[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5595-S5597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dayton, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Craig, Mr. Johnson, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 950. A bill to allow travel between the United States and Cuba; to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I offer a bill that will make a very 
small change in our Cuba policy. It deals only with travel provisions 
to Cuba.
  I have been watching Cuba since the 1960s. I went to George 
Washington University, and I was there at the time of the Cuban missile 
crisis. I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba 
throughout the years. I am reminded of something my dad used to say, 
which was that if you keep on doing what you always have been doing, 
you are going to wind up getting what you already got. That is kind of 
the situation with Cuba. We have been trying the same thing for over 40 
years, and it hasn't worked.
  I am suggesting just a small change to maybe get a few more people in 
there to increase conversation with people who understand the way the 
United States works and the way Cuba works and how they ought to drift 
more rapidly toward where we are.
  In recent weeks, as we shared the joy of the Iraqi people as they 
were liberated from the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein, we also felt 
the pain of those in Cuba who had dared to speak out in a vain but 
valiant effort to demand those same freedoms for themselves. As they 
did, 75 Cuban citizens were arrested and received harsh sentences--some 
for more than 20 years--all for the crime of yearning to be free. Once 
again, Castro has shown himself to be his own worst enemy when it comes 
to Cuba's image overseas, and so, when faced with an outcry from around 
the world about his actions, he quickly tried to blame the United 
States for his own actions. It was a hard sell at best, and, given the 
reactions we've seen from all sides of this issue, I don't think anyone 
is buying it.
  Still, Castro's cruelty might tempt us to tighten the already strong 
restrictions on the relations between our two countries, but I hope we 
will not do that. If we increase the diplomatic pressure on the Cuban 
government that is now emanating from every corner of the world, we 
might be successful in bringing about a better way of life for the 
Cuban people.
  If, however, we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial 
assistance to their families in Cuba, and end the people to people 
exchanges that have been so successful, and stop the sale of 
agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we will not be hurting the 
Cuban government nearly as badly as we will be hurting the Cuban people 
by diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and reducing 
the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two countries.
  If we allow more and freer travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and 
dialogue, we take away Castro's ability to blame the hardships of the 
Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the better we 
try to make things for the Cuban people, the more we will reduce the 
level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by Fidel Castro.
  I have often heard it said that it is foolish to do the same thing 
over and over again and expect different results. In a way, that is 
what we are doing in Cuba. We are continuing to try to exert pressure 
from our side and, as we do, we are giving Castro a scapegoat to blame 
for the poor living conditions in his country in the process. It's time 
for a different policy, one that goes further than embargoes and 
replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a new one that 
will more effectively help us to achieve our goals in that country.
  Today, Senators Dorgan, Baucus, and Bingaman and I are introducing 
the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.
  Our bill is very straightfoward. It states that the President shall 
not prohibit, either directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by 
United States citizens or transactions incident to such travel.
  In 1958 the Supreme Court affirmed or Constitutional right to travel, 
but the U.S. government then prohibited Americans from spending money 
in Cuba. We simply said, okay, you have a right to travel, but try 
traveling without spending a dime.
  Most of us know that certain people can and do continue to travel to 
Cuba. Cuban Americans can apply for a license to travel for 
humanitarian reasons to visit ailing family members and such, but not 
always conveniently.
  The way I got involved in this whole process was a Cuban American 
from Jackson, WY, who had been in Cuba visiting his family, doing his 
one visit a year. As he left and was on the plane coming back to 
Wyoming, one of his

[[Page S5596]]

parents died. He could not go back there for a year. That is not a good 
situation for any family.
  Educational groups can apply for licenses to travel for scholarly 
reasons, for educational opportunities and conferences. Members of the 
U.S. Government can travel for fact-finding reasons, but for the 
average American, that process is too complicated.
  Even with the proper licenses, the regulations on where you can go 
and whom you can talk to are confusing, misleading, and frustrating. 
Each year the Office of Foreign Assets Control levies fines on 
travelers who followed the law to the best of their ability. Fines and 
punishments were imposed without guidelines and seemingly at the whim 
of a nameless bureaucrat.
  I must ask my colleagues, why are we continuing to support a policy 
that was basically implemented 40 years ago? Why are we supporting a 
policy that has had little effect on the Government we oppose? Why do 
we not improve our policy so that it will improve conditions for the 
Cuban people and their image of the United States?
  The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our policy 
toward Cuba that will lead to a real change for the people of Cuba. 
What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for their 
plight than for them to hear it from their friends and their extended 
family in the United States, or let them hear it from the American 
people who will go there?
  The people of this country are our best ambassadors, and we should 
let them show the people of Cuba what we as a nation are all about. One 
thing we should not do is to play into Castro's hand by enacting 
stricter and more stringent regulations and create a situation where 
the United States is easy to blame for the problems in Cuba. Unilateral 
sanctions will not improve human rights for Cuban citizens. The rest of 
the world is not doing what we are doing. Cuba is being supplied by the 
rest of the world with everything they need.
