[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5389-S5410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2549, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2001 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Smith (of New Hampshire) amendment No. 3210, to prohibit 
     granting security clearances to felons.
       Warner/Dodd amendment No. 3267, to establish a National 
     Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to evaluate United States 
     policy with respect to Cuba.
       Levin (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3473, to enhance Federal 
     enforcement of hate crimes.
       Hatch amendment No. 3474, to provide for a comprehensive 
     study and support for criminal investigations and 
     prosecutions by State and local law enforcement officials.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is recognized to offer an amendment, on which 
there will be 2 hours equally divided.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 3475

  (Purpose: To establish a National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba to 
          evaluate United States policy with respect to Cuba)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe this is the full text of the 
amendment. I just had several copies made for my colleagues.
  Let me inquire of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, did 
he get a copy of the amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3475.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 462, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL BIPARTISAN COMMISSION ON 
                   CUBA.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba Act of 2000''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (1) address the serious long-term problems in the relations 
     between the United States and Cuba; and
       (2) help build the necessary national consensus on a 
     comprehensive United States policy with respect to Cuba.
       (c) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the National 
     Bipartisan Commission on Cuba (in this section referred to as 
     the ``Commission'').
       (2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 
     members, who shall be appointed as follows:
       (A) Three individuals to be appointed by the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate, of whom two shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the Majority Leader of the Senate and 
     of whom one shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (B) Three individuals to be appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, of whom two shall be appointed upon 
     the recommendation of the Majority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives and of whom one shall be appointed upon the 
     recommendation of the Minority Leader of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) Six individuals to be appointed by the President.
       (3) Selection of members.--Members of the Commission shall 
     be selected from among distinguished Americans in the private 
     sector who are experienced in the field of international 
     relations, especially Cuban affairs and United States-Cuban 
     relations, and shall include representatives from a cross-
     section of United States interests, including human rights, 
     religion, public health, military, business, agriculture, and 
     the Cuban-American community.
       (4) Designation of chair.--The President shall designate a 
     Chair from among the members of the Commission.
       (5) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chair.
       (6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum.

[[Page S5390]]

       (7) Vacancies.--Any vacancy of the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers, but shall be filled in the manner in which 
     the original appointment was made.
       (d) Duties and Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be responsible for an 
     examination and documentation of the specific achievements of 
     United States policy with respect to Cuba and an evaluation 
     of--
       (A) what national security risk Cuba poses to the United 
     States and an assessment of any role the Cuban government may 
     play in support of acts of international terrorism and the 
     trafficking of illegal drugs;
       (B) the indemnification of losses incurred by United States 
     certified claimants with confiscated property in Cuba; and
       (C) the domestic and international impacts of the 39-year-
     old United States economic, trade and travel embargo against 
     Cuba on--
       (i) the relations of the United States with allies of the 
     United States;
       (ii) the political strength of Fidel Castro;
       (iii) the condition of human rights, religious freedom, and 
     freedom of the press in Cuba;
       (iv) the health and welfare of the Cuban people;
       (v) the Cuban economy; and
       (vi) the United States economy, business, and jobs.
       (2) Consultation responsibilities.--In carrying out its 
     duties under paragraph (1), the Commission shall consult with 
     governmental leaders of countries substantially impacted by 
     the current state of United States-Cuban relations, 
     particularly countries impacted by the United States trade 
     embargo against Cuba, and with the leaders of nongovernmental 
     organizations operating in those countries.
       (3) Powers of the commission.--The Commission may, for the 
     purpose of carrying out its duties under this subsection, 
     hold hearings, sit and act at times and places in the United 
     States, take testimony, and receive evidence as the 
     Commission considers advisable to carry out the provisions of 
     this section.
       (e) Report of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 225 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress 
     setting forth its recommendations for United States policy 
     options based on its evaluations under subsection (d).
       (2) Classified form of report.--The report required by 
     paragraph (1) shall be submitted in unclassified form, 
     together with a classified annex, if necessary.
       (3) Individual or dissenting views.--Each member of the 
     Commission may include the individual or dissenting views of 
     the member in the report required by paragraph (1).
       (f) Administration.--
       (1) Cooperation by other federal agencies.--The heads of 
     Executive agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, 
     provide the Commission such information as it may require for 
     purposes of carrying out its functions.
       (2) Compensation.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services of the Commission.
       (3) Administrative support.--The Secretary of State shall, 
     to the extent permitted by law, provide the Commission with 
     such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, and 
     other support services as may be necessary for the 
     performance of its functions.
       (g) Applicability of Other Laws.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act shall not apply to the Commission to the extent 
     that the provisions of this section are inconsistent with 
     that Act.
       (h) Termination Date.--The Commission shall terminate 60 
     days after submission of the report required by subsection 
     (e).

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, before I get into the 
substance of the amendment, I hope it may be possible we can reduce the 
time on this debate. I know there are other matters to be considered. 
We have 2 hours, but this may not take that much time. It is not a 
terribly complicated proposal. I think a lot of our colleagues may 
already be aware of the substance of it.
  Let me begin these brief remarks by, first of all, expressing my 
disappointment, in a sense, that I have to offer an amendment that my 
good friend from Florida strongly disagrees with, Senator Connie Mack. 
He is in his last few months in this body. He is one of my best friends 
in the Senate. It may be hard for some people who do not follow this 
institution carefully to understand that two people of different 
political persuasions, from different parts of the country, can be good 
friends, but we are.
  As I feel strongly about this amendment, he feels strongly about it. 
I would prefer that he were my ally. He will not be. I presume he might 
wish I were his ally. So it will be somewhat of a disappointment for me 
to be offering something about which my good friend so strongly 
disagrees, as he prepares to leave this body and to which he has made 
such a significant contribution during his tenure.
  I will miss him very much in the coming years. I do not offer this 
amendment with any great pleasure. I do think it is the right 
amendment. I want him to know that I do not do so with any sense of 
personal animus in the slightest as I offer it. There are others who 
disagree as well.
  Last Friday, I spoke at some length about why I believe the amendment 
that was originally proposed by another good friend, the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and I, which we offered 
some time ago to establish a bipartisan commission to review United 
States policy towards Cuba, why we believe it is in our national 
interest.
  The amendment I have just offered, as the Warner amendment, would 
provide for the appointment of a bipartisan commission to review U.S. 
policy with respect to Cuba and to make recommendations on how to bring 
that policy into the 21st century.
  I regret that because Senator Warner is the manager of the underlying 
bill he has had to withdraw his support for this amendment. While 
certainly Senator Warner is fully capable of speaking for himself, I 
believe Senator Warner still thinks that the proposal I am making today 
is a good idea, even if he must disagree with the vehicle to which it 
is sought to be attached.
  Very briefly, the commission would be composed of 12 members, chosen 
by the following: six by the President of the United States, six by the 
Congress; equally divided between the legislative and executive 
branches. There would be four members chosen by the House and Senate 
Republicans leaders and two by the Democratic leaders.
  Senator Warner and I had originally crafted this legislation to 
ensure that the commission would have a balanced and diverse 
membership, not bipartisan in the sense of two parties because this 
issue ought not be divided by party. In fact, it is not divided by 
party. There are people who sit on this side of the aisle in the Senate 
who will disagree with this amendment. There are Members on the other 
side who will agree with this amendment. This country is not divided 
along strictly partisan lines--Democrats and Republicans--as it reviews 
Cuban policy. But what we are seeking with the commission is to have a 
diversity of opinion, not a diversity of party necessarily, although 
that may occur anyway.

  So the idea was to have members who would be selected from various 
fields of expertise--including human rights, religious, public health, 
military, business, agriculture, the Cuban American community, and also 
the agricultural community where there is such strong interest. 
Creating that kind of diversity is what we seek in a commission. It 
would make recommendations to us which we may or may not follow. They 
are recommendations.
  Other commissions in the past have been appointed that have made 
recommendations which Congress has sought to follow and in other cases 
Congress has totally ignored. So a commission is really an opportunity 
to see if we can get this out of the partisan politics which have 
dominated this debate for far too long and to make some solid long-term 
recommendations on how we might begin to prepare for an intelligent, 
soft landing, to use the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski some years ago 
when he provided the necessity of us beginning to think to arrange for 
a relationship with the island of Cuba in a post-Castro period.
  The commissioners would have 225 days from the date of enactment to 
undertake their review and report their findings. The original Warner 
amendment provided for 180 days.
  Some have said: Why do this now? We are only a few months away from a 
new administration. Why not let a new administration take on this 
responsibility?
  I argue that, in fact, this is exactly the right time to be doing it, 
with an administration that is leaving, in a sense, to be able to 
provide for a new administration some ideas and thoughts on how we 
might proceed.
  So whether it is a Bush administration or a Gore administration that 
is sworn into office on January 20 of the coming year, this commission 
would report back in the late spring of next

[[Page S5391]]

year, and the new administration could have the benefit of some solid 
thinking rather than waiting for a new administration with all of the 
problems associated with that in terms of how they begin their efforts.
  The idea of establishing a commission is not a new idea. It is not 
even originally my idea. The establishment of a commission was first 
proposed by our colleague from Virginia almost 2 years ago in a letter 
to President Clinton.
  Who supported the idea of the Warner commission at that time? Senator 
Warner was encouraged to propose such an idea in 1998 by a very 
distinguished group of foreign policy experts. Let me list some of the 
individuals who urged that such a commission be created: former 
Secretaries of State Lawrence Eagleburger, George Shultz, and Henry 
Kissinger; former Majority Leader Howard Baker; former Defense 
Secretary Frank Carlucci; former Secretaries of Agriculture John Block 
and Clayton Yeutter; former Ambassadors Timothy Towell and J. William 
Middendorf; former Under Secretary of State William Rogers; former 
Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America and Distinguished Career 
Ambassador Harry Shalaudeman; and another distinguished former 
colleagues of ours, Malcolm Wallop.
  The United States Catholic Conference has also gone on record in 
support of the establishment of such a committee.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent that the letters that accompanied 
these recommendations be printed in the Record. One of the letters is 
dated September 30, 1998, signed by Howard Baker, Frank Carlucci, Henry 
Kissinger, Bill Rogers, Harry Shalaudeman, and Malcolm Wallop, who 
called for this commission 2 years ago. And there are other letters 
that were sent from our Senate colleagues to President Clinton. 
Senators signing the letters are Senators Grams, Bond, Jeffords, Hagel, 
Lugar, Enzi, John Chafee, Specter, Gordon Smith, Thomas, Boxer, Bob 
Kerrey, Bumpers, Jack Reed, Santorum, Moynihan, Kempthorne, Roberts, 
Leahy, Cochran, Domenici, and Murray--hardly a partisan group of 
Senators.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Baker, Donelson,


                                           Bearman & Caldwell,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1998.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: As Americans who have been engaged in 
     the conduct of foreign relations in various positions over 
     the past three decades, we believe that it is timely to 
     conduct a review of United States policy toward Cuba. We 
     therefore encourage you and your colleagues to support the 
     establishment of a National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba.
       I am privileged to be joined in this request by: Howard H. 
     Baker, Jr., Former Majority Leader, U.S. Senate; Frank 
     Carlucci, Former Secretary of Defense; Henry A. Kissinger, 
     Former Secretary of State; William D. Rogers, Former Under 
     Secretary of State; Harry W. Shalaudeman, Former Assistant 
     Secretary of State; and Malcolm Wallop, Former Member, U.S. 
     Senate.
       We recommend that the President consider the precedent and 
     the procedures of the National Bipartisan Commission on 
     Central America chaired by former Secretary of State Henry A. 
     Kissinger, which President Reagan established in 1983. As you 
     know, the Kissinger Commission helped significantly to 
     clarify the difficult issues inherent in U.S. Policy in 
     Central America and to forge a new consensus on many of them.
       We believe that such a Commission would serve the national 
     interest in this instance as well. It could provide the 
     Administration, the Congress, and the American people with 
     objective analysis and useful policy recommendations for 
     dealing with the complexities of our relationship with Cuba, 
     and in doing so advance the cause of freedom and democracy in 
     the Hemisphere.
           Sincerely,
     Lawrence S. Eagleburger.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 13, 1998.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned, recommend that you 
     authorize the establishment of a National Bipartisan 
     Commission to review our current U.S.-Cuba policy. This 
     Commission would follow the precedent and work program of the 
     National Bipartisan Commission on Central America, (the 
     ``Kissinger Commission''), established by President Reagan in 
     1983, which made such a positive contribution to our foreign 
     policy on that most difficult and controversial issue over 15 
     years ago.
       We recommend this action because there has not been a 
     comprehensive review of U.S.-Cuba policy, or a measurement of 
     its effectiveness in achieving its stated goals, in over 38 
     years since President Eisenhower first canceled the sugar 
     quota on July 6, 1960 and President Kennedy imposed the first 
     total embargo on Cuba on February 7, 1962. Most recently, 
     Congress passed the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992 and the 
     Helms-Burton Act in 1996. Since the passage of both of these 
     bills there have been significant changes in the world 
     situation that warrant a review of our U.S.-Cuba policy 
     including the termination, in 1991, or billions of dollars of 
     annual Soviet economic assistance to Cuba, and the historic 
     visit of Pope John Paul II to Cuba in 1998.
       In addition, during the past 24 months numerous delegations 
     from the United States have visited Cuba, including current 
     and former Members of Congress, representatives from the 
     American Association of World Health, and former U.S. 
     military leaders. These authoritative groups have analyzed 
     the conditions and capabilities on the island and have 
     presented their findings in the areas of health, the economy, 
     religious freedom, human rights, and military capacity. Also, 
     in May 1998, the Pentagon completed a study on the security 
     risk of Cuba to the United States.
       However, the findings and reports of these delegations, 
     including the study by the Pentagon, and the call by Pope 
     John Paul II for the opening of Cuba by the world, have not 
     been broadly accepted by all U.S. policy makers. As Members 
     of the U.S. Senate, we believe it is in the best interest of 
     the United States, our allies, and the Cuban people to review 
     these issues.
       We therefore recommend that a National Bipartisan 
     Commission be created to conduct a thoughtful, rational, and 
     objective analysis of our current U.S. policy toward Cuba and 
     to make recommendations that will improve this policy's 
     effectiveness to achieve our country's stated foreign policy 
     goals for Cuba.
       We recommend that the members of this Commission be 
     selected from a bipartisan list of distinguished Americans 
     who are experienced in the field of international relations. 
     These individuals should include representatives from a cross 
     section of U.S. interests including public health, military, 
     religion, human rights, business, and the Cuban American 
     community.
       The Commission's tasks should include the delineation of 
     the policy's specific achievements and the evaluation of 1) 
     the national security risk of Cuba to the United States and 
     the role of the Cuban government in international terrorism 
     and illegal drugs, 2) the indemnification of losses incurred 
     by U.S. certified claimants with confiscated property in 
     Cuba, and 3) the domestic and international impacts of the 36 
     year old U.S.-Cuba economic, trade and travel embargo on: a) 
     U.S. international relations with our foreign allies; b) the 
     political strength of Cuba's leader; c) the condition of 
     human rights, religious freedom, freedom of the press in 
     Cuba; d) the health and welfare of the Cuban people; e) the 
     Cuban economy; f) the U.S. economy, business, and jobs.
       More and more Americans from all sectors of our nation are 
     becoming concerned about the far-reaching effects of our 
     present U.S.-Cuba policy on United States interests and the 
     Cuban people. Your establishment of this National Bipartisan 
     Commission would demonstrate your leadership and 
     responsiveness to the American people.
       We strongly urge you to take immediate action on this 
     proposed initiative and we thank you in advance for your 
     thoughtful consideration.
       Sincerely,
         Senators Warner, Grams, Hagel, Jeffords, Enzi, Chafee, 
           Gordon Smith, Thomas, Kerrey, Bumpers, Santorum, Dodd, 
           Kempthorne, Roberts, Bond, Lugar, Leahy, Moynihan, 
           Specter, Reed, Cochran, Murray, Domenici, Boxer.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 13, 1998.
     Hon William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned, recommend that you 
     authorize the establishment of a National Bipartisan 
     Commission to review our current U.S.-Cuba policy. This 
     Commission would follow the precedent and work program of the 
     National Bipartisan Commission on Central America, (the 
     ``Kissinger Commission''), established by President Reagan in 
     1983, which made such a positive contribution to our foreign 
     policy in that troubled region over 15 years ago.
       We recommend this action because there has not been a 
     comprehensive review of U.S.-Cuba policy, or a measurement of 
     its effectiveness in achieving its stated goals, in over 38 
     years since President Eisenhower first canceled the sugar 
     quota on July 6, 1960 and President Kennedy imposed the first 
     total embargo on Cuba on February 7, 1962. Most recently, 
     Congress passed the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992 and the 
     Helms-Burton Act in 1996. Since the passage of both of these 
     bills there have been significant changes in the world 
     situation that warrant a review of our U.S.-Cuba policy 
     including the termination, in 1991, of billions of dollars of 
     annual Soviet economic assistance to Cuba, and the historic 
     visit of Pope John Paul II to Cuba in 1998.
       In addition, during the past 24 months numerous delegations 
     from the United States have visited Cuba, including current 
     and

