[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 158 (Thursday, October 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15088-S15091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the subject 
of the legislation before us at this time, which is the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act, and to say that all of us on both sides 
of the aisle share I believe the same objective--to craft a United 
States policy toward Cuba that will most effectively encourage a 
democratic transition in that last stronghold of authoritarian rule in 
our hemisphere. The question before us today is whether this 
legislation is the best means of advancing that goal.
  If I may speak for just a moment about some of the concerns that I 
have, in the past, I have argued for a policy of strengthened 
engagement with the Cuban people. I believe we should take steps to 
encourage the free exchange of ideas within Cuba and increase news 
coverage of the island, to support dissident organizations and 
humanitarian groups in Cuba, and to help lay the groundwork for support 
of a post Castro government.

  These objectives are widely shared. Some of the initiatives announced 
last week by President Clinton would move us in that direction. 
Similarly, chapters I and II of the legislation before us take a 
similar approach.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Helms, the majority leader, Senator Dole, and other colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle--this is not a partisan issue on this 
legislation--for their hard work on these sections of the bill.
  But to my mind, Mr. President, this legislation still raises very 
difficult issues, primarily in chapter III of the act before us. That 
section establishes a cause of action in United States Federal courts 
against any person or organization, foreign or domestic, who acquires 
property in Cuba against which a United States national has an 
expropriation claim.
  In part, this approach is designed to help United States nationals to 
recover damages for the expropriation of their property in Cuba, and 
that is certainly understandable. Since they cannot recover from the 
Castro regime, this legislation would let them go after deep-pocket 
companies that have acquired property that Castro expropriated.
  At the same time, this approach has, in my judgment, a broader 
foreign-policy consequence--to discourage foreign investment in Cuba. 
It seeks to do so by discouraging companies from acquiring certain 
expropriated property because of the uncertainty of what litigation may 
be involved. It is interesting that this legislation would allow any 
United States citizen who meets its criteria to seek relief through our 
Federal courts--even if the person is recently naturalized and was a 
Cuban citizen at the time the Cuban Government expropriated his 
property or her property.
  I believe many questions about this approach remain unanswered, and 
perhaps they can be answered. But I want to raise them now with issues 
that are troubling to me, and I have been very appreciative of Senator 
Helms and Senator Helms' staff who have offered to try to help me 
understand the questions that I have.
  What precedent are we setting for use of our Federal courts? I am not 
convinced that Congress would be wise to decide that our Federal courts 
should be used as a tool to advance our foreign policy interests. If we 
use courts to advance our policy objectives in Cuba 

[[Page S 15089]]
today, will we be tempted tomorrow to use the courts to advance our 
interests in China? In Eastern Europe? In Africa? And what if policy 
objectives that are current today change tomorrow, as they often do in 
the fluid field of diplomacy and international politics? Will we then 
change the cause of action we have established in our legal system? 
What effect will that have on the certainty of the law and the 
distinction between law and diplomacy?
  What will be the practical effect on our court system? Estimates of 
the number of lawsuits that would be filed under this legislation vary 
widely, from less than a dozen to tens of thousands.
  It is protective, not retrospective. And I understand that. But it 
could go from less than a dozen to perhaps thousands of cases.
  We really do not know. At a time when our courts already are 
overburdened, it seems to me we should conduct a thorough and 
thoughtful assessment of what would be required if this legislation 
were to become law.
  Will this approach make us, rather than Castro, the focus of the 
international Cuban debate? In this bill, we are considering extending 
the reach of our courts for political purposes, and many of our 
friends--countries that have businesses that could find themselves 
hauled into U.S. court under this legislation--have serious concerns 
about this approach. At a time when we want to marshall our friends to 
our side in opposition to the Castro regime, we may discover that we 
have instead driven a wedge between us.
  Will this approach spawn a backlash against our companies abroad? 
Many U.S. companies worry that if we choose to use U.S. courts as a 
channel to pressure foreign companies to advance political objectives, 
other countries will do the same. We may well find our companies 
operating abroad dragged into foreign courts as part of broader policy 
disputes that do not even involve the United States. I believe we 
should think very carefully about the precedent we may be setting.
  Mr. President, I commend the majority leader and the chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee for their leadership in bringing this 
important debate before the Senate. But I do think there are serious 
questions that relate both to our foreign policy and to our judicial 
system about which we must think very carefully. I know these matters 
have been discussed at length--certainly people on both sides have made 
strong arguments to me about their position. The Foreign Relations 
Committee did conduct a hearing on some of the issues related to this 
subject. But I am troubled that neither the Foreign Relations Committee 
nor the Judiciary Committee has given this complex legislation the 
careful review that it deserves, regarding the judicial structure as 
laid out in the legislation before us.

