[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15206-S15217]
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.


                    Amendment No. 2916, As Modified

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I appreciate the passion with which the 
author of this term limitation amendment believes in his cause. I can 
also appreciate the fact that he is adamant in having the Senate debate 
the issue of term limits. But I strongly suggest that the remaining 
days of the first session of the 104th Congress are not the time to 
undertake this debate. There will be plenty of opportunity when we 
return next year, as the able and distinguished majority leader has 
indicated, for the Senate to consider a constitutional amendment 
limiting the terms of service. I urge my colleagues to not vote for 
cloture today and to reject the amendment.
  Notwithstanding the logistics, I believe that the Founding Fathers 
were exactly correct when they declined to establish in the 
Constitution arbitrary limits beyond those that are set forth in the 
Constitution regarding congressional service. It is not that the idea 
had not occurred to them. On the contrary, the Framers of our great 
charter deliberately rejected this structural prescription--one might 
call it a proscription; it is both a prescription and a proscription. 
Instead, they opted for having the number of terms a Member could serve 
limited not by the calendar, but rather by the Member's performance, 
measured through regular and periodic elections. After more than 200 
years under that principle, we would all be correct to question why it 
deserves radical change.
  Proponents may argue that it is, in fact, necessary to amend our 
Constitution in order to preserve the Framers' original vision of a 
citizen-legislator who would set aside his plow to serve the Republic, 
only to return to his fields as swiftly as possible. But when I think 
about those men who painstakingly crafted our Constitution--men like 
Madison, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Wilson, Mason, and others--I 
have serious doubts about the strength of such vision. These were men 
who devoted nearly all of their adult lives to public service. And that 
such men could truly embrace that bucolic notion is dubious, at best. 
The fact is that the citizen-legislator has long been a political myth. 
Now, with the ever-increasing complexities of public affairs, it is 
also an unrealistic myth.
  For the same reason we have professional doctors, professional 
accountants, professional teachers and professional engineers, we need 
an experienced Congress. In each of the cases I have mentioned, 
experience counts, and it should count. No one would go to an untrained 
and inexperienced heart surgeon. If they want to do that, they could 
come to me. That surgeon only 

[[Page S 15207]]
becomes so professional through a long period of schooling and an 
equally long residency at a hospital.
  In the same light, the only way to become a better, more efficient, 
more professional legislator is through years of practical experience 
here in the Congress. Richard Russell, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, 
and Hubert Humphrey did not become the legislators that they became 
through limited terms. Just the opposite is true. They became 
proficient and experienced lawmakers through long years of dedicated 
service, learning their craft and honing their skills.
  And finally, Mr. President, although I will have more to say to this 
issue at the appropriate time, I hope Senators will reject this notion 
of term limits for the most obvious of reasons: the surest and most 
effective term limit is that which can already be imposed by the 
voters. When the term of any Member of the House of Representatives or 
the Senate expires, the American voter can turn any Member of this body 
or of the House of Representatives out of office for any reason. They, 
the voters, alone pick and choose whom they wish to have represent 
them. They alone, and not some arbitrary calendar, determine who will 
serve in this body. And no constitutional amendment, no matter how well 
intentioned, can improve upon that situation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What is the pending business, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is H.R. 927.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I gather there is no time agreement 
other than the set rollcall, as I understand it, at 5 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit at this time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand it, the matter of 
strengthening sanctions on the Cuban Government is the underlying 
legislation, with the pending amendment being one offered by the 
distinguished colleague from Missouri with regarding term limits. I 
wish to talk on a subject relating to term limits, specifically the 
need to retain a sense of history around this place. I oppose term 
limits by way of any further provision other than that in the 
Constitution, that we in the Senate have to run every 6 years. I have 
faced the voters in six elections since I first came to the U.S. 
Senate.
  In attempting to change the existing restraints, we are in danger of 
losing the sense of history that is necessary in a democratic 
government. Specifically, I want to address the budget and the 
reconciliation measure that will soon be considered, the so-called 
train wreck, to see if we can all talk in one vocabulary relative to 
this budget, and to specifically demonstrate that there is no plan at 
the present time that balances the budget.
  If you were to go out on the sidewalk and ask any of the relatively 
informed passers-by, they would tell you, ``Well, there is a Republican 
plan to balance the budget by the year 2002, but the Democrats want to 
spend more money.'' The fact is, neither the President nor the 
Democrats nor the Republicans have a plan to balance the budget by the 
year 2002--or 2005, for the simple reason we refuse to face the truth; 
to face the reality.
  Let me ask the staff to put copies of our budget tables around on all 
the desks and some upstairs for the media.
  When Senator Howard Baker was the majority leader back in 1981, we 
saw that we were on a collision course. Specifically, we knew you could 
not cut taxes and raise revenues. Finally, the press seems to be 
catching on. I read with pleasure the first ``truth in budgeting'' 
article that I have seen this year, entitled ``GOP Tax Cuts Will Add 
$93 Billion to the United States Debt, Budget Analysts Say,'' by Jackie 
Calmes.
  I have called to congratulate the young lady since yesterday. I am 
going to continue to try to find her, because she really has made 
history.
  I ask unanimous consent the article be printed in its entirety at 
this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 16, 1995]

  GOP Tax Cuts Will Add $93 Billion to U.S. Debt, Budget Analysts Say

                           (By Jackie Calmes)

       Washington.--Despite Republicans' claims to the contrary, 
     their tax cuts will add billions to the nation's nearly $5 
     trillion debt even as the GOP seeks to balance the budget by 
     2002.
       An estimated $93 billion in extra debt will pile up as a 
     result of the Republicans' proposed $245 billion in seven-
     year tax cuts, according to calculations from GOP 
     congressional budget analysts. And that's assuming the 
     economy gets the huge $170 billion fiscal stimulus that 
     Republicans are counting on as a consequence of balancing the 
     budget over seven years, thanks mostly to lower interest 
     rates.
       GOP leaders agreed last summer, as part of a House-Senate 
     budget compromise, to apply that hypothetical $170 billion 
     ``fiscal dividend'' toward their proposed $245 billion in tax 
     cuts. That left $75 billion in revenue losses unaccounted 
     for. Interest on that amount would add about $18 billion, for 
     the total $93 billion in debt.
       Meanwhile, the Republican architects of the plan boast that 
     the tax cuts are all paid for with spending cuts. Senate 
     Finance Committee Chairman William Roth, announcing his 
     panel's draft $245 billion tax-cut package last Friday, said 
     it would be completely financed with lower interest rates and 
     smaller government. ``Other factors like that will add up to 
     $245 billion,'' the Delaware-Republican said.
       And Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, another Finance Committee 
     panelist and a member of the Senate GOP leadership, added, 
     ``We will not pass this tax cut until we have a letter'' from 
     the Congressional Budget Office reporting that Republicans' 
     proposed spending cuts through 2002 will give us a balanced 
     budget and a surplus of at least $245 billion.'' He added, 
     ``It's all paid for.''
       The confusion has to do with the frequently misunderstood 
     distinction between the nation's accumulated debt, now 
     approaching $4.9 trillion, and its annual budget deficits, 
     which have built up at roughly $200 billion a year.
       Republicans' spending cuts, it's projected, generally will 
     put the annual deficit on a downward path until the fiscal 
     2002 budget shows a minimal surplus. But the annual deficits 
     until then, while declining, together add nearly $1 trillion 
     more to the cumulative debt. Meanwhile, the GOP tax cuts add 
     to those annual deficits in the early years--in fact, the 
     fiscal 1997 deficit would show an increase from the previous 
     year. Thus the debt, and the interest on the debt, would be 
     that much higher.
       Interviews in recent weeks indicate that many House and 
     Senate GOP members are unaware of the calculus. And some are 
     unfazed even when they hear of it. ``It would bother me if I 
     thought we were adding to the debt,'' said Texas Sen. Phil 
     Gramm, now seeking the presidency on his record as a fiscal 
     conservative, ``but I don't think we are.''

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I worked with Senator Baker when he was 
in the majority, and the majority leader, in pushing for a freeze; 
namely, to take this year's budget for next year. We reasoned that if 
we could just hold the line, we would save billions and billions of 
dollars.
  I was asked to go ahead and offer the budget freeze. Senator Baker 
gave some laudatory remarks. He could not endorse it. Unfortunately, we 
were tackled from behind, by Don Regan, the Secretary of Treasury, and 
Dave Stockman. Since I have started putting articles in, let me get 
right to the subject of tax cuts.
  Mr. President, let me quote what the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Mr. Stockman had to a couple of years ago, when 
I quote from an article in which he wrote:

       The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of 
     excessive and imprudent tax cutting that shattered the 
     Nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans 
     have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance 
     and their own culpability in it ever since. Instead, they 
     have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a 
     mindless stream of antitax venom while pretending that 
     economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the 
     deficit. It ought to be obvious by now that we can't grow our 
     way out of it.

