro is determined to control 
     tightly any foreign investment in Cuba.
      The proof is in Cuba's tourist industry. Hotels and resorts 
     are off limits to the Cuban people. Workers are approved 
     and paid by the government. The foreign currency benefits 
     the Castro regime, not the Cuban people.
       The Burton-Helms Bill is a very important vehicle for 
     advancing U.S. interests in Cuba:
       It reaffirms the long-standing bipartisan U.S. policy 
     toward Castro, including the embargo.
       It expands and internationalizes the embargo.
       It would penalize international financial institutions for 
     extending credit to the Castro regime.
       It sets up a program to assist a transitional government in 
     Cuba moving toward democracy.
       It allows U.S. citizens who owned property confiscated in 
     Cuba to sue for damages any foreigners who buy or use the 
     property. This will have a chilling effect on unscrupulous 
     individuals or corporations who may be contemplating such a 
     move. We also would like to see a reduction in foreign 
     investment in Cuba, investment that only helps to perpetuate 
     the Castro dictatorship.


                  Why Castro opposes Burton-Helms Bill

       The Burton-Helms Bill will send a clear message to Castro, 
     the international community, and most important, the Cuban 
     people. By passing our bill, we will let Castro know that we 
     are serious about pressing him to allow his people to choose 
     their own destiny. We will also be communicating to our 
     allies and to other countries who seek American cooperation 
     that Cuba is a matter of the utmost priority for U.S. policy.

[[Page H 9350]]

       Since the Burton-Helms Bill was introduced earlier this 
     year, the Castro regime has been busy distorting its intent 
     and potential effect. Cuba's state-controlled media are 
     attempting to scare the Cuban people into believing that our 
     bill is inmical to their interests. Last spring I visited 
     Guantanamo Bay and met there with many of the thousands of 
     Cubans who escaped from Castro last year. They were unanimous 
     in encouraging us to forge ahead.
       We have reason to believe that the Cuban people are aware 
     of our legislation and that the vast majority support its 
     passage. It is precisely for the well-being and democratic 
     future of the people of Cuba that we are determined to see to 
     it that our bill becomes law. The Cuban people deserve it, 
     and the American people should support it.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] has 
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, we are told tonight that Cuba 
represents no threat to the United States. She possesses few arms and 
perhaps no missiles. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman. Cuba represents a 
threat to things as old as this Nation itself, a threat to human 
freedom, the right to speak, to worship, to seek the consent of the 
governed.
  We are told, Mr. Chairman, that the cold war is over, so indeed we 
have no conflict with Castro's Cuba. On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, 
America's fight for human decency, for the rights of the individual 
began 200 years before the cold war and will outlive the last memory of 
the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Chairman, all we do in this Nation is not defined by the cold 
war. We did not fight apartheid in South Africa because of a cold war. 
We do not stand up to Libyan terrorism because of the cold war. We 
stand up for racial justice, for peace, for the consent of the governed 
because of who we are. We are told that America may stand alone in 
standing up to Castro's Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, America has never stood in better company. The French 
may seek their profits, the Canadians may want their investments. After 
the last hotel has been built, the last child of Cuba has been sent 
onto the streets of Havana to prostitute herself, the United States 
will be talking about freedom and elections and human rights if we are 
the last people on earth who will do it.
  Three years ago in a proud moment in this institution, in the 
proudest moment of my career in this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, 
we passed the Cuban Democracy Act. Built on the experience of the 
embargo against South Africa and Haiti, Rhodesia, North Korea, we 
decided to take a stand that we would not have American corporations 
profit off the misery of the Cuban people, that we would take a moral 
stand to demand elections for the Cuban people.

                              {time}  2215

  It was the use of a legitimate and historic tool of international 
diplomacy, the most effective alternative to military confrontation, 
the economic embargo. Two hundred years old, and effective in every 
generation. This has been no exception.
  Fidel Castro responded to the Cuban Democracy Act by taking 
confiscated property, stolen from American citizens and corporations 
and the Cuban people themselves, and selling it on the world market to 
buy time for his dictatorship. That is the problem before this House 
tonight, not the embargo.
  That judgment was made 3 years ago. The very fact that Fidel Castro 
has had to respond by confiscating and selling property is the real 
proof of how effective the embargo was 36 months ago. But the practical 
problem before the Members of this institution is that Fidel Castro has 
taken the property of your constituents, our citizens, stolen it, and 
is selling it on the world market.
  Now, I ask the Members, as representatives of the American people, 
what is it we intend to do about it? What is it we are going to do? Is 
this the right of a foreign Nation, to take our property and then sell 
it
 wholesale? We have never allowed that to happen before. Is that some 
special privilege we will give to the Cuban government?

