Jump to content
TedderVision
Shiggy

Cuba Reconciliation Act

Recommended Posts

Mr. Labradoodle and Mr. Knox submit for themselves

A BILL

To suspend the trade embargo on Cuba for 3 years, Condemn Cuban Human Rights Violations and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Cuba Reconciliation Act”.

SEC. 3. CONDEMNATION OF CUBAN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE CASTRO REGIMES.

(a) Congress hereby condemns the horrific pattern of human rights violations perpetrated under the regimes of Fidel and Raul Castro. Congress furthermore demands that further actions must be taken by the Cuban government in order for the nation of Cuba to be worthy of further relaxing of sanctions.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF PROVISIONS RESTRICTING TRADE AND OTHER RELATIONS WITH CUBA.

(a) Authority For Embargo.—Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2370(a)) is suspended for 3 years.

(b) Trading With The Enemy Act.—The authorities conferred upon the President by section 5(b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which were being exercised with respect to Cuba on July 1, 1977, as a result of a national emergency declared by the President before that date, and are being exercised on the day before the effective date of this Act, may not be exercised for 3 years from the date of this bill being signed with respect to Cuba. Any regulations in effect on the day before such effective date pursuant to the exercise of such authorities, shall cease to be effective for 3 years from the date of this bill being signed

(c) Exercise Of Authorities Under Other Provisions Of Law.—

(1) REMOVAL OF PROHIBITIONS.—Any prohibition on exports to Cuba that is in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) shall cease to be effective for 3 years from the date of this bill being signed.

(2) AUTHORITY FOR NEW RESTRICTIONS.—The President may, on and after the effective date of this Act—

(A) impose export controls with respect to Cuba under section 5, 6(j), 6(l), or 6(m) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (as continued in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act); and

(B) exercise the authorities he has under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act with respect to Cuba pursuant to a declaration of national emergency required by that Act that is made on account of an unusual and extraordinary threat, that did not exist before the enactment of this Act, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

(d) CubaN Democracy Act Of 1992.—The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 6001 and following) is suspended for 3 years.

(e) Suspension Of CubaN Liberty And Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act Of 1996 for 3 years.—

(1) REPEAL.—The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 is suspended for 3 years.

SEC. 3. TRAVEL.

(a) In General.—Travel to and from Cuba by individuals who are citizens or residents of the United States, and any transactions ordinarily incident to such travel, may not be regulated or prohibited if such travel would be lawful in the United States.

(b) Transactions Incident To Travel.—Any transactions ordinarily incident to travel which may not be regulated or prohibited under subsection (a) include, but are not limited to—

(1) transactions ordinarily incident to travel or maintenance in Cuba; and

(2) normal banking transactions involving foreign currency drafts, traveler’s checks, or other negotiable instruments incident to such travel.

 

SEC. 4. DEMAND ON CUBA TO IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS IN CUBA AS A CONDITION OF THE  LIFTING OF SANCTIONS CONTINUING INTO THE FUTURE.

(a) The government of Cuba needs to improve their human rights record in order for the sanctions to continue being suspended or be lifted in the future.. 

 

SEC. 5. RE-EVALUATION OF THE SANCTIONS BY CONGRESS

(a) Congress will re-evaluate the conditions in Cuba and determine whether the suspension of sanctions will be renewed, or revoked.

 

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I object because this was not requested by the State Department and because this is a deal that Cuba would never agree to. Cuba would never accept anything less than a permanent lifting of the embargo in addition to the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Anything less than that would make their leaders look weak and vulnerable in the eyes of Communist hardliners out for blood, possibly resulting in a coup and putting us all in a much worse position. The agreement also doesn't specify what exactly Cuba has to do in return, other than vaguely requiring them to "improve their human rights record" subject to a re-evaluation of the country. I'm not saying we can't make a deal with Cuba at some point to lift the embargo, but it has to be a deal that makes sense for both sides. This one doesn't.

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TexAgRepublican said:

Mr. Speaker,

I object because this was not requested by the State Department and because this is a deal that Cuba would never agree to. Cuba would never accept anything less than a permanent lifting of the embargo in addition to the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Anything less than that would make their leaders look weak and vulnerable in the eyes of Communist hardliners out for blood, possibly resulting in a coup and putting us all in a much worse position. The agreement also doesn't specify what exactly Cuba has to do in return, other than vaguely requiring them to "improve their human rights record" subject to a re-evaluation of the country. I'm not saying we can't make a deal with Cuba at some point to lift the embargo, but it has to be a deal that makes sense for both sides. This one doesn't.

I yield.

,

Mr. Speaker

The gentleman's defense for objecting to my Cuba Reconciliation bill is that Cuba would never accept it because it is not a good deal for them politically. Therefore, the gentleman from Texas suggests that if we should pass such a bill, it should be more fair to Cuba 

That sure sounds to me like the gentleman from Texas is more interested in giving Cuba a good deal than using our influence to get a good deal for America. My interests are bipartisan in nature. My bill will allow American families to reunite with loved ones in Cuba for the first time in over 60 years. Meanwhile gentleman from Texas is more interested in playing partisan politics than he is interested in doing something meaningful.

I think the gentleman from Texas and I would agree that simply lifting the ban on Cuba would be irresponsible and caving to a tyrannical and bloodthirsty communist menace. But then when it comes to offering a better solution, the gentleman from Texas has become the one person party of no simply because it is being done under a democrat lead house leading up to an election year. I on the other hand am willing to work with both parties on bipartisan issues and am not using an entire session of the house in order to politically grandstand. 

I yield

Edited by Shiggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I agree with my colleague from Idaho.  Simply put, the objections put forth by the gentleman from Texas is nothing more than an egregious example of hyper-partisanship.  The Cold War is over, Mr. Swanner.  The Neocons need to start living in 2018, instead of 1978.  

I yield.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I join with the gentleman from Texas and object. It strikes me that less than a year ago, our former President, Dylan MacMillan, was killed by a terrorist who escaped the vetting process. It strikes me as strange that we should be opening our doors to a nation that just yesterday was an enemy on our backdoor especially in the knowledge of what happened to our former President.

I yield.

Edited by Russ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, 

The terrorist that killed the President was from Germany. Does the gentleman from Missouri propose closing all relations with the EU? We need to strengthen our vetting and counterterrorism, which we are trying to do with the ALERT act, but I do not see how this bill is in any way connected to that.

I yield

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I commend the gentleman from Tennessee for his support of the ALERT act. But I also question why he thinks we can weaken ourselves elsewhere. 

I yield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×