  We have had none other than the better words of Mr. Stockman, who was 
one of the leaders of the tax-cut Reaganomics, Kemp-Roth approach.
  I have heard the distinguished Chair and others talk about a balanced 
budget, and I want to shed some light on the reality that you are not 
saving money or making money with tax cuts. If we are going to get rid 
of the deficit and the debt, we are going to have to have spending 
cuts, spending freezes, tax loophole closings, and we are going 

[[Page S 15208]]
to have to deny ourselves programs. I support the idea of voluntarism 
and helped to start the Peace Corps. But when went to start AmeriCorps, 
I withheld my support because there was a new multi-billion-dollar 
program that we just could not afford. So, it takes sacrifices, but it 
also takes a balanced approach with spending freezes, spending cuts, 
loophole closings, withholding of new programs, and a revenue 
increases.
  The reason we are in this particular dilemma is that nobody in public 
office can use the expression ``tax increase'' and get by with it. They 
describe it as some kind of lunatic fringe. The media, which is charged 
with the responsibility of exposing the truth and bringing us in public 
office to task, has joined the conspiracy. They are one of the major 
culprits--by constantly quoting inaccurate deficit numbers and to 
budget that are balanced when they should know otherwise.
  Take this particular budget we will soon be discussing. I ask you to 
refer to Mr. Kasich, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996. Mr. Kasich in 
the conference report on page 3, and I read under the entitlement 
subsection 4, ``deficits,'' fiscal year 2002, a deficit of $108.4 
billion. So, please, spare me from all this balanced budget talk. The 
media, the politicians, the White House, both parties and everybody 
else--let us start talking reality. The Republican plan that claims to 
balance budgets has no idea of being balanced. Indeed, Chairman Kasich 
himself in his conference report projects a deficit of $108.4 billion.
  Let me focus for a moment on this tax-cut nonsense that we have to 
listen to in our debate. We talk about whether the cut is for the 
middle class, or the rich, or whether you are going to get credit, or 
we get credit or how much, or whatever it is, but no one really wants 
to come and say that the tax cut is going to lose revenues. That is why 
I have inserted this article that appeared yesterday in the Wall Street 
Journal, entitled ``GOP Tax Cuts Will Add $93 billion to the United 
States Debt.''
  Going just to the October 23 issue of the New Republic, let me quote:

       Neoconman in the late 1970's and early 1980's, Irving 
     Crystal, editor of the Public Interest, helped lend 
     intellectual credibility to the supply side theory that 
     cutting taxes would not increase the deficit. Crystal opened 
     the public interests to supplysiders and introduced Jack 
     Kemp, author of the Kemp-Roth tax bill that initiated the era 
     of disastrous deficits, to supply side guru Jude Waninsky. In 
     the 30th anniversary of the Public Interest, Crystal now 
     confesses that he and his allies never really understood 
     economics. They were merely after a something-for-nothing 
     gimmick that could help elect Republicans.

  Now he quotes from that particular statement in Public Interest, and 
I quote it.

       Among the core social scientists around the Public Interest 
     there were no economists. They came later as we matured. This 
     explains my own rather cavalier attitude toward the budget 
     deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems. The task, as I 
     saw it, was to create a Republican majority so political 
     effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting 
     deficiencies of Government.

  I quote just a couple other sentences from that particular article:

       Now he tells us. Thanks anyway, Irving, for the confession 
     of complete political cynicism. The accounting deficiencies 
     of Government, by the way, at last count add up to $4.9 
     trillion.

  If you look at the historical budget tables that I have distributed, 
I started back when we balanced the budget. This Senator has voted for 
a balanced budget. Yes, I am an endangered species--one of a very few 
left around here. But in 1968-1969, under President Lyndon Baines 
Johnson, you can see that the unified budget was in surplus by $3.2 
billion, or the real budget surplus was $2.9 billion.
  These are CBO figures, by the way. And I have researched them all the 
way back to the 1940's. But I wanted to have these figures on one piece 
of paper showing the Government budget in outlays, the trust funds and 
the unified deficit--which together make up for the real deficit--the 
gross Federal debt, and the gross interest costs.
  I know people get bored listening to figures, but they better listen 
to this because they are going to have to live with these figures. You 
cannot avoid them. You cannot avoid death. You cannot avoid taxes. And 
you cannot avoid the interest costs on the national debt.
  Right here in 1996, the present fiscal year, you can see that the 
Congressional Budget Office has projected an interest cost on the 
national debt of $348 billion. That is $1 billion a day. There are only 
365 days in a year. So we have got automatic spending--or, rather, 
spending on automatic pilot of $1 billion a day.
  This cancer has got to be excised. It cannot be defrauded. It cannot 
be finessed.
  The present budget for 1996 increases spending. You will find at the 
bottom of the page not only the Kasich conference report which shows a 
$108 billion deficit in the year 2002--where they say on the face of 
the document itself there is a deficit and not a balanced budget--but 
also the 1996 budget outlay of $1.5756 trillion. Then look just below 
that, of course, is 1995, last year's, $1.518 trillion. So as you go 
from 1995 to 1996, you have increased spending.
  Here is the best of the best that have come to town, the 74 freshmen 
on the House side that are controlling the agenda and are said to be 
beyond the control of the distinguished Speaker. And instead of cutting 
spending, they have increased spending $57.6 billion. That envisions, 
of course, abolishing the Department of Commerce, the Office of 
Technology and Assessment, the Advanced Technology Program, cutting 
education, cutting housing, cutting all of these other things, and 
Government outlays still increase.
  Mr. President, here we have also listed the CBO baseline assuming 
passage of legislation to enact the budget resolution. The outlays for 
the year 2002 are $1.876 trillion, and the revenues of $1.883 trillion. 
So that is close enough. We call that a balanced budget. But now look 
down below, how they get to that particular outlay figure. They do that 
by extending the freeze on discretionary spending through the year 
2002.
  This fact is assumed rather than stated in the document prepared by 
the Republican Budget Committee staff entitled, ``Conference Agreement 
Compared to Baseline.'' It is used by Senator Domenici, our 
distinguished chairman and shows $1.876 trillion in outlays. The way 
you get it down to those outlays is starting from a figure at the top 
of the sheet called ``Current Law Deficit.''
  Well, if you have not been in the budget game, you might say, ``Wait 
a minute. What in the world is a current law deficit?'' Translated into 
reality, it says, ``Assume that the discretionary caps do not expire in 
1998 and continue them for the year 1999, the year 2000, the year 2001, 
and the year 2002.'' They pick up $91 billion--by extending the 
discretionary freeze through 2002.
  Then they say, ``the necessary spending cuts of total deficit 
reduction'' on the work sheet. This is using the chairman of the 
Republican Budget Committee's own document. I am not playing games with 
figures. I want to assume everything they say is true and show you they 
still do not have a cause of action.
  If we assume everything they say is true, they still do not have a 
balanced budget. Why? Because they say you have got to cut in the year 
2002 a reduction of $235 billion in addition to the freeze of $91 
billion. And then comparing apples to apples, we must subtract from 
that $1.876 trillion, the $109 billion surplus in the Social Security 
trust fund. So the total reduction needed in the year 2002, is a $435 
billion reduction.
  Now, Mr. President, look at what we are doing here. In the year 1996 
we are trying to get a $10 billion reduction in non-defense spending--
$10 billion. And, at the present time, we cannot get it. That is why we 
have not passed all of the appropriations bill. Our colleagues on the 
Republican side, as well as the colleagues on the Democratic side, are 
struggling to find $10 billion in discretionary cuts, much less $435 
billion.
  In the debate on the State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill, I 
used the expression that if the present budget plan balanced by the 
year 2002, I would jump off the Capitol dome. The chairman of the 
Budget Committee, my colleague, Senator Domenici, said, ``Well, you 
better take hang gliding lessons.'' I said, ``I'm not going to take 
them from you because I know I will crash, just like this budget.''
  I can tell you here and now, if we cannot cut $10 billion in this 
struggle 

[[Page S 15209]]
with the best of the best and the sincere intent of the newcomers 
claiming that all we have to do is cut spending, I know I have a safe 
bet when you look at the year 2002, and try to cut $435 billion.
  Now, that is a swing, Mr. President, from this present year of a 
$57.6 billion increase. If you want to talk reality, rather than 
increasing $57.6 billion, you need to turn around and cut $435 billion. 
That is an almost $500 billion change in position. It is not going to 
happen.
  Why do the distinguished newcomers have such difficulty in stomaching 
these cuts? The mistaken assumption is that Government began when they 
got elected--that we had not been cutting. President Ronald Reagan, the 
best of the cutters, was here for 8 years, and I worked with him. I was 
on the Grace Commission. That is when we tried the freeze, and then 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. When we could not get the freezes, we said we 
had to have automatic cuts across the board. If the budget did not come 
out as you had predicted, what you had to do was automatically cut 
across the board, otherwise known as a sequester. A majority of the 
Democrats and a majority of the Republicans voted for Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings.
  Now, right to the point, Senator Gramm went along with the repeal of 
that on October 19, 1990, at 12:41 a.m. Look at the Record. I raised 
the point of order. I said that if we did not follow through with 
automatic cuts across the board, we would instead start increasing 
spending. We do not have truth in budgeting.
  We not only cut under President Reagan, we cut under President Bush. 
Incidentally, I had gone from the attempts of the freeze and cuts 
across the board with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to supporting of closing of 
tax loopholes. We worked it out with the Finance Committee, and passed 
the Tax Reform Act of 1986. We had supposedly done away with corporate 
welfare, but now they are beginning to talk about it again.
  Then in 1989 and 1990, I talked to the President, and particularly to 
Dick Darman, the Director of his Office of Management and Budget. I 
said, ``This thing is getting out of hand. The debt is so big and 
interest is so high that we are not getting on top of just paying the 
interest on the national debt.'' It was something like Alice in 
Wonderland's character whereby you have to run faster to stay where you 
are.
  So I said to Darman, what we need is a value-added tax across the 
board in America. He said, ``How are you going to get votes for it?'' I 
said, ``We will get it in the Budget Committee. If you and the 
President will come out for it, we will run with them and get on top of 
it. If you don't, by 1992, you are going to be in real trouble.''
  The truth is, in 1992, President Bush was in real trouble. The 
deficit was up to $400 billion and President Clinton did not so much as 
win that election as President Bush lost it. The people said: ``We hear 
all the rhetoric about what all they are going to do with balanced 
budgets, but like Tennessee Ernie, another day longer and deeper in 
debt;'' and there we are, Mr. President, you can understand exactly 
what I am talking about.
  We had been to the Budget Committee and we got eight votes to 
increase taxes across the board. We had Senator Boschwitz. We had 
Senator Danforth. It was bipartisan. We got eight votes in the Budget 
Committee, but the Bush administration would not follow through. As a 
result, as I stated in 1992, we were up against $400 billion deficits.
  President Reagan came to office in 1988 and pledged to balance the 
budget in 1 year. Of course, he soon backtracked and said, ``Oops, this 
is way worse than I ever thought. It is going to take me 3 years.'' 
Well, here was the pledge made; they are all talking about pledges and 
I want to get to this one. The pledge made was to balance the budget in 
a year, and then in 3 years, and they instead paved the way for truly 
astronomical deficits.
  Mr. President, gross Federal debt in 1980 was $909 billion; in 1981, 
it was $994.8 billion.
  Former OMB Director Stockman called this gross incompetence--let me 
use the exact expression he used. I had it here just a minute ago. To 
quote Mr. Stockman: ``Willfully denying this giant mistake of fiscal 
governance.''
  Giant mistake of fiscal governance, whereby in almost 200 years of 
history and 38 Presidents, Republican and Democrat, we had not reached 
a trillion-dollar debt. Now, in 12 short years, add on 3 under Clinton, 
15 years, we are up to $5 trillion. We have quintupled the debt of the 
United States of America.
  Senator Thurmond and I are going to get by. We are up there now in 
age, so we do not have to worry. It is not going to be us paying. It 
will be our children and grandchildren. We have to constantly hear this 
caterwaul over on the other side of the aisle: ``We want people to get 
out of the wagon and start pulling''----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allocated to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, I am about to 
complete my thought here, to extend for another 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, my only question will be, there are some of 
us who want to speak on the Cuban matter before the vote. The vote is 
at 5 o'clock. I do not know how many people are lined up to speak. I am 
enjoying the Senator's speech. I would like to listen to it. Can we 
extend the vote for 5 or 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to change the 
time of the vote, which is now set for 5 o'clock.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that it be extended to 5 past 5 
and that I be allowed to speak.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining time be equally divided between the two sides in the usual 
form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the point should be made that for years 
now up here, at least for the past 15 years, we in the Congress have 
jumped up into the wagon. We have not paid a bill in 15 years, and we 
have crowded out the children; we have crowded out the hungry; we have 
crowded out the poor and the sick; and we have been up in that wagon. 
So do not give me this stuff about let us help pull the wagon when we 
do not pay our own way.
  There is one fellow in this town, one individual that is not 
responsible for this deficit, and that is William Jefferson Clinton. 
President Clinton was down in Little Rock, AR, when this sham and fraud 
started. He came to town and cut the deficit 500 billion bucks. He 
increased taxes even on Social Security. He cut defense without a 
single vote on that side of the aisle.
  Yet, they constantly appear talking about a balanced budget when they 
know it is not balanced, and continue to chastise the one person who 
did something about it.
  Last year when the Medicare trustees reported that Medicare was going 
broke in the year 2001, they cried, ``What is the matter? We have the 
best health system. There's nothing wrong.'' They would not do 
anything.
  So President Clinton has tried. Now we are trying again. I ask these 
fellows to get off that high horse of this fraudulent nonsense about 
their balanced budget plan when it is far from being balanced--they 
report it themselves as a $108 billion deficit--and start working with 
us and cut out the sham about who is in the wagon.
  I thank my distinguished colleague and ask that the document that I 
have referred to throughout my speech entitled, ``Budget Tables'' be 
printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                                                                                

