[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 31 (Thursday, March 19, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2281-S2284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




HIS EMINENCE BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, REFLECTING ON 
                                  CUBA

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier last week I had the privilege of 
having a brief conversation with His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law, the 
Archbishop of Boston. In fact, it is a nice coincidence that my 
colleague from Missouri is here on the floor as I say these remarks, 
because I shared with him a message that Cardinal Law had sent to our 
colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, who had the privilege of 
knowing Cardinal Law when he was presiding as a bishop in Missouri back 
before assuming his present post. And he extended his best wishes to 
our colleague from Missouri. So I appreciate his presence here on the 
floor as I share these remarks.
  In the course of our conversation, Cardinal Law mentioned to me he 
was going to be speaking at a conference

[[Page S2282]]

sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences at Harvard 
University. The topic of the conference was to be on Cuba, Mr. 
President.
  The cardinal was very kind enough to send a copy of his remarks to 
me. And after reading them, I have no doubt that all of my colleagues 
should have that opportunity as well. They are excellent, excellent 
remarks and ones that I think will be worthwhile.
  I know Members are going through their own private discussions of 
what should be our policy with regard to Cuba. There have been some 
changes here. How do you respond to them? Cardinal Law has laid out, I 
think, some very, very creative, clear, and interesting ideas on how we 
ought to move forward here. So I urge my colleagues to read these 
remarks.
  Cardinal Law is extremely well informed on this subject. He has 
visited Cuba over the years. He has kept in very close contact with the 
clergy in Cuba. I was particularly struck, Mr. President, by what he 
believes we should have learned from Pope John Paul II's January visit 
to Havana; namely--and I quote him --

       The Holy Father has amply demonstrated that a policy of 
     positive engagement can achieve far more change within Cuba 
     than can the [U.S.] embargo.

  Cardinal Law starkly and very vividly highlights what he thinks is 
the failure of our current policy with regard to Cuba by contrasting it 
with our policies towards the People's Republic of China and even 
Vietnam--two nations that have had deplorable human rights records and 
where religious freedom is severely restrained, even as we speak here 
today.
  He then pointedly asked--and I quote him--

       If openness is thought to be further freedom in those 
     nations where change is not so evident, how it is that a 
     different standard is applied to Cuba where there is evident 
     change?

  Mr. President, I do not believe that there is a credible answer to 
that question. And that alone should tell us why the current U.S. 
policy with respect to Cuba is so flawed. Cardinal Law's remarks, which 
touched on such issues as the state of affairs in the Cuban and United 
States-Cuban relations are very insightful, and I urge my colleagues to 
read the full text of his remarks, which I now ask, Mr. President, 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Address by Bernard Cardinal Law Before the American Academy of Arts and 
                                Sciences

