[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1479-S1506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY [LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1996--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the House a conference 
report on H.R. 927. The report will be stated. The assistant 
legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     927) to seek international sanctions against the Castro 
     government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition 
     government leading to a democratically elected government in 
     Cuba, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of March 1, 1996.)
  Mr. LOTT. I believe the managers of the legislation will be ready to 
go in a few minutes. Until they arrive, 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. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lott). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor

[[Page S1480]]

privileges be granted to the following staff members from the House 
Committee on International Relations, Mr. Roger Noriega and Mr. Stephen 
Rademaker, during the pendency of the conference report on H.R. 927 and 
for the rollcall votes thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we are beginning deliberation on the 
Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, H.R. 927. There has been 
much said about this piece of legislation. It has been controversial 
from the beginning.
  I believe it is important that we put this legislation in context. 
This legislation, Mr. President, is directed at a dictator and regime 
that has engaged in the violation of human rights of their own people 
and others, murder, terrorism, exportation of revolution, and has been 
an open adversary of the United States of America and her people.
  To put it in context, there have been decades of pursuit of the 
objectives I just referred to. In 1959, Cuba aided armed expeditions 
against Panama, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. During the 1960's, 
Cuba backed attempts to develop guerrilla insurgencies in Guatemala, 
Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia. In the 1970's and the 1980's, 
Cuba had 50,000 troops in Angola; in Ethiopia, 24,000; and in Nicaragua 
1,500.
  By the end of 1960, the Cuban Government, under Fidel Castro, had 
expropriated all--all--private United States property in Cuba.
  We all remember--or should remember--the confrontation between the 
United States and Cuba and the Soviet Union as they attempted to put 
hostile missiles on Cuban soil, directed at the United States. In July 
1964 the Organization of American States voted to suspend diplomatic 
and trade relations with Cuba because of Cuban support for subversive 
activities in Venezuela.
  In the 1980's, from April through September of 1980, 125,000 Cubans 
fled Cuba in the so-called Mariel boatlift. In February 1982 the 
Secretary of State added Cuba to the list of countries supporting 
international terrorists for its complicity with the M-19 movement in 
Colombia.
  On April 29, 1994, Cuban border guards rammed and sank a private 
vessel, the Olympia, which had fled Cuba and was 25 nautical miles off 
its shores; 3 of the 21 Cubans aboard drowned, including two 6-year-old 
children.
  On July 13, 1994, approximately 40 Cubans, many of whom were 
children, drowned when the tugboat Trece de Marzo, stolen by a group of 
Cubans attempting to flee Cuba, sank after being rammed by Cuban border 
guard vessels and flooded with fire hoses into the hold, sweeping the 
innocent citizens off the deck.
  On December 22, 1995, the U.N. General Assembly approved a 
resolution, again calling on Cuba to cooperate fully with the U.N. 
Special Rapporteur, regretting profoundly the numerous violations of 
human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba.
  Beginning on February 15, 1996, the Cuban Government began a 
crackdown on members of the Concilio Cubano, an umbrella group of more 
than 100 dissident organizations that had applied for permission to 
hold a national meeting on February 24, 1996.
  And then, Mr. President, on February 24, Cuban MiG-29 fighter jets 
shot down two United States private airplanes, Cessna 336's, in the 
Florida straits, flown by members of the Cuban-American group, Brothers 
to the Rescue.
  Mr. President, I might add that both aircraft were destroyed, 
unarmed, in international waters, 4 and 6 miles beyond Cuban airspace.
  This incident has caused considerable outrage and has caused the 
administration to alter its policy of befriending the Castro 
government; and they have now come together with the authors of this 
resolution, Senator Helms of North Carolina and Representative Burton 
of Indiana, in an agreement to finally pass the Libertad Act and direct 
our hostility toward the Cuban Government.
  But the point is that this is not an isolated incident. This is but 
one of hundreds of incidents and infractions of common and civil and 
appropriate behavior on the part of the Cuban Government, which it 
continues to fail to practice.
  Let us look at a summary of the Libertad Act. Title I: Strengthening 
international sanctions against the Castro government.
  It urges the President to seek in the U.N. Security Council an 
international embargo against the Castro dictatorship.
  It authorizes the President to furnish assistance to support the 
democratic opposition and human rights groups in Cuba.
  It instructs the United States executive directors to international 
financial institutions to oppose Cuban membership until the President 
determines that a democratically elected government is in power in 
Cuba.
  It codifies--this is very important--it codifies the existing embargo 
on Cuba, making it law unless a transition government is in place.
  Title II: Assistance to a free and independent Cuba, instructs the 
President to develop a plan for providing support to the Cuban people 
during the transition to a democratically elected government; and it 
authorizes the President to suspend the embargo, once a transition 
government is in place, and to terminate the embargo once a democratic 
government is in power in Cuba.
  Title III: Protection of property rights of United States nationals. 
It establishes, as of August 1, 1996, a private right of action by 
which U.S. citizens can protect their interest in property 
confiscated--stolen--by the Castro government. The President has the 
authority to delay the effective date on a 6-month basis if he 
determines that such an act of delay is ``necessary to the national 
interest of the United States and will expedite the transition to a 
democratic government in Cuba.''
  Title IV: Exclusion of certain aliens. It denies visas to aliens who 
confiscate, convert or traffic or benefit from property confiscated 
from United States nationals by the Cuban Government.
  Mr. President, opponents of this legislation will contend that it 
will disrupt trade with our European and other allies and claim that 
the bill violates our international trade agreements. Although a number 
of our allies have expressed displeasure with this measure, the right-
of-action provision will provide a measure of protection for all 
international investors by making it clear that trafficking in stolen 
property will not be tolerated.
  We will be asked, ``Why limit the property rights debate encompassed 
in this bill to Cuban-Americans? Why not expand it to Americans from 
Poland or China or Vietnam or other nations of Eastern Europe?''
  In fact, the United States has reached settlements of confiscated 
American property claims with Albania, Vietnam, the People's Republic 
of China and most of the States of Central and Eastern Europe, 
including the former German Democratic Republic --East Germany--
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Czechoslovakia.
  Castro, conversely, has shown no serious interest in the settling of 
property claims--neither of American citizens at the time of the 
seizures in the early 1960's, nor for the thousands of Cuban citizens 
who had property stolen by the regime since then. The only remedy the 
Libertad bill allows is for American citizens who meet the 
jurisdictional requirements to have their day in court to deter the 
continuing wrong of Castro's exploitation of property.
  Opponents will say that the bill will result in an explosion of 
claims in the United States court system; but the primary intent of the 
right of action is as a deterrent to would-be investors in Cuba. Few 
actions are expected to be brought under this conference report because 
both parties must be sufficiently present in the United States to 
sustain jurisdiction in our courts. The Congressional Budget Office, in 
its estimate of the House bill, stated that they expect that only a few 
cases would actually go to trial.
  Further, in the process of arriving at this conference agreement, 
there is a cap. The cases must involve property valued at $50,000 or 
more. We have concluded that there are only about 700 claims, 
principally commercial interests, that would therefore come under the 
act.
  Mr. President, the Libertad conference report, as I said, provides a 
way for American citizens whose property was stolen by Fidel Castro to 
protect

[[Page S1481]]

their claim or receive compensation from those who knowingly and 
intentionally exploit that property and are in the United States under 
the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
  Castro is running a fire sale in stolen properties. Since his loss of 
$5 to $6 billion in annual Soviet subsidies, Castro is looking to 
capitalize on the sale of stolen property. He has gotten into the 
business of joint ventures with stolen property.
  Imagine if you were in an airport in Canada or Europe and picked up a 
brochure actually advertising these properties to the highest bidder? 
The Castro regime offers the sale of the Hermanos Diaz Refinery in 
Santiago, Cuba. Its rightful owner, however, Mr. President, is Texaco.
  ``Item 119'' for sale is the Manuel M. Prieto sugar mill; its 
rightful owner is a naturalized U.S. citizen whom Castro has never been 
forced to compensate for the claim.
  This is why title III is needed. It puts would-be investors--those 
who would be accomplices to a dictator and his property theft--on 
notice that, if they enrich themselves with stolen property, they will 
be held liable to the legitimate U.S. owners.
  For some reason, the opponents of the pending bill have expressed 
outrage that American citizens would be given a means of defending 
their property in the United States. This bill violates no treaty or 
international convention. It does not violate customary international 
law, which recognizes that a nation's domestic courts may reach actions 
abroad when those actions directly affect that nation. There is no 
doubt that Castro's illegal confiscations and the exploitation of those 
properties has a direct effect on American citizens.
  Mr. President, there is an old cliche that the truth is often 
stranger than fiction. I think that is the case here.
  The United States has more effective mechanisms to protect fish and 
marine life than it has to protect Americans who have property stolen. 
We have statutes on the books to protect dolphins from tuna fishermen 
even when those provisions violate trade agreements. Other nations are 
required by U.S. law to protect sea turtles in order to continue having 
access to U.S. markets. Yet opponents of the Libertad bill object to 
protecting the legitimate interests of U.S. citizens.
  Mr. President, property rights are the core of investments and 
commerce historically and forever.
  I was recently in Nicaragua and had discussions with the Chamarro 
government, which was struggling to deal with property rights following 
the fall of the Sandinistas. Until they got that straight, there would 
be no investment.
  There will never be a rebuilt Cuba without property adjudication--
never.
  Mr. President, this legislation moves to the center of the debate the 
issue of property rights and international treatment of property 
rights. I believe it is benchmark legislation. I believe it is 
legislation that can initiate positive new developments; that the scope 
and the breadth of it, as it moves the issue of property rights 
forward, will not only serve the citizens of the United States but the 
international community in general as we globally deal with the issue 
of property rights and the victims of property thefts. This is a 
singular case that demands our attention as it relates to Fidel Castro, 
his dictatorship, and the brutality of his regime.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from 
Texas for a period of up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Can we make that 10?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Can we use 5 minutes and come back?
  Mr. GRAMM. All right.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, 50 years ago today Winston Churchill came 
to America to a tiny college in the middle of the Midwest--to 
Westminster College--and gave a speech that awakened America and the 
world to a crisis. We all know that speech. We all remember it from our 
childhood, or reading about it in history books. He talked about the 
descending of an iron curtain across the face of Europe. And, while the 
cold war was already underway, that speech probably more than anything 
else awakened America and the world to the Soviet threat.
  We started to respond with the policy of containment. We responded by 
building up NATO and SEATO. We responded by fighting in Korea and 
Vietnam. We responded with the Marshall plan and the Truman plan to 
expand trade and work toward free trade. Our policies won the cold war, 
tore down the Berlin Wall, liberated Eastern Europe, and transformed 
the Soviet Union. We won one of the greatest victories in the history 
of mankind.
  But there still is important unfinished business from the cold war. 
Communist China is in transition, and so is Vietnam. But there are two 
Communist regimes on this planet that are totally unchanged, that still 
believe in Marxism and Leninism, that still are committed to everything 
that we oppose in the world. One of those regimes is the military 
dictatorship in North Korea. The other is Fidel Castro's Cuba.
  For 3 years, Bill Clinton has coddled both of those regimes. We have 
a policy in place today to give, through an international consortium, 
$4 billion to North Korea to build for them two nuclear powerplants 
even though there is no evidence whatsoever that either of the existing 
nuclear powerplants in North Korea was ever used to generate a watt of 
electricity or ever had any purpose other than building nuclear 
weapons. We are today supplying oil through that consortium to North 
Korea and propping up a Communist regime.
  President Clinton for 3 years has coddled Fidel Castro. He announced 
a policy last year that enforced the imprisonment of the Cuban people--
that actually used the United States Navy to enforce the imprisonment 
of the Cuban people. The United States Navy was given the assignment by 
the President of the United States to pick up people who risk their 
lives to flee Communist oppression from Cuba, put them in American 
naval vessels, and then turn those people back over to Fidel Castro. 
The President set out a policy that opened the door for nongovernment 
organizations to establish a presence in Cuba and in the process 
started what Fidel Castro believed, and the world believed, was a 
movement toward normalization. Voices were raised in Congress in 
opposition to the President's policy. Both the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia and I spoke out against it, as did many others.
  We now see the fruit of that policy, and the fruit of that policy is 
that Fidel Castro brutally murdered four Americans. We have the tapes 
of the communications from the MiG's as they talked to their home base, 
identifying civilian planes with no armament. We have the tapes of 
those conversations when they then boasted how they were going to 
destroy these planes. On an order from their home base, they fired the 
missiles that killed four American citizens.
  We are now considering a bill to change our relationship with 
Castro's Cuba and bring it back to what it has always been; that is, a 
policy of strong opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield an additional 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, our position expressed with this bill goes 
back to what our position has been with regard to Fidel Castro since 
the early days of that brutal regime. Our position is founded on the 
recognition that Fidel Castro is a brutal dictator and murderer and 
that his regime in Cuba must end.
  Our position under Democrat and Republican administrations has always 
been--until the Clinton administration--a commitment to the isolation 
of Castro's Cuba, and a commitment to seeing the overthrow of Fidel 
Castro and his accomplices.
  Today with this bill, we restore that policy and we hit Fidel Castro 
where it hurts the most. We hit him in the pocketbook. We allow 
Americans to sue those who buy their property stolen by Castro, to sue 
those who are trafficking in stolen goods. With this bill we allow 
Americans to sue international interests in American courts to recover 
damages. The effective result of that will be that private investors 
will think two and three times before they bring their investment money 
to Castro's Cuba.

[[Page S1482]]

  Let me also say, Mr. President, that there is more that we can do. I 
think the President ought to act unilaterally to deny Americans the 
ability to send money to Castro's Cuba.
  While it is true that allowing people to send money to their 
relatives provides some temporary assistance to them, some relief to 
them, those funds, that hard currency also props up Castro's Cuba, 
allowing Castro to continue his imprisonment of the people. It prolongs 
their misery, and in my opinion that should be ended.
  I believe that we should demand that Cuba turn over the two pilots 
who fired the missiles, turn over the air traffic controller who gave 
the order to fire, and turn over anyone in the chain of command who was 
engaged in giving the orders or carrying those orders that killed four 
Americans. As we did in Iraq, as we have done in Bosnia, I think we 
need to declare a no-fly zone over Cuba for military aircraft until 
those people are turned over, and I think we ought to enforce that no-
fly zone.
  I believe we need to recommit ourselves to the principle that Fidel 
Castro and his regime will not survive the end of the 20th century. 
What a terrible tragedy it would be if this tidal wave of freedom which 
has covered the planet is allowed to subside before it drowns Fidel 
Castro. I think we have in these brutal murders a new example to remind 
us again of who Fidel Castro is and what he stands for, and I believe 
we should dedicate ourselves to the principle that the 20th century 
will not end and find the Castro dictatorship intact in Cuba.
  This bill is a step forward. I urge the President to take other 
actions, such as to cut off cash transfers to Cuba by American 
citizens, to demand that the pilots and the air traffic controllers who 
were responsible for the death of four Americans be turned over, along 
with anyone in the chain of command who gave or carried out those 
orders. I think we ought to enforce that with a no-fly zone.
  I congratulate our colleagues from Georgia and North Carolina for 
their leadership on this bill. This is long overdue. We should have 
made this bill the law of the land last year. I remind my colleagues 
and the American people that up until the last few days President 
Clinton fought this bill and threatened to veto this bill. He thought 
his policy of coddling Fidel Castro was working. He thought a movement 
toward normalization of relations with Castro's Cuba could be 
successful. We now know what the fruits of that policy were: death for 
four Americans. I say enough is enough. Let us restore freedom and 
democracy to Cuba. Let us do it in this century. Starting with this 
bill let us get serious.
  I thank our colleague for yielding to me.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from New Mexico 3 
minutes to speak in support of the conference report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to support the conference report 
of H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I commend 
Senator Helms and Congressman Burton for their foresight and fortitude 
in tackling the Castro regime.
  On Saturday, February 24, two Cuban MiG fighter jets shot down two 
civilian, unarmed Cessna aircraft off the coast of Cuba. The Cuban 
pilots gave the Cessnas no warning. These planes were operated by 
Brothers to the Rescue, a group based in Miami whose mission is to look 
for Cuban refugees floating toward the United States.
  The Havana government has failed to provide proof that the Cessnas 
were in Cuban airspace, but never mind that. No country has the right 
to shoot down civilian planes. Cuba even adopted the 1983 international 
rules stating that there is never a justification for such actions.
  These planes posed no threat to Cuba's security. They were unarmed on 
a nonviolent humanitarian mission, and the Cuban Government knew it. To 
respond with deadly force is a shamelessly cruel act. This is cold-
blooded murder and shows Fidel Castro's total disregard for human life 
as an alleged attempt to enforce Cuban sovereignty.
  My deepest sympathy goes out to the families and friends of the four 
pilots killed.
  Mr. President, some politicians and businessmen were encouraged over 
this past year, encouraged that Castro and Cuba were reforming and open 
to a warmer United States relationship. But we should not have been 
surprised by Cuba's latest crime against the United States. Castro is a 
ruthless dictator and we must stop underestimating him.
  No matter how open the Cuban economy becomes, Castro never will 
change. A dictator who enforces doctrines through the secret police, 
firing squads, taking political prisoners, confiscating property, and 
limiting the basic rights of Cuban citizens. Only a brutal and vicious 
dictator could justify the murder of these four unarmed pilots all to 
counter the threat the Brothers to the Rescue makes on his cruel, 
authoritarian government.
  Our best chance to oust Fidel Castro from power is now. The Cuban 
economy is in a crisis and Castro's totalitarian leadership has been 
threatened. H.R. 927 is our chance to exert more pressure on Mr. 
Castro, on the Cuban economy, and on those aiding the Cuban economy by 
trafficking in confiscated United States property.
  Within 2 weeks of taking power in 1959, Castro issued his 
constitutional amendment authorizing the confiscation of property. In 
the following 2 years, Castro demolished private property rights by 
expropriating all businesses in Cuba owned by United States citizens, 
nationalizing industries owned by United States companies, and 
confiscating personal property of Cubans who left the country.
  No compensation has been made in any U.S. claim in 37 years. Instead 
Castro has energetically promoted the exploitation of this stolen 
property by third-country joint ventures and foreign investment in 
order to sustain its faltering economy. These joint ventures have 
abounded, but to the benefit of Castro, not to the Cuban people whose 
labor is exploited. The Cuban Government has used the exploitation of 
working people and the absence of individual human rights as a lure to 
attract investors.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 927 because it would stop 
such deals and stop the resources Castro needs to restrain his ruthless 
and repressive regime.
  Might I say to my friend from Texas, Senator Gramm, I listened to 
part of his remarks, and I commend him for them. I think the Senator 
would share with me a concern about the very strange situation that in 
the United States we are bragging about. The world is moving toward 
democracy and free enterprise and private property rights--we kind of 
call it Pax Americana. Everybody is moving in that direction, and 
everybody is saying we are going to have a better life for billions of 
people than we ever thought we would have had 10 years ago when the 
potential for Communist dictatorships was very prevalent throughout the 
world. Is it not strange that right off our coastline sits a Communist 
dictator who is still in power, still in office while his people 
suffer, while his economy deteriorates, while people have no chance 
there of freedom and individual opportunity and individual rights?
  I am sorry that it takes this kind of incident for the U.S. 
Government to become serious about doing everything in its power to 
erase that dictatorship from the face of the Earth.
  This bill will push in that direction, but obviously this country 
also requires sustained leadership at the top levels of our Government. 
Leadership that will not bend its ideas to any concept that Castro is 
going to reform, and that things are going to work out in some normal 
way. We have to lend ourselves in legitimate ways to getting rid of 
this dictator and letting those people be free.
  Can you imagine what is going to happen to that country when they are 
free and when enterprise is alive again? Just go to Florida and see 
what those people who have escaped this yoke are doing. Cubans will do 
the same in their country once they are free, but for now they cannot.
  Today, Cubans are prisoners in their own country.
  Again, I compliment the committee for what they have done in this 
bill and urge that the President sign it. I think that is what the 
Senator is saying, and perhaps that is not even enough, but let us get 
started today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from

[[Page S1483]]

Florida to speak in support of the conference report.
  (Mr. FRIST assumed the chair.)
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in support of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity Act, H.R. 927. I am proud that I was an original cosponsor 
of this bill and to have worked in support of its passage.
  I commend my colleagues, particularly Senator Helms and Congressmen 
Burton, Diaz-Balart, and Menendez, and Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen for 
their efforts.
  This bill reflects the heartfelt desire of many Americans to see the 
end of the tyranny and decades-long repression Castro has inflicted on 
his people. Make no mistake: The killing of the four Brothers to the 
Rescue was not out of character for Fidel Castro. The Cuban 
Government's heinous conduct reminded the world of Fidel Castro's true 
colors.
  I might just say to those who take the opportunity to read about 
Fidel Castro's history, you will find that those words I just mentioned 
about not being out of character are quite accurate. The Cuban 
Government's heinous conduct, as I said a moment ago, reminded the 
world of his true colors. The brutal murder of unarmed Brothers to the 
Rescue occurred on a weekend when a prodemocracy and human rights group 
was to conduct an organizational meeting before Castro stopped it. 
Scores of Cubans affiliated with the group have been arrested, detained 
and harassed. In 1994, a tugboat with freedom-seeking Cubans was rammed 
by Cuban Government ships until it sank. Year after year, Cuba has had 
one of the world's worst human rights records.
  It is time for tough talk to give way to tough actions. Guided by the 
principle that freedom is the core of all human progress, the bill 
contains provisions designed to isolate Fidel Castro, squeeze him from 
power and usher in an era of democracy and freedom.
  In the best spirit of the American people, this legislation holds out 
the prospect of United States aid to transition and democratic 
governments in Cuba.
  America will be there as soon as we can but not a moment before the 
long nightmare of the Castro regime is ended. So long as Fidel Castro 
is in power, United States hard currency, financing and other kinds of 
support will not go to the Cuban regime. We know that Castro uses the 
hard currency he gets from foreign investment to support the 
instruments of power and repression, and that must stop.
  President Clinton last week finally agreed so support the Cuban 
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. His support for the bill is 
welcome, if overdue. I am sorry it took the tragic murder of four 
pilots to focus the administration's mind on this bill.
  Castro's efforts to intimidate the United States through onslaughts 
of refugees and now through the brutal and calculated shooting down of 
civilian humanitarian planes have come during Democratic 
administrations when Cuban policy has been weakened. It was incumbent 
upon President Clinton to stop delaying the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act. Anything less would have been a travesty and 
dishonored the lives of the Brothers to the Rescue who lost their 
lives.
  With the President's agreement and with his call to congressional 
Democrats to support the legislation, America's long history of 
bipartisan opposition to tyranny in Cuba has been restored.
  The bill that passed the House-Senate conference is even stronger 
than the bill that first passed the House. It contains the extremely 
important provisions of title III which deny Castro the ability to 
profit from illegally confiscated properties of Americans.
  It also contains title IV's powerful provisions denying U.S. visas to 
individuals who traffic in confiscated property.
  Although the bill gives waiver authority to the President, President 
Clinton will be hard pressed to find conditions that merit waiving the 
title III provisions.
  It took tremendous pressure from the Congress to make the President 
accept title III. He will face the same pressure again should he 
attempt to delay the effect of title III's right to sue.
  The bill also provides that all provisions of the United States 
embargo against Cuba will be codified in law, ensuring that the embargo 
will be preserved until a democratic transition is underway in Cuba.
  All existing Cuban embargo Executive orders and regulations will now 
be signed into law. This is a major victory for the opponents of the 
Castro regime. No longer can President Clinton react unilaterally to a 
supposed reform in Cuba and lift a sanction here or there. No longer 
can administration wavering on the embargo threaten the historic policy 
of isolating the repressive Cuban regime.
  When President Clinton announced measures in reaction to the shooting 
down of American citizens, he said they were a first step, and they had 
better be. While Ambassador Albright's performance at the United 
Nations was commendable, the administration must do more to convince 
our allies to impose an international embargo against Cuba and treat 
Fidel Castro as an outcast. His record deserves nothing less.
  The fight must be taken up in every capital around the world. I 
believe our allies would respond to a sincere and concerted effort to 
win our cooperation in the embargo. Our Government must make the case 
that foreign investment perpetuates a dictatorship bent on brutality 
and repression, and it must stop.
  I thank the President's support of the Libertad bill. Now he must 
take our Cuba policy to another level--to make it a priority with our 
allies to stop foreign investment in Cuba for the life of the Castro 
regime. I promise you, without that foreign investment, Castro's regime 
of repression cannot stand. It will be all that much sooner when the 
Cuban people can create a new society of freedom, justice, democracy 
and the protection of basic human rights.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice to those who have 
expressed their outrage about the Cuban Government's reckless and 
calloused shooting down of two small, unarmed civilian aircraft flown 
by the exile humanitarian group, Brothers to the Rescue. These 
shootings, which took place on the 24th of February, are deplorable, 
and I endorse the President's efforts to console and aid the families 
of those who died in this tragedy.
  But as heinous as this shooting was, it does not justify the passage 
of wrongheaded legislation. Everything that was wrong with the Helms-
Burton legislation before the incident remains wrong today.
  I am reminded of the words of former Chief Justice Oliver Wendell 
Holmes who, in a dissenting decision, stated as follows:

       Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases 
     are called great, not by reason of their real importance in 
     shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident 
     of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the 
     feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate interests 
     exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what 
     previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even 
     well settled principles of law will bend.

