[Senate Hearing 107-1109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1109
U.S. TRADE POLICY WITH CUBA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TOURISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 21, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-877 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MAX CLELAND, Georgia GORDON SMITH, Oregon
BARBARA BOXER, California PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOREIGN COMMERCE
AND TOURISM
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
Virginia CONRAD BURNS, Montana
RON WYDEN, Oregon SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BARBARA BOXER, California GORDON SMITH, Oregon
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 21, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 4
Letter to President George W. Bush and Congress from 48
former U.S. senators, urging normalization of relations
with Cuba.................................................. 41
Statement of Senator Carnahan.................................... 3
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 1
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Hays, Hon. Dennis K., Executive Vice President, Cuban American
National Foundation............................................ 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Reich, Hon. Otto J., Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs, accompanied by Shaun E. Donnelly, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Economic Bureau, Department
of State....................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Weber, Stephen, President, Maryland Farm Bureau.................. 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Weinmann, Lissa, Executive Director, Americans for Humanitarian
Trade with Cuba................................................ 42
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Appendix
Levy, Delvis Fernandez, President, Cuban American Alliance
Education Fund, Inc., prepared statement....................... 55
U.S. TRADE POLICY WITH CUBA
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce
and Tourism,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Byron L.
Dorgan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. The hearing will come to order. We will be
joined by a number of colleagues in a few moments. The Senate
is just finishing a vote on the floor of the Senate.
This is the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Foreign
Commerce with the Commerce Committee. We are holding a hearing
today, and we will have as our guests testifying today Mr. Otto
Reich, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere
Affairs, Ambassador Shaun Donnelly, Principle Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Bureau of Economics and Business Affairs. They'll be
followed by a second panel: Ambassador Dennis Hays, executive
vice president, Cuban American National Foundation, Mr. Stephen
Weber, president, Maryland Farm Bureau, Ms. Lissa Weinmann,
executive director, Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba.
We've called this hearing because the Congress, in recent
years, has been debating the issue of trade and commerce with
Cuba. And in the year of 2000, we enacted the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, which is a piece of
legislation that will allow us to have Cuba purchase food from
the United States. After a terrible hurricane caused $1.8
billion in damage and devastated Cuba's crops last November,
Cuba began to purchase food from U.S. farmers for the first
time in nearly 40 years. As I indicated, that purchase was made
available as a result of a change in law by the U.S. Congress
in the year 2000.
I and many of my colleagues fought very hard to change the
law, believing that we ought not use food as a weapon,
believing that it is immoral to use food as a weapon, and, with
respect to Cuba and all other countries, that we ought to be
able to sell food to those countries, and that prohibiting such
a sale really doesn't do anything to hurt those that we are
trying to hurt. It only hurts sick, hungry, and poor people
around the world. And so the law was changed in 2000.
As I understand it, the Cubans have now purchased something
between $75 and $90 million worth of U.S. food. They are
required, under current law, to purchase it with cash. They
have to run it through a European bank. As I understand it, the
Cubans are running it through a French bank in order to
purchase U.S. food. I happen to believe we ought to change, as
well, and we did it in the Senate, and it went to conference
and was dumped out in conference. But we will change that very
soon so that they can access banks in this country, as well.
But having said all that, I called this hearing, because,
in the context of purchasing U.S. food, Mr. Alvarez, who is the
head of a group--an agency in Cuba, called Alimport, which
purchases this food for Cuba, had applied for a visa to come to
this country and visit some farm states at the invitation of
farm organizations. The visa was granted and then subsequently
revoked. And I, when I learned of that, tried to understand why
it was revoked and was told by the State Department that, ``It
is not the policy of our country to encourage food sales to
Cuba.'' I find that inexplicable, because the Congress has
already spoken to that issue. We believe that we ought to be
able to sell food to Cuba. We've changed the law in order to
allow that to happen.
I wanted to find out why Mr. Alvarez and several other
officials' visas were canceled. I asked Secretary Powell in
several letters. I asked him at a hearing. He indicated at the
hearing, when I inquired of him, that Mr. Alvarez, on a
previous visit to the United States, had essentially made
comments that undermined the circumstances of his visit. And I
asked for the specifics of that and am led to believe that what
Mr. Alvarez did when he came to the United States is suggest
that they would like for the Cuba government and Cuban people
to be able to buy more food from the United States. Now, I
don't happen to think that undermines or threatens our
circumstances in this country at all, but apparently some do.
I want to try to understand whether the State Department
and/or the Administration is thwarting the will of Congress
with respect to food sales to Cuba. It is true we have sold a
substantial amount of food to Cuba in recent months. It is also
true, it appears to me, that some in the Administration want to
make it increasingly more difficult to do so.
I have a letter from the Cuban government describing what
they have purchased from the United States recently. They have
purchased milling wheat, corn, milled rice, chicken leg
quarters, chicken livers, turkey drumsticks, soybean meal, pork
lard, fresh eggs, apples, onions. The other requests that are
now being considered are durum wheat, wheat flour, wheat
pellets, rice, sorghum, oats, barley, alfalfa, canary seed,
castor oil seed, and the list is quite endless, actually. It's
roughly 240 items.
We have a good many American farmers who need to find a
foreign home for their product. We sell that product to China,
a communist government. We sell it to Vietnam, a communist
government. But we are told somehow that we ought not to
encourage sales of food to Cuba. As I indicated, I don't think
Fidel Castro has ever missed a meal because of our embargo. I
don't believe he missed a meal in 40 years because we couldn't
ship U.S. food to Cuba or they couldn't purchase food from the
United States. But I think poor, sick, and hungry people in
Cuba are the victims of these policies, and I personally
believe that it is immoral to use food as a weapon.
My hope is that, in this hearing, we can find some
information about what is happening inside the State
Department, whether they believe that what Congress has done in
allowing the Cubans to purchase grain and food from this
country is something that they should accommodate and should
assist in when asked, and also perhaps inquire about whether
there is a decisionmaking process that we don't quite
understand, but need to. I believe it was the Secretary who
indicated that the revocation of the visas of Pedro Alvarez to
come to our country, including a trip to North Dakota to buy
dried beans and wheat, among other things, was the subject of
an interagency task force, so I'd like to understand a little
more about that, as well as which agencies are part of the
interagency task force.
But we will hear from a number of witnesses today. We
appreciate Secretary Reich and Ambassador Donnelly being with
us. I have a couple of other comments, but let me call on my
colleagues. And, Senator Carnahan, why don't you proceed with
an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEAN CARNAHAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our nation's
trade policy with Cuba is extremely important to my state, and
I appreciate your leadership on this topic. The Senate has
worked hard over the past year to craft a farm bill, and this
new law will help the farmers in my state and across the
country for years to come.
Missouri ranks second in the Nation in the number of farms.
These farmers are desperate for more markets. Some are forming
new generation cooperatives to market ethanol, others are
finding niche markets for their commodities, but much, much
more needs to be done, and our government is standing in the
way of a vast new market for Missouri farmers.
Some simple changes to our trade policy with Cuba would
greatly expand economic opportunities for Missouri farmers.
Since we resumed exporting food to Cuba last year, U.S. farmers
have sold more than 500,000 tons of commodities valued at over
$100 million, but U.S. law still prohibits private American
banks and companies from financing the sale of agricultural
goods to Cuba. This severely limits the amount of goods that
Cuba can purchase.
Permitting private U.S. firms to finance food sales to Cuba
will help Missouri farmers. It would help many other aspects of
our rural economy, as well. Rural schools, banks, food
processing facilities and other entities that rely on or add
value to our agricultural products will benefit.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of your
amendment to the trade bill that would allow private U.S.
financing of food sales to Cuba. I was sorry that a similar
provision was dropped from the farm bill during conference.
I was also disappointed recently when the State Department
refused to issue a visa to the head of the Cuban Food Import
Agency. This official had been planning to come to your state,
Mr. Chairman, and also to Missouri. The American Farm Bureau
said that this action adversely affected U.S. sales of corn,
rice, wheat, poultry, and soybeans, all of which are produced
in my state. I'm troubled that the Administration would take
this action, which is so clearly at odds with the interests of
U.S. farmers.
I appreciate you conducting this hearing today, which is
drawing attention to this important issue, and I look forward
to continuing to work with you and our colleagues from the
other body, especially Congresswoman Joanne Emerson, of
Missouri, in opening up this valuable foreign market for U.S.
agricultural goods.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Carnahan, thank you very much.
Next, I'll call on Senator Boxer for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for your leadership on this important issue.
I have some guests from California. The Chicano-Latino
Caucus of the California Democratic Party is here, and they
have in their group Cuban-Americans, so we are very happy
they're here. They urge us to change this policy.
They passed a resolution. It says, ``Whereas, the
Constitution of the United States of America guarantees every
American certain rights and freedoms; Whereas, the restrictions
on American citizens to travel to Cuba is clearly a violation
of said constitutional rights and freedoms, and; Whereas, the
travel restrictions limit American citizens of Cuban descent
the right to travel to Cuba only once per year, regardless of
emergencies or unforeseen necessity; Therefore, be it resolved
that the California Democratic Party request the U.S. Congress
lift the Cuba travel restrictions currently imposed on all
United States citizens.'' And they sent this to Members of
Congress.
I'm just very glad that they're here and excited to see
them. They've traveled all the way here from California.
Senator Dorgan, again, I want to thank you. You have been
clear on this issue. You say we shouldn't use food as a weapon.
I couldn't agree with you more. We shouldn't withhold food from
people. You make that clear.
And you also make clear that we have a golden opportunity
here for our agricultural producers. And I just came back from
Cuba just a week before President Carter went, and I met with
the various ministers there and Ag people and presented--in
this box is just a whole host of products, different types of
beans and rice and--we showed them a little cotton, and we
showed them our milk, our--this is a low-fat milkman instant
low-fat dry milk. I'll tell you, it was, in a way, a little sad
to see the reaction. They gathered around this box, Mr.
Chairman, as if it was filled with gold. I swear. And they are
so anxious to buy our food.
Now, I understand when you say to people like Ambassador
Reich, ``Well, why can't we lift the travel ban?'' One reason
is, ``Castro will get the money. He will keep all the money.''
I mean, I'm not going to get in an argument about that. Castro
can't eat all the food. OK? He talks too long at dinner.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Trust me. The dinner started at 8:30 and
ended at 3:30, and, unlike I usually am, I didn't say much. So,
yeah, he's not going to eat all the food. And they gathered
around this as if it was gold. They want to buy our food. It's
so hard for them--we're making it so hard for them to get food
for their people. What is the point of that?
And this trip had really very interesting people,
musicians, we had the leader and the spokesmen from our poultry
industry there, a Republican. We all came to the same
conclusion at the end, and that was--it could be well expressed
this way, ``What are we doing? How does this policy of a travel
ban embargo make any sense whatsoever in this day and age?''
Now, maybe it could be explained during the cold war. Sure
it could have, when Castro was all over in helping communism
spread throughout the world. It's a new day. Communism's dead.
It's even dead in Cuba. I hate to say it. It's dead. Castro may
think he has communism, but he's got a whole dollar economy
going, and I went to the restaurants, and there's all kinds of
capitalism over there. So he may think he's leading a communist
country. Let me tell you, the people don't. The real people
there don't. And they love Americans, and they want to talk to
us.
And the irony is members of my group went over to Cubans,
and the police were all over them. The police there don't want
the Americans talking to the Cubans. There's human-rights
violations going on. And they finally figured out how to get
away from the police, and they talked to the Cubans, and
they're spreading the word about our country, about our system.
What is this Administration fearful of, our own people going
over there and talking about how wonderful freedom is and
democracy is, that our Ag people send over our products and we
win over the hearts and minds of the people?
You know, here's the deal, and then I'll conclude. It's one
thing to say, ``You know, we have a policy that might work,''
and try it for a period of time. We've done that. We've been
there. It doesn't work. It hasn't done anything to hurt Castro.
It hasn't done anything to better human rights.
Finally, and this is the point I want to make to you, Mr.
Reich, the dissidents want the travel ban over. The people you
claim to be helping with your policy want the travel ban over.
They want the embargo lifted. These are people who Castro put
in jail. These are people who have suffered because they're
courageous and they speak out. There are people who are
collecting signatures for the petition and the referendums that
they want to put on the ballot. So what are we doing having a
policy that the dissidents disagree with? Who are we
representing, anyway, if not the dissidents in Cuba who want an
end to dictatorship?
So I hope, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we can bring
about some change. I know the Congress wants to. It's a
question of whether the Administration wants to. So far it
doesn't look too good for our position. But we just keep
shining the light of day on this policy. This policy cannot
stand the scrutiny. People have a relative--a sick relative--I
have a Cuban-American in here, in the room, that can only go
see him every few months. It's a nightmare. We have to change
the policy.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Boxer, thank you.
Let me, before I call on Secretary Reich, say that there is
no disagreement on Capitol Hill with respect to Fidel Castro.
All of us want to bring democracy and greater human rights to
Cuba. It is my feeling that the argument that's been made so
persuasively that engagement is what causes progress--
engagement with China, engagement with Vietnam--it seems to me
that argument is persuasive also with respect to Cuba.
Ninety miles south of Florida, there is a nearly $1 billion
market for agricultural goods. We, in Congress, fought to allow
circumstances by which the embargo would be lifted with respect
to the sale of agricultural goods. That has happened, and
that's good for American family farmers, it's good for people
in Cuba who need that food.
I would just say that at a Cuban hospital, at one point, I
sat near the bedside of a young boy that was in a coma. He was
hooked to no machines, because they had no machines. The people
who ran that hospital told me they were out of 240 different
kinds of medicine in that hospital. And the point is, with
respect to the use of food and medicine, this country is not
representing the best of itself by trying to withhold those
kinds of things from people around the world who need them.
The simple question for today's hearing is this. Congress
has spoken on the question of whether we want to allow the sale
of food to Cuba. The answer is yes. That's now a matter of law.
Is the State Department and/or the Administration attempting to
thwart that by making it difficult for future sales to take
place?
And with that as an operating questions, Ambassador Reich,
why don't you proceed, and then we will hear from Ambassador
Donnelly.
STATEMENT OF HON. OTTO J. REICH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS,
ACCOMPANIED BY SHAUN E. DONNELLY, PRINCIPAL
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ECONOMIC
BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Reich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer,
and Members of the Committee. It's an honor for me to testify
today before this Committee of the U.S. Senate regarding the
Bush Administration's trade policy toward Cuba. I want to thank
the Chairman for giving me this opportunity to testify.
President Bush, yesterday, announced his initiative for a
new Cuba. The initiative calls on the Cuban government to
undertake political and economic reforms and to conduct free
and fair elections next year for the National Assembly. The
initiative challenges the Cuban government to open its economy,
allow independent trade unions, and end discriminatory
practices against Cuban workers. If the Cuban government takes
these concrete steps to open up its political and economic
system, President Bush will work with the Congress to ease the
ban on trade and travel between the United States and Cuba.
With reform, trade can benefit the Cuban people and allow
them to share in the progress of our time. Without major
reform, unrestricted trade with Cuba only helps the Castro
regime, not the Cuban people. The initiative for a new Cuba
also reaches out to the Cuban people immediately by
facilitating meaningful humanitarian assistance by American
religious and other non-governmental groups by providing direct
assistance to the Cuban people through non-governmental
organizations, by seeking the resumption of direct-mail service
to and from Cuba, and by establishing scholarship funds in the
United States for Cuban students and professionals trying to
build independent civil institutions and for family members of
political prisoners.
The initiative for a new Cuba also states that the United
States is not a threat to Cuban sovereignty. The initiative is
not the end of the President's policy review, but the beginning
of an ongoing, flexible, and responsive campaign designed to
generate rapid and peaceful change within Cuba. The initiative
is important, because Cuba continues to be ruled by a dictator.
The regime has failed to meet the basic needs of the Cuban
people and continues to deny them the freedoms of speech and
assembly as well as the ability to choose their leaders.
The Committee to Protect Journalists continues to list Cuba
as one of the ten worst enemies of the press worldwide,
characterizing its actions as a scorched-earth assault in
independent journalists. Cuba is the exception to our
hemispheric family of democratic nations. It is essential that
democratic development, especially through the formation of
independent civil society organizations, political parties, and
free elections, begin rapidly in order to maximize the
prospects for a smooth transition to democracy.
The regime has shown little interest in reforming itself or
moving toward a more open or representative government. For
this reason, the Administration opposes steps which would have
the effect of strengthening the Cuban regime, but the
initiative encourages the Cuban government to begin addressing
the concerns we share with other nations of the hemisphere.
Central to our policy is the reality of the government of
Cuba, which has continued to be hostile to the United States.
Cuba remains on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, in
part because Cuba harbors fugitives from U.S. justice.
Furthermore, the Cuban regime continues to violate human rights
and fundamental freedoms. This was amply illustrated by the
jailing of Vladimiro Roca in the most repressive of conditions
for over 1,700 days simply because he had the courage to call
for a national dialog. In fact, the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights recently approved a resolution calling on Cuba to make
progress in respecting human, civil, and political rights.
As Secretary Powell has noted, a number of events since
August 2001 also have contributed to a reevaluation of our
policy toward Cuba. First, in the wake of the tragic events of
September 11, Cuba's reaction was hostile to U.S. efforts to
respond to terrorism. This was clear from Cuban government
statements that the war in Afghanistan is, quote, ``fascistic
and militaristic,'' unquote, and the Cuban government
minister's remarks--foreign minister's remarks at the U.N.
General Assembly, when he accused the United States of
intentionally targeting Afghan children for death and Red Cross
hospitals in Afghanistan for destruction. Also in September,
five agents of the Cuban government were sentenced for
conspiring to spy against the United States, including efforts
to penetrate U.S. military bases. One of these five also was
convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to commit murder.
Further, on September 21, 2001, Ana Belen Montes, a senior
analyst in the Defense Intelligence Agency, was arrested for
spying for Cuba against the United States. She subsequently
entered a guilty plea in March of this year. Spying, Cuba's
harboring fugitives from U.S. justice, and its continued
violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms combine to
demonstrate that Cuba continues to carry out its aggressive
policies against the United States and its people.
Moreover, we know that Cuba has a sophisticated
biotechnology infrastructure capable of supporting a biological
weapons program and has transferred dual-use technology to a
number of countries around the world, including those with
known or suspected biological weapons programs. These facts
underpin our assessment that Cuba has at least a limited
developmental biological-weapons research-and-development
effort. These incidents clearly reaffirm Cuba's hostility to
the United States and the threat it represents to our national
security. As a result, Administration policy considers visits
by senior Cuban officials at this time to be inappropriate and
detrimental to the national interest.
That said, the Administration is open to transforming the
relationship. The President's initiative offers a serious
alternative, one which we urge the government of Cuba to weigh
carefully. Presently, sales of medicine and agricultural
commodities to Cuba are, while subject to certain restrictions,
legal. Sales of medicine have been legal since the passage of
the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992. The government of Cuba,
however, has been reluctant to purchase medicine and medical
equipment from the United States, at least in part because it
finds prices to be too high.
