[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15079-S15081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            ORDER FOR RECESS

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, 
that the Senate stand in recess until 1:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. 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. BINGAMAN. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our Nation has passed into a new period 
in our history, out of the cold war and into a time that will be 
entirely different than what we experienced during the cold war. 
Children studying history will look in textbooks and see clearly the 
demarcation between that period of the cold war and what we are now 
beginning to experience. They will see the breaking point, when the 
Berlin Wall fell, when the Soviet Union collapsed, when economic 
strength rather than military might began to define a country's real 
position in the world.
  It seems that just about everyone knows that history is dragging our 
country forward, that we need to adjust to new circumstances. And 
everyone seems to know this but those who are, in fact, making 
decisions in this area that this bill deals with.
  The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, or the Helms-Burton 
bill, sends us not forward into this new era, but rather back about 30 
years. Our Nation's foreign policy is rife with anachronisms, and I 
cannot personally be supportive of helping to reinforce and to entrench 
our foreign policy in these outmoded and outdated policies.
  The issue we are discussing today is not whether the United States 
supports a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. Everybody here 
wants to see that occur. That goal is not in question. The means of 
getting there is what is in question. I feel that the provisions of the 
Helms-Burton bill will stall rather than help our efforts to get to a 
democratic regime in Cuba.
  About a week ago, the President of the United States announced a plan 
that received much bipartisan praise. The President promised to more 
vigorously enforce unlicensed travel to Cuba, but to broaden support 
for cultural and intellectual in a way that the 

[[Page S 15080]]
people of Cuba could encounter more frequently and broadly the benefits 
of democracy that are at work here in the United States. The President 
stated that he would license nongovernmental organizations to operate 
in Cuba, to provide information, to provide on a relief basis, when 
needed, the necessary infrastructure to help guide Cuba and its people 
toward democracy in the future.
  The President also noted that Cuban-Americans with relatives still in 
Cuba will be permitted to visit Cuba to tend a family crises, and that 
these automatic one-time-per-year licenses to visit would not be 
stymied by the current delays and management problems that frustrate 
American citizens from getting to Cuba when family emergencies exist.
  The President is also instructing that Western Union be licensed to 
handle wire transfers of funds to families in need on that island.
  But do any of these proposed actions by the President strengthen 
Castro's hand? In my view, they do not. What these provisions do is 
help bond the people of Cuba to the people of the United States. For 34 
years, we have tried to bring Fidel Castro down with heavy-handed 
tactics. One would think that during such a long period of time we 
might have figured out that our policy has not been successful.
  We need a new direction that must involve building bridges with the 
Cuban people. They have in them the beginning of a policy that will 
bring democracy to Cuba. This bill does not help in that process. I do 
think that the President's plan is an important step in the right 
direction. The Helms-Burton legislation which we are now dealing with 
on the Senate floor would injure and alienate ordinary Cubans; it would 
weaken Cuba's civil society and retard the fledgling efforts to move 
toward democratization in that country, and the unprecedented effort to 
impose United States policies on other countries would make it more 
difficult for the United States Government to cooperate with its allies 
in fashioning a joint approach toward Cuba.
  We cannot endlessly bully our allies around the world on issues 
related to trade, except when the most severe national interests of our 
Nation are at stake. We have had 34 years of stalemate with regard to 
Cuba. Finally, things seem to be indicating some transition is 
occurring.
  Now is not the time to do battle with Europe and with Asia over our 
relations with Cuba. Now is the time to develop strategies to help this 
nation as it does move into a new order.
  Mr. President, I must also mention the serious concern I have with 
title III of the bill which creates the right for United States persons 
who were not United States citizens at the time of property 
expropriation to sue in United States Federal courts persons who 
traffic in United States properties in Cuba.
  This provision will provide an unfunded mandate on our Federal 
courts. It will lead to a flood of new lawsuits, costing U.S. taxpayers 
hundreds of millions of dollars in court expenses. Furthermore, the 
$50,000 threshold that this bill contemplates in such cases means that 
we are primarily addressing the needs of relatively wealthy Cubans and 
neglecting those who were victimized but, in fact, were less well off.
  If we are to make decisions of this sort, we should respond to the 
crimes committed and not to the particular wealth of the individuals 
who were harmed. Nevertheless, to handle this matter in American courts 
would certainly impede current U.S. efforts to resolve outstanding 
property claims disputes. It would impede economic reform efforts by a 
transition government in Cuba, and it would overburden our already 
overburdened Federal courts.
