[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 123 (Wednesday, August 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           THE ISSUE OF CUBA

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I think it is important that we discuss 
the issue of Cuba, and what is going on with the literally hundreds and 
hundreds of displaced persons. This issue has been the subject of some 
discussion and debate here in the Senate as to how we ought to proceed.
  As of August 22, a little over 7,000 Cubans have arrived in Florida 
since the beginning of the year. That is nearly double the number of 
Cubans that sought refuge in the United States in 1993. Clearly, this 
is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. However, there does 
not seem to be any end to it.
  In the immediate and short term, I do not believe that the President 
of the United States will have any other choice but to act to alter a 
policy that is serving as a very powerful magnet and that is attracting 
hundreds and thousands of Cubans every day to risk their lives in ill-
equipped rafts and boats for the dangerous 90-mile journey to the 
United States. Despite the criticisms that have been made in this 
Chamber and elsewhere concerning the President's recent change in 
policy toward Cuba, I would seriously question whether any President, 
Republican or Democrat, would sit back and do nothing in the face of 
what appears to be an open-door policy by Cuban authorities for those 
Cubans who wish to take to the sea.
  Our Nation has the capacity to receive and accept immigrants. We do 
so far more generously than any other nation on the face of the Earth. 
But there are tolerance levels as to what we can accept and how much we 
can manage as a Nation. So the notion that the President has engaged in 
some dreadful action by diverting these people seeking to leave Cuba 
for good cause, I think is unfounded and unfair. I think again any 
President faced with a similar situation would have taken, frankly, a 
very similar action. But, I think we have to begin to think anew about 
our approach towards Cuba. I think we need intelligent and creative 
thinking, not just some of the mindless passion that surrounds this 
subject and this debate.
  Let me just begin by stating something that I think probably should 
be stated more frequently. I know of no other ethnic group that has 
contributed more economically, socially, or culturally to the fabric of 
our country in less time than Cuban-Americans have. In the space of a 
short 25 years, the people who have left Cuba for good cause because of 
the intolerable conditions in that country, have made a significant 
contribution to this Nation.
  I was just reading a speech that my father gave on the floor of this 
Chamber in the spring of 1961 in which he accurately and properly 
described the events that occurred in Cuba, the literal hijacking of 
any hopes for democracy in that nation by the forces that took control 
of that island under leadership of Fidel Castro.
  I certainly understand and can relate and identify with the sense of 
anger and the frustration that Cuban-Americans feel for how they have 
been treated and how their families have been treated by the Castro 
government over the years. There is no debate that I know of about our 
collective outrage and sense of identity with the Cuban-American 
population of this country for what they feel; what they have been 
robbed of by the government in Cuba. But having said that, Madam 
President, I think it is also important that we try to think freshly, 
if we can, about how to begin to deal with this problem other than just 
dealing with displaced persons.
  First of all, I think it is important to state that the Cuban-
American population is not a monolithic population. I think every one 
of us in this Chamber would be offended if it was suggested somehow 
that some one person, using my own ethnicity, if I can, speaks for all 
the Irish-Americans in this country. There is no monolithic view among 
Irish Americans about the events in Northern Ireland. There are many 
different opinions within the Irish-American community about events 
that occurred in the land for which they have a particular caring. 
Certainly, I think that can be said of every single constituency 
represented in this body. To suggest somehow that Cuban-Americans are 
all of one mind as to how we ought to deal with Cuba is insulting to 
Cuban-Americans.
  There is a diversity of thought among the population of Cuban-
Americans as to how we ought to deal with these problems. I think we do 
them a great injustice by assuming somehow that one or two or three 
people speak for everyone across generations, across economic and 
cultural and political feelings and ideas.
  So I hope that we might, as we debate and discuss what needs to be 
done here, listen to the diversity of thought within that community in 
our own country as to how we ought to approach the problem of Cuba; 
that we might want to listen to Ernesto Bettencourt and Alicia Torres, 
who testified before my Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere a year 
or so ago on how to deal with Cuba today. Both of those individuals 
were just as maltreated by the Castro government as anyone else. Yet, 
they asked us to follow a different path in trying to deal with the 
problem of Cuba.
  Lord knows, we have engaged in diplomatic relations and political 
discussions with Kim Il-song in North Korea. We now have most-favored-
nation status with the People's Republic of China. And we sit down and 
try and work out a political solution with the leadership of the 
Serbians in Central Europe. We have watched President de Klerk work 
with the ANC in trying to resolve the problems of South Africa. We have 
watched Prime Minister Rabin sit down and try to work out a problem 
with Arafat and with King Hussein. All over the globe we are watching 
the political and diplomatic process work with people who absolutely 
have totally opposing views from one another, and yet they understand 
the value of that process.
  Yet, in this one situation, the nation of Cuba and our relationship 
to it, we seem to be unwilling to examine and explore alternatives. I 
am not suggesting they may even work, but we ought to try them. The 
idea that any government, whether it is this administration or any 
other administration, could not explore and examine the political and 
diplomatic channels of how to help resolve the issues that divide two 
nations is a mistake.
  If we continue to engage in this one-faceted situation--if we can 
find a way to have a political channel open up with Kim Il-song in 
North Korea, the ``dark hole'' of nations, if you will, on the globe; 
and if we can extend most-favored-nation status to the largest 
Communist, repressive government on the face of this Earth, in my view, 
we ought to be able to examine and explore new avenues with the island 
of Cuba.
  That is not to endorse or to want to perpetuate the rule of Fidel 
Castro--quite the contrary--any more than it is to perpetuate the rule 
