Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, there is a full court press by this [[Page H 11406]] administration to put young Americans in harm's way in Bosnia, 25,000 of them. No matter that the American people do not want us involved. Does the President remember what happened in Beirut when 235 Marines were blown apart because they were sitting ducks? Does the President remember the body of a young American, naked and being dragged through the streets of Somalia? And today the problems are just as bad in Somalia as they were back then. I would just say to the President, if he were here, this a grave mistake. The people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have said clearly do not send our troops into harm's way in Bosnia. It is not in our national interest. Mr. President, listen to the people of this country. Do not send our troops into harm's way. It is going to be a tragic mistake. Mr. President, you demonstrated against Vietnam and you are about to put us in another situation in another part of the world that is not in our national interest. Do not make this mistake. A lot of young people are going to die. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said very clearly there are going to be casualties, there are going to be deaths. It need not happen, Mr. President.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I have been watching the television show on CBS, ``60 Minutes,'' for a long, long time, and I have always respected that program because it was very informative, and I always thought it was factual. And then, just after the last presidential election, I think Mr. Hewlett, the producer of ``60 Minutes,'' said in a national interview that had he exposed all of the information that was available to him at ``60 Minutes'' during the campaign, that the then candidate for President, who was later elected, would be walking around in the snows of New Hampshire. So it became apparent to me that the ``60 Minutes'' producers and the people who ran that show had a very strong bias, and that bias was reflected in much of their reporting. This became apparent to me again about 2 weeks ago on a Saturday night, when I watched Mike Wallace start doing a 20 minute segment on the death of Vince Foster. I have never seen so much misinformation and so much bias in reporting as I saw during that 20 minute segment. Let me just tell you some of the things that happened, some of the things that ``60 Minutes'' ignored. Mike Wallace said that every government body that has investigated the death of Vince Foster reached the same conclusion, than he killed himself at Fort Marcy Park. He did not mention that the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, has reopened the investigation. Mr. Starr's attorney spent this summer questioning witnesses before a grand jury. The FBI is back in Fort Marcy Park, or was a couple of weeks ago, more than 2 years after Vince Foster's death, looking for the bullet that killed him. Would the independent counsel go through all of this work were there not unanswered questions about the case? So I believe that Mr. Wallace was incorrect when he said that the conclusion has been reached by every government agency. In addition, many of us in Congress have come to different conclusions as well. Another thing that he forgot to mention was that the police were not the first people to encounter Foster's body. He mentioned a national park policeman who found the body. The fact of the matter is that the park policeman did not find the body. The body was found by a man called C.W., the confidential witness, who was the first person on the scene. I have a sworn statement, where I went out to his home with a court reported and two other Congressmen, from the confidential witness. The FBI questioned him extensively and considers him honest and credible. ``60 Minutes'' never talked about him or even mentioned on that program that there was a confidential witness that found the body. ``60 Minutes'' never read his statement. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], who is the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the House, told ``60 Minutes'' that he knows more about this subject than any Member of Congress, and, although I have high regard for Representative Clinger, he never interviewed the confidential witness, although he had an opportunity to do so, and he never read his sworn deposition, which was verified. Mike Wallace went into great detail during this interview about how the gun was found in Foster's right hand. He said critics of the investigation incorrectly stated that Foster was left-handed. Well, that misses the point entirely. When the confidential witness discovered the body, he looked very carefully. He was within 18 inches of Mr. Foster's face. He looked very carefully and saw no gun in either hand. He was very clear in his statement, in the sworn statement before me and the FBI, that when he found Foster, both hands were palm up with the thumbs pointed out away from the body. When the police arrived on the scene, they found his right hand palm down with the thumb pointed in, the gun on the trigger finger, and the gun was partially obscured by his hand and his leg. When the confidential witness found the body, the head was looking straight up, and there were no bloodstains on his cheek. When the police arrived, the head was still pointing up, but there