  In the Inter-American Dialog it was recently reported that used only 
as an instrument of pressure the embargo that we currently have against 
Cuba is not effective in promoting reform. It may well have the 
opposite result of stiffening resistance to change. Constructive use of 
the embargo requires that the United States open an active dialog with 
the Cuban Government to foster Cuba's democratization and encourage a 
range of political and economic reforms.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to add one last caution, as others 
have stated here on the floor, with regard to this legislation. This 
bill was not reported out of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It did not 
go through a markup.
  This bill is handling matters that are very consequential for our 
relations with that nation. In such consequential matters we clearly 
need to scrutinize what we are doing, act with caution.
  I believe we need to follow the normal practice which exists here in 
the Senate and has for many years. That is, to allow committees to work 
on legislation, allow committees to revise legislation before that 
legislation is brought to the full Senate for passage or defeat.
  I urge my colleagues not to support this bill as it now stands. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before he departs the floor, let me commend 
our colleague from New Mexico for a very thoughtful and eloquent 
statement regarding the pending legislation before the Senate.
  I particularly want to highlight his comments with regard to title 
III of this bill. I mentioned this last evening, Mr. President, but I 
will reiterate the point that the Senator from New Mexico has raised 
this afternoon. I urge my colleagues to focus their attention on this 
particular section.
  Under existing law there are some 6,000 claimants--legitimate 
claimants--under law that has existed for four decades in this country, 
that says in order to be a bona fide claimant where there has been an 
expropriation of property in a foreign country and noncompensation for 
that property, then those people have a right to go to the U.S. claims 
court.
  The U.S. Government acts as their agent, in effect. It is not just 
access to the court. We then ask our Government to pursue these matters 
on behalf of U.S. citizens.
  This law now expands the universe of claimants from the 6,000 who 
exist and who were U.S. citizens at the time the expropriation took 
place to an estimated 430,000 claimants, because the law now says even 
though you were not a U.S. citizen at the time of the expropriation, if 
you became one later then you have the right to use the U.S. courts to 
pursue those claims.
  We are carving out an exception--even if my colleagues want to do 
that, we are carving out an exception--just in the case of Cuba. There 
are 37 other nations, Mr. President, where we have expropriation 
matters pending. If we extended that same right to other nationals now 
in our country, U.S. citizens, you would absolutely overwhelm the U.S. 
courts.
  The average cost to process a claim is $4,500. Just in this case, if 
the estimates are correct, in excess of 400,000 claims, it will cost 
the U.S. taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.
  If for no other reason--put aside what the bill may or may not do to 
the government of Fidel Castro--the first question all of us must ask 
is what are we doing to ourselves? If you analyze this bill in the 
context of what we are doing to ourselves someone ought to be willing 
to provide some appropriations here and expand the courts and the 
personnel in order to handle this tremendous tidal wave of matters that 
will come before them.
  I point out, Mr. President, the 6,000 claimants have expressed their 
strident opposition to this bill for the legitimate reason that they 
feel their rightful claims will be overwhelmed as a result of the 
increased numbers who will be seeking to have their claims adjudicated 
by the U.S. claims court.
  I want to compliment my colleague from New Mexico for raising that 
particular point in this bill.
  I also suggest that we are finding ourselves more and more isolated 
on this question. It is not a debate about whether or not we want 
change in Cuba. I do not believe there is any dissension in this body 
on that issue at all.
  The question is whether or not in our response, our emotional 
response to Cuba, that we are thinking carefully and prudently and 
wisely in seeking the kind of cooperation and support you need to have 
if you are going to be effective in those desires.
  There are 58 countries doing business in Cuba today whether we like 
it or not. In fact, it is expanding, not contracting. If you are going 
to be effective in bringing together the kind of economic pressures you 
have to have 

[[Page S 15081]]
some cooperation internationally. That is not the only reason to do 
these things.
  There was a vote in the United Nations on Cuba. Only one other 
country joined us--one other country joined the United States, and that 
was Israel. The irony is Israel does business--businesses do business 
in Cuba. It puts us in a very awkward untenable position of not only 
harming ourselves but also having no impact whatever on Cuba itself.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation no matter how 
strongly you may feel. I understand those feelings, about what the 
Cuban Government has done to the people of Cuba since 1959. We need to 
be thoughtful about how we are approaching the problem. We are doing 
business in the People's Republic of China. We just granted diplomatic 
status to Vietnam. Here we are now going to say that it is all right to 
do things there to try and effectuate change, but here we are creating 
a different standard altogether.
  Again, my compliments to our colleague from New Mexico. I thank him 
for his comments and urge my colleagues in the coming hour to take a 
good hard look at this bill and ask yourself the question, whether or 
not this legislation is in the best interests of our country. What does 
it do to those legitimate claimants who are counting on these courts to 
process those claims so they can be compensated for the expropriation 
that has occurred?
