[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1724-H1749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 927, CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY 
                         [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1996

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 370

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

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

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the 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 revise and extend 
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 370 provides for the 
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, usually referred to as the 
Helms-Burton bill, and waive all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration.
  The House rules allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  This conference report is the response of the United States, of the 
Congress, and the President, to the murder of three American citizens 
and another U.S. resident by Castro over international waters on 
February 24.
  Helms-Burton is also premised upon the firm conviction that an 
accelerated end to the Stalinist dictatorship in Cuba is not only 
something that we need to strive for because of elemental notions of 
solidarity with the terrorized and oppressed people of Cuba--but also 
because the establishment of democracy in Cuba is in the national 
interest of the United States.
  The Castro regime is, to its core, a gangster regime. It is a regime 
that answered a request, last month, by 130 dissident groups for 
permission to meet peacefully, by arresting 186 dissident leaders and 
independent journalists--as of last Thursday.
  This is a regime that, to further intensify its latest Stalinist 
crackdown on its internal opposition, felt the need to shoot down two 
American civilian planes, killing three U.S. citizens and another U.S. 
resident, over international waters a few days ago.
  The message Castro sent the Cuban people by those murders of 
Americans was clear: If I can murder Americans over international 
waters and get away with it, imagine what I can do to you. It's 
important to note that before the murderous pilots of those MiG's 
visually identified the unarmed Cessnas that they had been ordered to 
shoot down, the radar that was guiding them had locked on to a cruise 
ship with hundreds aboard.
  And how does the supreme gangster himself defend the murders. Read 
this week's Time magazine. Castro says:

       They dropped leaflets on Havana. It was a real provocation 
     * * * we had been patient, but there are limits * * * in 
     addition to these flights, there was also interference by the 
     U.S. interests section in our internal affairs. What these 
     people were doing was intolerable. They were giving money and 
     paying the bills of dissidents * * * it was intolerable.

  This is a regime that, according to the respected British publication 
Jane's Defence Weekly, has been sending special forces to be trained at 
the Hoa Binh Military Base in Communist Vietnam, since 1990, in 
preparation for strikes inside the United States in case

[[Page H1725]]

of war. According to Jane's Defence Weekly the purpose of those special 
forces in Castro's army, training in Vietnam, is to ``Take the reality 
of war to the American people, in order to create internal pressures on 
Washington.''
  Let me briefly quote from a statement a few days ago by Senator Dole: 
``U.S. policy toward Cuba has consequences around the globe. The world 
is still a dangerous place.'' Adversaries are watching our response to 
the murder of American citizens. Our response is being noted--by 
Russian hardliners, by North Korean generals, by state sponsors of 
terrorism in Teheran and Tripoli, by Serbian leaders, by the Chinese 
military eyeing Taiwan. Timidity only emboldens our enemies.

  This conference report is the response of the Congress and the 
President to the murder of American citizens.
  The conference report codifies, it puts into law, the existing 
embargo against Cuba, much of which exists only in regulations and 
miscellaneous executive orders. It will now take an act of Congress to 
modify the embargo, and no President will be able to weaken the embargo 
unless a democratic transition is underway in Cuba.
  President Clinton is urged to seek international sanctions against 
the Cuban dictatorship.
  The President is authorized to furnish assistance to democratic 
opposition and human rights groups in Cuba. The President is also asked 
to develop a plan to assist the Cuban people once a democratically-
elected government is in place and to terminate the embargo once a 
democratic government--without Castro or his brother Raul--is in power.
  The conference report calls for the denial of entry into the United 
States of any individual who trafficks in property stolen from 
Americans by Castro. American citizens will be able to sue, in American 
courts, those who traffick in property stolen from them by Castro. This 
provision will protect the property rights of American citizens, deter 
foreign investment in Cuba, and make it much more difficult for the 
Castro regime to obtain hard currency.
  The conference report reduces foreign aid to those countries that 
provide assistance in support of the extraordinarily dangerous Cuban 
nuclear facility Castro is trying to complete at Juragua. It also 
allows the President to cut aid to Russia, dollar for dollar, for its 
support of the intelligence facility to spy on the United States that 
the Russians still maintain in Cuba.
  Just by filing Helms-Burton a year ago, foreign investment was cut in 
half in 1995 in comparison to 1994. When potential investors confirm 
that dealing in property stolen by Castro from Americans will expose 
them to the possibility of being excluded from the United States, no 
matter how unethical they may be, they will choose not to invest in 
Castro's slave economy.
  By saying that we will not look kindly upon foreign interests dealing 
in property stolen from Americans, we are not acting in an 
extraterritorial fashion; we are protecting the property rights of 
American citizens, and in that way, also deterring foreign investment 
in Castro's apartheid economy.
  The importance of codifying--putting into law--the embargo, cannot be 
over-emphasized.
  No democratic transition from a long-term dictatorship in recent 
decades has been possible without some important form of external 
pressure.
  Franco's Spain and the European Community; Trujillo's Dominican 
Republic and the OAS; Pinochet's Chile; apartheid South Africa; the 
Greece of the colonels.
  Where there has been no external pressure, such as in China, there 
has been no democratic transition and human rights violations have 
increased. The Washington Post confirms today in page A10, that in the 
State Department's annual report on human rights, to be released today, 
the fundamental premise of United States policy toward China, that 
expanding trade will lead to greater individual freedoms for Chinese 
citizens, is simply invalid.
  We will be able, by the measures in this conference report, including 
codification of the embargo, to maintain sufficient pressure not only 
to accelerate Castro's collapse, but also to see to it that his demise 
will lead to an independent Cuba with full political liberties and 
human rights for the now suffering Cuban people.
  The Senate passed this conference report yesterday, 74 to 22. The 
President supports it. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our friend, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding the customary one-half hour of 
debate time to me. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose the rule providing for the 
consideration of the conference report for the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act.
  As the gentleman from Florida has explained, the rule waives all 
points of order against the conference report and, although we ought 
always to be cautious in providing blanket waivers for legislation, the 
granting of these waivers for this conference report is in accordance 
with our usual procedures when we consider conference reports in the 
House.
  The chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman], in requesting the rule waiving all points 
of order, specifically referred to the scope of matters committed to 
the conference. So Members should be aware that the conference 
agreement on this sweeping legislation includes provisions that were in 
neither the House nor the Senate bill.
  Many of us, moreover, are deeply concerned about the provisions of 
the conference report itself and about its effect on U.S. policy.
  Mr. Speaker, for many of our colleagues, this bill will be easy to 
support--it tightens the U.S. embargo on one of the world's most 
despised dictators. Yet, it is not likely that Fidel Castro will be 
hurt by this legislation. Ironically, the Helms-Burton Act--a radical 
departure from current United States policy--will actually weaken our 
ability to encourage democracy in Cuba.
  The fall of communism in Eastern Europe should have taught us an 
important lesson: the enemy of a closed society, such as Cuba, is not 
increased isolation--it is greater contact with the outside world. The 
Soviet Union did not disintegrate because of an economic blockade--it 
was exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity that hastened 
the end to the cold war. In marked contrast, 37 years of economic 
embargo against Cuba has failed utterly to topple the Castro 
government.
  The dubious premise behind this legislation is that the Cuban economy 
is on the brink of collapse, and that by tightening our notoriously 
porous embargo, the demise of the Castro regime can be achieved with 
one final push.
  The reality is more complex. The Cuban economy has been showing signs 
of recovery, brought about by limited reforms and new trade 
relationships with the rest of the world. And just as domestic 
opposition groups inside Cuba--the only real threat to the Castro 
government--have been invigorated by widening contacts with the outside 
world, this legislation will turn back the clock by imposing further 
isolation and hardship on the Cuban people.
  Moreover, by codifying the Executive orders that have maintained the 
Cuban embargo since 1959, this legislation locks the United States into 
a failed policy, and denies the President the flexibility needed to 
respond to any future democratic transition in Cuba.
  Many of us are disappointed that the President has dropped his 
opposition to this bill. Nevertheless, Congress has consistently 
recognized that the President's hands should not be tied in matters of 
foreign affairs--that a wide variety of tools should be available to 
the President to act in the national interest abroad. But, this bill 
mandates intransigency. As changes occur in Cuba--and they will occur--
the President--this President, or some future President--will be 
restricted from acting in the carefully calibrated fashion that has 
marked our response to other dictators, and other emerging democracies.
  The United States is the only country in the world that maintains an 
economic embargo against Cuba--a fact that the Helms-Burton Act, 
somewhat fatuously, tries to change. Many of our closest allies, 
moreover, are greatly offended--as they well should be--by this

[[Page H1726]]

legislation's attempt to coerce them into joining the embargo.
  Countries such as Canada, and our allies in Western Europe, warn that 
provisions in this legislation violate international law, abrogate 
several treaties, abandon our commitment to international financial 
institutions and could lead to retaliation against United States 
interests elsewhere in the world. Moreover, the arrogance of this bill 
is striking--by following the mandates of this legislation, the United 
States will be imposing its own political agenda on countries--mostly 
friendly countries--throughout the world whose businesses are acting in 
full compliance with their own laws.
  Finally, we are concerned by the manner in which the legislation 
seemingly subverts our national interest for the interests of a select 
few. The Helms-Burton Act gives unprecedented benefits to a few very 
wealthy former Cuban property owners--those who owned property in pre-
Castro Cuba valued at more than $50,000 when it was seized in 1959--by 
giving these individuals and corporations the unprecedented right to 
sue, in United States Federal courts, foreign companies doing business 
on land they once owned.
  This right is not available to anyone who has lost property anywhere 
else in the world--not in Germany, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, or Russia--
and it will obviously create a legal nightmare in our already 
overburdened Federal courts. But more troubling is the manner in which 
the legislation will allow a few individuals and companies to profit 
from the economic activity in Cuba this legislation condemns. By 
allowing wealthy former Cuban land-owners to settle out of court with 
companies doing business in Cuba, these individuals can now share in 
the profits to ongoing Cuban investment. Thus, the Helms-Burton bill 
succeeds, in effect, in lifting the embargo for a select few, and 
perversely creates an incentive for increased economic development in 
Cuba, from which only a small minority of Cuban-Americans will benefit.
  Let me be clear and end it here. This debate is not about our opinion 
of Fidel Castro--he is one of the more abhorrent dictators of this 
century. We uniformly condemn Cuba's recent downing of civilian 
aircraft in clear violation of international law, and our hearts go out 
to the families of the pilots who perished.
  But this bill is rash, extreme and misguided--it runs contrary to our 
experience of dealing with repressive regimes elsewhere in the world, 
and it is not in our own national interest. In the words of Louis 
Desloge, a conservative Cuban-American:

       Implementing an aggressive engagement policy to transmit 
     our values to the Cuban people and to accelerate the 
     burgeoning process of reform occurring on the island has a 
     far better chance of ending Castro's rule than the 
     machinations of [the] Helms-Burton [Act].

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference 
report.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the imagination of our opponents is 
truly amazing, as is the gentleman who was cited and called a 
conservative, that very well-known anti-embargo activist.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Miami, FL, for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we just heard the previous speaker say we, the United 
States of America, are the only country that has levied sanctions 
against Cuba. Yes, is that not a shame? That is going to change come 
the next election, my friends. With 250 million consuming Americans 
with the highest buying power in the world, it is about time that we 
told some of our allies that we do not like standing alone. That is 
what Ronald Reagan did back in 1981 when he pulled them all together 
and we stopped communism dead in its tracks. No more spread of 
communism. Democracy is breaking out all over the world.
  If we have to stand alone, we will. But these sanctions are going to 
stand until atheistic, deadly communism is dead in this hemisphere.
  Needless to say, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I 
really commend the gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], as well 
as the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], who have been so 
valiant in bringing this legislation, along with the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman of 
the subcommittee. They are all to be highly commended to be here in 
this timely manner.
  Last week's incident under which Castro killed four Americans, and 
they were Americans, underscores the need to start taking the situation 
seriously. For over 30 years we have tolerated Castro with a half-
hearted embargo. The holes in the embargo, plus billions of dollars, $6 
billion a year from the former Soviet Union, has allowed this dictator 
to survive and spread this atheistic communism.
  Although I do not know it, Mr. Speaker, there may have been a good 
reason for not pushing Castro harder during the cold war, but certainly 
not now. It is time to get serious, and this legislation does get 
serious. That is why Castro is so upset about it. That is why the 
Russians are so upset about it, the Russians that we are giving 
billions of dollars to in aid. And they turn around and aid and abet 
this dictator? And that is why so many of our allies are upset, too. 
This legislation will hit them where it hurts, in their pocketbooks.
  Regarding our allies, Mr. Speaker, there is no stronger supporter of 
this treaty organization called NATO than this Member of Congress. I do 
not take lightly the fact that many of them are concerned about this 
legislation. But let us be blunt: It is time for them to understand 
that we will not go merrily along while they provide a lifeline to this 
Communist just off our coast who is in fact a mortal enemy of the 
United States.
  Our allies, especially Canada, to the north, and my district depends 
on a lot of that trade with Canada, but they should be put on notice we 
will not subjugate our national interests to their financial interests. 
Human decency and human rights come first before any dollar. Nor should 
we continue to grant them open access to our huge market--as I said 
before, 250 million Americans, they lick their chops to do business 
with the United States--if they insist on supporting Castro. I call on 
the President to drive home those points with them.
  Mr. Speaker, Castro is teetering on the brink. Cuba's economy is in a 
meltdown. Communism does not work. Take away the $6 billion propping 
them up, and it is going down, down, down. It is only a matter of time 
before communism is dead in Cuba, as long as we enact legislation like 
this.
  Castro has threatened renewed terrorism against the United States of 
America. The latest bombings in Israel show just how easily that can be 
done. We are so vulnerable. That could happen so easily right here in 
the United States of America.
  With Russia's help Castro is constructing a dangerous nuclear power 
facility based on old faulty designs. Not only does this facility 
potentially subject us to a Chernobyl style disaster, but we can surely 
expect Castro to do what North Korea is doing, and that is to try to 
exploit the technology for the purposes of building nuclear weapons. 
And that cannot happen in this hemisphere.
  We have had enough of this tyrant. It is time to bring this awful era 
of Fidel Castro to a close. Adoption of this conference report today 
will accelerate the arrival of that great day for both the Cuban people 
and the American people. Please come over here and vote for this rule 
and vote for this bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding time to me. He made a very eloquent statement yesterday in the 
Rules Committee and I agreed with him entirely.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a very bad 
bill that I worry will have some very bad consequences.

[[Page H1727]]

  Make no mistake about it the shootdown by the Cuban Government of two 
unarmed Cessnas nearly 2 weeks ago was an unconscionable act. President 
Clinton was right in rallying the international community to denounce 
this terrible overreaction and I believe the President was right in 
proposing additional sanctions against Cuba.
  But I believe it would be wrong for this Congress and this President 
to embrace the Helms-Burton legislation because of this terrible act.
  Helms-Burton is a bad bill, plain and simple.
  Even though the White House has recently reversed its position on 
this bill, I would suggest that my colleagues read the letter the White 
House wrote us last fall when they very eloquently and persuasively 
made the case against Helms-Burton.
  In fact, Secretary of State Warren Christopher expressed his concern 
that the bill would actually damage prospects for a peaceful transition 
in Cuba.
  He further indicated that the inflexible standards mandated in the 
bill would make it difficult to respond to a rapidly evolving situation 
should it occur in Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, the Secretary was absolutely right Helms-Burton would 
put United States foreign policy toward Cuba in a statutory 
straitjacket.
  And while passions are running understandably high and outrage is 
certainly justified the fact remains that Helms-Burton was bad policy a 
few months ago and it is bad policy today.
  Our allies have expressed deep concern over the bill's provisions as 
they relate to foreign companies. Yesterday all of us received the 
statement by the European Union indicating strong opposition to the 
Helms-Burton bill.
  Similar statements of opposition have come from Canada's Foreign 
Minister and leading diplomats around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, my strongest objection to this legislation is that it 
will not encourage the departure of Fidel Castro and it will only make 
the lives of average Cubans more miserable--especially Cuban children 
economically strangling the island only hurt the most vulnerable--and 
I'm not sure that's what this Congress really wants to do.
  I believe this bill is exactly what Castro wants at a time when 
communism has crumbled around the globe; at a time when the Cuban 
economy is in disarray; and at a time when the internal opposition in 
Cuba seems to be getting stronger. This bill only gives Castro an 
excuse to be more repressive and to justify his failed system.
  So, I say to my colleagues, if you want to get at Fidel Castro, come 
up with a different approach. Helms-Burton will only breathe new life 
into his dictatorship.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record editorials, which have recently 
appeared in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, 
the Washington Post, the Detroit News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the 
Los Angeles Times, and the Baltimore Sun, all opposing Helms-Burton. I 
would also like to submit an article from the Washington Post exposing 
a little known loophole in the embargo and the statement by the 
European Union in opposition to the legislation. And I would like to 
submit a statement by Alfredo Duran, who fought at the Bay of Pigs and 
was imprisoned for over a year, the President of the Cuban Committee 
for Democracy, and a statement by Eloy Guitierrez Menoyo, who was a 
political prisoner for 22 years in Cuba.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me express again my strong opposition to 
the bill for which this rule provides consideration. I know the authors 
have the very best of intentions--but I firmly believe that by passing 
this bill we are making a big mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 1996]

                           A Bad Bill on Cuba

       The Clinton Administration has done many things right and 
     one thing terribly wrong in response to Cuba's shootdown of 
     two unarmed planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
       Providing a Coast Guard escort to accompany an exile 
     flotilla to the site of the downing today registers American 
     determination to protect the security of international waters 
     and airspace. Equally important, it minimizes the risk of 
     either the exiles' or Havana's provoking a new incident. The 
     Administration's decision earlier this week to suspend 
     charter flights to Cuba and to impose travel restrictions on 
     Cuban diplomats in this country made clear that Havana had 
     attacked not just anti-Castro activists but international law 
     itself.
       However, the Administration is about to make a huge mistake 
     by signing into law a bill, sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms 
     and Representative Dan Burton, that aims to coerce other 
     countries into joining the American embargo of Cuba. By 
     dropping his opposition to the bill, Mr. Clinton junks his 
     own balanced policy for encouraging democracy in Cuba and 
     signs on to an approach that will inevitably slow the opening 
     of Cuban society and pick a pointless quarrel with American 
     allies.
       The bill threatens foreign companies with lawsuits and 
     their executives with exclusion from American soil if they 
     use any property in Cuba ever confiscated from anyone who is 
     now a United States citizen. Some of its provisions appear to 
     violate international law and trade treaties, and the 
     Administration had been saying since last summer that it 
     would veto the measure unless these provisions were removed.
       The United States is the only country that maintains an 
     economic embargo against Cuba, an outdated policy that has 
     failed in 35 years to topple the Castro Government. Trying to 
     coerce other countries to join the embargo is offensive to 
     American allies and unlikely to succeed.
       Backers of the Helms-Burton bill believe the Cuban economy 
     has been so enfeebled by the loss of subsidized Soviet trade 
     that the Castro regime can be brought down with one final 
     shove. But Cuba's economy, though hurting, has already 
     revived from the depths of the early 1990's. Its recovery has 
     been built on austerity, limited reforms and new trade 
     relationships with the rest of the world. It is unrealistic 
     to think that a reinforced American embargo would bring Mr. 
     Castro down.
       What Havana really worries about is the resurgence of 
     opposition in Cuba itself. Opposition groups have been 
     invigorated by Cuba's widened contacts with the outside 
     world. They are also encouraged by a more supportive attitude 
     on the part of Miami-based exile organizations. These used to 
     view all Cubans who remained on the island, even opposition 
     activists, with suspicion. Now groups like Brothers to the 
     Rescue, the organization whose planes were shot down last 
     week, see opposition groups on the island as a key to 
     political change.
       The Castro regime is alarmed by this potential link between 
     domestic opponents and outside support groups, heralded by 
     Brothers to the Resuce's previous airborne leafletting of 
     Havana. Indeed, Havana's concern over this prospect may have 
     been a factor in last week's missile attack against the 
     exiles' planes. Washington should be doing everything it can 
     to promote opposition within Cuba by encouraging more human 
     interchange between the island and the outside world, not 
     less.
       The Helms-Burton Act is not an appropriate response to 
     Cuba's murderous deed. It is a wholesale policy reversal that 
     weakens America's ability to encourage democracy in Cuba. Mr. 
     Clinton should return to his original sound position.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 3, 1996]

