[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1724-H1749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 927, CUBAN LIBERTY AND DEMOCRATIC SOLIDARITY
[LIBERTAD] ACT OF 1996
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 370
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart]
is recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1200
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 370 provides for the
consideration of the conference report for H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty
and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, usually referred to as the
Helms-Burton bill, and waive all points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration.
The House rules allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on International Relations.
This conference report is the response of the United States, of the
Congress, and the President, to the murder of three American citizens
and another U.S. resident by Castro over international waters on
February 24.
Helms-Burton is also premised upon the firm conviction that an
accelerated end to the Stalinist dictatorship in Cuba is not only
something that we need to strive for because of elemental notions of
solidarity with the terrorized and oppressed people of Cuba--but also
because the establishment of democracy in Cuba is in the national
interest of the United States.
The Castro regime is, to its core, a gangster regime. It is a regime
that answered a request, last month, by 130 dissident groups for
permission to meet peacefully, by arresting 186 dissident leaders and
independent journalists--as of last Thursday.
This is a regime that, to further intensify its latest Stalinist
crackdown on its internal opposition, felt the need to shoot down two
American civilian planes, killing three U.S. citizens and another U.S.
resident, over international waters a few days ago.
The message Castro sent the Cuban people by those murders of
Americans was clear: If I can murder Americans over international
waters and get away with it, imagine what I can do to you. It's
important to note that before the murderous pilots of those MiG's
visually identified the unarmed Cessnas that they had been ordered to
shoot down, the radar that was guiding them had locked on to a cruise
ship with hundreds aboard.
And how does the supreme gangster himself defend the murders. Read
this week's Time magazine. Castro says:
They dropped leaflets on Havana. It was a real provocation
* * * we had been patient, but there are limits * * * in
addition to these flights, there was also interference by the
U.S. interests section in our internal affairs. What these
people were doing was intolerable. They were giving money and
paying the bills of dissidents * * * it was intolerable.
This is a regime that, according to the respected British publication
Jane's Defence Weekly, has been sending special forces to be trained at
the Hoa Binh Military Base in Communist Vietnam, since 1990, in
preparation for strikes inside the United States in case
[[Page H1725]]
of war. According to Jane's Defence Weekly the purpose of those special
forces in Castro's army, training in Vietnam, is to ``Take the reality
of war to the American people, in order to create internal pressures on
Washington.''
Let me briefly quote from a statement a few days ago by Senator Dole:
``U.S. policy toward Cuba has consequences around the globe. The world
is still a dangerous place.'' Adversaries are watching our response to
the murder of American citizens. Our response is being noted--by
Russian hardliners, by North Korean generals, by state sponsors of
terrorism in Teheran and Tripoli, by Serbian leaders, by the Chinese
military eyeing Taiwan. Timidity only emboldens our enemies.
This conference report is the response of the Congress and the
President to the murder of American citizens.
The conference report codifies, it puts into law, the existing
embargo against Cuba, much of which exists only in regulations and
miscellaneous executive orders. It will now take an act of Congress to
modify the embargo, and no President will be able to weaken the embargo
unless a democratic transition is underway in Cuba.
President Clinton is urged to seek international sanctions against
the Cuban dictatorship.
The President is authorized to furnish assistance to democratic
opposition and human rights groups in Cuba. The President is also asked
to develop a plan to assist the Cuban people once a democratically-
elected government is in place and to terminate the embargo once a
democratic government--without Castro or his brother Raul--is in power.
The conference report calls for the denial of entry into the United
States of any individual who trafficks in property stolen from
Americans by Castro. American citizens will be able to sue, in American
courts, those who traffick in property stolen from them by Castro. This
provision will protect the property rights of American citizens, deter
foreign investment in Cuba, and make it much more difficult for the
Castro regime to obtain hard currency.
The conference report reduces foreign aid to those countries that
provide assistance in support of the extraordinarily dangerous Cuban
nuclear facility Castro is trying to complete at Juragua. It also
allows the President to cut aid to Russia, dollar for dollar, for its
support of the intelligence facility to spy on the United States that
the Russians still maintain in Cuba.
Just by filing Helms-Burton a year ago, foreign investment was cut in
half in 1995 in comparison to 1994. When potential investors confirm
that dealing in property stolen by Castro from Americans will expose
them to the possibility of being excluded from the United States, no
matter how unethical they may be, they will choose not to invest in
Castro's slave economy.
By saying that we will not look kindly upon foreign interests dealing
in property stolen from Americans, we are not acting in an
extraterritorial fashion; we are protecting the property rights of
American citizens, and in that way, also deterring foreign investment
in Castro's apartheid economy.
The importance of codifying--putting into law--the embargo, cannot be
over-emphasized.
No democratic transition from a long-term dictatorship in recent
decades has been possible without some important form of external
pressure.
Franco's Spain and the European Community; Trujillo's Dominican
Republic and the OAS; Pinochet's Chile; apartheid South Africa; the
Greece of the colonels.
Where there has been no external pressure, such as in China, there
has been no democratic transition and human rights violations have
increased. The Washington Post confirms today in page A10, that in the
State Department's annual report on human rights, to be released today,
the fundamental premise of United States policy toward China, that
expanding trade will lead to greater individual freedoms for Chinese
citizens, is simply invalid.
We will be able, by the measures in this conference report, including
codification of the embargo, to maintain sufficient pressure not only
to accelerate Castro's collapse, but also to see to it that his demise
will lead to an independent Cuba with full political liberties and
human rights for the now suffering Cuban people.
The Senate passed this conference report yesterday, 74 to 22. The
President supports it. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and
the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank our friend, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding the customary one-half hour of
debate time to me. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose the rule providing for the
consideration of the conference report for the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act.
As the gentleman from Florida has explained, the rule waives all
points of order against the conference report and, although we ought
always to be cautious in providing blanket waivers for legislation, the
granting of these waivers for this conference report is in accordance
with our usual procedures when we consider conference reports in the
House.
The chairman of the International Relations Committee, the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Gilman], in requesting the rule waiving all points
of order, specifically referred to the scope of matters committed to
the conference. So Members should be aware that the conference
agreement on this sweeping legislation includes provisions that were in
neither the House nor the Senate bill.
Many of us, moreover, are deeply concerned about the provisions of
the conference report itself and about its effect on U.S. policy.
Mr. Speaker, for many of our colleagues, this bill will be easy to
support--it tightens the U.S. embargo on one of the world's most
despised dictators. Yet, it is not likely that Fidel Castro will be
hurt by this legislation. Ironically, the Helms-Burton Act--a radical
departure from current United States policy--will actually weaken our
ability to encourage democracy in Cuba.
The fall of communism in Eastern Europe should have taught us an
important lesson: the enemy of a closed society, such as Cuba, is not
increased isolation--it is greater contact with the outside world. The
Soviet Union did not disintegrate because of an economic blockade--it
was exposure to Western ideas, freedoms and prosperity that hastened
the end to the cold war. In marked contrast, 37 years of economic
embargo against Cuba has failed utterly to topple the Castro
government.
The dubious premise behind this legislation is that the Cuban economy
is on the brink of collapse, and that by tightening our notoriously
porous embargo, the demise of the Castro regime can be achieved with
one final push.
The reality is more complex. The Cuban economy has been showing signs
of recovery, brought about by limited reforms and new trade
relationships with the rest of the world. And just as domestic
opposition groups inside Cuba--the only real threat to the Castro
government--have been invigorated by widening contacts with the outside
world, this legislation will turn back the clock by imposing further
isolation and hardship on the Cuban people.
Moreover, by codifying the Executive orders that have maintained the
Cuban embargo since 1959, this legislation locks the United States into
a failed policy, and denies the President the flexibility needed to
respond to any future democratic transition in Cuba.
Many of us are disappointed that the President has dropped his
opposition to this bill. Nevertheless, Congress has consistently
recognized that the President's hands should not be tied in matters of
foreign affairs--that a wide variety of tools should be available to
the President to act in the national interest abroad. But, this bill
mandates intransigency. As changes occur in Cuba--and they will occur--
the President--this President, or some future President--will be
restricted from acting in the carefully calibrated fashion that has
marked our response to other dictators, and other emerging democracies.
The United States is the only country in the world that maintains an
economic embargo against Cuba--a fact that the Helms-Burton Act,
somewhat fatuously, tries to change. Many of our closest allies,
moreover, are greatly offended--as they well should be--by this
[[Page H1726]]
legislation's attempt to coerce them into joining the embargo.
Countries such as Canada, and our allies in Western Europe, warn that
provisions in this legislation violate international law, abrogate
several treaties, abandon our commitment to international financial
institutions and could lead to retaliation against United States
interests elsewhere in the world. Moreover, the arrogance of this bill
is striking--by following the mandates of this legislation, the United
States will be imposing its own political agenda on countries--mostly
friendly countries--throughout the world whose businesses are acting in
full compliance with their own laws.
Finally, we are concerned by the manner in which the legislation
seemingly subverts our national interest for the interests of a select
few. The Helms-Burton Act gives unprecedented benefits to a few very
wealthy former Cuban property owners--those who owned property in pre-
Castro Cuba valued at more than $50,000 when it was seized in 1959--by
giving these individuals and corporations the unprecedented right to
sue, in United States Federal courts, foreign companies doing business
on land they once owned.
This right is not available to anyone who has lost property anywhere
else in the world--not in Germany, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, or Russia--
and it will obviously create a legal nightmare in our already
overburdened Federal courts. But more troubling is the manner in which
the legislation will allow a few individuals and companies to profit
from the economic activity in Cuba this legislation condemns. By
allowing wealthy former Cuban land-owners to settle out of court with
companies doing business in Cuba, these individuals can now share in
the profits to ongoing Cuban investment. Thus, the Helms-Burton bill
succeeds, in effect, in lifting the embargo for a select few, and
perversely creates an incentive for increased economic development in
Cuba, from which only a small minority of Cuban-Americans will benefit.
Let me be clear and end it here. This debate is not about our opinion
of Fidel Castro--he is one of the more abhorrent dictators of this
century. We uniformly condemn Cuba's recent downing of civilian
aircraft in clear violation of international law, and our hearts go out
to the families of the pilots who perished.
But this bill is rash, extreme and misguided--it runs contrary to our
experience of dealing with repressive regimes elsewhere in the world,
and it is not in our own national interest. In the words of Louis
Desloge, a conservative Cuban-American:
Implementing an aggressive engagement policy to transmit
our values to the Cuban people and to accelerate the
burgeoning process of reform occurring on the island has a
far better chance of ending Castro's rule than the
machinations of [the] Helms-Burton [Act].
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference
report.
{time} 1215
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, the imagination of our opponents is
truly amazing, as is the gentleman who was cited and called a
conservative, that very well-known anti-embargo activist.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Miami, FL, for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we just heard the previous speaker say we, the United
States of America, are the only country that has levied sanctions
against Cuba. Yes, is that not a shame? That is going to change come
the next election, my friends. With 250 million consuming Americans
with the highest buying power in the world, it is about time that we
told some of our allies that we do not like standing alone. That is
what Ronald Reagan did back in 1981 when he pulled them all together
and we stopped communism dead in its tracks. No more spread of
communism. Democracy is breaking out all over the world.
If we have to stand alone, we will. But these sanctions are going to
stand until atheistic, deadly communism is dead in this hemisphere.
Needless to say, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I
really commend the gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], as well
as the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], who have been so
valiant in bringing this legislation, along with the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman of
the subcommittee. They are all to be highly commended to be here in
this timely manner.
Last week's incident under which Castro killed four Americans, and
they were Americans, underscores the need to start taking the situation
seriously. For over 30 years we have tolerated Castro with a half-
hearted embargo. The holes in the embargo, plus billions of dollars, $6
billion a year from the former Soviet Union, has allowed this dictator
to survive and spread this atheistic communism.
Although I do not know it, Mr. Speaker, there may have been a good
reason for not pushing Castro harder during the cold war, but certainly
not now. It is time to get serious, and this legislation does get
serious. That is why Castro is so upset about it. That is why the
Russians are so upset about it, the Russians that we are giving
billions of dollars to in aid. And they turn around and aid and abet
this dictator? And that is why so many of our allies are upset, too.
This legislation will hit them where it hurts, in their pocketbooks.
Regarding our allies, Mr. Speaker, there is no stronger supporter of
this treaty organization called NATO than this Member of Congress. I do
not take lightly the fact that many of them are concerned about this
legislation. But let us be blunt: It is time for them to understand
that we will not go merrily along while they provide a lifeline to this
Communist just off our coast who is in fact a mortal enemy of the
United States.
Our allies, especially Canada, to the north, and my district depends
on a lot of that trade with Canada, but they should be put on notice we
will not subjugate our national interests to their financial interests.
Human decency and human rights come first before any dollar. Nor should
we continue to grant them open access to our huge market--as I said
before, 250 million Americans, they lick their chops to do business
with the United States--if they insist on supporting Castro. I call on
the President to drive home those points with them.
Mr. Speaker, Castro is teetering on the brink. Cuba's economy is in a
meltdown. Communism does not work. Take away the $6 billion propping
them up, and it is going down, down, down. It is only a matter of time
before communism is dead in Cuba, as long as we enact legislation like
this.
Castro has threatened renewed terrorism against the United States of
America. The latest bombings in Israel show just how easily that can be
done. We are so vulnerable. That could happen so easily right here in
the United States of America.
With Russia's help Castro is constructing a dangerous nuclear power
facility based on old faulty designs. Not only does this facility
potentially subject us to a Chernobyl style disaster, but we can surely
expect Castro to do what North Korea is doing, and that is to try to
exploit the technology for the purposes of building nuclear weapons.
And that cannot happen in this hemisphere.
We have had enough of this tyrant. It is time to bring this awful era
of Fidel Castro to a close. Adoption of this conference report today
will accelerate the arrival of that great day for both the Cuban people
and the American people. Please come over here and vote for this rule
and vote for this bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding time to me. He made a very eloquent statement yesterday in the
Rules Committee and I agreed with him entirely.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of a very bad
bill that I worry will have some very bad consequences.
[[Page H1727]]
Make no mistake about it the shootdown by the Cuban Government of two
unarmed Cessnas nearly 2 weeks ago was an unconscionable act. President
Clinton was right in rallying the international community to denounce
this terrible overreaction and I believe the President was right in
proposing additional sanctions against Cuba.
But I believe it would be wrong for this Congress and this President
to embrace the Helms-Burton legislation because of this terrible act.
Helms-Burton is a bad bill, plain and simple.
Even though the White House has recently reversed its position on
this bill, I would suggest that my colleagues read the letter the White
House wrote us last fall when they very eloquently and persuasively
made the case against Helms-Burton.
In fact, Secretary of State Warren Christopher expressed his concern
that the bill would actually damage prospects for a peaceful transition
in Cuba.
He further indicated that the inflexible standards mandated in the
bill would make it difficult to respond to a rapidly evolving situation
should it occur in Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary was absolutely right Helms-Burton would
put United States foreign policy toward Cuba in a statutory
straitjacket.
And while passions are running understandably high and outrage is
certainly justified the fact remains that Helms-Burton was bad policy a
few months ago and it is bad policy today.
Our allies have expressed deep concern over the bill's provisions as
they relate to foreign companies. Yesterday all of us received the
statement by the European Union indicating strong opposition to the
Helms-Burton bill.
Similar statements of opposition have come from Canada's Foreign
Minister and leading diplomats around the world.
Mr. Speaker, my strongest objection to this legislation is that it
will not encourage the departure of Fidel Castro and it will only make
the lives of average Cubans more miserable--especially Cuban children
economically strangling the island only hurt the most vulnerable--and
I'm not sure that's what this Congress really wants to do.
I believe this bill is exactly what Castro wants at a time when
communism has crumbled around the globe; at a time when the Cuban
economy is in disarray; and at a time when the internal opposition in
Cuba seems to be getting stronger. This bill only gives Castro an
excuse to be more repressive and to justify his failed system.
So, I say to my colleagues, if you want to get at Fidel Castro, come
up with a different approach. Helms-Burton will only breathe new life
into his dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record editorials, which have recently
appeared in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune,
the Washington Post, the Detroit News, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the
Los Angeles Times, and the Baltimore Sun, all opposing Helms-Burton. I
would also like to submit an article from the Washington Post exposing
a little known loophole in the embargo and the statement by the
European Union in opposition to the legislation. And I would like to
submit a statement by Alfredo Duran, who fought at the Bay of Pigs and
was imprisoned for over a year, the President of the Cuban Committee
for Democracy, and a statement by Eloy Guitierrez Menoyo, who was a
political prisoner for 22 years in Cuba.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me express again my strong opposition to
the bill for which this rule provides consideration. I know the authors
have the very best of intentions--but I firmly believe that by passing
this bill we are making a big mistake.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
[From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 1996]
A Bad Bill on Cuba
The Clinton Administration has 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 Resuce'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
exiles' 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 Washington Post, Mar. 3, 1996]
The Great Cuban Embargo Scam
(By Louis F. Desloge)
Virtually everyone agrees that President Clinton should
retaliate forcefully against Cuba's tragic and murderous
downing of two civilian aircraft last weekend. But the least
effective and most counterproductive punishment is Clinton's
acquiescence to the Helms-Burton bill to tighten the U.S.
embargo of Cuba. This legislation, which the White House
endorsed last week, albeit with reservations, will only play
into Castro's hands by creating an expansive loophole for
property claimants, especially wealthy Cuban Americans, to
circumvent the embargo.
Jesse Helms and Dan Burton, conservatives whom I admire,
are no doubt sincere in their motivation to subvert Castro's
rule by applying economic pressure on his regime. However,
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.
The Helms-Burton bill is a slick stratagem. Its stated
purpose is to tighten the embargo by allowing Cuban Americans
to have the unprecedented right to sue, in U.S. federal
courts, foreign companies doing business on land once owned
by these exiles. The idea is to discourage foreign business
investment in Cuba, thus undermining the island's financial
recovery which, the bill's supporters naively hope, will
result in a collapse of the Castro regime. The bill's
practical consequences are a different story.
A little-noticed provision in the Helms-Burton measure will
enable a small group of Cuban Americans to profit from the
economic activity occurring in Cuba.
To understand this provision, one must first know who
helped write it. As the Baltimore Sun reported last May, the
bill was drafted with the advice of Nick Gutierrez, an
attorney who represents the National Association of Sugar
Mill Owners of Cuba and the Cuban Association for the Tobacco
Industry. Gutierrez acknowledges his involvement, as does
Ignacio Sanchez, an attorney whose firm represents the
Bacardi rum company. Sanchez told the Sun that he worked on
the bill in his capacity as a member of the American Bar
Association's Cuban Property
[[Page H1728]]
Rights Task Force and not as representative of the rum
company.
