[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 76 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5298-S5300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          U.S.-CUBA RELATIONS

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, next Tuesday morning I will offer an 
amendment that is not a radical idea, not something that ought to evoke 
much debate or dissension but the kind of proposal that might even 
carry by a voice vote under normal circumstances. Because of the nature 
of the subject matter, it has become controversial, and I regret that. 
It was my hope that the Senate would vote today on the Dodd amendment, 
which is currently pending to

[[Page S5299]]

the Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, that vote was put off 
until next week.
  Having said that, I want to take a few minutes to discuss this 
proposal and explain why I believe it makes sense to go forward to 
establish a bipartisan commission to review U.S.-Cuban policy.
  The amendment I will be offering provides for the establishment of a 
bipartisan 12-member commission to review United States policy with 
regard to Cuba and to make recommendations for the changes that might 
be necessary to bring that policy into the 21st century.
  On Wednesday of this week, the President of South Korea, Kim Dae-
jung, and the North Korean leader, Kim Chong-il, signed a broad 
agreement to work for peace and unity on the Korean peninsula. Needless 
to say, the level of hostility that has existed between these two 
governments for more than half of a century has been extremely high. 
These two countries fought a bloody and costly war in which hundreds of 
thousands of Koreans lost their lives. More than 35,000 of our own 
fellow service men and women in this country lost their lives as well. 
Yet these two leaders have been able to bring themselves to meet and 
discuss the future of their peoples and the possibility of 
reunification at some point down the road.
  The Clinton administration, to its credit, has announced that, as a 
result of these efforts, it will soon lift economic sanctions against 
North Korea, paving the way for American companies to trade and invest 
and for American citizens to travel. I support the administration's 
decision and applaud them for moving forward in such an expeditious 
manner to complement the efforts of the North and South Korean leaders.
  Similarly, despite the fact that more than 50,000 American men and 
women in uniform lost their lives during the Vietnam conflict, the 
United States and Vietnam have full diplomatic and trade relations 
today. In large measure, this is due to our colleagues and veterans, 
Senators McCain, Kerrey, and others in this Chamber.
  Even though we have a number of serious disagreements with the 
People's Republic of China, we are not imposing unilateral economic 
sanctions against that country; quite the opposite. I predict that the 
Senate of the United States, very shortly, will follow the House of 
Representatives and vote to support permanent normal trade relations 
with China, which will pave the way for China to join the World Trade 
Organization.
  My point is this: Across the globe, we are seeing efforts to 
normalize relations, to reconcile old grievances--the Middle East, the 
Korean peninsula, the Balkans, Northern Ireland. There isn't a place I 
can think of where people are not trying to resolve the differences 
that have existed for far too long.
  The question I will pose by offering the amendment on Tuesday is: 
Isn't it about time we at least think about doing the same in our own 
hemisphere, when it comes to a nation that is 90 miles off our shore, 
less distance than from here to Hagerstown, MD, or Richmond, VA?