                      The Great Cuban Embargo Scam

                         (By Louis F. Desloge)

       Virtually everyone agrees that President Clinton should 
     retaliate forcefully against Cuba's tragic and murderous 
     downing of two civilian aircraft last weekend. But the least 
     effective and most counterproductive punishment is Clinton's 
     acquiescence to the Helms-Burton bill to tighten the U.S. 
     embargo of Cuba. This legislation, which the White House 
     endorsed last week, albeit with reservations, will only play 
     into Castro's hands by creating an expansive loophole for 
     property claimants, especially wealthy Cuban Americans, to 
     circumvent the embargo.
       Jesse Helms and Dan Burton, conservatives whom I admire, 
     are no doubt sincere in their motivation to subvert Castro's 
     rule by applying economic pressure on his regime. However, 
     they may very well achieve just the opposite of what they 
     seek by buttressing, not undermining, Castro's support at 
     home and weakening, not strengthening, the embargo's 
     prohibition on trade with Cuba.
       The Helms-Burton bill is a slick stratagem. Its stated 
     purpose is to tighten the embargo by allowing Cuban Americans 
     to have the unprecedented right to sue, in U.S. federal 
     courts, foreign companies doing business on land once owned 
     by these exiles. The idea is to discourage foreign business 
     investment in Cuba, thus undermining the island's financial 
     recovery which, the bill's supporters naively hope, will 
     result in a collapse of the Castro regime. The bill's 
     practical consequences are a different story.
       A little-noticed provision in the Helms-Burton measure will 
     enable a small group of Cuban Americans to profit from the 
     economic activity occurring in Cuba.
       To understand this provision, one must first know who 
     helped write it. As the Baltimore Sun reported last May, the 
     bill was drafted with the advice of Nick Gutierrez, an 
     attorney who represents the National Association of Sugar 
     Mill Owners of Cuba and the Cuban Association for the Tobacco 
     Industry. Gutierrez acknowledges his involvement, as does 
     Ignacio Sanchez, an attorney whose firm represents the 
     Bacardi rum company. Sanchez told the Sun that he worked on 
     the bill in his capacity as a member of the American Bar 
     Association's Cuban Property

[[Page H1728]]

     Rights Task Force and not as representative of the rum 
     company.
       It is not hard to surmise what these former sugar, tobacco 
     and rum interests will do if and when the law takes effect: 
     sue their competitors who are now doing business in Cuba.
       Gutierrez told the Miami Herald last fall as saying that he 
     (and his clients) are eyeing a Kentucky subsidiary of 
     British-American Tobacco (B.A.T.) that produces Lucky Strike 
     cigarettes. B.A.T. has a Cuban joint venture with the 
     Brazilian firm Souza Cruz to produce tobacco on land 
     confiscated from his clients, Gutierrez claims.
       Bacardi would be able to sue Pernod Ricard, the French 
     spirits distributor, currently marketing Havana Club rum 
     worldwide. Bacardi claims that Pernod Ricard's rum is being 
     produced in the old Bacardi distillery in the city of 
     Santiago de Cuba.
       Here is how this vexatious scheme will work if Helms-Burton 
     becomes law. The for- mer landowner of a tobacco farm files a 
     suit in federal court against British-American Tobacco and 
     seeks damages. If both sides want to avoid prolonged 
     litigation they can reach an out-of-court settlement 
     whereby the former tobacco grower can now share in the 
     profits of the ongoing B.A.T.-Brazilian joint venture in 
     Cuba. Likewise, Bacardi could reach a settlement to get a 
     share of Pernod Ricard's profits from sales of Havana Club 
     internationally.
       These agreements do not need the blessing of the U.S. 
     government. This is the million dollar loophole in Helms-
     Burton. The bill states: ``an action [lawsuit] . . . may be 
     brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such 
     action may be enforced, without the necessity of obtaining 
     any license or permission from any agency of the United 
     States.''
       What will be the practical result? Foreign companies like 
     Pernod Ricard and British-American Tobacco are unlikely to 
     abandon viable operations in Cuba because of a lawsuit. More 
     likely, these foreign businessmen will agree, reluctantly, to 
     pay off Cuban exiles suing under Helms-Burton. Given the 
     choice of forfeiting millions of dollars invested in Cuba or 
     their financial interests in the United States, the practical 
     business solution might be to give the exiles a cut of the 
     action. Far better to have 90 percent of something than 100 
     percent of nothing, these businessmen will reason. Allowing 
     Cuban Americans a share of their profits will just be 
     factored in as another cost of doing business.
       Indeed, Helms-Burton gives the Cuban exile community a 
     strong financial stake in Castro's Cuba. If the foreign 
     businesses simply withdrew in the face of Helms-Burton, the 
     exiled tobacco, sugar and rum interests would get nothing. 
     But if British-American Tobacco or Pernod Ricard or any other 
     foreign firm now doing business with the Castro regime offers 
     an out-of-court settlement to Cuban American exiles, who is 
     going to turn them down? Given the option, at least some 
     people are going to choose personal enrichment over the 
     principle of not doing business with Fidel. After all, Fidel 
     has been in power for 37 years, and the exiles are not 
     getting any younger.
       The Clinton White House is not unaware of the scam at the 
     heart of the bill. Before the shooting down of the plane, the 
     president had objected to the provisions allowing U.S. 
     nationals to sue companies doing business in Cuba. During 
     last week's conference with Congress, the president's men 
     surrendered and asked for a face-saving compromise: a 
     provision giving the president the right to block such deals 
     later on if they do not advance the cause of democracy in 
     Cuba. But how likely is Clinton to block Cuban Americans in 
     Florida, a key election state, from suing Castro's foreign 
     collaborators later in the final months of an election year? 
     Not very.
       The bottom line is that Clinton, in the name of getting 
     tough with Castro, has endorsed a bill that allows the 
     embargo to be evaded and protects Cuban Americans who want to 
     legally cut deals to exploit their former properties in Cuba 
     while the rest of the American business community must watch 
     from the sidelines.
       In fact, the legislation could encourage a massive influx 
     of new foreign investment in Cuba. Armed with the 
     extortionist powers conferred by the legislation, former 
     property holders could shop around the world for prospective 
     investors in Cuba and offer them a full release on their 
     property claim in exchange for a ``sweetheart'' lawsuit 
     settlement entitling them to a piece of the economic action. 
     Thus, the embargo is legally bypassed and everyone laughs all 
     the way to the bank.
       Actually, not everyone would benefit. The Clinton-endorsed 
     version of Helms-Burton only exempts the wealthiest cabal of 
     Cuba's former elites from the embargo's restraints. The bill 
     will only allow those whose former property is worth a 
     minimum value of $50,000 (sans interest) to file suits. And 
     you had to be very rich to have owned anything of that value 
     in Cuba in 1959. If you were a Cuban butcher, baker or 
     candlestick maker, too bad. This bill is not for you.
       What could be more useful to Castro in his efforts to shore 
     up his standing with the Cuban people? The spectacle of the 
     U.S. Congress kowtowing to these Batista-era plantation 
     owners and distillers provides Fidel his most effective 
     propaganda weapon since the Bay of Pigs debacle. Castro 
     surely knows that the overwhelming majority of the Cuban 
     people--60 percent of whom were born after 1959--would deeply 
     resent what can be characterized, not unfairly, as an attempt 
     to confiscate their properties and revert control over Cuba's 
     economy to people who symbolize the corrupt rule of the 
     1950s. Rather than undermining Castro's rule, this bill would 
     drive the people into his camp.
       Where is the logic in denying the vast majority of the 
     American people the right to become economically engaged in 
     Cuba if it is extended to only a select, wealthy few? Is the 
     concept of ``equal protection under the law'' served if non-
     Cuban Americans are now relegated to the status of second-
     class citizens? Or is the real intent of this bill to allow 
     rich Cuban exiles the opportunity to get a jump start and 
     thereby head off the ``gringo'' business invasion certain to 
     follow the demise of the embargo and the inevitable passing 
     of Castro.
       Let us put an end to this special interest subterfuge. 
     Whatever obligation the United States had to my fellow Cuban 
     Americans has been more than fulfilled by providing us safe 
     haven and the opportunity to prosper and flourish in a free 
     society. Providing us, once again, another special exemption 
     which makes a mockery of the American Constitution, laws and 
     courts, not to mention making a farce of U.S.-Cuba policy, is 
     an insult to both the American and Cuban people.
       If we are going to lift the embargo for a few wealthy 
     exiles then, fine, let us lift it for all Americans. To be 
     fair and consistent, why not liberate the entire American 
     community to bring the full weight if its influence to bear 
     upon Cuban people? Implementing an aggressive engagement 
     policy to transmit our values to the Cuban people and to 
     accelerate the burgeoning process of reform occurring on the 
     island has a far better chance of ending Castro's rule then 
     the machinations of Helms-Burton.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, Feb. 27, 1996]

                            Missteps on Cuba

       When Fidel Castro sent his MIG fighters up against two 
     alleged intruders last weekend, he not only shot down two 
     unarmed civilian aircraft and killed American citizens, he 
     shot himself in the foot as well.
       In the last few months there had been signs that relations 
     between Cuba and the United States--frozen for more than 30 
     years--might be beginning to thaw. In October President 
     Clinton eased some of the travel and financial restrictions 
     on Cuba in the interests of greater ``people to people'' 
     contact. This year there has been a steady stream of 
     congressmen visiting the island, each receiving the 
     obligatory audience with ``the bearded one.''
       American businessmen are becoming receptive to potential 
     opportunities in Cuba. Some say that more Americans visited 
     Cuba in January than in any month since Castro came to power 
     in 1959.
       Seeing his economy crash and burn after the end of support 
     from the Communist bloc earlier this decade, Castro 
     desperately needs foreign investments; an end to the American 
     economic embargo of his island would ease the poverty of his 
     people.
       An even more Draconian twist to the embargo, in the form of 
     the Helms-Burton bill, is waiting in the wings. Passed by 
     both houses but still awaiting action in conference 
     committee, Helms-Burton would not only tighten existing 
     restrictions, but would punish our allies who trade with 
     Cuba. The House version, for example, could ``restrict'' 
     entry into the United States of corporate officers, even 
     shareholders, of companies doing business in Cuba, a measure 
     which might be in violation of our trade agreements with 
     Canada in particular.
       Some congressmen, such as Joseph Moakley, told Castro last 
     month that the United States and Cuba had reached a 
     ``crossroads.'' If Helms-Burton were signed into law it would 
     ``end any possibility for improved relations anytime in the 
     near future.'' He told Castro that there ``must be more 
     movement in Cuba in regard to human rights * * *''
       Only last week, however, Castro arrested 100 dissidents and 
     human-rights activists who were seeking a peaceful dialogue 
     with the Cuban regime. This upset the European Union, which 
     is trying to work out an economic-cooperation treaty with 
     Cuba, and made it all the more difficult for those who are 
     working to defeat Helms-Burton in this country.
       Last weekend Castro made their task next to impossible. 
     With large Cuban-American communities in swing states such as 
     New Jersey and Florida, seeming soft on Cuba in an election 
     year is not something politicians want.
       But the Helms-Burton bill is bad law. It was bad law before 
     Castro's stupid overreaction to the admittedly provocative 
     flights, and it is bad law now. It is to be hoped that cool 
     heads in Congress and the White House will realize that in 
     time.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 1, 1996]

                    Surrendering U.S. Policy on Cuba

       After more than 30 years of them, it should be clear that 
     trade sanctions against Cuba will not force Fidel Castro to 
     surrender. What a shame, then, that a great power like the 
     United States has surrendered its foreign policy to a tiny 
     population of hard-line anti-Castro Cubans. What an 
     embarrassment!
       By agreeing this week to impose new economic penalties 
     against Cuba, President Clinton and the Republican-controlled 
     Congress have proven that, given a choice between sound 
     foreign policy and pandering to the rabid anti-Castro crowd 
     in a critical electoral state, they'll pander.

[[Page H1729]]

       In no way do we defend Castro's dictatorship or the 
     outrageous disregard for human life represented by Cuba's 
     downing last weekend of two small civilian aircraft. But in 
     that regard, an old American adage is instructive: Don't go 
     looking for trouble, it cautions, 'cause it'll find you 
     anyway.
       Brothers to the Rescue, an exile group, went looking for 
     trouble by violating Cuba's sovereign air space to drop 
     leaflets and by playing hide-and-seek with Cuban jets along 
     its periphery.
       By law, private citizens may not make foreign policy. Yet 
     the Cuban exiles invited this ``crisis,'' if they didn't 
     actually manufacture it, and suckered both a Democratic 
     president and a Republican Congress into making policy to 
     suit their purposes.
       Ironically, the new sanctions, while aimed at isolating 
     Castro and weakening his power, are certain only to 
     complicate trade relations with key U.S. allies and 
     commercial partners such as Canada, Mexico and France.
       Under the sanctions, U.S. visas will be denied to foreign 
     corporate executives--and their stockholders--if these firms 
     are among those that have invested billions of dollars in 
     Cuban property. (The U.S. is the only nation that observes 
     the absurd embargo of Cuba.)
       Another provision would allow U.S. citizens to file suit 
     against foreign firms utilizing property that was seized by 
     Castro. But in a cynical provision designed to neuter that 
     very same proposal, the president is granted power to waive 
     the rule every six months to throw out the backlog of 
     anticipated cases.
       Like all dictators, Castro shows unwavering patience in 
     allowing his people to suffer. But if America wants to 
     influence Cuba to liberalize, then more ties--not a trade 
     embargo--is the answer.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1996]

                            Cuba's Brutality

       No one concerned for regional stability and air safety can 
     fail to condemn Cuba's brutal downing of two small unarmed 
     civilian planes on Saturday. In this latest mission by 
     Brothers to the Rescue, the two planes and a third that made 
     it back to Miami had in fact ignored Cuban warnings as well 
     as official American cautions not to penetrate Cuban air-
     space. Nor was it clear whether their purpose was the stated 
     humanitarian one of rescuing fleeing rafters or the alleged 
     political one of overflying Havana. But this is no excuse for 
     the attack. In such circumstances, international law requires 
     warning off the approaching aircraft. Instead, the Castro 
     government, having considered for months how to react to 
     these flights, ignored American urgings to stay on a peaceful 
     and legal path and shot to kill.
       The Cuban attack caught President Clinton at a difficult 
     time and place. He does not wish to be outflanked politically 
     in a potential swing state, Florida, with a large Cuban-exile 
     population and a presidential primary coming up two weeks 
     from today. Nor does he want, in expressing the prevailing 
     and justified outrage, to let it overwhelm his previous 
     efforts to open up certain avenues of communication and 
     relief for the Cuban people, or to interfere with agreed 
     procedures of legal emigration. Hence the measures he 
     announced yesterday to notch up pressure on the Communist 
     regime, including suspending Havana-Miami charter flights and 
     working with Congress to selectively tighten an already tight 
     embargo.
       Given the tensions Fidel Castro churns on the American 
     scene, the Clinton proposals were bound to be attacked not 
     only by Republicans campaigning for their party's 
     presidential nomination in Florida but also by harder-line 
     factions among the state's million Cuban Americans. From 
     these sources now come calls for a military response--an air 
     patrol to knock down rising Cuban MiGs or a blockade to keep 
     Fidel Castro from either receiving foreign ships or expelling 
     a new flood of refugees to Florida.
       These measures would be counterproductive. If put into 
     effect, they would leave the United States largely isolated 
     among other nations. The better course remains to keep 
     international diplomatic and private influence focused--in 
     discussions on ending the embargo, for instance--on opening 
     political space for human rights advocates, independent 
     social and professional organizations, and democrats. As the 
     recent crackdown on Concilo Cubano demonstrates, this isn't 
     easy. But over time it offers hope.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Detroit News, Feb. 29, 1996]

                    Cuba Incident: Correct Response

       The downing late last week of two unarmed civilian planes 
     by Cuban military jets off the coast of Cuba was a brutal and 
     cowardly act. But President Bill Clinton properly resisted 
     the temptation in a political season to overreact. The 
     administration's response was reasonably measured, even as it 
     sought to condemn Cuba in the United Nations.
       President Clinton has suspended all air charter 
     transportation to Cuba, vowed to reach an agreement on 
     tightened trade sanctions against Cuba, asked Congress to 
     divert funds from Cuba's $100 million in frozen assets to 
     compensate the families of the downed pilots and restricted 
     travel to Cuba by Americans.
       But the president didn't end travel to Cuba; he proposed 
     requiring visitors to go through a third country to reach the 
     island nation. Government officials estimate that about 
     120,000 to 130,000 people travel from the United States to 
     Cuba each year. If the requirement that they route themselves 
     through a third country slows the flow, Cuba will suffer from 
     a loss of revenue in hard currency.
       The proposed sanctions are in line with this country's 30-
     year-old policy of enforcing a trade embargo on Cuba. Its 
     economy was propped up by the Soviet Union, but the 
     dissolution of the old Soviet empire has thrust the regime of 
     Fidel Castro on hard times.
       The shootings necessitated punishment from Washington, but 
     stiffer trade sanctions and restricted travel are not the 
     best long-term solution for inducing change in Cuba. Mr. 
     Clinton last fall moved to ease relations with Fidel Castro's 
     regime. The administration then was right to do so. 
     Commercial and cultural relations with Cuba ultimately will 
     serve to weaken the grip of the aging communist dictator, 
     whose misrule has given his countrymen decades of economic 
     ruin.
       The administration's tow-prong policy on the shootings is 
     also well-judged. To complement its own reprisals, it moved 
     to obtain a condemnation of Cuba's action in the United 
     Nations. The UN instead ``deplored'' Cuba's action, which is 
     taken as a sign that it will not adopt its own trade 
     sanctions.
       But in all of its actions, the Clinton administration has 
     moved to maintain control of this country's Cuba policy. The 
     flights near the Cuban coast by a Cuban emigre group were 
     clearly meant to provoke the Cuban government. The Cubans in 
     the last several weeks had issued warnings that the flights 
     should cease. Whether or not the civilian pilots actually 
     violated Cuban air space remains in dispute.
       Given the ambiguity of the situation, the Clinton 
     administration is right not to let the Cuban emigre group get 
     it into a confrontation. The group responsible for the 
     flights has promised to continue them this week. But the new 
     flights should be at their own risk. Washington, not Miami, 
     should be the locus of U.S.-Cuba policy. And if the group 
     files phony flight plans, the administration should consider 
     grounding its aircraft.
       The president's response drew criticism from some of his 
     Republican challengers, but this smacks of the criticism he 
     dealt former President George Bush on Bosnia. It is easy to 
     talk tough when one is out of office.
       For now, the Castro regime should feel the pain resulting 
     from American displeasure over the shooting incident. But the 
     long-term policy for breaking up the Castro regime should be 
     more contacts and more commerce.
                                                                    ____


            [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 27, 1996]

                           Hold the Blockade


 Those crying for military action against Cuba ought to put Saturday's 
                         attacks into context.