In 1999, President Clinton authorized licensing by
Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration, recently renamed
the Bureau of Industry and Security, of sales and food and
agricultural inputs to independent entities in Cuba, including
religious groups, private farmers, and private-sector
undertakings such as family restaurants. This measure did not
result in significant sales, because the Cuban government
opposed it.
The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000, TSRA, permitted the Cuban government to purchase, on a
cash basis or with financing by third-country financial
institutions, agricultural commodities from the United States.
Through late 2001, Castro refused to buy, and I quote, ``even a
grain of rice,'' unquote, from the United States, and perhaps
with good reason.
Cuba is one of the most heavily indebted countries in the
world, with an external debt burden of about $3,000 per capita,
including ruble debt. As a result of its economic performance,
Moody's rates Cuba in its lowest category. Cuba is so bad off
that its merchant marine leaves behind a, quote, ``trail of
unpaid creditors at every port they visit,'' unquote, according
to an Amsterdam newspaper that also recently observed, quote,
``Cuba is practically bankrupt,'' unquote. No wonder Castro
executed a 180-degree policy turn after Hurricane Michelle last
November.
Despite the Castro regime's implacable hostility, the
Administration has carried out and will continue to carry out
its responsibilities under TSRA. Since Cuba decided to make
food purchases from the United States, Cuba has made more than
$40 million in sales with another $50 million reported to be in
progress. Overall, the Administration has licensed more than
$1.2 billion worth of agricultural commodities for Cuba since
implementation of TSRA in July 2001.
These purchases demonstrate the Cuban regime's strong
motivation to complete these sales, particularly taking into
account that the Cuban government has chosen to use its very
limited foreign-exchange reserves in these transactions. This
is one reason for the Administration's policy judgment that
marketing visits by Cuban tradeofficials are not necessary to
conclude purchases of U.S. agricultural commodities.
Applications for visas by Cuban officials are considered on a
case-by-case basis at the time of application in accordance
with existing law and in light of current policy
considerations. The Department of State recognizes that visits
to agricultural production facilities to address certain
sanitary and phytosanitary issues may be needed so that sales
can be completed. Visas have been issued to such personnel in
the past, and such visa applications as are received by the
U.S. Interests Section will be carefully considered. In
addition, representatives of American firms who wish to arrange
legally permitted trade can request specific licenses from the
Department of Treasury that allow travel-related transactions
for a visit to Cuba.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as the President said
yesterday quoting Jose Marti, quote, ``Barriers of ideas are
stronger than barricades of stone,'' unquote. For the benefit
of Cuba's people, it is time for Mr. Castro to cast aside old
and failed ideas and to start to think differently about the
future. Today could mark a new dawn in the long friendship
between our peoples, but only if the Castro regime sees the
light.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Reich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Otto J. Reich, Assistant Secretary of State for
Western Hemisphere Affairs accompanied by Shaun E. Donnelly, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Economic Bureau, Department of State
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is an honor for me to
testify today before this Committee of the United States Senate
regarding the Bush Administration's trade policy toward Cuba. I want to
thank the Chairman for giving me this opportunity to testify before
this Committee.
President Bush yesterday announced his Initiative for a New Cuba.
The Initiative calls on the Cuban government to undertake political and
economic reforms, and to conduct free and fair elections next year for
the National Assembly. The Initiative challenges the Cuban government
to open its economy, allow independent trade unions, and end
discriminatory practices against Cuban workers. If the Cuban Government
takes these concrete steps to open up its political and economic
system, President Bush will work with the Congress to ease the ban on
trade and travel between the United States and Cuba.
With reform, trade can benefit the Cuban people and allow them to
share in the progress of our time. Without major reform, unrestricted
trade with Cuba only helps the Castro regime, not the Cuban people.
The Initiative for a New Cuba also reaches out to the Cuban people
immediately by facilitating meaningful humanitarian assistance to the
Cuban people by American religious and other nongovernmental groups; by
providing direct assistance to the Cuban people through non-
governmental organizations; by seeking the resumption of direct mail
service to and from Cuba; and by establishing scholarships in the
United States for Cuban students and professionals trying to build
independent civil institutions and for family members of political
prisoners.
The Initiative for a New Cuba also states that the United States is
not a threat to Cuban sovereignty.
The Initiative for a New Cuba is not the end of the President's
policy review, but the beginning of an ongoing, flexible and responsive
campaign designed to generate rapid and peaceful change within Cuba.
The Initiative is important because Cuba continues to be ruled by a
dictator. The regime has failed to meet the basic needs of the Cuban
people and it continues to deny them the freedoms of speech and
assembly as well as the ability to choose their leaders. The Committee
to Protect Journalists continues to list Cuba as one of the 10 worst
enemies of the press worldwide characterizing its actions as a
``scorched earth assault'' on independent journalists.
Cuba is the exception to our hemispheric family of democratic
nations. It is essential that democratic development, especially
through the formation of independent civil society organizations,
political parties, and free elections, begin rapidly in order to
maximize the prospects for a smooth transition to democracy. The regime
has shown little interest in reforming itself, or moving toward a more
open or representative government. For this reason, the Administration
opposes steps which would have the effect of strengthening the Cuban
regime. But the Initiative encourages the Cuban government to begin
addressing the concerns we share with other nations of the hemisphere.
Central to our policy, is the reality of the Government of Cuba,
which has continued to be hostile to the United States. Cuba remains on
the list of state-sponsors of terrorism, in part because Cuba harbors
fugitives from U.S. justice. Furthermore, the Cuban regime continues to
violate human rights and fundamental freedoms. This was amply
illustrated by the jailing of Vladimiro Roca, in the most oppressive of
conditions, for over 1,700 days simply because he had the courage to
call for a national dialogue. In fact, the U.N. Commission on Human
Rights recently approved a resolution calling on Cuba to make progress
in respecting human, civil and political rights.
As the Secretary has noted, a number of events since August 2001
also have contributed to a reevaluation of our policy toward Cuba.
First, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Cuba's
reaction was hostile to U.S. efforts to respond to terrorism. This was
clear from Cuban government statements that the war in Afghanistan is
``fascistic and militaristic'' and the Cuban Foreign Minister's remarks
at the UN General Assembly, when he accused the United States of
intentionally targeting Afghan children for death and Red Cross
hospitals in Afghanistan for destruction. Also in September, five
agents of the Cuban government were sentenced for conspiring to spy
against the United States, including efforts to penetrate U.S. military
bases. One of these five also was convicted and sentenced for
conspiracy to commit murder. Further, on September 21, 2001, Ana Belen
Montes, a senior analyst in the Defense Intelligence Agency, was
arrested for spying for Cuba against the United States. She
subsequently entered a guilty plea in March 2002.
Spying, Cuba's harboring of fugitives from U.S. justice, and its
continued violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, combine
to demonstrate that Cuba continues to carry out its aggressive policies
against the United States and its own people. Moreover, we know that
Cuba has a sophisticated biotechnology infrastructure capable of
supporting a biological weapons program and has transferred dual-use
technology to a number of countries around the world, including those
with known or suspected biological weapons programs. These facts
underpin our assessment that Cuba has at least a limited, developmental
biological weapons research and development effort.
These incidents clearly reaffirm Cuba's hostility to the United
States and the threat it represents to our national security. As a
result, Administration policy considers visits by senior Cuban
officials, at this time, to be inappropriate and detrimental to the
national interest.
That said, the Administration is open to transforming the
relationship. The President's initiative offers a serious alternative,
one which we urge the Government of Cuba to weigh carefully.
Presently, sales of medicine and agricultural commodities to Cuba
are, while subject to certain restrictions, legal. Sales of medicine
have been legal since passage of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 (CDA);
the Government of Cuba, however, has been reluctant to purchase
medicine and medical equipment from the United States at least in part
because it finds prices to be too high. In 1999, President Clinton
authorized the licensing by Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration
of sales of food and agricultural inputs to independent entities in
Cuba, including religious groups, private farmers and private sector
undertakings such as family restaurants. This measure did not result in
significant sales because the Cuban government opposed it.
The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000
(TSRA) permitted the Cuban government to purchase, on a cash basis or
with financing by third-country financial institutions, agricultural
commodities from the United States. Through late 2001, Castro refused
to buy ``even a grain of rice'' from the United States. He executed a
180 degree policy turn, however, after Hurricane Michelle last
November.
Despite the Castro regime's implacable hostility, the
Administration has carried out and will continue to carry out its
responsibilities under TSRA. Since Cuba decided to make food purchases
from the United States, Cuba has made more than $40 million in sales,
with another $50 million reported to be in progress. Overall the
Administration has licensed more than $1.2 billion worth of
agricultural commodities for Cuba since implementation of TSRA in July
2001. These purchases demonstrate the Cuban regime's strong motivation
to complete these sales, particularly taking into account that the
Cuban government has chosen to use its very limited foreign exchange
reserves in these transactions. This is one reason for the
Administration's policy judgment that marketing visits by Cuban trade
officials are not necessary to conclude purchases of U.S. agricultural
commodities.
Applications for visas by Cuban officials are considered on a case-
by-case basis at the time of application in accordance with existing
law and in light of current policy considerations. The Department of
State recognizes that visits to agricultural production facilities to
address certain sanitary and phytosanitary issues may be needed so that
sales can be completed. Visas have been issued to such personnel in the
past and such visa applications as are received by the U.S. Interests
Section will be carefully considered. In addition, representatives of
American firms who wish to arrange legally permitted trade can request
specific licenses from the Department of Treasury that allow travel-
related transactions for visits to Cuba.
In conclusion, as the President said yesterday, quoting Jose Marti,
``Barriers of ideas are stronger than barricades of stone.'' For the
benefit of Cuba's people, it is time for Mr. Castro to cast aside old
and failed ideas and to start to think differently about the future.
Today could mark a new dawn in a long friendship between our people,
but only if the Castro regime sees the light.''
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Reich, thank you very much.
Ambassador Donnelly?
Ambassador Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have
an opening statement. I'm here simply to assist Assistant
Secretary Reich in responding to your questions.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Ambassador Donnelly, thank you very much.
Let me begin. First, let me ask if the Ranking Member of
the full Committee has a statement. Senator McCain has joined
us.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator McCain. I'll make it part of the record. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. All right, without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
Thank you, Senator Dorgan. I would like to commend you for ensuring
our Committee's continued dialogue on this important topic. While we
may not always agree on trade-related issues, I believe the Committee
greatly benefits from these discussions. I would also like to thank all
of our witnesses for appearing before us today.
The timing of this hearing provides a useful opportunity to examine
the American trade embargo and the case the President has made and
reinforced just yesterday for sustaining the embargo as a way to bring
freedom to the Cuban people.
Although I am an ardent proponent of free trade, I have long
supported maintaining our trade embargo against Cuba until Fidel Castro
grants his people their basic rights. As long as the Cuban government
controls nearly all economic activity in Cuba, free trade cannot be the
liberalizing force it has been elsewhere.
Unlike China where trade has brought freedoms to its people, trade
with Cuba provides the government with a means of maintaining a unique
system of control over its people. The Cuban state remains deeply
repressive and pervasive in its attempts to control Cuban society. The
Cuban government owns nearly all the means of production and siphons
off significant revenues from the few businesses it does not own.
Greater revenues generated in Cuba from trade would only bolster the
state security apparatus. Rather than creating the political and
economic space that would encourage greater freedom in Cuba, trade with
this state-owned economy would only further empower that government.
As we will hear today, Cuba is also a notoriously bad debtor.
Expanded trade and private financing would clearly put American
companies and taxpayers at an unnecessary financial risk. Again, the
revenues generated by expanded trade with the U.S. would flow
principally to the Cuban government, not its people.
This is not a new debate. While I believe that as a world leader we
must be globally engaged and commit ourselves to the expansion of free
trade, in this case I believe that the risks associated with expanded
trade far outweigh the benefits. I understand that this is a divisive
issue, and I support the President's position, which stands against
oppression and with the Cuban people. I hope that as a result of this
hearing, we will all come away with a better understanding of the
greater issues involved.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. I would like to make my statement part of
the record, although I'd like to have some prefacing remarks,
in that I think President Bush's statement and outline for
freedom and independence for the individuals and people in Cuba
yesterday was a very strong, principled statement.
The decision as to whether or not to change their policies
and allow freedom of expression, the right of the people of
Cuba to alter, amend, or abolish their government to make it
one which respects their property, their rights and their
freedoms is really up to Mr. Castro. The President wisely asked
for elections within a year, which I think is a wise move on
his part. And, indeed, none of us wants to keep this embargo
going, but it's up to the people--or, in fact, up to Fidel
Castro as to whether or not they're going to take the steps of
reform to allow greater trade and greater opportunities.
And while there will be many people who will say this
embargo somehow has impeded Cuba's ability to progress, the
reality is it's the dictatorial, tyrannical government in Cuba
that is impinging on their opportunities for investment in
jobs, because, after all, it is only this country, the United
States, that has this sort of an embargo--I'm talking embargo
in accepting the food and the medicine. All the European
countries, all the other countries in Latin America, the
Canadians all have trade with Cuba, but, nevertheless, they're
still impoverished. And the President rightly pointed out, in
my view, the reason for that is not because of the United
States, really not even because of our embargo, it is because
of the rule of Fidel Castro.
And I don't think we should be doing anything to prop up
that dictatorship. I think we ought to be pushing as hard as we
can for effective, strong ways to allow the people of Cuba to
enjoy the fresh breeze and sweet nectar of freedom rather than
doing anything to facilitate the continuation of the Castro
regime.
So I'll be asking questions, and I'd like to submit a
statement for the record, as well.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Allen, thank you. Without
objection, your statement will be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Allen, U.S. Senator from Virginia
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this timely hearing to evaluate
the existing U.S. trade policy regarding Cuba. Trade is an important
tool in our arsenal of weapons to achieve our larger goal: How to free
the Cuban people from the tyranny of Castro.
All of us want to help the Cuban people and we all want to
encourage the sale of U.S. products, whether it is wheat from North
Dakota or peanuts and poultry from the Commonwealth of Virginia, to
Cuba.
Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, I believe your proposal to permit the
financing of Cuban purchases of U.S. products does neither.
I was fortunate to be at the White House yesterday as President
Bush called for the lifting of our trade embargo once the existing
tyrannical government on Cuba is replaced by a government that is fully
democratic.
If the past is any indication of what will happen if we finance
Cuban purchases of U.S. food and medicine, then those products will go
first to tourist facilities where Cubans are not permitted (facilities
surrounded by signs that say Solamante turistas--tourists only), to
Castro's security forces, to the Communist Party members and to
government dollar stores at inflated prices.
But you don't have to take my word for that Mr. Chairman, this is
what has been reported by Pax Christi Netherlands, a Catholic human
rights organization and by the Humanitarian Aid Office of the European
Union. In fact, Castro has yet to allow the shipment of tons of food
that the Catholic Churches in Miami have made available.
Nor will U.S. agricultural interests and other U.S. producers be
benefited by permitting the financing of sales to Cuba. Castro buying
and paying are not the same thing.
One of the best-kept secrets of our 40-year-old trade embargo with
Cuba is that it has saved millions of dollars for U.S. taxpayers. Due
to the embargo, there are no U.S. banks in the ``Paris Club'', a
consortium of Cuba creditors. (The Paris Club is currently owed between
$10 and $15 billion in debt from Cuba.) Otherwise, U.S. banks now would
be hitting U.S. taxpayers to cover their losses in Cuba.
If the U.S. begins to subsidize trade with Cuba--estimated at $100
million a year--five years from now, U.S. taxpayers could be holding,
or paying of, a $500 million tab.
Yesterday President Bush outlined a thoughtful U.S. trade policy
with Castro. Meaningful reform on Castro's part will be answered with
meaningful changes in our trade policy with Cuba.
The key to increased trade with Cuba lies in the hands of Castro.
All he has to do is:
Allow opposition parties to speak freely and organize;
Allow independent trade unions;
Free all political prisoners, including Francisco Chaviano,
who was arrested and detained in prison for one year, and
although a civilian, he was tried by a military tribunal and
sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was arrested after
government agents broke into his home and confiscated documents
revealing human rights abuses in Cuba--specifically,
information about the Castro government's sinking of a tug boat
that claimed the lives of 41 men, women and children who were
attempting to escape to freedom.
Allow human rights organizations to visit Cuba to ensure
that the conditions for free election are being created;
Allow outside observers to monitor the 2003 elections, and
End discriminatory practices against Cuban workers.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this hearing will help free the Cuban people
from the tyranny of Castro and bring freedom and democracy to the only
country in the Western Hemisphere that is not free.
Quiero ver una cuba libre.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Ambassador Reich, let me ask whether the
Department's policy with respect to food sales is, quote, ``not
to encourage the sales of food to Cuba.'' That has been
reported--I asked Secretary Powell that same question. As you
know, in the year 2000, Congress made a judgment about whether
or not we would be able to sell food to Cuba or Cuba would be
able to buy food from us. The Congress made the judgment that
we wanted that to happen. Is it, in your judgment, the State
Department's policy, quote, ``not to encourage,'' unquote,
sales of food to Cuba?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, the department doesn't discourage
sales of food to Cuba any more than it encourages sales of food
to Cuba. The law says that sales of food to Cuba are allowed,
and we enforce the law.
Senator Dorgan. But the State Department said--I have a
press clipping somewhere where the State Department said it's
not--``It's our policy not to encourage food sales to Cuba.''
That's an important distinction.
Ambassador Reich. Or--right, or discourage. Obviously, the
sales are going on.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me ask about that a bit. As you
know, because of the way the law was written--and we're
attempting to change that--the Cubans are purchasing American
food through a French bank--paying cash through a French bank.
And I indicated to you one of the reasons for this hearing is
Mr. Alvarez, representing Alimport, wanted to come to this
country and was going to visit a number of states, including my
state, and purchase some additional wheat, dried beans, and so
on, and his visa was approved and then rejected. Would you
describe for us the process by which his and other visas were
approved and then rejected? Was that simply a mistake?
Ambassador Reich. As Secretary Powell stated, sir, the
interagency process had decided to not waive the 1984 law upon
which these visas are approved. And so Mr. Alvarez would not
have received a visa. Due to a miscommunication between the
State Department and the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, some
visas were issued to Cuban officials. And once the Interests
Section of Havana received the directive or the notification
that the visas were not going to be approved, they simply
retracted them.
Senator Dorgan. I'm going to come to--let me go back to--
because I just received the Dallas Morning News, April 3rd,
2002, ``A State Department official said Tuesday that the
denials comply strictly with the law and meet a Bush
Administration policy of discouraging trade with Cuba.''
Inaccurate or accurate?
Ambassador Reich. I don't know who that official is, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I'm not asking about who the official
was. I'm asking whether what is in the Dallas Morning News is
accurate. It says, ``a Bush Administration's policy goal of
discouraging trade with Cuba.'' Is that accurate?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, I can only tell what the State
Department's position is, not what the Dallas Morning News
position is. I do not agree with that characterization of our
policy.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Now, coming back to the issue of
the visas, tell me how it came to your attention that the visas
had been approved by the Interests Section of Havana.
