[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3649-S3655]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the 
status of our parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 326, as 
modified. That is to strengthen international sanctions against the 
Castro government in Cuba.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair. At this time, I urge any Members who 
wish to be heard on this amendment by the Senator from North Carolina 
[Mr. Helms] relating to Cuba, to come to the floor and express their 
views and, hopefully, we may bring this amendment to a conclusion 
shortly. We have been on this now for a number of hours, and it seems 
to me that we should bring it to that culmination and get on with other 
amendments.
  So I urge Members to come to the floor if they wish to be heard on 
this.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to just speak for a very brief 
time about this amendment that is pending by the Senator from North 
Carolina. I have just been trying to read through it. It is a 37-page 
amendment, which is essentially a bill which I gather he introduced 
earlier, called the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 
1995.
  To my knowledge, there have been no hearings on this bill, and the 
Senator from North Carolina is the chairman of the committee before 
which hearings would be held. I have great difficulty understanding why 
the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction would want to have the 
issue dealt with without hearings.
  It seems to me it is a very important issue, a very important issue 
of public policy for our country, and one that needs to be thoroughly 
debated and discussed. Clearly, that cannot be done as an amendment to 
a supplemental appropriations bill pending before the Senate today.
  So I hope very much that we will not proceed to actually enact 
something like this without having the wisdom to go back and subject it 
to scrutiny in the hearing process in the committee, in the committee 
of jurisdiction, which the Senator from North Carolina now chairs. I 
think that would be the appropriate course to follow.
  I have not had a chance to do a detailed analysis of this 
legislation, but I do think that it would be foolhardy in the extreme 
for us to proceed and try to adopt it as an amendment at this point.
  I did want to make a couple of other points on the general subject of 
our relations with Cuba, because I know it has been in the news this 
week. I have been noticing that there are suggestions in the news that 
the President is considering going back on a couple of things that he 
did by Executive order this last August. Let me just recount for the 
Senate what I understand the history of that to be.
  We had a very major problem that occurred this last August where the 
Cuban Government stopped preventing Cubans from fleeing to the United 
States by boat. This change in Cuban policy on about the 15th of August 
caused a surge of migration to the United States. It was the largest 
since the Mariel boat lift of 1980.
  With this situation occurring, 5 days later the President acted to 
try essentially, as I understood it, to build some leverage for more 
negotiations with the Cuban Government, and he put in place four 
measures against the Cuban regime.
  First, cash remittances to Cuba would no longer be permitted. 
Previously, United States citizens could provide up to $300 each 
quarter to their relatives in Cuba, which is not, as the President 
would understand, an excessive amount to send. That works out to about 
$100 a month. And I do not think that is an excessive amount to be 
sending. But we stopped that. The President stopped it by Executive 
order.
  Second, chartered flights between Havana and Miami were to be 
restricted for those designed ``to accommodate legal migrants and 
travel consistent with the Cuban Democracy Act.''
  Third, the United States would use all appropriate means to increase 
and amplify its broadcasts to Cuba.
  And, fourth, the United States would continue to bring before the 
nations and other international organizations evidence of human rights 
abuses.
  Now, the recent news accounts indicate that the President is 
considering advice from some of his advisers that the first two of 
those, the prohibition against cash remittances to relatives in Cuba 
and the prohibition against travel to Cuba, be relaxed again.
  I believe the thinking there is that on September 9 of last year the 
United States and Cuba signed a migration agreement that stemmed the 
flow of Cubans flowing to the United States by boat. So the immediate 
crisis, the crisis which had caused the President to put in place those 
Executive orders, has gone and is now no longer facing us, and the 
President was considering, or at least his advisers were urging him to 
consider, a change in that policy back to what it had been before.
  Mr. President, I for one hope the President will take the advice that 
evidently he is receiving from his advisers. I can honestly say to my 
colleagues here in the Senate that it strikes me as contrary to our own 
interests to have in place, to continue in place, the policies that are 
now being discussed in the White House. To say that Cuban-Americans 
cannot send, cannot remit to their relatives in Cuba up to $300 per 
quarter strikes me as unduly onerous and is hurting the very people who 
we proclaim we are trying to help with all of these sanctions against 
Cuba.
  The distinction which needs to be kept in mind, Mr. President, is how 
can 
[[Page S3650]] we help the people of Cuba without giving assistance to 
the Government there? And I would say, if there is one way we can help 
the people of Cuba without giving assistance to the Government, it 
would be to allow their relatives in this country to remit to them very 
small amounts as they see fit up to $300 per quarter.