It is not hard to surmise what these former sugar, tobacco
and rum interests will do if and when the law takes effect:
sue their competitors who are now doing business in Cuba.
Gutierrez told the Miami Herald last fall as saying that he
(and his clients) are eyeing a Kentucky subsidiary of
British-American Tobacco (B.A.T.) that produces Lucky Strike
cigarettes. B.A.T. has a Cuban joint venture with the
Brazilian firm Souza Cruz to produce tobacco on land
confiscated from his clients, Gutierrez claims.
Bacardi would be able to sue Pernod Ricard, the French
spirits distributor, currently marketing Havana Club rum
worldwide. Bacardi claims that Pernod Ricard's rum is being
produced in the old Bacardi distillery in the city of
Santiago de Cuba.
Here is how this vexatious scheme will work if Helms-Burton
becomes law. The for- mer landowner of a tobacco farm files a
suit in federal court against British-American Tobacco and
seeks damages. If both sides want to avoid prolonged
litigation they can reach an out-of-court settlement
whereby the former tobacco grower can now share in the
profits of the ongoing B.A.T.-Brazilian joint venture in
Cuba. Likewise, Bacardi could reach a settlement to get a
share of Pernod Ricard's profits from sales of Havana Club
internationally.
These agreements do not need the blessing of the U.S.
government. This is the million dollar loophole in Helms-
Burton. The bill states: ``an action [lawsuit] . . . may be
brought and may be settled, and a judgment rendered in such
action may be enforced, without the necessity of obtaining
any license or permission from any agency of the United
States.''
What will be the practical result? Foreign companies like
Pernod Ricard and British-American Tobacco are unlikely to
abandon viable operations in Cuba because of a lawsuit. More
likely, these foreign businessmen will agree, reluctantly, to
pay off Cuban exiles suing under Helms-Burton. Given the
choice of forfeiting millions of dollars invested in Cuba or
their financial interests in the United States, the practical
business solution might be to give the exiles a cut of the
action. Far better to have 90 percent of something than 100
percent of nothing, these businessmen will reason. Allowing
Cuban Americans a share of their profits will just be
factored in as another cost of doing business.
Indeed, Helms-Burton gives the Cuban exile community a
strong financial stake in Castro's Cuba. If the foreign
businesses simply withdrew in the face of Helms-Burton, the
exiled tobacco, sugar and rum interests would get nothing.
But if British-American Tobacco or Pernod Ricard or any other
foreign firm now doing business with the Castro regime offers
an out-of-court settlement to Cuban American exiles, who is
going to turn them down? Given the option, at least some
people are going to choose personal enrichment over the
principle of not doing business with Fidel. After all, Fidel
has been in power for 37 years, and the exiles are not
getting any younger.
The Clinton White House is not unaware of the scam at the
heart of the bill. Before the shooting down of the plane, the
president had objected to the provisions allowing U.S.
nationals to sue companies doing business in Cuba. During
last week's conference with Congress, the president's men
surrendered and asked for a face-saving compromise: a
provision giving the president the right to block such deals
later on if they do not advance the cause of democracy in
Cuba. But how likely is Clinton to block Cuban Americans in
Florida, a key election state, from suing Castro's foreign
collaborators later in the final months of an election year?
Not very.
The bottom line is that Clinton, in the name of getting
tough with Castro, has endorsed a bill that allows the
embargo to be evaded and protects Cuban Americans who want to
legally cut deals to exploit their former properties in Cuba
while the rest of the American business community must watch
from the sidelines.
In fact, the legislation could encourage a massive influx
of new foreign investment in Cuba. Armed with the
extortionist powers conferred by the legislation, former
property holders could shop around the world for prospective
investors in Cuba and offer them a full release on their
property claim in exchange for a ``sweetheart'' lawsuit
settlement entitling them to a piece of the economic action.
Thus, the embargo is legally bypassed and everyone laughs all
the way to the bank.
Actually, not everyone would benefit. The Clinton-endorsed
version of Helms-Burton only exempts the wealthiest cabal of
Cuba's former elites from the embargo's restraints. The bill
will only allow those whose former property is worth a
minimum value of $50,000 (sans interest) to file suits. And
you had to be very rich to have owned anything of that value
in Cuba in 1959. If you were a Cuban butcher, baker or
candlestick maker, too bad. This bill is not for you.
What could be more useful to Castro in his efforts to shore
up his standing with the Cuban people? The spectacle of the
U.S. Congress kowtowing to these Batista-era plantation
owners and distillers provides Fidel his most effective
propaganda weapon since the Bay of Pigs debacle. Castro
surely knows that the overwhelming majority of the Cuban
people--60 percent of whom were born after 1959--would deeply
resent what can be characterized, not unfairly, as an attempt
to confiscate their properties and revert control over Cuba's
economy to people who symbolize the corrupt rule of the
1950s. Rather than undermining Castro's rule, this bill would
drive the people into his camp.
Where is the logic in denying the vast majority of the
American people the right to become economically engaged in
Cuba if it is extended to only a select, wealthy few? Is the
concept of ``equal protection under the law'' served if non-
Cuban Americans are now relegated to the status of second-
class citizens? Or is the real intent of this bill to allow
rich Cuban exiles the opportunity to get a jump start and
thereby head off the ``gringo'' business invasion certain to
follow the demise of the embargo and the inevitable passing
of Castro.
Let us put an end to this special interest subterfuge.
Whatever obligation the United States had to my fellow Cuban
Americans has been more than fulfilled by providing us safe
haven and the opportunity to prosper and flourish in a free
society. Providing us, once again, another special exemption
which makes a mockery of the American Constitution, laws and
courts, not to mention making a farce of U.S.-Cuba policy, is
an insult to both the American and Cuban people.
If we are going to lift the embargo for a few wealthy
exiles then, fine, let us lift it for all Americans. To be
fair and consistent, why not liberate the entire American
community to bring the full weight if its influence to bear
upon Cuban people? Implementing an aggressive engagement
policy to transmit our values to the Cuban people and to
accelerate the burgeoning process of reform occurring on the
island has a far better chance of ending Castro's rule then
the machinations of Helms-Burton.
____
[From the Boston Globe, Feb. 27, 1996]
Missteps on Cuba
When Fidel Castro sent his MIG fighters up against two
alleged intruders last weekend, he not only shot down two
unarmed civilian aircraft and killed American citizens, he
shot himself in the foot as well.
In the last few months there had been signs that relations
between Cuba and the United States--frozen for more than 30
years--might be beginning to thaw. In October President
Clinton eased some of the travel and financial restrictions
on Cuba in the interests of greater ``people to people''
contact. This year there has been a steady stream of
congressmen visiting the island, each receiving the
obligatory audience with ``the bearded one.''
American businessmen are becoming receptive to potential
opportunities in Cuba. Some say that more Americans visited
Cuba in January than in any month since Castro came to power
in 1959.
Seeing his economy crash and burn after the end of support
from the Communist bloc earlier this decade, Castro
desperately needs foreign investments; an end to the American
economic embargo of his island would ease the poverty of his
people.
An even more Draconian twist to the embargo, in the form of
the Helms-Burton bill, is waiting in the wings. Passed by
both houses but still awaiting action in conference
committee, Helms-Burton would not only tighten existing
restrictions, but would punish our allies who trade with
Cuba. The House version, for example, could ``restrict''
entry into the United States of corporate officers, even
shareholders, of companies doing business in Cuba, a measure
which might be in violation of our trade agreements with
Canada in particular.
Some congressmen, such as Joseph Moakley, told Castro last
month that the United States and Cuba had reached a
``crossroads.'' If Helms-Burton were signed into law it would
``end any possibility for improved relations anytime in the
near future.'' He told Castro that there ``must be more
movement in Cuba in regard to human rights * * *''
Only last week, however, Castro arrested 100 dissidents and
human-rights activists who were seeking a peaceful dialogue
with the Cuban regime. This upset the European Union, which
is trying to work out an economic-cooperation treaty with
Cuba, and made it all the more difficult for those who are
working to defeat Helms-Burton in this country.
Last weekend Castro made their task next to impossible.
With large Cuban-American communities in swing states such as
New Jersey and Florida, seeming soft on Cuba in an election
year is not something politicians want.
But the Helms-Burton bill is bad law. It was bad law before
Castro's stupid overreaction to the admittedly provocative
flights, and it is bad law now. It is to be hoped that cool
heads in Congress and the White House will realize that in
time.
____
[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.
[[Page H1729]]
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.
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 Post, Feb. 27, 1996]
Cuba's Brutality
No one concerned for regional stability and air safety can
fail to condemn Cuba's brutal downing of two small unarmed
civilian planes on Saturday. In this latest mission by
Brothers to the Rescue, the two planes and a third that made
it back to Miami had in fact ignored Cuban warnings as well
as official American cautions not to penetrate Cuban air-
space. Nor was it clear whether their purpose was the stated
humanitarian one of rescuing fleeing rafters or the alleged
political one of overflying Havana. But this is no excuse for
the attack. In such circumstances, international law requires
warning off the approaching aircraft. Instead, the Castro
government, having considered for months how to react to
these flights, ignored American urgings to stay on a peaceful
and legal path and shot to kill.
The Cuban attack caught President Clinton at a difficult
time and place. He does not wish to be outflanked politically
in a potential swing state, Florida, with a large Cuban-exile
population and a presidential primary coming up two weeks
from today. Nor does he want, in expressing the prevailing
and justified outrage, to let it overwhelm his previous
efforts to open up certain avenues of communication and
relief for the Cuban people, or to interfere with agreed
procedures of legal emigration. Hence the measures he
announced yesterday to notch up pressure on the Communist
regime, including suspending Havana-Miami charter flights and
working with Congress to selectively tighten an already tight
embargo.
Given the tensions Fidel Castro churns on the American
scene, the Clinton proposals were bound to be attacked not
only by Republicans campaigning for their party's
presidential nomination in Florida but also by harder-line
factions among the state's million Cuban Americans. From
these sources now come calls for a military response--an air
patrol to knock down rising Cuban MiGs or a blockade to keep
Fidel Castro from either receiving foreign ships or expelling
a new flood of refugees to Florida.
These measures would be counterproductive. If put into
effect, they would leave the United States largely isolated
among other nations. The better course remains to keep
international diplomatic and private influence focused--in
discussions on ending the embargo, for instance--on opening
political space for human rights advocates, independent
social and professional organizations, and democrats. As the
recent crackdown on Concilo Cubano demonstrates, this isn't
easy. But over time it offers hope.
____
[From the Detroit News, Feb. 29, 1996]
Cuba Incident: Correct Response
The downing late last week of two unarmed civilian planes
by Cuban military jets off the coast of Cuba was a brutal and
cowardly act. But President Bill Clinton properly resisted
the temptation in a political season to overreact. The
administration's response was reasonably measured, even as it
sought to condemn Cuba in the United Nations.
President Clinton has suspended all air charter
transportation to Cuba, vowed to reach an agreement on
tightened trade sanctions against Cuba, asked Congress to
divert funds from Cuba's $100 million in frozen assets to
compensate the families of the downed pilots and restricted
travel to Cuba by Americans.
But the president didn't end travel to Cuba; he proposed
requiring visitors to go through a third country to reach the
island nation. Government officials estimate that about
120,000 to 130,000 people travel from the United States to
Cuba each year. If the requirement that they route themselves
through a third country slows the flow, Cuba will suffer from
a loss of revenue in hard currency.
The proposed sanctions are in line with this country's 30-
year-old policy of enforcing a trade embargo on Cuba. Its
economy was propped up by the Soviet Union, but the
dissolution of the old Soviet empire has thrust the regime of
Fidel Castro on hard times.
The shootings necessitated punishment from Washington, but
stiffer trade sanctions and restricted travel are not the
best long-term solution for inducing change in Cuba. Mr.
Clinton last fall moved to ease relations with Fidel Castro's
regime. The administration then was right to do so.
Commercial and cultural relations with Cuba ultimately will
serve to weaken the grip of the aging communist dictator,
whose misrule has given his countrymen decades of economic
ruin.
The administration's tow-prong policy on the shootings is
also well-judged. To complement its own reprisals, it moved
to obtain a condemnation of Cuba's action in the United
Nations. The UN instead ``deplored'' Cuba's action, which is
taken as a sign that it will not adopt its own trade
sanctions.
But in all of its actions, the Clinton administration has
moved to maintain control of this country's Cuba policy. The
flights near the Cuban coast by a Cuban emigre group were
clearly meant to provoke the Cuban government. The Cubans in
the last several weeks had issued warnings that the flights
should cease. Whether or not the civilian pilots actually
violated Cuban air space remains in dispute.
Given the ambiguity of the situation, the Clinton
administration is right not to let the Cuban emigre group get
it into a confrontation. The group responsible for the
flights has promised to continue them this week. But the new
flights should be at their own risk. Washington, not Miami,
should be the locus of U.S.-Cuba policy. And if the group
files phony flight plans, the administration should consider
grounding its aircraft.
The president's response drew criticism from some of his
Republican challengers, but this smacks of the criticism he
dealt former President George Bush on Bosnia. It is easy to
talk tough when one is out of office.
For now, the Castro regime should feel the pain resulting
from American displeasure over the shooting incident. But the
long-term policy for breaking up the Castro regime should be
more contacts and more commerce.
____
[From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 27, 1996]
Hold the Blockade
Those crying for military action against Cuba ought to put Saturday's
attacks into context.
Let's have a little perspective, please, on the Cuban
downing of two civilian planes last Saturday.
To hear GOP candidates (and some Cuban exile groups) tell
it, this is the most heinous international crime since
Hitler's invasions, and should be fought as fiercely. Send
U.S. warplanes, says Pat Buchanan. Amateur hour in the White
House, scoffs Bob Dole.
Fortunately, President Clinton has been level-headed enough
not to blow this incident out of all proportion. His call for
U.N. Security Council condemnation of Cuba, and Cuban payment
of compensation to the families of the downed pilots, is
about what the sorry episode merits.
Those who want tougher action should examine the facts.
The two downed Cessnas were piloted by Cuban Americans
belonging to a group called Brothers to the Rescue, which is
supposed to aid Cubans trying to escape by sea to America.
But the flow of refugees has mostly stopped since Washington
began repatriating in August 1994.
So what were the planes doing? This Cuban American group
has frequently overflown Cuban airspace, illegally, and last
January dropped anti-Castro leaflets on, Havana. On
Saturday's flight, the pilots were warned by Havana air
controllers not to enter Cuban airspace. They replied that
they would do so anyway, adding, ``we are aware we are in
peril.''
U.S. officials say a third plane that escaped did enter
Cuban airspace, while the two downed planes were shot by a
Cuban MIG-29 in international waters. They also say, rightly,
that no country has the legal right to shoot down unarmed
planes that don't threaten national security; Cuban air
controllers should have issued warnings.
But there is no question that Brothers to the Rescue was
trying to provoke a Cuban reaction by repeatedly violating
Cuban airspace to pursue their anti-Castro cause. No matter
how one admires the pilots' bravery, or despises the Castro
regime, that fact is clear.
Cuba is now nothing more than a historic leftover whose
communist regime is bound to dissolve soon. To further
isolate the population--by cutting phone contacts or family
remittances from America--would only slow the foreign
contacts that help undermine the regime.
Mounting a full-scale naval blockade would put America at
odds with all its allies. Similarly, the Helms Burton bill in
Congress--which the President has opposed but now promises to
work on--would also make international mischief unless it is
rewritten. As it now stands, the bill would legitimize suits
by Americans against many third-country firms that trade with
Cuba. Do we want
[[Page H1730]]
to start trade wars with our allies over their commerce with
Cuba?
That, not Mr. Clinton's reasoned response, sounds like
amateur hour.
____
[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 27, 1996]
Weighing the Response to Cuba's Brutal Attacks
clinton's task is to punish castro, not the cuban people
The Cuban air force downing of two civilian aircraft last
weekend, and the resultant deaths of four Cuban Americans
aboard, was a blatantly illegal and needless act of
provocation by Fidel Castro's government. President Clinton
is right to condemn it in the strongest terms.
But Clinton must not allow Castro's latest act of brutality
to push him too far, and he sensibly appears to have a hard
but well-measured course in mind. To be provoked into a
short-sighted overreaction could damage U.S.-Cuban long-term
relations even further. The Administration's strategy may not
please some of Castro's most ardent enemies in this country,
but it will make it easier for Washington and Havana to
resume normal relations in that not-too-distant future when
Castro is gone and the long communist dictatorship comes to
its inevitable end.
Clinton has announced that he will seek legislation to
compensate the families of the four missing and presumed dead
fliers from Cuban assets that have been impounded in this
country. He also announced there will be new restrictions on
the movement and number of Cuban diplomats in the United
States and the suspension of charter air travel to Cuba.
Lastly, he will expand the reach of Radio Marti, the U.S.
government broadcast service into Cuba, a long-time burr
under Castro's saddle. These are all reasonable responses.
Less reasonable, and possibly counterproductive, is
Clinton's willingness to discuss with Congress possible
administration support for the so-called Burton-Helms bill,
legislation that would tighten the existing U.S. economic
embargo on Cuba. While bills like Burton-Helms reflect an
understandable U.S. frustration with the Castro regime, that
legislation, like the embargo itself, would cause ancillary
problems in Washington's relationship with other nations,
including important allies and trading partners like Canada
and Spain. Unless the State Department can help Congress
rewrite Burton-Helms so that it aims toward the normalcy of
key international trade agreements like NAFTA--a prospect
that seems highly unlikely--it is best tossed in
the congressional trash bin.
It is expected that the United Nations will soon join the
United States in condemning the irrational order to set
Cuba's MIG warplanes upon the small civilian craft flown by
the anti-Castro pilots. Perhaps U.N. debate will bring out
more facts about this incident than are now publicly known.
For instance, what were the exact whereabouts of the planes
at the moment they were attacked? The U.S. and Cuban
government versions differ enormously. The Cubans say that
the planes were inside their territory, while Washington and
Brothers to the Rescue, the Cuban American organization to
which the planes belonged, maintain that the aircraft were
flying over international waters. It is, in fact, illegal to
shoot at any unarmed civilian aircraft, according to
international civil air agreements. Havana will have a lot of
explaining to do if it hopes to come close to justifying the
deaths of these four people.
At least some of the blame for this tragedy may lie with
Brothers to the Rescue. Since 1991, the organization of Cuban
American pilots has flown 1,700 missions in the skies around
Cuba. At least twice, Brothers to the Rescue pilots have
flown all the way to Havana to drop anti-Castro leaflets.