[[Page S 15210]]
                                                        BUDGET TABLES: SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Government budget                                                                                               
                 Year                      (outlays in        Trust funds      Unified deficit      Real deficit      Gross Federal      Gross interest 
                                            billions)                                                                      debt                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968..................................              178.1                3.1              -25.2              -28.3              368.7               14.6
1969..................................              183.6               -0.3               +3.2               +2.9              368.8               16.6
1970..................................              195.6               12.3               -2.8              -15.1              380.9               19.3
1971..................................              210.2                4.3              -23.0              -27.3              408.2               21.0
1972..................................              230.7                4.3              -23.4              -27.7              435.9               21.8
1973..................................              245.7               15.5              -14.9              -30.4              466.3               24.2
1974..................................              269.4               11.5               -6.1              -17.6              483.9               29.3
1975..................................              332.3                4.8              -53.2              -58.0              541.9               32.7
1976..................................              371.8               13.4              -73.7              -87.1              629.0               37.1
1977..................................              409.2               23.7              -53.7              -77.4              706.4               41.9
1978..................................              458.7               11.0              -59.2              -70.2              776.6               48.7
1979..................................              504.0               12.2              -40.7              -52.9              829.5               59.9
1980..................................              590.9                5.8              -73.8              -79.6              909.1               74.8
1981..................................              678.2                6.7              -79.0              -85.7              994.8               95.5
1982..................................              745.8               14.5             -128.0             -142.5            1,137.3              117.2
1983..................................              808.4               26.6             -207.8             -234.4            1,371.7              128.7
1984..................................              851.8                7.6             -185.4             -193.0            1,564.7              153.9
1985..................................              946.4               40.6             -212.3             -252.9            1,817.6              178.9
1986..................................              990.3               81.8             -221.2             -303.0            2,120.6              190.3
1987..................................            1,003.9               75.7             -149.8             -225.5            2,346.1              195.3
1988..................................            1,064.1              100.0             -155.2             -255.2            2,601.3              214.1
1989..................................            1,143.2              114.2             -152.5             -266.7            2,868.0              240.9
1990..................................            1,252.7              117.2             -221.4             -338.6            3,206.6              264.7
1991..................................            1,323.8              122.7             -269.2             -391.9            3,598.5              285.5
1992..................................            1,380.9              113.2             -290.4             -403.6            4,002.1              292.3
1993..................................            1,408.2               94.2             -255.1             -349.3            4,351.4              292.5
1994..................................            1,460.6               89.1             -203.2             -292.3            4,643.7              296.3
1995..................................            1,518.0              121.9             -161.4             -283.3            4,927.0              336.0
1996 est..............................            1,575.6              121.8             -189.3             -311.1            5,238.0              348.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO's ``1995 Economic and Budget Outlook: An Update,'' August 1995.                                                                             



                        [In billion of dollars]               Year 2002
1996 Budget:
  Kasich Conf. Report, p.3 (Deficit)...............................-108
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

1996 Budget Outlays (CBO est.)..................................1,575.6
1995 Budget Outlays.............................................1,518.0
                                                             __________

    Increased spending............................................+57.6
  CBO baseline assuming budget resolution:..........................
  Outlauys........................................................1,876
  Revenues........................................................1.883
                                                               ==========
_______________________________________________________________________

This assumes:
  (1) Extending discretionary freeze 1999-2002......................-91
  (2) Spending cuts................................................-235
  (3) Using SS Trust Fund..........................................-109
                                                             __________

    Total needed...................................................-435
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes for the proponents and 10 
minutes for the opponents.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I assume the proponents as being those 
seeking cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. What is the amount of time for the opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes on each side.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from Connecticut, through the Chair, 
if he would yield me time to speak in opposition to the motion.
  Mr. DODD. It is my understanding that the time remaining is equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Helms bill 
on Cuba. As I have said on the floor several times before, it advances 
the wrong policy at the wrong time.
  Fidel Castro is finally, reluctantly, finding that his government 
must accept the realities of the 1990's: that free trade and political 
liberalization are fundamental to the promotion of enlightened self-
interest. As we have seen time and again, once a people have tasted the 
fruit of freedoms they invariably demand the only atmosphere in which 
free markets and human rights flourish. That, of course, is democracy 
and a government protective of a phalanx of rights: the free exchange 
of ideas and information; respect for human rights; the right to seek 
one's livelihood unhindered by government fiat. We are seeing the first 
tentative steps toward an emerging market economy in Cuba; the first 
steps, we can all agree and hope, which point towards and end of this 
dictatorship.
  So I find it ironic that at the very moment when the United States is 
presented with the best opportunity in nearly four decades to encourage 
and influence the move toward positive change in Cuba, the Senator 
seeks to legislate that opportunity out of existence. Rather than 
encourage the Cuban Government to move into the 1990's, the Helms bill 
would have it slide back into the 1960's, dragging the administration 
as well into continuing and, indeed, strengthening a fossilized policy 
of isolation that did not work even when, it could be argued, a bipolar 
world justified such short-term thinking.
  In fact, rather than seek to promote the kind of positive change 
administrations, Republican and Democratic, have sought for decades, 
and which at long last holds out the promise to lift the Cuban people 
out of the misery visited on them by Castro's totalitarian regime, the 
Helms bill, incredibly, would increase their pain by further isolating 
Cuba. It is wishful thinking--nearly 40 years of wishful thinking--that 
a tightened embargo will provide the final push leading to the downfall 
of the Castro regime. We can be certain, rather, that Castro will put 
this pain to good effect: if the history of recent Cuban-American 
relations has taught us anything, it is that to this day Castro can 
still rally a proud people against the bogeyman of Yanqui imperialism.
  But Senator Helms' bill does not stop at increasing the hardship of 
Cuba's people. It seeks to impose on other nations--close allies in 
many cases--extraterritorial provisions which conflict with 
international law and various treaties to which the United States is 
party. I note that the embargo is already considered by many of our 
allies to be a hopelessly out-dated affront to their sovereignty: the 
Helms proposal will only lead to retaliation at a time when we seek 
their cooperation on issues of greater complexity and, frankly, of more 
immediate import to our national interests.
  I would add, as well, that our Latin American friends see efforts 
such as the Helms bill as a vestige of the gunboat diplomacy which, to 
this day, leaves them wary of our intentions. But it is not enough that 
this bill would hurt the average Cuban, enrage our allies, and renew 
the suspicions of our Latin American friends. It would also strike at 
the American taxpayer. Senator Helms would have the administration 
seek--in vain, in my opinion--to expand TV Marti, a failed program 
which figuratively and literally crashed in a Florida swamp. The Cuban 
people have not seen the truth from TV Marti, because they never see TV 
Marti.

