Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, let me just restate, if you read current law, medical supplies can be sold to Cuba. There is no prohibition. I want to repeat, there is no prohibition. If they want to buy medical supplies to help the people of Cuba, they can do it. So this is just a red herring. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we received a copy of a letter today from over 100 people in Cuba, not Cuban-Americans, but Cubans, and in that letter, they stated their support for what we are trying to accomplish here tonight. Some people in this Chamber have indicated that the Cuban people were not for the Burton-Helms or Helms-Burton bill, but the fact of the matter is, many, many, many are. I submit to you that a majority of the people of Cuba want freedom, democracy, and human rights and that is spelled out very vividly in this letter, and I would like to quote very briefly from this letter one paragraph. Mr. Chairman, it says, ``The economic embargo maintained by subsequent American administrations has begun to make its influence, felt not against the people, but against those who cling to power.'' And he is talking there about Fidel Castro, Raoul Castro and the rest of that Communist dictatorship down there. Mr. Chairman, I would further like to say that I am very happy that a member of the Kennedy family, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], has chosen to endorse this piece of legislation, and I noted in the rule that just took place that both the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] supported the rule, and I would like to read from a statement by the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], the nephew of one of our great Presidents, John F. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, he said, and I quote, ``The bill is a clear statement that the American people stand arm in arm with the people of Cuba in their struggle against a repressive dictator, and that we will not back away from being partners in our common fight for freedom begun by my uncle, President Kennedy. ``We won the cold war because we never gave into communism. By standing firm, we brought down the iron curtain and saw communism collapse in Europe. ``The conditions which prompted President Kennedy to start the embargo have not changed. ``Now is not the time to offer relief to the Castro regime, especially relief at the expense of American citizens who had their property seized when Castro took power. ``This bill prevents the Castro regime and foreign corporations from profiting off the confiscated property of Americans. [[Page H 9338]] ``Let's be clear, foreign investment in Cuba means one thing, it is a lifeline to the Castro regime. ``It will legitimize an illegitimate government. ``It will offer protection to a man who must be brought down, just like the communist dictators of Eastern Europe. ``It will postpone the day that the people of Cuba will live in freedom and democracy. ``President Kennedy looked forward to the day Cubans would live in freedom. I share this hope for the future and this bill will help that day come soon.'' I want to congratulate the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy]. I do not know if he is here tonight, but I want to congratulate him for that statement and for supporting what his uncle started back in the 1960s. Mr. Chairman, our great Nation has always played a leading role in the promotion of freedom around the world. The inspiration of our Founding Fathers and the model of our Constitution are revered from Tokyo to Timbuktu, from Manila to Managua. Though our example is followed all over the globe, it is in our own hemisphere naturally that the American vision of freedom and democracy has had the most resonance. Mr. Chairman, it is therefore a particular tragedy that the island of Cuba, so close to the shores of the United States and with which our Nation has such a long shared history and interaction, is still captive to the whims of a megalomaniacal dictator, Fidel Castro. Freedom in Cuba is a concern not only for Cuban-Americans but for all Americans. Cuba is the last dictatorship in this hemisphere and the only holdout against a democratic tide. A free Cuba will benefit not only its own people, but the people of the Caribbean and Latin America. The economic potential of Cuba is absolutely tremendous. Before the communist revolution, the Cuban people enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in Latin America, but today, after 36 years of Castro's mismanagement and communism, corruption, and the communist failure, the Cuban people suffer with the lowest per capita income in the Western Hemisphere, with the possible exception of Haiti. Let me restate that. They were the best economy in Latin America when Castro took power and now they are the absolute worst. That tells us what communism does. The people of Cuba deserve to join the ranks of the millions of people around the world freed in recent years from the communist yoke. They yearn to be able to enjoy the benefits of the free market, of free trade, of investment and opportunity. Mr. Chairman, with Castro in power, such dreams are impossible. Castro is determined to hold on to power no matter what the cost to his own people. His motto is still, and he said this just recently, socialism or death. That tells you he is in no mood to change. It is quite clear that he is not at all interested in reform, economic or political, for such a move would spell the end of his cruel and vicious dictatorship. Oscar Arias said not too long ago, ``There is no will to reform in the Castro regime.'' The changes that have been made in recent years by the Castro regime have been taken out of desperation and are only intended to perpetuate Castro's rule. The fall of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc, the so-called evil empire, meant the end of an annual $6 billion in subsidies to Castro. This means that the Cuban economy is in free fall today, having declined by 60 percent since 1989. Castro is increasingly desperate for foreign currency. The only thing that can keep his regime in power. This is precisely the reason that he has embarked on a campaign to encourage foreign investment at the expense of Americans who had their property confiscated. It is this very lifeline that we must deny to this cruel dictatorship. Our bill is the tool that