  Perhaps I am too conservative in my approach to this matter. But it 
seems to me that we should be hesitant to take steps that may 
potentially politicize our courts, may put at risk our businesses 
abroad, and may detract from our efforts to marshall international 
support for ending the Castro regime, which is what we are all 
dedicated to addressing here in the U.S. Senate. The Senate should 
think and act very carefully before taking this precedent-setting step 
in my judgment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                           Amendment No. 2915

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, there has been introduced by the Senator 
from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
regarding the consideration of a constitutional amendment to limit 
congressional terms. His amendment would take the position that it is 
the sense of the Senate that the Senate should pass prior to the end of 
the first session of the 104th Congress a constitutional amendment 
limiting the number of terms Members of Congress can serve.
  I would like to address that sense-of-the-Senate resolution for a 
moment. In the first place, I want to commend Senator Ashcroft once 
again. He is one of the leaders. We are original cosponsors of the 
constitutional amendment provision that came out of the Judiciary 
Committee with regard to term limits.
  So he and I have joined hands together, along with so many the 
others, especially some of the newer Members of Congress, to fight 
strongly for term limits. It has been very high on our agenda for some 
time.
  I must respectfully disagree with him on this matter of tactics. It 
seems to me that we would be better served if we would wait until we 
are positioned to have a better chance of winning. It is just that 
simple. Good friends and good colleagues, even agreeing on the same 
issue, can disagree on tactics, and we do that. I would like to explain 
for a moment my reasoning.
  I suppose we are making progress because for about 200 years, the 
Congress, the U.S. Senate, went without even getting a vote on term 
limits for a constitutional amendment. Now we are debating among 
ourselves as to when the best time for the vote is. So I really think 
that is progress.
  Ten of the freshmen Members of the U.S. Senate, so many others who 
have been here for a longer period of time, decided early on in this 
session that it was going to be a top priority for us.
  We came into the U.S. Congress with a little different view. We 
thought that service in the U.S. Congress should not necessarily be a 
career, but that it should be an interruption to a career. We thought 
it was good for people coming to Congress to have done other things, 
and that they would do some other things in their life later on. This 
was based on the proposition, not that newer faces were necessarily 
better than faces that had been around for a while, but that in the 
long run we would have a better chance of doing the things we are going 
to have to do in this Nation. Members would make the tough decisions, 
if we had more citizen legislators who came in being able to take 
risks, and not having their entire livelihood and their entire fate 
wrapped up in the next election.
  Career politicians, in my opinion, are somewhat averse to taking 
risks. In order to provide the leadership, this country is going to 
need to get us over the hurdles we are now facing. Goodness knows we 
are right in the middle of taking those hurdles right now. We are going 
to have to have people who are not dependent on the last public opinion 
poll, but who seriously have talked to the people. And, after having 
talked with the people who sent them up here, they will have to decide 
they are going to do some things in different ways and exercise some 
leadership.
  That is the thinking we have and are firmly committed to. So I 
introduced a bill in the Judiciary Committee for a constitutional 
amendment. Other people have introduced other bills. It is pretty clear 
now, after the Supreme Court decision, that term limits will have to be 
voted on as a constitutional amendment. That is a rather high hurdle, 
but we are committed to that. I believe we will ultimately succeed in 
that.
  Senator Ashcroft joined with me, and for the first time, really, I 
think in the history of the Senate we passed such a bill out of the 
Judiciary Committee and onto the floor of the Senate. So we feel pretty 
good about that.
  But right now, as I say, we are in the position of taking different 
views as to where we go from here. I would feel much more comfortable, 
frankly, to take the floor of the Senate to debate the policy, and I 
cannot wait until we get into a situation where we can spend a few days 
debating that policy. There may be a few people in the Chamber who 
disagree with my position on this as we consider it.
  But right now we are talking about tactics. We are in the middle 
right now, as everyone in this Nation who pays any attention at all 
knows, of some of the toughest budget negotiations probably in the 
history of this body. People are talking about train wrecks. People are 
asking, who is going to blink first? The Government is going to shut 
down; we are going to exceed the debt limitation. All kinds of terrible 
things are going to happen. And reporters are rushing from one end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue to the other end to get briefings almost hourly as 
to what the positions are going to be and who is going to relent and 
who is going to be willing to compromise and all of that.
  This is important stuff because it is the very crux of the agenda of 
most of those of us who support term limits so 

