May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1051

we will continue to have the world’s finest

aviation system.

TRIBUTE TO MARGARET STANFILL

MOORE ORIGINALLY OF HAYTI,

fMISSOURI

HON. BILL EMERSON OF MISSOURI

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

pay tribute to Margaret Stanfill Moore, whose

outstanding service as a nurse in World War

II provided an invaluable role in several key

battles, including the liberation of Europe.

Margaret Stanfill Moore holds the distinct

honor of being the first woman to set foot

upon the beaches of Normandy on D–Day,

June 6, 1944. She followed the first wave of

Allied troops ashore and immediately began

ministering to wounded soldiers and paratroopers. Her work was crucial to saving the

lives of Americans and our Allied friends.

Not only did Lieutenant Stanfill heroically

rush to the shores of Normandy, but she was

also one of the first nurses on the scene in the

North Africa campaign. After North Africa, she

followed Allied troops into Sicily. Margaret

bravely risked her life in some of the most important battles of World War II to save the

lives of American and Allied troops.

I am proud to boast that lieutenant Stanfill is

from Hayti in the Eighth District of Missouri.

The daughter of Mrs. Ola Stanfill, Margaret

Stanfill Moore is a graduate of Hayti High

School, Class of 1930, where she was captain

of the girls’ basketball team and the county

high school tennis singles champion. Following high school, Margaret entered Nurses

Training at the Baptist Hospital in Memphis,

TN. After spending a year in private practice,

she joined the U.S. Army Nursing Corps.

It is with honor that I recognize Margaret

Stanfill Moore for her invaluable and outstanding service to our country. There is no more

honorable an occupation than saving the lives

of wounded American soldiers. The veterans

of World War II thank her, I thank her, and

America thanks her.

END THE CUBAN EMBARGO

fHON. JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I recently

wrote to President Clinton urging him to immediately begin negotiations with the Government of Cuba aimed at lifting the economic

embargo and normalizing relations.

For over three decades, we have tried to

force Fidel Castro from power by maintaining

a tight economic embargo on Cuba. But, that

embargo has failed to hasten Mr. Castro’s departure and has failed to fuel the type of internal pressures to advance the democratic reforms that so many of us want to see.

Instead, the embargo has encouraged and

strengthened the sentiments of nationalism in

Cuba, provoked an increase in immigration to

the United States—and it has provided Mr.

Castro with a perfect excuse to justify the failures of his system.

It is my hope that the Clinton administration

will recognize the obvious failures of our current policy and change course.

I would like to call my colleagues’ attention

to a recent article written for the Boston Globe

by Elizabeth Shannon entitled, ‘‘United States

Should End Its Embargo Against Cuba.’’ Ms.

Shannon, who is a writer and administrator at

Boston University, makes a compelling case

for changing our policy.

[From the Boston Globe, May 4, 1995]

UNITED STATES SHOULD END ITS EMBARGO

AGAINST CUBA

(By Elizabeth Shannon)

President Clinton’s reversal of our Cuban

refugee situation may be the administration’s first step toward changing a policy

which has been ill-advised and self-defeating

throughout this century. To insist on continuing and expanding the harsh and illogical embargo against Cuba when an accord favorable to both countries could be reached is

inconsistent with American self-interest.

What good is it to have 11 million people

near starvation or to create political chaos

on a small island just 90 miles off our shores?

Whatever Fidel Castro is—guerrilla fighter, oppressive dictator, unrelenting windbag,

nouveau capitalist—he is well aware of the

failure of the Revolution and is groping for a

way out, peering through the doors of private enterprise that are opening up to him

and liking what he sees.

Through his own mismanagement and the

loss of the $5 million annual subsidy from

the Soviet Union, the infrastructure of Cuba

is in shambles. The Spanish colonial mansions in Havana’s suburbs are in bleak disrepair. Black smoke from oil wells pollutes

the air. The few cars one sees are vintage

American models, making the streets of Havana look like a set for a Bogart film. Engines rust on unused rail tracks, and buses

have been replaced by ancient flatbed trucks

with benches nailed to the floor to serve as

public transportation.

