[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H645-H650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
 DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION, AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF 
      EUROPEAN LEADERS REGARDING LEGISLATION OF THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Shays]. Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of being 
a member of a delegation from our Congress to the European Parliament. 
Occasionally meetings take place between parliamentarians from Europe 
and from the United States. As I say, I had the privilege of being part 
of our delegation, led by the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. I 
had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians and leaders from 
various capitals of the European Union to delve, to dive into a number 
of very difficult challenges facing Europe at this moment.
  For example, there was the issue of the necessary peace in Northern 
Ireland, an extraordinarily difficult challenge for the good people of 
that area, and the amount of learning that I did was truly, I think, 
interesting on that very complicated issue because of the importance 
that this issue holds, not only for, obviously, the people of Ireland 
but for the people of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, what was interesting about every single meeting, what 
was constant about every single meeting that we had with leaders from 
different capitals in the European Union, is that with regard to our 
legislation, the legislation that we in Congress here in the United 
States adopted a year ago on Cuba, there is a tremendous amount of 
disinformation, misinformation, lack of knowledge, as I say, Mr. 
Speaker, that was manifested time and time again in meetings that we 
held with European leaders from throughout the capitals of the European 
Union.
  It was extraordinary that time and time again, we had to explain to 
the Europeans that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act 
passed by this Congress, commonly referred to as the Helms-Burton 
legislation, when it sanctions foreigners who traffic in stolen 
property, property stolen by the Cuban dictator, we had to explain time 
and time again to European leaders that the legislation deals with and 
applies to only property stolen from American citizens.
  I was flabbergasted at the ignorance demonstrated time and time again 
by the European leaders on this issue. They talked about what they 
referred to as the extraterritoriality of our legislation. We would 
tell them that even though we would have liked to see a ban on 
investment in the slave economy that Castro in Cuba maintains, we 
cannot do that, and we did not do that in the legislation we passed a 
year ago; legislation, by the way, Mr. Speaker, which was exactly 1 
year ago today, February 26, endorsed by President Clinton after, 2 
days earlier, four American citizens or residents of the United States 
were cruelly, viciously, unjustifiably murdered over international 
waters in unarmed civilian aircraft by the Castro dictatorship, 
pursuant to the direct and explicit order previously given by the Cuban 
dictator.
  So it was 2 days after that happened, that act of terrorism, which 
was subsequently found to be an act of terrorism, totally unjustified, 
unjustifiable by the United Nations, it was 2 days after that act of 
terrorism by the Cuban dictator that President Clinton endorsed 
publicly what was then a bill, legislation pending before Congress, and 
a few days after that, on March 12, 1996, President Clinton signed the 
legislation into law.
  What was amazing, Mr. Speaker, was that in meeting after meeting 
Europeans did not know, when they would refer to extraterritoriality, 
that the only extraterritoriality in this debate, the only 
extraterritorial conduct in this debate is what the Europeans now are 
seeking to justify, which is that their investors, they say, should 
have the right to knowingly go into Cuba and traffic in property stolen 
from American citizens.
  That conduct is extraterritorial, Mr. Speaker. That is not conduct 
that is taking place in Europe. That conduct which they are seeking to 
defend, that indefensible conduct, is extraterritorial. It is taking 
place in another hemisphere, in the Western Hemisphere, specifically in 
the oppressed island of Cuba. That is the only extraterritorial conduct 
at issue in this debate, the unjustifiable conduct they are trying to 
defend.
  What our law does, what our law says in its immigration chapter, is 
that if you are a foreigner who knowingly traffics, deals in property 
stolen from an American citizen, and after having the opportunity to 
divest from that

[[Page H646]]

