Election Analysis, Tempered Optimism
by Paulo Gusmao
on November 28, 2006
Thanks to many of you who have let us know that you
have called or written your members of Congress—especially the new
members. It is much appreciated, and it is what
will make a difference in 2007. From our analysis, we believe that we
need to “win” almost 40 of the new members to our position
on Cuba. That is a big task; but with your consistent efforts, we can
do it.
If you haven’t made your calls or sent your letters
yet, PLEASE DO SO NOW. New members, especially, should
hear from you before they hear from the other side. Let’s not lose
our edge.
We need 218 votes in the House to pass legislation.
After the November elections, we calculated that we had about 182 House
members who would support an end to the travel ban on Cuba. Doing the
math, that comes out to 36 votes short. So, the new members are extremely
important.
Winning back some of the incumbent members’ votes
we lost in 2004 because of lobbying money from the right-wing U.S.-Cuba
Democracy PAC would also be very helpful. That same group is actively
recruiting new members to vote in favor of maintaining the embargo. We
can’t let them push us aside.
So just what is the political scene this year? What
do the recent elections mean for the possibilities of changing U.S.-Cuba
policy?
We are using the phrase “tempered optimism”
in describing our analysis. [Thanks to Geoff Thale of the Washington Office
on Latin America for coining that phrase; and thanks, too, to Geoff for
the brief analysis below.]
On the “optimism” side:
1. The elections reflected a new mood of skepticism
in the public about Iraq, and about the conduct of U.S. foreign policy
overall. This opens opportunities for positive change for us, as the public
is more open to critiques on U.S.-Cuba policy.
2. The elections resulted in important changes in the
leadership of the Congress. Three years ago, there was a functioning Cuba
Working Group in the House and the Senate; and we were winning favorable
Cuba votes in the House with 250-plus votes. Our problem wasn’t
a lack of votes on our side; our problem was the Republican leadership,
which used its influence and its control of parliamentary procedure to
remove Cuba provisions before the final legislation went to the President
for signing. That entrenched Republican leadership has lost its majority
power, and our prospects for keeping Cuba provisions in the final version
of bills has gone way up.
3. The elections led to changes in committee leadership,
along with overall House leadership, and that’s really important.
Members who support changing U.S. policy toward Cuba will control important
committees and subcommittees. The final committee assignments won’t
be known until sometime in January, but some of the leadership positions
are almost certain. Click
here to see a few positions that will be helpful to us.
Summary: we have a new mood in the general public
on foreign policy; obstructionists have been moved out of leadership in
the Congress; members of Congress interested in changing Cuba policy are
in key positions. We have reason to be optimistic.
But, our optimism has to be “tempered”:
1. While the Congress has changed, the Presidency has
not. President Bush is not going to change Cuba policy, and he will threaten
to veto any pro-engagement initiatives that Congress approves.
2. While the old obstructionist congressional leadership
has been removed (or at least taken down a notch), and we may be able
to keep Cuba provisions in legislation, we still have to win votes in
both the House and Senate. While we won these votes resoundingly three
years ago, we have not won them in the last two years. But more importantly,
we lost the votes of most of the new members of Congress elected in 2004.
There were 38 new members of the House in that election, and only eight
of them voted with us in 2005 and 2006.
In fact, we start 2007 with only 182 House members who
have a record of voting consistently to change Cuba policy. Our optimism
should be tempered because to win in the House we need 218 votes. We need
to keep all 182 votes and win over nearly 40 of the new members or those
whose votes we lost in 2005 and 2006. There are, depending upon some still
unsettled races, between 54 and 58 new members. We need to win over the
vast majority of them.
3. We still face some difficulties with committee leadership.
If we have allies in Rangel, Dodd, Baucus, etc., we also have Representative
Tom Lantos (D-CA) as chair of the House International Relations Committee.