Children beg on the streets of Havana. The

only miracle left, hard to fathom, is the good

nature and indomitable spirit of the Cuban

people and their faith, slightly frayed, in ‘‘El

Comandante.’’

Cuba is trying to deal with its economic

crisis by participating in joint private enterprise projects, mainly with Canada, Mexico

and Europe. It is also pouring money into

tourism, which is growing at the rate of 20

percent annually.

There is still no free press, radio or television and one wonders about the literacy

level when there are so few books to read.

There are no young, would-be Fidels in the

university; dissenters who still fear a knock

on the door at night.

Nevertheless, there is an easing of some of

the harsh, repressive social policies of the

past two decades. The availability of educational opportunities and day care centers

have made it possible for women to achieve

goals not available to them in the pre-Castro

days. Churches are open again after more

than two decades. The repulsive policy of informing—on one’s neighbors, friends, family—is becoming discredited.

The farmers’ markets that are now allowed

in the cities have eased the harsh deprivation of food supplies. Pork and fowl, beans,

rice and vegetables are plentiful. The markets are crammed with shoppers, trading in

dollars, the favored currency, instead of

Cuban pesos.

But the Cuban people, adoring as many are

toward their ‘‘Maximum Leader,’’ are restive

and eager for a better life.

A respected journalist who has lived in

Cuba through the Revolution said to me recently: ‘‘Castro will change. He is, above all,

a pragmatist and is keenly interested in how

history will judge him. Of course, he must

save face. Let him devise the words he will

use to roll with the change. Democracy? People here aren’t too interested in democracy.

They are most interested in getting food on

the table without having to stand in line for

hours, in having things work, in good gasoline, new cars, a transportation system, electricity that doesn’t work on whim.’’

Cubans want to talk business. And, ironically, it may be American businessmen

rather than politicians and diplomats who

change our Cuban policy. They are flocking

to the island.

It would seem that these moves toward

capitalism would make America happy and

might even make Sen. Jesse Helms smile.

But our reaction has been to tighten the embargo and punish those countries—our allies

and friends—who do trade with Cuba, creating more ill-will.

What guides our current policy toward

Cuba? It is a combination of inertia and our

indefatigible desire to punish Castro, to

bring him down, that feeds the inflammatory

rhetoric of Helms and the implacable hatred

toward Castro of members of the exile community, who are now threatening to shut

down businesses in Miami in protest of Clinton’s new policy. It does nothing to create a

viable climate in which to bolster Cuba’s

waning economy into a stable, thriving and

eventually capitalistic society.

If there is one lesson to be learned from

the story of Vietnam, so sorely reopened by

Robert McNamara’s memoirs, it is to recognize the fatal miscalculation of foreign policy-makers who, so sure of their direction,

don’t read the road signs. Policies conceived

in honest hope grow old and out-dated and,

eventually, fatal. The theory that to make

democracy work in Cuba we must ‘‘defeat

Castro’’ and punish the Cuban people is

flawed.

A European diplomat said to me in Havana: ‘‘Castro could probably defend Cuba

against 100,000 American Marines. There is

no way he could defend it against 100,000

American tourists!’’ This moment in Cuba’s

history is an opportunity for President Clinton to begin the process of negotiation. Perhaps Jimmy Carter could make a stopover in

Havana when he is in the area.

ABOLISHING THE SUBMARINE

fPATENT

HON. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 16, 1995

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, recently, advertisements appeared in most of the newspapers in my 27th Congressional District, including the entire back page of the L.A.

Times. These advertisements were purchased

by a newly created group calling themselves

Intellectual Property Creators. The adds were

supporting the passage of H.R. 359, a bill introduced by my friend and colleague from

California [Mr. ROHRABACHER] . The purpose

of this type of lobbying is to bring pressure on

me and the subcommittee I chair, to process

this bill immediately. The bill, H.R. 359, is very

controversial and of dubious merit. However, I

have indicated that the subcommittee will hold

a hearing on this issue next year.

The issue is the change in the U.S. patent

law that occurred last year with the enactment

of the GATT implementing legislation which