[[Page S5392]]

     former Members of Congress, representatives from the American 
     Association of World Health, and former U.S. military 
     leaders. These authoritative groups have analyzed the 
     conditions and capabilities on the island and have presented 
     their findings in the areas of health, the economy, religious 
     freedom, human rights, and military capacity. Also, in May 
     1998, the Pentagon completed a study on the security risk of 
     Cuba to the United States.
       However, the findings and reports of these delegations, 
     including the study by the Pentagon, and the call by Pope 
     John Paul II for the opening of Cuba by the world, have not 
     been broadly reviewed by all U.S. policy makers. As Members 
     of the U.S. Senate, we believe it is in the best interest of 
     the United States, our allies, and the Cuban people to review 
     these issues.
       We therefore recommend that a ``National Bipartisan 
     Commission on Cuba'' be created to conduct a thoughtful, 
     rational, and objective analysis of our current U.S. policy 
     toward Cuba and its overall effect on this hemisphere. This 
     analysis would in turn help us shape and strengthen our 
     future relationship with Cuba.
       We recommend that the members of this Commission be 
     selected, like the ``Kissinger Commission'', from a 
     bipartisan list of distinguished Americans who are 
     experienced in the field of inter-national relations. These 
     individuals should include representatives from a cross 
     section of U.S. interests including public health, military, 
     religion, human rights, business, and the Cuban American 
     community. A bipartisan group of eight Members of Congress 
     would be appointed by the Congressional Leadership to serve 
     as counselors to the Commission.
       The Commission's tasks should include the delineation of 
     the policy's specific achievements and the evaluation of (1) 
     what national security risk Cuba poses to the United States 
     and an assessment of any role the Cuban government may play 
     in international terrorism and illegal drgus, (2) the 
     indemnification of losses incurred by U.S.-certified 
     claimants with confiscated property in Cuba, and (3) the 
     domestic and international impacts of the 36-year-old U.S.-
     Cuba economic, trade and travel embargo on: (a) U.S. 
     international relations with our foreign allies; (b) the 
     political strength of Cuba's leader; (c) the condition of 
     human rights, religious freedom, freedom of the press in 
     Cuba; (d) the health and welfare of the Cuban people; (e) the 
     Cuban economy; (f) the U.S. economy, business, and jobs.
       More and more Americans from all sectors of our nation are 
     becoming concerned about the far-reaching effects of our 
     present U.S.-Cuba policy on United States interests and the 
     Cuban people. Your establishment of this National Bipartisan 
     Commission would demonstrate your leadership and 
     responsiveness to the American people.
       We have enclosed a letter from former Secretary of State 
     Lawrence Eagleburger outlining his and other former top 
     officials support for the creation of such a commission. 
     Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.
           Sincerely
         Senator John W. Warner (R-VA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 
           Michael B. Enzi (R-WY), Gordon Smith (R-OR), J. Robert 
           Kerrey (D-NE), Rick Santorum (R-PA), Dirk Kempthorne 
           (R-ID), Christopher ``Kit'' Bond (R-MO), Rod Grams (R-
           MN), James M. Jeffords (R-VT), John H. Chafee (R-RI), 
           Craig Thomas (R-WY), Dale Bumpers (D-AR), Christopher 
           J. Dodd, (D-CT), Pat Roberts (R-KS)
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 11, 1998.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC
       Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned would like to join 
     our colleagues, who wrote to you on October 13th 1998 
     recommending that you authorize the establishment of a 
     National Bipartisan Commission to review our current U.S.-
     Cuba policy. This Commission would follow the precedent and 
     work program of The National Bipartisan Commission on Central 
     America, (the Kissinger Commission''), established by 
     President Reagan in 1983, which made such a positive 
     contribution to our foreign policy in that troubled region 
     over 15 years ago.
       We recommend this action because there has not been a 
     comprehensive review of U.S.-Cuba policy, or a measurement of 
     its effectiveness in achieving its stated goals, in over 38 
     years since President Eisenhower first canceled the sugar 
     quota on July 16, 1960 and President Kennedy imposed the 
     first total embargo on Cuba on February 7, 1962. Most 
     recently, Congress passed the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992 and 
     the Helms-Burton Act in 1996. Since the passage of both of 
     these bills there have been significant changes in the world 
     situation that warrant a review of our U.S.-Cuba policy 
     including the termination, in 1991, of billions of dollars of 
     annual Soviet economic assistance to Cuba, and the historic 
     visit of Pope John Paul II to Cuba in 1998.
       In addition, during the past 24 months numerous delegations 
     from the United States have visited Cuba, including current 
     and former Members of Congress, representatives from the 
     American Association of World Health, and former U.S. 
     military leaders. These authoritative groups have analyzed 
     the conditions and capabilities on the island and have 
     presented their findings in the areas of health, the economy, 
     religious freedom, human rights, and military capacity. Also, 
     in May 1998, the Pentagon completed a study on the security 
     risks of Cuba to the United States.
       However, the findings and reports of these delegations, 
     including the study by the Pentagon, and the call by Pope 
     John II for the opening of Cuba by the world, have not been 
     broadly revived by all U.S. policy makers. As Members of the 
     U.S. Senate, we believe it is in the best interest of the 
     United States, and the Cuban people to review these issues.
       We therefore recommend that a ``National Bipartisan 
     Commission on Cuba'' be created to conduct a thoughtful, 
     rational, and objective analysis of our current U.S. policy 
     toward Cuba and its overall effect on this hemisphere. This 
     analysis would in turn help us shape and strengthen our 
     future relationship with Cuba.
       We recommend that the members of this Commission be 
     selected, like the ``Kissinger Commission'', from a 
     bipartisan list of distinguished Americans who are 
     experienced in the field of inter-national relations. These 
     individuals should include representatives from a cross 
     section of U.S. interests including public health, military, 
     religion, human rights, business, and the Cuban American 
     community. A bipartisan group of eight Members of Congress 
     would be appointed by the Congressional Leadership to serve 
     as counselors to the Commission.
       The Commission's tasks should include the delineation of 
     the policy's specific achievements and the evaluation of (1) 
     what national security risk Cuba poses to the United States 
     and an assessment of any role the Cuban government may play 
     in international terrorism and illegal drugs, (2) the 
     indemnification of losses incurred by U.S.-certified 
     claimants with confiscated property in Cuba, and (3) the 
     domestic and international impacts of the 36-year-old U.S.-
     Cuba economic, trade and travel embargo on: (a) U.S. 
     international relations with our foreign allies; (b) the 
     political strength of Cuba's leader; (c) the condition of 
     human rights, religious freedom, freedom of the press in 
     Cuba; (d) the health and welfare of the Cuban people; (e) the 
     Cuban economy; (f) the U.S. economy, business, and jobs.
       More and more Americans from all sectors of our nation are 
     becoming concerned about the far-reaching effects of our 
     present U.S.-Cuba policy on United States interests and the 
     Cuban people. Your establishment of this National Bipartisan 
     Commission would demonstrate your leadership and 
     responsiveness to the American people.
       We have enclosed a letter from former Secretary of State, 
     Lawrence Eagleburger outlining his and other former top 
     officials support for the creation of such a commission. 
     Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Jack 
           Reed (D-RI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Pete V. Domenici (R-
           NM), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Arlen Specter (R-
           PA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
                                  ____

                                                Hoover Institution


                                 on War, Revolution and Peace,

                                                 October 20, 1998.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As Former Secretary of State in the 
     Reagan Administration I was proud to be a part of the 
     successful effort that brought about the downfall of 
     communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
       Today we have another opportunity to expand democracy in 
     the world and to rid our hemisphere of the last bastion of 
     communism. To do this the United States needs to review and 
     analyze its current foreign policy toward Cuba. This analysis 
     can most effectively be conducted by the National bipartisan 
     Commission proposed by my colleagues and by Senator Warner in 
     his letter to you of October 13, 1998.
       This Commission, like the National Bipartisan Commission on 
     Central America authorized by President Reagan in 1983, would 
     conduct an objective analysis of our current foreign policy 
     and would provide your Administration and the Congress, 
     critically important insights needed to improve the policy's 
     effectiveness in achieving its stated foreign policy goals. 
     The formation of this Commission is in the best interest of 
     the United States and its conclusions and recommendations 
     will provide the greatest opportunity for our country to 
     determine the most effective ways to assist the Cuban people 
     in their struggle to achieve increased freedom and self-
     determination and to prepare them for the transition to 
     democracy.
       I therefore join with my colleagues, who have devoted most 
     of their professional careers to fighting communism, and 
     strongly support and endorse Senator Warner's request to you 
     to authorize the establishment of a National Bipartisan 
     Commission to review U.S.-Cuban policy.
           Sincerely yours,
     George P. Shultz.
                                  ____



             Department of Social Development and World Peace,

                                                 October 21, 1998.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner, I write to commend you, and the other 
     Senators who have

[[Page S5393]]

     joined with you, in urging the President to authorize the 
     establishment of a Bipartisan Commission on U.S.-Cuban 
     relations. In recent years, voices of respected and 
     influential leaders in many different fields have been raised 
     to express dissatisfaction with aspects of our present policy 
     toward Cuba. The Catholic Bishops of this country, through 
     our national body, the United States Catholic Conference, 
     have long shared this view that our policy has the need, in 
     the words of the Holy Father last January, ``to change, to 
     change.''
       We are sympathetic with the sense of frustration that many 
     in our government experience as they search for some signs 
     from Cuba that its government is prepared seriously to engage 
     the United States and to address its valid concerns about 
     basic freedoms and respect for human rights. But as they 
     search in vain for such signs, untold numbers of our Cuban 
     brothers and sisters continue to suffer intolerable 
     deprivation and hardships, both spiritual and material. As a 
     society, we must find ways to change the present unacceptable 
     Status quo and move confidently toward a new policy.
       The Creation of a National Bipartisan Commission would well 
     prove the needed catalyst for moving us toward that goal. I 
     thank you and your colleagues for this initiative and pray 
     that it prosper.
           Sincerely yours,
     Most Reverend Theodore E. McCarrick,
       Archbishop of Newark, Chairman, Committee on International 
     Policy, United States Catholic Conference.
                                  ____



                                      Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 1998.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President, The White House, Washington, DC.

     Re: the Proposed National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba.

       Dear President Clinton: As an American who has served in 
     cabinet and subcabinet positions of four U.S. presidents, I 
     have seen firsthand the influence of U.S. foreign policy 
     throughout the world, its effects on the governments and 
     citizens of foreign countries, and its reciprocal effects on 
     the U.S. economy, businesses and jobs. I have also seen the 
     use of unilateral sanctions grow into becoming a long-
     standing tool of U.S. foreign policy to be employed against 
     foreign governments and their leaders whose behavior the U.S. 
     Government finds unacceptable.
       Cuba is one of those countries where U.S. sanctions have 
     been employed, in their case for nearly 40 years, including a 
     total economic embargo which has been unilateral for over 36 
     years. The stated purpose of these sanctions and the embargo 
     is to bring down the communist government bring freedom and 
     self-determination to the Cuban people, and to prepare them 
     for a transition to democracy. Now nearly four decades later, 
     the communist government is still in place, the Cuban people 
     have very few freedoms, and the country is now recovering 
     from the departure, in 1991, of the Soviet Union and its five 
     billion dollars of annual aid and assistance.
       I therefore welcome Senator Warner's request to your 
     Administration to establish a National Bipartisan Commission 
     to review U.S.-Cuba policy, and I respectfully join former 
     Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and his distinguished 
     colleagues in support of Senator Warner and his Senate 
     colleagues' request.
       The establishment of this Commission will conduct a long 
     overdue objective analysis of our current Cuba policy and we 
     can look forward to the Commission producing recommendations 
     that will improve the overall effectiveness of our U.S.-Cuba 
     policy so we might more effectively achieve our country's 
     stated goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Clayton Yeutter.

  That suggested the course of this commission be established as a way 
to try to sort out how best to establish a better relationship with the 
11 million people who live 90 miles off our shore.
  Further, highly respected human rights advocates who remain in Cuba--
those dissidents who remain in Cuba and subject themselves every day to 
the difficulties of living under a dictatorship--seeking to promote 
political change have called upon the United States to rethink our 
policy when it comes to Cuba. Elizardo Sanchez, President of the Cuban 
Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation, sent a letter 
in April of this year urging the United States to change its policies. 
He wrote:

       It is unfortunate that the government of Cuba still clings 
     to an outdated and inefficient model that I believe is the 
     fundamental cause of the great difficulties that the Cuban 
     people suffer, but it is obvious that the current Cold War 
     climate between our two governments and unilateral sanctions 
     will continue to fuel the fire of totalitarianism in my 
     country.

  That is from a letter from dissidents inside Cuba talking about how 
to create change there.
  There is a double standard when it comes to Cuba. A number of other 
countries are far more of a threat to U.S. national security and 
antithetical to U.S. foreign policy interests. Yet our sanctions 
against Cuba are among the harshest. We have concerns about nuclear 
proliferation with respect to India, Pakistan, Iran, China, and North 
Korea. Yet Americans may travel freely to each and every one of those 
nations. In fact, Americans are free to travel to many countries that I 
would not consider to be bastions of democracy: Iran, Sudan, Burma, the 
former Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia, to mention a few.
  We have just entered a new millennium and the United States has moved 
in most areas to bring U.S. policy into line with the new realities of 
the 21st century. On the Korean peninsula, North Korean and South 
Korean leaders met last week in a historic summit which will hopefully 
pave the way to reconciliation and reunification for two countries that 
fought a bloody and costly war in the last century. To encourage that 
effort, the Clinton administration announced it was prepared to lift 
sanctions against one of our oldest adversaries.
  With respect to China, the United States has a number of deeply 
serious disagreements with that Government, including workers' rights, 
respect for human rights, nuclear proliferation and economic policies, 
hostility towards Taiwan--the list goes on. Yet the United States has 
full diplomatic relationships with Beijing. Moreover, I predict the 
Senate will soon follow the House and support permanent normal trade 
relations with China, thereby clearing the way for its entry into the 
World Trade Organization.
  Let us talk about Vietnam. The Vietnam conflict left an indelible 
mark on the American psyche. Just a few blocks from here, the names of 
53,000 Americans who lost their lives in that country are listed on a 
wall. Yet today a Vietnam veteran and former Congressman, Pete 
Peterson, represents U.S. interests in Vietnam as U.S. Ambassador. 
American citizens are free to travel and do business there. We have 
learned to somehow change and move forward. Do we agree with the 
policies of Vietnam? No. Do we agree with what is going on in China? 
No. Do we agree with what is going on in North Korea? No, obviously 
not. But we are seeking in the 21st century to try to move 
these nations in the right direction. We don't do it by isolation. We 
don't do it by creating a Berlin Wall off the coast of Florida between 
our two countries. We do it by contact, by communication, by engaging. 
Those are the ways we create change. We have seen that in place after 
place all over the globe.

  Around the world, old adversaries are attempting to reconcile their 
differences: in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, and the Korean 
peninsula. The United States has actively been promoting such efforts 
because we think it is in our national interest to do so.
  I ask a simple question: Isn't it time that we at least took an 
honest and dispassionate look at our relations with a country in our 
own hemisphere, 90 miles off our shores, where 11 million good people, 
not Communists but good people, are living under extremely difficult 
circumstances? Isn't it in our interest and the interest of the 11 
million people there to try and see if we can't begin some new way to 
bring about change in that country other than following the 40 years of 
isolation that is still the centerpiece of the U.S.-Cuban relationship?
  Opponents of this measure point to the fact that Cuba remains on the 
terrorist list. Why? Because, according to a 1999 State Department 
report on global terrorism, Cuba ``continued to provide a safe haven to 
several terrorists and U.S. fugitives . . . and it maintained ties to 
other state sponsors of terrorism and Latin American insurgents.''
  Castro's biggest crime last year, according to this report, appears 
to be that he hosted a series of meetings between the Colombian 
Government officials and the ELN, a Colombian guerrilla organization. 
Rather curious in light of the fact that the United States publicly 
supports President Pastrana's efforts to undertake a political dialog 
with the guerrilla organizations in that country as a means of ending 
the civil conflict in Colombia.
  The same report found that Islamic extremists from around the world 
continued to use Afghanistan as a training

[[Page S5394]]

ground and base of operation for their worldwide terrorist activities. 
Usama Bin Ladin, the Saudi terrorist indicted for the 1998 bombing of 
two U.S. Embassies in Africa, continues to be given sanctuary by that 
country. Yet Afghanistan is not on the terrorist list. There are no 
prohibitions on the sale of food or medicine to that country. Americans 
can travel freely to that country.
  Last week, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing to review 
the findings of the National Commission on Terrorism. During the course 
of that hearing, Paul Bremer, the chairman of the commission, admitted 
that Cuba's behavior with respect to terrorist matters had improved 
over the past 4 years. In fact, it is the only country, he said, that 
has shown any improvement.
  I ask the question again: Isn't it time we start to measure our Cuban 
policy against the same yardstick that we measure our relations with 
the rest of the nations of the world? Isn't it time we follow a policy 
that is truly in our national interest, one that promotes positive 
relations with the 11 million people who live on the island of Cuba, 
and one that promotes a peaceful change in self-determination for a 
proud people who have been done a huge disservice and injustice by the 
Castro regime?
  Many of my colleagues have told me privately that they believe 
Senator Warner and I are on the right course. I appreciate those kind 
words. I also hope the time has finally come for them to stand up and 
be counted on this issue.

