[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 176 (Tuesday, December 9, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16109-S16110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                 FREEDOM TO TRAVEL TO CUBA ACT OF 2003

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to express deep 
frustration with the way congressional leaders have thwarted the will 
of the majority of Members on Cuba.
  Last month, the Senate approved an amendment to the Transportation-
Treasury appropriations bill that would suspend enforcement of the Cuba 
travel restrictions. We passed this amendment 59 to 36--a 23-vote 
margin. In September, the House approved the same amendment 227 to 
188--a 39-vote margin.
  So, both Chambers of Congress approved the same amendment to suspend 
enforcement of the Cuba travel ban and to allow travel by Americans to 
Cuba. These votes reflected the sentiments of the overwhelming majority 
of Americans who support ending the utterly ineffectual travel ban.
  Opinion leaders, too, in newspapers all across the country, in papers 
big and small, applauded the Senate and House votes. Orlando, Chicago, 
New York, Winston-Salem, Tuscaloosa, and San Diego. Papers from every 
corner of the country commended Congress for its efforts and called for 
an end to the absurd travel ban.
  Then, the Senate Foreign Relations approved by a 13-to-5 margin a 
bill--S. 950, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2003--that would 
permanently repeal the Cuba travel ban. Senator Enzi and I, along with 
31 other colleagues--fully one-third of the Senate, from both sides of 
the aisle and representing every region of this country--introduced 
this legislation because we felt the time had come to end this 
pointless ban on American liberty. As its vote demonstrates, the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee agrees.
  Given these votes, and given the popular support for our efforts to 
end the travel ban, one would think the conferees of the 
Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill would not be able to strip 
out our amendment. When the Senate and House have approved the

[[Page S16110]]

same amendment, there ought to be nothing for conferees to reconcile.
  But here we are with an omnibus bill that does not include our 
amendment to suspend enforcement of the Cuba travel ban. How did this 
happen?
  It wasn't the conferees. Thirteen of the 16 Senate conferees were 
supportive of our amendment. The conferees would not have stripped out 
the amendment.
  But the congressional leadership would. And they did, before even 
submitting the bill to the conference committee for consideration. They 
pointed to a phony veto threat--not made by the President--to justify a 
blatantly political move calculated to improve their standing with a 
small number of constituents in Florida.
  This, despite a recent poll by the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg 
Times that found that most Florida voters favor lifting the ban on 
travel to Cuba--by better than a 2-to-1 margin.
  Is this democracy in action? Is this the example we are setting for 
the rest of the world? Is this the example of participatory government 
that we hold to the Cuban dissidents as the beacon of freedom and 
liberty?
  If this ugly episode were the only consequence of this 
administration's obsession with retaining the failed Cuba travel ban, 
that would be bad enough.
  But it is not the only consequence. Far worse, the administration's 
pandering to its south Florida allies is undermining U.S. efforts to 
fight terrorism.
  The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, OFAC, is 
charged with enforcing sanctions against foreign countries, terrorist 
networks, international narcotics traffickers, and those involved in 
proliferating weapons of mass destruction.

                          ____________________