U.S. Policy Toward Cuba

U.S. POLICY TOWARD CUBA

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great concern to me—the ban on travel to Cuba.

Last week, the Senate scored an important victory in the fight to bring common sense to U.S. policy toward Cuba. We voted by a wide margin—59 to 36—to suspend enforcement of the travel ban. The House approved the same amendment in September, also by a wide margin.

The wide margin of victory reflects the majority of Americans who want an end to the travel ban.

Over the weekend, editorial writers from a diverse range of newspapers noted and applauded our victory: the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel-Tribune.

Let me offer just a few quotes: the Chicago Tribune says:

In an age of very real terrorist threats, Cuba hardly makes the list. For the Department of Homeland Security to redouble its efforts and tie up more money and personnel in enforcing the travel ban against Cuba—as the president proposed two weeks ago—is an incredible waste of resources.

The New York Times points out:

The proper response to such outrages as the Castro regime's roundup of dissidents and writers earlier this year is to seek to overwhelm the island with American influence.

And the Orlando Sentinel argues:

The ban on U.S. travel is futile, self-defeating, a waste of scarce resources and inconsistent with other American policies.

These papers spoke out in favor of the Senate's actions because they recognize that the current policy has been a failure and because they know that engagement with Cuba is the best and most effective way to bring democratic change to Cuba.

In my view, the Cuba travel provisions should not even be subject to conference. The House and Senate have passed the same amendment; there is nothing for conferees to discuss.

There are many Members of this body who have worked hard to ease the embargo. Any Treasury-Transportation conference report that does not include the Senate and House-passed language is unacceptable, and we will look at all procedural options to stop this from happening.

That said, I fully expect this amendment to become law. Despite recent incorrect reporting, none of the supporters of this legislation believe that we can't accomplish our goal of lifting the Cuba travel ban.

And I have to say here that I do not believe the President will veto this bill. Of course, the Cuba provisions have overwhelming support, but the appropriations bill itself passed the Senate 90 to 3. The administration knows a veto could be easily overridden.

I do believe that pro-embargo forces see the writing on the wall. Momentum to end the embargo is clearly building. We have had a year filled with success.

Several months ago, Senators ENZI, DORGAN, and I introduced legislation, S. 950, that would permanently lift the travel ban. There are 31 cosponsors of that legislation, and we are adding new cosponsors this week.

The Foreign Relations Committee has committed to vote on that legislation by the end of the year, and I expect the committee to approve it by a large majority.

Recent polls indicate that most Americans oppose the travel ban. In fact, even most Cuban Americans—historically supportive of the embargo—favor lifting the ban.

So the Senate and the House votes are only the latest rebuke of an outdated policy.

Thirteen of the 16 Senate appropriators on the Subcommittee were supportive of the Cuba amendment. And I am confident they will work hard to keep this provision. But I also know they will be under some pressure. I urge them to stand up to those who might try to defy the will of the Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the aforementioned editorials.

There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 27, 2003]

HAVANA CLUB

The Bush Administration, more than most, contains people whose families have paid a personal price for the horror that is Cuban communism. Which is why it's a little unfair, after last week's Senate vote to lift the U.S. travel ban to Cuba, to dismiss the White House objections merely as worry that signing such language would hurt the President's re-election chances in Florida.

Yes, the Cuban-American vote is a big deal, as Bill Clinton recognized when he courted Miami's anti-Castro community and cash in his election runs. And given that the Senate vote approving the lifting of the travel restrictions was less than the two-thirds required to override any veto, we'd be surprised if the White House doesn't make good on its threat. But the tension here reflects what is a genuine argument among conservatives over what is the best way to bring Fidel Castro down.

Otto Reich of the National Security Council staff and Housing Secretary Mel Martinez believe that lifting such restrictions will breathe financial life into a decaying regime. Some of our free market friends in Congress, notably Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, argue that after 40 years of an embargo Fidel is still sitting pretty. So it's time to try something different.

We fall into the latter group, not least because one of the problems with the existing travel ban is that it is applied selectively. Privileged groups of people—academics, journalists, Cuban Americans and left-leaning Christian groups—can and already do travel to Cuba. Jimmy Carter travels there and CNN more or less treats it like a state visit.

But we're also impressed by Oswaldo Paya, leader of Cuba's homegrown answer to Poland's Solidarity movement, who wants to see the U.S. embargo lifted. Mr. Paya points out that the heart of the Cuban crisis isn't the partial embargo the U.S. has imposed on Cuba but is the total embargo Fidel has imposed on his own people: the limits on their speech, their ability to go to church, to run their own enterprises, and so on.

As Mr. Flake has written, Fidel's three most obvious failures are "breakfast, lunch and dinner." The more Americans are able to travel to Cuba, the more will be able to see for themselves the suffering that Fidel and his commissars have wrought.

[From the Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 25, 2003]

LIFT BAN ON CUBA TRAVEL

Our position: Removing restrictions on U.S. travel would expose Cubans to free ideas.

The U.S. Senate took a courageous and correct stand on Cuba policy last week.

Fifty-nine senators defied a veto threat from President George W. Bush in voting against the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba. Like a majority of U.S. House members, those senators realize that the ban is—if anything—counterproductive.

