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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–673PDF 2010

IS IT TIME TO LIFT THE BAN ON TRAVEL

TO CUBA?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 19, 2009

Serial No. 111–63

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

PETER QUILTER, Senior Professional Staff Member 

GENELL BROWN, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA, Retired, President, BR McCaffrey Associates, LLC .............................................................................................................. 17

Ambassador James Cason, Former Chief of Mission, U.S. Interests Section, 

Havana, Cuba ....................................................................................................... 21

Ms. Miriam Leiva, Independent Journalist and Founder, Ladies in White ....... 33

Mr. Ignacio Sosa, Executive Board Member, Friends of Caritas Cubana ........... 37

Ms. Berta Antunez, Sister of Former Political Prisoner Jorge Luis Garcia 

Perez (‘‘Antunez’’), Pro-democracy Activist ........................................................ 40

Mr. Philip Peters, Vice President, Lexington Institute ........................................ 49

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA, Retired: Prepared statement ....................... 19

Ambassador James Cason: Prepared statement ................................................... 24

Ms. Miriam Leiva: Prepared statement ................................................................. 35

Mr. Ignacio Sosa: Prepared statement ................................................................... 39

Ms. Berta Antunez: Prepared statement ............................................................... 43

Mr. Philip Peters: Prepared statement .................................................................. 52

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Statement by Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez .............................................................. 59

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 88

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 89

The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Prepared statement .................................... 92

The Honorable Mike Pence, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 94

The Honorable Michael E. McMahon, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................... 95

The Honorable John S. Tanner, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 96

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas: Prepared statement ................................................................... 99

The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey: Prepared statement .................................................................... 102

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: Prepared statement ............................................................... 103

The Honorable Howard L. Berman: Material for the record ............................... 105

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida: Material for the record ............................................................ 126

(1)

IS IT TIME TO LIFT THE BAN ON TRAVEL TO 

CUBA? 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman BERMAN. The committee will come to order. In a moment, I will recognize myself and the ranking member for a somewhat loose 7 minutes each, the chair and ranking member of the 

Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere for 3 minutes each, and all 

other members of the committee, should they seek time, for a tight 

1 minute, for the purpose of making opening statements. Without 

objection, all members may have 5 legislative days to submit opening statements or additional materials for the record. Also without 

objection, the chair may recess the committee at any time. And 

now, I will begin my opening statement. 

Americans have the right to travel to Iran, the world’s leading 

state sponsor of terrorism, which seeks a nuclear weapons capability in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We can go to North Korea, which threatens to destabilize East Asia with its nuclear weapons program. And even during the darkest days of the Cold War, our citizens could visit the 

Soviet Union. Yet, the vast majority of Americans are still prohibited by law from traveling to Cuba. It is the only country in the 

world where our people are not allowed to go. 

I am no fan of the Castro brothers. In my book, they are dictators and despots. The Cuban people are still denied the right to 

choose their own form of government. They are jailed arbitrarily. 

They are denied a free press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of 

expression. The recent beating of renowned Cuban blogger Yoani 

Sanchez as she walked to a peace march says it all. 

But let’s face it. By any objective measure, the nearly 50-yearold travel ban simply hasn’t worked. This fact is clearly understood 

by the American people. Recent polls indicate that 64 percent of 

Americans, and a full 67 percent of Cuban-Americans, support allowing all American citizens to travel to Cuba. It is clearly time for 

a change. 

This hearing is not about ending the entire Cuban embargo. 

When President Obama abolished travel restrictions on CubanAmericans earlier this year, he made it clear that the larger issue 

of the embargo was a debate for another day. Unlike the travel 

2

ban, the economic embargo does not implicate the fundamental 

human rights of U.S. citizens. Today, we will focus on whether we 

should scrap the restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba. 

