[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.
____________________