stolen property you fail to do so, in other words, you knowingly and 
purposefully, and after having the opportunity to divest do not do so, 
continue to deal in stolen property from American citizens, that then 
under our immigration laws you are excluded from the United States.
  We have said we do not want people to be admitted to the United 
States who knowingly deal in stolen property from American citizens. So 
we had to explain that to Europeans, and we were, as I say, shocked at 
the amount of ignorance they manifested in meeting after meeting.
  But they not only have manifested ignorance on this issue, Mr. 
Speaker. They have gone so far as to take this issue, this foreign 
policy decision made by the U.S. Congress and the President of the 
United States to respond to the acts of terrorism by the Cuban regime, 
the legislation that was signed into law, they have taken that law and 
they have challenged it formally, filed a grievance, a suit, if you 
will, formally against that legislation in a trade organization, in the 
World Trade Organization.
  As Members know, the World Trade Organization was founded, was 
created in the last round of what is known as or was known as the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT. There were many years 
of negotiations that culminated in what is known as the Uruguay Round, 
and that negotiation set up the World Trade Organization. It is to 
settle trade disputes when a country sets tariffs unjustifiably on 
another country.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to an act of terrorism by a state that is on 
our list of terrorist nations--and there are only a handful of states 
on our list of terrorist states in the State Department, there is Iraq 
and there is Libya, there is North Korea, and there is Iran, and 
Communist Cuba--in response to an act of terrorism over international 
waters by that dictatorship, we passed the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act a year ago.
  I think the most important thing we did in that legislation was that 
we set forth a blueprint for relations by the United States with not 
only the dictatorship now in Cuba, but during the transition and 
reconstruction after the inevitable collapse of the dictatorship in 
Cuba.
  We said that there have to be, by the Cuban transitional government 
at the time of precisely the transition, there have to be three main 
conditions that have to be met before the President of the United 
States is authorized to normalize relations with a Cuban transitional 
government, and then to offer not only the lifting of sanctions, 
obviously, but the generosity of the American people, and we are 
confident of the international community at that time as well, to 
reconstruct Cuba from the destruction that has been brought about by 
this horrible regime that has oppressed and continues to oppress the 
Cuban people for more than three decades.

  That is what we did in the legislation. We said that for the 
President of the United States to be able to normalize relations with a 
Cuban transitional government, that Cuban transitional government has 
to free all political prisoners, agree to legalize all political 
activity--that is, not interfere with people's opinions, not jail them 
because of their beliefs--and agree to hold free and fair elections 
within a reasonable time. That is the only thing we are saying has to 
occur before the President of the United States can normalize relations 
with a Cuban transitional government.
  That I think is the most important thing we did in the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act, the Helms-Burton law, because it will be 
very important at the time of the transition in Cuba for there to be, 
once there is no longer a situation where there is a demented tyrant 
ruling over Cuba, a situation where they know, whoever is in a 
transition situation in Cuba, that not only will the U.S. sanctions be 
lifted, but there will be access to the U.S. market, and everything 
else we have included in that blueprint for relations between the 
United States and Cuba.
  All they have to do, all the Cuban transitional government would have 
to do basically is to respect the Cuban people with those essential 
conditions I have outlined; no more political prisoners, no more 
prohibition on political activity, and the commitment to hold free and 
fair elections.
  We had to explain this time and time again to the Europeans. They did 
not know this. They have read in the media, in press and heard in the 
media, that we have what they say is an extraterritorial ban on 
investment in Cuba. We would have to point out, as I say, time and time 
again, no, it is just that we say that if a foreigner knowingly 
traffics in property stolen from Americans, then pursuant to our 
immigration laws we do not want that foreigner in the United States.
  No country has ever committed itself under the WTO, World Trade 
Organization, or its precursor, GATT, to an immigration policy. No 
country has ever committed itself with regard to who it admits in its 
borders and who it excludes from its borders. Those agreements, GATT 
before and the WTO now, are trade agreements on goods and services, not 
on immigration policy.
  So this challenge that the European Union is now bringing before the 
WTO based against our foreign policy, that foreign policy with regard 
to the Cuban dictatorship and the transition that I have briefly 
outlined and our immigration policy, the statement we have made that we 
do not want foreigners who knowingly deal in stolen property from 
American citizens to come into the United States, and they have to have 
the opportunity to divest before they come into the United States, and 
they have to say no, I am not going to divest from the property stolen 
from American citizens, to be excluded from the United States--that is 
our immigration law--the Europeans are challenging that at the trade 
organization, at the WTO.
  They are making a serious mistake, Mr. Speaker. We told them in 
Europe, I do not think you have thought it through. I do not think you 
Europeans have thought through what it is to get involved in the 
immigration debate in the United States. I do not think you have 
thought through what it is to use the World Trade Organization to 
challenge American foreign policy with regard to its closest neighbor, 
the oppressed island of Cuba, and American immigration policy with 
regard to those who knowingly traffic in property stolen from American 
citizens.

