Claiborne Pell

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Louisiana [Bennett Johnston], on his announced intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term. His departure will be a loss to this body. Senator Johnston has served here ably and well for over 20 years, most notably as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and of the Appropriations subcommittee having jurisdiction in the same area. He has mastered the intricacies of much difficult legislation in this capacity, and the Nation has benefited from the perspective and wisdom which he brought to the task. I am privileged to have had a long friendship with Bennett Johnston and I admire him for the manner in which he conducts himself as a Senator and as a person. And, particularly, as a tennis player. In the best sense of the word, he can be called a straight shooter. I regret, honor, and sympathize with his decision to end his distinguished political career and I wish him and his lovely wife Mary all the best for the future after he leaves the Senate in 1997. In the meantime, we are fortunate to have the benefit of his talents for at least 2 more years. tribute to bennett johnston

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened last month by the death of Deborah Hauger who served as the Latin American advisor to the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Lee Hamilton. I had the pleasure of meeting Deborah on several occasions and was struck by her intelligence, vibrance, warmth and her deep commitment to doing what was right for United States foreign policy and for the people of Latin America. I came to know Deborah through my work with Congressman Lee Hamilton to change United States policy toward Cuba. On behalf of myself and Congressman Hamilton, she and a member of my staff traveled to Cuba and reported to us their strong belief that United States policy was counterproductive and contrary to United States national interests. She demonstrated enormous commitment to the Cuba issue in particular, and to promoting democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere. She died at the young age of 34 and her death is a great loss not only to her family, friends and colleagues, but to the foreign policy of this country, to the people of Latin America and to the U.S. Congress as well. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending my sincere condolences to her family, to Congressman Hamilton and to her colleagues. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as I look at the vast array of foreign policy issues the 104th Congress will address, United States policy toward Cuba stands out in my mind as the most in need of a dramatic overhaul. I believe all my colleagues agree on the goals of United States policy toward Cuba--promoting a peaceful transition to democracy, economic liberalization and greater respect for human rights while controlling immigration from Cuba. Where some of us may differ, however, is on how we get there. In my view, current policy is not only outdated and ineffective, but, far worse, it is counterproductive to fostering these goals and contrary to U.S. national interests. Rather than tightening the embargo and further isolating Cuba, as the United States has done, we should be expanding contact with the Cuban people and lifting the embargo. I say this not because I believe the Cuban Government should be rewarded; in fact, I am disappointed that the Cuban Government has failed to make meaningful steps towards political reform and improving human rights. Nor do I believe that it should be done as a quid pro quo. We should lift the embargo simply because it serves the U.S. national interests by helping foster a peaceful transition to democracy. In my view, greater contact with the Cuban people will plant the seeds of change and advance the cause of democracy just as greater exchange with the West helped hasten the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. In his posthumously published book, former President Nixon wrote that ``we should drop the economic embargo and open the way to trade, investment and economic interaction * * *.'' Nixon believed we would better help the Cuban people by building ``pressure from within by actively stimulating Cuba's economic contracts with the free world.'' William D. Rogers, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs for the Ford administration, also believes the embargo should be lifted. As he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year, ``The breakup of the Soviet system occurred not because we cut off trade and human interchange, but because we didn't.'' United States travel restrictions to and from Cuba, only 90 miles away, are among the most prohibitive in the world. At this point, only United States government officials and journalists are allowed to travel to Cuba without having to obtain a license, and only a handful of Cubans are allowed to travel to the United States. I would ask my colleagues, do we not have enough faith in the power of our system to let contact between our citizens flourish? Current policy not only denies the United States the opportunity to promote positive change in Cuba, but it increases the likelihood of widespread Florida. The Cuban Government, which is successfully expanding political and economic ties with the rest of the world, is unlikely to give in to United States demands. If economic pressure succeeds in encouraging the people to take to the streets, the most likely consequence would be bloodshed. The military remains united behind Castro, the opposition is too weak and the government too repressive for any uprising to be successful. Mr. President, it is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join officials who served in the Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, and Kennedy administrations as well as the editors of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, the Economist, the Journal of Commerce, the Chicago Tribune, and U.S. News & World Report in calling for an overhaul of United States policy toward Cuba and working to promote a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. Let us try the same policies and the same methods that have produced the freedom that has come to Eastern Europe and Central Europe and knocked off the shackles, chains of the Soviet Union.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate a very prescient and sensible article about Cuba which appeared in the Winter 1994 Newsletter of the Duke Family Association. The article, entitled Fidel Fading: U.S. Should Play Role in Cuba, was written by Biddle Duke, a journalist working in Santa Fe. He has visited Cuba twice in recent years, most recently last spring, when he served as an aide to two Washington-based public policy groups, the Appeal to Conscience Foundation and the Council of American Ambassadors. Mr. Duke makes a strong case for modifying United States policy on Cuba. The economic crisis there has become so acute, he says, that it can be used in effect as a lever for normalized relations. He recommends that the United States send humanitarian aid and lift the embargo at least partially. While offering a hand of conditional friendship we should push for a free and open Cuban society. I concur with Mr. Duke's views and I ask unanimous consent that his article be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PELL

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa and rise to congratulate him for his determination and consistency in tackling the thorny problem of reform of the Senate cloture rule. I do so from the vantage point of 34 years in this body, during all of which I have supported cloture motions with but two exceptions: One involving debate on United States policy toward South Africa and the other legislative reapportionment. I believe it apparent that rule XXII as it now stands has not served the Nation well, nor does it place this institution in a favorable light in the eyes of our people. Time after time in recent years, and with increasing frequency, two-fifths of the Senate, not a majority, determined the outcome of many of the issues before us. Now the Senator from Iowa puts before us a proposed rule change which is ingenious and accommodating. It allows the advocates of cloture to keep trying to close debate at progressively lower thresholds, starting at three-fifths and gradually reducing it through four steps to a simple majority. Debate could continue for up to 13 days until that lowest threshold is reached, and even then, of course, the majority could still decline to invoke cloture. It seems to me this is a reasonable proposal and one which would, I believe, provide ample opportunity to colleagues on this side of the aisle to So I hope the Senate will give serious and thoughtful consideration to the proposal of the Senator from Iowa and not reject it out of hand. It goes to the heart of what people expect of this body and should be treated accordingly. I might add in that connection that if we are unable to reach consensus on reform of our own rules to allow the majority to prevail, the larger constitutional issue of majority rule may need to be addressed. For the moment, I trust we give full and fair consideration as we consider Senator Harkin's creative effort to change rule XXII. I yield the floor.