  Mr. President, the shooting of these planes have created, in Justice 
Holmes' words ``overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and 
distorts the judgment.'' We in the Senate are feeling that ``hydraulic 
pressure'' to which Justice Holmes referred. Senator Helms and others 
who have stated that the message of this bill is ``Farewell, Fidel,'' 
are ignoring the utter failure of 35 years of our embargo against Cuba.
  Rather, the Helms-Burton legislation is now being adopted and 
embraced by both parties and, unfortunately, by the President in a bid 
to curry favor with the Cuban-American community. As I have argued 
before on this floor, the passage of this bill will harm rather than 
help American interests in Cuba. It will restrict this President and 
any future President's hand in conducting foreign policy with an 
important neighboring nation and in responding to events quickly when 
the need arises. And it will codify in law an Executive order imposing 
an economic embargo on Cuba that has clearly failed.
  Our Nation's foreign policy is rife with anachronisms, and I cannot 
support helping to reinforce and entrench in our foreign policy such an 
outmoded and regressive policy as is reflected in this bill.

[[Page S1484]]

  In October of last year, the President announced a plan that received 
much bipartisan praise. The President promised to more vigorously 
enforce laws against unlicensed travel to Cuba, but to broaden support 
for cultural, intellectual and educational exchange in a way that the 
people of Cuba could encounter more frequently and broadly the fruits 
of democracy at work in the United States.
  The President stated that he would license non-Government 
organizations to operate in Cuba, to provide information and to provide 
emergency relief when needed, to provide the necessary infrastructure 
to help guide Cuba and its people toward democracy in the future.
  The President also noted that Cuban-Americans with relatives still in 
Cuba would be permitted to visit Cuba to tend to family crises and that 
these one-time-per-year licenses to visit would not be stymied by the 
delays and management problems that frustrate American citizens 
attempting to get to Cuba when a family emergency hits.
  These steps were important ones and they did not strengthen Castro's 
hand. What these provisions did was to help bond the people of Cuba to 
the people of the United States. For 35 years, we have tried to bring 
Fidel Castro down with heavy-handed tactics. One would think that 
during such a long period of time, we might have figured out that our 
policy had completely failed. We need a new direction, and it must 
involve building bridges with the Cuban people.
  The Helms-Burton legislation will only injure and alienate ordinary 
Cubans, weaken Cuba's civil society, and retard Cuba's democratization. 
And the unprecedented effort to impose United States policies on other 
countries will make it more difficult for the United States Government 
to cooperate with its allies in fashioning a joint approach towards 
Cuba.
  The problems with the bill before us are summed up well in an article 
this week by Walter Russell Mead in the New Yorker. Let me just quote a 
couple of sentences from that article. He says:

       Now President Clinton has agreed to sign the so-called 
     Helms-Burton bill--a piece of legislation that will cement 
     the embargo into law and deprive the President of the option 
     of modulating it for diplomatic purposes. It will also permit 
     lawsuits in American courts against Canadian, Mexican, 
     European and other foreign companies whose Cuban investments 
     involve the use of expropriated property--a category broad 
     enough to include virtually every activity in Cuba. Moreover, 
     the officers of these companies will be ineligible for 
     American visas . . .
       . . . Fidel Castro has survived the enmity of nine American 
     Presidents. In concert with his enemies in South Florida, he 
     retains a hypnotic ability to induce stupidity in Yankee 
     policymakers. That seems unlikely to change until the United 
     States Government gets around to taking control of its Cuba 
     policy away from a small, self-interested lobby group.

  Mr. President, this bill is an anachronism that ties America to a 
past from which it needs to move on. America is the only industrial 
power in the world maintaining an economic embargo against Cuba. It is 
time we consider a new course. The shooting down of two civilian 
aircraft was a great tragedy that we all should mourn, but as Chief 
Justice Holmes warned, we need to stand strong against the ``hydraulic 
pressure'' of momentary events that evidently will cause this Congress 
to enact this very misguided law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from 
Georgia and also the Senator from North Carolina for bringing forward 
the Libertad Act, which is a very appropriate act in light of what has 
happened recently in Cuba, but it is more appropriate in light of what 
has happened in the last 37 years.
  This is not an event of momentary instance, as was just referred to 
by the Senator from New Mexico, in my opinion. This is a problem that 
has existed and confronted this country for 37 years, and we have 
failed to take the aggressive action we should have to relieve the 
Cuban people of the dictatorship which has oppressed them in the last 
37 years.
  The least we can do as a nation is not aid and abet the activities of 
Fidel Castro and his actions, which have been to oppress his people, by 
giving him economic assistance and by giving him psychological support. 
This bill makes it very clear that no longer shall we give Cuba 
economic assistance in any way, indirectly or directly. We will no 
longer allow our citizens, American citizens, to have their property 
expropriated and mismanaged by this illegal and criminal government 
which now governs Cuba, but rather we will say clearly to the world 
that you have to choose between a democracy of America and American 
citizens whose rights are being abused, and in the instances of 2 weeks 
ago actually being killed, at the hands of this dictatorship, or you 
can choose the Government of Cuba operated by a dictator.
  That is what this bill essentially says. It says to the world it is 
time to choose up in this confrontation. Unfortunately, this 
administration has had a schizophrenic, almost bumper-car approach to 
its foreign policy, but also on its policy to Cuba, it almost looks as 
if with Cuba they are looking through the eyes of the radical chic, the 
1960's view of the world, which still views Castro as some sort of 
character of sympathy or character of international quality, whereas, 
in fact, he has proven himself over 37 years to be nothing more than a 
petty 2-cent dictator who has oppressed his people for his own personal 
gain.
  Yet, this administration is not willing to face up to that, or has 
not been until American citizens lives were lost. Now we are going to 
give this administration and this country some teeth to come forward 
and say to Cuba, ``No longer will we tolerate your form of government 
and to support the Cuban people and especially Cuban Americans who have 
lost their property in that nation.''
  So I want to commend again this bill, and I want to commend the 
authors of this bill. I was one of the original coauthors of this bill. 
I strongly support its initiatives, and I congratulate the Senator from 
North Carolina and the Senator from Georgia for bringing it forward 
today. I hope we will pass it overwhelmingly, send it to the White 
House, and we will finally see a definitive course from the White House 
by their signing this piece of legislation.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I believe we all want to promote a peaceful 
transition to democracy and economic liberalization in Cuba. Where we 
clearly differ is on how we get there.
  Despite the recent tragic loss of life in the shootdown of two 
unarmed civilian aircraft by the Cuban Air Force, I continue to believe 
that the Cuba legislation before us takes us further away from 
achieving the goal of democracy and economic reform on the island of 
Cuba.
  If anything, the conference agreement takes us even further down that 
wrong road than either the House- or Senate-passed versions of the bill 
did.
  It is naive, in my view, to think that this bill or any sanctions 
legislation we might pass will succeed in forcing Castro to step aside 
when all similar actions in the past over many, many years have failed.
  All we are likely to ensure is that the living conditions of the 
Cuban people are made even worse, making a mass exodus from for Miami 
the only attractive option. Taken to its most extreme, this bill could 
even provoke serious violence on the island.
  In some ways, 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 and Cuban relations. It now 
allows that our foreign allies and friends can be sued in American 
courts for undertaking activities totally lawful in their own 
countries. It mandates that the Secretary of State deny entry into the 
United States those foreign businessmen and women and their families. 
Clearly, these measures can only alienate our allies and undermine 
American global foreign policy objectives.
  Thirty-five years of policies of United States isolation have failed 
to change Castro, or convince our allies of the wisdom of our policy. 
Is it not time to try something else? I think of the success we had in 
Eastern Europe, when

[[Page S1485]]

freedom, free thinking and democracy came over those countries as they 
opened. Is it not time to try a similar approach in Cuba, particularly 
when we think that it has now been 35 years that we have been trying 
this approach and we have had absolutely no success?
  We are just about where we were--a little worse off with our 
relationship--35 years ago.
  I continue to hold the view that contact and dialog between Havana 
and Washington is more likely to 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, which virtually none of them do at this time.
  The bill before us has gone through a number of changes since it was 
first introduced. However, no version to date resolves the fundamental 
problem that I have with the direction it takes U.S. policy. It take us 
further down the road and leads to no where rather than reversing 
course, as we should have done years ago and can still do, and open up. 
When we have a free exchange of ideas in which we have free competition 
between democratic ideas and Communist ideas, democracy usually, one 
can say always, wins out.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I recognize this bill is going to pass, and 
I recognize the President is going to sign it. It is bad legislation. 
It is an emotional reaction to a situation that, obviously, all 
Americans are unhappy about. The action of Castro in shooting down 
those planes is indefensible. I have to add, our policy toward Cuba has 
been the basic cause of the friction. If that policy had changed a long 
time ago, those planes would not have been shot down.

  I will take two examples--Cuba and China. Will anyone here suggest--
and I do not for a moment defend the human rights policies of Fidel 
Castro--but does anyone here suggest that Cuba's human rights policy is 
worse than China's? Yet, what do we do? We say to China, ``We are going 
to give you the MFN status, the favorable treatment on trade.'' When 
China growls, as the Presiding Officer knows, we quake.
  I think it is a bad policy to have one policy like this on China and 
another totally different policy on Castro, who is not a threat to 
anybody. How many nations in the world follow the policy that we do on 
Cuba? None. Not even our good friend, Israel, who frequently, probably 
sometimes in embarrassment, votes with the United States. No nation 
follows our policy on Cuba. It just does not make sense.
  Stephen Chapman had an op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune--he is a 
regular columnist there--in which he quotes Senator Dole as saying:

       ``Firmness and pressure'' is what we have to use against 
     Cuba. He says, ``Firmness and pressure are what the United 
     States has used against Castro since he came to power in 
     1959, and if they had succeeded, we wouldn't be dealing with 
     him today. The Cuban dictator has outlasted eight American 
     presidents, and the odds are good that Bill Clinton will also 
     leave office long before Castro does. By any conceivable 
     standard, our efforts to bring down his regime or force him 
     into democratic reforms have been a monumental failure.''

  No question about it. If in the old days of the Soviet Union, the 
Soviets and Castro had gotten together and said, ``How can we design 
American policy so Fidel Castro can stay in power,'' they could not 
have designed a better policy than the United States followed. It is 
absolutely self-defeating.
  It is interesting how we treat two different incidents. Belorussia 
shot down two American balloonists--innocent balloonists. We protested. 
Belorussia apologized. The incident has been forgotten. Now, there are 
differences. One is that Cuba has not apologized, which they should. 
But the other difference is, those balloonists were completely 
innocent. They were not trying to overthrow the Government of 
Belorussia.
  It is a different situation, but the response is obviously an 
emotional response on our part. Foreign policy ought to represent 
national interests and not national passion. What our policy toward 
Cuba represents is national passion, rather than national interests and 
a desire to get those electoral votes in Florida.
  Now, both parties are guilty. I recognize that. That is not the way 
you ought to make foreign policy.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. It does not make sense.
  The bill that is before the Senate, among other things, codifies 
existing sanctions. That means, and I say to my colleague from Georgia 
and I say to my colleague from Wyoming, if Bob Dole is elected 
President of the United States and wants some flexibility in dealing 
with Cuba, we have taken that away. I think we ought to leave 
flexibility in the hands of the President of the United States.
  Canada's Trade Minister, quoting in the Washington Post:

       ``If the United States wants to get at Cuba, that's one 
     thing. But what they are doing here is contrary to the 
     relationship we have had with them and it is a violation of 
     NAFTA.'' That is the Trade Minister of Canada.

  I read, and I regret I did not cut out an article by a woman 
professor who is a Cuban exile who said we are just playing into 
Castro's hands. What he wants is for the United States to beat up on 
Castro so he can say, ``I am standing up to this big bully.''
  In the Washington Post, March 3, Louis F. Desloge had an article in 
which he says, talking about this bill, ``They may very well achieve 
just the opposite of what they seek by buttressing, not undermining, 
Castro's support at home and weakening, not strengthening, the 
embargo's prohibition on trade with Cuba.''
  This is a Cuban-American exile. This whole thing just does not make 
sense. The only thing that makes sense is yielding to the national 
passion and yielding to electoral politics. It is not good foreign 
policy. I will vote against it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me thank my colleagues, Senator Pell of Rhode Island, Senator 
Bingaman of New Mexico, and my colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, 
for their statements here this morning.
  Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to this 
legislation. This piece of legislation before us is truly just a bad 
proposal, Mr. President. The unfortunate part of it is that it comes in 
the wake of a tragedy of significant proportions in the Straits of 
Florida. That is what makes it so difficult to act sensibly.
  Obviously, the authors of the legislation had a difficult time, over 
a year or so, moving this bill forward for the obvious reasons that the 
bill is so flawed substantively that many Members were reluctant to 
sign on to it. However, in the wake of what I call a terrorist act in 
the straits of Florida by a rogue government attacking innocent pilots 
and unarmed planes, it is virtually impossible at this point to have an 
intelligent discussion about the specifics of this bill.
  I suspect that today this measure will pass overwhelmingly, and I 
feel that is a great tragedy. I think it will come back to haunt us 
terribly. With the provisions of this bill--we are carving out 
exceptions that will create a nightmare for us in our Federal courts, 
in our consular offices, in our relations with our friends and allies--
I will go through the reasons why here this morning.
  I certainly want to begin my remarks, Mr. President, by saying to my 
colleagues and others, and particularly to the families of these young 
men who lost their lives at the hands of an armed MiG attacking single-
engine planes, Piper-Cubs how much I regret that violent act. To me it 
does not matter whether they were flying over Havana. It is inexcusable 
for a heavily armed plane to attack unarmed commercial private planes 
under any circumstances.
  The debate ought not be about whether or not we are all horrified and 
angry over what happened a week ago Saturday in the straits of Florida. 
That is not the debate. I think people agree with the President's 
actions--he spoke out clearly on this issue immediately. I want to 
applaud Madeleine Albright, our Ambassador at the United Nations, who 
did a remarkable job. Getting the People's Republic of China to agree 
to a statement of condemnation was no small feat considering the 
relationship that exists between Cuba and the PRC. The fact she was 
able to

[[Page S1486]]

do that speaks volumes about her ability as our Ambassador.
  I regret we did not build on that particular momentum and seek to 
expand the support within the United Nations for other joint 
initiatives which might have had even a greater effect on Cuban 
behavior. As we all know, every time there has been an issue in the 
United Nations on the Cuban embargo, we get two or three votes in 
support of our policy and that is it. We get clobbered on this issue. I 
suspect as a result of the legislation we are about to adopt here today 
that will be the case once again. Instead of building on Ambassador 
Albright's efforts, the Security Council will now squander that 
particular achievement.
  Mr. President, again, I do not take a back seat to anybody when it 
comes to condemnation of this act. I do not take a back seat to anyone 
in my desire to see change in Cuba. It is a dictatorship. No other way 
to describe it. That is what it is. Our hope is that democracy will 
come to this island as the last nation in this hemisphere to be denied 
the opportunity of its own people to choose its own leadership.
  In the strongest of possible terms, Mr. President, I would say to my 
colleagues that I carry no brief for the Cuban Government--none 
whatsoever. Nor do any of my colleagues who join me in opposition to 
this bill. Our opposition to this legislation is rooted in something 
that each and every one of us ought to ask ourselves when we consider 
any bill that comes before the Congress, particularly one involving 
international relations: Is it good for my country first and foremost? 
It is not about Cuba, not about Castro, not about others. It is 
strictly is it good for us? What does it do to my country? I am a U.S. 
Senator; I am not a Senator for any particular group. I am not a 
Senator for any particular nation except my own.
  So the first, threshold question is: What does this bill do to my 
people, to my country, to my interests?
  I will make the case here this morning that this bill is devastating 
to my people and to my country. It is foolish. Despite the obvious 
emotion surrounding what happened last week, we ought to be looking 
carefully at the contents of this measure. There is a reason why the 
Senate is a deliberate body--why we follow a process here.
  The consideration of this bill has been anything but deliberative. We 
had no markup of this bill in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
not a markup of this bill. We held a hearing on a very early version of 
the bill and no followup hearings once the legislation had been 
significantly altered. The bill itself came directly to the Senate 
floor without any vote to report it from the committee of jurisdiction.
  Normally, on a bill of this significance, this magnitude, considering 
what an exception we are creating in law, you would have thought we 
would have had extensive hearings and a markup in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. That was not the case. The conference was 
similarly conducted with the proponents of the bill working behind 
closed doors to produce yet another version of the bill.
  By the way, the bill has been changed at least four times on the 
Senate side alone. Similarly the final conference agreement is 
decidedly different than either the House or Senate passed bills I am 
sure my colleagues have not read all the details of it. I do not expect 
them to; they are busy. Nonetheless, we are about to vote on something 
here that is just bad law.
  There is a reason why we take our time in the U.S. Senate. It is 
because we do not want to react to the emotion of the moment. We have 
seen too many occasions, historically, when this body, because of the 
emotions of the moment, has passed legislation and looked back only 
weeks later and wondered what it was doing at the time. If this is a 
good bill, it will be a good bill a week from now, a month from now, 6 
months from now. If it is a bad piece of legislation, it does not 
change. Taking a few days, which we are not going to have, to analyze 
the implications of enacting this measure into law, how it will affect 
our country, is the least we ought to be able to do.
  I will make a case here--by the way, for the many people who showed 
up in the Orange Bowl the other day who may have claims, against the 
Cuban Government who think that they are going to be able to seek 
compensation once this bill becomes law. They may not know it, but many 
of them are excluded from exercising the right of private action 
included in this bill.
  Pay attention, Cuban-Americans, pay attention. The majority of you 
are probably not going to be benefit from this legislation. It is the 
fat cats who are going to get the money, not you. Pay attention to this 
bill and pay attention to those who would seek to have this legislation 
passed and what their interests are.
  So, again, I regret we are moving as quickly here as we are, carving 
out unique and special pieces of legislation that I think will come 
back to haunt us very, very quickly.
  Mr. President, let me take some time here, if I can, just to go over 
some of the provisions contained in the conference agreement. I 
probably have had more time than some of my colleagues to follow the 
changes that have been made in this legislation. In my view, the 
fundamental premises of this legislation remain fatally flawed; namely, 
that it will strangle Fidel Castro, causing him to scream ``uncle'' and 
step down; that our allies will be bludgeoned--we are going to beat up 
our allies--into going along with this approach; and that there will be 
no negative consequences to the United States, to the American people, 
or to the myriad other outstanding foreign policy concerns that we have 
in common with our allies around the globe.
  It may seem trite to say this, Mr. President, but I believe, as I 
said a moment ago, that our legislative process as it has evolved with 
experience exists to protect citizens from bad laws. There is a reason 
that we normally hold hearings on legislative proposals and conduct 
markups to examine highly complex issues. There is a reason we seek to 
take testimony from recognized experts on the implications of a 
measure, intended or unintended. There is a reason that our Founding 
Fathers provided for the possibility of extended debate in the U.S. 
Senate. We all know why. It is to try to at least protect against the 
passage of bad laws.
  In the case of this legislation, we have short-circuited that 
process, particularly in the U.S. Senate. Most Members of this body, 
let alone the general public, do not have the vaguest idea what is in 
this legislation before us. The conference report was only available 
yesterday--and on a very limited basis, I might point out.
  Suffice it to say, the final version of the Helms-Burton bill is 
worse than the previous versions that passed either body of this 
Congress last year. I fear many of us are going to be in for a surprise 
once legal experts and others have an opportunity to review this bill. 
Unfortunately, that will not happen until it has already become law.
  As I said on numerous occasions, the stated purposes of the 
legislation are laudable. I do not have any debate with what the 
purposes are: to assist the Cuban people in regaining their freedom and 
prosperity, to encourage the holding of free and fair elections, and to 
protect American nationals' property against confiscatory takings by 
the Castro regime. We all agree on that. That is not what is at issue. 
Unfortunately, the conferees on this measure adopted legislation that 
will not make any of this achievable.
  We only have a couple of hours to make the case against this bill. I 
will attempt to do that this morning. I would say that I believe we 
would all have been better served had outside analysts had an 
opportunity to review and comment on this measure before we vote. That 
isn't going to be possible.
  Let me begin by highlighting some of the more problematic provisions 
in the final conference agreement that were in neither the House bill 
nor the Senate-passed bill as it came out of conference.
  First among these is codification in law of all current embargo 
regulations. Let me point out here, this is unique, what we are about 
to do here and pass here. To the best of my knowledge we have never 
codified in law outstanding regulations and executive orders targeted 
at Libya, Iran, Iraq, China, Vietnam, North Korea--none of these 
countries. We are now going to say, with regard to Cuba, that all of 
the sanctions and regulations are now going to be codified into law. 
Senator Simon of Illinois was making this point. Any effort