  The bill of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is an answer to 
the question. We will give the right to sue in an American court to a 
citizen who has lost their property, not because they should not have 
the right legitimately, appropriately, to take that suit to a Cuban 
court. That is the real answer, that is the right answer, but Castro 
will not let them in the court. If he would, we would not be here 
tonight. So if Members oppose the answer of the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton], the real question is, they have no answer.
  Then there is the ultimate practical question of them all. No matter 
what side of this debate they are on tonight, Members know this: We all 
agree Fidel Castro's days are numbered. The end of the dictatorship is 
coming.
  What are we to do when it happens? Are Members all prepared to vote 
the taxpayers' money to compensate American citizens who have had their 
property stolen? Is that what is to happen? This is to become the 
burden of the American taxpayer?
  The better answer is that of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. 
Stop the confiscation and the sales now. Do not let the sales take 
place at all.
  He achieves this by a very practical answer. Mexican, Canadian, 
British companies, they have a choice. They can profit by the theft of 
American corporate and personal property. They may make a few dollars, 
but they will not visit or do business in the United States. They must 
make their choice.
  Is that fair? How would Members feel as an American citizen if they 
saw an advertisement for the products of a company that was theirs, 
that was stolen, and the product is being sold? How would they like to 
walk down the streets of New York and see a visiting Mexican 
businessman, visiting our country as our guest, and he is living in 
their house, operating their business?
  This is not against the Cuban people themselves. We have exempted out 
personal residences. No Cuban family will lose their home or their 
farmland or their means of support.
  It is against international corporations that would profit by the 
loss of our constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is an answer, I believe in my heart, maybe 
the last answer. We are in the final stages of a confrontation that has 
lasted more than a generation. Fidel Castro cannot escape. He cannot 
survive unless we allow him to.
  The answers to the real questions that were here tonight are not in 
our hands. The embargo can end. It can end tomorrow. One man can end 
it: Fidel Castro. Under our law, under the Cuban Democracy Act, it ends 
the day he declares a free and fair election. The power is in his 
hands, but only if we make him use it.
  If he thinks there is division in this hall, disagreement in this 
Government, he will never face that ultimate choice. Make him face that 
day, to call that election.
  My colleagues, tomorrow Democrats and Republicans, liberals and 
conservatives, north and south, can send an unmistakable message to 
every student in Cuba who wants to take to the street to demand freedom 
but is afraid, to every political prisoner who lives in the shadows of 
a Cuban jail and wants hope, to every patriot in Cuba who longs to take 
a stand, that they are not alone, that we are with them. The moment is 
coming and this Nation, which has stood for so many
 free people in so many struggles in so many lands, stands with them 
now.

  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] tomorrow, not by a narrow margin, by an overwhelming margin, 
not with doubt but with enormous resolve, that we will in our time end 
this dictatorship and for the first time in the 400-year history of the 
founding of this continent see free governments in every land, in every 
Nation, in all the Americas.
  That, my friends, is the judgment. I congratulate the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton] on his legislation. It is my great pride to be 
part of crafting this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively 
tomorrow.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this, I think, 
misguided bill.

