Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment to lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. I and many of my colleagues have been trying for the last five years to restore American citizens' right to travel where they choose, including to the island of Cuba, if that is their desire.

The broad cross-section of bipartisan cosponsors of this amendment are in agreement that the time has come to lift the very archaic, counterproductive, and ill-conceived ban on Americans traveling to Cuba. Not only does this ban hinder rather than help our effort to spread democracy, it unnecessarily abridges the rights of ordinary Americans. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom. Yet when it comes to Cuba, our Government abridges these rights with no greater rationale than political and rhetorical gain.

Cuba lies just 90 miles from America's shore. Yet those 90 miles of water might as well be an entire ocean. We have made a land ripe for American influence, forbidden territory. Look, there is no doubt in my mind that Fidel Castro does not want the light of freedom shone on his island. He is a dictator and wants nothing more than to keep his people in the darkness. Sadly, U.S. policy has helped make his worker easier. We have enabled the Cuban regime to be a closed system, with the Cuban people having little contact with their closest neighbors.

Surely we do not ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of Americans who might visit that island nation. Today Americans are free to travel to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Syria, and even to North Korea—but not to Cuba. You can fly to North Korea; you can fly to Iran; you can travel freely. It seems to me if you can go to those countries, you ought not be denied the right to go to Cuba. If the Cubans want to stop Americans from visiting that country, that ought to be their business.
But to say to an American citizen that you can travel to Iran, where they held American hostages for months on end, to North Korea, which has declared us to be an enemy of theirs completely, but that you cannot travel 90 miles off our shore to Cuba, is a mistake.

To this day, some Iranian politicians believe the United States to be "the Great Satan." We hear it all the time. A little more than two decades ago, Iran occupied our embassy and took innocent American diplomats hostage. To this day, protesters in Tehran burn the American flag with the encouragement of some officials in that government. Those few Americans who venture into such inhospitable surroundings often find themselves pelted by rocks and accosted by the public.

Similarly, we do not ban travel to Sudan, a nation we attacked with cruise missiles a few short years ago, for its alleged support of terrorism; to Burma, a nation with one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today; to North Korea, whose soldiers have peered at American servicemen through gun sights for decades; or Syria, which has one of the most egregious human rights records and is one of the foremost sponsors of terrorism.

I totally agree with my colleagues that it borders on negligence when 10 percent of the Treasury's Office on Foreign Assets Control budget is devoted to tracking down and punishing grandmothers and grandfathers because they have visited Cuba.
Don't we have more important programs to spend resources on? How about tracking down the financial resources that continue to support terrorist groups like al-Qaida? We know that activities of that organization and others like it are a direct threat to U.S. national security. We know that more government resources are need to ensure that events like September 11, 2001 never again are repeated against our citizens. Chasing down bikers who have visited Cuba is doing nothing to ensure our citizens are protected against terrorist attacks.

It is time to get our priorities straight and end the inconsistency with respect to U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba. We ban travel to Cuba, a nation which is neither at war with the United States nor a sponsor of international terrorist activities.

Why do we ban travel? Ostensibly so that we can pressure Cuban authorities into making the transition to a democratic form of government.

I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and ideals will foster the transition to democracy in that country. I fail to see how isolating the Cuban people from democratic values and from the influence of Americans when they go to that country to help bring about the change we all seek, serves our own interests.

The Cuban people are not currently permitted the freedom to travel enjoyed by many peoples around the world. However, because Fidel Castro does not permit Cubans to leave Cuba and come to this country is not justification for adopting a similar principle in this country that says Americans cannot travel freely. We have the Bill of Rights. We need to treasure and respect the fundamental rights that we embrace as American citizens. Travel is one of them. If other countries want to prohibit us from going there, then that is their business. But for us to say that citizens of Connecticut or Alabama cannot go where they like is not the kind of restraint we ought to put on people.

If Americans can travel to North Korea, to the Sudan, to Iran, then I do not understand the justification for saying that they cannot travel to Cuba.

I happen to believe that by allowing Americans to travel to Cuba, we can begin to change the political climate and bring about the changes we all seek in that country.

Today, every single country in the Western Hemisphere is a democracy, with one exception: Cuba. American influence through person-to-person and cultural exchanges was a prime factor in this evolution from a hemisphere ruled predominantly by authoritarian or military regimes to one where democracy is the rule. Our current policy toward Cuba blocks these exchanges and prevents the United States from using our most potent weapon in our effort to combat totalitarian regimes, and that is our own people. They are the best ambassadors we have. Most totalitarian regimes bar
Americans from coming into their countries for the very reasons I just mentioned. They are afraid the gospel of freedom will motivate their citizens to overthrow dictators, as they have done in dozens of nations over the last half century. Isn't it ironic that when it comes to Cuba we do the dictator's bidding for him in a sense? Cuba does not have to worry about America spreading democracy. Our own Government stops us from doing so.

