June 20, 2000

"Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Last Friday I talked at some length about why I believe that the amendment originally proposed by Senator Warner and myself to establish a bipartisan commission to review United States policy toward Cuba is in our national interest.

The amendment I have just offer, like the Warner amendment, would provide for the appointment bipartisan commission to review U.S. policy with respect to Cuba and to make recommendations on how we can 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. I believe that he still thinks that this is a good idea even if he must disagree with the vehicle to which it has been attached.

This commission would be composed of twelve members chosen as follows: six by the President, six by the Congress (four by House and Senate Republican leaders and two by the Democratic leaders.) Senator Warner and I originally crafted this legislation to ensure that the commission would have a balanced and diverse membership. Commissioners are to be selected from various fields of expertise - including human rights, religious, public health, military, business, agricultural, and the Cuban-American community.

The commissioners will have 225 days from the date of enactment to undertake their review and report their findings. (the originally Warner amendment provided 180 days). What better time for the commission to do its work than during the transition from one administration to the next?

The idea of establishing a commission isn't a new or radical idea. It was first proposed by Senator Warner in 1998 in a letter to President Clinton. Who supported the Warner commission at that time?

Senator Warner was encouraged to propose such an idea in 1998 by a 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 Secretary of Defense 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, another former colleague of ours Malcolm Wallop. The United States Catholic Conference has also gone on record in support of the establishment of the Committee. (You can insert some of the letters from these individuals for the record if you choose to do so.)

In addition to Senator Warner and myself, the following members of the Senate joined on letters to the President in support of the creation of a commission: 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. Nearly one-quarter of the entire Senate.

Highly respected human rights advocates who have remained in Cuba to promote political change have called upon the United States to rethink our policy. Elizardo Sanchez, the 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 governments and unilateral sanctions will continue to fuel the fire of totalitarianism in my country."

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 these countries. In fact Americans are free to travel to many countries that I would not consider to be bastions of democracy -- Iran, the Sudan, Burma, the former Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cambodia -- to mention but a few.

We have just entered a new millennium and the United States has moved in most areas to bring United States 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 an historic summit that hopefully will 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 the lifting of sanctions against one of our oldest adversaries.

With respect to China, the United States has a number of serious disagreements with that government, including workers rights, respect for human rights, nuclear proliferation, economic policies, hostility toward Taiwan, etc. Yet the United States has full diplomatic relations with Beijing. Moreover, I predict that the Senate will soon follow the House and support Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China thereby clearly the way for its entry into the World Trade Organization.

Let's talk about Vietnam. The Vietnam conflict left an indelible mark on the American psyche -- 53,000 American servicemen and women lost their lives in a decade of armed hostilities. Yet today, Vietnam veteran and former Congressman Pete Peterson represents United States interests in Vietnam as the United States Ambassador. American citizens are free to travel and do business there.

Around the globe old adversaries are attempting to reconcile their differences -- in the Middle East, in Northern Ireland, on the Korean Peninsula. The United States has actively been promoting such efforts because it is in our national interest to do so.

Isn't it time that we at least took an honest and dispassionate look at our relations with a country that is in our own hemisphere, some ninety miles from our shores? What is Cuba's crime. Opponents of this measure point to the fact that Cuba remains of the terrorist list. Why? Because according to the 1999 State Department Report on Global Terrorism, Cuba "continued to provide 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 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 dialogue with the FARC and ELN as a means of ending the civil conflict in Colombia.

That same report found that Islamist extremists from around the world continue to use Afghanistan as a training ground and base of operation for their world-wide terrorist activities in 1999. Usama Bin Ladin -- the Saudi terrorist indicted for the 1998 bombing of two US 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. 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 that Commission admitted that Cuba's behavior with respect to terrorist matters had improved over past years.

Isn't it time that we started to measure our Cuba policy against the same yardstick that we measure our relations with the rest of the nations of the world?

Isn't it time that we followed a policy that was truly in our national interest -- one that promotes positive relations with the eleven million people who live on the Island of Cuba and one that promotes peaceful change and self-determination for a proud people who have been done a disservice by Fidel Castro and the United States.

Many of my colleagues have told me privately that they believe that Senator Warner and I are on the right course. Let me say to my colleagues that I appreciate those kind words, but I also hope that the time has finally come for them to stand up and be counted with respect to this issue.

I urge my colleagues to oppose any effort to table this amendment when it comes to a vote this afternoon."