Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as if we needed more evidence about the national security threat posed to the United States by the Castro regime, the FBI yesterday arrested 10 individuals for operating a spy ring in the U.S. for the Cuban Communist regime. The Cuban spy ring's mission was the collection of information about U.S. military installations and anti-Castro groups operating in Florida. The FBI bust is the latest proof that after 40 years in power, the Castro regime has no intention of changing its totalitarian ideals or its hatred for the freedom and democracy represented by the United States. Castro continues to support international terrorist groups, is constructing a dangerous nuclear power plant a few hundred miles from the U.S., and is said to be developing the capability for biological weapons. This does not sound like a regime ready to reform itself from the totalitarian vision that it continues to promote. Those who continue to make excuses for the Cuban tyrant's behavior should finally wake up to reality.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 25th anniversary of Kendall Medical Center, an institution which has been responsible for providing South Florida with the best medical care possible. The facility, which provides full-service, state of the art care in a wide variety of medical specialties and has nearly 100 doctors on staff, has been honored for three consecutive years as one of America's ``700 Top Hospitals'' and is currently ``Accredited with Commendation'' by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare organizations. Among the 1,000 plus employees at Kendall Medical Center, I would like to honor the following thirteen individuals who have worked toward the evolution of Kendall Medical Center throughout the last 25 years: Teresita Beiro, Angela Carrodeguas, Rosa Cerulia, Marta Cortes, Rosa Crespo. Elizabeth Mirone, Jo An Plumlee, James Rosenzweig, Elizabeth Sollogub, Patricia Stiers, Nancy Tablada, Judith Williams and Victor Maya. Victor, whom I have known for many years, has been with the hospital since its inception and has served as its Chief Executive Officer Center since 1987. It has been through his leadership, vision, and determination, combined with the efforts of his employees, which have led to the outstanding achievements of Kendall Medical Center. On the date of its 25th anniversary, I extend my thanks and my congratulations to those 13 individuals who have dedicated their lives to a quarter of a century of continuous care. You have provided South Florida with an excellent medical facility.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his leadership and his hard work on garnering bipartisan support on this very critical and important item. The message that this amendment serves to underscore is that diplomacy does not mean surrender. In our eagerness to expand and grow through increased global trade, we must be careful about the concessions that we make. We must be careful not to sacrifice U.S. sovereignty. We must be careful not to sacrifice domestic interest and our American principles in exchange for foreign commitments that are ephemeral at best. We must not allow foreign entities and international tribunals the authority to challenge and to rival the U.S. constitutional framework by doing away with local, State and tribal laws, nor must we allow them to rule on what constitutes American domestic and national security interests. Unfortunately, this is precisely what the World Trade Organization is doing. Through the various agreements under the jurisdiction of the WTO, no less than seven principles that create the constitutional foundation for the role of States as laboratories of democracies, as former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis once said, are in jeopardy. Several doctrines which the Supreme Court has recognized governing the stewardship of property and natural resources are directly affected. Even free speech in the form of consumer choice campaigns is being threatened as eco-labels, nutrition labels and disclosure of child labor are open to challenges under WTO mandates of uniformity. The WTO threatens such laws as the Burma selective purchase laws which limit municipal tax dollars from going to the military regime in Burma through companies that do business in Burma. It undermines and challenges the use of sanctions at all levels of our government. According to the Georgetown University Law Center, this also has a profound implication for the future of hundreds of treaties that have yet to develop meaningful enforcement tools. At immediate risk are the sanctions laws the City of New York and the States of California and New Jersey are considering against Swiss banks that have held assets stolen by the Nazis from Holocaust victims many years ago. Switzerland has already given public notice of its intent to get a ruling from the WTO. The WTO expects us to forget the price that these Holocaust victims have paid, forget fairness and justice, ignore that the Swiss are protecting the rights of the barbaric and brutal Nazi criminals and denying the rights of Holocaust victims. Is this what we want to defend? Are principles and beliefs that are the rubric of American society to be held hostage by the WTO? The answer, of course, must be a resounding no. This amendment insures that the ultimate fate of subnational policies and laws are decided by the American political system and not by foreign bureaucrats. Do not be fooled by opponents of this amendment. The Kucinich- Sanders-Ros-Lehtinen-DeFazio-Stearns amendment does not preclude constitutional challenges to State and local laws. It does, however, prevent the use of taxpayer funds for legal actions which are essentially carrying out the WTO rules. For these and numerous others, Mr. Chairman, we must support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to render their support and vote in favor of the Kucinich-Sanders-Ros-Lehtinen-DeFazio-Stearns amendment. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). Mr. Chairman, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to seek to receive and to impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. So for almost four decades the people of Cuba have been denied this basic, universally- recognized right. They have been denied this right by the Castro regime. The Cuban dictatorship realized from the onset that knowledge empowers, and it knew that if it controlled the flow of information, it would be able to manipulate the Cuban people and forever imprison them in a parallel world created by Castro's lies and twisted propaganda. Thus, if it were to sustain its campaign against the United States, against American newspapers, magazines and broadcasts, it had to be prohibiting all the information at all cost. So, Mr. Chairman, the people of Cuba have lived in absolute darkness about the U.S. commitment to freedom and democracy in their island Nation until the first broadcast of Radio Marti was transmitted into Cuba. Another milestone was crossed when TV Marti began its transmissions in 1990. Do we want to allow the veil of silence to envelope Cuba once again? Cutting off funding for TV Marti would do just that. TV Marti challenges Castro's hold by educating the Cuban people about our policies in the United States