[[Page H 9351]]

  Mr. Chairman, the cold war is over. The Soviet Union is gone. Cuba is 
no longer a threat to our Nation's security. Yet the supporters of this 
bill would seek to keep us fighting a cold war battle.
  Mr. Chairman, we already maintain a comprehensive trade and travel 
embargo on Cuba. What have been the effects of this embargo? It has 
caused 10 million people of Cuba to suffer from critical shortages of 
food and medicine. It has kept United States businesses shut out of 
expanding investment opportunities in Cuba while other countries take 
advantage of it. It has not led to any major changes in the leadership 
of Cuba. This bill would change none of that. But what H.R. 927 would 
do is try to force other countries to keep from trading with Cuba as 
well. Not only is this a violation of trade law but it also risks our 
good relations with some of our most important trading partners, 
including Canada, England, Italy, and Mexico.
  I ask my colleagues, is it worth hurting our own economy and running 
the risk of an international trade war just to make Cubans suffer a 
little more?
  Mr. Chairman, I just do not see the need for a bill which puts 
burdens on our own economic future to fight a war that ended years ago. 
Even supporters of the current embargo agree, this bill is the wrong 
way to bring about political change. Do not be afraid of our human 
potential and our ability to prevail by example, not by ridiculous 
avoidance. Let us begin the leadership we are capable of. Vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have had an excellent debate tonight. I want 
to say that I think we choose tomorrow between 2 very different 
philosophies in promoting change in Cuba.
  One philosophy is represented by this bill. It is that if you make 
conditions in Cuba significantly worse, you will prompt the Cuban 
people to rise up against their government. I want to say that I 
respect deeply the motivation and the intent of those who favor this 
bill. They are very good and very honorable Members of this 
institution. They make their arguments with total sincerity and with 
obvious skill.
  The competing philosophy is that governments can be toppled 
peacefully by exposure to the free flow of ideas and the benefits of 
the free markets.
  There is no difference among us in this Chamber that Castro must go. 
All of the denunciations of Castro that we have heard tonight are 
correct. We all agree that Cuba will and must make the difficult 
transition to democracy and free markets, and that is the American 
national interest here, that that occur. The question is how to bring 
about that change without jeopardizing U.S. national interests.
  I believe that the choice is very clear. A policy of engagement, of 
contact, of exchange, of dialogue with the Cuban people offers in my 
view the best hope for peaceful change. That is the policy, after all, 
that was successful in eastern Europe and helped to bring about the end 
of the Cold War. A policy of engagement means showing a new generation 
of Cubans how to make their world different. It means engaging the 
Cuban people and that that increases the chances that a transition to 
democracy and free markets will be peaceful.
  I think the policy of isolation is a fair riskier course. The theory 
is the greater the pressure, the greater the likelihood of Castro's 
overthrow. But what happens when the lid blows? The policy of isolation 
increases the risks of violent explosion in Cuba. It increases the risk 
of a massive exodus of refugees, and it increases the risk of possible 
U.S. military intervention.
  I reject a policy based on isolation and hardship for the Cuban 
people. I reject a policy that pins its hope for change in Cuba on the 
promotion of unrest and violence.
  We have had a lot of debate here tonight, but I do not know that we 
have described what is in this bill. Let me try to do that briefly and 
I hope fairly.
  First, it tightens the embargo on Cuba. It urges the President to 
apply existing sanctions against any country assisting Cuba. It 
requires the United States representative to vote against any loan for 
Cuba in the international financial institutions, such as the World 
Bank and the IMF.
  Second, for those who lost property in Cuba, this legislation creates 
a special and an unprecedented right to sue in U.S. courts. The purpose 
of that provision is to discourage any foreign investment in Cuba.
  Third, this law imposes new visa restrictions. It requires the 
Secretary of State to exclude from the United States any person who has 
had even a remote connection to property confiscated by the Castro 
regime, whether they are aware of the connection or not.
  Finally, the most constructive portion of this bill as reported out 
of the committee, an assistance program to promote democracy in a post-
Castro Cuba, has been eliminated.
                              {time}  2230