  Rather, the truth is more likely to come to them as Cuba gains more 
access to international television, engages in dialogs about the rest 
of the world, and integrates into the international community. 
Therefore, we should encourage policies and dialogs which will lead to 
the political changes and freedoms sought by the Cuban people.
  The administration's October 5 announcement that it will seek to put 
in place measures designed to promote the flow of information into and 
out of 

[[Page S 15211]]
Cuba is a step in that direction. To further promote, rather than 
strangle, democratic transition in Cuba, United States NGO's would now 
be authorized to help independent Cuban NGO's provide training to Cuban 
human rights activists. Without employing the expensive baloondoggle of 
taxpayer-funded TV Marti, for example, United States news bureaus would 
set up shop directly in Cuba and Cuban news agencies here in the United 
States. The new regulations are also family friendly, easing procedures 
for Cuban-Americans who want to visit relatives in Cuba.
  However, the proposed policy will not reward a totalitarian regime 
which continues to violate basic human rights with impunity. In fact, 
the administration proposes enhanced enforcement of the embargo and the 
U.S. Neutrality Act. This mixed bag approach--injecting into Castro's 
system the poison of free thought while continuing to restrict his 
access to the relief found in free trade--may not be the perfect 
solution. I think it is time for a new strategy in Cuba, rather than 
more of the same, which the Helms bill advocates and which has clearly 
failed. I believe an incremental approach, which minimizes the pain to 
the Cuban people and the cost to the American taxpayer, while making 
clear our determination to not do business as usual with the Castro 
regime, offers the best current hope of effecting change. The Helms 
amendment does everything but that, so I urge its defeat.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that Juan Alsace be granted the 
privilege of the floor during the consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
Act currently before the Senate presents us with a difficult decision. 
I am sure we all favor the early return of freedom in Cuba. I am sure 
the sponsor of this act believes that this legislation would contribute 
to that aim. There are those of us, though, who have grave doubts.
  Mr. President, I am particularly concerned about the impact of this 
proposed legislation on our Nation's national security interests. For 
that reason, I requested the views of our responsible military 
commander Jack Sheehan, commander in chief of the United States 
Atlantic command, under whose command Cuba falls.
  I would like to share the letter I received, dated October 15, from 
General Sheehan, who is in direct charge of the security aspects of 
Cuba under his command. It says:

       Dear Senator Nunn: I am writing to provide my assessment of 
     the potential effect of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity Act * * * could have on the United States Atlantic 
     command and operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There are 
     currently 8,000 Cuban migrants in camps at Guantanamo Bay, 
     down from 20,000 5 months ago. The Department of Defense has 
     processed more than 100,000 Cuban and Haitian migrants in 
     Guantanamo Bay over the last few years. When the migrant 
     population was at its peak, it cost the Department of Defense 
     over $1 million a day in operation and maintenance--money 
     which was not in the budget. Additionally, prior to the White 
     House policy announcement in May, we had more than 6,000 U.S. 
     personnel in a potentially explosive situation--guarding and 
     caring for Cuban migrants who were frustrated because there 
     was no hope of leaving the camps.
       From a military perspective, the current version of the 
     Helms-Burton bill could create conditions for more migrants. 
     I believe the Cuban economy is at a low point. I have this on 
     interviews of more than 40,000 Cubans who have been through 
     Guantanamo. They say one of the primary reasons for leaving 
     Cuba is to be able to provide a basic quality of food and 
     shelter for their families. The bill in its current form 
     could further punish the people, not Castro or the privileged 
     elites. Furthermore, rather than promoting a peaceful 
     transition in Cuba, the bill could give Castro an excuse to 
     maintain his focus on ``U.S. aggression,'' rather than his 
     own failed ideology. I also question the bill's implied 
     assumption that strengthening the embargo would lead to a 
     revolt from within and create the conditions for a transition 
     to democracy. Cuba is not Haiti--the circumstances which 
     allowed for a successful intervention in Haiti, with only one 
     American casualty, do not exist in Cuba. Any operations 
     involving U.S. forces in Cuba would likely have a much higher 
     cost in terms of lives and national treasury.
       Our policy objective should be the peaceful transition of 
     power in Cuba, and I support any congressional language that 
     brings about that change.

  Mr. President, in short, General Sheehan believes that our policy 
objective should be the peaceful transition of power in Cuba to 
democracy. But he does not believe the legislation before us will make 
a net contribution to this objective. He believes that this 
legislation, in fact, will have the opposite effect and that it will 
basically cause an increase in the very migration that has now finally 
subsided.
  Mr. President, I hope we can work out, before this legislation is 
concluded, a satisfactory bill that can be agreed to on both sides of 
the aisle and supported by the administration. I do not believe this 
legislation meets that test.
  I thank the Senator for the time. I yield back whatever time I have 
remaining.
  I ask unanimous consent that General Sheehan's letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Commander in Chief,


                                        U.S. Atlantic Command,

                                                 October 15, 1995.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Senate Russell Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: I am writing to provide my assessment of 
     the potential effect the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity Act (The Helms/Burton Bill) could have on the 
     United States Atlantic Command and operations in Guantanamo 
     Bay, Cuba. There are currently 8,000 Cuban migrants in camps 
     at Guantanamo Bay, down from 20,000 five months ago. DoD has 
     processed more than 100,000 Cuban and Haitian migrants in 
     Guantanamo Bay over the last few years. When the migrant 
     population was at its peak, it cost the Department of Defense 
     over $1 million a day in operations and maintenance--money 
     which was not in the budget. Additionally, prior to the White 
     House policy announcement in May, we had more than 6,000 U.S. 
     personnel in a potentially explosive situation--guarding and 
     caring for Cuban migrants who were frustrated because there 
     was no hope of leaving the camps.
       From a military perspective, the current version of the 
     Helms-Burton Bill could create the conditions for more 
     migrants. I believe the Cuban economy is at a low point. I 
     have this on our interviews of more than 40,000 Cubans who 
     have been through Guantanamo. They say one of the primary 
     reasons for leaving Cuba is to be able to provide a basic 
     quality of food and shelter for their families. The bill in 
     its current form could further punish the people, not Castro 
     or the privileged elites. Furthermore, rather than promoting 
     a peaceful transition in Cuba, the bill would give Castro an 
     excuse to maintain his focus on ``U.S. aggression,'' rather 
     than his own failed ideology. I also question this bill's 
     implied assumption that strengthening the embargo will lead 
     to a revolt from within and create the conditions for a 
     transition to democracy. Cuba is not Haiti--the circumstances 
     which allowed for a successful intervention in Haiti, with 
     only one American casualty, do not exist in Cuba. Any 
     operations involving U.S. forces in Cuba would likely have a 
     much higher cost in terms of lives and national treasure.
       Our policy objective should be the peaceful transition of 
     power in Cuba, and I support any congressional language that 
     brings about that change.
           Sincerely,
                                                     J.J. Sheehan,
                                       General, U.S. Marine Corps.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not see any of the proponents on the 
floor at this point. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes, forty seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Let me take the time. I presume the Senator from North 
Carolina may come to the floor shortly.
  Mr. President, I want to spend some time this afternoon explaining 
the very complex issue of how the U.S. Government deals with property 
claims by U.S. citizens who have had their property expropriated by a 
foreign government and who failed to receive adequate and effective 
compensation for such action.
  I believe that it is important to do so, because what we are prepared 
to do today, if we enact this pending legislation into law, is to 
totally reverse more than 46 years of practice on how we as a 
government have dealt with this question. Not only would it alter the 
scope of claimants who would be able to seek some remedy from the U.S. 
Government for acts against property held abroad, it would also change 
the manner in which the U.S. Government seeks to ensure that claimants 
are compensated.
  So, how have property claims been handled in the past? for which 
countries? What have been the results?

[[Page S 15212]]

  Claims by U.S. citizens for losses arising from a foreign 
government's nationalization, expropriation, or other takeover of their 
property are administered under provisions of the International Claims 
Settlement Act of 1949. That act originally authorized the 
international claims commission to adjudicate claims pursuant to an 
agreement negotiated between the United States Government and the 
Government of Yugoslavia.
  During ensuring years the act has been amended a number of times to 
authorized the commission--now called the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission--to determine claims against a number of other 
foreign governments, including Cuba that have expropriated property 
from our citizens.

