[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 158 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14524-S14525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL TO CUBA ACT OF 1999

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, any American who wants to travel to Iran, 
to North Korea, to Syria, to Serbia, to Vietnam, to just about 
anywhere, can do so, as long as that country gives them a visa. As far 
as the United States Government is concerned, they can travel there at 
their own risk.
  Cuba, on the other hand, a country 90 miles away that poses about as 
much threat to the United States as a flea does to a buffalo, is off 
limits unless you are a journalist, government official, or member of 
some other special group. If not, you can only get there by breaking 
the law, which an estimated 10-15,000 Americans did last year.
  Of all the ridiculous, anachronistic, and self-defeating policies, 
this has got to be near the top of the list.
  For forty years, administration after administration, and Congress 
after Congress, has stuck by this failed policy. Yet Fidel Castro is as 
firmly in control today as he was in 1959, and the Cuban people are no 
better for it.
  This legislation attempts to put some sense into our policy toward 
Cuba. It would also protect one of the most fundamental rights that 
most Americans take for granted, the right to travel freely. I commend 
the senior Senator From Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who has been such a 
strong and persistent advocate on this issue. I am proud to join him in 
cosponsoring this legislation, which is virtually identical to an 
amendment he and I sponsored earlier this year. That amendment came 
within 7 votes of passage.
  Mr. President, in March of this year I traveled to Cuba with Senator 
Jack Reed. We were able to go there because we are Members of Congress.
  I came face to face with the absurdity of the current policy because 
I wanted my wife Marcelle to accompany me as she does on most foreign 
trips. A few days before we were to leave, I got a call from the State 
Department saying that they were not sure they could approve her travel 
to Cuba.

  I cannot speak for other Senators, but I suspect that like me, they 
would also not react too kindly to a policy that gives the State 
Department the authority to prevent their wife, or their children, from 
traveling with them to a country with which we are not at war and 
which, according to the Defense Department and the vast majority of the 
American public, poses no threat to our security.
  I wonder how many Senators realize that if they wanted to take a 
family member with them to Cuba, they would probably be prevented from 
doing so by United States law.
  Actually, because the authors of the law knew that a blanket 
prohibition on travel by American citizens would be unconstitutional, 
they came up with a clever way of avoiding that problem but 
accomplishing the same result. Americans can travel to Cuba, they just 
cannot spend any money there.
  Almost a decade has passed since the collapse of the former Soviet 
Union. Eight years have passed since the Russians cut their $3 billion 
subsidy to Cuba. We now give hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to 
Russia.
  Americans can travel to North Korea. There are no restrictions on the 
right of Americans to travel there, or to spend money there. Which 
country poses a greater threat to the United States? Obviously North 
Korea.
  Americans can travel to Iran, and they can spend money there. The 
same

[[Page S14525]]

goes for Sudan. These are countries that pose far greater threats to 
American interests than Cuba.
  Our policy is hypocritical, inconsistent, and contrary to our values 
as a nation that believes in the free flow of people and ideas. It is 
impossible for anyone to make a rational argument that America 
should be able to travel freely to North Korea, or Iran, but not to 
Cuba. It can't be done.

  We have been stuck with this absurd policy for years, even though 
virtually everyone knows, and says privately, that it makes absolutely 
no sense and is beneath the dignity of a great country.
  It not only helps strengthen Fidel Castro's grip on Cuba, it hands a 
hug advantage to our European competitors who are building 
relationships and establishing a base for future investment in a post-
Castro Cuba. When that will happen is anybody's guess. President Castro 
is no democrat, and he is not going to become one. But it is time we 
pursued a policy that is in our national interest.
  Let me be clear. This legislation does not, I repeat does not, lift 
the U.S. embargo. It is narrowly worded so it does not do that. It only 
permits travelers to carry their personal belongings. We are not 
opening a floodgate for United States imports to Cuba.
  The amendment limits what Americans can bring home from Cuba to the 
current level for government officials and other exempt categories, 
which is $100.
  It reaffirms the President's authority to prohibit travel in times of 
war, armed hostilities, or if there is imminent danger to the health or 
safety of Americans.
  Those who want to prevent Americans from traveling to Cuba, who 
oppose this legislation, will argue that spending United States dollars 
there helps prop up the Castro Government. To some extent that is true. 
The government does run the economy. It also runs the schools and 
hospitals, maintains roads, and, like the United States Government, is 
responsible for the whole range of social services that benefit 
ordinary Cubans. Any money that goes into the Cuban economy supports 
those programs.
  But there is also an informal economy in Cuba, because no one but the 
elite can survive on their meager government salary. So the income from 
tourism also fuels that informal sector, and it goes in to the pockets 
of ordinary Cubans.

  It is also worth pointing out that while the average Cuban cannot 
survive on his or her government salary, you do not see the kind of 
abject poverty in Cuba that is so common elsewhere in Latin America. In 
Brazil, or Panama, or Mexico, or Peru, there are children searching 
through garbage in the streets for scraps of food, next to gleaming 
high rise hotels with Mercedes limousines lined up outside.
  In Cuba, almost everyone is poor. But they have access to the basics. 
The literacy rate is 95 percent. The life expectancy is about the same 
as in our country, even though the health system is very basic and 
focused on preventive care.
  The point is that while there are obviously parts of the Cuban 
economy that we would prefer not to support--as there is in North 
Korea, China, or Sudan, or in any country whose government we disagree 
with, much of the Cuban Government's budget benefits ordinary Cubans. 
So when opponents of this legislation argue that we cannot allow 
Americans to travel to Cuba because the money they spend there would 
prop up Castro, remember what they are not saying: those same dollars 
also help the Cuban people.
  It is also worth saying that as much as we want to see a democratic 
Cuba, President Castro's grip on power is not going to be weakened by 
keeping Americans from traveling to Cuba. History has proven that. He 
has been there for forty years, and as far as anyone can tell he is not 
going anywhere.
   Mr. President, it is about time we injected some maturity into our 
relations with Cuba. Let's have a little more faith in the power of our 
ideas. Let's have the courage to admit that the cold war is over. Let's 
get the State Department out of the business of telling our wives, our 
children, and our constituents where they can travel and spend their 
own money--in a country that the Pentagon say poses no security threat 
to us.
  This legislation will not end the embargo, but it will do far more to 
win the hearts and minds of the Cuban people than the outdated approach 
of those who continue to defend the status quo.

                          ____________________