[[Page S1487]]

on the part of this President or future Presidents to in any way modify 
what are normally executive branch decisions when it comes to economic 
sanctions can occur only once we enact a law to change them until 
democracy has come to Cuba. We have never taken such a draconian action 
anyplace else in the world. This is really going far beyond anything we 
have ever done. As angry as we were about what happened to our hostages 
in Iran, as angry as we were about what happened in Iraq, as angry as 
we are about what could happen in North Korea, or as we watch the human 
rights abuses in China, yet Presidents have had the flexibility to deal 
with those situations through executive orders and the promulgation of 
regulations.
  In the case of Cuba that isn't tough enough. Read the bill; we codify 
these sanctions. That is unwise foreign policy. It is unwise. Yet the 
emotions of the moment are carrying us along here. We are going to be 
looking back in a matter of days and saying, ``My Lord, what did we do 
here by doing that?''
  So that is my first concern. I urge my colleagues to look at section 
102(h) of the conference agreement. We have never, in my view, done 
that before. We have imposed a lot of sanctions and done a lot of 
things, but codifying them all into law is, I think, very dangerous. 
With the codification of the embargo regulations we have tied the hands 
of this and future Presidents, as I said a moment ago, in their efforts 
to respond flexibly to changes that we hope will occur in Havana. None 
of us knows for sure if they will. They may not. But if they do, 
Presidents ought to have the ability to respond to that. Make no 
mistake about what this codification does. It sidelines, our Government 
as a participant in facilitating positive change in Cuba for the 
foreseeable future.
  Let me turn to what I believe is the most troublesome provision in 
this conference report, and that is title III. This title, which was 
deleted from the Senate-passed version, grants a private right of 
action to some individuals who have had property expropriated by Fidel 
Castro. While the sponsors have tinkered with this title continuously 
in response to criticisms leveled against it, the essence of this title 
remains fundamentally the same and, therefore, continues to be 
objectionable.
  Instead of the United States utilizing the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission to validate the claims of American citizens and the U.S. 
Government to then espouse those claims with the foreign government 
that has taken U.S. citizens' property to obtain compensation--which, 
by the way, has been the practice for more than 40 years,--our Federal 
court system, the Federal court system, now will be given the role of 
effecting compensation for expropriated property claims.
  By the way, the historic treatment by the United States of 
expropriated property claims is not unique to our country. It has been 
international law for 46 years. So, all of a sudden, 46 years of law 
and practice world wide are going to be overturned for one particular 
country in one part of the world.
  Moreover, this legislation will broaden the universe of those 
eligible to be compensated to include individuals who were not U.S. 
citizens at the time their property was taken. For those who follow 
this expropriation of property without compensation, a fundamental 
principle for 46 years internationally has been that you must have been 
a citizen of the country that seeks to espouse your claim at the time 
the property was taken. That is, you must have been a United States 
citizen, in this case, at the time your property was expropriated in 
Cuba. That is the rule internationally.
  We are now saying, ``No, in this case you do not have to be a U.S. 
citizen at the time of the expropriation, and you go to the Federal 
courts.'' I urge my colleagues, no matter how angry you are about what 
happened a week ago, consider what we are doing here. We have already 
rejected over the years similar attempts to change the eligibility 
requirements for property compensation cases.
  So my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee will recall it 
was a difficult case--expropriation of property. They came and said, 
``Won't you allow Hungarians who were not citizens at the time to be 
able to be covered in the compensation program?'' We said as a body 
here, ``We are deeply sorry. We understand your point. You have a 
vehicle available to you through your courts. If we carve out an 
exception for you, then what are we going to say to Polish-Americans, 
Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, and Arab-Americans?'' Up until 
now, we have said ``no'' to them. Now we are saying ``yes'' here. Now 
we are going to have to back other countries, I presume, who are likely 
to seek similar treatment.
  No matter how angry we are, to carve out an exception to one country 
here and deny others the opportunity is a bad, bad practice.
  The principle of international law and practice in the area of 
expropriation is very well established. Let me quote from the legal 
brief prepared by Mr. Robert Muse which summarizes very clearly the 
international law of claims:

       If international law is to apply to a governmental taking 
     of property, a party claiming the loss must occupy at the 
     time of loss the status of an alien with respect to the 
     Government that took the property. The injured person must be 
     a foreign national.

  The U.S. courts have stated on numerous occasions that confiscations 
by a State of the property of its own nationals, no matter how flagrant 
and regardless of whether other compensation has been provided, do not 
constitute violations of international law.
  This is not the first time, as I said a moment ago, an effort has 
been made to mandate legislatively that the United States depart from 
the nationality principle of international claims laws. Fortunately, on 
those occasions Congress wisely rejected such efforts.
  During the 84th Congress the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
expressed very clearly why that should not be done in its report 
dealing with claims programs related to property losses in Hungary, 
Romania, and Bulgaria.
  The committee said:

       The committee has carefully considered the arguments 
     advanced in support of the proposed extension of eligibility 
     which, if adopted, would mark the first time in claims 
     history of the United States that a declaration of intention 
     was equated with citizenship. While sympathetic to the plight 
     of those unfortunate individuals who are not American 
     citizens when they sustained war losses, the committee has to 
     keep utmost in view the interests of those individuals who 
     did possess American nationality at the time of the loss.

  That is why I said our first responsibility is to our own citizenry--
to American citizens. We are placing them in second-class status. That 
is why in the 84th Congress we rejected, no matter how laudable, no 
matter how sympathetic we are to the claims of Hungarians, Rumanians, 
and Bulgarians, we said, ``No. We are sorry. We cannot do that.'' Today 
we are about to reverse that. Forget the other countries where 
individuals may have similar cases to make. They, of course, will not 
be handled accordingly, although they may come forward and seek similar 
treatment, I presume, once this legislation has been adopted.
  The committee went on to say, ``Further, these persons who have a 
paramount claim [speaking about American citizens] to any funds which 
may be available to include the not-national-in-origin group will only 
dilute the funds still further and increase the injustice to American 
owners.''
  So here you are going to take an action that is likely to increase 
the injustice against those American citizens whose property was taken 
by Castro-- 1,911 of them. I say that because their chances of being 
fully compensated for their losses once this bill passes will be worse 
than beforehand because of the vastly expanded pool of claimants 
produced by this bill. In essence we are taking funds that might 
otherwise be available to them and diluting them by carving out this 
one exception to our global property claims programs.
  So, if you run to pass this bill and sign up for it, remember what 
you are doing. You are taking American citizens and putting them in 
second place. U.S. citizens at the time of the expropriation get 
second-class status when this bill passes because we are caught up in 
the emotion and the horror of what happened a week ago. Why not slow 
down and take a few days and think about what we are doing here instead 
of jamming this through on the emotion of the moment?
  Proponents of the Helms-Burton legislation appear to be indifferent, 
I must

[[Page S1488]]

say, to the injustice that this legislation will entail to certified 
American claimants, although these claimants are terribly mindful of it 
and for that reason continue to oppose title III in this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a February 29 
letter that we received from one of the largest U.S. claimants, Mr. 
David Wallace, chairman of Lone Star Industries, who states quite 
clearly his opposition to this change in law and practice.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Joint Corporate Committee


                                              on Cuban Claims,

                                  Stamford, CT, February 29, 1996.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western 
         Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: As Chairman of Lonestar Industries and 
     on behalf of the Joint Corporate Committee on Cuban Claims, I 
     want to express my deep appreciation for your unwavering 
     leadership in standing up for the rights of U.S. certified 
     claimants.
       The Joint Corporate Committee deplores the recent actions 
     of the Cuban Government in the strongest possible terms, but 
     as egregious as those actions are, we should not let the 
     passions of the day lead us to uncritically enact legislation 
     that is harmful to the rights of U.S. certified claimants, 
     contrary to international law, and constitutionally suspect.
       As I've indicated in my previous communications to you, 
     Title III of the Helms-Burton bill will lead to a flood of 
     litigation in our federal courts. As you know, the Title is 
     so broadly drafted that not only third country foreign 
     investors would be subject to suit in U.S. courts for 
     ``trafficking'' in confiscated properties, but agencies and 
     instrumentalities of the Government of Cuba also would be 
     subject to suit. As a consequence, we can reasonably expect 
     that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans 
     will file Title III lawsuits for the property losses they 
     suffered over thirty years ago as Cuban nationals.
       Apart from the burden these lawsuits will place on our 
     already clogged federal court system, serious constitutional 
     questions arise that may result in substantial liability to 
     our government. The harm U.S. certified claimants will suffer 
     as a result of the enactment of Title III is indisputable. 
     The U.S. State Department has estimated the total value of 
     Cuban-American claims at $94 billion. U.S. certified claims, 
     by contrast, total $6 billion. Faced with the prospect of 
     tens of billions of dollars in federal court judgments, the 
     Cuban Government will have neither the means nor the 
     incentive to negotiate a settlement of the U.S. certified 
     claims. This effective nullification of the property 
     interests of the U.S. certified claimants is not without 
     consequence. Under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, 
     if the U.S. Government elects to advance a foreign policy 
     objective at the expense of the certified claims lawfully 
     held by its citizens, it will be required to pay just 
     compensation to that group of citizens. In other words, by 
     enacting Title III, we may be putting the U.S. taxpayer in 
     the shoes of the Government of Cuba--ironically, the very 
     Government this legislation seeks to punish--to pay the debt 
     these claimants are owed under international law.
       Finally, the creation of a lawsuit right that benefits one 
     national origin group, Cuban-Americans, at the exclusion of 
     all others, will not be tolerated under our Constitution. The 
     equal protection clause of the Constitution will require the 
     extension of this lawsuit right to other national origin 
     groups. Consequently, Vietnamese-Americans, for example, will 
     be able to sue U.S. companies that today or in the future are 
     ``trafficking'' in the properties they once owned as 
     nationals of Vietnam. The same right will be extended to all 
     naturalized citizens who have lost properties in their native 
     countries as a result of governmental actions.
       I regret that in its haste to demonstrate our abhorrence of 
     the Castro regime's actions, Congress is prepared to enact 
     ill-conceived legislation that, apart from strengthening 
     sanctions against the Cuban Government, will penalize U.S. 
     certified claimants and create a myriad of undesirable 
     domestic consequences. Your principled opposition to Title 
     III and your resolute support of the claimants is all the 
     more appreciated under these difficult circumstances.
           Sincerely,
                                                 David W. Wallace.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, ironically title III, which has been so 
fiercely defended by its sponsors, is not going to do much to harm 
Fidel Castro either. He is not likely to make himself available, as I 
point out, as a defendant in our courts coming down the road.
  Mr. President, this legislation will have serious implications on our 
Federal court system, on the value of claims of certified U.S. 
claimants and on our relations with our close trading partners who will 
feel much of the brunt of these lawsuits. If this new approach to 
resolving expropriated claims is so good, why do a number of the 
largest U.S. certified claimants continue to oppose the legislation?
  I believe that many of my colleagues in the Senate had come to share 
my view that title III was not in the interest of the United States 
and, for that reason, they joined in opposing its inclusion in the 
Senate-passed version of the bill.
  While the events of a week ago Saturday were tragic and senseless, 
Mr. President, they do not in any way change the fact that title III is 
contrary to the interests of our country, of the United States, and 
inconsistent, as I have tried to point out, with international law.
  To disregard, without even a markup in our committee, 46 years of 
international law and practice in the handling of expropriation issues, 
as this title does clearly, is foolhardy, in my view.
  There is also a question of whether title III is constitutional 
because of the equal protection provisions of law.
  But even if on narrow legal grounds this bill stands the 
constitutional test, on political grounds it is indefensible, Mr. 
President. As I said earlier, why should not Polish-Americans, 
Vietnamese-Americans, Arab-Americans--the list of 38 countries where we 
have claims outstanding--be granted similar access to our United States 
courts? Will they not come forward tomorrow, or the next day, and 
demand equal treatment as we are giving in this particular case? Why 
not? Is this somehow different than the horrors that went on in Poland, 
or Vietnam, or China? Is anyone going to stand up on this floor and 
suggest to me that they are somehow different, were not quite as bad as 
what goes on in Cuba when we lose four citizens in a tragic act of 
shooting these people down, as horrible as it is?
  What about the young people on the Pan Am flight that we now know 
Libya was involved with? What about claims there? They have a case to 
make? I do not see them included in this bill.
  What happened under the Communist regimes before? Where are they 
here? They had their property expropriated and taken from them. Why are 
they not included in this bill? If I were they, I would be angry. This 
is special-interest legislation carving out extraordinary treatment for 
a special group.
  By the way, in order to exercise the provisions of title III with 
respect to the right of private action you will have to have a claim 
worth more than $50,000--I will get to that in a minute--so your 
average poor Cuban is not included in this. Out of 5,911 U.S. certified 
claims, only slightly more than 800 will benefit from title III. The 
rest of them are excluded. Pay attention, Cuban-Americans. Pay 
attention to what this bill does or doesn't do for most of you. You are 
not going to get any benefit. It is the fat cats who are going to 
benefit. The tobacco and the rum interests are going to be the 
beneficiaries of this. Read carefully how the law is written here.
  So, Mr. President, to all of those who say they support title III of 
this bill, I would say that I hope they have had an opportunity to 
study the final version and understand the implications. I suspect, for 
example, that when the more than 85 percent of the 5,911 U.S. certified 
claimants discover that they are precluded by provisions in this title 
from availing themselves of this new private right of action, they are 
going to be doubly opposed to this bill. Unfortunately, they will not 
find out until it is passed.
  In the final conference report, the sponsors sought to address a 
significant criticism leveled against this title--that it would cause 
an avalanche of lawsuits in our courts. They have responded to that by 
putting a floor on the value of the claims that will be admissible in 
U.S. court in adjudication. Putting aside my underlying objection to 
that, the floor in the bill is $50,000. The problem with their efforts 
to limit lawsuits is that only suits that are really excluded by this 
floor are those by U.S. certified claimants whose property has already 
been valued at $50,000 or less.
  Can you imagine, in 1959, $50,000 of value of United States citizen 
property in Cuba? It has to be valued at the time of the taking, by the 
way. As a result of that, you are seeing here a situation where 85 
percent of the 5,911 certified

[[Page S1489]]

claimants get excluded. They cannot go to court here--just the 800 or 
so people that have claims in excess of that can. I presume that Cuban/
Americans who were ineligible to submit their claims to the Foreign 
Claims Settlement Commission and who therefore have no particular value 
associated with their claim will start alleging claims in excess of 
$50,000 so that they can get access to the courts.
  On the other hand, of course, the $50,000 floor is not likely, as I 
said, to limit filing of lawsuits by Cuban-American claimants. They are 
obviously going to allege more than $50,000. You can argue $50,001 and 
you get into court. That is available to them. But our people, U.S. 
citizens, who have already been certified by the commission as having a 
property value of $50,000 or less can't try the same thing. These U.S. 
citizens are out of luck.
  Again, let us remind ourselves why we are here, who we represent, to 
whom is our first obligation. Last time I looked it was to U.S. 
citizens--U.S. citizens. That is my first obligation, U.S. citizens. 
They get taken to the cleaners on this; 85 percent of them do not get 
any advantage under this. And for the bulk of people who have claims of 
less than $50,000 who were not United States citizens when their 
property was taken, they will allege more and they get to access to our 
courts. So U.S. citizens lose. U.S. citizens lose. Clearly, these small 
claimants would be foolish, as I said earlier, not to avail themselves 
of this relief by alleging a claim in excess of $50,000.
  They can claim that their property falls above the threshold value, 
file suit and attempt to convince the courts that they qualify for a 
positive judgment. At the very least, this will put them in a position 
to perhaps negotiate a side deal with the alleged offending party, 
clearly permissible under this law, negotiation of a deal.
  I predict that even in this latest version there will be a flood of 
lawsuits in our courts. What is most troubling about putting our courts 
at the centerpiece of this legislation is that it transforms our 
judicial system, the principal duty of which is to adjudicate legal 
disputes, into an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, something we have 
always tried to avoid in this body, always tried to avoid. Do not turn 
your courts into an instrument of foreign policy. And yet this 
provision of this bill not only vaguely requires that; it insists upon 
it.
  So all of a sudden we say to the Federal courts now, with all the 
complaints we get from our States about the overload of work, here 
comes another load of work in your lap. When people start complaining 
about handling criminal cases in the United States and drug cases, 
consider the fact you are going to be inundated now with a bunch of 
claims matters, that we have all of a sudden involved you in a foreign 
policy matter with Cuba.
  The inclusion of periodic Presidential waiver authority in this 
title, in my view, does not change that conclusion at all--this is bad 
law.
  There are also serious problems with other parts of the legislation, 
Mr. President, provisions that restrict our ability to provide 
assistance to Russian and other New Independent States countries. As 
angry as we are at Cuba and what the Cuban authorities have done, why 
are we going to jeopardize our relationship with Russia and the New 
Independent States. That is what the bill does. Read it.
  I understand the anger. I understand the frustration. But why would 
we jeopardize the delicate relationship we are trying to build in 
Russia and the New Independent States and have those relationships hang 
on legislation here dealing with Cuba? That is not smart. That is 
dangerous, in my view.
  Provisions in this bill also impact on our adherence to provisions of 
GATT and NAFTA, provisions that seek to micromanage our relationships 
with future Cuban Governments--post-Castro governments.
  Let me predict right now our allies' response to title IV of the 
bill. Let me spend a minute or so talking about this part of the bill. 
And people ought to pay attention to this so-called exclusion of 
certain aliens title of the bill. It is going to make foreign commerce 
and travel a nightmare, in my view, for our business community.
  Title IV calls upon the Secretary of State--listen to this--calls 
upon the Secretary of State to deny entry into the United States to any 
alien whose been involved in the confiscation or trafficked in Cuban 
property formerly owned by a United States national. The actions called 
for by title IV, require that the Secretary of State and the Attorney 
General deny entry into the United States by any foreign business 
person, foreign official and their family members for an activity which 
is lawful in the country where that person is a citizen and consistent 
with international law. This action flies in the face of international 
commitments we have made. We talking about potentially a great many 
countries being effected here.
  I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows:

               U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, Inc.


          non-United States Companies and the Republic of Cuba

       Corporations and companies cited in the international media 
     as having commercial activities with the Republic of Cuba.
       Australia: Western Mining Corp.
       Austria: Rogner Group (tourism)
       Brazil: Andrade Gutierrez Perforacao (oil), Coco Heavy 
     Equipement Factory (sugar), Petrobras S.A. (oil).
       Canada: Advanced Laboratories (manufacturing), Anglers 
     Petroleum International, Bow Valley Industries Ltd. (oil), 
     Canada Northwest Energy Ltd. (oil), Caribgold Resources Inc. 
     (mining), Commonwealth Hospitality Ltd. (tourism), Delta 
     Hotels (tourism), Extel Financial Ltd., Fermount Resources 
     Inc. (oil), Fortuna Petroleum, Fracmaster (oil), Globafon, 
     Havana House Cigar and Tobacco Ltd., Heath and Sherwood 
     (oil), Hola Cuba, Holmer Goldmines, Joutel Resources 
     (mining), LaBatt International Breweries, Marine Atlantic 
     Consultant (shipping), MacDonalds Mines Exploration, Metal 
     Mining, Mill City Gold Mining Corp, Miramar Mining Corp. 
     (Minera Mantua), Pizza Nova (tourism), Realstar Group 
     (tourism), Republic Goldfields, Scintres-Caribe (mining), 
     Sherrit Inc. (mining), Talisman Energy Inc., Teck (mining), 
     Toronto Communications, Val d'Or (mining), Wings of the World 
     (tourism).
       Chile: Dolphin Shoes (clothing), Ingelco S.A. (citrus), 
     Latinexim (food/tourism), New World Fruit, Pole S.A. 
     (citrus), Santa Ana (food/tourism), Santa Cruz Real Estate 
     (tourism).
       Colombia: SAM (an Avianca Co.) (tourism), Intercontinental 
     Airlines, Representaciones Agudelo (sporting goods).
       Ecuador: Caney Corp. (rum).
       China: Neuke (manufacturing), Union de Companentes 
     Industriales Cuba-China.
       Dominican Republic: Import-Export SA (manufacturing), 
     Meridiano (tourism).
       France: Accord (tourism), Alcatel (telecommunications), 
     Babcock (machinery), Bourgoin (oil), Compagnie Europeene des 
     Petroles (oil), Devexport (machinery), Fives Lille 
     (machinery), Geopetrol, Geoservice, Jetalson (construction), 
     Maxims (cigars-owned by Pierre Cardin), OFD (oil), OM 
     (tourism), Pernod Ricard Group (beverages/tourism), Pierre 
     Cardin, Pompes Guinard (machinery), Societe Nationale des 
     Tabacs (Seita) (tobacco), Sucres et Donrees (sugar), Thompson 
     (air transport), Total (oil), Tour Mont Royal (tourism).
       Germany: Condor Airlines (charters for Lufthansa), LTU (LTI 
     in Cuba) (tourism).
       Greece: Lola Fruits (citrus).
       Holland: Curacao Drydock Company (Shipping), Golden Tulips 
     (tourism), ING (banking), Niref (minerals).
       Honduras: Facuss Foods.
       Hong Kong: Pacific Cigar.
       Israel: GBM (citrus), Tropical (manufacturing), World 
     Textile Corp. S.A.
       Italy: Benetton (textiles), Fratelli Cosulich (gambling), 
     Going (tourism), Italcable (telecommunications), Italturis 
     (tourism), Viaggo di Ventaglio (tourism).
       Jamaica: Caricom Investments Ltd. (construction), Caricom 
     Traders (Int'l mrktg of Cuban products), Intercarib 
     (tourism), Superclubs (tourism).
       Japan: Mitsubishi (auto'/tourism), Nissan Motor Corp. 
     (auto), Nissho Iwai Corp. (sugar), Toyota, Sumitomo Trading 
     Corp. (auto), Suzuki Motor Corp. (auto).
       Mexico: Aero-Caribe (subsid. of Mexicana de Aviacion), 
     Bufete Industrial, Cemex (construction), Cubacel Enterprises 
     (telecommunications), Del Valle (manufacturing), Domeq 
     (export-rum), DSC Consortium (tourism), Grupo Domos 
     (telecommunications), Grupo Industrial Danta (textiles), 
     Grupo Infra de Gases, Incorporacion International Comercial 
     (beer), Industrias Unidas de Telephonia de Larga, Distancia, 
     La Magdalena Cardboard Co., Mexpetrol (oil), Pemex, Bancomex, 
     Mexican Petroleum Institute, Protexa, Bufete Industrial, 
     Inggineiros Civiles Asociados, Equipos Petroleos Nacionales, 
     Telecomunica- cionales de Mexico, Vitro SA (manufacturing).
       Panama: Bambi Trading
       South Africa: Anglo-American Corp. (mining), Amsa (mining), 
     De Beers Centenary (mining), Minorco (mining), Sanachan 
     (fertilizers).
       Spain: Caball de Basto (S.L., Camacho (manufacturing), 
     Consorcio de Fabricantes Expanoles, Cofesa, Corporacion 
     Interinsular Hispana S.A. (tourism), Esfera 2000 (tourism), 
     Gal (manufacturing), Guitart Hotels

[[Page S1490]]

     S.A., Grupo Hotelero Sol, Hialsa Casamadrid Group, Iberia 
     Travel, Iberostar S.A. (tourism), Kawama Caribbean Hotels, 
     K.P. Winter Espanola (tourism), Miesa SA (energy), National 
     Engineering and Technology Inc., Nueva Compania de Indias 
     S.A., P&I Hotels, Raytur Hoteles, Sol Melia (tourism), 
     Tabacalera S.A. (tobbaco), Tintas Gyr SA (ink manufacturer), 
     Tryp (tourism), Tubos Reunidos Bilbao (manufacturing), Vegas 
     de la Reina (wine imports).
       Sweden: Foress (paper), Taurus Petroleum.
       United Kingdom: Amersham (pharmaceuticals), BETA Funds 
     International, Body Shop International (toiletries), British 
     Borneo PLC (oil), Cable & wireless comm., Castrol (oil), ED&F 
     Man (sugar), Fisions (pharmaceuticals), Glaxo 
     (pharmaceuticals), Goldcorp Premier Ltd., (manufacturing), 
     ICI Export (chemicals), Ninecastle Overseas Ltd., Premier 
     Consolidated Oilfields, Rothschild (investment bank), Simon 
     Petroleum Technology, Tate & Lyle (sugar), Tour World 
     (tourism), Unilever (soap/detergent), Welcomme 
     (pharmaceuticals).
       Venezuela: Cervecera Nacional, Covencaucho, Fiveca (paper), 
     Fotosilvestrie, Gibralter Trading (steel), Grupo Corimon, 
     Grupo Quimico, Ibrabal Trading, Interlin, Intesica, Mamploca, 
     Mamusa, Metalnez, MM Internacional, Pequiven, Plimero del 
     Lago, Proagro, Sidor, Venepal, Venoco.

