[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2351-H2357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHANGING U.S. POLICY ON CUBA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bono). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Speaker, distinguished colleagues, as I 
grieved along with the rest of America this last Sunday, this weekend, 
about the senseless bloodshed, the condemnable violence against 
innocent victims last week in Littleton, Colorado, and my heart goes 
out to the victims and their families, I was reading some news reports 
from various wire services. I noted two news reports that I placed 
copies of in my files.
  One was titled ``Portugal Concerned Young People Will Forget Coup of 
1974.'' It is an Associated Press wire.
  ``Bloodless Action Toppled Dictator, Brought Democracy. Lisbon, 
Portugal. The coup was swift, bloodless and effective, so smooth and 
neat that as Portugal marks the 25th anniversary of the Army coup that 
brought it democracy, some citizens fear it is at risk of being 
forgotten. An older generation that lived under dictator Antonio de 
Oliveira Salazar's heavy hand, proudly recalls the courage of the 
dissidents and the outpouring of joy when disgruntled Army officers led 
the coup that toppled the dictatorship.''
  The article went on, ``The coup paved the way for the country, 
Portugal, to join the European Union in 1986, a coming of age that 
accelerated the pace of change as development funds poured in and 
Portugal scrambled to make up for lost time. Portugal crammed into 10 
years social and economic development that had taken other countries 
decades to accomplish.''
  Another news wire that caught my eye, and I filed it, read, ``Two 
Bills to Seek End of Cuban Embargo. Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat, 
Connecticut, will file a bill this week jointly with Senator John 
Warner, Republican, Virginia, seeking an end to the embargo in Cuba. At 
the same time, Representative Jose Serrano, Democrat of New York, will 
file a similar bill in the House,'' Dodd said. Dodd

[[Page H2352]]

made the announcement Friday as the keynote speaker during the 17th 
Annual Journalists and Editors Workshop on Latin America held in Miami, 
Florida. ``The time has come to lift the trade sanctions in Cuba,'' 
Dodd said, adding that the embargo has been ineffective, 
counterproductive, inhumane and a failure.