  This is not going to threaten the future of our Republic. I think 
this is an eminently responsible course for the President to take, to 
go ahead and repeal or rescind that portion of the Executive order and 
go on with allowing remittances to relatives in Cuba.
  The other issue, Mr. President, also strikes me as one that should be 
clearly changed by this President, and that is the prohibitions against 
travel to Cuba. One of the great constitutional rights which I think 
has been recognized since the beginning of our Republic is the right to 
travel, the right of Americans to travel.
  Now, I understand that there are exceptions. There are occasions 
where we are in hostility with another government and it is not 
appropriate for U.S. citizens to travel to that country, or where those 
citizens are in danger and we do not want to see them travel to another 
country because of the risk of international incident that that would 
create. But I do not believe either of those circumstances adequately 
prevail at the present in this situation to justify prohibiting travel 
to Cuba.
  I would also point out, Mr. President, that the present law which is 
on the books prohibiting travel to Cuba is not enforced. I picked up 
the New York Times Sunday Magazine 3 days ago and was reading through 
it, and there was a big advertisement: ``10-day excursion to Cuba.''
  That is not something which is being advertised for Canadians or for 
Germans. That is for Americans who want to go to Cuba for 10 days and 
view downtown Havana and old town Havana and all the other things that 
are available there. I know Members of this body have traveled to Cuba.
  This is a law which is not being enforced. In my view, it is a law 
which does not make sense at this time in our history, and it is a law 
which causes all who look at it to wonder about our resolve in 
enforcing any of our laws relative to Cuba.
  So I think that for the President to rescind that portion of his 
Executive decree would make good sense. I for one believe that is the 
proper course to follow. At a later time I hope we can have an extended 
debate about this whole embargo issue. I know it is of great concern on 
all sides to a lot of people in this country whether we should retain 
an embargo of Cuba.
  However, today I at least want to go on record as indicating that 
remittances of small amounts of cash to relatives in Cuba should be 
permitted, in my opinion; travel to Cuba by American citizens should 
generally be permitted. In fact, it is being permitted today, since 
everyone seems to be winking at it or looking the other way or finding 
ways not get your passport stamped or some other subterfuge so that the 
penalties which are in the law are in fact not applied. This is a law 
that does not make sense. We should recognize that the President should 
rescind those portions of his Executive decree.
  Again, getting back to that which I guess is the specific issue 
pending before the Senate, that is, the proposed amendment by the 
Senator from North Carolina, again I hope very much we do not take it 
upon ourselves to legislate a whole new regime of sanctions and 
embargoes and onerous provisions at this time as an amendment to an 
appropriations bill. It strikes me as an act which would not be 
responsible, and I very much hope colleagues would see it that way as 
well and that the amendment, if it is brought to a vote, would be 
defeated.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to follow the Presiding Officer 
in the chair, and I will be very brief.
  Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from North Carolina. I am deeply troubled by some of the 
comments that I have seen in the press yesterday and today in that 
apparently President Clinton was considering easing the sanctions on 
the Castro regime. Either the President has been misled or has misread 
the will of the American people or he continues to get the wrong advice 
from advisers such as Morton Halperin because in either case this is a 
grave mistake.
  The attempts to oust Fidel Castro go back many, many years to the 
Eisenhower administration. It transcends party, for sure; a number of 
Presidents in both political parties have been steadfast in their 
attempts to at least bring this blemish on our hemisphere to an end.
  Now, when we are just about to cross the finish line, to do anything 
that would keep that from happening is just a serious mistake. It is 
not the time to relax our pressure on Fidel Castro. It is time to turn 
up the heat, not turn it down.
  The Castro regime as we all know it is morally and economically 
bankrupt. It has been for over 40 years. Decades of corruption and 
communism have left the Cuban people disillusioned, left them in 
poverty, left them yearning, almost begging, crying out for new 
leadership on that island nation. For those who are struggling for this 
freedom and democracy in Cuba, at this very time when we have the 
chance to win that for them, to move away from that is a serious, 
serious foreign policy mistake. Those people, the people who suffer at 
the hands of Fidel Castro, do not want us to coddle him. They do not 
want us to ease the pressure on this corrupt regime. They do not want 
us to give him the economic benefits of investment or tourism.
 They do not want it, and they are the people who are suffering at the 
hands of Fidel Castro.

  On the contrary, they would like us to do everything possible to 
hasten this Communist leader's demise, that is what they want, to 
accelerate his removal from power and to help bring about this 
transition to democracy.
  This is exactly what the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina 
does. It keeps the pressure on Cuba and it accelerates the planning for 
a transition to democracy in Cuba and the humanitarian and economic 
assistance programs that will ensue in a democratic Cuba, which we all 
are waiting for.
