On March 14 Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill stated that he would like to divert efforts from the enforcement of restrictions on travel to Cuba to the new global crisis of combating terrorism. Provided the opportunity to criticize Fidel Castro while defending the Bush Administration’s policy of tracking down and fining Americans who visit Cuba, Secretary O’Neill instead appeared to support the views of travel ban critic Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Treasury Department: "If I had the discretion for applying the resources, I would agree with you completely." His position was directly at odds with the Bush Administration’s position.

Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), a longtime critic of President Castro, took issue with O’Neill’s stance and implied it equaled a shortened tenure for O’Neill: "I don’t think he’s expressing the policy of the Bush administration". Senator Graham stated that O’Neill realize "what happens when people go before Congress and begin expressing opinions that are not part of the head coach’s game plan," said Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The Associated Press reported that the White House subsequently "issued a statement attributed to O’Neill saying the Secretary fully supports the administration’s travel ban." The retraction the White House claimed he made was, "I am not seeking any change in the law or our enforcement of it... If any of my comments indicated otherwise that was not my intention."

Secretary O’Neill had asked for a review of laws "that tell us what we must do" and suggested changing them to "provide sensible discretion". These revisions would allow the Department to "get much more value for the American people". Secretary O’Neill continued: "I’m very much inclined to want to be where you are and it would be very helpful if we could work together…so that we do not put ourselves in violation of the law because we exercise what seems like common-sense discretion."

The Senator replied that much like police officers, the Treasury already retains discretion: "If jaywalking is occurring at the same time a bank robbery is occurring, law enforcement officers deal with the bank robbery. That discretion exists all over." Senator Dorgan hoped the Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) "would understand that there is a greater need to deal with the terrorist threat these days than the threat of a retired teacher bicycling through Cuba".

Dorgan is one of many increasingly powerful voices in Congress who want to end food, medicine, and travel restrictions, arguing it would increase farm and pharmaceutical exports while also giving visiting Americans the chance to promote democratic values among ordinary Cubans.

He held a landmark Senate hearing February 11, pointing critically to a more rigorous boost in enforcement of the travel ban, with the number of fines levied increasing from 188 in 2000, the Clinton Administration’s final year, to 766 in 2001, the Bush Administration’s first year. OFAC restrictions actually bar American citizens from spending money in Cuba, which is why they are enforced by the Treasury (for hearing text, please go to www.ffrd.org/cuba).

In marked contrast to Secretary O’Neill’s appearance, Cuban-born Otto Reich, the recess-appointed Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, recently claimed that any policy reform would be "throwing a lifeline to a failed, corrupt, dictatorial, murderous regime." He has spoken strongly against American travel to and commerce with his homeland.

In direct opposition to the White House, a bipartisan Congressional group that favors easing the embargo on Cuba was launched on March 22. The Cuba Working Group includes 17 Republicans and 17 Democrats, and is headed by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake and Massachusetts Democrat William Delahunt. The new Congressional group wants to eliminate the ban on travel to Cuba, lift financing restrictions on sales of food to the island and generally foster closer bilateral ties. The group plans to issue a report in late April, at the same time as the White House announces the results of its policy review.

"This is a significant gathering here", Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) said at the Working Groups news conference announcing the formation of the group. "When you look at the people who are at the podium here- Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives- we represent the mainstream."

The new group is taking shape as years of business and NGO advocacy against the embargo are having an effect. In the past few months, the Cuban government has taken advantage of a 2000 law allowing direct sales of U.S-grown food. Since November, Cuba has purchased or arranged to purchase $73 million of food from at least 14 American. companies, according to the United States-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. The commodities are from 23 states, which could influence members of Congress from agricultural areas. Forty-seven percent of House and Senate members are from those states. But Cuba is not allowed to obtain US financing, forcing it to pay cash. Legislation allowing private financing is in an agricultural bill that passed the Senate, but it is facing stiff resistance from Bush-backed Republicans in the House.

Despite restrictions, United States citizens have been traveling to Cuba in large numbers, with legal and illegal visitors estimated at 176,000 last year. The Treasury Department’s efforts to crack down do not appear to have stemmed the tide of visitors. "The policy as it’s currently being enforced is untenable", said Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and a leader of the new group. Representative Flake said his group will try a third time to win House approval of language that would prohibit the use of funds to enforce restrictions on travel to Cuba. A similar amendment to the fiscal 2002 Treasury-Postal spending law (HR 2590 - PL 107-67) offered by Flake was adopted last year on a 240-186 vote but was dropped in conference with the Senate.

The working group also plans to issue recommendations about the controversial Radio and Television Martí, the questionable inclusion of Cuba on the State Department’s list of states that sponsor terrorism, the four-decade-old embargo, and cooperation on drug interdiction and illegal immigration.

While the working group is pushing hard for opening doors, the White House is moving swiftly to tighten any loopholes or spaces in the embargo. In its policy review, the Bush Administration is expected to offer ways to better enforce the travel ban and tighten economic and political restrictions on Cuba.

Based on reports by Associated Press, Congressional Quarterly, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and the United States Department of State.

We the undersigned urge the United States Congress to enact legislation to remove all controls on travel to Cuba. Under our democratic system, Americans have a constitutional right to travel where they wish. Not only is it their right, but it is also an article of faith that their travel helps to carry abroad American values and spread the message of our democracy. In the case of Cuba, however, the U.S. Government puts all that aside and opts instead for the kind of travel controls usually imposed by authoritarian governments. These controls ignore international standards of freedom of movement (exactly what we accuse the Cuban government of doing). They violate Article 12 of the United Nation’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And even under U.S. law, the legal bases for the controls strain credulity.

These controls are also entirely counterproductive in terms of legitimate U.S. foreign policy objectives toward Cuba. We wish to encourage Cuba to move toward a more open society, yes, but preventing American citizens from traveling there in no way advances that goal. On the contrary, as Elizardo Sanchez, Cuba’s leading human rights activist, has often put it: "The more American citizens in the streets of Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open society. So why does the U.S. maintain travel controls?"

The logic behind Sanchez’s statement is unassailable. Travel controls are not only inconsistent with basic American values, they serve no legitimate purpose. Polls indicate that the overwhelming majority of American citizens understand that and wish to see these controls removed. Congress, in response to the will of the American people, should take action immediately to end them.