[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15317-S15319]
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.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. As I understand it, I have 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. On the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will not use all that time. I will 
reserve some. When the Senator from Connecticut is willing, we will 
yield back what remains of our time.
  Mr. President, Senator Dodd's amendment proposes to delete from the 
pending bill any guidance and recommendations to the President from the 
Congress of the United States as to what constitutes a transition or 
democratic government in Cuba. I am a little surprised at the thrust of 
the amendment. But I respect the Senator, although I disagree with him.
  The administration has maintained that the President should retain 
flexibility to deal with the situation in 

[[Page S 15318]]
Cuba once a transition begins. So the beginning trouble with this 
amendment is that it is in conflict not only with the bill itself but 
with the administration itself.
  As the Libertad bill was drafted, we took the administration's 
concerns into account, and we agreed that any parameters not be 
``overly rigid,'' to quote from an administration statement on the 
House bill. But we also agreed that Congress should speak as to what 
constitutes sufficient change in Cuba to merit any support or aid from 
the United States.
  So the result is that the pending bill gives the President of the 
United States, whomever he may be, a great deal of latitude in making 
the determination required before--before--any United States aid can 
begin to flow to a new Cuban Government.
  I am not aware that the administration has any problems with the way 
the pending legislation is drafted. But let me be clear about what is 
in the Libertad bill. The only specific requirement, Mr. President, 
that a transition government must meet before United States aid is 
released is that the Government has legalized political activity, 
released all political prisoners and allowed for access to Cuban 
prisons by international human rights organizations. It also stipulates 
that the Cuban Government must have dissolved the state security and 
secret police apparatus, and agreed to hold elections within 2 years of 
taking power and has publicly committed, and is taking steps, to 
resolve American property claims.
  The pending bill contains several additional factors that the 
President is asked--not required, but asked--to take into account when 
determining whether a transition or democratic government is in power 
in Cuba.
  Mr. President, Congress offers this type of guidance to the President 
all the time on various matters. This is not out of the ordinary, nor 
is it some legislative straitjacket. So that is why I have a little bit 
of difficulty understanding how anybody could oppose asking, before we 
give away the United States taxpayers' dollars, that a Cuban Government 
allow political activity, free political prisoners, dissolve the secret 
police, and agree to take care of American citizens' property claims. I 
must ask, what is wrong with that?
  As for the property requirements, the President can waive them if he 
determines that it is in the vital national interest of the United 
States to do so. This is consistent with existing restrictions on aid 
to Cuba in section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act.
  Now, I find it ironic that Senators would come to the floor, 
expressing concerns about the Libertad bill, ostensibly in the name of 
certified property claimants, and then turn around and want to strike a 
provision that reaffirms the need for Cuba to remedy past wrongs. Whose 
interest is really being protected by removing this Libertad section? 
It doesn't appear to be the interests of the property claimants.
  It is clearly within Congress' power to set out conditions on 
providing aid to other nations--we do it all the time. However, the 
Libertad bill acknowledges that the President will need flexibility in 
responding to Cuba's political evolution. The language in the Libertad 
bill represents a balance between these interests and should be 
retained, and that is why I will move to table the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, pending Senator 
Dodd's discussion of his other amendment.
  I am advised, Mr. President, that Senator Dodd has no further comment 
on his amendments. Is it fair for me to assume that he yields back the 
remainder of his time? If staff would please inquire of Senator Dodd.
  Mr. President, while we are waiting, on occasions like this, when 
important legislation is being considered, I wonder what the reaction 
of those who come to visit the Senate is with respect to so few 
Senators being on the floor. The answer to that is that Senators are 
tied up in committee meetings all over this complex. I, myself, had to 
get away from a committee meeting to be here to manage this bill and to 
discuss Senator Dodd's amendment.
  So I say to our guests that not only do we welcome them, but we beg 
their understanding that Senators are working; they are just not 
working here at the moment.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, the time not being 
charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have been advised--Senator Dodd has 
conveyed to me his desire that his remaining time be yielded back if I 
yield mine back. I so do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I want the Chair to correct me if I am 
wrong, but there will be one vote on the two Dodd amendments; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask 
for the yeas and nays en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Now, Mr. President, that leaves Senator Simon's amendment 
on which a time agreement is already in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                Explanation of Change of Vote on Cloture