[[Page S 15090]]
avidly. Many of us who support term limits also came to town with the 
commitment to balance the budget for the first time in decades in this 
country, to keep from bankrupting the next generation which we are 
surely on the road to, committed to saving Medicare, committed to major 
reform in welfare, committed to tax cuts for the American people.
  Those are the things on which the last election was run. Those are 
the things I think the American people are for. Reasonable people can 
disagree with all or part of that agenda, but that is the agenda, that 
is what is before us now.
  So, finally, after winning these elections and coming to town and 
getting our feet under us and having the budget process work its will 
down to this point, we are in the middle of it. And it is a great day 
for the Senate because I think those of us who are for those measures 
will prevail.
  But, regardless, they are on the table, they are being debated for 
the first time in a long time, and they are important to the future of 
this country. We have been talking about reforming welfare for years 
and years. We have not done anything. Everybody is for a balanced 
budget. This is the first time in decades we really have a chance to 
make the first downpayment toward that end.
  These are important matters. My feeling is that in the midst of that, 
it would be better to wait until we have a better opportunity to focus 
on the issue of term limits. I think too often we get spread too thin 
on so many of these issues. Some might say we are doing it for these 
last few days, maybe the next few days, because we all know what the 
real battles are going to be about here in the next couple weeks and 
they have nothing to do with what is being debated here today.
  So the question becomes, would it be better to rush to a vote now in 
the midst of all this and take a few hours and have a vote on term 
limits? And those of us who are for term limits would get as much time 
as we could and come in and make an argument and have a quick vote and 
we would lose, and then we would go on about our business, which is the 
primary business of this country right now. Or whether it would be 
better to wait until the first of the year when we will have more time, 
we will be able to generate more attention and give these groups and 
these citizens out in this country who are so interested in this issue 
an opportunity to do their work and focus their attention on these 
congressional districts and these States that are vitally important.
  I think the answer is the latter. Reasonable people can disagree. 
Some people can say, well, we ought to make folks vote on it now; we 
know we are going to lose; make folks vote on it so we can go to their 
States later on and say they voted against it and put the pressure on 
them to change their votes. Others say let us wait because if a person 
is not likely for the issue, it might be better for the person to vote 
with us later on.
  Reasonable people can disagree. I think it is the latter. I do not 
mind fighting a good cause and going down in flames if that is the way 
it has to be. But I prefer to fight a good cause and win. And if we 
will not shoot ourselves in the foot, as so many of us who have been 
pushing so strongly the last few months have the tendency to do in both 
Houses of Congress, we can ultimately have a victory in this area.
  On October 3, I wrote a letter to the majority leader, Senator Dole, 
briefly outlining this position and my feeling that it would be better 
to put the vote off until we could focus on it because we would have a 
better chance of winning. I was not alone. There were 10 freshman 
Senators. We did not solicit the signatures of anyone except in the 
freshman class, and not all were present when we passed the letter, as 
a matter of fact, but 10 of us signed the letter to the majority leader 
for this purpose. We may be right; we may be wrong tactically, but 
those who share our opinion that it would be better to wait until the 
first of the year include Americans Back in Charge, which is an avid 
pro term limits organization and doing a lot of good work, the 
Christian Coalition, the American Conservative Union, the Seniors 
Coalition, the Council for Government Reform, and Citizens Against 
Government Waste.
  Now, all of those groups which constitute the term limits coalition 
share our view, or we, the 10 freshman Members, and I would daresay 
others who are pro term limits in this body, share their view that it 
would be better to wait, instead of rushing to judgment on this thing, 
until we have an opportunity to have a real battle, a real debate, and 
enough time to generate the support necessary to get the job done.
  Unfortunately, now the issue has gotten into Presidential politics. 