                              {time}  1345

  I do not think you have thought that through, Europeans. And we would 
tell them this, and again they manifested a tremendous amount of 
ignorance with regard to what our law really does, what our law is and 
what our law is not.
  The fact of the matter is that they have proceeded at the WTO and 
they have filed a challenge. I want to commend at this time our 
Speaker, Newt Gingrich, and the Chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, Ben Gilman, and the committee, the chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Dan Burton, and the 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Helms. 
And my colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Policy and Trade of the Committee on International 
Relations, and Senator Bob Graham from Florida, and Senator Robert 
Torricelli of New Jersey, and Congressman Robert Menendez of New 
Jersey, and Senator Connie Mack of Florida for joining in the letter 
that I signed as well, a letter to our United States Trade 
Representative saying, since the Europeans have decided to bring forth 
this challenge, this ill-advised and reckless and irresponsible 
challenge in the trade organization against our foreign policy to our 
closest neighbor, the oppressed people of Cuba and our immigration 
policy with regard to those who knowingly traffic in property stolen 
from American citizens, it is imperative, and I will refer directly to 
the letter sent to our United States Trade Representative:
  ``We are writing to emphasize the importance we attach to victory by 
the United States in any proceeding brought within the World Trade 
Organization challenging U.S. policy toward Cuba.
  ``We strongly agree with the administration's view that `the World 
Trade Organization was established to manage trade relations between 
member governments, not diplomatic or security relations that may have 
incidental trade or investment effects.' Therefore,

[[Page H647]]

it is imperative that the United States interpose all available 
defenses, including the national security defense provided under 
Article 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to avoid an 
adverse WTO decision.
  ``The United States has a strong interest in promoting international 
trade. It is precisely for this reason that we must do everything 
possible to prevent the WTO from undermining its own credibility by 
reaching a decision on a nontrade matter that purports to circumscribe 
our ability to adopt policies essential to our national security.
  ``We understand, of course, that the United States has a compelling 
defense on the merits to any WTO complaint challenging our policy 
toward Cuba and should prevail without invoking the national security 
exception. Nevertheless, we think it would be irresponsible for the 
United States not to offer every available defense in a proceeding that 
could constrain our country's ability to defend its vital national 
security interests.
  ``We defer to your office regarding the best timing for putting 
forward the various defenses available to the United States, but we 
believe that the earliest possible use of the strongest defense is 
appropriate.''
  Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the letter to which I 
referred.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 18, 1997.
     Hon. Charlene Barshefsky,
     Acting U.S. Trade Representative,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ambassador Barshefsky: We are writing to emphasize the 
     importance we attach to victory by the United States in any 
     proceeding brought within the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     challenging U.S. policy toward Cuba.
       We strongly agree with the Administration's view that ``the 
     WTO was established to manage trade relations between member 
     governments--not diplomatic or security relations that may 
     have incidental trade or investment effects.'' Therefore, it 
     is imperative that the United States interpose all available 
     defenses, including the national security exception provided 
     under Article 21 of the GATT, to avoid an adverse WTO 
     decision.
       The United States has a strong interest in promoting 
     international trade. It is precisely for this reason that we 
     must do everything possible to prevent the WTO from 
     undermining its own credibility by reaching a decision on a 
     non-trade matter that purports to circumscribe our ability to 
     adopt policies essential to our national security.
       We understand, of course, that the United States has a 
     compelling defense on the merits to any WTO complaint 
     challenging our policy toward Cuba and should prevail without 
     invoking the national security exception. Nevertheless, we 
     think it would be irresponsible for the United States not to 
     offer every available defense in a proceeding that could 
     constrain our country's ability to defend its vital national 
     security interests.
       We defer to your office regarding the best timing for 
     putting forward the various defenses available to the United 
     States, but we believe that the earliest possible use of the 
     strongest defense is appropriate.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
     Newt Gingrich,
     Dan Burton,
     Benjamin A. Gilman,
     Jesse Helms,
     Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
     Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
     Bob Graham,
     Robert Torricelli,
     Robert Menendez,
     Connie Mack.

