Happy New Year! Things are starting to get back into swing in DC after the holidays - the House came back into session this week, the Senate comes back next week, and, of course, the presidential election primaries are on everyone's mind.
For the first time in a presidential election, U.S. policy toward Cuba
has held national prominence. Two presidential candidates, Senators
Barrack Obama (D-IL) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) have challenged the Bush
Administration's stance on Cuba.
In an August 21st op-ed published in the Miami Herald, Senator Obama
called for an end to restrictions on family travel and remittances to
the island stating, "the (Bush) administration's decision to restrict
the ability of Cuban Americans to visit and send money to their
relatives in Cuba... is both a humanitarian and a strategic issue... It
has also made them [Cubans] more dependent on the Castro regime and
isolated them from the transformative message carried there by Cuban
Americans."
Senator Dodd went even further, stating in a September 9th Univision
debate, "I would begin to unravel that embargo. I would lift travel
restrictions, so Cuban Americans can go visit their families. I would
be lifting the restrictions on remissions." Fellow candidate, former
Senator John Edwards (D-NC), called for an end to travel restrictions
but stopped short of calling for a change in remittance caps.
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) echoed Senator Dodd's call for a
complete normalization of relations between the two countries and
Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) has also vowed to repeal Bush's
restrictions on Cuban-American family travel and remittances.
Not all candidates support change in U.S.-Cuba policy, however.
Frontrunner, Senator Hillary Clinton, favors maintaining the status quo
toward Cuba and keeping the embargo and other restrictions in place.
The Republican frontrunners, former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA),
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), former Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) and
former Mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani (R-NY), have all voiced
similar views to those of Senator Clinton and the Bush Administration.
Presidential candidates have always looked at the Cuban-American
community as a monolithic entity, whose hard-line conservative base
needed to be appealed to take Florida during the election. A recent
poll that measures Cuban-American sentiment in Miami-Dade County in
Florida, however, shows a growing rift on Cuba policy within the
Cuban-American community. The Florida International University Cuba
Poll is carried out every couple years by the Institute for Public
Opinion Research and the Cuban Research Institute of Florida
International University to assess Cuban-American opinion on U.S.-Cuba
policy and their views of the island. In the 2007 poll, researchers
found that 65 percent of Cuban Americans in Miami-Dade County support
starting a dialogue with Cuba. This is up from 55.6 percent in the 2004
Cuba Poll. Support for the U.S. embargo has also declined, from 66
percent in 2004 to 57.5 percent in 2007. Furthermore, 64 percent of the
respondents would like to return to the 2003 policies governing travel
and remittances.
Cuban-Americans are not the only ones with changing views toward
U.S.-Cuba policy. In a 2007 Associated Press (AP) poll, 62 percent of
Americans polled favored establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Based on these numbers, it would seem that the Republican presidential
candidates might not want to rely on archaic Cuba policies as a means
of winning votes – even in the key primary state of Florida.
Our alert today has three parts - we want to announce
the publication of our Cuban-American family photo exhibit into a moving
photo essay book, Love, Loss and Longing: the Impact of U.S. Travel Policy
on Cuban-American Families; we will give an update on what we can expect
(or not expect) from Congress for the remainder of the year; and we will
comment on President Bush's Cuba-policy speech last Wednesday.
Love, Loss and Longing
LAWGEF and our partners at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
are pleased to announce that Love, Loss and Longing: the Impact
of U.S. Travel Policy on Cuban-American Families has been
published and is currently being distributed all over the country. If
you haven't seen the book yet, take a look at it here The book is the published
version of the photo exhibit many of you saw on tour in your area. The
book includes the photos, testimonies, and expanded text about the effect
of U.S. travel policy on all Americans.
The book has been delivered to every member of Congress;
it would be great if you would call your members' offices (U.S.
Capitol switchboard is 202.224.3121) to ask if they have seen it and encourage
them to pay attention to it. This is another chance for you to
send a message to your member of Congress that you care about Cuba policy.
If their copy has been lost (or thrown away, as unfortunately often
happens when congressional interns are opening the mail and have to assess
the importance of each piece!), we would be happy to hand-deliver
another copy to the appropriate staff person in your member of Congress'
office - with your compliments. The offices just need to let you or us
know that they need a replacement. We have also sent the book to our Cuba
media contacts, and we are in the process of having the book be distributed
through local progressive bookstores and on Amazon.com.
We need your help distributing the book!
Do you have friends, family, co-workers, or distribution lists that should
know about our book? Let us know and we'll be happy to send you promotional
information to forward to your network. Do you know of bookstores in your
area that should sell the book? Let us know so we can send review copies
to them.