  So, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort on the part of the 
administration to coddle Fidel Castro, maybe not intentionally, but the 
result is to promote this Communist regime which is now on the ropes, 
finally. The Cuban people not only need our support, they deserve our 
support. They deserve it. They have suffered long enough. They need us 
to turn the pressure up. We are on the threshold, now, of removing 
Fidel Castro. Many people have said that on this floor and in 
Presidential offices for many, many years. ``One more year, a few more 
months, Castro will be gone.'' But we are on the verge right now. This 
amendment will hasten Fidel Castro's demise. More important, it keeps 
faith with the Cuban people.
  I congratulate the Senator from North Carolina for his amendment, and 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of it and to think very carefully about what this policy, the 
President's policy, will do to the Cuban people who live under this 
dictator, No. 1, and, No. 2, the people who await--not only here in the 
United States but in other nations around the world--who await the 
opportunity to go back to a democratic Cuba and build that island 
nation into the country it can and should be in the Western Hemisphere.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the chairman's amendment on Cuba is a 
very serious one. Cuba is a country of significance to the United 
States and our policy toward it should be very carefully considered, 
measured, and open to a wide range of dynamics which necessarily come 
up between virtual neighbors.
  I have been one, like the chairman, who has supported an aggressive 
policy toward Cuba which will promote democracy and respect human 
rights. Like the chairman, I believe that was, in large part, why we 
fought the cold war. It was part of the effort.
  But I advocate a different approach.
  To my mind, further isolating Cuba is just not an effective approach. 
In a world where we are trying to establish multifaceted, global post-
cold-war relationships, it makes little sense to ignore that your 
neighbor exists, or to try to build regional coalitions around 
[[Page S3651]] a major island, as if there is a black hole in the 
Caribbean. We cannot do much to push democracy and respect for human 
rights if we will not even talk to the Cubans. Indeed, we only hurt 
ourselves if we pretend that a country--particularly if it is 
objectionable or threatening--does not exist. That is what I am afraid 
is the direction of this amendment.
  I also think that pushing our friends and allies to also impose 
embargoes on Cuba is a waste of diplomatic chits. It is a waste of 
time. We have much higher priorities with countries like Canada and 
Great Britain, and most of Latin America than to try to ask them as a 
high priority to further isolate Fidel Castro. It would be far more 
constructive to work with our regional partners to develop a post-
Castro policy--a policy which will help rebuild Cuba economically, 
establish democratic institutions, and strengthen regional 
relationships, including trade and investment opportunities when the 
time is appropriate.
  Finally, I am a little amused that anyone could even advocate 
increased funding for TV Marti. This program is a proven failure both 
technically and substantively.
  Among its programming highlights have been baseball--a popular sport 
in Cuba--and sitcoms such as ``Kate and Allie,'' ``Fame,'' and ``Que 
Pasa, USA?,'' a show about a Cuban-American family adapting to Miami.
  I am told technically, it is almost inoperable. I have had occasion 
to refer to it as a ``balloondoggle.'' Its signal is jammed by the 
regime--that is, when the signal reaches Cuba. Transmission is faulty 
at best most of the time.
  The programs are produced each day in Maryland. They are then 
uplinked--beamed up--from Washington and relayed to an aerostat 
balloon--a blimp known as ``Fat Albert''--which hangs on a tether 
10,000 feet above Cudjoe Key. From there it is projected to Havana.
  However, because of inclement weather, the blimp can only be flown 
sometimes. Often volatile weather conditions knock Fat Albert off its 
tethered cable. In 1991, the blimp was found in the Florida Everglades, 
after a $35,000 search, where it laid damaged for months.
  TV Marti is even more useless when you think that we have an 
effective program in Radio Marti. Radio Marti is not jammed, and I am 
told, unlike TV Marti, it enjoys a large Cuban audience.
  To recommend more funding for TV Marti--to single it out for 
increases in a year when we are slashing so many other worthwhile 
accounts--is just ludicrous. It's hardly the way to balance the budget.
  It is just the opposite.
  These are just some of the varying views on Cuba. Some of my other 
colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including the 
ranking member of the full committee, Senator Pell, and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, Senator Dodd, favor lifting the U.S. trade 
embargo. I may want to link such a proposal to human rights reforms in 
Cuba, which apparently are quite needed.
  Therefore, instead of conducting an ad hoc, seat-of-the-pants debate 
here today, I would respectfully request that the chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee hold hearings in the committee on 
this topic. I know that the ranking members of both the full committee 
and the subcommittee would work closely with you to make that happen.
