Congress Watch

110th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. R. 6962

To facilitate the provision of humanitarian relief to Cuba.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 18, 2008

Mr. DELAHUNT (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. LAHOOD, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. FARR, Ms. HARMAN, and Mr. MEEKS of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

---

A BILL

To facilitate the provision of humanitarian relief to Cuba.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Humanitarian Relief to Cuba Act'.

(b) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Hurricane Gustav, which struck Cuba on September 1, 2008, was the worst hurricane to hit the island of Cuba in over 50 years. The Category Four storm displaced over 400,000 Cubans and damaged or destroyed 130,000 homes and caused severe damage to infrastructure.

(2) Hurricane Ike, which made landfall on Cuba on September 7, 2008, forced the evacuation of over 2,500,000 Cubans, damaged an additional 100,000 structures, and damaged local infrastructure.

(3) The number of Cubans left homeless is expected to reach 100,000, and the total economic losses of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike are expected to reach upwards of $10,000,000,000, with serious damage done to the island's agricultural industry.

(4) In the wake of past natural disasters, the United States eased restrictions to mobilize the generous spirit of many thousands of Americans by allowing humanitarian aid originating from the United States to be transported directly to Cuba to the benefit of the Cuban people.

(5) Allowing the people of the United States to assist the Cuban people in reclaiming their lives and livelihoods following a major natural disaster just 90 miles from the United States is an important aspect of United States national security and defense policy.

SEC. 2. EASING OF RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL TO CUBA FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS.

(a) In General-

(1) FREEDOM OF TRAVEL FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS TO VISIT FAMILY MEMBERS IN CUBA- For the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the President may not prohibit or regulate, directly or indirectly--

(A) travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens or any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with family currently residing in Cuba; or

(B) any of the transactions incident to such travel that are described in paragraph (2).

(2) TRANSACTIONS INCIDENT TO TRAVEL- The transactions referred to in paragraph (1) are--

(A) any transaction ordinarily incidental to travel to or from Cuba, including the importation into Cuba or the United States of accompanied baggage for personal or family use only;

(B) any transaction ordinarily incident to travel to or maintenance within Cuba, including the payment of living expenses and the acquisition of goods or services for personal and family use only; and

(C) any transaction ordinarily incident to the arrangement, promotion, or facilitation of scheduled and nonscheduled travel to, from, or within Cuba, including lodging and meals in an amount not to exceed the per diem amount authorized under chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.

(b) Supersedes Other Provisions- This section supersedes any other provision of law, including section 102(h) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6032(h)).

(c) Effective Date- This section applies to actions taken by the President before the date of the enactment of this Act that are in effect on such date and to actions taken on or after such date during the 180-day period beginning on such date of enactment.

SEC. 3. EASING RESTRICTIONS ON REMITTANCES FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS.

(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (b), for the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury may not limit the amount of remittances to Cuba that may be made by any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the Secretary shall rescind, for such 180-day period, all regulations in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that so limit the amount of those remittances.

(b) Statutory Construction- Nothing in subsection (a) may be construed to prohibit the prosecution or conviction of any person committing an offense described in section 1956 of title 18, United States Code (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), or section 1957 of such title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity).

SEC. 4. EASING RESTRICTIONS ON GIFT OR RELIEF PACKAGES FOR 180 DAYS.

(a) In General- Except as provided in subsection (d), for the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the President may not limit the size, quantity or frequency, or the carrying, transporting or shipping of personal gift items and relief supplies (not for sale or resale) that are eligible to be shipped through existing or new mechanisms established expressly for the delivery of such packages. Such items and supplies may be sent to Cuba by any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the President shall rescind, for such 180-day period, all regulations in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act that so limit such items.

(b) Personal Gift Items- For purposes of this section, the term `personal gift items' includes goods intended to improve the daily life of the Cuban people, including clothing, medication, foodstuffs, personal hygiene items, and other daily necessities.

(c) Relief Supplies- For the purposes of this section, the term `relief supplies' means any item intended to provide temporary or permanent comfort or shelter to hurricane victims in Cuba, or intended to facilitate repairs to personal dwellings in Cuba damaged during the 2008 hurricane season.

(d) Statutory Construction- Nothing in subsection (a) may be construed to prohibit the prosecution or conviction of any person committing an offense described in section 1956 of title 18, United States Code (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments), or section 1957 of such title (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity).

END

Statements made by policy makers on Fidel Castro's resignation.

See a letter sent by members of Congress to Secretary Rice calling for a review of U.S. policy toward Cuba on occasion of the resignation of Fidel Castro here (PDF).

See a Senate version of this letter here (PDF).

 

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