What's going on in Congress? (Be prepared;
this is a discouraging section.)
In June, the House voted to increase the mismanaged "democracy assistance"
funds supposedly intended to assist Cuban dissidents. Reps. Albio Sires
(D-NJ) and Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) attached an amendment to the Foreign
Operations Appropriations Bill in June to increase the funding from the
$9 million the committee recommended to the $45 million the Bush Administration
requested. Regrettably, the amendment passed 254-170.
Similar amendments were offered in the Senate to the
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) offered
three negative amendments to the bill - one to increase the funding for
Radio and TV Marti, one to increase the funding to the $45 million dollar
level the Bush Administration requested for "democracy assistance"
and one to significantly increase the funding for fumigations in Colombia.
In final negotiations, Senator Martinez offered to withdraw two of the
negative amendments in exchange for increasing the "democracy assistance"
funding. (No surprise, as a
GAO report from November 2006 shows a significant portion of this
money stays with his constituents in Florida.)
And in late July, the House of Representatives voted
185-245 to defeat an amendment by Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), a
long-time advocate for changing Cuba policy, to facilitate the sales of
U.S. farm products to the island. Unfortunately, many of our usual allies
voted against this amendment. See our e-alert
of July 26, 2007 for some analysis of this vote. These two losses
have left many of our congressional allies frustrated and hesitant to
offer other legislation that might also result in a loss. Add this on
top of Congress' priorities of the war in Iraq, important votes on children's
health care, and trying to prevent another war in Iran, and it is highly
unlikely that we will see more congressional action on the Cuba issue
for the remainder of the year. And, actually, we don't want to push for
a vote before we are certain that it would be a winning
vote.
So . . . we need to gear up to pave the way for action
in 2008 - with educational activities and messages, calling to account
our members of Congress who have abandoned this effort or reversed their
vote (there are about 46 non-freshman democrats and republicans who used
to be solidly with us but voted against the Rangel amendment), agitating
for change (we're working with partner organizations on a plan), and adding
to the support we have to be able to demonstrate that we CAN win this
issue on the floor of the House and Senate.
One example of how we can agitate
We have been working with our partners at the Center for Democracy in
the Americas, the Center for International Policy, and the Washington
Office on Latin America to put together a Presidential Candidate
Scorecard to rank presidential candidates' overall positions
on Cuba. Just to be clear, the scorecard is NOT an endorsement
of any candidate, but it is a valuable resource for evaluating
candidates' positions. We expect to have the scorecard completed and a
copy posted on our website within the next week. We will send you a quick
note letting you know it's up. We hope you will use it to inform and educate
in your state.
We will share the scorecard with members of the press,
and we encourage you to review the scorecard and thank candidates that
have positions that favor engagement and travel and question those who
support the status quo. We will have more suggested actions when we send
it out.
On Wednesday, October 24, President Bush made a speech
at the State Department and announced several "new initiatives"
on Cuba policy. The speech called for U.S. citizens to stand with the
people of Cuba (Bush's version of "standing with" differs from
ours!) in the "time of transition" and announced a program to
license NGOs and faith-based groups to provide computer and internet access
to students, invited Cuban youth to participate in a Latin American Youth
scholarship program in the United States, and announced the creation of
a multi-billion dollar so-called "Freedom Fund for Cuba." The
President encouraged countries world wide to contribute to the fund, although
it is unclear from where the President believes the political capital
to create this fund would come, the U.S. leadership role and credibility
in the world being as diminished as it currently is. Even the allies that
President Bush mentioned in his speech - the Czech Republic, Poland and
Hungary - have consistently voted against the U.S. embargo in the United
Nations.
Speaking of the United Nations, the General Assembly
of the United Nations voted 184-4 October 30, in the 16th consecutive
loss by the United States, to end the U.S. embargo on Cuba. You can read
more in
this New York Times story.
President Bush's speech demonstrates how isolated the
United States has become in efforts to have a voice in the debate on Cuba's
emerging transition. If the President intends that the United States play
any part (read: appropriate, non-interventionist) in Cuba's future, he
would be wise to pursue a policy of engagement - as the majority of U.S.
citizens wish - rather than continuing the failed policy of isolation
and hostility.
Most dangerously, the President seemed to call for upheaval
in Cuba - certainly not what the policy of the United States should be
in any country. He said that "stability" was not the U.S. goal,
rather "freedom."
The speech came at a time when the President needs a
distraction from the declining situation in Iraq, sagging political support
in Florida, and the United Nations vote condemning the United States'
embargo on Cuba.