  Mr. DODD. On this list are roughly 26 countries and nearly 200 
foreign companies doing business in Cuba today. And so under this 
provision of title IV of the bill, as you go through the list now, we 
are going to have to go and I guess do a fact finding of some kind or 
another and determine whether or not--I presume that a lot of this may 
in some way touch on confiscated property in Cuba. Obviously, we have 
seen that happen--they were involved in confiscation. All these 
companies are going to have to go through it. And then, of course, we 
will have to let our consular service know because any one of the 
people involved in these companies or family members who seek to come 
to the United States can be stopped from coming. It is going to put us 
in a difficult situation in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, 
and so on.
  Read the language. If you do not think we are going to get reprisals 
from this nightmare, this quagmire, let us see what happens when an 
Israeli is denied a visa because some of their people are doing 
business in Cuba or what happens when Canadians try to come to this 
country. Do not think we are not going to feel the brunt of it.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to read this legislation. This is unwise. 
This is unwise. Why are we not doing this in China? My Lord, there are 
human rights problems there. Imagine if you tried to do that here. You 
would be laughed off the floor if you tried it here, or Vietnam or 
other places. And yet are they any less guilty in a sense. And so here 
are 26 countries, most of them allies, where we are now going to have 
our immigration service at the gates denying entry to members of 
families of people who are doing business on property that may have 
been confiscated without compensation in Cuba.
  Again, I urge my colleagues just look at what we are doing here; we 
are about to run through and adopt this legislation probably on an 
overwhelming vote, without for a moment considering and the 
consequences of it.
  I know in some quarters it is considered good form to say the United 
States is prepared to renounce our trade agreements. I listened to the 
Presidential debate going on and certainly there are those who are 
against NAFTA and against GATT, well, we are about to do it here. You 
do not have to wait for Buchanan to become President of the United 
States. We are about to do it.
  I do not think those of our citizens who count on the integrity of 
these agreements to protect the sanctity of their international 
business transactions find this acceptable. I for one take these 
national commitments seriously. When I vote on them here, I vote on 
them seriously because I think they are right and the right direction 
to go. I think most Americans do, and I think most of our colleagues 
do.
  Overall, this bill is bad for U.S. business. It will undercut efforts 
by the United States to ensure that U.S. investors face a stable and 
predictable environment when they do business abroad.
  We can hardly insist that our trading partners respect international 
law in the areas of trade and investment when we ourselves are prepared 
to violate it. Where is our moral high ground when we give these 
speeches around the world about the sanctity of the efforts to try and 
get the world to live by the rules we adopt. Here we are about to go in 
and just blow that apart on our own, and then presumably give a lecture 
to the rest of the world about how they ought to live up to these 
agreements.
  I wonder what our response is going to be when other governments 
whose citizens are adversely affected by this legislation decide to 
enact some special interest legislation of their own directed at our 
people, our country, our citizens and their properties abroad. We are 
hardly going to be in any position to object or to assert some 
provision of international law in that situation.
  This legislation, Mr. President, has a great deal of hortatory 
language. Much of it I agree with. For example, section 201 sets forth 
U.S. policy toward a transition and a democratic government in Cuba. It 
is good language. Among other things, it states that it is the policy 
of the United States to ``support the self-determination of the Cuban 
people and to recognize that the self-determination of the Cuban people 
is a sovereign and national right of the citizens of Cuba which must be 
exercised free of interference by the government of any other 
country.''
  Exercising their right, the right of the citizens of Cuba which must 
be exercised free of interference by the Government of any other 
country in that transition. Who can disagree with that? I could not 
have written it better myself. I love it. I think it is wonderful. 
However, the operative provisions of the bill are totally at odds with 
what we state is our policy in section 201. There are 19 criteria in 
this bill that the future Cuban government must meet--a future 
government, not the Castro government in order for the United States to 
engage in any significant way with that government. Nineteen criteria 
they have to meet, 19 of them, before we deem it to be in transition to 
democracy including when it should hold its elections--within 18 
months, how and who must not be at the head of State.
  Does this really constitute respect for self-determination? Can you 
imagine if we had these criteria with the New Independent States or in 
Russia? Do you know how difficult their transition has been, as they 
have wrestled with trying to form their own notion of democracy. When 
you want to help that process, nurture it, provide aid and assistance 
that would be impossible if this legislation governed our relations 
with those countries. We would be prohibited from doing it in this 
bill. Similarly even if Castro goes and the Cuban Government is in 
transition, we cannot do anything meaningful to assist until the 
requirements of the bill have been met. That is foolhardy--foolhardy--
to do that.
  Mr. President, I have said on numerous occasions, when we consider 
foreign policy legislation of this nature--and I said at the outset--we 
have to ask ourselves two very basic questions: Is what is being 
proposed in the best interest of our own country, and is it likely to 
achieve the stated goals in the country to which it is directed?
  Two basic questions: Is it good for my country, and is it likely to 
achieve the stated goals in the country that may be the target of the 
legislation?
  In the case of the pending legislation, I think the answer to both of 
these questions is a resounding no.
  I regretfully say that I think this is a bad bill, and for that 
reason, I strongly oppose it. I also realize that I may be in the 
minority, a small minority, but I could not stand here and watch this 
go by today and not point out the fundamental flaws in the whole 
approach.
  I will point out again that I think it is dreadful what happened a 
week ago Saturday--dreadful what happened. There is no excuse for it. 
But if we rush to legislate a bill that has been around a year or so, 
and it has been around because, frankly, people had serious problems 
with it. The problems are not any less because of what happened last 
Saturday. This bill would have passed a long time ago if it had 
intelligent provisions in it dealing with how might effectively we deal 
with Castro.
  The only reason it is up today is because of the tragedy a week ago. 
In fact, I argue the bill is worse today than before. There are a lot 
of provisions, as part of this conference report, that none of us ever 
voted on.

[[Page S1491]]

  I realize this may be a futile effort on my behalf to urge my 
colleagues in the next few hours to do something, which I guess none of 
us do with great frequency. And that is to just read this conference 
report, in particular read title III and read title IV. Consider what 
we are about to do. I believe if you sit back objectively and look at 
this and see how we are changing so many things in this bill, carving 
out unique exceptions that, I think, are going to cause us serious 
problems, you will come to the same conclusions I have.
  This does not diminish our determination to see change occur in Cuba, 
to see democracy and freedom come to the Cuban people; that Fidel 
Castro leave or that we find ways in which to effectively make our case 
that what happened there not only should not happen but must not happen 
again.
  We will not forget what happened in the Straits of Florida, and we 
will not forget who is responsible. Let us not, in the emotion of the 
moment in dealing with that particular issue, do damage to ourselves. 
My sole point is this bill does damage to our country. It does damage 
to our citizens. It does damage to our ability as the leading 
superpower in the world today to negotiate and to conduct its foreign 
policy.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of 
editorials and articles in opposition to this bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 3, 1996]

           The Reciprocal Obsession of Castro and Washington

                           (By Gaddis Smith)

       New Haven, CT.--Throughout our history, the U.S. 
     government, on the one hand, and whatever regime was in power 
     in Cuba, on the other, have been prone to spasms of 
     reciprocal obsession--marked by wild rhetoric, economic 
     warfare and sometimes armed violence. Cuba's stupidly brutal 
     shooting down of two U.S. civilian airplanes last weekend, 
     and President Bill Clinton's subsequent surrender to Congress 
     on maniacal legislation aimed at the destruction of Fidel 
     Castro's regime, mark the latest spasm.
       Today, no U.S. presidential candidate dares challenge the 
     wisdom of escalating intervention against a small, if 
     unpleasant, neighboring government. The angriest voices in 
     Washington and Florida advocate a naval blockade and do not 
     rule out invasion--ignoring international law and the opinion 
     of other governments. This furor has an all-too familiar 
     ring.
       Since the early 19th century, Cuba's proximity to the 
     United States, strategic location on the seaways of the 
     Caribbean and economic importance have induced U.S. 
     politicians to assert the right to dictate Cuba's foreign 
     policy and internal arrangements. But the line between 
     legitimate U.S. national-security interests in Cuba and 
     domestic political partisanship has always been blurred.
       For example, in 1853, Washington, influenced by the 
     slaveholding states, tried to buy Cuba from Spain to increase 
     the area of slaveholding and suppress a feared insurrection 
     of slaves in Cuba and its spread to the United States. Spain 
     refused to sell. In response, three senior U.S. diplomats--
     including soon-to-be President James Buchanan--issued the 
     ``Ostend Manifesto,'' which argued that Spain's continued 
     possession of Cuba threatened ``our internal peace and the 
     existence of our cherished Union.'' If we cannot acquire Cuba 
     in any other way, said the diplomats, we should take it 
     through war. Nothing came of this because the United States 
     was hurtling toward civil war--but its tone and its intimate 
     connection to politics in the United States set a pattern.
       In the 1870s and again in the 1890s, the Cuban people rose 
     in armed rebellion against the Spanish colonial regime. The 
     Spaniards became alarmed, with good reason, over the support 
     for the rebels coming from the United States, in general, and 
     Cuban Americans, in particular.
       Spain suppressed the first insurrection, but not the 
     second, in 1895-98. This time, Cuba was a far hotter issue in 
     U.S. politics--thanks to coverage by mass-circulation 
     newspapers, deeper economic interconnections, the strident 
     lobbying of Cuban Americans and heightened concerns in 
     Washington over the strategic security of the Caribbean. 
     President William McKinley, eager to assure his reelection, 
     joined those who said Spain must be ousted. The sinking, in 
     Havana harbor, of the U.S. battleship Maine as a result of an 
     internal explosion in February 1898, (260 Americans died) 
     inflamed a war spirit--though it is highly unlikely that the 
     Spanish government was responsible. McKinley did not make a 
     serious effort to negotiate. The Spanish government, in turn, 
     preferred war to what it considered dishonorable concessions. 
     And war it was--``the splendid little war'' of 1898. Spain 
     lost Cuba--along with Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
       The Cuban freedom fighters expected immediate independence. 
     Instead, the United States militarily occupied the island for 
     four years, then imposed, through the Platt Amendment, its 
     right to control Cuba's foreign relations and to intervene, 
     with troops if necessary, in the country's internal affairs. 
     President Franklin D. Roosevelt formally relinquished these 
     rights in 1934--but U.S. influence remained pervasive.
       Fast-forward to Jan. 1, 1959. Fulgencio Batista, a corrupt 
     and non-ideological dictator, fled Havana and Castro, leader 
     of a successful rebellion, entered the city and established 
     the regime he heads to this day. Scholars debate whether the 
     regime was communist from the outset or became so within a 
     year or two. They also debate whether an accommodating 
     posture by Washington, instead of an obsession with 
     undermining the regime, could have preserved amicable 
     relations. Or were Castro's obsession with Washington as the 
     source of all Cuba's problems and his welcome of the Soviet 
     Union as protector the real obstacles? There can be no 
     question, however, that a pattern of reciprocal obsession and 
     provocation was evident from the outset. Washington organized 
     an exile force to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in April 
     1961. It was, as one historian said, ``the perfect failure.''
       More serious, of course, was the 1962 crisis over the 
     placement of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba--the most 
     dangerous moment of the Cold War and a genuine threat to U.S. 
     security. Castro was ignored in the negotiated Soviet-U.S. 
     settlement. The Russians removed the missiles and Washington 
     promised not to invade Cuba.
       For the next 30 years, Castro poked his finger in Uncle 
     Sam's eye at every opportunity--supporting leftist 
     revolutionaries in Latin America, sending troops to Africa at 
     Moscow's behest--and Washington did everything possible to 
     inflict economic pain and make Cuba a pariah state--only to 
     be thwarted by the subsidies sent to Castro by the Soviet 
     Union.
       With the end of the Cold War and disappearance of the 
     Soviet Union, easing tensions, even normalizing relations, 
     might have been expected. But objective security interests 
     and domestic politics are different matters. Castro was too 
     proud--and too convinced of U.S. hostility--to make 
     conciliatory gestures toward Washington. Castro also believed 
     that Mikhail S. Gorbachev lost control of the Soviet Union 
     because he abandoned a repressive political system. Castro 
     says he will not make the same mistake. And in the United 
     States, politicians of both parties competed for the support 
     of the Cuban American community by demonstrating how tough 
     they could be on Castro.
       By 1995, Republicans in Congress appeared to have won the 
     tough-posture competition. The Helms-Burton bill--officially 
     the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Bill--sets new 
     heights of obsession with Cuba and pretensions for dictating 
     that country's future. And it has gained tremendous momentum 
     since the planes were shot down.
       The bill's purpose is unequivocal: Use economic 
     strangulation to eliminate Castro, then establish, with 
     military help, a transitional government and market economy 
     under U.S. supervision, followed by free elections. These 
     measures are justified both on the idealistic ground that 
     Castro is a violator of human rights--which he is--and on a 
     fanciful description of his regime as a threat to U.S. 
     security and international peace. The bill's arrogant and 
     overblown rhetoric recalls the Ostend Manifesto and its 
     specific provisions are more intrusive than the Platt 
     Amendment of 1903-34.
       Helms-Burton assumes that Castro is on the edge of a cliff 
     and the Cuban economy is in shambles. But both assumptions 
     are wrong. Castro is paranoiac about internal criticism, but 
     remains popular. And the island's economy is reviving with 
     expanding trade and considerable new investment from Canada 
     and Europe.
       This trade and foreign investment are the real targets of 
     Helms-Burton. If its provisions become law, and are sustained 
     in the courts, they would burn down the house of U.S. foreign 
     policy. Seeking to overthrow the regime of one little 
     country, the law inflicts great injury to the larger fabric 
     of U.S. trade and investment.
       The key provisions flow from the assertion that the 
     confiscation and nationalization of private property in Cuba, 
     carried out by the regime sine 1959, violates U.S. and 
     international law. Therefore, any person, corporation or 
     state entity engaging in trade and investment in Cuba is 
     likely to be ``trafficking'' with stolen property--since, by 
     definition, virtually all economic activity in Cuba is based 
     on confiscated property. Any current U.S. citizen, or any 
     U.S. corporation--like the Bacardi rum company--with a claim 
     to such property can sue these ``traffickers'' in U.S. courts 
     and be awarded damages.
       Furthermore, individual traffickers, or officers or 
     controlling stockholders of trafficking corporations--
     including their spouses and children--can be excluded from 
     the United States. In theory, the son or daughter of an 
     executive of a Canadian hotel company with Cuban interests 
     attending school in the United States could be deported. The 
     bill's implementation would create a nightmare for U.S. 
     courts and would violate major treaties and international-
     trade agreements.
       Last summer, Secretary of State Warren M. Christopher 
     recommended that Clinton veto the bill when and if it came to 
     his desk. Until Feb. 24, the chances of the bill being passed 
     and signed were slight. But then Castro blundered into the 
     hands of his enemies--by authorizing the destruction of the 
     two civilian planes flown by the Brothers to the Rescue 
     group. The Cuban government is brazenly unapologetic and said 
     it was defending

[[Page S1492]]

     its sovereignty--but even Castro's newest friend, China, has 
     joined in deploring the deed.
       By this action, Castro achieved what his most fervent 
     critics in Congress could not: He persuaded Clinton to agree 
     to Helms-Burton. Clinton, like McKinley in 1898, wants a 
     second term. The final details of the legislation remain to 
     be worked out, but the president said he will sign. 
     Reciprocal obsessions have again triumphed.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 29, 1996]

                   U.S. Policy: Held Hostage in Miami

                           (By Richard Cohen)

       Question: Who sets U.S. policy toward Cuba?
       (A) The president.
       (B) Congress.
       (C) Any Cuban American with an airplane.
       The answer, apparently, is ``C''--or, if you'd like a name, 
     Jose Basulto. He is the leader of Brothers to the Rescue, the 
     humanitarian group with a political mission, and a survivor 
     of the recent massacre in the skies near (or over) Cuban 
     waters. Four others died when their unarmed Cessnas were 
     downed by Cuban MiGs. They were brave men.
       It is important to say, as the American government has, 
     that Cuba was wrong. The downing of the two planes, no matter 
     what their location, was a violation of international law--
     not to mention common decency. It was as if the police here 
     had caught some burglars red-handed, determined they were 
     unarmed and executed them on the spot. Fidel Castro committed 
     murder--and not for the first time.
       Whatever its faults, though, the nature of the Castro 
     regime is well known. It is a museum piece, a relic of the 
     communist era, frozen in ideological amber and, like Pavlov's 
     famous dog, predictable in its reaction to certain stimuli. 
     After years of a U.S. embargo--after the Bay of Pigs and 
     other CIA operations, after Radio Marti and numerous attempts 
     at coups, a farcical facial (the CIA tried to make his beard 
     fall out) and, probably, assassination--it would be just 
     plain insulting to call Castro paranoid. The man has enemies, 
     and they are out to kill him.
       One of them, in fact, is Basulto. Not only was he flying 
     the one plane that was not downed, but he announced himself 
     to the Cuban authorities as the guy in the cockpit: ``Cordial 
     greetings from Brothers to the Rescue, from its president, 
     Jose Basulto, who is talking.''
       That greeting, it turned out, was met with a warning: 
     ``Sir, be informed that the north zone of Havana is 
     activated.'' Basulto was then told he was in ``danger,'' and 
     he responded with an acknowledgment: ``We are aware that we 
     are in danger each time we cross the area to the south of the 
     24th [parallel], but we are willing to do it as free 
     Cubans.''
       Ah, but Basulto is not merely a ``free Cuban.'' He is also 
     a Cuban American. As such he reminds me of those zealous 
     Israeli settlers who, citing the Bible, declare a certain 
     spot divinely zoned for Jewish occupation and promptly 
     establish a settlement there. The Arabs respond with clenched 
     teeth and unsheathed daggers, and the settlers demand that 
     the Israeli army protect them. Which side are you on? they 
     demand to know, ours or the Arabs? The army moves in.
       In this case, the Clinton administration is playing the 
     role of the Israeli army: Deep down it has all sorts of 
     reservations about the United States' traditional Cuba 
     policy, but it cannot afford to show good sense lest it be 
     seen as weakness. The boycott of Cuba has done little more 
     than make the Cuban people miserable. Castro remains--
     resplendent, entrenched and still wearing those silly 
     fatigues. He is no more and no less a communist than the 
     leaders of Vietnam, old foes with whom we now do business.
       The influence Cuban Americans have over U.S.-Cuba policy is 
     neither illegitimate nor novel. American Jews have a 
     passionate concern about Israel, and the Irish here are 
     intensely interested in the Irish there. One might even 
     suggest that the recent U.S. occupation of Haiti would not 
     have happened were it not for the political clout of African 
     Americans--an assertion, you might say; a fact, I would 
     insist.
       Yet, some Cuban Americans are in a class of their own. 
     Basulto, for one, does more than write his congressman or 
     raise money. He was at the Bay of Pigs and, a year later 
     (1962), was one of 23 men who took two converted PT boats 
     into Cuban waters and shelled a Havana suburb. The Associated 
     Press named him ``the man behind the gun.'' Since then, he 
     has formed Brothers to the Rescue, which, among other things, 
     has dropped anti-Castro leaflets on Havana, testing the 
     dictator's celebrated sense of humor.
       Basulto had been warned by both Washington and Havana to 
     watch his step. That does not excuse the subsequent killings, 
     but it does tend to explain them. The same holds for 
     Washington's policy toward Havana. It's easy enough to 
     explain why Washington toughened the embargo in response to 
     the shoot-down (all those votes in Florida), but harder to 
     excuse. It makes little sense. Toughening the embargo causes 
     ordinary Cubans--not Castro--to suffer even more.
       The Clinton administration had little choice but to get 
     tougher with Castro. But it has to be firmer, too, with 
     certain Cuban Americans. U.S. policy toward Cuba, inching 
     toward sanity until the recent shootings, cannot become the 
     captive of anyone, no matter how well-intentioned, who 
     literally flies off on his own. More than planes got shot 
     down the other day. So did U.S. policy.
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 1996]

                           A Bad Bill on Cuba

       The Clinton Administration had done many things right and 
     one thing terribly wrong in response to Cuba's shootdown of 
     two unarmed planes flown by Miami-based exiles.
       Providing a Coast Guard escort to accompany an exile 
     flotilla to the site of the downing today registers American 
     determination to protect the security of international waters 
     and airspace. Equally important, it minimizes the risk of 
     either the exiles' or Havana's provoking a new incident. The 
     Administration's decision earlier this week to suspend 
     charter flights to Cuba and to impose travel restrictions on 
     Cuban diplomats in this country made clear that Havana had 
     attacked not just anti-Castro activists but international law 
     itself.
       However, the Administration is about to make a huge mistake 
     by signing into law a bill, sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms 
     and Representative Dan Burton, that aims to coerce other 
     countries into joining the American embargo of Cuba. By 
     dropping his opposition to the bill, Mr. Clinton junks his 
     own balanced policy for encouraging democracy in Cuba and 
     signs on to an approach that will inevitably slow the opening 
     of Cuban society and pick a pointless quarrel with American 
     allies.
       The bill threatens foreign companies with lawsuits and 
     their executives with exclusion from American soil if they 
     use any property in Cuba ever confiscated from anyone who is 
     now a United States citizen. Some of its provisions appear to 
     violate international law and trade treaties, and the 
     Administration had been saying since last summer that it 
     would veto the measure unless these provisions were removed.
       The United States is the only country that maintains an 
     economic embargo against Cuba, an outdated policy that has 
     failed in 35 years to topple the Castro Government. Trying to 
     coerce other countries to join the embargo is offensive to 
     American allies and unlikely to succeed.
       Backers of the Helms-Burton bill believe the Cuban economy 
     has been so enfeebled by the loss of subsidized Soviet trade 
     that the Castro regime can be brought down with one final 
     shove. But Cuba's economy, though hurting, has already 
     revived from the depths of the early 1990's. Its recovery has 
     been built on austerity, limited reforms and new trade 
     relationships with the rest of the world. It is unrealistic 
     to think that a reinforced American embargo would bring Mr. 
     Castro down.
       What Havana really worries about is the resurgence of 
     opposition in Cuba itself. Opposition groups have been 
     invigorated by Cuba's widened contacts with the outside 
     world. They are also encouraged by a more supportive attitude 
     on the part of Miami-based exile organizations. These used to 
     view all Cubans who remained on the island, even opposition 
     activists, with suspicion. Now groups like Brothers to the 
     Rescue, the organization whose planes were shot down last 
     week, see opposition groups on the island as a key to 
     political change.
       The Castro regime is alarmed by this potential link between 
     domestic opponents and outside support groups, heralded by 
     Brothers to the Rescue's previous airborne leafletting of 
     Havana. Indeed, Havana's concern over this prospect may have 
     been a factor in last week's missile attack against the 
     exile's planes. Washington should be doing everything it can 
     to promote opposition within Cuba by encouraging more human 
     interchange between the island and the outside world, not 
     less.
       The Helms-Burton Act is not an appropriate response to 
     Cuba's murderous deed. It is a wholesale policy reversal that 
     weakens America's ability to encourage democracy in Cuba. Mr. 
     Clinton should return to his original sound position.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, Mar. 1, 1996]

                    Surrendering U.S. Policy on Cuba

       After more than 30 years of them, it should be clear that 
     trade sanctions against Cuba will not force Fidel Castro to 
     surrender. What a shame, then, that a great power like the 
     United States has surrendered its foreign policy to a tiny 
     population of hard-line anti-Castro Cubans. What an 
     embarrassment.
       By agreeing this week to impose new economic penalties 
     against Cuba, President Clinton and the Republican-controlled 
     Congress have proven that, given a choice between sound 
     foreign policy and pandering to the rabid anti-Castro crowd 
     in a critical electoral state, they'll pander.
       In no way do we defend Castro's dictatorship or the 
     outrageous disregard for human life represented by Cuba's 
     downing last weekend of two small civilian aircraft. But in 
     that regard, an old American adage is instructive: Don't go 
     looking for trouble, it cautions, cause it'll find you 
     anyway.
       Brothers to the Rescue, an exile group, went looking for 
     trouble by violating Cuba's sovereign air space to drop 
     leaflets and by playing hide-and-seek with Cuban jets along 
     its periphery.
       By law, private citizens may not make foreign policy. Yet 
     the Cuban exiles invited this ``crisis,'' if they didn't 
     actually manufacture it, and suckered both a Democratic 
     president and a Republican Congress into making policy to 
     suit their purposes.