was a contact bloodstain on the cheek and the trails of blood running from his mouth and nostrils down the side of his face. Now, how did Foster's hand get moved and why was there no gun in it when the man found it, and later there was a gun in it? How did Foster's head get moved? It is obvious to me that somebody was there and moved the body. Now, the Park Police officer, Officer Fornshill, was not, as I said before, the first to discover the body. It was a confidential witness. Park Police Officer Kevin Fornshill told Mike Wallace that Foster's body could not have been moved to the park because the vegetation around him was not trampled. But the fact of the matter is the confidential witness said in a sworn statement that the vegetation below the body, from the feet all the way down to a path that went all the way around the park, it was trampled flat. There was a narrow path at the bottom of the berm that winds around the perimeter of the park. ``60 Minutes'' would have known this if they had read his statement, or even decided to look into it and asked. The confidential witness told the FBI that he saw a half-empty wine cooler body near Foster's body. The Park Police did not find it. What happened to the wine cooler bottle and were there any fingerprints on it? As the confidential witness was leaving the park, he looked inside the white Nissan parked in the lot and saw a half-full package of wine cooler bottles, very similar to the one beside the body, a briefcase, and a suit jacket that looked similar to Foster's suit pants. This was not Foster's car. Foster's car was a gray Honda and it was parked further away, and C.W., the confidential witness, did not walk near it. Mike Wallace made a big issue out of the amount of blood around the body. He interviewed the medical examiner, who said there was sufficient blood underneath the head and shoulders to conclude that he died at that spot. This misses the key point. There would have been blood underneath Foster's head, whether he shot himself at the spot or was moved there. The key point is there was no blood spattered on anything behind where Foster was sitting. Anytime someone shoots himself through the mouth, there would be blood splattered all over above him, and there was nothing above him that had any blood on it whatsoever. The vegetation on the path behind Foster was clean. The first emergency medical services person who arrived at the park, George Gonzalez, commented that it was very unusual for a suicide victim's body to be laid out so neatly, with the feet together and the hands neatly at his side. He told this to the staff of the Committee on Government Operations, and he said: ``I find it odd to have the body laid out like it was. I wouldn't expect the hand or body in the position found, the hands perfectly at the side.'' ``60 Minutes,'' incidentally, did not interview Mr. Gonzalez. Mike Wallace noted that it was not unusual for Foster's clothes to have carpet fibers on them. Foster's attorney said that Mrs. Foster had just had new carpeting installed in their home. Well, if that is the case, why did the FBI not take carpet samples and match them with the fibers on his clothes? They did not do that. There were blond hairs on Mr. Foster's body and all over his clothes. Why did the FBI not compare these hairs to the hair of the people Foster knew and was close to? Here are some other keys points that ``60 Minutes'' left out in their biased reporting. First, the Park Police investigation was incomplete and unprofessional. The photos of the crime scene were underexposed and did not turn out. The only photos were of very poor quality, and they were made with instamatic cameras. No search was conducted for any skull fragments. When you blow the top of your head out with a .38 caliber bullet, there are skull fragments and bone fragments all about where the head was. There was none of this, no blood and no brain particles. No search was conducted for skull fragments, as I said. Only a very cursory search was conducted for the bullet. White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum refused to allow Park Police officers or the FBI to search Foster's office. In fact, the night of Foster's death, Bernie Nussbaum, the chief counsel of the President, and two other high level White House aides, Patsy Thomason, who was the chief personnel officer, and Mrs. Williams, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, searched Foster's office and removed files having to do with Whitewater. This was after the Park Police asked that the office be sealed, and it was not sealed for at least 12 hours while they went through and rifled through those papers. Justice Department officials accused Nussbaum of violating an agreement they had reached regarding the search of Foster's office. Second, the coroner that conducted the autopsy on Foster has made glaring errors in the past. This was not revealed by the ``60 Minutes'' show. Dr. James Beyer was the coroner who reviewed and did the autopsy on Vince Foster. Let me tell you about Mr. Beyer. In 1989 there was an autopsy on establishing the death of a man named Tim Easley. Mr. Beyer, the coroner, ruled that Easley killed himself by stabbing himself in the chest. He failed to notice a defensive wound on the man's hand. The case was reopened, and, after an outside expert reviewed the case, Easley's girlfriend confessed to murdering him, after