The LAWG urges the administration and the Congress to
become relevant and begin an immediate process of engagement, dialogue
and policy change. Opening up trade and unrestricted travel to Cuba would
be a good beginning.
Well, that's it for now. If you've read to the end,
we hope you aren't discouraged. Your energy is needed even more now to
keep the issue of Cuba policy before our legislators and our presidential
candidates. As opportunities arise, we'll be coming back to you with requests
for action and advocacy. Right now, please help us publicize and distribute
the Love, Loss, and Longing book with policy makers and the public; help
others to understand that Cuba policy is one of the keys to improving
U.S. foreign policy in Latin America; be encouraged that change will come.
Love, Loss and Longing: the Impact of U.S. Travel Policy on Cuban-American Families is the publication of a joint LAWGEF and WOLA photo exhibit highlighting the cruel effect of the travel ban on Cuban Americans.
The photo exhibit was shown in over 20 cities throughout
the United States and the stories of family separation U.S. policy
caused touched countless Americans. Drs. Jeanne Lemkau and David
Strug have interviewed and chronicled the heart-breaking stories
of 20 Cuban Americans who have been unable to see their families.
The photographs are the work of two talented Cuban-American photographers,
Nestor Hernandez, Jr. and Juan E. Gonzalez Lopez.
What are the real family values when we keep families
away from each other,? Mari, Washington, DC
In 2004, the Bush Administration issued a new set of
harsh regulations on travel to Cuba, upping the ante significantly. While
many Americans were impacted by this, the Cuban-American community has
been affected most cruelly. Cuban Americans are restricted from traveling
to the island more than once every three years to see their families,
and family has been redefined in a very limiting way to include only:
parents, siblings, children and grandparents. Aunts, uncles, cousins,
nieces, nephews, and god-parents are totally off limits. There are no
exceptions to these restrictions, not even for family emergencies or deaths.
For the last three years, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund
(LAWGEF) has worked closely with the Cuban-American community, the Washington
Office on Latin America (WOLA), and other allies here in Washington, DC,
to decry this violation of the basic right to visit one’s family.
One of our most ambitious projects to fight these restrictions
was a photo exhibit, Love, Loss and Longing: the Impact of U.S.-Travel
Policy on Cuban-American Families, which has been on national tour throughout
2006 and 2007. LAWGEF and WOLA have shown the exhibit in over 20 venues
across the United States and have brought the message of needed change
to thousands of Americans. Seeing how the exhibit’s photographs
and accompanying testimonials touched viewers and opened their eyes to
this cruel U.S.-policy’s impact, we have expanded the exhibit’s
reach by publishing the exhibit in book form. You may view the book here
Why a photo exhibit?
Marisela’s father relied on her frequent visits and care packages
to help fight his steadily-progressing Alzheimer’s. In 2004 the
changed restrictions on travel to the island prohibited her from traveling
to the island and reduced the amount and types of items she could send
to support him. Shortly thereafter, Marisela’s father passed away;
because she had been to see him during the previous three years, she was
unable to attend his funeral. Now she asks: “I came to this country
in pursuit of freedom! How is that…I can’t [visit] my father’s
grave?” Mario, Sr., moved to the United States in 1992 and left
behind his visually-impaired son, Mario, Jr. In the following years Mario,
Sr., visited his son multiple times a year to help with maintenance around
the house and to provide emotional support. Mario, Jr., recently had a
son; and Mario, Sr., is now a grandfather. In 2004 when the restrictions
on family travel changed, Mario, Sr., was prohibited from traveling to
the island more than once every three years - no exceptions allowed. Now
Mario, Sr., cannot help his son or be a part of his grandson’s childhood.
He asks: “What does it mean to be a good father?” These are
two of countless heartbreaking stories of family separation the LAWGEF
has heard over the past three years.
Nestor Sr., 74
Upholsterer
Hyattsville, MD/Havana
"Who will
take my ashes to Cuba?"
Nestor Sr. left Cuba more than 50 years ago hoping for
a better life in the United States. He was 20. He settled in Washington,
married and raised six children. Nestor Jr., photographer for this exhibit,
is his oldest son. Vicente, who is pictured here, is his youngest.
Nestor Jr, was 18 when he traveled to Cuba and arrived
unannounced on his grandmother’s doorstep in Los Pinos. With the
embrace of his father’s relatives, he felt he had “come home.”
Between 1978 and 2003 he made over 20 trips to Cuba, visiting family,
exploring far corners of the island with his camera and organizing workshops
and exhibitions with North American and Cuban photographers.