Were the Brothers trying to provoke an incident with Cuba on
the eve of Congress' consideration of the Burton-Helms bill?
Possibly, but even if they were, and no matter how
provocative those flights might seem, they cannot justify
Saturday's brutal response.
Is Castro trying to send a message to Miami and Washington,
not to mention the Cuban people, with this bloody incident?
Is he trying to prove, yet again, that he will tolerate no
political dissent from his aging and increasingly weak
regime? Perhaps, but ultimately his attempts to hang onto
power are futile. Someday, the sooner the better, the aging
dictator will be gone and a new era of relations between
Havana and Washington will begin. As Clinton ponders how to
react to this lastest outrage, the president must keep in
mind those long-term prospects. Exact payment, squeeze
Castro, but don't derail the future relationship between the
two peoples.
____
[From the Baltimore Sun, Feb. 27, 1996]
Cuban Jets vs. Unarmed Cessnas
Castro's latest blunder: Clinton tightens embargo, shuns military
action
President Clinton's substantive response to Cuba's latest
outrage--the shooting down of two unarmed civilian planes
whose only ``bombs'' were leaflets calling for freedom--was
more restrained than his rhetoric. He ordered no military
action, imposed no naval blockade, kept telephone lines open
and did not shut off the money sent by exiles to families in
Cuba.
Yet some action was imperative. No self-respecting country
can permit the blatant murder of four of its citizens to go
unpunished. No self-respecting leader can permit himself to
be shown without recourse.
Fidel Castro's latest crime, when combined with his recent
crackdown on dissenters, erases what had been a favorable
trend in U.S.-Cuban relations. It also could short-circuit
some of his efforts to replace the loss of Soviet-era
economic aid with increasing trade ties with Europe.
It is true enough that those involved in Saturday's
incident were provocateurs in the business of pulling Fidel's
beard. They were members of Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-
based organization formed to rescue boat people fleeing Cuba.
But since Mr. Clinton's policy of forced repatriation stopped
much of that exodus, the group has violated Cuban air space
several times to drop freedom leaflets despite U.S. pleas to
desist. This evidently was the intent when they flew toward
Havana during their ill-fated mission.
The Cuban retaliation was far out of proportion to the
provocation and in clear violation of international
strictures against firing at unarmed aircraft. As a result,
Mr. Clinton rightly reversed his order of last October easing
travel restrictions between the U.S. and Cuba. He will stop
U.S. charter flights. He will compensate the families of
those killed by Cuban jet fighters out of frozen Cuban assets
in the U.S. He will expand the reach of Radio Marti. And he
even will work with Congress to see if some version of the
Helms-Burton bill tightening the economic embargo on Cuba can
be passed.
One provision in that measure permitting Cuban-Americans
and others to flood federal courts with suits seeking
compensation from third-country investors who have purchased
properties confiscated by the Castro regime should remain
veto-bait. It would serve only to increase the impatience of
other nations with the U.S. obsession with Cuba. Yet some
tightening of the embargo now seems a political necessity,
even though the more prudent long-range course would be to
create the personal and economic ties needed for the
inevitable transition to a post-Castro era.
____
Statement of the European Union, Delegation of the European Commission,
to the Department of State
The Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the
European Commission present their compliments to the
Department of State and wish to refer to the Cuban Liberty
and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996.
The European Union (EU) has consistently expressed its
opposition, as a matter of law and policy, to
extraterritorial applications of US jurisdiction which would
also restrict EU trade in goods and services with Cuba, as
already stated in various diplomatic demarches made in
Washington last year, including a letter from Sir Leon
Brittan to Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Although
the EU is fully supportive of a peaceful transition in Cuba,
it cannot accept that the US unilaterally determine and
restrict EU economic and commercial relations with third
countries.
The EU is consequently extremely concerned by the latest
developments in the House-Senate Conference in relation to
this legislation, including the position now apparently taken
by the US Administration. The legislation contains several
objectionable elements. In addition, provisions relating to
trafficking in confiscated property and those concerning
denial of visas to executives or shareholders of companies
involved in transactions concerning confiscated properties in
Cuba, which had been removed during the adoption procedure by
the Senate last 19 October 1995, have now been reintroduced
by the House-Senate Conference. These provisions, if enacted
and implemented, risk leading to legal chaos.
The EU cannot accept the prohibition for US-owned or
controlled firms from financing other firms that might be
involved in certain economic transactions with Cuba. The EU
has stated on many occasions that such an extraterritorial
extension of US jurisdiction is unacceptable as a matter of
law and policy. Therefore, the EU takes the position that the
United States has no basis in international law to claim the
right to regulate in any way transactions taking place
outside the United States with Cuba undertaken by
subsidiaries of US companies incorporated outside the US.
Nor can the EU we accept the immediate impact of the
legislation on the trade interests of the EU by prohibiting
the entry of its sugars, syrups and molasses into the US,
unless the former certifies that it will not import such
products from Cuba. The EU considers such requests, designed
to enforce a US policy which is not applied by the EU, as
illegitimate. Such measures would appear unjustifiable under
GATT 1994 and would appear to violate the general principles
of international law and sovereignty on independent states.
In these circumstances, the EU would appreciate it if you
would inform Congress that the EU is currently examining the
compatibility of this legislation with WTO rules and that the
EU will react to protect all its legitimate rights.
The EU is also worried by the provisions that would lead
the US to unilaterally reduce payments to international
institutions, such as the IMF. This measure would run counter
to collectively agreed upon obligations via-a-vis those
institutions and would represent an attempt to influence
improperly their internal decision-making processes.
[[Page H1731]]
The EU also finds most worrying the reduction of US
assistance to the Russian Federation as a possible
consequence of this legislation. Such a measure would not
only weaken Western leverage in favour of reforms, but comes
at a critical junction in time.
Finally the EU objects, as a matter of principle, to those
provisions that seek to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction
of US Federal courts over disputes between the US and foreign
companies regarding expropriated property located overseas.
This measure would risk complicating not only third country
economic relations with Cuba, but also any transitional
process in Cuba itself. Furthermore, these provisions offer
the possibility to US firms for legal harassment against
foreign competitors that choose to do business in Cuba. The
threat of denial of a US visa for corporate officers and
shareholders accentuates this concern.
The EU considers that the collective effects of these
provisions have the potential to cause grave damage to
bilateral EU-US relations. For these reasons, the EU urges
the US Administration to use its influence to seek
appropriate modifications to the proposed legislation, or if
this should not be feasible, to prevent it from being
enacted.
Should the legislation be adopted, the European Union
intends to defend its legitimate interests in the appropriate
international fora.
The Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the
European Commission avail themselves of this opportunity to
renew to the Department of State the assurances of their
highest consideration.
____
Statement by Alfredo Duran, President of Cuban Committee for Democracy
The recent shooting of two civilian planes which ended
tragically with the loss of four lives was unquestionably an
overreaction--once again--by the Government of Cuba. While
President Clinton was correct in criticizing and imposing
certain sanctions for the Cuban Government's disregard for
international law, he should seriously ponder whether he is
not now overreacting with his own endorsement of the Helms-
Burton bill.
The Helms-Burton bill, with echoes of the Platt amendment,
will, among other consequences, seriously affect the
relations between the United States and Cuba for many years
to come; violate the spirit, if not also the laws, of free
trade and irritate major allies of the United States; deviate
the attention of the world from Cuba's own excesses to the
United States embargo, a policy which most nations have
consistently criticized; and crippled the United States
President's ability to act with flexibility to changes in
Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, it will also further weaken the United
States' leverage with the Government of Cuba in the future;
slow down the mutually beneficial contacts between the people
of Cuba and the United States; and exacerbate the divisions
already existing between Cubans in the island and Cuban
Americans.
Those of us who wish for a peaceful transition within Cuba
appeal both to the Cuban Government to rethink their
disregard for international norms and to the United States
Government not to fall into the trap of overreacting to an
overreaction.
____
Statement of Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo, President of Cambio Cubano/Cuban
Change, to the U.S. Congress
At a very early age, I learned about war. My brother Jose
Antonio was killed fighting against fascism at age 16 in
Spain. I was only five years old. My other brother, Carlos,
was killed at the age of 31 in Cuba while trying to overthrow
the Batista dictatorship. The tender age of the downed pilots
makes me think of my dead brothers. The scars from premature
death are painful to bear.
Nothing can excuse Cuba's bravado in downing the two
Cessnas in which four young Cubans perished. However, this is
a time for restraint and reason on both sides. US foreign
policy relations must not be held hostage by extremists who
seek to provoke and intensify an already tense atmosphere
between both countries.
The time has come to engage Cuba in negotiations. If the US
has understood, accepted, and promoted democratization in
other countries, it is incomprehensible to now continue to
treat Cuba with rigidity and inflexibility.
This is the moment to put into practice more creative and
pragmatic policies which are truly conducive to a peaceful
solution to the Cuban situation.
After twenty-two years in a Cuban prison, I was exiled
abroad. Last year, I returned to Havana and called for civil
and political liberties, for my right to return and continue
my political work there, including my right to establish an
office of Cambio Cubano in my country.
These objectives are possible only through a national
reconciliation, rather than through a failed policy of
confrontation. The peace for which we yearn is not easy. Most
good things are as difficult as they are rare.
I urge the US Congress to defeat the Helms-Burton
legislation.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the
gentleman, aside from killing Fidel Castro with some kind of a paper
resolution, what would the gentleman do over this latest incident?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would put the
strongest sanctions I could. Helms-Burton is not the answer.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, what sanctions would the
gentleman impose?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Anything else, but Helms-Burton is not the answer. Let
me tell the gentleman, every Member who votes for Helms-Burton, I bet
within a couple of months would say, why did I do it?
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and on the
conference report on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. I
commend Chairman Solomon, Chairman Gilman, and Chairman Burton for all
their hard work on this important bill and welcome President Clinton's
newfound support.
I would like to take this opportunity and offer my condolences to the
families of the murdered pilots. They should know that their loved
one's efforts in helping those seeking freedom was an inspiration to us
all. Their dedication and bravery will not be forgotten.
This latest incident, once again, illustrates Castro's disregard for
human rights and disrespect for international law. Along with
repressing basic freedoms, Castro routinely and unmercifully persecutes
anyone who speaks out against his barbaric practices. Now is the time
to tighten the sanctions. Only by ending Castro's access to foreign
capital will we bring about positive change in Cuba.
Since the cutoff of Soviet assistance in 1991, Castro has launched a
desperate campaign to lure foreign investment in Cuba. This allows him
to generate hard currency--the means necessary to sustain his
repressive apparatus. We must not allow Castro to prop up his failed
government with foreign investment in properties--many of which were
confiscated from U.S. citizens.
The conference report permits American citizens to recover damages
from foreign investors who are profiting from their stolen property in
Cuba. This will block the foreign investment lifeline which keeps
Castro's regime alive.
The conference report also creates a right for U.S. citizens to sue
parties that knowingly and intentionally traffic in confiscated
property of U.S. nationals. Moreover, it denies entry into the United
States of any such individual. These are logical steps which will
compel international companies to make a fundamental choice: ignore
U.S. property rights and engage in business as usual with Castro or
maintain access to the world's largest market.
While I strongly support increased economic sanctions to force Castro
from power, I also support efforts to help any new effort which
enhances the self-determination of the Cuban people.
The conference report requires the President to develop a plan to
provide economic assistance to both a transitional government and a
duly elected Government in Cuba. These provisions send a clear signal
to the Cuban people that the United States is prepared to assist in the
revival of Cuba's economy and to build a mutually beneficial bilateral
relationship.
Cuba is at a crossroads. This report tightens the economic noose
around Castro and focuses our country's energies on bringing
fundamental change in Cuba.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
{time} 1230
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that we are
taking up this legislation today in the
[[Page H1732]]
manner in which we are. I will attempt to answer the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] as well. I think his question is a good one: What
would you do in place of this legislation?
Let me say what I think we should do. I think we should get rid of
the embargo entirely, open it up. We are dealing with a nation here who
shares western values. I think if we dropped the embargo entirely, Mr.
Burton is shaking his head, I wish we had more time. We could have an
exchange at some later point, perhaps in special orders or something of
that nature. I do not associate the people of Cuba with the government
any more than the people around the world do necessarily with the
government officials that we have here. I think that the way to end the
dictatorship in Cuba is to open up our trade completely. I think the
regime would fall very, very quickly under that kind of circumstance.
But, because my time is limited, unfortunately, I am trying in good
faith to give an answer to Mr. Burton on that. If we go with the
legislation that is before us and allow the suing to take place, who
are going to bring into the suit? Will Meyer Lansky come back then and
the Mafia? Is that who we want to put back in charge?
I come from an island people. We understand what colonial domination
is all about. I can tell my colleagues how my interest in Cuba first
started because the oligarchs in Cuba that controlled sugar and slave
labor there, which competed with our free collective bargaining
individuals in Hawaii that produced sugar. We understand completely
what was involved in the 1950s. I do not want to hear crocodile tears
at this stage about dictatorships. I understand exactly what is taking
place in Cuba there.
If my colleagues want to bring the Mafia back in and they want to
bring the people who supported those kinds of people back into power,
that is up to them. They can do that. But do not try and sell us at
this particular time that somehow our allies, then, in Mexico and
Canada are going to be subject to some kind of sanction. If we want to
get rid of NAFTA, it is OK with me. I voted against it. But if that is
going to be the case, it seems to me that to bring the kind of pressure
that at least one of the individuals speaking in favor of the
legislation brought to bear today, then I think that we are going to
have to abrogate the NAFTA agreement as well. I mean, this may be the
vehicle for doing it. I do not know. I had not thought about it
previously.
So when Senator Dole indicates, as previous discussant related to us,
that U.S. policy has consequences around the world, I would say that is
true. And I think our relationship with Canada and Mexico is a case in
point.
I think that if we are talking about whether or not we are in control
of our own foreign policy, I think we have to take into account whether
or not these provocations do occur and whether or not we are going to
sanction it. If it is the policy of the United States to allow these
flights to take place, then we should say so. I think we should say so
up front.
We are meeting in the Committee on National Security today, and we
have had a discussion already in terms of our authorization as to what
our policy should be or not be with respect to Cuba. And if it is our
idea to have a provocation of the Cuban Government at this time, then I
think we need to say so. And if that is what we want to do, go to war
with Cuba, I think we ought to talk about whether or not we are going
to go to war with Beijing. Are we going to encourage the same kind of
approach from Taiwan toward the mainland of China? I think we have to
be very, very careful here with respect to whether we allow the emotion
of the moment to rule the legislation which comes before us in the wake
of it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I close my remarks and indicate that at some
time in the future, I would be delighted to discuss what we should do.
And I do not think, unfortunately, the legislation before us today
allows that kind of discussion.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
[Libertad] Act of 1996 has three constructive objectives: to bring an
early end to the Castro regime by cutting off capital that keeps it
afloat; to start planning now for United States support to a democratic
transition in Cuba; and, to protect property confiscated from United
States citizens that is being exploited today by foreign companies that
are profiting at the expense of the Cuban people.
This legislation charts a course for responsible normalization of
United States-Cuba relations under specific conditions. And, in the
meantime, it helps protect the property of U.S. citizens until they can
reclaim it under a democratic government.
Mr. Speaker, ``libertad'' means ``freedom'' for the Cuban people,
literally and figuratively.
By approving this Libertad Act with wide bipartisan support, Congress
will demonstrate our solidarity with the Cuban people who are
struggling to be free.
We are sending an unambiguous response to Castro in the wake of his
murderous attack on February 24 that cost the lives of four innocent
Americans. And we express our condolences to their families.
Mr. Burton and I have worked with a strong bipartisan coalition that
has reached out to the administration in crafting this conference
report.
We are pleased that the administration has publicly agreed to back
the Burton-Helms bill. And, I ask that President Clinton's March 5
letter to Speaker Gingrich endorsing this measure be made part of the
Record today.
With the tireless work of Representative Ros-Lehtinen, Representative
Diaz-Balart, Representative Menendez, and Representative Torricelli, we
have fashioned a sound piece of legislation that advances one of our
most critical foreign policy objectives in this hemisphere.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and this worthy
bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Coloroado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation comes to the floor today
propelled by our collective outrage over the recent murderous attack by
the Castro regime on two defenseless and clearly marked civilian
aircraft. Civilized people everywhere are rightly outraged by this
brutal act and by the disregard that the Castro regime has shown for
human life and human rights.
It is long past time for Castro and his paranoid regime to follow
Brezhnev, Honeker, Ceausescu, and all the other failed Marxist
dictators into the dust-bin of history. There can be no disagreement
about that.
But does it follow that there should be no disagreement about this
bill? Emphatically, it does not. In fact, this legislation is a product
of outdated dogma about how to fight Communist dictators, just as much
as Castro is an outdated Communist dictator.
A vote for this bill is a vote to ratchet up the already tight Cuban
embargo. That may be popular as a way to register our moral outrage at
Castro's latest actions. Some may even believe it will help push his
regime over the edge.
To the contrary, passing this bill is exactly the wrong thing to do
right now.
What is our self-interest here? What should be our objective? It
should be the peaceful transition to a Cuba with an open economic
system and a democratic political system.
What is the best way to get there? I think our recent experience is
instructive, our experience with the Soviet Union, with Eastern Europe,
with China and Vietnam.
That experience is one of modest success achieved through a policy of
tough-minded engagement: Engagement economically with trade and
investment, showing the virtues of our economic system on the ground,
in person, in their face. Engagement ideologically, promoting the free
exchange of information and people with unimpeded travel. And,
engagement culturally, through cultural exchange and humanitarian
involvement. That's the policy that ultimately contributed to the
undoing of the repressive regimes of the old Soviet empire and to
economic reforms--admittedly incomplete--underway in China and Vietnam.
[[Page H1733]]
In contrast, this bill is just another iteration of an outmoded
ideology: mindless isolation, the same failed approach that has been
applied to Cuba for more than 30 by years.
What are we afraid of here? A small island nation with no stragegic
allies and a failed economic and political system?
This Congress chose a policy of engagement with China even though
China poses much a greater risk to us than Cuba. We did this precisely
because we know that political, economic, and cultural engagement holds
out the best hope of avoiding those very risks, whether economic or
military.
This bill takes United States policy in Cuba in the wrong direction.
It is absolutely contrary to the long-term interests of the United
States. It will increase the prospect of a violent convulsion in Cuba
that would be a real security and immigration crisis for the United
States.
I do not agree with the President that this isolationist bill is an
acceptable measure, even in response to such an offensive provocation
by the Cuban Government as occurred last week. Tightening the embargo
will only play into Castro's hands, helping him to keep his people in a
state of repression and deprivation.