he had been judged a suicide by the coroner. That is one mistake. In 1991, regarding a Mr. Tommy Burkett, Mr. Beyer did an autopsy on him and ruled that Burkett had killed himself with a gunshot wound to the mouth very similar to Vince Foster's. He said it was a suicide. Mr. Burkett's family had the body exhumed and reexamined by an outside expert. The second coroner reported that Dr. Beyer had failed to notice a disfigured and bloody ear, indicating a struggle, and a broken jaw, indicating he had been hit in the face and his jaw was broken during a struggle. The FBI is now investigating this case. It obviously was a murder or homicide, and not a suicide. The first special counsel, Robert Fiske, appointed a board of forensic experts to review the Vince Foster case. They concurred in Fiske's opinion that Foster killed himself at Fort Marcy Park. However, they were not appointed until a year after Foster died, and the only way that they could come to the conclusions they did was to read the coroner's report and use that as a guide to come to their conclusions. So they never saw the body, and they verified he was killed at the park. But the fact of the matter is, they could not possibly have known that, because they only used the coroner's report to come to the conclusions they did. So, in conclusion, last summer, when the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Services held a hearing on Foster's death, the FBI testified there was absolutely no doubt that Foster killed himself, and that he killed himself at Fort Marcy Park. Now, let us review the problems and glaring inconsistencies with this investigation. First, the eyewitness who found the body testified that he is sure there was no gun in Foster's hand and the hands were in a different position than when the police arrived. That was not mentioned on ``60 Minutes.'' Second, the confidential witness said there were no bloodstains on the face when he found the body. There were bloodstains on the cheek when the police arrived, indicating it had been moved. When they moved his body, his head went over to the side and blood drained out on the face. Third, the confidential witness testified he saw a wine cooler bottle close to Foster's body in the park, and a package of similar wine cooler bottles in a car in the parking lot that did not belong to Foster. Where did they come from? Where did that bottle go? Fourth, despite extensive searchers of the park, the FBI has been unable to find the bullet that killed Vince Foster, and they are still looking for it. Evidently the independent counsel sent them back out there 2 or 3 weeks ago to look for it again. Fifth, no skull fragments were ever found at the site where Foster's body was found, even though there definitely would have been skull fragments from that kind of a wound. Sixth, there were no fingerprints on the gun. Get this: The gun was in his hand, and there were no fingerprints on the gun. The FBI said they probably, get this, ``melted off in the heat.'' And yet when they took the gun apart, they found fingerprints there from the time the gun was made at the factory. Seventh, there were no fingerprints on the suicide note found in Foster's briefcase in his White House office. It was torn up into 28 pieces, and the first few times the briefcase was searched, they could not find the note at all, even though they turned it upside down, and there were no fingerprints on it. Eighth, the coroner who conducted the autopsy of Foster's body has made glaring errors of high profile cases in the past. In one case, a body had to be exhumed and reexamined in order to change the ruling from suicide to murder. Ninth, security guards working at the Saudi Arabian Ambassador's residence across the street from the park, within 100 yards, 300 feet, with guards outside all day and night, heard no gunshot. Tenth, Foster's shoes were completely clean, with no grass or dirt stains, even though he was supposed to have walked 700 yards through the park to the second cannon. No. 11, the FBI never made any attempt to identify the carpet fibers or the blond hair on Foster's clothing. No. 12, the police photos at the death scene did not turn out, leaving a serious lack of documentation of the death scene. With all of the glaring problems, can you imagine the FBI telling the Senate Banking Committee there could be no doubt about where and how Foster died? With all of these glaring problems, can you imagine what Johnny Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, and O.J. Simpson's other lawyers would have done in a case like this? Independent Counsel Starr is still investigating this death. ``60 Minutes'' should not jump to conclusions until Mr. Starr has completed his investigation, and Members of Congress should not jump to conclusions until Mr. Starr completes his investigation as well. So I just would like to say to my friends at ``60 Minutes,'' Mr. Wallace, Mr. Hewlitt, and everybody else, before you make the kind of determination that you did and do the kind of reporting that you did 2 weeks ago, please talk to all the people involved, especially eyewitnesses. The man who found the body, who gave a sworn statement under oath to me and to two other Congressmen, was never contacted, never interviewed, and nobody has seen that report, even Mr. Clinger, who is the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight here in the House. So I just say that I think it was a bad piece of reporting, and I would urge them to be more thorough in the future.