[[Page S1493]]

       Ironically, the new sanctions, while aimed at isolating 
     Castro and weakening his power, are certain only to 
     complicate trade relations with key U.S. allies and 
     commercial partners such as Canada, Mexico and France.
       Under the sanctions, U.S. visas will be denied to foreign 
     corporate executives--and their stockholders--if these firms 
     are among those that have invested billions of dollars in 
     Cuban property. (The U.S. is the only nation that observes 
     the absurd embargo of Cuba.)
       Another provision would allow U.S. citizens to file suit 
     against foreign firms utilizing property that was seized by 
     Castro. But in a cynical provision designed to neuter that 
     very same proposal, the president is granted power to waive 
     the rule every six months to throw out the backlog of 
     anticipated cases.
       Like all dictators, Castro shows unwavering patience in 
     allowing his people to suffer. But if America wants to 
     influence Cuba to liberalize, then more ties--not a trade 
     embargo--is the answer.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 30, 1995]

  Cuba Expropriation Bill Could End Up Costing U.S. Taxpayers Billions

       In his Sept. 25 Op-Ed, Rep. Dan Burton understates an 
     important aspect of his Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
     Solidarity Act of 1995 (``Cuban-American claims . . . and 
     counterclaims'').
       Mr. Burton says that his proposed legislation will allow 
     U.S. citizens to sue ``foreigners'' who ``buy or use'' 
     expropriated properties in Cuba. The litigation provisions of 
     Mr. Burton's bill, like Sen. Jesse Helms' counterpart Cuba 
     bill that is awaiting action in the Senate, are far broader 
     than that.
       In fact, the nation of Cuba itself will be the chief 
     defendant in the 300,000 to 430,000 lawsuits that will be 
     filed in the federal courts of Florida by naturalized Cuban 
     Americans if Mr. Burton's bill becomes law.
       It is this aspect of the bill that its proponents tend to 
     downplay. The reason such an avalanche of litigation is 
     inevitable is that the bill bestows--in flagrant disregard of 
     international law--a set of retroactive lawsuit rights 
     against their native country upon Cuban Americans who were 
     naturalized in the United States after suffering property 
     losses in Cuba.
       Unfortunatley, the unprecedented rights that are intended 
     to be conferred on Cuban Americans by the bill are at the 
     expense of U.S. citizens who do have rights under 
     international law with respect to Cuba--that is, the 5,911 
     holders of $6 billion in claims certified against that nation 
     by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission in the 1950s. 
     (One such certified corporate claimant is my client, Amstar.)
       If the lawsuit provisions of Mr. Burton's bill become law, 
     certified claimants will see their prospects of recovering 
     compensation from an already impoverished Cuba extinguished 
     in a sea of Cuban-American claims that have been estimated by 
     the State Department at approximately $95 billion.
       It is ironic that a pair of well-meaning Republican 
     legislators are threatening with their bill (1) to create a 
     litigation explosion in this much-heralded year of tort 
     reform, and (2) to destroy or gravely damage the adjudicated 
     interests of one group of Americans in an era of supposed 
     greater protectiveness of the property rights of U.S. 
     citizens.
       The bill raises two further serious questions. First, on 
     what principled basis are the lawsuit rights proposed to be 
     given Cuban-Americans to be denied other national-origin 
     groups (e.g., Vietnamese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, 
     Polish-Americans, Palestinian-Americans, etc.) that have 
     suffered property losses in their former countries?
       If history is any guide, the courts will not void the 
     rights proposed to be accorded Cuban-Americans by the Burton 
     bill; rather they will decree, pursuant to the equal 
     protection clause of the Constitution, that such rights be 
     extended to other similarly situated national-origin groups. 
     It is anyone's guess how many additional hundreds of 
     thousands of litigations will then ensue.
       The second question posed by the Burton bill is, once a 
     class of hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans judgment 
     creditors against Cuba is created, how will relations ever be 
     normalized with that country? The answer is that such 
     normalization will inevitably require the dismissal of the 
     underlying federal court awards because of the running-sore 
     problems of the attachments in the United States--following 
     the lifting of the embargo--of Cuban bank accounts, ships, 
     airplanes, agricultural produce and manufactured items of 
     Cuban origin by hundreds of thousands of Cuban-American 
     judgment holders.
       When those judgments are dismissed by the president, the 
     issue of liability of the U.S. government to the Cuban-
     American holders of extinguished federal court awards 
     inevitably will arise.
       It is not alarmist to warn that the U.S. taxpayer may well 
     be made, under the Fifth Amendment ``takings clause'' of the 
     Constitution, to indemnify hundreds of thousands of Cuban-
     Americans in the amount of approximately $95 billion.
       If anyone doubts that Mr. Burton's bill harbors such 
     consequences for the U.S. Treasury, then he or she might 
     usefully consult the Supreme Court's opinion in Dames & Moore 
     vs. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981). We should hope that the 
     Senate, member by member, will do precisely that before 
     voting on Mr. Helms' bill--Robert L. Muse, Washington.

  Mr. DODD. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Kansas to speak on behalf of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Georgia 
yielding. I intend to vote in favor of this conference report despite 
some serious reservations about several of the provisions.
  The Senator from Connecticut has just spoken strongly about several 
of the same reservations that I hold, although I suggest, Mr. 
President, I think some of the examples he has given about unintended 
consequences might be a bit exaggerated.
  I would like to outline some of my concerns and the reasoning for 
them.
  First, I question whether this bill, on the whole, moves us in the 
right direction. The laws of nature dictate that Castro cannot remain 
in power forever, and I am skeptical that the best means at this point 
of ensuring a peaceful transition is to further tighten the noose 
around Cuba, despite the outrageous acts of a week ago.
  Second, I remain concerned about title III of the legislation, as has 
been addressed, which allows new lawsuits in Federal court against 
investors of property that was confiscated in Cuba.
  I opposed this provision when the legislation first came before the 
Senate, and I am disappointed it has been restored in the conference 
report. I still believe it is unwise for Congress to set up United 
States Federal courts as tools in the pursuit of foreign policy 
objectives in Cuba, although I take some comfort in the new authority 
provided for the President to weigh this provision.

  Third, I also am disappointed that the conference report goes further 
than the Senate bill in two important areas, which, of course, the 
Senator from Connecticut also discussed, neither of which has had the 
benefit of examination in the Senate.
  The conference report would deny United States visas to any person 
who invests in confiscated property in Cuba with only two narrow 
exceptions. We have allowed no flexibility to accommodate the awkward 
situations that inevitably will arise. The conference report also 
codifies in statute all existing sanctions and embargoes against Cuba, 
stripping this President and future presidents of the flexibility to 
respond step-by-step to changes in the situation in Cuba.
  For these many reasons, I would prefer that we enact something other 
than this bill. But, Mr. President, that is not an option. Nobody has 
done more to ensure enactment of this legislation than Fidel Castro 
himself. By shooting down two American civilian airplanes last week, he 
demanded that we respond.
  I strongly believe we must respond to this latest provocation and 
that America should speak with one voice on this matter. While this 
particular legislation would not be my preference, it clearly is the 
preference of the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress. It 
now is the preference of the President of the United States. I am one 
who believes the President should have some discretion to shape U.S. 
foreign policy.
  The situation reminds me of a young cowboy who worked hard each week 
to earn money so he could ride into town each weekend and play poker. 
He always lost. After months of watching him lose, a sympathetic 
bartender pulled him aside one evening and said, ``Son, I just want you 
to know, this game is rigged. The cards are marked. The deck is 
stacked. And the dealer keeps an ace up is sleeve.''
  ``I know,'' replied the young cowboy.
  The bartender was flabbergasted. ``You know?'' he exclaimed. ``Then 
why do you keep coming back?''
  ``That's simple,'' replied the cowboy. ``This is the only game in 
town.''
  Mr. President, there is no other option before this body for those of 
us who believe strongly that the United States must respond to Fidel 
Castro's latest outrage. Despite its faults, this legislation is the 
only game in town. For that reason, I will support it.
  I yield back any time I may have, Mr. President.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas.

[[Page S1494]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair and the manager of the bill, 
Senator Coverdell.
  Mr. President, the premeditated, cold-blooded murder of four American 
citizens by Cuban war planes last Saturday is an outrage, an outrage 
against the United States of America, against international law, and 
against every concept of human decency. Neither the United States nor 
the world community can allow these murders to go unpunished. The four 
Americans who were killed were part of Brothers to the Rescue, an 
organization that has helped to save countless Cuban citizens who 
risked their lives to flee oppression and poverty in their country. 
Without the Brothers' heroic, humanitarian efforts, thousands of Cuban 
families would have died on the open seas.
  How did the Cuban Government react to this heroism? How did it reward 
those who had saved thousands of its own citizens? It carried out the 
ruthless execution of four of these brave Americans.
  The Cuban Government can try to argue that its actions were justified 
as an act of self defense, but the whole world knows the truth--that 
Cuban MiG's pursued and shot down the crews of two unarmed Cessna 
aircraft.
  The whole world was watching, Mr. Castro. It was not self-defense. It 
was cold-blooded murder.
  We are shocked by what happened the weekend before last, but nobody 
should be surprised. Mr. Castro is a brutal dictator with no regard for 
basic human rights, no respect for international law, and he has an 
abiding hatred for the United States and everything it stands for.
  This is a man responsible for the suffering in Cuba--hunger, forced 
labor, oppression, and worse. This is the man who has exported military 
equipment and Cuban soldiers to foment civil war in nations in our 
hemisphere and around the world. This is the man who tried to put his 
finger on the launch button of nuclear missiles aimed at the United 
States.
  Mr. President, he is an evil man. A series of American Presidents, 
Republicans and Democrats, have understood this and have sought to 
isolate and individually bring down his government, for the good of the 
Cuban people and the world. Nevertheless, Mr. Castro always has had his 
apologists in this country. Until Saturday before last, it had become 
popular in some circles to see him as ``older and mellower,'' a more 
``moderate'' revolutionary Communist. That view of a ``kinder, 
gentler'' Fidel Castro was evidenced in the recent relaxation of travel 
and other restrictions against Cuba. The folly of appeasement and 
accommodation is now tragically apparent.
  Today, we will act to restore United States policy to its previous 
and proper direction--to isolate the Castro government, and hasten the 
day that it will fall.
  The legislation before us will reinstate and reaffirm United States 
economic sanctions, it will deny foreign investment and hard currency 
to sustain this corrupt government, and it will protect the interests 
of American citizens whose property was seized illegally by the Cuban 
Government.
  Without huge Soviet subsidies that propped it up for decades, the 
provisions of this legislation will inevitably bring the Castro 
government to the brink of two alternatives: give up power voluntarily, 
or have it taken away by the long-suffering Cuban people. The goals of 
United States policy toward Cuba must be: the end of the Castro regime, 
and the opportunity for freedom and democracy for the Cuban people.
  Mr. President, we must do more than we are even doing today. This is 
a step in the right direction, and I am pleased that we are going to 
pass this important legislation. I am also pleased that the President 
has thought better of his earlier opposition to this legislation. But 
we must also address another urgent problem, and that is the threat 
posed by Cuban construction of two nuclear reactors. These reactors are 
fatally flawed--Chernobyls in the making. In the event of a meltdown, 
lethal radioactivity would threaten the entire southeastern United 
States. These two reactors cannot be allowed to go online. This is a 
matter of direct and vital national security interest to the United 
States.
  Our allies and the Cuban Government must understand that we cannot 
permit the existence of this threat to our country. So I call on the 
President today to take the lead in coming to grips with this impending 
crisis.
  I extend my sympathies to the families of the four brave men who lost 
their lives in the name of freedom. Nothing can replace the husbands 
and fathers they lost. But it would be a fitting testament to the 
sacrifices of these American patriots if the tragedy strengthened 
American resolve and thereby hastens the day that the Castro 
dictatorship crumbles and freedom is restored to the people of Cuba.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join others in expressing our profound 
appreciation to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the 
Senator from Georgia, and other colleagues on that committee, for their 
absolute steadfast determination to bring this measure to the Senate 
for a vote and eventually for passage and enactment into law. That took 
real courage. And it is regrettable that the final impetus to get this 
legislation passed had to come in a week of absolute tragedy.
  I want to deal with that for a minute, Mr. President. This world 
today is sieged with acts of terrorism. All of our hearts are filled 
with compassion and sadness for the people of Israel today for the 
total useless taking of life in those recent terrorist acts. We admire 
the courage the people of Israel have shown in the face of these 
attacks.
  Just over a week ago, four innocent lives were lost in the Straits of 
Florida due to the Cuban shoot-down of two unarmed civilian aircraft. 
These acts, at the explicit direction of Fidel Castro, were first-
degree, premeditated murder--offenses which would be punished in the 
United States upon conviction, and in most instances with the death 
penalty. I regret the level of reaction by the current administration. 
But this legislation will go further and bring about, through economic 
means, an incentive to stop it, because terrorism knows no boundaries, 
and unless it is thoroughly and unanimously oppressed across the board, 
it will spring up elsewhere, as we see in this very troubled world 
today.
  Castro's total lack of support for democratic reform, and his lack of 
willingness to even attempt to provide some economic recovery for his 
repressed people, brought about, in some measure, this legislation.
  The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act--what a fine name 
that is--contains three primary objectives: To strengthen international 
sanctions against the Castro regime, to develop a plan for future 
support for a free and independent Cuba, and provide for the protection 
of property rights of United States nationals.
  I firmly believe that this legislation, if passed and signed into law 
by the President, will greatly enhance the likelihood that Cuba, some 
day, will join the other nations in this hemisphere with a democratic 
form of government and a freedom to which those people are entitled.
  Mr. President, as I look through the technical aspects of this 
legislation, I would like to address a question, for clarification, to 
the distinguished manager of the bill. It is about a concern I have 
with respect to the $50,000 limitation in section 302 of title III. It 
seems to me that a lot of people under the figure of $50,000 are 
severely injured, as are those above the figure of $50,000. To them, 
the few dollars they could recover, with a lesser cap, is of equal 
importance to them and their families--and to try and assure their life 
in this country to be a better one--than the higher limit. I know it 
was a difficult decision. But if the distinguished Senator from Georgia 
could give me some background on that particular issue, I would 
appreciate it.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the $50,000 cap comes from the workings 
of the Congress itself. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut, in 
his opposition to the bill, and several others, were worried about a 
flood of court cases, and so the cap was placed to address that 
concern. There are some

[[Page S1495]]

500,000 claims, or so some opponents claim, that could have come into 
the court system without the cap. So in response to the concern that 
the court system could not manage this number of claims, the cap came 
into play. Secondarily----
  Mr. WARNER. To make that fair, Mr. President, in other words, the 
initiative to put the cap in came from those originally opposed to the 
legislation?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Absolutely. Second, the focus of this bill is to 
discourage and chill economic joint ventures with Castro. Economic 
joint ventures do not involve residential housing properties, instead 
they deal with the broad commercial properties. So there were these two 
reasons for setting the $50,000 cap. I, myself, more than welcome the 
opportunity at some later point to lower the cap to zero.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with that assurance, I depart the floor 
better informed, because if at a later time Congress, looking at how 
well this act has performed and will serve the goals in here, would 
begin to consider that perhaps there is a hardship, and could address 
that.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I join the Senator in welcoming that.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on the proponents 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Georgia has 
16\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield to the Senator from Florida for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak today on this very important issue.
  Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Helms-Burton bill, I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which has taken on 
increased importance as the level of repression has escalated both 
within and outside Cuba.
  For 37 years, Fidel Castro has held the Cuban people hostage to his 
brutal repression and mismanagement. He has brazenly violated their 
human rights.
  Since 1992--a year after the collpase of the Soviet Union and its 
subsidization of Cuba's economy--United States Cuba policy has been 
based upon tightening the economic embargo around Castro's neck, while 
at the same time extending the hand of democracy and human rights to 
the Cuban people.
  The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 started us down this road. Today's 
action will accelerate our pace.
  Our drive to free Cuba from Castro's grip would benefit from the 
example of an organization whose bravery, selflessness, and unflagging 
humanitarian spirit deserves recognition on this historic occasion.
  On February 24, four brave members of Hermanos al Rezkate--Brothers 
to the Rescue--lost their lives at the hands of a dictator and his 
brutal regime.
  They were the victims of a pattern of escalating human rights abuses 
that previously had been reserved for the citizens of Cuba. This time, 
Fidel Castro extended his violent reach outside his own airspace.
  These men knew, when they embarked on their mission, that it involved 
significant personal risk. But they also believed that the suffering of 
the Cuban people demanded courage in the face of risk.
  The brave, tireless, humanitarian acts of Brothers to the Rescue must 
live on despite the deaths of these brave pilots.
  Mr. President, their mission must become ours.


                 castro oppresses, the brothers rescue

  While Fidel Castro has terrorized the Cuban people, Brothers to the 
Rescue has extended the hand of brotherhood to his victims.
  Fidel Castro has never hesitated to resort to violence to protect his 
autocratic rule. Last weekend's incident is a perfect example of that 
inclination toward violent action.
  Brothers to the Rescue deplores violence. Their mission is strictly 
humanitarian. Its leaders receive training at the Martin Luther King 
Center for Non-Violence in Atlanta. Its leaders speak and practice 
Gandhi's precepts of nonviolence.
  They use volunteer pilots to search for Cuban rafters and others in 
need of rescue. They drop bottled water, protective clothing, and other 
needed supplies to those refugees.
  Castro has harassed thousands of Cuban journalists and thousands of 
nonviolent political dissenters. Recently:
  July 11, 1995: Cuban police initiate a widespread crackdown on 
independent journalists;
  February 16-24, 1996: Castro cracks down on the nonviolent Concilio 
Cubano, a coalition of 131 prodemocracy dissident groups; and
  On February 24, Castro murdered four U.S. citizens over international 
waters.
  The Brothers have rescued more than 5,000 men, women, and children 
refugees from the waters of the Straits of Florida.
  First flight: May 15, 1991.
  Total flights: Over 1,780.


     some will accuse brothers to the rescue of being provocateurs

  To be sure, there were instances where the organization's commitment 
exceeded its charter. On several occasions, they have penetrated Cuban 
airspace and dropped leaflets.
  Two such occasions were:
  June 1994--returning from Guantanamo Bay, dropped Brothers to the 
Rescue bumper stickers on Eastern Cuba; July 13, 1995--dropped leaflets 
on Havana.
  These were leaflets--their impact on Cuban citizens was the power of 
their ideas.
  These actions, however, were taken to provide the Cuban people with 
information they are badly lacking--information on their basic human 
rights. Each leaflet reproduced one of the Universal Articles on Human 
Rights. This is information the Cuban people do not have because the 
Castro regime refuses to allow a free press, or the free exchange of 
ideas.


                  making the brothers' mission our own

  Changes are afoot in Cuba. The best way we can take advantage of 
those changes and bring democracy, prosperity, and an end of the Castro 
regime to Cuba is to make the Brothers to the Rescue mission our own.
  The Brothers are committed humanitarians, They reach out to all 
people in need.
  Last week, I had the privilege of meeting with some of the family 
members and friends of the lost pilots. One of them recounted a story 
about Mario De La Pena, a 24-year-old Miami resident who had flown with 
Brothers to the Rescue for several years.
  Last Christmas Eve, Mario was returning home from a mission when he 
spotted a man stranded in the water.
  The man was not a Cuban rafter, but Mario dropped supplies anyway. 
Mario flew home to join his family for Christmas Eve, but the thought 
of this man trapped in the Straits of Florida during Christmas haunted 
him.
  The next morning, he woke up early and flew back to check on the 
stranded boater.
  To his relief, the man was fine. He was soon rescued, and later that 
day, Mario saw the man on television, jubilant and relieved. Mario's 
friends tell me that this rescue, and the others he participated in, 
were among the biggest thrills of his life.
  The United States must continue to support people-to-people 
humanitarian efforts to free Cuba. We must continue our support for 
those non-governmental organizations working to encourage democracy in 
Cuba.
  The Brothers rescue people in danger.
  The determination to rescue Cubans from Castro's enslavement was 
embodied by Armando Alejandre, who also lost his life on February 24. 
Armando didn't just look for rafters in the Straits of Florida. He 
carried food and supplies to Cuban refugees stranded in the Bahamas. 
And he never passed on an opportunity to criticize the Castro regime 
for its brutal suppression of rights.
  The enslaved people of Cuba are in danger of further abuses by the 
Castro regime. We must rescue them.
  The fallen Brothers pilots were brave men. They took enormous risks 
to bring hope to the Cuban people.
  Another one of last weekend's victims was a young man named Carlos 
Costa. His sister tells me that he was terrified of the small Cessna he 
flew for Brothers to the Rescue. The winds in the Straits of Florida 
violently buffeted his plane and frightened Carlos and his passengers. 
Yet he volunteered to fly his rescue plane every week. He flew on 
Christmas and other holidays.
  We must also be willing to take risks to hasten Castro's fall from 
power. We