As in the case of our other former, and hold-over adversaries from
the cold war era, the best policy for the United States to follow for
its own self-interest, and to encourage reform of China's political and
economic system, is a policy of tough-minded engagement.
Let us learn from recent history, Mr. Speaker. Let us have the
courage to say ``no'' to narrow ideology, to say ``no'' to special-
interest group domination of United States policy toward Cuba, and
``no'' to this bill.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on
Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Florida for yielding time to me, and I rise today in strong support of
this rule and the conference report on the Helms-Burton Libertad bill.
Today, at long last, we discuss this bipartisan legislation knowing
that the President has agreed to sign it when it reaches his desk--
unlike too many other important measures that have run into his veto
pen. Today's vote culminates a long effort to educate the
administration about the true nature of the Castro dictatorship. I must
point out with some wonderment that it took the brutal tragic death of
innocent American citizens to finally convince the Clinton
administration that Fidel Castro really does not operate by rules of
civilized conduct and he is never to be trusted. The Clinton
administration, it seems, had to find this out the hard way--having
toyed with a misguided policy of appeasement right up until those
humanitarian relief planes were shot out of the sky. It is my hope that
those who oppose this bill will soon come to the same realization that
President Clinton has: That our only policy option is to clamp down on
Fidel Castro once and for all. He is the problem.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will put U.S. policy with Castro back
on track--back to being tough with concrete action designed to restore
democracy and encourage Castro's departure from power. We know from
what happened in Haiti under the Clinton administration's policy of
misery that properly run and fully supported embargoes can have serious
impact. In Haiti, the Clinton administration's policy did damage that
Haiti will be trying to recover from--and United States taxpayers will
probably be paying for--for decades. But the Haiti experience should
have taught us that, once and embargo is made the policy of choice, it
has to be enforced with a clear focus on the enemy target and a firm
commitment to seeing it through to its desired end. We ask our allies
help. This legislation is designed to achieve that goal. I urge my
colleagues to support the Libertad conference report and I look forward
to the day when the United States can once again embrace a free and
democratic Cuba.
{time} 1245
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the
House, and I guess, since this is an emotional issue votes will not be
changed, but I am in opposition to this rule, and most of what I am
saying I hope I am saying for the Record as opposed to being against
the deep feelings of my friends and colleagues that are in support of
the rule as well as the bill.
A couple of weeks ago the President of the United States reviewed
this bill, and he had indicated that he had serious reservations about
this bill interfering with our foreign policy, our trade policy, about
it abusing our court system, in that he said in its present form he
would veto it. A couple of weeks ago the Helms-Burton bill was, I think
politically speaking, put on the back burner in this body. A couple of
weeks ago all the Republican candidates were dealing with the issues
that they thought were important, but democracy in Cuba never got on
anybody's agenda. What happened between that time and this political
legislative rush to do this as fast as we can for democracy? What
happened?
Four dedicated Americans, loving democracy enough to risk their
lives, continued on a mission that went beyond just searching for those
who may be lost in the ocean trying to reach the United States, few as
they may be in recent days. They were determined to make certain that
the issue of the overthrow of Castro and the restoration of democracy
in Cuba would not be forgotten. I do not care what my colleagues'
beliefs are; if they believe that was sincere and they did these
things, we have to pray for their souls and their families and not
ignore the courage that they had in doing these things, not once, but
many times, in order to focus attention on the injustices, that were
being committed in Cuba.
Did they believe that they would be shot down as civilian planes with
no weapons? I would hope that no one would believe that in this world
that we have people who would say, ``Because you have provoked us,
because you have made us angry, that we are prepared to blow up your
planes and to murder you,'' and so the United States leads the world in
terms of outrage in saying whether those planes were over Cuba, within
12 miles, outside of 12 miles, we just do not do this to people.
If one wakes up in the middle of the night and they think there is a
burglar that intruded in their house, and they pick up a gun, and they
go, and then they see it is a child that is fleeing without an arm,
they may have the legal right, they may have the emotional feeling, but
they do not shoot down a defenseless child no matter how much that
child provoked them. No matter how we measure the patriotism, the
dedication, of these pilots, nobody can make the accusation that they
were a threat to the security of the people in Cuba.
So we all have to do the best we can to show not just Castro but
anyone that thinks this way it is an outrageous thing to do, but how do
we respond as a civilized nation? Do we run there, and grab Castro, and
shake him, and say never again? No, our response is that we are going
to enact this bill. We are going to show him how tough we are.
And what do we do in this bill? We say that we are going to not only
tighten the trade embargo against Cuba, but we are going to take it out
of the hands of the President. Who can trust the President? We have got
to make it statutory. We have got to say when it comes to embargoes in
foreign countries we know best, not Presidents know what is best. And
what else are we going to do? We are going to say that our embargo was
so effective that once we tightened the screws on our so-called
friends, they will capitulate to this United States pressure and join
in with us, as they did in South Africa and Haiti, and say this is the
moral and the right thing to do and then collapse goes Castro.
Give me a break. This bill has nothing to do with Castro. It has
everything to do with our friends and our voters in Florida.
[[Page H1734]]
Do my colleagues think for 1 minute that the Organization of American
States is going to say I was outraged, too; please let me break every
agreement that I have with Cuba? Do my colleagues think that the World
Trade Organization is going to say since we have a murderer as a
dictator, all the investments we have in Cuba, we got to tell them to
forget it. Do my colleagues think the United Nations is going to do
anything except condemn the United States in trying to perpetuate our
domestic and, indeed, to stretch the word, our foreign policy, to
include them? No. The truth of the matter is that we do not care what
they believe. We are doing this because we feel good about doing it,
and do my colleagues know why we are doing it? Because we got the votes
to do it. And do my colleagues know why the President is doing it?
Because he wants the votes to continue to be President.
I tell my colleagues this: The people who want democracy in Cuba, do
not change those ways, do what feels good, but let some of us who want
democracy and freedom at least try some different way to do it. I just
do not believe that they are doing anything except saying to the poor
people in Cuba who are hopeless, who are jobless, who are suffering,
who are in misery, who need food, who need medicine; do my colleagues
think for 1 minute that they are marching up and down the streets of
Havana saying, ``My God, Castro, you made it worse for us, now the
whole world is condemning us''? No, Castro is saying their misery and
their pain is due to Americans who singularly have an embargo against
them. Is he blaming himself for the failures that he has had in the
socialistic communistic government? No.
So who is supposed to be responsible for everything that is going
bad? The embargo. And what do we say? Forget what you see, what you
hear, it is working, man; it is working, man. And it is working so
well, all we have to do is tighten this, and then all of the Cubans
will be in such misery and pain and hunger.
Do my colleagues know what they are going to do? No. What will they
do? They are going to organize and revolt. Oh, my God. Meaning they are
going to overthrow the government? Oh, yes, hungry and sick and tired,
without rifles, they are going to this fat, overtrained, overfed army
and say, ``Oh, thank God, the Americans have made life miserable for
me, we are getting rid of you.''
I tell my colleagues one thing: If we do reach these people, we will
get rid of them, and they will be on the rafts, and they will be on the
boats, and they will be in Miami, but they will not be fighting that
Communist Cuban Army in Havana. My colleagues can believe that.
But I say this: As we bleed for the families of those heroic pilots,
I see something new happening here, too. We are, indeed, encouraging
other people that, if they do not like our foreign policy, they just
get themselves an airplane, buddy. Just put in for a flight plan. Just
go where they want to go. And when they say the jets are coming, then
say, hey, forget it, I am dedicated.
Let us see what is happening in Ireland. As my colleagues know, let
us put out some pamphlets there. Let us go to the Middle East and see
whether or not they are really prepared to really move the peace
process. Let us check out Korea, North and South, and Vietnam, and let
us legislate it, do not let the President with his flip-flop self
determine 1 day what is good and what is bad. The Congress knows, and
who knows better than the Republican majority here about everything?
So this is not a contract for America. This is a contract for the
world. If you are for democracy, squeeze the people that are hungry,
stop the food and medicine from going, tell American businessmen not in
Cuba will you invest, and at the same time support trade in NAFTA,
support it in GATT, support it all over the world, but do not support
it in Cuba.
I suggest to my colleagues I have the same outrage for murderers that
they do, but I hope this country does not embark on having this
concrete and firmed up as what we do as a nation and as a Congress when
we are outraged.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], my distinguished friend and colleague.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me, as well as for his strong leadership role in the passing of
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 927. This
legislation is designed to hasten the demise of the Castro
dictatorship, the last undemocratic regime in our hemisphere, which for
over three decades has subjected the Cuban people to untold repression
and misery.
Over the past month, we have observed the voices of those calling for
a softer policy with Castro fall strangely silent as the dictatorship
increases its repression against the people of the island. Not only has
the regime increased its harassment and intimidation against the
growing independent movements in journalism and in other dissident
sectors inside Cuba, but the regime's brutal shoot down last week of
two civilian unarmed aircraft with U.S. citizens aboard showed us that
after three decades the Castro tyranny remains as bloody and ruthless
as it ever has been.
The Helms-Burton bill will penalize those who have become Castro's
new patron saviors-foreign investors who callously traffick in American
confiscated properties in Cuba to profit from the misery of the Cuban
worker. These investors care little that they are dealing with a tyrant
who promotes terrorism, drug trafficking, and denies the most basic of
human liberties to the people of Cuba.
This legislation takes a strong stance against those immoral
investors by denying them participation in our United States markets,
if they decide to invest in Cuba and prop up the dictator in this way.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us today in supporting this
legislation, thus helping Cubans in their struggle for freedom. This
bill will hurt Castro, it will help the Cuban people, and it will send
a strong message to those immoral foreign investors. Stop helping the
dictator by trafficking in confiscated United States property.
The Helms-Burton bill goes to the heart of the means by which the
Cuban tyrant is now financing his repression of the Cuban people;
namely, immoral foreign investment. After the millions of dollars in
Soviet subsidies to Castro ended, the Cuban dictator and his Communist
thugs have tried to obtain the hard currency necessary to keep
themselves in power. Foreigners are allowed to invest in Cuba, and many
do, in properties which are illegally stolen from American citizens.
In this new slave-like economy, designed by the Castro regime, the
Cuban people are not able to participate. Instead they are pawns of the
regime and of the foreign investors who are attracted to invest in Cuba
because of the low wages and the repression against the Cuban worker.
The foreign investors pay Castro in dollars. Castro pays the Cuban
worker in devalued Cuban pesos at a small percentage of what was given
to the communist dictator.
Mr. Speaker, it is for those four murdered pilots, Armando Alejandre,
Mario de la Pena, Pablo Morales, and Carlos Costa, as well as for the
thousands and thousands of unknown Cubans who have given their lives to
bring liberty to their island that we will pass this legislation today.
{time} 1300
Mr. Speaker, it is not only the correct policy to follow, but a moral
imperative to assure that the ultimate sacrifice paid by these
thousands of freedom fighters will not be in vain.
At times it seems unreal and implausible that only 90 miles from the
shores of this great democracy lies an enslaved nation ruled by a
ruthless Communist dictatorship, a nation whose citizens are denied the
most basic human, civil, and political rights. In my native homeland of
Cuba, no one but the dictator has any rights at all, an island which
once had the highest standard of living in Latin America but where its
citizens today struggle day to day for the bare necessities needed to
survive.
Mr. Speaker, it might seem unreal that such a state could exist a few
miles from our shores, but of course, unfortunately, it does. The
thousands of Cuban rafters who have risked their lives in the Florida
Straits to escape
[[Page H1735]]
the Castro dictatorship are a vivid reminder of this sad reality. The
thousands of dissidents who have been harassed, imprisoned, and indeed
killed are testament to the lack of respect for human rights by the
Castro regime.
Most recently, the premeditated cold-blooded murder over
international waters of four pilots in a humanitarian mission, three of
them American citizens, one a Vietnam veteran who served two tours of
duty, has awakened the world that in Cuba, the rule of death and fear
prevailed over the rule of democratic law and order.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are now considering will go a long
way toward helping the Cuban people reestablish the rule of democracy
and law for which they have battled for 37 years to achieve. I thank
the gentleman once again for his strong leadership role in making this
legislation possible as well as many of our colleagues on the
Democratic side of the aisle.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Chabot], a distinguished new Member of the House.
(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report and the rule, and I commend the leadership shown by the chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton],
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Menendez].
I also want to applaud President Clinton for finally having voiced
support for the Cuban Liberty and Domestic Solidarity Act. It is
unfortunate that it took the cold-blooded murder of unarmed American
citizens to awaken the President to the harsh reality of the morally
reprehensible Castro regime.
Fidel Castro is a thug, an international outlaw. His 37-year reign
has been noteworthy for its brutality and its unrelenting resistance to
individual liberty and freedom. The misery that has been suffered by
the Cuban people at the hands of Fidel Castro is one of the world's
great tragedies. This legislation will tighten the existing United
States embargo against Cuba, and it protects the rights of United
States citizens and businesses whose property has been confiscated
unlawfully by the Castro regime. It is a good bill and it is long
overdue. I urge passage.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend,
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Florida for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy that I got some time from the Republican
side, since I have been told today we cannot get any time from the
Democratic side to speak in favor of the bill, despite the fact that a
third of the Democratic Caucus voted for this bill last fall.
Mr. Speaker, I rise not to apologize for Fidel Castro, not to coddle
him, not to rationalize or justify whatever he has done. The fact of
the matter is that I am really offended when I hear my colleagues refer
to this issue as ``This is about voters in Florida.'' To say that is to
say that seeking peace in Ireland or giving a visa to Gerry Adams is
about Irish voters, or that our collective outrage against the barbaric
acts that have taken place in Israel is about Jewish voters, or, for
that matter, to say that our movements to end apartheid in South
Africa, to bring democracy to Haiti, and our efforts to give relief in
Somalia were about African-American voters. It is an insult to this
community.
This is about democracy. It is about promoting human rights. It is
not about votes of some group in some State or States. That is why we
had a strong bipartisan vote. That is why yesterday in the Senate, 74
Senators joined in favor of creating democracy in Cuba. That is why 294
Members of this House last fall voted for it, with a third of the
Democratic Caucus joining an overwhelming number of the Republican
Party because they understand the realities.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that in fact when we hear about creating
peaceful change, we are all for peaceful change. That is our goal. But
what has Castro's response been to peaceful efforts within Cuba, like
those of the Concilio Cubano, a group of 120 organizations who promote
peaceful democratic change in Cuba? Our Members go there and visit
Cuba. They have a cigar with Fidel. They enjoy some time there. And as
soon as they leave, these people get arrested.
What happened in the week preceding the killing of the four American
citizens? What happened? These people who seek peaceful democratic
change by Cubans in Cuba, not about some bygone era that people like to
allude to, the response to their request which they made to the regime
for a national meeting, what we enjoy here in the United States, to
simply sit down and say, ``How do we move towards democratic change
within Cuba,'' what was the response? One hundred of them were arrested
and imprisoned. Dozens of others are under house arrest. Women were
strip-searched so they would be intimidated from participating in the
organization. That is the answer to peaceful democratic change in Cuba.
For those who believe in some romanticism, that when the people go
and say, Please, we want to move towards democracy, Fidel is going to
act the right way, they have seen it. For those who keep saying that
this is after the cold war, I agree, it is after the cold war, but
nobody told Mr. Castro.
The fact of the matter is he has shown us what he is willing to do
with the third largest military in the entire Western Hemisphere. He
represses his people who ask for peaceful democratic change, and we are
silent for the most part. Those who say they are for democracy in Cuba,
peaceful democratic change, why are they not speaking out on behalf of
the Concilio Cubano?
What is the response to four U.S. citizens flying in international
airspace, unquestioned by our Government through all of their
intelligence that they were in international airspace? This is
the response, Mr. Speaker. Let me read the transcript that Madeleine
Albright presented to the United Nations: ``Cuban fighters, a small
white and blue Cessna that they were tracking, and their excitement was
clearly palpable * * * `The target is in sight, the target is in
sight,' the small aircraft, the MiG pilot radioed back to his ground
controller. `It is flying at a low altitude. Give me instructions,'
said the pilot. The answer was `Fire. Authorized to destroy;' '' not to
warn, not to try to seek under international law to move them, but,
even though they were not in Cuban airspace, no, to destroy.
Thirty-three seconds later, the response from the MiG 29 pilot was
``We took out his * * *'' and I will not add the expletive. ``That one
won't mess around with us anymore.'' Two and one-half minutes later
another pilot sighting the second Cessna said, ``Give me the
authority.'' He was responded, ``You are authorized to destroy it,''
and it was destroyed. ``Fatherland or death, the other is down also.''
These are the transcripts that our U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations presented to the world.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this bill is bipartisan. It
has the support of the President. President Clinton sent a letter to
the Speaker of this House saying that he supports the bill, and urges
all Members to vote on behalf of it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just in the last century, Mr. Speaker, after the Cuban people were
fighting almost 100 years for their freedom from Spanish colonialism,
it was the United States that stood by their side and helped them
achieve freedom and independence. History has a way of repeating
itself. Now it is the American people through their Government, and
today speaking through their Congress and the President, standing with
the Cuban people against the worst oppressor in the history of this
hemisphere.
So we think of the hundreds of political prisoners now imprisoned,
the thousands who have been killed, including the American citizens
just a few days ago. We dedicate this legislation to them. It is going
to be a great sign of solidarity with the Cuban people. I would ask my
colleagues to support the rule and support the conference report.
[[Page H1736]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered, on the resolution.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 347,
nays 67, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 46]
YEAS--347
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--67
Abercrombie
Becerra
Berman
Bonior
Boucher
Clay
Collins (IL)
Conyers
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Evans
Fattah
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moran
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Stark
Studds
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--17
Archer
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Christensen
Collins (MI)
Crane
Durbin
Frelinghuysen
Hayes
Hunter
LaFalce
McCarthy
Quillen
Sisisky
Spence
Stokes
Waldholtz
{time} 1334
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Ms. McCarthy for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
Mr. FLAKE, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mrs. MALONEY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. CLAYTON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CLYBURN, and
Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call up
the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Pursuant to House Resolution
370, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Monday, March 4, 1996, page H1645.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr.
Hamilton] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
(Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the
position of the gentleman from New York in relation to this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this measure, and I compliment the
committee and the sponsors on bringing it to this Chamber for a vote.
We all know what Castro has brought to the land of Cuba. This measure
send a firm message that we, in this body, stand for freedom and
democracy in Cuba. There are so many violations of human rights and
rules of decency inflicted on the Cuban people by Castro. Further, we
abhor the tragedy he caused regarding the American airplanes just a few
days ago.