While he has voted with us consistently on travel, he is not particularly
sympathetic to changing Cuba policy overall; and the Republican ranking
member may be Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who may have
some influence over him. We need to nurture Rep. Lantos regarding a positive
Cuba policy. And we likely have Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY) as chair
of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee of the House International Relations
Committee. He has never cast a positive vote on Cuba policy. If you are
Rep. Engel’s constituent (part of the Bronx, West Nyack, Mt. Vernon
in New York), we desperately need your help in converting him. And we
have a new Cuban American from New Jersey in the House, Representative-elect
Albio Sires, who will likely champion a hardline stance on Cuba.
In the Senate, we have Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
and Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), both Cuban Americans who support the
embargo.
4. Our optimism also has to be tempered because the
Democratic leadership of the House has its own priority agenda –
raising the minimum wage, Medicare/Medicaid reform, ethics and corruption,
Iraq, etc. – and has its eye on winning again in 2008. The leadership
may see Cuba policy as potentially controversial, or likely to hurt them
with some constituencies. Hearing from constituents like you will push
them in the right direction.
Summary: we face serious challenges in this
Congress, even as we have new opportunities. Our initial major challenge
is to reach out early to new members of Congress, especially in the House.
As we work with allies and people in the leadership on positive Cuba policy
initiatives, none of this will matter if we don’t have the votes
to win. Those votes depend on constituents and activists writing, calling,
and visiting new members of Congress in the next weeks and months.
So, please make those calls and set up those meetings.
116 Groups Sign Letter to Congress on Travel to Cuba
by Paulo Gusmao
on September 03, 2003
Dear Member of Congress:
As representatives of religious organizations, non-governmental organizations, policy groups, farm groups and businesses, we support the right of U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba free of restrictions. We write to express our support for the House and Senate bills to lift all restrictions on travel to Cuba (H.R.2071 and S.950), as well as any amendment to the Transportation/Treasury Appropriations bill that would end funding for enforcement of travel restrictions. We also support Senator Byron Dorgan’s amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill that would grant a general license for trips to Cuba for any travel associated with U.S. agriculture and medical sales to Cuba. We strongly urge you to vote in favor of any amendment that would ease restrictions on travel to Cuba and to co-sponsor H.R.2071.
Read more »
|
House Backs Away from Engagement
by Paulo Gusmao
on July 01, 2006
On June 14, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to ease
restrictions on agricultural sales to Cuba. Two other amendments, one
which would have eased restrictions on educational travel and one which
would have ended the embargo, failed to pass. A fourth amendment to protect
religious travel to Cuba was withdrawn following the debate.
The amendment regarding agricultural sales to Cuba was introduced by Rep.
Jerry Moran (R-KS). Passed by voice vote, the amendment would undo tightened
trade restrictions put in place by the Treasury Department last year.
The current restrictions require Cuba to pay for agricultural products
in cash, prior to the shipment to Havana. Opponents of the amendment argued
that the “cash in advance” rule was necessary to ensure that
U.S. farmers get paid, but in reality the restrictions have reduced sales
by 22 percent. Congressman Moran spoke in defense of his amendment saying,
“We clearly can reach the conclusion that unilateral sanctions by
the United States are only harmful to our own agriculture sector, to our
own farmers.”
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) introduced an amendment which would protect the
status of religious travel to Cuba which, though currently allowed, is
increasingly being threatened and narrowed by the administration. Speaking
in favor of the amendment, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) argued, “Now
they are preparing even more restrictions that will discriminate among
the many religious organizations on the island and pick and choose who
it is okay to break bread with in faith and fellowship. They will take
it upon themselves the right to say what constitutes a church and who
is a legitimate person of faith. The United States of America does not
and must not take such actions against communities of faith.” The
amendment was withdrawn following the debate, but sponsors of the amendment
and religious organizations are currently in contact with the Department
of State to protest and encourage reversal of the new restrictions.