       In preparing these remarks, I reviewed my correspondence 
     file from persons who accompanied me to Cuba for the Pope's 
     visit. Our direct flight from Boston to Havana might have 
     established a record in itself! Every letter expressed 
     appreciation for the opportunity to participate in a historic 
     and profoundly moving event. Almost to a person there was the 
     expressed desire to be of assistance to the Church in Cuba 
     and to the Cuban people.
       These pilgrims to Cuba included bishops, priests and 
     sisters, and Catholic laity as well as Protestants and Jews. 
     There were business leaders, bankers, doctors and a Health 
     Care System President. There were heads of social service 
     agencies and representatives of foundations, there were 
     lawyers and judges, Congressmen, presidents of colleges, a 
     law school dean and a university professor, and the editor of 
     a national magazine. We were a wondrously diverse group, but 
     we found unity in our conviction that the time is now for a 
     change in U.S. policy towards Cuba.
       Since returning from the Papal Visit, I have often been 
     asked if I thought that change might now come to Cuba. The 
     question misses the point that change has already come. An 
     earlier barometer of change focused on the departure of Fidel 
     Castro as the threshold for any substantive change. The 
     events of the past year clearly demonstrate that that 
     barometer simply does not work. The toothpaste is out of the 
     tube, and Fidel Castro squeezed the tube.
       Any blueprint for a change in policy which demands a change 
     in leadership in another country is too rigid a starting 
     point and depending on the means willing to be used to 
     achieve that departure, could lack a moral claim. This is not 
     to condone a dismal record on human rights. Religious freedom 
     is certainly not yet fully developed in Cuba. The fact 
     remains, however, that dramatic change has occurred within 
     the past twelve months in the area of religious liberty. 
     These changes could not have occurred without the active 
     approval of President Castro. He has been a promoter, not an 
     obstacle to what is now happening in Cuba.
       It is not the visit alone, stunning though it was, which 
     chronicles change. Events leading up to the visit must also 
     be acknowledged. Some in Cuba with whom I have spoken place 
     great emphasis on the private audience accorded Fidel Castro 
     by Pope John Paul II. One must also note the mixed commission 
     of government and Church to plan for the Papal visit which 
     marks a sea change in that relationship. The Church was able 
     to engage in a door to door nationwide mission in preparation 
     for the Pope's visit. Religious processions were allowed, as 
     were some outside religious celebrations. The exclusion of 
     the Church from the use of public media was, at least in a 
     modest way, but nonetheless establishing a precedent, lifted 
     with the pre-visit nationally televised address by the 
     Archbishop of Havana, Jaime Cardinal Ortega.
       Quite before the time of planning for the visit, the Church 
     was allowed a new expression of social services through 
     Caritas Cuba. While its work is still narrowly circumscribed, 
     a principle of public, organized social service by the 
     Catholic Church has been recognized. The backlog of visa 
     requests by foreign clergy, religious and other Church 
     workers has been broken as the number of visas has 
     dramatically increased.
       Change cannot be rooted in a precise paradigm for the 
     future. If we are to measure change realistically, it must be 
     measured against the past. The past that I know in terms of 
     the Church in Cuba begins in 1984. Before then, there were 
     confiscations of Church property, the closing of Catholic 
     schools and other institutional works, the departure, and 
     some would argue the forced exile, of hundreds of Church 
     personnel. There were the labor camps which number among 
     their alumni the present Cardinal Archbishop of Havana. 
     Pervading and justifying all this was an official version of 
     history, employing a method with which we have become all too 
     sadly accustomed in some current trends in the U.S. academy. 
     It is the application of deconstruction to the study of the 
     past in a way which serves an ideological end.
       In an earlier visit to Cuba, I objected to President Castro 
     concerning the severe intimidation of the omnipresent 
     Committees of the Revolution. These watchdogs of Marxist 
     orthodoxy saw as dangerously subversive the baptism of a 
     child or the visit of a priest or the regular attendance at 
     Mass. Castro's response, replete with Church history 
     according to Marx, made the claim that the state did allow 
     for religious freedom. The State was powerless, in his 
     explanation, to counter the strong anti-Church sentiment of 
     the people borne of what he described as the Church's 
     oppressive and sinful past.
       For the past fourteen years, I have been in continual 
     contact with the Church in Cuba. I was present in the 
     Nunciature in Havana the first time Castro met with Cuban 
     bishops. There were no more than three substantive encounters 
     of this kind before the Pope's visit. During the past 
     fourteen years there have been sporadic efforts on the part 
     of the Cuban government to marginalize the Church by 
     suggesting that the bishops were ``counter revolutionary'', 
     which in our terms would mean unpatriotic and subversive.
       Against that all too schematic background, focus on Havana, 
     Sunday, January 25, 1998. The Plaza of the Revolution has a 
     new face: a heroic-sized painting on the facade of the 
     national library portrays Jesus in the familiar style of the 
     Sacred Heart. One million Cubans, with a sprinkling of 
     foreign pilgrims, are ranged in front of the altar. Fidel 
     Castro, in a business suit, is in the front row.
       For me, one among the many moving moments stands out in a 
     particularly vivid way. During the Havana Mass, the Holy 
     Father commissioned representatives from various dioceses to 
     go forth and present the message of the Church. He presented 
     each with a Bible. The last person to approach the Pope was a 
     older woman, quite frail, who was helped up the stairs by two 
     young men. When she approached the Holy Father, she threw her 
     arms around him. There they were, aging and frail, this 
     elderly woman and the Pope, with their common witness to 
     fidelity in the face of Communist oppression. As she was 
     helped down the stairs, she was accompanied by the thunderous 
     applause of thousands of Cubans.
       I wondered what she thought. Must I not have been for her 
     the unfolding of a miracle? What had it been for her these 
     past years in a land governed by Marxism? What must have been 
     her joy in this sea of Cubans, so many young and ecstatic in 
     their celebration of faith? I could only think of Anna in the 
     incident recorded by St. Luke. Anna was an old woman, a 
     widow, who spent her days in prayer and fasting in the 
     Temple. When Mary and Joseph brought the infant Jesus to 
     present him to God in the Temple, Anna came to the scene at 
     that moment. St. Luke says ``she gave thanks to God and 
     talked about the child to all who looked forward to the 
     deliverance of Jerusalem.''
       It must be said that the Cuban government could not have 
     been more obliging and welcoming. The Masses of the Holy 
     Father were televised live nationally.
       As the Holy Father left Jose Marti Airport on January 25th, 
     he said that in our day ``no nation can live in isolation. 
     The Cuban people therefore cannot be denied the contacts with 
     other peoples necessary for economic, social and cultural 
     development, especially when the imposed isolation strikes 
     the population indiscriminately, making it ever more 
     difficult for the weakest to enjoy the bare essentials of 
     decent living, things such as food, health and education. All 
     can and should take practical steps to bring about changes in 
     this regard.''
       These are important words of the Pope which have meaning 
     not only for the Catholic faithful but for all women and men 
     of