Vicente traveled to Los Pinos with his father and discovered
that his Cuban family was larger than his family at home. Playing with
cousins on the streets of Havana he felt safer than on the streets of
Washington. After his trip he started asking more about his father’s
homeland and began referring to himself as Cuban.
Under the restrictions neither Nestor Jr. nor Vicente
can return to Cuba – ever. Their grandmother is deceased and their
cousins aren’t eligible for visits as “family.”
Nestor Sr. wonders, “When I die who will take
my ashes to Cuba if my sons can’t go?”
“¿Quién
llevará mis cenizas a Cuba?”
Nestor, 74
Tapicero
Hyattsville, MD/Habana
Nestor Senior dejó Cuba hace más de 50
años para una vida mejor en los Estados Unidos. Tenía 20
años. Radicó en Washington, se casó y crió
a seis hijos. Nestor Junior, fotógrafo para esta exhibición,
es su hijo mayor. Vicente quien aparece en esta fotografía es el
más joven.
Nestor Junior tenía 18 años cuando viajó
a Cuba y llegó sin anunciarse a la puerta de la casa de su abuela
en Los Pinos. Con el abrazo de los parientes del lado paterno se sintió
que había “llegado a casa.” Entre 1978 y 2003 el hizo
más de 20 viajes a Cuba, visitando a su familia, explorando los
rincones de la isla con su cámara y organizando talleres y exhibiciones
con fotógrafos estadounidenses y cubanos.
Vicente viajo a Los Pinos con su padre y descubrió
que su familia en Cuba era más grande que su familia en casa. Jugando
con sus primos en la calles de la Habana se sintió más seguro
que en las calles de Washington. Después de su viaje, empezó
a preguntarse más acerca de la patria de su padre y empezó
a identificarse como cubano.
Nestor Senior se pregunta, “Cuándo yo muera,
¿Quién va a llevar mis cenizas a Cuba si mis hijos no pueden
ir?”
Two years ago, Dr. Jeanne Lemkau, a clinical psychologist,
professor emerita at Wright State University School of Medicine in Ohio,
and admitted Cubaphile, walked into our office to discuss a new
research project about the effect family travel restrictions have on Cuban
families. The project would be a collaboration between Jeanne and Dr.
David Strug from the Wurzweiler School of Social Work at Yeshiva University,
NYC, and would take the two to Cuba and all over the United States to
personally interview Cubans and their family members. They would use their
background as a medical professionals to assess the restrictions’
impact on family health.
The LAWGEF’s Mavis Anderson realized the potential
this study could have in the policy debate and suggested turning the research
into a nationally-touring photo exhibit that would bring the Cuban-American
stories of love and loss to Americans across the country.
Nestor, a Guiding Force
From that point forward, LAWGEF staffers Mavis Anderson
and Claire Rodriguez, along with our partners, Elsa Falkenburger and Geoff
Thale at WOLA, worked closely with Jeanne and David to shepherd the project
through production and began the daunting task of coordinating a nationwide
tour. We realized we were heading into uncharted territory when we sat
down to brainstorm with the exhibit’s photographer, Nestor Hernández,
Jr., on how to ship the exhibit from one venue to the next. Nestor, a
Cuban-American photographer in Washington, DC, was a veteran of traveling
photo tours and had exhibited his works all over the world. He became
a guiding force in the photo exhibit, and his beautiful photography inspired
us to forge ahead with the tour.
In February 2006, as Nestor was photographing the second half of the exhibit,
he fell ill and was unable to continue the project. Our work came to a
standstill as we absorbed what was happening – we were losing a
colleague-turned-friend, and one of the driving motivations behind the
exhibit. If we hadn’t been emotionally invested in the project before,
we became so then.
It was too late to delay the scheduled May opening;
we had congressional co-sponsorship and the invitations had already gone
out. Jeanne quickly contacted another Cuban-American photographer in her
hometown, Juan E. González López, who agreed to take over
for Nestor. With Nestor’s encouragement, we pressed ahead. Juan
studied Nestor’s photographs and started photographing the remaining
participants, trying to preserve Nestor’s distinct style. Shortly
before the exhibit’s opening, Nestor’s illness began to progress
rapidly; and the week before the exhibit opened on Capitol Hill, Nestor
was re-admitted to the hospital.
The day before the opening, Juan and Jeanne visited
Nestor and showed him the completed exhibit. Nestor expressed deep appreciation
to Juan for continuing the legacy of his style and seeing the project
to completion. Tragically, Nestor passed away the day after the exhibit
opened on Capitol Hill. The exhibit’s nationwide tour and the book
are dedicated to his memory. Nestor’s father, Nestor Hernández,
Sr., is featured in the exhibit; his support and Nestor’s spirit
continue to guide our work.