Let us Americans stand together, let us vote for this bill and send
an unequivocal message that we stand for democracy and freedom for the
Cuban people.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the conference report Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity [LIBERTAD] Act of 1996.
This legislation advocates a responsible course to encourage and
support genuine, fundamental reforms in Cuba.
And, in the interim, it helps protect the property of U.S. citizens
until they can reclaim it under a democratic government.
Mr. Burton has worked with a strong bipartisan coalition. With the
help of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Menendez, and Mr.
Torricelli, he has fashioned a sound piece of legislation.
[[Page H1737]]
Recently, President Clinton expressed his full support for this bill,
which he has described as ``a strong, bipartisan response that tightens
the economic embargo against the Cuban regime and permits us to
continue to promote democratic change in Cuba.''
Mr. Speaker, allow me to address several of the concerns raised by
the few remaining critics of this legislation.
First, the only companies that will run afoul of this new law are
those that are knowingly and intentionally trafficking in the stolen
property of U.S. citizens.
International law and comity were not conceived to protect the
corporate scavengers who are profiting at the expense of the Cuban
people, pilfering the purloined assets of American citizens, and
propping up a bandit regime.
To the extent that this act holds us all to higher standards and
defends universally recognized property rights, international law and
the rules of the corporate game are improved for the better.
Second, this act does much more than stiffen sanctions. It outlines a
reasonable course for normalizing relations with a democratic Cuba.
And, it offers the Cuban people an early helping hand in making a
peaceful transition.
When inevitable change comes to, I am convinced that no country in
the world will do more than ours to help the Cuban people--and they
will know that we never sold them out.
Third, this legislation authorizes immediate United States support
for Cuban prodemocracy groups and for the immediate deployment of
international human rights observers and election-monitors in Cuba.
We simply ask our neighbors in this hemisphere to hold Fidel Castro
to the same standards that they hold themselves.
My friends, the day unfettered human rights monitors are allowed to
inspect Castro's prisons will be one of Castro's last.
Let us not pass up this historic opportunity to bring about a
peaceful change in Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support this
conference report on H.R. 927.
Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record the March 5,
1996, letter from President Clinton and the March 5, 1996, letter from
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], regarding this conference report.
The White House,
Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: 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.
____
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
The Speaker, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to you regarding Section 102
of the Conference Report on H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, in which the Committee on
Ways and Means has a jurisdictional interest.
Specifically, Section 102 codifies existing Executive
Orders and regulations on the Cuban embargo. This provision
falls within this Committee's jurisdiction over trade laws
affecting imports and revenues. This provision was not
included in the version of H.R. 927 that was passed by the
House on September 21, 1995, but rather was added in
conference.
In order to expedite the consideration of the conference
report, I will not object to the inclusion of Section 102.
However, this is being done with the understanding that the
Committee will be treated without prejudice as to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on such or similar provisions in
the future, and it should not be considered as precedent for
consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the
Committee on Ways and Means in the future.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. With warm
personal regards,
Sincerely,
Bill Archer,
Chairman.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance
of my time to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], our able
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, and the
principal House sponsor of this measure, and that he be permitted to
manage the balance of the debate on this side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, we must have an effective policy to
respond to what Fidel Castro did to four American citizens--killing
them in international airspace--in contravention of international law.
That is the first and most important point I have to share with my
colleagues today.
In order to have an effective policy, we must have the support of our
allies, and my objection to this bill is because I am convinced it will
alienate, instead of bring together, our allies. It will divide,
instead of uniting them, and the reason it will do that is because this
bill--in a manner unprecedented in American law--extends the
extraterritorial reach of the United States's jurisdiction.
As we go around the world, and I trust that all of my colleagues
would agree with this, there are very few countries where people say,
``You know we admire the American civil justice system. We would like
to have class actions, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, we would like to
have all of that system in place for our country.'' And the reason is
that we have a rather extensive and what most foreign countries
consider onerous rules in our civil justice system.
What this bill does is to extend for the first time the right for a
private citizen, not the Government of the United States, but a private
citizen to bring the full crushing weight of the American civil justice
system, with discovery, with delays, with attorneys' fees to bear upon
a private party of another country.
Now, normally, other country's citizens and corporations follow the
rule of international law, which is very important for international
commerce. And if you know the law of your own country and you know the
law of the country where the investment is located, you are all right.
You will abide by your own country's law. You will abide by the law of
the country where your investment is.
But in this bill today, a person who in good faith accepted title to
property under the laws of the nation where that property was located
will have to check not only the laws of that country, his or her own
laws, but the laws of the United States as well. And I note
particularly to my colleagues on the majority that we do today what we
generally abhor: We create a statutory right for a new legal action,
and we give attorneys' fees only to the prevailing plaintiff. We do not
give attorneys' fees to the other side. And many of us, I am sure, have
spoken about the burden of one-sided fee shifting, the ability to haul
somebody into court, put them to a huge expense, and then say, ``If I
am wrong, I am sorry. You are still stuck with your legal fees.'' That
is in this bill, one-sided plaintiff-only litigation, attorneys' fees.
{time} 1345
Now, the problem is that this comes at a time when we need Canada, we
[[Page H1738]]
need Australia, we need Western Europe. The only time sanctions have
worked, economic effective sanctions have worked, is when we are joined
by our allies. For over 30 years we have attempted to isolate Cuba, and
our efforts at economic sanctions have failed because they have been
only ours and not engaged our allies. In title III of this bill, what
we do is guarantee we will not have the support of our allies in any
action that we intend to bring pressure upon the Castro regime.
What is most critical here is to unite and to present to the Cuban
Government, the Castro regime, a Europe, North America, a Latin
America, and an Asia that say that we will no longer trade in your
goods. Instead, what we have is a direct affront to rules of
international law on jurisdiction.
I repeat, there is no precedent for extending American law to
investments made in another country pursuant to laws of that country.
Indeed, in 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Banco
Nacional de Cuba versus Sabbatino that American courts could not
inquire into the legality of the expropriation acts of the Cuban
Government when done in Cuba.
Lastly, what we embark upon today has the most serious ramifications
for our hope to infuse investment in Eastern Europe. Think about it for
a moment. If today's law becomes law, if title III stays in this law,
then anyone who invests in Poland, the Czech Republic, or Slovakia,
regimes that were formerly Communist, will have to worry that at some
point the United States will call into question those investments,
because under the exact same pattern as this law, we extend
extraterritorially a right of action against someone who traffics or
profits in property located in another regime, even if it was legal at
the time.
I conclude with a plea: We must unite in opposition all countries
that respect civilized behavior. What happened over the Strait of
Florida was not civilized behavior. This bill divides. It does not
unite. I urge a no on this bill.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, my distinguished
colleague and great helper and supporter of this bill.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, it is really a shame my erudite and
learned legal scholar colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell], is so incorrect in his interpretation of this legislation.
First of all, and I heard him before the Committee on Rules yesterday
where he pointed out that there was unfair treatment of some of the
parties, I want to point out that on page 35 in title III, the
provisions of title 28 of the United States Code and the Rules of
Courts, they apply under this section to the same extent as those
provisions with regard to any other action.
The point I am trying to make is this is not an extraterritorial law,
and when we say we will protect the property of American citizens that
was stolen by a dictatorship, we are protecting the rights of American
citizens' property, and not the rights of other citizens from other
countries. So this is not an extraterritorial piece of legislation.
Now, the essence of what we are trying to do is to shatter the
arguments of the opponents of this legislation, that despite the fact
that they supported embargoes against South Africa and Haiti, they now
say that we should have a policy of helping the regime through trade
and through investment in Cuba. It is a double standard that has been
rejected by this Congress before and that is going to be rejected
again. It has been rejected by the administration as well.
The statement that is going to go out today, a bipartisan statement,
is that with regard to Cuba, just as in the 19th century, the American
people are standing with the Cuban people against oppression, and are
not going to stand with the oppressors of the Cuban people. Those
people will be free. They will remember who their friends were, and
they will remember who stood ignoring them and using double standards
in this Congress, like our opponents time and time again, despite even
murders of American citizens in international waters continue.
I think it is shameful that people, even after the murder of American
citizens, still find excuses for Castro, still find pretenses for
Castro, and get up here and find excuse after excuse after excuse.
There is no more excuse for murder, that is no more excuse for that
tyranny. It is time that the American people show their unity, as they
are going to today in this Congress.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, from a political standpoint, this makes compelling
sense, but from a substantive foreign policy standpoint, it is
nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we won the cold war. This is not the
way we tore down the Iron Curtain. We are going to be punishing the
Cuban people, when what we really want to do is punish an antiquated
despot.
But there are worse things about this that need to be brought to
light. In the Baltimore Sun last May, it was reported that this bill
was largely written by Nick Gutierrez, who represents the sugar mill
owners and the tobacco industry, and Mr. Ignacio Sanchez, who
represents the Barcardi Rum Co. Their competitors operate in Cuba,
specifically the British American Tobacco Co. [BAT] and Perrot Ricard
rum distillery.
What is going to happen here is we are not going to shut down these
industries. What is going to happen is these Cuban-American lawyers are
going to make settlements out of court so they can get equity
participation in these competitor firms.
Now, in the first place, the bill limits legal recourse in American
courts to people who had property in Cuba during the Batista
dictatorship that was valued over $50,000 in 1960. There were not many
Cubans who had property worth more than $50,000 back in 1960 before the
revolution. You had to be a member of the Batista regime and in good
standing to do so. But what this does is to enable people who owned
large property to be able to settle out of court to get a large share,
or at least a significant share, of the profits of these rum companies
and tobacco firms currently operating in Cuba. They know they are not
going to shut down these plants. They don't necessarily want to shut
them down. They want to own them. They know it is cheaper for these
Cuban operations to make an out-of-court settlement to comply with this
new bill. In fact this bill specifically states that ``a lawsuit may be
brought and settled without the necessity of obtaining any license or
permission from any agency of the United States.''
That is what this is all about. What we are going to be doing is
propping up many of the people who created the environment which caused
Castro to be able to bring forth the revolution and has enabled him to
sustain that revolution.
That is not what we want. We want to enact legislation that will help
the real people of Cuba, the butchers and the bakers and the
candlestick makers and all the laborers and farmers. The people who
were brutally exploited by the Batista regime. Those are the people we
ought to help, and those people are excluded from this legislation.
This legislation prevents the United States President from
effectively helping in a transition to democracy and shuts out
America's values and its people from exposure to the Cuban people and
their thirst for the same principles and values.
This is not good foreign policy. It ought to be defeated on its
merits.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, just to respond to my colleague, I would say that the
opponents of this bill asked for the $50,000 threshold. We granted it
to you and to the administration so we could keep a flood of litigation
from going into the courts. So we did what you asked. Then you go to
the well and say we are doing the wrong thing. We just tried to
accommodate you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen].
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time and I thank him for all the help he has given to this cause for
freedom for the Cuban people.
Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers have pointed out, those same
allies who stood with us against undemocratic regimes in Haiti and
South Africa and Iraq and many other places have
[[Page H1739]]
decided to turn their backs on Cuba, preferring to gain a quick and
easy dollar from the repression against the people on the island.
Thankfully, America, a land which has given a second chance to many
people like myself who escaped Communist tyranny, will once again live
up to its reputation as the defender of freedom and human rights in the
world.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation reasserts our commitment to the Cuban
people that this Nation will not engage the Castro dictatorship
economically or politically. It recognizes that such an unlawful regime
deserves our rejection, and it further emphasizes our support for the
Cuban people by outlining a framework to assist a free and democratic
transitional government in my native homeland.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on International Relations recently had
the opportunity to listen to some of the relatives of the four murdered
pilots, innocent civilians who were brutally attacked and murdered by
the Castro regime. They strongly support even tougher sanctions against
the tyrant. This legislation will help reduce the immoral investments
by sending a clear message to these foreign investors: If you traffic
in confiscated American property in Cuba, you will not be able to do
business as usual in the United States.
Simply stated, those investors who wish to invest in Cuba have to
make a choice between becoming accomplices to Castro's dictatorship or
participating in the United States market. It is unfortunate that many
of our allies have opposed this legislation, but to them I ask: How
many more have to be harrassed, arrested or killed before you stop
helping the Cuban tyrant? Again, to our allies: How many more have to
give their lives to free their homeland before you desist in engaging
in commerce and financing Castro's communist dictatorship? To our
allies, join with us in helping to establish freedom and democracy to
the enslaved and oppressed people of Cuba.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Serrano].
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, it is very troubling when you come to the
well and speak and have the full realization that nothing you say will
finally sway the vote. This bill will pass and the President will sign
it, because the President has been advised that Miami has votes that he
can pick up. I will support him in New York, and he has a lot of votes
in New York. But he has no votes in Miami, and that is the travesty of
this situation.
What we have here is more of the same. It is more of a policy that
has not worked. It has not worked for those of us who feel that the
Cubans should be left alone to determine their own destiny, and it has
not worked for those who wanted to get the Cuban Government to throw
out Fidel Castro and hang him by his toenails.
Except that this time, Mr. Speaker, as has been stated on this floor,
it goes further. It goes deeper. Now we are telling our allies that we
have no respect for their own sovereignty. Not only do we not have any
respect for the Cuban sovereignty, but now we are going to tell Canada,
Mexico, and everyone else that they must behave the way we behave.
When the embargo was the simple embargo, as some people would like to
think it is, no one in the world supported us. Now that it will try to
include even our allies, we think that Canada and everyone will jump up
and say this is a great bill, and Helms and Burton were correct; they
can save the world for democracy.
Well, our arrogance is such that we do not care what some of our
allies say, especially those that used to be our enemies a few years
ago. But it is interesting to note that the Yeltsin government this
morning, or last night, said you cannot do this, and we will continue
to deal with Cuba regardless of what you say, because this is wrong.
The part that no one wants to mention here, because it is very
delicate, is the fact that we are not reacting here to the issue in
general. We are reacting to the downing of two airplanes. And I have
stood on this floor on various occasions and said that that was an act
that we should all condemn. But our Government knew those planes were
flying over on 25 different occasions, and we did nothing. And our
Government knew that the person who was heading that group flew without
a license on a couple of occasions, including this last one, where they
had to turn back.
We had removed that person's license because we confirmed that that
group flew over Cuba last July, buzzed the Capitol building, and
dropped half a million leaflets. That is why we are here today. We are
not here today and the President is not on board because our desire to
bring down the Castro government has changed. We are here today because
the Florida primaries are coming soon, and because people have to play
up to that whole situation.
That is sad, Mr. Speaker. For these kinds of comments people like me
take a lot of heat. But it has to be said, because the truth shall set
everybody free, and maybe we need to be free as much as other people in
the Caribbean need to be free.
Tonight we will stand up and say we are tough. We will continue to
deal with China, but we are tough on Cuba. We will deal with Vietnam,
but we will be tough on Cuba. We are going to meet with North Korea,
but we are tough on Cuba.
If you really wanted to make a change in the Cuban Government from
afar, which I think it is none of our business, all you have done is
taken the leader of that country and wrapped him up in the Cuban flag
once again as a nationalist hero. Why? Because you are pounding on that
little island once again.
So where is the victory? There is no victory. I stand here today more
than ever saying we are wrong. Instead of doing this, what we should do
is tomorrow begin to find a way to speak to the Cuban Government. And
if not on all issues, then why not be fair?
{time} 1400
When there was an immigration problem we spoke about immigration. Let
us talk about air space now. Let us find out who is telling the truth.
It might save us from future tragedies.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, this debate would be interesting, and the
gentleman who just spoke his remarks would have resonance if we were
not dealing with a first degree murderer. In 1974, at a seminar in
Virginia, a former ambassador, now long gone to heaven, told me that
Castro personally executed in the parking lot of a movie theater with
gunshots, himself pulling the trigger, the young man who had beaten him
for student union president in the late forties. I could not believe my
ears. I checked it out with the State Department, Library of Congress.
It appears to be a fact. Again, he has killed people in cold blooded
murder.
I am just back from Bosnia. I do not care what the Europeans do. They
traded with Haiphong while we were dying for freedom in all of
Southeast Asia. I do not care what anybody does. Our country has to do
what is right, and Castro is a first degree murderer. If we want to
hand him a baseball bat like Dan Rather of CBS and an elite party in
Manhattan, then you are an accessory in encouraging this first degree
murderer. He has ordered people beaten to death with baseball bats.
What an absurd debate.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Rangel].
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this is a political piece of
legislation for fear of offending my friends, so please look into the
Federal Election Commission, and ignore all of these campaign
contributions that are pouring in here to Members that have taken the
position that now is the time to get the murderer through locking up
the people in Cuba. For those people that are offended because someone
suggests that it might be political, let me make it clear. The fact
that the only Democratic opponent I had in a primary in the last 25
years, that 85 percent of his campaign funds came out of Miami, hey,
that is not political, and I
[[Page H1740]]
challenge people who would even think that.
But let us get down to the merits. We are outraged at murder. The
Speaker is gone; he was here. What do we do about it? Hold the people
of Cuba American hostage and tell them that they have to fly over Cuba
and put pamphlets down there in order to get Americans' attention? Cut
off food, cut off trade, cut off relationships with the people in Cuba
because we do not like the bum that is running it? Are we in love with
whoever runs China? As my colleagues know, what are we going to do
there; put an embargo on China, on North Vietnam or North Korea? No.
There are no votes in the United States for those people. My colleagues
know it and I know it.
They sure got my President's attention; let us see what we can do now
with these Republican candidates. Let us get it on their agenda, and
let me congratulate the authors of this historic piece of legislation.
I thought it was born dead. But the courage of four Americans out of
Miami has not only given it new life, it has shattered reason and
common sense as relates to trade and foreign policy.
Let me say this. This is a done deal. We cannot do anything about it.
But do me a favor. Tell our brave Cuban Americans in Miami do not risk
any more lives, mission accomplished, they were brave enough to take
the gamble, they won, they won, the bill is here, no one challenges it,
the President. Everything that was bad about this bill, four murderers
now have corrected it. Wow, is that a legislative history.
But if people are breaking our laws, breaking international law,
flying over a country, and we would know it, and we condone it, and we
do not stop them from saving their own lives, that is morally wrong.
Are we saying that if these pilots want to go off in a storm against
their best interests that we cannot stop them? Let us hope that these
courageous acts of these people who were shot out of the sky are not
mimicked by other people who believe we have to take it one step
further.
Oh, I know there are some of my colleagues waiting for the invasion,
and if we send that signal that we are ready to go in like Haiti and we
are ready to do whatever we can do, we may have 4 more pilots saying
let us do it at least between now and the general election. We made
mistakes; we will make others.