Let me review for my colleagues who may travel to Cuba under current government regulations and under what circumstances.

The following categories of people may travel to Cuba without applying to the Treasury Department for a specific license to travel. They are deemed to be authorized to travel under so-called general license: Government officials, regularly employed journalists, professional researchers who are "full time professionals who travel to Cuba to conduct professional research in their professional areas," Cuban Americans who have relatives in Cuba who are ill—but only once a year.

There are other categories of individuals who theoretically are eligible to travel to Cuba as well, but they must apply for a license from the Department of the Treasury and prove they fit a category in which travel to Cuba is permissible. What are these categories? The first is so called freelance journalists, provided they can prove they are journalists; they must also submit their itinerary for the proposed research. The second is Cuban Americans who are unfortunate enough to have more than one humanitarian emergency in a 12-month period and therefore cannot travel under a general license. The third is students and faculty from U.S. academic institutions that are accredited by an appropriate national or regional educational accrediting association who are participating in a "structural education program." The fourth is members of U.S. religious organizations.

The fifth is individuals participating in public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions and exhibitions. If that isn't complicated enough—just because you think you may fall into one of the above enumerated categories does not necessarily mean you will actually be licensed by the U.S. Government to travel to Cuba.

Under current regulations, who decides whether a researcher's work is legitimate? Who decides whether a freelance journalist is really conducting journalistic activities? Who decides whether or not a professor or student is participating in a "structured educational program"?

Who decides whether a religious person is really going to conduct religious activities? Government bureaucrats are making those decisions about what I believe should be personal rights of American citizens.

It is truly unsettling, to put it mildly, when you think about it, and probably unconstitutional at its core. It is a real intrusion on the fundamental rights of American citizens. It also says something about what we as a government think about our own people.

Do we really believe that a journalist, a government official, a Senator, a Congressman, a baseball player, a ballerina, a college professor or minister is somehow superior to other citizens who do not fall into those categories; that only these categories of people are "good examples" for the Cuban people to observe in order to understand American values?

I do not think so. I find such a notion insulting. There is no better way to communicate America's values and ideals than by unleashing average American men and women to demonstrate by daily living what our great country stands for and the contrasts between what we stand for and what exists in Cuba today.

I do not believe there was ever a sensible rationale for restricting Americans' right to travel to Cuba. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and an end to the cold war, I do not think any excuse remains today to ban this kind of travel. This argument that dollars and tourism will be used to prop up the regime is specious. The regime seems to have survived more than 40 years despite the Draconian U.S. embargo during that entire period. The notion that allowing Americans to spend a few dollars in Cuba is somehow going to give major aid and comfort to the Cuban regime is without basis, in my view.

Political rhetoric is not sufficient reason to abridge the freedoms of American citizens.

Nor is it sufficient reason to stand by a law which counteracts one of the basic premises of American foreign policy; namely, the spread of democracy. The time has come to allow Americans—average Americans—to travel freely to Cuba.

I urge my colleagues to support the pending amendment and restore American citizens' rights to travel wherever they choose, including to the island of Cuba.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1928

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 1928.

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:

(Purpose: To fund the Election Assistance Commission for fiscal year 2004)

On page 85, strike lines 20 through 25, and insert the following:

Commission, $1,500,000,000, for providing grants to assist State and local efforts to improve election technology and the administration of Federal elections, as authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002: Provided, That no more than 1/10 of 1 per-

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and, of course, on behalf of my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, as well, to address this matter. I do not want to take a lot of time on this amendment. There are other Members who have obligations they want to meet.

This amendment is pretty straightforward. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from Kentucky, my colleague from Missouri, and others with whom, over the last several years, we have worked to create and pass the Help America Vote Act, which was signed into law by the President 1 year ago next week.

This is a law, of course, to try to improve the conduct of Federal elections across the country. I need not remind my colleagues, of course, of the condition of the Federal election system based on the results we saw in the national elections in the year 2000.

The piece of legislation that authorized these funds was adopted 98 to 2 by this body, and almost by a similar percentage of votes in the other body.