  Mr. SIMON. Would my colleague yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SIMON. I just walked on to the floor, I confess, and heard 
Senator Dodd speaking.
  When he asked the question, what are we doing to ourselves --that is 
really the fundamental question. What is our self-interest?
  It so happens earlier today a woman asked me why have we not been in 
Vietnam getting business? She says the French--she is in an agriculture 
implement business--the French and Japanese and others are in there 
getting the business that we should have been getting.
  Well, the answer is we should have been there but we have been 
responding to the national passion rather than the national interest. 
We have to ask, what is in our own best interest.
  Passing this kind of legislation may bring cheers from certain 
quarters. It does not help the United States of America, and it does 
not help people in Cuba who want freedom.
  I commend my colleagues for standing up on this. We have to send a 
message to the rest of the world that we are going to work with the 
rest of the world, including governments we do not like.
  I do not like Castro's government. In the area of human rights their 
record is miserable. But I have to say, so is the record of China. We 
are working with China. We are cuddling up to China a little more than 
I like, frankly.
  But I do think if China wants to buy a Ford tractor from the United 
States, we should sell them a Ford tractor.
  I think of our relations with Cuba back when there was a Soviet 
Union. If Moscow and Castro got together and said how can we design 
U.S. policy to keep Castro in power, they could not have designed a 
better policy than the one we follow. We have isolated Castro and we 
have made him a hero among his people for standing up to the big bully, 
the United States.
  This legislation is not in our national interests. I commend my 
colleague.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just commend both my colleagues, 
the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Connecticut. They have 
spoken out on this issue before. Of course, the Senator from 
Connecticut is the ranking member on the subcommittee which has 
jurisdiction in this area and does an excellent job in providing 
leadership to us on these issues.
  I do think our policy with regard to Cuba is an anachronism today. 
This legislation would further entrench that same policy and further 
harden that policy in a way that I think would result in delaying 
democracy coming to Cuba. I think that is clearly the end result.
  The reference to China reminded me of a cartoon which I enjoyed 
several years ago. President Reagan was visiting China, and one of the 
cartoonists had a picture of him on the Great Wall of China speaking to 
Chou En-Lai at the time, saying, ``This wall is terrific. If this does 
not keep the Commies out, I don't know what will.''
  That, I think, points up the absurdity of a policy. That is a 
Communist government in China. It has been a Communist government. We 
do business with them. We need to do business with them. We need to 
recognize that they are a real part of this world. Clearly, we have 
such a contrary policy when it comes to Cuba it needs to be rethought.
  This legislation needs to be defeated and certainly we have a chance 
to do so at this point. I think the President is acting judiciously and 
properly in beginning to plant some seeds which will encourage 
democracy to come to that island. That is all that can be done at this 
point. I think that is an important step forward, and we should not 
interfere with it. We should not do anything to support this Helms-
Burton legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe the majority leader announced that 
at the conclusion of my remarks the Senate would stand in recess until 
1:45. I ask the Chair, is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. Let me briefly say that we are going to be on this matter, 
apparently. I, last night, spoke for an hour or so. The Presiding 
Officer spoke on this issue last evening. Several have.
  My hope would be, unless other Members are going to speak on this 
issue, we might have an opportunity to talk about some other issues. We 
have a major problem emerging on the home front here in the next 
several weeks and that is this so-called reconciliation bill that deals 
with Medicaid, Medicare, and taxes. It looks as if we are only going to 
have about 20 hours to debate a domestic issue of far more importance 
to most people in this country than a policy dealing with Cuba. So I 
hope we might--if Members are not going to address this issue, since we 
are apparently not going to vote on this matter for some time here--we 
might at least have the opportunity to talk about some of these other 
issues.
  I know in my State people are far more interested in what is going to 
happen to their Medicare and what is going to happen with Medicaid and 
the tax breaks that are being proposed to be paid for by the cuts in 
Medicare. It is a matter of deep, deep concern. We will have had no 
hearings on those issues; not a single hour of hearings on that. At 
least we had hearings on Cuba, on this issue, going back a number of 
weeks ago. We had no markup of the bill on this particular legislation 
we are going to be discussing. And of course there will be a markup but 
no hearings on the bill that will be affecting Medicare and Medicaid.
  So I am somewhat mystified we would spend this much time on this 
issue and yet leave Medicare and Medicaid to a status of insignificance 
by comparison, in terms of the amount of time allocated for discussing 
it. I think that is wrong. I think it is tragic. I think the American 
people will respond accordingly.
  So my hope is we might at least offer Members the opportunity, if not 
to discuss particularly this matter, to use the time to talk about some 
of these other issues. Obviously, that is a matter for those who 
control the floor to make a decision on, whether or not they will allow 
that to occur. I hope that will be the case.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________