       Let's have a little perspective, please, on the Cuban 
     downing of two civilian planes last Saturday.
       To hear GOP candidates (and some Cuban exile groups) tell 
     it, this is the most heinous international crime since 
     Hitler's invasions, and should be fought as fiercely. Send 
     U.S. warplanes, says Pat Buchanan. Amateur hour in the White 
     House, scoffs Bob Dole.
       Fortunately, President Clinton has been level-headed enough 
     not to blow this incident out of all proportion. His call for 
     U.N. Security Council condemnation of Cuba, and Cuban payment 
     of compensation to the families of the downed pilots, is 
     about what the sorry episode merits.
       Those who want tougher action should examine the facts.
       The two downed Cessnas were piloted by Cuban Americans 
     belonging to a group called Brothers to the Rescue, which is 
     supposed to aid Cubans trying to escape by sea to America. 
     But the flow of refugees has mostly stopped since Washington 
     began repatriating in August 1994.
       So what were the planes doing? This Cuban American group 
     has frequently overflown Cuban airspace, illegally, and last 
     January dropped anti-Castro leaflets on, Havana. On 
     Saturday's flight, the pilots were warned by Havana air 
     controllers not to enter Cuban airspace. They replied that 
     they would do so anyway, adding, ``we are aware we are in 
     peril.''
       U.S. officials say a third plane that escaped did enter 
     Cuban airspace, while the two downed planes were shot by a 
     Cuban MIG-29 in international waters. They also say, rightly, 
     that no country has the legal right to shoot down unarmed 
     planes that don't threaten national security; Cuban air 
     controllers should have issued warnings.
       But there is no question that Brothers to the Rescue was 
     trying to provoke a Cuban reaction by repeatedly violating 
     Cuban airspace to pursue their anti-Castro cause. No matter 
     how one admires the pilots' bravery, or despises the Castro 
     regime, that fact is clear.
       Cuba is now nothing more than a historic leftover whose 
     communist regime is bound to dissolve soon. To further 
     isolate the population--by cutting phone contacts or family 
     remittances from America--would only slow the foreign 
     contacts that help undermine the regime.
       Mounting a full-scale naval blockade would put America at 
     odds with all its allies. Similarly, the Helms Burton bill in 
     Congress--which the President has opposed but now promises to 
     work on--would also make international mischief unless it is 
     rewritten. As it now stands, the bill would legitimize suits 
     by Americans against many third-country firms that trade with 
     Cuba. Do we want

[[Page H1730]]

     to start trade wars with our allies over their commerce with 
     Cuba?
       That, not Mr. Clinton's reasoned response, sounds like 
     amateur hour.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 27, 1996]

             Weighing the Response to Cuba's Brutal Attacks


        clinton's task is to punish castro, not the cuban people

       The Cuban air force downing of two civilian aircraft last 
     weekend, and the resultant deaths of four Cuban Americans 
     aboard, was a blatantly illegal and needless act of 
     provocation by Fidel Castro's government. President Clinton 
     is right to condemn it in the strongest terms.
       But Clinton must not allow Castro's latest act of brutality 
     to push him too far, and he sensibly appears to have a hard 
     but well-measured course in mind. To be provoked into a 
     short-sighted overreaction could damage U.S.-Cuban long-term 
     relations even further. The Administration's strategy may not 
     please some of Castro's most ardent enemies in this country, 
     but it will make it easier for Washington and Havana to 
     resume normal relations in that not-too-distant future when 
     Castro is gone and the long communist dictatorship comes to 
     its inevitable end.
       Clinton has announced that he will seek legislation to 
     compensate the families of the four missing and presumed dead 
     fliers from Cuban assets that have been impounded in this 
     country. He also announced there will be new restrictions on 
     the movement and number of Cuban diplomats in the United 
     States and the suspension of charter air travel to Cuba. 
     Lastly, he will expand the reach of Radio Marti, the U.S. 
     government broadcast service into Cuba, a long-time burr 
     under Castro's saddle. These are all reasonable responses.
       Less reasonable, and possibly counterproductive, is 
     Clinton's willingness to discuss with Congress possible 
     administration support for the so-called Burton-Helms bill, 
     legislation that would tighten the existing U.S. economic 
     embargo on Cuba. While bills like Burton-Helms reflect an 
     understandable U.S. frustration with the Castro regime, that 
     legislation, like the embargo itself, would cause ancillary 
     problems in Washington's relationship with other nations, 
     including important allies and trading partners like Canada 
     and Spain. Unless the State Department can help Congress 
     rewrite Burton-Helms so that it aims toward the normalcy of 
     key international trade agreements like NAFTA--a prospect 
     that seems highly unlikely--it is best tossed in 
     the congressional trash bin.
       It is expected that the United Nations will soon join the 
     United States in condemning the irrational order to set 
     Cuba's MIG warplanes upon the small civilian craft flown by 
     the anti-Castro pilots. Perhaps U.N. debate will bring out 
     more facts about this incident than are now publicly known. 
     For instance, what were the exact whereabouts of the planes 
     at the moment they were attacked? The U.S. and Cuban 
     government versions differ enormously. The Cubans say that 
     the planes were inside their territory, while Washington and 
     Brothers to the Rescue, the Cuban American organization to 
     which the planes belonged, maintain that the aircraft were 
     flying over international waters. It is, in fact, illegal to 
     shoot at any unarmed civilian aircraft, according to 
     international civil air agreements. Havana will have a lot of 
     explaining to do if it hopes to come close to justifying the 
     deaths of these four people.
       At least some of the blame for this tragedy may lie with 
     Brothers to the Rescue. Since 1991, the organization of Cuban 
     American pilots has flown 1,700 missions in the skies around 
     Cuba. At least twice, Brothers to the Rescue pilots have 
     flown all the way to Havana to drop anti-Castro leaflets. 
     Were the Brothers trying to provoke an incident with Cuba on 
     the eve of Congress' consideration of the Burton-Helms bill? 
     Possibly, but even if they were, and no matter how 
     provocative those flights might seem, they cannot justify 
     Saturday's brutal response.
       Is Castro trying to send a message to Miami and Washington, 
     not to mention the Cuban people, with this bloody incident? 
     Is he trying to prove, yet again, that he will tolerate no 
     political dissent from his aging and increasingly weak 
     regime? Perhaps, but ultimately his attempts to hang onto 
     power are futile. Someday, the sooner the better, the aging 
     dictator will be gone and a new era of relations between 
     Havana and Washington will begin. As Clinton ponders how to 
     react to this lastest outrage, the president must keep in 
     mind those long-term prospects. Exact payment, squeeze 
     Castro, but don't derail the future relationship between the 
     two peoples.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 27, 1996]

                     Cuban Jets vs. Unarmed Cessnas


   Castro's latest blunder: Clinton tightens embargo, shuns military 
                                 action

       President Clinton's substantive response to Cuba's latest 
     outrage--the shooting down of two unarmed civilian planes 
     whose only ``bombs'' were leaflets calling for freedom--was 
     more restrained than his rhetoric. He ordered no military 
     action, imposed no naval blockade, kept telephone lines open 
     and did not shut off the money sent by exiles to families in 
     Cuba.
       Yet some action was imperative. No self-respecting country 
     can permit the blatant murder of four of its citizens to go 
     unpunished. No self-respecting leader can permit himself to 
     be shown without recourse.
       Fidel Castro's latest crime, when combined with his recent 
     crackdown on dissenters, erases what had been a favorable 
     trend in U.S.-Cuban relations. It also could short-circuit 
     some of his efforts to replace the loss of Soviet-era 
     economic aid with increasing trade ties with Europe.
       It is true enough that those involved in Saturday's 
     incident were provocateurs in the business of pulling Fidel's 
     beard. They were members of Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-
     based organization formed to rescue boat people fleeing Cuba. 
     But since Mr. Clinton's policy of forced repatriation stopped 
     much of that exodus, the group has violated Cuban air space 
     several times to drop freedom leaflets despite U.S. pleas to 
     desist. This evidently was the intent when they flew toward 
     Havana during their ill-fated mission.
       The Cuban retaliation was far out of proportion to the 
     provocation and in clear violation of international 
     strictures against firing at unarmed aircraft. As a result, 
     Mr. Clinton rightly reversed his order of last October easing 
     travel restrictions between the U.S. and Cuba. He will stop 
     U.S. charter flights. He will compensate the families of 
     those killed by Cuban jet fighters out of frozen Cuban assets 
     in the U.S. He will expand the reach of Radio Marti. And he 
     even will work with Congress to see if some version of the 
     Helms-Burton bill tightening the economic embargo on Cuba can 
     be passed.
       One provision in that measure permitting Cuban-Americans 
     and others to flood federal courts with suits seeking 
     compensation from third-country investors who have purchased 
     properties confiscated by the Castro regime should remain 
     veto-bait. It would serve only to increase the impatience of 
     other nations with the U.S. obsession with Cuba. Yet some 
     tightening of the embargo now seems a political necessity, 
     even though the more prudent long-range course would be to 
     create the personal and economic ties needed for the 
     inevitable transition to a post-Castro era.
                                                                    ____


Statement of the European Union, Delegation of the European Commission, 
                       to the Department of State

       The Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the 
     European Commission present their compliments to the 
     Department of State and wish to refer to the Cuban Liberty 
     and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996.
       The European Union (EU) has consistently expressed its 
     opposition, as a matter of law and policy, to 
     extraterritorial applications of US jurisdiction which would 
     also restrict EU trade in goods and services with Cuba, as 
     already stated in various diplomatic demarches made in 
     Washington last year, including a letter from Sir Leon 
     Brittan to Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Although 
     the EU is fully supportive of a peaceful transition in Cuba, 
     it cannot accept that the US unilaterally determine and 
     restrict EU economic and commercial relations with third 
     countries.
       The EU is consequently extremely concerned by the latest 
     developments in the House-Senate Conference in relation to 
     this legislation, including the position now apparently taken 
     by the US Administration. The legislation contains several 
     objectionable elements. In addition, provisions relating to 
     trafficking in confiscated property and those concerning 
     denial of visas to executives or shareholders of companies 
     involved in transactions concerning confiscated properties in 
     Cuba, which had been removed during the adoption procedure by 
     the Senate last 19 October 1995, have now been reintroduced 
     by the House-Senate Conference. These provisions, if enacted 
     and implemented, risk leading to legal chaos.
       The EU cannot accept the prohibition for US-owned or 
     controlled firms from financing other firms that might be 
     involved in certain economic transactions with Cuba. The EU 
     has stated on many occasions that such an extraterritorial 
     extension of US jurisdiction is unacceptable as a matter of 
     law and policy. Therefore, the EU takes the position that the 
     United States has no basis in international law to claim the 
     right to regulate in any way transactions taking place 
     outside the United States with Cuba undertaken by 
     subsidiaries of US companies incorporated outside the US.
       Nor can the EU we accept the immediate impact of the 
     legislation on the trade interests of the EU by prohibiting 
     the entry of its sugars, syrups and molasses into the US, 
     unless the former certifies that it will not import such 
     products from Cuba. The EU considers such requests, designed 
     to enforce a US policy which is not applied by the EU, as 
     illegitimate. Such measures would appear unjustifiable under 
     GATT 1994 and would appear to violate the general principles 
     of international law and sovereignty on independent states.
       In these circumstances, the EU would appreciate it if you 
     would inform Congress that the EU is currently examining the 
     compatibility of this legislation with WTO rules and that the 
     EU will react to protect all its legitimate rights.
       The EU is also worried by the provisions that would lead 
     the US to unilaterally reduce payments to international 
     institutions, such as the IMF. This measure would run counter 
     to collectively agreed upon obligations via-a-vis those 
     institutions and would represent an attempt to influence 
     improperly their internal decision-making processes.

[[Page H1731]]

       The EU also finds most worrying the reduction of US 
     assistance to the Russian Federation as a possible 
     consequence of this legislation. Such a measure would not 
     only weaken Western leverage in favour of reforms, but comes 
     at a critical junction in time.
       Finally the EU objects, as a matter of principle, to those 
     provisions that seek to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction 
     of US Federal courts over disputes between the US and foreign 
     companies regarding expropriated property located overseas. 
     This measure would risk complicating not only third country 
     economic relations with Cuba, but also any transitional 
     process in Cuba itself. Furthermore, these provisions offer 
     the possibility to US firms for legal harassment against 
     foreign competitors that choose to do business in Cuba. The 
     threat of denial of a US visa for corporate officers and 
     shareholders accentuates this concern.
       The EU considers that the collective effects of these 
     provisions have the potential to cause grave damage to 
     bilateral EU-US relations. For these reasons, the EU urges 
     the US Administration to use its influence to seek 
     appropriate modifications to the proposed legislation, or if 
     this should not be feasible, to prevent it from being 
     enacted.
       Should the legislation be adopted, the European Union 
     intends to defend its legitimate interests in the appropriate 
     international fora.
       The Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the 
     European Commission avail themselves of this opportunity to 
     renew to the Department of State the assurances of their 
     highest consideration.
                                                                    ____


 Statement by Alfredo Duran, President of Cuban Committee for Democracy

       The recent shooting of two civilian planes which ended 
     tragically with the loss of four lives was unquestionably an 
     overreaction--once again--by the Government of Cuba. While 
     President Clinton was correct in criticizing and imposing 
     certain sanctions for the Cuban Government's disregard for 
     international law, he should seriously ponder whether he is 
     not now overreacting with his own endorsement of the Helms-
     Burton bill.
       The Helms-Burton bill, with echoes of the Platt amendment, 
     will, among other consequences, seriously affect the 
     relations between the United States and Cuba for many years 
     to come; violate the spirit, if not also the laws, of free 
     trade and irritate major allies of the United States; deviate 
     the attention of the world from Cuba's own excesses to the 
     United States embargo, a policy which most nations have 
     consistently criticized; and crippled the United States 
     President's ability to act with flexibility to changes in 
     Cuba.
       Mr. Chairman, it will also further weaken the United 
     States' leverage with the Government of Cuba in the future; 
     slow down the mutually beneficial contacts between the people 
     of Cuba and the United States; and exacerbate the divisions 
     already existing between Cubans in the island and Cuban 
     Americans.
       Those of us who wish for a peaceful transition within Cuba 
     appeal both to the Cuban Government to rethink their 
     disregard for international norms and to the United States 
     Government not to fall into the trap of overreacting to an 
     overreaction.
                                                                    ____


 Statement of Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, President of Cambio Cubano/Cuban 
                      Change, to the U.S. Congress

       At a very early age, I learned about war. My brother Jose 
     Antonio was killed fighting against fascism at age 16 in 
     Spain. I was only five years old. My other brother, Carlos, 
     was killed at the age of 31 in Cuba while trying to overthrow 
     the Batista dictatorship. The tender age of the downed pilots 
     makes me think of my dead brothers. The scars from premature 
     death are painful to bear.
       Nothing can excuse Cuba's bravado in downing the two 
     Cessnas in which four young Cubans perished. However, this is 
     a time for restraint and reason on both sides. US foreign 
     policy relations must not be held hostage by extremists who 
     seek to provoke and intensify an already tense atmosphere 
     between both countries.
       The time has come to engage Cuba in negotiations. If the US 
     has understood, accepted, and promoted democratization in 
     other countries, it is incomprehensible to now continue to 
     treat Cuba with rigidity and inflexibility.
       This is the moment to put into practice more creative and 
     pragmatic policies which are truly conducive to a peaceful 
     solution to the Cuban situation.
       After twenty-two years in a Cuban prison, I was exiled 
     abroad. Last year, I returned to Havana and called for civil 
     and political liberties, for my right to return and continue 
     my political work there, including my right to establish an 
     office of Cambio Cubano in my country.
       These objectives are possible only through a national 
     reconciliation, rather than through a failed policy of 
     confrontation. The peace for which we yearn is not easy. Most 
     good things are as difficult as they are rare.
       I urge the US Congress to defeat the Helms-Burton 
     legislation.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the 
gentleman, aside from killing Fidel Castro with some kind of a paper 
resolution, what would the gentleman do over this latest incident?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would put the 
strongest sanctions I could. Helms-Burton is not the answer.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, what sanctions would the 
gentleman impose?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Anything else, but Helms-Burton is not the answer. Let 
me tell the gentleman, every Member who votes for Helms-Burton, I bet 
within a couple of months would say, why did I do it?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and on the 
conference report on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I 
commend Chairman Solomon, Chairman Gilman, and Chairman Burton for all 
their hard work on this important bill and welcome President Clinton's 
newfound support.
  I would like to take this opportunity and offer my condolences to the 
families of the murdered pilots. They should know that their loved 
one's efforts in helping those seeking freedom was an inspiration to us 
all. Their dedication and bravery will not be forgotten.
  This latest incident, once again, illustrates Castro's disregard for 
human rights and disrespect for international law. Along with 
repressing basic freedoms, Castro routinely and unmercifully persecutes 
anyone who speaks out against his barbaric practices. Now is the time 
to tighten the sanctions. Only by ending Castro's access to foreign 
capital will we bring about positive change in Cuba.
  Since the cutoff of Soviet assistance in 1991, Castro has launched a 
desperate campaign to lure foreign investment in Cuba. This allows him 
to generate hard currency--the means necessary to sustain his 
repressive apparatus. We must not allow Castro to prop up his failed 
government with foreign investment in properties--many of which were 
confiscated from U.S. citizens.
  The conference report permits American citizens to recover damages 
from foreign investors who are profiting from their stolen property in 
Cuba. This will block the foreign investment lifeline which keeps 
Castro's regime alive.
  The conference report also creates a right for U.S. citizens to sue 
parties that knowingly and intentionally traffic in confiscated 
property of U.S. nationals. Moreover, it denies entry into the United 
States of any such individual. These are logical steps which will 
compel international companies to make a fundamental choice: ignore 
U.S. property rights and engage in business as usual with Castro or 
maintain access to the world's largest market.
  While I strongly support increased economic sanctions to force Castro 
from power, I also support efforts to help any new effort which 
enhances the self-determination of the Cuban people.
  The conference report requires the President to develop a plan to 
provide economic assistance to both a transitional government and a 
duly elected Government in Cuba. These provisions send a clear signal 
to the Cuban people that the United States is prepared to assist in the 
revival of Cuba's economy and to build a mutually beneficial bilateral 
relationship.
  Cuba is at a crossroads. This report tightens the economic noose 
around Castro and focuses our country's energies on bringing 
fundamental change in Cuba.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that we are 
taking up this legislation today in the