Touring the Nation
The day the exhibit opened on Capitol Hill was a stressful
day for our office. We wanted to make everything perfect, from assembling
the easels to display the photographs at 6:00 in the morning and then
rushing back to the office to put the whole exhibit online for press calls
and immediate access for the public. In the late afternoon, the room started
to fill, and over 150 people attended the opening reception. Congressman
Bill Delahunt (D-MA) attended and spoke about the need to change policy.
The next day the Miami Herald ran a story about the photo exhibit
opening in the broader context of the changing Cuban-American community
in Miami, FL.
Demand to show the exhibit in cities across the country
was high. Love, Loss and Longing was exhibited in: Oakland and
Sacramento, CA; Miami, FL; Chicago, IL; Bloomington, IN; Cambridge, MA;
Baltimore, MD; Minneapolis, MN; Jackson Hole, WY; Newark, NJ; New York,
NY; Yellow Springs and Dayton, OH; Devon, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh,
PA; and Arlington and Crystal City, VA.
Showing the photo exhibit in so many venues in such
a short time presented many challenges that we had not anticipated. Who
knew it would be so challenging to find a crate to ship a 200-pound photo
exhibit or that shipping companies would be so unreliable? However, the
rewards of accompanying the exhibit on its nationwide tour more than made
up for the challenges. Working with an art exhibit allowed us to partner
with people across the country with whom we never would have had the opportunity
to collaborate. We worked with art galleries, museums, local governments,
political cartoonists, churches, social-justice groups, restaurants, and
committed individuals. We loved bringing so many new faces to the Cuba-policy
debate.
Empowering the exhibit participants to share their stories
of separation was a moving experience. Many of the Cuban Americans, especially
those living in Miami, have faced vocal criticism for their position on
travel; and their bravery in coming forward with the pain this policy
causes their family was inspiring. The strength of their stories made
the exhibit more moving and motivated us more than we thought possible.
In Jackson Hole, WY, the photo exhibit host’s son, a young high
school student whose father is Cuban American, saw the exhibit and was
moved to tears by the stories portrayed in the exhibit. He said, “These
people are just like our family.” His words inspired his older brother
to accompany their father to Washington, DC, for a Cuban-American lobby
day to speak in favor of ending the restrictions on travel for all Americans.
The day after the photo exhibit showed in Miami, an
article ran in the Miami Herald about the changing nature of
the Cuba debate in Miami. Love, Loss and Longing was exhibited
at Tinta y Café, a new café on Miami’s Calle Ocho,
which the owner opened to “give a voice to the silent majority of
people in Miami who are frustrated with the failures of U.S. Cuba policy.”
(1) Five years ago the café wouldn’t
have been permitted to open, much less display a photo exhibit calling
for policy change.
Wrapping it Up
The LAWGEF has seen how effective an advocacy tool
the photo exhibit has been for our work and is considering touring another
exhibit. The LAWGEF’s Colombia program hopes to bring a photo exhibit
about the impact of the war in Colombia to the United States next year.
The exhibit will tour the country visiting churches, peace organizations,
and art galleries.
Finally, after a great year and a half, the time has
come to retire the Love, Loss and Longing photo exhibit. We are
pleased to announce that one copy of the exhibit will be on permanent
display at the Dayton International Peace Museum. The museum provides
a space to promote peace and nonviolent solutions to conflict. You can
learn more about the museum and their initiatives at: http://www.daytonpeacemuseum.org.
The other copy of the exhibit will be divided and shared with the exhibit
participants.
Arlene, a photo exhibit participant from Chantilly,
VA, says, “Family is more powerful than any law.” We know
she is right—working together over the past year-and-a-half, we
became like a family. We visited the photo exhibit subjects in their homes,
in the hospital, and in their places of work. We have seen what families
can do together. And we have witnessed the pain that a misguided policy
can cause.
To order your copy of the Love, Loss and Longing book
today click here
In addition, we are grateful to our faithful supporters
and the many individuals who personally and generously donated to this
project. We would especially like to thank the Christopher Reynolds Foundation,
the Arca Foundation, Oxfam America, and the Bruderhof Foundation for their
support of this project.
1. Corral, Oscar. “A New Forum
for Exile Discourse.” Miami Herald. 23 February 2007
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.
Retreat from Reason: U.S.-Cuban Academic Relations and the Bush Administration, written by an international team of U.S. and Cuban scholars, examines the history of and regulations on academic, scientific, and cultural exchange between the United States and Cuba.
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.
Our Campaigns 
”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.