will deny him his last hope for keeping his regime in power. Let no one believe the silly argument that the continuation of the embargo harms American business. What kind of business opportunities exist in a pathetic dictatorship where no respect for property rights exists, where investment from the outside is tightly controlled, and where the economy is moving backward at a very rapid rate, I might add, a process that has been described as dedevelopment. Mr. Chairman, Freedom House rated Cuba dead last, dead last, even behind Somalia in terms of economic freedom in the entire world. Cuba is dead last in the world as far as business opportunity is concerned. It seems to me that despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, Cuba is just not a good business risk as long as Castro is in power. This is especially so given his track record. This is the same guy who confiscated $2 billion, that is 2,000 million dollars worth of U.S. property in 1962 dollars. Even without these obvious risks, companies investing in Castro's Cuba today should remember that they will probably not be welcome in a Democratic Cuba tomorrow. I think that point needs to be made. Those who invest in Cuba today, who buy confiscated real estate and property, they are certainly not going to be welcome by those who are in a freely and democratically elected government in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, besides the business dimension, there is a very serious moral dimension involved. Cuba, according to every single international human rights organization, every one without exception, is one of the worst violators in the world. Hundreds are still in prison for their political beliefs. Since Castro seized power, thousands have been imprisoned, killed, exiled and tortured. Just last year, and this is very important--I hope my colleagues will pay attention to this--just last year, a tug boat called the March 13th, full of men, women, and children, was purposely rammed and sunk by Castro's thugs. Over 70 innocent women and children and men drowned. They pulled their boat up, the navy of Castro, alongside this boat with women holding their children over their heads and they directed the hoses at them. When the women took the children down into the hold of the boat, they pulled up alongside, directed their hoses into the hold and drowned those innocent women and children just like rats. Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of government we are talking about. The Cuban people continue to have their basic rights denied and there is no hope for change under Castro. He has made that very clear. He referred to Gorbachev as a traitor to communism. This is not a man who will ever reform. Our bill, Mr. Chairman, is a beacon of hope for the people of Cuba. I have here a letter written by the leader of a major democracy movement I alluded to a moment ago and signed by well over 100 activists. They state very clearly once again that the Cuban people support what we are trying to do here and take comfort from it. There are two major reasons to support our bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman. First, it is in the U.S. interest to do so. Democracy in our hemisphere is beneficial to all of us and Cuba is today the skunk in the garden party of hemispheric democracy. Our bill will hasten democracy in Cuba. It is also in our interests because American citizens deserve the right, deserve the right, as was stated by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] a few moments ago, to sue to recover their stolen property. Our bill will give them that right. The second major reason to support the bill is that morally it is the right thing to do and America always tries to do what is right and just. Our Founding Fathers firmly believed that freedom is the deserved legacy of all people wherever they may be around the world. In promoting freedom for the people of Cuba, our neighbors, our brothers, we do nothing less than follow in the hallowed footsteps of our own Founding Fathers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Mendendez], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and especially, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the committee, for their very hard work in crafting a bill that I think will ultimately lead to the demise of the Castro regime in Cuba. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just say, we are the largest donator of food to the people of Cuba. I hope my colleague will hear that. We do not prohibit food or humanitarian assistance to go to Cuba. It is going down there every day. In fact, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has helped organize getting food into Cuba so that lady we are talking about whose child is going to be starving and all that sort of thing will not be as a result of the people of the United States because we are the largest donator of food in Cuba. It was also said that there might be somebody who would have a child who would need a kidney transplant who could not come to this country because we would not allow them to have a visa because their parents were trafficking in confiscated U.S. property. That is untrue because there is a presidential waiver provision in this bill. The Secretary of State and our embassies can waive that provision for any humanitarian purpose. They can do it on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Chairman, those two arguments are like a sieve. They do not hold water. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I might just say that I believe we are going to find that the President may have a position and the Secretary of State may have a position, but I will submit that tomorrow probably 300 Members of this body will have a different position, because we studied the issue and we want that man out of power. This is going to pass overwhelmingly, because the people of this hemisphere and the people of this country want freedom, democracy and human rights for the people who have suffered over 30 years in Cuba.