and about American society. It is critical to fulfilling the mission that USIA has of explaining and supporting American foreign policy and of promoting U.S. national interests through a wide range of overseas information programs. TV Marti offers the U.S. Government our capacity to reach out to the Cuban people on two fronts. It is an integral component of a multifaceted strategy to bring freedom and democracy to the last bastion of communism in our Western Hemisphere, and it is also a conveyor of truth as well as its servant. Thus, eliminating TV Marti would place truth at a significant disadvantage against the venom that is spread daily by the Castro regime. We have heard arguments from opponents of TV Marti that it does not reach the Cuban people because of jamming by the regime. Well, copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that I quoted from earlier and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, those documents are frequently confiscated by the Castro regime. Does that mean that we should stop trying to send these valuable international documents to the dissidents, to the growing opposition, to the general population? Religious groups tell us that they routinely try to smuggle bibles into Cuba. Castro's thugs block their distribution. So we should stop sending bibles to the enslaved Cuban people? Of course not. TV Marti is reaching the Cuban people. One new viewer means that one more person will question the situation in Cuba. One more viewer means one more person that has escaped Castro's intellectual imprisonment. Castro used to very massively jam Radio Marti, and the opponents on the other side worked very hard to get the funding out of Radio Marti. Well, now the signal is going through, the technology was improved, so now they say we have got to block TV Marti. But if this body passes the Skaggs amendment or the Moran amendment, the House of Representatives would be awarding a tremendous victory that we would be bestowing upon the oppressors, while at the same time depriving the enslaved people of Cuba of a critical tool that we can give them, which is unbiased, free information. It would essentially cut off the flow to Cuba, as the dictatorship would be able to concentrate its resources on blocking the remaining broadcast, and the result would be an even more strengthened Castro regime. Does the United States Congress want to be an accomplice to the further entrenchment of a regime which serves as a safe haven for U.S. criminals? We have a long list from the FBI of U.S. fugitives who are now given refuge in Cuba, and we know that Castro is harboring global terrorists. We know that Castro allows Cuba to be used as a transit point for illegal narcotics trafficking that will later reach the U.S. shores. We should not be held accountable for all of this misery in Cuba. We should help the Cuban people free themselves of the oppressor. We should not be an accomplice for this further entrenchment of a regime. The only choice available to us today, Mr. Chairman, is to support TV Marti and vote against the Skaggs and the Moran amendments, and I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his steadfast support of these very needed programs of transmission to the enslaved people of Cuba.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. So many of our colleagues have been holding up a picture, and they say does this picture justify spending that much money on the transmissions of TV Marti? Let me show my colleagues a few more pictures. These are children who were killed by Castro's thugs just a few years ago. This is a child just a few months old. This is a child about my daughter's age, right behind me, about 12 years of age. These were children who were killed, massacred, by Castro's thugs because they attempted to leave the island. Now, this news was not broadcast on the Island of Cuba. Because of Radio and TV Marti, people understood what these pictures meant. And these pictures were transmitted on TV Marti airwaves. And as it has been pointed out, these pictures have been shown to thousands of Cubans who daily visit our U.S. interest section in Havana, thousands of people who go there because they are waiting for visas to come to the United States. How about these pictures, I would say to my colleagues? What do these pictures say? They say to me that these are people who are risking their lives to live in freedom, to live in democracy, to live in the best of what brought us here to this country, whether we are native born or a naturalized American, as I am. This picture says a lot to me.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, one of the many projects in the Commerce bill which helped to further American priorities and objectives is Radio and TV Marti. Cuban patriot and poet Jose Marti said, ``Only oppression should fear the full exercise of freedom.'' Today, only Fidel Castro should fear the transmission of Radio and TV Marti. Only a brutal dictator like Castro should fear the dissemination of democratic principles throughout Cuba. Only those who want to keep the people of Cuba enslaved in an island prison should fear Radio and TV Marti. One hundred years ago the U.S. joined forces with the Cuban opposition to help usher in a new era of independence and representative democracy for Cuba. Today, through Radio and TV Marti, the echoes of this commitment to bringing freedom to Cuba should be heard and seen by the Cuban people. Daily transmissions from the U.S. to Cuba bring hope to an oppressed population and remind them of the more than 100 years of friendship and solidarity between the people of our two countries. Let us do what is right. Let us recall the courage of those men and women who fought to defend the principles of liberty 100 years ago. Let us honor their memory by supporting Radio and TV Marti.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, today I join my Colleagues in commemorating the recent 24th anniversary of the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus. I thank Congressman Michael Bilirakis for the opportunity to make the public aware of the suffering of the Cypriot people. For over 24 years, one third of the island of Cyprus has been illegally occupied and divided by over 55,000 Turkish troops. During the invasion, over 1,600 people were taken prisoner, including five Americans, and except for one of those five Americans, Andreas Kasapis, whose remains were returned to his family in Detroit, Michigan, those prisoners are still missing today. The U.N. Secretary General has referred to the occupied area of Cyprus as one of the most highly militarized areas in the world. This area of the world remains a very volatile region and it would clearly meet anyone's criteria of a major U.S. interest that peace and stability be maintained in this area. I hope the Administration moves quickly to replace Ambassador Richard Holbrooke for the position of Special Envoy for Cyprus and that the person is equally familiar with the history, insecurities, and cultural sensitivities of the area. The geo-political issues are enough reasons for the US government and the American people to work with the international community to reunite Cyprus and end all foreign occupation on that little island. But there are other more personal reasons for this to happen. The people of