[[Page S2283]]

     good will, including those who exercise leadership in 
     government. Current U.S. policy towards Cuba was set during 
     the missile crisis. A few things have happened since then, 
     however, including the tearing down of the Berlin Wall and 
     the unraveling of Communist hegemony in Eastern Europe. The 
     visit of the Holy Father to Cuba in January of this year is 
     one of those defining events. A policy driven by events of an 
     earlier time does not meet the challenge of new possibilities 
     which the Holy Father's visit opens up.
       One of the strongest impediments to new policy initiatives 
     is the pressure of partisan politics. Is it but the musings 
     of an unrealistic cleric to suggest that an earlier pattern 
     of a bipartisan foreign policy could serve us well again? To 
     that end, I propose the establishment of a bipartisan 
     National Commission on U.S./Cuban relations. Such a 
     Commission, perhaps Presidential or conceivably organized by 
     a non-governmental body, would have as its charge the 
     development of policy initiatives which could build on the 
     changes already perceived in Cuba since the Pope's visit. The 
     work of this Commission should be completed within three to 
     six months. It should not take longer than this because the 
     Commission's work would be essentially a simple and 
     straightforward task.
       The Commission might be co-chaired by President Carter and 
     President Bush or President Ford. It ought to include Senator 
     Lugar, Representative Hamilton, a U.S. Bishop, Elizabeth 
     Dole, head of the American Red Cross, two corporate CEO's, 
     two prominent Cuban-Americans, someone from the field of 
     medicine and someone representing the concerns of the media.
       Since the Holy Father's visit, there has been the release 
     of more than 400 prisoners. While one political prisoner is 
     one too many, this direct response to the Holy Father's visit 
     cannot be dismissed. So very much more needs to be done to 
     broaden the scope of human rights in Cuba. However, I am 
     convinced that the best way to do this is to move the 
     starting point of U.S. Policy from the missile crisis to the 
     Papal visit. The Holy Father has amply demonstrated that a 
     policy of positive engagement can achieve far more change 
     within Cuba than can the embargo.
       Cardinal Ortega has commented on the so-called Helms-Burton 
     Act that ``any economic measure that aims to isolate a 
     country and thus eliminates the possibility of development, 
     thus threatening the survival of people is unacceptable.''
       It is impossible to reasonably support the embargo against 
     Cuba while at the same time granting most favored Nation 
     status to the People's Republic of China, and while moving 
     into closer relations with Vietnam. Both of these nations 
     have a deplorable record on human rights in general and on 
     religious liberty specifically. If openness is thought to 
     further freedom in those nations where change is not so 
     evident, how is that a different standard is applied to Cuba 
     where there is evident change?
       We should not wait for the report of a bipartisan 
     commission to introduce some measures which would ameliorate 
     human suffering in Cuba, which would foster cultural, 
     religious and other interchanges, and which would therefore, 
     encourage the new attitude of openness and change within 
     Cuba. It is time for the U.S. To respond positively to the 
     change that is occurring in Cuba.
       There is no moral justification for the current embargo. In 
     terms of effectiveness as an agent of change it has proven to 
     be complete failure. The most egregious aspects of the 
     embargo, namely the prohibition of sale of food and medicine, 
     must be lifted immediately. The two bills currently in 
     Congress which would do this should be immediately passed. 
     What is needed in Cuba is the ability to purchase food and 
     medicine in the U.S. A singular focus on facilitating 
     charitable donations of food and medicine is patently 
     inadequate.
       There are certain things that can be done tomorrow by the 
     President of the United States.
       The President should agree to license direct, humanitarian 
     flights to Cuba.
       The President could take immediate action to ease 
     remittance restrictions, increase visiting privileges, and 
     expand opportunities for U.S. citizens particularly Cuban 
     Americans, to visit Cuba by restoring direct flights. The 
     right to travel is a Constitutional right. It should not be 
     violated for outdated political reasons.
       The President could restate that he will continue 
     suspending the international trade bans of Helms-Burton 
     indefinitely. This would help the people of Cuba and it would 
     ease the concerns of our closest allies and trading partners.
       The President should give serious critical attention to the 
     legal opinion that concludes that the Executive Branch has 
     the legal and constitutional right to grant a general license 
     for medicines and for food. Such an action on the part of the 
     President would, of course, effectively end the food and 
     medicine embargo immediately.
       The foreign policy initiatives of a President can be 
     decisive. President Nixon went to China. President Carter 
     brought Begin and Sadat to Camp David. President Reagan met 
     Gorbachev in Iceland to ease nuclear tensions and President 
     Bush followed up by reducing our nuclear weapons. President 
     Clinton has the possibility of charting a new relationship 
     between the United States and Cuba.
       Let me end by recounting an incident during the Pope's 
     visit. One of the pilgrims traveling with us took a walk 
     along the waterfront. He was alone, it was raining, and the 
     pavement was slippery. He stumbled and fell, with a resultant 
     large cut in the head. Some passersby stopped their car and 
     took him to the emergency room of the nearest hospital. The 
     care he received was both professionally competent and 
     compassionate. However, he was struck by the fact that the 
     only medicine he could observe on the shelf in the treatment 
     room was some alcohol. When the doctor arrived to stitch his 
     wound, he first reached into a pocket of his white coat, 
     removed a light bulb, and screwed it into the empty socket so 
     that he could see more easily. It is not just a bulb that is 
     missing. There is often a lack of power with devastating 
     consequences, especially in surgery. The lack of medicines 
     more quickly and cheaply attainable from the U.S. severely 
     restricts the treatment that can be provided. Even more 
     basically, the effects of the lack of sufficient food 
     threaten the most vulnerable members of the population, the 
     old and the young.
       I would submit that the people of Cuba deserve better than 
     that from us. I would submit that it adds no honor to our 
     country to deprive a people of those necessities which should 
     never be used as bargaining chips.
       Change is occurring in Cuba. The question is, do we have 
     the political will and moral courage to change?