Ambassador Reich. We have a regular meeting to discuss visa
applications from Cuba that consist of a number of officials
from different agencies. And at one of those, this, as well as
a number of other applications----
Senator Dorgan. Is that the interagency process?
Ambassador Reich. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Uh-huh, and----
Ambassador Reich. And some visas are approved, some visas
are disapproved. I'd say since I've been here--I don't know the
exact percentage, but I'd guess about 50-50--about 50 percent
are approved, 50 percent are disapproved. But don't hold me to
the exact percentage. I'm speaking----
Senator Dorgan. Would visas routinely come to that
interagency process? Is that what the process is for?
Ambassador Reich. No, the visas don't. The visas are--a
visa request is received at the embassy--the U.S. Interests
Section in Havana, and the State Department, because of the
special case of Cuba, reviews them through an interagency
process in Washington and then gives the Interests Section in
Havana the direction.
Senator Dorgan. And you discovered visas had been approved,
and so then you indicated that these visas should be rejected.
Ambassador Reich. Actually, I was informed that the visas
had been approved, but that they should have been denied.
Senator Dorgan. I see. And tell me, now, if you can, Mr.
Alvarez was coming to this country to--on a trip to talk to
some sellers and to potentially buy some additional food. The
history in recent months has been they have purchased a fair
amount of food from American farmers--eggs, wheat, corn, and a
range of things--so they intended to come up and purchase some
additional food. Tell me that basis on which you believe that
somehow undermines our interests.
Ambassador Reich. Well, sir, what I said is that we do not
believe that Mr. Alvarez's presence in the United States is
required for the purchase of that food. And the very fact that
three different members mentioned three different amounts of
food already sold to Cuba--anywhere from 50 million to 100
million, and I mentioned 40 million with another 50 million
already allegedly in the works--I think clearly indicates that
the process seems to be working without the physical presence
of Mr. Alvarez being required.
Senator Dorgan. But you understand that it's rather common
for trade missions to come up and talk to--come to this
country, or from our country moved to other countries, to talk
to sellers about the products they're interested in purchasing
and the availability of those products. You understand that's
routine with respect to international trade, do you not?
Ambassador Reich. It's routine when it comes to countries
with which we have normal relations. We do not have normal
relations with Cuba, as I pointed out, because of their ongoing
hostility and continued undermining of U.S. interests.
Senator Dorgan. Except that the Congress--do you think that
these cell phone bells are getting louder and louder?
[Laughter.]
Ambassador Reich. I think they're obnoxious. But that's
just my opinion. That's not the State Department's opinion.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. We've found an area of agreement, Mr.
Secretary.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. Let me--I understand your point. You've
simply said, all right, the Congress has said we can sell food
to Cuba----
Ambassador Reich. Right.
Senator Dorgan.--but we have no interest in having the
Cuban buyer come in and talk to sellers. That seems to suggest
what the State Department admitted in this statement, that
you're discouraging trade with Cuba. Am I wrong about that?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, that's the Dallas Morning News. The
Secretary is--I get my directions from the Secretary of State,
not from the Dallas Morning News or anybody else. The Secretary
said clearly, we do not encourage, we do not discourage--or at
least that's what I have been informed--and we don't. The sales
are going forward in spite of what--you know, what reports you
may be hearing, and you, yourself, have said that the sales
continue.
Senator Dorgan. Can you tell me also----
Ambassador Reich. We encourage sales of food and all of the
products all over the world.
Senator Dorgan. Including Cuba.
Ambassador Reich. We encourage sales all over the world.
The case of Cuba, as I said earlier, is----
Senator Dorgan. Is different.
Ambassador Reich.--is different, that's right. And only----
Senator Dorgan. That's what I'm trying to get to.
Ambassador Reich. It is different----
Senator Dorgan. Thank you.
Ambassador Reich.--for one thing, as you said, because only
recently did the Congress authorize the sale of food to Cuba.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask--Mr. Alvarez----
Ambassador Reich. It was different for a long time.
Senator Dorgan. It was indicated by Secretary Powell that
Mr. Alvarez was allowed to come to this country previously, and
he said, quote, ``A good part of his time was spent lobbying
against policy of the U.S. Government,'' in addition to
whatever else he might have been doing with respect to serving
as a purchase agent. Was the Secretary referring to the fact
that Mr. Alvarez said that he hoped that perhaps Cuba could
purchase some additional food from the United States?
Ambassador Reich. No, sir. I don't believe--first of all, I
don't know exactly what the Secretary meant by that, but I can
tell you that my information is, from those officials who
looked at Mr. Alvarez's application, that he had quite an
extensive speaking tour around the United States, speaking to
groups. And in the past, Alimport and other Cuban officials
have come to the United States to lobby against U.S. policy----
Senator Dorgan. Well----
Ambassador Reich.--something which are not allowed to do in
Cuba. And from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, we have
to take the principle of reciprocity into consideration when we
make decisions, and there is no reciprocity in that regard with
Cuba. That's one of those areas in which Cuba is different from
all of the other countries with which we have normal trading
relations.
Senator Dorgan. I would simply observe that when I traveled
to Cuba, I certainly lobbied against a series of issues that
the Cuban would espouse, and I saw no restriction in doing so.
But I think that what happened when Mr. Alvarez visited the
United States previously is, he suggested that it would be nice
if Cuba could purchase some food from the United States. And
somehow somebody felt that selling chicken breasts and turkey
legs and wheat and dried beans to Cuba undermines this
country's economic interests, and I find that rather Byzantine.
Ambassador Reich. I thought you said that those sales
actually took place.
Senator Dorgan. Well, there's been about $75 to $90 million
worth of sales taken place, made as difficult as is possible,
of course, having the transaction occur through a French bank,
but made more difficult, it seems to me, by the antipathy of
the State Department and others in saying, ``You know, we're
not going to make it easy. In fact, if you want to do a buying
mission to this country, skip it. We're not going to let you
in.'' It seems to me that there is a discouragement of these
policies.
I have a series of other questions I want to ask, but let
me call on my colleagues. Senator McCain, let me call on your
first. There's a vote occurring, but there's 10 minutes
remaining. Let's ask Senator McCain to inquire.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Reich and Ambassador
Donnelly. On a visit--recent visit to Teheran, Castro said that
Iran and Cuba together could, quote, ``bring America to its
knees.'' Are you familiar with that quote, Mr. Secretary?
Ambassador Reich. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. And was he referring to anything specific,
like late last year, Jose de la Fuentes, the former director of
research at Cuba's Center for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology, wrote that he was profoundly disturbed about
Cuban sales of dual-use technology to Iran. Remember the ``axis
of evil'' that sponsors terrorism. How worried are you about
Cuban-Iranian cooperation, particularly in the issue of bio-
terrorism?
Ambassador Reich. Well, sir, I think we should be quite
concerned. As both Under Secretary of State John Bolton and the
Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research Carl
Ford have said--in fact, one--Mr. Ford, before Congress in
testimony--and I'll read you--I want to be very careful what I
say about their--the concern we have with Cuba's biochemical
capabilities. It says, ``U.S. Government experts believe that
Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare
research-and-development effort and has provided dual-use
biotechnology to other rogue states.'' One of those states may
very well be Iran, and it could be that that's what Mr. Castro
was referring to when he was in Teheran and made that statement
that you correctly quoted. We stand----
Senator McCain. The same----
Ambassador Reich.--we stand by those statements, sir.
Senator McCain. The IRA terrorists who were arrested
training the FARC in urban warfare and bomb-making techniques
in Colombia had used Cuba as their base of operations. Is that
true?
Ambassador Reich. It appears that way. And one of them
actually had been stationed in Havana, apparently for at least
5 years.
Senator McCain. Cuba provides a safe haven for Basque ETA
terrorists as well as U.S. fugitives from justice?
Ambassador Reich. That is correct.
Senator McCain. In the case of one, he's wanted for murder
for 30 years or so.
Ambassador Reich. Yes, sir. There are a number that are
wanted for murder. One in New Jersey. I believe on in New
Mexico.
Senator McCain. Let's go back to the FARC again, because we
see Colombia in such dire straits. What's your view of their
assistance and cooperation and--in fact, I believe, in some
cases, sending arms or training to the FARC in Colombia?
Ambassador Reich. Well, sir, one of the reasons this
Administration and all previous U.S. Administrations have been
so concerned about enabling Castro to obtain hard currency is
that whenever Castro has had excess currency, he has used it in
many cases to undermine U.S. interests and promote terrorism
around the world. He has bragged, as recently as last year,
that there wasn't a single country in this hemisphere, he says,
with the exception of Mexico, and I'm not sure we can believe
that one either--he has bragged that he supported what we would
call terrorist movements and he calls ``wars of national
liberation'' in every country in this hemisphere.
Senator McCain. Do you have views, particularly in relation
to the FARC in Colombia?
Ambassador Reich. With the FARC, there have been
longstanding ties; with the ELN, even more close. The ELN is
the other Marxist terrorist group in Colombia.
Senator Dorgan. I wonder, would you describe those ties
that you just cited to Senator McCain?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, some of that--most of that is
classified information. I would be happy to do that--or request
that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research give you that
information.
Senator McCain. Canada, Japan, and the European Nation have
traded with Cuba for decades. Has it had any effect on the
human rights situation in Cuba, or can you see any beneficial
effect in the daily lives of----
Ambassador Reich. Apparently not.
Senator McCain.--the Cuban people?
Ambassador Reich. Yeah, apparently not, sir. There are no
independent civil institutions in Cuba. There's no independent
trade union. There's no newspaper, television station, radio,
civic association. And, as you correctly point out, many
countries around the world have traded with Cuba for--well, for
as long as Castro has been there, which is 43 years.
Senator McCain. I noticed yesterday that the President said
that he wanted to reinstate mail service between Cuba and the
United States. Why would any nation not want to exchange mail
with another country?
Ambassador Reich. Well, I suppose for the same reason that
Cuba jams broadcasts of Radio Marti and TV Marti. They do not
want--or they don't allow independent newspapers or people----
Senator McCain. But I'm talking about letters.
Ambassador Reich. Letters, because they transmit
information, and the government of Cuba is afraid of
information.
Senator McCain. Our Interests Section has undertaken an
admirable campaign to distribute radios to ordinary Cubans. How
has the Cuban government reacted to that?
Ambassador Reich. They have called this ``a subversive
act'' by the United States. They said that radios are--these
radios are designed to undermine the control of the government
of Cuba.
Senator McCain. By providing Cuban citizens with----
Ambassador Reich. With access to----
Senator McCain.--weapons such as a radio that would
overthrow the government.
Ambassador Reich. Correct.
Senator McCain. Well, you've got to have sympathy for those
Members of Congress who visit Mr. Castro, I think, Mr. Reich.
Those of us who oppose increasing trade with this two-bit
dictator and support the President have never been subjected to
a four-, five-, 6-hour dinner and lecture from Mr. Castro, and
it must be a unique experience, but one that I'm sure I'll
never have the privilege of listening to. But it's remarkable--
it's remarkable to me. It really is.
Mr. Lenin said that, ``The capitalists will hang
themselves, and we'll give them the rope--sell them the rope to
do it,'' and I think this is exactly the path that some of my
friends, particularly in the farm business, are having us move
through.
So the President was very clear in what he--what our policy
toward Cuba is. And if you'd like to maybe restate that
briefly, in conclusion, I'd be pleased to hear it again.
Ambassador Reich. Yes, sir. The President--if I may
paraphrase--the President said that it is not his intention or
the intention of the U.S. Government to maintain this embargo.
He would like to lift the embargo tomorrow if the conditions
existed. And the conditions are the same conditions that exist
in every other country--normal country in the world with which
we trade, certainly in this hemisphere, of free election, free
press, no political prisoners. And the President said that if
those conditions existed, he would come to the Congress and
work to change the travel ban and the embargo.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Because there's a vote out in the Senate,
the Senate will stand--the Committee will stand in recess for
10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Senator Dorgan. The Subcommittee will come back to order.
Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reich, I assume you got your information about the
biological weapons from the CIA. Is that correct?
Ambassador Reich. No, ma'am. I got it from the State
Department statement.
Senator Boxer. The State Department says that they are
making biological weapons?
Ambassador Reich. No, that's not what the State Department
said. The State Department----
Senator Boxer. Well, what do you think?
Ambassador Reich. Oh, ma'am, that's----
Senator Boxer. Based on what--so the CIA doesn't know
anything about this. Is that what you're saying?
Ambassador Reich. Oh, no, no. I didn't say--you asked me if
I got my information from the CIA. I said I got it from the
statement that both the Assistant Secretary of State for
Intelligence and Research, who deals on a daily basis with the
intelligence community, not just CIA--DIA, NSA, a number of
others----
Senator Boxer. And what exactly did they tell you?
Ambassador Reich. They told me the following, ``The U.S.
Government--U.S. Government experts believe that Cuba has at
least a limited offensive biological warfare research and
development effort and has provided dual-use biotechnology to
other rogue states.''
Senator Boxer. Well, why did Secretary----
Senator Dorgan. Would you yield on that point?
Senator Boxer. Well, I just wanted to follow it up, and
then I will.
Secretary Powell, speaking to reporters while traveling to
a NATO meeting, said, ``The Administration says while Cuba has
the ability to produce biological weapons, it stopped short of
claiming it has actually done so.'' So you're saying that they
have already distributed it and they're conducting an R&D
effort.
Yes, I'll yield to my friend.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just ask the Secretary. This is a
May 2002, which is this month, report by the Department of
State, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2001. And, under Cuba, it
says nothing about this issue. I mean, is it an oversight? This
is released this month from the State Department.
Ambassador Reich. Sir, I can tell you that the release of
the information that I mentioned was in March of 2002 by the
Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, and
again in May by the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control
Science and Technology.
Senator Dorgan. Well, let me just--we're getting off on
another subject here, but because you've raised it in your
testimony, ``A State Department official's five-alarm warning
about bio-terrorism''--this is the Washington Times--``in Fidel
Castro's Cuba this week was apparently a bolt from the blue at
the Pentagon. Pentagon officials said it was a subject that
simply had not been in Mr. Rumsfeld's radar screen. He
indicated there was no particular urgency about it in the
building.''
First of all, the State Department has omitted it in a May
2002, which is this month--in a May ``Patterns of Global
Terrorism,'' and, second, it appears that the State Department
has not visited with the Defense Department about it. Is this--
can you tell us the origin of all this?
Ambassador Reich. The origin is the intelligence community.
The intelligence community--I've talked to Under Secretary
Bolton about this, and his language was not drafted by his
office. It was drafted by the intelligence community.
Senator Dorgan. Do you think they'd fail to notify the
Defense Department?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, you'll have to ask Secretary
Rumsfeld about that.
Senator Dorgan. Yeah, but has the State Department failed
to include it in their May 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism?
Ambassador Reich. I do not know who publishes that
particular document.
Senator Dorgan. The State Department.
Ambassador Reich. What part----
Senator Dorgan. Your department does.
Ambassador Reich.--of the State Department?
Senator Dorgan. Well, the United States Department of
State. I don't----
Ambassador Reich. Which----
Senator Dorgan. Bureau of Arms Control, I'm told.
Ambassador Reich. That's John Bolton's office, sir. So----
Senator Dorgan. So why would he omit that?
Ambassador Reich. It could very well be that it went to
print before. Remember, he made his speech on May----
Senator Dorgan. Well, it's dated May--it's dated May.
Ambassador Reich. Right, but they go to print a long time
before, sometimes--sometimes 2 months before. Bolton made his
remarks on May the 6th.
Senator Dorgan. Yeah, I think I've made the point. I
appreciate your yielding. My point is that this seems to
originate mysteriously, but it doesn't appear in the report.
State Department's never heard of it, but let me yield back.
Ambassador Reich. Well, what do you mean, ``State
Department's never heard of it''? You mean Defense Department?
Senator Dorgan. Well, this is the State--no, State
Department. This is a State Department publication that we just
received on Capitol Hill. It says Patterns----
Ambassador Reich. It's incomplete, though.
Senator Dorgan. It's what?
Ambassador Reich. Incomplete--must be incomplete, because
that comes out of the Bureau of Arms Control, which is headed
by John Bolton, who is the one who made the speech.
Senator Dorgan. Would you alert him then----
Ambassador Reich. Oh, absolutely.
Senator Dorgan.--that there's something going on that he
doesn't include in his report?
Ambassador Reich. He may be watching this right now.
Senator Dorgan. This will be very helpful to him, then,
won't it?
Ambassador Reich. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Dorgan. I'm sorry, I'm told it's the Bureau of
Counter-Terrorism in which this report originated.
Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Yes. Mr. Reich, let me just be clear with
you----
Ambassador Reich. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer.--so you understand my position. When Israel,
many years ago, learned that Iraq was developing nuclear power,
we all know what they did, and they caught a lot of rage for
it. But I think they did the right thing.
You may be surprised to know that I believe if there, in
fact, is an active program that you describe, where there's
help being given to other nations and their R&D and all of
this, I'd go after it in two and a half seconds. I wouldn't
just come up here and talk about it. I would make sure that the
CIA knew it, because if, in fact, we have those kind of weapons
not just 90 miles from our shore, why on earth would the
President, knowing this, put our troops in harm's way at
Guantanamo right near biological weapons? Why do you think he
chose Guantanamo?
Ambassador Reich. I am not qualified to answer that
question, because you're talking about----
Senator Boxer. But you're qualified to come up here and to
say one of the reasons the President made his speech is because
they're developing these weapons, but yet the same President
puts our troops in Guantanamo.
Ambassador Reich. Ma'am, I think if the President----
Senator Boxer. You know, it doesn't make any sense. It's
garbled. And I think if, in fact, Mr. Chairman, we know that
this threat exists 90 miles from our shore, I would take the
strongest action, but let me tell you what I wouldn't do. I
wouldn't punish the Cuban people by making it hard for them to
get food, which I believe this Administration is doing, by
keeping them in the dark about what true democracy, which I
believe this Administration is doing.
Let me ask you about China. Do you think that China is a
communist dictatorship?
Ambassador Reich. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. OK. Do you think they have human-rights
violations in China?
Ambassador Reich. Yeah, we're very concerned about human
right violations.
Senator Boxer. Right, and so are we. Do you support trading
with China?
Ambassador Reich. That's another department--another
bureau. I----
Senator Boxer. I'm asking your opinion.
Ambassador Reich. My colleague from the----
Senator Boxer. I'm asking your opinion.
Ambassador Reich.--Asian-Pacific Bureau doesn't usually
comment on Mexican affairs, so I try to not----
Senator Boxer. Well, you know what? Are you refusing to
comment on that?
Ambassador Reich. That's--there are many differences
between Cuba and China.
Senator Boxer. Well, let's talk about it.
Ambassador Reich. All right. One of them is the fact that,
in China, people are allowed to own private property.