[[Page S1496]]

need a tougher, more ambitious Cuba policy.
  The Brothers were tireless, searching every mile of the Straits of 
Florida for Cuban rafters.
  Some of the most determined were those pilots who had once been 
rafters themselves. Pablo Morales was one of those pilots. He fled Cuba 
on a raft in 1992 and quickly became an active volunteer in Brothers to 
the Rescue.
  He returned to help others on February 24--Castro sentenced Pablo 
Morales to death in these same Straits of Florida.
  We must be as vigilant as Pablo was. We must not rest until we have 
searched for every possible way to force Castro from power.


                seizing the day--more pressure on Castro

  Fidel Castro has once again shown that he is a brutal dictator. We 
must reiterate our commitment to ending his stranglehold on Cuba.
  How? There are three ways:
  First, enact Helms-Burton.
  This will tighten the economic chokehold on Castro, and sharpen his 
isolation from his own people.
  This will continue the work of the Cuban Democracy Act, which began 
our effort to sanction and isolate the Castro regime with one hand, and 
reach out to the Cuban people with the other.
  Helms-Burton will help us in our goal of building democratic 
sentiment among the Cuban people.
  Second, work with our allies to bring international pressure to bear 
on the Castro regime.
  Last month, I visited Chile to assess the shape of United States-
Chilean relations. And though Chile maintains diplomatic relations with 
the Castro government, I was pleased to return with a firm commitment 
that Chile will support the U.N. resolution condemning Castro's human 
rights abuses.
  Third, assess our preparedness for dealing with Castro in the future.
  We must maintain a clear understanding of what our objectives are: To 
support the legitimate aspirations of the Cuban people to replace Fidel 
Castro with a democratic, human rights-friendly government that brings 
about the political and economic reconstruction of Cuba.
  In the future, we cannot afford to wait 48 hours to issue a response. 
That is an unacceptable delay. Our Government needs to develop an 
anticipatory stance. We need contingency plans that can be implemented 
swiftly and judiciously.
  We must be committed to a response which is proportional to the 
offense.
  As the Helms-Burton and other sanctions take hold, we must anticipate 
the potential for further escalation of attacks against U.S. citizens 
and U.S. interests. This means making certain that our borders are 
secure from Castro's terror.
  I continue to be concerned about incidents such as that which 
occurred in 1994, when a Cuban defector landed a Cuban military plane 
on the United States naval station near Key West, FL. He landed that 
plane unchallenged. Castro has made repeated threats against a major 
nuclear power facility in the southern portions of my State.
  We must expand our efforts through television and Radio Marti to 
reach out to the people of Cuba.
  Mr. President, this past weekend, the remaining members of Brothers 
to the Rescue led another mission in the Straits of Florida. This time, 
their goal was not to rescue but to celebrate the memories and brave 
acts of those four fallen pilots.
  As they have for the past 5 years, the boats and planes dispatched on 
this mission encountered tremendous obstacles. Mother Nature greeted 
them with rough seas, black skies, pounding rain, and fierce winds.
  But when the flotilla stopped to lay wreaths and hold religious 
services in memory of their fallen colleagues, the black clouds 
disappeared. For a moment, the Sun came out and shone down on the boats 
gathered below, as if to smile upon their mission.
  Mr. President, for the last 5 years, Brothers to the Rescue has been 
a ray of light in the black clouds hovering over the Cuban people. If 
we are to turn that ray of light into permanent sunshine, the United 
States must salute their mission by making it our own.
  I urge my colleagues to do that by supporting the Helms-Burton Cuba 
sanctions bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, increasingly an anachronism in the affairs 
of the world, Fidel Castro has burnished his credentials as the Western 
Hemisphere's most vicious dictator. Unfortunately for the four downed 
Brothers-to-the-Rescue pilots and their families, and the members of 
Concilio Cubano, he has again turned to terrorism to assert his control 
over the Cuban people.
  All of the overtures made by the Clinton administration, some Members 
of Congress and the business community have failed to pacify Fidel 
Castro. Only weeks ago he arrested more than 50 Cuban citizens in 
anticipation of a conference by the dissident coalition Concilio 
Cubano. Apparently, Castro felt so threatened by a peaceful assembly of 
free Cubans that he disregarded the concern of the international 
community. To his relief, the Concilio Cubano conference was canceled.
  Determined to maintain control over the information and views to 
which his countrymen are exposed, Fidel also seeks to limit dissent 
from abroad. He has always been too weak to directly confront the 
United States and terminate our efforts to bring freedom to the people 
of Cuba. But Fidel Castro can no longer even muster the strength to 
terrorize our friends in Latin America. He has been reduced to lashing 
out at unarmed Americans guilty only of straying too close to his 
Marxist paradise.
  Fidel Castro cannot have it both ways. He cannot cultivate a new 
relationship with the United States and U.S. business and still run 
roughshod over the rights of his people. He is a member of a dwindling 
circle of friends. Fidel still believes in building a utopian socialist 
society. A fraudulent nationalist, he believes his people incapable of 
the exercise in self-government we have witnessed from Haiti to Russia. 
Fine--he can believe what he wants to. But he should not expect to have 
his egomaniacal dreams of totalitarianism and socialism subsidized by 
Americans.
  This is why I support the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
Act. It makes the choice for Cuba clear.
  The bill codifies the existing embargo of Cuba. Many of the actions 
taken in response to Fidel's outrages, including President Clinton's 
recent response, have been done by Executive order. By including them 
in this bill, we have ensured that they will not be overturned without 
a genuine democratic transition in Cuba.
  The bill also builds on the current embargo in important ways. It 
attempts to freeze foreign investment in Cuba by denying United States 
visas to those who improve on investments in confiscated property; by 
giving, with the approval of the President, United States citizens the 
right to sue those who invest in confiscated property; and by barring 
Cuba from international financial institutions.
  The bill also restricts assistance to Russia in proportion to the 
assistance Russia offers Cuba. This is an especially important 
provision. It is high time that we make a concerted attempt to enlist 
the support of our allies and friends in the efforts to end the Castro 
dictatorship.
  The bill provides for a lifting of the embargo in response to 
democratic change in Cuba.
  Castro has a choice. He can continue to isolate his nation, or by 
allowing his people to exercise their God-given rights, he can bring 
his nation the benefits of a relationship with the United States.
  I do not know how long it will take before the pressure of the 
tightened embargo has its intended effect. It may still be years away. 
I do know, however, that one day democracy will come to Cuba, and that 
in the meantime, Americans should do everything in their power to 
withhold support from a government that so thoroughly denies its people 
their basic rights. I believe the bill before us does that.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I will keep my remarks brief, as I know 
there are so many of my colleagues who wish to add their voices in 
support of this conference report. As a member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, and as an original cosponsor and conferee on this landmark 
legislation, I rise in the strongest possible support for the Cuban 
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
  Before going further, I would like to join so many other Americans in 
expressing personal outrage at the most

[[Page S1497]]

recent crimes of the Castro regime. Just 11 days ago, Cuban dictator 
Fidel Castro ordered the shooting down of two unarmed civilian small 
planes over international waters, murdering four American citizens. I 
extend my deepest sympathy to the victims' families. They deserve 
justice for Castro's murderous, tyrannical act, and this legislation is 
a first step in process.
  For 36 years, Castro has ruled Cuba with an iron, totalitarian hand. 
But as he steadily impoverished and brutalized the Cuban people, his 
key source of support came from massive subsidies from the old Soviet 
Union. But since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, those subsidies 
have ended, the ideological underpinnings of his tyranny have 
evaporated, and his regime has come under pressure as never before.
  Castro has tried to compensate for the loss of Soviet aid by 
developing a hard-currency tourist industry. To build that industry, he 
has sold off at fire-sale prices confiscated American property to 
foreign companies for development. The purpose of this bill, among 
other things, is to deter these kind of actions by foreign companies 
who may be tempted to invest in Castro's Cuba at the expense of 
uncompensated Americans.
  This bill accomplishes that in two ways. In title IV it applies 
mandatory travel restrictions on top Cuban Government and foreign 
individuals who participate in trafficking in confiscated American 
property. Permanent exclusion from the United States is a serious 
sanction that will give any multinational firm second thoughts about 
taking possession of stolen U.S. property.
  In title III, the bill permits American citizens to bring suit 
against foreign persons who traffic in their confiscated property in 
Cuba. To obtain the administration's support for this bill, in 
conference we granted the President renewable 6-month waiver authority. 
But this still achieves the main goal of this title by creating an 
environment of uncertainty that foreign firms will want to avoid.
  All would-be foreign traffickers in confiscated United States 
property in Cuba will be put on notice that if they would always be 
within 6 months of having legal action taken against them in the United 
States for their actions. And this presupposes that the President will 
even initially invoke his waiver authority, which in the current 
climate is not, I believe, a foregone conclusion.
  This bill also:
  Calls for an international embargo against Cuba.
  Prohibits any United States loans to foreign individuals who purchase 
United States-owned property confiscated by the Cuban government.
  Requires the United States to vote against multilateral bank loans to 
Cuba until the country has had a democratic election.
  Disapproves of Russia's $200 million in loans to Cuba in exchange for 
continued access to intelligence-gathering facilities in Cuba.
  Calls on the President to develop a plan for providing support to 
Cuba during that country's transition to a democratically elected 
government.
  Also permits during the transition period Eximbank financing, 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation-supported investment projects, 
Trade and Development Agency assistance, counter-narcotics assistance, 
and Peace Corps assistance.
  Fully terminates the United States trade embargo upon President's 
certification of a democratic government in Cuba, and provides for 
extension of most-favored-nation status.
  Mr. President, with Castro's regime facing its gravest crisis ever, 
it is important to understand that his decision to kill four innocent 
Americans in cold blood is not an isolated act. This action came on the 
heels of yet another brutal crackdown on the Cuban people just the week 
before. From February 15 to 18, Castro ordered arrested 50 leaders of 
the Concilio Cubano, an pro-democracy umbrella group similar to 
Poland's Solidarity movement.
  The arrest was Castro's answer to their attempt to simply hold a 
meeting to discuss the future of democracy in Cuba. Many of these pro-
democracy leaders have already been convicted by the Castro regime, and 
have joined the thousands of Cuban political prisoners that today 
languish in Cuba's gulags.
  I would like to recognize the stalwart leadership of the sponsor of 
this legislation and the distinguished chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Chairman Helms. I also congratulate the leadership 
of the chairman of our Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Senator 
Coverdell, who is managing this conference report today. Together, they 
have been unswerving in their commitment to supporting the efforts of 
the Cuban people to bring freedom and democracy to that long-troubled 
island nation.
  I would also note that in both the House and Senate this has long 
been a bipartisan cause, and I hope and expect that this conference 
report will receive overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. 
The bipartisan nature of this bill is further demonstrated from the 
fact that last week, after Castro's brutal action against innocent 
Americans, President Clinton himself gave his support to this 
legislative initiative. Now, we will be able to move forward together 
to strengthen our Nation's resolve to see an end to 36 years of 
totalitarian rule just 90 miles from our shores.
  Again, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the efforts of all 
those who worked on this bill over the past year. I urge my colleagues 
to join in supporting the conference report we will soon be adopting.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conferees on H.R. 
927, the ``Liberatad bill'' were able to reach an agreement with the 
administration that will offer a tough, united response to the recent 
destruction of two small planes and four American lives by Cuban MiG's. 
While I would have preferred a compromise which eliminated titles III 
and IV of the conference report, the agreement moves us in the right 
direction.
  I believe all of us are united in our desire to see a peaceful 
transition to democracy in Cuba, Mr. President. The downing of the 
planes heightened the concerns of many of us that we should take 
further steps to bring about this transition. There are many 
differences in how we reach our goal of a democratically elected 
government in Cuba. While I supported the Senate version of the Helms-
Burton legislation, I had some problems with the possible inclusion of 
titles III and IV of the House bill in a conference agreement. 
Fortunately, the conferees added waiver authority to enable the 
President to waive title III, and, in effect title IV, for national 
security reasons or if necessary to promote a democratic transition.
  Because election pressures may make a waiver difficult, I would like 
to remind my constituents what my concerns with titles III and IV are. 
In my judgment, these titles will cause more harm to our own country 
than to serve their intended purpose of limiting foreign investment in 
Cuba and thereby exacerbating Cuba's economic problems, which would 
increase pressures for a new government.
  To remind my colleagues, there was concern about titles III and IV in 
the Senate, and neither of these titles was included in the Senate 
version of the bill. Modified versions of both titles are included in 
the conference report, along with the waiver authority.
  My primary concern with title III is its extraterritorial reach. I 
have concerns with laws which attempt to impose our own laws and 
standards on other countries that they face costly lawsuits if they 
seek to invest in Cuba on properties which ownership 37 years ago may 
be difficult to verify, is unwise, in my judgment. This kind of U.S. 
attempt to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations should concern 
us.
  Some of our allies have communicated to us that they do not view 
their investment in Cuba any differently than our own efforts to invest 
in Vietnam or China, which also could be on disputed properties. It is 
possible that one or more of these countries could reciprocate against 
us in the future, in injuring United States companies and jobs.
  While I sympathize with anyone who has had property confiscated in 
any country, I believe the foreign claims settlement process is the 
right way to pursue property claims for United States citizens. There 
are many certified claimants now eligible for claims against the Cuban 
Government for confiscated properties, which will be pursued once a 
transition has occurred in

[[Page S1498]]

Cuba. This bill was designed to help Cuban-Americans, who were not 
United States citizens at the time of the takeover, receive similar 
benefits through the courts. Now, those citizens would have the right 
to pursue their claims in Cuba once a transition occurs, which would be 
a parallel effort to that of our own certified claimants. Title III 
would provide a private right of action in Federal courts to all United 
States citizens, including the Cuban-Americans who were not citizens at 
the time of confiscation. This is a radical departure to our 
traditional use of the courts and is contrary to international law. 
Despite efforts to narrow this right of action, this change will create 
a precedent in our courts that would allow this right to be extended to 
naturalized citizens of over 85 countries where we have had similar 
property disputes. This would result in a flood of lawsuits at a time 
we are striving for tort reform.

  One inconsistency in title III is that only properties valued over 
$50,000 at the time of confiscation can be involved in the lawsuits. I 
am not sure how this would accomplish the bill's authors' goal of 
limiting foreign investment in Cuba. And again, despite this attempt to 
limit the right of action, I still believe a court precedent is created 
for an expanded right of action in the future.
  The language which would terminate the right of action for new cases 
once a democratically elected government is in power combined with the 
President's current authority under the International Emergency 
Economic Powers Act to nullify any claims and judgments against the 
Cuban Government after a transition also concerns me. This sounds 
attractive, but many legal experts have concluded that these citizens 
would have private property rights under the takings clause of the 
fifth amendment. So what will happen is that Cuba won't have to pay any 
judgments--the United States taxpayers will pay. They will pay treble 
damages for property confiscated from people who weren't citizens at 
the time. United States citizens who were certified claimants for years 
will be only partially reimbursed from funds negotiated from the new 
Cuban Government.
  Title IV forces the President to restrict visas for any foreigner who 
traffics in any property under dispute. Fortunately, this language was 
made prospective, for new investments. Further, it would not kick in if 
title III is waived. It is further limited since visas are not 
currently required for residents of all countries which may be subject 
to this restriction in the future. However, this title could affect 
multinationals with thousands of employees globally in the future, most 
of whom would have had nothing to do with decisions to invest in Cuba. 
In a global economy it could be counterproductive to limit this type of 
access.
  Mr. President, I support this conference report but hope that the 
President will exercise his authority to waive title III.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of 
the Cuban Libertad Act.
  We were all troubled by the announcements that two civilian aircraft 
belonging to the Brothers to the Rescue, Organization had been shot 
down by a Cuban MiG-29. However, this event, described by the President 
and other world leaders as ``abominable'' and ``abhorrent,'' was not an 
isolated incident. Rather, it was the most recent act of aggression 
perpetrated by Castro's tyrannical regime.
  In the last few years, the Castro government has taken a hard-line 
position and has continued to tighten the crackdown on dissent, 
arrested human rights activists, and staged demonstrations against 
their regime's critics.
  Mr. President, the harassment, intimidation, and beatings of 
activists was well documented.
  Dissidents and political prisoners were routinely subjected to a 
variety of actions. For example, sleep deprivation in prisons was used 
to coerce statements from inmates. In addition, prison conditions were 
characterized by habitual beatings, severe overcrowding and a lack of 
food, and medical care.
  Arbitrary arrests, detention, and exile are routine methods of 
discouraging dissidents from speaking out against the Government. 
Freedom of expression is severely restricted. One person was arrested 
for wearing at t-shirt which said, ``Abaja Fidel,'' which means ``Down 
With Fidel.'' This individual was taken to a police station, beaten and 
held incommunicado for 8 days. He was finally tried and sentenced to 
prison for 6 months.
  Mr. President, 1994 was also a period of tyranny on the high seas. In 
April and July of that year, the Cuban Government was implicated in the 
sinking of two vessels which resulted in the deaths of a number of 
people, including children.
  President Clinton has referred to the attack in the press as, ``An 
appalling reminder of the nature of the Cuban regime: repressive, 
violent, scornful of international law.''
  I couldn't agree with him more. It is another action taken by Castro 
that shows nothing but disregard for human life, let alone 
international law, norms, and values.
  This action requires more than just a rhetorical response. Therefore, 
I am pleased that we will be voting today on the conference report to 
the Cuban Libertad Act, or Helms-Burton Act, as it has been referred to 
in press accounts.
  President Clinton announced a series of actions he proposed in 
response to this unwarranted attack. These included; ensuring that the 
families of the pilots are compensated; imposing restrictions on Cuban 
nationals traveling in the United States; suspending United States 
charter flights into Cuba; and, passing the Helms-Burton Act.
  This bill includes a number of provisions which would: strengthen 
international sanctions against the Castro Government in Cuba; develop 
a plan to support a transition government leading to a democratically 
elected government in Cuba; and enact provisions addressing the 
unauthorized use of United States-citizen-owned property confiscated by 
the Castro government.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that President Clinton has committed to 
support and sign this legislation.
  Mr. President, some Senators and Members have concerns about the 
ramifications of this legislation. I respect those concerns and am 
pleased that the sponsors of the legislation have done such an 
excellent job of working on addressing some of those concerns. 
Certainly, some concerns that I had with respect to certified claimants 
under title III have been addressed. I appreciate the efforts of 
Chairman Helms, and his staff.
  In closing, I would just reiterate that this bill is a response to 
far more than the recent attack on civilian aircraft. It is a response 
to the continued aggression of Castro's regime.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are again debating U.S. foreign 
policy toward the Communist regime of Fidel Castro. We are here to 
strengthen the policy that the majority of both parties have supported 
for over 30 years.
  And, we are here to show that as long as Mr. Castro and his brutal 
regime remain, he shall see no easing of that policy.
  That policy has been one of economic containment and diplomatic 
isolation. That policy has worked. It has isolated a brutal regime and 
restrained its ability to undermine stability around the world.
  Unfortunately, this policy has not forced Castro from power, nor 
eliminated his ability to cause mayhem about the world. Castro was 
still able to send his forces to Angola, prolonging that war as a 
payback to Castro's Soviet masters. Our containment policy did not 
prevent Castro's henchmen from conspiring with Latin American drug 
bosses to smuggle cocaine poison into our country. And, our policy did 
not prevent Castro from shooting down two unarmed airplanes in 
international airspace last week, killing four American citizens.
  But, Castro's behavior should never surprise us. His regime is built 
on oppression; his currency is flagrant disrespect for basic human 
rights.
  Now that Fidel Castro's tab at the Moscow cafe has been closed, we 
see how desperately his regime is to survive. Without rubles and oil, 
the dictator of Havana stands without the slightest shred of a 
functionary economy. Without his Soviet sponsors, Emperor Castro has no 
clothes. Our embargo has ensured that the United States has not in any 
way participated in granting a figleaf of legitimacy to the aging 
strongman.

[[Page S1499]]

  I say let us strengthen our embargo. If Castro wishes to use foreign 
investment to replace the rubles from his Communist masters, let us at 
least ensure that the firms that would succor the Castro regime do not 
do so with property stolen from U.S. citizens. Foreign investors are 
free to take the place of the Kremlin powerbrokers, but they cannot 
trade in stolen property without consequence.
  In recent years, the debate over U.S. policy toward the autocratic 
Castro regime and, in particular, the debate over maintaining the 
embargo have included the introduction of two arguments.
  One argument suggests that, now that we are in a post-cold-war world, 
we need not maintain a cold war policy toward Cuba.
  A second argument we have heard suggests that if we can engage 
authoritarian states like China and Vietnam, we should be able to 
engage in the Cuban regime.
  Regarding the first argument, we are constantly reminded that we now 
live in the post-cold-war world. In this new world, we are told, we 
need to revisit so many of the crises and flashpoints that we saw 
through the bipolar lens of cold war competition.
  Derivative of this approach is the notion that we must learn to give 
up our neuralgic distaste for the few remaining Communist regimes, and 
we must recognize that the basic security and political notions of the 
cold war no longer provide the touchstones for U.S. policy. A specific 
point of this rationale is that our Cuba policy must no longer be 
containment.
  The problem with this argument is simple: The cold war may be over, 
but Fidel Castro still rules. While I admit that the Cuban regime is a 
cold war anachronism, which certainly belongs on the scrap heap of 
history, the harsh political reality is that Castro and his secret 
police remain as the dictatorship of Cuba.
  With the conclusion of the cold war, we saw the end of our global 
competition with Communist states and the collapse of totalitarian 
regimes before the popular will of newly freed peoples.
  Throughout Central Europe, the withdrawal of Soviet support combined 
with the decay of Communist client governments. Faced with the 
uprisings of the people demanding freedom, the dictators fled and 
freedom won the day. The result was the transformation of a part of 
Europe that had been frozen in time and oppression for nearly 50 years.
  The United States welcomed these nations to the democratic fold, for 
we were no longer threatened by their hostile diplomatic postures, 
their support for terrorists, and their dedication to undermining 
democracies around the world.
  But the end of the cold war brought no popular revolution to Cuba. 
Castro denounced the last Soviet leaders as having failed the Communist 
catechism. The evaporation of Soviet subsidies brought more misery for 
the Cuban people, and Castro, no doubt thinking more of Ceausescu than 
of Havel, clamped down even more. Human rights have not improved in 
Cuba.
  No talk about looking at Cuba from a post-cold-war perspective will 
change this dismal fact. The Cuban people are not free. They are not 
free to choose their own government; they do not have an independent 
judiciary; they cannot work in a free economy. They are never free from 
their political jailers. Those brave ones who dare attempt political 
discourse continue to be harassed and jailed by Castro's police, as we 
saw 2 weeks ago when dozens of members of Concillio Cubano 
were arrested, interrogated, and jailed.