  The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has already processed the 
claims of United States citizens who lost property in Cuba. That is why 
we can say with certainty today that thee are 5,911 certified U.S. 
claimants who have not been compensated for their losses.
  It is not the responsibility of the Commission to actually make 
payment of the awards for these certified claims. That responsibility 
rests with the Secretary of the Treasury, as funds become available for 
payment of claims. Funds generally come available through negotiated 
agreements between the U.S. and the foreign government in question.
  Since 1949, the Commission has undertaken claims programs in 36 
countries--including most recently--Yugoslavia, Panama, Poland, 
Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Italy, the Soviet Union, 
Czechoslovakia, Cuba, the People's Republic of China, East Germany, 
Iran, Vietnam, and most recently Albania. That means that the 
Commission has processed or is processing claims by American citizens 
that their property was taken by the government in question.
  Claims settlement agreements have been reached with a number of these 
countries including Yugoslavia, Panama, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, 
Romania, Italy, China, and Vietnam. That means that the United States 
and the government in question have reached agreement on a sum of money 
which such government has agreed to provide to the United States for 
distribution to the claimants.
  In the case of Cuban claims, the Commission evaluated some 8,800 
United States claims over a 5-year review period--1967-1972--and 
determined that some 5,911 were in fact valid claims. Once the United 
States and the Cuban Government have reached agreement on a sum of 
money to compensate these claimants then the funds will be paid out by 
the Secretary of the Treasury for these claims.
  In none of these cases were property claims of non-U.S. citizens 
included in these claims settlement procedures. One of the key 
qualifications in each one of these claims programs is that the 
claimant must first and foremost have been a U.S. citizen at the time 
the property was taken. The reason for this is obvious. While we may 
not agree with the manner in which another government regulates or 
otherwise makes decisions about the property of its citizens, how that 
issue gets resolved is to be sorted out between that citizen and his or 
her government.
  Now, not only are we going to jettison the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission as a method of adjudicating property claims, we are going to 
dramatically increase the scope of claimants. The bill would change the 
definition of who is eligible for U.S. assistance in resolving his or 
her claims.
  The bill before us would have the Federal district courts be the 
venue for resolving these suits. Any Cuban-American whose property was 
taken and is currently being used in a commercial activity is eligible 
to sue for up to triple damages for such losses.
  How many claims are we talking about? There is clearly some dispute 
here. In one of the earlier versions of the Helms legislation, it was 
asserted that this figure was in the hundreds of thousands. Analysis by 
outside experts have indicated that there is a range of possibilities 
reaching as high as $430,000. No one knows for sure. Yet some in this 
chamber are prepared to vote for this legislation anyway, in the name 
of being tough on Castro.
  This is the height of irresponsibility in my view. The only one that 
we are being tough on is ourselves and our own judicial system. The 
only one we are being tough on is this administration and future 
administrations that will have to deal with the court logjam in the 
context of forging normal relations with any post-Castro government.
  Mr. President, let me point out to my colleagues once again that the 
heart of this legislation is title III of the bill. Again, briefly, 
what this title III of the bill will do is expand the universe, the 
population of those who would be able to utilize the U.S. system in 
order to be compensated for lands that were expropriated from them. 
What it does is carve out a unique group of citizens in our country--in 
fact, people not even citizens of this country--to be able to take 
advantage of our claims compensation program.
  Under more than four decades of law, Mr. President, we have provided 
assistance to United States citizens whose lands were expropriated by a 
foreign government. There are some 6,000--in fact, we know the exact 
number, which is 5,911 claimants, who have been certified as bona fide 
claimants. This legislation would say that you no longer have to be a 
United States citizen when it comes to Cuba, that even if you are not a 
citizen of the United States today, but you incorporate yourself for 
that purpose, you can take advantage of the law that is designed 
specifically to assist United States citizens.
  Now, Mr. President, that would expand the universe from 5,911 
certified claimants to one estimate of 430,000 people, at a cost of 
$4,500 to process each claim. My colleagues can do the math and see the 
explosive costs here. Beyond the costs, there are 37 other nations in 
the world with whom we have expropriation cases pending on behalf of 
U.S. citizens. We do not carve out or create a situation where those 
who have left those countries and have become citizens or are not 
citizens of this country, but would incorporate themselves for the 
purpose of having those claims processed by the United States, are 
included. So nations such as Poland, Vietnam, People's Republic of 
China, and others, would not be given the same benefits, with all due 
respect to Cuban-Americans, Cubans who left Cuba to seek redress under 
this law we are adopting.
  I am sympathetic to the people who had lands expropriated without 
compensation, but the law was written specifically to assist U.S. 
citizens at the time of the expropriation. If we want to change the 
law, we ought to do so with all nations, not just one. Certainly, 
Polish-Americans, those who were left in East Germany, and others, 
would have just as much right, it seems to me, if we are going to carve 
out an exception as those so poorly treated in Cuba. For that reason, 
title III deserves special attention.
  Let me echo the comments of my colleague from Georgia. I would love 
nothing more than to see democracy come this evening to Cuba. But we 
need to think smartly, intelligently, and prudently as to how we can 
expedite that conclusion.
  Jude Winitisky wrote an excellent piece in the Houston Chronicle, 
which I inserted in the Record last week. I encourage my colleagues to 
review that article.
  He makes a strong case that we have a wonderful opportunity, I think, 
to create that kind of a change. This legislation would set us back in 
that process.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this cloture 
motion in hopes we might be able to come up with some sort of a bill 
here that makes far more sense, with all due respect, than the one that 
would come before the Senate if cloture is adopted. I urge the 
rejection of the cloture motion.
  Mr. President, 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. 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. Mr. President, some opponents of the pending Libertad 
bill, I am sad to say, appear to be willing to say almost anything to 
defeat this bill, a bill that Cubans inside of Fidel Castro's land are 
pleading with us daily to 

[[Page S 15213]]

pass so that they could have an opportunity for freedom.
  These people in Cuba are writing to me every day. We have had--I do 
not know how many letters--50 or 60. Yet the forces who oppose this 
bill have repeatedly misrepresented what the bill does and have ignored 
the support that this bill has among the American certified claimant 
community as well as among Cubans inside Cuba.
  Now, the record needs to be set straight about what these two groups 
are saying about the Libertad Act.
  Last week, for example, this Senate was told that all certified 
claimants oppose this bill. Not so. For example, Colgate-Palmolive, a 
certified claimant whose stolen property is valued at over $14 million 
in 1960 dollars, wrote to me stating this communication is to state for 
the record the support of Colgate-Palmolive Co. for Senate bill S. 381. 
This is the bill pending right now.
  Then Procter & Gamble, another company who had property seized by 
Fidel Castro's crowd and is therefore a certified claimant, wrote to me 
and said, We support this legislation as currently written, and agree 
with the aims and goals of the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act.
  Then there is another claimant company, Consolidated Development 
Corp., whose president, Alberto Diaz-Masvidal, testified before the 
Foreign Relations Committee this past June in strong support of this 
bill.
  The United States-Cuban Business Council, the largest private sector 
organization addressing Cuban issues of interest to businessmen--
particularly American certified claimants--has actively encouraged its 
members to support this legislation. In September, a letter went to all 
of its members asserting that the Council considers the Libertad Act to 
be beneficial for the United States business community, protection of 
United States property rights, and the economic development of a free 
market, democratic Cuba.
  Another American property owner supporting the Libertad bill is the 
Cintas Foundation, which is a New York charitable organization. This 
organization owns artwork on loan right now to the National Museum in 
Havana and it, too, has been victimized by Castro's thievery. In 1991, 
two pieces from the Cintas collection appeared for auction in London. 
See, what is happening? Castro is stealing this stuff and selling it 
overseas. The Cintas Foundation submitted testimony to the Foreign 
Relations Committee saying that the Libertad bill provides an important 
legal avenue for the Cintas Foundation to prevent any further attempts 
by the Castro regime to break up and sell off this valuable art 
collection.
  These are just a few examples. Now, then, the truth deserves to be 
heard.
  There have been specious suggestions that the Cuban people are 
opposed to the Libertad bill, the pending bill. Absolutely untrue. Yet 
it has been said on this Senate floor that that is the case.
  Scores of letters and cassette tapes have been smuggled out of 
Castro's Cuba and delivered to me expressing support for the Dole-Helms 
bill or the Helms-Burton bill, or however you want to describe it.
  These are Cubans who are very well aware that in speaking out against 
Castro they will be persecuted, to say the very least. They go ahead 
and speak at great personal risk because they are willing to put their 
lives on the line to help get this bill passed. Yet we have voices in 
this Senate and we have voices in the news media saying this is a 
terrible bill.
  Mr. President, let me read from one or two of the letters. A vast 
number of Cuban citizens on October 8 signed a letter to me saying:

       We, as members of the internal opposition to the 
     dictatorial regime that oppresses us, ask you, in the name of 
     the men and women who languish in Castro's prisons or who saw 
     the ends of their days before a firing squad, that you 
     cooperate to remove the last tyrant in our continent.

  Then they said:

       A vote in favor of Helms-Burton will bring joy and hope to 
     all Cubans. It is not the embargo that keeps the Cuban people 
     hungry and desperate, but the Castro dictatorship, and that, 
     all of Cuba knows well.

  Then there is an October 10 statement delivered by cassette tape 
representing the views of more than a dozen leaders of human rights and 
dissident groups in Cuba saying:

       The U.S. embargo works. The few changes that have taken 
     place in Cuba are a result of economic, political, and 
     diplomatic pressures. Those pressures should be intensified. 
     We support the Helms-Burton initiative. We call upon the 
     Executive not to veto it, if passed. It is a peaceful 
     measure, aimed only at preventing that foreign investors 
     continue buying from the Cuban Government properties 
     confiscated from and not paid to United States and other 
     citizens. By passing this bill, you will be taking a fair 
     ethical decision in the name of freedom and democracy.

  In September, the leader of another dissident group, Democratic 
Solidarity Party in Cuba, wrote,

       We want freedom from oppression, we want respect for our 
     rights, but most democratic government seems to ignore this, 
     * * * But we know that we are not alone in this problem, and 
     you are proof of that Sir. * * * We are deeply thankful of 
     you, and all the politicians who are not forgetting the 
     ultimate interest of the Cuban people * * * to live in 
     freedom and democracy.

  There are many more, but I think Senators get the point, which is 
this: American citizens whose property was stolen by Castro want this 
bill passed. The Cuban people are begging that it be enacted. I simply 
cannot be a party to our turning our backs on them. The Cuban people 
deserve freedom. They are pleading for our help.
  The question just will not go away. Can we in good conscience, Mr. 
President, turn away from them and walk away on the other side of the 
road?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters and 
statements previously referred to in my brief remarks be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material has ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   U.S.-Cuba Business Council,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 1995.
       Dear Council Member: As you know, the US-Cuba Business 
     Council has closely monitored congressional and Executive 
     Branch action on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
     Act of 1995 [H.R. 1868], known as the LIBERTAD Act of the 
     Helms-Burton bill. The LIBERTAD Act has undergone significant 
     change since the bill was originally introduced. Council 
     members have inquired as to how the Council views the 
     potential impact of this bill on the US business community.
       The measure, in its current form, addresses many of the 
     concerns expressed by the Executive Branch, the business 
     community and legal scholars. As modified, we believe that 
     the LIBERTAD Act is fundamentally consistent with the goal of 
     current US policy on Cuba designed to foster a democratic 
     change with guarantees of freedom and human rights under the 
     rule of law. Congressional action on the bill may take place 
     as early as this week.
       Chapter I of the bill includes measures to strengthen the 
     embargo against Cuba. Questions have been raised about the 
     ``extra-territoriality'' of these provisions. As currently 
     drafted, LIBERTAD Act is consistent with US obligations under 
     the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General 
     Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and does not involve secondary 
     boycotts.
       Chapter II establishes a framework for trade with, and 
     economic assistance to, a transitional or democratic 
     government in Cuba. Some US certified claimants have 
     expressed concerns that Section 737 of the bill may diminish 
     the pool of available assets for American property claimants 
     by conditioning US assistance to Cuba on resolution of claims 
     held by those who were not US citizens at the time of 
     confiscation. Section 737 of the LIBERTAD Act has been 
     significantly modified to address such concerns. As amended, 
     this section protects the rights of certified US claimants by 
     conditioning assistance to a transitional government in Cuba 
     on U.S. Presidential certification that the Cuban government 
     is taking appropriate steps to resolve property claims 
     involving US claimants as described in Section 620(a)(2) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
       A key element of the LIBERTAD Act involves measures under 
     Chapter III to defend US property rights and discourage 
     foreign investors from trafficking in confiscated US 
     properties. Under these provisions, foreign firms trafficking 
     in stolen US property in Cuba would risk action by US 
     claimants against their US-based assets [(Chapter III) 
     Sections 741-744] and invite US action to revoke entry visas 
     of foreign corporate executives trafficking in confiscated US 
     properties.
       We believe these measures will enhance the leverage of US 
     claimants seeking to discourage prospective foreign investors 
     from trafficking in their confiscated properties in Cuba, 
     facilitate the rapid and effective resolution of claims 
     disputes, and level the playing field for US firms preparing 
     to participate in the economic development of a democratic 
     Cuba.
       Some US claimants have expressed concerns about allowing 
     Cuban American claimants to file suits against traffickers or 
     to obtain default judgements against the Cuban government. 
     Sections 742 and 744 of the LIBERTAD Act have also been 
     modified to 

