Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear that in just a few moments, I am going to be withdrawing my amendment.

Before I do so, I just want to say a couple of things because this amendment was a very simple and straightforward amendment that did nothing more than allow Americans to travel to Cuba, which is to say this amendment ultimately was about American liberty.

We just heard a long conversation about Iran, and yet, as an American, you can travel to Iran. You could travel to Syria. You could travel to North Korea. There is no prohibition for any other place on the globe, except for one, and that is Cuba. And that may have made sense 50 years ago.

The reality of today is that it does not make sense today. And so this has ultimately been about American liberty. It has been about the bundle of rights that come with liberty. The Supreme Court has said that as real as the food that we eat or the clothes that we wear or the books that we read, the ability to choose where you come and go, where you travel to, is an American liberty.

So Jefferson said 200 years ago that the normal course of things was for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield. And I think it is very, very important wherein we run into policies that have outlived their usefulness, that may have made sense 50 years, that don't make sense today, that we push back against them. That is what this amendment was about and, again, affording people the true American way, which is to travel as they choose, not as government sees.

Two, it is about bringing change. I signed on to the original Helms- Burton language. The definition of insanity is continuing the same process and expecting a different result. We have tried this approach for 50 years. We have the longest-serving dictatorship in the world in the form of the Castro brothers in Cuba. And it would seem to me, if it hadn't worked in 50 years, might we not trying something different?

It was Ronald Reagan that encouraged engagement. In fact, that has been the policy of this country. So I don't like what goes on in Russia or in China or in Vietnam, but we allow Americans to travel there, believing that that personal diplomacy is part of changing those places.

Finally, this is about government regulation. It is interesting that we are at the eve of real connections, real flights going down to Cuba. But we will have to sign affidavits. We will have to store records for 5 years. We will be subject to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in penalties if we fill out a form wrong. And so this is also about easing government regulation.

So, in my closing, I would just like to say a couple of thoughts. I want to thank Kevin Cramer, Tom Emmer, Rick Crawford, Ted Poe, Jim McGovern, Kathy Castor, Barbara Lee, and about 130 other Members of this House who signed on to this bill. I want to thank Senators Jeff Flake, Jerry Moran, Mike Enzi, and others over on the Senate side.

I want to thank the U.S. Chamber, who is going to key vote this vote tonight, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Washington Office of Latin America, Engage Cuba, the Farm Bureau, the Americans for Tax Reform, and a long list of others who said that this is something that makes sense.

Finally, I want to say, there is real momentum. As I just mentioned, just today U.S. transportation is outlining eight airlines that will be able to travel to Cuba. Last night, I think there was something of a deal struck between ag interests and the ability to export product or a deal that will be formed in exporting product to Cuba. I think that makes sense.

Given the fact that the Speaker is working against this amendment, I see the handwriting on the wall. I think it best to withdraw, so that is exactly what I am going to do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source