And, by the way, President Bush has been very clear on
this. He is in favor of trade with China because there have
been--there's been movement on the economic front--not on the
political front, and I agree with you that there are violations
of human rights, and the State Department Human Rights Report
clearly makes that point. And we--and the President has made,
even when he went to China.
Senator Boxer. So it's economics that's the driver----
Ambassador Reich. In the case of China----
Senator Boxer.--not human rights, not bio-terror, not all
these other things you said.
Ambassador Reich. No, that's not what I said.
Senator Boxer. Well, that's the argument----
Ambassador Reich. What I said is----
Senator Boxer.--you've given me.
Ambassador Reich. What I said is--one half of agricultural
production in China is in private hands. You have private
property. Chinese are allowed to own their--start businesses
and operate businesses. None of this exists in Cuba. In China--
--
Senator Boxer. It doesn't--we went to restaurants where the
people told us that they get to own and operate. Is that----
Ambassador Reich. Right, there are----
Senator Boxer.--incorrect?
Ambassador Reich.--there are 160,000 self-employed people
in Cuba out of a----
Senator Boxer. OK, because you said there was nothing.
Ambassador Reich.--population of 11 million.
Senator Boxer. Now you say there's 160,000. Well----
Ambassador Reich. Right, I have----
Senator Boxer.--that's progress. Good, they're moving. Wait
until we come in there.
Ambassador Reich. No, they're moving in the wrong
direction, because----
Senator Boxer. Oh, OK.
Ambassador Reich.--at one point it was 210,000. Under----
Senator Boxer. OK, they're moving in the wrong direction.
And that's the reason why we should stay away and not teach
them about capitalism and democracy and freedom and profits and
all the things that we would like to talk to them about,
because they're moving in the wrong direction.
Ambassador Reich. No, they--believe me, the people of Cuba
know about capitalism and democracy. It's Fidel Castro who's
keeping them from learning. It's not the United States.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask the Senator to yield for one
additional point.
Senator Boxer. Yes, I will.
Senator Dorgan. Is it not the case that, with respect to
China, that it was President Nixon who went to China, and that
was the origin of the trade and tourism with China with one of
the most repressive regimes on the earth. Mao Tse-tung at that
point was running China, a repressive communist government. And
over a long period of time, this country's policies have
suggested the engagement is better than non-engagement, that
engagement leads to more progress. And I think Senator Boxer is
asking the question: Why is that the case with respect to
China, a communist country, Vietnam, a communist country, but
not with respect to Cuba?
Ambassador Reich. Well, I think in the case of China, the--
from what I--you know, from what I understand at the time,
there were very good geopolitical reasons for the United States
to try to improve relations--political relations with China in
order, frankly, to trump the Soviet Union, which was our larger
adversary at the time and a more clear and present danger.
So you could make a very good foreign policy argument for
dealing with China, just as we allied ourselves with Stalin in
World War II, even though he was clearly a murderer, because
Adolf Hitler presented a more clear and present danger at that
time. So sometimes it's necessary to do business with people
you don't particularly like.
You can't make that case in the case of Cuba, because
there's no geopolitical or strategic interest for----
Senator Boxer. How about 90 miles from our coast?
Ambassador Reich. What about it?
Senator Boxer. Why wouldn't want to influence a country
that's 90 miles off our coast?
Ambassador Reich. Well, we----
Senator Boxer. Where the people there are dying to have us
there, where the dissidents say, ``You're wrong''--that's what
they told us. The dissidents said, in one voice, ``We've
changed our mind.'' Don't you respect those dissidents?
Ambassador Reich. Oh, yes, ma'am, I respect those
dissidents. I also----
Senator Boxer. Do you support the----
Ambassador Reich. I also talked to them after--once they've
left the island, they tell us that what they say on the island
they have to say because they're under surveillance, and
there's a Cuban law, in fact, that says that if you take a
position against the U.S.--I mean, the Cuban government
position, you go to jail.
Senator Boxer. Well, the interesting thing is, they've
changed their mind on it.
Ambassador Reich. Who's changed their mind?
Senator Boxer. These dissidents that we met with said they
never used to believe that, but now they believe that the more
light that gets shined onto their country and to them, the
better off they are. So obviously, when they had the other
position, they weren't treating any differently now. They're
treated badly all across the board.
You know, and the difference comes down to what Senator
Allen said at the beginning. He strongly supports the policy
because he doesn't want to give this dictator, you know, any
help. And my view is that if you go down there, and I would
encourage you to do so, and meet with the dissidents, the
point--they're begging us to come down there. They want to see
Americans there, because they know we're going to nose around,
we're going to talk to people, we're going to tell them the
truth about what's happening.
And so all I could say is, as I look at this--you know,
when I went down there, I didn't know what to expect. What I
saw was very different, in many ways, because a lot of private
capitalists come in from all of our trading partners, as
Senator Allen said--Mexico, from Canada, from the EU, and the
rest. And as far as that they're still impoverished, you bet.
But they've made up $4 billion that they lost from the Soviet
Union.
They're just about--I spoke to some musicians there, and we
had some very good talks, and they said it was pretty horrible
when the Soviet Union pulled out all the money, and it's still
not good now, but it's back to where it was at that point
because of the capital flowing in from our allies. And they
asked us to help them. They want our help.
And this policy's cold. This policy's cold to the people.
And that's why I have such a problem with it. And Castro loves
it. Castro can harangue for 5 hours about it. And it's the only
thing that's keeping his--his, you know, government getting
at--any kind of support at all--a common enemy. It was the same
thing with Elian.
Ambassador Reich. Well, I'll leave----
Senator Boxer. It was the same thing with Elian.
Ambassador Reich. Yeah.
Senator Boxer. The bottom line is, I think you need to
choose, Mr. Reich, between--this is my opinion; I don't think
that you will--the dissidents who are there today who are
telling us these things and the people who left a long time
ago. And if you talk to some of the younger people, they're
changing their mind.
And I guess what it comes down to, to me, is--when it came
to China, this is what President Bush said, if I can put my
hands on it. Here. Here's what he said. He was then Governor of
Texas, Senator Allen. This is what he said about the vote on
China trade. He said, ``This measure will help open markets to
American products and help export American values, especially
freedom and entrepreneurship.''
Unbelievable. No one can tell me how it is intellectually
honest--intellectually honest--to take this statement that he
made about opening trade with China, ``This measure will help
open markets to American products and help export American
values, especially freedom and entrepreneurship.'' He didn't
say that China was moving to capitalism, Mr. Reich. It's
nowhere in these words.
Ambassador Reich. He has addressed----
Senator Boxer. He said exactly what Senator Dorgan and I
are saying today. Open up the markets, let them meet our
entrepreneurs, let them understand our system, let them hear
about what it means to live in freedom, and Castro will be
gone. Over and out.
And all these years, giving Castro something to unify
around, you know, a policy that doesn't work, that is failed--
it's not like this was an idea in a classroom that you put out
there. It's an idea that has been practiced here.
So, again, I don't think that your answer on the China--
your answer that, well, China was moving to capitalism--(a) I
don't believe they've moved any quicker to capitalism at all.
From what I can tell, they're still--they control 51 percent of
every foreign investment. I've been to China. Fifty 1 percent
of every foreign--that's not capitalism, but we're trading with
them in the hopes that they'll understand, in the end, that
that's wrong.
Anyway, I would yield.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Boxer, thank you.
Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As far as visitors
to Cuba, one that I would hope visitors would see, but I don't
think most visitors are going to Cuba to see political
prisoners. They're going there, I assume, to do other things--
maybe recreation, maybe a resort. For example, I wish they
would see an individual called Francisco Chaviano Gonzalez, who
is in the midst of serving a 15-year sentence because he--and
tried under a military tribunal, although he's a civilian--he's
serving these 15 years because he had information implicating
the Castro government in the sinking of a ship and the deaths
of 41 men, women, and children who were trying to flee to
freedom.
As far as when people go to Cuba and they go to these
luxury hotels, I understand that as far as the hiring--and
somebody comes and pays, whether it's in Canadian dollars or
U.S. dollars or French francs or euros these days or other
currencies--that they have a very unique labor practice there
in Cuba. Either Mr. Reich or Ambassador Donnelly, could you
share with us or walk us through some of these unique labor
practices, as far as what happens to those dollars or--whether
they're Canadian, U.S. or euros--and how are those people
hired, and what are they--how are they paid?
Ambassador Reich. When a foreign investor or operator--
there's very few foreign investors. There's no--very little
real investment in Cuba. What the Cuban government does is
builds, let's say, a hotel and then gets a foreign operator to
run it. The foreign operator needs staff. Let's say they want
to hire a cook. It is decided that the salary for the cook will
be $400 a month. The foreign operator pays the Cuban government
$400 or the equivalent into hard currency of that country.
The Cuban government then turns around--first of all,
assigns an individual. The operator doesn't just go out and
hire the cook that that hotel operator wants. The Cuban
government assigns the cook or the maid or the drivers, whoever
it is--and usually, by the way, they are members of the
communist party or people who are to be rewarded with these
jobs, because they're highly coveted. The government then pays
those people in pesos at the official rate, which is also the
artificial rate, of one to one--one peso to the dollar, when
the real rate is 20 to the dollar. So, in effect, the Cuban
government is confiscating 95 percent of the income of that
worker, and Castro keeps it for himself. And that is why
President Bush said yesterday that trade with Cuba today would
only serve to line the pockets of Fidel Castro and his cronies,
and that's why he opposes it.
Senator Allen. Let me ask you another question further on
the issue that President Bush brought up, and that is offering
scholarships to Cubans who would want to come to this country
to study. The Chinese government, while I don't hold any--for
the government of the People's Republic of China, nevertheless,
I think that if their citizens had radios from this country,
they wouldn't be upset. They'd probably be manufactured,
actually, in China. But, nevertheless, they would allow them to
have radios. They do have access to the Internet.
Unfortunately, a bit too restrictive, as far as I'm concerned,
but people find ways around some of the government regulations.
And the People's Republic of China does allow Chinese citizens
to come to this country and study in our schools. Many go back
to China. Some end up staying here or going elsewhere in the
world.
What do you think the Castro government's response will be
to that very generous offer to have scholarships for Cuban
people to come and study in our universities?
Ambassador Reich. Well, it's hard to predict, but I think
it would probably follow the pattern of the past, that he does
not allow--he doesn't trust his people, so he only lets people
leave who are members of the communist party or are completely
trustworthy, and he never lets people travel outside the
country with their families, or very seldom with their
families. He has turned down even members of his immediate
family for scholarships in other countries. One of his nieces
was offered a scholarship in Mexico many years ago to study
music--I believe it was music--and she could not leave, because
they were afraid that she was going to defect.
Senator Allen. Let me turn to the Interests Section
project, which has received quite a bit of attention lately.
The President brought that up, that there are 11,000 very
brave, courageous individuals in Cuba who have signed this
petition to be able to alter or have at least a statement and a
vote, a referendum on free speech and freedom for political
prisoners. What is the importance of the signing of that
document?
Ambassador Reich. Well, the Cuban constitution allows for
the people to come together and present a referendum, a
proposal, to the assembly calling for a change in the
constitution. They need 10,000 signatures. The project that a
dissident by the name of Luis Valdo Piyare has been directing
for several years now called Project Valera, named after one of
the Cuban patriots for--in the war of independence against
Spain, has gathered, we're told, about--actually 17,000
signatures. They turned in 11,000 names, holding some in
reserve. After a lot of harassment from the secret police, from
the security police, signatures to the referendum were
interrogated. In many cases, the signature pages were seized by
the government. False challenges were issued. People were
visited at their homes and reminded that this could be seen as
an anti- --as a counter-revolutionary action.
And in spite of that, many thousands of people decided that
they were going to exercise their rights--which is why I said
earlier the Cuban people know very well what democracy and
freedom are. They know very well that they're being denied that
by their own government. The organizers turned this document in
to the assembly, and I don't think that the Cuban government
knows what to do with it now, because it is allowed, even under
the constitution. Of course, so are free elections allowed
under the constitution, and they haven't had a free election in
43 years. So it'll be interesting to see how the Cuban
government reacts to this.
Senator Allen. My time's up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Secretary Reich, thank you. The brief that
you make against the Cuban government, and, for that matter,
the brief that my colleague, Senator McCain, made against the
Cuban government, will find no detractors here. That's not the
issue. The issue--you could make that brief against other
governments with whom we have substantial and aggressive
international trade, to whom we send and sell regularly food
and other products. So that's not the issue.
The issue today is, for me, is the issue of being able to
comport with the desire of Congress to lift that embargo with
respect to food. And, as I indicated to you, it seems to me,
based on recent events, the State Department recognizes that it
must allow certain food to be sold. You will not interfere with
that, but you will not do anything to encourage it. In fact,
you will do some things to discourage it. Am I wrong about
that?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, I don't believe we've done anything
to discourage it.
Senator Dorgan. Well, did you consult with any agricultural
groups, for example, in this country when you decided that it
is not important for a purchaser of U.S. food to be allowed to
visit those who would sell food? Did you consult with any
agricultural groups before you made that judgment?
Ambassador Reich. Sir, I was a United States Ambassador for
3 years in Venezuela. I got an award from the U.S. Wheat
Growers for aggressively restoring 80 percent of the wheat
market that had been taken away by an arbitrary political
decision by the government of Venezuela. I have been very proud
of my record in support of U.S. agricultural exports. You can
ask the Washington State Apple and Pear Growers what we did in
Venezuela between 1986 and 1989 to have the government of
Venezuela allow those imports, which were prohibited when I got
there.
So I share your concern about helping U.S. producers sell--
to sell. I think our only argument here is, will the American
people be paid for what they're selling, or will they be--end
up holding the bag for bad purchases?
One thing we haven't talked about--bad credit--one thing we
haven't talked about here is that Castro has not paid principal
or interest on his debts for the Paris Club since 1986, 16
years. No one will issue him any significant amount of credit.
What he wants from the United States, the largest market in the
world, is credit so he can turn it around and tell the other
people he owes money, ``Look, the Americans are lending me
money. You should lend me money, too.'' This is a giant Ponzi
scheme that he's running. He wants to borrow money from us so
he can pay the other customers that he hasn't paid for 16
years.
I've had, since these sales have--cash sales of
agricultural products began to Cuba, I've had two Ambassadors
of European countries come to me, of all people, and complain
that their exporters in Europe are not being paid by Castro. I
said, ``Get yourself a better collection agency. That's--we're
not in the business of getting you money for your products. You
must have made some bad sales to a deadbeat customer.''
So that's--I think it's our responsibility as government
officials to protect the credit of the United States. And I'm
afraid that if we make credit sales to Cuba, the American
taxpayer is going to end up holding the bag, because Castro is
not going to pay.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Reich, no one has suggested that we
make credit sales to Cuba, that I'm aware of. You're answering
a question I've not asked. I asked a question, originally,
about whether the State Department has decided to be an
impediment to sales of food to Cuba.
And let me ask you about a statement that you were reported
to have made. I know that others have asked you about this.
There was a news report that said--quote, ``We are not going to
be economic suckers to this regime.'' Mr. Reich, did you say
that? And, if so, can you describe--was that said in
circumstances that relate to the sale of food to Cuba?
Ambassador Reich. No, sir. That is one of many statements
that have been misquoted. What I said was, ``We are not going
to provide economic succor,'' s-u-c-c-o-r. And obviously, the
reporter who was listening to this either didn't--either had a
limited vocabulary, or perhaps the microphone wasn't working
properly, and he said we were not going to be ``economic
suckers.'' I never said anything about being ``economic
suckers.''
We will trade with countries that are able to pay. We will
even provide humanitarian assistance.
And, by the way, in the case of Cuba, with all due respect,
the United States is the single-largest provider of
humanitarian food and medicine, donations, to Cuba, more than
all the other countries combined. So we have nothing to be
ashamed of.
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Reich, this hearing is not about
being ashamed of anything. The hearing is about whether the
policies that we've had allow the unimpeded access for our
farmers to Cuban markets. And contrary to the implications of
some, I think it's not--it's not something we should be ashamed
of, suggesting that that which we produce in such great
abundance that the world needs so significantly--that is,
food--be provided on a cash basis to those who need it.
Mr. Reich, have you visited Cuba in recent years?
Ambassador Reich. No, sir.
Senator Dorgan. And would you have a notion about how our
embargo for 40-some years has affected people in the streets in
Cuba, especially with respect to withholding of food shipments
to Cuba or food sales to Cuba?
Ambassador Reich. Yes, sir. I agree with President Carter
in a statement he made last week, that it is not the U.S.
embargo that has caused misery in Cuba, but 43 years of
communism.
Senator Dorgan. And do you think the U.S. embargo has
injured Fidel Castro?
Ambassador Reich. Yes, I believe it has denied him hard
currency that he would have used to undermine our interests
around the world.
Senator Dorgan. Well, there's precious--I would say, Mr.
Reich, I appreciate your willingness to come and testify--
there's precious evidence that 40 years of failure should be
considered a success.
And, frankly, my feeling is that the use of--especially the
use of food and medicine as a part of our embargo apparatus
anywhere in the world is not a moral policy. I don't believe it
was smart to do it with respect to Russia in the dark days of
the evil empire. I believe the use of food as a weapon is
fundamentally wrong and it lacks a moral base for public
policy. But----
Ambassador Reich. I agree with----
Senator Dorgan.--my hope is this, Mr. Reich. The Congress
has spoken on one piece of this. The Congress will speak
additionally. There is anywhere from 65 to 70 votes in the U.S.
Senate believing that, after 40 years of failure, we ought to
do something that tries to engage--not with Fidel Castro, but
engage with the Cuban people. And my hope is that, with
Congress having spoken on this subject of being able to sell
food to the Cubans, that we will have the cooperation of the
State Department to allow our farmers to do that, and we'll
have the cooperation of the State Department if there's a $1
billion market for food 90 miles south of us, and that food
will be purchased from Americans who produce it and go to those
in Cuba who need it. My hope is that the State Department will
accommodate that and be helpful with a set of policies to allow
that to happen. That, after all, is the law. It's what the
Congress has determined the law should be, and I would hope for
cooperation, Mr. Reich, from you and Ambassador Donnelly, in
making that kind of policy a success.
Ambassador Reich. We'll certainly follow the law, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much for your appearance.
Ambassador Donnelly, yes, you had one comment?
Ambassador Donnelly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I simply
wanted to say that from the perspective of the economic side of
the State Department, I think we have, frankly, done a good job
of trying to live with the law that the TSRA, the Trade
Sanctions and Reform and Export Expansion law of 2000 that you
referred to, in the sense of we are doing, as you correctly
said, nothing to encourage exports to Cuba. We believe--in
fact, the law says--we are not to do anything to assist. We are
not doing anything to discourage.
We are giving--the licenses through the Commerce Department
for export sales are processed quickly. It's our policy to do
them within 9 days--nine working days. I believe there are none
currently sitting at the State Department. We do, through the
application process, through the OFAC office at Treasury, for
officials--I'm sorry, U.S. business people who want to travel
to Cuba, they can apply. They are considered promptly and
decided on a case-by-case basis. We are prepared to consider
applications from technical experts from Cuba in the sanitary/
phytosanitary area who need to come to inspect plants, samples
and so on like that.