                              {time}  1915

  According to DOD, the 4-decade-old embargo has not yielded the result 
it intended.
  I found an interesting contrast in the two articles, because during 
the decades-long dictatorships in Portugal and in Spain, or during the 
dictatorship of the 1960s and the 1970s in Greece, no one ever 
complained that the European Union, which was then known as the 
European Community, made it absolutely clear that its doors would 
remain closed, remain airtight; that there could be no conceivable 
entry into the European Union by Spain or Portugal or Greece until they 
were democracies. No one ever complained.
  No legislative or diplomatic initiatives to say, let Spain and 
Portugal and Greece in, were ever initiated. No one filed bills in any 
of the democratic parliaments of Europe saying the Olivera Salazar 
regime in Portugal has lasted 50 years or the Franco regime in Spain 
has lasted 40 years; our policy of isolation has failed. Let us end 
their isolation, because they have lasted so long. No, no one ever 
filed bills or initiated initiatives such as those.
  On the contrary, during the last year of Franco's dictatorship there 
was a mobilization in the international community to reimpose a 
blockade such as the one that the United Nations had imposed on Franco 
decades earlier. And at the time of Franco's death in 1975 in Spain, 
that posture, similarly at the time of the coup referred to in this 
Associated Press article in Portugal in 1974, that posture, that policy 
by Europe was decisive in the political openings and democratic 
transitions that took place in those countries that had long been 
oppressed by dictatorships.
  Political parties were liberated. Political prisoners were liberated 
first. Political parties were legalized. Long-term exiles, those who 
had survived, were able to return. Along with the legalization of 
political parties came the legalization of the independent press and 
independent labor unions, and free elections were authorized, they were 
then organized, and then they were held. In other words, freedom 
returned.
  That precisely is the goal of our policy with regard to Cuba. That is 
why we maintain a trade and tourism embargo on the Cuban dictatorship. 
That is why we deny the U.S. market to the Cuban dictatorship, a regime 
that has kept itself in power through terror and through repression for 
40 years. Because first, we believe that it is in the national 
interests of the United States for there to be a democratic transition 
in Cuba. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who was 
just talking about the narcotics trafficking problem in this 
hemisphere, how for example the Mexican governor of the province of 
Quintana Roo, the Yucatan Peninsula, has just sought refuge. Just 
before he was about to be arrested for being a major drug trafficker, 
he sought refuge and he is in Cuba today, as is Robert Vesco and over 
90 other fugitives on the FBI's Most Wanted List.
  So we believe for many reasons that it is in the United States' 
national interest for there to be a democratic transition in Cuba. 
Second, we believe that just as in Europe, in the cases of the 
democratic transitions that occurred in Spain or Portugal or Greece, or 
in the transitions that took place in South Africa or Chile or the 
Dominican Republic, it is absolutely critical that there be some form 
of external pressure for a democratic transition to take place in Cuba 
once the dictator is no longer on the scene. Either because, like in 
the case of Franco in Spain, the dictator dies, or if it occurs through 
a coup, for example, like in Portugal, or by way of a coup followed by 
the death of a dictator, if it occurs as in Romania. However it occurs, 
whatever way it occurs, at the time of the disappearance from the scene 
of the Cuban dictator, that is when it will be absolutely critical for 
the U.S. embargo to be in place as it is today, with its lifting being 
conditioned, as it is by law, on three fundamental developments in 
Cuba.
  Number one, the liberation of all political prisoners. Number two, 
the legalization of all political parties, independent labor unions and 
the independent press. And number three, the scheduling of free, 
internationally supervised elections. The exact same conditions that 
brought about the democratic transitions in Portugal and in Spain and 
in South Africa, and in Chile and in the Dominican Republic and in so 
many others.
  At the time of the disappearance of the dictator in Cuba, the U.S. 
embargo, with its lifting being conditioned on those three 
developments, as it is by law, will constitute critical leverage for 
the Cuban people to achieve those three conditions. In other words, for 
them to achieve their freedom, like the South Africans and the 
Spaniards and the Chileans and the Portuguese and the Dominicans 
achieved theirs during the last four decades.
  It should not seem that complicated. Wherever there has been some 
form of external pressure, there has been a democratic transition. 
Where there has been acquiescence, financing, trade, oxygen for the 
regimes such as in China, there is no democratic transition. It is very 
simple.
  So when we see some asking for an end to the embargo against Castro 
now, before the three conditions, we have to then ask which of the 
three conditions do the Cuban people not deserve? Do they not deserve 
the liberation of all political prisoners, the legalization of 
political parties, the press, labor unions, or do they not deserve free 
elections? Which of the three conditions do the Cuban people not 
deserve? We must ask those who want to lift the embargo now, 
unilaterally.
  There is another question. Why else, why in addition to the ethical 
reasons, in addition to the profound immorality of sitting by while our 
closest neighbors are ignored year after year after year, while they 
are oppressed year after year, decade after decade, by a degrading and 
humiliating military dictatorship that has implanted a system of 
economic and political apartheid against its own people. A system where 
people are thrown in prison for their thoughts, where refugees are 
killed for leaving the country without permission, the most glaring, 
horrible example being July 13, 1994 where a tugboat, an old tugboat 
full of refugees was systematically attacked and sunk, and over 40 
women and children, along with some adult men, were murdered, over 20 
children were murdered.
  A system where, to use another example, the pharmacies, the 
drugstores, if a Cuban citizen has a child with a fever or another 
medical problem, they can only purchase medicines in the pharmacies if 
they have dollars and if they are foreigners. In other words, they have 
to get a foreigner to go in and purchase the medicine and they need a 
foreign currency, dollars, to be able to do that.
  To cite a very well written report by the respected human rights 
organization PAX Christi Netherlands of February of this year, a system 
where the criminal code, even in its pre-February 1999 form, before the 
draconian new law that Castro had his public parliament pass that 
established up to 30 years in prison for peaceful pro-democracy 
activity; even before the February 1999 law, the criminal code was used 
as a means to silence political dissent by charging opponents of the 
regime with, for example, ``contempt for authority'' or 
``dangerousness'' or ``enemy propaganda.''

  In Cuba, where the judiciary is directly controlled by the communist 
party, the right to a fair trial is not guaranteed. Sometimes political 
proponents remain detained for prolonged periods, months, even years 
without any charge, much less a trial. And PAX Christi Netherlands 
continues in its Human Rights Report, February 1999, a list exists, 
drawn up by the Cuban Commission on Human Rights and Reconciliation, of 
approximately 300 political prisoners.
  What is often overlooked, though, is that this is only a partial 
list. The Cuban Government does not disclose any data on the number of 
those imprisoned for political offenses such as rebellion, disrespect 
or enemy propaganda. Human rights organizations, therefore, will have 
to depend on other sources to report a political imprisonment to them. 
In actual fact, there are anywhere, and this is according to PAX

[[Page H2353]]