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this moral, long-overdue legislation. It is nothing short of preposterous that we keep our Embassy in Tel Aviv rather than in Jerusalem. In every country in the world, the U.S. Embassy is located in the capital of that country. Why not in Israel? Every day that passes by without our Embassy in Jerusalem is 1 day too many. Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its eternal capital is stronger than that of any other country in the world to its capital. That claim is rooted in a 3,000-year-old bond that is recorded in the Bible itself. ``By the waters of Babylon, there we sat and wept, as we remembered thee, O Zion!'' For 3,000 years, the Jewish people have kept their faith with Jerusalem. Every year, on Yom Kippur, and at Passover, Jews repeat the phrase: ``Next year in Jerusalem!'' Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to tell the President, regarding the United States Embassy: ``Next year in Jerusalem!'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, October 10 marks the 84th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China, a day that is marked here in Washington by a number of social events. But there is a more important reason for us to celebrate this date along with our Chinese friends, for it could only be under a democratic system that Taiwan has been able to flourish economically and socially as we have seen over the past decade, becoming one of the worlds leading economic powers. To help us celebrate all of these momentous accomplishments for our friends on Taiwan, I urge my colleagues here in the Congress to support the Republic of China's bid to gain membership in the United Nations. Although a member of several international organizations, the Republic of China has been refused a seat in the United Nations, which to many of us, is truly absurd, for it denies to all of us around the world the benefits that the Republic of China's membership could bring. I know that Representative Benjamin Lu has worked tirelessly for the last year on this matter, and I know that we all hope to see this important step realized for the Republic of China. I can think of no better way for us to show our support for the democratic ideals found in the Republic of China than to support this United Nations bid.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues who are here will listen to what I am going to read to them. A man named Mohammed Rahim Mosleh, an American citizen, was picked up for questioning Wednesday at a cafe by plain- clothesmen who identified themselves as agents of Jericho's preventive security police on the West Bank, now the new domicile of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. He was picked up. He was dressed only in his trousers when his body was returned today at 2:00 a.m. Now get this, my colleagues, his forehead was bruised blue, his lip was torn open, blood had flowed from one ear, and there were what appeared to be burn marks on his right foot, like cigarette burns, according to family members. Palestinian security officials speaking on conditions of anonymity, said Mosleh was overcome by the 98 degree heat in Jericho and had a heart attack. Get that, he had a heart attack with his head smashed in, his lip bleeding, his blood coming out of his ear and burn marks on his feet. A doctor at Jericho's hospital, where Mosleh was dead on arrival, refused to issue a death certificate. The certificate would normally include a cause of death. Witnesses said Mosleh was playing cards at a village coffee shop when six men identifying themselves as preventive security agents for the PLO approached his table Wednesday and invited Mosleh outside. They said they were investigating a theft of gold from his sister and asked him to come with them to Jericho. When he did not return that night, his wife and two of his sons drove to Jericho on Thursday to ask about him. Preventive security agents twice told them to come back later, assuring them that Mosleh was there. On the third trip, another agent said preventive security knew nothing about his whereabouts. Now, I am for the peace process in the Middle East. We all want there to be peace in the Middle East, and we want it to work out between the Israeli Government and the PLO leader, Yasser Arafat, and the PLO forces. But [[Page H 9863]] here is an American citizen that was tortured to death, and nobody is doing anything about it. This is an American citizen who had his head bashed in, his lip torn open, beaten in the ear so severely that blood came out of his ear, and burn marks on his feet. He was tortured to death, and nobody is doing anything about it. To add insult to injury, we are going to give the PLO $500 million over the next 5 years. Now, I am for the peace process. But this kind of baloney has to stop, and so I say to the State Department and to the President and anybody else who has any authority over this peace process over there, we want a full accounting of this man's death and those who perpetrated this atrocity must be brought to justice. If we do not get justice, then we ought to cut off that $500 million in aid we are giving them. There should be severe conditions, in any event, put on that aid. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 1995] American Dies in Custody of Palestinians (By Barton Gellman) Ein Yabroud, West Bank, Sept. 29.--A Palestinian American grocer on vacation from Dallas was returned dead to his wife and family here early today after about 36 hours in custody of security police in the Palestinian self-rule enclave of Jericho. Members of his immediate family said Aram Mohammed Rabim Mosleh, 52, picked up for questioning Wednesday at an Ein Yabroud cafe by plainclothesmen who identified themselves as agents of Jericho's Preventive Security police. Mosleh was dressed only in trousers when his body was returned today at 2 a.m. His forehead was bruised blue, his lip was torn, blood had flowed from one ear, and there were what appeared to be burn marks on his right foot, according to family members who saw him. Palestinian security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mosleh was overcome by the 98-degree weather in Jericho and had a heart attack. A doctor at Jericho's hospital, where Mosleh was dead on arrival, refused to issue a death certificate. The certificate would normally include a cause of death. Mosleh is at least the fourth person--the first holding a U.S. passport--to die in suspicious circumstances in the hands of the Palestinian self-rule security establishment. Although the time of death could not be pinned down precisely, Mosleh appears to have lost his life within hours of Thursday's White House appearance by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for the signing of an accord extending palestinian rule in the West Bank. The Jericho forces are responsible to Arafat. One American official said the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem would place ``tremendous pressure'' on the Jericho forces for an independent investigation into Mosleh's death, and said the FBI would take part, as it sometimes does in foreign cases involving Americans to establish if there was any political motivation against the United States. ``This will be an enormous embarrassment for Arafat in Washington,'' the official said. A report last month by the Israeli human rights group B T selem found a ``greatly disturbing picture'' of ``gross human rights violations'' by the Jericho-based security police. Some of those interrogated and released have told of being beaten and tortured with electric prods, hit cigarettes and burning plastic. John Bargeron, deputy consul general in Jerusalem, was said to be planning a trip to Jericho on Saturday to meet with the chief of Palestinian forces there. He planned to ask about unconfirmed reports that another Palestinian American had been arrested with Mosleh and remained in custody. This village near Ramallah, about 12 miles north of Jerusalem, has an unusually large number of American citizens. Many of the men, like Mosleh, live and work in the United States. They send money to their families here and return for one or two months a year. Mosleh was no stranger to controversy. Two years ago, Israeli police arrested him on suspicion that he had killed two Palestinians in the West Bank. They held him eight months, according to U.S. diplomatic officials and Asid Mosleh, his oldest son. The Israelis released him without charge. Mosleh then returned to Dallas, where he owns a grocery store. The business made him wealthy by the standards of Ein Yabroud, where he was nicknamed ``the millionaire,'' the Associated Press reported. He arrived here for a visit last month at his fortress-like and palatial family * * *. ``Anybody can have a heart attack,'' said Wahid Hussein Mosleh's brother-in-law, who said the family did not want further trouble with Preventive Security. Witnesses said Mosleh was playing cards at a village coffee shop when six men identifying themselves as Preventive Security agents approached his table Wednesday and invited Mosleh outside. They said they were investigating a theft of gold from his sister and asked him to come with them to Jericho. When he did not return that night, his wife and two of his sons drove to Jericho on Thursday to ask about him. A Preventive Security agent twice told them to come back later, assuring them that Mosleh was there. One their third trip another agent said Preventive Security knew nothing about Mosleh. A preliminary investigation by U.S. diplomats suggested today that Mosleh was handed over by Preventive Security to the Mukhabarat. One Preventive Security representative told a U.S. field investigator that his service had obtained a ``receipt'' for the prisoner.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Just briefly, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I only met Mr. Kennelly a couple of times, but whether we have philosophical or political differences around here or not, we are all family. Once you go through the wars like we have, we build up a very strong mutual respect for one another, even though we do have those differences. Barbara Kennelly is one of the finest people I know in this Chamber, and her husband likewise was a fine person. On behalf of the people who are not here tonight on our side of the aisle, we want to express our condolences to her and her family. I know this is a very difficult time. As part of the House of Representatives family, we want to express our concern for them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the final issue of the Harrison Post, Fort Benjamin Harrison's weekly newspaper that published