As the majority leader knows, I have endorsed someone else in the 
Presidential race, but I must say this. It is unfair and unfortunate 
that the majority leader is being attacked as in some way being weak on 
term limits or deciding unilaterally that he does not want to have a 
vote on it.
  The majority leader committed early on to having a vote on this 
matter, and we went to him and asked him, based on our understanding of 
what would be the best tactics and our understanding of what would be 
the best strategy, to wait until we had a chance to have a real shot at 
victory.
  And the majority leader acceded to that. And we appreciate that. I am 
not running for President. I am trying to get term limits passed. I do 
not have any dogs in that particular fight in that regard. I am 
interested in the best approach to pass term limits. This is what I 
think ultimately will be the best strategy to get term limits passed.
  They can fight about the rest of it among themselves. But I think we 
ought to be fair and make sure we are not leaving the wrong impression 
with regard to who is doing what and what the motivations are and 
accusing people of dragging their feet on term limits when just the 
contrary is true. Therefore I respectfully oppose the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.
  Thank you.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the 
majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know there is some difference of opinion 
apparently on this side, maybe on the other side too, on when we will 
have a vote on term limits. I am just trying to accommodate what I 
thought was a consensus. Apparently it was not a consensus.
  Now what I want to do is get consent to have a cloture vote tonight 
at 8:30. We will have a vote on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, I 
assume, as soon as something comes up that we can offer the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. But whether or not we are going to have a vote 
on term limits this year depends whether it passes or not.
  I am sorry that the freshmen I thought were all in agreement are not 
now in agreement. But in any event, what we need to resolve is that we 
have a cloture vote tonight at 8:30 on the pending business, which is 
the Cuban Freedom of Democracy Act. As I understand it there is no 
objection unless the Senator from Missouri objects. We have got a 
number of people who want to leave. I think 10 Senators are leaving on 
a task force that I suggested to go to Bosnia. And we have got five 
Senators coming back at about 8:30. And it is a very important cloture 
vote. I do not think we will get cloture the first time around.
  We think it is a very important vote. We would like to get consent to 
do that. I can assure the Senator from Missouri he will have an 
opportunity to vote. But the Democrats cannot agree if we can have the 
vote prior to the cloture vote on Tuesday. I will not make a Federal 
case out of that. The Senator can get his vote almost any time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of 
a quorum for a time of discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from West Virginia 
wishes to speak. I am just going to take a moment to agree with the 
comments from the Senator from Tennessee a moment ago expressed about 
having the vote on 

[[Page S 15091]]
the term limits resolution. Most of us who support term limits want to 
have that vote at a time when we have the best opportunity to win it. 
And the reason that we sent a letter to the majority leader asking him 
to hold the vote until sometime in the future when we thought we had 
that support or might have that support was precisely because we wanted 
to have the vote scheduled when we thought we could win it.
  There will be more time for the supporters to mobilize support in the 
interim period of time. And I just wanted to express my appreciation to 
the majority leader for acceding to the wishes of the majority of those 
of us who would prefer to have the vote later.
  I also want to say however there has not been any greater advocate 
from term limits than the Senator from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and 
that if he wishes to have a vote on the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, 
I naturally would support that. But I just wanted to make it very clear 
that the only reason that the majority leader would defer the vote on 
the term-limits proposal itself is because those of us who support it 
have requested that he do so. I appreciate the willingness of the 
majority leader to accommodate us in that regard.
  I appreciate, Mr. President, the opportunity to speak here for this 
moment. I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Arizona withhold?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.

                          ____________________