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, when the Senate first voted October 12 on 
the cloture petition relative to H.R. 927, the Dole-Helms Cuba 
sanctions bill, I voted no. Like most of my Democratic colleagues and 
some Republicans, I strongly opposed title III of the bill as written 
because of its detrimental effect on U.S. Federal courts. Indeed most 
of our debate over the last few days on the bill has focused on title 
III's provisions allowing suits to be filed against companies that 
acquired property confiscated by the Castro regime after it took power 
in 1959.
  This provision of the measure flouted international law, threatened 
already severely overburdened courts with costly new litigation, and 
jeopardized our relations with major trading partners who do business 
with Cuba. If adopted, this provision would have exponentially expanded 
the pool of persons in the United States seeking compensation from the 
Cuban Government for their claims. There could be tens or even hundreds 
of thousands of persons who would be eligible to file such lawsuits.
  While no one knows for certain how many lawsuits could have been 
filed under title III, if even a fraction of those newly eligible did 
so, it would prove costly to the Federal courts and greatly complicate 
the tasks of resolving claims and assisting Cuba's economic recovery 
once the Castro regime is gone.
  After that first cloture vote, I discussed these issues during 
private conversations with several of my colleagues who supported the 
measure, including Senator Helms, and by the time of the second vote on 
October 17, I had obtained assurances that title III would be 
substantially modified or eliminated entirely. Therefore, I was able to 
support cloture when the second vote occurred.
  I am happy that we were able to reach a compromise on this 
legislation which allowed the third cloture vote to succeed on a solid 
bipartisan vote of 98 to 0 after the announcement that title III would 
be stricken from the bill.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I believe all my colleagues agree on the 
goals of United States policy toward Cuba--promoting a peaceful 
transition to democracy, economic liberalization, and greater respect 
for human rights while controlling immigration from Cuba. Where some of 
us clearly differ, however, is on how we get there. Despite the changes 
that have been made to the pending legislation, I believe that it 
continues to take us further away from achieving these goals. I 
believe, therefore, that this legislation is contrary to U.S. national 
interests.
  We should undertake policy measures to enhance contact with the Cuban 
people, because that will serve United States national interests; 
namely, the fostering of the peaceful transition to democracy on that 
island.
  In my view, greater contact with the Cuban people will plant the 
seeds of 

[[Page S 15319]]
change and advance the cause of democracy just as greater exchange with 
the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.
  I think it is naive to think that the measure before us today is 
going to succeed in forcing Castro to step aside, where all other 
pressures have not. However, the measures proposed in this bill do have 
the serious potential of further worsening the living conditions of the 
Cuban people and once again making a mass exodus for Miami an 
attractive option. Taken to its most extreme, this bill could even 
provoke serious violence on the island.
  This legislation is even more problematic than earlier efforts to 
tighten the screws on Castro. I say this because its implications go 
well beyond United States-Cuban relations. It alienates our allies and 
tie the administration's foreign policy hands.
  Contact and dialog between Havana and Washington will bring about 
democracy on the island of Cuba, not isolation and impoverishment. 
Perhaps if we took that approach, our allies would be more likely to 
support our policy with respect to Cuba. Today we are virtually alone.
  The Helms-Burton bill has gone through a number of changes since it 
was first introduced. In fact, Senator Helms' substitute amendment 
differs in a number of areas from the House-passed bill. However, no 
version to date resolves the fundamental problem I have with the 
direction it takes U.S. policy. For these reasons I will vote against 
this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 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. 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, in order to save a little time, my 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina desires to address the 
Senate, and he understands that Senator Simon is on his way to discuss 
his pending amendment.
  I ask that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] be 
recognized for the purpose of addressing the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth] is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________