Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Flake amendment. I would like to make a series of points in response to some of what I have heard. First, what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) does is, in essence, invite lawlessness. It…
Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Flake amendment. I would like to make a series of points in response to some of what I have heard.
First, what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) does is, in essence, invite lawlessness. It says that we will prohibit the Treasury Department from doing what the law says. It does not undo the law. It, in essence, prohibits the Treasury Department from enforcing the law. So this Congress would promote lawlessness.
Yes, it is illegal to travel to Cuba under certain circumstances, but we will look the other way. We will not allow that element of law enforcement within the Treasury Department to enforce our laws. What a slippery slope that is when we begin a process that says the law is the law, but we are not going to allow it to be enforced. What a slippery process that is.
To my dear friends who talk about the Soviet Union and how they fell because we went over there, the reality is the Soviet Union fell because they could not keep up with the arms race with the United States, and they decided internally on Glasnos and Perestroika. And when they unleashed those forces of opening, then the people of what was the Soviet Union began to move. But that crumbling began with from within, not from without.
I hear about failed policy, let me tell you about a failed policy. The failed policy is millions of visitors, millions upon millions of visitors from Canada and Mexico and Spain and other part of Europe and Latin America in the last decade and what has happened? Not one positive action towards democracy and human rights has taken place. That to me is a failed policy. It is a failed policy when prostitution flourishes inside of Cuba so that foreign tourists can take advantage of Cuban women. That to me is a failed policy.
It is a failed policy when we believe that by having millions of Americans go to Cuba and sun themselves on the beaches of Varadero, smoking a Cuban cigar, and sipping Cuban rum is the way in which we are going to liberate the Cuban people. What is incredible to me is the deafening silence of those who advocate these amendments, but when repression takes place in Cuba, they are virtually silent, and their silence is deafening.
I say that a vote for this amendment, particularly at this time, flies in the face of all of those who languish inside of Cuba who risked their liberty and their lives to make change within their country.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy and Cuban tyranny. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a regime that executed three men by firing squad after closed- door summary trials. A vote for this amendment is a vote to continue to fund the regime that brutally arrested and jailed over 75 activists this spring for doing nothing more than demanding human rights for their people.
A vote for this amendment is to say to those who languish in Castro's jails, we will go visit the beaches of Cuba, we will smoke the cigars that were mentioned here, but you will continue to languish in Castro's jail.
The Cuban government sentenced many of these innocent dissidents to 14 to 27 years in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed-door summary trials. Our answer to that is, let us have a grand old time on Varadero Beach. That is our answer to all those who languish.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, sanitary conditions and who languish in Castro's jails.
The tales emerging from their prison cells include allegations of beating, psychological torture, solitary confinement in jail cells infested with rats and scorpions.
The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents who were jailed in the crackdown started a hunger strike to protest the inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family members said that the
prison conditions had led them, the prisoners, to make the terrible decision to declare themselves on a hunger strike that compromises their health and, in many cases, even their lives.
So let us recall Raul Rivero, Miriam Leiva, Gisella Delgado and others that, in fact, their suffering and their languishing in those jails are responded to by us having more tourism.
Vote against this amendment. Vote against such an infamy and let us begin to speak up for those people who are risking their lives and liberty.
Travel Ban Amendment
To prohibit the use of funds to enforce the ban on travel to Cuba by U.S. Citizens.
Congress has already passed the law that supports the travel ban. This amendment would only create sloppy legislation. The amendment doesn't change the underlying law. Instead, the amendment would prevent Treasury from supporting the existing law.
The belief that Americans can change Castro through tourism flies in the face of evidence that millions of visitors from Canada, Mexico, Spain and other parts of Europe and Latin America visited Cuba in the last decade, without impacting one iota of positive change toward democracy and human rights.
Cuba Travel restrictions are constitutional, according to the Supreme Court [Regan vs. Wald 1984]. Other courts: the 9th Circuit 1996, and the 11th Cir. 2000, agreed.
Cuba has been on the list of state-sponsored terrorism since 1982 and remains on the list for supporting Foreign Terrorist Organizations, for providing safe haven to U.S. designated foreign terrorist organizations including the ELN and the FARC from Colombia. Cuba also continues to harbor fugitives from the U.S. justice system.
Due to the end of Soviet Subsidies and his disastrous economic policies, Castro is bankrupt. His lack of cash restricts his ability to engage or support anti-American actions around the world. Castro has used American tourist dollars to take the place of Soviet payments.
The money obtained from tourism is not invested to benefit the Cuban people. It is invested to reinforce a state security apparatus that is used in developing a tourism infrastructure which only benefits the government.
The tourism infrastructure doesn't benefit average Cubans. Instead, Castro sets aside hotels, beaches, stores, restaurants, even hospitals for foreigners, prohibiting Cubans from staying in those hotels and patronizing those facilities. American tourism under current conditions would freeze in place Castro's tourist apartheid.