Last week, Senator McConnell and I came to the floor. I was going to suggest we offer an additional appropriation on the $87 billion package for Iraq. But, rightly, as my colleague from Kentucky pointed out, that was not the appropriate place to do this. We agreed in a colloquy that we would try to find an opportunity to provide the additional resources necessary so the State and local officials across this country could meet the obligations of doing these elections in a proper way.

I point out to my colleagues that the sense of timing is important. In the Federal elections in 2004, the first primary of which is in the District of Columbia on January 13—less than 3 months away—all States and localities must provide provisional ballots to any voter who is challenged. Those provisional ballots must be verified, according to State law, in 2004. Also, in 2004, all States and localities must be prepared to implement the anti-fraud provisions that the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, fought so diligently and hard for as part of the Help America Vote Act which affect first-time voters who register by mail. There are other requirements, of course, by 2004, and a whole series of things that must be done by 2006.

Needless to say, as the State and local officials will tell you, getting mechanisms in place to get it done requires advanced timing. This cannot just happen in the last few months before the elections occur.

I also point out to my colleagues that, obviously, the States are facing tremendous budget constraints themselves. This is not the ideal way we would like to do this, but we have no other choice but to be part of this budgetary cycle and to include these dollars in this particular effort.

In a time when we are committing, obviously, billions in Federal resources to build democracies around the world—and I supported that; I had reservations about it but, nonetheless, that is critically important—we cannot ignore the needs of our own democracy. Obviously, I think we would all agree we need to do what we can as well, as a nation that prides itself on being the leader when it comes to the conduct of our elections, to try to get these systems working better than they have been.

Again, I thank my colleagues who have worked very hard on this matter. This was truly a bipartisan effort. It continues to be one. We have tried to work together on these matters over the last several years so as not to create any partisan feelings.
I think that has been the case.

So today, in a bipartisan way, we are asking our colleagues to be supportive of this additional amount in the appropriations process so we can get the moneys back to our States.

I am sure every one of my colleagues has heard from their State and local officials. By the way, the States are doing a very good job. You may have read recent articles of how the States are getting up to speed, putting things in place, getting their implementation plans in order, and doing so with a great deal of expedition and care.

Several States have already utilized some of the newer approaches as a result of their own State efforts, which are proving to be very successful.

I think we are on the right track. I think we are doing the right thing. The National Governors Association, of course, reported the difficulties they are having with their budget problems, as I mentioned a moment ago.

I do not want to take a lot of time of my colleagues. I think they know what the issues are. I have talked to many of them.

Just last week, Senator McConnell and I came to this floor to express our concerns that the Congress not leave here this session without providing sufficient resources to the States to implement the minimum requirements and other election priorities, for Federal elections enacted under the Help America Vote Act. Some of those requirements must be implemented in time for the Federal elections next year.

The States are living up to their end of the bargain—all States are well along in the development of their state plans and many are in the initial implementation stages of the effort. But we must live up to our side of the bargain.

In his budget request, the President recommended funding these programs in fiscal year 2004 at only one-half of the authorized amount, for a total of $500 million. To their credit, the Appropriations Subcommittee fully funded that request, and I thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Shelby, and my friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their efforts.

However, State and local budgets simply cannot absorb this $500 million shortfall. More importantly, any shortfall in fiscal year 2004 follows on a similar shortfall of over $600 million in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations. Unless we increase funding in this fiscal year, our commitment to the States to share in the funding of the new requirements for Federal elections will fall over $1 billion short.

In a time when we are committing billions of dollars in Federal resources to build democracies around the world, we simply cannot afford to shortchange our own. The basic premise of a democracy is that every citizen must have an equal voice in the determination of its government.

And in this Nation, that voice is expressed through the equal opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted. If America is to continue to be the leader and example for emerging democracies around the world, then our system of giving our citizens an equal voice—our system of elections—must meet this test.

Unfortunately, what we learned in the elections of 2000 was that not all Americans enjoy an equal voice. In fact, some citizens were denied a voice at all because of malfunctioning or outdated voting equipment, inaccurate and incomplete voter registration records, and allegations of voter intimidation and fraud.

The silver lining of the 2000 elections was that it created the opportunity to recognize the challenges confronting our system of Federal elections and the ability to respond with bipartisan determination to provide Federal leadership to overcome those challenges. And 98 members of the Senate responded to that opportunity by overwhelmingly passing the Help America Vote Act last year.

I once again want to thank my distinguished colleagues, and coauthors of the Help America Vote Act, Senator McConnell and Senator Bond, for their bipartisan leadership in that effort and for their continuing commitment to see our promise for Federal funding fulfilled.