Cyprus are suffering and being denied their human rights by a brutal police and military occupation. According to a United Nations report, Creek Cypriots in the occupied areas of the island, whom we call the Enclaved, suffer from a number of human rights violations and these abuses are also violations of the Vienna Three Agreement of 1975. I have filed H. Con. Res. 181, which seeks to restore certain freedoms and liberties, and end the violations of internationally recognized human rights which the world should not tolerate and help these innocent people suffering in the illegally occupied area. It is my firm belief that ending the suffering on the Enclaved is the first step and may make the over all Cyprus solution more attainable. H. Con. Res. 181 is necessary because it calls on the Administration to keep working on a solution fro Cyprus. We must all keep calling on, not just the Administration, but the United Nations and the European Union as well, to all continue their efforts to find a solution fro Cyprus. The present state of the negotiations does not appear too encouraging. The Turkish side is trying to stop Cyprus assession to the European Union even though the EU has stated it is prepared and is proceeding with negotiations with Cyprus for membership in the organization. The Turkish side has set certain preconditions before any discussions can proceed. These preconditions are totally unacceptable and include demanding that the international community accept Cyprus as a divided island and a divided people. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots have made good on their threat to cut off all intercommunal discussions between Greek and Turkish Cypriots over issues such as talks to find the missing from the 1974 ware. Furthermore, in addition to the oppressive police-state conditions the Cypriot people must endure in the illegally occupied areas of the island, the Turkish side and others are expressing concern and opposition to the Cypriot plan to acquire the S-300 defensive missiles. This is like attacking the victim fro trying to defend itself. These critics of Cyprus make these complaints about the S-300 missiles while expressing no concern or opposition to repeated and routine violation of Cypriot airspace by the Turkish air force or the constant threats made by the Turkish government to attack Cypus. Nor do these critics of Cyprus seem to be very concerned or active in ending the illegal occupation of Cyprus which is in violation of numerous UN resolutions and Congressional expressions of oppositions. It is the sovereign right of any nation, including Cyprus, to defend itself. It is not Cyprus that is the destabilizing element in this area but Turkish which is being provocative and amassing excessive military force in the illegal occupied areas of Cyprus. Turkey maintains approximately 55,000 troops on Cyprus, (40,000 plus 15,000 Turkish-Cypriot soldiers), plus 400 heavy tanks, as well as heavy artillery, plus the Turkish air force is 4 minutes away. That is in stark contrast to Cyprus which maintains no standing army or air force, and only has 10,000 national guardsmen. It is clear that these missiles are intended solely as a defensive measure to stop the Turkish violation of their airspace. Not withstanding all the difficulties laying before, us, we must not be discouraged. We in the U.S. Congress and the American people want Cyprus to be free of foreign troops, united, and living in justice and peace, so we must keep up intransigent pressure on all parities to continue working towards a solution. The people of Cyprus will find an agreement acceptable only if it calls for a united Cyprus. Any agreement that calls for a divided island will only serve to engender anomocity between the two communities. History has shown us that no nation can endure a line cutting through its country and Cyprus will be no different. Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Florida [Mr. Mike Bilirakis] and all those who today acknowledge this sad date in the history of Cyprus. I rise to add my name to the long list of Members of Congress who throughout the past 24 years have decried Turkey's brutal invasion of this Mediterranean island. After 24 years, some might be tempted to throw in the towel, to believe that these 24 years of Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus prove the helplessness of the international community in the face of invasion, occupation, ethnic strife and injustice. Some might even say that our yearly acknowledgment of this tragic event are wasted words. I say that now more than ever, we need to voice our resolve, our ongoing commitment to building a lasting peace for all the people of Cyprus. As we've witnessed in so many parts of the world, peace building does not happen overnight-it requires hard work, vigilance, and the very resolve that we've maintained over the years and that will help us undo Turkey's wrongdoing in Cypus. The Government of Turkey and its proxy on Cypus--the Turkish Cypriots--have a long record of ignoring international law and the will of the international community. Turks have only been able to sustain the division of Cyprus by maintaining an illegal occupation force of some 35,000 troops. Most recently, the Turkish side demonstrated again its disrespect for international law when, on May 3d, it abruptly declared Greek Cypriots must meet three new ``preconditions'' before any meaningful negotiations to resolve the Cyprus crisis could begin. This move undermined efforts by U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to revive peace negotiations and brought a public rebuke from the Ambassador. Despite Turkish intransigence, however, international resolve to in support of a just settlement for Cyprus remains strong. In a June 18 letter, Cyprus President Clerides called on United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to undertake a personal initiative to achieve progress in reducing military tensions on Cyprus. In his letter to the Secretary General, President Clerides also reiterated his commitment to ``steps leading towards the eventual goal of demilitarization.'' President Clerides' letter was welcomed by the British government which noted on June 23rd that, ``President Clerides's letter is a step in the right direction.'' On June 29th, the United Nations Security Council unanimously reaffirmed its position for resumption of inter-communal talks on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions regarding the conflict in Cyprus. Once again the Security Council called upon the international community to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from any actions that my cause harm to that republic. In an obvious reference to Turkey, the Security Council called on nations to refrain from any effort to partition Cyprus or to unify it with another nation. Unfortunatley, the response from Turkey and Turkish Cypriots was the familiar one of denouncement. The president of the self-declared Republic of North Cyrus stated that his government would restrict the operations of the U.N. Peace Force in retaliation for the U.N. resolution and its use of the term Cypriot Government in reference to Greek Cyprus. While we here in Washington and the Secretary General of the United Nations in New York are calling upon the international community