[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16582-16583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CUBA TRADE EMBARGO

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate voted to grant 
permanent normal trade relations to Russia by a vote of 92 to 4, and I 
strongly supported that bill.
  To extend PNTR to Russia, we had to repeal an out-of-date policy that 
was adopted during the Cold War; that is, the Jackson-Vanik amendment. 
I wish to speak briefly on the Senate floor this afternoon about 
another out-of-date policy of the Cold War that I believe should be 
ended; that is, the trade embargo on Cuba.
  I have spoken about this many times in the past. Along with Senator 
Pell, Senator Dodd, and many others, I argued against the Helms-Burton 
Act in 1996.
  For the past 50 years, our country's policy toward Cuba has been 
essentially stagnant. The core element of our foreign policy--which is 
the embargo--was authorized in a proclamation signed by President 
Kennedy on February 3, 1962; that is, 51 years ago. At that time, 
President Kennedy justified the embargo by citing the `` . . . 
subversive offensive of Sino-Soviet Communism with which the Government 
of Cuba is publicly aligned. . . . ''
  He also stated his willingness to 
``. . . take all necessary actions to promote national and hemispheric 
security by isolating the present Government of Cuba and thereby 
reducing the threat posed by its alignment with the communist powers.''
  It is an understatement to say President Kennedy's rationale is from 
a different era. The cold war is over. The ``subversive offensive of 
Sino-Soviet Communism'' has been turned back. What remains of the 
Communist powers he was referring to are now our major trading 
partners. We have now extended permanent normal trade relations to 
Russia, which was, of course, the principal Communist power to which 
President Kennedy was referring, and neither Cuba nor those Communist 
powers pose a threat to national or hemispheric security today.
  The world has changed. It is long past time that we change our policy 
toward Cuba. The embargo should have been lifted decades ago. It does 
not serve our national interest. It does not make our country safer. It 
does no good for the people of Cuba whom we claim to want to help. They 
would have better jobs and better lives if they could do business with 
the United States, which is the biggest economy in the world. The 
embargo does not help their families in the United States. Until 
recently, their families in the United States were severely restricted 
in how often they could visit and how much money they could send back 
to their relatives. It is ironic that for so long our policy for 
opposing the repression of freedoms in Cuba has included restricting 
the freedom of Americans to travel to see their families in that 
country.
  As I have said before, I deplore the repression of the Castro 
brothers' government. The United States should support the efforts of 
the Cuban people to fight for their basic rights, and they need our 
help. Earlier this year, Amnesty International issued a damning 
assessment that said:

       The Cuban government wages a permanent campaign of 
     harassment and short-term detentions of political opponents 
     to stop them from demanding respect for civil and political 
     rights. The Cuban government should release all political 
     prisoners.

  The Cuban Government should also release Alan Gross, the American who 
has been jailed for more than 3 years now for distributing telephones 
in Cuba. As I understand it, he is in poor health and a humanitarian 
parole is more than justified.
  When we hear about the Cuban Government's policies toward people--the 
repression of their basic freedoms, the persecution of political 
dissidents--it is understandable to want to punish the government and 
to weaken it so it collapses. We have to ask ourselves if our goal is 
to punish the Cuban Government or, instead, to help the Cuban people. 
Our goal should be to help the Cuban people.
  Further, we have to ask ourselves whether continuing the embargo will 
accomplish that goal. In my view, the answer is clearly no.
  It defies belief and 50 years of historical evidence to think that 
continuing the embargo will result in the toppling of the Castro 
regime. That regime has survived 50 years of sanctions. Fidel Castro is 
84 years old. Raul Castro is 81 years old. It is much more likely that 
old age and ill health will end their rule rather than the embargo 
ending their rule; nor will continuing the embargo into a sixth 
decade--which is what we are now in danger of doing--result in the 
release of Alan Gross or political prisoners in Cuba or a sudden shift 
to democracy.
  A better approach is to build relationships between the people and 
businesses in the United States and the people and businesses in Cuba. 
Interaction is a more powerful driver of change than isolation. We 
should allow more travel, we should allow more communication, and we 
should allow more commerce.
  I wish to be clear that ending the embargo would not mean we agree 
with the Cuban Government's policies, nor does it mean we must stop 
advocating for basic freedoms and democracy in that nation. We need to 
be clear-eyed about the human rights abuses in Cuba. But the United 
States, as the only remaining superpower in the world, should be able 
to balance these goals. It is the approach we have taken with China. It 
is the approach we are taking with our vote today with Russia.
  I wish to point out that as in Cuba, there are significant concerns 
about human rights and democracy in Russia. In fact, the legislation we 
voted on to expand our economic ties with Russia includes sanctions 
targeted at people who commit human rights violations. Those provisions 
are, of course, called the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law and 
Accountability Act. They were authored by Senators Cardin, Kyl, McCain, 
and others. We could take a similar approach with Cuba, expanding 
economic ties while continuing to put pressure on those responsible for 
repressing basic rights and basic freedoms.
  Ultimately, because of the web of sanctions legislation that has been 
enacted over the years, only Congress has the authority to fully lift 
the embargo. But until Congress is willing to end that embargo, I hope 
the President will act.
  The President has substantial authority to loosen the restrictions on 
travel and commerce. President Obama has already taken important steps, 
for example, by removing restrictions on family travel and authorizing 
licenses for the sale of communications equipment. I urge the President 
to make maximum use of the authorities he does have to relax sanctions. 
It should have been done long ago. I hope it can be done soon.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 16583]]



                          ____________________