  The second argument suggests that if we can engage China and Vietnam, 
under the hope of moderating and influencing their policies, we can do 
the same for Cuba.
  I am not sympathetic to the analogy with Vietnam, mostly because I am 
not sympathetic to opening relations with Vietnam.
  I believe that Vietnam had much more to gain from recognition by the 
United States than we did, and that, as a result, we should have been 
able to extract more concessions before we granted the valuable 
diplomatic asset of recognition. For recognition from Washington, we 
should have gained from Hanoi more openness on the POW-MIA issue, and 
more concessions on human rights.
  It's clear the authorities in Hanoi recognized that they were getting 
away with a lot: Less than a month after recognition, they jailed a 
handful of elderly Buddhist monks. We recognized their dictatorship, 
and the jailers kept jailing. In all the debate over Vietnam, I never 
heard adequate reasoning for why we should, at this time, open our 
Embassy there. So, from my perspective, Vietnam hardly justifies as a 
reason to adjust our Cuba policy.
  Mr. President, I don't believe we can compare countries. Cuba is not 
China, which has the world's largest population, a booming economy, a 
predominant position in Asia, and a nuclear arsenal. Global foreign 
policy for this country must take into account this Asian giant, and 
United States national security must account for the role of China.
  Cuba has 11 million people, a supine economy, and has become largely 
irrelevant in Latin America. With no Communist sponsors, it no longer 
provides a major security threat.
  While I don't believe it can threaten stability in the region--unless 
Castro unleashes another wage of refugees--we have seen that the regime 
is a threat to international civility. When MiG's are dispatched to 
shoot down Cessnas, you know that the regime is showing its true 
colors, and those are not the colors of a civilized nation.
  Mr. President, containing the Castro regime has worked. We must 
remain vigilant rather than provide sustenance. We must tighten the 
embargo, rather than engage in the ``Lax Americana'' policies of 
President Clinton.
  Mr. President, this bill addresses the role the United States will 
play during the transition from the Castro dictatorship. In this 
manner, this legislation provides some forward thinking that I believe 
was lacking in some of our policies conducted during the cold war. This 
bill looks to a post-Castro regime, and outlines our responsibility to 
prepare for the inevitable.
  It is one of the many paradoxes of a current historical myopia that 
many view the cold war from simply a security perspective. The result 
is that we hear the reasoning that says, ``now that we defeated the 
Soviet Union, we need not concern ourselves with an island run by a 
bunch of ragged and increasingly isolated Communists.''
  But, the cold war was not just fought for security reasons alone. It 
was fought over ideals: the ideals of humankind's right to liberty, to 
democratic government and to freedom from oppression. These are the 
fruits that many of the formerly captive nations of Central Europe now 
enjoy; these are the fruits denied to captive citizens of Castro.
  But, in Castro's Cuba, the instruments of oppression remain. And, 
this is why this body now debates the merits of the bill presented by 
the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which 
stands for continuing a firm and resolute policy toward the dictator 
Castro.
  And, this is why, today, I believe that we should declare that we 
stand for a policy that recognizes that the Cuban dictatorship remains 
in place, and that this brutal reality demands of us that we remain 
vigilant in our opposition to the Castro regime, determined to outlast 
it, and dedicated to help the Cuban people when the dictatorship falls.
  Because fall it will, as so many of those rusted and despised statues 
dedicated to Communists ideals fell all over Central Europe and the 
newly independent states when the victors of the cold war were finally 
freed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Libertad bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we consider this conference report less 
than 2 weeks after a tragic day for the cause of democracy in Cuba. On 
February 24, Fidel Castro's brutal regime shot down two unarmed 
American aircraft belonging to Brothers to the Rescue who were flying 
over international waters.
  This unprovoked ambush was a gross violation of international law and 
an affront to standards of human decency. It was a cowardly attack, 
demonstrating clearly that Fidel Castro will resort to any means--no 
matter how vile and repugnant--to hold on to power.
  I was appalled by this despicable incident and I would gladly vote 
for legislation that directly addresses this attack as well as 
legislation that would

[[Page S1500]]

foster the democratization of Cuba. Unfortunately, the bill before us 
today will not carry out those objectives.
  The conference report would deny a United States travel visa to 
anyone with a stake in certain companies that do business in Cuba. This 
provision threatens to seriously damage relations with many of our 
closest allies, including Canada, whose citizens could be denied entry 
into the United States.
  The measure creates a new cause of action in U.S. courts allowing 
citizens to sue any foreign national who traffics in confiscated Cuban 
property. This alone could result in a huge logjam in our Federal 
courts. But by establishing an arbitrary $50,000 claim threshold, the 
legislation denies legal recourse to many Americans whose homes or 
shops were confiscated by the Castro regime. There is no logical 
justification for this discriminatory treatment. It winds up helping 
the wealthiest and hurting middle-class Americans. It makes sense to 
adopt measures to punish Fidel Castro and his thugs for their 
reprehensible action. It makes no sense, however, to do so in a way 
that will hurt many Americans and punish our best allies.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I come to the floor of the Senate today to 
express my opposition to the legislation currently under consideration. 
While the Helms-Burton legislation seeks to hasten the end of the 
Castro regime in Cuba--a goal that is shared by every Member of this 
body--I am concerned that it will in fact do more to damage our larger 
foreign policy goals than bring about a democratically elected 
government in Cuba.
  The shootdown by the Cuban military of two unarmed United States 
civilian aircraft engaged in humanitarian activities in international 
airspace is reprehensible. This clear violation of international law 
required a strong U.S. response--a response which was delivered by the 
Clinton administration immediately following the attack. Charter 
flights between the United States and Cuba were suspended, steps were 
taken to compensate the victims' families from Cuban assets frozen in 
the United States, and the United States led a successful campaign in 
the U.N. Security Council to strongly deplore the unprovoked attack on 
these unarmed aircraft.
  Mr. President, there is now great pressure for those of us in the 
Senate to voice our distaste for the Castro regime by passing the 
Helms-Burton legislation. I will vote against this bill, not because I 
am opposed to trying to tighten sanctions on Castro's Government, but 
because I believe that provisions of the Helms-Burton bill would have a 
detrimental effect on relations with our closest allies.
  Last fall, I voted in favor of the Senate version of this bill which, 
in my opinion, represented a bipartisan approach to strengthening 
economic sanctions on Cuba. The Senate bill included provisions which 
sought to include the international community in our efforts to ratchet 
down the pressure on the Castro regime while holding out the promise of 
United States assistance to a post-Castro Cuban Government striving to 
achieve democratic, free-market reforms in Cuba. I still support this 
approach, and believe our policy should continue to move in this 
direction. However, the bill that we have before us today includes 
provisions not in the version that passed the Senate. Titles III and IV 
of Helms-Burton will open the floodgates to new lawsuits in U.S. courts 
and will put us in an adversarial position in our relations with our 
allies throughout the world.
  Provisions of title III and IV which give United States citizens the 
right to sue foreign companies that operate in Cuba are viewed by our 
allies as an attempt by the United States to act unilaterally to 
dictate to them a Cuba policy. This will undoubtedly lead to resentment 
and resistance to future United States policy efforts in connection 
with Cuba. Rather than alienating our allies, our policies toward Cuba 
should seek to be inclusive.
  It is far too easy to vote in favor of Helms-Burton as an emotional 
response to Castro's unlawful shootdown of United States civilian 
aircraft, but to do so would ignore the negative impact this 
legislation will have on our foreign policy objectives both in Cuba and 
in a larger sense. Mr. President, it is my hope that we will be able to 
separate our current anger at the Castro Government from these 
proceedings. I say this not to minimize the gravity of Cuba's actions, 
nor would I necessarily rule out further action against Castro, but 
rather because I believe that the legislation before us will hurt our 
ability to exact change in Cuba. By straining our relations with our 
closest allies, it is my fear that we will further isolate ourselves 
from the international community on this issue, and that in the future 
we will be unable to work on a multilateral basis to bring about a 
democratic Cuba.
  I conclude, Mr. President, by urging my colleagues to fully consider 
their vote today in the larger context of how this legislation will 
affect U.S. foreign policy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, on February 24, the Cuban regime shot 
down and killed four men, American citizens, apparently flying over 
international waters, off the coast of Cuba. No matter how one judges 
the intent of these four Brothers to the Rescue--and some have pointed 
out that in the past Brothers to the Rescue violated Cuban airspace and 
went so far as to overfly Havana and drop anti-Castro leaflets over the 
Cuban capital--the fact is that they were flying in small, unarmed 
civilian aircraft. They certainly did not represent a real, physical 
threat to Cuban security. But the Castro government--no respecter of 
human rights, of international law, or of common decency--had its MiG 
fighters shoot down those two defenseless Cessnas. I join my 
colleagues, the U.S. Government, and the international community in 
deploring this act of brutality.
  As appalling as this act was, Mr. President, it should not surprise 
us. Castro is a dictator who, for 37 years, has ruthlessly trampled on 
the rights of the Cuban people. The State Department and all reputable 
human rights organizations point to the routine use of torture, 
beatings, economic coercion, and suppression of legitimate protest by 
the Castro regime.
  Only 2 weeks ago, a small pro-democracy group, the Concilio Cubano, 
was prevented from holding a meeting and two of its members were 
summarily thrown into prison after kangaroo court proceedings. That 
Castro would have his military lash out callously and viciously at a 
perceived threat, then, is pretty much what we could expect.
  What surprises me, Mr. President, is how a small, poor island like 
Cuba continues to elicit the most knee-jerk response from Washington. 
Certainly, the administration did the right thing in seeking an 
international condemnation of these intentional murders. I also support 
President Clinton's order requiring restitution by the Cuban 
Government--drawing on frozen Cuban assets--for the families of the 
victims, and the increased use of Radio Marti--and notably not that 
proven failure, TV Marti--to bring uncensored news and information to 
the Cuban people. The rush to punish, however, must stop at that point 
where ill-considered policies undermine U.S. national interest, or lead 
to a misguided and ineffective policy altogether. That's what this bill 
did before the shootdown, and what it's going to do regardless of the 
shootdown.
  In seeking to pound the final nail in Castro's coffin, H.R. 927 
misses its target, causing pain for all but Castro. Very briefly, allow 
me to enumerate the most obvious flaws:
  Title I instructs the President to seek a mandatory international 
embargo against Cuba. This is untenable: The United States is regularly 
outvoted at the United Nations by margins along the lines of 140 to 2 
when we seek to defend our unilateral trade embargo. It is all the less 
likely to pass given that our closest allies object vociferously to the 
other provisions of this bill.
  Title I also requires the President to make it clear to the Cuban 
Government that:

       The completion and operation of any nuclear power facility, 
     or b) further political manipulation of the desire of Cubans 
     to escape that results in mass migration to the United 
     States, will be considered an act of aggression which will be 
     met with an appropriate response. . . .

  What does this mean? Are we threatening, in fact, to bomb or disable 
a nuclear energy facility in Cuba? I should hope not, and suggesting it 
as a policy undermines U.S. credibility.
  Another fault of the bill is section 102, which codifies the trade 
embargo

[[Page S1501]]

as law. By this provision, Congress deprives the executive branch of 
the right to modify, ease or even strengthen the embargo. It would 
restrict the President's ability to react quickly to events within Cuba 
or on the international scene as related to Cuba. Mr. President, I am a 
strong supporter of the Congress' constitutional prerogative to advise 
and consult closely with the White House on matters of foreign policy. 
But I do not support leaving Congress alone to legislate United States 
foreign policy, and in fact fear that we do a disservice to the country 
if we try.
  With title III, Mr. President, the bill steps beyond domestic 
politics and into offending accepted norms of international law. This 
section, which grants to persons, including those not U.S. citizens at 
the time of the alleged taking, a cause of action in U.S. Federal court 
against individuals and foreign entities trafficking in expropriated 
Cuban properties. This procedure not only threatens to clog U.S. 
courts, but also defies logic. Their cause of action is rightfully in 
some, future, Cuban court, not the United States judiciary.
  Furthermore, contrary to the assertions of supporters of this bill, 
an international claims settlement procedure already provides an 
effective mechanism for asserting claims, which is why most certified 
claimants oppose this bill. Moreover, this provision will not benefit 
the little guy who lost property in Cuba, since there is a threshold 
level of $50,000 in controversy, a tremendous amount in 1959 Cuba. 
Further, to mollify critics, a filing fee of perhaps $4,500 will be 
imposed. Of course, very few beyond corporate interests can afford to 
pursue such a costly litigation.
  If that was not bad enough, title IV of this conference report takes 
the extraordinary step of mandating the exclusion from the United 
States of third-party nationals who traffic in such property. Canadian 
and European business executives, and their governments, are 
understandably upset at the prospect of their citizens being kept out 
of the United States because they do business with Cuba. There is an 
international consensus that countries such as Iran pose a threat to 
global stability, and therefore travel by its officials should be 
limited. But people doing business in Cuba are not threats to our 
security, and accordingly should not categorically be denied access to 
the United States. Of course, most of our allies don't need visas and 
will enter anyway, undermining the force of the statute. But it looks 
tough --and is more or less pointless.
  Mr. President, this bill's myopic focus on Cuba is one that I find 
particularly disturbing. Cuba is not significant on the world scene; 
whatever geostrategic threat it may have posed disappeared 5 years ago, 
a fact our own military acknowledges.
  In China, by comparison, we find a country bordering on superpower 
status. The Chinese Government regularly takes steps which threaten 
international security in fact: Nuclear equipment sales to Pakistan; 
saber-rattling across the Taiwan strait; human rights violations on a 
very brutal scale. China's policies on intellectual property even 
violate major United States financial interests. Why are we not 
imposing sanctions on China? Sadly, I know that a bill proposing the 
same sanctions on China that we are today imposing against Cuba would 
fail--indicating that to the United States Congress fossilized cold war 
fantasies are more powerful than the real national security goals of 
1996.
  Mr. President, Cuba is a pariah. Certainly we as a nation have the 
right to limit our relations, economic and otherwise. Although some 
might note that after 35 years of embargo, Castro remains entrenched 
and that the policy needs careful review, I am not advocating a 
loosening of the embargo. That cannot take place absent an improvement 
in the atrocious human rights situation in Cuba. But I think we should 
be consistent in our foreign policy. If we sanction Cuba, then why not 
those current and former Communists--including those which are actual 
threats to international security, such as China, or with whom we met 
in battle at the cost of 55,000 United States soldiers, such as 
Vietnam? If we choose, instead, to engage such countries in dialog and 
with economic relations to effect change, then why not Cuba?
  Instead, we shoot ourselves in the foot. This bill will not topple 
Castro; it will only give him cause to tighten his grip in the face of 
the Yanqui threat. It increases our isolation internationally and 
hobbles our ability to influence events in Cuba in a positive manner. 
It is an expensive resolution which will bring United States-Cuba 
politics into our courts. Helms-Burton damages the United States 
national interest and hurts innocent Cubans and I will vote against it.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we consider instituting the provisions of 
title III of the Cuban Sanctions Act, I am troubled that in a rush to 
exact retribution for the heinous act of shooting down United States 
unarmed civil light aircraft by Cuban MiG fighters, we will accomplish 
nothing more than antagonizing our worldwide trading partners.
  First, monetary restrictions and filing procedures currently in the 
language, prevent compensation to by the vast majority of Cuban exiles 
and benefit only large business concerns which look to use the offices 
of the U.S. Government to practice international tort law through 
legislation. This course of action can only lead to the muddying of the 
legal trade policies and agreements which we have long supported.
  Second, though we are unarguably the leader in free trade throughout 
the world, this action will isolate us from our loyal and historic 
trading partners. Even as we contemplate this drastic course of action, 
our trading partners have vociferously objected to its long-term 
ramifications. Some of our closest allies are considering equally 
harmful measures in response and you know that once we start down this 
type of road, it will be extremely difficult to halt until an economic 
disaster occurs.
  Third, the further starving of the Cuban people in an attempt to 
force a change in their government is not the way to promote a 
democratic movement. In order to win the hearts and minds of a 
subjugated people one doesn't beat them even more. We want to see them 
change their government from within and view us as a benefactor and not 
as a martinet.
  I too, want the Cuban Government to change. I too, want the Cuban 
Government to bear full responsibility and consequence for their 
totally unwarranted and illegal actions. I don't believe that 
unilaterally attacking world wide trading policies and harming our 
relationships with our allies and partners is the way to do it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I must strongly condemn the Cuban 
Government for its gross violation of international law in shooting 
down two small, unarmed civilian aircraft last Saturday, resulting in 
the presumed loss of four American lives. This was a cowardly, cold-
blooded act by Cuban authorities. There is no excuse for this violent 
act and no explanation that Cuba can offer which justifies such blatant 
disregard for international norms.
  I must note that Cuba's action on Saturday came on the very date that 
the Cuban Council, an alliance of human rights and dissident groups, 
had asked to hold a first-ever conference of such groups in Cuba. 
Beginning on February 15, the Cuban Government responded to the 
council's request, a request made in accordance with Cuba's 
Constitution, by retaining and arresting more than 50 people active in 
the council. I must also strongly condemn the Cuban Government of Fidel 
Castro for this crackdown.
  By these actions, the Cuban Government has once again demonstrated 
its fundamental disregard for internationally recognized humanitarian 
norms. These actions also sadden me because they have extinguished 
summarily the pin-pricks of light which were beginning to show, for the 
first time in many, many years, in our relations with Cuba. Recently, 
there had been an increased number of exchanges and visits, activities 
which I continue to believe are crucial to creating space for a 
democratic change in Cuba.
  The legislation before the Senate today, however, is not an 
appropriate, or even a relevant, response. As I noted during our 
consideration of this bill last October, instead of promoting 
democratic change in Cuba, this legislation, namely title III, creates 
a potential windfall for a small group of people at the expense of the 
greater interests of the United States. This bill alienates major 
allies and trading partners, such as Canada, Mexico, and

[[Page S1502]]

France, with its clear extra-territorial application. Further, the 
effects of this legislation risk destabilizing Cuba to the point where 
we could face another exodus of boat people. We must ask ourselves: Are 
we ready to deal with such a crisis anew in order to serve the 
interests of a deep-pocketed few? I say we are not. The Presidential 
waiver provision for title III is not enough to overcome my deep 
reservations. This bill also carries with it a high human cost and I 
should note that the Cuban-American community is far from monolithic in 
its support for this bill.
  I am also deeply concerned by this bill's codification of the 
Executive orders and regulations that implement the existing embargo. 
In spite of Cuba's recent actions, codifying the embargo takes us in 
the wrong direction, making our eventual and necessary rapprochement 
all the more difficult. I also believe that a mandatory visa ban on 
officers and majority shareholders companies which are trafficking in 
such properties is an unnecessarily petty provision. I will vote 
against this legislation.


        draconian helms-burton cuba sanctions bill goes too far

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today we will be voting on legislation 
to codify permanently some of the most far-reaching, harshest economic 
and political sanctions the United States has ever imposed by law upon 
another country. While I support the goal of pressing Cuba toward 
democratic rule, this bill is not the way to get there.
  Let me be clear: Cuba's recent shocking attack against unarmed 
civilian aircraft, apparently in international waters, was an 
outrageous breach of international law, even considering the unwise 
acts of the Cuban-American pilots who had been consistently warned of 
the dangers. This action, and Cuba's detention of members of the Cuban 
Council--journalists, human rights activists, and others--has been met 
with widespread condemnation, both here and abroad. Cuba must respect 
international aviation law, internationally recognized human rights, 
and democratic freedoms if it is to reenter the community of nations.
  The President has responded with a series of firm economic and 
political steps, unilaterally and multilaterally. This bill simply 
piles on, in a way that I don't believe is in U.S. long-term interests. 
I know that in the wake of the air tragedy, it will pass by 
overwhelming margins in both Houses, and will be signed by President 
Clinton, despite his earlier strenuous opposition. While there are 
elements of the bill which I support, including its authorization of 
assistance to democratic organizations, human rights groups, and 
international observers, as a whole it embodies a fundamentally flawed 
policy.
  It's true that the people of Cuba have for too long been denied basic 
political rights, including the right to speak freely, to criticize 
their Government, and to associate with one another as they wish. And 
for too long, Cubans have been unable to improve their standard of 
living through much-needed economic reforms. I would of course support 
and vote for legislation if I thought it would achieve that goal.
  But unfortunately that's not the case. Instead we have before us the 
so-called Helms-Burton legislation, and we have to decide if it is 
likely to move us toward the twin goals of greater economic opportunity 
and greater political freedom in Cuba. Unfortunately, the answer, I 
believe, is no. So while I share the goal of my colleagues who support 
this bill--a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba--I do not believe 
this bill will get us to that goal. There are several major areas of 
concern that I want to focus on.
  First, as I observed, I fear that the burden of harsh sanctions often 
falls on innocent Cubans, not on the Government or on elites. Its 
provisions to enact into law prohibitions on families in the United 
States sending any significant funds to their own family members in 
Cuba, to all but cut off travel between the United States and Cuba so 
family members can at least visit one another, and to prohibit 
investments in open telephone communication between the United States 
and Cuba are especially unfair and counterproductive.
  Its provision to place in law a prohibition on sales of food and 
medicines to Cuba--even to nongovernmental organizations, like churches 
or relief groups--is wrong, and likely to do further real harm to those 
whom proponents claim most to want to help. As is so often the case 
when ideology presses all other considerations into the background, the 
reality of people's lives--those innocent Cubans who will be most 
directly affected, and who struggle to maintain their families under 
Cuba's repressive government--is dismissed as inconsequential.
  Second, I do not believe it is in our national political or economic 
interest to codify into law, and then tighten, this already harsh U.S. 
embargo. I will offer a few examples later of the reasons why, 
including my concerns, as one who represents a State which borders 
Canada, about its impact on United States-Canada relations, on 
Minnesota firms which do business with our Canadian neighbors.
  Third, even if it were judged to be in our interest, I don't believe 
it will have the desired effect on Fidel Castro's government that its 
proponents intend. In fact, it could backfire on us, prompting Castro 
to become more repressive, and worsening social and political tensions 
there which could in turn lead to violence, and another major outflow 
of refugees to the United States. It was not long ago we had thousands 
of Cubans coming across the Florida Straits in leaky boats, who were 
stopped and then held at Guantanamo Naval Base for many months, at a 
cost of millions of dollars. Is that what Americans want to see again? 
I don't think so. But that very well could happen.
  Ultimately, additional harsh sanctions could undermine, not bolster, 
opposition-backed hopes for political and economic liberalization there 
by enabling Fidel Castro to play the nationalist card, using the U.S. 
sanctions as a rationale for tightening his grip on power. We have seen 
in Russia, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and to some degree even in China 
that the process of political and economic reform in these places has 
been accelerated by a more open exchange of ideas, people, information, 
technology, and other goods and services--not by increasing the 
isolation of these people from the outside world.
  North Korea is a good example of what happens when we isolate 
Communist states; a disaster for United States policy. In Cuba, as 
elsewhere, ensuring an open flow of Western, democratic ideas, 
information, and technology could be critical to helping to transform 
those societies. This bill flies in the face of almost all of our 
recent positive experience in helping to transform collapsing Communist 
states around the world.
  The bill could also prompt our allies and trading partners to 
retaliate, putting limits on U.S. firms which trade abroad, and 
eliminating the good-paying U.S. jobs that depend on such trade. Many 
are already voicing loud complaint, and some have threatened such 
retaliation. Over 50 countries now have substantial business interests 
in Cuba. Should we refuse visas to businesspeople--and their families--
from Britain, France, Germany, Japan, or other of our trading partners 
who want to do business and create jobs within the United States, if 
they hold an interest in a Cuban business? Under this bill, in many 
cases we would have to do just that.
  Americans expect a tough, firm response to Cuba's recent actions. But 
they also expect common sense, something which has been in short supply 
in America's policy approach to Cuba for a long time. Usually, if a 
policy doesn't work, you try something else. United States-Cuba policy, 
like the shop-worn Communist policies of the Cuban Government itself, 
has been frozen in ideological amber for too long, driven as much by 
domestic political concerns as by responsible foreign policy.
  Let me offer a few examples that I think highlight why this bill is 
not in our own national interest. Russia is now moving toward elections 
that could determine the fate of the reform movement there for years to 
come. United States aid has played a key role in helping the Russians 
to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, open up their economy, and become 
a more open and democratic society. But this bill would require 
substantial reductions in United States aid to any country, like 
Russia, that provides assistance to Cuba. The way I read it, we 
couldn't provide key assistance, including that designed