  This is an important question. This is not a radical idea. It is not 
a revolutionary idea. We form commissions all the time in order to get 
some distance between the politics of an issue and the dispassionate 
view of people who can bring knowledge and ideas and experience. I 
don't think that Henry Kissinger or George Shultz or Frank Carlucci or 
Howard Baker are Castro supporters--hardly. But they do understand that 
it is in the interest of the United States for us to try and move 
beyond the present wall that distances us from these people as we seek 
a change in our policy.
  That is all this commission is proposing to do. It doesn't say that 
anyone has to agree with the recommendations or vote for them. It 
doesn't bind the Senate. It merely says, as we begin a new 
administration, why not have the benefit of the solid thinking of 
people who dedicate their lives to addressing foreign policy issues? 
Why should we be allowed to travel to Libya, to open up relations with 
Iran, to have relationships with Vietnam? Maybe some don't think we 
ought to do any of those. That I would understand. But for people here 
to tell me it is OK to have normal relationships with China and Vietnam 
and to promote lifting sanctions in North Korea and talk about moving 
to have a relationship with Iran, and then simultaneously tell me we 
can't even form a commission to analyze whether or not we could do a 
better job resolving the differences between our two peoples, does not 
make a great deal of sense to me.
  I will put up, for the benefit of our colleagues, this little chart. 
I know people use charts all the time. This is the last couple of 
weeks. They are photographs that have appeared in national newspapers. 
The picture at the top is the two leaders of North and South Korea, 
meeting just a week or so ago to resolve differences. The next picture 
is our own Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, meeting with Yasser 
Arafat. If you met with him 10 years ago or you even talked to the guy, 
you were in political jeopardy. Now we welcome him and embrace him at 
the White House as we try to resolve differences in the Middle East.
  The picture on the further side is the Prime Minister of Great 
Britain and the Prime Minister of Ireland signing the accords that may 
bring about the end of years of hostility in Northern Ireland. The 
bottom is the President and the leader of the People's Republic of 
China. These are examples of what can happen with creative engagement. 
If there was a policy in South Korea that said we could never talk to 
anybody in North Korea, that photograph would not appear. What if we 
said, despite any of the efforts to bring about peace in the Middle 
East, no one could meet or talk about meeting with the Palestinians or 
Northern Ireland or in China? All I am asking is, why don't we try 
something a little different when it comes to the island of Cuba, and 
see if we can't create the kind of change that is reflected in these 
photographs of the 21st century. That is what this amendment is 
designed to do. It is a bipartisan effort.

  Again, the list of our colleagues I have recited demonstrates that 
people on both sides of the aisle care about this very much and made 
recommendations some years ago that we move in this direction. Again, 
distinguished former administration officials--Republican as well as 
Democratic administrations--indicate the sound thinking, in my view, 
across the board when it comes to the establishment of such a 
commission.
  Again, I know you are going to hear a lot about how bad the Castro 
government is, and I am not going to disagree. They are. I am not here 
to stand up and tell you I think that is a good government. It is not. 
I would not last 5 minutes there. It is repressive, a dictatorship, and 
the things they do to their own people are outrageous. But we have 
found a way to break new ground, to at least reach out. That is all I 
am asking for today--a commission to try to reach out with some new 
ideas with one nation in our hemisphere, which is a shorter distance 
from our shores than it is from here to Hagerstown, MD. Let's see if we 
can improve the relationship.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I begin by saying to my friend, Senator 
Dodd, how much I appreciate his comments at the beginning of his speech 
to the Senate. I appreciate the relationship we have developed. 
Certainly, one of the things I will truly miss as I leave the Senate at 
the end of this year is the relationships that have been developed and 
the opportunity to expand on those relationships with others. Again, it 
has been a delight. However, we do have very strong differences of 
opinion on this issue.
  I will begin by pointing at the chart that has been put up next to 
Senator Dodd. There is one very fundamental difference. Each of those 
leaders reached out; they wanted to bring about change. We have seen 
absolutely, positively none of that from Fidel Castro. There is no 
indication--not an iota of evidence--that Fidel Castro wants to change.
  Later today, we will be voting on this amendment to the Defense 
Department authorization bill, which is designed to establish a 
commission to review and report on the United States policy toward 
Cuba.
  I have spoken with many colleagues recently about this amendment and 
the idea of forming a commission. I understand from some Senators that 
they have concerns that they want a chance to discuss regarding Cuba. 
But the goal of those Senators seems to be either broad sanctions 
reform or the enactment of specific changes in our policies toward 
Cuba. But today we are debating an amendment on forming a 
commission. This commission is blatantly political, in my opinion, so 
much so that no serious effort can come from a commission designed to 
be so skewed. This commission accomplishes nobody's goal.

  Let me make three points: First, we don't need a national commission 
to study only Cuba sanctions; second, we should not tie the hands of 
the next President to set his own Cuba policy; and, third, we should 
not set policy through a partisan commission outside of the normal 
conduct of foreign policy by the executive branch.
  The legislation on which you are being asked to vote establishes a 
12-person panel to review and report on various aspects of Cuba policy. 
But this is why we have a Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, an 
International Relations Committee in the House, and a U.S. Department 
of State. Why are we making Government bigger and more expensive than 
it needs to be? Especially, as my friend from Connecticut has argued, 
this amendment does not take a position or implement a policy.

[[Page S5395]]

  Let me highlight a few of the details. This commission is appointed 
as follows--and, again, I note that my friend indicated this is not a 
partisan issue, but we who have been around here for a long time all 
know these issues end up being influenced by politics.
  What we are going to have is a commission of 12 people, 6 appointed 
by the current President. The current President will put six members on 
a commission to tell the next President what his policy toward Cuba 
should be. And there will be three from each House--two majority, one 
minority. That means two-thirds of the commission would be appointed by 
Democrats; that is, 8 of the 12 members of the commission would be 
appointed by Democrats. One-third, that is, four members of the 
commission, would be Republicans. That is not the way to set foreign 
policy.
  Our current policy, set by the State Department and the President, 
has been endorsed by the Congress over the years with significant 
legislation. The only reason for this special commission is to try to 
change current policy through abnormal means.
  Let me talk for a moment about American foreign policy in general. I 
hear the rhetoric often that, after 39 years, clearly, our Cuba policy 
has not brought democracy to Cuba and therefore it must be abandoned as 
a failure. Think about that argument for a moment. What if Ronald 
Reagan had come into office and declared in 1980: After 40 years, since 
there is no democracy in the Soviet Union, our Soviet policy must be 
abandoned?
  Reagan did the opposite. He had the courage to call the Soviet Union 
what it was, an ``evil empire.'' His courage and commitment brought 
democratic reform to Russia. America's foreign policy must reflect 
America's commitment to the principles we believe in: freedom, 
democracy, justice, and respect for human dignity.
  My friend from Connecticut has stated that the policy is aimed at one 
man, Fidel Castro, but it denies basic necessities to the entire 11 
million people of Cuba. The reality is that Cuba can purchase goods 
from the entire world. By closing the American market to Cuba, we are 
denying the people nothing. Fidel Castro keeps Cuba poor, not the 
United States embargo.
  By maintaining the current policy, however, of isolating Fidel 
Castro, we are doing as a Nation what we have done for so many 
generations: We are standing shoulder to shoulder with people 
struggling for freedom. We are standing for truth and dignity and 
supporting heroes when we oppose Fidel Castro and deny him the means to 
build up his resources.

  Since trade has been an important issue of discussion lately given 
the pending vote on trade with China, perhaps some more detail would be 
helpful on the differences between China and Cuba.
  Simply stated, China began policy changes and economic reforms as 
early as 1978. Today, they continue to open their economy, seek 
engagement in the community of nations, and look for investment and 
trade.
  Let me tell you about Cuba. I will provide details from a study 
conducted by the University of Miami: Cuba does not permit trade 
independent from the state; most of Cuba's exportable products to the 
United States are produced by Cuban state-run enterprises with workers 
being paid near slave wages; many of these products would compete 
unfairly with United States agriculture and manufactured products, or 
with other products imported from the democratic countries of the 
Caribbean into the United States; Cuba does not permit individual 
freedom in economic matters; investments in Cuba are directed and 
approved by the Government of Cuba; it is illegal for foreign investors 
to hire or fire Cuban workers directly and the Cuban Ministry of Labor 
does the hiring; foreign companies must pay the wages owed to their 
employees directly to the Cuban Government in hard currency; the Cuban 
Government then pays the workers in Cuban pesos, worth one-twentieth of 
a dollar, and the Government pockets 90 percent of the wages paid in by 
the investor; Cuba has no independent judicial system to settle 
commercial disputes.
  In short, Fidel Castro has failed to make any of the changes made by 
Beijing. An investment in China today can empower a Chinese middle 
class and move power away from the center. An investment in Cuba today 
benefits Fidel Castro and disadvantages the 11 million people 
struggling for freedom. It is that simple.
  As recently as 1997, Fidel Castro argued against the wisdom of 
economic reforms and reasserted the supremacy of Communist ideology. In 
addition, political parties remain outlawed. Dissidents are either 
exiled, banished to the far reaches of the island, or simply 
imprisoned. The church continues to complain that the promises made 
during the Pope's visit have not been complied with. The daily 
activities of the average Cuban citizen continue to be monitored by the 
state's notorious ``neighborhood watch committees,'' known as the 
Committee for the Defense of the Revolution. These have been in place 
for 40 years and continue in place today. Amnesty International counts 
at least 400 prisoners of conscience, but this does not include the 
thousands convicted under trumped up charges for political purposes.
  I am not simply arguing ideology here today. We have empirical 
evidence of the failure of the policy recommendation to trade with 
Cuba; we need only to look at Canada's recent experiences. After 
arguing for a policy of opening trade with Cuba, our neighbors to the 
North are now pulling out. I will quote from The Globe and Mail of June 
30, 1999:

       The Canadian government had hoped that investing directly 
     in the Cuban economy by building plants and infrastructure 
     would not only deliver an economic return, but also lead to 
     wider-ranging reforms. Those hopes have been largely dashed 
     as Canadian companies report woeful tales of pouring good 
     money into bad investments in Cuba.

  Mr. President, policies of so-called engagement with Castro have 
failed for those who have tried. We all shared great hope when the Pope 
visited Cuba in January 1998. The United States promised to respond 
positively to any changes made by the Castro regime following the 
Pope's visit. We expected to see more space for the Cuban people: 
freedom of speech and more freedom of religious expression. We know now 
that even these hopes have been dashed. The Pope just last December 
expressed his disappointment in the changes in Cuba. A December 2, 1999 
Reuters wire story reports,

       The clear wording of the Pope's speech indicated that the 
     Vatican felt that not much has changed on the predominantly 
     Catholic island in two years.

  We know that President Reagan's wisdom remains true--after 39 years 
of isolating Cuba, we must not fear calling things as we see them. 
Fidel Castro is an evil tyrant. He impoverishes the Cuban people in 
spite of the efforts of many to open the society to freedom and the 
economy to investment. Fidel Castro denies his people the basic 
necessities for life, liberty, and happiness.
  Mr. President, I do not object to evaluating our policies, but we 
must be honest, this is not the way. When Cuba changes, the United 
States must also change. Until then, we must remain committed to our 
principles, because it is our principles which make us strong. No 
missile system, no fleet of warships, will keep the United States the 
shining city on the hill--the beacon of freedom which we all saw when 
Ronald Reagan was President. I hope that my colleagues will join me. 
And I hope that they will stand with me for freedom. stand with me for 
democracy, stand with me for justice, and stand with me for respect for 
the human dignity of the 11 million people in Cuba.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague 
from Florida for his leadership. He has been stalwart over the years he 
has been a Senator from the State of Florida, as well as a Congressman, 
in his efforts to bring the end to the Castro regime. I applaud his 
leadership on that issue. We will miss him when he leaves the Senate.
  This amendment establishes a commission on U.S. Cuban policy. The 
problem is it is totally irrelevant to the underlying legislation. It 
is an important issue, no question. But this deals with a controversial 
foreign policy matter, not a defense matter. It doesn't belong on the 
Defense authorization bill where we are funding programs that are vital 
to our national security. This is just one more issue that

[[Page S5396]]

comes before the Senate and causes heartburn for all who are trying to 
get a Defense authorization bill passed.
  I know it is of great frustration to the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Warner, who is a strong and steadfast supporter of the fine men 
and women in our Armed Forces. We have the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee; we have the House International Relations Committee. They 
are composed of Members who have been duly elected, as we were, by the 
American people. It is their responsibility to examine United States 
policy toward Cuba. I think those committees have done a commendable 
job in overseeing U.S. Cuban policy.
  This administration has had almost 8 years to reexamine or redirect, 
if they so choose, a policy towards Cuba. Why a commission now, in the 
twilight hours of the administration, providing 8-4 representation of 
the President's party to ``reexamine U.S. policy toward Cuba''? As the 
Senator from Florida said, it is political. Why should this 
administration, with 6 months left, tie the hands of the next 
administration, whatever that administration is?
  As the Senator from Connecticut said on the floor last Friday, the 
commission is supposed to take a new look at Cuba because the Senator 
believes current policy is not working. That leaves me to suspect that 
this commission is stacked and will have a predetermined outcome based 
on its flawed composition. We can make that case. I believe its 
objective is to support lifting the embargo originally supported by 
John F. Kennedy but given teeth by passage of the Helms-Burton law, 
signed by President Clinton. President Clinton wants to open relations 
now with Castro, appoint six members of the commission and, for the 
minority, two more. It is pretty obvious what the objective is.
  I don't understand how the Senator from Connecticut could have so 
vigorously supported economic sanctions against South Africa, because 
of apartheid, but believes we should lift sanctions against Communist 
Cuba. As a matter of fact, Jeff Jacoby, in an article in the Boston 
Globe in 1998, said it best when talking about those who support this 
lifting of the embargo:

       When they looked at the Filipino dictatorship, America's 
     foreign policy said, ``Marcos must go.''
       When they look at Chilean dictatorship, they said, 
     ``Pinochet must go.''
       When they looked at the Haitian dictatorship, they said, 
     ``Cedros must go.''
       Of Zaire they say, ``Mobutu must go.'' Of South Africa they 
     said, ``Apartheid must go.'' Of Burma they say, ``SLORC'' 
     (as the dictatorship is called) must go. Of East Timor 
     they say, ``The Indonesian occupiers must go.''
       But of Cuba, which bleeds under the bitterest and most 
     implacable tyrannies on the planet, they say: The U.S. 
     embargo must go.

  You can't say it much better than that.
  The Senator from Connecticut believes the embargo has impoverished 
Cubans. This is the old ``blame America'' argument. It is Castro who 
impoverished Cuba, no one else. We know that. Cuba trades with the rest 
of the world and its economy is still a basket case. That is because 
the Soviet Union is no longer in existence and no longer propping them 
up. The Senator from Connecticut says U.S. policy should not be focused 
on one individual. But it is that individual who dictated that trade 
with Cuba could only be conducted with himself and its ruling elite--no 
one else. So it is Castro who is the issue.
  Cuba, according to the standards of the Department of State, is a 
state cosponsor of international terrorism. Why should America reward a 
declared terrorist nation by reconsidering our appropriate tough stance 
toward Fidel Castro and its cruel regime? Cuba is a major international 
trafficker of illegal drugs, drugs which fuel crime in this country, 
spousal and child abuse in this country, and other social ills in 
America which result in the deaths of some 14,000 young people every 
year.
  Congressman Ben Gilman, who chairs the International Relations 
Committee, called for a thorough investigation of Cuba's link to drug 
trade, noting seizure of 7.5 metric tons of cocaine consigned from 
Cuba.
  I don't understand the logic of this issue, aside from the fact it is 
on the wrong legislation.
  Our Drug Enforcement Administration testified that such a massive 
shipment did not represent the first time Cuba was involved in 
transiting illegal drugs. Regrettably, despite this enormous seizure, 
the administration declined to include Cuba as a major drug transit 
nation. Imagine, declining to include 7.5 metric tons of cocaine from 
Cuba, and yet we didn't see fit to list them as a major drug transit 
nation.
  We don't need a taxpayers' subsidized commission to figure out what 
is wrong with Cuba. We have plenty of evidence, and it is Fidel Castro. 
The State Department lists Cuba in its annual State Department country 
reports on human rights practices, citing the deplorable record of 
abuse by the Castro regime. Amnesty International has condemned Cuba's 
human rights violations.
  Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned Cuba 
for the eighth time for its systematic violation of human rights.
  Let's not forget something that is very important, which I do not 
think anyone else will bring up here today but I will. It has been 
stuck in my craw for a long time. That is how Cuba treated American 
POWs during the Vietnam war. I want to get into a little bit of detail 
because these people who did this are still free in Cuba, still have 
the opportunity to conduct their lives as usual. We have never brought 
them to justice.
  From August 1967 until August 1968, a small detachment of Cubans, 
under the direct leadership of Fidel Castro, brutally tortured a select 
group of American POWs at a POW camp on the outskirts of Hanoi known as 
the Zoo, appropriately named. The goal of this Cuban detachment was 
most likely to test new domination techniques and involved a 
combination of brutal physical torture and cruel psychological 
pressure.
  During the first phase of this program, 10 American POWs were 
selected and separated from the remainder of the prison population. The 
POWs were then unmercifully beaten and tortured in ways I will not even 
discuss here on the floor of the Senate they were so bad. Other 
prisoners were often forced to watch what the Cubans did, torturing 
their cellmates. Despite their heroic efforts, by Christmas all 10 POWs 
were broken.
  Not satisfied with breaking the 10 American POWs, the Cubans began to 
select a second group of POWs in early 1968 and the torture started 
again. John Hubbell, in his classic study of the POW experience in 
Vietnam, described one of the Cuban's victims:

       The man could barely walk; he shuffled slowly, painfully. 
     His clothes were torn to shreds. He was bleeding everywhere, 
     terribly swollen, and a dirty, yellowish black and purple 
     from head to toe . . . his body was ripped and torn 
     everywhere; hell cuffs appeared almost to have severed the 
     wrists, strap marks still wound around the arms all the way 
     to the shoulders, slivers of bamboo were embedded in the 
     bloodied shins and there were what appeared to be tread marks 
     from a hose across the chest, back and legs.