  A full examination of all the options, proposals, and ramifications 
is long overdue, but quite necessary. There are serious implications to 
what we do: The refugee flow we witnessed this summer is but one 
example. That shows this has great implications, not just for Cuba but 
for us.
  It would be to the credit of the committee to hold such hearings and 
shape the public debate on United States-Cuba relations in a 
deliberative and constructive way.
  I am sure we all agree that United States policy toward Cuba is too 
important and too complicated to offer statements today with full 
confidence that we are doing the right thing.
  I will very much appreciate it if the chairman will consider that 
possibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Wisconsin on his 
words, which I agree with and endorse.
  Mr. President, with all due respect to my esteemed colleague, the 
senior Senator from North Carolina and chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Relations, I add that I, too, strongly oppose the amendment he 
has offered to the pending DOD supplemental appropriations bill.
  First, this amendment is virtually identical to legislation the 
Senator introduced earlier which was referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations. Clearly, the committee should have hearings on this 
legislation, so that the full impact of these proposed changes in U.S. 
policy can be publicly discussed prior to Senate action. Although I 
oppose the policy direction set forth in the amendment, as the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations I will work with 
the distinguished chairman of the committee to facilitate committee 
consideration after full public hearings. The Senate should have the 
views and recommendations of our committee prior to voting on 
legislation as important and significant as this.
  Second, the distinguished chairman and I both want to see a free and 
democratic Cuba, but we disagree on the policy our country should adopt 
to achieve our common goal. I have long spoken to the need for a 
serious reexamination of our country's policy toward Cuba. However, the 
chairman's amendment clearly does not reflect the direction I had in 
mind.
  Yesterday I was encouraged to read that President Clinton is 
considering taking some modest steps toward altering the existing 
sanctions policy in favor of more communication and contact between the 
Cuban and American people--and I must say I applauded that initiative.
  Existing United States policy, consisting of a rigidly enforced 
embargo and an aversion to any significant dialog with Cuba, has, as 
best I understand them, three goals: To promote a peaceful transition 
to democracy; to support economic liberalization; and to foster greater 
respect for human rights while controlling immigration from Cuba.
  These three goals have guided our national policy toward Cuba for 30 
years, Mr. President, yet there has been scant progress toward 
achieving any of them. There is still a government in Cuba which is not 
freely elected, which is only just beginning tentative steps toward a 
market economy, and which continues to fall short of international 
standards in the area of respect for human rights.
  Therefore, I can only conclude that this policy is not only outdated 
and ineffective, but, far worse, it is counterproductive. We should be 
ratcheting up and not down. It seems to me that the time has come to 
admit the obvious. The policy is a failure and will never achieve its 
stated objectives.
  Consequently, it would be a serious mistake, in my view, to intensify 
the embargo and impose even more stringent measures on the people of 
Cuba as proposed in the pending amendment.
  I believe that, rather than tightening the embargo and further 
isolating Cuba, the United States should expand contact with the Cuban 
people and enter into negotiations on all issues of mutual concern to 
our two countries, including the lifting of the economic embargo.
  For example, I believe the President will find a great deal of 
support within the Cuban-American community to a rolling back of last 
August's sanctions that were imposed during the Cuban migrant crises--
sanctions that have prohibited Cuban-Americans from sending money to 
family members in Cuba or visiting them, except in cases of dire 
emergency. This would be a small first step in the direction I support, 
but we must go much further.
  I say this not because of any regard for the government in Havana, a 
one-party state with a record of intolerance toward dissident voices 
within the society. Rather, I say this because, if our country and Cuba 
are to break the impasse that has existed in our relations for more 
than three decades, someone must take the first step in that direction. 
We are large enough and strong enough, and we can afford to do so.
  I believe, and have said many times, it is in the U.S. national 
interest to take that first step--to agree to sit 
[[Page S3652]] down at a negotiating table, where all issues can be 
discussed.
  In the meantime, there should be greater contact between our own 
citizens and the Cuban people. Such contact will serve to plant the 
seeds of change and advance the cause of democracy on that island. Just 
as greater exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism 
in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, so, too, it can achieve 
the same results much closer to our shores.
  I well remember when I was living in Czechoslovakia. The people would 
come to visit America and then came back. They came back much less 
convinced of communism than when they went. The more exchange of people 
and ideas the more likely communism is to erode. To erode means 
contacts, and this is what is necessary.
  Liberal Democrats are not alone in holding this view. Former 
President Richard Nixon wrote shortly before his death last year that, 
``we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to trade, 
investment and economic interaction.'' Learned people across the 
political spectrum have made similar comments and observations about 
the policy.