[[Page H1732]]

manner in which we are. I will attempt to answer the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton] as well. I think his question is a good one: What 
would you do in place of this legislation?
  Let me say what I think we should do. I think we should get rid of 
the embargo entirely, open it up. We are dealing with a nation here who 
shares western values. I think if we dropped the embargo entirely, Mr. 
Burton is shaking his head, I wish we had more time. We could have an 
exchange at some later point, perhaps in special orders or something of 
that nature. I do not associate the people of Cuba with the government 
any more than the people around the world do necessarily with the 
government officials that we have here. I think that the way to end the 
dictatorship in Cuba is to open up our trade completely. I think the 
regime would fall very, very quickly under that kind of circumstance.
  But, because my time is limited, unfortunately, I am trying in good 
faith to give an answer to Mr. Burton on that. If we go with the 
legislation that is before us and allow the suing to take place, who 
are going to bring into the suit? Will Meyer Lansky come back then and 
the Mafia? Is that who we want to put back in charge?
  I come from an island people. We understand what colonial domination 
is all about. I can tell my colleagues how my interest in Cuba first 
started because the oligarchs in Cuba that controlled sugar and slave 
labor there, which competed with our free collective bargaining 
individuals in Hawaii that produced sugar. We understand completely 
what was involved in the 1950s. I do not want to hear crocodile tears 
at this stage about dictatorships. I understand exactly what is taking 
place in Cuba there.
  If my colleagues want to bring the Mafia back in and they want to 
bring the people who supported those kinds of people back into power, 
that is up to them. They can do that. But do not try and sell us at 
this particular time that somehow our allies, then, in Mexico and 
Canada are going to be subject to some kind of sanction. If we want to 
get rid of NAFTA, it is OK with me. I voted against it. But if that is 
going to be the case, it seems to me that to bring the kind of pressure 
that at least one of the individuals speaking in favor of the 
legislation brought to bear today, then I think that we are going to 
have to abrogate the NAFTA agreement as well. I mean, this may be the 
vehicle for doing it. I do not know. I had not thought about it 
previously.
  So when Senator Dole indicates, as previous discussant related to us, 
that U.S. policy has consequences around the world, I would say that is 
true. And I think our relationship with Canada and Mexico is a case in 
point.
  I think that if we are talking about whether or not we are in control 
of our own foreign policy, I think we have to take into account whether 
or not these provocations do occur and whether or not we are going to 
sanction it. If it is the policy of the United States to allow these 
flights to take place, then we should say so. I think we should say so 
up front.
  We are meeting in the Committee on National Security today, and we 
have had a discussion already in terms of our authorization as to what 
our policy should be or not be with respect to Cuba. And if it is our 
idea to have a provocation of the Cuban Government at this time, then I 
think we need to say so. And if that is what we want to do, go to war 
with Cuba, I think we ought to talk about whether or not we are going 
to go to war with Beijing. Are we going to encourage the same kind of 
approach from Taiwan toward the mainland of China? I think we have to 
be very, very careful here with respect to whether we allow the emotion 
of the moment to rule the legislation which comes before us in the wake 
of it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I close my remarks and indicate that at some 
time in the future, I would be delighted to discuss what we should do. 
And I do not think, unfortunately, the legislation before us today 
allows that kind of discussion.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
[Libertad] Act of 1996 has three constructive objectives: to bring an 
early end to the Castro regime by cutting off capital that keeps it 
afloat; to start planning now for United States support to a democratic 
transition in Cuba; and, to 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.
  This legislation charts a course for responsible normalization of 
United States-Cuba relations under specific conditions. And, in the 
meantime, it helps protect the property of U.S. citizens until they can 
reclaim it under a democratic government.
  Mr. Speaker, ``libertad'' means ``freedom'' for the Cuban people, 
literally and figuratively.
  By approving this Libertad Act with wide bipartisan support, Congress 
will demonstrate our solidarity with the Cuban people who are 
struggling to be free.
  We are sending an unambiguous response to Castro in the wake of his 
murderous attack on February 24 that cost the lives of four innocent 
Americans. And we express our condolences to their families.
  Mr. Burton and I have worked with a strong bipartisan coalition that 
has reached out to the administration in crafting this conference 
report.
  We are pleased that the administration has publicly agreed to back 
the Burton-Helms bill. And, I ask that President Clinton's March 5 
letter to Speaker Gingrich endorsing this measure be made part of the 
Record today.
  With the tireless work of Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Representative 
Diaz-Balart, Representative Menendez, and Representative Torricelli, we 
have fashioned a sound piece of legislation that advances one of our 
most critical foreign policy objectives in this hemisphere.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and this worthy 
bill.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Coloroado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation comes to the floor today 
propelled by our collective outrage over the recent murderous attack by 
the Castro regime on two defenseless and clearly marked civilian 
aircraft. Civilized people everywhere are rightly outraged by this 
brutal act and by the disregard that the Castro regime has shown for 
human life and human rights.
  It is long past time for Castro and his paranoid regime to follow 
Brezhnev, Honeker, Ceausescu, and all the other failed Marxist 
dictators into the dust-bin of history. There can be no disagreement 
about that.
  But does it follow that there should be no disagreement about this 
bill? Emphatically, it does not. In fact, this legislation is a product 
of outdated dogma about how to fight Communist dictators, just as much 
as Castro is an outdated Communist dictator.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to ratchet up the already tight Cuban 
embargo. That may be popular as a way to register our moral outrage at 
Castro's latest actions. Some may even believe it will help push his 
regime over the edge.
  To the contrary, passing this bill is exactly the wrong thing to do 
right now.
  What is our self-interest here? What should be our objective? It 
should be the peaceful transition to a Cuba with an open economic 
system and a democratic political system.
  What is the best way to get there? I think our recent experience is 
instructive, our experience with the Soviet Union, with Eastern Europe, 
with China and Vietnam.
  That experience is one of modest success achieved through a policy of 
tough-minded engagement: Engagement economically with trade and 
investment, showing the virtues of our economic system on the ground, 
in person, in their face. Engagement ideologically, promoting the free 
exchange of information and people with unimpeded travel. And, 
engagement culturally, through cultural exchange and humanitarian 
involvement. That's the policy that ultimately contributed to the 
undoing of the repressive regimes of the old Soviet empire and to 
economic reforms--admittedly incomplete--underway in China and Vietnam.

[[Page H1733]]

  In contrast, this bill is just another iteration of an outmoded 
ideology: mindless isolation, the same failed approach that has been 
applied to Cuba for more than 30 by years.
  What are we afraid of here? A small island nation with no stragegic 
allies and a failed economic and political system?
  This Congress chose a policy of engagement with China even though 
China poses much a greater risk to us than Cuba. We did this precisely 
because we know that political, economic, and cultural engagement holds 
out the best hope of avoiding those very risks, whether economic or 
military.
  This bill takes United States policy in Cuba in the wrong direction. 
It is absolutely contrary to the long-term interests of the United 
States. It will increase the prospect of a violent convulsion in Cuba 
that would be a real security and immigration crisis for the United 
States.
  I do not agree with the President that this isolationist bill is an 
acceptable measure, even in response to such an offensive provocation 
by the Cuban Government as occurred last week. Tightening the embargo 
will only play into Castro's hands, helping him to keep his people in a 
state of repression and deprivation.
  As in the case of our other former, and hold-over adversaries from 
the cold war era, the best policy for the United States to follow for 
its own self-interest, and to encourage reform of China's political and 
economic system, is a policy of tough-minded engagement.
  Let us learn from recent history, Mr. Speaker. Let us have the 
courage to say ``no'' to narrow ideology, to say ``no'' to special-
interest group domination of United States policy toward Cuba, and 
``no'' to this bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida for yielding time to me, and I rise today in strong support of 
this rule and the conference report on the Helms-Burton Libertad bill.
  Today, at long last, we discuss this bipartisan legislation knowing 
that the President has agreed to sign it when it reaches his desk--
unlike too many other important measures that have run into his veto 
pen. Today's vote culminates a long effort to educate the 
administration about the true nature of the Castro dictatorship. I must 
point out with some wonderment that it took the brutal tragic death of 
innocent American citizens to finally convince the Clinton 
administration that Fidel Castro really does not operate by rules of 
civilized conduct and he is never to be trusted. The Clinton 
administration, it seems, had to find this out the hard way--having 
toyed with a misguided policy of appeasement right up until those 
humanitarian relief planes were shot out of the sky. It is my hope that 
those who oppose this bill will soon come to the same realization that 
President Clinton has: That our only policy option is to clamp down on 
Fidel Castro once and for all. He is the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put U.S. policy with Castro back 
on track--back to being tough with concrete action designed to restore 
democracy and encourage Castro's departure from power. We know from 
what happened in Haiti under the Clinton administration's policy of 
misery that properly run and fully supported embargoes can have serious 
impact. In Haiti, the Clinton administration's policy did damage that 
Haiti will be trying to recover from--and United States taxpayers will 
probably be paying for--for decades. But the Haiti experience should 
have taught us that, once and embargo is made the policy of choice, it 
has to be enforced with a clear focus on the enemy target and a firm 
commitment to seeing it through to its desired end. We ask our allies 
help. This legislation is designed to achieve that goal. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Libertad conference report and I look forward 
to the day when the United States can once again embrace a free and 
democratic Cuba.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the 
House, and I guess, since this is an emotional issue votes will not be 
changed, but I am in opposition to this rule, and most of what I am 
saying I hope I am saying for the Record as opposed to being against 
the deep feelings of my friends and colleagues that are in support of 
the rule as well as the bill.
  A couple of weeks ago the President of the United States reviewed 
this bill, and he had indicated that he had serious reservations about 
this bill interfering with our foreign policy, our trade policy, about 
it abusing our court system, in that he said in its present form he 
would veto it. A couple of weeks ago the Helms-Burton bill was, I think 
politically speaking, put on the back burner in this body. A couple of 
weeks ago all the Republican candidates were dealing with the issues 
that they thought were important, but democracy in Cuba never got on 
anybody's agenda. What happened between that time and this political 
legislative rush to do this as fast as we can for democracy? What 
happened?
  Four dedicated Americans, loving democracy enough to risk their 
lives, continued on a mission that went beyond just searching for those 
who may be lost in the ocean trying to reach the United States, few as 
they may be in recent days. They were determined to make certain that 
the issue of the overthrow of Castro and the restoration of democracy 
in Cuba would not be forgotten. I do not care what my colleagues' 
beliefs are; if they believe that was sincere and they did these 
things, we have to pray for their souls and their families and not 
ignore the courage that they had in doing these things, not once, but 
many times, in order to focus attention on the injustices, that were 
being committed in Cuba.
  Did they believe that they would be shot down as civilian planes with 
no weapons? I would hope that no one would believe that in this world 
that we have people who would say, ``Because you have provoked us, 
because you have made us angry, that we are prepared to blow up your 
planes and to murder you,'' and so the United States leads the world in 
terms of outrage in saying whether those planes were over Cuba, within 
12 miles, outside of 12 miles, we just do not do this to people.
  If one wakes up in the middle of the night and they think there is a 
burglar that intruded in their house, and they pick up a gun, and they 
go, and then they see it is a child that is fleeing without an arm, 
they may have the legal right, they may have the emotional feeling, but 
they do not shoot down a defenseless child no matter how much that 
child provoked them. No matter how we measure the patriotism, the 
dedication, of these pilots, nobody can make the accusation that they 
were a threat to the security of the people in Cuba.

  So we all have to do the best we can to show not just Castro but 
anyone that thinks this way it is an outrageous thing to do, but how do 
we respond as a civilized nation? Do we run there, and grab Castro, and 
shake him, and say never again? No, our response is that we are going 
to enact this bill. We are going to show him how tough we are.
  And what do we do in this bill? We say that we are going to not only 
tighten the trade embargo against Cuba, but we are going to take it out 
of the hands of the President. Who can trust the President? We have got 
to make it statutory. We have got to say when it comes to embargoes in 
foreign countries we know best, not Presidents know what is best. And 
what else are we going to do? We are going to say that our embargo was 
so effective that once we tightened the screws on our so-called 
friends, they will capitulate to this United States pressure and join 
in with us, as they did in South Africa and Haiti, and say this is the 
moral and the right thing to do and then collapse goes Castro.
  Give me a break. This bill has nothing to do with Castro. It has 
everything to do with our friends and our voters in Florida.

[[Page H1734]]

  Do my colleagues think for 1 minute that the Organization of American 
States is going to say I was outraged, too; please let me break every 
agreement that I have with Cuba? Do my colleagues think that the World 
Trade Organization is going to say since we have a murderer as a 
dictator, all the investments we have in Cuba, we got to tell them to 
forget it. Do my colleagues think the United Nations is going to do 
anything except condemn the United States in trying to perpetuate our 
domestic and, indeed, to stretch the word, our foreign policy, to 
include them? No. The truth of the matter is that we do not care what 
they believe. We are doing this because we feel good about doing it, 
and do my colleagues know why we are doing it? Because we got the votes 
to do it. And do my colleagues know why the President is doing it? 
Because he wants the votes to continue to be President.
  I tell my colleagues this: The people who want democracy in Cuba, do 
not change those ways, do what feels good, but let some of us who want 
democracy and freedom at least try some different way to do it. I just 
do not believe that they are doing anything except saying to the poor 
people in Cuba who are hopeless, who are jobless, who are suffering, 
who are in misery, who need food, who need medicine; do my colleagues 
think for 1 minute that they are marching up and down the streets of 
Havana saying, ``My God, Castro, you made it worse for us, now the 
whole world is condemning us''? No, Castro is saying their misery and 
their pain is due to Americans who singularly have an embargo against 
them. Is he blaming himself for the failures that he has had in the 
socialistic communistic government? No.
  So who is supposed to be responsible for everything that is going 
bad? The embargo. And what do we say? Forget what you see, what you 
hear, it is working, man; it is working, man. And it is working so 
well, all we have to do is tighten this, and then all of the Cubans 
will be in such misery and pain and hunger.
  Do my colleagues know what they are going to do? No. What will they 
do? They are going to organize and revolt. Oh, my God. Meaning they are 
going to overthrow the government? Oh, yes, hungry and sick and tired, 
without rifles, they are going to this fat, overtrained, overfed army 
and say, ``Oh, thank God, the Americans have made life miserable for 
me, we are getting rid of you.''
  I tell my colleagues one thing: If we do reach these people, we will 
get rid of them, and they will be on the rafts, and they will be on the 
boats, and they will be in Miami, but they will not be fighting that 
Communist Cuban Army in Havana. My colleagues can believe that.
  But I say this: As we bleed for the families of those heroic pilots, 
I see something new happening here, too. We are, indeed, encouraging 
other people that, if they do not like our foreign policy, they just 
get themselves an airplane, buddy. Just put in for a flight plan. Just 
go where they want to go. And when they say the jets are coming, then 
say, hey, forget it, I am dedicated.
  Let us see what is happening in Ireland. As my colleagues know, let 
us put out some pamphlets there. Let us go to the Middle East and see 
whether or not they are really prepared to really move the peace 
process. Let us check out Korea, North and South, and Vietnam, and let 
us legislate it, do not let the President with his flip-flop self 
determine 1 day what is good and what is bad. The Congress knows, and 
who knows better than the Republican majority here about everything?
  So this is not a contract for America. This is a contract for the 
world. If you are for democracy, squeeze the people that are hungry, 
stop the food and medicine from going, tell American businessmen not in 
Cuba will you invest, and at the same time support trade in NAFTA, 
support it in GATT, support it all over the world, but do not support 
it in Cuba.
  I suggest to my colleagues I have the same outrage for murderers that 
they do, but I hope this country does not embark on having this 
concrete and firmed up as what we do as a nation and as a Congress when 
we are outraged.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], my distinguished friend and colleague.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me, as well as for his strong leadership role in the passing of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 927. This 
legislation is designed to hasten the demise of the Castro 
dictatorship, the last undemocratic regime in our hemisphere, which for 
over three decades has subjected the Cuban people to untold repression 
and misery.
  Over the past month, we have observed the voices of those calling for 
a softer policy with Castro fall strangely silent as the dictatorship 
increases its repression against the people of the island. Not only has 
the regime increased its harassment and intimidation against the 
growing independent movements in journalism and in other dissident 
sectors inside Cuba, but the regime's brutal shoot down last week of 
two civilian unarmed aircraft with U.S. citizens aboard showed us that 
after three decades the Castro tyranny remains as bloody and ruthless 
as it ever has been.
  The Helms-Burton bill will penalize those who have become Castro's 
new patron saviors-foreign investors who callously traffick in American 
confiscated properties in Cuba to profit from the misery of the Cuban 
worker. These investors care little that they are dealing with a tyrant 
who promotes terrorism, drug trafficking, and denies the most basic of 
human liberties to the people of Cuba.
  This legislation takes a strong stance against those immoral 
investors by denying them participation in our United States markets, 
if they decide to invest in Cuba and prop up the dictator in this way.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us today in supporting this 
legislation, thus helping Cubans in their struggle for freedom. This 
bill will hurt Castro, it will help the Cuban people, and it will send 
a strong message to those immoral foreign investors. Stop helping the 
dictator by trafficking in confiscated United States property.
  The Helms-Burton bill goes to the heart of the means by which the 
Cuban tyrant is now financing his repression of the Cuban people; 
namely, immoral foreign investment. After the millions of dollars in 
Soviet subsidies to Castro ended, the Cuban dictator and his Communist 
thugs have tried to obtain the hard currency necessary to keep 
themselves in power. Foreigners are allowed to invest in Cuba, and many 
do, in properties which are illegally stolen from American citizens.
  In this new slave-like economy, designed by the Castro regime, the 
Cuban people are not able to participate. Instead they are pawns of the 
regime and of the foreign investors who are attracted to invest in Cuba 
because of the low wages and the repression against the Cuban worker. 
The foreign investors pay Castro in dollars. Castro pays the Cuban 
worker in devalued Cuban pesos at a small percentage of what was given 
to the communist dictator.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for those four murdered pilots, Armando Alejandre, 
Mario de la Pena, Pablo Morales, and Carlos Costa, as well as for the 
thousands and thousands of unknown Cubans who have given their lives to 
bring liberty to their island that we will pass this legislation today.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, it is not only the correct policy to follow, but a moral 
imperative to assure that the ultimate sacrifice paid by these 
thousands of freedom fighters will not be in vain.
  At times it seems unreal and implausible that only 90 miles from the 
shores of this great democracy lies an enslaved nation ruled by a 
ruthless Communist dictatorship, a nation whose citizens are denied the 
most basic human, civil, and political rights. In my native homeland of 
Cuba, no one but the dictator has any rights at all, an island which 
once had the highest standard of living in Latin America but where its 
citizens today struggle day to day for the bare necessities needed to 
survive.
  Mr. Speaker, it might seem unreal that such a state could exist a few 
miles from our shores, but of course, unfortunately, it does. The 
thousands of Cuban rafters who have risked their lives in the Florida 
Straits to escape

[[Page H1735]]

the Castro dictatorship are a vivid reminder of this sad reality. The 
thousands of dissidents who have been harassed, imprisoned, and indeed 
killed are testament to the lack of respect for human rights by the 
Castro regime.
  Most recently, the premeditated cold-blooded murder over 
international waters of four pilots in a humanitarian mission, three of 
them American citizens, one a Vietnam veteran who served two tours of 
duty, has awakened the world that in Cuba, the rule of death and fear 
prevailed over the rule of democratic law and order.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are now considering will go a long 
way toward helping the Cuban people reestablish the rule of democracy 
and law for which they have battled for 37 years to achieve. I thank 
the gentleman once again for his strong leadership role in making this 
legislation possible as well as many of our colleagues on the 
Democratic side of the aisle.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a distinguished new Member of the House.
  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report and the rule, and I commend the leadership shown by the chairman 
of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez].
  I also want to applaud President Clinton for finally having voiced 
support for the Cuban Liberty and Domestic Solidarity Act. It is 
unfortunate that it took the cold-blooded murder of unarmed American 
citizens to awaken the President to the harsh reality of the morally 
reprehensible Castro regime.
  Fidel Castro is a thug, an international outlaw. His 37-year reign 
has been noteworthy for its brutality and its unrelenting resistance to 
individual liberty and freedom. The misery that has been suffered by 
the Cuban people at the hands of Fidel Castro is one of the world's 
great tragedies. This legislation will tighten the existing United 
States embargo against Cuba, and it protects the rights of United 
States citizens and businesses whose property has been confiscated 
unlawfully by the Castro regime. It is a good bill and it is long 
overdue. I urge passage.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy that I got some time from the Republican 
side, since I have been told today we cannot get any time from the 
Democratic side to speak in favor of the bill, despite the fact that a 
third of the Democratic Caucus voted for this bill last fall.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise not to apologize for Fidel Castro, not to coddle 
him, not to rationalize or justify whatever he has done. The fact of 
the matter is that I am really offended when I hear my colleagues refer 
to this issue as ``This is about voters in Florida.'' To say that is to 
say that seeking peace in Ireland or giving a visa to Gerry Adams is 
about Irish voters, or that our collective outrage against the barbaric 
acts that have taken place in Israel is about Jewish voters, or, for 
that matter, to say that our movements to end apartheid in South 
Africa, to bring democracy to Haiti, and our efforts to give relief in 
Somalia were about African-American voters. It is an insult to this 
community.
  This is about democracy. It is about promoting human rights. It is 
not about votes of some group in some State or States. That is why we 
had a strong bipartisan vote. That is why yesterday in the Senate, 74 
Senators joined in favor of creating democracy in Cuba. That is why 294 
Members of this House last fall voted for it, with a third of the 
Democratic Caucus joining an overwhelming number of the Republican 
Party because they understand the realities.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that in fact when we hear about creating 
peaceful change, we are all for peaceful change. That is our goal. But 
what has Castro's response been to peaceful efforts within Cuba, like 
those of the Concilio Cubano, a group of 120 organizations who promote 
peaceful democratic change in Cuba? Our Members go there and visit 
Cuba. They have a cigar with Fidel. They enjoy some time there. And as 
soon as they leave, these people get arrested.
  What happened in the week preceding the killing of the four American 
citizens? What happened? These people who seek peaceful democratic 
change by Cubans in Cuba, not about some bygone era that people like to 
allude to, the response to their request which they made to the regime 
for a national meeting, what we enjoy here in the United States, to 
simply sit down and say, ``How do we move towards democratic change 
within Cuba,'' what was the response? One hundred of them were arrested 
and imprisoned. Dozens of others are under house arrest. Women were 
strip-searched so they would be intimidated from participating in the 
organization. That is the answer to peaceful democratic change in Cuba.
  For those who believe in some romanticism, that when the people go 
and say, Please, we want to move towards democracy, Fidel is going to 
act the right way, they have seen it. For those who keep saying that 
this is after the cold war, I agree, it is after the cold war, but 
nobody told Mr. Castro.
  The fact of the matter is he has shown us what he is willing to do 
with the third largest military in the entire Western Hemisphere. He 
represses his people who ask for peaceful democratic change, and we are 
silent for the most part. Those who say they are for democracy in Cuba, 
peaceful democratic change, why are they not speaking out on behalf of 
the Concilio Cubano?
  What is the response to four U.S. citizens flying in international 
airspace, unquestioned by our Government through all of their 
intelligence that they were in international airspace? This is 
the response, Mr. Speaker. Let me read the transcript that Madeleine 
Albright presented to the United Nations: ``Cuban fighters, a small 
white and blue Cessna that they were tracking, and their excitement was 
clearly palpable * * * `The target is in sight, the target is in 
sight,' the small aircraft, the MiG pilot radioed back to his ground 
controller. `It is flying at a low altitude. Give me instructions,' 
said the pilot. The answer was `Fire. Authorized to destroy;' '' not to 
warn, not to try to seek under international law to move them, but, 
even though they were not in Cuban airspace, no, to destroy.

