[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26643-26644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        U.S. POLICY TOWARD CUBA

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great 
concern to me--the ban on travel to Cuba.
  Last week, the Senate scored an important victory in the fight to 
bring common sense to U.S. policy toward Cuba. We voted by a wide 
margin--59 to 36--to suspend enforcement of the travel ban. The House 
approved the same amendment in September, also by a wide margin.
  The wide margin of victory reflects the majority of Americans who 
want an end to the travel ban.
  Over the weekend, editorial writers from a diverse range of 
newspapers noted and applauded our victory: the Wall Street Journal, 
the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Orlando Sentinel-
Tribune.
  Let me offer just a few quotes: the Chicago Tribune says:

       In an age of very real terrorist threats, Cuba hardly makes 
     the list. For the Department of Homeland Security to redouble 
     its efforts and tie up more money and personnel in enforcing 
     the travel ban against Cuba--as the president proposed two 
     weeks ago--is an incredible waste of resources.

  The New York Times points out:

       The proper response to such outrages as the Castro regime's 
     roundup of dissidents and writers earlier this year is to 
     seek to overwhelm the island with American influence.

  And the Orlando Sentinel argues:

       The ban on U.S. travel is futile, self-defeating, a waste 
     of scarce resources and inconsistent with other American 
     policies.

  These papers spoke out in favor of the Senate's actions because they 
recognize that the current policy has been a failure and because they 
know that engagement with Cuba is the best and most effective way to 
bring democratic change to Cuba.
  In my view, the Cuba travel provisions should not even be subject to 
conference. The House and Senate have passed the same amendment; there 
is nothing for conferees to discuss.
  There are many Members of this body who have worked hard to ease the 
embargo. Any Treasury-Transportation conference report that does not 
include the Senate and House-passed language is unacceptable, and we 
will look at all procedural options to stop this from happening.
  That said, I fully expect this amendment to become law. Despite 
recent incorrect reporting, none of the supporters of this legislation 
believe that we can't accomplish our goal of lifting the Cuba travel 
ban.
  And I have to say here that I do not believe the President will veto 
this bill. Of course, the Cuba provisions have overwhelming support, 
but the appropriations bill itself passed the Senate 90 to 3. The 
administration knows a veto could be easily overridden.
  I do believe that pro-embargo forces see the writing on the wall. 
Momentum to end the embargo is clearly building. We have had a year 
filled with success.
  Several months ago, Senators Enzi, Dorgan, and I introduced 
legislation, S. 950, that would permanently lift the travel ban. There 
are 31 cosponsors of that legislation, and we are adding new cosponsors 
this week.
  The Foreign Relations Committee has committed to vote on that 
legislation by the end of the year, and I expect the committee to 
approve it by a large majority.
  Recent polls indicate that most Americans oppose the travel ban. In 
fact, even most Cuban Americans--historically supportive of the 
embargo--favor lifting the ban.
  So the Senate and the House votes are only the latest rebuke of an 
outdated policy.
  Thirteen of the 16 Senate appropriators on the Subcommittee were 
supportive of the Cuba amendment. And I am confident they will work 
hard to keep this provision. But I also know they will be under some 
pressure. I urge them to stand up to those who might try to defy the 
will of the Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the aforementioned 
editorials.
  There being on objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 27, 2003]

                              Havana Club

       The Bush Administration, more than most, contains people 
     whose families have paid a personal price for the horror that 
     is Cuban communism. Which is why it's a little unfair, after 
     last week's Senate vote to lift the U.S. travel ban to Cuba, 
     to dismiss the White House objections merely as worry that 
     signing such language would hurt the President's re-election 
     chances in Florida.
       Yes, the Cuban-American vote is a big deal, as Bill Clinton 
     recognized when he courted Miami's anti-Castro community and 
     cash in his election runs. And given that the Senate vote 
     approving the lifting of the travel restrictions was less 
     than the two-thirds required to override any veto, we'd be 
     surprised if the White House doesn't make good on its threat. 
     But the tension here reflects what is a genuine argument 
     among conservatives over what is the best way to bring Fidel 
     Castro down.