The travel ban has prevented contact between Cubans and ordinary Americans who serve as ambassadors for the democratic values we hold dear. Such contact would help break Havana’s 

chokehold on information about the outside world. And it would 

contribute to improving the image of the United States, particularly in Latin America where the United States embargo on Cuba 

remains a centerpiece of anti-Washington grievances. 

Proponents of the travel ban argue that we should not make any 

change in the law without a reciprocal gesture from the Cuban regime. I believe it is a huge mistake to treat the travel issue in this 

manner. Letting U.S. citizens travel to Cuba is not a gift to the 

Castros—it is in our national interest. Waiting for a concession 

from Havana before we do something on behalf of our own citizens 

perversely puts the Cuban Government in charge of that decision. 

I understand the concern that allowing Americans to travel to 

Cuba would put money in the hands of the Castros. But the reality 

is that a significant portion of these funds would also aid the underground economy and the small self-employed sector, strengthening an important foundation of independence from Cuba’s authoritarian regime. At the end of the day, the importance of depriving the Castro regime of some additional financial resources is far 

outweighed by our interest in accelerating the spread of democratic 

ideas and supporting the development of a healthy civil society in 

Cuba. 

For too long, our policy decisions about Cuba, including the travel ban, have centered on hurting the Castro regime rather than 

helping the Cuban people. But this has led to the worst possible 

outcome: In an effort to make the Castros feel the sting, we have 

made the Cuban people cry. It is time to make the well-being of 

the Cuban people the driving force behind our policy toward the island. Lifting the travel ban will benefit both U.S. and Cuban citizens. We need to let Americans be beacons of hope; they will bring 

freedom with them. 

Let thousands of U.S. visitors chip away at the Castro information monopoly with thousands of small cuts. Let the residents of 19 

U.S. cities actually travel to their sister cities in Cuba. Let Americans and Cubans openly discuss human rights and market-based 

economics and Hollywood movies on streets, beaches and in cafes 

throughout Cuba—and take the U.S. Government out of the business of deciding what should be discussed and which Americans 

should do the talking. 

The freedom to travel is an important thread running throughout 

American history—from the settlement of the West, to the road 

trips inspired by author Jack Kerouac, to the exploration of outer 

space. The Cuba travel ban is squarely at odds with this uniquely 

American value, and constitutes a disturbing infringement on the 

right of our citizens to freedom of speech, association, and to travel. 

Except under the most extreme circumstances, the government 

has no business telling us where we should go or with whom we 

should talk. It is beyond absurd that the Treasury Department—

through a humiliating and Kafkaesque licensing process—is in the 

3

position of deciding which American church groups can and cannot 

visit religious leaders on the island, and which of our artists and 

musicians are allowed to collaborate freely with their Cuban counterparts. This is Big Brother government at its worst. 

Last week we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the 

Berlin Wall. We relived the moments when East Germans and 

West Germans, after years of separation, came together as one. 

There is also a wall in the Cuban context—invisible yet very real—

and to the extent that our policy has erected this barrier, we must 

begin to tear it down. I want to experience, as we all do, the joyful 

day when Cubans on the island and Cuban-Americans are also reunited. 

It is time to trust our own people. It is time to restore the right 

of Americans to travel to Cuba. 

And with us today to discuss this issue is a distinguished panel 

of witnesses, whom I will introduce shortly, but before I do, let me 

turn to the ranking member, the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. RosLehtinen, who may have a different perspective on this issue than 

the one you have just heard, for any opening comments that she 

might want to make. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as always, for 

your bipartisan spirit, and thank you to all the audience members 

for being here today. On January 21 of this year, I heard a statement that appeared to telegraph to the world that the U.S. would 

hold brutal regimes accountable for their actions, that our foreign 

policy toward tyrants would be based on an overarching moral, political, and strategic U.S. objective of promoting freedom and democracy. 

On that historic day, President Obama said, and I quote, ‘‘To 

those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.’’ 

