Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the reason this is very distressing to me is President Carter had the same kind of policy that the gentleman is talking about during his administration, and when Ronald Reagan came in, we had seen 10 or 11 countries go Communist because, first of all, we did not have that determination to deal with them; and, second, we were not militarily prepared. And if we are not militarily prepared, we are going to have problems with some of these terrorist states: Iran, Iraq and some of these others, Libya, that are trying to get nuclear weaponry and delivery systems now. So I think it needs to be made very clear to everybody that is paying attention, all of our colleagues, that without military preparedness we could have all kinds of problems like we had back in the early 1980's because we were not prepared. I remember back then when I came to Congress we had people in training exercises that were using dummy shells in order to prepare. And that is something we cannot tolerate.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this is very, very disturbing, because we have been led to believe, I and all my colleagues, have been led to believe that our military preparedness is adequate for almost any eventuality. We have been to Somalia, we are now in Bosnia, we have 20, 25, 30,000 troops over there, we have aircraft carriers over there, and the gentleman is saying that we are short on bullets as well as other areas of preparedness? That is very distressing.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The President said that the era of big government is over when he addressed the House not long ago, and yet in many cases the President has not been true to his word. One example is the student loan program. Right now 40 percent of the student loan program is administered by the Federal Government, the other 60 by private lending institutions. Now the President has said he is going to veto this bill if 100 percent is not taken over by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, what does that mean? It means the cost to the taxpayers by the year 2002 will be 1\1/2\ billion dollars' more, $1 thousand 500 million more for student loans than it would be if we let the private sector handle it. And yet the President said he is against big government. He cannot be against big government and be for this program. In addition, thousands of jobs in the private sector are going to be lost and put into the Department of Education to administer these student loan programs. If the President really believes in less government, he should believe in turning these loans, these student loans over to the private sector. The President's words ring hollow when he says the era of big government is over and then go for a program like this.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, much has been said in the U.S. Congress regarding events in the eastern part of the Ottoman Empire toward the end of World War I. Yet I urge my colleagues to consider all sides and not rush to judgment. Many of my colleagues condemn Turkey and its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, for perpetrating genocide against its Christian Armenian population 80 years ago. Genocide is the most heinous of crimes, and before we make such charges, we should be absolutely certain of the facts. Many of our Nation's renowned historians and academics specializing in Ottoman history tell us that the events in question require more scholarly study. Historical evidence does not justify the genocide charge. While it is not disputed that Armenians died in eastern Anatolia during the period from 1915-1922, over 2 million Turks and other non-Christians also died. Although many died as a result of intercommunal fighting, many more died because of starvation and epidemic disease. No reasonable person can dispute the unfortunate events in eastern Anatolia some 80 years ago. But do we dare ignore the deaths of 2 million non-Christian people, many at the hands of Armenian revolutionary groups who had allied themselves with Russian forces which were invading Ottoman land for territorial gains? Ottoman responsibility lies in the Empire's inability to protect its civilian population, Christian and Moslem alike, from threats of wide- scale fighting, famine, and disaster. There is little to be gained from inflaming past animosities, which are invariably grounded in the complex political and military dynamics of the time. It is far more productive for all parties to look toward the future. Armenia and Turkey would only benefit from improved relations. Turkey was among the first countries to recognize Armenia upon its secession from the Soviet Union. Just after taking office, Turkish Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz emphasized Turkey's readiness to develop close relations and cooperation with Armenia in every field once the Nagorno-Karbagh conflict is resolved. He also expressed his government's determination and willingness to open the border posts with Armenia once the declaration of principles is reached between Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding the settlement of the conflict. Armenian President Ter Petrosian, while addressing the Association of Armenian Manufacturers and Businessmen last March noted Turkey's importance as an economic partner for his country, referring to Turkey as Armenia's shortest path to the outside world. The U.S. Congress should encourage progress in Turkish-Armenian relations. Any efforts which would hinder these developments inevitably threaten Armenia's economic viability. Western interests are served through the stabilization of the Caucasus. The Caspian Sea region contains oil and gas reserves second only to the Middle East. A pipeline passing from Azerbaijan through Armenia and Turkey to markets in the West would not only create an important alternative energy source for the West, but also would create necessary conditions for economic growth and development for the region. Commercial cooperation would lead to enhanced relations. By providing economic strength, this pipeline would also ensure the independence of new states, and would help bolster democracy and democratic institutions. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for all states in the Caucasus, Muslim and Christian, to put their differences behind them and work together for a prosperous future. I urge my colleagues interested in stability in the Caucasus to oppose any efforts to undermine regional cooperation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 297th celebration of Vaisaakhi Day, the birthday of the Sikh nation. On Vaisaakhi Day in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth and last Guru of the Sikh religion, formally baptized the Sikhs into nationhood, creating the order of the Khalsa Panth. The Sikhs are a proud, hard-working, and freedom-loving people. At times they have prospered. At times they have persevered under immense tyranny. They have always conducted themselves according to the axiom uttered by Guru Gobind Singh: ``Recognize ye all the human race as one.'' Sikhism is a monotheistic, independent religion that should not be confused with Hinduism or Islam. Sikhism dates back to the first of the ten Sikh Gurus, Guru Nanak, born in 1469. He laid the foundation of Sikhism by preaching a simple creed based on three principles: 1.) Pray daily, meditating on God's name; 2.) Work hard and earn an honest living by the sweat of your own brow--live a family life and practice honesty in all dealings, and 3.) Be charitable, sharing the fruits of your labor with others. Most importantly, the Guru instructed Sikhs to stand up against tyranny wherever it exists. On many occassions, Sikhs have lived up to this high calling, defending Hindus from the aggression of Mogul invaders from Afghanistan. Today Sikhs find themselves in a position of defending themselves from the brutal tyranny of the Indian Government. Over the past ten years, over 100,000 Sikhs have been killed by Indian security forces. Yet Sikhs continue to look to the spirit imbued in them on Vaisaakhi Day in 1699. Mr. Speaker, the Sikh people remain bloody but unbowed in the face of the campaign of murder, torture and rape being waged by the Indian military. Because of India's bloody rule, the Sikh people are seeking to exercise their right to self determination and declare an independent Sikh homeland. In October 1987, three years after India's bloody assault and massacre at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, every major Sikh political group joined together to issue a declaration of nationhood and independence. I ask all of my colleagues to support two pieces of legislation: H.R. 1425. ``The Human Rights in India Act, which would cut off U.S. aid to India until it stops the human rights abuses; and House Resolutions 32, which would recognize the Sikh people's right to self-determination. America stands for freedom, human rights and democracy, and we should support these ideals.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 18, the Indian police detained six Kashmiri leaders when they tried to peacefully walk to India's military headquarters in the Kashmiri capital of Srinigar to protest India's human rights violations. The six, who are well known on Capitol Hill for their tireless efforts to win the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and are all executive members of the All Parties Hurriyat--Freedom--Conference, were stopped by police as they approached the United Nations Military Observer Group's office. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Abdul Gani Lone, Shabir Shah, Abdul Gani Bhat, Moulana Abass Ansari, and Yasin Malik were only allowed to walk 2 kilometers--1 mile--through the deserted streets on Srinigar before being detained by police. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, the Government of India has banned public gatherings in Kashmir to prevent protests against India for its terrible human rights violations against the people of Kashmir. In response to this continual brutality, the Hurriyat had called a strike in the Kashmir Valley and asked Kashmiris to remain indoors. Why did these leaders risk their lives to challenge India? According to Abdul Gani Bhat--one of the detainees, we walked to offer our lives to the Indian army for peace and stability in the whole sub-continent. Most of these leaders have already narrowly escaped attempts on their lives by renegade militant groups which have been armed and supported by India's intelligence agencies. So perhaps for them--risking their lives one more time is business as usual. Nevertheless, their bravery to secure peace and happiness for the people of Kashmir should not be ignored here in the U.S. Congress. Mr. Speaker, while I wish I could say that this most recent incident is isolated--it is not. For the last decade, the Government of Indian has used every measure at its disposal to suppress the peace-loving people of Kashmir who desire nothing more than the internationally- recognized right of self-determination. As Thursday's events demonstrate, the leadership of India only respects the right of free speech when the words are spoken by the majority Hindu population. The time has come for the U.S. Government to forcefully condemn this tyrannic behavior and demand the immediate release of these six Kashmiri leaders. If India ever hopes to be treated as the world class power it believes it is--it must respect human rights.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2060.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on April 27-29, 1996, more than 1,300 students from 50 States and the District of Columbia will be in Washington, DC, to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' Program. I am proud to announce that the class from Lawrence Central High School in Indianapolis, IN, will represent Indiana's Sixth Congressional District. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning local competitions in their home State. The distinguished members of the team representing Indiana are: Amber Anderson, Carrie Anderson, Heather Bailey, Alicia Crichton, Nathan Criswell, Finda Fallah, Jeremy Freismuth, Lourie Gilbert, Robert Gordon, Phillip Gray, Amanda Gross, Tim Halligan, Lindsey Hamilton, Brandon Hart, Scott King, Brent Patterson, Mike Petro, Megan Pratt, Jason Roberts, Anthony Roque, C. David Smith, Tony Snider, Tomeka Stansberry, Crystal Sullivan, Sarah Thompson, Gene Wagner, Maurice Williams, and Mike Zabst. I would also like to recognize their teacher, Drew Horvath, who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team, The district coordinator, Langdon Healy, and the State coordinator, Robert Leming, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. The ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' Program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People . . . '' Program, now in its ninth academic year, has reach more than 70,400 teachers, and 22,600,000 students nationwide at the upper elementary, middle, and high school levels. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers. The ``We the People . . . '' Program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective on the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history and our lives. I wish these students the best of luck in the national finals and look forward to their continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, the American people want a balanced budget. The American people want to control spending. They want a line-item veto. The Republicans have tried to give that to them. And the American people want less taxes. They are going to pay until May 7 everything that they earned this year in taxes. Almost half of the year everything Americans earn are going to go just to pay taxes. They are fed up. Look at every single poll. I am talking to my liberal colleagues in this Chamber. They are being taxed to death, and they do not want their taxes raised any further. Now how do we guarantee that? We guarantee that by making it very difficult to raise their taxes, and the best way to do that is to have a supermajority. The Barton bill is a very good step in the right direction. A two- thirds majority to raise taxes makes sense. If it is really necessary to raise taxes, our colleagues will get the two-thirds majority, but if it is not necessary, they will not. Now we need a balanced budget, we need a line-item veto. We have given the President that. And we need to control taxes. Their party has been in control for 40 years, and for 40 years the policy has been tax, spend, tax, spend, tax, spend, and it has put this country in a terrible downward spiral. Every time we raise taxes; there has been 3 major taxes in the last 12 years; every time taxes have been raised, we spend more and more and more, and we are now into almost a 6 trillion dollars national debt. When our forefathers came up with the income tax for the first time back in what, the early 1900's, it was 1 mill on a dollar, 1 tenth of 1 cent on a dollar, and said it was not going to go higher than probably half a cent on the dollar, and now one is working almost 6 months a year just to pay their taxes. it has to come to an end. The Barton bill is a good bill and should pass.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recommend to my colleagues the outstanding new video ``Disappearances in Punjab.'' This video was produced by Ram Narayan Kumar, a Hindu human rights activist, and Lorenz Skerjanz, an ethnologist from Austria. It paints a graphic picture of India's state terrorism against the Sikh Nation in Punjab, Khalistan. I thank Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, president of the Council of Khalistan, for sending it to me. This video highlights the abduction of Jaswant Singh Khalra, the general secretary of the Human Rights Wing (Shiromani Akali Dal), by the Indian regime. Mr. Khalra reported that more than 25,000 young Sikh men had been abducted, tortured, and killed by the regime. Then the regime tried to hide this fact by listing the bodies as unidentified and cremating them. For this he was silenced. According to several other human rights activists, including Inderjit Singh Jaijee, Colonel Partap Singh, Justice Ajit Singh Bains, and General Narinder Singh, over 100,000 Sikhs have disappeared at the hands of the Indian regime. But the Khalra case is only part of a pattern of repression of the Sikh nation by an Indian regime the New York Times described on February 25 as ``a rotten, corrupt, repressive, and anti-people system.'' This documentary video also exposes other cases of Indian repression. It shows witnesses to the repression talking about what they have seen. This is important new evidence of India's brutal record. After watching the video, the viewer will conclude that India is the kind of police state that America spent many years and billions of dollars fighting. It is time for the U.S. Government to speak out against this tyrannical regime. Only our pressure will cause India to begin acting like the democracy it proclaims itself to be. The time has come for the United States to cut off its aid to India until human rights are respected, as the Human Rights in India Act provides. This video shows the bloody, violent repression which fuels the drive of Sikhs, Kashmiris, and other minority groups to be independent. I recommend it to all my colleagues and anyone else who is interested in promoting and expanding freedom. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the transcript of this video into the Record. Disappearances in Punjab On 31 August 1995, Punjab's Chief Minister Beant Singh was assassinated in a suicide mission of bombing carried out by a Sikh militant organization at the State government's Secretariat in Chandigarh. Beant Singh of the Congress party has taken office in early 1992 after winning the elections to the State Legislative Assembly, which the main Sikh political groups had boycotted to pursue their decade long agitation for a radical measure of autonomy for Punjab. As the Sikh electorate, constituting the majority of Punjab's population stayed away from the polling, the Congress party won the elections, without a real contest. But the government formed by the Congress party under Beant Singh's leadership projected the election results as the democratic mandate to stamp out the Sikh agitation, promising to implement the mandate by all possible means. Reports of human rights violations became widespread. The leaders of Hindu public opinion in Punjab argued that the due process of law was a luxury, which Indian could not afford while fighting the secessionist terrorism: [Interview with Vijay Chopra, publisher and editor of Hind Samachar group of newspapers, who brings out the three most popular language dailies in northern India.] Only the human rights groups and the individuals, with little influence on the working of the government, expressed indignation against the reports of police atrocities. [Interview with Satish Jain, Professor of Economics at Jawarharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.] Many inside observers of Indian politics, including the former President of India Zail Singh, admitted that the highhanded methods of the security forces, instigated the separatist terrorism. [Interview with Zail Singh.] historical background of the sikh separatist unrest Approximately twenty million Sikhs of India form less than 2 per cent of the country's population, but constitute majority in the agriculturally prosperous Northwestern province of Punjab, which had been divided between India and Pakistan in 1947. Prosperous Jat Sikh farmers dominate the Akali Dal, the main political party of the orthodox Sikhs, that launched the agitation of the radical measure of autonomy for the State in early 1982. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, a charismatic religious preacher, who had already emerged on the scene as the messiah of ``true Sikhs'', rallied the discontented sections of the Sikhs, particularly the unemployed youth, to the Akali agitation. The Union government projected the agitation as a secessionist movement, and refused to negotiate decentralization of political power. The next two years of virulent violence, which also witnessed the rise of Sikh terrorism in the real sense, came to a head in June of 1984 when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the military to flush out Bhindranwale and his armed followers from the Golden Temple of Amritsar in which they had taken shelter. When the operation was over, hundreds of Sikh militants, including Bhindranwale, and a larger number of Sikh pilgrims, were dead. The Akal Takht, an important shrine inside the temple complex regarded as the seat of political authority within the Sikh historical tradition, was rubble. For devout Sikhs, Bhindranwale and his followers, who had died fighting the Indian military, became the martyrs of the faith. A section of Bhindranwale's followers now began to talk of an independent Sikh state. The Parliamentary elections held at the end of 1989, returned many extremist candidates under the leadership of Simranjit Singh Mann, former police officer turned separatist politician. The results showed that the separatist cause now possessed a measure of popular support. Alienation of the Sikhs of Punjab from India's political system again became manifest when the overwhelming majority of them stayed away from the polling in early 1992, keeping with the call given by the main Akali groups to boycott the elections. The boycott helped the Congress party, under Beant Singh, to form its government in the State, and to embark on a highhanded policy to suppress the Sikh agitation without caring for the limits of the law. Many officials involved in the security operations privately admit that excesses, including custodial killings, do take place. But they argue that they have no other way to demoralize a secessionist movement, which enjoys a measure of sympathy in Punjab's countryside. evidence of state atrocities Interviews with Inderjit Singh Jaijee, Chairman, Movement Against State Repression, and Jaspal Singh Dhillon, Chairman, Shiromani Akali Dal's Human Rights Wing. [Photographic evidence of custodial torture and killings.] [Interview with Ranjan Lakhanpal, a lawyer who fights generally losing legal battles to enforce the rule of law, against the working of the Punjab police. Lakhanpal introduces two women victims of custodial rape.] Our own investigations in the Amritsar region reveal that the dealings of the security forces with the relatives of separatist militants, themselves unconnected with crime, are not only routinely illegal but also brutal. Apparently, the idea is to set an example of harshness that would discourage the rural folk from sympathizing with the extremist cause. [Interview with Arjun Singh, grandfather of a known militant Paramjit Singh Panjwad, tortured in the police custody. Panjwad's mother was killed in custody.] Many Sikh officers of the Punjab police privately corroborate these reports of police atrocities. [Interview with one woman police officer, on the condition of anonymity: She told us about her experience of custodial torture, rape and murders at an interrogation center she was attached to. Photographic evidence of custodial torture and murders.] Champions of human rights in Punjab are themselves vulnerable to persecution. Many have suffered long periods of illegal detention, torture in custody and even elimination. Sometimes their relatives become victims of police wrath. On 29 March 1995, lawyer Ranjan Lakhanpal's ten year old son Ashish was run over by a police vehicle. The vehicle belonged to an officer whom Ranjan has accused of murdering a detainee in custody. the case of jaswant singh khalra The more recent example comes from the case of Jaswant Singh Khalra, General Secretary of the Shiromani Akali Dal's Human Rights Wing, who got picked up by uniformed