  That POW later died as a result of his torture, and those individuals 
who did that still survive in Cuba. They still have not been brought to 
justice. We will lift the embargo right after we find out who those 
people were and we bring them to justice, Mr. President, with all due 
respect. The Cuban program ended in 1968. The North Vietnamese 
continued to utilize the barbaric methods that the Cubans taught them 
under the direction of Fidel Castro. They learned their torture well.
  Who were these barbarians? Only Castro knows for certain. We should 
also demand that the Cuban murderers of the ``Brothers to the Rescue,'' 
unarmed civilian American pilots whom President Clinton promised would 
be punished in 1996, be brought to justice as well.
  In Castro's Cuba, the Code for Children, Youth, and Family, provides 
for a 3-year prison sentence for any parent who teaches a child an idea 
contrary to communism. Imagine that, a 3-year prison sentence for any 
parent who teaches a child ideas contrary to communism. The code states 
that no Cuban parent has a right to ``deform'' the ideology of his 
children. And the State is the true ``father.''
  That is parental rights, Cuban style. Welcome back to Cuba, Elian.
  At the age of 12, children are separated from their parents for 
mandatory service in a work camp. According to the renowned Cuban 
dissident Armando Valladares, children in these camps

[[Page S5397]]

suffer from venereal diseases and teen pregnancies which inevitably end 
in forced abortions.
  You know what. We don't need a commission to figure this stuff out. 
We know what is going on. The best way to bring it down is to keep the 
pressure on Castro.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 40 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will in a moment yield to my colleague 
from North Dakota to share some thoughts. Let me briefly respond to 
some of the statements that have been made here.
  First of all, if we follow the same sort of logic that has been just 
suggested here, President Nixon never should have gone to China when 
there was hardly any freedom, when even free market principles were not 
thought of at the time. I suppose President Carter should not even have 
thought about the Camp David accords, given the reputation of the PLO. 
This body, under the leadership of John McCain and John Kerry, should 
not even have thought about normalizing relations with Vietnam, if we 
had followed the logic just suggested. When it comes to how we 
establish relations and reach out, I suspect we wouldn't have had 
General MacArthur in Japan, and we would not be working with people in 
Germany. The list goes on.
  Certainly to go back and recite the horrors of war and those who 
violated the Geneva accords when it comes to the treatment of POWs--I 
will not take a back seat to anybody in my abhorrence of what goes on.
  What we are talking about is a commission to take a look at Cuban-
U.S. policy. My colleagues who oppose this may want to say this is 
somehow lifting the embargo. I do think we ought to change policies. I 
think we ought to move in that direction. But I know full well I am not 
in a majority in that view in this Chamber. There are plenty of others 
who do not think we ought to do that but who support the idea of a 
commission to take a look at policy and how we might improve things.
  We did this in other places. We did it under the Reagan 
administration in Central America; it was the Kissinger commission. We 
certainly had a Foreign Relations Committee there. In fact, the Foreign 
Relations Committee was at that time controlled by the majority party 
today. Yet a commission was established to take a look at how we might 
resolve and extricate ourselves from the conflict in Central America.
  Today, under the leadership of Senator Helms and the majority of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, we have a Commission on Terrorism. That is 
not because we don't have a Foreign Relations Committee or an 
Intelligence Committee. The thought was that we ought to step back a 
little bit and take a look at the issue of terrorism and recommend some 
policy ideas, how we might do a better job. I hope I do not have to go 
down the long list of commissions that have been established because 
people thought that made sense as a vehicle to determine new ideas.
  I do not like this amendment on this bill either, frankly. I wish it 
were not on DOD. But I would not pick this one out. We have adopted 
some 45 amendments that have nothing to do with the DOD bill. They have 
been agreed to by the majority. If you are going to establish a rule 
that nothing is included unless it is relevant, you better go back and 
undo 50 percent of the bill.
  I make the case this is more relevant than a lot of stuff on this 
bill because we are dealing with a national security issue that could 
become a serious problem. If you end up with great civil conflict in 
Cuba in a post-Castro period, where do you think the people are going 
to go? They are not going to travel to Colombia. They are not going to 
Mexico. They are not going to Europe. They are coming 90 miles to this 
country. Then we may look back and say: A commission and some ideas 
that might have abated that potential problem from occurring might have 
made some sense.
  That is all the suggestion is here, to try to come up with some ideas 
that might ease potential problems that many people believe are coming 
down the line.
  I don't want to keep reiterating the point. I do not believe the 
people I listed before, as ones supporting this commission, would 
necessarily believe this is somehow agreeing with Castro's policies in 
Cuba. When you go down the list of people such as George Shultz and 
Frank Carlucci and Malcolm Wallop--maybe people know something I don't 
know, but those people support a commission. Do you think Howard Baker 
is a supporter of terrorism? George Shultz thinks that Cubans were 
involved in dreadful acts against POWs but somehow does not care about 
that issue? I do not think so. Henry Kissinger and Frank Carlucci have 
somehow gone soft on the issues? I don't think so. They feel as 
strongly about it today as they have over the years. This does not tie 
our hands, a commission. This issue is not divided along partisan 
lines.
  Does this President show partisanship when he asks John Danforth and 
Howard Baker to look at such issues as Los Alamos or the FBI conduct at 
Waco? Those are the people he appointed to a commission. I am talking 
about serious people who know something about making a recommendation 
to Congress. That is all it is. Some are trying to create a monster out 
of a commission, suggesting somehow this is contrary to our interest. 
It is in our interest to do it.
  I am saddened, in a way, that my colleagues who disagree with me 
specifically on the issues might find some merit in the idea of doing 
this. This ought not be a place where it is seen as somehow anti one 
particular group or another. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, the 
commission would not be a bona fide commission, in my view, if it did 
not include people who disagree or who agree with the present policies.
  Certainly, the Cuban American community, the exile community, for 
whom I have the highest respect--what has happened to them and their 
families is dreadful and deplorable. My view is our policy ought not to 
be determined in the United States by any small particular group. It is 
what is in the U.S. interest, not the interest of some group in our 
country. It should be in everyone's interest. The commission, in my 
view, will help us provide road signs and guidance on how we ought to 
proceed.
  Lastly, with regard to the drug issue--and I pointed out a week ago--
drug czar Barry McCaffrey has absolved the Cuban Government of 
allegations that it is involved in the drug trade and has called for 
greater cooperation with Cuba on drug policy. I do not think Gen. Barry 
McCaffrey is somehow weak when it comes to communism or drug issues. He 
has been as tough a drug czar as this country has had. Those are his 
views. In fact, he encouraged the idea that there be greater 
cooperation. We can never get that if one listens to the debate. It 
might make a difference.
  Despite assertions by Castro's opponents in the United States that 
the Cuban Government and Castro personally are involved in the drug 
trade, the UN International Drug Control Program, the U.S. Drug 
Enforcement Administration, and Gen. Barry McCaffrey's office reject 
the claim. ``There is no evidence of Cuban government `complicity with 
drug crime.' '' That is a quotation from Gen. Barry McCaffrey.
  The allegations about that are ludicrous. If one wants to be against 
the commission, be against the commission but do not raise issues that 
have nothing to do with the establishment of a commission which may 
help sort this out and avoid the very partisan bickering this issue has 
provoked over the years.
  I have spoken longer than intended. My colleague is here, and I yield 
5 minutes to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
Senator Dodd from Connecticut. Fidel Castro has no supporters in the 
Senate. I deplore the miserable human rights record of the Government 
of Cuba and the lack of freedom that is accorded the folks who live in 
Cuba. I deplore the conditions that have persuaded and forced so many 
people to leave Cuba. So there is no support for the Castro regime in 
the Senate. That is not the issue.

[[Page S5398]]

  The issue is an amendment that is a small step in the right direction 
to create a commission that will evaluate a series of things with 
respect to this country's policy about Cuba.
  The commission will look for the development of a national consensus. 
I say to my colleague from Connecticut, I frankly think a consensus 
pretty much exists, not necessarily in this Chamber, but most of the 
American people believe that after 40 years of an embargo against the 
country of Cuba--40 years of an embargo that has not accomplished 
anything in terms of dislodging the Communist government in Cuba--the 
embargo has failed, and that there might be an alternative that can be 
used to find a way to bring freedom to that island.
  Pope John Paul had some comments about these issues. I have been 
talking on the floor about the issue of continuing sanctions with 
respect to the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba. Just food and 
medicine, and that runs into great controversy.
  This is what Pope John Paul had to say:

       Sanctions . . . ``strike 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.''

  Everyone in this Chamber knows in their hearts that when we take aim 
at a dictator, we hit poor people, we hit sick people, and we hit 
hungry people. That is the absurdity of having food and medicine as 
part of the sanctions.
  Today in the Washington Times--and other newspapers--it says: ``White 
House ends embargo on trade with North Korea.'' We have decided we are 
going to trade with North Korea and not have an embargo or sanctions 
with respect to North Korea. We have debated in this Chamber permanent 
normal trade relations with China. China is a Communist country. North 
Korea is a Communist country. Cuba is a Communist country. Yet we have 
those who say we must maintain the embargo with respect to Cuba.
  That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about a 
very modest step in the right direction to study a series of options 
with respect to policies this country has on the subject of Cuba.
  I have been to Cuba. I have talked to dissidents in Cuba. Frankly, 
you will run into dissidents, the harshest critics of the Cuban 
Government, who will say: Fidel Castro uses current U.S. policy as an 
excuse for the collapse of the Cuban economy. If you say to Fidel 
Castro: Look around you, this economy has collapsed--he says: Yes, yes, 
of course it has collapsed. The American fist around the neck of the 
Cuban economy for 40 years, of course, is what caused that collapse.
  Current policy with respect to Cuba is the most convenient excuse 
Fidel Castro has for a collapsed economy and for a government that does 
not work. He continues to use it year after year. I happen to think, as 
some dissidents do, that a much different strategy with respect to Cuba 
would probably very quickly hasten the exit of Fidel Castro from the 
scene.
  I want to add another point. While we are, as a country, beginning to 
think more clearly about this subject of whether or not we should 
continue sanctions on the shipment of food and medicine--and we will 
remove those sanctions with respect to North Korea and many other 
countries--we have people rigidly insisting: No, we must maintain all 
of these sanctions with respect to Cuba. I ask them--aside from just 
the immorality of that policy, and I think it is basically immoral to 
use food as a weapon--I ask them to address family farmers.

  I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask them to address, for example, 
farmers in America, and explain to them why the Canadian farmers will 
sell to Cuba, why the European farmers will sell to Cuba, why the 
Venezuelan farmers will sell to Cuba, but American farmers who see 
their prices collapse are told: No, these markets, including Cuba, are 
off limits to you; we have sanctions. We want to penalize those 
governments, and included in those penalties is a desire to say we will 
not allow food and medicine to move to those countries.
  I hasten to say I have no difficulty at all and fully support the 
proposition that our country should impose economic sanctions on 
countries that behave outside the international norm, but those 
sanctions should never, in my judgment, include food and medicine. That 
is, in my judgment, an immoral policy. The proposition offered by the 
Senator from Connecticut today is just the first modest step in 
beginning a national discussion about whether 40 years of failure with 
the current embargo ought to be continued, or whether there ought to be 
some new evaluation of new strategies dealing with Cuba. It is very 
simple.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I hope my colleagues will support this modest and simple 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 6 
minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Helms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Helms is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to deliver my remarks seated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I look around the Chamber, I see nobody 
except myself who is old enough to remember a Prime Minister of Great 
Britain who went over to Munich, before the United States entered World 
War II, sat with Adolph Hitler and made a deal with him. He came back 
and he told the British people: We can have peace in our time. I trust 
this man.
  Castro's own daughter has publicly condemned him over and over for 
the atrocities he has committed against the Cuban people. He is a 
bloodthirsty tyrant; and it is well known that he is. That is why I 
support the motion to table the amendment offered by my friend, Chris 
Dodd, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We work 
together amiably and effectively, I think. I do so for several 
practical reasons--including the one I have just stated--that I hope 
Senators will bear in mind as they consider Senator Dodd's proposal.
  First, the proposal is to create a national commission on Cuba. I 
would remind the Senators here, and those who may be watching by 
television in their offices, that such a panel already exists. It is 
called the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, consisting of 18 
Senators, all duly elected representatives of the American people. 
There is a similar committee over in the House of Representatives.
  The Senate committee has been quite active on Cuba, as my friend, 
Senator Dodd, will testify. In this session alone, we have held 
hearings on Castro's repression of the Cuban people. We adopted a 
resolution supporting a United Nations resolution on Cuba and even 
approved language that would modify the U.S. embargo on Cuba. I do not 
support the latter proposal--which was the Ashcroft amendment--but it 
was reported out of committee as part of a broader foreign affairs 
bill. In short, we have a committee on Cuba consisting of elected 
representatives of the American people. I think it works just fine, 
thank you.
  Secondly, what on Earth has Fidel Castro done to earn the forbearance 
of the United States? Does every cruel dictator in the world deserve a 
commission to study how U.S. foreign policy has done him wrong? Why not 
a national commission on Iraq or Libya or North Korea or China?
  The problem is not that U.S. policy toward Cuba has not changed. The 
tragedy for 11 million Cubans is that Fidel Castro has not changed.
  U.S. policy toward Cuba is based on sound, clear principles. Our 
economic and political relations will change when Cuba's regime frees 
all prisoners of conscience, legalizes political activity, permits free 
expression, and commits to democratic elections.
  But that bar is too high for Fidel Castro. That is his problem. It is 
not our problem. But making unilateral concessions to a dictatorship on 
its last legs is the worst sort of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain 
would be proud of this proposition.
  Third, why single out Cuba? Is there any Senator who does not expect 
the

[[Page S5399]]

next President of the United States to review our entire foreign policy 
across the board? A lot of Americans are counting the days when the 
United States has someone in the White House who will turn around our 
foreign policy for the better. That brings me to my fourth and final 
point.
  It will be the prerogative of the next President of the United States 
to review U.S. foreign policy across the board and to formulate his own 
policies in close consultation with a new Congress. The next 
administration should not be saddled with the recommendations of a 
lameduck ``Clinton Commission'' on Cuba.
  For these reasons, I hope Senators will vote to table the amendment 
of my friend, Chris Dodd.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Graham from Florida is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, 7 months and 75 minutes from today we will 
not be in this Senate Chamber. We will be standing, probably on the 
west-facing flank of the Capitol, hearing the next President of the 
United States being inaugurated into office.
  What is the significance of that statement of fact and place to the 
debate we are having today?
  The significance is that the issue before us today is not, What 
should be U.S. policy towards Cuba? The amendment that is before us 
proposes to establish a commission to try to answer the question, What 
should be U.S. policy towards Cuba?
  In a few days, we are going to be debating a proposition to change 
the embargo as it relates to Cuba. But the question before us today on 
the issue of establishing this commission is, Who should have primary 
responsibility for establishing U.S. foreign policy and, specifically, 
foreign policy towards Cuba?
  My answer to that question, of course, is, the people of the United 
States. The way in which the people of the United States will 
participate is not through an elite commission appointed by an 
administration in its last 7 months but, rather, through the electoral 
process which is going to take place in November of this year.
  We are in the midst of a robust Presidential campaign in which many 
issues of domestic and foreign importance to the United States are 
being debated before the American people. Frankly, I think this has 
been one of the most constructive Presidential campaigns in recent 
years thus far. I hope it continues in that path from now to election 
day in November.
  One of the issues which will certainly be debated during this 
Presidential campaign will be the issue of the United States 
relationship to Cuba. The American people will have an opportunity to 
participate, to understand, to add their opinions to this debate. Then 
they will decide. They will decide by the election of the next 
President of the United States of America.
  Under our Constitution, the President has the primary responsibility 
for foreign policy. Why in the world would we today, on the day exactly 
7 months before the next President will take the oath of office, 
support a proposition that would establish a commission dominated by 
members of the current President's administration, which would have the 
intention of shackling the range of options of the President that will 
be elected by the American people in November, thus frustrating the 
ability of the American people to influence what our policy should be 
relative to Cuba?
  There are a lot of things that we can say about Cuba.
  Clearly, Cuba is an authoritarian regime. Examples of that have 
already been cited. Cuba, within the last few weeks, has been cited 
again by the United Nations for its denial of human rights.
  Cuba, within the last few days, has been again identified by Amnesty 
International as one of the egregious human rights violators.
  Cuba has again been placed on the terrorist list of states, those 
states which support and harbor terrorist activities.
  All of those issues are matters of public knowledge and record. All 
of those, I am certain, will be further debated at the appropriate 
time, when we commence the consideration of whether it is in U.S. 
national policy interests to loosen the embargo on Cuba.
  But today the issue is not whether Cuba is an authoritarian state, a 
well-established principle but, rather, the question of whether we 
should lift from the hands of the American people and place into an 
appointed commission the primary responsibility for direction on our 
Cuba policy.
  There is a ``common sense'' in these debates about Cuba, that the 
United States and Cuba are the only two nations in the world, that they 
are locked in a singular bilateral relationship.
  The fact is, many countries in the world have various forms of 
relations with Cuba. Many of them have the type of relationship which I 
believe the advocates of this commission would like to see achieved for 
the United States; that is, open, political, and economic recognition 
and relationship. While the approaches to Cuba have been different 
among the countries of the world, the result of those approaches has 
been consistently the same.
  What is the result of that policy, whether it is ours or the 
Canadians or the Spanish or a series of countries in Latin America? The 
result of that policy has been a continuation of 40 years of one of the 
most egregious violators of human rights, deniers of even the most 
basic principles of democracy, and a Communist economic system which 
has driven what had been one of the most affluent countries in Latin 
America into one of the most desperate countries in Latin America.
  The idea that by the United States changing our policy, we are 
automatically going to have the effect of changing the policy of Fidel 
Castro in Cuba defies 40 years of other countries' efforts through an 
open, normal relationship with Cuba to achieve that result. I believe 
these are serious issues. They are issues which deserve to be decided 
by the American people through the electoral process.
  The distinguished list of Americans cited by the proponent of this 
commission to establish such a commission signed their letter on 
September 30, 1998, almost 2 years ago. I wonder if these same 
distinguished citizens would be advocating this commission on the very 
eve of a Presidential election which will select a new President, 
whether they would advocate that in June of 2000 we should be removing 
from the hands of the American people and placing in the hands of this 
commission the primary responsibility to examine American policy 
towards Cuba; and, further, whether we should be establishing a 
commission which has such a narrow and quite obviously tilted 
orientation as to what the results would be.
  If we look at what is required of the commission to evaluate, it is 
issues which are largely selected to determine in advance what the 
recommendations will be. For instance, missing from this list is what 
is one of the most fundamental questions of American policy towards 
Cuba; that is, what should we be doing now in order to influence the 
kind of environment that will exist in Cuba when the opportunity for 
real change is available. Will we have a Cuba that will make a change 
like Czechoslovakia, a velvet revolution from communism to democracy, 
or will we have a Romania, where thousands of people are killed, 
violence which scars the country even today.
  The fact that some of these fundamental questions are left off the 
list of what should be the focus of American policy towards Cuba leaves 
me to believe that the purpose of this commission is to certify a 
foregone conclusion rather than do what the American people are going 
to do in the weeks between now and November, and that is have a 
thoughtful consideration of what are our real issues and interests in 
Cuba and how should we go about selecting a President who will carry 
out those real interests.
  We are going to have an opportunity for a full and open debate. Some 
of that debate will occur soon and on this floor. Much of it will occur 
in the living rooms of the American people. We should allow the 
American people to decide this issue. In 7 months, we will be listening 
to a President inaugurated who, hopefully, in that inaugural speech, 
will make some comments

