[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15320-S15322]
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. 2934

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague and 
friend, Senator Helms, on the floor. I think we each have 10 minutes to 
speak for our sides, in terms of the travel to Cuba debate. If the 
Parliamentarian gives us his OK, I will be pleased to move ahead and 
take part of my 10 minutes at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2934 to amendment No. 2936.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of October 18, 
1995.)
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HELMS. Will the distinguished Senator yield about 30 seconds for 
a little housekeeping item?
  Mr. SIMON. I will always yield to my colleague from North Carolina.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the Simon amendment, which it has just 
done, No. 2934, under the previous 20-minute time limitation, that 
following the expiration of that debate, the Senate then proceeded to a 
vote on or in relation to the Simon amendment, No. 2934; and, further, 
immediately following that vote, there be 4 minutes of debate, equally 
divided in the usual form, on the Dodd amendments 2906 and 2908, en 
bloc; and following that debate, the Senate vote on or in relation to 
the Dodd amendments, 2906 and 2908, en bloc; and, further, that 
following that vote, there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided in 
the usual form, to be immediately followed by a vote on the substitute 
amendment, to be followed by a vote on passage of H.R. 927, as amended, 
all without any other intervening debate or action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 2934

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this amendment says simply that Americans 
can use what I think is a constitutional right to travel. We should not 
restrict travel to any country unless security is threatened, so that 
American citizens are not subject to simply propaganda from one side or 
from our Government.
  It is interesting that every other country in the world, so far as I 
know, permits its citizens to travel to Cuba. Only the United States of 
America does not.
  Listen to what President Eisenhower said: ``Any limitation on the 
right to travel can only be tolerated in terms of overriding 
requirements of our national security.''
  President Eisenhower was right. The reality is Americans can travel 
to Cuba, but you have to go to Canada or Mexico or some other country 
to do it. We do not have the freedom the citizens of every other 
country in the world have, to travel to Cuba. It just does not make 
sense.
  I will add, the American Association for the Advancement of Science 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this question and 
pointed out that there have been scientific meetings, international 
scientific meetings held in Cuba, where our scientists have not been 
able to attend. It just does not make sense.
  In one case they were able to attend, but listen to this. In order to 
attend a meeting of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, 
in Havana, beginning on October 17, 1993, they were first denied 
licenses, and then, ``Finally, members were granted licenses but not 
without long delays and the necessity of submitting themselves to a 
detailed screening process by Treasury Department officials.'' All 
kinds of needless paperwork. And not an American citizen who has gone 
to Canada or Mexico and traveled to Cuba has been prosecuted, sentenced 
to prison, or fined. It is just ridiculous, and we look ridiculous in 
the eyes of the rest of the world.
  This limitation on Americans to travel to Cuba does not do one thing 
in terms of pulling down the Castro regime. There is not a Member of 
the United States Senate who believes that Castro is doing what he 
should be doing for the people of Cuba. We do not like his human rights 
record. But I do not want to impose human rights restrictions on 
American citizens because he does it in Cuba. So my amendment simply 
would give American citizens the clear right to travel to Cuba.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. SIMON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. Just to engage my colleague, I want to commend him for his 
amendment. What is underlying in this amendment is the notion here that 
we have to start to get back to the conduct of foreign policy. We are 
dealing with Cuba as if this were a domestic issue and not a foreign 
policy issue. If someone can explain to me why it is that we allow 
unlimited travel to the People's Republic of China, and we allow 
unlimited travel to Vietnam--even in the case of North Korea, the North 
Koreans impose restrictions, but we do not impose restrictions. Yet 
here for the island nation of Cuba, as much 