Christi Netherlands, in actual fact, there are anywhere from 2,000 to 
5,000 political prisoners.
  There is an additional problem in the form of people that are in 
prison under the pretext of, for instance, economic offenses, while the 
real reason is political. We can only guess at the numbers, says PAX 
Christi Netherlands. And it continues: Prisoners are put under great 
psychological pressure and at times they are beaten up. Prison 
conditions are generally bad. Inmates are undernourished and have no 
blankets, sanitary facilities or legal representation. There are 
frequent reports of political prisoners being denied medical attention 
in the case of illness.
  An example is political prisoner Jorge Luis Garci-Perez Antunez, 33 
years old and imprisoned for 18 years, accused of enemy propaganda. In 
the beginning of 1999 he was brutally beaten to unconsciousness by 
prison officers. According to his sister, one of these officers at the 
prison stated that they were authorized to beat prisoners. Actually, 
Antunez is in a very poor state of health, as he is denied medical 
treatment for his injuries and for his illnesses, a kidney 
insufficiency, angina pectoris and hypoglycemia. Until this writing, 
his sister has not been allowed to give her brother the necessary 
medicines, from PAX Christi Netherlands, February 1999.
  So why, in addition to the moral imperative, I was asking, is it in 
the national interest of the United States for Cuba to be free? I think 
it is important that we touch upon just a few of the reasons.
  We in Washington have the ability to receive research from many so-
called think tanks. They are institutes of research. One of the most 
respected and certainly well informed of those research institutes is 
the William Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy. In a 
recent report, November 1998, they wrote, ``American advocates of 
normalization contend that Cuba no longer poses any threat to the 
United States, and that the U.S. embargo is therefore basically an 
obsolete and harmful relic of the Cold War.
  Unfortunately, this view, reports the Center for Security Policy, 
ignores the abiding menacing character of the Castro regime. This is 
all the more remarkable given the emphasis Secretary of Defense William 
Cohen, among other Clinton administration officials, have placed on 
asymmetric threats, the very sorts of threats Cuba continues to pose to 
American citizens and interests.
  These include the following: Thanks to the vast signal intelligence 
facilities operated near Lourdes by Havana's and Moscow's intelligence 
services, facilities that permit the wholesale collection of sensitive 
U.S. military diplomatic and commercial data and the invasion of 
millions of Americans' privacy, the Cuban regime has the capability to 
conduct sustained and systematic information warfare against the United 
States. A stunning example of the potentially devastating consequences 
of this capability was recently provided by former Soviet military 
intelligence Colonel Stanislav Lunev. As one of the most senior Russian 
military intelligence officials to come to this country, Lunev revealed 
that in 1990 the Soviet Union acquired America's most sensitive Desert 
Storm battle plans, including General Norman Schwarzkopf's famed Hail 
Mary flanking maneuver, prior to the launch of the U.S. ground war on 
the Persian Gulf.

                              {time}  1930

  Moscow's penetration of such closely-guarded American military 
planning via its Cuban ally may have jeopardized the lives of literally 
thousands of U.S. troops in the event the intelligence had been 
forwarded to Saddam Hussein by then Soviet Premier Gorbachev.
  By the way, Moscow pays $200 million to this day. Even though they 
get a lot of money from the U.S. taxpayers, they turn around and pay 
$200 million a year to Castro for the intelligence facilities that 
Moscow maintains in Havana.
  Recent news reports have brought forth that the same types of 
concerns that existed during Desert Storm due to the intelligence-
gathering operations in Cuba that the Russians maintain and the 
intelligence-gathering operations that Castro maintains with the help 
of the Russians, that these same concerns remain and have remained 
during our recent operations in Iraq and our current operation in 
Serbia.
  The Center for Security Policy, in their report in February, 1999, 
continue talking about the Cuban threat, and specifically mention the 
following. According to a January 29 article in the Financial Times of 
London, drug traffickers have capitalized, drug traffickers, have 
capitalized on the increased flow of European and Latin American 
tourism and trade with Cuba in the post-Soviet period, as well as the 
Castro regime's rampant official corruption and its ideologically-
driven desire to damage its economic enemies. These operations use Cuba 
both for a drug market for the tourists that go there, and as a favored 
cleansing route employed to reduce the opportunities for detection.
  Several instances reported in the Financial Times of London 
illustrate this alarming development. For example, the frequency of 
drug cargoes dropped by air traffickers into Cuban waters for pick-up 
by smugglers more than doubled in 1998 over previous years.
  On December 3 of 1998, a 7-ton shipment of cocaine bound for Cuba was 
seized in Columbia by the Columbian police. Further evidence of such 
offensive, albeit asymmetrical activities, and indications that the 
Clinton administration is finding this behavior to be inconvenient, and 
therefore to be suppressed, was presented in Robert Novak's syndicated 
column in the Washington Post on February 1, 1999.
  Such is the concern of the Committee on International Relations, led 
by its chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ben Gilman) about the 
actual status of Cuban drug running that the committee asked the State 
Department to place Havana on its narcotics blacklist.
  For its part, the administration, in the person of the drug czar, 
General McCaffrey, has denied any suggestion that it is downplaying or 
concealing Castro's Cuba's involvement in narco-trafficking. But the 
problem is that they have not answered our concerns. They have not 
answered our concerns, Madam Speaker.
  I sent a letter, along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton), to General 
McCaffrey in November of 1996 on the issue of Castro's participation in 
the drug trade and the lack of a policy, even the lack of 
acknowledgment by the administration that it is going on.
  We specifically said in the letter: ``There is no doubt that the 
Castro dictatorship allows Cuba to be used as a transshipment point for 
drugs. We were deeply disappointed when DEA administrator Thomas 
Constantine, testifying before the House International Relations 
Committee in June, said that `there is no evidence that the government 
of Cuba is complicit' in drug smuggling ventures. On the contrary, 
there is no doubt that the Castro dictatorship is in the drug business. 
Your appearance,'' this was addressed to General McCaffrey, ``before 
the committee that day was also very disappointing on this critical 
issue.
  ``Castro and his top aides have worked as accomplices for the 
Columbian drug cartels and Cuba is a key transshipment point. In 
fact,'' in 1996, ``sources in the DEA's Miami Field Office stated to 
the media that more than 50% of the drug trafficking detected by the 
U.S. in the Caribbean proceeds from or through Cuba.
  ``Since the 1980's, substantial evidence in the public domain has 
mounted showing that the Castro dictatorship is aggressively involved 
in narco-trafficking. In 1982, four senior aides to Castro were 
indicted by a Florida grand jury for drug smuggling in the U.S. They 
were Vice Admiral Aldo Santamaria, a member of the Cuban Communist 
Party Central Committee who supervised military protection for, and the 
resupply of, ships transporting drugs to the US; Ambassador to Columbia 
Fernando Ravelo, who was in charge of the arms for drugs connection 
with the Columbian M-19 guerillas and the Medellin Cartel; Minister 
Counselor Gonzalo Bassols-Suarez, assigned to the Cuban Embassy in 
Bogota, Columbia; and Rene Rodriguez-Cruz, a senior official of the DGI 
(Cuban Intelligence Service) and a member of the Communist Party 
Central Committee.