The infusion of U.S. tourist dollars will provide the regime with a lifeline. Lifting the travel ban without securing meaningful changes in Cuba will: (1) Guarantees the continuation of the current totalitarian structures, and (2) Strengthen Castro's security forces.
amendment to end the embargo
Why would members of Congress even suggest ending the embargo at a time when we are seeing the worst wave of repression in Cuba since right after the Revolution? The State Department calls this new wave ``the most despicable act of political repression in the Americas in a decade.''
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy and Cuban tyranny.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a regime that executed three men by firing squad, after closed door summary trials.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a brutal government which arrested and jailed over 75 activists this spring for doing nothing more than demanding human rights for their people.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support this massive crackdown and Cuban style justice, or more accurately, injustice. The Cuban government sentenced these innocent dissidents to 14 to 27 years in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed door, summary trials.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, and sanitary conditions and who languish in Castro's jail. The tales emerging from their prison cells include allegations of beatings, psychological torture, solitary confinement and jail cells infested with rats and scorpions.
The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents, who were jailed in the crackdown, have started a hunger strike to protest the inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family members said that the prison conditions, ``have led them (the prisoners) to make the terrible decision to declare themselves on a hunger strike, which compromises their health and even their lives.'' While the names of the dissidents on the hunger strike have not been published, the letter in support of the strike was signed by the wife of poet and dissident journalist Raul Rivero (sentenced to 20 years in jail), Miriam Leiva, wife of economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe (sentenced to 20 years in jail), and Gisella Delgado, the wife of activist Hector Palacios (sentenced to 25 years in jail).
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the government that has jailed Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe. Mr. Chepe, a Cuban economist and independent journalist, was sentenced to 20 years in jail for criticizing the Cuban government. At age 62 Mr. Chepe, according to the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, is suffering from a chronic kidney condition, a thoracic hernia, persistent hypertension, and severe weight loss. The Cuban government refused to provide him with medical treatment. Only when he was near death and only after intense international pressure, was he transferred to a hospital.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to allow funds to flow to the government that jailed Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic groups in Havana. On February 27, 1999 he was arrested for hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference and was sentenced to three years in jail. After his release, he organized seminars on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested again in December of 2002 for organizing these seminars. In April of this year he was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a special state prison.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello. She is an economist and director of the Cuban Institute of Independent Economists and is the only woman who was detained. She is the recipient of the 2002 Heinz R. Pagels Human Rights of Scientists Award of the New York Academy of Sciences. In April, she was sentenced to 20 years in jail for her opposition work. She is in acute pain, has nausea attacks and the left part of her body has become numb, according to the opposition news agency CUBANET. In spite of her pain, she must sit on a stool throughout the day since prisoners are not allowed to stay in bed during the daytime.
I'll say again, a vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the tyranny and brutality of the Cuban government. The embargo is our strongest weapon against the Castro regime. Vote, ``no''' to this amendment. Show the men and women who suffer in Cuban jails for the right to freedom that we stand with them in their fight for human rights, justice, and a county free of dictatorship.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and we are working on a series of crucial issues in Latin America; but I have a fundamental disagreement with the gentleman certainly on the issue of Cuba and particularly on this amendment.
My two points that I want to make, number one, we hear a lot about Cuban-American families and their families in Cuba, and those of us who are Cuban Americans struggle with this all the time, the desire to help our families, at the same time propping up a regime that oppresses them.
But the amendment goes beyond that because the law permits remittances from non-Cuban Americans, from ordinary Americans who have no relationship to Cuba whatsoever, to make remittances into any Cuban individual inside of Cuba. Now that means that the potential for unlimited amounts of money by nonfamily members having no relationship with Cubans on the island to send monies into Cuba would be unlimited.
And when we know of Castro's history of his support of terrorism, of his harboring fugitives from the United States, imagine those who support those who think about that in our own country being able to send U.S. dollars into Cuba without restriction as to amounts or process, not for Cuban families, but ultimately for those who wish
us harm. That is the risk with the gentleman's amendment and that is the law of the land today. We, in fact, as Americans, can send money into Cuba, and you do not have to have any family inside of Cuba. To now permit unlimited amounts of that happening is against the national interest of the United States and the national security of the United States.
Finally, I would point out that yes, this does help the regime because not only can nonCubans send money, but at the same time what does Castro do, in order to be able to grab those dollars and for him to control its use inside of Cuba, the only way those dollars work are at government dollar stores which are at inflated prices and in essence, gouge the Cuban people. He does get the money and resources, and he gouges the Cuban people in doing so, but it is their only remedy under this totalitarianism. So ultimately, yes, the regime gets the money we are sending. Sending unlimited amounts without limitation and sending it to dollar stores inside of Cuba does not make sense. The amendment does not make sense.