So I think--I mean, the law can be changed in one direction
or another, certainly, as you indicated. But as far as the law
we've been given, we think and--we're doing what Secretary
Powell wants us to do, which is to walk that fine line and
neither encourage nor discourage. And if there is evidence that
we are discouraging it, I'd certainly like to hear about it and
see what we can do about it.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Well, I cited at the start--and I think
this hearing helps me with respect to understanding that--I
cited the news report that said a State Department official
said the denials comply strictly with the law and meet a Bush
Administration policy goal of discouraging trade with Cuba.
Ambassador Reich--or Secretary Reich, you have said that is not
the case. I appreciate that. That's helpful, because it is not
the case that Congress would want a State Department to
discourage, especially, the sale of food to Cuba. We explicitly
allowed the opening on that embargo for the purpose of being
able to sell food to Cuba.
Senator Boxer, did you have one comment?
Senator Boxer. I do. Well, I have----
Senator Dorgan. Well, we have three additional witnesses
that I want to get to the table.
Senator Boxer. I know. I have 1 minute's worth of comments.
Senator Dorgan. All right.
Senator Boxer. One, when you said that Castro is running
this Ponzi scheme, I thought maybe you talked to the Enron
people, because that's what Fitzgerald called what they did,
``the biggest Ponzi scheme.'' So I don't know if he or he
didn't, and I don't doubt that he did. It's really up to our
business people to make a judgment on whether they want to sell
or not.
Second, the common-sense test here, it seems to me, if
you're really fair, is to have some consistency. And when
President Bush, then Governor Bush, says, ``China's done some
awful things. We want to get in,'' I don't see the consistency.
It looks strange.
And I also have to say, on the bio-terror front, you really
need a meeting with Rumsfeld, because he's got our people in
harm's way, if you're right on the point. And our people are
guarding the most dangerous people in the world right near some
bio-terrorism weaponry? We'd better figure that one out. So I
hope you'll get with Rumsfeld on that point.
And on Castro, I totally agree that he doesn't want to let
his people out. Why would he? He's a dictator. You know, his
people are suffering. Why wouldn't he--he's afraid that they'll
defect. He's afraid that they'll talk. But why are we afraid to
let our people out of here and into Cuba? It doesn't make
sense. We should say, ``Go, with God's blessing.''
And the last point. I met with those dissidents. We sat for
2 hours. And you say they lied when they said they want to lift
the embargo, because they're afraid. First of all, it was a
totally private meeting. Second of all, if they're lying--I'll
tell you, I'm a good judge of character. I've been around a
long time. And I've seen my kids tried to tell me things that
weren't true, and so on. I can tell. They were so happy we were
there, Mr. Reich. They were so happy to see Americans. They
want us there.
So I hope you'll--as we consider the things that you told
us today, and we will, I hope you think about what we're saying
here, because we're on the same team, the American team, here.
We're trying to get the same--the same aim, which is to get rid
of a dictator, which is to bring democracy, to help our Ag
people, to do all the things that make sense. But, you know,
we're talking past each other, and it's frustrating for both of
us, and I hope maybe you'll think a little bit about what we
said here today.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Senator Boxer, thank you very much.
Ambassador Donnelly and Secretary Reich, thank you for
appearing today.
Ambassador Donnelly. Thank you, sir.
Ambassador Reich. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Next we will call Ambassador Dennis Hays,
executive vice president of the Cuban American National
Foundation, Mr. Stephen Weber, president of the Maryland Farm
Bureau, and Ms. Lissa Weinmann, executive director of Americans
for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba.
If we could ask that the room be cleared, and we would ask
the three witnesses to be present at the table, please.
Ambassador Hays, why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS K. HAYS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
CUBAN AMERICAN NATIONAL FOUNDATION
Ambassador Hays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your
permission, Senator, I'd like to submit my statement for the
record and make a brief synopsis.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection.
Ambassador Hays. Listening to the discussion earlier, it
seemed to me--I always try to look at maybe where there might
be some areas of agreement, and I came up with four. And I'd be
happy--if I misstate something, please correct me.
One, I think there's a consensus that Castro is guilty of
gross human rights violation, and it is an impediment to
progress. Second, I think I heard that it's better if Cuba
becomes a functioning democracy, with free speech and freed
political prisoners, instead of a dictatorship. Third, it's
better if Cuba is prosperous rather than bankrupt. And, fourth,
to be prosperous, Cuba must allow private property, independent
trade unions, small, medium, and large businesses, and the rule
of law. It seems to me if we can agree on all those things, we
should be able to maybe kind of move forward and then find some
areas of common ground.
Let me use my time, very briefly, to cover a couple of
quick points that I hope will explain where the foundation and
myself come from.
First off, when we talk about an embargo, it's important to
recognize that embargos work differently against different
countries. An embargo against a democracy is very different
from an embargo against a repressive regime.
In the case of a democracy, you have a population which can
feel economic pain and has the ability to reflect that pain
upward through a political process, hopefully leading to some
modification in behavior.
With respect to a repressive regime, however, there's a
disconnect. The pain that the people feel at the local level is
not reflected in any meaningful way that can go up and change
the policy of that regime. Therefore, embargos against
repressive regimes are aimed at denying resources to those
regimes, resources that would otherwise be used in areas that
we feel are dangerous or harmful, either to others or to the
citizens of those countries.
With respect to Cuba, I think, going all the way back to
Secretary Dean Rusk and moving forward, the embargo has, in
fact, done that job. It has denied resources. It required the
Soviet Union to dump over $100 billion into Cuba, $100 billion
that might otherwise have been available to the Soviet Union
during its final days. It has caused the Cuban military to drop
from over 300,000 to few than 50,000. It has effectively
stopped the Cuban navy and the air force as being effective
operations, except against unarmed targets, of course. And it
has also brought forth--the period of time where Cuba has been
in economic extremists has also coincided with the time that it
has not been able to support subversive organizations
throughout the hemisphere, which also is the time that we've
had a flowering of democracy in this hemisphere. Furthermore,
the embargo forces, or it pushes toward, reform. Castro, in
1993, said that he was forced to take actions that he would not
otherwise, because of the economic necessities of the time.
The only changes that have occurred in Cuba in the past 40
years which have benefited the Cuban people is--the self-
employment, the farmers markets, dollarization--have come about
in this time period. As soon as the economic pressure was
relieved, Castro pulled back. He did not approve small
businesses that many of us hoped he would. He's cut back on the
number of self-employed and so forth.
There's also a lot of talk about Cuba as a market. I think,
as it was discussed a little bit earlier, Cuba is bankrupt. It
owes every country that it has ever done business with and, to
my understanding, has uncollectible debts. The only nation in
the world that does not have uncollectible debts with Cuba is
the United States. This is why, at the current time, we see a
great push to get the United States engaged in an economic way.
Quite frankly, Castro has run out of individuals or countries
or companies prepared to loan him money into--to help finance
his regime.
The other part that I wanted to cover is that the embargo,
by itself, is, at best, half of a policy. It's a policy that
promotes the status quo, but not one that promotes a
difference. What is needed is the two-prong--and I believe the
President has taken a big step forward in this direction. On
the one side, we deny resources that would otherwise be used by
the regime. But second, we do reach out--and, Senator, I know
you have some thoughts on this, and I'd be happy to discuss
those--that there are ways to reach out and help the Cuban
people directly.
We want to stand with the people who are putting together
the independent libraries, the people who are doing the
independent journalism, the people who are the political
prisoners and their families. That's the future of Cuba, and
that's who we need to stand with.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hays follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dennis K. Hays, Executive Vice President,
Cuban American National Foundation
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear
before you and the Committee to discuss U.S. trade policy with Cuba.
There are times in foreign affairs when the right thing and the
smart thing are the same thing. Through successive Administrations,
Republican and Democratic alike, America has stood with the people of
Cuba and against a repressive regime that provides neither food nor
hope. Where other nations have chosen to compromise their principles
and the tenants of good business, we as a people have been steadfast
both to our ideals and to common sense. Our trade policy toward Cuba
serves to safeguard our national interests, foster reform, and protect
the American taxpayer.
In the forty-three years of its existence, the regime of Fidel
Castro has gone to extraordinary lengths to crush the human spirit and
individual initiative. Even now, in the 21st century, Cuban farmers are
told what to plant, Cuban workers in joint ventures have over 95
percent of their wages stolen by the state, and Cubans are forbidden to
buy or sell property. And this, of course, concerns only economic
restrictions. The political record of the Castro regime is far worse,
with the legacy of the revolution a tragic montage of thousands of
deaths by firing squad, the denial of medical care to political
prisoners, and brutal actions against civilians. Added to this, of
course, is the regime's culpability in the execution and premeditated
murder of at least thirty American citizens. It is for these reasons
that we stand with the people of Cuba and agree with President Bush
that before our sanctions are lifted, prisoners of conscience must be
freed, free speech, a free press and the right of association must be
restored, and Cuba must commit to a path that leads to free and fair
multiple party elections.
The purpose of this hearing is to assess U.S. trade policy from an
economic perspective. I would thus like to discuss our trade embargo
and its impact on both Cuba and the United States, why Cuba under
Castro is not an attractive trading partner and what the Cubans hope to
accomplish with their current charm offensive. Finally, I would like to
note what we can do to hasten the day when Cuba is again a full
economic partner of the United States.
The U.S. Embargo Against Cuba
Economic sanctions, when applied appropriately and conscientiously,
remain an effective tool of foreign policy. Economic sanctions afford
us the ability to fine-tune our response to the provocations of
terrorist, criminal, and outlaw states in a firm, but non-military,
manner. Sanctions do suffer from one major weakness, however, a
persistent expectation that they, by themselves, can solve every
problem--be it too high tariffs or the rampages of a bloodthirsty
dictator. Such excessive expectations mask the very real successes
sanctions have had over the years in denying resources to rogue states
and forcing dictators to amend, adapt, or reform their ways.
Like any Marxist economy, Cuba requires unearned external inputs to
avoid a constant downward spiral. Unable to generate real economic
growth, the regime desperately seeks foreign sources of funds to
subsidize its inefficient system. For many years, the Cubans had the
Soviets, who pumped money into Cuba at a rate of seven hundred thousand
dollars ($700,000) an hour, twenty-four hours a day for almost two
decades. When in the early 90's the Soviets were no longer willing or
able to continue with this, Castro rejected Gorbachev's advice to adopt
market reforms and instead inflicted a 35-60 percent reduction in the
average Cuban's (not his own, of course) standard of living. This
failure to reform had important results with respect to our national
security. Cuba's military has shrunk from the largest in Latin America,
with over 300,000 troops, to fewer than 50,000. More strikingly, Cuba's
Navy and Air Force have all but ceased to be effective units except
against tugboats full of children (Marzo 13) or unarmed Cessnas
(Brothers to the Rescue). Cuba's ability to expand its biotech
laboratories has been diminished, although the distress sale of
advanced technology to other terrorist states is equally troubling. At
the same time, Castro's ability to finance and support subversive
groups throughout the hemisphere has been greatly restricted and the
region has enjoyed an unprecedented decade of democratic reform.
The embargo also does more--it creates pressure for democratic and
economic reform. In 1993 Castro had no choice but to legalize the use
of dollars and permit direct remittances from relatives in the U.S. in
an attempt to capitalize on the concern of Cuban Americans for their
starving relatives. In 1994 he authorized ``farmers markets'' that for
the first time gave at least a limited amount of freedom to farmers to
grow and sell crops. That same year he slashed the military budget,
permitted ``self-employment'' in a restricted number of fields, relaxed
the criteria for family visits, and even restored some selective
religious freedoms. For an explanation as to why Castro did these
things, you need only listen to his remarks. Castro told his rubber
stamp National Assembly, ``We are forced to do things we would never
otherwise do because of the economic necessities of the times''
The record over the past forty years is clear. Castro reforms when
he must, represses when he can. A unilateral lifting of our embargo
would give him an undeserved respite, and lead--as it always has in the
past--to more rather than fewer restrictions on the Cuban people.
Cuba as a Business Partner
As a place to do business, Cuba consistently ranks at the very
bottom of the list. Chad, Burma, and Turkmenistan are all more
attractive places to invest. In fact, Cuba ranks 151st out of 154
countries on this year's Index of Economic Freedom, somehow edging out
the likes of Libya and Iraq. There are countries in the world poorer
than Cuba, but no nation this side of North Korea works as hard to
stifle individual initiative or to minimize the meaningful
participation of its citizens in business activity. In Cuba, private
property, the sanctity of contracts, free labor unions, and an
independent judiciary are all alien concepts.
Foreign corporations that want to do business in Cuba do so on
Castro's terms--or not at all. This makes foreign investors complicit
in a host of unsavory business practices. Independent labor and human
rights' groups ranging from Amnesty International to the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions have documented these abuses
exhaustively. Although Cuba has long been a signatory to key U.N.
International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions, Castro's regime
ignores practically all of them. Foreign businessmen and women are
expected to not only comply with rules that deny Cuban workers their
rights, but to inform on any worker who complains. Fortunately,
international law is catching up with such predatory behavior.
Corporations that choose to violate labor and human rights are trading
short-term profits for a long-term liability. Aggrieved citizens across
the globe are taking companies that collude with corrupt and
dictatorial rulers to court--and they are winning. No longer can
foreign corporations escape responsibility for their actions by
claiming they were in compliance with local law, knowing full and well
that such laws were in violation of international standards.
Finally, Cuba is not, under Castro, a great market for the United
States. Cuba ranks last in the hemisphere in GDP per capita, below even
Haiti. Cuba is in default on practically every loan it has ever taken.
Cuba is in default to Russia, to the European Union, to its Latin
American neighbors, to South Africa, to the nations of Asia, and to
two-thirds of the members of NAFTA. In fact, about the only country in
the world without uncollectable debt is the United States. As the
International Trade Commission reported last year, ``Cuba stopped
payment of all its foreign commercial and bilateral official debt with
non-socialist countries in 1986. Because U.S. financial institutions
were prohibited from financial dealing with Cuba, there was no U.S.
exposure to Cuba's foreign debt moratorium.'' Thanks to our embargo,
the American taxpayer has not had to bail out any American business or
bank shortsighted enough to ignore the record and take a risk on
Castro.
Castro's Charm Offensive
Castro is desperate for new sources of funding. Having run out of
credit in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and Canada, Castro has
only the United States and Antarctica left as possible sources of new
credit. Realizing that no penguin would be so gullible as to loan
anything to a deadbeat of his magnitude, Castro has focused on his only
remaining hope--us. Thus, we have seen what has come to be known as the
``charm offensive.''
This offensive has three parts. First, Castro did not formally
oppose the placement of terrorists in Guantanamo--although Castro's
Attorney General, Juan Escalona, did manage to publicly state that he
``hoped the Taliban would escape and kill Americans'' before he got the
new Party line. Second, Cuba has purchased American agricultural
products. It is important to note that the money for these purchases
reportedly comes from funds that were supposed to go to the Europeans
and others for debt repayment. This is especially ironic, as all
agricultural trade other than ours involves heavy subsidies, below
market barter arrangements, concessionary financing, and/or debt
forgiveness. Now, the pittance these nations expected in payment from
Castro is denied them and being used to finance their replacement.
Third, Castro has invited everyone he can think of to visit Cuba to
take the usual guided tour of the regime's Potemkin Village facilities.
Current Policy
We initially opposed the revision of the law a year and a half ago
that permitted the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba on a cash
basis. We took this position because Castro has always used food as a
means of control. The ration card, it is important to remember, came
into mandatory use prior to the imposition of U.S. sanctions. When
informed of this change in U.S. policy, Castro at first vowed he would
not buy ``a single grain of rice.'' Some months ago, however, he
reversed himself and is now purchasing a significant amount of U.S.
agricultural products. And, because the law requires it, he pays cash
for his purchases. There now is a proposal that this compromise--that
has resulted in sales for farmers and protection for the taxpayer--be
amended to permit the financing of sales. This would, in effect, move
us from getting paid, to accepting Castro's promise to pay. I strongly
urge that anyone advocating this change conduct a due diligence review
of Cuba's past and current payment history before rushing to judgment.
Moreover, the pattern of Cuba's agricultural purchases can be
explained not so much by economics as by politics. Each purchase has
been carefully designed by the regime to reward companies or
individuals perceived to be sympathetic to Castro's desire to reach
deep into America's pocket. In much the same way, regime officials
often travel around the United States more for the purpose of
propaganda than for business development. The U.S. should distinguish
between Cuban technocrats, who may travel to perform necessary
inspections, and Castro's agents, sent to sell us an unsavory bill of
goods.
Humanitarian Assistance
I would like to take a moment to discuss humanitarian assistance.
The largest source of humanitarian aid to Cuba is the United States.
Dade County alone probably provides more humanitarian assistance than
the rest of the world put together. This is about Cubans in America
helping Cubans in Cuba. This occurs because there is confidence the
recipient of such assistance is an individual or family, not the Cuban
regime. It not only helps people satisfy basic needs, but also empowers
them to make economic decisions beyond the power of the state.
The U.S. government licenses significant humanitarian assistance
through NGOs and has even offered direct aid on an official level, most
recently in response to Hurricane Michelle. The only requirement is
that the aid reaches its intended recipients through the Churches and
non-governmental organizations.
The Road Ahead
Our embargo on Cuba is a policy tool, not a policy. It is a means
to an end. At present our embargo successfully restricts the flow of
resources to a recalcitrant regime and exerts constant pressure for
reform. It is also a valuable bargaining chip for the day when Cuba
chooses or is forced to accept real economic and political reform.
Something for something has always been an integral part of our policy.
Giving something for nothing, however, is rarely a good idea, either in
agricultural sales or in foreign policy. Although some argue that
engagement with a repressive regime can foster change, there is no
empirical evidence that this has ever happened, in Cuba or elsewhere.
Our Canadian, Latin, and European allies no longer even try to make
this case.
Embargos are, by definition, defensive in nature. To successfully
empower the citizens of a nation to regain control over their own
destiny, more is needed. We need to draw on our experience in Eastern
Europe, South Africa, and elsewhere and support democracy proponents,
human rights activists, independent journalists and economists, and
budding entrepreneurs in Cuba. We are always better off trading with a
prosperous democracy than with a bankrupt dictatorship. A free,
independent Cuba that respects the rights of its citizens, and provides
opportunities for private enterprise, is the partner we need. It is in
our national interest, and in our common stake in humanity to not
settle for anything less. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Ambassador Hays, thank you very much.
Next we will hear from Mr. Weber. Mr. Weber represents the
Maryland Farm Bureau. Mr. Weber, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WEBER, PRESIDENT, MARYLAND FARM BUREAU
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Boxer, I'm a fruit and vegetable grower from Maryland. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important of U.S.
trade policy with Cuba.