[[Page H2354]]

  ``In 1987, the U.S. Attorney in Miami won convictions of 17 South 
Florida drug smugglers who used Cuban military air bases to smuggle at 
least 2,000 pounds of Columbian cocaine into Florida with the direct 
logistical assistance of the Cuban Armed Forces. Evidence in this case 
was developed by an undercover government agent who flew a drug 
smuggling flight into Cuba with a MIG fighter escort. In 1988, Federal 
law enforcement authorities captured an 8,800 pound load of cocaine 
imported into the United States through Cuba. In 1989, U.S. authorities 
captured 1,060 pounds of cocaine sent through Cuba to the United 
States.
  ``Prior administrations have correctly identified the Castro regime 
as an enemy in the interdiction battle. As early as March 12, 1982, 
Thomas Enders, then Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American 
Affairs, stated before the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that `We now also have detailed and 
reliable information linking Cuba to trafficking in narcotics as well 
as arms.' ''
  On April 30, 1983, James Michel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 
for Inter-American Affairs, testified before the Subcommittee on 
Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 
His remarks validated prior findings:
  ``The United States has developed new evidence from a variety of 
independent sources confirming that Cuban officials have facilitated 
narcotics trafficking through the Caribbean. . . . They have done so by 
developing a relationship with key Columbian drug runners who, on 
Cuba's behalf, purchased arms and smuggled them to Cuban-backed 
insurgent groups in Columbia. In return, the traffickers received safe 
passage of ships carrying cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs through 
Cuban waters to the U.S.''
  ``On July 26, 1989, Ambassador Melvin Levitsky, Assistant Secretary 
of State for International Narcotics Matters, testified that, 'There is 
no doubt that Cuba is a transit point in the illegal drug flow. . . . 
We have made a major commitment to interdicting this traffic. . . . 
Although it is difficult to gauge the amount of trafficking that takes 
place in Cuba, we note a marked increase in reported drug trafficking 
incidents in Cuban territory during the first half of 1989.'.