He added that the U.S. would extent a hand if, he emphasized, you 

are willing to unclench your fist, and I commend President Obama 

for restating his position earlier this year and restating his support 

for the United States embargo on the Cuban dictatorship, calling 

on the regime to free all political prisoners. 

The President said, and I quote, ‘‘The Cuban people are not free, 

and that is our loadstar when it comes to our policy in Cuba.’’ Proponents of unfettered travel to Cuba seek to reward the Cuban regime with tourism cash flows as the dictatorship tightens its stranglehold on the Cuban people. Let us have an honest debate on the 

issue of travel to Cuba, one based on facts. There is no ban on travel to Cuba. Do not mislead the American people. A ban denotes a 

prohibition on any travel to the island, but there are 18 different 

ways in which Americans can legally travel to Cuba, and they do; 

eight categories under general licenses and ten categories under 

specific licenses. 

In addition to family, journalists and official U.S. Government 

travel, one can travel for other reasons, ranging from verifiable 

educational, religious and humanitarian activities to professional 

research and meetings, athletic competitions, artistic performances, 

activities related to authorized U.S. exports to Cuba, of which there 

are many. Many Members of Congress travel to Cuba every year, 

some at taxpayers’ expense, stay at the best hotels, some of which 

4

have been built on confiscated U.S. property, and return with nothing but glowing reviews about Fidel Castro and his new faceman 

and current dictator, his brother Raul. 

In April, for example, one of our House colleagues traveled to 

Cuba and said this of Fidel Castro, and I quote—I want to sound 

breathless as I say this: ‘‘It was almost like listening to an old 

friend.’’ Even more regrettable, many of our colleagues have sought 

to present the apartheid system of health care in Cuba as a model 

for the United States to emulate. A member of this committee during an August 28 town meeting praised the Cuban regime’s 

healthcare system and said of Fidel Castro, breathless again, ‘‘one 

of the brightest leaders I have ever met.’’

This is the same Cuban healthcare system which provides all the 

best treatment to foreigners and to the regime elite while denying 

it to dissidents and subjecting political prisoners to electroshock 

treatment as punishment for their political beliefs. Some of the categories of U.S. travel to Cuba have been in place for decades. In 

fact, during the Carter administration, there were no restrictions 

on travel to Cuba. 

Did that make the Cuban people any closer to freedom and democracy? I must have missed that. I believe the response was the 

Mariel boatlift. Despite this licensed targeted American travel; despite the onslaught of European visitors; visitors from Mexico; especially, when it come to Europe, from Spain; Canada, Canada sent 

so many visitors to Cuba; what has the Cuban regime done? Has 

it unclenched its fists? Did I miss that? 

In fact, just 2 weeks ago, as the chairman pointed out, independent blogger Yoani Sanchez and fellow blogger Orlando Luis 

Pardo were detained and beaten by Cuban agents to prevent them 

from participating in the march against violence. It is so ironic and 

so indicative of the Castro regime, beating them up as they go to 

a march against violence. A week ago, Jose Antonio Vasquez was 

fired as a chef at a restaurant because of his opposition to the 

Cuban dictatorship and for wearing a cambio bracelet, ‘‘change,’’ a 

bracelet like the one I am holding up. That is a crime in Cuba. 

What opponents of the current travel regulations want is unrestricted tourist travel to Cuba. One of our colleagues in this committee has even joked, and I quote, ‘‘Oh, let the Castro brothers 

deal with spring break once or twice and we will see how much 

control they still have.’’ Ha, ha, ha. We have seen the images in 

the news about spring break. How could anyone credibly argue that 

lounging on the beaches of Varadero or partying in the nightclubs 

until the wee hours of the night will bring freedom and democracy 

to the Cuban people? It is not funny. 

