The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“POST MOUNTS CAMPAIGN FOR CASTRO” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H4076-H4077 on April 3, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
POST MOUNTS CAMPAIGN FOR CASTRO
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is amazing to see the campaign on behalf of one of the last remaining tyrants in the world that is engaged upon by our local newspaper here, the Washington Post.
In the last 3 days, we have five articles or op-ed pieces in this newspaper desperately trying to defend Castro, desperately trying.
``Proposed Republican Bill on Cuba Could Hurt Canadian Economy.'' That is one article.
``U.S. Alarms Canada with Cuba Shift.''
``Adrift on Cuba.''
``Get off Cuba's Back.''
``A Bill That Will Help Castro.''
By the way, this bill that has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Helms and here by Congressman Burton already with a substantial number of us cosponsoring it, this bill that this op-ed piece in the Washington Post from yesterday, under the headline ``A Bill That Will Help Castro,'' this theory that this bill helps Castro, it is interesting. It happens to be Castro's main objective in terms of defeat. Yet article after article after article, we see allegations that, for example, two things, and this is another op-ed in the Washington Post from today. This op-ed says, ``Two things seem to be driving our anti-Castro policy. Cubans in Florida and sheer vengeance.''
Where do we see, for example, when black Americans try to influence policy on Haiti and on South Africa and Irish-Americans try to influence policy with regard to Northern Ireland and Jewish-Americans try to influence policy with regard to the Middle East, where are five articles or op-ed pieces in the Washington Post in 3 days criticizing that? I think that this has to be called what it is. This is despicable. If it were targeted on the Irish-American community or the black community or the Jewish community, it would be rightfully called for what it is, it would be called racist. Yet it is all right to say that Cuban-Americans cannot lobby in the United States so that the country where they were born in and where relatives of theirs still have to live is free. That is incorrect according to article after article and op-ed after op-ed.
Let me just say to these folks at the Washington Post, a little balance would perhaps be logical. If you are going to have five articles and op-eds in 3 days defending Castro, for example, one of them here ``Adrift on Cuba,'' a savage attack on an American patriot who happens to be in the State Department, Ambassador Michael Skol, a savage attack, probably leaked by someone in the National Security Council, notice this, attacks Michael Skol because Skol testified here in Congress that Castro last July had ordered over 40 men, women, and children sent to their deaths when he ordered the sinking of a tugboat that has been reported after pleas and pleas and pleas from this Congress and elsewhere, it was finally reported in the media. And Michael Skol pointed it out.
Look at what this article says. ``But neither the National Security Council nor the intelligence community has evidence that the sinking was ordered according to U.S. officials,'' probably Mr. Morton Halperin at the National Security Council, probably once again the folks around the President who continue to try to pressure the President into throwing a signal of friendship, sending a signal of friendship
to the Cuban tyrant.
Listen to this. ``Because the Cuban government insists the sinking was accidental, Skol's testimony was taken by Cuban officials as an accusation that Castro had personally ordered it.''
Well, what happened if that was not the case? If anyone knows anything about the Cuban situation, you know that nothing happens in Cuba, much less do security officials dare to sink purposefully as the evidence has conclusively pointed to, much less do they purposely sink a ship with over 70 refugees if they do not have the direct order of their commander in chief. All the evidence points to that and Ambassador Skol is criticized.
We are going to continue talking about this, Mr. speaker. But this is very serious and apparently continues to come out of the Clinton National Security Council and something has got to be done about it.
[[Page H4077]] ECONOMIC UPDATES FROM JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to announce to the House that over the last several days, together with my Joint Economic Committee staff, we have prepared five papers that demonstrate very well why all Members of the House should support this week the final element of the Contract With America. These are five papers which are very easy reading and I would just like to tell you what the five papers are and if you are interested in having a copy, you can call my office and obtain one.
The first one is ``The Contract and Economic Growth.'' The first paper makes note that economic growth has been forecast by the Clinton administration over the coming years to grow at only about 2.3 to 2.5 percent. We point out in this that the economic policies that are contained in this week's tax package will promote the kind of growth that will get us back to where we need to be. You do not have to ask us, because this issue has been studied by others and many others from outside the Congress agree that that will happen.
The second paper is ``The Contract Means More Personal Incomes for Families.'' As the economy grows and expands, everybody's share will be bigger, from low-income people to high-income people. As a matter of fact, by the year 2002, it is projected that our economy will be $1.1 trillion larger than it is today.
The claims of supporters of the contract are realistic. Several studies, including those by DRI/McGraw-Hill, Laurence Meyers and Associates, and the Institute for Policy Innovation all agree.
The third paper is ``The Contract and Take Home Pay.'' It is important to make note that the $500 per child tax credit helps those families that need it the most. For example, we point out in this paper that if you are a family with an income of $25,000, a family of four, that 100 percent of your tax, remaining tax liability will be alleviated by the $500 tax credit. If you are in the $30,000 tax bracket, 48 percent of your tax liability will be alleviated with the Contract With America. If you are in the $45,000 incomes category for a family of four, your tax liability will be reduced by 21.5 percent. And if you are in the whopping $50,000 category, your tax liability will be reduced by 17.8 percent. Very significant for today's families.
We also point out in paper No. 4 entitled ``The Contract and Victory Over Government Day,'' for those of you who have not heard, Victory Over Government Day is the day when we finally get on our own to earn a living for our family and do not have to send any more money to the Government, this year Victory Over Government Day will be June 4. Under President Clinton's proposed budget by the year 2002, Victory Over Government Day will be 3 days later, on June 7.
Under the provisions of the contract and the tax package we will pass this week, Victory Over Government Day will shrink back to May 26, a difference of 12 days that the American family can work for themselves instead of sending money to Government.
{time} 1815
Finally, the paper, the fifth paper, entitled ``The Contract and the Future,'' points out that the contract helps parents provide for their children's future and for their inheritance in four important ways.
First, the contract improves take-home pay for families because with an expanding economy we can all expect to make more.
Second, the contract provides for the super-IRA provision and, in so doing, allows increased savings. The contract allows the family to plan more efficiently for college or for retirement.
Third, the contract helps families plan for their future by reducing the benefits tax on seniors who work. As we all know, in 1993 President Clinton and the Democrats increased the taxes on senior citizens' Social Security, and of course that is repealed.
The fourth and final way the contract helps families provide is by reducing the estate tax and thereby reducing the taxes on inheritance. And, of course, that allows parents to pass more along to their children to help them in the outyears.
So these are five papers that we have spent a lot of time researching, writing, putting together, verifying. They are important points I think that are made in these papers, and we will be more than happy to provide them to any Member who wishes to have them.
____________________
