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.
”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.