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would also like to call to the attention 
of my colleagues some very specific recommendations Cardinal Law has 
made to President Clinton and the administration, recommendations which 
the President has the authority, without any acts of Congress, to 
undertake. And I recite them very briefly to you here: Restore direct 
flights to Cuba; ease restrictions on remittances and travel; suspend 
implementation of title III indefinitely; and utilize current executive 
authority to grant general licenses to permit the sale of food and 
medicines. I say ``title III.'' That is of the Helms-Burton 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I strongly support these recommendations and hope that 
the President will immediately act on them.
  Let me summarize briefly some of the other major points made in the 
course of Cardinal Law's presentation.
  On the positive side, the Cardinal noted that ``change has already 
come'' to Cuba in many ways; ``dramatic change has occurred within the 
last twelve months in the area of religious freedom''--I am quoting him 
from his remarks--``a principle of public, organized social service by 
the Catholic Church has been reorganized'' by Cuban authorities; ``the 
backlog of visa requests by foreign clergy, religious and other Church 
workers has been broken as the number of visas has dramatically 
increased;'' and, ``there has been the release [in the last few weeks] 
of more than 400 [political] prisoners [in Cuba].''
  The cardinal also readily acknowledges that Cuba's human rights 
record--and I agree with him--has been dismal. No one is suggesting, I 
hope--not by my remarks--that there has been a total transformation in 
Cuba. There has not been a total transformation, but there has been 
change, and it is significant, and we ought to respond to those changes 
that have occurred.
  He reminded--Cardinal Law did--listeners of Pope John Paul's party 
comments as he left Havana to return to the Vatican. I quote him. He 
said:

       The Cuban people cannot be denied the contacts with other 
     peoples necessary for economic, social, and cultural 
     development, especially when the imposed isolation strikes 
     the population indiscriminately.

  Mr. President, I think it is fair to say Cardinal Law was extremely 
critical of current U.S. policy. He noted that the ``[c]urrent U.S. 
policy towards Cuba was set during the missile crisis'' and that ``[a] 
policy driven by events of an earlier time does not meet the challenge 
of new possibilities which the Holy Father's visit opens up.''
  Finally, Cardinal Law made a number of very important recommendations 
concerning how we might begin to fashion some new and constructive 
policy initiatives. He recommended, for example, that steps be taken to 
isolate U.S.-Cuba policy from partisan politics by establishing a 
bipartisan national commission on U.S.-Cuban relations. I think this is 
an intriguing idea and one that I intend to discuss personally with the 
President and the Secretary of State.
  Mr. President, I believe that the cardinal's remarks are timely, they 
are important, and they are worthy of our

[[Page S2284]]

serious consideration. I urge my colleagues to review them personally 
in these coming days as they formulate their own views on how we ought 
to proceed with regard to U.S.-Cuban relations.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I will be happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I just want to, first of all, commend my 
friend, the Senator from Connecticut, for his understanding of Cardinal 
Law's statement and for the constructive nature in which the Senator 
has referred to it.
  I do think that it is an enormously serious document. I agree with 
the Senator that it deserves a great deal of study. I had had the 
opportunity to talk to him prior to the time of delivery. He is 
motivated by a very deep and continuing humanitarian concern from his 
frequent visits there and from the study of the people on the island.
  I just want to commend the Senator, who is a real leader in the 
issues of the hemisphere, and to thank him for an excellent statement, 
and to say that I think it has been an enormously constructive and 
positive statement and I hope our colleagues will pay attention to it. 
I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________