commandos of Punjab police from the porch of his house in Amritsar on 6 September 1995, six days after Beant Singh's assassination. Human Rights Wing has been focussing attention on unravelling the mystery of what happens to the large number of people the security forces illegally pick-up for interrogation. Jaswant Singh Khalra was associated with the investigations that led to the discovery that Punjab police have been cremating thousands of dead Sikhs illegally, by mentioning them in the registers at the cremation grounds as ``unclaimed'' and ``unidentified.'' The investigations also established that these ``cremated'' Sikhs were largely those who had earlier been picked up for interrogation. [Interview with the attendant of the cremation ground at Patti, a subdivisional town in Amritsar district.] Equally incriminating evidence against the police comes from the hospitals where the police sent some bodies so cremated for postmortem. [Interview with the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital at Patti: This doctor told us that Sarabjit Singh was still alive when the police first brought him for the postmortem. On being discovered alive, Sarabjit Singh was taken away by the police and brought back to the hospital the second time when he was actually dead. The hospital gave the postmortem report the police wanted. The Chief Medical Officer of the hospital at Patti also offered us some astonishing information on how he helped the police to get the postmortem reports they legally needed in all circumstances before cremating the dead bodies.] Investigation carried out by the Human Rights Wing forms the basis of a petition that the Committee for information and Initiative on Punjab has filed before the Supreme Court of India. The issue of illegal cremations by the Punjab police is not being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, on the orders from the Supreme Court. However, the order of the probe did not come before Jaswant Singh Khalra himself ``disappeared.'' [Interview with Jaspal Singh Dhillon: ``Khalra was quite clearly told that he can also become an unidentified body. And today Khalra is not there.''] The guilty officials of Punjab police knew that, without Khalra's investigative resourcefulness in the Amritsar district, the Human Rights Wing could not have so conclusively exposed their ways of handling the Sikh unrest in Punjab. Khalra had also been providing legal counselling to victims of police atrocities, particularly the relatives of the ``disappeared'', which encouraged them to approach the courts to redress their grievances. Khalra's whereabouts remain unknown. The chief of the Punjab police has categorically denied Khalra's abduction by the officers of his force. The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe the ``disappearance'' along with the issue of illegal cremations by the Punjab police. In ordering the probe, the court has neither extended protection to witness who might lead evidence to establish the truth, nor has asked the CBI to associate the human rights groups, directly involved in exposing the police atrocities, with the inquiry. It is evident that the Central Bureau of Investigation, as an investigating agency under the Union Home Ministry, lacks the necessary power and independence to determine the truth of allegations of serious human rights crimes, made against India's security forces. Human right groups worldwide are seriously concerned about the disappearance of Jaswant Singh Khalra, which is seen as a warning to all those who are engaged in exposing police atrocities in the State. The Sikh groups in Punjab are agitating for Khalra's release. Many leaders of the Western countries, including the President of the United States of America have conveyed their concern about the case to the government of India. However, the information percolating from the police sources suggests that Khalra might already have been eliminated. Despair dominants the mood of the Sikh leaders in Punjab.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The so-called antiterrorism bill infringed upon the liberties, the constitutional rights of the people of this country. While we are concerned about law and order and fighting terrorism, we do not want to violate the Constitution and hurt the liberties that our forefathers gave to us. My colleagues on the other side are saying because we did not vote for the terrorism bill the way they wanted it, that we are sanctioning the terrorist activities that took place in Israel where 50 or 60 people were killed by terrorist activities by the Hamas organization. That is a ludicrous argument. We hate that just as much as anybody. We deplore those actions. We want to see those people brought to justice, and our Government is doing everything possible to stop that terrorism, not only there but in the United States. But in the process, we must not violate the constitutional rights and liberties of American citizens.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I wish to insert into the Record a number of items pertaining to our Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which was signed into law by the President on Thursday. We are convinced that this legislation will contribute to the struggle for freedom in Cuba, and we are gratified that it is now the law of the land. I wish to include my official statement from last week's floor debate as well as a number of news stories regarding the effects of our bill and an op-ed from a Canadian newspaper. Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of history and responsibility that I rise in support of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. This legislation has travelled a very long way and many colleagues on both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to get us to this point. What we have before us today is nothing less than a strong, bipartisan message from the American people for Fidel Castro. That message is a very clear one: to paraphrase what Moses said to pharaoh, like Castro, the major tyrant of his day: Let your people go! Stop oppressing the people of Cuba who have suffered for 37 years under your corrupt, vicious, cruel dictatorship. You have run the Cuban economy into the ground, you have murdered hundreds, tortured and imprisoned thousands, and you have denied freedom to the people of Cuba for far too long. You are the last dictator in this hemisphere, and one of the very last communist thugs left in the World. Get lost! The libertad bill, Mr. Speaker, will help to deny hard currency to the Castro regime--the very hard currency that cruel dictatorship needs to survive. It tightens the embargo, and through codification, ensures that the embargo will remain in force until there is a democratic transition in Cuba. It sets up a plan to assist such a democratic transition government in the future. And it protects the rights of American citizens by allowing them to sue those foreigners who traffic in their stolen property. It also denies visas to those traffickers. Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this bill for over a year. I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Gilman, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, Congressman Diaz-Balart, Congressman Menendez, Congressman Torricelli, Senator Helms, Senator Coverdell, and Senator Dole. I also want to thank the committee staff and legislative counsel who worked so long and hard on this bill. Finally, to our friends, in the Cuban-American community, to Jorge Mas-Canosa and the Cuban American National Foundation, to the Valladares Foundation, to Unidad Cubana and other friends--thanks a million. I also want to particularly thank Ambassador Otto Reich, Robin Freer, Tom Cox and the U.S.-Cuba Business Council for their indispensable help over the past months in support of our bill. We are very appreciative and we are certain that the council will continue to play a constructive role on these issues. The four Cuban-American martyrs who gave their lives last week, Armando Alejandre, Jr., Pablo Morales, Mario de la Pena, Carlos Costa, made this possible. We dedicate this bill to their blessed memory. We will see to it that they did not die in vain.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So any citizen of the United States might be subject to this good-faith exception which would allow the Government to find something out about them inadvertently through a wiretap that could cause them unbelievable problems.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is one of our major concerns among the groups called the conservative action team in the House. I just want to make absolutely clear to all of our colleagues what the gentleman is saying right now, and I want them to understand it. This is going to expand the ability for people to be wiretapped way beyond where it is right now.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Let me just say that I want to vote for this bill, but I cannot vote for it without the Barr amendment in it, and I want to tell my colleagues why. If the Government of the United States can through, quote-unquote, good faith tap our phones and intrude into our lives, they violate our constitutional liberties, and that is something that we should not tolerate, and that is in section 305 and section 307. The FBI can gain access to individual phone billing records without a subpoena or a court order. Once again I believe that infringes upon our constitutional rights and liberties, and while we are trying to deal with terrorism, and we should, we should not violate our constitutional rights and liberties, and I believe this bill in its present form does. And that is why I think the Barr amendment is absolutely essential if we are going to pass something that will really deal with terrorism crime, but protect the liberties that we fought so hard for in the Revolutionary War.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I think my colleagues ought to think long and hard about that. One of the things we are concerned about is expanding the Government's ability to spy on or to find out everything about any individual in this country. Expanding this wiretap provision, I think, is something that is very, very disconcerting to me and many of my colleagues.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2276, the Federal Aviation Administration Revitalization Act. This well-crafted bill, introduced by Congressman Lightfoot and House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan Jr., was unanimously approved by the Aviation Subcommittee and the full House Transportation Committee, and enjoys strong bipartisan support. Moreover, it is widely supported by the general aviation industry. H.R. 2276 presents an opportunity to change and improve our Nation's aviation system. For years, those in the aviation industry have stressed the crucial need for FAA reform, and the need for the FAA to acquire state-of-the-art equipment in a timely manner. H.R. 2276 accomplishes this goal. This bill makes the FAA independent of the Department of Transportation, allowing the FAA to manage and regulate the safety of the air traffic control system without second-guessing or interference by the Department of Transportation, it frees the FAA from burdensome Federal procurement and personnel rules, and it establishes a commonsense management structure for the FAA. By passage of H.R. 2276, Congress is demonstrating its commitment to strengthening the FAA and supporting general aviation and other segments of the aviation industry. I urge the prompt passage of this legislation so that we can ensure a safer and more efficient aviation system for America and its air travelers.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

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. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, what sanctions would the gentleman impose?

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. 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].