[[Page S 15321]]
as all of us find the Government there reprehensible, I think most of 
us believe that access and contact between peoples, particularly free 
people with the people who are living under a dictatorship, has a 
tremendous impact, or can have a tremendous impact, to say that no one 
in this country to the one place throughout the entire globe could 
travel makes no sense at all.
  Again, this is not as if we are talking about any other country. 
Imagine if we offered an amendment here that included the People's 
Republic of China, just add that one Communist country that engages in 
human rights violations--I would argue probably far more egregious than 
what occurs in Cuba, as bad as that may be--if I would offer that 
amendment to this, it would be resoundingly defeated if we stopped 
people going to the People's Republic of China today. And people would 
argue not just in terms of our own financial interests, but I think 
most realize there is probably a greater likelihood of achieving change 
there because there are those contacts. Others will argue with that. 
But here we are singling out one country 90 miles off our shore where 
an influx of Americans down there might have a very positive impact on 
encouraging people to engage in the legitimate, political kind of 
activity that would create the kind of change we would like to see 
there.
  What my colleague is offering here makes eminently good sense. It is 
the direction we ought to be going in. It is the most effective way to 
change the Government there. I commend him for this amendment, and I 
ask him whether or not he would agree with me, if he knows of any other 
case anywhere else in the world where we apply this.
  Mr. SIMON. Absolutely not. It is interesting that it is the same 
debate that we went through when we had the Soviet Union. Should we let 
Americans travel there? We finally made the decision that it might open 
up the Soviet Union if we would let people travel. And that was the 
right decision, and that is what we are asking for here. Let us make 
the right decision on Cuba.
  Mr. DODD. I point out as well that it is not just that. But Cuban-
Americans themselves--first of all, I have said this before, Mr. 
President. This notion that we are dealing with a monolithic community 
here is insulting to many Cuban-Americans. They do not like having 
people stand up here and suggest that every American of Cuban descent 
or heritage is of totally like mind on these issues. Many feel that 
they would like to be able to go back and start meeting with their 
families, working with their families. To go through the charade of 
traveling to Canada, going to Mexico, engaging in all kinds of 
subterfuge in order to make contact with their families and support 
them is not healthy.
  I would suggest that if we could make it possible for Cuban-Americans 
to go back and be with their old neighbors, friends, and family 
members, that kind of involvement, that kind of contact, that kind of 
interchange is probably something Fidel Castro worries more about than 
the adoption of this kind of language. I suspect he may support the 
language in this bill because it is that kind of contact which he would 
most worry about jeopardizing the foundations of his dictatorship.
  So, again, I applaud my colleague from Illinois for his proposal. I 
suspect we may not win in these amendments, regretfully, because this 
is about domestic policy. It is not about foreign policy.
  Mr. SIMON. I will simply add that we should make policy based on the 
national interest, not national passion. With what we are doing, our 
present policy is the opposite.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
suggest that the time be charged equally.
  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.


                            Order for Recess

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess at 12 noon today until 4 p.m. and that at 4 p.m. the 
Senate proceed to the votes under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I again suggest the absence of a quorum on 
the same basis as the first request was made.
  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, would the Chair state the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has 8 minutes, 
and the Senator from Illinois has 2 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, what I am about to say may indicate the widest 
legislative wing span in history, but the State Department and Jesse 
Helms agree on something. Both the State Department and Jesse Helms 
oppose the Simon amendment. I do so respectfully--and Paul Simon is my 
friend. We do not agree on everything, but that does not matter. He 
operates in good faith, and I try to.
  Let me say very briefly that during the tenure or parts thereof of 
eight American Presidents, the United States has pursued a bipartisan 
policy of isolating Fidel Castro, including restrictions on travel to 
Cuba. Obviously, the Simon amendment would enthusiastically do away 
with that restriction.
  I mentioned yesterday, and I guess I shall reiterate today, that 
there are good intentions behind anything that Paul Simon does. He is a 
gentleman. I regret the fact on a personal basis that he has announced 
that he will not seek reelection next year. But having said that, I 
just cannot support his amendment. And I cannot fail to urge Senators 
to vote against it because the result of the Simon amendment will not 
be the free exchange of ideas that they talk about. The result will be 
to give Fidel Castro access to new and desperately needed hard 
currency. On this, the State Department and I absolutely agree.
  What Castro has to offer is Cuban beaches. That is it. And allowing 
Americans to sit on Cuban beach does not do anything for the Cuban 
people who are oppressed and from whom we hear daily pleas to enact the 
Libertad bill. The Cuban people inside of Cuba--and also the Cuban 
people in exile in the United States and elsewhere--unanimously, as far 
as I know, favor the pending bill. Tourism, of course, is one of Fidel 
Castro's most important sources of hard currency, and for years and 
years Castro has lured foreigners to Cuba. This has not resulted in any 
liberalizing of his regime. It has instead resulted in less freedom and 
worse living circumstances for the Cuban people. Old Fidel, he is ugly, 
and he is blunt, and he is rough, and he is cruel, but he is not dumb. 
He knows the value of tourism for his regime. As a matter of fact, if 
he does not get hard cash from tourism and other aspects of operations, 
down he goes. And that is the point. We want him to go down. We want to 
be rid of him. We want the Cuban people to be rid of him so that they 
can establish a democratic government there that they have not had in a 
long, long time.