  Thirty-three seconds later, the response from the MiG 29 pilot was 
``We took out his * * *'' and I will not add the expletive. ``That one 
won't mess around with us anymore.'' Two and one-half minutes later 
another pilot sighting the second Cessna said, ``Give me the 
authority.'' He was responded, ``You are authorized to destroy it,'' 
and it was destroyed. ``Fatherland or death, the other is down also.'' 
These are the transcripts that our U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations presented to the world.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this bill is bipartisan. It 
has the support of the President. President Clinton sent a letter to 
the Speaker of this House saying that he supports the bill, and urges 
all Members to vote on behalf of it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just in the last century, Mr. Speaker, after the Cuban people were 
fighting almost 100 years for their freedom from Spanish colonialism, 
it was the United States that stood by their side and helped them 
achieve freedom and independence. History has a way of repeating 
itself. Now it is the American people through their Government, and 
today speaking through their Congress and the President, standing with 
the Cuban people against the worst oppressor in the history of this 
hemisphere.
  So we think of the hundreds of political prisoners now imprisoned, 
the thousands who have been killed, including the American citizens 
just a few days ago. We dedicate this legislation to them. It is going 
to be a great sign of solidarity with the Cuban people. I would ask my 
colleagues to support the rule and support the conference report.

[[Page H1736]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. DIAZ-BALART. 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 Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 347, 
nays 67, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               YEAS--347

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--67

     Abercrombie
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Evans
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnston
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Studds
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Archer
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Durbin
     Frelinghuysen
     Hayes
     Hunter
     LaFalce
     McCarthy
     Quillen
     Sisisky
     Spence
     Stokes
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  1334

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. McCarthy for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

  Mr. FLAKE, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CLYBURN, and 
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up 
the conference report on 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution 
370, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Monday, March 4, 1996, page H1645.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. 
Hamilton] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the 
position of the gentleman from New York in relation to this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure, and I compliment the 
committee and the sponsors on bringing it to this Chamber for a vote.
  We all know what Castro has brought to the land of Cuba. This measure 
send a firm message that we, in this body, stand for freedom and 
democracy in Cuba. There are so many violations of human rights and 
rules of decency inflicted on the Cuban people by Castro. Further, we 
abhor the tragedy he caused regarding the American airplanes just a few 
days ago.
  Let us Americans stand together, let us vote for this bill and send 
an unequivocal message that we stand for democracy and freedom for the 
Cuban people.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the conference report Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity [LIBERTAD] Act of 1996.
  This legislation advocates a responsible course to encourage and 
support genuine, fundamental reforms in Cuba.
  And, in the interim, 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.

[[Page H1737]]

  Recently, President Clinton expressed his full support for this bill, 
which he has described as ``a strong, bipartisan response that tightens 
the economic embargo against the Cuban regime and permits us to 
continue to promote democratic change in Cuba.''
  Mr. Speaker, allow me to address several of the concerns raised by 
the few remaining critics of this legislation.
  First, the only companies that will run afoul of this new law are 
those that are knowingly and intentionally trafficking in the stolen 
property of U.S. citizens.
  International law and comity were not conceived to protect the 
corporate scavengers who are profiting at the expense of the Cuban 
people, pilfering the purloined assets of American citizens, and 
propping up a bandit regime.
  To the extent that this act holds us all to higher standards and 
defends universally recognized property rights, international law and 
the rules of the corporate game are improved for the better.
  Second, this act does much more than stiffen sanctions. It outlines a 
reasonable course for normalizing relations with a democratic Cuba. 
And, it offers the Cuban people an early helping hand in making a 
peaceful transition.
  When inevitable change comes to, I am convinced that no country in 
the world will do more than ours to help the Cuban people--and they 
will know that we never sold them out.
  Third, this legislation authorizes immediate United States support 
for Cuban prodemocracy groups and for the immediate deployment of 
international human rights observers and election-monitors in Cuba.
  We simply ask our neighbors in this hemisphere to hold Fidel Castro 
to the same standards that they hold themselves.
  My friends, the day unfettered human rights monitors are allowed to 
inspect Castro's prisons will be one of Castro's last.
  Let us not pass up this historic opportunity to bring about a 
peaceful change in Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference report on H.R. 927.
  Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the March 5, 
1996, letter from President Clinton and the March 5, 1996, letter from 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], regarding this conference report.

                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The Cuban regime's decision on February 
     24 to shoot down two U.S. civilian planes, causing the deaths 
     of three American citizens and one U.S. resident, demanded a 
     firm, immediate response.
       Beginning on Sunday, February 25, I ordered a series of 
     steps. As a result of U.S. efforts, the United Nations 
     Security Council unanimously adopted a Presidential Statement 
     strongly deploring Cuba's actions. We will seek further 
     condemnation by the international community in the days and 
     weeks ahead. In addition, the United States is taking a 
     number of unilateral measures to obtain justice from the 
     Cuban government, as well as its agreement to abide by 
     international law in the future.
       As part of these measures, I asked my Administration to 
     work vigorously with the Congress to set aside our remaining 
     differences and reach rapid agreement on the Cuban Liberty 
     and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act. Last week, we 
     achieved that objective. The conference report is a strong, 
     bipartisan response that tightens the economic embargo 
     against the Cuban regime and permits us to continue to 
     promote democratic change in Cuba.
       I urge the Congress to pass the LIBERTAD bill in order to 
     send Cuba a powerful message that the United States will not 
     tolerate further loss of American life.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Clinton.
                                                                    ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Ways and Means,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     The Speaker, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to you regarding Section 102 
     of the Conference Report on H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and 
     Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, in which the Committee on 
     Ways and Means has a jurisdictional interest.
       Specifically, Section 102 codifies existing Executive 
     Orders and regulations on the Cuban embargo. This provision 
     falls within this Committee's jurisdiction over trade laws 
     affecting imports and revenues. This provision was not 
     included in the version of H.R. 927 that was passed by the 
     House on September 21, 1995, but rather was added in 
     conference.
       In order to expedite the consideration of the conference 
     report, I will not object to the inclusion of Section 102. 
     However, this is being done with the understanding that the 
     Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its 
     jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in 
     the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means in the future.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter. With warm 
     personal regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Archer,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], our able 
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and the 
principal House sponsor of this measure, and that he be permitted to 
manage the balance of the debate on this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
  (Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, we must have an effective policy to 
respond to what Fidel Castro did to four American citizens--killing 
them in international airspace--in contravention of international law. 
That is the first and most important point I have to share with my 
colleagues today.
  In order to have an effective policy, we must have the support of our 
allies, and my objection to this bill is because I am convinced it will 
alienate, instead of bring together, our allies. It will divide, 
instead of uniting them, and the reason it will do that is because this 
bill--in a manner unprecedented in American law--extends the 
extraterritorial reach of the United States's jurisdiction.
  As we go around the world, and I trust that all of my colleagues 
would agree with this, there are very few countries where people say, 
``You know we admire the American civil justice system. We would like 
to have class actions, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, we would like to 
have all of that system in place for our country.'' And the reason is 
that we have a rather extensive and what most foreign countries 
consider onerous rules in our civil justice system.
  What this bill does is to extend for the first time the right for a 
private citizen, not the Government of the United States, but a private 
citizen to bring the full crushing weight of the American civil justice 
system, with discovery, with delays, with attorneys' fees to bear upon 
a private party of another country.
  Now, normally, other country's citizens and corporations follow the 
rule of international law, which is very important for international 
commerce. And if you know the law of your own country and you know the 
law of the country where the investment is located, you are all right. 
You will abide by your own country's law. You will abide by the law of 
the country where your investment is.
  But in this bill today, a person who in good faith accepted title to 
property under the laws of the nation where that property was located 
will have to check not only the laws of that country, his or her own 
laws, but the laws of the United States as well. And I note 
particularly to my colleagues on the majority that we do today what we 
generally abhor: We create a statutory right for a new legal action, 
and we give attorneys' fees only to the prevailing plaintiff. We do not 
give attorneys' fees to the other side. And many of us, I am sure, have 
spoken about the burden of one-sided fee shifting, the ability to haul 
somebody into court, put them to a huge expense, and then say, ``If I 
am wrong, I am sorry. You are still stuck with your legal fees.'' That 
is in this bill, one-sided plaintiff-only litigation, attorneys' fees.

                              {time}  1345

  Now, the problem is that this comes at a time when we need Canada, we

[[Page H1738]]

need Australia, we need Western Europe. The only time sanctions have 
worked, economic effective sanctions have worked, is when we are joined 
by our allies. For over 30 years we have attempted to isolate Cuba, and 
our efforts at economic sanctions have failed because they have been 
only ours and not engaged our allies. In title III of this bill, what 
we do is guarantee we will not have the support of our allies in any 
action that we intend to bring pressure upon the Castro regime.
  What is most critical here is to unite and to present to the Cuban 
Government, the Castro regime, a Europe, North America, a Latin 
America, and an Asia that say that we will no longer trade in your 
goods. Instead, what we have is a direct affront to rules of 
international law on jurisdiction.
  I repeat, there is no precedent for extending American law to 
investments made in another country pursuant to laws of that country. 
Indeed, in 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Banco 
Nacional de Cuba versus Sabbatino that American courts could not 
inquire into the legality of the expropriation acts of the Cuban 
Government when done in Cuba.
  Lastly, what we embark upon today has the most serious ramifications 
for our hope to infuse investment in Eastern Europe. Think about it for 
a moment. If today's law becomes law, if title III stays in this law, 
then anyone who invests in Poland, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia, 
regimes that were formerly Communist, will have to worry that at some 
point the United States will call into question those investments, 
because under the exact same pattern as this law, we extend 
extraterritorially a right of action against someone who traffics or 
profits in property located in another regime, even if it was legal at 
the time.
  I conclude with a plea: We must unite in opposition all countries 
that respect civilized behavior. What happened over the Strait of 
Florida was not civilized behavior. This bill divides. It does not 
unite. I urge a no on this bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, my distinguished 
colleague and great helper and supporter of this bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is really a shame my erudite and 
learned legal scholar colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell], is so incorrect in his interpretation of this legislation. 
First of all, and I heard him before the Committee on Rules yesterday 
where he pointed out that there was unfair treatment of some of the 
parties, I want to point out that on page 35 in title III, the 
provisions of title 28 of the United States Code and the Rules of 
Courts, they apply under this section to the same extent as those 
provisions with regard to any other action.
  The point I am trying to make is this is not an extraterritorial law, 
and when we say we will protect the property of American citizens that 
was stolen by a dictatorship, we are protecting the rights of American 
citizens' property, and not the rights of other citizens from other 
countries. So this is not an extraterritorial piece of legislation.
  Now, the essence of what we are trying to do is to shatter the 
arguments of the opponents of this legislation, that despite the fact 
that they supported embargoes against South Africa and Haiti, they now 
say that we should have a policy of helping the regime through trade 
and through investment in Cuba. It is a double standard that has been 
rejected by this Congress before and that is going to be rejected 
again. It has been rejected by the administration as well.

  The statement that is going to go out today, a bipartisan statement, 
is that with regard to Cuba, just as in the 19th century, the American 
people are standing with the Cuban people against oppression, and are 
not going to stand with the oppressors of the Cuban people. Those 
people will be free. They will remember who their friends were, and 
they will remember who stood ignoring them and using double standards 
in this Congress, like our opponents time and time again, despite even 
murders of American citizens in international waters continue.
  I think it is shameful that people, even after the murder of American 
citizens, still find excuses for Castro, still find pretenses for 
Castro, and get up here and find excuse after excuse after excuse.
  There is no more excuse for murder, that is no more excuse for that 
tyranny. It is time that the American people show their unity, as they 
are going to today in this Congress.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, from a political standpoint, this makes compelling 
sense, but from a substantive foreign policy standpoint, it is 
nonsense.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we won the cold war. This is not the 
way we tore down the Iron Curtain. We are going to be punishing the 
Cuban people, when what we really want to do is punish an antiquated 
despot.
  But there are worse things about this that need to be brought to 
light. In the Baltimore Sun last May, it was reported that this bill 
was largely written by Nick Gutierrez, who represents the sugar mill 
owners and the tobacco industry, and Mr. Ignacio Sanchez, who 
represents the Barcardi Rum Co. Their competitors operate in Cuba, 
specifically the British American Tobacco Co. [BAT] and Perrot Ricard 
rum distillery.
  What is going to happen here is we are not going to shut down these 
industries. What is going to happen is these Cuban-American lawyers are 
going to make settlements out of court so they can get equity 
participation in these competitor firms.
  Now, in the first place, the bill limits legal recourse in American 
courts to people who had property in Cuba during the Batista 
dictatorship that was valued over $50,000 in 1960. There were not many 
Cubans who had property worth more than $50,000 back in 1960 before the 
revolution. You had to be a member of the Batista regime and in good 
standing to do so. But what this does is to enable people who owned 
large property to be able to settle out of court to get a large share, 
or at least a significant share, of the profits of these rum companies 
and tobacco firms currently operating in Cuba. They know they are not 
going to shut down these plants. They don't necessarily want to shut 
them down. They want to own them. They know it is cheaper for these 
Cuban operations to make an out-of-court settlement to comply with this 
new bill. In fact this bill specifically states that ``a lawsuit may be 
brought and settled without the necessity of obtaining any license or 
permission from any agency of the United States.''
  That is what this is all about. What we are going to be doing is 
propping up many of the people who created the environment which caused 
Castro to be able to bring forth the revolution and has enabled him to 
sustain that revolution.
  That is not what we want. We want to enact legislation that will help 
the real people of Cuba, the butchers and the bakers and the 
candlestick makers and all the laborers and farmers. The people who 
were brutally exploited by the Batista regime. Those are the people we 
ought to help, and those people are excluded from this legislation.
  This legislation prevents the United States President from 
effectively helping in a transition to democracy and shuts out 
America's values and its people from exposure to the Cuban people and 
their thirst for the same principles and values.
  This is not good foreign policy. It ought to be defeated on its 
merits.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my colleague, I would say that the 
opponents of this bill asked for the $50,000 threshold. We granted it 
to you and to the administration so we could keep a flood of litigation 
from going into the courts. So we did what you asked. Then you go to 
the well and say we are doing the wrong thing. We just tried to 
accommodate you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen].
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and I thank him for all the help he has given to this cause for 
freedom for the Cuban people.
  Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers have pointed out, those same 
allies who stood with us against undemocratic regimes in Haiti and 
South Africa and Iraq and many other places have

[[Page H1739]]

decided to turn their backs on Cuba, preferring to gain a quick and 
easy dollar from the repression against the people on the island.
  Thankfully, America, a land which has given a second chance to many 
people like myself who escaped Communist tyranny, will once again live 
up to its reputation as the defender of freedom and human rights in the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation reasserts our commitment to the Cuban 
people that this Nation will not engage the Castro dictatorship 
economically or politically. It recognizes that such an unlawful regime 
deserves our rejection, and it further emphasizes our support for the 
Cuban people by outlining a framework to assist a free and democratic 
transitional government in my native homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations recently had 
the opportunity to listen to some of the relatives of the four murdered 
pilots, innocent civilians who were brutally attacked and murdered by 
the Castro regime. They strongly support even tougher sanctions against 
the tyrant. This legislation will help reduce the immoral investments 
by sending a clear message to these foreign investors: If you traffic 
in confiscated American property in Cuba, you will not be able to do 
business as usual in the United States.
  Simply stated, those investors who wish to invest in Cuba have to 
make a choice between becoming accomplices to Castro's dictatorship or 
participating in the United States market. It is unfortunate that many 
of our allies have opposed this legislation, but to them I ask: How 
many more have to be harrassed, arrested or killed before you stop 
helping the Cuban tyrant? Again, to our allies: How many more have to 
give their lives to free their homeland before you desist in engaging 
in commerce and financing Castro's communist dictatorship? To our 
allies, join with us in helping to establish freedom and democracy to 
the enslaved and oppressed people of Cuba.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 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. Speaker, it is very troubling when you come to the 
well and speak and have the full realization that nothing you say will 
finally sway the vote. This bill will pass and the President will sign 
it, because the President has been advised that Miami has votes that he 
can pick up. I will support him in New York, and he has a lot of votes 
in New York. But he has no votes in Miami, and that is the travesty of 
this situation.
  What we have here is more of the same. It is more of a policy that 
has not worked. It has not worked for those of us who feel that the 
Cubans should be left alone to determine their own destiny, and it has 
not worked for those who wanted to get the Cuban Government to throw 
out Fidel Castro and hang him by his toenails.
  Except that this time, Mr. Speaker, as has been stated on this floor, 
it goes further. It goes deeper. Now we are telling our allies that we 
have no respect for their own sovereignty. Not only do we not have any 
respect for the Cuban sovereignty, but now we are going to tell Canada, 
Mexico, and everyone else that they must behave the way we behave.
  When the embargo was the simple embargo, as some people would like to 
think it is, no one in the world supported us. Now that it will try to 
include even our allies, we think that Canada and everyone will jump up 
and say this is a great bill, and Helms and Burton were correct; they 
can save the world for democracy.
  Well, our arrogance is such that we do not care what some of our 
allies say, especially those that used to be our enemies a few years 
ago. But it is interesting to note that the Yeltsin government this 
morning, or last night, said you cannot do this, and we will continue 
to deal with Cuba regardless of what you say, because this is wrong.
  The part that no one wants to mention here, because it is very 
delicate, is the fact that we are not reacting here to the issue in 
general. We are reacting to the downing of two airplanes. And I have 
stood on this floor on various occasions and said that that was an act 
that we should all condemn. But our Government knew those planes were 
flying over on 25 different occasions, and we did nothing. And our 
Government knew that the person who was heading that group flew without 
a license on a couple of occasions, including this last one, where they 
had to turn back.
  We had removed that person's license because we confirmed that that 
group flew over Cuba last July, buzzed the Capitol building, and 
dropped half a million leaflets. That is why we are here today. We are 
not here today and the President is not on board because our desire to 
bring down the Castro government has changed. We are here today because 
the Florida primaries are coming soon, and because people have to play 
up to that whole situation.
  That is sad, Mr. Speaker. For these kinds of comments people like me 
take a lot of heat. But it has to be said, because the truth shall set 
everybody free, and maybe we need to be free as much as other people in 
the Caribbean need to be free.
  Tonight we will stand up and say we are tough. We will continue to 
deal with China, but we are tough on Cuba. We will deal with Vietnam, 
but we will be tough on Cuba. We are going to meet with North Korea, 
but we are tough on Cuba.
  If you really wanted to make a change in the Cuban Government from 
afar, which I think it is none of our business, all you have done is 
taken the leader of that country and wrapped him up in the Cuban flag 
once again as a nationalist hero. Why? Because you are pounding on that 
little island once again.
  So where is the victory? There is no victory. I stand here today more 
than ever saying we are wrong. Instead of doing this, what we should do 
is tomorrow begin to find a way to speak to the Cuban Government. And 
if not on all issues, then why not be fair?