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York for just a moment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], my learned colleague, we are not afraid of Fidel Castro. I do not know where the gentleman got that idea, that we are afraid of Fidel Castro. But we certainly are not afraid of Fidel Castro. Mr. Chairman, what we are concerned about is what he has done to the Cuban people; what he has done to the American people who had investment down there, whose property was confiscated, that he took away and is now trying to sell for hard currency so he can survive. We are concerned with people like Armando Valdarez, a patriot that stood up against Castro who spent 22 years in the Cuban gulag, was tortured, and has told all sorts of stories about what goes on down there. He wrote a book called, ``Against All Hope.'' I read it on an airplane and started crying, because of the atrocities perpetrated by Castro. People on the plane thought I was nuts, but the horrible things that he has done were so earth shaking to most people with heart that they say, ``Some monster like that has to go.'' He continues that same policy today. Mr. Chairman, he is not fit to rule. He rules by coercion. He rules by brute strength and power. That kind of thing we cannot tolerate. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] says he is against embargo. The gentleman voted for the embargo on Haiti and for the embargo on South Africa. My colleague cannot have it both ways. The gentleman does not believe in this embargo. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the money that goes to Fidel Castro's regime for a hotel that is built down there for the employee, he equates the currency of Cuba with the dollar. He says that they are equal in value. The actual fact of the matter is, it is a 70 to 81 differential. And he takes money from people that pay the salaries of Cubans who work in these hotels, let us say it is $400 or $500 a month, and he pays them back in pesos, which equates to $3 to $4 a month. If we read what the American Institute For Free labor said in part, the growing number of partnerships between foreign investors and Cuban Government agencies has not improved a lot of workers or provided them with greater autonomy. Instead, the Cuban Government has used the exploitation of working people and the absence of free association as a lure to attract investors, often to the detriment of workers in neighboring countries. The fact of the matter is, Castro believes in socialism or death. He does not care about the working people down there. Their plight has gone straight downhill since he took power. The only way it is going to change is for him to exit the scene, for him to exit the scene. The fact of the matter is, he was getting $4 to $6 billion a year from the old Soviet Union; he is not getting it anymore. The only time the embargo has started to work is in the last 2 to 3 years when the Cuban Democracy and Freedom Act sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] passed. That is when the embargo started to take hold and have teeth and work, and Castro has been on the ropes ever since. He is scared to death. He had people in the Committee on Rules yesterday watching what went on, because he knows, if this bill passes, he is not going to be able to get the hard currency he needs to survive. His days are numbered, and we should not throw him a lifeline, we should throw him an anchor. And I submit to you, this bill is an anchor.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished and helpful gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. We had an embargo against South Africa, against Haiti just recently, against Libya. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of whom have spoken already, supported those embargoes. This is a more important embargo in my opinion than any of those. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) [[Page H 9341]]

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say that I do not believe that. I believe it will become law and we will just see. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the very competent and fine leader of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say, briefly, Mr. Chairman, the embargo that everybody has been alluding to has been in place since the Cuban Democracy Act was passed several years ago by an overwhelming majority of this House. This does not have anything to do with the embargo. What this does is it puts pressure on people who traffic in confiscated U.S. property by denying them visas, No. 1, and by providing a cause of action in U.S. courts for restitution if they buy confiscated U.S. property or traffic in it. That is what this does. So when I keep hearing my colleagues keep talking about this being an expansion of the embargo, all we are doing is saying that people who had their property confiscated have a right, a cause of action, and that people who deal in confiscated property should not be allowed to make a profit by coming to the United States. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following articles from the Herald of September 20, 1995: The articles referred to are as follows: Viewpoints on United States-Cuba Relations--Find a Common Ground The following is excerpted from a July letter to President Clinton from Oscar Arias, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former president of Costa Rica: On June 26 I had the privilege of hearing your words at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco. I congratulate you for your inspiring message. It is satisfying to hear the president of the most powerful nation in the world remind us that the signatories of the U.N. Charter thought that ``merely punishing the enemy was self-defeating.'' Encouraged by your words and actions, I write to discuss a topic that directly concerns all inhabitants of our continent: the relationship between the United States and Cuba. My immediate concern is the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (Helms-Burton bill), which openly contradicts the principles so eloquently expressed in your speech in San Francisco. I fervently hope that Congress will not pass such pernicious legislation. But, as unfortunate as that would be, I am confident that you will veto this bill. This hope does not mean that I approve of the restrictions of liberty or the violations of human rights practiced by Fidel Castro's regime. Indeed, I have long been an outspoken critic of that regime. However, if ``merely punishing the enemy is self-defeating,'' to punish the people who are victims of this enemy is abominable. There is no longer any moral or ideological justification for the U.S. embargo. The United States and Cuba should