[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 24 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[House]
[Page H1396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                      A BETTER POLICY TOWARD CUBA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, our policy toward Cuba should be one 
area where Democrats and Republicans can find common ground.
  There are not many communist countries left, but let's consider that, 
when it came to the old Soviet bloc or China and Vietnam today, we have 
agreed on the basics. We all differ with their human rights practices, 
and we say so.
  We stand up for our security interests. We cooperate when we can. We 
support trade and citizen contact because they are good for our economy 
and they increase our influence.
  In this vein, let me praise a few Republicans:
  President Nixon for the opening to China;
  President Ford for the Helsinki Accords and the principle that people 
and information should flow freely across borders;
  President Reagan for vastly expanding engagement with the Soviet 
Union and its people.
  These are big achievements, none of them terribly controversial, but 
Cuba is an exception. Only with Cuba do we regulate our own citizens' 
contact. Only there do we have a trade embargo that limits trade and 
investment: six decades of embargo, a virtual lifetime of foreign 
policy failure.
  President Trump clearly realized this as a candidate when he 
supported President Obama's opening to Cuba. It was a good idea to 
bring Cuba ``into the fold,'' he said. Later, he changed his view.
  Now, led by his White House staff, he wants to respond to Cuba's 
support for the Government of Venezuela by increasing U.S. economic 
sanctions against Cuba.
  This is a mistake. It will do nothing to change Cuba's conduct; it 
will not improve the situation in Venezuela; and it will harm American 
interests.
  Specifically, he is considering allowing title 3 of the Helms-Burton 
Act to go into effect. This will allow Americans who lost property in 
Cuba, including Cubans who later became U.S. citizens, to go to U.S. 
courts to seek damages--three times the value of their property--by 
suing Cuba, foreign, and even American companies whose businesses in 
Cuba today are connected to those properties.
  The purpose, as the law's authors made clear in 1996, is to harm 
Cuba's economy by making it completely inhospitable for foreign 
investment.
  Now, it is no mystery why Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump 
blocked title 3 from going into effect every 6 months for the past 23 
years. It is hypocritical. It penalizes companies for doing what 
American companies do all over the world. It is contrary to 
international law, which recognizes the right of expropriation and 
requires compensation.
  It is an extraterritorial sanction that guarantees a response from 
our trading partners, like Canada, Spain, and the EU, including 
complaints at the World Trade Organization.
  And if you care about agriculture, be warned:
  It will open a new front in the trade war, with all the repercussions 
that can bring;
  It will allow Cuba to claim victim status and rally international 
support;
  It will clog our courts with lawsuits;
  It will make it impossible to negotiate compensation for U.S. claims 
in Cuba and, in the end, hurt the very Americans who seek compensation 
for property they lost;
  It will divide us from friends and allies who are now working for a 
peaceful solution in Venezuela; and
  It will guarantee that new investment in Cuba will come from the 
Russians, Chinese, and others who are hostile to the United States and 
whose Stated-owned companies can't be sued in U.S. courts.
  Once again, the U.S. will be pursuing a strategy that has failed over 
and over and over again for absolutely no good result.
  Madam Speaker, there is a better way that deserves vocal, bipartisan 
support.
  We should continue to press Cuba on human rights. With our Latin 
American and European allies, we should challenge Cuba to play a 
constructive role in resolving the crisis in Venezuela, as it did in 
the Colombian peace process.
  There are positive changes in Cuba to support: There is growing 
Internet access, and there is more political space for Cuban citizens, 
a growing private sector that now accounts for a third of Cuba's labor 
force. And despite policies that limit contact, there are rich 
cultural, educational, and intellectual exchanges between Americans and 
Cuba.
  Madam Speaker, we should follow President Trump's original instinct 
and allow Americans to do business with Cuba.
  We should pass Congressman Crawford's bill to increase the 
competitiveness of our agricultural exports to Cuba. There is no reason 
for us to have only a one-eighth market share of Cuba's $2 billion in 
annual food imports.
  We should finally end U.S. travel restrictions and allow all 
Americans to travel freely, as they choose, to Cuba. That would serve 
our values and our national interests, and it is a worthy cause in 
which Democrats and Republicans can join.

                          ____________________