  Open dialog and exchange of ideas and commerce can move a country 
toward democracy. What better way to share the rewards of democracy 
than through people-to-people exchanges? We cannot stop that program. 
If the United States Government continues on its current course to put 
an economic stranglehold on the Cuban Government, the people of Cuba 
will suffer. Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods but 
the flow of ideas. Ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to 
change in any nation.
  Some may ask why we want to increase dialog right now, why open the 
door to Cuba when Castro is behaving so poorly? No one is denying that 
the actions of Castro and his government are deplorable, as is his 
refusal to provide basic human rights to his people. But if we truly 
believe Castro is a dictator with no good intentions, how can we say we 
should wait for him to behave before we engage? He controls the entire 
media in Cuba. The entire message that is coming out, unless we have 
people interacting, is his message. Keeping the door closed and 
hollering at Castro on the other side does not do anything.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning, my colleague from Wyoming, 
Senator Enzi, has introduced a piece of legislation I am an original 
cosponsor of. I want to make a point about the legislation.
  The legislation deals with the freedom of the American people to 
travel in the country of Cuba. I want to talk about that just for a 
moment. I support that legislation. The legislation has nothing to do 
with supporting Fidel Castro. We do not support Fidel Castro. It has 
nothing to do with making life easier for Fidel Castro. This issue is 
not about Fidel Castro; it is about the American people.
  Ninety miles off our shores sits a country ruled by communists, a 
communist government run by Fidel Castro. We have a communist 
government in the country of China, with 1.3 billion people half way 
around the globe. We have a communist government in the country of 
Vietnam. I have visited both.
  In both of those countries, we have an American Chamber of Commerce. 
They are doing business in those countries. We have engaged in trade 
and tourism. People travel there. People do business there. Why? 
Because our country thinks engagement is the right way to move these 
communist countries in the right direction toward greater personal 
freedom and greater liberty for the people of China and Vietnam.
  But Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida, and we are told that 
Cuba is different. Instead of engagement being constructive for Cuba, 
we are told a 40-year embargo, which has not worked, should be 
retained. That embargo includes not only an embargo on trade with Cuba, 
but it also includes a restriction on the American people's ability to 
travel to Cuba. And the restriction is so absurd and so byzantine, here 
is what it has provoked.
  I had a hearing on this about a year and a half ago. We have people 
down in the Treasury Department who are spending their days, with 
taxpayers' money, tracking Americans who have traveled to Cuba, so they 
can levy a civil fine on those Americans.
  Let me tell you of one: A retired school teacher in Illinois. She is 
a cyclist, loves to bicycle. She answered an ad in a cycling magazine 
and signed up for a 10-day cycling trip in Cuba. This retired school 
teacher--I hope she won't mind me saying, a little, old, retired 
schoolteacher--from Illinois, bicycles in Cuba for 10 days with a 
cycling group, organized by a Canadian cycling company, and she gets 
back to this country only to receive in the mail a notice by the U.S. 
Treasury Department that she has been fined $9,600 for traveling in 
Cuba.
  She would not be fined for traveling in China, a communist country. 
She would not be fined for traveling in Vietnam, a communist country. 
But she is fined for traveling in Cuba.
  Or do you want one better? How about the guy whose dad died, who was 
a Cuban citizen who came to this country, and the last thing he wanted 
was for his ashes to be taken back to Cuba and spread on Cuban soil. So 
his son did that. But guess what? That son gets caught in the net of 
the U.S. Treasury Department, because at a time when we are worried 
about terrorism, we have people down at the Treasury Department who are 
chasing retired school teachers and sons of deceased American citizens 
who used to live in Cuba who want to take their parents' ashes back to 
Cuba.
  We have people down there spending the taxpayers' dollars and their 
time, their effort, and energy to see if we can't levy a civil fine 
against Americans who travel in Cuba. My colleague, Senator Enzi, has 
introduced legislation, with myself and others, to say it is not 
hurting Fidel Castro by limiting the freedom and choice of the American 
people to travel in Cuba. Cuba and the Cuban people would be much 
better off with additional travel by Americans and expanded trade. The 
same circumstances that lead people to believe that engagement with 
China and Vietnam is helpful ought to understand that it would be 
helpful with Cuba as well.
  I have been to Cuba. I have visited with the dissidents. Frankly, 
they believe the embargo is counterproductive, and they believe lifting 
the embargo and the travel restrictions would be helpful to their 
cause.
  Fidel Castro is a Communist and a dictator. What he has done in 
recent weeks is appalling to me. He has thrown people in jail, 
dissidents, for what they have said and what they think. He has 
executed several people in recent weeks who attempted to allow others 
to escape. Shame on him. But it makes no sense for us to continue a 
policy that is counterproductive.