to increase efforts to revive negotiations and find a peaceful, negotiated resolution to this divided island, the Turkish government engages in a flagrantly provocative action--including repeated violations of Cyprus air space, sending six new fighter planes to the occupied north, and a flotilla of naval vessels. These are not the actions of a nation that wishes to be viewed as a leading broker of peace in the region. Rather, they are the actions of the provocateur and the promotor of instability and violence. I was pleased to hear Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering announce that the U.S. will continue to press aggressively for a resolution to the Cyprus conflict, in spite of the set-backs experienced by Ambassador Holbrooke. I believe the progress made by the Republic of Cyprus to ensure the economic well-being for its people should be applauded and recognized. Yet there can be no real economic stability when 160,000 Greek Cypriots remain displaced and away from their rightful homes. There can be no real security when 35,000 Turkish troops threaten the Republic of Cyprus. And there can be no real stability when the Northern half of Cyprus languishes in economic and political isolation under a near totalitarian regime. I urge all my colleagues, the Administration and the international community to pursue with even more vigor a negotiated resolution to Cyprus--one that is just and humane for all the citizens and residents of Cyprus; one that protects and promotes the human rights of all Cypriots; one that provides for a peaceful, unified and democratic republic; and one that resolves the outstanding humanitarian issues left unanswered over the past 24 years. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Bilirakis, and the other Members of Congress who, for so long, have worked tirelessly to bring a just peace to the people of Cyprus; and who have been generous with their time and experience in educating the American people and their colleagues about the history and importance of this issue. I thank him for his leadership.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my enthusiastic support to H.R. 3821, which would name the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Headquarters in Langley, Virginia after our 41st President, George Herbert Walker Bush. I can think of no one today who is more deserving of this honor than this man of courage, who has such a long and distinguished record of service to our nation and the cause of freedom. George Bush definitely represents the principles of dignity and character that we have always prized in our statesmen. From his service as a teenage pilot during World War II to his administration as President, he has always dedicated his life to God, family and country. Among the roles he served in during his remarkable career, George Bush should be especially proud of his record as Director of the CIA from 1976 to 1977. This was a critical time for this key agency which he helped rebuild after a major Congressional investigation. His determined leadership helped restore the morale of the CIA at a crucial turning point in the Cold War. This spade work for our nation's defense helped pave the way for the triumph of freedom over communism during his service as Vice President under President Ronald Reagan and his service as President. This is definitely a fitting tribute for the only President who served as Director of the CIA. The overwhelming bi-partisan support for this proposal definitely demonstrates the widespread respect which George Bush has from his fellow citizens for his legacy of service to our nation.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I most especially want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for his leadership in bringing forth a bill that is very beneficial to all of the agencies that are affected by this appropriations bill and a bill that is going to be positive for the country. One of the aspects of the bill that I am proud of is the funding that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has provided for Radio and TV Marti, especially TV Marti. Because year after year this program comes under attack by those who are grabbing at straws, trying to find anything that they can to excuse their longstanding history of supporting excessive government spending and wasting taxpayer funds, and they come and use this bill in order to hide from these attacks. And year after year their target, unfortunately and unfairly, is TV Marti, which is one part of a two-prong strategy to reach the Cuban people, to inform them about the world outside their island prison, and to educate them about the democratic principles through the implementation of some of democracy's most important liberties, which is freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which are denied to them daily in Cuba. TV and Radio Marti are reaching the Cuban people. If it were not, the Castro regime would not be obsessed with its demise. If it were not effective, Castro officials would not be roaming the halls of Congress lobbying for an end to these transmissions. I ask my colleagues to remember the immortal words of a leader like Martin Luther King who said, Let freedom ring. Let the Cuban people then hear and see TV and Radio Marti. Let the echoes of democracy reach the enslaved Cuban people. Let them witness firsthand what it means to be free. Through these transmissions they can see what is going on in our country and in other free countries. The United States has the tools to accomplish these lofty goals, and one of those tools is Radio and TV Marti. If we are truly committed to bringing all of the countries in our hemisphere into our democratic fold, if we are truly committed to helping the Cuban people free themselves from the enslavement, then we must render our full support for the rule and the bill, Commerce, State, Justice appropriations.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, in 1983, 19 American soldiers gave their lives to liberate the island of Grenada from the Marxist regime which, under the manipulation of the Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro, had taken over that small nation. Thanks to U.S. troops and the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, the people of Grenada regained the freedom they had lost to the puppet regime backed by Castro. Now it seems that the government of Grenada has forgotten about the repression imposed upon their Nation by Castro and has invited the dictator to visit the island this weekend. Castro's goal in this visit is to obtain support for his regime's membership to the Caribbean economic community, CARICOM, that will help him attain new financial resources to maintain in power. How tragic that the government of Grenada has turned its back on its own people, who suffered under the Castro-sponsored Marxist regime. It has ignored and forgotten the 19 dead U.S. soldiers and the 115 wounded American patriots. Shame on the government of Grenada.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, it was 15 years ago that American soldiers liberated the small island of Grenada from the authoritarian government that, under the direction of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, had overtaken that nation. During the time the Castro regime manipulated the government of the island in an attempt to expand communism in the Americas, the people of Grenada lost all semblance of civil liberties and human rights that was then returned to them. Unfortunately, it seems that the present Grenadian government has forgotten the repression brought upon their country by the Castro regime and it has invited the dictator to visit the island this week. The visit comes as the nations members of the Caribbean Economic Community (CARICOM) continue to flirt with the Cuban tyrant, who desperately wants to enter the organization to obtain economic benefits that will strengthen his oppressive regime. How sad that after 19 American soldiers died to liberate Grenada, that island's government now receives, with open arms, the dictator who orchestrated the repression of that island's citizens. Shame on the government of Grenada!