  The issue before us at this point, Mr. Speaker, is really an 
important one because the European policy--the American people realize 
that the Europeans are using the World Trade Organization to affect our 
foreign policy and our immigration policy. What is that going to do to 
the support by the American people toward precisely the World Trade 
Organization?
  I have had disagreements, many disagreements in the past with 
proposals put forward by, for example, Pat Buchanan, but he has a 
wonderful article today, a very insightful column in numerous 
newspapers around the country today, including the Washington Times 
here in Washington, where he says, the title of his column is European 
Assault on U.S. Policy. And he ends his article, talks about this WTO 
challenge, and he ends his column saying Congress should make it very 
clear: ``The WTO treaty provides for `security exemptions,' and Helms-
Burton is a security issue. Thus, we will not participate in your 
hearings or abide by your decision. If sanctions are imposed on us, we 
will withdraw from the WTO.
  ``As the Europeans are the ones who escalated, by taking Helms-Burton 
to the WTO, warning us of a conviction in absentia, let us accept the 
challenge and tell them: There will be no back-channel discussions on 
Helms-Burton, no compromises, no capitulation. America's right to use 
her power to advance her foreign policy is nonnegotiable.''
  This is a very strong and important statement, and it brings us to 
the issue really before us at this time. I have been speaking to 
numerous Members of Congress. For example, I was speaking to 
Congressman Manzullo from Illinois. I have not met a stronger supporter 
of the WTO and of free trade in this Congress than Congressman 
Manzullo. He brings out and emphasizes the facts that support in this 
institution as well as among the American people in the country at 
large, for American participation in the WTO is going to diminish 
dramatically when the American people begin to understand that the 
Europeans are using that trade organization to further their position 
with regard to a disagreement that they have with the United States on 
our foreign policy and our immigration policy. It is a reckless, 
irresponsible action taken by the Europeans.
  Now especially, we can realize the recklessness of this action taken 
by the Europeans and really the hypocrisy of the action taken by the 
Europeans. They are saying: ``No, the United States, you should not use 
the national security defense.'' How interesting. First of all, we have 
used it in the past more than once. President Reagan in 1985 used the 
national security defense with regard to the Sandinista complaints 
against United States sanctions on Nicaragua.
  But national security interests were also alleged in many other well-
known cases: for example, in 1949 Czechoslovakian complaints against 
United States military railroad export controls; 1975, the Swedes said 
that their right to control their footwear market was absolutely 
indispensable to their national security. Talk about a stretch of the 
argument.
  In 1982, this is the ultimate hypocrisy, the European Union, at that 
time the European community, used the national security defense to 
defend itself against an Argentinian complaint against Europe for 
sanctions that were placed on Argentina during the Falkland crisis. In 
1991, the Europeans also used the national security defense against the 
Yugoslavian complaints brought, brought about after sanctions were 
imposed on Yugoslavia. In all of those cases and in others, national 
security was invoked by the nations imposing economic sanctions against 
other countries.
  Now, with regard to our legislation, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act, national security concerns are much more evident and 
have significantly more to do with passage of the law than in any of 
those cases that I cited. The essential purpose of the act is precisely 
to defend the United States and its citizens from the dangers to our 
national security posed by the Communist dictatorship just 90 miles 
from our shores.
  To quote directly from the act: ``For the past 36 years the Cuban 
government has posed and continues to pose a national security threat 
to the United States.'' The purpose of the act, the purpose of the act 
is to provide for the continued national security of the United States 
in the face of continued threats from the Castro government of 
terrorism, theft of property from United States nationals by the Castro 
government, and the political manipulation by the Castro government of 
the desire of Cubans to escape that results in mass migration to the 
United States. The act is necessary in view of the threat, I continue 
to quote directly from the act, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about 
Swedish footwear here. We are talking about the act itself that we 
passed. The act is necessary in view of the threat to the national 
security posed by the operation of any nuclear facility by the Castro 
regime.
  Mr. Speaker, Castro is trying to complete two nuclear power plants 
just a little over 100 miles from Florida. Those nuclear power plants 
are of the same model of the nuclear power plants that were closed 
immediately upon German reunification in east Germany and upon 
liberation in all the countries of the former Soviet Union. That same 
model, that same model nuclear power plant, VVR 440 is its exact 
description,