  Now, back in June, Castro began imposing a 100 percent tariff on all 
new articles brought into Cuba with a value between $100 and $1,000. 
And that means, Mr. President, if Castro officials, his cronies, 
determine that an item being brought into Cuba by a tourist is new, or 
if it is something that will be left behind when the tourist departs, 
then Cuba can charge 100 percent of the cost of that item. The tax on 
tourists benefits nobody but Fidel Castro and his cronies.
  Critics of the travel restrictions argue that we should remove them 
since they are not fully enforced. I recognize that the Treasury 
Department has encountered some problems in enforcing travel 
regulations. They probably encounter some problems in enforcing a lot 
of regulations. The reason for any problem they have in this regard is 
that currently only criminal penalties can be imposed for violations. 

[[Page S 15322]]
 The administration supports the enactment of civil penalties as the 
best means of enforcing existing restrictions, and that is exactly what 
we do in the Libertad bill. So there goes that wide wingspread again 
from left to right.
  Mr. President, I am going to reserve the remainder of my time because 
I have one or two other points that I may want to make, but I want 
there to be enough time for Senator Simon to make whatever rebuttal he 
wishes to make.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think if we can, before we vote--I 
understand we are going to vote at 4 o'clock.
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. SIMON. If each of us can have 2 minutes, if that is satisfactory 
to the Senator from North Carolina, that is satisfactory to me.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, that is certainly a fair and reasonable 
request. I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes equally divided be 
provided at 4 o'clock on the Simon amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. I would yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HELMS. And I yield back the remainder of my time. I see the 
distinguished majority leader. I am glad to yield to the majority 
leader.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. I understand the chairman has gotten the consent that we 
stand in recess at noon until 4 p.m.
  I might explain to my colleagues, the purpose of this is so that the 
Finance Committee can complete action on the tax cut package. They 
agreed yesterday to have 7 hours and then they would vote. They started 
at 9 o'clock this morning. We cannot get consent for the Finance 
Committee to meet while the Senate is in session, so we have no 
recourse but to let the Finance Committee meet all afternoon. But right 
now they are moving along at a pretty rapid pace, and they would like 
to complete action. Hopefully, at 4 o'clock, they could finish and the 
Senate could come in and, as I understand, there will be three votes 
and then final passage.
  Then after that we will hopefully take up the Labor, HHS 
appropriations bill or, if there has been any progress, State 
Department reorganization. I understand there is another meeting, the 
chairman has another meeting this afternoon at 2 o'clock. So hopefully 
we can finish action this afternoon on the tax cut package. Chairman 
Roth and the ranking member, Senator Moynihan, are trying to get that 
done by 4 o'clock. That would go to the Budget Committee. It is our 
hope that next Wednesday we will take up the reconciliation package on 
the Senate floor, Wednesday and Thursday. In the meantime, we have a 
number of items on which we hope to complete action.
  I would also indicate that we will have, hopefully, next week a 
Transportation conference report; legislative branch appropriations, a 
new bill, but it is identical to the one vetoed by the President. That 
will be available early to midweek; energy and water conference report. 
That conference is going to convene next Tuesday at 9 o'clock. We hope 
to finish that day and then take that up. We are trying to get more and 
more of the appropriations bills to the President. We hope that he 
would indicate he will sign the bills.

                          ____________________