[[Page S 15214]]
     clarify that the bill does not authorize the President to espouse the 
     claims of naturalized US citizens in any settlement with Cuba 
     and will not dilute the pool of assets available to US 
     claimants. As modified, the LIBERTAD Act significantly 
     narrows and limits the filing of suits to effectively target 
     foreign firms trafficking in confiscated US-owned property.
       In the new version of LIBERTAD, it is not possible to 
     obtain a default judgement against the current government of 
     Cuba. Moreover, the right of action to sue a trafficker in 
     stolen US assets applies almost exclusively to commercial 
     property. Claimants must provide suspected traffickers with 
     180 days notice before filing legal action and the case must 
     involve property worth more than $50,000. The Cuban 
     government claims a total of 212 joint ventures on the 
     island. Few of those enterprises are likely to have US-based 
     subsidiaries or other assets. Thus, only a handful of cases 
     against foreign firms in the US would qualify for 
     consideration in US courts. Accordingly, the Congressional 
     Budget Office estimated that the cost of enforcement of the 
     LIBERTAD Act would be less than $7 million. Furthermore, 
     under current law the President could halt such suits through 
     is authority under the International Emergency Economic 
     Powers Act once a transition regime is in power in Cuba.
       On balance, the Council considers the LIBERTAD Act, in its 
     current form, to be consistent with the Council's mission 
     statement and beneficial for the US business community, 
     protection of US property rights, and the economic 
     development of the free market, democratic Cuba.
       Please contact me or USCBC Executive Director Tom Cox in 
     our Washington office (202) 293-4995 if you need further 
     information on issues relating to this measure. I look 
     forward to hearing from you.
       Best regards.
           Sincerely yours,
     Otto J. Reich.
                                                                    ____



                                        Colgate-Palmolive Co.,

                                      New York, NY, June 20, 1995.
     Subject: Cuba

     Chairman Helms,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, This communication is to state for the 
     record the support of Colgate-Palmolive Company for Senate 
     Bill S. 381 in the form of its June 12, 1995 draft.
           Sincerely,
     Emilio Alvarez-Recio.
                                                                    ____

                                           Adolfo Fernandez Sains,


                              Partido Solidaridad Democratica,

                                       Havana, September 12, 1995.
     Hon. Senator Jesse Helms,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Hon. Senator Jesse Helms: We admire your courage, and we 
     thank you for your help.
       We regret that you are so right. Because you are right sir, 
     if you were wrong, than we the cuban people would be facing a 
     lesser problem, but our problem is serious indeed. We want 
     freedom from oppression, we want respect for our rights, but 
     most democratic governments seem to ignore this, most 
     important newspapers ignore this, but we know that we are not 
     alone, in this problem, and you are aproof of that Sir.
       Our problem is, that we are rule by intolerance. We are not 
     going to ignore this, and we should not reward intolerance.
       A glance at the conduct of the cuban government will tell 
     you, the only language they understand is might, and never 
     reason.
       Some seek dialogue, we deeply regret that they are wrong. 
     They are trying to dialogue with a non-repentant dictator 
     with all the power in his hands.
       We would certainly prefer dialogue, but we cannot ignore 
     the truth.
       Our prisons are full of political prisoners, and convicts, 
     that are convicts only in Cuba, their crimes are crimes only 
     in Cuba.
       Our problem is not only economic, solving the economic 
     problem, and ignoring the political one, would leave us in 
     the hands of tyranny.
       America has the right to defend their property, economic 
     sanctions are right, they are applied daily everywhere.
       We are deeply thankful of you, and all the politicians who 
     are not forgetting the ultimate interest of the cuban people, 
     the ultimate right of the cuban people, to live in freedom, 
     and democracy.
       Our struggle is not about the right we have to invest in 
     our own country, that is obvious. We are not opposing Fidel 
     Castro's government, because we want to be the owners of a 
     laundry shop, or a bar, or even a sugar factory.
       We want all that for our people, but we also want to 
     publish an article in a newspaper, to establish an 
     association independent from the government, to create a 
     political party without having to go to prison for that.
       Nobody should forget or ignore this. We think that the U.S. 
     government has so far understood this, and has remain firm, 
     and we appreciate it deeply.
       You have been extremely generous with the cubans, so we are 
     very thankful to you, Senator personally, for all you have 
     done for us in this very difficult time, of our history, and 
     we have a history of friendship, and understanding, and good 
     neighborliness between our two people, and we want to go back 
     to that situation again.
     Adolfo Fernandez Sains.
                                                                    ____



                               Party of Democratic Solidarity,

                                  City of Habana, October 8, 1995.
       Distinguished U.S. Senators: Today you are not simply 
     debating a law, you are debating the future of a nation. We, 
     as members of the internal opposition to the dictatorial 
     regime that oppresses us, ask you, in the name of the men and 
     women who languish in Castro's prisons or who saw the end of 
     their days before a firing squad, that you cooperate to 
     remove the last tyrant in our continent. It is dishonorable 
     to allow a dictator, who with terror maintains an entire 
     nation in the dark ages, to continue to blatantly ignore the 
     rights of the men and women in the land of Jose Marti.
       A vote in favor of Helms-Burton in the Senate of the U.S. 
     will bring joy and hope to all Cubans. It is not the embargo 
     that keeps the Cuban people hungry and desperate, but the 
     Castro dictatorship, and that, all of Cuba knows well.
       May God illuminate you and allow you, and the rest of the 
     world, to clearly declare enough is enough! to the bloody 
     dictatorship that misgoverns our country.
     Miguel Angel Aldana Ruiz,
                                                  President of the
                                               Marti Civic League.
     Ramon Varela Sanchez,
                                                   (In detention),
                                                   Vice-president.
     Annia Navarro Gonzalez.
     Omar Acosta Rodriguez.
                                                                    ____

                                                 October 10, 1995.
     Message to: Senator Robert Dole, President of the Senate, 
         Senator Jessie Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations 
         Committee, the U.S. Senate.
       Cuba is the country with the highest rate of suicide, 
     prisoners, exiled nationals and abortions in the Americas, 
     and probably in the whole world. That will be enough to 
     oppose Castro's government, even if it were not a 36 year old 
     dictatorship that has plunged the Cuban people into poverty, 
     divided the Cuban family, and brought to the country an 
     ideology, enemy of Democracy and Freedom, alien to our 
     traditions and our environment, and on behalf of which the 
     human rights of the Cuban people are violated.
       The Cuban government has not shown the necessary political 
     will to bring about changes in the country. We believe that 
     the Cuban government does not understand any language, other 
     than pressure, and coercion measures. Even if the Cuban 
     government decided to effect a true economic reform, leading 
     to a market economy, something it has not done, and in our 
     opinion, will not do, we would still be in the hands of a 
     dictatorship.
       President Clinton recently announced a package of measures, 
     adopted unilaterally by the U.S. Government in relation to 
     Cuba. We consider it counter-productive to send the Havana 
     regime a mixed signal, giving them a certain hope that with 
     our holding free, fair and internationally supervised 
     elections, an amnesty for all political prisoners and 
     legalizing the internal opposition, they could get rid of the 
     U.S. Embargo.
       The U.S. Embargo works. The few changes that have taken 
     place in Cuba are a result of economic, political and 
     diplomatic pressures. Those pressures should be intensified. 
     We support the Helms-Burton initiative. We call upon the 
     Executive not to veto it, if passed. It is a peaceful 
     measure, aimed only at preventing that foreign investors 
     continue buying from the Cuban government properties 
     confiscated from and not paid to, U.S. and other citizens. 
     Those investments only completed to extend the suffering of 
     the Cuban people.
       Distinguished Senators, you are facing an ethical 
     alternative, where you choose whether you support or not this 
     Bill, know that you are choosing between the weak and the 
     powerful. The weak are the Cuban people, torn by so much pain 
     and suffering. The powerful are Fidel Castro's totalitarian 
     and anti-democratic government, that continues to make 
     decisions affecting our lives and compromising the future of 
     the whole people, without ever submitting to the will of 
     those people in the ballot box. By passing this Bill, you 
     will be taking a fair ethical decision in the name of Freedom 
     and Democracy, which you enjoy fully as their main advocates 
     in today's civilized world.
       Finally, a word of thanks to the American people and their 
     Government, and for the support, the solidarity and 
     generosity that historically they have extended to the Cuban 
     people.
       And now, from Cuba, signing this document on behalf of 
     their respective organizations:
       Partido Solidaridad Democratica, Hector Palacio Ruiz, 
     President and Fernando Sanchez Lopez, Vice President, and 
     National Executive; on behalf of Partido Democrata 30 de 
     Noviembre Frank Pais, Osmel Lugo Gutierrez, Vice President; 
     on behalf of ALFIN, Asociacion de Lucha Frente a la 
     Injusticia Nacional, Beatriz Garcia Alvarez, President, 
     Fernando Alfaro Garcia, Vice President; on behalf of Liga 
     Civica Juvenil Martiana, Miguel Aldana Ruiz, President, Ania 
     Navarro Gonzalez, Vice President; on behalf of Partido Pro 
     Derechos Humanos en Cuba, Lazaro Gonzalez Valdes, President; 
     on behalf of APAL Independiente, Juan Jose Perez Izquierdo, 
     Vice President, and Vicente Escobar Rivero; on behalf of 
     Corriente Liberal Cubana, Juan Jose Lopez Diaz, President; on 
     behalf of Asociacion Ecologista y Pacifista de Cuba, Leonel 
     Morejon Almairo, President; on behalf of Movimiento 