The amendment to restrict the use of funds to enforce the full economic
embargo was introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). Though the amendment
failed by a vote of 183-245, several members of Congress who have consistently
opposed similar amendments in the past, voted in favor.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced the final amendment, which would restrict
funds to enforce the newest restrictions on educational travel. The 2004
restrictions limit educational exchanges to a minimum of 10 weeks and
a maximum of one year, and require that students travel to Cuba through
their home university. As a result, nearly 90 percent of university study
abroad programs to Cuba have been cancelled. Speaking for the amendment,
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) recalled, “Throughout the Cold War, American
students studied in the Soviet Union. Many of them went on to become diplomats,
scholars and policymakers who used the knowledge they gained to contribute
to the development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy […]
There is no reason to treat study in Cuba differently.” Opponents
of the bill, led by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), repeated a broad opposition
to the Castro regime, but barely addressed the issue of educational exchange.
Concluding the debate, Congresswoman Lee said, “Our young people
are hopeful for the possibilities of a new world free of all the politics
that we have heard today. So why don’t we give them a chance to
participate?” The Lee amendment failed by a vote of 187-236.
All four amendments were attached to the Treasury and Transportation Appropriations
Bill for 2007. Although similar versions of the amendments have been introduced
and passed in previous years, they have been consistently removed in conference
by the Republican leadership. The White House issued a statement on the
morning of the votes which reiterated their commitment to veto the bill
if it contained language to weaken the embargo.
Similar amendments introduced in previous years have passed and, until
2004, continued to gain votes; however, since 2005, anti-embargo amendments
have lost support. Many representatives changed their votes after receiving
campaign contributions from the US-Cuba Democracy PAC. The PAC, an anti-Casto,
pro-embargo organization primarily funded by Cuban Americans in Florida,
has given money to members of Congress and candidates across the country.
( Click
here for more information on 2004 contributions and the impact upon
votes by members of Congress.) As of late March 2006, the US-Cuba Democracy
PAC has already contributed $347,424 to federal candidates for the 2006
elections; many of the representatives have switched to a position that
does not favor engagement with Cuba, a position that their constituents
may not support. U.S. citizens have the right to expect that their members
of Congress will cast votes that are in accord with their constituents’
views, rather than are influenced by big-money, out-of-state lobbyists.
Human Rights Watch on U.S. Travel Ban
by Paulo Gusmao
on July 15, 2003
Testimony of José Miguel Vivanco
Executive Director
Americas Division
Human Rights Watch
July 15, 2003
Thank you for your invitation to discuss the human rights impact of the U.S. ban on travel to Cuba.
On behalf of Human Rights Watch, I would like to express my support for ending the travel ban. The ban, which contains narrow exceptions for journalists, people with relatives in Cuba, and certain other groups, has not served its stated purpose. It has in no way proved to be an effective tool for promoting human rights in Cuba. It has, instead, infringed the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and limited valuable opportunities for the free exchange of ideas between Americans and Cubans.
Read more »
|
House of Representatives Cuba Working Group: Principles for a Sound Cuba Policy
by Paulo Gusmao
on May 18, 2006
The House Cuba Working Group Issues a Statement: What a Positive U.S. Cuba Policy Would Look Like
As the Administration’s Commission on Assistance
to a Free Cuba prepares to issue a second report, and as founding members
of the House Cuba Working Group, we offer a statement of principles for
policies to serve American interests and values.
The embargo is a spent force, at odds with America’s strategic
and diplomatic interests and our nation’s values.
Any hope that an ever-tightening American embargo could force political
change has been wiped away by Cuba’s successful economic adjustment
to the post-Soviet world. Cuba is not prosperous, but economic relations
with Asia and Latin America, remittances from Cubans abroad, and development
of the tourism, minerals, and energy industries have restored growth and
ended the crisis of the early 1990’s.
By barring a free flow of people, commerce, and ideas, the embargo blocks
contacts that would expand American influence in Cuba, including among
those Cubans who will set their nation’s course after Castro leaves
the scene.
The embargo is the precise opposite of the principled policies that we
and the Western democracies pursued toward the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe through the Helsinki accords and other measures.
By deviating from those principles of engagement in the case of Cuba,
even as we uphold them with regard to China and Vietnam, our policy blocks
an international consensus on Cuba policy and mires the United States
in a perpetual quarrel with countries with which we should be cooperating.