The majority of Europeans and tourists from around the world 

have been going to Cuba for rum, for music, for sex, for cigars, for 

sun, for years. Have they brought about democratic reform and 

change? By contrast, Ambassador Cason, one of our witnesses 

today, highlighted in an editorial earlier this year the tourism restriction or travel ban against South Africa’s apartheid’s government did play a key role in forcing a change by convincing the government that its practices were unacceptable and would not be condoned. 

5

Cuban travel regulations and U.S. sanctions on the Castro regime were developed to address U.S. security interests and foreign 

policy priorities and are based on solid legal ground. First, the 

tourism sector in Cuba is built on confiscated U.S. property. Many 

of the hotels and restaurants, which are closed to the average 

Cuban, are part of the uncompensated property stolen from Americans. Why would we seek to propagate such violations of U.S. property rights by promoting tourism to the island? 

Second, the Cuban dictatorship’s economic vulnerability lies in 

the tourism sector, as it constitutes the single biggest source of income for the regime. In the same manner that the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act was enacted in 1996 to target Iran’s economic vulnerability, its energy sector, and in the same manner that this committee just 3 weeks ago adopted the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act to impose sanctions targeted at Iran’s newest economic 

Achilles’ heel, so it is that U.S. travel regulations are targeted at 

the tourism sector. Tourism is to Cuba what energy investment 

and refined petroleum products are to Iran. 

Third, it is in this Nation, our Nation’s security interest to curtail travel to the island. As former Defense Intelligence Agency 

counterspies have emphasized during congressional briefings and 

as analysts report, ‘‘The Cuban military is well-integrated throughout the tourism industry. This presents an excellent platform from 

which to conduct a wide variety of illicit activities due to the large 

volume of foreign visitors who pass in and out of these resorts, providing Cuba with hard currency.’’

Among other regime entities involved in the tourism sector, 

Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A., Enterprise Management Group, or GAESA, which is a holding company for the Cuban 

Defense Ministry, this group holds a wide array of companies, including Sasa, which controls the island’s gas station network, and 

Gaviota, which controls and operates more than 30 hotels and resorts. Tourism profits have enabled GAESA to control the military 

counterintelligence department and its support companies, such as 

Antex, which has served as a channel for introducing Cuban intelligence operatives into foreign countries. 

It has also been reported that Cuban intelligence sees tourist 

travel to the island as an important source of potential assets, that 

is as a means of recruiting foreigners to spy for the regime. So, 

given the success of the Cuban intelligence in recruiting U.S. academics, a senior INS official, a senior Department of Defense official, State Department intelligence and research official Walter 

Kendall Meyers, and the most senior Cuba analyst at the Defense 

Intelligence Agency, Ana Belen Montes, to betray the United States 

and spy for the regime, why would we want to facilitate such potential espionage activities by allowing unfettered travel to the island? 

And just a few more points, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

time. Fourth, the Supreme Court has said that travel to Cuba can 

be restricted in support of U.S. foreign policy. The court held, and 

I quote, ‘‘There is an adequate basis under the Due Process Clause 

of the 5th Amendment to sustain the President’s decision to curtail 

the flow of hard currency to Cuba by restricting travel.’’ Fifth, the 

6

travel regulations also help contribute to the safety of Americans 

and enable us to minimize the risk to U.S. travelers to Cuba. 

Some have sought to justify the removal of all travel restrictions 

by comparing Cuba to Iran. The chairman started with that very 

comparison. I welcome such a parallel. The case of Iran illustrates 

the need for travel regulations by shining a light on the safety and 

security issues associated with unregulated travel to countries 

under the control of rogue regimes. Three American backpackers 

who got lost while hiking in a mountainous region along the unmarked Iraqi-Iran border were detained by Iranian border security 

agents in July. They are now being charged with espionage. 

The case of the Iranian-American journalist who, in April of this 

year, was sentenced to 8 years in prison after Iran accused her of 

spying for the United States. She spent 4 months in prison. She 

was released in May. And the Director of the Middle East Program 

of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars was detained in Iran in 2007, placed in solitary confinement for more 

than 110 days. Iran and Cuba are not trustworthy regimes. 