  Now the bill says Congress will consider an aid plan, once Castro is 
gone. But it also sets conditions that are so stringent that it is 
unlikely an aid program would ever be approved in time to make a 
difference.
  I think the bill damages U.S. interests in 3 ways: First, by 
increasing Cuba's isolation and hardship, this bill harms U.S. 
security. The bill states that the acts of the Castro government are a 
threat to international peace. That is not the assessment of the 
National Security Council.
  What is the threat today? Castro is not exporting revolution. He has 
no Army, Navy or Air Force that can threaten the United States. 
According to General Sheehan, and he is the Commander-in-Chief of the 
Atlantic Command, the threat to the United States from Cuba today is 
from refugees.
  Mr. Chairman, if we make conditions in Cuba more desperate, we 
increase the chances of another mass exodus of refugees to the United 
States. If we make conditions in Cuba more desperate, we risk prolonged 
violence and U.S. military intervention. Chaos in Cuba could mean young 
Americans and young Cubans meeting either other at gun point.
  Second, this bill puts further isolation of Cuba above any other U.S. 
Government foreign policy goal. No other government in the world agrees 
with the stated policy of this bill, and without the support of other 
governments, that policy cannot succeed. In the course of increasing 
Cuba's isolation and seeking to force other countries to go along, this 
bill will damage our relations with our closest allies, friends, and 
trading partnerships in Europe, Japan, Canada, and Mexico.
  This bill does violate NAFTA. NAFTA guarantees the free movement of 
business travelers throughout North America. This bill undermines world 
leadership at the World Bank and IMF by forcing the United States to 
withhold funds and dictating how the United States will vote.
  Third, this bill creates an administrative and legal nightmare for 
the United States Government. The bill establishes an unenforceable 
standard for the exclusion of aliens. Every consular officer in the 
world will have to ask every visa applicant, ``Do you own property once 
confiscated in Cuba?'' Consular officers will be asked to make visa 
decisions in the absence of reliable information about property 
transactions in Cuba.
  This bill will not ensure that property claims in Cuba are resolved 
fairly. There is an established procedure in place to handle 
expropriated property claims. It is called the Foreign Claims 
Settlement Commission, and it works. It worked in Vietnam, it worked in 
Iran, and when the United States has a Cuba with which it can 
negotiate, it will work there as well.
  The claims commission examines the universe of possible claims and 
the universe of resources available for resolving those claims. This 
bill sets up an entirely new way of handling these disputes. It sends 
everyone to court. And keep in mind that a court looks only at the 
plaintiff and the defendant immediately before it. Under this bill, the 
only people with a chance of being helped are those who can afford to 
get to the courthouse first, or stay the longest.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill makes it more difficult for the United States 
to negotiate a claims settlement with a transition government in Cuba. 
It makes it more difficult for the United States to look out for the 
interests of 

[[Page H 9352]]
all Americans with property claims in
 Cuba.

