[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 132 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10792-S10793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr President, I rise today to clarify my position on 
the vote we are about to take on the Agriculture Appropriations bill. I 
voted for the bill because it contains funding for a broad range of 
programs that are very important to farmers in New Mexico and the rest 
of the United States. But that said, I would like to express my 
opposition and disappointment at this time to the way this bill frames 
our national policy toward Cuba.
  First, let me say that this bill is remarkable in that it represents 
a dramatic step forward in how the United States deals with 
restrictions on sales

[[Page S10793]]

of food and medicine to designated terrorist states. After considerable 
debate among my colleagues on this issue, relative consensus has been 
attained that suggests that unilateral sanctions against countries like 
North Korea, Sudan, Iran, and Libya are not effective, and that any 
future economic policy in this regard must include the multi-lateral 
cooperation of other like-minded governments. Even more importantly, 
many of my colleagues have come to the conclusion that official 
sanctions on food and medicine is an inappropriate way to achieve our 
foreign policy goals. The logic here is straightforward: not only do 
these sanctions hurt those individuals most in need in these 
countries--the innocent civilians who are being oppressed by oftentimes 
ruthless regimes--but they also hurt American businesses that would 
directly gain from such exports. American farmers in particular suffer 
under these constraints, and I am convinced those constraints should be 
removed immediately.
  I should emphasize here that the elimination of sanctions does not 
imply that we as a deliberative body agree with the policy 
pronouncements or activities of terrorist countries. Quite the 
contrary, they are reprehensible and, as such, we will continue to 
register our opposition to them at every opportunity. But as a 
practical matter the elimination of the sanctions does suggest that we 
finally recognize that we cannot effectively punish dictators or 
despots through their own people. Perhaps more significantly in this 
regard, the United States should not be placed in the difficult 
position of defending such policies as, in my view, they run against 
some of our most basic values and traditions.
  It is for this reason that the Agricultural Appropriations bill as it 
relates to Cuba is seriously flawed. What we have done in this bill is 
permitted the sale of food and medicine to most of these countries and, 
moreover, authorized U.S. public and private financing that would allow 
this to occur. But we have refused to apply these exact same provisions 
to Cuba. In the case of Cuba, we have permitted the sale of food and 
medicine, but we have prohibited U.S. financial institutions from 
assisting in this process. Of course, Cuba can still purchase food or 
medicine from the United States, but it must do so with its own 
capital, or with assistance from third-party financial institutions. In 
short, Cuba must somehow convince a foreign bank to lend it money to 
purchase food or medicine, an obvious liability given its current 
situation. Clearly this limitation placed on Cuba defeats the basic 
rationale underlying the bill, and makes the exercise of sanctions 
reform almost entirely symbolic in nature. The bottom line is that our 
farmers will gain little or nothing in terms of increased sales to 
Cuba, and that is just plain wrong.
  This bill is also flawed in that it further restricts travel to Cuba, 
this after several years of moving forward in areas related to 
increased scientific, academic, social, and cultural exchange. I find 
this to be an ill-advised provision in that it runs counter to 
everything we have experienced in Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Latin 
America in terms of the dynamics of freedom and democratization. For a 
number of years now I have supported the right of Americans to travel 
to Cuba, and I continue to do so at this time. I have also suggested 
that we allow non-governmental organizations to operate in Cuba and to 
provide information and emergency relief when needed. Furthermore, I 
believe that Cuban-Americans with relatives still in Cuba should be 
permitted to visit Cuba to tend to family emergencies.
  Let me state clearly that I personally deplore the Castro regime and 
its heavy-handed tactics toward its people. The lack of freedom and 
opportunity in that country stands in direct contrast to the United 
States, as well as most countries in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba now 
stands alone in the West in its inability to allow the growth of 
democracy and the protection of individual rights.
  In my view, Cuba is ripe for change, and the best way to achieve 
positive change is to allow Americans to communicate and associate with 
the Cuban people on an intensive and ongoing basis, to re-establish 
cultural activities, and to rebuild economic relations. To allow the 
Cuban system to remain closed does little to assert United States 
influence over policy in that country and it does absolutely nothing in 
terms of creating the foundation for much-needed political economic 
transformation. The spread of democracy comes from interaction, not 
isolation.
  So for all the positive attributes contained within this bill, I see 
the provisions as they relate to Cuba to represent a serious step 
backward that will ultimately harm, not help, the U.S. national 
interest. This is an anachronistic policy that does no one any good. It 
is my hope that what some of my colleagues are saying today on the 
floor is true, that this is merely an initial compromise that lays the 
foundation for more significant change through legislation in the 
future. If this is correct, I look forward to working with them to 
ensure that more constructive policy is indeed enacted. I am convinced 
it is long overdue.

                          ____________________