or governance of the leadership of the People's Republic of China, or 
North Korea, or any other oppressive government around the globe.
  But to have one isolated example of unwillingness to go forward and 
not to listen to the diversity of thought and ideas that exist within 
the Cuban-American community is to make a mistake, and this should 
change. The cold war is over. Cuba no longer presents the kind of 
threat it did even a few short months ago.
  There is a threat, obviously, to the population of Cuba with the 
continuation of a repressive government. But that was true in Poland, 
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and many other nations, such as the Soviet 
Union, only a few short months ago. Yet, that chain, that domineering 
and threatening environment has changed. It changed because we found 
creative ways to engage in a dialog and discussion with the leadership 
of those governments at the time when they were oppressive.
  All I am asking for here is that the Clinton administration and we in 
this body not close our eyes, not shut down the possibility of 
exploring new ways to establish a new foreign policy with the advice, 
with the consultation, and with the diversity of thought within the 
Cuban-American community in this country. And, not to assume that one 
or two people speak for everybody, because I do not believe they do.
  So I urge my colleagues here to look at those ideas.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield. I was over in my office 
listening, and I want to say to my two colleagues who were on the floor 
before that what you say makes so much good sense. Our policy toward 
Cuba is a response to the national passion rather than the national 
interest. It seems to me that what we might do, recognizing that Castro 
has one of the worst human rights records of any leader in this 
hemisphere--but that is also true of China, and we give China MFN 
status; and obviously China is a much greater long-term threat--would 
it not make sense to at least take two initial steps: First, to say 
that we will at least sell food and medicine to Cuba; and second, we 
will permit Americans who want to travel to Cuba to legally do that and 
not go through Canada or Mexico or someplace?
  Mr. DODD. I say to my good friend--and I thank him for his kind 
remarks--that I think certainly that ought to be examined and explored. 
We have a new Secretary General of the OAS, the former President of 
Colombia, President Gaviria, who, by the way, ended up with the job of 
Secretary General with the strong backing and support of the United 
States. He has a unique and special knowledge of Cuba. It seems to me 
that we ought to be examining and exploring this issue through the OAS. 
And we do not allow Cuba to be a member of the OAS.
  It makes more sense to try to deal with somebody under those 
circumstances than to engage in perpetual isolation and not even 
explore ways in which we can facilitate change. Somebody pointed out 
the other day that one of the reasons that the Polish Government under 
Ceausescu collapsed was because faxes, phone calls, videos, and 
information from the West was getting into Poland. We were beginning to 
have an ability to change people's ideas and views. I think Radio Marti 
and Television Marti are good ideas; they get information into the 
island of Cuba. Gerald Ford, President Ford, was absolutely correct 
when he reversed the policy on the secondary boycott, that did nothing 
at all except basically hurt our own industries and companies in this 
country.
  There has been a lot of good thinking by Democrats and Republicans on 
how to approach this problem. And, as the Senator from Illinois has 
pointed out, we have managed, with other governments that are just as 
repressive, to find ways to deal with the strong arguments made on the 
floor of this Chamber that the way to increase human rights or improve 
human rights in the People's Republic of China was not to extend most-
favored-nation status. I think it is a credible argument, that it will 
in fact improve the situation there.
  If we can apply that in the People's Republic of China, where a 
billion people live under the repressive thumb of a government that 
denies them their basic human rights, can we not at least explore that 
with a nation that is sending thousands of people on rickety rafts to 
our country, people that we then have to house at Guantanamo or some 
other place, begging other nations to house and keep them at our cost 
and expense?
  I do not think that is a wise course to be following, and it is not 
good judgment.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague for his leadership.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I rise to commend the Senator for 
addressing himself to this issue this morning. I think he is exactly on 
target. I think our policy is an absurd one.
  As recently as this morning, I was talking with one of our Nation's 
more famous artists, and he said, ``Why is our policy on Cuba what it 
is?'' I said, ``I am frank to tell you I do not know the answer, but I 
am going to discuss it with one of the people I think is more 
knowledgeable than I, Senator Dodd of Connecticut.'' I am pleased I was 
on the floor when you addressed yourself to this subject. I identify 
with the Senator's remarks. I think he is right, and this Nation needs 
to revisit this issue and change its position.
  I think Senator Simon addressed himself in part to it in saying that 
we ought to see that we get food and medicine to Cubans. I agree with 
that, but I think we ought to go further. I cannot explain the 
contradiction in our policy in doing business with some of the nations 
of the world whose policies are more repressive, and we give them most-
favored-nation status.
  I thank the Senator for his remarks and indicate if I can be of help 
in furthering his views, I am with him.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, lastly, I do not know whether opening up 
diplomatic and political channels will work or not. But it seems to me 
we ought to try. We did that in Haiti. Through diplomatic procedures, 
we tried to resolve the crisis there. Ultimately, it has fallen apart, 
unfortunately.
  I am not suggesting that we ought to exclude some of the options 
being considered today. But those options ought not to be resorted to 
prematurely, and we ought to at least explore the possibility of 
reaching some rapprochement here to some of these problems. If that 
fails, if Castro is unwilling to do anything at all, then consider 
these other options, but do not jump to those options before you have 
given a chance for political and diplomatic efforts to prevail.

  On this note, Madam President, I apologize to the minority leader who 
has been patiently waiting for the floor, and I yield the floor at this 
moment.
  Seveal Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will just take 5 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. That is a Connecticut 5 minutes?
  Mr. DOLE. That is a Kansas 5 minutes.

                          ____________________