Cuban travel ban nearly voted down

Columbia man’s hopes dashed as he waits for his Cuban wife-to-be

By Annie Nelson
Adelante Staff Writer

johnny finn

Columbia musician Johnny Finn thought last week that he might finally be able to marry his fiancée, Yindra Garcia, who currently lives in Cuba. Finn had heard that Congress was about to prohibit enforcement of the travel ban on Cuba. An amendment to the transportation appropriations bill that would have taken away funding to enforce the ban had passed both the U.S. House and the Senate. But at the last minute, during a closed-door conference, the amendment was removed from the bill because of a veto threat from the White House.
Finn, 22, is not the only person hoping that the ban on traveling to Cuba will be removed.
The Flake Amendment, introduced by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., received wide bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. The House decided to include the Flake Amendment in the appropriations bill by a vote of 227-188. The Senate also approved including the amendment by voice vote on Oct. 23.
But in the conference that took place after the bill had passed both houses, the Flake Amendment was struck from the bill despite the growing bipartisan support from Congress.
Usually when both houses of Congress pass a bill with identical language, which was true of the appropriations bill, it makes it fairly certain it won’t be changed, said Matthew Specht, media spokesman for Rep. Flake’s office. But the conference committee chairman, Sen. Istook, R-Okla., took the amendment out anyway.
“He was pretty frank that that was one of the first things that they removed to avoid the veto threat,” Specht said.
Istook took the veto threat very seriously, said his spokeswoman, Micah Swafford. In a letter received from the White House, Swafford said, the first thing listed was the threat to veto the entire bill if the Flake Amendment were included with the appropriations. “It was not an idle threat – all that work (on the bill) would be in vain,” Swafford said.
Mavis Anderson of the Latin American Working Group, which has been working with legislators on ending the travel ban and the embargo, said this type of action by a conference committee is not surprising. Anderson explained that her group has been aware all along that the conference committees are given carte blanche to change legislation even though their designated task is to meld together House and Senate bills that have differences.
“In the past it has been undemocratic, and in the future it will be undemocratic,” Anderson said.
Despite growing bipartisan support, the Bush Administration is threatening to increase enforcement of the travel ban instead of removing it.
Although the travel ban will still be enforced, most groups involved in this legislation feel that opening relations is just over the horizon. “The fact that the House and Senate worked so closely together on this issue was monumental and a good sign,” Anderson said.