its last issue on September 28, 1995. The Harrison Post was established in April 1966, by Ferdinand Stauch, a veteran of ``Merrill's Marauders,'' and has well served the information needs of the military community at Fort Harrison for nearly 30 years. Due to the closure of Fort Harrison, most of the soldiers have departed, and it was inevitable that the Harrison Post would have to stop the presses. Throughout the base closure process, the newspaper maintained its commitment to excellence. The Harrison Post has won 27 awards for excellence in journalism, and is considered to be one of the most honored newspapers of its type in the Army. Throughout its history, the Harrison Post has provided timely, accurate, and reliable information to the servicemen and women, retirees, and civilians that have made up the Fort Harrison community. I take this opportunity to salute the Harrison Post, and those who have served on its staff, for their contributions and service to the Nation.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the urgent human rights situation in Punjab. As I have said many times on this floor, The Indian government and Indian armed forces have repeatedly trampled on the human rights of the Sikh majority in this northern province. The State Department has reported that between 1991 and 1993, the Indian government paid 41,000 cash bounties to policemen for extra judicial killings of Sikh suspects. Human Rights Watch issued a report in 1994 quoting a Punjab police officer as saying that 4,000 to 5,000 Sikhs were tortured at his police station alone. Asia Watch said in one of its many reports on the appalling situation in Punjab that virtually every Sikh being held in prison is tortured. The Indian government's current reign of terror dates back to the attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar in 1984. That summer, Indian security forces launched a blistering assault on this holiest of Sikh shrines, along with 38 other Sikh temples, killing an estimated 20,000 Sikhs. The brutal atrocities committed against the Sikh people led to a strong independence movement throughout Punjab. On October 7, 1987, the five-member Panthic Committee, appointed by all of the major SIKH resistance groups, declared their intention to create an independent Sikh homeland by the name of Khalistan, and created a governing body know as the Council of Khalistan. This October marks the eight anniversary of that declaration. The President of the Council of Khalistan, Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, resides in Washington DC, and has been a tireless advocate of human rights and self determination for the Sikhs. Dr. Aulakh has worked with great determination over the last eight years to inform Members of Congress and other government officials of the terrible atrocities being committed against the Sikh people. The human rights situation has not improved over the last eight years, if anything, it has gotten worse. Earlier this month, an esteemed human rights activist, Jaswant Singh Khalra, was abducted from his home after having publicized the murder and cremation of thousands of Sikhs by Indian security forces. Mr. Khalra is reportedly being tortured in prison. Just this week, over 150 of the most distinguished Sikh leaders held a peaceful protest in front of the Governor's mansion to protest Mr. Khalra's detention. All were arrested and harassed. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Indian government in Punjab to begin to respect the basic and fundamental human rights that all human beings deserve--life, liberty, justice and self-determination. It is time for the reign of terror to end. I congratulate Dr. Aulakh and him many colleagues on their dedication and persistence over the last eight years. On this eight anniversary of the declaration of Khalistan, I congratulate all of the Sikh people who have peacefully and quietly stood up for their rights under an oppressive system. My thoughts and prayers are with the families whose sons and daughters have disappeared or been tortured or murdered.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe my learned colleagues have read current law. The current law says in section 1705, ``Support for the Cuban people,'' under section B, ``Donations of food,'' ``Nothing in this or any other act shall prohibit donations of food to nongovernmental organizations or individuals in Cuba.'' Under section C, ``Exports of medicines and medical supplies,'' it says, ``Exports of medicines or medical supplies instruments or equipment to Cuba shall not be restricted.'' Shall not be restricted. It goes on to say under subsection 1, ``On-site verifications'': ``Subject to subparagraph B an export may be made under subsection C only when the President determines that United States Government is able to verify by on-site inspections and other appropriate means that the exported item is to be used for the purposes for which it was intended and only for the use and benefit of the Cuban people.'' The reason that language was put in there was to make sure that Castro did not take these supplies and use them for some other purpose, other than to help the Cuban people. But they can get medical supplies today under current law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this, I believe, is a red herring. The fact of the matter is, the United States of America is the largest giver of humanitarian aid to Cuba in the world today. The people who are suffering down there get a great deal of help from the United States, both in medical supplies and in food. The question then comes, why are we going to give Castro the right to buy these products? My learned opponents says we are denying people with asthma the ability to be treated; children who have other maladies are not being able to be treated. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely not true. Castro can buy these medical supplies if he wants to from anyplace in the world. We are not trying to keep kids from being treated or families from being treated. [[Page H 9387]] As a matter of fact, as I said, we are the biggest giver of humanitarian and medical supplies in the world from a humanitarian standpoint. We do not sell them to them, we give them to them. If somebody in Cuba wants to contact a relative in the United States and say, send us some asthma medicine, they can do it and they do it. This is a red herring. I cannot understand why they are trying to add this to the bill. We are trying to put the squeeze on Fidel Castro by denying him hard currency so that the people of Cuba will have freedom, democracy, and human rights, which have been denied them for about 35 years. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not necessary. The United States is doing everything we can to help the people of Cuba. If medical supplies are needed, there are hundreds of countries from which Castro can buy these supplies. What it would do is get the camel's nose under the tent as far as breaking the embargo that we have on Cuba, and that is what I think my learned colleague is trying to do. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me end, Mr. Chairman, by saying once again that I appreciate the hard work of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn]. He is a very thoughtful member of the Committee on International Relations. We are very happy to accept his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record correspondence to the Speaker concerning committee consultations on H.R. 927. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, August 3, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich, The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to you regarding the ``Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1995'' (H.R. 927), legislation that has already been reported by the Committee on International Relations (H. Rept. 104-202, Pt. 1). When it was introduced, H.R. 927 was also referred to [[Page H 9395]] the Committee on the Judiciary and, following the filing of the report by the International Relations Committee, this referral period was extended until August 4, 1995. H.R. 927 was referred to the Judiciary Committee because of a number of its provisions fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of this Committee. Specifically, section 302 would create a civil cause of action in U.S. district courts by ``United States nationals'' against any person that traffics in property that was confiscated by the Government of Cuba, on or after January 1959. A ``United States national'' includes individuals who became naturalized U.S. citizens after the confiscation occurred. Section 303 establishes an alternate method for determining the amount and ownership of claims brought under section 302. In doing so, both section 303 and section 304 impact on the decisions and jurisdiction of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, which is an agency under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. Section 401 impacts on this Committee's jurisdiction with respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act by permitting the Secretary of State to exclude from entry into the United States any alien who has confiscated the property of a U.S. national or who traffics in such property. As a result of consultations between the International Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee, a number of changes were made in the text of H.R. 927. Consequently, the Judiciary Committee does not intend to mark up H.R. 927. However, this does not in any way waive this Committee's jurisdiction over that bill or related legislation, nor over the general subject matters contained in the bill which fall within this Committee's jurisdiction. I also request that Members of the Judiciary Committee be appointed to serve on any conference committee appointed with respect to this legislation. Sincerely, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. If you read the law, it is very clear. It says that the President of the United States determined that the United States Government is able to verify it is being used for the benefit of the Cuban people. If President Clinton wants it to go there, he can verify that it is going to be used for the Cuban people, then it can go. Let me read you something from a businessman who had had a business, a Spanish businessman who had a business down there that was taken away from him by Castro. I want you to listen to this. One year ago, one year ago, it says: This same phenomenon also occurs in general with all foreigners in Cuba because of the mere fact they have dollars, hard currency, they have access to everything the Cuban people cannot purchase with their work: food, clinics with medicines, good clothes, gasoline or electricity and hotels. In Cuba there