[[Page H648]]

that is the model of the nuclear power plants that Castro is trying to 
complete in Cuba. All European countries, as soon as communism fell, 
they closed down near those nuclear power plants because of their 
inherent dangers. Talk about a national security issue.
  One of the main facets of our legislation is to stop assistance, all 
assistance to Castro for completion of those nuclear power plants. That 
is a national security issue if I have ever heard of a national 
security issue.
  Many other references are made throughout the statute itself, 
specifically to national security as the fundamental motivation and 
purpose of the act. The role of the Castro regime in activities that 
constitute severe dangers to United States national security such as 
narcotrafficking, the DEA field office in Miami and customs made clear 
to local media there just a few months ago that over 50 percent of the 
cocaine that comes into the United States from the Caribbean area comes 
through or from Castro's Cuba. Now, the role of the Castro regime in 
activities such as narco-trafficking are specifically referred to as 
reasons for the legislation in the legislation.
  And as I stated before, Mr. Speaker, it should never be forgotten 
that the law was passed with President Clinton's support just a few 
days after the premeditated, brutal, unjustified murder in cold blood 
of American citizens by the Castro dictatorship over international 
waters.
  Now, in addition to constituting a travesty of justice, an adverse 
ruling by the World Trade Organization against our law would have 
serious consequences for the support within this institution, within 
Congress and by the American people, for the world trade structure, and 
for U.S. membership in the WTO. I think that it is obvious that we need 
to be not only ready, willing, and able to use the national security 
defense but that we have to go ahead and do so. We have to go ahead and 
do so.
  This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. We will continue talking 
about it in the weeks ahead because the sovereignty of the United 
States is at issue. The Europeans now have said they had a meeting of 
their foreign ministers on Monday. They said publicly after that 
meeting, we have a ban on furs, animal skins to the United States. We 
will consider lifting our ban on animal skins, the importation of 
animal skins from the United States into Europe if the United States 
lifts its ban on foreigners who knowingly traffic in property stolen 
from American citizens.
  That is an unbelievable statement that the Europeans have made, 
demonstrating not only a tremendous lack of knowledge of what this 
issue is about and about what our law is about, what it is and is not, 
but a tremendous lack of sensitivity as well.
  Now, this issue will need to be spoken of in the next months. When 
the American people come to realize that the Europeans are using, that 
this supernational trade body, the World Trade Organization, to deal 
with an issue that is not trade related, that is a foreign policy 
decision of the American Congress and the American President with 
regard to its closest neighbor, the oppressed people of Cuba and the 
immigration law of the United States, that the Europeans are 
politicizing the World Trade Organization for political purposes, the 
support within this Congress and in the American people at large for 
the World Trade Organization and our participation in it is going to 
diminish very rapidly.
  I do not know if the Europeans have realized that. Nevertheless they 
have proceeded recklessly with this complaint. I think the important 
issue, the important reality at this matter with regard to this debate 
is that our Government must immediately invoke national security like 
President Reagan did in 1985 when the Sandinistas brought similar 
complaints. President Reagan invoked national security and the 
complaint fizzled away. We not only have to say we are willing to 
invoke national security. We have to invoke national security.
  I did not criticize for one second the administration when I was in 
Europe, because I do not believe in criticizing the administration when 
you are not on United States soil. But I will say this. It is time for 
the administration not only to say they are going to invoke the 
national security defense but to go ahead and mean it. I think if 
Europeans believed that we meant it, this case would not have 
proceeded.
  So there are issues that we have to continue debating and discussing. 
I think the American people when they realize in the next months that 
the Europeans are utilizing the World Trade Organization for political 
purposes in a reckless way, they are going to have a lot of questions 
to ask about, No. 1, what is this World Trade Organization, how did we 
get into this World Trade Organization, do we have a veto in this World 
Trade Organization like we have in the U.N. Security Council? The 
answer is no. We are one vote, and Castro was one vote in the World 
Trade Organization. And the Europeans, of course, have more than two 
dozen votes, because they have more than two dozen nation states. So 
this is a very serious issue and we will continue talking about it.
  I think it is important that the alarm be sounded, that this is not 
an issue that is neither simple nor that lacks in importance and that 
we will continue talking about it in the weeks and months ahead.