  I believe also that this bill is a litigation magnet. It invites 
anyone who has had property confiscated in Cuba over the past 30 years, 
whether a U.S. citizen or not, to incorporate and then to file a 
lawsuit in U.S. Federal courts.
  Just this past winter when the House considered items from the 
Contract With America, it sought to limit the proliferation of lawsuits 
in this country. Now we are talking about mandating that Federal courts 
allow an entirely new, unprecedented right of action.
  Having huge numbers of this kind of lawsuit pending will have a 
chilling effect on economic recovery when a transition in Cuba is 
underway. No one will invest in property for which there is no clear 
title. There will not be enough money available to resolve these 
lawsuits.
  What impresses any observer of current relations between the United 
States and Cuba is that the two governments are at an impasse. They are 
dug in and neither is prepared to move.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not expect any meaningful change from Castro. He 
continues to blame all of Cuba's problems on the embargo. He uses the 
embargo to justify repression, which we have had spelled out for us 
very well tonight, and to justify his resistance to change. But change 
is happening today all around Castro; change that he did not want, 
change that he cannot stop, and more change than at any time since he 
took power.
  The beginnings of economic reform, forced by the end of the Soviet 
subsidies, has given a small but growing number of Cubans economic 
independence for the first time in 36 years. Mr. Chairman, 200,000 
Cubans today are self-employed in restaurants, barbarshops, repair 
shops and other services. Small farmers and agricultural cooperatives 
are selling produce at market prices. Dollars are circulating legally.
  The Catholic church is playing a larger role today in Cuban life. 
Small groups of Cuban citizens are gathering to discuss life after 
Castro. Signs of change in Cuba, modest changes to be sure, but they 
are beginning everywhere.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States Government ought to be flexible and 
creative enough to respond to these changes, these signs of change in 
Cuba. We should have enough confidence in our Democratic values to take 
the initiative to cultivate and reinforce the process of change in 
Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, a key lever of U.S. policy should be the embargo of 
Cuba. I do not favor unilateral action to lift the embargo, but our 
willingness to ease the embargo, step by step in response to change in 
Cuba, is a powerful tool to foster and accelerate further change in the 
direction of reform.
  We have another tools to foster change in Cuba. First, we can use 
that Cuban Democracy Act, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Torricelli], which I supported. Its provisions are designed to 
promote increased contact between the citizens of the United States and 
Cuba, including the free flow of information and the establishment of 
U.S. news bureaus in Cuba.
  Second, we can spell out an assistance program to help bring about a 
transition in Cuba. We should authorize food, medicine, energy 
assistance for Cuba, and the same types of assistance we are providing 
to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
  Insofar as I am concerned, I would advocate additional steps. The 
August 1994 limitations on remittances to Cuba were a step in the wrong 
direction. They should be lifted. The U.S. should promote, not curtail, 
people-to-people contacts between the United States and Cuban citizens 
by ending the travel ban. The United States should clear the way for 
the commercial sale of food and medicines in Cuba to help alleviate 
human suffering.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the issues in this debate are clear-cut. This 
bill increases the isolation of Cuba. I believe that is the wrong 
policy. The most important Republican foreign policy figure of his 
generation, President Richard Nixon, reached the same conclusion 
shortly before his death. He said, among other things, ``It is time to 
shift to central focus of our policies from hurting Cuba's government 
to helping its people.''
  ``Our best service,'' he writes, ``to the Cuban people now, would be 
to build pressure from within by actively stimulating Cuba's contacts 
with the free world. What has worked in China now has the best chance 
of working in Cuba.''
  Still quoting him, ``This means we should drop the economic embargo 
and open the way to trade, investment, and economic interaction, while 
insisting that ideas and information be allowed to flow as freely as 
goods.''
  I agree with former President Nixon. But he was not alone. Others 
opposed to further isolating Cuba include former Secretary of State 
Eagleburger, former National Security Advisor Brzezinski, William F. 
Buckley, Jr., and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. They 
also include Havana's Catholic bishops.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand those who hate Castro. He has committed 
terrible acts over 36 years against the Cuban people. We all agree in 
this Chamber that Castro must go; the sooner the better. But we should 
not base our foreign policy on hatred of Castro. We should base our 
policy on what is best for the United States and what is best for the 
Cuban people. I think a policy based on punishing the Cuban people is 
not in the best interests of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, a policy of isolating Cuba over the past 36 years has 
failed to protect and promote United States interests in Cuba. 
Increasing that isolation and hardship, as this bill surely does, will 
only further harm the Cuban people and the American national interests. 
I think we should choose a different course. We should choose to engage 
the Cuban people in order to increase the chances for a peaceful 
transition to a democracy and a market economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to quote briefly from the letter from the 
Secretary of State. He recommends in a letter addressed to the Speaker, 
September 20, that the President veto the bill if it passes the 
Congress in its current form.
  With respect to title II he says, ``We believe that H.R. 927 would 
actually damage prospects for a peaceful transition.'' And I am quoting 
his letter:

       We have consistently objected to the overly rigid list of 
     more than a dozen ``requirements'' for determining when a 
     transition or a Democratic government is in power. These 
     inflexible standards for responding to what may be a rapidly 
     evolving situation could leave the United States on the 
     sidelines during a transition.

  Quoting again, ``* * * the legislation fails to signal to the Cuban 
people that the United States is prepared to assist them once the 
inevitable to democracy in Cuba begins.'' The Secretary of State also 
says, with regard to the conditions in the bill, that they create a 
rigid conditioning of assistance that can have far-reaching 
consequences and may interfere with our ability to advance the national 
interests.
  With respect to title III, he makes the argument, and I quote him, 
that is the title relating to property claims:

       While we are firmly committed to seeking the resolution of 
     U.S. property claims by a future Cuban government, the right 
     created by the bill to sue in U.S. courts persons who buy or 
     invest in expropriated U.S. properties in Cuba is a misguided 
     attempt to address this problem. Encumbering property in Cuba 
     with litigation in U.S. courts is likely to impede our own 
     efforts to negotiate a successful resolution of U.S.-citizen 
     claims.