[[Page S 15215]]
     Democrata Cientifico, Juan Rafael Fernandez Peregrin, President; on 
     behalf of Comite Cubano de Opositores Pacificos 
     Independientes, Victoria Ruiz, President, and Lazaro Garcia 
     Cernuda; on behalf of Movimiento Maceista por la Dignidad, 
     Isidro Herrera Carrillo, President; on behalf of Frente 
     Femenino Humanitario, Gladys Linares, President; on behalf of 
     Consejo Medco Cubano Independiente, Jesus Marante Pozo, 
     President, and Dianeli Garcia Gonzalez; on behalf of Frente 
     Maximo Gomez from Pinar del Rio, Jose Angel Chente Herrera, 
     President, Juan Jose Perez Manso, and Julio Cesar Perez 
     Manso.
       Also signing this document are a number of independent 
     activists: Norman Brito Hernandez Human Rights Activitist, 
     Rafael Solano, a Journalist and president of Havana Press 
     News Agency, Hector Paraza, Journalist, also from Havana 
     Press, Raul Rivero, a Poet and Journalist, President of Cuba 
     Press News Agency, Miguel Fernandez, a Journalist, Vice 
     President of Cuba Press News Agency, and Ana Luisa Lopez 
     Baeza, a Journalist, also from Cuba Press News Agency.
       This document was produced in Havana City, on 10 of 
     October, 1995, and your speaker is Adolfo Fernandez Sainz, 
     from Democratic Solidarity Party.
       Thank you very much.
                                                                    ____


             [Source: Radio Marti, Havana, Sept. 21, 1995]

   Comments by Miguel Angel Aldana, Executive of the Coalition for a 
          Democratic Cuba and Member of the Marti Civic League

       At this time, we ask the U.S. Government and we ask 
     President Bill Clinton to support the Helms-Burton bill, 
     because it's the only way to free the Cuban people. It's the 
     only way that our human rights groups and the political 
     opposition are going to feel strong. If that bill is not 
     passed, the Fidel Castro dictatorship, which is crushing the 
     Cuban people, and which is committing injustices daily, is 
     going to get stronger. It's deceiving the U.S. Government, 
     the way it did with the boat people. It obligated the U.S. 
     Government to sit down at the negotiations table. They're 
     laughing at the American government, they're laughing at the 
     entire world, and they're doing away with the Cuban people.
       We ask the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to 
     support those Senators, and we ask the American people to 
     support the Helms-Burton bill so that once and for all the 
     Cuban people will be freed from a dictatorship of more than 
     36 years that is leading and subjecting the people of Cuba to 
     injustice and abuses, and killing children, women and the 
     elderly from hunger.
       When here the diplotiendas [stores for the elite with cash] 
     and the markets are full of food, the Cuban government is 
     alleging that there's an embargo, or blockade. The only 
     blockade here is the Fidel Castro dictatorship.
       This bill has to be passed because the freedom that the 
     people of the U.S. enjoy has to be shared. This law is 
     necessary!
                                                                    ____



a message to senate majority leader bob dole, senate foreign relations 
  committee chairman jesse helms, and the entire united states senate 
                  from the democratic solidarity party

       Cuba is the country with the highest rate of suicides, 
     political prisoners, exiled nationals, in the Americas, and 
     perhaps, in the whole world. That would be enough to oppose 
     Castro's government even if it were not a 36 year old 
     dictatorship that has plunged the Cuban people into poverty, 
     devided the Cuban family, and brought to the country an 
     ideological enemy of democracy and freedom alien to our 
     traditions and environment and on behalf of which the human 
     rights of the Cuba people are violated.
       The Cuban government has not shown the necessary political 
     will to bring about changes within the country. We believe 
     that the Cuban government does understand any language other 
     than pressure and coercive measures. Even if the Cuban 
     government decided to effect a true economic reform leading 
     to a market economy, something it has not done and will not 
     do, we would still be in the hands of a dictatorship.
       President Clinton recently announced a package of measures 
     adopted unilaterally by the U.S. government in relation to 
     Cuba. We consider it counterproductive to send the Havana 
     regime a mixed signal, giving them a certain hope that 
     without holding free, fair, and internationally supervised 
     elections, an amnesty for all political prisoner, and 
     legalizing the internal opposition, they could get rid of the 
     U.S. embargo.
       The U.S. embargo works. The few changes that have taken 
     place in Cuba are a result of economic, political and 
     diplomatic pressures. Those pressures should be intensified. 
     We support the Helms-Burton initiative. We call upon the 
     Executive not to veto it if passed. It is a peaceful measure 
     aimed only at preventing that foreign investors continuing 
     buying properties confiscated from and not paid to U.S. and 
     other citizens. Those investments only contribute to 
     extending the suffering of the Cuban people.
       Distinguished Senators, you are a facing an ethical 
     alternative. When you choose whether to support or not this 
     bill know you are choosing between the weak and the powerful. 
     The weak are the Cuban people, torn by so much pain and 
     suffering. The powerful are Fidel Castro's totalitarian and 
     anti-democratic government that continue to make decisions 
     effecting our lives and compromising the future of the whole 
     people without ever submitting to the will of those people in 
     the ballot box.
       By passing this bill you will be making a fair ethical 
     decision in the name of freedom and democracy, which you 
     enjoy fully as the main advocates in today's main civilized 
     world.
       Finally, a word of thanks for the American people and their 
     government, for their support, solidarity, and the 
     generousity that they have historically extended to the Cuban 
     people.
       And finally, in this message from the Cuba Democratic 
     Solidarity Party president Hector Palacio Ruiz, vice-
     president Osmel Lugo Guttirez, and the national Executive; by 
     the 30th November Democratic Party ``Frank Pais''; and on 
     behalf of Rafael Ibarra Roque who is in prison; the 
     Association for the National Struggle for Justice, Beatrice 
     Garcia Alvarez, president, Reinaldo Fargo Garcia, vice-
     president; Marti Youth Civil League, Miguel Angel Aldana 
     Ruiz, president, Amnia Navarro Gonzalez, vice-president; the 
     Pro-Human Rights Party of Cuba, Lazaro Gonzalez Valdes, 
     president; Ampare Independiente, Juan Jose Perez Izquierdo, 
     vice-president, Vincente Escobar Trabiero; the Liberal Cuban 
     Current, Juan Jose Lopez Diaz, president; on behalf of 
     Association of Cuban Pacificists, Leonel Morejon Almagro, 
     president; on behalf of the Scientific Democratic Movement, 
     Juan Rafael Fernandez Pelegrin, president; on behalf of the 
     Cuban Committee Independent Pacifists in Opposition, Vicotrio 
     Ruiz, president, Lazaro Garcia; Maceo Movement for Dignity, 
     Isidro Carrera Carillo, president; on behalf of the Women's 
     Humanitarian Front, Gladys Linares, president; on behalf of 
     the Independent Cuban Medical Council, Jesus Marante Pozo, 
     president, Ana Beoneles Gonzalez, on behalf of the Maximo 
     Gomez Front from Pinar del Rio Province, Jose Vincente 
     Herrera, president, and Juan Jose Perez Manzo and Julio Cesar 
     Perez Manzo; and also a number of independent activists who 
     are also signing this document, Norma brito Hernandez, an 
     activist of human rights, Rafael Solano, a journalist who is 
     president of Havana Press News Agency, Hectro Peraza, 
     journalist, also from Havana Press, Raul Ribero, poet, 
     journalist and president of Cuba Press News Agency, Miguel 
     Fernandez, journalist, vice-president of Cuba Press, Ana 
     Luisa Lopez Baeza, journalist from Cuba Press.
       This document is signed in Havana, October 10, 1995.
       Thank you very much.

  translation of interviews with cuban dissidents, september 24, 1995

       New Jersey, United States, Sunday, September 24, 1995. The 
     Revolutionary Movement of the 30th of November this week held 
     interviews with several organizations in Cuba so as to know 
     their opinions with regard to the bill proposed by Senator 
     Jesse Helms and Congressman Dan Burton, a law that was 
     approved by the Congress this past Friday, 21 of September.
       The first interview is with Osmel Lugo, Vice-president of 
     the Democratic Party, November 30 in Cuba. For those who 
     don't know, the President of this party, Mr. Rafael Ibarra is 
     in jail completing a 20 year sentence for his ideas contrary 
     to those of the Castro regime:
       November 30 Democratic Party, special communique that 
     reflects the opinions of our organization.
       In more than 36 years of the Castro regime never have human 
     rights been respected and the desire for development, 
     prosperity and liberty has been ignored for the Cuban people 
     now for more than three decades. In Cuba, when the U.S. 
     embargo wasn't even mentioned, and it was a time of need, 
     already more than 70% of imports were covered by the European 
     Communist markets. Unfortunately the Soviet Union sustained 
     and maintained the Cuban economy in exchange for a military 
     base called Cuba and not even then were we allowed to enjoy 
     our civil, political and human rights and we have never been 
     able to rid ourselves of the ration card that limits us to 
     what and when we can eat. The Cuban government has not shown 
     any interest in solving the serious problems affecting the 
     country even though government and non-government 
     organizations as well as other countries and governments have 
     made recommendations for this out of compassion for the tough 
     conditions the Cuban people are being put through. The Cuban 
     government has not only not shown signs of any interest of a 
     political process for change to a democratic and 
     representative government, but it remains in complete 
     immobility since it does not wish to lose the throne of 
     absolute power with which it has been able to govern the 
     country with an iron fist. Fidel Castro, as the most faithful 
     representative and highest ranking official of the Cuban 
     government has expressed and continues to express so that 
     there will be no misunderstandings his known phrase 
     ``Socialism or death.'' ``Socialism or death'' means or his 
     type of government or death with as much transparency as 
     macabre is the phase. The only solution Castro offers the 
     Cuban people is death or to live under his system of death 
     itself. And if several reforms have been taking place in the 
     economic field, reform measure which, may we add, could be 
     easily reversed, it has been simply to gain some time and 
     accommodate his needs of the moment more than to try and 
     solve the despairing social conditions. So we harbor no false 
     hopes that the lifting of the economic sanctions will change 
     the will of those who try to stay 