                              {time}  1400

  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my distinguished 
colleague, also from the State of Florida, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, 
who so brilliantly defended this legislation and explained it time and 
time again in those meetings that we had last week in Europe.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Miami so 
much. I think the U.S. Congress would have been very proud if they had 
had the opportunity, if our colleagues had been there with us, to hear 
Congressman Diaz-Balart's statements time and time again to the 
different officials from various countries with whom we visited and his 
very patient explanation time and time again of this law.
  I think we have a greater appreciation of Ambassador Eizenstat's 
patience now that we have undergone some of what he has been doing for 
the past months. And as Congressman Diaz-Balart so well pointed out, we 
are very distressed over the naming of the panelists by the World Trade 
Organization to hear this European Union complaint against our 
overwhelmingly supported legislation, Helms-Burton legislation, which 
was drafted, to a great extent, by my colleague, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, 
as well as other colleagues, such as the gentleman from New Jersey, Bob 
Menendez, and many others.
  This challenge, as we know, is based on what the European Union 
considers to be the extraterritorial aspects of not only Helms-Burton, 
but the challenge presented by the European Union in May includes many 
other aspects of United States policy toward Cuba, including, but not 
limited to, the embargo placed by the President in the early 1960's, 
the 1985 sugar certification requirements, the 1992 Torricelli law 
dealing with a ban on United States subsidiaries abroad that are doing 
business with Cuba and which places restrictions on cargo vessels going 
to Cuba, and on and on and on.
  The list is rather long, and it is outlandish and incredible for the 
European Union to challenge the foreign policy of the United States.
  As Congressman Diaz-Balart has pointed out, we have the right to 
dictate our domestic and foreign policies, just as the European Union 
countries have the right to establish those policies with no 
interference from abroad.
  And the World Trade Organization, just by them taking this step of 
naming the panelists to hear this grievance, threatens the support of 
the United States for this budding organization. If the U.S. Congress 
could vote again on the establishment of this organization and our 
participation in it, it might very well be defeated. It passed with 
almost 150 votes against its formation and our participation.
  It is not in the European Union's interest nor the United States' 
interest for the WTO to continue with this challenge, but as 
Congressman Diaz-Balart has pointed out, the United States is ready, 
willing, and able to invoke the national security exception, and 
leading Members of Congress have officially asked our Government 
representatives to do so immediately.

[[Page H649]]

  It is very sad to see the European Union continue to ignore the sad 
situation of the oppressed people of Cuba. Cuba, under Castro, has the 
worst human rights situation in the Western Hemisphere. It has no free 
and fair elections. The Cuban people have no freedom to speak, to 
express their opinions. There is no free press.
  Raul Rivero, an independent Cuban journalist, has been hounded by 
Castro's thugs day in and day out, his home surrounded by them as they 
shout, ``Traitor!'' to him. And what is his crime? He calls out for 
democracy.
  Just yesterday, two more independent journalists in Cuba were charged 
with working against the revolution. And what was their crime? Well, 
they had subversive materials: Newspaper articles, articles which call 
for liberty. And there are hundreds and hundreds of political 
prisoners. Dissidents are jailed, rounded up, and harassed.
  Just 2 days ago in our community, we commemorated a very sad 1-year 
anniversary of the killing by Castro's military of four brave young men 
who were on a humanitarian mission in a civilian plane in international 
airspace. It was in their name, the names of Pablo, Carlos, Mario, and 
Armando, that President Clinton signed the Helms-Burton bill into law.
  It was in the name of over 40 men, women, and children who were 
killed just a few years ago in 1994 by Cuban authorities as they sat in 
a tugboat trying to flee the island, and it was in the name of hundreds 
and hundreds of so many who were killed fighting for Cuba's freedom 
that we presented the legislation known as Helms-Burton.
  And time and time again, Castro himself states that he will reform 
nothing. When they ask him about elections, he says, ``Elections for 
what?''
  Every dollar in Cuba by European investors is one more dollar Castro 
uses to keep himself in power. But we recognize the right of the 
European countries to continue to trade and do business with Castro, 
however morally reprehensible we feel that such commerce is.
  Helms-Burton does not infringe upon their right to do so. Helms-
Burton does not tell any country with whom they can trade, it just says 
that you cannot use illegally confiscated property that once belonged 
to U.S. citizens for you to do your dirty deed. You may continue to 
build the hotels on Cuban beaches, even though native Cubans are not 
allowed to enter those hotels. They cannot eat in the restaurants, they 
cannot swim in the pools that these European investors have built, but 
they can continue to build those hotels as long as the land they are 
using does not belong to United States citizens.
  Once again we explained it day in and day out. Do they not 
understand, or do they just pretend not to understand? It is very 
important for the United States to maintain our right to set our 
immigration laws. The U.S. Congress will be outraged if this 
organization goes through with hearing this complaint and believes that 
it has jurisdiction over who we can or cannot enter into our borders.
  Through this European Union challenge to Helms-Burton, the World 
Trade Organization is set to rule on United States immigration policy, 
and that is outrageous. The WTO is a multilateral trade forum, but 
Helms-Burton is not a trade bill.
  We have asked the European countries as well as Mexico and Canada to 
join us in our quest, to join us in our struggle, to join us in our 
strong desire to help the Cuban people live in a democracy, live in 
liberty, and enjoy the same rights that they enjoy in those countries 
and that we enjoy in ours.
  Congressman Diaz-Balart so correctly pointed out a column by Patrick 
Buchanan, nationally syndicated columnist, who talks about the European 
assault on United States policy, and he says, ``At stake here is the 
question who has the final authority to decide what America may or may 
not do to defend her national security: Us or them? At stake are the 
sovereign rights for which the American Revolution was fought.
  ``Let us have this issue decided now! As the Europeans are the ones 
who escalated, by taking Helms-Burton to the WTO, warning us of a 
conviction in absentia, let us accept the challenge and tell them: 
There will be no back channel discussions on Helms-Burton, no 
compromises, no capitulation. America's right to use her power to 
advance her foreign policy is nonnegotiable.''