Farm Bureau policy toward Cuba and unilateral sanctions in
general is clear. We support immediate resumption of normal
trading relations with Cuba. We believe all agricultural
products should be exempt from all embargos and unilateral
sanctions, except in the case of armed conflict. In short, we
strongly agree that food should not be used as a weapon.
U.S. trade policy toward Cuba has demonstrated that more
than 40 years of isolationism has failed to produce democratic
reform. Of all the countries against which U.S. unilateral
sanctions have been imposed, our experience with Cuba stands
out as proof that isolationism does not work.
The most effective means of bringing about democratic
reform is engagement. We support engagement with Cuba. Engaging
Cuba through export of sales of U.S. food and medicines is
necessary for humanitarian, economic, and foreign-policy
reasons. Nothing could be more important in a humanitarian's
perspective than providing the Cuban people with access to
affordable, abundant, high-quality food.
Export sales of U.S. foodstuffs to Cuba have enabled the
Cuban government to cut its food cost on these imported items
by 30 percent. Significantly reduced shipping costs and the
ability of the Cuban government to forego expensive warehousing
by buying only what it needs have resulted in lower overall
food costs. These factors will enable the caloric intake of the
Cuban people to rise, and the nutritional quality of the
available food supply in Cuba to increase. We think that this
is the policy that our country should continue to support and
that efforts should be undertaken to further facilitate such
sales.
Economically speaking, American farmers should have the
same access to Cuban markets as their foreign competitors. In
today's global economy, shutting off the Cuban market to our
exports simply means the competitors step in and make the
sales.
From a foreign-policy perspective, trade fosters
engagement, engagement fosters democratic reform, and we
believe that export--when we export food to a nation, we also
export our values. Prior to the 1960 embargo, U.S. imports
constituted 75 to 80 percent of the total Cuban foreign
agriculture purchases. Cuba is a solid market for imports of
meat products, dairy, powdered milk and eggs. Sales included
corn, wheat, barley, and rice, fruits, and vegetables,
soybeans, and soybean meal, and fish and fish products. The
United States produces large quantities of each of these
commodities and is located less than 100 miles from the Port of
Havana. As economic growth accelerates in Cuba and living
standards climb, U.S. agriculture exports could be expected to
increase, as well. Since November 2001, the Cuban government,
through its import company, Alimport, has pledged to purchase
$73 million, or 453,000 metric tons, of agricultural products
from the U.S. for cash.
The majority of Americans and Members of Congress agree
that it is time to reform U.S. policy toward Cuba. The best way
to start is through trade. Among the first items to be reformed
should be the current restrictions on financing of U.S. food
and agricultural exports to Cuba. This prohibition increases
the cost of overall export transactions, increases the
difficulty of competing the export sales, and takes business
away from the U.S. economy, and disadvantages smaller
exporters. The prohibition must be repealed.
On the issue of licensing, the procedure under which
licenses for export sales to Cuba and other previously
sanctioned countries are issued lack transparency and a
systematic process for approval. Shortening the process to just
1 day, where possible, is necessary in order for U.S. exporters
to compete with their foreign counterparts. We were deeply
disappointed last April when visa requests associated with
planned meetings between U.S. agriculture representatives and
Cuban officials were issued and then subsequently denied
without just cause. Visits of this type are routinely conducted
by U.S. officials and U.S. importers and markets that sell to
the United States. It is also the practice for foreign
purchasing agents and governments' technical teams to travel to
the U.S. to meet with U.S. suppliers and tour our facilities.
In conclusions, the Cuban market must remain open for
export sales of U.S. food and agriculture commodities.
Maintaining our current trade with Cuba and taking steps to
lift the restrictions to trade that remain are needed in order
to foster democratic reform. The United States has an
unprecedented opportunity to promote its values throughout the
world through engagement. Reaching out, not withdrawing behind
sanctions or embargos is the best way to achieve this change.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Weber, President, Maryland Farm Bureau
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee, I am
Stephen Weber a fruit and vegetable grower from Maryland. The American
Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) appreciates the opportunity to testify on
the important issue of the U.S. trade policy with Cuba.
AFBF is the largest agricultural organization in the nation with
over 5.1 million member families. Our producer members produce every
commodity grown in the United States and Puerto Rico and rely on trade
with other nations for more than 30 percent of their farm income.
Farm Bureau policy toward Cuba and unilateral sanctions, in
general, is clear: We support immediate resumption of normal trading
relations with Cuba. We believe all agricultural products should be
exempt from all embargoes and unilateral sanctions except in case of
armed conflict. In short, food should not be used as a weapon.
U.S. trade policy toward Cuba has demonstrated that more than forty
years of isolationism has failed to produce democratic reform. Of all
of the countries against which U.S. unilateral sanctions have been
imposed, our experience with Cuba stands out as proof that isolationism
does not work. The most effective means for bringing about democratic
reform is engagement.
We support engagement with Cuba. Engaging with Cuba, through export
sales of U.S. food and medicine, are necessary for humanitarian,
economic and foreign policy reasons. From the humanitarian perspective,
nothing could be more important than providing the Cuban people with
access to affordable, abundant, high quality food.
Export sales of U.S. foodstuffs to Cuba have enabled the Cuban
government to cut its food costs by thirty percent. Significantly
reduced shipping costs and the ability of the Cuban government to
forego expensive warehousing by buying only what it needs, have
resulted in lower overall food costs. For some commodities like rice,
the per ton cost for Cuba has been cut in half.
U.S. food and agricultural export sales to Cuba result in cost
reductions that enable the caloric intake of the Cuban population to
rise and the nutritional quality of the available food supply in Cuba
to increase. We think that is a policy that our country should continue
to support and that efforts should be undertaken to further facilitate
such sales.
Economically speaking, American farmers should have equal access to
the Cuban market as their foreign competitors. In today's global
economy numerous countries compete for foreign agricultural export
sales, shutting off the Cuban market to our exports simply means that
our competitors step in and supply that market.
U.S. agricultural export sales have remained flat since 1997 due to
the Asian financial crisis and the continued high value of the dollar.
Access to the Cuban market, valued at nearly $1 billion per year, is
important to America's farmers. Market analysts estimate that the U.S.
economy is losing up to $1.24 billion annually in agricultural exports
because of the embargo against Cuba -and up to $3.6 billion more
annually in related economic output. Why should American farmers forego
export sales to Cuba when our competitors are allowed to supply that
market?
From a foreign policy perspective, trade fosters engagement and
engagement fosters democratic reform. Face-to-face contact between
American farmers and the Cuban people will yield positive results. When
we export food to a nation, we also export our values.
Allowing unrestricted travel to Cuba would further our nation's
foreign policy goals with that country. Enabling Americans to visit
freely with their Cuban counterparts promotes the American way of life
and the freedoms that we cherish.
In addition, more Americans traveling to Cuba would result in
increased demand for high quality U.S. foodstuffs--fruits and
vegetables, dairy products, meats and other consumer-oriented goods--
that the Cuban hotel industry needs to service its customers.
Agricultural Export Sales to Cuba
Cuba imports around $4 billion in goods per year from countries
other than the United States. Agricultural commodities constitute 20-25
percent of this amount--approaching $1 billion in imports. Unfettered
access to the Cuban market would benefit U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Prior to the 1960's embargo, U.S. imports constituted 75-80 percent of
total Cuban foreign agricultural purchases. Restoring trade with the
United States would also help the Cuban people to increase their
standard of living.
Higher living standards around the world depend upon mutually
beneficial trade. We encourage policies that promote rather than retard
the growth of trade in Cuba.
According to historical data from the United Nations Foreign
Agricultural Organization, Cuba is a solid market for total imports of:
meat products ($50-$60 million per year),
dairy, powdered milk and eggs (up to $100 million),
cereals including corn, wheat, barley and rice (over $300
million),
fruits and vegetables (up to $75 million),
other animal feed (over $60 million),
soybeans/meal/oils (over $100 million) and,
fish and fish products ($25 million).
The United States produces large quantities of each of these
commodities and is located less than 100 miles from the port of Havana.
As economic growth accelerates in Cuba and living standards climb, U.S.
agricultural exports could be expected to increase as well.
Since November 2001, the Cuban government through its import
company Alimport, has pledged to purchase $73 million--or 453 thousand
metric tons--of agricultural products from the United States for cash.
Delivery dates are now set through June 2002. The commodities pledged
or purchased include: corn, rice, wheat, soybeans & products, poultry,
vegetable oil, apples, peas, eggs and pork lard.
The commodities contracted for sale to Cuba come from 25 U.S.
states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Cuba also is
interested in Michigan dried beans. Most states will benefit as more
items are sold (see below).
Economic Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba
ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
RANK STATE ANNUAL POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT STEMMING FROM NEW
EXPORTS AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
1 Arkansas $167,263,000 $503,353,000
2 California $98,119,000 $287,830,000
3 Iowa $70,634,000 $206,012,000
4 Louisiana $65,634,000 $187,037,000
5 Texas $53,857,000 $162,501,000
6 Illinois $52,939,000 $148,813,000
7 Mississippi $50,932,000 $154,729,000
8 Minnesota $45,880,000 $127,903,000
9 Nebraska $40,843,000 $117,438,000
10 Missouri $39,826,000 $116,280,000
11 Kansas $38,770,000 $105,387,000
12 North Dakota $37,771,000 $96,213,000
13 North Carolina $31,097,000 $98,818,000
14 Washington $29,326,000 $80,439,000
15 Indiana $29,139,000 $82,109,000
16 Georgia $28,743,000 $95,208,000
17 Florida $28,554,000 $79,220,000
18 South Dakota $25,998,000 $73,386,000
19 Ohio $25,085,000 $68,790,000
20 Alabama $22,382,000 $74,699,000
Source: A report for the Cuba Policy Foundation by C. Parr Rosson and Flynn Adcock, Professors of Agricultural
Economics at Texas A&M University, January 2002.
Reform is Needed
The majority of Americans and members of Congress agree that it is
time to reform U.S. policy toward Cuba. The best way to start is
through trade. Among the first items to reform should be the current
restriction on financing of U.S. food and agricultural exports to Cuba.
U.S. law currently prohibits U.S. agricultural exporters wishing to
export food and agricultural commodities to Cuba from using U.S. banks
or financial institutions to execute the sale, other than to confirm or
advise letters of credit that are issued by third country financial
institutions. This prohibition increases the cost of the overall export
transaction by adding additional banking fees; increases the difficulty
of completing the export sale thereby making it more difficult to
compete against foreign suppliers; takes business away from the U.S.
economy and hands it over to international institutions; and
disproportionately disadvantages smaller exporters who may not have
international banking relationships.
These third country financing restrictions placed on agricultural
export sales prevent U.S. agricultural exporters from developing normal
commercial relations with Cuba and are contrary to the spirit of the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSREEA). We
support repeal of this provision of U.S. law.
Licensing of Export Sales to Cuba and other Previously Sanctioned
Nations
Extreme delays have been experienced with the issuance of licenses
authorizing agricultural export sales to Cuba and other previously
sanctioned nations, including Libya, Iran and Sudan, under the
implementing regulations for TSREEA. In some cases, up to 45 days
elapsed before the requested license was issued.
Such delays significantly impact our ability to transact commercial
sales with these countries. In many cases, the export sale is lost to
our competitors.
The procedures under which these licenses are issued lack
transparency and a systematic process for approval. In the short term,
efforts should be undertaken to streamline the process to 24 hours or
less in cases wherein licenses have previously been issued for sales to
the same end users. Shortening the process to just one day, where
possible, is necessary in order for U.S. exporters to compete with
their foreign counterparts. Ultimately, legislation should be passed to
repeal the licensing provisions now mandated under TSREEA.
Denial of visas
In early April, visa requests authorizing the planned meetings
between U.S. agricultural representatives and Cuban officials to review
U.S. standards and procedures in conjunction with contracted and
potential agricultural sales to Cuba were issued and subsequently
denied without just cause. As a result, pending agricultural export
sales to Cuba were put in jeopardy. Maintaining access to the Cuban
market for our products is an important goal for U.S. agriculture.
The purpose of the Cuban travel that was denied included important
meetings for Cuban officials to confer with U.S. suppliers, inspect
facilities, discuss sanitary and phytosanitary issues and verify U.S.
procedures and standards associated with the sale of U.S. food and
agricultural exports to Cuba. Visits of this type are routinely
conducted by U.S. officials and U.S. importers in markets that sell to
the United States. It is also customary practice for foreign purchasing
agents and government technical teams to travel to the U.S. to meet
with U.S. suppliers and tour facilities.
Two years ago, Congress, backed by the strong support of the U.S.
food and agricultural community, opened the Cuban market for our goods
by partially lifting nearly 40 years of unilateral sanctions against
Cuba. The denial of the visas associated with these commercial visits
from Cuban officials was contrary to the spirit of that legislation.
Conclusion
The Cuban market must remain open for export sales of U.S. food and
agricultural commodities. American farmers and ranchers are under
extreme economic stress from low prices and decreasing world market
share. Access to this small but viable market provides a much-needed
economic boost to many producers that are now experiencing financial
stress.
More importantly, maintaining our current trade with Cuba and
taking steps to lift the restrictions to trade that remain, are needed
in order to improve our bilateral relationship with Cuba and foster
democratic reform.
Unilateral sanctions, like the Cuban embargo, do not work. Such
sanctions often result in little or no change in the foreign policy
actions of the targeted nation. The experience in Cuba is a testament
to this fact.
The United States has an unprecedented opportunity to promote its
values throughout the world through engagement. Reaching out, not
withdrawing behind sanctions or embargoes, is the best way to achieve
change.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Weber, thank you very much.
Senator Boxer had to leave. There is a briefing with former
President Jimmy Carter, as a matter of fact, on this subject,
occurring in about 5 minutes, so she is going to that briefing.
She asked that I put in the record for her, which I will do
by consent, a statement today from 48 former United States
senators, Republicans and Democrats, in which these 48 former
U.S. senators sent an open letter to the President and Congress
urging normalization of relations with Cuba. And I will, by
consent, include this as a part of the record, at the request
of Senator Boxer.
[The information referred to follows:]
AN OPEN LETTER REGARDING U.S. POLICY TOWARD CUBA
To President George W. Bush and his Administration and all members of
the U.S. House and Senate:
We are a bipartisan group of former U.S. Senators who believe that
U.S. policy toward Cuba needs to change. Our present policy was created
as a tool to topple the Castro government. Fidel Castro has now been in
power 43 years--and we have had ten Presidents during that time. Our
current policy has failed.
We are the only nation in the world to have an economic embargo and
boycott of Cuba, and the clear lesson of recent history is that if
economic sanctions are to be successful, they must have strong
international support.
The reality is that the present policy retards the day when the
Cuban people will enjoy fuller freedoms and hurts Americans and Cubans
economically. Recent studies by Texas A&M and Rice University conclude
that economic sanctions cost the American economy upwards of $6 billion
in the agricultural and energy sectors alone.
The United States recognizes and trades with several nations that
have a human rights record worse than Cuba's. Recently, Secretary of
State Colin Powell proposed lifting economic sanctions on Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, while keeping sanctions on weapons. If that makes sense
for Iraq, it certainly makes sense for Cuba where no other nation
agrees with our policy.
We favor normalizing relations with Cuba, while at the same time
making clear our support for human rights. These minimal first steps
should be taken:
1. Lift the travel ban on U.S. visitors to Cuba. Unless
there is physical danger for American citizens, we should be
permitted to travel anywhere.
2. Encourage academic exchanges and other exchanges, so that
we can learn as much about Cuba as possible, and they can learn
as much about us as possible.
3. Lift the barriers to normal trade with Cuba, except for
trade that might have military significance
4. Repeal laws that cause friction with other nations that
carry on normal relations with Cuba.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
James Abourezk (D-SD)
Mark Andrews (R-ND)
Lloyd Bensten (D-TX)
Daniel Brewster (D-MD)
Dale Bumpers (D-AR)
Jocelyn Birch Burdick (D-ND)
Marlow Cook (R-KY)
John C. Culver (D-IA)
Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
David Durenberger (R-MN)
Thomas Eagleton (D-MO)
J. James Exon (D-NE)
Sheila Frahm (R-KS)
David H. Gambrell (D-GA)
Jake Garn (R-UT)
Rod Grams (R-MN)
Mike Gravel (D-AK)
Fred R. Harris (D-OK)
Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR)
William Hathaway (D-ME)
Walter ``Dee'' Huddleston (D-KY)
Roger Jepsen (R-IA)
J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA)
Robert Krueger (D-TX)
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Harlan Mathews (D-TN)
Charles McC. Mathias (R-MD)
Eugene McCarthy (D-MN)
John Melcher (D-MT)
Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH)
Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Frank E. Moss (D-UT)
Gaylord Nelson (D-WI)
Sam Nunn (D-GA)
Charles Percy (R-IL)
William Proxmire (D-WI)
Donald Riegle, Jr. (D-MI)
James R. Sasser (D-TN)
Richard Schweiker (R-PA)
Paul Simon (D-IL)
Alan Simpson (R-WY)
Robert Stafford (R-VT)
Adlai E. Stevenson (D-IL)
Donald W. Stewart (D-AL)
Steve Symms (R-ID)
Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD)
Malcolm Wallop (R-WY)
Lowell Weicker, Jr. (R-CT)
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Weinmann, I hope I have not been
mispronouncing your name.
Ms. Weinmann. No, you're absolutely correct.
Senator Dorgan. You are the executive director of Americans
for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba. Why don't you proceed?
STATEMENT OF LISSA WEINMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR
HUMANITARIAN TRADE WITH CUBA
Ms. Weinmann. Thank you very much, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak here today.
Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba is a national
group of prominent Americans who advocate normal trade of food
and medical products between the United States and Cuba. We
know such trade would be mutually beneficial to both nations,
and we believe our country has a moral obligation to allow the
Cuban and American people to enjoy the healthy fruits of such
trade.
AHTC was established in January 1998 in response to a
series of credible medical reports that showed a correlation
between the food and medicine restrictions and health and well
being in Cuba. But since that time, we've discovered that
there's an equally as important impact here in the United
States.
In building AHTC, we tapped into a latent interest that
really astounded us. We've grown to encompass 23 individual
state councils comprised of members that are farmers,
physicians, many Cuban-Americans, mayors, elected officials,
and the like. The AHTC Advisory Council includes personalities
such as David Rockefeller, former U.S. Trade Representative
Carla Hills, President Reagan's former National Security
Advisor Frank Carlucci, Paul Volcker, former Assistant
Secretary of State, John Whitehead, former Surgeon General,
Julius Richmond, Craig Fuller, who was the chief of staff for
former Vice President Bush, is our co-chair, along with Sam
Gibbons, who, as you probably know, was a 34-year
representative from Tampa, Florida. So our group is really
comprised of a broad cross-section of the U.S. public that we
believe really speaks to the national support for change in
policy.