[[Page 26644]]

       Otto Reich of the National Security Council staff and 
     Housing Secretary Mel Martinez believe that lifting such 
     restrictions will breathe financial life into a decaying 
     regime. Some of our free market friends in Congress, notably 
     Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, argue that after 40 years of 
     an embargo Fidel is still sitting pretty. So it's time to try 
     something different.
       We fall into the latter group, not least because one of the 
     problems with the existing travel ban is that it is applied 
     selectively. Privileged groups of people--academics, 
     journalists, Cuban Americans and left-leaning Christian 
     groups--can and already do travel to Cuba. Jimmy Carter 
     travels there and CNN more or less treats it like a state 
     visit.
       But we're also impressed by Oswaldo Paya, leader of Cuba's 
     homegrown answer to Poland's Solidarity movement, who wants 
     to see the U.S. embargo lifted. Mr. Paya points out that the 
     heart of the Cuban crisis isn't the partial embargo the U.S. 
     has imposed on Cuba but is the total embargo Fidel has 
     imposed on his own people: the limits on their speech, their 
     ability to go to church, to run their own enterprises, and so 
     on.
       As Mr. Flake has written, Fidel's three most obvious 
     failures are ``breakfast, lunch and dinner.'' The more 
     Americans are able to travel to Cuba, the more will be able 
     to see for themselves the suffering that Fidel and his 
     commissars have wrought.
                                  ____


               [From the Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 25, 2003]

                        Lift Ban on Cuba Travel

       Our position: Removing restrictions on U.S. travel would 
     expose Cubans to free ideas.
       The U.S. Senate took a courageous and correct stand on Cuba 
     policy last week.
       Fifty-nine senators defied a veto threat from President 
     George W. Bush in voting against the ban on U.S. travel to 
     Cuba. Like a majority of U.S. House members, those senators 
     realize that the ban is--if anything--counterproductive.
       The ban is political rather than practical. It pleases many 
     Cuban-Americans in Florida, but it and other hard-line 
     measures haven't dislodged dictator Fidel Castro.
       Restricting the freedom of U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba 
     limits the communist island's exposure to American ideas. It 
     also helps conceal the extent of repression in Cuba from 
     Americans. Those are both big favors for Mr. Castro.
       The greatest threat to any totalitarian government is the 
     free flow of information. That explains why independent 
     journalists and librarians were targeted in the Castro 
     government's brutal crackdown on dissidents earlier this 
     year.
       Enforcing the ban on U.S. travel to Cuba also ties up 
     limited resources in both the Homeland Security and Treasury 
     departments. Those resources would be better directed toward 
     fighting terrorism.
       Predictably, the White House criticized the Senate vote, 
     saying it would ``provide a helping hand to a desperate and 
     repressive regime.'' But Mr. Bush's hard line on Cuba is 
     contradicted by his continuing engagement with China, another 
     repressive communist regime.
       The ban on U.S. travel to Cuba is futile, self-defeating, a 
     waste of scarce resources and inconsistent with other 
     American policies. It's past time to lift it.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2003]