set pride aside. Both nations should look not to the past but toward the horizons of the future. The stronger of the two sides, the one with the least to lose by opening up, would gain greater moral strength through such a tremendous act of political courage. The embargo has served the Cuban government as an excuse for its own political and economic failures. The Helms-Burton bill would strengthen the hands of Marxist hard-liners in Cuba. Rather than promoting dialogue and encouraging change, strengthening the embargo will only freeze the United States and Cuba into fixed political positions, devoid of openness. You have said that ``normalization and increased contact between Americans and Vietnamese will advance the cause of freedom in Vietnam just as it did in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The same principle applies to Cuba. And if the United States makes clear that it would not resort to any form of economic or military sanctions against Cuba, the international community will, without a doubt exert even stronger pressure upon Castro to initiate an opening of democracy on the island. I would personally work hard to achieve that. Mr. President, I ask you to begin negotiating a new era of U.S.-Cuban relations. Only then can democracy begin to glimmer as a possibility in Cuba. Cuban leaders have already expressed their readiness to enter into immediate negotiation over common problems, such as immigration. Why not test whether this is true? Why not consider the possibility of successively opening topics such as the fight against drug trafficking, the protection of the environment, the problem of human rights violations, and above all, the political and economic transition of Cuban government and society? let us begin anew I invite you, then, Mr. President, to recall the words of President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural speech of 1961: ``So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject of proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.'' I am sure, Mr. President, that every effort you make to alleviate the tensions between the United States and Cuba, to ease the sufferings of the Cuban people, and to create the necessary conditions for a nonviolent transition toward democracy will be appreciated by present and future generations. By ending the U.S. isolation of Cuba, you would gain the warm support and appreciation of every Latin American government. As you said in San Francisco: ``Let us say No to isolation.'' You have put aside bitterness and resentment toward Vietnam in order to move beyond a painful past. In the same spirit of that grand gesture the community of nations calls upon you to seek a common ground with the Cuban people.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my good friend and colleague. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 42. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to two clauses in this resolution which deserve close scrutiny. The first is the fifth ``Whereas Clause'' on page two. It concludes Whereas the continued overwhelming presence of more than 30,000 Turkish troops on Cyprus hampers the search for a freely negotiated solution to the dispute regarding Cyprus. The second is the sixth ``Resolved Clause'' on page three. It affirms that, The Congress--considers that the demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus would meet the security concerns of all parties involved, would enhance prospects for a peaceful and lasting resolution of the dispute regarding Cyprus, would benefit all of the people of Cyprus, and merits international support. I believe both of these clauses are seriously flawed. With respect to the fifth ``Whereas Clause'' on page two, I wish the resolution's supporters would say what they really mean--that the 30,000 Turkish troops in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus [TRNC] prevent the Greek Cypriots from unilaterally imposing their own solution to the Cyprus dispute on the Turkish Cypriots. Calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus prior to any negotiated settlement which provides for the security of the Turkish Cypriots is absurd. I would dare say that few in this body would ask the Republic of China on Taiwan to disarm as a first step toward promoting the unification of China or suggest that South Koreans should lay down their arms to facilitate the reunification of the Korean peninsula. While I am not trying to compare the Government of the Republic of Cyprus with North Korea or Communist China, the sad fact is that Turkish Cypriot distrust of Greek Cypriots is every bit as strong as Taiwanese distrust of Communist Chinese or South Korean distrust of North Koreans. This distrust is the result of the terrible repression which they suffered at the hands of Greek Cypriots from 1960 to 1974. To ignore the legitimate security concerns of the Turkish Cypriot community and to conclude, as this resolution does on page three, in the sixth ``Resolved Clause'' that the demilitarization of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus [TRNC] would meet the security concerns of all parties involved and would benefit all of the people of Cyprus without also requiring the Republic of Cyprus to make similar confidence-building concessions only reveals the biased nature of this resolution. If the supporters of this resolution were really concerned about promoting a fair resolution to the Cyprus dispute they would also call on the Governments of the Republic of Cyprus and Greece to end their defacto embargo of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus [TRNC]. While the Republic of Cyprus prefers not to use the word ``embargo,'' because a declared embargo is a form of recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus [TRNC], it has employed numerous tactics designed to impoverish the Turkish Cypriots since 1974. For example, the Republic of Cyprus declares all Turkish Cypriot airports ``illegal.'' They consider any landing by a foreign carrier as a violation of their air space, and Greek Cypriot air traffic controllers refuse to clear planes for landing in the north. Consequently, no planes from Europe will risk landing in the north. Tourists who wish to visit the north must transit through Turkey. This additional expense and burden have killed the development of a tourist industry. In addition, all overseas mail