  Why? Because they have all observed across the globe that policies 
which foster greater commerce and communication between countries work 
and those which engender isolation and enforced misery do not work. We 
have a choice. Let's take the one which works. It has been impossible 
for those who would seek to defend the status quo to cite an instance 
in modern history where a policy of forced isolation has successfully 
transformed a totalitarian state into a democracy.
  United States travel restrictions to and from Cuba are among the most 
prohibitive in the world--this to an island that is only 90 miles from 
our shores. At this point, only United States Government officials and 
journalists have unrestricted access to Cuba and only a small 
percentage of Cubans who apply are allowed to travel to the United 
States each year. The pending amendment would restrict binational 
contacts even further.
  Mr. President, do we as a nation not have enough faith in the power 
of our democratic system and the strength of our ideas to let contact 
between our citizens and other peoples flourish? I would hope so.
  In my view, the strongest advocate for democracy and a free market 
economy would be a Cuban student or family member who had recently 
visited the United States and seen the sharp contrast between our way 
of life and that in Cuba.
  Current policy not only denies the United States the opportunity to 
promote positive change in Cuba, but it increases the likelihood of 
widespread political violence and another mass exodus of refugees to 
Florida. The Cuban Government, which is vigorously pursuing expanding 
political and economic ties with the rest of the world, is unlikely to 
give in to unilateral United States demands. Nor is there much 
indication that a viable opposition currently exists within Cuba strong 
enough to wrest power from existing authorities.
  We have made it very easy for Cuban authorities to justify the lack 
of political freedom in Havana. They simply point to the external 
threat posed by a hostile U.S. policy.
  I am concerned that adoption of the pending amendment would add 
further justification to the Cuban Government's repression--quite the 
opposite effect from that intended by the sponsors of this amendment. 
That justification would lose all credibility were we to adopt a more 
reasoned U.S. policy. Cuban authorities would then be hard pressed to 
justify the denial of political rights and economic opportunities that 
the Cuban people readily observe elsewhere.
  Mr. President, I have urged the administration to take the first step 
toward a new and enlightened policy--a policy that can once again unite 
Americans and Cubans. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
sending a message that it is time to open up a new and constructive 
dialogue with Cuba by voting against the pending amendment.
  The best reason for doing that--as we see what has happened in the 
past few years as the Iron Curtain has dissolved--is the fact, as 
exposure is being increased between the East and West, that communism 
has been eroded as seen by its present disappearing act and what then 
follows in Europe today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I again urge any colleagues who wish to 
be heard on this pending amendment on Cuba to present themselves on the 
floor. We have a number of other amendments pending, that we are at 
least aware of, that Senators will ask to be considered.
  We do not want to lose a lot of the time waiting for that to happen. 
So let all Members be on notice that we are prepared to dispose of this 
amendment in an orderly way at some point soon and/or take up any other 
amendment and set this one aside.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. What is the pending business, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 326, as modified.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am sorry that I missed my friend and 
colleague from North Carolina. He was on the floor here. I gather he 
has gone to a conference lunch.
  I was unable to talk to him, and I am unclear whether or not this 
amendment will be withdrawn or voted on. I will work on the assumption 
it will be voted on. If it is not, then these remarks can be used in 
the context of when it comes up at some future date. I am unclear as to 
whether or not we will actually have a vote on the amendment.
  Let me address, if I could, Mr. President, the amendment that the 
Senator from North Carolina has proposed and, at the very outset, urge 
that all of our colleagues read this amendment very, very carefully.
  This is an amendment that does not deal with the present situation in 
Cuba. There is nothing that I know of in this amendment, with the 
possible exception of changing the frequency of TV Marti to ultra-high 
frequency to deal with the present situation. The amendment is geared 
to deal with the post-Castro situation in Cuba.
  For that reason, knowing full well how a strong majority of my 
colleagues feel about boycotts and embargoes and so forth on the 
present regime, I strongly urge them to look at the amendment because 
it does not deal with primarily what exists now, but rather what comes 
afterward.
  My concern is that this could have a very, very negative impact on 
our ability to deal in the post-Castro period, whenever that comes, 
hopefully sooner rather than later. It seems to me this amendment will 
complicate our ability to assist any post-Castro regime as it grapples 
with the difficult period of transition to democracy. We do not even 
know what that government may look like. It may be a carbon copy of 
what exists now. It may be a flourishing Jeffersonian democracy.
  We have been asked to take a position, if we adopt this amendment, 
that would predetermine in many ways what kind of government would 
follow Castro and, I think, tie the hands of not only our own 
Government but of United States industry and business from doing 
business in Cuba by making them subject to potential civil lawsuits by 
persons who may later claim to have owned property at some point in 
Cuba.