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, for almost 4 years, the World Trade Organization has been eroding the choices and the rights of the American people. Like a leach feeding off its member countries, the WTO has been increasing its power at the expense of U.S. sovereignty. Self-determination is now subordinate to the decisions of trade bureaucrats meeting in secret at Geneva headquarters of the WTO, invalidating and mandating changes in existing laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the U.S. President. Exactly how are the interests of the American people represented by unelected foreign nationals working in an ivory tower debating our commercial agreements? U.S. priorities should not be held hostage to the decisions of the WTO. I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich, Sanders, Ros- Lehtinen and Stearns amendment when the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill comes to the floor, because the American people, through their elected representatives, can determine for themselves what our U.S. laws should be and not a foreign bureaucrat.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to reflect on the tragedy that occurred this past Friday in the House. Two of our finest in uniform in the United States Capitol Police force, Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson, valiantly defended the hundreds of visitors, Members of Congress and their staffs who were milling about on that fateful Friday afternoon of July 24. Because they died, others lived. I would like to quote a verse from the Bible which states ``Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends'' John 15:13. Surely love, honor and duty were on the minds of these brave policemen as they stood to meet the challenge, never hesitating for a moment for their own safety. Capitol Hill has lost outstanding policemen and two families have lost a beloved but Heaven has gained two angels with badges of honor. We look to the skies knowing that they continue to protect us. We will never forget them and what they did for us. We pray that God, in His infinite mercy, will be with the families in their grief; that he will grant them peace and strength to carry on. I send them my deepest condolences.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, we will soon be debating an amendment which will define what powers the World Trade Organization will have over the ability of the American people, through their elected representatives, to determine our own fate, to make our own laws, to decide our own policies. Should we sacrifice our sovereignty, our domestic interest in order to satisfy an international tribunal? I think not and I hope that our colleagues will agree. The WTO is selectively challenging our local, State and Federal laws, saying that they are infringements on free trade. No U.S. laws or regulations are safe from the reaches of the World Trade Organization. Even at risk are sanctions laws such as the ones passed by New York City and the States of California and New Jersey which protect Nazi Holocaust victims who had their assets stolen by Swiss banks. The Swiss have already said they want a WTO ruling on such sanctions. Is nothing sacred from the clutches of the WTO? Apparently not. So along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), we will be offering an amendment to state that diplomacy does not mean surrender.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to discharge, because we must override the President's veto of a ban on this horrendous practice of partial birth abortions. It is an outrage that in this civilized modern society we still allow for this procedure to occur despite the mountain of evidence indicating that it is unnecessary and that it has, as the ultimate consequence of its completion, the killing of a partially delivered baby who cannot defend him or herself against the unscrupulous abortion industry. It is important to remind our colleagues what this gruesome procedure involves. It consists of partially delivering the life baby's feet first, with only the head inside the mother's womb, and then stabbing the child at the base of the skull, a child that is already able to live outside the mother's womb. The American Medical Association said about partial birth abortion, ``the partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians.'' The AMA ``could not find any identified circumstances in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method.'' Even abortion practitioners, like Martin Haskell, reported to the American Medical News, ``most of my abortions are elective in that 20- 24 week range. In my particular case, probably 20 percent of partial birth abortions are performed for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.'' Madam Speaker, Americans cannot stand idly by while this tragic procedure is performed. Many doctors have stated that this horrid practice can severely damage a woman's health. And let us not forget, it kills an innocent human life. Let us overturn the veto.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, we recently marked the sad anniversary of a dark day in the history of human rights and of Cuba, my native homeland. It was 4 years ago on July 13, 1994 that thugs of the Castro regime purposely attacked and sunk a tug boat filled with Cuban refugees, refugees who were attempting to flee the island in search of freedom and democracy. It was another example, sadly, of the hundreds already available that clearly demonstrate the barbaric nature of the dictatorship that has ruthlessly ruled Cuba for 38 years. Early in the morning of that day, over 50 Cuban refugees boarded a tug boat named the ``13th of March.'' They did not know that all along they were being watched by Castro's brutal authorities. After sailing about 7 miles in the the open sea, Castro's gun boats began to repeatedly ram the tug boat filled with mostly women and children, while shooting water guns at the refugees aboard the vessels. Rejecting the pleas of mercy from the refugees, the ruthless Cuban soldiers, acting under Castro's order, continued to ram the vessel until it began to sink, but this was not enough. While the drowning refugees asked for help, the Cuban gun boats circled around the tug boat wreckage in order to create a whirlpool effect that literally sucked the refugees into the bottom of the sea. As a result, over 50 people were murdered, most of them women and children. Here