[[Page S5400]]

about his feeling as to what the American people desire relative to our 
policy towards Cuba.
  I urge that we vote for the motion to table this misguided and 
mistimed proposition of a lame duck commission on Cuba at this time and 
that we let the American people and the next President of the United 
States provide the leadership on this important foreign policy issue.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for yielding 
the time.
  If this argument seems familiar to my colleagues, it is because it 
is. We have had this debate three times in as many years, always to the 
same bipartisan conclusion.
  I approach it today from several perspectives; first, from the 
institutions. Is what we are proposing and arguing to the American 
people really fair? The American farmer is being told in the midst of 
an agricultural crisis that if only you could sell some crops to Cuba, 
your problems would be relieved--11 million people in the Caribbean who 
earn $10 a month. Rather than coming to this floor honestly and dealing 
with agricultural crises and agricultural policies which have left 
farmers in my State and most States in genuine trouble, instead we hold 
up this false promise.
  The truth is, Cuba can buy agricultural products from every other 
nation in the world today. From Australia, Canada, Argentina, they can 
buy corn and they can buy wheat. They do not. Yet the false promise is 
held on this floor that somehow, magically, they would buy those 
products from us. If they don't buy them from Canada, for the same 
reason they will not buy them from the Dakotas or Nebraska or Iowa--
Cuba has no money. The average Cuban earns $10 per month. The Nation is 
bankrupt. Yet somehow Castro, in the last totalitarian state in the 
Americas, the most repressive dictator of human rights possibly in the 
world, is being seen somehow as victimized and the United States is the 
aggressor.
  This argument has been made so many times but never seems to register 
with my colleagues. Let me say it again: Since 1992, the United States 
has issued 158 licenses for medicine--virtually every license request 
filed. We have given $3 billion worth of humanitarian assistance to 
Cuba. There is no relationship between two peoples on Earth where one 
nation has given more food and medicine to another than the United 
States to Cuba. We have given more food and medicine to Cuba than we 
have given to our closest ally of Israel or other nations struggling in 
Latin America. We have given food and medicine.
  Say what you will about the policy, but be fair to the United States 
of America. We are a generous people. This policy has a moral 
foundation. No Cuban is suffering because of the U.S. Government. They 
are suffering because of Fidel Castro and failed Marxism. We have said 
it every year, and every year we return to the same point. It is not 
right and it is not fair to the United States.
  Then we hear the argument that this has failed for 40 years, how 
could we go on? This policy was instituted by Bill Clinton in 1993 on a 
bipartisan vote with the leadership of a Republican Congress and a 
Democratic administration. Until then, there essentially was no 
embargo. You can say 40 years as long as you want; it does not make it 
true.
  Until 1993, corporations were trading through Europe. Every American 
corporation was able to trade with Cuba through European affiliates. 
Until 1990, the Soviet Union was putting $5 billion worth of aid into 
Cuba. There was no embargo. Is 7 years too long to take a stand for the 
freedom of the Cuban people? We waited 50 years with North Korea.
  We fought apartheid with an embargo for 30 years--the international 
community. With Iraq, we have waited 12 years. We can't give 7 years to 
try to bring some hope to the Cuban people in this moment of 
extraordinary despair?
  Why do you choose this moment? Why now? The Clinton administration 
has but 7 months left in office. A new President, with a mandate of the 
American people, will want his own foreign policy, be it Gore or Bush. 
Yet you would saddle this new administration with a commission not of 
its choosing, with a policy not of its directive for 4 years that do 
not belong to Bill Clinton?
  What message is this to Fidel Castro? It is not as if things in Cuba 
have gotten better. If, indeed, my colleagues were coming to this floor 
and saying, you know, Senator, there has been an election, there is now 
an opposition threat, and the Cubans are now acting responsibly, they 
are finally recognizing the rights of our people and we must respond--
in fairness to my colleagues, they don't even make that argument. 
Things are not getting better. Indeed, things are not even the same.
  Human rights organizations have classified last year as the worst 
year in a decade for human rights in Cuba. This is the reality to which 
you respond. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva voted to 
condemn Cuba several months ago, accusing it of ``continuing violations 
of human rights, fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, 
association, and assembly.'' The U.S. State Department, a few months 
ago, called Cuba a totalitarian state that ``maintains a pervasive 
system of vigilance through undercover agents, informers, and rapid 
response brigades in neighborhood communities to root out any and all 
dissent.''
  Since last November, Cuban police have detained 304 dissidents, 
restricted the movements of another 201, and have been holding 22 more 
for possible trials.
  The Cuban statutes were changed last year to make it a felony to 
communicate with the U.S. Government, against the law to communicate 
with American Government agencies, or to be interviewed by the American 
media. This is the reality to which you are responding. I do not say it 
lightly, but it is a reward for deteriorating circumstances in Cuba.
  Several years ago, in 1994, 72 men, women, and children attempted to 
leave Havana Harbor for Miami in a tugboat. They were intercepted. The 
Cuban police restricted their movements. They began to fire water hoses 
on the boat. Women held up 20 babies to show the police that they had 
infants on board, with a belief that this would stop the water hoses. 
Instead, the pressure increased. That day, 72 men, women, and infants 
went to the bottom of Havana Harbor. Several days later, the relatives 
asked permission to retrieve their bodies. They didn't get it that day; 
they haven't gotten it since. Those babies are at the bottom of Havana 
Harbor. This is Fidel Castro's Cuba. This is what you are responding 
to--a deteriorating, despicable situation.
  There will come a change in American policy to Cuba. It is in the 
law. The burden is on Fidel Castro. It is the fault of his policies, 
not our own. Hold an election, allow a free press, allow free 
expression, release political prisoners, and everything is possible. 
You may disagree with that policy, but it is the law. It is bipartisan. 
But at least until you do, be fair to this country. We have not abused 
Cuba. Fidel Castro has abused Cuba.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 26 minutes. 
The Senator from New Hampshire has 11 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am a very strong supporter of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Connecticut. Very simply, it is 
a no-brainer. It is a bipartisan commission to look at our policy, 
which is supported by good Republicans--Howard Baker and Jack Danforth, 
former Senators of this body. It is not directed at agriculture, it is 
not directed at other points raised on this floor; it is just a 
bipartisan commission to reassess our policy with Cuba. Nothing could 
be more simple, direct, and appropriate than that.
  I also want to speak about Cuba with respect to trade. We have 
targeted Fidel Castro for four decades. For the last 40 years, believe 
it or not, we have maintained a special category in our

[[Page S5401]]

trade and foreign policy with Cuba--a one-country category: Cuba. We 
have special legislation for trade with Cuba. We have special rules for 
travel to Cuba. We have a special system for claims on Cuba.
  Why does Cuba get so much of our attention? When the United States 
began targeting Fidel Castro, we had very serious national security 
concerns. Castro was openly hostile to us. He was a Soviet client and 
just 90 miles away from us. Thanks to Soviet aid, he had military and 
economic muscle to make him someone to take seriously. Castro worked 
against the United States throughout the sixties, seventies, and 
eighties. Bankrolled by the Soviet Union, he exported revolution 
throughout the Western Hemisphere. He sent troops to support 
revolutionaries as far away as Africa. Castro backed international 
terrorists who targeted Americans. He was a clear adversary.
  What is the situation today? Does Castro still favor revolution? I am 
sure he does. Does he still oppose American interests? Absolutely. But 
does he still have military and economic muscle to threaten our 
national security? The answer, obviously, is no.
  The Soviet Union is now in the dustbin of history. Their demise cut 
off Castro's lifeline. Today, his economy is in shambles. With 11 
million educated, dynamic people, Cuba produces only $22 billion a 
year. It only exports about $1.4 billion worth of goods. The Cuban 
economy remains stuck in the 1960s in terms of trade and technology.
  Sugar is still the country's top export earner. Cuban farmers are 
forced to sell over half the country's agriculture output to the 
Government at below-market prices. Since Castro can no longer trade 
sugar for Soviet oil, his people suffer tremendously, for example, from 
rolling power blackouts. Since he defaulted on foreign debt payments in 
the 1980s, Cuba pays double-digit interest rates on short-term loans to 
finance sugar trade.
  With this country in desperate financial shape, Castro is in no 
position to export revolution--none whatsoever. According to the 
Pentagon, Castro presents no real threat to our national security.
  Times have changed. Forty years ago, Castro was a clear danger. 
Today, he is not a present danger. Has our policy toward Cuba changed? 
Not really. Cuba still occupies a unique position in American policy.
  I believe it is time for the United States to have a normal 
relationship with Cuba, especially a normal trade relationship. I have 
cosponsored legislation which we passed here by an overwhelming margin 
last year to lift unilateral sanctions on food and medicine.
  I believe we should go beyond this. We should repeal the laws that 
make Cuba a specific target. That includes the anti-Cuba laws we passed 
in 1992 and 1996, as well as other laws developed over the past 40 
years. We should end our embargo of Cuba and eliminate the trade 
sanctions.
  Last month, I introduced bipartisan legislation to end the Cuba trade 
embargo, the Trade Normalization With Cuba Act of 2000. Senator Dodd, 
who is the main author of today's amendment, is one of the cosponsors 
of my bill to eliminate this special category we have created just for 
Cuba.
  For the past 10 years, I have worked to normalize U.S. trade with 
China. I am working to end the Cuban embargo for many of the same 
reasons--first, and most importantly, to benefit the United States. 
Eliminating the embargo will provide economic opportunities for 
American workers, American farmers, and businesses.
  Last week, a study was released on the impact of lifting the embargo 
on food and medicine--not the whole embargo, only on food and medicine. 
It concluded that American farmers and workers could sell $400 million 
in just agricultural products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
estimated a potential Cuban market of $1 billion.
  The second reason to lift the embargo is to encourage the development 
of a Cuban private sector. Since he can no longer rely on Soviet 
subsidies, Castro has taken steps to allow for limited development of 
private business, mostly in service professions. Private business leads 
to a middle class which demands accountability of its government and a 
greater say in how things are decided.
  The third reason to end the embargo is to increase our contacts. 
Normal relations allow us to bring our social and ethical values. That 
has an impact over the years.
  Mr. President, we have in place a policy that has not worked for 
forty years. It was a different world in 1960. Ending the Cuba embargo 
is long overdue.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have often expressed my opposition to our 
anachronistic and self-defeating policy toward Cuba, so I will be very 
brief. I strongly support this amendment and congratulate the senior 
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who has been the leader on this 
issue for quite some time.
  It is profoundly ironic that the United States is about to lift 
sanctions against North Korea, where we have 37,000 American troops 
poised to go to war on a moment's notice, and yet we continue to impose 
an economic blockade against a tiny island that poses no security 
threat to the United States.
  If the Elian Gonzalez fiasco has taught us anything, it is that 
Cubans and Americans are far more alike than different, and that the 
views of the Cuban-American community in Miami are both outdated and at 
odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans. Of course we abhor 
the repressive policies of Fidel Castro, but the issue is how best to 
prepare for the day when he is no longer ruling Cuba. That day is 
approaching, and the longer we wait to use the intervening period to 
build closer relations with that island nation, the worse it will be.
  This amendment is extremely modest. As Senator Dodd has said, it 
would normally be adopted on a voice vote. It should be. What is wrong 
with a commission, representing a wide range of views, to review a 
policy that has, by any objective standard, failed miserably? It is 
long overdue.
  So Mr. President, I wholeheartedly support this amendment. When I 
visited Cuba a year ago the Cuban officials I met with repeatedly 
blamed the U.S. embargo for all that is wrong in Cuba. I could not 
disagree more. A great deal of the misery that the Cuban people suffer 
is caused by the absurd and oppressive policies of their own 
government. But the embargo is not blameless, and it is a convenient 
excuse.
  We should eliminate that excuse. We should seek to promote democracy 
and better relations with Cuba through the power of our ideas and our 
economy, just as we are about to do with North Korea, and just as we 
are doing with China, Vietnam, and other countries with which we have 
profound disagreements. This amendment will set the stage for a new day 
in our relations with Cuba, and I urge other Senators to support it.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire.
  I rise in opposition to the Dodd-Warner amendment. Let's make no 
mistake about this amendment. It is intended to presage a lifting of 
United States sanctions on Cuba. I do not believe the United States 
should change its policy toward Cuba. I believe Cuba should change its 
policy toward the United States of America.
  I supported normalization of relations between the United States of 
America and Vietnam. That was based on a roadmap where, in return for 
certain specific actions taken by Vietnam, the United States would take 
actions in return. That took place. The Vietnamese troops left 
Cambodia. Reeducation camps were emptied. There was an increase in 
human rights and improvements made in a variety of ways which led to 
eventual normalization.
  I don't expect Cuba to become a functioning democracy. It was a 
totalitarian, repressive government 30 years ago; it is a repressive, 
totalitarian government today. The latest example is two doctors who 
have been detained in Zimbabwe who wanted freedom, who are still not 
free, who are being brought back to Cuba for, obviously, horrific 
treatment because of their desire to no longer be associated with 
Castro's regime.
  On July 23, 1999, Human Rights Watch issued a highly critical report 
on the human rights situation in Cuba. The report describes how Cuba 
has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and has used 
this to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights, of 
expression, association, and assembly. According to the report: In 
recent years, Cuba has added

[[Page S5402]]

new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents 
while shrugging off international appeals to reform and placating 
visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners.
  I urge every Senator to read Human Rights' reports on Cuba before we 
take steps to improve relations.
  This is the same regime that sent its troops to Africa to further the 
cause of communism there. This is the same regime that continues to 
repress and oppress its people.
  Not too long ago, Mr. Castro decided to allow people to operate a 
restaurant within their own homes. Somehow that became a threat to the 
state, and Mr. Castro shut down even that rudimentary form of a free 
enterprise system.
  It is not an accident that the automobile of choice in Cuba today is 
a 1956 Chevrolet.
  It is deplorable that Mr. Castro and his government should encourage 
young women to engage in prostitution in order to gain hard currency 
for their regime.
  The latest manifestation is the detainment of two decent men who are 
doctors who wanted freedom.
  There is no freedom in Cuba.
  The day that Castro decides to allow progress in human rights, in the 
free enterprise system, in the exercise of the basic rights of men and 
women that we try to guarantee to all men and women throughout the 
world, is the day I take the floor and ask that we consider a roadmap 
or certain incentives for Mr. Castro to become anything but the 
international pariah that he and his regime deservedly are branded as 
today.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Again, I am more than willing 
to lay out a roadmap for Mr. Castro to follow, but there has not been 
one single indication that Mr. Castro is prepared to even grant the 
most fundamental and basic rights to the citizens of his country, which 
is the reason they continue to attempt to flee his regime at every 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. This amendment is about the establishment of a commission 
on U.S. Cuban policy. This commission was recommended by Howard Baker, 
Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Malcolm Wallop, and 
William Rogers. This is not lifting sanctions. This is not taking a 
position where we have endorsed free travel or somehow sanctioned what 
the Castro government is doing. It is a commission. It is a commission 
to analyze U.S. policy. That is all it is.
  It is pathetic to hear the opposition discussing the issue. Have we 
reached a point where we can't even discuss United States policy with 
regard to Cuba? If we had followed that policy, Nixon never would have 
gone to China. We never would have established a roadmap of Vietnam. 
President Bush and President Carter wouldn't have been able to do 
anything in the Middle East. Ronald Reagan wouldn't have met with 
Gorbachev and Yeltsin. There is a long list. You can't even sit down 
and talk about this issue.
  I find it stunning, at the beginning of the 21st century, that we are 
so obsessed with this one individual that we are willing to squander 
building a relationship in a post-Castro period with 11 million people 
of Cuba. That is stunning to me.
  We have listened to Members of Congress. I argue the leading 
dissident in Cuba, who has done time in jail, has suffered, his family 
suffers; all of the things my colleague has talked about, this 
individual has suffered. Don't listen to me; listen to him. Listen to 
his words, inside Cuba, not living in the luxury of democracy and 
freedom here but living inside Cuba.
  I read the letter, as follows:
       Dear Friend, I am writing to you and to other U.S. 
     lawmakers to assure you that the great majority of dissident 
     groups and leaders in Cuba do not support the unilateral 
     economic sanctions imposed by the government of the United 
     States against the Cuban government. This position is clearly 
     reflected in the last paragraph of the ``We Are All United'' 
     (``Todos Unidos'') proclamation approved last November 12th 
     in Havana and signed by more than fifty dissident groups.
       My friends and I recognize the moral and political support 
     of many U.S. lawmakers for efforts to change Washington's 
     policy towards Cuba that will end the current situation that 
     harms the basis for free trade and coexistence between 
     sovereign nations.
       It is unfortunate that the government of Cuba still clings 
     to an outdated and inefficient model that I believe is the 
     fundamental cause for the great difficulties that the Cuban 
     people suffer, but it is obvious that the current Cold War 
     climate between our governments and the unilateral sanctions 
     will continue to fuel the fire of totalitarianism in my 
     country.
       Moving forward towards fully normalized relations requires 
     mutual respect between our two nations. Such as path will 
     inevitably lead us to develop mutually beneficial relations 
     that will assist the Cuban people in reconstructing our 
     country while we preserve our independence, sovereignty and 
     identity.
       On behalf of the best interests of our people I invite you 
     to support new proposals to end a conflict that has lasted 
     more than forty years.
           Sincerely,

                                  Elizardo Sanchez Santa Cruz,

                           Presidente, Comision Cubana de Derechos
                                Humanos y Reconciliacion Nacional.