  The reaction to my amendment would suggest that there is still strong 
resistance to doing in our own hemisphere what we are promoting 
elsewhere around the globe. The amendment I will offer would simply 
establish a 12-member commission to review U.S. policy, to make 
recommendations on how it might be changed or if it ought to be 
changed. I am not even suggesting that the commission would come back 
with changes. In fact, they may come back with quite the opposite 
result.
  This proposal is not new or revolutionary. The Senate has authorized 
establishment of commissions to review many subjects--the Central 
America Commission, the Kissinger Commission, Social Security, 
Terrorist Threats, and many other subject matters. Our colleague from 
Virginia, Senator John Warner, first proposed this idea of a bipartisan 
commission on the subject of Cuba in a letter to President Clinton more 
than 1 and a half years ago. One quarter of the Senate joined him in 
urging the President to take the politics out of United States-Cuba 
policy and to look to the wisdom of some of our best and brightest 
foreign policy experts to make recommendations on what we should do 
with respect to this issue.
  I personally urged Secretary Albright to recommend that the President 
move forward with this proposal. Regrettably, she believed that the 
timing was not right for doing so. I was saddened by that decision. I 
disagreed with the Secretary then, and I believe that a year and a half 
later the arguments are even more compelling for establishing such a 
commission today.
  We are about to change administrations. What better time to use the 
interval between the current one and the next one to take a fresh look 
at Cuba-related issues and be ready to make recommendations in the 
spring of the coming year as to what makes sense with regard to Cuban-
U.S. relations?
  We recently entered a new millennium. Yet U.S.-Cuban policy is still 
locked in the old shibboleth of the last one. It is a policy that is 40 
years old. We have seen changes in South Africa. The Soviet Union 
doesn't exist any longer. Eastern European countries have managed to 
find reform and democracy. We now welcome Yasir Arafat to the White 
House, and the prospects of peace in the Middle East have never loomed 
more large. We are watching reconciliation on the Korean peninsula. The 
Balkans are trying to resolve their difficulties. Northern Ireland is, 
hopefully, putting to bed years of hostility. Can we not at least find 
the opportunity to get this issue of Cuba-United States relations out 
of politics and have a bipartisan commission make recommendations from 
which we might consider some different ways of approaching what has 
been a 40-year-old policy?
  I should have said at the very outset of my remarks--and I apologize 
for not doing so because it needs to be said--that I carry, nor does 
anyone who supports this commission, any grief for Fidel Castro or the 
dictatorship in Cuba. The conditions these people have to live in are 
deplorable--the hardships, the denial of human rights, the economic 
deprivation. I hold great respect for the Cuban exile community in this 
country. They have come to be great Americans and have contributed 
significantly to the economic well-being of our country. They have made 
contributions as public servants and as patriots--men and women in 
uniform. But too often this issue has been dominated by how we deal 
with one individual.
  There are 11 million people living 90 miles off our shores. We need 
to think about the post-Castro period as well. How can we create a 
softer landing? How can we try to at least frame issues that will allow 
for a transition there and avoid the potential conflict in civil strife 
that could occur on the island of Cuba?
  I hope that the Cuban American Foundation will support the idea of a 
bipartisan commission--a commission that would incorporate and include 
people of different points of view to try to come up with some common 
ground on which they could recommend to a new administration and to 
this Congress or the next Congress.
  This proposal is not some radical or fringe idea. It is strongly 
supported by the mainstream of our foreign policy establishment. People 
such as Dr. Henry Kissinger and Bill Rodgers support this effort. I 
appreciate their willingness to say so. I suspect they would be willing 
to serve as commissioners if they were asked to.
  In light of the systemic changes that have transformed the globe over 
the last 40 years, I believe a fundamental rethinking of the U.S.-Cuban 
policy is in order. In fact, such a rethinking is long overdue and it 
is very much in our national interest to do it at this juncture.
  The pending amendment that we offered on Tuesday deals with the 
problem by broaching anything relating to Cuba in an election year or 
any year for that matter.
  The sad reality is that the only way we are going to get this 
dispassionate review of our current policy and sensible recommendations 
with respect to how that policy should change is by bringing together a 
commission of respected outside experts to advise the executive and the 
legislative branches on future policy options.
  I said a moment ago that some 11 million people live less than 100 
miles from our shores. We owe it to the

[[Page S5300]]

American people to seriously analyze the consequences to the United 
States of a major civil upheaval on the island of Cuba and to devise a 
policy that minimizes the possibility of such an event occurring.
  Does anyone believe for one moment that a sea of humanity would not 
stream from the island toward U.S. shores if civil conflict erupts 
there?
  Two years have passed since Pope John Paul II made a historic visit 
to Cuba that called upon that country to open up to the world and for 
the world to open up to Cuba.
  Even after such an unprecedented event, the centerpiece of our policy 
remains the same--an embargo which seeks to restrict trade, travel, and 
a low flow of information to Cuba and thereby strangle Cuba 
economically.
  This hard-line stance continues to hold sway in Washington today in 
large measure because successive administrations have been hamstrung by 
domestic political considerations and have been fearful of provoking 
the ire of those who are obsessed with the island of Cuba and its 
personification in the person of Fidel Castro.
  We have just entered a new millennium. Surely it is time to break 
with the policy that is largely centered on the fate of one individual 
and replace it with one that is more future oriented--one that focuses 
on the other 11 million individuals who also reside on the island of 
Cuba, and on the millions of Cuban-Americans. Many of them believe we 
ought to think differently today. They do not speak out on the issue 
but would welcome the opportunity to see a commission created which 
would give us a chance to look at other policy options.
  The time has come to have a reasoned conversation regarding Cuba and 
U.S. policy, and about the effectiveness of our policy. I think the 
establishment of a bipartisan commission would be the starting point 
for just such a conversation and just such a debate. Hopefully, the end 
point of that conversation would be the development of a national 
consensus around a new Cuba policy--one that is compatible with 
America's values and beliefs, one that truly serves our own national 
interests.
  I hope my colleagues will agree with this analysis. If so, I urge 
them to support this amendment when it is voted on next Tuesday.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We are under a time agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator has 15 
minutes.

                          ____________________