I am not nearly as concerned as I appear to be because this law is
written so poorly we cannot even enforce it.
They are not going to be angry with us, my colleague, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Campbell], not our allies. They are going to feel
sorry for us. No great Nation like ours can have the arrogance to tell
some other country what they can do with their foreign trade. And the
whole idea that this is going to be something to bring down Castro is
one that I do not think the authors believe.
After the Democratic victories in November, come, can we not talk
together?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], my colleague who has done
so much work in this area.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Burton, for yielding me time on what
should be the proudest day of his congressional career. The gentleman
has done great service to the United States and to the people of Cuba
by bringing this legislation forward, and he has my congratulations.
I never thought, however, Mr. Speaker, that I would hear a day when
Members of Congress would come to the floor while the bodies of four
Americans are still lost in the Straits of Florida, having been
murdered by Fidel Castro, talking about consideration for Canadian
investors, worrying about European corporations while there are still
hundreds of American corporations whose property was stolen from them
and is being resold; consideration for the Canadian investors, worrying
about the Spanish companies, extraterritoriality.
People are going to American courts under this bill, I would say to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], because the Cuban courts
are unavailable. If they could get their grievances redressed in Cuban
courts for the last 30 years, they would have gone there. They would
have gone there. They cannot. So we are opening ours up.
Consideration for our European allies? If this were an island in the
Mediterranean, 35 years later, hundreds of people in jail, planes being
shot down off our coast, do my colleagues think we would be silent? As
allies, we would have been there demanding elections and freedom and
taking a stand. Now we are asked to have consideration for our European
allies.
If America stands alone for freedom in Cuba, for the rights of our
own citizens against the jails and the torture, then America has never
been in better company.
This legislation is the final in a series of acts in uniting this
Congress on a bipartisan basis and making clear to the people of Cuba
there is no reconciliation with Fidel Castro, there is no compromise,
it is time to bring the dictatorship to a close, and we do this as we
did against South Africa with apartheid, as we do today against Libya
and Iraq, by using our economic leverage.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I
congratulate by bipartisan colleagues and the President of the United
States for offering his signature, and to the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Burton], on this good day.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly get up here and oppose most
of my Florida colleagues and people who I think mean to be right but,
unfortunately, their solution is wrong. Let me put it in some
perspective.
If my colleagues had come here 34 years ago, as I was privileged to
do, and listened on this floor and in this well, my colleagues would
have heard the same speeches made then as we do now. Every day more
than half of the 1-minute speeches were devoted to trashing Castro and
the Cuban Government, and in that same session of Congress we passed
every looney law that one can think of, and most of them are still on
the books. In fact, they are all still on the books.
I tried to isolate Cuba and tried to bring down Castro through
American law. I made those speeches, I voted for those laws, I have
come to the conclusion that they were a mistake.
What has happened is that we have empowered Castro to make a villain
out of the United States, and by villainizing us he has been able to
acquire the political clout that he needs to keep the kind of control
he has had in Cuba. We would have been far wiser and much more
successful had we not isolated Cuba and the Cuban people, and we
continued to work with them, to listen to them, to trade with them, and
to have commerce with then. The tourism that we enjoyed with each
other, the fruits and vegetables that came from the island, all of
those things; we would have been better off, and the Cubans would have
been better off, and Castro would have long been gone from power had we
done that.
This law, as well-intended as it is, is not going to work. There is a
good chance that it will boomerang on us. The mistakes we made,
mistakes that we made here in law, are copied over and over again, and
this could hurt us more than it will ever hurt Castro. Please vote no.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, during this discussion we have heard a lot
of debate, and the problem with that debate is that it has been filled
with Washington voices. If there is anything that we have learned, it
is that Washington does not know best. So I think the missing
ingredient in this discussion is, what is it the Cuban people living in
Cuba think? And in testimony after testimony with the gentleman from
Indiana, Chairman Burton, what we have heard is that the people at home
in Cuba think that the way that we solve this problem is not by sending
tourist dollars to prop up Fidel Castro, not by allowing investment
dollars to go in and prop up Fidel Castro, but rather by tightening the
embargo.
In this case I think we should listen to those voices.
[[Page H1741]]
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Cuban Government committed a reprehensible and
tragic act when it decided to shoot down two civilian airplanes flown
by the Cuban-American organization Brothers to the Rescue last month.
And I send my condolences to the families of the victims.
The shootdown was a tragedy in so many ways. It could and should have
been avoided.
The Cubans could have taken alternate steps. But they specifically
had warned the United States and Brothers that this would happen. The
group and the administration did not heed those warnings. The United
States failed to prevent the group from continuing its flights of fancy
and I believe the group deliberately ventured into hostile territory to
provoke a U.S. reaction.
The shootdown was a tragedy as well because but for that tragic
action this legislation would not have won the last support that it
needed. And the legislation is wrong. Instead, we should continue to
open United States policy toward Cuba--for the benefit of Cuban-
Americans, for American businesses, and for regional peace, and, yes,
democracy.
But now Congress is poised to leap backward today as it considers the
so-called Cuban Liberty Act.
We should not do that.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation was wrong before the shootdown happened
and it remains wrong today.
The shootdown has not provided a single justification for a policy
that even the administration that now embraces it had just recently
denounced.
It is extremely likely that America will be cited for trade
violations over this act.
And Fidel Castro, after having outlived over 35 years of U.S.
embargo, surely will not back down in his remaining years because of
additional embargoes. United States hostility to Cuba in fact has been
his political savior.
Do not listen to those who say that a vote against this bill is a
vote for Fidel Castro. That is McCarthyism.
Denounce Cuba in the United Nations, yes. But summon the courage to
vote against this bill.
Vote against this bill because it is bad policy. Vote against this
bill because it violates international trade law and will be an
international embarrassment for the United States. Vote against this
bill, my colleagues, because it is contrary to our best interests.
{time} 1415
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to
my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, some who are opposed to this legislation argue, against
all evidence, that conciliation and appeasement will liberalize the
Castro regime, when 35 years of history has proved exactly the
opposite. The downing of those airplanes shows that Fidel Castro cares
only about his power and only about the maintenance of his corrupt
regime. It was the pretext he was looking for to crack down on Concilio
Cubano and other democratic organizations that were beginning to flower
within Cuba. It was not the fault of the U.S. Government. It was not
the fault of the Americans who flew those planes. It was the fault of
Fidel Castro, who insisted on perpetuating his dictatorship.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President has agreed to sign this
legislation, but I am disappointed that he has asked for the power to
waive its key provisions. I urge the President, do not waive these
provisions. The time has come to be tough with Fidel Castro. We know
appeasement does not work. We know only firmness will.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know where the outrage of
some of my colleagues was when the United States supported the Khmer
Rouge and when the Khmer Rouge killed 1.2 million Cambodians. I guess
the Cambodians do not vote in large numbers in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this bill. I oppose this
bill, even though I know that it has support in this Congress. I oppose
this bill even though I strongly condemn the Castro government's brutal
murder of civilian Americans in the Florida Straits. I oppose this bill
even though I strongly support freedom and democracy for the Cuban
people.
I oppose this bill because it is an unworkable solution to an
intractable problem. The legislation would clog our Nation's courts
with unenforceable new claims against foreign governments, companies,
and individuals. It creates a quagmire of inflexibility which we will
come to regret when needed change comes to Cuba. It would harm
America's important relationships with our sister democracies abroad.
It sets a dangerous precedent of rash action instead of reasoned and
deliberate progress.
Let us not do serious damage to our own national interest in response
to atrocities which we universally abhor and condemn. Vote against this
conference report.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to
my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan effort
to change the direction of the dictatorship in Cuba. My district
represents the Florida Keys, and when I stand in Key West, FL, I am
closer to Havana than I am to Miami. I live about 40 miles north of
Miami.
This is not an esoteric philosophical issue in south Florida. This
truly is a local issue, because we have a better sense, I think, than
most of this country, unfortunately, of what is going on in an evil
empire 90 miles from our shore, an empire that really is in the world's
Hall of Fame of atrocities today, not yesterday, not just killing four
Americans and planes, but torturing and killing the civilians that live
in their own country. That is the empire that is 90 miles from our
shore.
What does this bill do? This bill specifically gives a legal right of
action to Americans whose property was taken illegally. That is the
substance of this bill. The thrust behind it is to prevent other
people, other nationals in other countries, from investing in Cuba, to
try to end the empire that exists today. The investments of Canadians,
of Spaniards, have not changed the empire, the evil empire in Cuba. It
goes on today with their investments.
What we need to do is we need to strangle those investments. We need
to end those investments, and let the people of Cuba know that there is
hope, that the dictatorship, that the Castro dictatorship which is
holding on by its fingernails is going to end, and that this Congress,
the center of hope and democracy and freedom in the world, is part of
that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues in a short time will join
me, both Democrats and Republicans throughout the country, in
acknowledging that we want freedom in Cuba, we want a free society, a
free economy, a freedom of thought, a freedom of action that this bill
will be part of creating.
I can think of nothing that I am prouder of as part of my legislative
career than to have been part of the adoption, the drafting, and
hopefully now, very shortly, the passage of this bill.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to the conference report, not just because this is the wrong
bill, but it is the wrong bill at the wrong time. No one will deny that
last week's tragedy is truly regrettable, but I will urge my colleagues
to respond in a level-headed manner, not with a reflex policy for the
moment.
Tightening a 35-year embargo will only cause more pain to these
innocent people. Under the current embargo the human cost has already
been too high. Cubans cannot even get basic necessities like food and
medicine. How much more pain do we have to inflict on these people
before it is enough? After more than 3 decades, we should be ready to
admit that this embargo has failed miserably. The Castro government has
survived the storm. The
[[Page H1742]]
average Cuban looks at Fidel as a hero, and the United States
Government as the enemy. Nobody wants a repeat of last week, but
today's action will further isolate and deprive the Cuban people,
increasing tensions and setting the stage for another violent crisis.
As world leaders, we should extend a peaceful hand and keep dialog
between our two countries open. It is time we live by our humanitarian
ideals and stop playing the bully. If we are serious about democracy,
then more dialog, not an embargo, is the answer.
Mr. Speaker, we must not allow heated passion to blind us. This bill
leads us down the same wrong path we have followed for 3 decades. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference report. We must
learn to look before we legislate.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute
to our colleague, the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy], who
has been a big help on this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a
little exception with talk that has been heard around here a lot about
``let us not act in heated passion.'' Why should we not react in heated
passion when human rights abuses are being seen in Cuba, 90 miles off
our shore? Why should we not react in passion when Fidel Castro
knowingly gives the military orders for two civilian aircraft with
American citizens on board to be shot down over international waters?
I am passionate about that, and I am passionate about human rights
abuse in Cuba. A lot of people have said that the embargo that was
first instituted by President Kennedy has not worked. There is a good
explanation for that. The Soviet Union used to subsidize Castro's
regime for the last 30-odd years. That is no longer the case. That is
why Fidel Castro is looking for foreign investment to help prop up his
dictatorial regime and further oppress the people. Make no mistake
about it, the reason why this bill is so important right now is because
he needs foreign investment now more than he did before.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill. It is
bipartisan. The President supported it. I am in strong support of this
bill.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 25, most of us picked
up our morning paper to read that two planes, piloted by Cuban-
Americans, had been shot down near Cuba. This unfortunate incident was
appropriately denounced by both President Clinton and the U.N. Security
Council.
In addition to this initial response, the President quickly imposed
several restrictions on Cuba and ensured that the families of those
killed would be compensated.
The downing of the planes was an inexcusable action by the Cuban
authorities, and I believe that President Clinton was right to initiate
an immediate and direct response.
This is a very emotional situation and the immediate reaction is to
strike back, but that is the wrong reaction. It is wrong to define our
long-term relationship on the basis of this tragic incident. Passage of
the Helms-Burton bill is a shortsighted, irrational response to this
international incident.
This legislation will not topple Castro, this legislation will only
tie the hands of President Clinton and increase the pain and suffering
of the Cuban people.
In my opinion, this legislation not only violates international law,
it punishes our international allies by attempting to force them to
comply with our 34-year-old embargo. An embargo that has not worked.
This legislation will allow Cuban-Americans to use United States courts
to sue foreign companies who invest in properties that were confiscated
by the Castro government. While emotionally justifiable, it infringes
upon our allies' sovereignty, and possibly violates our trade
agreements.
Helms-Burton would limit the authority of the President to alter or
lift parts of the embargo--even for strict humanitarian purposes--by
Executive decree. The Executive orders which make up our policy on Cuba
become frozen into law. If the President sought to ease restrictions on
Cuba in response to democratic changes, he would only be able to do so
with congressional approval.
We all know that the Cuban economy is suffering. Cuba is forced to
pay a premium for importing staple foods for its people. Medicines are
in short supply, causing health care delivery to crumble. Is this what
we really want for the Cuban people? Is this how our democracy should
operate?
Engaging Cuba, increasing dialog, and pressuring for increased human
rights and democratic reform is the best way to genuinely democratize
Cuba and improve relations with one of our closest neighbors.
Passage of Helms-Burton will only deepen the rift between our two
countries and cause further suffering of the very people we are trying
to help.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], who has been a
tremendous help on this bill.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, and congratulate him on his bill, which I have helped
coauthor.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my 347 fellow Members of this House,
including 121 Democrats who have joined with us and the President in
striking a blow for democracy and striking a blow against the Castro
regime. I want to answer some of the issues. This question of
extraterritoriality, under the Cuban Democracy Act everybody
acknowledges that, and many people voted for it in this House who
oppose this today. The fact of the matter is that under that act we
heard all these issues from Canada and Mexico and everybody else, that
in fact this was extraterritorial. What is the relationship today? We
entered into the most significant trade agreement with Canada and
Mexico, and they are trading with us, and so much, I think, for the
comment.
This is not about trade. Someone said this is about trade. No, this
is about trafficking intentionally in illegally confiscated properties
of U.S. citizens and U.S. companies. Canadians are arguing for their
citizens and their interests and their rights. I am coming here to
argue for American citizens and American businesses and their rights. I
am not going to get up here and start arguing for other countries.
The fact of the matter is that if you know that that property was not
legally yours, and you are willing to buy it even though you know it
was stolen from somebody else, you are in receipt of stolen property.
If you want to do that, fine, then take the risk. And we do this
prospectively, so you know that you are going to have to continue to
traffic in the property or purchase properties in the future.
Title III has a suspension authority for the President of all the
hobgoblins we have heard about come to reality. The President, in his
letter to all of us, said, he asked the administration to work
vigorously with the Congress to set aside our remaining differences and
reach rapid agreement on the 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.''
Last, let me just say that if Members are proud of China's record of
prison camps, slave labor, dissident jailings, 20 years later after our
relationships and our investments, if they are proud of the Canadian
and Mexican and Spanish investments in Cuba over the last several years
that have produced no democracy, that have produced greater repression,
and that have kept the regime afloat, then they should vote against the
bill.
But if in fact what Members want to do is what I believe the
overwhelming Members of this House already by the rule vote and in past
votes want to do, to strike a blow for democracy and strike, in fact, a
blow on behalf of the Cuban people and against the Castro regime, they
will be voting with us on this bill.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from
California [Mr. Becerra].
[[Page H1743]]
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, first let us all agree that what happened a week ago
that took the lives of several Americans was regrettable and should not
have happened, but it is always bad policy when you try to achieve
political ends through economic means, especially when they are
indirect economic means.
The actual three and one-half-decade-old embargo against Cuba is a
perfect example of why we cannot achieve that through an economic
embargo. The Castro government remains, and the only people who have
been hurt are the people of Cuba, the women and children of Cuba. What
we are doing through this bill is using our economic might to bully our
international allies and friends to do what we think is best, even
though the entire international community has spoken against this type
of embargo.
{time} 1430
Indeed, even Canada, our northern neighbor, our great friend, has
said it will take us to international court to say that this is a
means, a barrier against free trade throughout the world. This is not
the way to do things.
Let us address what happened last week in the taking of several
American lives, but let us not try to mix the things up that we have
here today and say that because some people died, regrettably, that now
we should institute a policy that will ultimately take the lives of
many people in a country called Cuba though politically we may disagree
with what is going on with the government. This is not the way to do
it. We should focus where we should. Let us not create bad policy
because a bad situation occurred.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I waited until near the end of the debate to
take my time is because, as is always the case, there is a lot of
misinformation that takes place in this debate and I wanted to make
sure I clarified these arguments.
First of all, a lot of my colleagues have said we are going to hurt
the people of Cuba. When Castro has a foreign investor invest in Cuba,
the money that is paid by the employees of that firm goes to Castro.
Let us say that they get $400 a month. Castro gets the $400 a month and
then he pays them in the local currency, $400 of that local currency.
But the exchange rate is 700 to 1, which means the average Cuban is
making less than $5 a month.
We cannot hurt those poor people much worse than Castro has hurt
them. The embargo is not going to hurt the Cuban people. Castro has
murdered the Cuban people economically, and literally in many cases.
And I would like to say to my colleagues who opposed the embargo,
when we talked about these same issues when we had the embargo against
South Africa, they took a different position. There is no consistency
in their arguments.
When Castro took power, Cuba had the highest standard of living in
Latin America. Today it is the lowest, not because of the United States
embargo, because for the past 35 years they have been propped up by the
Soviet Union, but because of Castro's Communist government control
policies that do not work. He is the one that has been hurting the
Cuban people, not the United States and not the embargo, because the
embargo had no teeth in it until 3 years ago.
Somebody said that the OAS was not with us on this. The fact of the
matter is Castro has been excommunicated from the Organization of
American States because of his actions, because of his exporting of
revolution.
My colleagues have said, you know, we are going to penalize people
who invest in Cuba and have invested in Cuba. This is a prospective
bill. People who have already bought confiscated U.S. property will not
be penalized unless they buy more American property. So if they have
already got property down there, they are not going to fall under this
bill.
But people who buy confiscated American property in the future are
going to be penalized because there will be a cause of action in U.S.
courts unless suspended by the President. And, No. 2, anybody that
traffics in confiscated U.S. property will not be able to get a visa to
come to the United States.
They know full well, the Canadians, the Spanish and everybody else,
they know that this bill takes effect on the date of enactment, and if
they buy property that is taken away from Americans, stolen from
Americans by Fidel Castro, they know what they are getting into. So I
have no sympathy for those people who want to buy confiscated, stolen
American property to give Castro the hard currency that he needs to
stay in power.
