U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–877 PDF 2005

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

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

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 Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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 

3

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. 

4

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, ‘‘CasVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:15 Feb 14, 2005 Jkt 094877 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\94877.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
5

tro 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 

6

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 

7

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 

8

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 

9

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 foreignexchange 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. 

10

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. 

11

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 

12

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, 

13

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.

14

• 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. 

15

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 

16

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? 

17

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 

18

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 

19

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. 

20

[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.’’

21

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. 

22

[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. 

23

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 

24

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. 

25

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 

26

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 

27

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. 

28

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 

29

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 

30

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 polVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:15 Feb 14, 2005 Jkt 094877 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\94877.TXT JACK PsN: JACKF
31

icy 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. 

32

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. 

33

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. 

34

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, 

35

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 shortterm 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. 

36

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 

37

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 

38

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 

39

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 

RANK STATE ANNUAL POTENTIAL

AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS 

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC OUTPUT STEMMING 

FROM NEW

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

40

Economic Impacts of U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba—Continued

RANK STATE ANNUAL POTENTIAL

AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS 

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL

ECONOMIC OUTPUT STEMMING 

FROM NEW

AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS 

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. 

41

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) 

42

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. 

43

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. 

44

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 

45

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’ 

46

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 fulltime 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 

47

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. 

48

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? 

49

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 

50

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——

51

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 

52

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 

53

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 

54

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.] 

(55)

APPENDIX

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, 

56

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.

Æ