  Again, talk to the dissidents in Cuba and they will tell you that 
allowing people to travel to Cuba and allowing our family farmers to 
sell grain to Cuba is constructive.
  We are finally for the first time able to sell some products into the 
Cuban marketplace because I and then former Senator John Ashcroft, now 
Attorney General, offered legislation that opened that embargo of 40 
years that did not work, and for the first time in 40 years, 22 train 
carloads of dried peas left North Dakota to go to the Cuban market, 
purchased by the Cubans.
  Our farmers for the first time in 42 years sold some food to Cuba. 
That makes good sense. We should never use food as a weapon. Travel is 
the same circumstance. Limiting the freedom of the American people 
makes no sense to me.

[[Page S5597]]

  The Enzi bill, which I am proud to cosponsor, moves in the direction 
of eliminating that limitation on travel by the American people.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I rise today to offer legislation, along 
with my colleagues Senator Enzi and Senator Dorgan, that would end the 
restrictions placed on travel to Cuba.
  I understand our colleagues in the House will introduce companion 
legislation in the coming weeks. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in both chambers, and on both sides of the aisle, as we move 
forward.
  With this legislation, we are undertaking a serious cause. Repeal of 
the travel ban is long overdue.
  There are numerous reasons to introduce this legislation, but I want 
to focus today on just two: first, the current situation in Cuba; and 
second, our troubled economy here at home.
  Introduction of this legislation comes at a crucial time in U.S.-Cuba 
relations. Last month, nearly 80 Cuban dissidents were arrested. All of 
them have been sentenced to an average of almost 20 years in prison.
  Democratic governments around the world, as well as human rights 
organizations and others, including myself and my colleagues in the 
Senate and House Cuba Working Groups, have harshly criticized the 
Castro regime for these appalling acts of repression. Yet, throughout 
all of this, the Castro regime has remained defiant and undaunted.
  Why? In my view it is because Castro wants the embargo to continue. 
Observers have noted an emerging pattern: every time we get close to 
more open relations, Castro shuts the process down with some repressive 
act, designed to have a chilling effect on U.S.-Cuban relations.
  Castro fears an end to the embargo. He knows the day the embargo 
falls is the day he runs out of excuses. Without the embargo, Castro 
would have no one to blame for the failing Cuban economy.
  Nor would his way of governing be able to survive the influx of 
Americans and democratic ideas that would flood his island if the 
embargo were lifted.
  Now, some Cuba watchers have predicted that the dissident arrests and 
the resulting decline of U.S.-Cuba relations are a death knell to the 
engagement debate in Washington.
  I strongly disagree. And I think now, more than ever, a genuine, 
honest debate about the merits of the embargo is needed.
  Some people seem to think tightening the embargo is a rational 
response to the Castro regime. I guess if you think an embargo can hurt 
Castro without hurting the Cuban people, then tightening the embargo 
might make some sense.
  But it does not work that way. The embargo actually hurts the Cuban 
people much more than it hurts Castro.
  This is why many Cuban dissidents, including Oswaldo Paya, the 
founder of the Varela Project, oppose our embargo and support 
engagement.
  Indeed, after 43 years, it ought to be clear to everyone that the 
embargo has failed to weaken Castro. A better approach is to reach out 
to the Cuban people. Ending the travel ban is the first and best way to 
do this.
  If Castro fears contact between the Cuban people and the American 
people, the rational American response is to send more Americans, not 
fewer.
  Of course, ending the travel ban would have benefits not only for the 
Cuban people, but also for Americans. Ending the travel ban would have 
an immediate and direct economic impact, beyond even the immediate 
travel sector.
  Most importantly for my home state of Montana, ending the travel ban 
would help farmers and ranchers.
  Americans are currently allowed to sell food and medicine to Cuba on 
a cash basis. But there is a lot of red tape thrown in their way. And 
without the ability to travel to Cuba and develop the business 
contacts, the full potential of these sales is not realized.
  In fact, one study has suggested that lifting the travel ban could 
result in an additional quarter billion dollars of agricultural sales, 
and create thousands of new jobs.
  Ending the travel ban would bring benefits to both Cubans and to 
Americans. And that, after all, is what this debate should be about. 
Supporters of the embargo are so focused on hurting Castro that they 
actually strengthen him--at the expense of the Cuban people, and at the 
expense of our own economy.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in co-sponsoring this important 
legislation. I believe it is the best way to show that we truly care 
about the Cuban people
  And indeed, if we truly care about democracy, then let us send Cuba 
exactly that. Let us travel to Cuba and show them democracy in action.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DAYTON. I commend my colleague from Wyoming and his leadership in 
relationship to Cuba, which is of strong interest to businesses and 
farmers in my home State of Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent to be 
added as a cosponsor to his legislation. I look forward to working with 
him as part of his caucus to further those relationships. I again 
commend the Senator for his leadership in this important area and look 
forward to working with him.
                                 ______