Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable that after the recent arrest and the sentencing of close to 80 dissident human right activists and opposition leaders by the Castro…
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable that after the recent arrest and the sentencing of close to 80 dissident human right activists and opposition leaders by the Castro regime, that we would be here seeking to reward the dictatorship for its deplorable action, because, make no mistake, that is what this amendment seeks to do. It is going to provide it with much needed currency to continue this reign of terror.
It defies all understanding that as the most recent prisoners of conscience languish in squalid sells, devoid of any light, malnourished, denied medical attention, the response of the United States Congress to this would be to bestow to this pariah state another victory.
In the past, as we heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the Castro dictatorship, Fidel Castro himself, has publicly thanked the U.S. House of Representatives for passing this amendment.
I wonder if Hector Raul Valle Hernandez, a political prisoner at Guantanamo, would be as understanding. Hector languishes in a tiny, dark, squalid isolation cell. He is malnourished. He is given contaminated water. As a result, he has an increasing number of parasites in his system and is denied any medical treatment. Since his arrest of March of this year, he has lost over 40 pounds. However, he does not succumb to this torture. He remains true to his principles and beliefs. Would he be as understanding about this vote?
Like Hector, we have Marta Beatriz Roque, Oscar Espinosa Chepe, Victor Rolando Arroyo, Hector Palacios, Omar Pernet Hernandez, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leyva, and scores of other political prisoners, like Antunez, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, who truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Their bodies are weak, they are rapidly deteriorating; but their courage, their spirit, their commitment to a free Cuba from its enslavement is stronger than ever. What message would we be sending to these brave souls about our own commitment to their freedom?
What about our brothers and sisters just 90 miles away? Do they not bleed when they are stricken? Do they not cry out? Are they not entitled to freedom and democracy? Are they not entitled to security?
Even the European Union is realizing that its economic entanglements with Castro are not sound. In June of this year, the EU began restricting its contact with the dictatorship, citing deep concerns ``about its flagrant violations of human rights and of fundamental freedoms of members of the Cuban opposition and of independent journalists.''
Just last week, the Italian foreign minister, whose country, Italy, holds the EU presidency, stated, ``We have to say that the Cuban Government has not taken a single positive step to meet the goals that Europe has set and in fact the situation of human rights has worsened yet further.''
After years of unrestricted travel by these European tourists and officials, all of them from EU countries, countries with rich democratic traditions, has the situation of human rights in Cuba improved? No. They even say it has worsened.
So this leaves one to question the arguments raised by the proponents of this amendment about exporting democracy. Let us look at recent examples.
Georgetown University is planning an educational trip to Cuba. It cites as one of its stops El Valle de Vinales. El Valle de Vinales is a lush and beautiful valley, an environmental paradise. Not many Cubans living there. It is a wonderful tourist stop. How will being in this tourist stop help democracy grow in Cuba?
Then they highlight a tour of Old Havana and a tour of Cuba's Revolutionary Museum. Exactly to whom would the participants be exporting democracy in these visits?
And there is also a case of a delegation which traveled to Cuba just a few weeks ago. They received a license from OFAC to attend a religious retreat. It turns out that several of them were participating in a golf tournament. That was exporting democracy? OFAC is investigating this further.
Particularly revealing is the fact that when Members of Congress, certain Members of Congress, seek to travel to Cuba in order to visit political prisoners in their jail cells, rather than to meet with the dictator and his cronies, they are denied visas by the regime.
Just ask our colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Members who have made their reputation defending human rights and holding dictators accountable for their actions. One more than one occasion, they have tried to travel to Cuba with the expressed and limited purpose of engaging the peaceful and democratic pro-democracy forces within the island. But the regime has not allowed them to travel to Cuba.
Proponents of this amendment have also recently argued that it is needed by certain sectors of the U.S. economy which have been seriously affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11. My response to that is if we wanted to help the tourism industry, come to my district. Come visit Key West, come visit Miami Beach.
Also, we are talking about much-needed currency to a state sponsor of terrorism. We are engaged in an international war against terrorism. Cuba is engaged in a joint venture with the Iranian regime, having built a complex on the outskirts of Tehran to work on biological technology. The regime needs money to keep this program going. This amendment will help the regime get those funds.
The Cuban regime is also working in concert with other pariah states like Libya and Syria on what it terms ``scientific cooperation.'' Thus this amendment runs contrary to President Bush's commitment to deny terrorists the financing to carry out the attacks against the Americans and our American interests and allies. I ask our colleagues to reject this amendment, which will help Fidel Castro.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Delahunt amendment.
While well-intentioned, in practice this amendment would only serve as yet one more vehicle for the regime to get its hands on much-needed and much-valued hard currency. The goal of the existing controls on remittances is so that the average Cuban, who is denied access to basic necessities by the regime, in order for the dictatorship to provide it to foreign tourists, it is so that that average Cuban receives sufficient funds to survive.
Let me reiterate that the goal of the existing controls is to help the average Cuban receive funds for his needs. Certainly Castro does not care for his needs.
The amount has been carefully calibrated and reviewed at this moment, taking into consideration the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar relative to the economic realities on the island, the same realities and economic context which has prompted this Chamber time and time again, Mr. Chairman, to limit microcredit lending to small amounts benefiting the poorest of the poor. And they apply to the controls currently in place with respect to remittances in Cuba.
Removing the financial caps, as the Delahunt amendment seeks by prohibiting their enforcement, means more money for the corrupt regime to pocket. In removing all but one of the controls on the recipients of these remittances, the amendment creates an opening for individuals involved in illicit activities, for example, to receive U.S. currency. This amendment removes the safeguards that have been put in place and that are aimed at ensuring that transactions benefit those in need and cannot be manipulated by a terrorist regime starved for foreign currency.
In practice, this amendment redirects some of our U.S. currency flows to Cuba, which in turn the dictatorship can direct towards its friends, that is, rogue states such as Iran, Libya, and Syria. Denying terrorists and their sponsors the resources to continue their activities has become a critical pillar of U.S. policy in the aftermath of the deplorable acts of September 11.
If we really want to help the Cuban people, then deny their oppressor and vote ``no'' on the Delahunt Amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Davis amendment. Earlier this year after careful review and examination of 4 years of data of so-called educational exchanges, the Departments of State and Treasury determined that nondegree travel is subject to manipulation and control by the Castro dictatorship and its tourism industries in order to meet the regime's political and economic agenda. The objective of the new regulations is for travel to support the Cuban people and not the dictatorship that enslaves and oppresses them day in and day out.
The Davis amendment seeks to repeal this restriction and allow the facade to continue. The regulations implemented in March of this year and which this amendment seeks to repeal are to prevent what Members see here. This is Varadero Beach in Cuba. This article, which appeared in the September 3 edition of the Washington Post Express goes on to say, ``The rumba party is not over yet for U.S. travelers to Cuba, but it may be time to grab that last dance.'' The article explains how the March regulations have sent the so-called nonprofits ``scrambling to redesign their tours'' to qualify under the legitimate categories of people-to-people exchanges. Just doctor up the brochures, they are still junkets, they are still for tourists, just dress it up so it appears to be an educational exchange, people to people.
Again, this picture is worth a thousand words because it clearly unveils what this amendment and others offered here today are truly about. It is not to educate the Cuban people about freedom and democracy, it is to have tourism dollars flow to Fidel Castro, and this is people-to-people contact. This is education. When tourists meet the cabana boy and he gives them a beach towel, they are going to export democracy to Cuba? No, they are going to fuel the Castro dictatorship regime which goes to oppress the Cuban people. Vote against the Davis amendment.