[[Page S 15216]]
     in power or that they will put the dictatorial regime which allows them 
     to on the line. The end or lifting of the embargo would not 
     guarantee the respect of the civic, political and human 
     rights of the Cuban people or bring democracy to our country. 
     Rather, it would strengthen the totalitarian and dictatorial 
     regime that has destroyed Cuban society sinking it into 
     misery, indigence and mental slavery, facilitating it the 
     millions it needs to develop and perfect its repressive 
     apparatus the base and principle of its power. The lifting of 
     the embargo will not bring an amnesty for all the political 
     and conscience prisoners. It will not return the life of 
     hundreds of thousands that have died at the hands of the 
     regime or of those who have lost their lives trying to escape 
     through the Florida straits. Nor will it allow the recovery 
     of the remains of more than 42 people killed during the 
     homicide that took place in the sinking massacre of the ``13 
     de Marzo'' tugboat for which the regime hasn't even allowed 
     flowers to be thrown in the sea. The embargo is not the cause 
     of Cuba's problems, it is actually the solution to these. 
     Intolerance is the only thing that should not, and cannot be 
     tolerated. The November 30 Democratic Party Frank Pais 
     ratifies its support for the bill for democracy in Cuba and 
     even asks for the globalization and internationalization of 
     sanctions against the Cuban government. We thank the U.S. 
     legislators that voted in favor of Helms-Burton and we 
     recognize their good will to contribute to the 
     democratization and liberty of the Cuban nation. At this same 
     time, we exhort the President of the United States, Bill 
     Clinton, to not veto this law if he truly wishes that Cuba be 
     among the democratic countries of the world where human 
     rights are respected and recognized.
       Signed by the Democratic Party November 30. Dated in the 
     City of Havana on the 21st day of September, 1995.

        Interview with Rafael Solano, president of Havana Press

       Sergio Gatria from New Jersey. We want your opinion 
     regarding the debate this week in the House where the name of 
     Havana Press, your name, Jose Rivero's, who are journalists 
     who are being persecuted in Cuba, we want to know what your 
     opinion is with regard to these Congressmen who were 
     defending you.
       Solano. Well, let me tell you that when I first received 
     the news I was very excited. Family members in Miami called 
     me that on the U.S. TV channels my name was appearing. In 
     other words, a series of personalities in this Congressional 
     session spoke about persecution and where it affects me 
     directly. As President of Havana Press I am very grateful to 
     these people, among who are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln 
     Diaz-Balart, Robert Menendez, Robert Torricelli, Senator 
     Jesse Helms and Congressman Solomon from New York. That is an 
     incentive for all the independent press in Cuba, that people 
     within the U.S. government defend the independent press and 
     that encourage us to continue our task in this country that 
     censors the freedom of expression, it inspires us to continue 
     exercising independent journalism. I can sincerely tell you 
     that I am very grateful to these individuals and I believe 
     history will one day pick up these names that fight civically 
     so that we, the independent journalists, can continue 
     practicing our careers without the harassment from the 
     repressive organs of this government.
       Gatria. Have you continued to be persecuted?
       Solano. Yes. As everyone knows, last week I was arrested by 
     three officials of our country's State Security. I 
     personally, as director of Havana Press, am threatened with 
     10 years of jail for the crime of enemy propaganda. In other 
     words, in our country, he who expresses himself freely is 
     considered as a person who issues enemy propaganda. However, 
     the Constitution states that every Cuban citizen has the 
     right to express himself freely and change ideas, but in 
     practice, it is not allowed. Our position is that if we have 
     to go to jail for our cause, free press, the independent 
     press of which Jose Marti dreamt about, we are willing to 
     take that risk.
       Gatria. Are you the only journalist that has been arrested 
     or have there been others?
       Solano. Well Mr. Jose Rivero was also arrested in the past 
     few days. I was arrested on Thursday and he was arrested on 
     Friday; he also suffers from government harassment by the 
     State's Security Forces. I think the free press is an 
     instrument to make public the true Cuban reality and that is 
     what the government is afraid of, but, when we feel the 
     support of people like the ones I mentioned we are inspired 
     and we love our fight for a free press in Cuba even more.
       Gatria. You also said that several journalists were being 
     attacked didn't you?
       Solano. Well actually, I have next to me the Vice-President 
     of Havana Press who has actually been attacked because they 
     have launched a wave of attacks against independent 
     journalists, supposed delinquents have attacked independent 
     journalists and I would like you to speak to Julio Martinez 
     so that he can tell you what happened.
       Gatria. So you were attacked?
       Martinez. Yes, I was attacked by two unknown assailants the 
     morning of the 15th of September when I was headed home. They 
     immobilized me and took my jacket, shirt and tie and they 
     left me with pants and shoes.
       Gatria. Do you think that was a normal mugging or have 
     there been other attacks against journalists?
       Martinez. Solano was attacked by two unknowns after he 
     interviewed the ex-lieutenant Colonel Labrada. Rail Rivero 
     was also attacked a few days before and they stole his 
     briefcase. I was the last to be attacked.
       Gatria. So it is a strange coincidence that there have been 
     so many muggings of Cuban journalists.
       Martinez. They must simply be categorized as suspicious 
     muggings.
       Gatria. Do you have anything else to add, Martinez?
       Martinez. I want to congratulate those U.S. government 
     individuals who have come out in defense of the independent 
     journalists in Cuba. I especially want to thank Ileana Ros-
     Lehtinen and the gentlemen Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Bob 
     Menendez who are Cuban.
       Gatria. You know that Helms-Burton was approved in the 
     House . . .
       Solano. Did it have more than the two thirds?
       Gatria. Almost 300 votes . . . Has there been any reaction 
     from the Cuban people?
       Solano. So it had a great majority. Well, I don't think the 
     Cuban people are very aware of what's happened, maybe the 
     Cuban press will have something today. You know that the 
     Cuban government had launched a huge campaign to stop Helms-
     Burton, holding meetings in the streets, at work. We had a 
     favorable reaction to the approval of the bill and we gave 
     our reasons in Cuba's free press.

   Interview with Elizardo San Pedro Marin, president of Democratic 
                            Solidarity Party

       Gatria. I need you to state your name, the organization and 
     your opinion regarding Helms-Burton.
       San Pedro Marin. We consider the approval of Helms-Burton 
     in the House is a very positive step that brings us closer to 
     a peaceful transition to democracy. The Cuban government has 
     felt the effects of the U.S. economic embargo after the fall 
     of the socialist bloc and it began to issue changes in the 
     economic sector, not in the political but in the economic to 
     try and retain its power. All this foreign investment and 
     looking for foreign investors shows that they have no means 
     within the country they have no solution to the problems we 
     face. And so the fight against Helms-Burton has become the 
     Cuban government's foreign relations priority and they have 
     been using all their time and manpower to fight against it. 
     There is still a lot of territory for the Helms-Burton bill 
     to cover but I believe the reasonable outcome will be 
     reached, that the bill will be approved. The Cuban government 
     doesn't understand any other kind of language except this 
     style, it is a government that is known for its intolerance. 
     So I think it is very positive that this bill was approved 
     because it is a commitment by the U.S. Congress to democracy 
     in Cuba. And even though we Cubans know that we are the ones 
     responsible for the changes within the island, we also need 
     the support from the U.S. government and this time we have 
     it.
       Gatria. Do the other dissidents in Cuba have the same 
     criteria?
       San Pedro Marin. There are all different kinds of opinions 
     among the dissidents. Of course there are dissidents who 
     think there are other alternatives to the situation, such as 
     the embargo being lifted, establishing a dialogue, that 
     Helms-Burton not be approved etc., but the Cuban government 
     has never stated that those changes will help to bring about 
     any kind of political change. For example, the Cuban 
     government has never stated that in exchange for something it 
     will release political prisoners, it does not recognize the 
     internal opposition, it doesn't speak about a free electoral 
     process, and it doesn't even speak about asking the people if 
     they want ``Socialism or Death'', or if they want pluralism 
     and democracy. in other words, there can be no concessions to 
     the Cuban government if the Cuban government has no intention 
     of solving any of its internal political problems.
       Gatria. What is the opinion of the majority of the Cuban 
     people with whom you have spoken?
       San Pedro Marin. The people don't know this bill. The 
     legislation has not been published by the Cuban press. The 
     people only know sections, details, partial or manipulated 
     information so the people really don't know. And even the 
     free press that reaches them, like Radio Marti, only 
     broadcasts sections of the bill so the people don't know. I'm 
     sure that there are people who don't understand it and don't 
     share this criteria but I think what the people need right 
     now is that this bill be approved and made law.

                 Interview with Raul Rivero, Cuba Press

       Gatria. Helms-Burton was passed in the House, would you 
     like to make a statement?
       Rivero. Well, I signed a letter from the Democratic 
     Solidarity Part (Sampedro Marin) on a personal level, I'm not 
     a member of any political party but I signed it as a 
     journalist and as a Cuban. I support the bill, I believe in 
     it. It may seem strange and there has been a lot of 
     controversy that people could want more pressure on their 
     country, the problem is however, that there is no foreign 
     blockade, only an internal one that causes damage, that is 
     stuck on us by the government, that is the true blockade that 
     hurts the people. The true blockade as I said is an internal 
     one, issued by a group of people who wish to stay in power 
     and that is what has this country in ruins, not just in 
     material ruin, but a spiritual ruin.
     
[[Page S 15217]]


                 Interview with Jose Rivero, Cuba Press

       Gatria. Your names were mentioned and the persecution 
     suffered.
       Rivero. Well, it's something that has been happening for 
     the past couple of months against the members of the free 
     press and they seem to have it in especially for Solano and 
     myself. Especially after the 13 of July, the anniversary of 
     the sinking of the ``13 de Marzo'' tugboat, since the 11th or 
     12th we've been visited by these people who harass us and try 
     to manipulate us and now around the 15th of this month when 
     we were arrested for a couple of hours. We know that this is 
     how it is going to be and it is nothing out of the ordinary 
     where dissidents are concerned. Against members of political 
     or human rights groups there has always been repression, 
     against journalists it is a more sensitive issue.
       Gatrial. What does the government want you to do?
       Rivero. They want us to leave. They don't care if we 
     practice journalism is the U.S. or Europe they just don't 
     want us here so that they can protect their public image 
     which as you know is very important to them and that is why 
     they have always tried to monopolize the press.

                          ____________________