                     Congressional Resolve on Cuba

       Though normally inclined to follow their president's lead 
     on foreign policy, many Congressional Republicans have now 
     broken ranks on Cuba. By a wide margin, the Senate joined the 
     House on Thursday in voting to ease travel restrictions to 
     Cuba, just two weeks after President Bush vowed to toughen 
     sanctions on the government of Fidel Castro and enforce them 
     more energetically. The renegade Republicans apparently think 
     that Mr. Bush's approach is dictated less by a coherent 
     vision than by electoral concerns involving anti-Castro 
     Republican voters in Florida.
       This Congressional resolve is commendable. Four decades of 
     sanctions have allowed Mr. Castro to portray himself, both at 
     home and abroad, as a victim of Yankee imperialism. Mr. 
     Castro would probably be as disappointed as his adversaries 
     in Florida to see the sanctions lifted.
       That is one reason he has a knack for provoking a backlash 
     anytime there is a chance of a change in the status quo, 
     which may be the best of all words for Mr. Castro. The 
     dollars sent home from Florida relatives and the money spent 
     by European tourists have kept the rickety Cuban economy 
     afloat since the Soviet collapse. At the same time, sanctions 
     imposed by the United States have kept democratizing 
     influences at bay and provided the regime with a 
     justification for its authoritarian ways.
       The proper response to such outrages as the Castro regime's 
     roundup of dissidents and writers earlier this year is to 
     seek to overwhelm the island with American influence--
     corporate and cultural--and with American tourists and other 
     private visitors. This is the approach we take in trying to 
     democratize other nations.
       The Senate's measure, an amendment to a $90 billion 
     spending bill to finance the Treasury and Transportation 
     Departments, is identical to a provision approved 
     overwhelmingly by the House. Such agreement means it will be 
     hard for Republican leaders to try to kill the amendment 
     behind closed doors. That leaves the possibility of a 
     presidential veto, though the White House cannot relish the 
     idea of holding up government spending to placate parochial 
     interests in Florida, no matter how powerful. As the main 
     beneficiary of this failed policy, Mr. Castro may want to 
     call Mr. Bush and encourage him to get that veto pen ready.
                                  ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 27, 2003]

                       Congress' Message on Cuba

       Cues that it's time for the United States--and particularly 
     the Bush administration--to abandon the 40-year-old embargo 
     on Cuba got considerably louder on Thursday, when the Senate 
     voted 59-36 to life the ban on travel by U.S. citizens. The 
     Senate measure is identical to one passed by the House a 
     month ago.
       The White House, tuned to an altogether different 
     wavelength, threatens to veto any bill loosening the economic 
     and travel sanctions against Cuba. Two weeks ago, President 
     Bush--surrounded by a supportive group of Cuban exiles from 
     Miami--announced measures to tighten the economic noose 
     around the island.
       It's no secret that the president wants to nail down the 
     votes of the fervidly anti-Castro Cuban-American community.
       But at what cost? Congress supports lifting the embargo, 
     and so do many conservative Republican politicians and 
     business interests--particularly in the Midwest. It is time 
     to end the Cold War sideshow of the Cuban embargo.
       Never has the American obsession with Cuba seemed so out of 
     proportion or self-defeating, particularly for a Republican 
     administration, as it does now. This is a question of 
     national interest, not the political interests of the tiny 
     but vociferous Cuban-American community.
       Thursday's vote in the senate, on an amendment to the 
     Transportation and Treasury spending bill, was important for 
     several reasons. It showed a significant policy shift in the 
     Senate since 1999, when the upper chamber rejected lifting 
     the travel restrictions on 55-43 vote.
       Supporters this time included 19 Republicans, including 
     several from farm states such as Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. 
     Sen. Dick Durbin voted for the amendment. Sen. Peter 
     Fitzgerald voted against it.
       Fitzgerald ought to pay attention. Lifting the travel ban 
     is a critical step toward eventually lifting the U.S. embargo 
     on Cuba and opening the door for more trade. Illinois firms 
     such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. benefit from increased 
     sales of foodstuffs to Cuba, so far conducted on a cash-only 
     basis. Last year total exports to Cuba reached nearly $140 
     million, but it is estimated if all restrictions were lifted, 
     that figure could increase significantly. Cuba would get 
     better prices--Texas' rice is far closer than China's--and 
     American farmers, strapped for markets, could benefit too.
       In an age of very real terrorist threats, Cuba hardly makes 
     the list. For the Department of Homeland Security to redouble 
     its efforts and tie up more money and personnel in enforcing 
     the travel ban against Cuba--as the president proposed two 
     weeks ago--is an incredible waste of resources.
       This legislation is likely headed to conference committee, 
     where GOP leaders must make sure the Cuba language doesn't 
     mysteriously disappear. Congress ought to make clear its 
     resolve to end the pointless flogging of Cuba. The embargo 
     only intensifies the misery of the long-suffering Cubans 
     while shortchanging U.S. economic and political interests. 
     That makes no sense at all.

                          ____________________