                              {time}  1400

  When there was an immigration problem we spoke about immigration. Let 
us talk about air space now. Let us find out who is telling the truth. 
It might save us from future tragedies.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, this debate would be interesting, and the 
gentleman who just spoke his remarks would have resonance if we were 
not dealing with a first degree murderer. In 1974, at a seminar in 
Virginia, a former ambassador, now long gone to heaven, told me that 
Castro personally executed in the parking lot of a movie theater with 
gunshots, himself pulling the trigger, the young man who had beaten him 
for student union president in the late forties. I could not believe my 
ears. I checked it out with the State Department, Library of Congress. 
It appears to be a fact. Again, he has killed people in cold blooded 
murder.
  I am just back from Bosnia. I do not care what the Europeans do. They 
traded with Haiphong while we were dying for freedom in all of 
Southeast Asia. I do not care what anybody does. Our country has to do 
what is right, and Castro is a first degree murderer. If we want to 
hand him a baseball bat like Dan Rather of CBS and an elite party in 
Manhattan, then you are an accessory in encouraging this first degree 
murderer. He has ordered people beaten to death with baseball bats.
  What an absurd debate.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this is a political piece of 
legislation for fear of offending my friends, so please look into the 
Federal Election Commission, and ignore all of these campaign 
contributions that are pouring in here to Members that have taken the 
position that now is the time to get the murderer through locking up 
the people in Cuba. For those people that are offended because someone 
suggests that it might be political, let me make it clear. The fact 
that the only Democratic opponent I had in a primary in the last 25 
years, that 85 percent of his campaign funds came out of Miami, hey, 
that is not political, and I

[[Page H1740]]

challenge people who would even think that.
  But let us get down to the merits. We are outraged at murder. The 
Speaker is gone; he was here. What do we do about it? Hold the people 
of Cuba American hostage and tell them that they have to fly over Cuba 
and put pamphlets down there in order to get Americans' attention? Cut 
off food, cut off trade, cut off relationships with the people in Cuba 
because we do not like the bum that is running it? Are we in love with 
whoever runs China? As my colleagues know, what are we going to do 
there; put an embargo on China, on North Vietnam or North Korea? No. 
There are no votes in the United States for those people. My colleagues 
know it and I know it.

  They sure got my President's attention; let us see what we can do now 
with these Republican candidates. Let us get it on their agenda, and 
let me congratulate the authors of this historic piece of legislation. 
I thought it was born dead. But the courage of four Americans out of 
Miami has not only given it new life, it has shattered reason and 
common sense as relates to trade and foreign policy.
  Let me say this. This is a done deal. We cannot do anything about it. 
But do me a favor. Tell our brave Cuban Americans in Miami do not risk 
any more lives, mission accomplished, they were brave enough to take 
the gamble, they won, they won, the bill is here, no one challenges it, 
the President. Everything that was bad about this bill, four murderers 
now have corrected it. Wow, is that a legislative history.
  But if people are breaking our laws, breaking international law, 
flying over a country, and we would know it, and we condone it, and we 
do not stop them from saving their own lives, that is morally wrong. 
Are we saying that if these pilots want to go off in a storm against 
their best interests that we cannot stop them? Let us hope that these 
courageous acts of these people who were shot out of the sky are not 
mimicked by other people who believe we have to take it one step 
further.
  Oh, I know there are some of my colleagues waiting for the invasion, 
and if we send that signal that we are ready to go in like Haiti and we 
are ready to do whatever we can do, we may have 4 more pilots saying 
let us do it at least between now and the general election. We made 
mistakes; we will make others.
  I am not nearly as concerned as I appear to be because this law is 
written so poorly we cannot even enforce it.
  They are not going to be angry with us, my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Campbell], not our allies. They are going to feel 
sorry for us. No great Nation like ours can have the arrogance to tell 
some other country what they can do with their foreign trade. And the 
whole idea that this is going to be something to bring down Castro is 
one that I do not think the authors believe.
  After the Democratic victories in November, come, can we not talk 
together?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], my colleague who has done 
so much work in this area.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Burton, for yielding me time on what 
should be the proudest day of his congressional career. The gentleman 
has done great service to the United States and to the people of Cuba 
by bringing this legislation forward, and he has my congratulations.
  I never thought, however, Mr. Speaker, that I would hear a day when 
Members of Congress would come to the floor while the bodies of four 
Americans are still lost in the Straits of Florida, having been 
murdered by Fidel Castro, talking about consideration for Canadian 
investors, worrying about European corporations while there are still 
hundreds of American corporations whose property was stolen from them 
and is being resold; consideration for the Canadian investors, worrying 
about the Spanish companies, extraterritoriality.
  People are going to American courts under this bill, I would say to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], because the Cuban courts 
are unavailable. If they could get their grievances redressed in Cuban 
courts for the last 30 years, they would have gone there. They would 
have gone there. They cannot. So we are opening ours up.
  Consideration for our European allies? If this were an island in the 
Mediterranean, 35 years later, hundreds of people in jail, planes being 
shot down off our coast, do my colleagues think we would be silent? As 
allies, we would have been there demanding elections and freedom and 
taking a stand. Now we are asked to have consideration for our European 
allies.
  If America stands alone for freedom in Cuba, for the rights of our 
own citizens against the jails and the torture, then America has never 
been in better company.
  This legislation is the final in a series of acts in uniting this 
Congress on a bipartisan basis and making clear to the people of Cuba 
there is no reconciliation with Fidel Castro, there is no compromise, 
it is time to bring the dictatorship to a close, and we do this as we 
did against South Africa with apartheid, as we do today against Libya 
and Iraq, by using our economic leverage.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I 
congratulate by bipartisan colleagues and the President of the United 
States for offering his signature, and to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Burton], on this good day.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly get up here and oppose most 
of my Florida colleagues and people who I think mean to be right but, 
unfortunately, their solution is wrong. Let me put it in some 
perspective.
  If my colleagues had come here 34 years ago, as I was privileged to 
do, and listened on this floor and in this well, my colleagues would 
have heard the same speeches made then as we do now. Every day more 
than half of the 1-minute speeches were devoted to trashing Castro and 
the Cuban Government, and in that same session of Congress we passed 
every looney law that one can think of, and most of them are still on 
the books. In fact, they are all still on the books.
  I tried to isolate Cuba and tried to bring down Castro through 
American law. I made those speeches, I voted for those laws, I have 
come to the conclusion that they were a mistake.
  What has happened is that we have empowered Castro to make a villain 
out of the United States, and by villainizing us he has been able to 
acquire the political clout that he needs to keep the kind of control 
he has had in Cuba. We would have been far wiser and much more 
successful had we not isolated Cuba and the Cuban people, and we 
continued to work with them, to listen to them, to trade with them, and 
to have commerce with then. The tourism that we enjoyed with each 
other, the fruits and vegetables that came from the island, all of 
those things; we would have been better off, and the Cubans would have 
been better off, and Castro would have long been gone from power had we 
done that.
  This law, as well-intended as it is, is not going to work. There is a 
good chance that it will boomerang on us. The mistakes we made, 
mistakes that we made here in law, are copied over and over again, and 
this could hurt us more than it will ever hurt Castro. Please vote no.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, during this discussion we have heard a lot 
of debate, and the problem with that debate is that it has been filled 
with Washington voices. If there is anything that we have learned, it 
is that Washington does not know best. So I think the missing 
ingredient in this discussion is, what is it the Cuban people living in 
Cuba think? And in testimony after testimony with the gentleman from 
Indiana, Chairman Burton, what we have heard is that the people at home 
in Cuba think that the way that we solve this problem is not by sending 
tourist dollars to prop up Fidel Castro, not by allowing investment 
dollars to go in and prop up Fidel Castro, but rather by tightening the 
embargo.
  In this case I think we should listen to those voices.

[[Page H1741]]

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Cuban Government committed a reprehensible and 
tragic act when it decided to shoot down two civilian airplanes flown 
by the Cuban-American organization Brothers to the Rescue last month. 
And I send my condolences to the families of the victims.
  The shootdown was a tragedy in so many ways. It could and should have 
been avoided.
  The Cubans could have taken alternate steps. But they specifically 
had warned the United States and Brothers that this would happen. The 
group and the administration did not heed those warnings. The United 
States failed to prevent the group from continuing its flights of fancy 
and I believe the group deliberately ventured into hostile territory to 
provoke a U.S. reaction.
  The shootdown was a tragedy as well because but for that tragic 
action this legislation would not have won the last support that it 
needed. And the legislation is wrong. Instead, we should continue to 
open United States policy toward Cuba--for the benefit of Cuban-
Americans, for American businesses, and for regional peace, and, yes, 
democracy.
  But now Congress is poised to leap backward today as it considers the 
so-called Cuban Liberty Act.
  We should not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation was wrong before the shootdown happened 
and it remains wrong today.
  The shootdown has not provided a single justification for a policy 
that even the administration that now embraces it had just recently 
denounced.
  It is extremely likely that America will be cited for trade 
violations over this act.
  And Fidel Castro, after having outlived over 35 years of U.S. 
embargo, surely will not back down in his remaining years because of 
additional embargoes. United States hostility to Cuba in fact has been 
his political savior.
  Do not listen to those who say that a vote against this bill is a 
vote for Fidel Castro. That is McCarthyism.
  Denounce Cuba in the United Nations, yes. But summon the courage to 
vote against this bill.
  Vote against this bill because it is bad policy. Vote against this 
bill because it violates international trade law and will be an 
international embarrassment for the United States. Vote against this 
bill, my colleagues, because it is contrary to our best interests.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to 
my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, some who are opposed to this legislation argue, against 
all evidence, that conciliation and appeasement will liberalize the 
Castro regime, when 35 years of history has proved exactly the 
opposite. The downing of those airplanes shows that Fidel Castro cares 
only about his power and only about the maintenance of his corrupt 
regime. It was the pretext he was looking for to crack down on Concilio 
Cubano and other democratic organizations that were beginning to flower 
within Cuba. It was not the fault of the U.S. Government. It was not 
the fault of the Americans who flew those planes. It was the fault of 
Fidel Castro, who insisted on perpetuating his dictatorship.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President has agreed to sign this 
legislation, but I am disappointed that he has asked for the power to 
waive its key provisions. I urge the President, do not waive these 
provisions. The time has come to be tough with Fidel Castro. We know 
appeasement does not work. We know only firmness will.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know where the outrage of 
some of my colleagues was when the United States supported the Khmer 
Rouge and when the Khmer Rouge killed 1.2 million Cambodians. I guess 
the Cambodians do not vote in large numbers in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this bill. I oppose this 
bill, even though I know that it has support in this Congress. I oppose 
this bill even though I strongly condemn the Castro government's brutal 
murder of civilian Americans in the Florida Straits. I oppose this bill 
even though I strongly support freedom and democracy for the Cuban 
people.
  I oppose this bill because it is an unworkable solution to an 
intractable problem. The legislation would clog our Nation's courts 
with unenforceable new claims against foreign governments, companies, 
and individuals. It creates a quagmire of inflexibility which we will 
come to regret when needed change comes to Cuba. It would harm 
America's important relationships with our sister democracies abroad. 
It sets a dangerous precedent of rash action instead of reasoned and 
deliberate progress.
  Let us not do serious damage to our own national interest in response 
to atrocities which we universally abhor and condemn. Vote against this 
conference report.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to 
my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan effort 
to change the direction of the dictatorship in Cuba. My district 
represents the Florida Keys, and when I stand in Key West, FL, I am 
closer to Havana than I am to Miami. I live about 40 miles north of 
Miami.
  This is not an esoteric philosophical issue in south Florida. This 
truly is a local issue, because we have a better sense, I think, than 
most of this country, unfortunately, of what is going on in an evil 
empire 90 miles from our shore, an empire that really is in the world's 
Hall of Fame of atrocities today, not yesterday, not just killing four 
Americans and planes, but torturing and killing the civilians that live 
in their own country. That is the empire that is 90 miles from our 
shore.
  What does this bill do? This bill specifically gives a legal right of 
action to Americans whose property was taken illegally. That is the 
substance of this bill. The thrust behind it is to prevent other 
people, other nationals in other countries, from investing in Cuba, to 
try to end the empire that exists today. The investments of Canadians, 
of Spaniards, have not changed the empire, the evil empire in Cuba. It 
goes on today with their investments.
  What we need to do is we need to strangle those investments. We need 
to end those investments, and let the people of Cuba know that there is 
hope, that the dictatorship, that the Castro dictatorship which is 
holding on by its fingernails is going to end, and that this Congress, 
the center of hope and democracy and freedom in the world, is part of 
that effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues in a short time will join 
me, both Democrats and Republicans throughout the country, in 
acknowledging that we want freedom in Cuba, we want a free society, a 
free economy, a freedom of thought, a freedom of action that this bill 
will be part of creating.
  I can think of nothing that I am prouder of as part of my legislative 
career than to have been part of the adoption, the drafting, and 
hopefully now, very shortly, the passage of this bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to the conference report, not just because this is the wrong 
bill, but it is the wrong bill at the wrong time. No one will deny that 
last week's tragedy is truly regrettable, but I will urge my colleagues 
to respond in a level-headed manner, not with a reflex policy for the 
moment.
  Tightening a 35-year embargo will only cause more pain to these 
innocent people. Under the current embargo the human cost has already 
been too high. Cubans cannot even get basic necessities like food and 
medicine. How much more pain do we have to inflict on these people 
before it is enough? After more than 3 decades, we should be ready to 
admit that this embargo has failed miserably. The Castro government has 
survived the storm. The

[[Page H1742]]

average Cuban looks at Fidel as a hero, and the United States 
Government as the enemy. Nobody wants a repeat of last week, but 
today's action will further isolate and deprive the Cuban people, 
increasing tensions and setting the stage for another violent crisis.
  As world leaders, we should extend a peaceful hand and keep dialog 
between our two countries open. It is time we live by our humanitarian 
ideals and stop playing the bully. If we are serious about democracy, 
then more dialog, not an embargo, is the answer.
  Mr. Speaker, we must not allow heated passion to blind us. This bill 
leads us down the same wrong path we have followed for 3 decades. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. We must 
learn to look before we legislate.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute 
to our colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], who 
has been a big help on this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a 
little exception with talk that has been heard around here a lot about 
``let us not act in heated passion.'' Why should we not react in heated 
passion when human rights abuses are being seen in Cuba, 90 miles off 
our shore? Why should we not react in passion when Fidel Castro 
knowingly gives the military orders for two civilian aircraft with 
American citizens on board to be shot down over international waters?
  I am passionate about that, and I am passionate about human rights 
abuse in Cuba. A lot of people have said that the embargo that was 
first instituted by President Kennedy has not worked. There is a good 
explanation for that. The Soviet Union used to subsidize Castro's 
regime for the last 30-odd years. That is no longer the case. That is 
why Fidel Castro is looking for foreign investment to help prop up his 
dictatorial regime and further oppress the people. Make no mistake 
about it, the reason why this bill is so important right now is because 
he needs foreign investment now more than he did before.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is 
bipartisan. The President supported it. I am in strong support of this 
bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 25, most of us picked 
up our morning paper to read that two planes, piloted by Cuban-
Americans, had been shot down near Cuba. This unfortunate incident was 
appropriately denounced by both President Clinton and the U.N. Security 
Council.
  In addition to this initial response, the President quickly imposed 
several restrictions on Cuba and ensured that the families of those 
killed would be compensated.
  The downing of the planes was an inexcusable action by the Cuban 
authorities, and I believe that President Clinton was right to initiate 
an immediate and direct response.
  This is a very emotional situation and the immediate reaction is to 
strike back, but that is the wrong reaction. It is wrong to define our 
long-term relationship on the basis of this tragic incident. Passage of 
the Helms-Burton bill is a shortsighted, irrational response to this 
international incident.
  This legislation will not topple Castro, this legislation will only 
tie the hands of President Clinton and increase the pain and suffering 
of the Cuban people.
  In my opinion, this legislation not only violates international law, 
it punishes our international allies by attempting to force them to 
comply with our 34-year-old embargo. An embargo that has not worked. 
This legislation will allow Cuban-Americans to use United States courts 
to sue foreign companies who invest in properties that were confiscated 
by the Castro government. While emotionally justifiable, it infringes 
upon our allies' sovereignty, and possibly violates our trade 
agreements.
  Helms-Burton would limit the authority of the President to alter or 
lift parts of the embargo--even for strict humanitarian purposes--by 
Executive decree. The Executive orders which make up our policy on Cuba 
become frozen into law. If the President sought to ease restrictions on 
Cuba in response to democratic changes, he would only be able to do so 
with congressional approval.
  We all know that the Cuban economy is suffering. Cuba is forced to 
pay a premium for importing staple foods for its people. Medicines are 
in short supply, causing health care delivery to crumble. Is this what 
we really want for the Cuban people? Is this how our democracy should 
operate?
  Engaging Cuba, increasing dialog, and pressuring for increased human 
rights and democratic reform is the best way to genuinely democratize 
Cuba and improve relations with one of our closest neighbors.
  Passage of Helms-Burton will only deepen the rift between our two 
countries and cause further suffering of the very people we are trying 
to help.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], who has been a 
tremendous help on this bill.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, and congratulate him on his bill, which I have helped 
coauthor.
  Mr. Speaker, let me thank my 347 fellow Members of this House, 
including 121 Democrats who have joined with us and the President in 
striking a blow for democracy and striking a blow against the Castro 
regime. I want to answer some of the issues. This question of 
extraterritoriality, under the Cuban Democracy Act everybody 
acknowledges that, and many people voted for it in this House who 
oppose this today. The fact of the matter is that under that act we 
heard all these issues from Canada and Mexico and everybody else, that 
in fact this was extraterritorial. What is the relationship today? We 
entered into the most significant trade agreement with Canada and 
Mexico, and they are trading with us, and so much, I think, for the 
comment.
  This is not about trade. Someone said this is about trade. No, this 
is about trafficking intentionally in illegally confiscated properties 
of U.S. citizens and U.S. companies. Canadians are arguing for their 
citizens and their interests and their rights. I am coming here to 
argue for American citizens and American businesses and their rights. I 
am not going to get up here and start arguing for other countries.
  The fact of the matter is that if you know that that property was not 
legally yours, and you are willing to buy it even though you know it 
was stolen from somebody else, you are in receipt of stolen property. 
If you want to do that, fine, then take the risk. And we do this 
prospectively, so you know that you are going to have to continue to 
traffic in the property or purchase properties in the future.
  Title III has a suspension authority for the President of all the 
hobgoblins we have heard about come to reality. The President, in his 
letter to all of us, said, he asked the administration to work 
vigorously with the Congress to set aside our remaining differences and 
reach rapid agreement on the Libertad Act. Last week we achieved that 
objective. The conference report is ``* * * a strong bipartisan 
response that tightens the economic embargo against the Cuban regime 
and permits us to continue to promote democratic change in Cuba.''
  Last, let me just say that if Members are proud of China's record of 
prison camps, slave labor, dissident jailings, 20 years later after our 
relationships and our investments, if they are proud of the Canadian 
and Mexican and Spanish investments in Cuba over the last several years 
that have produced no democracy, that have produced greater repression, 
and that have kept the regime afloat, then they should vote against the 
bill.

  But if in fact what Members want to do is what I believe the 
overwhelming Members of this House already by the rule vote and in past 
votes want to do, to strike a blow for democracy and strike, in fact, a 
blow on behalf of the Cuban people and against the Castro regime, they 
will be voting with us on this bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from 
California [Mr. Becerra].

[[Page H1743]]

  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, first let us all agree that what happened a week ago 
that took the lives of several Americans was regrettable and should not 
have happened, but it is always bad policy when you try to achieve 
political ends through economic means, especially when they are 
indirect economic means.
  The actual three and one-half-decade-old embargo against Cuba is a 
perfect example of why we cannot achieve that through an economic 
embargo. The Castro government remains, and the only people who have 
been hurt are the people of Cuba, the women and children of Cuba. What 
we are doing through this bill is using our economic might to bully our 
international allies and friends to do what we think is best, even 
though the entire international community has spoken against this type 
of embargo.