  I think the U.S. Congress will hear a lot about this discussion, and 
they know, and we must make clear time and time again, that its 
sovereignty, our sovereignty, will not be compromised by the WTO.
  The administration's decision not to recognize the WTO jurisdiction 
was a correct first step. However, we must make it clear that we are 
prepared to use our national security clause, which is permitted under 
WTO, and these rules must be used to defend Helms-Burton and our right 
to conduct our foreign policy.
  I am sure that Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart and many other Members 
of Congress, we are on a campaign, and we will not be discouraged by 
our European allies. We will continue to fight the good fight on behalf 
of the enslaved people of Cuba and fighting for the United States 
sovereignty, and we will not let this issue die down.
  They have many months to decide, and we have many months to continue 
to debate this issue, and, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding his time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I think that the Europeans have misunderstood the American character. 
Americans do not yield to blackmail. The American people, and I would 
think that the American people will be contacted, and I would certainly 
urge the American people to contact their Members of Congress to let 
them know once again the need to tell the Europeans that they cannot 
dictate American immigration policy, that they cannot dictate American 
national security policy.
  The American people, through their Congress and through their 
President, have a right to protect themselves against nuclear 
powerplants being built 100 miles from Florida, that in the case of an 
incident by the Cuban dictator, a purposeful incident because he likes 
to create crises to try to blackmail and threaten other countries, or, 
in the case of an accident, like in Chernobyl, it would be absolutely 
disastrous for not only Florida but the whole southern United States, 
all the way, according to nuclear experts, all the way here into 
northern Virginia and actually the Nation's capital.
  So the American people have a right to protect themselves against 
national security threats, to decide their immigration policy, and I am 
fully convinced, and I would ask the gentlewoman's comments on this 
issue, because I am fully convinced that the American people in the 
next weeks and months are going to be outraged when they learn that the 
Europeans are using a trade forum to try to pressure and blackmail the 
American people into changing immigration law, because that is what 
they are concerned about.
  The gentlewoman is correct, they have thrown everything into that 
case, from President Kennedy's cutting off the Cuban sugar quota as a 
sanction against the confiscation of property and other acts, illegal 
acts taken by Castro, to the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992, to the Helms-
Burton law.
  They are actually after one thing, and that was made clear to us in 
meeting after meeting. They want to change the immigration policy of 
the United States because they are mad that an investor of theirs 
knowingly can traffic in United States property in Cuba and get notice, 
get a right to divest, and yet they want to continue trafficking 
knowingly and dealing in stolen property from American citizens. Then 
under the U.S. immigration laws, they are excluded from the United 
States, and they are mad about that.
  So that is what they want to change. They want to change U.S. 
immigration law, and when the American people realize in the next weeks 
and months what this debate is all about, I think they will be 
outraged.
  Does the gentlewoman agree?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I agree, and one of the things I think that made us 
so sad on this trip is hearing from European leaders, knowing the 
history of that continent, an area that had suffered so long under 
tyranny, under a dictator, where the rights were stripped of its 
citizens, where we continually said never again would those horrendous 
situations ever occur. And yet right now they are willing to continue 
to wheel and deal with a dictator for a few fast dollars, looking the 
other way when they realize it is a slave economy.