  ``We are sure that while in Panama,'' we wrote General McCaffrey, 
``as Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, you became aware of 
General Noriega's close relationship with Castro, and of Castro's 
intimate relationship with the Columbian drug cartels.
  ``Because past administrations identified Cuba as a major 
transshipment point for narcotics traffic, it was integrated into the 
larger interdiction effort. By contrast, under the existing strategy'' 
of this administration, ``no aggressive efforts have been made to cut 
off this pipeline despite the growing awareness of its existence.
  ``In April, 1993, the Miami Herald reported that the U.S. Attorney 
for the Southern District of Florida had drafted an indictment charging 
the Cuban government as a racketeering enterprise, and Cuban Defense 
Minister Raul Castro as the chief of a ten-year conspiracy to send tons 
of Columbian cartel cocaine through Cuba to the United States. Fifteen 
Cuban officials were named as co-conspirators, and the Defense and 
Interior Ministries cited as criminal organizations.'' The indictment 
was shelved. It was placed in a drawer by the Clinton administration.
  ``In 1996, the prosecution of a drug trafficker, Jorge Cabrera, a 
convicted drug dealer, brought to light additional information 
regarding narco-trafficking by the Castro dictatorship. Cabrera was 
convicted of transporting almost 6,000 pounds of cocaine in the United 
States, and he was sentenced to 19 years in prison and fined over $1 
million. Cabrera has made repeated, specific claims confirming 
cooperation between Cuban officials and the Columbian cartels. His 
defense counsel has publicly stated that Cabrera offered to arrange a 
trip, under Coast Guard surveillance, that would `pro-actively 
implicate the Cuban government.' '' That investigation was shelved. It 
was put in a drawer by the Clinton administration.
  ``Overwhelming evidence points,'' we continued in our letter,'' to 
ongoing involvement of the Castro dictatorship in narco-trafficking. 
The Congress remains gravely concerned about this issue.'' We ended the 
letter by saying, ``We are deeply disappointed that the Administration 
continues to publicly ignore this critical matter.''
  General McCaffrey sent us back a form letter that he sends to schools 
and people who ask for the ability to have input throughout the country 
into the Nation's drug policy.
  The chairman of the Committee on Government Reform in the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dan Burton) then sent a letter to General 
McCaffrey. I signed the letter, along with my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen):
  ``Dear General McCaffrey, we write in response to your letter,'' your 
form letter, ``asking for comments in regard to updates.'' ``We have 
included herewith a letter which we sent to you November 18, 1996. You 
subsequently replied to us with a form letter. . . .
  ``We hereby reiterate our request that you address the issue of the 
Cuban government's participation in narco-trafficking and take all 
necessary actions to end the Clinton Administration's cover-up of that 
reality.
  ``We look forward to receiving a specific and detailed response to 
the information and points raised in our correspondence. Thank you in 
advance for your personal attention to this request.''
  General McCaffrey wrote back saying that we had impugned his 
integrity or his commitment to the country, something that we never 
did. We remain focused on what we asked for.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Dan Burton) stated in his 
reply to General McCaffrey on March 16, 1999, ``Simply put, your 
response was insufficient. I unequivocally disagree with your 
assessment of the Cuban government,'' because the General maintains 
that the Cuban government is not involved with drug trafficking.
  Despite all the evidence that he knows of and we provided publicly to 
him, it is part of the public record, he continues to say, no, the 
Cuban government is not involved with drug trafficking, and/or is 
unable to monitor or patrol its territory.
  Chairman Burton continued, ``I have never questioned your service or 
dedication to our country. Your military career was long, and you 
indeed rose to four star (CINC) status, and I salute you for that.''
  That is not the issue. The issue is that we sent a detailed letter 
that I just read from the Congress of the United States, once again 
asking for what the policy is of the administration with regard to 
concrete evidence of decades-long participation by the Cuban regime in 
narco-trafficking into the United States; in other words, a systematic 
campaign to poison the youth in the United States.
  What is the policy of this administration? It is not an issue of 
whether General McCaffrey had a good military record or not. Nobody is 
questioning that. It is, what is the policy of the administration now? 
Why is there an obvious attempt to cover up the involvement of the 
Cuban regime in narco-trafficking into this country?
  The Center for Security Policy, in its February, 1999, report, 
stated, with regard to Cuba's two VVER 440 Soviet-designed nuclear 
reactors, that assurances from the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy to 
the effect that these reactors are ``in excellent condition and meet 
all contemporary safety requirements'' are unconvincing.
  The Center for Security Policy continued: ``In fact, many Western 
experts, including the U.S., the General Accounting Office, and Cuban 
defectors from the Juragua complex have warned about myriad design and 
construction flaws.
  ``Among the items of concern are the fact that much of the facility's 
sensitive equipment has been exposed to corrosive tropical weather 
conditions for almost 6 years, and a large percentage of the structural 
components, building materials, and fabrication, for example, of 
critical welds, has been defective.''
  The Pentagon is currently constructing a so-called Caribbean 
Radiation Early Warning System, known as CREWS, around the southern 
United States downwind from these Cuban reactors. According to Norm 
Dunkin, the lead contractor on CREWS, this system

[[Page H2355]]

will monitor the activity of the reactors being built in Cuba in the 
event of an accident. Mr. Dunkin states that the CREWS system would 
allow for an immediate response.
  Now, just what that immediate response would be remains far from 
clear. We are talking about two Soviet-designed nuclear power plants 
that Castro is committed to completing in Cuba. So will this ``early 
warning system'' enable the mass evacuation of as many as 80 million 
Americans who might, according to U.S. official estimates, be exposed 
to Cuban radiation within days of a meltdown?
  And even if that extraordinary logistical feat could be accomplished, 
what would happen to the food supply, animals, and property left 
behind? This is the Center for Security Policy in its report of 1999, 
February.