Now, a lot of my colleagues say, you know, we ought to do business
with this guy, especially since Boris Yeltsin says we should. Well,
Russia and the Soviet Union have been supporting Castro all along, so
that does not surprise me, but the facts of the matter are these:
Castro has exported communist revolution in Africa, in Central America,
in South Africa where Che Guevara was killed. He has exported communism
wherever he could. He is a committed revolutionary and he still
believes.
That Castro has killed innocent human beings. He has put thousands
and thousands of people in his Communist gulags. If you want to know
how they are treated, read Armando Valderas' book ``Against All Hope''
and it will tell you very clearly how he treats people who disagree
with him.
My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], talked
about a fellow who defeated him in a college race for student body
president, and Castro shot him to death. That is the kind of guy we are
talking about. He is a horrible human being, one that should not be in
power, especially not for 35 years.
Two years ago, on the high seas, he had his Cuban Navy pull up
alongside a tugboat with people on it who were fleeing to freedom.
Women were holding their babies above their heads, and he ordered his
Navy to wash them off the decks with power hoses. The women took the
babies, the children, into the hold of the tugboat, and Castro brought
his navy ship alongside. They directed the hoses into the hold and they
sunk that ship, that tugboat, and killed those women and children like
rats.
This is the kind of government you guys want to do business with, and
my colleagues' answer is, well, the way to work with Castro is to open
up trade and do business with him, that will solve the problem. Really?
Do you really believe that? We have opened up trade with Communist
China. It has not changed the Communist regime over there. We have
opened up trade with Communist Vietnam. That has not changed anything.
And here we are, 90 miles from our border they are shooting down
planes with innocent Americans in them, in international air space, and
we are supposed to say we are going to solve this problem by doing
business with him. Baloney. The way you deal with Fidel Castro, since
he is on his last legs, is do not let him have the hard dollars that he
needs to stay in power, and that is what this bill does.
This bill will force him from power, I really believe that, in the
next 2 or 3 years, and then the people of Cuba will have freedom,
democracy, and human rights because there is going to be about $3 or $4
billion invested very quickly, and they will have the freedom that they
wanted all these years.
Get out of here, Castro. We want you gone. We want freedom,
democracy, and human rights throughout this hemisphere, and you are the
last holdout.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell].
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, whenever an economic sanction has worked
in our history, whether it be South Africa, Haiti, Iraq, or even worked
in part, it is because our allies have agreed with it. What we do today
alienates our allies at a time when we need them most.
It is not out of any concern for investors in Canada or investors in
Spain that I rise in opposition to title III of this bill. It is
precisely because I want to put pressure on Fidel Castro's Cuba. But I
know that the only way to put effective pressure, whether it be a sugar
[[Page H1744]]
embargo, a tobacco embargo, limited sanctions or a total quarantine, is
when we have our trading partners and our allies with us.
Today, for the first time in the history of American jurisprudence,
we are applying a law not to goods that come into our country, not to
acts that happen within our country, but to goods and acts that are
outside of our country. However great our outrage, that is not American
jurisprudence. That is extraterritoriality. It drives our allies away
at a time we need them most.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. I think
there should be no doubt that after the reprehensible actions by Mr.
Castro and the regime, there is no disagreement among us here. We
condemn that.
The difference here is the best way to respond and how best to bring
an end to his regime. We knew that Fidel Castro was a reprehensible
thug 3 weeks ago. We knew that he was 30 years ago. There is no change
in that. He remains so today, but his recent actions should not change
how we define or pursue the U.S. national interest.
I think this bill that is before us is a huge mistake, and I believe
that for several reasons. First of all, as a matter of policy, it picks
isolation over engagement. By increasing Cuba's isolation and by
squeezing the Cuban people, the conference report risks a violent
upheaval in Cuba and increases the risk of a massive flow of refugees.
I understand that now is not the time to lift the embargo. Bad deeds
should not be rewarded. But ultimately the engagement of the Cuban
people in trade and contacts with Cuba will open the door to a free
Cuba. I say to my friend on the other side of the aisle that the most
distinguished foreign policy spokesman of the Republican Party in the
last generation was President Richard Nixon, and he believed that the
isolation policy of the Cuban people was the wrong policy.
I also believe that this conference report is going to tie the hands
of the President in knots. I understand that he accepts this bill but I
think that is a mistake. The conference report restricts the ability of
the United States to respond to changing conditions in Cuba. The
transition from a Communist government to a free government is not
going to be easy. We have learned that time and time again. What this
bill does is, it freezes us out of the action at the very time that we
want to be engaged, when we want to influence events in Cuba.
With regard to title III, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Campbell] has explained that very well, but let me just make this
observation. My friends who are proponents of this bill have said over
and over again, title III is the heart of the bill. But you know what
they did? They gave it away. They gave away title III with the waiver
to the President. If in fact title III is so important, if it is the
heart of the bill, then why just give it away with a waiver to the
President of the United States?
Incidentally, that title III defends only the interests of the rich,
only the fellow who has a very large claim. The poor small claim holder
is not going to get any remedy from this bill. This bill is going to
shore up Castro, not bring him down. It enables him to do what he has
done so effectively for 30 years, and that is to fan the flames of
nationalism, to put all of the blame for the mess he has made of Cuba
onto the United States, so it plays into his hands.
We ought to be targeting our policy not at Castro and what is bad for
Castro. The policy of the United States should be aimed at what is good
for the Cuban people. This bill, this conference report, puts us at
odds with all of our friends and allies, and it deeply offends them.
The conference report departs from the proven and sound U.S. policies
that we have used in other areas of the world.
Mr. Speaker, let me conclude, the conference report is going to
increase the isolation of Cuba and its people. It is going to skew U.S.
policy from the present course of promoting peaceful change. It is
going to put the United States on the sidelines when this transition is
underway in Cuba. It creates an unprecedented right for those who had
property confiscated in Cuba to sue in United States courts. It hands
Castro a deck of nationalist cards that he will play with consummate
skill, and it contravenes U.S. international commitments and
antagonizes our closest allies and trading partners.
This conference report is a mistake. It is a huge mistake for this
country to make because it locks in the President of the United States
in the conduct of American policy towards Cuba. I urge a vote against
it.
Mr. BROWN of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, Castro is in trouble. He just rounded up the human
rights activists and the people who oppose him. He put hundreds of them
in prison just recently.
My colleague said that there is no guts in this bill except for title
III. Title IV prohibits people who traffic in confiscated American
property from getting visas to come to the United States of America, so
they are going to have to choose: Do they want to do business with
Castro or the United States? I believe they are going to want to do
business with the United States. That is going to dry up hard currency
for Castro.
You folk on that side of the aisle, the people who oppose this bill,
wanted that $50,000 limit to make sure that we would not have the
courts flooded with litigation. The fact of the matter is, you asked
for it, you got it, now you are complaining about it.
And, finally, when there is a transition, when democracy starts to
come to Cuba and Castro is gone, there are provisions in the bill for
the United States to help aid in the transition to democracy. So we are
not going to be on the sidelines, Mr. Hamilton. We are going to be in
there helping the Cuban people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Torres].
(Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the conference report on
H.R. 927.
I am grateful to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Burton] for this opportunity to explain why the passage of H.R. 927
would be, in my opinion, not only a grave policy mistake by this body,
but, would set in motion actions which would deliberately inflict upon
the Cuban people suffering and deprivation. Yes, we all deplore the
incident of the downing of Americans flying provocative flights over
Cuban airspace but, they were warned countless times to desist. This
legislation will not correct that situation.
At worst, this legislation is a cruel attempt by Members in both
bodies--who are still fighting the cold war--to provoke civil disorder
in Cuba. Today we need to send a wake-up call to those cold warriors in
our midst--the cold war has ended. We won--remember.
What threat does the Government of Cuba present to the territory or
people of the United States which would justify unleashing further pain
and suffering and, I would warn, possible bloodshed, among the people
of Cuba.
The United States is the only world superpower. Our military might
dwarfs that of the combined armies and navies of Europe and certainly
of the Americas. We maintain an armed, military presence, on the Island
of Cuba--how many of you appreciate this reality.
This country maintains an armed, military base on Cuba's southern
coast. The United States controls 45 square miles of southern Cuba,
including a harbor, naval docking and ship repair facilities ordinance,
supplies and administrative facilities--we even have two water
distillation plants.
This U.S. military base includes both a naval and an air station.
Over all--the United States military has a base right inside of Cuba
which is three-quarter the total land area of the District of Columbia.
One of the stated military missions for our base in Cuba is to serve as
beachhead in case the United States decides to invade the Island.
It costs the American taxpayer over $45 million a year to maintain
this military base. Now, it looks to me like the military threat is
reversed--it appears to me that this Island presents no military or
strategic threat to the territory of the United States.
Why then are we considering legislation which appears to some to be
designed to make economic and social conditions in Cuba so difficult
for the average citizens, that these difficulties would create civic
disorder, which would then provoke the Castro government to take
measures against its population, which will result in increased
violence and disorder on the Island, which will be used as a pretext
for US military intervention.
At best, this legislation will have no effect upon the Cuban
Government's hold on power,
[[Page H1745]]
but will reveal to the international community the mindset of United
States elected officials--who are so trapped, by old ways of thinking
and by false pride, that they would act against a foreign government
which poses no threat or danger to the national security of the United
States of America.
{time} 1445
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the cosponsors of the
Helms-Burton bill, and I have every strong rationale to do so. I know
what the Cuban people have experienced. I have seen them from 1960 to
1961.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on
the Libertad bill--the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act--
which will tighten the embargo against Castro and his barbaric regime.
I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I am pleased that
President Clinton will sign it into law when it reaches his desk.
From time to time, we are called upon to take strong action against
evil in the world.
We took strong action against apartheid in South Africa. We took
strong action against a murderous dictatorship in Haiti. Today, Mr.
Speaker, we have the opportunity to take strong and decisive action
against the evil of Fidel Castro.
By now, every American knows of the murderous attack by Cuban Mig
fighters only 11 days ago. Two U.S. civilian aircraft were destroyed,
and four U.S. citizens were killed in this unjustified and unwarranted
terrorist attack against unarmed civilians.
Brothers to the Rescue is a peaceful, humanitarian group responsible
for saving over 6,000 lives. It is perfectly in character that Castro
chose to viciously attack the members of this caring, dedicated group.
But in Miami, FL, which I represent in Congress, this senseless,
brutal attack is the latest in a long list of murders, firing squads,
imprisonments, harassments, human rights abuses, and political
oppression perpetrated by Castro against the Cuban people.
Many of my constituents know Castro's ruthlessness first hand. Many
fled from Castro's prisons. Many of my constituents still have
relatives--mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, nephews and
cousins--who must endure the daily hardship and oppression of this
cruel regime.
Is there any wonder why so many people were willing to leave
everything they ever worked for and everything they ever owned to come
to this country--just for the chance to live in freedom and raise their
children without fear.
The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act will put new
international pressure on the Castro regime. Under its provisions:
The embargo against Cuba will be enacted into law. Up until now, the
embargo has been enforced via an Executive order and subject to change
by every new administration;
The owners of illegally confiscated properties in Cuba will be
allowed to pursue legal action in United States District Court against
those corporations and individuals who currently occupy and profit from
those properties;
Corporate executives who purchase confiscated U.S. properties will
have their visas to the United States revoked. Foreign business
executives who invest in Cuba after the passage of this legislation
will be subject to the same punitive action; and
To encourage democratic change, humanitarian and military transition
assistance will be provide to a future Cuban Government that is
committed to democracy.
Mr. Speaker, just as we helped the people of South Africa, and the
people of Haiti, we must help the people of Cuba in the time of their
greatest need.
Castro is desperately clinging to power. He must be cut off, not
thrown a lifetime. I believe that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act will greatly hasten the fall of Fidel Castro's
dictatorship.
And Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the time--in the near future--when
I can greet--here in this Capitol--the democratically elected President
of a free Cuba, as I have the democratically elected Presidents of a
free South Africa and a free Haiti.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to
the distinguished Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Indiana, for yielding to me.
I am delighted to have a chance to share with the House some thoughts
on the conference report on H.R. 927, which I really see as a freedom
contract with the Cuban people.
I found it interesting that the very distinguished ranking member of
the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], did not seem
to think this bill would be effective. I would just want to start by
quoting from a letter from President Clinton, who said,
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.
I am delighted that the President is now supporting this. But I must
say even more decisive than the tragedy of the last few weeks has been
a commitment which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] led as
chairman of the subcommittee, a commitment which the gentlewoman from
Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] led, a commitment which the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] led and others in both the House and Senate,
that said for a long time, we are committed to freedom for Cuba.
Let me remind my colleagues of the game that has been played. No
dictator on the planet has been better than Fidel Castro at managing to
create a sense that somehow he will always survive no matter what. No
one has been better than Fidel at playing off various parts of the
world and somehow magically appearing, bearded, in uniform, and
prepared to talk about baseball, just a wonderfully pleasant,
interesting person standing in the church pulpit, and, oh, by the way,
forget the prisons, forget the secret police, forget the torture,
forget the murders, forget the dictatorship, forget the poverty, forget
the willingness to take on anyone and drive them out of Cuba, because
after all he is such an interesting, charismatic figure. And so, for
the last couple years, life has gotten harder because with the fall of
the Berlin Wall, with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the subsidies
are gone. The money is not there. The military protection is not there.
Suddenly, the Castro dictatorship was beginning to weaken. And now
Fidel had a new line. He said to the younger Cuban bureaucracy, ``Stick
with me. I will manipulate the Americans. I will manage the transition.
I will manipulate the European Union. I will find the money. And in the
end I am still going to be here.'' And sadly, from the Clinton
administration and from others, there were signals that maybe Fidel
could pull it off. There were signals that maybe America was going to
cave.
Business leaders went down to Cuba and began to praise the great
opportunities the dictatorship offered. Oh, you might have to build
that hotel near a prison camp, but what the heck, there will be
profits. We began do have Members of Congress go down, because after
all, the dictatorship was getting a more human face.
Those who studied knew it was not true. Chairman Burton knew it was
not true. The gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] knew it was
not true. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] knew it was not
true. People across America who studied Cuba said, ``Wait a second,
this is the same dictatorship, these are the same lies, these are the
same false promises.'' And for a long time the Clinton administration
opposed this bill.
And then a tragedy occurred, a tragedy that was unnecessary, a
tragedy that should have been avoided, a tragedy which I believe strong
representation from our State Department might well have avoided by
saying to the Castro dictatorship, ``We will not tolerate your shooting
down innocent civilian aircraft. It violates every international
rule.''
The United Nations had what I thought was a pathetically weak
response. They did not condemn. They did not censure. They deeply
deplored. Kill a few people, we deeply deplore it.
Well, the U.S. Congress is doing something vastly beyond deplore.
This bill says no one in Cuba and no one in the rest of the world
should expect this embargo to be lifted until there is democracy in
Cuba. There is no future for the Castro dictatorship. There are no
[[Page H1746]]
deals. There is no special business investment. There is no loophole.
There is no sweetheart agreement.
This also says the Congress will be involved unless the President
certifies that the transition to a democratic regime is under way in a
measurable, real way. It says one other; maybe it is shocking to some
of our friends; it says if Castro has confiscated the property of
Americans, we are going to defend the property right of Americans, and,
yes, if you come from Canada or you come from France or you come from
some other country and you have purchased the confiscated property of
Americans, we are going to take steps to protect American citizens
against those who would exploit what a dictatorship has done to hurt
Americans.
Maybe some of our friends think it is too much for the American
Government to protect Americans. Maybe some people think the Cuban
market is so huge and so profitable that you ought to cut yourself off
from the American market to make sure you can trade in Havana. Well, I
am perfectly happy to have companies make that decision. If a European
company or a Canadian company wants to say, we will prove our
commitment to Fidel, we are going to ship our goods to Havana, and that
means we are not going to be in the United States market, I somehow
think somewhere on the planet there will be a competitor willing to
come to America or there will be an American company willing to provide
the goods and service, and we will survive.
It is perfectly fair for us to say to the world we are going to
defend Americans, we are going to defend American property rights, we
are going to oppose the Castro dictatorship.
And it is even more important, and I want to close this because I
think it is vital to understand, we have a history that goes back 98
years from this year, a history that said just about this point a
century ago, as the Spanish continued to oppress Cuba and the Cuban
people were in a long and bloody and terrible insurrection, just about
literally 100 years ago, people began to stand in this well and talk
about our obligation to help the Cuban people liberate themselves from
Spain.
Fidel Castro has been a tragic detour on what was a long period of
the natural friendship between the American people, who have
sympathized and supported the Cuban people, and we are prepared to say
in this House, with our vote this afternoon, just as you wanted Cuba to
be free of the dictatorship of Spain, we want the Cuban people to be
free of the dictatorship of Fidel, and we are by this act and by this
law committing ourselves to a freedom contract with the people of Cuba
and we are saying to every young Cuban leader in Cuba and every younger
Cuban bureaucrat, your future is not with Fidel and decay. Your future
is with freedom and prosperity. If you will simply help us, we will
work with you for the transition, and together we will establish the
right to be free once again in our neighbor to the south.
I urge every Member, the President urges a ``yes'' vote, we urge a
``yes'' vote, the Cuban people want a ``yes'' vote, and I think the
future of freedom demands a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong
opposition to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty Act. This legislation would,
in the name of ending the rule of Castro, cause even greater harm to
the Cuban people and jeopardize our relations with many of our
important allies.
As were all Americans, I was outraged by the February 24 shootdown of
two American Cessnas near Cuba. Simply put, there is no excuse for
sending two MiG fighters against unarmed passenger planes.
H.R. 927, however, is the wrong way to respond. The bill would not
have prevented the tragic events of 2 weeks ago, nor would it
significantly improve upon the additional sanctions already taken by
the President as a result of the attack.
We should not forget that we already impose a comprehensive travel
and trade embargo against Cuba. Virtually no exports are permitted to
Cuba, and travel is strictly limited. And American businesses are
prohibited from conducting virtually any economic activity in Cuba.
Economic indicators have shown that the embargo has had a dramatic
effect on the Cuban economy. Sadly, however, virtually all of the
suffering has been felt by the Cuban people. They have faced serious
food shortages, as well as a lack of needed medicine and medical
supplies, threatening their health and welfare.
Presumably because this embargo has not let to a change in Cuba's
leadership--even though it has hurt the people of Cuba--Congress has
decided to take the embargo even further: to try to prevent any country
from trading with Cuba. Specifically, provisions in this bill would
permit Cuban-Americans to sue foreign companies if they use, or profit
from, confiscated property from Cuba.
This provision has been strongly opposed by many of our important
trading allies, including Canada, Great Britain, France, and Mexico.
They rightly see this as a violation of international law, and a
violation of their sovereignty--an attempt by one country to force
their foreign policy on another.