Already, the Department of State warns, and I quote, ‘‘In several 

instances, the Cuban regime has seized the U.S. passports of dual 

nationals, has denied these individuals permission to return to the 

United States, Cuban authorities consistently fail to notify the U.S. 

Interests Section of the arrests of Cuban-American dual nationals, 

and deny U.S. consular officers access to them. They also withhold 

information concerning their welfare and treatment.’’ Why promote 

tourism travel to Cuba? 

Why not choose to go to the Bahamas, Jamaica, or the Dominican Republic, given the implementation of our U.S.-CAFTA-DR 

trade agreement? Haiti needs our help. Why not flock to Haiti and 

help rebuild this island nation? Why choose to vacation off the 

backs of the forced slave labor of the oppressed Cuban people who 

are denied access to the very tourist hotels you want to flock to? 

Promoting tourist travel to Cuba does not advance the interests of 

the United States or our constituents. 

If you desire to come to a warm tropical climate, come to my district. Come to Miami. Come to Key West. Come to any part of Florida’s Gulf or Atlantic Coast. Go to the Jersey Shore. Visit California, visit Arizona. Let us boost our own U.S. economy. Let us 

boost our state’s economy. Don’t fill the coffers of the Castro regime. Muchas gracias Senor Chairman. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired, and 

the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Mr. 

Engel, is recognized for 3 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman of 

the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I very much appreciate 

your calling today’s hearing to discuss the issue of Cuba and the 

travel ban. It is also important that we take a broad look at our 

entire Cuba policy as well, as well as the internal dynamics in 

Cuba, as we review the travel ban. 

I support President Obama’s steps to move the ball forward on 

U.S. policy toward Cuba, but I also believe that it takes two to 

tango. The President removed restrictions on family travel and remittances to Cuba and extended communication links to the island. 

7

These steps sent important signals of the willingness of the United 

States to improve ties with Cuba, but in response, unfortunately, 

I have seen few if any reciprocal steps from the Castro regime. 

Unfortunately, Cuba remains one of the most repressive countries in the Western Hemisphere. Like many of my colleagues, I 

would like to see us turn the page on our approach to Cuba, but 

that time has not yet come. I therefore also stand with President 

Obama in continuing to support the embargo on Cuba. 

I was at the Summit of the Americas with President Obama and 

led the congressional delegation to the Organization of American 

States General Assembly meeting in Honduras. I am pleased to report that the administration’s moves toward Cuba have received a 

positive reception throughout the hemisphere. 

At the General Assembly, the OAS lifted Cuba’s suspension from 

the organization. This was a delicate move, carefully and ably negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It sent a message 

that the United States was willing to see Cuba rejoin the OAS if 

it embraces the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Of course, 

Cuba has not adopted the Charter’s principles. And let me be clear, 

the resolution did not readmit Cuba into the OAS; in fact, the Cubans themselves say they do not want to rejoin the OAS. 

Thus, the ball is now in Cuba’s court to abide by the principles 

of human rights and democracy embodied in the Inter-American 

Democratic Charter. As we move forward, we should not forget that 

the United States is already a major source of humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people and the largest provider of food to Cuba. 

In agricultural products alone, the United States sold over $700 

million of goods to Cuba, making the United States Cuba’s fifth 

largest trading partner in 2008. 

I support President Obama’s changes on Cuba policy, since it recognizes that further liberalization also requires positive steps by 

the Cuban Government, especially in the areas of democracy and 

human rights. Cuba must take steps to free hundreds of political 

prisoners and demonstrate respect for freedom of speech and the 

press. We need to see change in Cuba to turn the page on history 

and move forward in our bilateral relationship. 

