End the Travel Ban on Cuba

Luisa, 50
Takoma Park, MD
Director of Multicultural Youth Center
Born in Cienfuegos

”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.

My mother is 85 and lives in North Carolina. Two years ago, her oldest sister died. Her other sister, Yara, still lives in Cienfuegos, alert but fragile at 92. Recently the nephews who looked after Yara died unexpectedly, leaving her in the care of a great niece. Mother worries. She wants to check on her sister to see that she’s being cared for and to touch her once more, but she is physically unable to make the trip.

I want to go to Cuba for them; to visit my aunt as mother would if she could, to carry messages of support and love. But under the new restrictions only my mother has the right to travel.

One trip cannot answer all questions or alleviate the pain of years of separation. But one trip gives consolation. It allows one to see the true reality rather than living with the imagined one. And most of all, it reinforces the familial relationships that form us from generation to generation.

Mother finds comfort through prayer and continues -- as she has for 45 years -- to write her sister a letter each week. Yet, I know there is lost sleep, nights when she wonders; ‘Did Yara have dinner tonight? Did they give her medicine? Is she cold?’”

Take Action! Participate in a very important LAWG Education Fund and Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) project. We are looking for Cuba policy activists nationwide who may be interested in hosting a moving photo exhibit of Cuban Americans affected by the travel ban. Nestor Hernández, Jr. (who tragically passed away the day after the exhibit opened on Capitol Hill), a Cuban-American professional photographer living in the DC area, and Juan-Sí González, a Cuban-American artist living in Yellow Springs, Ohio, have photographed 20 Cuban-American families who have been unable to travel to Cuba under the new regulations governing family travel. Social scientists, Drs. Jeanne Lemkau and David Strug, who are studying the effects of U.S. policy on Cuban-American families, have interviewed the photo subjects and condensed their stories into short personal testimonials.

The travel ban allows Cuban Americans to travel to Cuba just once every three years to visit only immediate family (no uncles/aunts, nieces/nephews, cousins). There are no exceptions for family emergencies. This means that many, like Luisa, are unable to care for their relatives, or regularly visit the family members to whom they are closest. The purpose of the photo exhibit is to bring the reality of this separation of Cuban-American families to the attention of Congress and of the U.S. public.

The photos were unveiled on Capitol Hill on May 11th, just prior to Mother's Day, where members of Congress, and Cuban-American family members spoke on the travel ban’s cruel effects. On May 16th, the exhibit opened at the Arlington Arts Center (AAC) in Arlington, VA. The photos are now on national tour throughout the United States. Click here to see our schedule for a venue near you.

Take Action! We continue to search for local groups to host the exhibit in their home area. We request a $500 donation (to help us cover shipping fees) to bring the photo exhibit to your city; and your organization will be responsible for securing a venue (and covering any deposits or costs for the location), doing publicity to the public and the media, and hosting a reception for viewers and press.

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. 

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.

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