                              {time}  1945

  I think it is important, Madam Speaker, that we point out what we are 
talking about specifically here with regard to these Cuban power 
plants. These are Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. We just 
remembered the horrible accident at Chernobyl, where so many innocent 
lives were lost and radiation caused damage to millions and millions of 
people in the Ukraine. Well, what we are talking about here is Cuba. We 
are not talking about the Ukraine.
  We are talking about Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. They are 
known as the VVER 440. Soviet designed nuclear reactors. There are two 
of them. Here. Here is Key West. Here are the nuclear power plants. We 
are talking about less than 200 miles. These reactors, the VVER 440s, 
were all shut down when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Iron Curtain 
came down in Europe. All of the newly-freed countries of Eastern 
Europe, without exception, starting with East Germany but going 
throughout the entire continent, immediately moved to shut them all 
down because they are inherently dangerous.
  But in addition to that, engineers and workers who worked on the 
initial stages of these two Cuban nuclear power plants have testified 
here in Congress and before Federal executive agencies that not only 
are these plants defective because of their design but because of the 
great mistakes that were committed, the great flaws in the 
construction, the initial construction of these plants that Castro is 
determined to complete.
  Now, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
that prepared this chart for my office, if the winds happened to be 
blowing north, in this direction, where we are right now, here, 
Washington, D.C., and even further north, as far north as Pennsylvania 
and New York, within 2 days of an accident in one of these plants, or 
an incident, because the Cuban dictator would be able to create an 
incident if he would so decide, within 2 days, if the winds were 
blowing north, the radiation would expose most of the eastern coast of 
the United States.
  If it were blowing in this direction, obviously, the central United 
States. It would take longer, obviously, to get to Texas and the West. 
But 80 million Americans reside in this area, and within 2 days, if the 
winds were blowing this way, if these plants were completed and if 
there were an accident, and we obviously had an accident in Chernobyl, 
we are not talking theory here, these are Soviet-designed plants, it 
would expose up to 80 million Americans to grave risk. And this chart, 
as I say, was provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration.
  We are all concerned about Kosovo. It is a great humanitarian crisis 
and tragedy, but this is here. These plants are less than 200 miles 
from the United States. What is the President doing? What is the 
Clinton administration doing to prevent this? Well, they have come 
forth with something called, as I mentioned before, CREWS, the 
Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System. I have never seen, to be 
diplomatic I will say, a less logical idea. Because this CREWS system, 
Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System, is designed to monitor the 
activity of these reactors in the event of an accident, this system 
would, quote, allow for an immediate response. The radiation would be 
picked up by the system.
  Is that what our policy has to be? I think that is inconceivable. I 
think our policy needs to be a policy of simply letting the Cuban 
regime know that under no circumstances can those plants be completed. 
The United States of America has to make it clear to Mr. Castro that 
those plants cannot be completed. It means putting at risk, if they are 
completed, 80 million Americans plus the entire Cuban people, plus the 
neighbor, if the winds happen to go this way, Mexico. If the winds 
happen to go this way, it is Central America.
  The United States has to be telling the Cuban Government that those 
plants will not be completed. But, no, the Clinton administration came 
up with CREWS, the Caribbean Radiation Early Warning System, that will 
allow for an immediate response because radiation will be detected if 
there is an accident. That is not acceptable.
  I ask all of my colleagues and the American people watching through 
C-SPAN to contact their Congressman or Congresswoman and tell him or 
her that they must tell the President of the United States that he must 
unequivocally state that these plants, these nuclear power plants in 
Cuba, cannot, will not, under any circumstances, be completed. This is 
an issue of extraordinary importance.
  With regard to the matters we are touching upon, which are why it is 
in the national interest of the United States, in addition to the moral 
prerequisites, the reasons for there to be a democratic transition in 
Cuba, Inside Magazine, Inside Magazine here in Washington, published an 
article last month and I would like to quote from it. It is a very 
brief article.
  Fidel Castro was, quote, among the principal sponsors of 
international terrorist Carlos the Jackal, according to a former senior 
Cuban Interior Ministry official. Juan Antonio Rodriguez Menier, who 
has lived under police protection in the United States for the past 13 
years, told investigators that Castro supplied Carlos, that is the name 
this well-known terrorist goes by, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez 
Sanchez, with money, passports and apartments in Paris.
  Menier, this former Cuban intelligence official, alleges that the 
Cuban President, referring to Castro, organized drug trafficking in the 
United States, France, the Netherlands and elsewhere, and that Carlos 
was used by Castro to, ``put pressure on and execute the people he 
designated.'' Carlos, this terrorist, is serving a life sentence in 
France for the murder of two secret policemen and an informant.
  These are what threats exist. What are the reasons, again, Madam 
Speaker? The question is, in addition to the moral imperative, what are 
the reasons why it is in the national interest of the United States for 
there to be a democratic transition in Cuba? Why do we have an embargo 
on Castro that provides not only the only sanction against his 
brutality but the only leverage for the Cuban opposition, for the Cuban 
people to achieve a Democratic transition once Castro is gone from the 
scene?
  Why do we maintain an embargo? For all these reasons. Why is it in 
the United States' national interest for there to be a democratic 
transition in Cuba? For all these reasons that I have been mentioning.
  There was an unprecedented act of state terrorism against American 
citizens a little over 3 years ago. Castro ordered his own air force, 
not talking about Carlos the terrorist, but his own air force to shoot 
down American civil planes over international waters. That is the only 
time it has ever been done. Not even Saddam or the North Koreans have 
done that.
  Civilian planes over international waters by an act of state 
terrorism directly by an air force. The only time it has been done. It 
is unprecedented, as was noted by Judge Lawrence King in his wise and 
erudite decision in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of 
Florida. In an unprecedented act, Castro ordered the murders by his own 
air force of U.S. citizens over international waters 3 years ago.