                              {time}  1430

  Indeed, even Canada, our northern neighbor, our great friend, has 
said it will take us to international court to say that this is a 
means, a barrier against free trade throughout the world. This is not 
the way to do things.
  Let us address what happened last week in the taking of several 
American lives, but let us not try to mix the things up that we have 
here today and say that because some people died, regrettably, that now 
we should institute a policy that will ultimately take the lives of 
many people in a country called Cuba though politically we may disagree 
with what is going on with the government. This is not the way to do 
it. We should focus where we should. Let us not create bad policy 
because a bad situation occurred.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason I waited until near the end of the debate to 
take my time is because, as is always the case, there is a lot of 
misinformation that takes place in this debate and I wanted to make 
sure I clarified these arguments.
  First of all, a lot of my colleagues have said we are going to hurt 
the people of Cuba. When Castro has a foreign investor invest in Cuba, 
the money that is paid by the employees of that firm goes to Castro. 
Let us say that they get $400 a month. Castro gets the $400 a month and 
then he pays them in the local currency, $400 of that local currency. 
But the exchange rate is 700 to 1, which means the average Cuban is 
making less than $5 a month.
  We cannot hurt those poor people much worse than Castro has hurt 
them. The embargo is not going to hurt the Cuban people. Castro has 
murdered the Cuban people economically, and literally in many cases.
  And I would like to say to my colleagues who opposed the embargo, 
when we talked about these same issues when we had the embargo against 
South Africa, they took a different position. There is no consistency 
in their arguments.
  When Castro took power, Cuba had the highest standard of living in 
Latin America. Today it is the lowest, not because of the United States 
embargo, because for the past 35 years they have been propped up by the 
Soviet Union, but because of Castro's Communist government control 
policies that do not work. He is the one that has been hurting the 
Cuban people, not the United States and not the embargo, because the 
embargo had no teeth in it until 3 years ago.
  Somebody said that the OAS was not with us on this. The fact of the 
matter is Castro has been excommunicated from the Organization of 
American States because of his actions, because of his exporting of 
revolution.
  My colleagues have said, you know, we are going to penalize people 
who invest in Cuba and have invested in Cuba. This is a prospective 
bill. People who have already bought confiscated U.S. property will not 
be penalized unless they buy more American property. So if they have 
already got property down there, they are not going to fall under this 
bill.
  But people who buy confiscated American property in the future are 
going to be penalized because there will be a cause of action in U.S. 
courts unless suspended by the President. And, No. 2, anybody that 
traffics in confiscated U.S. property will not be able to get a visa to 
come to the United States.
  They know full well, the Canadians, the Spanish and everybody else, 
they know that this bill takes effect on the date of enactment, and if 
they buy property that is taken away from Americans, stolen from 
Americans by Fidel Castro, they know what they are getting into. So I 
have no sympathy for those people who want to buy confiscated, stolen 
American property to give Castro the hard currency that he needs to 
stay in power.
  Now, a lot of my colleagues say, you know, we ought to do business 
with this guy, especially since Boris Yeltsin says we should. Well, 
Russia and the Soviet Union have been supporting Castro all along, so 
that does not surprise me, but the facts of the matter are these: 
Castro has exported communist revolution in Africa, in Central America, 
in South Africa where Che Guevara was killed. He has exported communism 
wherever he could. He is a committed revolutionary and he still 
believes.
  That Castro has killed innocent human beings. He has put thousands 
and thousands of people in his Communist gulags. If you want to know 
how they are treated, read Armando Valderas' book ``Against All Hope'' 
and it will tell you very clearly how he treats people who disagree 
with him.

  My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], talked 
about a fellow who defeated him in a college race for student body 
president, and Castro shot him to death. That is the kind of guy we are 
talking about. He is a horrible human being, one that should not be in 
power, especially not for 35 years.
  Two years ago, on the high seas, he had his Cuban Navy pull up 
alongside a tugboat with people on it who were fleeing to freedom. 
Women were holding their babies above their heads, and he ordered his 
Navy to wash them off the decks with power hoses. The women took the 
babies, the children, into the hold of the tugboat, and Castro brought 
his navy ship alongside. They directed the hoses into the hold and they 
sunk that ship, that tugboat, and killed those women and children like 
rats.
  This is the kind of government you guys want to do business with, and 
my colleagues' answer is, well, the way to work with Castro is to open 
up trade and do business with him, that will solve the problem. Really? 
Do you really believe that? We have opened up trade with Communist 
China. It has not changed the Communist regime over there. We have 
opened up trade with Communist Vietnam. That has not changed anything.
  And here we are, 90 miles from our border they are shooting down 
planes with innocent Americans in them, in international air space, and 
we are supposed to say we are going to solve this problem by doing 
business with him. Baloney. The way you deal with Fidel Castro, since 
he is on his last legs, is do not let him have the hard dollars that he 
needs to stay in power, and that is what this bill does.
  This bill will force him from power, I really believe that, in the 
next 2 or 3 years, and then the people of Cuba will have freedom, 
democracy, and human rights because there is going to be about $3 or $4 
billion invested very quickly, and they will have the freedom that they 
wanted all these years.
  Get out of here, Castro. We want you gone. We want freedom, 
democracy, and human rights throughout this hemisphere, and you are the 
last holdout.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, whenever an economic sanction has worked 
in our history, whether it be South Africa, Haiti, Iraq, or even worked 
in part, it is because our allies have agreed with it. What we do today 
alienates our allies at a time when we need them most.
  It is not out of any concern for investors in Canada or investors in 
Spain that I rise in opposition to title III of this bill. It is 
precisely because I want to put pressure on Fidel Castro's Cuba. But I 
know that the only way to put effective pressure, whether it be a sugar

[[Page H1744]]

embargo, a tobacco embargo, limited sanctions or a total quarantine, is 
when we have our trading partners and our allies with us.
  Today, for the first time in the history of American jurisprudence, 
we are applying a law not to goods that come into our country, not to 
acts that happen within our country, but to goods and acts that are 
outside of our country. However great our outrage, that is not American 
jurisprudence. That is extraterritoriality. It drives our allies away 
at a time we need them most.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. I think 
there should be no doubt that after the reprehensible actions by Mr. 
Castro and the regime, there is no disagreement among us here. We 
condemn that.
  The difference here is the best way to respond and how best to bring 
an end to his regime. We knew that Fidel Castro was a reprehensible 
thug 3 weeks ago. We knew that he was 30 years ago. There is no change 
in that. He remains so today, but his recent actions should not change 
how we define or pursue the U.S. national interest.
  I think this bill that is before us is a huge mistake, and I believe 
that for several reasons. First of all, as a matter of policy, it picks 
isolation over engagement. By increasing Cuba's isolation and by 
squeezing the Cuban people, the conference report risks a violent 
upheaval in Cuba and increases the risk of a massive flow of refugees.
  I understand that now is not the time to lift the embargo. Bad deeds 
should not be rewarded. But ultimately the engagement of the Cuban 
people in trade and contacts with Cuba will open the door to a free 
Cuba. I say to my friend on the other side of the aisle that the most 
distinguished foreign policy spokesman of the Republican Party in the 
last generation was President Richard Nixon, and he believed that the 
isolation policy of the Cuban people was the wrong policy.
  I also believe that this conference report is going to tie the hands 
of the President in knots. I understand that he accepts this bill but I 
think that is a mistake. The conference report restricts the ability of 
the United States to respond to changing conditions in Cuba. The 
transition from a Communist government to a free government is not 
going to be easy. We have learned that time and time again. What this 
bill does is, it freezes us out of the action at the very time that we 
want to be engaged, when we want to influence events in Cuba.
  With regard to title III, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Campbell] has explained that very well, but let me just make this 
observation. My friends who are proponents of this bill have said over 
and over again, title III is the heart of the bill. But you know what 
they did? They gave it away. They gave away title III with the waiver 
to the President. If in fact title III is so important, if it is the 
heart of the bill, then why just give it away with a waiver to the 
President of the United States?

  Incidentally, that title III defends only the interests of the rich, 
only the fellow who has a very large claim. The poor small claim holder 
is not going to get any remedy from this bill. This bill is going to 
shore up Castro, not bring him down. It enables him to do what he has 
done so effectively for 30 years, and that is to fan the flames of 
nationalism, to put all of the blame for the mess he has made of Cuba 
onto the United States, so it plays into his hands.
  We ought to be targeting our policy not at Castro and what is bad for 
Castro. The policy of the United States should be aimed at what is good 
for the Cuban people. This bill, this conference report, puts us at 
odds with all of our friends and allies, and it deeply offends them. 
The conference report departs from the proven and sound U.S. policies 
that we have used in other areas of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude, the conference report is going to 
increase the isolation of Cuba and its people. It is going to skew U.S. 
policy from the present course of promoting peaceful change. It is 
going to put the United States on the sidelines when this transition is 
underway in Cuba. It creates an unprecedented right for those who had 
property confiscated in Cuba to sue in United States courts. It hands 
Castro a deck of nationalist cards that he will play with consummate 
skill, and it contravenes U.S. international commitments and 
antagonizes our closest allies and trading partners.
  This conference report is a mistake. It is a huge mistake for this 
country to make because it locks in the President of the United States 
in the conduct of American policy towards Cuba. I urge a vote against 
it.
  Mr. BROWN of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, Castro is in trouble. He just rounded up the human 
rights activists and the people who oppose him. He put hundreds of them 
in prison just recently.
  My colleague said that there is no guts in this bill except for title 
III. Title IV prohibits people who traffic in confiscated American 
property from getting visas to come to the United States of America, so 
they are going to have to choose: Do they want to do business with 
Castro or the United States? I believe they are going to want to do 
business with the United States. That is going to dry up hard currency 
for Castro.
  You folk on that side of the aisle, the people who oppose this bill, 
wanted that $50,000 limit to make sure that we would not have the 
courts flooded with litigation. The fact of the matter is, you asked 
for it, you got it, now you are complaining about it.
  And, finally, when there is a transition, when democracy starts to 
come to Cuba and Castro is gone, there are provisions in the bill for 
the United States to help aid in the transition to democracy. So we are 
not going to be on the sidelines, Mr. Hamilton. We are going to be in 
there helping the Cuban people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Torres].
  (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report on 
H.R. 927.
  I am grateful to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] for this opportunity to explain why the passage of H.R. 927 
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. Yes, we all deplore the 
incident of the downing of Americans flying provocative flights over 
Cuban airspace but, they were warned countless times to desist. This 
legislation will not correct that situation.
  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 United States 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-quarter the total land area of the District of Columbia. 
One of the stated military missions 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 United States.
  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 US military intervention.
  At best, this legislation will have no effect upon the Cuban 
Government's hold on power,

[[Page H1745]]

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.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my 
colleague, 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 am one of the cosponsors of the 
Helms-Burton bill, and I have every strong rationale to do so. I know 
what the Cuban people have experienced. I have seen them from 1960 to 
1961.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on 
the Libertad bill--the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act--
which will tighten the embargo against Castro and his barbaric regime.
  I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I am pleased that 
President Clinton will sign it into law when it reaches his desk.
  From time to time, we are called upon to take strong action against 
evil in the world.
  We took strong action against apartheid in South Africa. We took 
strong action against a murderous dictatorship in Haiti. Today, Mr. 
Speaker, we have the opportunity to take strong and decisive action 
against the evil of Fidel Castro.

  By now, every American knows of the murderous attack by Cuban Mig 
fighters only 11 days ago. Two U.S. civilian aircraft were destroyed, 
and four U.S. citizens were killed in this unjustified and unwarranted 
terrorist attack against unarmed civilians.
  Brothers to the Rescue is a peaceful, humanitarian group responsible 
for saving over 6,000 lives. It is perfectly in character that Castro 
chose to viciously attack the members of this caring, dedicated group.
  But in Miami, FL, which I represent in Congress, this senseless, 
brutal attack is the latest in a long list of murders, firing squads, 
imprisonments, harassments, human rights abuses, and political 
oppression perpetrated by Castro against the Cuban people.
  Many of my constituents know Castro's ruthlessness first hand. Many 
fled from Castro's prisons. Many of my constituents still have 
relatives--mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, nephews and 
cousins--who must endure the daily hardship and oppression of this 
cruel regime.
  Is there any wonder why so many people were willing to leave 
everything they ever worked for and everything they ever owned to come 
to this country--just for the chance to live in freedom and raise their 
children without fear.
  The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act will put new 
international pressure on the Castro regime. Under its provisions:
  The embargo against Cuba will be enacted into law. Up until now, the 
embargo has been enforced via an Executive order and subject to change 
by every new administration;
  The owners of illegally confiscated properties in Cuba will be 
allowed to pursue legal action in United States District Court against 
those corporations and individuals who currently occupy and profit from 
those properties;
  Corporate executives who purchase confiscated U.S. properties will 
have their visas to the United States revoked. Foreign business 
executives who invest in Cuba after the passage of this legislation 
will be subject to the same punitive action; and
  To encourage democratic change, humanitarian and military transition 
assistance will be provide to a future Cuban Government that is 
committed to democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, just as we helped the people of South Africa, and the 
people of Haiti, we must help the people of Cuba in the time of their 
greatest need.
  Castro is desperately clinging to power. He must be cut off, not 
thrown a lifetime. I believe that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act will greatly hasten the fall of Fidel Castro's 
dictatorship.
  And Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the time--in the near future--when 
I can greet--here in this Capitol--the democratically elected President 
of a free Cuba, as I have the democratically elected Presidents of a 
free South Africa and a free Haiti.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the distinguished Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana, for yielding to me.
  I am delighted to have a chance to share with the House some thoughts 
on the conference report on H.R. 927, which I really see as a freedom 
contract with the Cuban people.
  I found it interesting that the very distinguished ranking member of 
the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], did not seem 
to think this bill would be effective. I would just want to start by 
quoting from a letter from President Clinton, who said,

       The conference report is a strong bipartisan response that 
     tightens the economic embargo against the Cuban regime and 
     permits us to continue to promote democratic change in Cuba. 
     I urge the Congress to pass the Libertad bill in order to 
     send Cuba a powerful message that the United States will not 
     tolerate further loss of American life.

  I am delighted that the President is now supporting this. But I must 
say even more decisive than the tragedy of the last few weeks has been 
a commitment which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] led as 
chairman of the subcommittee, a commitment which the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] led, a commitment which the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] led and others in both the House and Senate, 
that said for a long time, we are committed to freedom for Cuba.
  Let me remind my colleagues of the game that has been played. No 
dictator on the planet has been better than Fidel Castro at managing to 
create a sense that somehow he will always survive no matter what. No 
one has been better than Fidel at playing off various parts of the 
world and somehow magically appearing, bearded, in uniform, and 
prepared to talk about baseball, just a wonderfully pleasant, 
interesting person standing in the church pulpit, and, oh, by the way, 
forget the prisons, forget the secret police, forget the torture, 
forget the murders, forget the dictatorship, forget the poverty, forget 
the willingness to take on anyone and drive them out of Cuba, because 
after all he is such an interesting, charismatic figure. And so, for 
the last couple years, life has gotten harder because with the fall of 
the Berlin Wall, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the subsidies 
are gone. The money is not there. The military protection is not there.
  Suddenly, the Castro dictatorship was beginning to weaken. And now 
Fidel had a new line. He said to the younger Cuban bureaucracy, ``Stick 
with me. I will manipulate the Americans. I will manage the transition. 
I will manipulate the European Union. I will find the money. And in the 
end I am still going to be here.'' And sadly, from the Clinton 
administration and from others, there were signals that maybe Fidel 
could pull it off. There were signals that maybe America was going to 
cave.
  Business leaders went down to Cuba and began to praise the great 
opportunities the dictatorship offered. Oh, you might have to build 
that hotel near a prison camp, but what the heck, there will be 
profits. We began do have Members of Congress go down, because after 
all, the dictatorship was getting a more human face.
  Those who studied knew it was not true. Chairman Burton knew it was 
not true. The gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] knew it was 
not true. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] knew it was not 
true. People across America who studied Cuba said, ``Wait a second, 
this is the same dictatorship, these are the same lies, these are the 
same false promises.'' And for a long time the Clinton administration 
opposed this bill.
  And then a tragedy occurred, a tragedy that was unnecessary, a 
tragedy that should have been avoided, a tragedy which I believe strong 
representation from our State Department might well have avoided by 
saying to the Castro dictatorship, ``We will not tolerate your shooting 
down innocent civilian aircraft. It violates every international 
rule.''
  The United Nations had what I thought was a pathetically weak 
response. They did not condemn. They did not censure. They deeply 
deplored. Kill a few people, we deeply deplore it.
  Well, the U.S. Congress is doing something vastly beyond deplore. 
This bill says no one in Cuba and no one in the rest of the world 
should expect this embargo to be lifted until there is democracy in 
Cuba. There is no future for the Castro dictatorship. There are no

[[Page H1746]]