   [[Page S3653]] United States companies are clearly not going to set 
themselves up for such lawsuits, and they will stay away from Cuba 
until all property claims are resolved. What I mean by this is the 
amendment says no assistance can occur in Cuba, no businesses can do 
business in Cuba in a post-Castro regime until all property claims 
dating back to 1959 are resolved. I do not know of anyone who would go 
down and want to make investments in Cuba with the possibility that at 
some future point a claim may arise which would prohibit them from 
engaging in a business practice to assist this new government, whatever 
it may be, in Cuba.
  That will not be the case, obviously, with foreign interests who want 
to do business in Cuba. They will not be constrained by such 
limitations.
  So I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this amendment because, 
again, I understand the intent. Senator Helms cares deeply about 
expropriation of property, and he is right to do so. We have had a 
number of cases in El Salvador and, I think, in Nicaragua where there 
have been some pending. I have been supportive of them in those efforts 
to see to it that American citizens who own property that was 
expropriated get the property back. But I do not think we have ever 
taken the position that nothing ought to happen in these countries 
until all the matters are resolved.
  From time to time, we exerted pressure on those governments. We held 
back foreign aid, we provided aid, we held it back--we used the levers 
to try and achieve the desired results. Here we are now about to take a 
position in a post-Castro Cuba in which we are saying no matter what 
government emerges, no matter what the circumstances may be, that you 
are not going to be able to do business there until all the claims, 
which potentially, I guess, go back to 1959 when Castro took over, have 
been resolved.
  So I think, in a sense, it gets way beyond what we ought to be doing. 
Even if there are those who see merit in this approach, this is a 
complicated matter. It is not a simple matter. It really not ought to 
be the subject of an amendment on the floor. This ought to be the kind 
of legislation that is at least subject to a couple hours of discussion 
and hearing as to what the implications are in terms of the Claims 
Settlement Act of 1949--how does it work; could we apply this 
internationally, as the amendment would seem to suggest?
  The distinguished Senator from North Carolina is now the chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee. I could almost understand if someone 
in the minority were offering this amendment on the floor because they 
are unable to get a hearing or there was no ability to conduct some 
analysis of what the amendment might be. But here the chairman of the 
committee is offering a floor amendment without the full Foreign 
Relations Committee or even a subcommittee thereof having an 
opportunity to analyze what the implications might be.
  So I know that any amendment that has ``Cuba'' on it, we have a 
tendency automatically to vote for it. I just urge in this short amount 
of time that my colleagues take a look at this. I think this goes a lot 
further than anything that has ever been suggested in any other place, 
that I know of, in the world.
  I suspect it may have been motivated in part by a story that appeared 
in the Washington Post about lessening some of the sanctions that were 
imposed, I think, last August during the deluge of humanity that poured 
out of Cuba and how we were going to work with that. That situation 
having been resolved, as I understand it, some of the sanctions we put 
in place then, in light of what was happening, we now may be lifting, 
although, frankly, I do not have any specific personal knowledge as to 
the genesis of that particular story myself.
  But that aside, it seems to me that we are breaking some significant 
new ground as to who would be eligible to be compensated under the 
International Claims Act of 1949 which, by the way, Mr. President, is 
the primary mechanism for settling U.S. persons' property claims, to 
make eligible individuals who are not citizens of the United States at 
the time of expropriation and who may not even be citizens today. This 
is not international law, international law standard, I point out, and 
may seriously complicate efforts to resolve claims of individuals who 
are U.S. citizens at the time of expropriation, which is where our 
prime interest ought to be. Not that we are unsympathetic to non-U.S. 
citizens' claims. But, it seems to me, our thrust in this body ought to 
be focused on what happens to U.S. citizens where expropriation has 
occurred.
  To invoke the International Claims Settlement Act, it seems to me, is 
going to complicate this situation dramatically at the expense of our 
own people. That is what I am really trying to emphasize.
  I said at the outset that there is a piece of this that one might 
argue does have some immediate effect on the Castro government. The 
bill would require the President to convert TV Marti to ultra-high 
frequency UHF broadcasting but fails, I point out, to provide the 
necessary funding to accomplish this effort.
  I think we have been through a pretty significant debate with 
overwhelming support in this body for unfunded mandates. Here we have a 
mandate that requires the change of frequency and no allocation of 
resources to do it. I just raise that as a further point.