  Well, sometimes it is important to go back and read what was said at 
the time. This is March 11, 1996, 3 years ago. Time Magazine. In an 
exclusive conversation with Reginald Brack, chairman of Time, Joelle 
Addinger, Time's chief of correspondence, and Cathy Booth, the Miami 
bureau chief, Castro tried to explain and justify shooting down two 
defenseless planes.

[[Page H2356]]

  Question: What was the chain of command? Here is Castro's answer: We 
discussed it with Raul. That is his brother, head of the air defense 
forces in the military. We gave the order to the head of the air force. 
Castro continued saying, I take responsibility for what happened. 
Castro admits, he takes responsibility publicly for shooting down 
unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters. Unprecedented act 
of state terrorism.
  Where is the administration? The Clinton administration signed the 
codification of the embargo, that is true, and ever since then has 
systematically waived every part of the legislation that the 
administration has been able to waive. Sometimes it is important to 
realize why things were done. We are not talking about 30 years ago but 
3 years ago.
  Now, Madam Speaker, it is important, I think, to go back to what the 
Center for Security Policy stated in its February 1999 report. Bottom 
line, it ended, the report, saying, ``In short, Fidel Castro's Cuba 
continues to represent a significant, if asymmetric, threat to the 
United States. The Clinton administration needs to be honest with the 
American people about these and other dangers, perhaps including the 
menace of biological or information warfare, which the President says 
he has seized. The Clinton administration must dispense with further 
efforts to cover up or low-ball them. Under these and foreseeable 
circumstances, it would be irresponsible to ease the U.S. embargo, and 
thereby not only legitimate, but offer life support to the still 
offensively oriented Castro regime.'' That was the Center for Security 
Policy, February 1999.
  Madam Speaker, I would ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bono). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The dictatorship in Cuba is economically bankrupt 
and obviously desperate. That is part of the danger, the desperation 
angle. For example, the fact that Castro would be so committed to 
completing two nuclear power plants whose design is so inherently 
faulty that everywhere where they had been completed in Eastern Europe 
they were closed down, proves he is desperate. He wants it complete, 
even those nuclear power plants.
  The dictatorship is bankrupt and desperate. The clear signs of that, 
for example, are that just a few days ago he went to the Dominican 
Republic, where the very mediocre President of the Republic there, who 
falls all over himself when he sees Castro, literally, just about; he 
drools in admiration. Castro was there and all of a sudden his number 
two bodyguard, and it is important to know what these bodyguards are in 
the context of Cuban society. They are the ones who have everything the 
people do not have, starting with the food and all the privileges and 
benefits. His personal bodyguards. Well, his number two personal 
bodyguard defected; responsible for waking Castro up and taking care of 
his life. If he cannot trust his number two bodyguard, of the hundreds 
of bodyguards he has, who can he trust? Obviously, he knows, no one. 
That is a sign of desperation. That is a sign of where the dictatorship 
is.
  People say, well, the policy has not functioned. What do they mean it 
has not functioned, when it has to be in place; conditioned, our 
embargo conditioned, its lifting conditioned on the three key 
developments that have to occur in Cuba, and that will occur in Cuba? 
In other words, the liberation of all political prisoners, legalization 
of political parties, labor unions and the press, and the scheduling of 
free elections. This is a desperate, bankrupt dictatorship that, 
obviously, everyone knows, even the supporters of the dictatorship, 
that it cannot survive the life of the dictator if we maintain the 
embargo, the leverage. Obviously, the dictatorship is desperate and 
bankrupt.
  Now, there is something I need to say, because I think it is fair. 
The UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva passed a resolution this last 
Friday condemning the human rights violations by the Castro regime. And 
I want to publicly commend, congratulate and show my admiration for the 
Czech Republic, who was the prime sponsor of the resolution, and the 
Polish Government as well. In other words, the Czech president, Vaclav 
Havel, and Polish Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek, who were the prime 
sponsors of this resolution, this marvelous resolution, standing firm 
on the side of the Cuban people. And, really, those who voted for the 
governments, who voted for it, constitute a hall of fame and dignity at 
this time. And those who voted against it really constitute a hall of 
shame.