The situation we face is serious. According to numerous
polls, the American people overwhelmingly support free trade in
food and medicine products. According to numerous votes, the
U.S. Senate and House of Representatives support free and
unfettered sales. Yet, despite the support, numerous obstacles
remain that make food and medical trade inaccessible to most
Americans. And I think that's a very important point here.
Yes, sales are occurring with some of the major companies.
But for small to medium-sized buyers, the arcane regulations
that govern such trade make it an impractical situation for
them. Therefore, the regulations, et cetera, are unfair to the
vast majority of Americans.
TSRA, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act, was meant to end the practice of using food and medicine
as tools in any U.S. unilateral embargo. Senator John Ashcroft
of Missouri was a lead champion of ours on this issue, as you
might recall, and the current allegations about Cuba as a
terrorist state might be of some interest to him, because he
had quite a vociferous policy about Cuba.
But powerful leaders opposed to humanitarian sales added
provisions that weakened the law's ability to move such trade.
The number-one obstacle to such trade is continued presence on
the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist states--Cuba's
presence on that list. Cuba's unjustified presence on the list
trivializes the list itself and trivializes the seriousness
with which we all view the real terrorist threats that face us
today.
Clinging to this false concept is the primary way the
Administration can exert its limited power over Cuba policy.
And TSRA itself actually says that licenses will still be
required for trade with any countries that are on that
terrorist list, as of the year 2000. So even if the executive
removed Cuba from this list, which we think they should do,
there would still need to be an active law to allows such
unfettered sales of--unlicenced sales of food and medicine,
which we believe should occur.
TSRA prohibited public and private financing for sales to
Cuba. We believe that should be available. And the law did
nothing to address Helms-Burton's ban on direct financial
transactions between the United States and Cuba, which adds a
lot of currency costs to companies seeking to do business.
Nevertheless, the law was a step forward.
We need to mention that the Administration's regulations
regarding TSRA did nothing to loosen up the sales of medical
products intended by the law. U.S. medical products companies
interested in selling to Cuba still face the 1992 Cuban
Democracy Act's unsurmountable licensing hurdles. Thwarting the
two-way flow of life-saving medical products is an egregious
situation that reflects poorly on the moral authority of the
United States. AHTC holds that all restrictions on two-way
medical trade should be immediately abolished. But it is the
issue of food sales that has drawn the most interest. Despite
the difficulties, we know such sales are occurring. U.S. firms
have been patient but persistent, and the U.S. Department of
Commerce has helped these companies.
As I said, the chief problem really is the Administration's
continued casting of Cuba as a terrorist state. As long as Cuba
is on the list, as long as licensing is required, sales will be
subject to the political winds that blow, and U.S. companies in
Cuba will find it difficult to develop stable relationships,
since the government can revoke a license at any time and
really for any reasons, justifiable or not. There's no
accountability there.
Administration threats to examine the sales that have taken
place so far to make sure that companies have not been
subsidizing such sales are intimidating. A thousand things can
impact a price at any particular moment. Our government
shouldn't foolishly be wasting time delving into the price of
goods, because obviously companies don't want to lose money
making these sales.
OFAC is required to issue travel licenses, and this is
where a major problem has come up. The granting of licenses for
travel is capricious. OFAC officials have an enforcement
mentality and a predisposition to say no. OFAC--we don't blame
them for this, as they're busy and should be dealing with more
important issues. We understand that out of 60 full-time OFAC
employees, 20 of them are busy working on the Cuba embargo.
OFAC officials should be spending time tracking down al Qaeda,
not railroads and shipping lines interested in creating jobs
here in the United States by accessing a market that's
ostensibly been opened to them by law.
Another problem is the negative tone coming from the
Department of State, and I guess we've heard a lot about that.
But the denial of visas for Cuban officials coming clearly is
an impediment to such trade, as well.
All these problems with the law and the Administration's
execution of it unfairly cutoff any potential for small
companies and small farmers to do business with Cuba. For more
than 40 years, the rest of the country has been paying the
price for a policy that serves the narrow self interest of very
few individuals. The Mississippi Delta and the whole Gulf Coast
region has suffered irreparable damage from severing ties with
Cuba, which, before the embargo, was the number-one export
market for states like Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Our
members in that region often ask how many family farms could
have been sustained over the years if Cuba had remained open.
They say it is time for those folks in Miami to get off their
high horse and give the rest of the country a turn in the
saddle. And it's time our government step aside and let them
on.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weinmann follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lissa Weinmann, Executive Director, Americans for
Humanitarian Trade With CUBA
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee, I am
Lissa Weinmann, Executive Director of Americans For Humanitarian Trade
With Cuba (AHTC). AHTC is a national group of prominent Americans who
advocate normal trade of food and medical products between the U.S. and
Cuba. We know such trade would be mutually beneficial to both nations,.
We also believe our country has a moral obligation to allow the Cuban
and American people to enjoy the healthy fruits of such humanitarian
trade. AHTC was established in January 1998 to take action in response
to a series of important medical reports that showed the many ways the
U.S. food and medicine embargo on Cuba undermines the health of
ordinary Cubans. Since then, we've discovered that the embargo also
hurts ordinary Americans.
We tapped into a latent interest that astounded us. AHTC has grown
to encompass 23 individual state councils, comprised of farmers,
physicians, mayors and elected officials, Cuban Americans, religious
leaders, ports and companies. The AHTC Advisory Council includes David
Rockefeller, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, President
Reagan's National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci, former U.S. Federal
Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, former U.S. Surgeon General Julius
Richmond, former assistant secretary of State John C. Whitehead, Miami
Cuban American leader Silvia Wilhelm, Dwayne Andreas of Archer Daniels
Midland, Peter Coors of Coors Brewing Company, Bob Edgar, a former U.S.
Representative and current head of the National Council of Churches,
Craig Fuller, former chief of staff for Vice President George Bush, Sam
Gibbons, a 34-year representative from Tampa, Phil Baum for the
National Jewish Congress, film director Francis Ford Coppola, Louisiana
Commissioner of Agriculture Bob Odom and many other familiar names, all
leaders representing the broad national support for change. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify on the important issue of the
U.S. trade policy with Cuba.
I am going to be brief and blunt, because the situation we face is
serious and deeply effects the very fiber of our democratic process.
According to numerous polls, the American people overwhelmingly support
free trade in food and medical products to Cuba. According to numerous
votes, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives support free and
unfettered sales of food and medical products to Cuba. Despite the
support, numerous obstacles remain that make food and medical trade
with Cuba inaccessible to the public at large.
The clamor for food sales to Cuba led to passage of an amendment to
the 2000 Agricultural Appropriations Bill, since it is impossible to
get a fair hearing, a fair vote, anywhere else.
The law I referred to, TSRA, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000, was meant to end the practice of using food
and medicine as tools in any U.S. unilateral embargo. A key champion of
the law, then Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri (now U.S. Attorney
General Ashcroft) explained why he supported humanitarian trade with
Cuba at a World Policy Institute conference on the U.S. Economic Impact
of Food and Medicine Embargoes: Case Study Cuba, held on June 15, 2000
on Capitol Hill:
``We've seen the failures over and over again of the attempts
to withhold food and medicine as a means of shaping
international diplomatic relations and I think it's time for us
to understand that there is a better way. It's a way that
reflects the kindness and goodness of the American people. It
reflects our understanding that people should not be
malnourished nor should they be in ill health. It's a kind of
understanding that is very likely to make it possible to
disagree with other governments and yet to maintain our
reputation for what is the goodness of the American people and
our humanitarian spirit.''
But powerful leaders opposed to such sales added provisions that
weakened the law's ability to move such trade. The number one obstacle
to free humanitarian trade with Cuba is that nation's continued
presence on the U.S. State Departments' list of terrorist states.
Cuba's unjustified presence on the list of terrorist states trivializes
the list itself and trivializes the seriousness with which we all view
the real terrorist threats our nation faces. Clinging to this false
concept is the primary way the Administration--and other well-placed
legislative allies of an anachronistic, shrinking and discredited Cuban
American right--now exerts its limited power over Cuba policy.
TSRA prohibited public and private financing for sales to Cuba.,
and as most of you know there is a determined effort now in the
Congress to allow such private financing to occur. AHTC holds that
private financing should be available for humanitarian sales,
especially if a company itself wants to extend its own credit. Even if
U.S. law changes to allow private financing, American companies and
banks are going to be careful with Cuba. As one corporate
representative told me, if American companies want to be stupid and
lose money, that should be their right.
The law did nothing to address the ban on direct financial
transactions between the U.S. and Cuba, and myriad other small details
that make selling to Cuba a full-time job for many a corporate
attorney. Nevertheless, the law was a step forward in that it allowed
for the opportunity to sell--under license, in fact under several
licenses--U.S. produced goods to the Cuban government agencies that do
the bulk of the buying in Cuba.
It took the administration four months longer that the law itself
mandated to issue regulations governing TSRA, the debate around them
was so heated. Ultimately, the Administration interpreted the law
narrowly, maintaining a troubling role for the Office of Foreign Assets
Control and a lengthy inter-agency review of new licenses.
It is important to highlight the fact that the Administration's
regulations did nothing to loosen-up the sales of medical products
intended by the law. U.S. medical products companies interested in
selling to Cuba still face the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act's
insurmountable licensing hurdles. The small to midsize medical
companies most interested in such sales do not have the legal counsel
necessary to overcome these hurdles, chief among them the end-use
verification provision. The medical embargo continues to keep
interesting Cuban products out of the U.S. market and the hands of
American citizens who might benefit from them. Whether or not Cuba can
afford high cost U.S. pharmaceuticals and equipment sidesteps the
point. Thwarting the two-way flow of lifesaving medical products does
nothing to advance U.S. interests. It is an egregious situation that
reflects very poorly on the moral authority of the U.S. AHTC holds that
all restrictions on two-way medical trade should be immediately
abolished.
But it is the issue of food sales that has drawn the most interest
since the geographic proximity of the U.S. to Cuba makes us the natural
source of foodstuffs for Cuba. Despite the difficulties, we are pleased
that after more than 40 years, there has been more than $90 million in
cash sales in just the past few months. Cuba has shown its clear
intention to develop these relations, and companies report very
favorably on the level of professionalism and goodwill they have
encountered in working with their Cuban counterparts. U.S. firms have
been patient but persistent in navigating through the approval process
and we acknowledge the cooperative spirit under which officials in the
U.S. Department of Commerce have helped these companies.
The future of such commerce, amply supported as it is by all
sectors of the American public and Congress, is not only thwarted by
the limitations of the law itself, as I've pointed out, but imperiled
by disturbing trends within the Administration which I will comment on
now.
The chief problem is the Administration's continued and unfair
casting of Cuba as a terrorist state. As long as Cuba is on the
Department of State's terrorist list, licenses will be required. As
long as licensing is required, sales will be subject to the political
winds that blow and U.S. companies and Cuba will find it difficult to
develop stable relationships since the government can revoke a license
at any time, and really for any reason, justifiable or not. There is no
accountability there.
Administration threats to examine the sales that have taken place
so far to make sure that companies have not been `subsidizing' sales to
the Cubans are intimidating. A thousand things can impact a price given
at any particular moment. Price takes into consideration developing
relationships, level of competition, the quantity of the sales, the
need to move product, etc. Generally, customers that pay cash get a
reduced rate. The bottom line is that what a company sells for is their
own business. Our government shouldn't foolishly be wasting time and
valuable manpower delving into something that's none of its business.
It's obvious companies don't want to lose money.
TSRA tightened restrictions on Americans' ability to travel to
Cuba, and companies interested in humanitarian trade must seek a travel
license each time they wish to go to Cuba. Companies report many
problems with OFAC. OFAC must issue travel licenses in connection with
sales. The fact is, there is no predictable roadmap to assess business
potentials in Cuba. The granting of licenses for travel is capricious.
OFAC officials have an enforcement mentality and a predisposition to
say no. OFAC personnel do not return calls. And we don't blame them,
they are busy and should be busy dealing with more important things. As
Treasury Secretary O'Neill said sometime back, he wished he could
redirect his personnel in more productive ways. We understand that out
of 60 full time OFAC employees, 20 of them are busy working on the Cuba
embargo. OFAC officials should be spending time tracking down Al Queda
not railroads and shipping lines interested in creating jobs here in
the U.S. by accessing a market that has ostensibly been opened to them
by an act of law.
Another problem is the negative tone coming from the Department of
State, a tone clearly interpreted by companies as meant to dissuade
such sales. State Department representatives say in closed meetings
that travel is a privilege which our government grants to its citizens,
not a right. And denials of visas for Cubans to come meet with their
U.S. counterparts also tends to dampen interest in engaging in such
sales.
In a letter explaining why the head of Cuba's main importing
company was denied a visa to visit business contacts in the U.S.,
Secretary of State Powell said: ``It is the Administration's judgment
that marketing visits, such as that proposed for Mr. Alvarez, are not
necessary to conclude purchases of U.S. agricultural commodities.''
With all due respect, we beg to differ.
The ability to travel and communicate between buyer and seller is
key to any successful trade. AHTC is concerned by the Administration's
pledge to further restrict travel to Cuba This will have a serious
negative impact on the necessary ability to travel to Cuba by
representatives of the U.S. agricultural community and executives of
companies which can legally conduct business with Cuba.
As you know, Senator Dorgan, AHTC is a major sponsor of the second
U.S. Agricultural Sales Conference planned for Havana in February,
2003, and we are grateful for your support and pleased that you have
agreed to attend if your schedule permits. The first such conference
was held earlier this year in Cancun was organized by a number of U.S.
State Farm Bureaus, Conway Data Co of Georgia, The GIC Group of
Virginia, and Alamar Associates of Washington and brought more than 175
representatives of the U.S. agricultural community together with their
Cuban counterparts.
AHTC, which has a license which permits us to authorize people to
travel to Cuba for the purpose of assessing the trade potential in
agricultural and medical products, plans to offer its license to permit
these same people and others to travel to Cuba for the purpose of
attending this important event to meet with the appropriate Cuban
counterparts and to assess for themselves the potential for trade in
agricultural products.
Such communication and personal interaction is crucial if further
sales of food and other humanitarian agricultural and medical products
are to be sold to Cuba. But we are concerned that the Administration
will find some way to block this lawful and useful effort.
The Executive is supposed to execute the laws, not throw up
roadblocks. There are obvious differences of opinion within the
Administration, and despite the party line, there are conscientious
individuals in each agency who try their best to obey the law, and a
few who are blinded to their public responsibilities by a personal
agenda of anger and hatred. Powerful individuals who thwart food and
medical trade should be ashamed of themselves for impeding the law and
imperiling lives.
All these problems with the law and with the Administration's
execution of it unfairly cut-off any potential for small companies,
small farmers to do business with Cuba. That is unfortunate because
Cuba could be a very meaningful market for many of these struggling
outfits. They do not have or cannot afford the legal guidance necessary
to navigate these processes. Some try to do it on their own, but get
dissuaded by the red tape.
For more than 40 years the rest of the country has been paying the
price for a policy that serves the narrow self interest of very few
individuals. The Mississippi Delta and the whole Gulf Coast region has
suffered irreparable damage from severing ties with Cuba, which before
the embargo was the number one export market for states like Louisiana,
Alabama and Mississippi. The state of Texas passed a unanimous state
resolution calling for complete lifting of the embargo as a matter of
true economic need for companies, ports, and farmers in that state. The
Gulf Coast Ports Association also passed a resolution calling for food
and medical sales as a needed lifeline to help struggling ports.
Our members in that region often ask how many family farms could
have been sustained over the years if Cuba had remained open. They say
it is time for those folks in Miami to get off their high horse and
give the rest of the country a turn in the saddle. And it's time our
government step aside and them on.
Children and families in Cuba and in the United States could
benefit so much from free and open commerce in food and medicines--a
commerce without the handcuffs placed by policy makers driven by south
Florida domestic politics. Our challenging international atmosphere
requires American leaders to put personal interest and agendas aside.
Only then can we courageously confront the counterproductive policies
of the past and steer a brighter path for the next generation. AHTC
urges the Congress to take all necessary steps to allow for free travel
and the humanitarian trade that will foster between the U.S. and Cuba.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Weinmann, thank you very much.
Mr. Weber, do you view the revocation of visas, for
example, for Mr. Alvarez and the officials from Alimport, a
method of discouraging the sales of agricultural products from
the U.S. to Cuba?
Mr. Weber. We certainly do.
Senator Dorgan. Is it customary that someone who's going to
purchase products would like to visit with the seller and
inspect facilities, et cetera? Can you describe that to us?
Mr. Weber. Well, it is the way business is done. People
don't buy things--especially when you're dealing across
international lines, you don't buy things that you don't
inspect. And we demand this. We need to see things before we
buy them, and we would expect that people would want the same
thing in return.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Weinmann, you indicated that here was a
study that talked about the health and medical condition of the
Cuban people relative to the situation with the food embargo.
Can you amplify on that just for a moment, and then I would ask
Ambassador Hays to respond to that.
Ms. Weinmann. The American Association for World Health
published a study in 1997, some 400-page study, detailing the
difficulty that Cuban firms had accessing U.S. medical
products. There was an article in The Lancet, which is the
British medical journal, that came to the same conclusion.
Numerous groups, such as the American College of Physicians,
recognized the situation ad actually called for an end to the
policy of thwarting medical sales. So there has been numerous
physicians groups and reports on this matter and lots of
different delegations of U.S. medical doctors that have gone
down and spoken out when they came back.
But, you know, the basic issue is not whether Cuba can
afford to buy U.S. medical products, primarily pharmaceuticals,
but whether they should have access to them if they can afford
to buy them. And rules such as the 20-percent requirement--that
any given piece of medical equipment, if it is more than 20-
percent U.S. origin, must be licensable--closes off a whole
category of equipment to Cuba. And also the financing
restrictions make it difficult, because obviously medical
equipment and pharmaceutical sales are impacted by that
restriction, as well. End-use verification for medical sales--
medical companies are actually held legally accountable for an
end-use that they might not have any control over. The Small
Medical Device Manufacturers Association has spoken out
repeatedly about the problems in accessing the Cuban market,
even under the licensing that the Administration holds should
be allowing such sales to occur.
Senator Dorgan. Ambassador Hays, have you ever farmed?
Ambassador Hays. Not more than for half an hour or so, sir.
[Laughter.]
Ambassador Hays. That was plenty. It's hard work.
Senator Dorgan. So the answer is no. If you were a farmer,
do you think that you would feel differently about our
policies, especially with respect to the use of food as a part
of an embargo?
Ambassador Hays. Sir, I----
Senator Dorgan. And if you felt differently as a farmer, do
you think that would be a selfish feeling?
Ambassador Hays. Sir, I think if I were a farmer, and I
worked as hard as I know they do, I would want to be able to
sell my product and get paid for it, for one thing. I would not
want to enter into an arrangement--if I saw that there was a
buyer who had cheated, defrauded, and stolen 15 guys in front
of me, and then he comes to me and says he wants to buy my
product and he would like me to give him credit, I think I
would be well within my rights to insist on some significant
collateral before moving----
Senator Dorgan. What if he said he wanted to pay cash?