  Mr. President, I will not raise a point of order at this point, but I 
do believe this is legislation on an appropriations bill. I want to 
make sure everyone has an opportunity to discuss the amendment, and 
certainly I would not do it without informing my colleague from North 
Carolina ahead of time that I intended to do that so that he would have 
an opportunity to exhaust whatever remarks he wanted to make about his 
amendment. But at an appropriate time, Mr. President, if the amendment 
is not withdrawn--and maybe it will be withdrawn. I gather there is 
some discussion about offering this at a later time. I urge we have a 
hearing on it.
  Senator Coverdell--I have not had a chance to talk with him--who is 
now chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I suspect would be 
willing to have a subcommittee hearing if the full membership was not 
interested in examining this issue. I certainly would take the time to 
do it with him. If not that, then the full committee.
  I am a little surprised in a way that we have the chairman offering 
an amendment on an appropriations bill that he has the power on his 
notice to call a hearing on this issue so we really understand what the 
issues are.
  Again, my emphasis is primarily that this could be very, very 
deleterious to U.S. business interests. I do not know of any business 
which is going to want to make investments knowing at some date there 
may be a cloud on titles of property that have not been resolved. This 
will not be the case with the Spanish and other Latin American 
countries, the European Community, the Canadians, our friends to the 
north who are already involved there. They will be going gung ho in the 
post-Castro period. Our business interests, which may see some real 
value in being involved in Cuba, I suspect would be very reluctant to 
get involved if this amendment is adopted.
  Again, I urge my colleagues who may be listening, or their staffs, 
please take a good look at this amendment. Again, anything that has 
``Castro Cuba'' on it has almost an immediate Pavlovian response to the 
amendment. This is all post-Castro regime. So you are not doing 
anything to Fidel Castro with this amendment, except the UHF issue, and 
that one you ought to take a look at.
  But the other issues are all after Castro and what the implications 
are for us. I am not sure Members of this body necessarily want to be 
in a position without knowing what that government looks likes. We 
prohibit all assistance to that new government in this amendment, 
except just the most dire humanitarian kind of assistance. Maybe that 
is what we want to do when that new government emerges. I do not know 
if anyone can say with any certainty today--and I have studied the 
issue for a long time--I cannot tell you how that issue is going to 
resolve itself when Castro leaves, dies, or whatever else happens. To 
say today no matter what happens we are going to put in law a 
prohibition of doing anything, it seems to me to go far beyond where we 
ought to be going in the consideration of an appropriate foreign policy 
program.
  So I urge, Mr. President, last again--just to emphasize--please take 
a look 
[[Page S3654]] at this amendment. I urge my colleague from North 
Carolina not to proceed with the amendment. That will be the best 
course of action so we do not have to have a vote on this. But if he 
does proceed, I will raise the point of order about it as legislation 
on an appropriations bill, and if I fail at that, then obviously urge 
my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Again, take a good hard look at this before you walk in here and just 
hear the words ``Castro Cuba'' and decide it is OK. I think a lot of 
people, particularly the majority here, would have some strong concerns 
about the implications for U.S. interests.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I concur completely with my colleague from 
Connecticut.
  Foreign policy should reflect the national interest, not the national 
passion. Our policy in Cuba reflects the national passion, not the 
national interest. If the old leaders of the Soviet Union and Cuba had 
gotten together and said let us try and figure out a United States 
policy that will keep Castro in power, they could not have figured out 
a better policy than the policy we have followed that made Castro a 
hero to his own people, that isolated him.
  I think we need, if there is such a word, to de-isolate Cuba. I 
think, for example, we ought to at a minimum sell food and medicine to 
Cuba. What harm comes to the United States if we sell food and medicine 
to the people of Cuba? And as I read this amendment, all of a sudden we 
are saying to countries all over the world, if you do not follow the 
policy that we and we alone are following--no other country in the 
world has this policy toward Cuba--if you do not follow our policy, 
then you are going to have economic reprisal against you.
  That is not the way. It may have been, immediately after World War 
II, when we had better than 50 percent of the world's economy, we could 
muscle our way around like that even though it would not have been good 
public relations for the cause of freedom and democracy. Today, we are 
one-fifth of the world's economy. Yes, we are the only superpower that 
is left, but it just is not rational to follow this kind of policy.
  I think we ought to be sitting back and asking ourselves, No. 1, is 
Castro a threat to the United States? I think the answer to that 
clearly is he is not a threat to the United States. No. 2, is he 
violating basic civil liberties, human rights, in Cuba? Yes. He is, in 
fact, probably the worst violator of human rights throughout this 
hemisphere.
  Then the question is, How do we get them to change their policy? That 
is what we ought to be asking ourselves, not how we can pick up a few 
votes back home from people who want us just to corner him. You corner 
a dog, you corner a snake, and they lash out.