  Mr. Chairman, he goes on to say, ``This stance would be hard to 
defend under international law.'' With respect to title III, he says 
that:

       Title III will ultimately prove harmful to U.S. business. 
     First, it sets a precedent that, if followed by other 
     country, would increase litigation risks for U.S. companies 
     abroad. Second, it will create a barrier to participation by 
     U.S. businesses in the Cuban market once the transition to 
     democracy begins.

  He concludes on title III and says, ``* * * the bill erects an 
enormous legal hurdle to participation by U.S. businesses in the 
rebuilding of a free and independent Cuba.''
  With respect to title IV, the Secretary concludes that it, ``* * * 
will create enormous frictions with our allies and be both burdensome 
and difficult to administer.'' That is the title with respect to the 
visas.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill when we vote 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H 9353]]

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Mendendez], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Torricelli], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Deutsch], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and especially, I 
thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the 
committee, for their very hard work in crafting a bill that I think 
will ultimately lead to the demise of the Castro regime in Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

                              {time}  2245

  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?
                              {time}  2300

  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.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 927, a bill that will hasten the restoration of freedom to the 
people of Cuba.
  The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the subsidies and trade 
benefits that have propped up Castro's regime. The end of these 
subsidies has highlighted Castro's inability to provide even basic 
necessities for the Cuban people.
  In comparable circumstances in Eastern Europe, the United States 
sought political reform first and then expanded trade and eventually 
provided foreign assistance. Similarly, a policy of political and 
economic reform would provide the Cuban people an opportunity to regain 
the freedom they deserve.
  Expanding commercial activity before real reforms occur, however, 
simply gives Castro an opportunity to obtain hard currency while 
continuing his policies of violating human rights and denying Cubans 
their personal liberties.
  Mr. Chairman, Cuba is a unique case in American foreign policy. 
Policies that have worked in other parts of the world are not 
applicable in Cuba. Arguments that may have sounded proper when applied 
elsewhere ring hollow in Cuba.
  As long as Castro rules Cuba, Florida will face the continued threat 
of massive illegal immigration. And Castro will rule as long as he 
receives hard currency that enables him to pay his minions. And Castro 
will continue to receive this money until we toughen our policies 
against those quick buck companies that are lining their pockets at the 
expense of the Cuban people.
  I believe that this legislation will continue pressure on Castro 
while assuring the Cuban people that the United States will support a 
truly democratic Cuba in the future. Make no mistake about it--only a 
democratic Cuba that guarantees true freedom for all Cubans will remove 
from the people of my state the threat of more massive boatlifts of 
Cubans.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 927 and 
congratulate Representatives Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz-Balart for their 
work on it.
  I am convinced that each day that passes brings us one day closer to 
a free and democratic Cuba.
  Such an isolated, repressive, and authoritarian regime cannot last 
much longer without its former patron, the Soviet Union.
  Here in the United States and indeed in this House we witness every 
day the strong-willed determination that characterizes the Cuban 
people.
  Such a people will not tolerate Castro's brutal and cowardly 
oppression if they see an opportunity to overthrow it.
  In its place they will institute a democratic society grounded in an 
economy that respects private property and a political system that 
encourages freedom of thought.
  This rebellion is inevitable, but the quicker we can weaken Castro's 
regime, the quicker the Cuban people can throw off his yoke.
  To coddle this dictator, to deal with him and in so doing tacitly 
endorse his regime, would only prolong his rule and bring more misery 
to the Cuban people.
  Tighten the noose around Castro's neck.
  Support H.R. 927.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 927, 
the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
  Cuba is one of the few countries in the world in which the struggle 
against totalitarianism has not yet been won. Because of the proximity 
of Cuba to the United States and the historically close relationship 
between the peoples of our two nations, it is especially important that 
this victory come sooner rather than later.
  In evaluating all proposed legislation, administrative action, and 
diplomatic initiatives with respect to Cuba, it is important to keep 
several principles in mind:
  First, such actions must be calculated to emphasize the status of the 
Castro government as a rogue regime with whom the civilized nations of 
the world should have no dealings. The 1994 and 1995 Clinton-Castro 
immigration agreements, which represent the clearest manifestations of 
the Clinton Administration's policy toward the Castro regime, fail this 
test miserably. They have enhanced Castro's international prestige as 
well as his domestic power. Now we hear that some within the 
Administration would like to give this brutal regime an even longer 
lease on life by making further diplomatic overtures. The Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995 would restrict the ability of 
this administration or any other administration to make such a mistake.
  Second, our actions must be calculated to hurt the Castro government, 
not the Cuban people. Again, the 1994 anti-refugee agreement was a 
terrible mistake. It gave the Castro government just what it wanted: an 
end to the longstanding United States policy to accepting people who 
escape from Cuba. The agreement specified that Castro was to use 
``mainly persuasive methods'' to keep people from fleeing Cuba. The 
United States thereby accepted moral responsibility for whatever forms 
of persuasion he should choose to employ. The harsh conditions now 
being imposed on the refugees in Guantanamo--especially the requirement 
that they can only apply for refugee or legal immigrant status if they 
first return to Castro's Cuba--are another victory for the Castro 
government.
  An economic embargo presents more complicated moral and practical 
problems. There is no question that an embargo imposes short-term 
economic hardship on innocent people. It is therefore justifiable only 
if it is genuinely calculated to bring a speedy end to the regime that 
is the real source of their suffering. An embargo is far more likely to 
have this effect if it is respected by as many nations as possible. 
Again, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act would help, by 
denying certain benefits to non-U.S. entities that evade the embargo.
  Finally, we should make it clear that Cuba will receive a warm 
welcome back into the family of free and democratic nations. The 
provisions of the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Act that provide for 
transitional support of a free democratic government during the 
immediate post-Castro period will help to send this message.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we remember just what kind of 
regime we are dealing with. I hope that my colleagues, in casting their 
votes on H.R. 927, will bear in mind that the Castro regime is the No. 
1 violator of human rights in our hemisphere.
  According to the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights 
Practices for 1994, ``Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by 
President Fidel Castro,'' who ``exercises control over all aspects of 
Cuban life * * * .'' According to the Country Reports, among the more 
serious human rights violations by the Castro regime during 1994 were 
the following:

