How Congress is trying to block Obama's shift in Cuba policy

A House appropriations bill proposed Tuesday would curb funding for a US embassy in Cuba and a Cuban embassy in the United States to slow the restoration of diplomatic ties between the nations.

Desmond Boylan/AP
This coastal view of Havana, Cuba shows the United States Interests Section diplomatic mission, the third tall building from the right, on Sunday, May 24, 2015. On Friday, the Obama administration formally removed Cuba from a U.S. terrorism blacklist as part of the process of normalizing relations between the Cold War foes.

A proposed US House of Representatives appropriations bill released on Tuesday would prohibit funds for an American embassy or other diplomatic facility in Cuba beyond what existed before President Barack Obama's December announcement that he would move to normalize relations with Havana.

The measure also would restrict funds to facilitate the opening of a Cuban embassy in the United States, increase democracy assistance and international broadcasting to Cuba and provide direction to the State Department on denying visas to members of the Cuban military and Communist Party.

Some members of Congress, led mostly by Republican Cuban-American lawmakers, have objected to the US shift in Cuba policy. They want Cuba's government to do more to improve human rights on the island, release US fugitives living in Cuba and allow free elections before easing restrictions on trade, travel and diplomatic relations.

They have pledged to use bills such as appropriations legislation to try to block the initiative by Obama, a Democrat.

"I think we have been very clear with our challenges with what's gone on in Cuba, from human rights, from what's happened there, and we have a difference of opinion with the administration and we have a right to express it," Kevin McCarthy, the Republican House Majority Leader, said at a news conference.

The United States formally dropped Cuba from its list of state sponsors of terrorism last Friday, an important step toward restoring diplomatic ties but one that will have a limited effect on removing US sanctions on the Communist-ruled island.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.