are two types of citizens: those who have dollars, as I did, mostly foreigners, and all with the privileges that that entails and those who have Cuban pesos who are literally dying of hunger and illness because of a regime that refuses to change a system that is absolutely incapable of generating a dignified way of life for the country. The fact of the matter is Castro takes hard dollars, the money has to go to the government for somebody's payroll, and he gives them then the same [[Page H 9390]] amount of pesos. If they get $400 a month, he gets the $400 in hard currency, he gives them 400 pesos, which is 80-to-1 differential, which means they are getting $3.20 a month, and they cannot even buy things you are talking about. The fact of the matter is the Cuban people are suffering because of this Communist dictator and his policies. It is a command economy that must be changed, and the only way it is going to change is if we pass our bill in its original form.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] has come up with a very valuable amendment. It was well thought out. I appreciate very much his contribution that he has made to this legislation. I want to thank him for being willing to work out an agreement that I think is going to be better for the bill and better for the legislation and better for the people of Cuba in the final analysis. It provides a mechanism for helping them rebuild Cuba once the Castro dictatorship falls.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I [[Page H 9394]] have talked with the gentleman offering the modification to the amendment. I think it is a good modification and we are prepared to accept that. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The people in Cuba make 10 cents a day. My colleague over there says if we lift the embargo that we are going to help them. The fact of the matter is that Castro has the command of the economy; he controls the food and medicine. My colleague from Florida just pointed out that he is giving medicine to the hurricane victims in other countries. If he is so strapped, why does he not keep the medicine for his own country? He has the supplies. He has the food. As the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] pointed out, he is selling it to tourists for hard currency so he can pay the military to keep him in power because he is afraid of his own people. We will not help the Cuban people by lifting this embargo. Mr. Chairman, let me go on to say that the embargo really did not start until 2\1/2\ years ago when the Torricelli bill, the Cuban Democracy Act, passed. Up until that time, it had no teeth in it. When the Soviet Union cut off the aid, the $6 billion a year to Castro, he started to sink. He is desperately trying to survive today, and we should not throw him a lifeline as my colleagues unintentionally are trying to do. We should deny him the hard currency. All this bill does is say he cannot sell confiscated U.S. property. Our constituents had property down there that he took away from them that he is now selling to try to get hard currency to survive. All we want to do is give our constituents a way to get restitution from this government and deny him the hard currency he needs to survive as the Communist dictator, the last Communist dictator in our hemisphere. Mr. Chairman, I want to end up by reading to Members a part of a letter from Armando Valladares, who spent 22 years in Castro's gulags. He was our U.N. human rights ambassador, one of the most revered Cuban Americans and Cubans in the world. He says, ``I am a former political prisoner of Fidel Castro's jails, where I was confined for 22 long years. In those jails I saw many of my best friends die due to the horrible tortures and inhumane treatment. I strongly believe that the remaining days of Castro's tyranny will be shortened once your Libertad bill, now up for a vote, is passed''. The endorsement of our legislative by the most influential dissident leaders inside Cuba, inside Cuba, proves that they are convinced, as I am, that this law is an important contribution towards our goal: A free and Democratic Cuba. Viva Cuba libre. Mr. Chairman, we want liberty and freedom for the Cuban people, and this is the way to do it, to deny Castro his lifeline and the hard currency that he so desperately needs. With that, I urge a no vote on this amendment and a yes vote on the liberty amendment, the liberty bill, which I think will help the Cuban people. [[Page H 9393]] Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have remaining?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. My colleagues from Indiana says we are hurting the Cuban people. Do you know how much they make, I ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] every day? The average Cuban makes between 10 and 15 cents a day, 10 and 15 cents a day. How are you going to hurt them worse than Castro has? You cannot, and the only thing that is going to change is if we force this man from power, and if we deny him hard currency, we can get that job done and save the Cuban people. Ten cents to fifteen cents a day. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], a learned leader on the Democrat side of the aisle. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a great American, a Cuban- American, of whom I am very proud.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 927, the bill just passed.