  Mr. President, again let me read a letter, if I may, signed by our 
colleagues a year and a half ago.

       We the undersigned, recommend that you authorize the 
     establishment of a National Bipartisan Commission to review 
     our current U.S.-Cuba policy. This commission would follow 
     the precedent and work program of the National Bipartisan 
     Commission on Central America (the ``Kissinger Commission''), 
     established by President Reagan in 1983, which made such a 
     positive contribution to our foreign policy in that troubled 
     region 15 years ago.

  The letter goes on about all the reasons such a commission would make 
sense and how it should be formed.

       More and more Americans from all sectors of our nation are 
     becoming concerned about the far-reaching effects of our 
     present U.S.-Cuba policy on United States interests and the 
     Cuban people. Your establishment of this National Bipartisan 
     Commission would demonstrate leadership and responsiveness to 
     the American people.

  Signed in this and a subsequent letter by the following Members: John 
Warner, Rod Grams, Chuck Hagel, Jim Jeffords, Mike Enzi, John Chafee, 
Gordon Smith, Craig Thomas, Robert Kerrey, Dale Bumpers, Rick Santorum, 
myself, Dirk Kempthorne, Pat Roberts, Kit Bond, Richard Lugar, Pat 
Leahy, Pat Moynihan, Arlen Specter, Jack Reed, Thad Cochran, Patty 
Murray, Pete Domenici, and Barbara Boxer.
  That is about as bipartisan as it gets. That is a year and a half 
ago, with a significant number of our colleagues saying a commission 
makes some sense, to try to formulate a policy that would allow us at 
least to begin to analyze how our policy might improve in the coming 
years.
  Those letters have already been printed in the Record earlier today.
  Mr. President, last:

       Dear Senator Warner, as Americans who have been engaged in 
     the conduct of foreign relations in various positions over 
     the past three decades, we believe that it is timely to 
     conduct a review of the United States policy towards Cuba. We 
     therefore encourage you and your colleagues to support the 
     establishment of a National Bipartisan Commission on Cuba.

  Signed by Howard Baker, former majority leader, U.S. Senate; Frank 
Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under Republican administrations; 
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State; William Rogers, former 
Under Secretary of State in a Republican administration; Harry 
Shalaudeman, former Assistant Secretary of State under Republican 
administrations; and Malcolm Wallop, former conservative Republican 
Member of this body; Larry Eagleburger, former Secretary of State under 
President Bush.
  Calling people Neville Chamberlain, citing all the horrors that go on 
that we know about in repressive governments--does anybody think these 
people, our colleagues here who signed these letters, former 
administration officials, myself, or others--somehow this is un-
American for us to at least sit down in a cooler environment, to 
analyze how we might establish a better relationship with the nation of 
Cuba?
  I really find it incredible. It is worrisome to me. It is worrisome 
to me that our own self-interest, the U.S. interest, could be so 
dominated by a relatively small group of people in this country who are 
able to provoke this kind of opposition to the simple idea of a 
commission that has been endorsed by leading Republican foreign policy 
experts as well as Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber across the 
board, representing the entire ideological spectrum.

[[Page S5403]]

  What are we afraid of about a commission to look at these issues? 
That automatically it means we are going to be bound and shackled? What 
better timing than to have one right now, so we can absolutely provide 
some guidance? That is all it is. The new administration coming in 
sometime next spring, do they believe commission recommendations would 
bind them to some action? Have previous commissions bound other 
administrations? Cite one for me. Cite one, where a commission has 
bound this Congress to take action. There is not a single example of 
it. But this issue has become so inflamed here, you cannot even talk 
about a commission.
  This amendment does not say lift the embargo on food and medicine. I 
support that. But that is not what this says. This amendment does not 
say you ought to travel freely to Cuba or any other country around the 
globe for that matter, although I support it. I don't like my 
Government telling me where I can't go. Let the Cuban Government tell 
me I can't come in, but don't have my Government tell me where I can't 
travel. In fact, it is about the only place in the world where our 
Government says that. We travel to all the other nations around the 
globe that harbor terrorists who are on the lists. The answer here is 
no.
  No, this amendment merely says we ought to step back and take a 
cooler look at what our policy ought to be in the 21st century before 
we go much further and end up with a train wreck in Cuba, where we find 
people pouring to our shores, civil conflict persisting, and innocent 
and decent people in that country losing their lives.
  Let me conclude on this point. I said earlier I have great respect 
for the exile community. I have great respect for what they have been 
through and what their families have been through. I have great respect 
for the people inside Cuba. I have been there. I have spent time with 
them. I have talked to people.
  We owe it to them, we owe it to decent, good people who are not 
caught up in the foreign policies--I don't know how many of my 
colleagues saw the photograph yesterday of a mother and daughter 
embracing in Cuba. They would not give out their names because they 
went there illegally, because our Government prohibited that daughter 
from going to visit her mother 90 miles off our shore. A mother and 
daughter can travel to China, to Vietnam, Iran, Libya, almost anywhere 
else in the world, and we do not have a law prohibiting it. But that 
daughter could not visit her mother in Cuba unless she went illegally. 
I think we ought to review that policy. I don't think that makes me a 
radical or a revolutionary.
  When we prohibit families from even spending time with each other, 90 
miles off our shore, something is wrong. Something is wrong. The 
estimates are that thousands of Americans every year violate the laws 
of the United States by traveling to Cuba to see their family members. 
We ought not make their actions illegal. This amendment does not even 
address that issue. It just says let's look at the entire policy. That 
is all it does.
  I suspect this amendment is going to lose. It is going to be tabled. 
I am saddened by that. I think it is a step backwards. As I said 
earlier, had we followed a similar policy with China and Vietnam and 
Korea, we would not have the kind of improvements we have seen today 
all across the globe. But because courageous and bold people did not 
let the past so cripple them they could not begin to deal with the 
future, there are prospects for peace on Northern Ireland and the 
Middle East today. There are even prospects for peace in the peninsula 
of Korea, even moving to improve substantially conditions in Vietnam 
and China. That is all because there were courageous, bold leaders. 
There were the Richard Nixons who did not listen to the voices here who 
said: You cannot go to China. It is an outrageous government. It does 
not deserve the presence of an American President.

  It was a pretty compelling argument. But that President said: No, I 
think we ought to try something new. At least try--try. Because he 
tried, there is hope today for a billion more people--more than a 
billion people in the PRC.
  Because we had some courageous people who said let's at least try to 
break new ground in Vietnam, we have a roadmap. I cannot even sit down 
to determine whether or not we can have a roadmap if this amendment is 
defeated, when it comes to Cuba.
  George Miller, Albert Reynolds, Tony Blair--Prime Minister, Gerry 
Adams, David Trimble--these people are told by their constituents: 
Don't you dare sit down with those Catholics. Don't you dare sit down 
with those Protestants. Don't you dare go to Belfast.
  They said: I am going to go anyway, and I am going to try. I am going 
to try to make a difference because I am not going to live in the past. 
I am not going to live back then and just recite the litany of every 
wrong. I am going to try to make a better future for my children.
  And they went. Today the facts are things are improving and there is 
a chance for peace. There is a chance. With North Korea, it is the same 
thing; the Middle East, it is the same thing. It has failed. It has 
failed again, but people keep trying. All I am saying is let's try. 
Let's just try. Let's sit back ourselves and see if we can try and do 
something different. Don't the 11 million people on that island country 
who care about that issue deserve that much? Isn't it in the national 
interest?
  It is telling that there are people here who are so fixated and 
obsessed with Fidel Castro that they even want to deny a father and son 
being together. They are so fixated they would say a father and son 
should not be allowed to be together. There are those of us who made 
the point there are good parents in bad countries, just as there are 
bad parents in good countries and fathers and sons, mothers and 
daughters, fathers and daughters, and mothers and sons ought to be 
together.
  I never thought asking for a bipartisan commission would demand 
courage saying to people who may be supporters and backers: I disagree 
with you on this one because we are going to try.
  I regret it is on this bill. I do not have any other choice. If I do 
not offer it here, I cannot offer it. It is not like there are other 
vehicles available to me. My colleagues know the other bills are 
appropriations bills, and I am prohibited from offering this on an 
appropriations bill without getting a supermajority vote. I do not like 
doing it. Don't tell me not to do it here when this bill is cluttered, 
by the way, with nonrelevant amendments. I would not be offering it on 
this bill if I had some other choice. I do not. I regret that. I do not 
normally offer nonrelevant amendments on bills, but when I was left 
with no other choice, I felt I had to do it on this bill, and I thought 
this was the right time, a transitional period.

  This is not about Clinton appointments, when the President appointed 
Howard Baker and John Danforth. He did not appoint partisan people. 
That will be the case here, in my view. It deserves an effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. There will be a tabling motion. 
I am hopeful we will win. I am not all that confident because of what I 
have been told privately by many colleagues: They agree with this, they 
think I am right, but, once again, they just cannot support it at this 
time.
  When is the right time? When is the right hour when we can at least 
make a difference and do something a bit courageous to at least sit 
back and see if we cannot come up with some better ideas. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 6 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment to 
create a Commission on Cuba. I do so with some personal reluctance 
because of my deep affection and respect for my colleague from 
Connecticut who is the sponsor of the amendment and who I know is 
acting with the best of intentions. We simply have come to a different 
conclusion on this question.
  Some might say: What can be the harm of a commission to study Cuban-
American relations? I oppose the idea of a commission because I believe 
the current state of America's policy toward Cuba is right.
  It has been sustained now over four decades. It began and has 
continued as

[[Page S5404]]

a bipartisan policy which originates from Castro's Communist takeover 
of that country in 1959, and his attempts to spread communism to other 
parts of this hemisphere and to the world.
  Although I think our policy has helped prevent Castro's communism 
from expanding to the Americas, thanks to the strong leadership of 
ourselves and other countries, his regime continues to subject the 
Cuban people to a form of government that deprives them of their basic 
and inalienable human rights. He is now one of the last of less than a 
handful of old-style Communist leaders, and his regime's human rights 
record remains abysmal.
  Throughout my years in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of 
our policy toward Cuba, and I remain a strong supporter because I 
believe it is right. It is based on principle, and Castro has done 
nothing to justify a change in that policy. In fact, every time we give 
him an opportunity to show he has changed, he refuses to take that 
opportunity.
  I quote from the State Department's most recent Annual Human Rights 
Report for Cuba, issued in 1999:

       Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel 
     Castro. * * * The Government continued to control all 
     significant means of production and remained the predominant 
     employer. * * * The Government's human rights record remained 
     poor. It continued systematically to violate the civil and 
     political rights of its citizens. * * * The authorities 
     routinely continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, 
     detain, imprison, and defame human rights advocates and 
     members of independent professional associations, including 
     journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyers, often with the 
     goal of coercing them into leaving the country. * * * The 
     Government denied citizens the freedom of speech, press, 
     assembly, and association. * * * The Government denied 
     political dissidents and human rights advocates due process 
     and subjected them to unfair trials.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this regime has done nothing to justify 
a change in our policy toward it. For that reason, I will vote against 
this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, although I will vote to table this 
amendment, I would like to make it clear to my colleagues that I 
support the concept of establishment of a bipartisan commission to 
study U.S. policy towards Cuba.
  For years, an often emotional and politically charged debate on our 
Cuba policy has gone on here in the U.S. In such an atmosphere, it is 
often prudent to let a bipartisan commission take a careful look at our 
policy, assess how well it has worked, and make recommendations for 
change, if necessary. I think such a solution would be appropriate with 
respect to our policy towards Cuba.
  However, I am not convinced that this is the proper time and place to 
create such a commission. Indeed, under this amendment many of the 
commissioners would be appointed by a lame-duck President, infringing 
on the ability of the new President to develop his own Cuba policy.
  It has become increasingly clear that the 39-year U.S. trade embargo 
has not succeeded in effecting change in Cuba. Fidel Castro's regime 
remains in power, and the Cuban people continue to suffer under his 
brutal dictatorship and a floundering economy. I believe a bipartisan 
commission would be useful in taking a fresh look at the efficacy of 
our embargo. Now, however, is not the time to do this.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I will vote with against tabling 
Senator Dodd's amendment which creates a commission to evaluate United 
States policy with respect to Cuba. Contrary to the opinion of some in 
this Chamber, this amendment does not represent a seachange in our 
country's position toward Cuba or the Castro regime. The Castro regime 
remains totalitarian and profoundly anti-democratic. My contempt for 
Castro and his despotic rule over Cuba has not changed; I remain 
committed to spreading democracy to our island neighbor to the south. 
As Chairman of the Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations 
Subcommittee, I was a leading supporter of TV Marti and Radio Marti 
since their inception. Just last year as ranking member of this 
subcommittee, I fought a House attempt to ground TV Marti. I have 
supported spreading democratic ideas to the Cuba people during my 
entire career in public policy. However, much to my display and 
disappointment, our Cuba policy to this point has not yielded the 
desired results. As I look for answers that explain why this policy has 
failed, I believe creating a commission may provide the key to 
understanding. I want an expert panel to review our policy towards Cuba 
to search for the facts. Only then can we accurately determine what 
policy changes, if any, should be pursued.
  Many of my colleagues will remember the revolution in Cuba and the 
overthrow of the Batista regime. I remember it well. I also remember 
the United States at the brink of nuclear war in October 1962. American 
U-2 planes spotted Russian ballistic missiles sites on Cuba and tested 
the resolve of the young American President to respond to the threat. 
Many Americans, including this Senator, were hardwired to despise the 
Cuban regime as a result of these two tumultuous events.
  In the 1970s and 1980s the Cuban regime destabilized Central America 
with inflammatory revolutionary rhetoric and aided socialist movements 
in the region. Cuban revolutionaries exported their vitriol to faraway 
Bolivia and Angola in Africa. The national security risk posed to our 
shores by Castro during the Cold War was palpable and I challenge 
anyone who believes otherwise. The hardline policies that successive 
administrations put in place to counter and neutralize the Castro 
regime were a necessary and appropriate response to that risk.
  The political landscape is very different now. Just today I read 
about our thawing of relations with North Korea. The Clinton 
administration has formally eased ``wide-ranging sanctions'' imposed on 
North Korea nearly 50 years ago. This is something that I did not 
believe would happen for many years given the security concerns on the 
peninsula and the heavy presence of the United States military. This 
action is curious to me especially given our characterization of North 
Korea as a ``rogue'' state. It was reported in today's Washington Post 
that Secretary Albright has replaced the ``rogue state'' designation 
with the less confrontational term--``states of concern.'' Maybe this 
explains our departure in policy toward North Korea. Regardless, we are 
engaging a country that has the capability to threaten the United 
States in ways that Cuba will never be able to do.
  My support for Senator Dodd's Cuba amendment is a vote for a 
comprehensive review of U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba. This amendment 
is not flimflam election-year politicking. To the contrary, the 
commission makes recommendations to the next President of the United 
States and not the Clinton administration. The amendment provides for a 
commission composed of a dozen experts from a wide range of 
disciplines, half to be appointed by the President and half by the 
Congress. The commission will be bipartisan and should include 
heavyweights in American foreign policy--Henry Kissinger, George 
Shultz, and Howard Baker, for example--to provide distinction to the 
policy recommendations.
  This panel would also make United States policy recommendations with 
respect to the indemnification of losses incurred by U.S. certified 
claimants with confiscated property in Cuba. Should we achieve the goal 
of political reform in Cuba, the United States government needs to 
prepare itself for the resulting confusion and complex legal questions. 
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The regime in Cuba has 
been constant for many years but nonetheless we should be ready for an 
abrupt internal political change in Cuba. To refuse to plan for a post-
Castro Cuba, indeed the current endgame of American foreign policy 
towards Cuba, is myopic. We need to be prepared for developments in 
Cuba and this Commission is an important first step.
  It has been argued that the United States is not on trial here, and 
that the Castro government needs a public policy review. I do not take 
exception to this but rather believe that the commission should look at 
changes for the Cuban government to adopt. As a Senator charged with 
making foreign policy for this country, I support this amendment 
because it provides our

[[Page S5405]]

President with a road map of how to achieve its foreign policy goals 
with respect to Cuba. The President can accept or refuse the 
recommendations, whatever they may be. It would be the President's 
prerogative.
  Mr. McCAIN. I rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment establishing a 
commission to evaluate U.S.-Cuban relations.
  Ordinarily, Mr. President, I find it difficult to rationalize 
opposing a study of a complex issue. I do not have such difficulties, 
however, with regards to the amendment before us today. Make no 
mistake, the commission proposed in the Dodd amendment is intended to 
presage a lifting of U.S. sanctions on Cuba, and to do so by presenting 
a false dichotomy involving United States policies in other regions of 
the world.
  For 40 years, Fidel Castro has run Cuba as a totalitarian bastion in 
the Western Hemisphere, his policies in Latin America and the Caribbean 
and on the African continent have been and continue to be implacably 
hostile to U.S. interests. He was driven in that direction, as some 
would have us believe, by U.S. opposition to the revolution that he 
continues to seek to foster beyond his shores. Rather, he rose to power 
dedicated to undermining U.S. influence abroad and has never--not 
once--deviated from that path. The fact that his ability to act abroad 
has been severely curtailed since the demise of the Soviet Union has 
not dampened his ardor for spreading the gospel of Marx and Lenin 
wherever he finds a receptive audience.
  Virtually every day, we are provided reminders of the anachronistic 
dictatorship near our shores. Most recently, the case of two Cuban 
doctors who defected in Zimbabwe--a country itself in the throes of 
turbulence stemming from its adherence to authoritarian policies--
illustrates yet again the desire of the Cuban people for the freedom 
that swept that country's former allies in Eastern Europe and across 
Latin America. A 1999 report by Human Rights Watch on Cuba described 
its development of ``a highly effective machinery of repression'' that 
it has used ``to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human 
rights of expression, association, and assembly.'' The report 
continues, noting that, ``in recent years, Cuba has added new 
repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while 
shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting 
dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners.''
  Similarly, the State Department's annual report on human rights 
states that the

       . . . authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten, 
     arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights 
     advocates and members of independent professional 
     associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and 
     lawyer, often with the goal of coercing them into leaving the 
     country.

  Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that Cuba is not an authoritarian 
regime that holds promise of transitioning to a free-market economy 
with gradual democratization, such as has occurred in other countries. 
It remains a staunch Marxist dictatorship providing no freedom 
whatsoever. Rare instances where minor economic freedoms were permitted 
were rapidly retracted when it became obvious that capitalism provided 
a viable and desirable alternative to state socialism.
  On the security front, we should not be deceived by the straw man 
argument that the absence of a military threat to the United States 
from Cuba undermines the current U.S. policy towards that country. Few 
among us believe such a threat exists. What does exist, however, is a 
continued effort at undermining democracy in Latin America and in 
Africa, and in undermining the U.S. position in those regions. Cuba's 
continued hosting of the Russian military's main signals intelligence 
facility at Lourdes remains a threat to U.S. national and economic 
security. According to the liberal Federation of American Scientists, 
the strategic significance of the Lourdes facility ``has possibly grown 
since 07 February 1996 [pursuant to a] directive from Russian President 
Boris Yeltsin directing the Russian intelligence community to step up 
the acquisition of American and other Western economic and trade 
secrets.''
  Additionally, the United States must remain wary of the future of the 
Soviet-designed nuclear reactors at Cienfuegos. Any accident at these 
facilities--understanding that they remain uncompleted--would directly 
and severely impact the eastern seaboard of the United States.
  The political and security situations vis-a-vis Cuba can be 
summarized by quoting directly from Secretary of Defense Cohen's May 
1998 letter to then-Chairman of the Armed Services Committee Strom 
Thurmond:

       While the assessment notes that the direct conventional 
     threat by the Cuban military has decreased, I remain 
     concerned about the use of Cuba as a base for intelligence 
     activities directed against the United States, the potential 
     threat that Cuba may pose to neighboring islands, Castro's 
     continued dictatorship that represses the Cuban people's 
     desire for political and economic freedom, and the potential 
     instability that could accompany the end of his regime 
     depending on the circumstances under which Castro departs . . 
     . Finally, I remain concerned about Cuba's potential to 
     develop and produce biological agents, its biotechnology 
     infrastructure, as well as the environmental health risks 
     posed to the United States by potential accidents at the 
     Juragua nuclear power facility.

  Mr. President, I supported the establishment of diplomatic and trade 
relations with Vietnam because that country met a set of carefully 
established criteria that brought it in our direction, and did not 
force the United States to move in its direction. I would fully support 
a similar approach to Cuba. We don't need a commission to study our 
relations with Cuba; what we need is to establish a road map that the 
Castro regime must follow in order to facilitate a lifting of the 
sanctions it purports to find so odious. As with Saddam Hussein and Kim 
Il Sung, Castro has within his power the ability to fundamentally 
transform his country for the better and to reintroduce it fully into 
the community of nations. The ball is in Castro's court. Whether he 
possesses the wisdom to do what is right, unfortunately, is sadly 
unlikely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that on the expiration of the 2 minutes Senator Warner, the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in closing, I want to 
respond to a few remarks that have been made. The Sun-Sentinel, in an 
article entitled ``Why Trade With Such A Deadbeat?'' says:

       If the U.S. trade embargo is lifted and Castro gets fresh 
     U.S. lines of credit to buy American products that Castro 
     can't and won't repay, it will be the American taxpayer who 
     will then be stuck with the bottom line.

  Our colleagues should be reminded of the fact we will extend credit, 
but we will wind up paying for it because Castro will write off the 
debt and will not bother taking the time and trouble to pay us back.
  Also, the School of International Studies, University of Miami, 
points out:

       Without major internal reforms in Cuba, the Castro 
     Government and the military, not the Cuban people, will be 
     the main beneficiary of lifting of the embargo.

  I respond to my colleague who made a point of saying Nixon went to 
China in 1972. Look at China today: forced abortions and some of the 
worst human rights violations in the history of mankind. There is still 
a regime in power that represses human rights worse than any regime in 
history.
  Let's compare that to Ronald Reagan who stood up to the Soviet Union 
and said: This is the evil empire, and I will not back down in doing 
the right thing, which is to keep the pressure on them until they fade 
away.
  The differences in history are pretty obvious. It is not that 
difficult to understand. Cuba was a small country when Fidel Castro 
took power, and now 1.5 million people have left that country. We 
should not be working at all to remove the embargo from that country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Under the 
previous order, the Senator from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak on this issue for not to exceed about 6 minutes.

[[Page S5406]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3267

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the situation is as follows: For close to 
2 or 3 years, I have been working with my good friend, Senator Dodd, on 
a wide range of issues relating to Cuba. Senator Dodd and I have spent 
a great deal of time studying and, indeed, traveling in relation to 
this matter. It is our belief that we should, as a nation, remove those 
legal impediments, to allow food and medicine to go into Cuba. We 
embarked on the effort to legislate, to have the Senate adopt measures 
to allow food and medicine to go into Cuba.
  I remember one of our former distinguished colleagues, Malcolm 
Wallop, brought into my office some American physicians who had 
undertaken to travel down to Cuba to see for themselves the plight of 
these people who have been denied up-to-date, state-of-the-art medical 
equipment. Cuba has good doctors, but they have not the medical 
equipment nor the medicine. Anyway, those efforts failed.
  In the course of the Elian Gonzalez case, it became apparent to me 
that America--outside of Florida and elsewhere--began to wake up to the 
relationship between the United States and Cuba and the inability, over 
40 years, to succeed in our goal to allow that nation to receive a 
greater degree of democracy, trade, and other relationships.
  So Senator Dodd and I have at the desk an amendment, the Warner-Dodd 
amendment, calling for the appointment of the commission. It is 
essentially the same as the Dodd amendment that is up now.
  But as a manager of this bill and, indeed, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, I have to decide my priorities. My priorities are 
that this bill is in the interest of the security of this Nation; $300-
plus billion providing all types of equipment for the men and women of 
the Armed Forces--salary, medical care for retirees. The committee has 
worked on this bill for 6 months.
  This issue of the commission to determine the future relationships 
between the United States and Cuba is not germane. I thought perhaps we 
could discuss it, so I offered the amendment, and it is now the pending 
business. But it is clear to me that this piece of legislation could 
become an impediment for this bill being passed.
  I have no alternative but to say two things. One, I remain 
philosophically attuned and in support of the Warner-Dodd amendment, 
which is at the desk. At some point in time, I hope to rejoin the 
effort, with others, to try to bring about some of the objectives in 
the Warner-Dodd amendment. But it has to be withdrawn at this time in 
order for this bill to move forward and the Dodd amendment to be 
considered.


                     Amendment No. 3267, Withdrawn

  So at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Warner-Dodd amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment 
No. 3267 is withdrawn.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation.
  I see my colleague from Florida is here. I yield the floor.

  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a previous order.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Washington is recognized 
to offer an amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. If I have some time under the UC agreement, I yield it to 
my distinguished colleague from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 3475

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I merely seek recognition to move to table 
the Dodd amendment No. 3475, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MACK. I understand that vote will take place at 3:15 p.m. among 
three stacked votes, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are four stacked votes; that is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, consistent with what I said earlier, I 
will have to support the motion to table so that this amendment is not 
an impediment to the passage of the bill.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business and that 
the time not be counted against the time reserved for the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first thank my colleague from 
Washington for her courtesy in allowing me to speak for a few minutes 
on a very important matter that is of great significance to parts of my 
State and other States, as well.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2755 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized to offer an amendment on which there will be 2 
hours of debate equally divided. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 3252

(Purpose: To repeal the restriction on the use of Department of Defense 
               facilities for privately funded abortions)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment at the desk, No. 
3252, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Jeffords, 
     and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 3252.

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 270, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 743. RESTORATION OF PREVIOUS POLICY REGARDING 
                   RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   MEDICAL FACILITIES.

       Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b); and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Restriction on Use of 
     Funds--''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors Senators Boxer, Mikulski, Schumer, Jeffords and Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, today we are offering the Murray-Snowe amendment. It 
is an amendment which would lift restrictions on privately funded 
abortions at military facilities overseas.
  This is the identical amendment we have offered every year since 
1995, and I assure my colleagues that we will continue to offer this 
amendment until we restore this important health care protection for 
our women who are serving abroad.
  It is simply outrageous that today we deny military personnel and 
their dependents access to safe, affordable, and legal reproductive 
health care services. We ask these women to serve their country and 
defend our Government, but we deny them basic rights that are afforded 
all women in this country.
  I come to the floor year after year during this DOD authorization in 
an effort to educate my colleagues in the hope of convincing a majority 
of them to stand up for all military personnel. I also offer this 
amendment to highlight the record of those who do stand up for women 
and their right to a safe and legal abortion at their own cost.
  To be clear, this is not about Federal funding of abortion. Many of 
our military personnel serve in hostile areas or in countries that do 
not provide safe and legal abortion services. Military personnel and 
their families who serve us overseas should not be forced to seek back 
alley abortions or abortions in facilities that do not meet the same 
clinical standards we expect and demand in this country. Sadly, that is 
exactly the case today.
  Protecting all military personnel and their dependents has always 
been a priority of the Department of Defense, which is why the 
Secretary of Defense supports the amendment Senator Snowe and I are 
offering today. This

[[Page S5407]]

amendment is also supported by the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists because they recognize the danger that these women 
face outside this country.

  Some Members will undoubtedly argue that women are afforded access to 
a legal and safe abortion with the current restriction in place. They 
will point out that under the current policy, a woman who needs an 
abortion can request transportation back to the United States for 
treatment. It is true that she can request a temporary leave from her 
commanding officer and will be transported at the expense of our 
military to a location where she would have access to an abortion. To 
me, that is unacceptable. It forces a woman to provide detailed medical 
evidence and records to her superior officer with no guarantee or 
protection that this information will be kept confidential. Then once 
she gets the commanding officer's permission, she needs to find 
transportation home, often on a military plane, such as a C-17.
  I don't know of any other medical procedure that requires a soldier 
to have to endure such public scrutiny. If there are Members who 
believe that these women are protected and have access to a basic right 
that is guaranteed by our Constitution to a safe and legal abortion, I 
will tell my colleagues this is not the case. Do not be fooled. The 
current ban on privately funded abortions at military facilities 
overseas places the women who serve our country in great danger.
  This amendment is not about Federal funding of abortions. This 
amendment does not require direct Federal procurement for abortion 
services. This amendment would, in fact, require the woman, not the 
taxpayer, to pay the cost of her care at a military facility. This 
amendment would simply allow the woman to use existing facilities that 
are currently operational to provide health care to our active duty 
personnel and their families.
  This amendment does not call for providing any additional services. 
It is simply services that are already available. These clinics and 
hospitals are already functioning and providing care. There would be no 
added burden. For those who are concerned about Federal tax dollars 
being used to provide abortion services, I point out that the current 
practice results in more direct expenditures of Federal funds than 
simply allowing a woman to pay for the cost of abortion-related 
services at a military facility. Current policy requires transportation 
costs that in some cases could be far more expensive than a privately 
funded abortion.
  I also point out that there is a direct, positive impact on our 
military readiness when a woman is forced to take extended leave to 
travel for an abortion.
  As we all know, women are no longer simply support staff in the 
military. Women command troops and are in key military readiness 
positions. Their contributions are beyond dispute. While women serve 
side by side with their male counterparts, they are subjected to an 
archaic and seemingly mean-spirited health care restriction. Women in 
our military deserve more respect and better treatment.
  I think it is also important to remind my colleagues that this 
amendment will not change the current conscience clause for medical 
personnel. Health care professionals who object to providing safe and 
legal health services to women could still refuse to perform an 
abortion. No one in the military would be forced to perform any 
procedures that he or she objected to as a matter of conscience.
  The current policy places our women at risk. Because the current 
policy is so cumbersome, women could be forced to undergo an abortion 
later in their pregnancy when risks and complications increase. They 
can, of course, try to obtain safe and legal abortion services in the 
host country in which they are serving--if there are no language or 
cultural barriers that hinder their access.
  We should not tolerate situations that are occurring, such as what 
occurred to a woman serving our country in Japan. Because of our 
current policy, she was denied access to abortion services at the 
military facility, even at her own expense, and she was forced to go 
off base to secure a safe and legal abortion. She had no escort and no 
help from the military as she went to a foreign facility. She didn't 
understand the medical questions or the instructions, and she was 
terrified. I have her letter, and I will read it into the Record later. 
Our Government should never have forced her, as she was serving us 
overseas, into that circumstance.
  Regardless of what some of my colleagues may think about the 
constitutional ruling guaranteeing a woman the right to a safe abortion 
without unnecessary burdens or obstacles, this is the law of the land. 
While some may oppose this right to choose, the Supreme Court and a 
majority of Americans support this right. It is the law of the land. 
However, active duty servicewomen stationed overseas surrender this 
right when they make the decision to volunteer to defend all of us. It 
is sadly ironic that we send them overseas to protect our rights; yet 
in the process we rob them of vital constitutional protections.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Snowe amendment. Please 
allow women in the military the right to make their own health care 
choices without being forced to violate privacy and jeopardize their 
health and their careers. This is and must remain a personal decision. 
Women should not be subject to the approval or disapproval of their 
coworkers.
  I stress this is not about Federal funding of abortions. This is 
about protecting women serving overseas and providing privately funded, 
safe, and legal abortions. I urge my colleagues to support our women in 
uniform by restoring their right to choose.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Personnel 
Subcommittee on Armed Services, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Murray amendment which allows abortion on demand in military facilities 
overseas.
  I oppose the pending amendment because, No. 1, it is unnecessary. It 
is a solution in search of a problem. No. 2, it violates the letter and 
spirit of existing Federal law; that is, the Hyde amendment which 
prohibits Federal funding of abortion. In fact, that is the issue 
involved in this amendment. It is a subsidizing of the abortion 
procedure. Third, if it were adopted, it would likely accomplish very 
little while providing a Federal endorsement of the practice that is 
opposed by tens of millions of Americans.
  My colleagues contend that the Murray amendment is a banner of 
constitutional rights. I think that argument is disingenuous. The 
current statute does not preclude servicewomen, serving overseas, from 
obtaining abortions. Women serving overseas already have the 
opportunity to terminate their pregnancy because the Department of 
Defense will provide them transportation either to the United States or 
to another country where abortion is legal for only $10. That is the 
cost of the food on the flight.
  To say there is a constitutional right that is abrogated is 
incorrect. In 1979, the Congress adopted what has come to be known as 
the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment has been upheld by the U.S. 
Supreme Court as constitutional. It prohibits the use of Federal funds 
for performing abortions. The Hyde amendment has broad support in the 
Congress, and in fact it has broad support by Americans in general.
  I know my colleagues claim that Federal funds would not be used in 
these abortions, that women would pay for their own abortions, 
ostensibly by reimbursing the hospital, although that raises a host of 
questions that I hope we have time to pose for Senator Murray. But they 
can't possibly reimburse the hospital for the total cost of the 
abortion because the military hospital is 100-percent taxpayer funded. 
The building itself is built with taxpayer funds.
  Do we intend, under the Murray amendment, to allocate a portion of 
the cost of the building of that hospital's facilities to the 
servicewoman seeking an abortion? The beds, the utilities, the salaries 
of those performing the procedure, these costs come out of the pockets 
of taxpayers, millions of whom believe abortion is a reprehensible 
practice.
  Abortion should not be a fringe benefit to military service. We can't 
avoid the fact that adoption of the Murray amendment would be clearly 
inconsistent with the current U.S. statute

[[Page S5408]]

prohibiting the current funding of abortion. It not only departs from 
the letter of the Hyde amendment; it departs from the spirit of the 
Hyde amendment intended to protect the American taxpayer who has a 
conviction against the practice of abortion from being forced to 
subsidize and pay for the abortion procedure.
  My colleagues contend that this is simply a matter of choice. Let's 
talk about choice for a moment. What about the choice of people who 
believe that abortion is inimical to their dearest values? What about 
the choice of taxpayers who don't want to subsidize the termination of 
life?
  I find it significant that during 1993, when President Clinton 
liberalized the practice of abortion in military hospitals, killing of 
the unborn in military hospitals, every single military physician and 
nearly every military nurse refused to volunteer to perform such 
procedures. The President issued his executive memorandum permitting 
abortion on demand at military hospitals on January 22, 1993--
ironically, the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The fact that no 
doctors and almost no nurses volunteered to perform this procedure I 
think indicates that such a scenario would likely repeat itself if the 
Murray amendment were adopted.