I especially want to recognize the leadership of my distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, whose unfailing leadership on this issue has help to bring us to this point. As then Chairman of the Rules Committee, he chaired the first hearings on election reform and introduced one of the first measures in Congress to offer assistance to the States.

And today we stand before you again, united by our desire to fulfil the commitment and promise of HAVA to the States, and to every American voter, to be a full partner in Federal elections. But rhetoric alone will not fulfill this commitment, nor will it fix the problems that came to light in the 2000 elections. It will take leadership and funds. And that is what the Help America Vote Act provides.

HAVA provides federal leadership in the form of new minimum requirements that all states must meet in the conduct of Federal elections. Those requirements will ensure that all voters can check their ballots and correct them before they are cast and counted. The requirements will ensure that no voter who believes he or she is registered and eligible to vote can be turned away from the polls—but must be given a provisional ballot to cast and then have verified pursuant to State law. And those requirements will ensure the accuracy of voter registration lists against fraud and mistakes through the creation
of a single statewide registration list. In short, HAVA will strengthen our democracy by giving an equal voice to all citizens by making it easier to vote and harder to cheat.

Implementing these reforms will not be cheap and so for the first time in our history, Congress committed to being a full partner in the funding of these reforms by authorizing $3.8 billion to fund the implementation of these requirements.
Federal funding is critical to nationwide implementation of this Act and may well govern the success and effectiveness of the new law. To help pay for election reforms and avoid an unfunded mandate on the States, HAVA authorizes a total of nearly $4 billion over three fiscal years, including over $2 billion in fiscal year 2003; $1 billion in fiscal year 2004; and $645,000 in fiscal year 2005.

Of the $1.5 billion Congress appropriated last year to fund grants to the States, $650 million has been distributed to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa. I thank my colleagues for their support during the FY03 appropriations process, particularly Senator Stevens, Chair of the Appropriations Committee and Senator Byrd, the Ranking Member, for providing this substantial down-payment on our commitment to the States.

But we now know that the FY03 appropriation will not provide sufficient funds for the States to fully implement their State plans and meet the new requirements of the law. And the shortfall in the first critical year of funding under HAVA is only compounded by the additional shortfall of $500 million in the bill before the Senate today.

Given the dire financial budget constraints faced by our states and counties, the total shortfall of over just over $1 billion in promised Federal support creates an unfunded mandate that is both unfair and unnecessary and threatens to undermine the very reforms that were adopted last year.

According to the National Governors Association, the current financial health of state and local governments was at its
lowest point since World War II last year and has worsened in the past 10 months. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, States have struggled to close deficits that have totaled approximately $190 billion over the past three years and the best estimate at this time is that they will face deficits of more than $40 billion in fiscal year 2005.

And the counties are in no better economic situation than the States. According to the National Association of Counties, nearly 72 percent of counties are facing budget shortfalls and 56 percent of counties are facing reductions in State funding for State-mandated programs. While counties are struggling to deal with the revenue reductions, the demand for county-provided services continues to rise.

State and local governments are willing and anxious to implement the new requirements; they simply cannot go it alone.
And that was the historic message of the Help America Vote Act: the Federal Government will step up to our responsibility to be a full partner in funding Federal election reforms.

Full Federal funding for HAVA is crucial to ensuring that the reforms that Congress overwhelmingly approved, on a broad bipartisan basis, and the President endorsed with his signature, are implemented. The very integrity of our elections, and consequently our democracy, hangs in the balance.

Full funding of HAVA is critical to our national credibility for fairness and accuracy in Federal elections. It is fundamental to the integrity of our democratic process. This amendment not only fulfils out commitment to date, it assures that the very reforms Congress enacted last year will actually be implemented.

This effort is overwhelming supported by a bipartisan and powerful coalition of State and local election officials, in conjunction with all the major civil rights, disability, language minority, and other voter interest groups in the United States.

I thank each and every one of them for their strong support in passing HAVA and their continuing commitment to see that Congress makes good on its promise to be a full partner in Federal elections by fully funding the provisions of HAVA. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition be included in the RECORD following my remarks.

No civil right is more fundamental to our democracy than the right to vote and no need for Federal funding is more essential to securing that democracy than is the commitment made by this body to ensure the integrity and accuracy of our Federal elections.