  I think we ought to be taking another look at this. I think the Helms 
amendment is well intentioned. It will not serve the national interest, 
not serve our national policy at this point.


                           Amendment No. 327

 (Purpose: To delete the rescission of funds for the National Security 
                         Education Trust Fund)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have an amendment, but I do not see 
either of the floor managers present.
  I think it would not violate anything if I asked unanimous consent to 
set the Helms amendment aside so that I can offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 327.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 22, strike out line 16 and all that follows through 
     page 23, line 2.
       On page 22, line 2, strike out ``65,000,000'', and insert 
     ``81,000,000'' in lieu thereof.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an amendment that restores the 
National Security Education Act. This was introduced by our former 
colleague, Senator David Boren, and was cosponsored by Senators Nunn 
and Warner. It was signed into law by President Bush.
  Before he leaves, I say to my colleague, the former chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, because I know of his interest in 
this field, this is our former colleague, David Boren's bill. It sets 
up studies in foreign languages, in these isolated foreign languages 
where we have very little knowledge, and it is extremely important. I 
just mention it to Senator Pell because I know of his interest in this 
area.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator very much and share the Senator's 
admiration for Senator Boren. I think some of his ideas about how we 
get more bipartisanship should be followed.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island.
  In Desert Storm, we sent 500,000 American troops over there, and we 
found we had only 5 people who could translate Iraqi military 
documents. The need for having knowledge in these areas is extremely 
important. I called David Boren, who is now president of the University 
of Oklahoma, and I say to my colleague from Mississippi, he indicated 
not only were Senators Warner and Nunn cosponsors of this, but Senator 
Murkowski and Senator Cohen, and he also indicated that Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Feingold had been of help to him in this.
  The other day, I asked the Secretary of Defense about this, and he 
said this is a small item but extremely important. He said it really is 
important that we have people who learn these isolated languages.
  My reason for being involved in this is back when I was a member of 
the House Education and Labor Committee, the then Secretary of 
Education, Ted Bell, asked to zero out our foreign language program, 
and Cap Weinberger, who was then Secretary of Defense, and Bill Casey, 
who was then head of the CIA, contacted me and said this is extremely 
important for us. This is an area where we have serious deficiencies.
  My hope is that the managers will be willing to accept my amendment. 
But if they are not, then I would want to press forward to have a vote 
on the amendment.
  I will yield the floor at this point, and the floor managers can have 
a chance to look at this. But, again, this is the measure, the chief 
sponsor of which was Senator David Boren, and Senators Nunn and Warner 
were cosponsors. President Bush signed the legislation. The Secretary 
of Defense says this is very important for the Defense Department. It 
is a relatively small amount we are talking about, $6 million. The 
offset is more than the $6 million because to handle the outlay portion 
of that, we need to do better than that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could at this point just observe the 
absence of a quorum momentarily so we can discuss this matter with the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand full well the amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois. It is one directed toward preserving the 
Boren fund concept, that provided for education, particularly 
educational opportunities in foreign cultures and languages. The House 
had totally eliminated this program. Our committee tried to fund the 
ongoing grants and those that had already been approved under the Boren 
plan. We provided for the elimination of the fund at the end of the 
settlement of the obligations that have been made to date.
  I think there is a serious question about the redundancy in the 
defense bill of moneys for research and activities of this type. The 
university grants under the current bill, this year, 
[[Page S3655]] amounted to $1.6 billion. We are looking now at, really, 
a difference of some $16.5 million, as far as the amendment of the 
Senator from Illinois is concerned, and our position as represented by 
the Senate report.
  My advice--and I have conferred with my good friend from Hawaii--my 
advice to the Senate is we accept the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois, knowing full well that the full spectrum of the House's 
recommendations will still be in conference. We are going to battle the 
whole subject. We might as well battle it from the point of view of the 
Senator from Illinois as from the point of view of our proposal to the 
Senate. In the way the Senator from Illinois presented it to us, it 
does not affect the outlays or does not affect the basic authorizations 
under the bill available to the Department of Defense for this current 
fiscal year.
  Under these circumstances, unless the Senator from Hawaii wants to 
comment, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have conferred with the chairman of the 
committee and I am prepared to accept his recommendation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 327) was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank them not 
only on my behalf but on behalf of our former colleague, Senator David 
Boren. I will call him and tell him the news. And I believe I am safe, 
after my conversation with the Secretary of Defense, in saying the 
Secretary of Defense also thanks you.
  Mr. STEVENS. The ghost of Boren is alive and well on the floor of the 
Senate, Mr. President. However I am not sure that will be the case in 
the conference. We will do our best.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________