are posters, Mr. Speaker, and it speaks volumes when we look at this photograph, and these were young children who were aboard that tug boat, small boys and girls who would never be able to live their lives, and all for the crime of trying to flee the Communist tyranny that engulfs the island of Cuba, and because their parents wanted a better life here in the United States for these children. Whole families, whose only crime was to seek a new life and freedom, were massacred by the Castro regime. One of the survivors of the attack, Maria Victoria Garcia Suarez, later recaptured this sad incident in an interview. Maria said, ``We begged them not to do it, not to shoot more water at us, to stop. There were children aboard, that they were going to kill both them and us. Then we cried out to one boy who was stationed on the bridge of one of the thugs, and we cried at him, that `Jacobo, don't shoot, don't hit us with more water', and he just laughed saying, `Let them die.' We cried out, we offered to surrender, but they kept spraying us with the water cannons and bumping against us. Then later, the boat that was on one side, on the right side, hit us hard and we capsized. That's when the boat began to sink on us.'' This tragic incident, Mr. Speaker, is not the exception in the brutal history of the Castro dictatorship; it is, sadly, the rule. In the almost 40 years of totalitarian rule, thousands of Cubans just like these small children have been subjected to torture, to harassment, and even to death. The Cuban political prisons continue to be filled with dissidents who fight for freedom and for democracy. Right now, as I speak, dissidents who dared to publish a document criticizing the Cuban communist constitution and asking for more democratic reforms on the island remain in prison. Many thought that after the Pope's visit to Cuba, the Cuban dictator would change. But as he has clearly shown throughout his brutal nature in power, he will not change. His only goal is to maintain power at any cost without any consideration for the suffering and the misery of the Cuban people. The best way to remember the murdered refugees of this sad episode, these boys and girls, Mr. Speaker, is to continue to fight for the freedom of the Cuban people and to let them know that the United States and the United States Congress stand in solidarity with their daily struggle.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained and missed four rollcall votes (297, 298, 299 and 300). If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all four votes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, today unfortunately, the President will once again suspend the Helms-Burton law, which passed overwhelmingly in the House and allows U.S. citizens to sue those immoral foreign investors who traffic in American confiscated properties on the island. This decision is yet another sad example of the administration's slippery slide toward further relaxation of sanctions on the brutal dictatorship of Fidel Castro. And what has Castro done to deserve any weakening of sanctions? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Human rights violations continue, the harassment of dissidents proceeds, and there are no signs of any democratic openings on the island. How ironic that the President's weak decision comes as we commemorate the fourth anniversary of the massacre by Castro of 50 Cubans, mostly women and children, who attempted to flee the island on a rickety tugboat. The President can justify his decisions with the legalisms that have now made the White House spin doctors famous, but these false justifications will not help the suffering people of Cuba rid themselves of the totalitarian regime that oppresses them day in and day out.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue of great importance to so many Americans. These are Americans that are suffering with retinal degenerative diseases. They number over 6 million and come from all ages and all ethnic groups. An additional 9 million Americans have presymptomatic signs that may lead to loss of sight. It is a problem that affects an epidemic number of people across this country, and one that certainly merits our attention, and, indeed, our support. Several weeks ago I held a briefing where several of my colleagues and I had an opportunity to hear from a panel of experts and research scientists about all of the wonderful progress that organizations like the Foundation Fighting Blindness have made in the fight to find a treatment and to cure this debilitating disease. We also had a chance to hear from several young people who have been affected. One of these young people we heard from was Isaac Lidsky, a young man from my Congressional District. For Carlos and Betty Lidsky, Isaac's parents, the fight for a cure is one they struggle with on a day-to-day basis. Of their four wonderful children, Izaac, Ronit, Daria, and Ilana, three are stricken with this devastating disease. At our briefing, their youngest, Isaac, talked to us about how the disease has affected his life, and although he has an unwavering optimism that one day soon a cure will be found, he also expressed frustration from knowing that the possibility for a cure is out there waiting, but because of lack of sufficient funding for research, he is slowly losing his sight. Promoting important research efforts and wonderful, nonprofit organizations like Foundation Fighting Blindness, which are on the cutting edge of new procedures, and which have dedicated scientists working tirelessly to eradicate these diseases, is crucial at this juncture. The National Eye Institute, which is a division of the National Institutes of Health, is a critical player in the fight to save the loss of sight caused by retinal degenerative diseases. Their role, however, has been impaired to a certain extent because of the lack of sufficient funding for continued research. Over the last 13 years, funding at NEI has grown at less than one-fourth of the rate of the National Institutes of Health. There has been a considerable effort to double the funding provided to NIH, but this effort needs our help. Research has made excellent progress. Groups like the National Eye Institute and the Foundation Fighting Blindness have conducted terrific research in this field. Their scientists have made incredible progress in understanding the biological processes of these diseases. They have been able to identify and isolate many of the genes that cause retinal degenerative disease. There have been significant discoveries also in the area of molecular engineering and gene therapy. Tremendous advances have been made in the lab with vectors, which are modified viruses that transport normal replacement genes into cells to help them function. This past year also there was significant improvement in the new generation of vectors which have the potential of being safer and more effective. Science is now, Mr. Speaker, at a critical turning point. Researchers are ready to take the knowledge that they have gained from basic research and transfer it to clinical research that will create the foundation for future treatment and therapies. Let us make a difference in the lives of these 6 million Americans that are already affected, and those many millions who are yet undiagnosed. Let us support the wonderful research efforts through increased funding for these agencies, these agencies that are making remarkable steps, and that continue to give us hope and renew our energies toward finding a cure; for a cure, Mr. Speaker, will come. Let us work together to plan for a future where funding will not be the obstacle to curing the vision loss of people like Isaac and his sisters. Now is the time to take advantage of these scientific advances, and with adequate funding, Mr. Speaker, there is, indeed, a cure in sight.