                              {time}  2000

  It only passed by one vote, by the way, but it passed. Obviously, too 
many people, when we realize it passed by one vote, are in the hall of 
shame. But, nevertheless, the hall of fame prevailed.
  In favor: Argentina; Austria; Canada; Chile; the Czech Republic; 
Ecuador; France; Germany; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Latvia; Luxembourg; 
Morocco. By the way, I want to thank His Royal Highness King Hassan and 
the distinguished and brilliant Foreign Minister Mohammad Benaisa 
Benahista for their courageous stand. Norway; Poland; the Republic of 
Korea; Romania, that wonderful, heroic people; the United Kingdom, the 
United States of America; and Uruguay.
  A significant development in this last year, because there was a 
defeat in this resolution a year ago, a significant development was the 
naming by Secretary Albright of Assistant Secretary Coe, Assistant 
Secretary for Human Rights. He did a wonderful job, and he is to be 
commended.
  And then of course voting against, and I am not going to go into the 
entire list, but the fact that Latin American neighbors of the Cuban 
people, two of them voted against, Mexico and Brazil. The Mexican 
Government remains consistent in its policy of corruption in all 
aspects. And the new Venezuelan President, who wrote a letter by the 
way to Carlos the Jackal, the terrorist that I referred to previously, 
well, the new Venezuelan President wrote him a letter the other day 
congratulating him. That is the new President of Venezuela.
  And then abstaining, in other words, those who say, yes, I see the 
horrible violations of human rights but I do not have the courage or 
the whatever to vote to condemn them, abstaining was Colombia, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala. They may not be in the hall of shame but they 
sure are near.
  Madam Speaker, I think in addition to congratulating the people who 
those governments have voted for this resolution, and noting our 
disillusionment with those who abstained, and of course, our 
condemnation of those who voted against, I remain convinced that a 
great problem that the Cuban people face, the reason why there have 
been so many years of dictatorship there, one of the great reasons is 
the lack of press coverage.
  I ask my colleagues, I ask the American people watching on C-SPAN, 
did they read or see coverage of Castro's bodyguard defecting, the No. 
2 bodyguard of a dictator that has been in power for 40 years? Did they 
read about it, hear about it? Was it in the news?
  Did they hear about this resolution that condemned the human rights 
violations? Did they read or hear about, did they see coverage about 
the crackdown that Castro was involved in against the Cuban people, the 
new law calling for up to 30 years of imprisonment for peaceful pro-
democracy activity? Have they read about that? Have they seen coverage?
  Do they know about the four best known dissidents in Cuba, the, in 
effect, Vaclav Havels and Lech Walesas of Cuba, who bravely refused 
freedom in lieu of prison and were just sentenced to long prison terms 
for writing a document asking for free elections and criticizing one-
party government? Have they read about their names: Vladimiro Roca, 
Felix Bonne, Rene Gomez Manzano, Marta Beatriz Roque?
  Had they heard about the prisoner that I referred to before, that PAX 
Christi Netherlands talked about his repeated beatings, a 33-year-old 
man condemned to 18 years in prison for peacefully advocating for 
democracy?
  Had they heard about Jorge Luis Garcia Perez Antunez? Did they know 
about Oscar Elias Biscet or Leonel Morejon Almagro, who has been 
nominated by over 60 Members of this House for the Nobel Peace Prize, 
or Vicky Ruiz or the hundreds of other pro-democracy activists in Cuba, 
or the independent press who bravely each day fight for democracy or 
work to inform the world about the horrors, about what is going on?

[[Page H2357]]

  Have they read about that? Or did they read about the Baltimore 
Orioles or the Harlem Globetrotters playing with Cuba's national teams? 
Is that what we read about? That is the only thing that the press 
covers with regard to Cuba. How cute, the Baltimore Orioles or the 
Harlem Globetrotters playing Castro's designated national team. That is 
the only coverage, in essence, with very rare exceptions.
  It is time to help the internal opposition, Madam Speaker. A number 
of us are filing, we prepared legislation that basically tells the 
President of the United States, we in the Congress, we passed a law 3 
years ago saying he is authorized to help the internal opposition in 
Cuba, to find ways to do it like we did in Poland, and he has not done 
it, and it is time that we do it and we are filing legislation to do 
so.
  It is time that the world learn the names of the Vaclav Havels and 
the Lech Walesas of Cuba. It is time that the world be able to put 
faces to those names and names to those faces. It is time to help the 
internal opposition.
  We will be filing this legislation. We need the support of our 
colleagues. It does not deal with the embargo. They can be pro-trade, 
anti-trade, or in the middle. They can stand for the Cuban people's 
right to be free by supporting this legislation that calls on the 
President to devise a plan, like was done by President Reagan in 
Poland, to help the internal opposition.
  And we talk to those now members of parliament in Poland or the 
President in the Czech Republic and they will tell us what it meant 
when we had a President in the United States who stood with them and 
found ways to help them when they were dissidents and when they were 
being persecuted by their communist totalitarian regimes.
  That is what we need to do in the case of Cuba. Cuba will be free. 
The Congress has always been on the side of the Cuban people. What we 
need is the President to speak up on this issue on these people 90 
miles away, our closest friends, our closest neighbors, to stand on 
their side and against the repressor.
  We need the administration to be heard. The Congress is heard, will 
continue to be heard, has been heard. And we are going to file our 
legislation, and we need the support of our colleagues. I know we have 
it, because always the Congress of the United States have stood with 
the Cuban people. And the Cuban people, when they are free, they will 
remember this Congress for having stood always for their right to be 
free, for self-determination, for freedom for dignity, for free 
elections and against the horrors of their 40-year totalitarian 
nightmare.

                          ____________________