       The authorities were responsible for the extrajudicial 
     killing of dozens of people.
       In two separate incidents, government vessels rammed and 
     sank boats used by citizens to flee the country * * * . [O]n 
     July 13, government vessels fired high-pressure water hoses 
     at the tugboat Trece de Marzo * * * . They then rammed and 
     sank the boat. * * * Approximately 40 [people], including 
     children, drowned.
       [T]he Government continued to employ ``acts of 
     repudiation,'' which are attacks by mobs organized by the 
     Government but portrayed as spontaneous public rebukes, 
     against dissident activity.
       The Government also metes out exceptionally harsh prison 
     sentences to democracy and human rights advocates whom it 
     considers a threat to its control.
       [P]olice and prison officials often used beatings, neglect, 
     isolation, and other abuse against detainees and prisoners 
     convicted of political crimes (including human rights 
     advocates) or those who persisted in expressing their views.
       Gloria Bravo, a member of the Association of Mothers for 
     Dignity, had scars on her neck, chest, and arms from deep 
     gouges made by long fingernails and welts on her back from a 
     whipping.
       In September Minister of Higher Education Fernando Vecino 
     Alegret affirmed that commitment to the revolution, including 
     a willingness to defend the revolution in the streets, was a 
     condition for admission to the university.
       Citizens have no legal right to change their government or 
     to advocate change.
       The Government does not allow criticism of the revolution 
     or its leaders.
       * * * The Communist Party controls all media as a means to 
     indoctrinate the public.
       [R]eligious persecution continues.
       The Government has ignored calls for democratic reform and 
     labeled activists who proposed them ``worms'' and traitors.

  The decision on whether to embrace or isolate the Castro regime 
raises the question of what role human rights and basic decency are to 
play in our foreign policy. For American values and for the freedom of 
the Cuban people, please vote yes on H.R. 927.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kim) 
having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
having 

[[Page H 9356]]
had under consideration the bill (H.R. 927) to seek international 
sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of 
a transition government leading to a democratically elected government 
in Cuba, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________