[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 71 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4933-S4935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  40 YEARS TOO LONG--THE CUBAN EMBARGO

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, when President Kennedy announced a trade 
embargo on Cuba in 1961, the consensus in Washington was that stifling 
the Cuban economy would lead to internal unrest and ultimately depose 
the anti-American president, Fidel Castro. Since that time, Congress 
has tightened the screws on Cuba to include food and medicine in the 
embargo and to put pressure on other countries not to trade with Cuba. 
We have made it more difficult to lift the embargo by requiring a two-
thirds vote by Congress and we have passed a law that says no 
government involving Fidel Castro or his brother will be acceptable to 
the U.S., even if they were chosen in Democratic elections. Through it 
all, our

[[Page S4934]]

main nemesis, Fidel Castro, has survived. In fact, he is strong as 
ever. To gain a better understanding of this issue, I recently led a 
group of Arkansas farmers to Havana to see firsthand the impact of our 
policy and the potential opportunities that exist should this policy be 
changed. I entered Havana focused on Cuba's potential as a new trade 
market for Arkansas agriculture producers. I left Havana with a new 
understanding of the embargo's effects on the people of Cuba. I 
returned from Cuba more confident than ever that the U.S. embargo on 
Cuba must be lifted. The three most compelling reasons for my stance on 
this issue are: (1) the fact that we should engage countries, not 
isolate them in order to move them forward and help them to gain 
potential; (2) the overall effect on the American economy that losing 
the trade with Cuba has had; and (3) the humanitarian impact on the 
Cuban people.
  This was my first trip to Cuba and it was extremely worthwhile. I 
found the country and its people impressive and possessing great 
potential. The architecture in downtown Havana was charming, however, 
it struck me that someone had turned the lights out 40 years ago and no 
one has thought to flip the switch back on. The gorgeous architecture 
was crumbling along with the people. The physical decay of the cities, 
buildings, and infrastructure is readily apparent. This obvious 
economic and physical decline has not, however, led to an uprising of 
Cuban citizens demanding for a more democratic government based on 
capitalistic principles. It has been four decades since the embargo was 
enforced for political reasons. Times have clearly changed. The Soviet 
Union no longer aids Cuban efforts to challenge U.S. interests in 
Central America and elsewhere. The Soviet Union does not even exist.
  The Cold War has been over for 10 years and the U.S. has normal trade 
relations with all of the countries of the former Eastern bloc. Yet we 
continue to ostracize Cuba. U.S. defense analysts even maintain that 
Cuba does not pose a security threat to our country at the turn of the 
century. Is Cuba an ideal nation? Absolutely not. But there are other 
countries that we trade with and maintain normal diplomatic relations 
with whose governments are not democratically elected; where full 
respect for internationally recognized human rights is lacking; where 
there is little or no tolerance for political dissent; or where private 
enterprise is largely illegal.
  The first of these countries that comes to mind is China. Prior to 
the Memorial Day recess the House of Representatives voted to grant 
Permanent Normal Relations (PNTR) status to the Republic of China. The 
Senate will likely vote on this matter soon. On this separate but 
related issue let me be clear. I look forward to the China PNTR debate 
and urge my colleagues to join me in support of expanding our trading 
opportunities. I hope that we can pass PNTR with China as quickly as 
possible with no amendments so that President Clinton can sign this 
landmark legislation into law. As I have watched the China PNTR debate 
rage in Washington during recent weeks, I am struck by the common theme 
that we, as a nation, can influence a country's actions much more by 
engaging them in trade and communication than we ever could by ignoring 
and isolating them.
  I've held to this belief for quite some time in regard to China as 
well as Cuba. China is the largest Communist country in the world. The 
U.S. has annually granted China its most-favored-nation status and will 
likely approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations in the coming months. 
Our treatment of Cuba should be no different. It is true that China has 
made various overtures and taken some positive steps as their 
acceptance into the WTO is being considered. China has allowed for a 
limited amount of private enterprise to exist. And recently, China 
purchased goods from the U.S. as a good faith gesture that they will 
live up to the commitments negotiated in the WTO accession agreement. 
Many who oppose trade with Cuba ask, ``Why are we not holding Cuba to 
the same standard? Why don't we require them to privatize certain 
business entities or purchase some commodities as a good faith 
gesture?'' The option to purchase U.S. goods is not available to Cuba, 
as it is to China, due to laws that we have passed in this very 
institution. Their hands are tied.
  Yet Cuba is taking steps on its own regarding private 
industry. Recent progress has been made in the form of joint ventures 
to facilitate the tourism industry in Cuba. For instance, the hotel we 
stayed in was a joint venture with the Dutch. Of course the government 
is still participating, but it is an example of private capital coming 
in from another source and affecting the people's way of life. The 
people working at those hotels receive tips from tourists that put them 
way above the daily wage of average Cubans. Steps made in these 
directions can only foster and plant positive seeds for change. We can 
also expect the rapidly and advancing technology of the Internet to 
help open doors to Cuba. Just as Chinese dissidents communicate today 
over the Internet in spite of attempts by the Communists to stop them, 
I can anticipate a day when the Cuban people do the same thing.