deals. There is no special business investment. There is no loophole. 
There is no sweetheart agreement.
  This also says the Congress will be involved unless the President 
certifies that the transition to a democratic regime is under way in a 
measurable, real way. It says one other; maybe it is shocking to some 
of our friends; it says if Castro has confiscated the property of 
Americans, we are going to defend the property right of Americans, and, 
yes, if you come from Canada or you come from France or you come from 
some other country and you have purchased the confiscated property of 
Americans, we are going to take steps to protect American citizens 
against those who would exploit what a dictatorship has done to hurt 
Americans.
  Maybe some of our friends think it is too much for the American 
Government to protect Americans. Maybe some people think the Cuban 
market is so huge and so profitable that you ought to cut yourself off 
from the American market to make sure you can trade in Havana. Well, I 
am perfectly happy to have companies make that decision. If a European 
company or a Canadian company wants to say, we will prove our 
commitment to Fidel, we are going to ship our goods to Havana, and that 
means we are not going to be in the United States market, I somehow 
think somewhere on the planet there will be a competitor willing to 
come to America or there will be an American company willing to provide 
the goods and service, and we will survive.
  It is perfectly fair for us to say to the world we are going to 
defend Americans, we are going to defend American property rights, we 
are going to oppose the Castro dictatorship.
  And it is even more important, and I want to close this because I 
think it is vital to understand, we have a history that goes back 98 
years from this year, a history that said just about this point a 
century ago, as the Spanish continued to oppress Cuba and the Cuban 
people were in a long and bloody and terrible insurrection, just about 
literally 100 years ago, people began to stand in this well and talk 
about our obligation to help the Cuban people liberate themselves from 
Spain.
  Fidel Castro has been a tragic detour on what was a long period of 
the natural friendship between the American people, who have 
sympathized and supported the Cuban people, and we are prepared to say 
in this House, with our vote this afternoon, just as you wanted Cuba to 
be free of the dictatorship of Spain, we want the Cuban people to be 
free of the dictatorship of Fidel, and we are by this act and by this 
law committing ourselves to a freedom contract with the people of Cuba 
and we are saying to every young Cuban leader in Cuba and every younger 
Cuban bureaucrat, your future is not with Fidel and decay. Your future 
is with freedom and prosperity. If you will simply help us, we will 
work with you for the transition, and together we will establish the 
right to be free once again in our neighbor to the south.
  I urge every Member, the President urges a ``yes'' vote, we urge a 
``yes'' vote, the Cuban people want a ``yes'' vote, and I think the 
future of freedom demands a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong 
opposition to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty Act. This legislation would, 
in the name of ending the rule of Castro, cause even greater harm to 
the Cuban people and jeopardize our relations with many of our 
important allies.
  As were all Americans, I was outraged by the February 24 shootdown of 
two American Cessnas near Cuba. Simply put, there is no excuse for 
sending two MiG fighters against unarmed passenger planes.
  H.R. 927, however, is the wrong way to respond. The bill would not 
have prevented the tragic events of 2 weeks ago, nor would it 
significantly improve upon the additional sanctions already taken by 
the President as a result of the attack.
  We should not forget that we already impose a comprehensive travel 
and trade embargo against Cuba. Virtually no exports are permitted to 
Cuba, and travel is strictly limited. And American businesses are 
prohibited from conducting virtually any economic activity in Cuba.
  Economic indicators have shown that the embargo has had a dramatic 
effect on the Cuban economy. Sadly, however, virtually all of the 
suffering has been felt by the Cuban people. They have faced serious 
food shortages, as well as a lack of needed medicine and medical 
supplies, threatening their health and welfare.
  Presumably because this embargo has not let to a change in Cuba's 
leadership--even though it has hurt the people of Cuba--Congress has 
decided to take the embargo even further: to try to prevent any country 
from trading with Cuba. Specifically, provisions in this bill would 
permit Cuban-Americans to sue foreign companies if they use, or profit 
from, confiscated property from Cuba.
  This provision has been strongly opposed by many of our important 
trading allies, including Canada, Great Britain, France, and Mexico. 
They rightly see this as a violation of international law, and a 
violation of their sovereignty--an attempt by one country to force 
their foreign policy on another.
  Mr. Speaker, is it worth risking our relationship with our allies to 
try to strangle Cuba even further? I don't think so.
  If these provisions actually succeed in cutting off additional 
investment in Cuba, it seems unlikely that the results will benefit the 
Cuban people. Our embargo has already hurt Cuba's economy severely, yet 
has only caused more pain for the Cuban people with no change in Cuba's 
leadership. Given the results of this policy to date, expanding the 
embargo even more would seem unwise and ineffective, if not downright 
cruel.
  Interestingly, some have suggested that the provision will have no 
effect on foreign investment in Cuba. Why? Because the bill allows 
individuals to settle their cases against foreign companies out of 
court. Thus, foreign companies could still invest in Cuba. However, 
those few Cuban-Americans who held large amounts of property in Cuba 
could realize large financial gains from these settlements. The 
possibility that a few could be enriched by this bill, even as the 
people of Cuba suffer from the current embargo, concerns me even more.
  In any event, I cannot support legislation which, at the very least, 
threatens the future of our trading relationships, hurts our own 
economic security, and does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the 
Cuban people. Let us pursue a policy of more openness and greater 
engagement with Cuba, not less, if we truly wish to bring about greater 
change and help the people of Cuba.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be standing in front of this 
body as we get ready to vote on the Helms-Burton bill. This piece of 
legislation will send a clear message to Castro and other petty 
dictators around the world that America will not stand for political 
persecution. We will not put our heads in the sand while this tyrant, 
only 90 miles from our shores, oppresses his own innocent citizens.
  It is a tragedy that it took the recent shooting down of two unarmed, 
civilian humanitarian planes by Cuban fighters to help bring the Helms-
Burton bill to the floor. Fidel Castro has been committing atrocities 
against the Cuban people for decades and these recent repugnant acts 
only serve to confirm a conclusion that we already know. Castro will 
never change. He still has political prisoners, including women and 
children, languishing in his jails. He still murders his own people as 
they attempt to flee political persecution. He still is planning to 
construct a nuclear power plant that can only be considered a 
humanitarian disaster. There can be no compromise. Castro is an 
absolute dictator that needs to be taken down absolutely.
  The Helms-Burton bill will force Castro from power and put an end to 
these acts of oppression. It will strangle Castro by cutting off a 
large segment of foreign investment that is currently propping up his 
regime. Some of my colleagues feel that lessening our grip on Cuba 
would be the best way to help the Cuban people. I passionately 
disagree. Castro's acts over the last several weeks only proves the 
urgent necessity for this bill and the need to strengthen our resolve 
against this rogue dictator, rather than weaken it. Mr. Castro, we will 
not compromise on this issue. The U.S. Congress will not lower our 
support to ending the Castro regime. We will fight to the end to free 
the noose that currently surrounds the Cuban people, I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in voting in support of Helms-Burton, in 
support of freedom and democracy.
  Mr. BERMAN. I rise to oppose this bill. I do this reluctantly. There 
is much in this legislation that I support and have supported in the 
past.
  I am not, for example, opposed to codifying the embargo on Cuba. 
There is no doubt that Castro is a dictator and murderer whose rule 
should be vigorously resisted.
  Nor am I opposed to the extraterritorial nature of this legislation 
although I wish such unilateral American action was not necessary. I 
would greatly welcome international cooperation in dealing with the 
world's dictators as well as with other threats to international 
stability.
  However, I must vote against this bill. When this bill was marked up 
in the International Relations Committee, I introduced an amendment 
which carved out an exception for some penalties for certain 
activities. My amendment was

[[Page H1747]]

accepted by all sides--including proponents of this legislation, but 
then, unfortunately, it was dropped in conference.
  I do not understand why my amendment was dropped. It was not contrary 
to the intent of the sponsors of this legislation.
  My amendment retained due process protection already contained in the 
Trading With the Enemy Act [TWEA] and kept exceptions for news 
gathering, research, and clearly defined educational, religious, and 
human rights activities.
  In 1992, when we passed similar legislation, we added substantial 
civil penalties to Treasury's enforcement arsenal to prevent a surge of 
business or tourist travel to Cuba.
  We all agreed and continue to agree that trips to acquire a winter 
suntan or make a quick buck should be discouraged.
  However, we wanted to make sure of a couple of things before we 
broadened Treasury's authority to punish such travelers. First, we 
ensured that due process protection was given to individuals or firms, 
including an agency hearing and we also ensured that there would be a 
couple of categories of travel that would be off limits to civil fines.
  We agreed that visits by journalists, researchers, human rights, and 
religious organizations--visits in other words whose legal tender was 
information, not hard currency--were in our national interest, since 
they undermined rather than buttressed the Castro regime.
  Now this bill omits all exceptions to civil penalties in the Trading 
With the Enemy Act and removes the administrative due process provision 
we wrote into the TWEA, undermining the fairness and credibility of 
civil sanctions.
  I believe the Government should err on the side of liberally 
interpreting American's right to travel abroad, particularly when it 
serves our national interests. This legislation does not serve those 
interests and therefore I cannot support this bill.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, today we will be taking a final vote on the 
conference report for the so-called Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act. Unfortunately, our consideration of this legislation is 
occurring after the tragic shooting down of the two Brothers to the 
Rescue aircraft. Although the content of this legislation and this 
recent tragedy should not be linked, we are today creating a false 
linkage between the two. This prevents us from carefully weighing the 
negative impact that passage of this legislation will have on our 
foreign policy and on the Cuban people--who will only suffer more with 
the tightening of the economic embargo. Passage of this legislation 
today is not the correct response to this tragedy.
  The United States should not permit the reckless acts of private 
citizens to dictate our foreign policy. Earlier concerns expressed by 
this administration should not be ignored simply because this tragedy 
occurred. The Helms-Burton legislation is an extreme bill that 
continues and strengthens diplomatic policies that have never been 
successful. The existing Cuban embargo has failed to cause any change 
in Cuba's government. Passage of even stricter sanctions against Cuba 
will not move Cuba any further toward a change in government.
  This conference report retains the troubling provisions that make 
liable for damages in U.S. courts individuals or companies, including 
those from third countries, who knowingly traffic in property that was 
owned by a U.S. national and was confiscated by the Cuban Government. 
Although a provision was included permitting the President to delay 
implementation of this provision for unlimited 6-month periods, in its 
September 1995 statement of administration policy, the administration 
stated that this title should be deleted. ``Applying U.S. law extra-
territorially in this fashion would create friction with our allies, be 
difficult to defend under international law, and would create a 
precedent that would increase litigation risks for U.S. companies 
abroad.'' This provision which the administration considered seriously 
objectionable is still a part of this conference report.
  In fact, an article in the Washington Post on March 3, 1996, suggests 
that this provision, which would allow Cuban-Americans to sue foreign 
companies in U.S. Federal courts, creates a massive loophole that would 
permit the wealthiest Cuban-Americans to profit from settling lawsuits 
brought under this section. The article explains how these settlements 
may occur without the need to obtain any license or permission from the 
U.S. Government.
  I would also like to reiterate once again, as I have so often in the 
past, that we have no moral grounds that would allow us to single out 
Cuba for this trade embargo. We continue to have trade relations with 
North Vietnam, China, and North Korea, countries with political systems 
different than ours.
  The current United States policy toward Cuba does not have the 
support of the world community. The majority of our allies do not 
believe the trade embargo is an effective or wise vehicle for dealing 
with Cuba, and tightening the embargo will only further damage our 
relationships with our allies. Specifically, permitting suits against 
foreign companies that invest in Cuba will infringe on the sovereignty 
of other countries, and interfere with their trade decisions.
  Finally, and most importantly, any tightening of the embargo will 
increase the suffering of the Cuban people. We all recognize that a 
terrible tragedy in the shooting of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft 
has occurred, but we need to move forward in developing a constructive 
relationship with Cuba. Passage of this conference report will move our 
country's foreign policy even further in the wrong direction. We should 
instead vote against this bill and begin the process of building a 
peaceful and productive relationship with Cuba.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the conference 
report on H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
  Mr. Speaker, on February 24 Castro ordered the downing of unarmed 
aircraft flying over international waters, murdering all those aboard, 
including three United States citizens who were committed to promoting 
peace and freedom in Cuba. This blatant violation of international law 
and wanton disregard for human life only reaffirms that Castro will 
stop at nothing to cling to power and suppress freedom in Cuba.
  All across Eastern Europe, we have witnessed the dramatic collapse of 
communism. The seeds of democracy are taking hold, and a people long 
oppressed by totalitarian rule are awakening to the promise of freedom 
and self-determination. Yet just 90 miles from the shores of the 
greatest and oldest democracy in the world, Castro continues to rule 
with an iron fist.
  The conference report on H.R. 927 is designed to force Castro from 
power by tightening economic sanctions on the Cuban Government. I 
commend President Clinton for expressing his strong support for this 
tough legislation.
  It is time to stop negotiating with Castro. It is time to force him 
from power. There can be no just totalitarian state. The only cure for 
communism and totalitarianism is freedom and democracy. The Cuban 
people deserve no less.
  Specifically, the measure would codify the existing United States 
trade embargo against Cuba while increasing the protection for the 
rights of United States nationals whose property has been illegally 
confiscated in Cuba. Furthermore, the bill directs the President to 
encourage foreign countries to restrict trade with Cuba and to work for 
an international embargo against the Cuban Government.
  Castro's reign of terror and suppression in Cuba is nearing an end. 
His ruthless Communist regime is on life support. Let us pull the plug 
by passing this legislation.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference 
report to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 
1995. We must stand tough on Castro.
  His recent reprehensible act is a testament to his madness. On 
February 25, 1996, he gave orders to shoot down two Cessna planes 
operated by the American humanitarian group, Brothers to the Rescue. 
His orders were successfully carried out and four Americans were 
killed. These men could not have defended themselves against a hostile 
aggressor even if they had wanted to. Castro's ignoble action was as 
pathetic as it was wrong. This senseless act of violence must be 
condemned in the strongest possible terms. The Cuban Liberty and 
Solidarity Act is in fact a condemnation of the Castro regime.
  We must call on the President to organize an international embargo on 
Cuba and we must tighten our current embargo. This bill also protects 
the rights of U.S. citizens and businesses by allowing them to sue 
parties who knowingly and intentionally traffic in confiscated U.S. 
property. We cannot allow Castro to infringe on the rights of U.S. 
citizens, or on the rights of his own people.
  The most heartwrenching example of his control is the state of 
affairs of the people of Cuba. Their aspirations and cries for freedom 
and democracy remain unacknowledged and as follows, unanswered.
  Cuba's liberalization is an impossibility with Castro controlling the 
reins. He is a despot with little to do but punish men and women who 
have tenaciously championed the cause for freedom through vigilant, 
assertive, nonviolent actions. Not only has he killed four American 
citizens but in the process he has also ignored the will of his people. 
The people of Cuba do not possess the means to hold Castro responsible 
for his actions, so we must do what they cannot. We must hold Castro 
accountable for his actions.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act.
  The shooting down of unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft over the Florida 
Straits is the heinous and unforgivable act of a rouge regime that 
ignores international law. Such wanton disregard for human life cannot 
go unanswered.

[[Page H1748]]

  Today, Congress is responding in the form of the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act. The bill sends a clear signal to Cuba by 
strengthening the United States embargo of Cuba, authorizing assistance 
for democratic elements within Cuba, directing the President to prepare 
to support a transition to democratic government in Cuba, and 
increasing protection for the rights of United States nationals whose 
property has been illegally confiscated in Cuba.
  Mr. Speaker, some have raised objections that this bill will impinge 
on our allies' ability to trade with Cuba and that it will only 
strengthen Fidel Castro's ability to retain power. I do not believe 
that we should reward the murderer of four American citizens by 
relaxing the current embargo. We should, and we will, strengthen the 
embargo and strangle the Castro regime.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 927 and strike a 
blow for the freedom of Cuba.
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, there can be no compromise in dealing 
with Fidel Castro. We must make sure that the Helms-Burton Cuban 
liberty bill passes as soon as possible so we can tighten the embargo 
on Cuba. We can have no sympathy for those who would be inconvenienced 
because they choose to make a profit over conscience. We must penalize 
those who would traffic in stolen American property. If the Helms-
Burton Cuban liberty bill is a violation of NAFTA as claimed by the 
Canadian Foreign Minister, maybe it is time for the United States to 
withdraw from that and any other organization that prevents the United 
States from pursuing its national interests.
  Mr. Speaker, we must demand the Castro's Cuba abide by international 
law that stipulates that a national air space be set at 12 miles. We 
must not allow Castro's armed thugs to grossly expand their national 
air space to the 24th parallel. We must make the Castro regime realize 
that any attack on civilian aircraft outside Cuba's 12 mile borders 
would be met with military force. To make this point clear, we should 
start by flying combat air patrols well south of the 24th parallel. 
Maybe we can teach Castro's armed thugs the same lesson that we taught 
Kadafi a few years back.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, after much consideration, I find that I 
must vote against this bill. My decision is based primarily on my 
belief that this is an intrusion on the President's prerogative to 
conduct foreign policy. This bill restricts Presidential authority and 
flexibility by codifying the embargo into law. The Helms-Burton 
conference report contains a provision requiring the President to seek 
approval of both the House and Senate before changing any aspect of the 
current embargo. This is an unacceptable infringement on Presidential 
authority.
  Further, this bill will interfere with the principles of free trade, 
exemplified by the North American Free Trade Agreement, an issue dear 
to my heart. Canada, Mexico, and Caribbean nations have already 
expressed their concerns for this infringement of their sovereignty.
  I must convey however, that I did strongly consider voting for this 
bill as a sign of protest against the downing of the two Hermanos al 
Rescate planes. That was an indefensible act, and I feel sadness for 
the people who were killed and their families. In addition, this is an 
emotional, and enormously important issue for my Cuban-American 
friends, and I have deep respect for their views, particularly Bob 
Menendez, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
  Accordingly, my decision to vote ``no'' is a difficult one given the 
support to have always given President Clinton and the Cuban-American 
community.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity [Libertad] Act of 1995. The recent shoot down of two unarmed 
civilian planes by Cuban Air Force MiG's clearly underscores the 
continued hostile focus of the Castro dictatorship and the need for 
stronger pressure to bring it down. Castro's irresponsible and 
unnecessary violations of international law must be dealt with in the 
strongest terms possible. H.R. 927 does just that.
  As a strong supporter of former-President Reagan's foreign policy 
creed--``peace through strength''--I am constantly surprised by the 
lack of vision this administration has in the foreign policy arena and 
how frequently American military and civilian lives are put in harm's 
way. The concessions given to North Korea in the agreed framework and 
the ill-advised involvement of United States forces in Haiti and Bosnia 
are just a few of the examples of foreign policy decisions with which I 
have serious concerns. This is not peace through strength--it's danger 
through appeasement. The administration's recent kowtowing to Cuba and 
the resulting aggression by Castro's military further underscores my 
concern about this administration's lack of direction.
  Ironically, since the beginning of his term in office, President 
Clinton has attempted to weaken the U.S. embargo on Fidel Castro's 
Communist government. This dramatic shift in policy has turned on its 
head the longstanding efforts of six previous, bipartisan 
administration policies of standing firm against the 36-year old 
dictatorship in Cuba. H.R. 927 responsibly reverses President Clinton's 
ill-advised appeasement policy by codifying the existing embargo 
against Cuba. It also strengthens efforts to achieve international 
sanctions, provides assistance to democratic opposition and human 
rights groups and protects U.S. interests in illegally confiscated 
property. By passing H.R. 927, Congress ensures that the United States 
continues the longstanding ``peace through strength'' approach in 
dealing with the Castro dictatorship. This policy has proved the most 
reliable when facing such rogue regimes. It is for these reasons that I 
strongly support H.R. 927 and commend President Clinton for finally 
recognizing the importance of this legislation. I am only sorry that it 
took the lives of four innocent civilians to do so.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I certainly deplore the Cuban Government's 
decision to shoot down unarmed civilian aircraft. It was unconscionable 
and outrageous. However, our Government bears some blame for failing to 
fulfill its obligation to keep U.S. civilian aircraft from conducting 
harassing raids into foreign airspace from U.S. soil. But that's not 
the issue here. The issue is what kind of policy will bring Cuba into 
the fold of democratic nations.
  In this case, United States foreign policy has been hijacked by a 
small population of right-wing Cuban exiles in Miami. The bill before 
us represents a complete surrender to these extremists by the President 
and congressional leaders. I urge my colleagues to reject it, though I 
know they will not.
  This bill will do nothing to encourage Cuba's transition to 
democracy. In fact, the opposite will be the case. By continuing and 
tightening the fruitless embargo against Cuba, we are strengthening the 
Castro regime's only remaining claim to legitimacy. The losers are the 
Cuban people. The winners are Castro and his henchmen--who will remain 
in power not only in spite of but because of the embargo--and United 
States politicians eager to pander to the Cuban exile vote in Florida.
  The contrast between United States policy toward Cuba and our 
Government's stance toward the brutal and geriatric communist leaders 
of China is stark. Despite China's well-documented human rights abuses, 
its unfair trade practices and its policy of exporting dangerous arms 
to terrorist regimes around the world, this Congress and the President 
insist on giving China favored nation trade status. Chinese 
belligerence and intransigence is not only tolerated by our Government, 
but rewarded. Yet the impoverished nation of Cuba is deemed to be such 
a threat to our shores that the most punitive sanctions are justified.
  This bill is hypocrisy and pandering at its worst. It should be 
rejected.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Cuban 
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
  I strongly condemn Cuba and Castro's reprehensible and inexcusable 
actions in shooting down two unarmed American civilian aircraft 
recently. This was an unacceptable act that no civilized nation can 
condone. It was a clear and blatant violation of international law. Our 
hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims of this 
tragedy.
  Nevertheless, while I abhor Cuba's action, I oppose this bill because 
I believe that enactment of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
Act is not in the United States's national interest, and that our 
national interest and our efforts to promote democracy and human rights 
in Cuba must take precedence over our anger and revulsion at this 
cowardly act.
  The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995 is intended 
to increase the economic pressure on Cuba in the belief that additional 
hardships imposed on the Cuban people will produce additional 
dissatisfaction with the Castro regime and accelerate its downfall. The 
problem with this reasoning is that in many ways it plays into Castro's 
hands by allowing him to blame the Cuban people's suffering on foreign 
enemies--namely, the United States. Sanctions like these provide Castro 
with a convenient scapegoat for the failings of his unsustainable 
regime.
  The best way to replace Castro's dictatorship with a democratic form 
of self-government and a market economy is though engagement, not 
isolation. The United States should be engaging the Cuban people. This 
legislation will alienate them. It will shore up Castro by allowing him 
to fan the flames of Cuban nationalism against the United States. I 
believe that the most effective tool for fostering democracy and human 
rights and economic development in Cuba is exposure of the citizens of 
Cuba to free democratic societies. I urge my colleagues to reconsider 
this action and vote no on the conference report.

[[Page H1749]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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 336, 
nays 86, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               YEAS--336

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--86

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Campbell
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Markey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Studds
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Owens
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     McCarthy
     Slaughter
     Stokes

                              {time}  1513

  Mr. WYNN and Ms. FURSE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. RIVERS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________