[[Page S1503]]

to bolster Russia's ability to buy United States products, if they 
provide aid, however unrelated, to the Cubans. This is true not only of 
Russia, but of any of our allies or trading partners whose firms have 
long been doing business in Cuba.
  The tight and inflexible strictures this bill places on assistance to 
a transitional government there would also not be in our political 
interest. When the transition to a post-Castro, more democratic Cuba 
begins, we must be ready to move quickly to help to ensure its success, 
as we did in Haiti. The new rules proposed by this bill could leave us 
on the sidelines in a rapidly-moving transition--a dangerous place to 
be during such an unstable period.
  As in Haiti, the United States needs the flexibility to respond to 
changing circumstances, sometimes even to overnight changes. But it 
takes months for Congress to act on simple bills declaring National 
Auto Safety Week, or National Ice Cream Day. It's unrealistic to think 
we would move quickly to provide aid to a new government. We should be 
there with resources, ideas, and the diplomatic flexibility to react 
just as the transition begins--not panting up to the finish line once 
it's over.
  Nor is this bill in our economic interest. Its provisions to 
effectively impose a boycott on third-party countries and businesses 
who are not the primary target of Cuba sanctions are especially unwise. 
For example, should Minnesota farmers who sell grain to Russian joint 
Venture partners be penalized because Russia trades with Cuba?
  Should Minnesota businesses who may be working in partnership with 
Canadian firms be subject to multimillion dollar lawsuits simply 
because their Canadian partner happens to sell computers, or medical 
equipment, or anything else, to a Cuban humanitarian organization? I 
don't think so. But this bill would do that, exposing firms in my State 
to huge potential liabilities for something they have little or no 
control over. That's not common sense, and it would endanger jobs and 
trade for Minnesotans.
  There are other objections that have been raised about the legal 
implications of this bill. As Senators Dodd, Pell and others have 
observed, the bill would open U.S. courts to potentially thousands of 
new property claims. This provision was dropped from the original 
Senate bill. Current law provides for a means of addressing property 
claims, through a Claims Settlement Commission. This bill would give 
special rights under United States law to a particular class of people, 
Cuban citizens who can make a claim that their properties were 
nationalized in the late 1950's by the Cuban Government, and who later 
became U.S. citizens by means of very generous United States 
immigration laws--more generous than for virtually any other group. Why 
are we giving these special rights to Cubans who became citizens? Why 
not give the same rights to Bulgarians, Russians, Poles, Vietnamese, 
Chinese, Hmong, Lao, too, who may have had unresolved property claims 
when they were citizens of their own countries? Providing access to 
U.S. courts for claims filed on behalf of those who weren't even U.S. 
citizens, and thus not entitled to U.S. court review when the claims 
originally arose, sets a precedent which I am sure we will regret, and 
which will likely be very expensive. Who pays to give this special 
treatment to this special group? U.S. taxpayers pay. Of course, this 
disparate treatment not only raises legal questions. It also raises 
constitutional questions, especially about equal protection of the law, 
which its proponents have brushed aside.
  Don't let anyone confuse the issue by leaving the impression that 
this bill is designed to protect small Cuban landholders who lost their 
homes and offices when Cuba overthrew the brutal Batista regime. These 
regular folks get left out. As is so often the case, the big corporate 
interests who reportedly helped to draft the bill, like the rum 
manufacturers and sugar processors, many of whom supported the brutal 
and corrupt Batista regime in the 1950's, and the big families that 
composed Cuba's elites for decades, are the ones who would most benefit 
from the new legal rights accorded by this bill. But they cloak 
themselves in the rhetoric of protecting the little guy who lost his 
shack on the beach in Havana, in order to persuade Congress, and other 
Americans, to protect their economic interests.
  Mr. President, it's clear that we must send a strong message to the 
Cuban Government, and that we must do all we can to help accelerate a 
democratic transition there. But this bill would harm innocent Cubans 
far more than it would serve to pressure the Cuban Government. It could 
undercut the very efforts at political and economic reform that its 
proponents support, escalating social tensions, and prompting another 
outflow of refugees to U.S. shores.
  Given the new frictions it will cause with our allies, and the other 
problems I've discussed, I do not believe it is in America's long-term 
interests. I know it will pass today. But I would be less than honest 
if I took the politically expedient route and voted with many of my 
colleagues who want to simply send a strong signal, whatever the 
vehicle, whatever the potential costs and unintended consequences, 
whatever the troubling legal precedents it sets. This bill does not 
meet the Minnesota common sense test. It does not meet the fairness 
test. It will not, in my view, have the effect its proponents hope. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I gather there has been an agreement 
between the forces supporting and opposing this measure. Pursuant to 
that agreement, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes 
from time that had been allotted to the opponents of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Cuban Liberty 
and Democratic Solidarity Act. I am pleased and proud to say I am an 
original sponsor of this legislation which passed the Senate, passed 
the House, and languished in a conference committee because of a 
dispute over certain provisions of the bill. But, as so often happens, 
dictators like Castro, if given the time, will show their true 
inclination and will, by their acts, provide the best evidence and the 
best support for action by great and free nations like ours against 
them. So it was, painfully, tragically, in the case of Cuba and Castro, 
over the last few weeks.
  This is in the context of attempts by many in our country, well-
intentioned attempts, to open some lines of communication with Castro 
to see if that might tame this beast, if that might make this tiger 
into a pussy cat. Just a few weeks ago, a distinguished group of 
visiting Americans had pictures taken with Castro, all looking very 
friendly. But what is happening on the ground at the same time in Cuba? 
In response to the deterioration of the economy and the continued 
suppression of the human rights of Cubans, I gather for the first time 
in three decades, the disparate opposition groups, that is groups 
opposed to Castro--and it is not easy, as we all know, to be opposed to 
Castro in Cuba--come together, form this group, Concilio Cubano, and 
begin to discuss peaceful, nonviolent ways to oppose the dictatorial 
regime of Castro.
  What is the response of that government, of Castro's government, to 
this group? He arrests its leaders, the leaders of the opposition, and 
puts them in jail. Think about the contrast. A distinguished group of 
Americans visiting, holding peaceful discussions, and at the same time 
the courageous domestic opposition to Castro--finally beginning to come 
together against the force of this state--gets locked up; all that in 
the week or so before this next tragic incident.
  They were four Americans. Sometimes we are too sensitive about things 
said in the media, but it struck me at the outset, when these planes 
were shot down, they were described as being piloted by representatives 
of the Cuban exile community. There is a Cuban-American community that 
has left Cuba. But these are not Cuban exiles in the sense that the 
term suggests, that they are somehow the other. They are us. These are 
Cuban-Americans who have attained citizenship and are proud of their 
extraordinarily productive community in Florida.
  So, four Americans in these unarmed planes were shot down, without 
appropriate warning under international

[[Page S1504]]

law: an outrageous act; an act of murder--let us call it that, plain 
and simple. An act of murder of civilians by a military government has 
now dislodged this bill from the conference committee and brought it to 
the floor, and I am grateful for the support that has been given to the 
bill.
  The act of cowardice represented by that military attack 
demonstrates--as clearly as we could ask for it, much more clearly than 
any of us could argue on this floor or had argued before on behalf of 
this bill--that the Cuban Government's opposition to freedom is as 
strong as ever. The Castro regime remains hostile to the United States 
and the people of Cuba. This crackdown on the opposition, the shootdown 
of these planes, the litany of outrageous dictatorial acts that my 
friend and colleague from Florida has stated, show us once again that 
Castro is not redeemable. Forget it. Do not have idealistic dreams that 
this man, who comes out of the Stalinist era of communism, can suddenly 
become a freedom fighter.
  In supporting the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, we are 
acting in the best traditions of America's foreign policy because we 
are acting in the interests of human rights. We are acting in the 
interests of human rights. We are acting on behalf of the suppressed 
people who have lived too long under Castro's domination in Cuba. They 
have no less a right to live in freedom than the other peoples of the 
world toward whom we have extended ourselves, or against whom we have 
imposed economic sanctions to try to raise the liberty of the people 
who live within those countries.
  There are those who say that Castro denies human rights. That is 
true. And it is in the tradition of America, the best tradition of our 
foreign policy, to stand for human rights.
  Mr. President, pursuant to the previous agreement, I wonder if I 
might ask for 3 more minutes from the time of the opponents to the 
legislation?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to yield to the Senator from Connecticut 
2 minutes, if I might.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Connecticut gratefully accepts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the point is this. The opponents of the 
bill and others may say, ``Yes, Castro denies human rights, but he does 
not represent a threat to the United States.'' He does not, in a 
fundamental sense of our existence and security. But so long as there 
is a hostile government in Cuba, the fact is that enemies of the United 
States will find a partner. So long as there is a hostile government in 
Cuba 90 miles from our shore, those who wish us ill will find an ally. 
For that reason of our own national security, as well as the faithful 
support of the best principles of our country, human rights, I think 
the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act is a strong step in the 
right direction.
  Keep the pressure on. Bring Castro down. Let us move together on a 
bipartisan basis. The President strongly supports this legislation. 
Great majorities of both parties in this Congress support the 
legislation. Let us pass it and send the strongest possible message of 
hope to those who live under tyranny in Cuba and, hopefully, the 
strongest possible message that will bring fear to that individual who 
has tyrannized this proud people and that great island for much too 
long.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter 
from President Bill Clinton to Majority Leader Bob Dole in support of 
the conference report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: The Cuban regime's decision on February 24 
     to shoot down two U.S. civilian planes, causing the deaths of 
     three American citizens and one U.S. resident, demanded a 
     firm, immediate response.
       Beginning on Sunday, February 25, I ordered a series of 
     steps. As a result of U.S. efforts, the United Nations 
     Security Council unanimously adopted a Presidential Statement 
     strongly deploring Cuba's actions. We will seek further 
     condemnation by the international community in the days and 
     weeks ahead. In addition, the United States is taking a 
     number of unilateral measures to obtain justice from the 
     Cuban government, as well as its agreement to abide by 
     international law in the future.
       As part of these measures, I asked my Administration to 
     work vigorously with the Congress to set aside our remaining 
     differences and reach rapid agreement on the Cuban Liberty 
     and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act. Last week, we 
     achieved that objective. The conference report is a strong, 
     bipartisan response that tightens the economic embargo 
     against the Cuban regime and permits us to continue to 
     promote democratic change in Cuban.
       I urge the Congress to pass the LIBERTAD bill in order to 
     send Cuba a powerful message that the United States will not 
     tolerate further loss of American life.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter 
of endorsement of the conference report by the U.S. Cuba Business 
Council be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was 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 U.S.-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 or 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. certified claimants have 
     expressed concerns that Section 737 of the bill may diminish 
     the pool of available assets for American property claimants 
     by conditioning U.S. assistance to Cuba on resolution of 
     claims held by those who were not U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. property rights and discourage 
     foreign investors from trafficking in confiscated U.S. 
     properties. Under these provisions, foreign firms trafficking 
     in stolen U.S. property in Cuba would risk action by U.S. 
     claimants against their U.S.-based assets [(Chapter III) 
     Sections 741-744] and invite U.S. action to revoke entry 
     visas of foreign corporate executives trafficking in 
     confiscated U.S. properties.
       We believe these measures will enhance the leverage of U.S. 
     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 U.S. firms 
     preparing to participate in the economic development of a 
     democratic Cuba.
       Some U.S. 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 clarify that the bill does not authorize the 
     President to espouse the claims of naturalized U.S. citizens 
     in any settlement with Cuba and will not dilute the pool of 
     assets available to U.S. claimants. As modified, the LIBERTAD 
     Act significantly narrows and limits the filing of suits to 
     effectively target foreign firms trafficking in confiscated 
     U.S.-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 U.S. assets applies almost

[[Page S1505]]

     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 U.S.-based subsidiaries or other assets. Thus, 
     only a handful of cases against foreign firms in the U.S. 
     would qualify for consideration in U.S. 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 his 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 U.S. business community, 
     protection of U.S. property rights, and the economic 
     development of a 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.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to remind all listening to this 
debate that we are not talking about normal business transactions. We 
are talking about a dictator, a murderer, a violator of human rights, 
and an evil force in our hemisphere. That is the basis of this 
conference report.
  It was suggested that we have not had appropriate time to deal with 
this legislation. It has been before the Senate for 13 months. There 
have been two subcommittee hearings on the measure and, of course, 
extensive negotiations between the White House and the committee 
itself.
  It has been suggested that it violates NAFTA. The administration has 
confirmed our finding that this document does not violate NAFTA.
  It has been suggested that we have a $50,000 cap denying the 
residential owners with smaller claims the opportunity to be benefited 
by the act. That is a result of the opponents' complaint that the 
number of claims under the original bill would crowd the court system. 
So we have acceded to their demand to limit the number of cases. We are 
perfectly willing to open these legal remedies to those with claims 
valued at less than $50,000 and welcome legislation to lower this cap.
  It had been suggested that it is a violation of 40 years of 
international law, that no nationalized citizens have ever had rights 
under an international claims settlement. I would suggest the 
opposition read the 1992 annual report of the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission of the United States. You will find the precedents for our 
efforts to provide compensation to naturalized citizens.
  It has been suggested that we are going to chill the business 
community, that this just deals with business transactions. I want to 
remind all listening, and the opposition, that the bill is directed at 
people who engage in the business of exploiting stolen--I repeat 
stolen--property confiscated by Fidel Castro and his regime.
  Mr. President, until the Soviet aid was cut off, joint ventures were 
not the key issue that they have become. In 1981, there was one 
transaction of this type. But by 1993, there were 60; and in 1994, 
there were 74. Yet, just the introduction of the Helms-Burton 
legislation has cut the number of new joint ventures in half.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a chart titled ``Cuban Economic Association with Foreign Capital 
Participation'', showing joint ventures in Cuba by country and year.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         CUBAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATIONS WITH FOREIGN CAPITAL PARTICIPATION                         
                                              [By country and year]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Country                           1988   1990   1991   1992   1993   1994   1995   Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spain..................................................      1  .....      3      9     10     14     10      47
Mexico.................................................  .....  .....      2      3      3      4      1      13
Canada.................................................  .....  .....  .....      2      8     16  .....      26
Italy..................................................  .....  .....  .....      1      5      4      7      17
France.................................................  .....      1  .....      3      5      2      2      13
Holland................................................  .....  .....  .....      1      2      3      3       9
Offshore...............................................  .....      1      3     10      5     12  .....      31
Latin America..........................................  .....  .....      2      3     11      9      4      29
Other..................................................  .....  .....      1      1     11     10      4      27
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
  Total................................................      1      2     11     33     60     74     31     212
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Cuba, Inversiones y Negocios 1995-96, CONAS, Havana, 1995, p. 18.                                       

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it has been stated that our allies, 
some 58 countries, are going to be intimidated. I hope they are chilled 
by this. I hope they are. We are saying ``quit dealing and assisting 
this dictator by giving him hard currency in exchange for the use of 
our stolen property.''
  Mr. President, let me say that I think the argument that 
international law, which protects these types of transactions, has a 
higher standing than our country's interest in defending our property 
owners is flawed. I think the pursuit of perfecting international law 
to protect our citizens from a rogue regime is legitimate and good 
sound public policy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining total?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes and fifty-one seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is my understanding that no one chooses to speak on 
the measure. So I will make a closing comment and then yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I think we owe the authors, 
Senator Helms and Congressman Burton, the cosponsors, and the White 
House--all who participated extensively to perfect this conference 
report that I believe will soon become law--a great deal of support. 
They need to be complimented extensively for the vast work they have 
done to perfect this legislation over the last 2 years.
  Mr. President, I believe that this legislation will send a signal 
worldwide about this rogue regime, that it is not in the interest of 
business, or individuals, to be predators over confiscated and stolen 
property. I think the effects that I just alluded to moments ago are 
very positive, and I hope that all will take note and that there will 
be no more transactions in stolen property.
  I hope that we give comfort to those who have had their lifelong 
possessions confiscated by the Cuban Government, that we will begin to 
signal hope to them, that there may be light at the end of the tunnel, 
and that they will be compensated for that which was lost.
  I hope to the Cuban people we will be saying that the United States 
stands here ready to be an ally and ready to be an assistant to the 
transition to democracy and to the transition to a democratic 
government.
  Mr. President, I see the author of the bill has arrived on the floor. 
I yield whatever time is remaining to the distinguished Senator from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, let me first say with the friendliest of intent to our 
neighbors to the north, Canada, who have overspoken themselves in 
criticism of the United States--and particularly of this bill--
declaring that they think it is all right for them and others to 
continue to deal with Castro. Let me remind them that Castro has had a 
murderous regime from the very beginning. More Cuban citizens have been 
killed, murdered, locked up, imprisoned, robbed--you name it--than 
anybody can imagine.
  They advocate making a deal with Castro.
  That is precisely what Neville Chamberlain advocated about dealing 
with Hitler. Mr. Chamberlain went to Munich, was wined and dined by 
Hitler. When he came back, he declared, ``We can do business with 
Hitler. We can make a deal. We can have peace in our time.'' Well, 
Neville Chamberlain was wrong; one man, Winston Churchill, rebuked 
Chamberlain and declared that he was wrong. Winston Churchill was 
right.
  Furthermore, I will say to our critical friends in Canada that some 
of us in the United States are a bit weary about Canada's flagrant 
transshipment of Cuban sugar and other things which are brought into 
Canada and then unlawfully shipped into the United States.
  So, if the Canadians want to discuss what's right, what's moral, they 
should bear in mind that all of us become a part of what we condone. 
And by their advocacy in this matter, by their opposition to this bill, 
the Canadians are condoning Fidel Castro. Shame on them.

[[Page S1506]]

  Mr. President, about a year ago, on February 9, 1995, I introduced 
legislation to hasten the day when Fidel Castro no longer can inflict 
terror and hardship upon the people of Cuba. Today, the Cuban people 
have reason to hope that Castro's days are indeed numbered: The Cuban 
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act is on its way to the White House 
for the President's promised signature.
  So, we are today one step away from seeing the long-awaited 
legislation signed into law. This conference report has broad 
bipartisan support, and the President has endorsed the bill and is 
urging all Members of Congress to support it.
  The Libertad Act may very well persuade Fidel Castro to withdraw his 
stranglehold on the Cuban people. It is difficult to see how Castro can 
sensibly continue to hope that his dictatorship can survive the tough 
provisions of this legislation, for example, the strengthening of all 
international sanctions by putting into law all the scores of Cuban 
embargo Executive orders and regulations enacted and imposed since 
President Kennedy. Simply stated, the embargo cannot and will not be 
lifted until Castro has departed and a democratic transition is 
underway in Cuba.
  In short, it is time for Mr. Castro to wake up and smell the coffee.
  Most importantly, the Libertad Act forces foreign investors to make a 
decision, a choice: They can trade with the United States or they can 
trade with Cuba, but not with both without paying a serious price. This 
legislation specifically creates a right of action for American 
citizens to sue those who traffic in property stolen from them by the 
Castro regime. The bill also makes it mandatory that the Secretary of 
State deny entry into the United States to individuals who are 
enriching themselves with confiscated American properties.
  Mr. President, it may be hard to believe but there are still a few 
voices calling for the United States to lift the embargo. In the past 2 
weeks, those arguments have been completely, totally, and utterly 
discredited. For during these past 2 weeks, the Castro regime 
deliberately, intentionally, and in violation of international law, 
blew two unarmed civilian planes out of the sky. Castro has launched 
the most brutal crackdown on dissidents in more than a decade. There 
have been wholesale arrests in the middle of the night, followed by 
show trials; there have been illegal searches that have shown what 
Fidel Castro is--a brutal dictator.
  These atrocities have not surprised the Cuban people who, for three 
decades now, have witnessed brutal atrocities every day of their lives 
under Castro's tyrannical regime.
  Fidel Castro has also launched a crackdown on members of the 
independent news media in Cuba. Since early 1995, Castro and his agents 
have arrested and jailed journalists who made the mistake of trying to 
make objective reports regarding Cuban Government activities.
  They arrested Olance Nogueras Roce for trying to protect the health 
and well-being of his fellow Cubans by detailing the perilous 
violations of safety regulations and the faulty construction of the 
Cuban nuclear powerplant.
  Perhaps the most despicable attacks made by Castro, Mr. President, 
were against Cuba's blossoming religious community. After years of 
persecution and open hostility by the Castro regime, the Cuban people, 
especially the young people, are flocking to the church in record 
numbers. But, fearful that the church will tell the truth about Fidel 
Castro, his security agents have closed churches, arrested clergy, and 
harassed church-goers. Freedom to worship is nonexistent in Castro's 
dictatorship.
  So, Mr. President, this conference report recommending that the 
Libertad Act become law is more desperately needed by the people of 
Cuba than ever before. The enactment of the Libertad Act will give 
these beleaguered Cuban people hope.
  This is the light at the end of the tunnel for which the Cuban people 
have prayed--those poor souls locked in Castro's gulags, those 
desperate people who attempt to cross the dangerous straits to Florida, 
the journalists and clergy who have sought the freedom to shed light on 
Castro's lies, and the average Cuban citizen struggling to survive 
under Castro's tyranny. Now that they are about to have this new law on 
their side, surely it will be only a matter of time before the Cuban 
people enjoy the freedoms that too many Americans take for granted.
  Mr. President, earlier I mentioned that President Clinton supports 
the Libertad Act. I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter 
to the distinguished majority leader be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: The Cuban regime's decision on February 24 
     to shoot down two U.S. civilian planes, causing the deaths of 
     three American citizens and one U.S. resident, demanded a 
     firm, immediate response.
       Beginning on Sunday, February 25, I ordered a series of 
     steps. As a result of U.S. efforts, the United Nations 
     Security Council unanimously adopted a Presidential Statement 
     strongly deploring Cuba's actions. We will seek further 
     condemnation by the international community in the days and 
     weeks ahead. In addition, the United States is taking a 
     number of unilateral measures to obtain justice from the 
     Cuban government, as well as its agreement to abide by 
     international law in the future.
       As part of these measures, I asked my Administration to 
     work vigorously with the Congress to set aside our remaining 
     differences and reach rapid agreement on the Cuban Liberty 
     and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act. Last week, we 
     achieved that objective. The conference report is a strong, 
     bipartisan response that tightens the economic embargo 
     against the Cuban regime and permits us to continue to 
     promote democratic change in Cuba.
       I urge the Congress to pass the LIBERTAD bill in order to 
     send Cuba a powerful message that the United States will not 
     tolerate further loss of American life.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. 
Coverdell, of Georgia.
  I yield the floor. I yield such time as I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask that all time be yielded and the 
debate be concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.

                          ____________________