  Since military health care professionals cannot be forced to perform 
such a procedure against their conscience, as Senator Murray has said, 
the military will then be forced into a position of having to contract 
out the performance of such procedures to a civilian physician, which 
would in itself violate the Hyde amendment by requiring the expenditure 
of taxpayers' funds to pay for that contracted physician.
  Having to hire abortionists at U.S. military hospitals puts the U.S. 
military in the abortion business. I find that appalling, something 
that is not supported by the American people. It is not supported by 
people on either side of the choice issue, whether pro-choice or pro-
life. They do not believe we ought to be expending American taxpayers' 
dollars in subsidizing abortion.
  This amendment, whether it is intended or not, would have that 
result--from the fact that we cannot totally allocate those costs, we 
are using a military hospital building built by taxpayers' dollars, 
using doctors whose salaries are paid by taxpayers, using equipment, 
using support staff--of all being paid for by the taxpayer. There is no 
conceivable way to calculate what that person should pay to reimburse 
the Government. The result is that the taxpayers are going to be 
subsidizing the practice. If in fact doctors in the military react the 
way they did in 1993, when the President, by executive memorandum, 
issued the order that we were going to provide abortion on demand in 
military hospitals, if they react the same way, we would then be in the 
position of having to go into the civilian sector, contract with 
doctors who are willing to perform abortions, and pay them with 
American taxpayers' dollars--clearly, and explicitly, in violation of 
the Hyde amendment.

  I find this whole debate to be an exercise in irony. The purpose of 
our Armed Forces is to defend and protect American lives. We should not 
then subvert this noble goal by using the military to terminate the 
lives of the innocent among us.
  What the Murray amendment would do, in the opinion of this Senator, 
is to create a kind of legal myth: We are not subsidizing abortions, 
but we really are. We are saying we are not but in fact we know we are. 
Let's pretend we are not subsidizing abortions. We know they are in 
military hospitals performed by military doctors paid by American 
taxpayers. We know it is supported by taxes paid by American taxpayers. 
We know the equipment used is bought and paid for by American 
taxpayers. But we are not really subsidizing it. That is a legal myth 
and it simply does not measure up.
  There is a concept called the slippery slope. I suggest allowing 
abortions to be performed in U.S. military hospitals overseas is just 
one little more slide down that slippery slope.
  I ask a letter from Edwin F. O'Brien, the Archbishop for the Military 
Services, dated June 19, 2000, in opposition to the Murray amendment, 
be printed in the Record, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                               Archdiocese for the


                                       Military Services, USA,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 2000.
       Dear Senator: As one concerned with the moral well being of 
     our Armed Services I write in regards to the FY 2001 National 
     Defense Authorization Act, S. 2549.
       Please oppose an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray that would 
     pressure military physicians, nurses and associated medical 
     personnel to perform all elective abortions. This amendment 
     would compel taxpayer funded military hospitals and personnel 
     to provide elective abortions and seeks to equate abortion 
     with ordinary health care.
       The life-destroying act of abortion is radically different 
     from other medical procedures. Military medical personnel 
     themselves have refused to take part of this procedure or 
     even to work where it takes place. Military hospitals have an 
     outstanding record of saving life, even in the most 
     challenging times and conditions.
       Please do not place this very heavy burden upon our 
     wonderful men and women of America's Armed Services and 
     please oppose any other amendments that would weaken the 
     current law regarding funding of abortion for military 
     personnel.
       Thank you for your kind consideration of this message.
           Sincerely,
                                           Edwin F. O'Brien,      
                             Archbishop for the Military Services.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Smith.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the 
Murray amendment. Under current law, performing abortions at military 
medical facilities is banned, except for cases where the mother's life 
is in jeopardy or in the case of rape or incest. So what this amendment 
would do is strike this provision from the law, thereby, in my view, 
turning military medical treatment centers into abortion clinics. I 
think we have to think hard about that, whether or not that is really 
the purpose of military medical treatment centers because that is the 
bottom line. That is what this would do.
  The House recently rejected a similar amendment by a vote of 221-195. 
It was offered by Representative Loretta Sanchez of California. A 
number of pro-life Democrats joined with Republican colleagues to 
defeat this amendment.
  In 1995, the House voted three times to keep abortion on demand out 
of military medical facilities before the pro-life provision was 
finally enacted into law. Over and over again in Congress, we had 
votes. Last year, I think it was 51-49. It was very close. I will not 
be surprised to see the Vice President step into the Chamber, 
anticipating a possible tie vote, because this administration is the 
most abortion-oriented administration in American history. I think we 
can be treated, probably, to that little scenario as well. I think that 
shows a stark difference between the two candidates for President of 
the United States, I might add.
  When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was 
promulgated, many military physicians as well as many nurses and 
supporting personnel refused to perform or assist in these abortions. 
In response, the administration sought to supplement staff with 
contract personnel to provide alternative means to provide abortion 
access.
  This is a very sensitive situation. You may have a military nurse or 
person who is a member of the military who works at that hospital who 
may be opposed to abortions, does not want to perform them. So when 
that happens, the President now has asked that we get contract 
personnel to come in because people opposed to this on a moral basis, 
because of conscience, refuse to perform them. That is basically the 
way it is in American society today.
  The dirty little secret about the abortion industry is the doctors 
who perform them are not really considered to be the top of their 
profession. In fact, it is usually the dregs who are performing the 
abortions, not the good doctors. So if this amendment were to be 
adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support 
abortion on demand, but resources, Government resources, would be used 
to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so abortions 
could be performed on demand.

[[Page S5409]]

  It would be nice if we could spend a little time debating the defense 
budget on the Defense bill. I sat through 2 hours of one nongermane 
amendment a while ago on Cuba sanctions, now abortions on demand, where 
we are talking about bringing all kinds of new people, a new 
bureaucracy, if you will, who are to hire, transport, search for 
personnel to perform abortions because people of conscience in the 
military do not want to perform them, so we, therefore, have to replace 
them.
  As the Congressional Research Service confirms, a 1994 memorandum 
from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs directed the 
Military Health Services System:

       . . . to provide other means of access if providing prepaid 
     abortion services at a facility was not feasible.

  This is absolutely wrong. It is wrong morally, No. 1. But it is also 
a waste of precious military resources, which are so much needed today. 
By the way, because of this amendment and other nongermane amendments, 
we are holding up the passage of this bill, which includes a pay raise 
for our military that this President has sent all over the world time 
and time again. So this is an unnecessary amendment. The DOD has not 
been made aware of a single problem arising as a result of this policy.
  American taxpayers should not be required to pay for abortions. In 
1979, the Hyde amendment was passed to prohibit the use of taxpayer 
moneys to fund abortions. In Harris v. McCray, the U.S. Supreme Court 
held the right to an abortion does not include the right to have the 
taxpayer moneys pay for it. It is DOD policy to obey the laws of the 
nations in which bases are located. Thus, even if the Murray amendment 
is adopted, abortions will still not be available on all military 
bases. Spain and Korea prohibit abortion, for example.
  The ban is not intended to and does not block female military 
personnel from receiving an abortion. As the Senator from Arkansas has 
pointed out, DOD has a number of elective procedures for which it 
currently does not pay. As the Senator said, any woman can fly on a 
military aircraft for $10 on a space-available basis to have an 
abortion somewhere else, unfortunately.
  In other words, the woman could still get an abortion if she wanted 
one, again, unfortunately. In fact, many women often travel back to the 
U.S. to receive their abortions. The question is, Should we pay for it 
at the hospital? That is the question. Should we hire more people, more 
support people just for the purpose of performing abortions in these 
military hospitals? I say the answer to that is no.
  Some would argue the woman would be inconvenienced, that she would 
have to have her leave approved, she would have to get her 
transportation. But she could still get her abortion. I am not sorry, 
frankly, that someone has to be inconvenienced for having an abortion. 
Frankly, I wish somebody would give them the time and counsel to 
discuss this issue so they could fully realize what they are doing, 
taking the life of an unborn child who has no voice, who has no 
opportunity to say anything. I wish we would have that opportunity to 
provide that woman that kind of counseling so she would not do it and 
regret that decision for the rest of her life. Abortion should never be 
convenient because when a woman chooses an abortion, she is choosing to 
kill her baby. It is not a fetus, it is a baby. It is an unborn child. 
Her baby never had a choice.
  Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and 
nurturing life--healing and nurturing life--should not be taking the 
lives of unborn children. Also, these hospitals treat the combat 
wounded in war. Those who are hurt are treated. There have been so many 
hospitals throughout the years that have been so outstanding in their 
treatment, saving so many lives. The great attributes they have 
received for doing that should not now become a part of this abortion 
debate and be involved in killing innocent children, that some of the 
people who were treated in those hospitals, if not all, fought so they 
could be free, so those children could be born in freedom. Those people 
who were wounded and treated in those hospitals did not do it to take 
innocent lives. They did it to allow those innocent lives to be born 
into freedom.

  That is the bitter irony of all this: the taking of the most innocent 
human life, a child in the womb, taking place in a hospital that 
treated those who fought to allow that child to be born into freedom.
  What a dramatic irony that is. The bottom line is it is immoral to 
make hard-working taxpayers in America pay for abortions at military 
hospitals, and it is immoral to perform those abortions. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Murray amendment.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, my colleague and cosponsor, Senator 
Snowe, is present in the Chamber. I will yield her time in just a 
moment.
  I point out a woman's health care decision to have or not have an 
abortion should be with herself, her family, her doctor, and her 
religion. That is not the case in the military today. When a woman has 
to go to her commanding officer and request permission to fly home on a 
military transport, she no longer has the ability to make that decision 
on her own. It becomes a very public decision.
  This amendment simply gives back her privacy and allows her to pay 
for at her own expense a health care procedure in a military hospital 
where she is safe and taken care of.
  I am delighted my cosponsor, Senator Snowe, is here, and I yield her 
as much time as she needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for, 
once again, assuming the leadership on this most important issue.
  I rise today as a cosponsor of the Murray amendment to repeal the ban 
on privately-funded abortions at overseas military hospitals.
  Last year, when I spoke on this amendment, I said that ``standing 
here I have the feeling of `Deja vu all over again.' '' I have that 
same sentiment today--and this year I can add that ``the more things 
change, the more they remain the same.'' For in the last year we have 
deployed more women overseas--6,000 more women than there were just a 
year ago.
  And yet here we are, once again, having to argue a case that 
basically boils down to providing women who are serving their country 
overseas with the full range of constitutional rights, options, and 
choices that would be afforded them as American citizens on American 
soil.
  In 1973, 27 years ago, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time 
women's right to choose. This landmark decision was carefully crafted 
to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women 
in America paramount in reproductive decisions. But this same right is 
not afforded to female members of our armed services or to female 
dependents who happen to be stationed overseas.
  Current law prohibits abortions to be performed in domestic or 
international military treatment facilities except in cases of rape, 
incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered. The 
Department of Defense will only pay for the abortion when the life of 
the pregnant woman is endangered--in cases of rape or incest, the woman 
must pay for her own abortion. In no other instance is a woman 
permitted to have an abortion in a military facility.
  The Murray-Snowe amendment would overturn the ban on privately funded 
abortions in overseas military treatment facilities and ensure that 
women and military dependents stationed overseas would have access to 
safe health care. Overturning this ban on privately-funded abortions 
will not result in federal funds being used to perform abortion at 
military hospitals.
  The fact is that Federal law already states that Federal funding 
cannot be used to perform abortions. Federal law has banned the use of 
Federal funds for this purpose since 1979. But to say that our service 
women and the wives and daughters of our servicemen cannot use their 
own money to obtain an abortion at a military hospital overseas defies 
logic.
  Every year opponents of the Murray-Snowe amendment argue that 
changing current law means that military personnel and military 
facilities will be

[[Page S5410]]

charged with performing abortions--and that this, in turn, means that 
American taxpayer funds will be used to subsidize abortion. This 
seemingly logical segue is absolutely and fundamentally incorrect.
  Every hospital that performs a surgery--every physician that performs 
a procedure upon a patient--must figure out the cost of that procedure. 
This includes not only the time involved, but the materials, the 
overhead, the liability insurance. This is the fundamental and basic 
principle of covering one's costs.
  I have faith that the Department of Defense will not do otherwise. 
This is the idea behind a privately-funded abortion--a woman's private 
funds, her own money pays for the procedure. But she has the 
opportunity to have this medical procedure--a medical procedure that is 
constitutionally guaranteed--in an American facility, performed by an 
American physician, and tended to by American nurses.
  During last year's debate, opponents of repealing the current ban 
claimed that American taxpayers would be subsidizing the purchase of 
equipment for abortions, and would be training doctors to perform 
privately-funded abortions. This false argument effectively overlooks 
the fact that the Department of Defense has already invested in the 
equipment and training necessary because current law already provides 
access in cases of life of the mother, rape, or incest.
  But the economic cost of this ban is not the only cost at issue here. 
What about the impact on a woman's health? A woman who is stationed 
overseas can be forced to delay the procedure for several weeks until 
she can travel to the United States or another overseas location in 
order to obtain the abortion. Every week that a woman delays an 
abortion increases the risk of the procedure.
  The current law banning privately-funded abortions puts the health of 
these women at risk. They will be forced to seek out unsafe medical 
care in countries where the blood supply is not safe, where their 
procedures are antiquated, where their equipment may not be sterile. I 
do not believe it is right, on top of all the other sacrifices our 
military personnel are asked to make, to add unsafe medical care to the 
list.
  I believe that a decision as fundamentally personal as whether or not 
to continue one's pregnancy only needs to be discussed between a woman, 
her family, and her physician. But yet, as current law stands, a woman 
who is facing the tragic decision of whether or not to have an abortion 
faces involving not just her family and her physician, but her--or her 
husband's--commanding officer, duty officer, miscellaneous 
transportation personnel, and any number of other persons who are 
totally and completely unrelated to her or her decision. Now she faces 
both the stress and grief of her decision--but she faces the judgment 
and willingness of many others who are totally and wholly unconnected 
to her personal and private situation.
  Imagine having made the difficult decision to have an abortion and 
then being told that you have to return to the United States or go to a 
hospital that may or may not be clean and sanitary. That is the effect 
of current policy--if you have the money, if you leave your family, if 
you leave your support system, and come back here. Otherwise, your full 
range of choices consists of paying from your own money and taking your 
chances at some questionable hospital that may or may not be okay.
  This of course, is only if the country you are stationed in has legal 
abortion. Otherwise you have no option. You have no access to your 
constitutionally protected right of abortion.
  What is the freedom to choose? It is the freedom to make a decision 
without unnecessary government interference. Denying a woman the best 
available resources for her health care simply is not right. Current 
law does not provide a woman and her family the ability to make a 
choice. It gives the woman and her family no freedom of choice. It 
makes the choice for her.
  In the year 2000, in the United States of America it is a fact that a 
woman's right to an abortion is the law of the land. The Supreme Court 
has spoken on that issue, and you can look it up. Denying women the 
right to a safe abortion because you disagree with the Supreme Court is 
wrong, but that is what current law does.
  Military personnel stationed overseas still vote, still pay taxes, 
and are protected and punished under U.S. law. They protect the rights 
and ideals that this country stands for. Whether we agree with abortion 
or not, we all understand that safe and legal access to abortion is the 
law of the land. But the current ban on privately-funded abortions 
takes away the fundamental right of personal choice from American women 
stationed overseas. And I don't believe these women should be treated 
as second class citizens.
  It never occurred to me that women's constitutional rights were 
territorial. It never occurred to me that when American women in our 
armed forces get their visas and passports stamped when they go 
abroad--that they are required to leave their fundamental, 
constitutional rights at the proverbial door. It never occurred to me 
that in order to find out what freedoms you have as an American, you 
had to check the time-zone you were in.
  The United States willingly sends our service men and women into 
harms way--yet Congress takes it upon itself to deny 14 percent of our 
Armed Forces personnel--33,000 of whom are stationed overseas--the 
basic right to safe medical care. And we deny the basic right to safe 
medical care to more than 200,000 military dependents who are stationed 
overseas as well.
  How can we do this to our service men and women and their families? 
It seems to me that they already sacrifice a great deal to serve their 
country without asking them to take unnecessary risks with their health 
as well. We should not ask our military personnel to leave their basic 
rights at the shoreline when we send them overseas.
  I believe we owe our men and women in uniform and their families the 
option to receive the medical care they need in a safe environment. 
They do not deserve anything less. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting the Murray-Snowe amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________