must be routed through Turkey. The Republic of Cyprus also declares all Turkish Cypriot seaports illegal. Thus, if a ship docks in the north and afterwards docks at a southern port, its captain is subject to arrest and imprisonment. The Republic of Cyprus has pressured most foreign countries to declare that export certificates, issued by Turkish Cyprus which vouch for the health and safety of products, are invalid. As a result, most Turkish Cypriot exports must be routed through Turkey, which adds to the cost and has jeopardized the survival of many Turkish Cypriot businesses. The Greek Cypriot embargo has also hindered growth of international business. Turkish Cypriots, who have applied to be agents of foreign companies and open franchises in the north have been rejected because Greek Cypriots have threatened retaliation against those companies that also have franchises in the Republic of Cyprus and Greece. Unfortunately, nothing about the Greek Cypriot embargo of the north is mentioned in House Concurrent Resolution 42. If the resolution's supporters really want to promote harmony between the two Cypriot communities, I suggest that they call on the Republic of Cyprus to end its economic embargo against the north before they demand the withdrawal of Turkish troops. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I want to call attention to the most serious problem with this resolution. Like most other resolutions brought before this committee dealing with Cyprus, House Concurrent Resolution 42 glosses over--some may even say purposely ignores--the history of Cyprus prior to 1974. I, therefore, feel compelled to examine the origin of this conflict and specifically the period of 1963-74. I want to stress to my colleagues that in 1960, when Great Britain relinquished control of the island, a bicommunal government was established with shared leadership by Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots as political equals. Neither community was to dominate the new government. Tragically, right after Britain's departure, the new President of Cyprus, a Greek Cypriot, Archbishop Makarios, began to carry out his plan for union with Greece. By December 1963, Greek Cypriots had destroyed the bicommunal character of the Republic physically ousting Turkish Cypriot leaders from their elected positions and destroying over 100 Turkish Cypriot villages. For the next 11 years, Turkish Cypriots, heavily outnumbered by the Greek Cypriots, suffered great losses--human and material--in clashes initiated by Greek Cypriots and fully supported by the Greek Army. One out of every 120 Turkish Cypriots, including women, children, and the elderly, was killed during this period even with U.N. peacekeeping troops present on the island. Thousands of Turkish Cypriots were forced to flee from their homes to live in enclaves throughout the island and were, in effect, held hostage in their own land without representation in government which was provided them [[Page H 9047]] in the 1960 constitution. United States Secretary of State George Ball visited Cyprus in February 1964 and concluded that Greek Cypriots ``just wanted to be left alone to kill Turkish Cypriots.'' Turkey waited for 11 years for help from the world community. None came. By 1974, Turkey could no longer stand by and watch innocent Turkish Cypriots be slaughtered by Greek Cypriots. So Turkey intervened militarily on the island which was completely legal under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee signed by the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, Britain, Greece, and the Greek Cypriots. It clearly stated that any of signatures had the right to intervene on Cyprus should the sovereignty of the island be threatened. Let me emphasize that these troops pose no threat to the southern part of the island. Since the Turkish military intervention concluded in 1974, these troops have never attacked or threatened to attack the south. They are there simply to deter aggression against Turkish Cypriots. Let me also add that unlike Government officials from Greece, who have often made statements saying that Cyprus is rightfully part of Greece, no Turkish officials have ever suggested that Turkey should attempt to annex the whole of Cyprus. Unfortunately, House Concurrent Resolution 42 completely dismisses the history of Cyprus. For Turkish Cypriots, the memories of 1960-74 remain vivid. It is absurd to suggest that they should lay down their arms and suddenly trust their age-old nemesis, especially when Greek Cypriots are continuing to try to impoverish them through an economic embargo. I cannot think of another conflict in the world where this committee would put forth such a solution. I call on my colleagues to reject House Concurrent Resolution 42. This resolution is biased against the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and Turkey. It makes no demands whatsoever of the Republic of Cyprus like lifting its economic embargo against the north, and it completely ignores the history of the island and who is to blame for its division.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just conclude by restating what my colleague just said. I hope Members hear this very clearly. We are the only country that has this recoupment provision in law, the only country. Our competitors subsidize their military production, their military equipment, which they sell around the world, but they do not have that recoupment provision. As a result, it does give them a distinct advantage. So I think that my colleague's legislation is well founded. I hope my colleague will support it.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may reclaim my time, I think we are splitting hairs here. The fact of the matter is that is what we are doing by repealing this law, what we are doing is we are making American industry competitive around the world with any foreign competitor. The people who used to be our allies, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] said a while ago, now are our economic competitors. We have to be competitive. This provision, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is trying to get repealed will make sure that takes place, that there is no advantage for any other country.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No, we are not.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is what we are trying to do.