[[Page H650]]

  And they say, yes, we realize that this trade continues to maintain 
Fidel Castro in power, and he will continue to degrade the Cuban 
people, and he has no free election, but if we can make a cheap dollar, 
then we are willing to do it.
  And to see these country leaders, knowing the rich history of the 
terrible situation for centuries they have endured, and have them not 
stand in solidarity with us in our struggle to help the Cuban people, 
that was a real tragedy. And if there was any sad moment, it was 
hearing those leaders time and time again try to excuse their immoral 
behavior by using this trade organization as a tool to wash their hands 
of blood that cannot be washed away.
  So I thank the gentleman for his time and his leadership on this 
issue, and our fight has just begun.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. As the gentlewoman has stated numerous times, this 
is a campaign, Mr. Speaker, that just begins today to inform the 
American people and to reiterate what the Europeans really are out to 
do, and that is to change U.S. immigration law in a world trade forum, 
totally inappropriately, totally recklessly, and totally unjustifiably, 
but, nevertheless, they are trying to do it.
  I do not know if they think they can get away with it, but the bottom 
line is, I know the American people, and the American people will not 
let themselves be blackmailed. And the American people will tell their 
Members of Congress and tell the Europeans that if they think they can 
use the World Trade Organization, this supernational World Trade 
Organization, to influence the policy decisions of the American people 
with regard to immigration law or national security matters, they do 
not know the American people, Mr. Speaker, but we do.
  So I think the Europeans have made a dreadful mistake. They have this 
trade commissioner, whose name is Sir Leon Britten. He is acting like a 
zealot on this issue. I do not know why. I will not speculate why he is 
acting like a zealot on this issue.
  But despite the fact that it has been explained to him that under our 
immigration law the only foreigners who are excluded under that chapter 
are those who knowingly deal in stolen property from American citizens 
and have been given the right to divest of their stolen property and 
refuse to do so, this Sir Leon Britten, trade commissioner for Europe, 
continues to act irresponsibly on this subject.
  I think it is time for the American people to start having their 
voices heard and they let their Members of Congress know it is time to 
let the Europeans know the character of the American people once again.
  This Nation saved the Europeans twice in this century alone. And when 
we go to Europe, we see the thousands of graves, the thousands of 
markers of brave soldiers who gave their lives to save the European 
continent, and we are so proud of those soldiers.
  And for the Europeans to be saying now that they can take this new 
organization, the World Trade Organization, which is supposed to deal 
and is explicitly limited to trade issues--for example, if a country 
unfairly puts tariffs on another country or excludes products of that 
country from another country, hurting the business of that other 
country, then that other country that is hurt is supposed to file a 
complaint and is justified in filing a complaint before the World Trade 
Organization.

                              {time}  1415

  Whose businessmen according to our law are prohibited from making 
money from Castro's slave economy? The Europeans? No, the Americans. We 
are the ones telling our own business people, and we have made that 
bipartisan decision, but we do not want to make money, we do not want 
blood money from the Castro tyranny and the Castro slave economy. We do 
not want blood money from the Iranian terrorist state with all the oil 
in the world they can have. We do not want that blood money.
  So if there is anybody who should be concerned about business being 
lost, it is Americans. And yet we because of ethics are saying we do 
not want that blood money, and yet if there has ever been proof that 
what the Europeans are doing is fully based on politics, irresponsible 
politicalization of the world trade body, they who are going in and 
making blood money, not only in Iran but in Castro's Cuba, they are the 
ones bringing this political complaint in front of the World Trade 
Organization.
  This is outrageous as well as extraordinarily irresponsible, 
extraordinarily irresponsible on the part of the Europeans. We inform 
them and I am sure the American people will let their Members of 
Congress know that all of us should be telling the Europeans in the 
weeks and months ahead that this irresponsible action on their part is 
not going to succeed. It is going to reinforce the will and it is going 
to reinforce the commitment of the United States and the 
representatives of the United States to be able to control our 
sovereign policies with regard to national security and immigration. 
The Europeans will not dictate national security and immigration policy 
for our Congress, Mr. Speaker.

                          ____________________