Ambassador Hays. Wanted to pay cash? Senator, you know, we
opposed the change in the law, but we accept it. And we accept
it because we believe that the safeguards, the provisions that
are in there which prevent Castro from getting what we think he
wants, which is unjustified credit along here--you know,
listening in, I mean, I really wish, in Cuba--if we could all
agree on a set of facts, I think it would be really useful, if
we went back and had a common history, because there's so many
things in here that need to be agreed upon, and then maybe some
of the solutions would be a lot easier.
You know, Cuba has always been able to purchase medicine
from the United States. Single-source medicine was always able
to be purchased. After the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, it was
also possible to purchase medicine much more freely. The fact
that they don't, I think, comes down to what Fidel Castro has
said, which is that our medicine tends to be too expensive for
him, that you can buy it in Mexico or Brazil or Spain or
someplace else for much cheaper.
With respect to agricultural exports, pre-revolution, the
United States did export the vast bulk of commodities to Cuba.
We also bought the vast bulk of Cuba's sugar crop. We had----
Senator Dorgan. If you might, just on that point----
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Pre-revolution, we were then exporting food
to a dictator?
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We have this
discussion. I--you know, I'm against dictators of left, right,
top, down, and all kinds. I don't agree with our China policy.
I think we're foolish in a lot of areas. And I don't believe in
food as a weapon. And one of the reasons we're concerned with
respect to Cuba is because food is used by a--is a weapon. It's
used by a weapon by Fidel Castro. The ration card came into use
prior to any part of our embargo. It was used as a way to
control the population. It's still used as a way to control the
population.
Now, as I said, we oppose it, but we accepted the fact that
American farmers--and like Ambassador Reich, I spent my
diplomatic career working with American exporters. I believe in
American exports. But our future and the future of American
farmers is working with prosperous democracies that can pay the
bill, not with bankrupt dictatorships.
Senator Dorgan. Just to try to find the end of this thing,
that logic would suggest that you would be in favor of using
food as a part of an embargo with respect to Cuba, China,
Vietnam, and other countries. Is that not the case?
Ambassador Hays. I think that we have to look very
carefully at what food is used for, who it's going to. Is it
going to feed people, or is it being used as a method of
control.
Senator Dorgan. But I'm asking--traveling with your logic--
--
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan.--is it not the case that, to be consistent,
you would----
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir. To be consistent, if food is
used as a weapon against the people in order to control them
and to deny them their basic rights, then I'm opposed to that.
Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. And you believe that we should use food as
a weapon--well, that we should use food as part of an embargo
against all communist countries, don't you?
Ambassador Hays. Sir, I said, if food is used as a weapon
in order to inflict control, as a method of repression, then I,
personally, am against it.
Senator Dorgan. But the prelude to that--you set it up by
saying that money's fungible, and to the extent that you
produce food and send food, you give aid and comfort to a
communist government. I'm--I think I understand where the end
of that string goes with you.
Ambassador Hays. OK.
Senator Dorgan. And I appreciate your being candid about
it. I mean, that really is a great chasm and a great divide
here.
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. You believe that we ought to--we ought to
withhold the shipment of food to communist countries.
Ambassador Hays. I did not say that, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Well, what did you say?
Ambassador Hays. I said if a communist regime uses food to
deny food to take the control of that food and to determine who
gets fed and who does not get fed on a political basis in order
to control a population, then I would be opposed to that. Yes,
sir. If a government uses that food in a way that is not
directly repressive, then I may have other concerns, but I
would not take a categorical statement on----
Senator Dorgan. So tell us, Ambassador Hayes, the Cubans
have now purchased somewhere between $70 and $90 million of the
food for cash from the U.S. farmers in the last months. How has
that food been used in Cuba.
Ambassador Hays. Well, we don't know. There's not a lot of
ways to determine this, because Cuba doesn't allow independent
observers--the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch--to come in.
Senator Dorgan. So what do you think? If you don't----
Ambassador Hays. Senator, I'm in favor of working with the
Cuban people. You know, the largest by far--Dade County alone
gives more humanitarian aid than the rest of the world put
together to Cuba. The Cuban-American community is the lifeline
that keeps the Cuban people from starving to death. Cuba is a
tropical island. I mean, you know, it's hard--you really have
to work to not grow crops in Cuba, but this is something the
Castro regime has succeeded in doing.
Senator Dorgan. But what you just described is hard
currency going into Cuba from the United States, didn't you?
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. It's very interesting for me, because it's
hard for me to see a distinction between that amount of money
that goes each month to support Cuban families in Cuba, coming
from the United States, and food that is sold to a Cuban agency
to distribute in Cuba. It's hard to see a distinction.
Ambassador Hays. OK.
Senator Dorgan. But I think I understand what you're
saying, Ambassador Hayes, and I appreciate your being candid. I
think you are the only one that I've heard that is consistent.
You would not engage in the kind of trade our country is
engaging in with China, for example.
Ambassador Hays. I think we have some very shortsighted
goals with respect to China, and I do not believe that you have
no engagement, just like I do not believe that you have no
engagement with Cuba, but I think you have to recognize who you
are engaging with and what their goals are. I mean, in China,
we have an $87 billion trade deficit. We have a military whose
doctrine who calls for fighting a war with us. They're crushing
Tibet. I mean, you know, someone, I hope, can explain to me why
that's a good thing for the United States and the American
people.
Senator Dorgan. Well, you need to take that message to the
State Department, then, because, of course, they disagree with
you, as does President Bush.
Ambassador Hays. I no longer work there.
Senator Dorgan. Mr.--I understand that--Mr. Weber, reflect
on what Ambassador Hays is saying. I think Ambassador Hays is
saying that if you have a government that you don't like or a
government that's repressive or a government that is engaged in
human rights abuses, if you send food, somehow that gives aid
and comfort to the government.
Mr. Weber. Well----
Senator Dorgan. How does the Farm Bureau feel about that?
Are you--is this a case where you farm organization is just
softheaded and pro-Castro?
Mr. Weber. Well, I guess, like--you know, when you have a
40-year history of something that hasn't been effective--you
know, it's been very difficult for farmers to change our ways
over the years and things we do on our farms. When you have a
practice that hasn't worked for 40 years, it's time to stop it.
We just don't see where there's been any effect at all.
There's a lot of discussion that--I think we all agree that
there ought to be a change in the Cuban government, or we'd all
like to see something different there, with more rights for
people, and I think people can talk about the need, but they
sure can't talk about this thing has worked. It's just a failed
policy.
Senator Dorgan. Well, when our country says to another
country, ``Look, all right, we're going to slap you around a
bit. We don't like your--we don't like your government. And you
know what we're going to do? We're going to prohibit you from
getting food. We're going to say you can't buy our food.'' Is
that a penalty or a punishment for the government, or does that
hurt the people?
Mr. Weber. It certainly hurts the people who are going to
receive the food and the supply of food in that country that we
are embargoing, and I certainly know what the effect was in the
1970's when we embargoed Russia. It just took the sales out of
a very strong U.S. agricultural market at that time.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Weber, is there any condition under
which you can see that the sale of pork lard, chicken breasts,
turkey drumsticks, or dried edible beans undermines the
security of this country?
Mr. Weber. I think in cases of war--if we were in an armed
conflict, I think we would just say that--you know, obviously,
you're not going to feed your enemy.
Senator Dorgan. Just shut down pork lard and turkey breasts
in the case of armed conflict. But I'm not talking about armed
conflict now. I'm----
Mr. Weber. Well, it's hard to see how agricultural products
are going to be--you know, the old guns and butter thing--how
are they going to turn butter into guns. I don't see it.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Weinmann?
Ms. Weinmann. I'd just point out that even under the Geneva
Convention, which, of course, the United States is a party to,
food and medical products are not to be thwarted to any given
civilian population, even in times of war. And the fact is--is
that there was just a move last week to allow Iraq to import
any goods it wants to from United States companies. There's a
list of some, I understand, 300 products or so that will not be
available for Iraq to import, but I think it's very
inconsistent when we allow such sales and U.S. companies to
engage with Iraq and not Cuba.
Senator Dorgan. So it's--I understand that's a question
that begs an answer, but it is not going to undermine our
interests if we sell chicken livers to Cuba. Would you agree?
Ms. Weinmann. I would agree that it certainly would advance
our interests to do so.
Senator Dorgan. Edible chicken innards? I guess it's hard
for me to understand why someone would want to buy that, but
it's on the list. Beef entrails, pork loins, deboned pork meat,
precooked rice, cereal pellets, cereal gum, rice, sorghum,
millet, barley, alfalfa, semi-milled oats, olive oil, castor
seed oil, skinless back fat, you know, a rather lengthy list of
the sales of agricultural products to Cuba.
Now, I've been in a lot of poor countries around the world,
and they all look pretty much the same, regrettably. I've been
to a lot of refugee camps, and I've been to countries where
there is desperate, gripping, relentless poverty, and you can't
tell much about the government in most of those small villages
where that poverty exists, but you can sure tell a lot about
human misery, and I really feel strongly that the use of food,
in any way, as part of our policy in this country to punish
governments ends up hurting people who are poor, sick, and
hungry, and I think it does precious little to ever affect the
behavior of a foreign government.
I know some of my colleagues seem to suggest that this
entire discussion is about whether we support the Castro regime
in Cuba. The answer--there is only one answer from this
country, and that is no, we don't support the Castro regime. We
want to bring democracy to Cuba. The question is, how best can
we do that. And my own view is that engagement, especially with
respect to the sale of food, makes great sense. And as--I agree
with you, Mr. Weber, that at some point after 40 years or so,
you ask the question, is this a policy that works? And if not,
you ask a second question, what would work better?
And I know, Ambassador Hays, you have testified in a
previous hearing that I held on the subject of travel, and
that's not the subject of this hearing, but you'll recall you
sat at a witness table where, with respect to Cuba--we've
people at OFAC, not as many as you suggest, Ms. Weinmann, there
are fewer people at OFAC working on this, but there are people
there full time today working on finding and punishing American
citizens who traveled in Cuba. You sat, Ambassador Hays, next
to someone who took his father's ashes back to Cuba because
that was his father's last wish, and he was tracked by the
Treasury Department.
Ambassador Hays. And I don't support that in that case.
Senator Dorgan. Right, good for you--and a retired school
teacher from Illinois who road a bicycle in Cuba for 8 days
responding to a Canadian cycling magazine advertisement for a
cycling trip in Cuba. She did. And guess what our Department of
the Treasury, OFAC, did to her? They sent her a bill, a civil
fine. They said, ``You're fined $7,500 because a retired
American school teacher cannot bicycle in Cuba.'' Our policies
are counterproductive with respect to that.
But coming especially to the focus of this discussion, the
policies with respect to using food as a weapon are foolhardy.
They hurt American producers and American family farmers who
need access to those markets, No. 1. But, No. 2, and just as
important, I believe those policies hurt, as I said, poor,
sick, and hungry people in parts of the world, and that is not
the best of American public policy.
Ambassador Hays. Senator?
Senator Dorgan. Yes?
Ambassador Hays. If I could, sir. Again, there are several
levels of this. As I mentioned earlier, the Cuban-American
community, or the American community writ large, is, by far,
the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to Cuba. There also
are a large number of American NGO's who are licensed and
deliver humanitarian aid to Cuba. The U.S. Government has
offered, on several occasions, I believe, to provide
humanitarian aid without cost to the Cuban people, most
recently in the wake of the Hurricane Michelle. We also
authorized--as, sir, you have clearly stated here, we have now
authorized the sale of food to Cuba.
So it seems to me that the remaining question is, simply,
is the American farmer going to get paid? And I don't know that
we have a disagreement. I don't know my colleague here doesn't
want to get paid. I assume he does.
Senator Dorgan. Well, that's not an issue in the hearing.
The Cubans can only purchase for cash at this point.
Ambassador Hays. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. In fact, they must do the transaction
through a French bank. So there is no issue of credit. The
Cubans----
Ambassador Hays. OK, well, great.
Senator Dorgan.--can only purchase food with cash purchases
at this moment, so----
Ambassador Hays. I believe you have an amendment, sir, that
would perhaps change that or provide----
Senator Dorgan. No, it would----
Ambassador Hays. No?
Senator Dorgan.--it would only allow them to conduct the
transaction through an American bank. You have to have a bank
to convert the currencies, but they now must do it through a
European bank, which I think is rather Byzantine.
Mr. Weber, I hope your organization will continue to be
aggressive on these issues. And I appreciate the testimony of
all three of you.
This is an issue that will not go away. All of us want
exactly the same thing. We want to bring more democracy--we
want to bring democracy to Cuba, greater human rights to the
Cuban people. And I just--my own strong feeling has been, for a
long while, that, you know, it's one thing to shoot yourself in
the foot. It's quite another thing to take aim before you do
it. And with respect to the issue of using food as a weapon,
that's exactly what this country has done for far too long.
Let me, again, thank you for your testimony, and this
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Delvis Fernandez Levy, President, Cuban American
Alliance Education Fund, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Byron Dorgan, and distinguished Members of
the Senate Committee on Commerce and Transportation thank you for the
opportunity to present a statement by the Cuban American Alliance
Education Fund (CAAEF) for your deliberations.
CAAEF works within the dynamics of the U.S. Cuban Community in
cooperation with more than 40 U.S. based organizations. We strive to
put a human face on the ongoing hardships due to the lack of normal
relations between the U.S. and Cuba and call for a reassessment of
policies that are outside the best interests of the American people and
carry undue harm on both Cubans and Americans. Our Council and Board
members forge engagements that promote understanding and human
compassion between the people of the Republic of Cuba and the United
States of America.
For us, Americans of Cuban descent, current policy is both a
blessing and a curse. Although only 4 percent of the U.S. Latino
community, we have reached unprecedented economic success and political
representation in that community and in the U.S. in general. On the
negative side, many elements in the policy encourage family divisions
and create unbearable situations for both Cubans and Americans.
Under the Cuban Adjustment Act, our privileges extend far beyond
what is offered to other exiles or immigrants. Even in post 9/11 times,
Cubans reaching U.S. soil, lacking documents or with false papers, have
access to a work permit, welfare assistance, U.S. residency, and in due
course full citizenship rights. These privileges stand in sharp
contrast to the hardships endured by millions of Latin American
immigrants; living lives outside legal protection and without political
representation. In Hoffman v. NLRB, for example, the Supreme Court
ruled that an undocumented immigrant has no right to back pay or salary
compensation even if unjustifiably fired from work.
But these privileges also have a sinister side. Once in the U.S.,
Cuban Americans are restricted to only one visit within a twelve-month
period to deal with a family emergency in Cuba. We are also limited as
to the amount of and the frequency with which money may be sent to
family and loved ones on the island. Parents who abandon dependents in
Cuba escape prosecution, but those who do assume parental
responsibilities cannot claim income tax deductions generally afforded
to other immigrants with dependents in their country of origin.
Today, support for Cuba-policy is fueled more by the perks and turf
protection granted to hardliners in the Cuban American enclave of Miami
than by what is in the wider interests of all Americans. Federal funded
Radio/TV Marti has been granted millions of dollars this year alone,
money which is lavished through a patronage system to pro-embargo
ideologues, despite the fact that TV Marti is not seen in Cuba and
Radio Marti is ignored by 95 percent of the population. U.S. funds also
rain on other groups in the Cuban American community, rewarded for the
preservation Cold War rhetoric and policies still directed towards
Cuba. These rewards foster dependency on Federal funded funds with
ensuing corrupting effect on community life, making it unusually
difficult for Cuban Americans to speak out against a policy that is in
direct contradiction to American principles of free trade and travel.
But despite the barriers, winds of change are now felt at the
epicenter of pro-embargo support in Miami. Notwithstanding
difficulties, 300 courageous Cuban Americans, last March 28th, together
with U.S. representatives and former U.S. ambassadors met in Miami to
present arguments that favor engagement policies between Cubans and
Americans. This meeting presaged a new era in Cuban-American discourse,
where reason gives way to passion and where citizen engagement is
offered as an alternative to punishment and isolation.
Americans, most of them from the Cuban American community in South
Florida, in quiet defiance to the travel restrictions and threats of
fines and jail terms, 150,000 according to estimates from Treasury,
traveled to Cuba last year. Richard Newcomb, Director of the Office of
Foreign Assets Control acknowledged at a Senate hearing last February
that a third of these travelers are in violation of U.S. travel
restrictions to Cuba.
In Congress, both houses have voted in favor of permitting
unfettered sales of food and medicine as well as extending private
financing for sales to Cuba, but their votes were thwarted in back room
as a loss to democracy and to the detriment of American farmers.
Other Americans participate in earnest people-to-people engagement.
Last year, nearly 200 colleges and universities sent students and
professors to Cuba and over 100 Cuban academics participated in
conferences. Furthermore, in city and state governments, calls abound
for changes in policy. In California, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Illinois
resolutions or sister-state relationships have been approved or are
being discussed. More than twenty city-to-city relations have taken
place since Mobile, Alabama back in 1993 signed a sister-city
agreements with Havana; now these relationships span wide areas of the
U.S. and reach the full length of Cuba.
With regards to Cuba trade, for the first time in 42 years, Cuba is
buying more than $70 million worth of U.S. farm products. However, this
trade is severely restricted due to the travel ban along with the
prohibition on private or public financing; also the trade is one-way,
Cuba is not allowed to sell to the U.S.
Cuba is a key potential market for U.S. exports of rice, chicken,
feed grains, soybeans, wheat flour, herbicides, pesticides, farm
machinery, etc. But this market is placed outside the reach of small to
medium U.S. farmers due to current laws that limit travel and prohibit
financing. According to a study in January by the Cuba Policy
Foundation, the direct cost of the U.S. embargo to U.S. farmers in
terms of lost trade is 1.24 billion dollars annually. Also as a result
of trade restrictions, the International Trade Commission found that
U.S. producers lose up to $1 billion a year in agricultural trade with
Cuba.
According to the head of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington,
D.C., Dagoberto Rodriguez, the state of Minnesota alone could expect up
to $130 million in trade with Cuba in the first year the embargo was
lifted. The U.S. as a whole could anticipate as much as $3.9 billion in
trade. Minnesota based Cargill in January shipped to Cuba about 25,000
metric tons of yellow corn grown by Midwest farmers. It was the first
of several shipments under a $35 million deal between Cuba, Cargill and
other U.S. trading companies within a 3 month period. Today Foreign
Investment in Cuba encompasses more than 400 companies from other
nations investing more than $5 billion in joint ventures in Cuba.
Cuba-policy must be reassessed in light of U.S. national interests
and not on the financial interests of long-term policy beneficiaries.
U.S. Foreign policy should be based on hard facts and not on
fabrications of ideologues bent on deceiving Congress and the American
public. A policy tool placed to exact misery and suffering also
promotes hatred as well as damages U.S. credibility in its just fight
against terrorism. It is time to listen to voices of reason and opt for
respectful engagements based on cooperation for the security and well-
being of both Cubans and Americans.