I thank my colleagues for their continuing support of this effort and urge my colleagues to fulfill our commitment of last year to ensure the integrity of our Federal elections and the very foundation of our democracy by supporting this bipartisan amendment to fully fund the Help America Vote Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a letter supporting this amendment in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

MAKE ELECTION REFORM A REALITY—SUPPORT THE DODD-MCCONNELL AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2989
October 23, 2003.

DEAR SENATOR: We, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge you to support an amendment to be offered by Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to increase funding for the Help America Vote Act
(P.L. 107-252) ("HAVA") in H.R. 2989, the FY 2004 Treasury-Transportation Appropriations bill. The Dodd-McConnell amendment will increase the level of HAVA funding in that bill from $500 million to $1.5 billion. We ask that you vote in favor of the amendment and vote against any Budget Act point of order that may be raised.

The Help America Vote Act was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support in order to prevent the many problems of the 2000 election from ever happening again. Among its many reforms, it places significant mandates upon states and localities to replace outdated voting equipment, create statewide voter registration lists and provide provisional ballots to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away, and make it easier for people with disabilities to cast private, independent ballots.

To help pay for these reforms, HAVA authorizes a total of $3.9 billion over three fiscal years, including $2.16 billion for FY03 and $1.045 billion for FY04. To date, however, the actual funding of HAVA has been woefully inadequate. So far, only $1.5 billion of FY03 funding has been appropriated, and $830 million of that amount has yet to reach the states because the President has nominated and the Senate has not confirmed the members of the new Election Assistance
Commission. Additionally, only $500 million is currently included in pending FY04 appropriations; once again, this is a sum that falls well below what is needed for successful implementation of HAVA. States and localities were assured by Congress that this new law would not evolve into a set of unfunded federal mandates. It is now time for Congress to honor its commitment to the states and to the American public at large.

Given the difficult fiscal circumstances facing state and local governments, immediate and full funding of HAVA is now needed in order to make essential progress before Election Day in 2004. Without the strong leadership that HAVA promised at the federal level, states and local governments simply do not have the ability to complete implementation of the important reforms that they are now required to make.

No civil right is more fundamental to America's democracy than the right to vote. As our nation spends billions of dollars helping to promote democracies abroad, Congress simply should not allow doubts about the legitimacy of our electoral processes continue to linger here at home.

We thank you for your support of funding for the "Help America Vote Act," and we look forward to working with you on this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at (202) 466-6058, Leslie Reynolds of the National Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525, or any of the individual organizations listed below.

Sincerely,

Organizations Representing State and Local Officials

National Association of Secretaries of State

National Conference of State Legislatures

Council of State Governments

National Association of State Election Directors

National Association of Counties

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund

National League of Cities

International City/County Management Association

International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers

National Association of County Recorders, Election Officials and Clerks

Civil Rights Organizations

Alliance for Retired Americans

American Association of People with Disabilities

American Civil Liberties Union

American Federation of Labor—Congress of Industrial Organizations

Americans for Democratic Action

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund

Asian Law Alliance

Asian Law Caucus

Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

California Council for the Blind

Center for Governmental Studies

Center for Voting and Democracy

Common Cause

Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

League of Women Voters of the United States

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems

National Council of Churches

National Council of La Raza

Neighbor to Neighbor Action Fund

Organization of Chinese Americans

People For the American Way

Project Vote

Public Citizen

The Arc of the United States

United Auto Workers

United Cerebral Palsy

U.S. Action Education Fund

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

Mr. DODD. Again, my colleagues from Kentucky and Missouri and I would prefer to have some other way we could do this, but if we don't get it done now, it is going to be very difficult for us to meet these obligations at all. This additional amount in fiscal year 2004 will get us back on track and allow us to complete this process and to see the election cycle work in a way that all of us would be proud to see.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague. Let me just say that this amendment is providing for the number of demands being made on the States. The Senator from Missouri points out what has to be done by the next calendar year, and, just a few weeks from now, on January 13, the Federal primary season, and State and locals are up against the requirements. We are going to get the nominees to the Election Assistance Commission confirmed, but this keeps us on track with the funding. We won't need to come back to this again for another year, but this has to be done now.

We authorized over $3.8 billion for this bill over three fiscal years. This will get us on track for FY03 and FY04 so the States can complete the job. As the Senators have said, this is not our preferred method for providing full funding.
Everybody agrees we have to get it done. Contrary to what my friend from Oklahoma says, if we don't get it done now, it will make it that much more difficult to accomplish these goals and it will create huge problems. I will not go through the litany, but I hope my colleagues, when the point of order is made—and I will offer a waiver of that point of order—will support the States on this. I don't want to take much more time. The chairman has other obligations.