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for his help throughout this process in passing the Child Custody Protection Act. As a writer stated, of all the rights of women, the greatest is to be a mother. I and every mother will assure the Members that an immediate bond exists as our newborn child is placed in our hands, a bond that is sacred, a bond that lasts forever, a bond that is innate, a bond between parent and child. This legislation is about one thing and one thing only, Mr. Speaker, protecting the rights of parents from being stripped by strangers who dare to play and pretend to be mothers and fathers with our children. This bill will make it a Federal misdemeanor for an adult to transport a minor across State lines in order to evade parental consent or notification laws on abortion. Already 16 States have parental consent laws, and 10 more have parental notification laws on abortion. Unfortunately, these laws are being evaded by those who unscrupulously take our minor daughters to obtain an abortion without our consent or notification. This law-breaking activity is encouraged by the abortion mills in States with consent or notification laws. They advertise in publications in States which do have those laws. They entice law-breaking without consideration of the physical and mental ramifications that this life-threatening medical procedure can have on a minor. Indeed, even the United States Supreme Court noted that the procedure leaves lasting medical, emotional and psychological consequences and, it said, particularly so when the patient is immature. Parents are required in schools across our Nation to provide consent for our daughters for field trips or even to take an aspirin while in school custody. However, when it comes to our daughters being subjected to a possible life-threatening medical procedure, a stranger can take our daughters with no repercussions whatsoever. This is simply not acceptable. This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not implement a Federal notification or consent law. It merely helps States to enforce their laws to ensure that parents are able to comfort and advise their minor daughters during this crisis pregnancy. Congress should send a clear message across America that we stand for parental rights, that we will not allow strangers to take advantage and exploit our young daughters. Today I spoke with Joyce Farley, a mother from Pennsylvania whose inherent right to comfort her daughter during this difficult time was stripped away by a complete stranger. Joyce's daughter became gravely ill after being subjected to a botched abortion where she was taken by the stepmother of the man who raped her. And it was only after Joyce Farley noticed that her daughter was ill that she learned that the abortion had been committed on her daughter. For mothers like Joyce Farley and her daughter, this legislation is about women's rights, the right of every mother in our Nation to protect her child from the unknown hand of a stranger, the right of every mother to protect her relationship with her daughter. This issue goes above and beyond the abortion issue. It is about your rights, my rights and every single parent's right to protect our children. The Child Custody Protection Act will provide peace of mind to countless mothers and fathers across this great land. I urge our colleagues to protect our daughters and, of course, to protect the sacred bond that exists between parents and children. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me the time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out some of the doublespeak that has been going around in our Chamber relating to targeting ads and soliciting and extorting children, this time by the tobacco industry, yet that same kind of outrage is not directed at the abortion industry. I am talking about certain ads that I agree with, this one put out by certain anticancer groups, that says, ``It is time to keep tobacco companies from addicting any more of our children to their deadly product. Our Nation needs a tough bill that stops the lies, stops the killing, and stops big tobacco now.'' So they are against targeting ads that entice young people to smoke, and I am against that, too. I am against having young people smoke and encouraging and enticing them to smoke. But apparently these legislators who are so incensed over big tobacco ads targeting young people are not equally incensed at the abortion industry that targets young people. Why are they not incensed that this ad says ``No parental consent required?'' Who is that targeted to, if not a minor daughter? Where else would they need a parental consent, if they are not a minor daughter? Obviously that is an ad that targets young people. So we are against big tobacco. We say,''Congress Must Choose: Big Tobacco or Kids,'' because we love kids. These cigarette companies should not be targeting our children. I agree. They are not against these ads that say no parental consent? Who are they targeting? Who are these abortion mills targeting if not young people? I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would love to hear the outrage from all of those Members who are so outraged about big tobacco, I am as well, why do they not get equally outraged about abortion mills targeting young girls and exploiting them in their hour of need? I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time because I want to refute what the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said, and the other speakers, about this Becky Bell case. It reminds me of what Benjamin Franklin said about the death of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts. Let me give my colleagues the brutal facts about this Becky Bell case. Abortion advocates claim that this case came from an illegal or self-induced abortion; that this young lady sought this illegal abortion because she was afraid to tell her parents about the pregnancy as required by Indiana law. And certainly that Becky died is a tragedy. However, there is no solid evidence whatsoever to support the claim that she died of an illegal or self-induced abortion. In fact, several abortion advocates have expressed concerns about using this case as an example of an illegal abortion death. And let me give my colleagues some of the most recent opinions and statements and evidence to date. The head of forensic pathology at Indiana University said, ``I cannot prove she had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but a spontaneous abortion.'' The pathologist on the case found no evidence of internal injury, which he felt ruled out a self-induced abortion. And even the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood said, and I quote, ``I have some reservations about hyping this whole thing when it is so mixed about what actually went on.'' A well-known doctor, very well known on the abortion issue says, and I quote, ``The most reasonable probability is that Rebecca Bell died of an overwhelming pneumonia death, the same condition that puppeteer Jim Henson died of. Ms. Bell probably had an incomplete spontaneous abortion, which is a miscarriage, with tissue still remaining in the uterus, which is typical of a spontaneous miscarriage.'' The facts clearly point to the fact that although it seems like a good example to use, Becky Bell did die, there is no doubt about that, but she did not die from an abortion as a result of not wanting to go to her parents with the news of her pregnancy. Those are the facts. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record further documentation relating to the case of Becky Bell. New York, NY, September 4, 1990. Re Rebecca Suzanne Bell. Becky Moore, United Families, Eugene, OR. Dear Ms. Moore: There is no evidence of any septic abortion contained in the coroner's report; there is no infection in or around the uterus, no pus, no odor to the uterus and no peritonitis. The serosa of the uterus is described as ``smooth and glistening.'' In the case of a septic abortion this tissue would be shaggy and discolored. Further, all blood cultures were consistently negative. Indeed, there is no evidence for an induced abortion at all: no marks or stigmata of instrumentation (dilation of the cervix by instruments, marks on the cervix, etc.) in the genital tract. The most reasonable probability is that Rebecca Bell died of an overwhelming streptococcus pneumonia (the same condition that puppeteer Jim Henson died of). Ms. Bell probably had had an incomplete spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) with tissue still remaining in the uterus (typical of a spontaneous miscarriage). The tissue which remained showed absolutely no evidence of infection or inflammation. If the coroner had been convinced of a ``septic abortion'' he should have made cultures of that tissue: if this had truly been a death from septic abortion the cultures of the tissue would have yielded streptococcus pneumoniae. Finally, in the case of a septic abortion the lungs would have shown septic pulmonary emboli, not generalized pneumonia. In short, the cause of death here was probably overwhelming pneumonia unrelated to the abortion/miscarriage. This was about as superficial and careless (not to say ``negligent'') an autopsy as I have seen in my considerable experience evaluating medico-legal files over the past twenty years. I would strongly suggest that all slides of tissues examined at autopsy be reviewed by a competent impartial pathologist. I am confident that my opinion will be supported. Sincerely, Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. This much-needed legislation will assure that the rights of parents across the Nation are not trampled by strangers who, without the knowledge of the parents, take the minor girls to obtain an abortion. This bill, H.R. 3682, would assure that the State's parental consent or notification laws are not evaded by these unscrupulous persons who seek to play and pretend to be mother and father to our children. Right now 16 States have parental consent laws on abortion, and 10 others have parental notification laws. Yet these are for naught because the abortion clinics are able to bypass these laws. This common-sense legislation that is before us today is what is needed to make sure that our State laws are respected. This bill will assure that what will not happen is what happened to Joyce Farley who was with us this morning. She described a terrible situation in her family where her daughter, without Mrs. Farley even knowing about it, was transferred to another State in order to have an abortion. And then what happened was, because abortion is a serious medical procedure that could have life-threatening ramifications, Mrs. Farley had her young daughter in a very difficult physical state, and this is not legislation that we should really worry so much about. Some Members are saying, this is a constitutionally sacred, protected right of abortion. Yet nowhere in these Supreme Court decisions does it say that the abortion mills should have the right to transfer and transport girls across State lines to have an abortion without the girl's parents even knowing about it. This bill will assure that this does not happen, again, by making it a Federal offense for an adult to transport a minor across State lines from a State which has consent or notification laws to a State without them in order to obtain an abortion. Across the Nation, Mr. Speaker, our children are required to obtain parental permission slips for field trips, for medication in schools and other things. I know in my community of Miami, Florida, we have one of the largest public school systems, and we have forms that the parents need to fill out if your child is going to be given an aspirin or given any kind of medication in school. We have forms that parents have to fill out if your child is going to be taken with the school on an organized and supervised field trip. We have forms that the parents have to fill out if they want to take their child early from the school grounds. Yet for an abortion, no such consent or notification is required and, in fact, a child can be transported across State lines for this sensitive and serious operation. These requirements in the schools are in place to ensure that parents are aware of their minor children's activities and to ensure their safety. Is it too much to ask that our children, who require parental consent to take aspirins in schools, that they receive these forms, yet for a possibly life-threatening medical procedure, with serious physical and mental ramifications, no such consent should be given? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I would like to show my colleagues some of the ads that have been placed in publications in Pennsylvania. These are ads in the Pennsylvania telephone directory saying, ``Come to Pennsylvania?'' No. ``Come to Maryland.'' This is an ad in Pennsylvania saying come to Maryland for this abortion procedure because, children, there is no parental consent in our State of Maryland. Here is another ad, again in Pennsylvania, where it says, ``Come to a clinic in Pennsylvania?'' No. ``Come to a clinic in New Jersey.'' An ad in Pennsylvania for an abortion clinic in New Jersey, and they are trying to lure children from their parents, lure children away at this very sensitive time, where they could be discussing this difficult decision with their parent. Now, is this a common sense bill? Of course, it is, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there was a poll recently done, and I know the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) alluded to it, showing 85 percent of the people say yes to the Ros-Lehtinen and Abraham Child Custody Protection Act. When they were asked should a person be able to take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge, they say no, of course not. No, strongly agreed, 78 percent; no, somewhat disagree, 7 percent. So 85 percent say, of course, parents should have the right to be informed about this decision. Parents should be there to help their minor girls. And I urge my colleagues to support the rule for 3682.