  The farmers of Cuba are incapable of producing enough to sustain the 
11 million inhabitants of the Caribbean island. Therefore, food must be 
imported. Our allies are already meeting that need and trading with 
Cuba. Rice is coming into Cuba from Asia, soybeans from Brazil, while 
our farmers endure some of the worst prices they have seen in decades.
  We have put ourselves in a position where we are hurting our own 
economy and the backbone of our nation, the America farmer. By denying 
our farmers access to additional markets, like Cuba, we are ignoring a 
pledge that was made with the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill to open 
markets, the necessary markets our farmers need. Promises regarding 
enhanced trading opportunities and the free market abounded with 
passage of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act. Yet, the recently passed 
Caribbean/Africa Trade bill was the first trade bill Congress has 
passed in six years. We have failed to grant the President Fast Track 
Authority and essentially guaranteed the failure of our nation's 
farmers by granting them the ability to produce as much as they are 
capable while denying them access to sufficient markets to move their 
goods. For the American farmer the combination of this nation's Ag and 
foreign trade policies is a no-win situation.
  For soybeans alone, opening up trade with Cuba could mean a $60 
million market. In Arkansas, we could ship 400,000 tons of rice right 
down the Mississippi River, through the Gulf of Mexico to the Cuban 
people. Food products would be a phone call and a couple of days away. 
Instead, the Cuban people are left paying higher prices for a lower 
quality product that takes weeks, sometimes months, to arrive in their 
ports.
  Rice is a staple of the Cuban diet and we know how to grow it in 
Arkansas. Arkansas is consistently the top U.S. producer of rice. 
Exports are extremely important to the rice industry. Last year, the 
rice industry exported to more than 100 countries. Trade and trade 
policy, therefore, are critical to the continued success of the 
industry.
  At the time that the U.S. Government imposed sanctions on trade with 
Cuba, it was not only our largest export market for rice, but it took 
more than one-half of our total rice exports. Cubans know good American 
rice, and they want it. The embargo dealt a major blow to the rice 
industry, particularly growers in the South who grow long grain rice, 
which is the rice of preference in Cuba. The only impact the embargo 
has had on Cuba is on its middle- to low-income citizens. We are 
hurting the Cuban people much more than the Cuban government or Cuban 
elite. Due to the high prices the government is forced to pay, less 
food is available for distribution. U.S. humanitarian organizations are 
prevented from providing food to starving children due solely to the 
existence of the embargo.
  While in Cuba, I met with opponents of the Castro regime who have 
been persecuted for attempting to highlight the disparate human rights 
treatment in Cuba. These dissidents believe that the embargo gives the 
Cuban government an excuse for what is wrong with the country. Our 
embargo provides Cuban officials with an excuse for the sorry state of 
the economy and the challenges the country faces. If we lift

[[Page S4935]]

the embargo, we expose the Cuban people to many of the problems of 
their own government. Right now the Cuban people are only getting one 
side of the story, and they are not blaming their government or Fidel 
Castro for their troubles, because Fidel Castro is using the U.S. 
Government as the excuse for those problems.
  I understand there are colleagues in this body whom I deeply respect 
who also disagree with me on this issue. I agree that should the U.S. 
lift its embargo on Cuba, Fidel Castro will probably declare victory 
over what he calls his imperialist oppressor to his north. But the real 
truth which is undeniably is that under current policy absolutely no 
one wins.
  As a farmer's daughter, I am not so concerned about the short-term 
implications of who can claim victory after 40 years of economic 
isolation. I believe that the long-term benefits of engagement with 
Cuba offer economic benefit to Americans; opportunities for democratic 
influences inside Cuba and better living conditions for the Cuban 
people. Each of these goals strike me as fundamental principles of our 
unique, American democracy. Lifting the 40-year embargo on Cuba is the 
right thing to do. I hope we do it sooner than later.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________