Mr. Speaker, is it worth risking our relationship with our allies to
try to strangle Cuba even further? I don't think so.
If these provisions actually succeed in cutting off additional
investment in Cuba, it seems unlikely that the results will benefit the
Cuban people. Our embargo has already hurt Cuba's economy severely, yet
has only caused more pain for the Cuban people with no change in Cuba's
leadership. Given the results of this policy to date, expanding the
embargo even more would seem unwise and ineffective, if not downright
cruel.
Interestingly, some have suggested that the provision will have no
effect on foreign investment in Cuba. Why? Because the bill allows
individuals to settle their cases against foreign companies out of
court. Thus, foreign companies could still invest in Cuba. However,
those few Cuban-Americans who held large amounts of property in Cuba
could realize large financial gains from these settlements. The
possibility that a few could be enriched by this bill, even as the
people of Cuba suffer from the current embargo, concerns me even more.
In any event, I cannot support legislation which, at the very least,
threatens the future of our trading relationships, hurts our own
economic security, and does nothing to alleviate the suffering of the
Cuban people. Let us pursue a policy of more openness and greater
engagement with Cuba, not less, if we truly wish to bring about greater
change and help the people of Cuba.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be standing in front of this
body as we get ready to vote on the Helms-Burton bill. This piece of
legislation will send a clear message to Castro and other petty
dictators around the world that America will not stand for political
persecution. We will not put our heads in the sand while this tyrant,
only 90 miles from our shores, oppresses his own innocent citizens.
It is a tragedy that it took the recent shooting down of two unarmed,
civilian humanitarian planes by Cuban fighters to help bring the Helms-
Burton bill to the floor. Fidel Castro has been committing atrocities
against the Cuban people for decades and these recent repugnant acts
only serve to confirm a conclusion that we already know. Castro will
never change. He still has political prisoners, including women and
children, languishing in his jails. He still murders his own people as
they attempt to flee political persecution. He still is planning to
construct a nuclear power plant that can only be considered a
humanitarian disaster. There can be no compromise. Castro is an
absolute dictator that needs to be taken down absolutely.
The Helms-Burton bill will force Castro from power and put an end to
these acts of oppression. It will strangle Castro by cutting off a
large segment of foreign investment that is currently propping up his
regime. Some of my colleagues feel that lessening our grip on Cuba
would be the best way to help the Cuban people. I passionately
disagree. Castro's acts over the last several weeks only proves the
urgent necessity for this bill and the need to strengthen our resolve
against this rogue dictator, rather than weaken it. Mr. Castro, we will
not compromise on this issue. The U.S. Congress will not lower our
support to ending the Castro regime. We will fight to the end to free
the noose that currently surrounds the Cuban people, I urge my
colleagues to join with me in voting in support of Helms-Burton, in
support of freedom and democracy.
Mr. BERMAN. I rise to oppose this bill. I do this reluctantly. There
is much in this legislation that I support and have supported in the
past.
I am not, for example, opposed to codifying the embargo on Cuba.
There is no doubt that Castro is a dictator and murderer whose rule
should be vigorously resisted.
Nor am I opposed to the extraterritorial nature of this legislation
although I wish such unilateral American action was not necessary. I
would greatly welcome international cooperation in dealing with the
world's dictators as well as with other threats to international
stability.
However, I must vote against this bill. When this bill was marked up
in the International Relations Committee, I introduced an amendment
which carved out an exception for some penalties for certain
activities. My amendment was
[[Page H1747]]
accepted by all sides--including proponents of this legislation, but
then, unfortunately, it was dropped in conference.
I do not understand why my amendment was dropped. It was not contrary
to the intent of the sponsors of this legislation.
My amendment retained due process protection already contained in the
Trading With the Enemy Act [TWEA] and kept exceptions for news
gathering, research, and clearly defined educational, religious, and
human rights activities.
In 1992, when we passed similar legislation, we added substantial
civil penalties to Treasury's enforcement arsenal to prevent a surge of
business or tourist travel to Cuba.
We all agreed and continue to agree that trips to acquire a winter
suntan or make a quick buck should be discouraged.
However, we wanted to make sure of a couple of things before we
broadened Treasury's authority to punish such travelers. First, we
ensured that due process protection was given to individuals or firms,
including an agency hearing and we also ensured that there would be a
couple of categories of travel that would be off limits to civil fines.
We agreed that visits by journalists, researchers, human rights, and
religious organizations--visits in other words whose legal tender was
information, not hard currency--were in our national interest, since
they undermined rather than buttressed the Castro regime.
Now this bill omits all exceptions to civil penalties in the Trading
With the Enemy Act and removes the administrative due process provision
we wrote into the TWEA, undermining the fairness and credibility of
civil sanctions.
I believe the Government should err on the side of liberally
interpreting American's right to travel abroad, particularly when it
serves our national interests. This legislation does not serve those
interests and therefore I cannot support this bill.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, today we will be taking a final vote on the
conference report for the so-called Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act. Unfortunately, our consideration of this legislation is
occurring after the tragic shooting down of the two Brothers to the
Rescue aircraft. Although the content of this legislation and this
recent tragedy should not be linked, we are today creating a false
linkage between the two. This prevents us from carefully weighing the
negative impact that passage of this legislation will have on our
foreign policy and on the Cuban people--who will only suffer more with
the tightening of the economic embargo. Passage of this legislation
today is not the correct response to this tragedy.
The United States should not permit the reckless acts of private
citizens to dictate our foreign policy. Earlier concerns expressed by
this administration should not be ignored simply because this tragedy
occurred. The Helms-Burton legislation is an extreme bill that
continues and strengthens diplomatic policies that have never been
successful. The existing Cuban embargo has failed to cause any change
in Cuba's government. Passage of even stricter sanctions against Cuba
will not move Cuba any further toward a change in government.
This conference report retains the troubling provisions that make
liable for damages in U.S. courts individuals or companies, including
those from third countries, who knowingly traffic in property that was
owned by a U.S. national and was confiscated by the Cuban Government.
Although a provision was included permitting the President to delay
implementation of this provision for unlimited 6-month periods, in its
September 1995 statement of administration policy, the administration
stated that this title should be deleted. ``Applying U.S. law extra-
territorially in this fashion would create friction with our allies, be
difficult to defend under international law, and would create a
precedent that would increase litigation risks for U.S. companies
abroad.'' This provision which the administration considered seriously
objectionable is still a part of this conference report.
In fact, an article in the Washington Post on March 3, 1996, suggests
that this provision, which would allow Cuban-Americans to sue foreign
companies in U.S. Federal courts, creates a massive loophole that would
permit the wealthiest Cuban-Americans to profit from settling lawsuits
brought under this section. The article explains how these settlements
may occur without the need to obtain any license or permission from the
U.S. Government.
I would also like to reiterate once again, as I have so often in the
past, that we have no moral grounds that would allow us to single out
Cuba for this trade embargo. We continue to have trade relations with
North Vietnam, China, and North Korea, countries with political systems
different than ours.
The current United States policy toward Cuba does not have the
support of the world community. The majority of our allies do not
believe the trade embargo is an effective or wise vehicle for dealing
with Cuba, and tightening the embargo will only further damage our
relationships with our allies. Specifically, permitting suits against
foreign companies that invest in Cuba will infringe on the sovereignty
of other countries, and interfere with their trade decisions.
Finally, and most importantly, any tightening of the embargo will
increase the suffering of the Cuban people. We all recognize that a
terrible tragedy in the shooting of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft
has occurred, but we need to move forward in developing a constructive
relationship with Cuba. Passage of this conference report will move our
country's foreign policy even further in the wrong direction. We should
instead vote against this bill and begin the process of building a
peaceful and productive relationship with Cuba.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the conference
report on H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
Mr. Speaker, on February 24 Castro ordered the downing of unarmed
aircraft flying over international waters, murdering all those aboard,
including three United States citizens who were committed to promoting
peace and freedom in Cuba. This blatant violation of international law
and wanton disregard for human life only reaffirms that Castro will
stop at nothing to cling to power and suppress freedom in Cuba.
All across Eastern Europe, we have witnessed the dramatic collapse of
communism. The seeds of democracy are taking hold, and a people long
oppressed by totalitarian rule are awakening to the promise of freedom
and self-determination. Yet just 90 miles from the shores of the
greatest and oldest democracy in the world, Castro continues to rule
with an iron fist.
The conference report on H.R. 927 is designed to force Castro from
power by tightening economic sanctions on the Cuban Government. I
commend President Clinton for expressing his strong support for this
tough legislation.
It is time to stop negotiating with Castro. It is time to force him
from power. There can be no just totalitarian state. The only cure for
communism and totalitarianism is freedom and democracy. The Cuban
people deserve no less.
Specifically, the measure would codify the existing United States
trade embargo against Cuba while increasing the protection for the
rights of United States nationals whose property has been illegally
confiscated in Cuba. Furthermore, the bill directs the President to
encourage foreign countries to restrict trade with Cuba and to work for
an international embargo against the Cuban Government.
Castro's reign of terror and suppression in Cuba is nearing an end.
His ruthless Communist regime is on life support. Let us pull the plug
by passing this legislation.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference
report to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of
1995. We must stand tough on Castro.
His recent reprehensible act is a testament to his madness. On
February 25, 1996, he gave orders to shoot down two Cessna planes
operated by the American humanitarian group, Brothers to the Rescue.
His orders were successfully carried out and four Americans were
killed. These men could not have defended themselves against a hostile
aggressor even if they had wanted to. Castro's ignoble action was as
pathetic as it was wrong. This senseless act of violence must be
condemned in the strongest possible terms. The Cuban Liberty and
Solidarity Act is in fact a condemnation of the Castro regime.
We must call on the President to organize an international embargo on
Cuba and we must tighten our current embargo. This bill also protects
the rights of U.S. citizens and businesses by allowing them to sue
parties who knowingly and intentionally traffic in confiscated U.S.
property. We cannot allow Castro to infringe on the rights of U.S.
citizens, or on the rights of his own people.
The most heartwrenching example of his control is the state of
affairs of the people of Cuba. Their aspirations and cries for freedom
and democracy remain unacknowledged and as follows, unanswered.
Cuba's liberalization is an impossibility with Castro controlling the
reins. He is a despot with little to do but punish men and women who
have tenaciously championed the cause for freedom through vigilant,
assertive, nonviolent actions. Not only has he killed four American
citizens but in the process he has also ignored the will of his people.
The people of Cuba do not possess the means to hold Castro responsible
for his actions, so we must do what they cannot. We must hold Castro
accountable for his actions.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act.
The shooting down of unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft over the Florida
Straits is the heinous and unforgivable act of a rouge regime that
ignores international law. Such wanton disregard for human life cannot
go unanswered.
[[Page H1748]]
Today, Congress is responding in the form of the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act. The bill sends a clear signal to Cuba by
strengthening the United States embargo of Cuba, authorizing assistance
for democratic elements within Cuba, directing the President to prepare
to support a transition to democratic government in Cuba, and
increasing protection for the rights of United States nationals whose
property has been illegally confiscated in Cuba.
Mr. Speaker, some have raised objections that this bill will impinge
on our allies' ability to trade with Cuba and that it will only
strengthen Fidel Castro's ability to retain power. I do not believe
that we should reward the murderer of four American citizens by
relaxing the current embargo. We should, and we will, strengthen the
embargo and strangle the Castro regime.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 927 and strike a
blow for the freedom of Cuba.
Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Speaker, there can be no compromise in dealing
with Fidel Castro. We must make sure that the Helms-Burton Cuban
liberty bill passes as soon as possible so we can tighten the embargo
on Cuba. We can have no sympathy for those who would be inconvenienced
because they choose to make a profit over conscience. We must penalize
those who would traffic in stolen American property. If the Helms-
Burton Cuban liberty bill is a violation of NAFTA as claimed by the
Canadian Foreign Minister, maybe it is time for the United States to
withdraw from that and any other organization that prevents the United
States from pursuing its national interests.
Mr. Speaker, we must demand the Castro's Cuba abide by international
law that stipulates that a national air space be set at 12 miles. We
must not allow Castro's armed thugs to grossly expand their national
air space to the 24th parallel. We must make the Castro regime realize
that any attack on civilian aircraft outside Cuba's 12 mile borders
would be met with military force. To make this point clear, we should
start by flying combat air patrols well south of the 24th parallel.
Maybe we can teach Castro's armed thugs the same lesson that we taught
Kadafi a few years back.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, after much consideration, I find that I
must vote against this bill. My decision is based primarily on my
belief that this is an intrusion on the President's prerogative to
conduct foreign policy. This bill restricts Presidential authority and
flexibility by codifying the embargo into law. The Helms-Burton
conference report contains a provision requiring the President to seek
approval of both the House and Senate before changing any aspect of the
current embargo. This is an unacceptable infringement on Presidential
authority.
Further, this bill will interfere with the principles of free trade,
exemplified by the North American Free Trade Agreement, an issue dear
to my heart. Canada, Mexico, and Caribbean nations have already
expressed their concerns for this infringement of their sovereignty.
I must convey however, that I did strongly consider voting for this
bill as a sign of protest against the downing of the two Hermanos al
Rescate planes. That was an indefensible act, and I feel sadness for
the people who were killed and their families. In addition, this is an
emotional, and enormously important issue for my Cuban-American
friends, and I have deep respect for their views, particularly Bob
Menendez, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Accordingly, my decision to vote ``no'' is a difficult one given the
support to have always given President Clinton and the Cuban-American
community.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report to H.R. 927, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity [Libertad] Act of 1995. The recent shoot down of two unarmed
civilian planes by Cuban Air Force MiG's clearly underscores the
continued hostile focus of the Castro dictatorship and the need for
stronger pressure to bring it down. Castro's irresponsible and
unnecessary violations of international law must be dealt with in the
strongest terms possible. H.R. 927 does just that.
As a strong supporter of former-President Reagan's foreign policy
creed--``peace through strength''--I am constantly surprised by the
lack of vision this administration has in the foreign policy arena and
how frequently American military and civilian lives are put in harm's
way. The concessions given to North Korea in the agreed framework and
the ill-advised involvement of United States forces in Haiti and Bosnia
are just a few of the examples of foreign policy decisions with which I
have serious concerns. This is not peace through strength--it's danger
through appeasement. The administration's recent kowtowing to Cuba and
the resulting aggression by Castro's military further underscores my
concern about this administration's lack of direction.
Ironically, since the beginning of his term in office, President
Clinton has attempted to weaken the U.S. embargo on Fidel Castro's
Communist government. This dramatic shift in policy has turned on its
head the longstanding efforts of six previous, bipartisan
administration policies of standing firm against the 36-year old
dictatorship in Cuba. H.R. 927 responsibly reverses President Clinton's
ill-advised appeasement policy by codifying the existing embargo
against Cuba. It also strengthens efforts to achieve international
sanctions, provides assistance to democratic opposition and human
rights groups and protects U.S. interests in illegally confiscated
property. By passing H.R. 927, Congress ensures that the United States
continues the longstanding ``peace through strength'' approach in
dealing with the Castro dictatorship. This policy has proved the most
reliable when facing such rogue regimes. It is for these reasons that I
strongly support H.R. 927 and commend President Clinton for finally
recognizing the importance of this legislation. I am only sorry that it
took the lives of four innocent civilians to do so.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I certainly deplore the Cuban Government's
decision to shoot down unarmed civilian aircraft. It was unconscionable
and outrageous. However, our Government bears some blame for failing to
fulfill its obligation to keep U.S. civilian aircraft from conducting
harassing raids into foreign airspace from U.S. soil. But that's not
the issue here. The issue is what kind of policy will bring Cuba into
the fold of democratic nations.
In this case, United States foreign policy has been hijacked by a
small population of right-wing Cuban exiles in Miami. The bill before
us represents a complete surrender to these extremists by the President
and congressional leaders. I urge my colleagues to reject it, though I
know they will not.
This bill will do nothing to encourage Cuba's transition to
democracy. In fact, the opposite will be the case. By continuing and
tightening the fruitless embargo against Cuba, we are strengthening the
Castro regime's only remaining claim to legitimacy. The losers are the
Cuban people. The winners are Castro and his henchmen--who will remain
in power not only in spite of but because of the embargo--and United
States politicians eager to pander to the Cuban exile vote in Florida.
The contrast between United States policy toward Cuba and our
Government's stance toward the brutal and geriatric communist leaders
of China is stark. Despite China's well-documented human rights abuses,
its unfair trade practices and its policy of exporting dangerous arms
to terrorist regimes around the world, this Congress and the President
insist on giving China favored nation trade status. Chinese
belligerence and intransigence is not only tolerated by our Government,
but rewarded. Yet the impoverished nation of Cuba is deemed to be such
a threat to our shores that the most punitive sanctions are justified.
This bill is hypocrisy and pandering at its worst. It should be
rejected.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.
I strongly condemn Cuba and Castro's reprehensible and inexcusable
actions in shooting down two unarmed American civilian aircraft
recently. This was an unacceptable act that no civilized nation can
condone. It was a clear and blatant violation of international law. Our
hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims of this
tragedy.
Nevertheless, while I abhor Cuba's action, I oppose this bill because
I believe that enactment of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
Act is not in the United States's national interest, and that our
national interest and our efforts to promote democracy and human rights
in Cuba must take precedence over our anger and revulsion at this
cowardly act.
The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995 is intended
to increase the economic pressure on Cuba in the belief that additional
hardships imposed on the Cuban people will produce additional
dissatisfaction with the Castro regime and accelerate its downfall. The
problem with this reasoning is that in many ways it plays into Castro's
hands by allowing him to blame the Cuban people's suffering on foreign
enemies--namely, the United States. Sanctions like these provide Castro
with a convenient scapegoat for the failings of his unsustainable
regime.
The best way to replace Castro's dictatorship with a democratic form
of self-government and a market economy is though engagement, not
isolation. The United States should be engaging the Cuban people. This
legislation will alienate them. It will shore up Castro by allowing him
to fan the flames of Cuban nationalism against the United States. I
believe that the most effective tool for fostering democracy and human
rights and economic development in Cuba is exposure of the citizens of
Cuba to free democratic societies. I urge my colleagues to reconsider
this action and vote no on the conference report.
[[Page H1749]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 336,
nays 86, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 47]
YEAS--336
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--86
Abercrombie
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Campbell
Clay
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dixon
Dooley
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hinchey
Hostettler
Houghton
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Markey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Serrano
Skaggs
Stark
Studds
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Owens
NOT VOTING--9
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Christensen
Clayton
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
McCarthy
Slaughter
Stokes
{time} 1513
Mr. WYNN and Ms. FURSE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. RIVERS changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________