The ban is political rather than practical. It pleases many Cuban-Americans in Florida, but it and other hard-line measures haven't dislodged dictator Fidel Castro.

Restricting the freedom of U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba limits the communist island's exposure to American ideas. It also helps conceal the extent of repression in Cuba from Americans. Those are both big favors for Mr. Castro.

The greatest threat to any totalitarian government is the free flow of information. That explains why independent journalists and librarians were targeted in the Castro government's brutal crackdown on dissidents earlier this year.

Enforcing the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba also ties up limited resources in both the Homeland Security and Treasury departments. Those resources would be better directed toward fighting terrorism.

Predictably, the White House criticized the Senate vote, saying it would "provide a helping hand to a desperate and repressive regime." But Mr. Bush's hard line on Cuba is contradicted by his continuing engagement with China, another repressive communist regime.

The ban on U.S. travel to Cuba is futile, self-defeating, a waste of scarce resources and inconsistent with other American policies. It's past time to lift it.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2003]

CONGRESSIONAL RESOLVE ON CUBA

Though normally inclined to follow their president's lead on foreign policy, many Congressional Republicans have now broken ranks on Cuba. By a wide margin, the Senate joined the House on Thursday in voting to ease travel restrictions to Cuba, just two weeks after President Bush vowed to toughen sanctions on the government of Fidel Castro and enforce them more energetically. The renegade Republicans apparently think that Mr. Bush's approach is dictated less by a coherent vision than by electoral concerns involving anti-Castro Republican voters in Florida.

This Congressional resolve is commendable. Four decades of sanctions have allowed Mr. Castro to portray himself, both at home and abroad, as a victim of Yankee imperialism. Mr. Castro would probably be as disappointed as his adversaries in Florida to see the sanctions lifted.

That is one reason he has a knack for provoking a backlash anytime there is a chance of a change in the status quo, which may be the best of all words for Mr. Castro. The dollars sent home from Florida relatives and the money spent by European tourists have kept the rickety Cuban economy afloat since the Soviet collapse. At the same time, sanctions imposed by the United States have kept democratizing influences at bay and provided the regime with a justification for its authoritarian ways.

The proper response to such outrages as the Castro regime's roundup of dissidents and writers earlier this year is to seek to overwhelm the island with American influence—corporate and cultural—and with American tourists and other private visitors. This is the approach we take in trying to democratize other nations.

The Senate's measure, an amendment to a $90 billion spending bill to finance the Treasury and Transportation Departments, is identical to a provision approved overwhelmingly by the House. Such agreement means it will be hard for Republican leaders to try to kill the amendment behind closed doors. That leaves the possibility of a presidential veto, though the White House cannot relish the idea of holding up government spending to placate parochial interests in Florida, no matter how powerful. As the main beneficiary of this failed policy, Mr. Castro may want to call Mr. Bush and encourage him to get that veto pen ready.

[From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 27, 2003]

CONGRESS' MESSAGE ON CUBA

Cues that it's time for the United States—and particularly the Bush administration—to abandon the 40-year-old embargo on Cuba got considerably louder on Thursday, when the Senate voted 59-36 to life the ban on travel by U.S. citizens. The Senate measure is identical to one passed by the House a month ago.

The White House, tuned to an altogether different wavelength, threatens to veto any bill loosening the economic and travel sanctions against Cuba. Two weeks ago, President Bush—surrounded by a supportive group of Cuban exiles from Miami—announced measures to tighten the economic noose around the island.

It's no secret that the president wants to nail down the votes of the fervidly anti-Castro Cuban-American community.

But at what cost? Congress supports lifting the embargo, and so do many conservative Republican politicians and business interests—particularly in the Midwest. It is time to end the Cold War sideshow of the Cuban embargo.

Never has the American obsession with Cuba seemed so out of proportion or self-defeating, particularly for a Republican administration, as it does now. This is a question of national interest, not the political interests of the tiny but vociferous Cuban-American community.

Thursday's vote in the senate, on an amendment to the Transportation and Treasury spending bill, was important for several reasons. It showed a significant policy shift in the Senate since 1999, when the upper chamber rejected lifting the travel restrictions on 55-43 vote.

Supporters this time included 19 Republicans, including several from farm states such as Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Sen. Dick Durbin voted for the amendment. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald voted against it.

Fitzgerald ought to pay attention. Lifting the travel ban is a critical step toward eventually lifting the U.S. embargo on Cuba and opening the door for more trade. Illinois firms such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. benefit from increased sales of foodstuffs to Cuba, so far conducted on a cash-only basis. Last year total exports to Cuba reached nearly $140 million, but it is estimated if all restrictions were lifted, that figure could increase significantly. Cuba would get better prices—Texas' rice is far closer than China's—and American farmers, strapped for markets, could benefit too.

In an age of very real terrorist threats, Cuba hardly makes the list. For the Department of Homeland Security to redouble its efforts and tie up more money and personnel in enforcing the travel ban against Cuba—as the president proposed two weeks ago—is an incredible waste of resources.

This legislation is likely headed to conference committee, where GOP leaders must make sure the Cuba language doesn't mysteriously disappear. Congress ought to make clear its resolve to end the pointless flogging of Cuba. The embargo only intensifies the misery of the long-suffering Cubans while shortchanging U.S. economic and political interests. That makes no sense at all.