U.S. policy toward Cuba should uphold American humanitarian values.
Congress and the Administration are right to stand up for human rights
in Cuba and to defend victims of human rights abuses. However, opposition
to the Cuban government’s conduct should not lead to policies that
hurt the Cuban people.
The new sanctions that limit or eliminate the ability of Cuban Americans
to visit or assist their loved ones in Cuba are the first U.S. economic
sanctions that directly target the well-being of families.
It serves no purpose in our foreign policy to send Cubans the message
that reduced contact and fewer acts of charity among Cuban families will
help solve their country’s political problems.
These measures place our values in question and have no strategic consequence.
The Administration estimates that the new sanctions block the flow of
$500 million annually in an economy that is growing, by Administration
estimates, at a rate of 5.5 percent, or $2 billion per year.
American policy should heed Cuban history and respect Cuban sovereignty.
Just because Fidel Castro invokes the causes of Cuban sovereignty and
nationalism does not mean that these values are not dearly held by the
Cuban people. Indeed, they are deeply rooted in the island’s history,
where the struggles for freedom from domestic oppression and foreign domination
have been closely linked.
By declaring that “there will not be a succession” after Castro,
naming a “Cuba transition coordinator” in the State Department,
and issuing a detailed transition plan for nearly every aspect of Cuba’s
public affairs, the Administration has led many Cubans to believe that
it wants to design Cuba’s future. Cuba’s Catholic bishops
stated that the Administration’s 2004 report “threatens”
the Cuban nation, and nearly all dissidents expressed similar sentiments.
American policy should send signals that cause Cubans to welcome
change rather than fear it.
The recommendations in the Commission’s 2004 report told Cubans
that when change comes, they could be evicted from their homes by the
former owners, they may have to pay for health care services, and retirees
may have to return to work.
It is counterproductive for the United States to state opinions on these
and other policies that Cubans alone will have to decide. These statements
feed the perception that the United States is challenging Cuban sovereignty,
and they increase fears among Cubans that “transition” implies
loss and dislocation in their personal lives. The only ones who benefit
are the Cuban propagandists who publicize these statements in articles,
television spots, and billboards.
Current policies to promote “transition” place the
United States at a strategic disadvantage.
Our influence in Cuba, as elsewhere, depends on communication. Greater
contact with American diplomats, American ideas, and American society
is a key element of the “transformational diplomacy” that
Secretary of State Rice espouses.
Yet the Administration has progressively reduced communication between
the United States and Cuba, in spite of its goal of influencing Cuba toward
a complete political and economic transformation. This is precisely the
wrong course. The Administration should encourage, rather than restrict,
travel for religious and humanitarian programs, family visits, and academic
and people-to-people contacts. Engagement does not equate with moral approval.
We would do well to emulate policies followed by friends and allies such
as Canada, Mexico, Britain, and Spain. All stand firm on human rights
while building contacts throughout Cuba’s government and society.
No one can predict how Cuba’s political future will evolve. But
we can predict that regardless of America’s size and economic weight,
our deliberate lack of contact and communication will reduce American
influence. The time to remedy this problem is now.
JEFF FLAKE
Member of Congress
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT
Member of Congress
JO ANN EMERSON
Member of Congress
JAMES P. McGOVERN
Member of Congress
Press Releases on the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act
by Paulo Gusmao
on April 30, 2003
The following press releases were sent out by the offices of the Senators who, on April 30, 2003 introduced "The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act" in the Senate. Original cosponsors were Senators Enzi, Baucus, Bingaman, Dorgan and Chafee. Below are press releases in support of that bill from organizations that work with the LAWG on ending the embargo on Cuba
Read more »
|
Action Center 
”Since
leaving Cuba when I was six, I can count on two hands the number of days
I have seen my two aunts who stayed behind, yet, through my mother I feel
a strong bond with them. Mother and her sisters have been the most important
influences on how I live my life.
