As published in Cuba News
August 27, 2007

House Democrats Follow Republican Lead on Cuba

By Wayne S. Smith

When House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel presented an amendment on August 3 to simplify the method of payment for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba, it was expected to pass easily. After all, it would have facilitated sales to Cuba and thus served the interests of the American farmer. Moreover, similar amendments had passed by voice vote in recent years, only to be sidetracked by the Republican congressional leadership. Now, with the Democrats in control, surely the amendment would not only sail through but then become law.

But to the surprise of many, the amendment was defeated - and soundly, by a vote of 182-245. Even more surprising was the fact that 66 Democrats crossed party lines and voted against the Rangel amendment. A Democratic Congresswoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, got much of the credit for bringing the 66 - or many of them at least -- around. "I was about as active as you could be," she acknowledged. And Ileana Ros, a Republican Congresswoman from Florida, gave Wasserman Schultz full credit for the amendment's defeat, calling her "a tiger."

Why did Wasserman Schultz go against her party's position and so vigorously oppose the Rangel amendment? There are few Cuban-Americans in her district, so she was not simply following the wishes of her constituents. No, as she put it, it was because she is Jewish and thus the words "never again" resonate with her in terms of the Holocaust and the state of human rights in Cuba.
Strange reasoning, for not only is there no persecution of Jews in Cuba, but the Jewish community, formerly led by my old friend Dr. Miller (now passed on), has always taken a strong position against the U.S. embargo - and still does. And preventing the simplification of payment for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba in no way advances the cause of human rights there. It puts no pressure whatever on the Cuban government, which can buy agricultural products from dozens of other countries. The only ones hurt by the amendment's defeat are the American farmers. There will now be no increase in sales.

Most Americans, myself included, would like to see Cuba move in the direction of a more open society. But that will not be achieved by holding to our present policy and continuing the embargo - which hasn't worked in 47 years and certainly will not work now. We could accomplish far more by reducing tensions, beginning a dialogue and a process of gradual engagement, including opening up to travel, especially family travel, and, yes, to expanded agricultural sales.

Most Democrats in the past had generally agreed with that reasoning. What happened to bring 66 of them around to the Bush Administration's view that the status quo should be maintained? Well, among other things, there is a new U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC funded by wealthy Cuban-Americans, mostly from Dade County, with the express purpose of turning back any efforts to open up to Cuba. Altogether, 58 of the 66 Democrats who voted against the Rangel amendment on August 3 had received one or more contributions from the U.S.-Cuba PAC in the last year and a half, with contributions running from $1,000 to 11,000. Wasserman Shultz reportedly got $10,000.

The U.S.-Cuba PAC has given a total of $384,500 to congressional candidates since the 2006 general elections and $62,000 after the elections, the latter mostly to newly-elected Democrats. It gave at least two $1,000 contributions to every freshman Democrat. That means that all the new Democratic members had heard the pro-embargo arguments at least twice as they received their checks.

The result is that the 66 Democrats in question did exactly what the Bush Administration wanted them to do in the August 3 vote. Let us hope this is not the portent of things to come - of a Democratic Bloc funded by the U.S.-Cuba PAC which would vote with Republicans against any opening to Cuba. That would please the wealthy Cuban-Americans who fund the PAC, but it most definitely would not serve the interests of the United States. We need a realistic policy based on our interests in today's world, not one based on forty-year old resentments.

Wayne S. Smith is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C. and an Adjunct Professor at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He was the Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana (1979-82).