Perhaps at that time we could change our policy on the travel 

ban. In other words, using the reset button applies to both sides 

of the United States-Cuba relationship. We have already moved 

forward. More steps by the Castro regime to make tangible 

progress on democracy and human rights would provide even greater opportunities to move beyond the mutual recriminations found 

between our two countries. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling today’s hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also want to thank 

the ranking member and associate myself with all of her comments. Mr. Chairman, Cuba is a totalitarian regime that has oppressed and punished the Cuban people for more than 50 years. 

We all support the right, at least I hope we all support the right, 

8

of the Cuban people to live in a free and democratic society, but 

we differ strongly and passionately on how to help the Cuban people achieve freedom. 

At today’s hearing, we explore how to give a bailout to the Castros. Instead of holding a hearing on human rights conditions in 

Cuba, we have decided to hold a hearing on how fast Americans 

can make a reservation on Orbitz so they can spend the night at 

a Cuban hotel where Cubans aren’t even allowed in, or whether 

Americans can drink mojitos a few feet away from political prisoners. Mr. Chairman, we must remain steadfast in our opposition 

to the brutal Castro regime that murders, tortures, rapes and systematically eliminates any opposition to its iron-fisted rule. 

Canadians and Europeans have been traveling to Cuba and supporting the Castro regime for many years. Some have said that by 

opening Cuba to travel, it would promote political and economic 

change from the Castros’ oppression. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. Let us look at some numbers: 2.1 million, that is how 

many tourists visited Cuba in 2007. Over 2 billion, that is the number of dollars generated by tourism in Cuba on a yearly basis. 

One hundred and two; that is how many attacks against Cuban 

journalists have happened in the past year. Three; that is the number of Cuban agents who threw a blogger headfirst into an unmarked black car and beat her, beat her, for speaking about freedom. This isn’t a few years ago. This is a few weeks ago. Over 300, 

that is the number of political prisoners in Cuba. Zero. Zero; that 

is the amount of change we have seen from the Castros, Mr. Chairman. 

Some of my colleagues and some of our witnesses will say that 2 million tourists and $2 billion a year in tourism is not enough 

to bring change to Cuba, and that instead we must support and 

fund the inhumane activities of the Castro brothers. Let us call it 

what it is. This is a Castro bailout, Mr. Chairman. A bailout for 

beating, a bailout for oppression, a bailout for rape, a bailout for 

torture, a bailout for corruption, a bailout for tyranny. 

Mr. Chairman, going sightseeing to view political prisoners will 

not bring democracy to Cuba. America has always stood for freedom, and in a bipartisan manner, we have to endeavor to spread 

the light of liberty on the repressive Castro regime. Now is not the 

time to change policy and start appeasing and funding the Castro 

plan. The flame of liberty is a powerful one, Mr. Chairman. Let us 

work together to support the right of the Cuban people to live in 

a free and democratic society, and Mr. Chairman——

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has——

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, you were right. The Cuban people are 

crying, Mr. Chairman. They are crying because——

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired——

Mr. MACK. This hearing sends a message that we do not support 

the fight for freedom, and that is wrong. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman BERMAN. Mr. Mack, the time is expired, and we can 

get into cheering all the different views on the different sides. I 

think the hearing will be much better if we can feel the sympathy 

with a particular position but not express it in a voluble way. Who 

next in seniority on the majority’s side wishes to take 1 minute? 

9

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt. You are recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and of course at 

some level, this hearing is about the United States and Cuba and 

the bilateral relationship, but let me suggest at its very core, it is 

really about American democracy, because the travel ban is not a 

sanction on Cuba. It has accomplished nothing in 50 years. It is a 

sanction on American citizens by our own Government, a sanction 

on our freedoms, a sanction on our liberties, and to suggest that 

ending the travel ban should be conditioned on the actions of the 

Cuban Government would mean that the Communist Cuban regime would decide when Americans can exercise their liberties, 

their freedoms, their right to travel. 

How absurd. How outrageous. It is time to trust the American 

people. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Next 

on the—the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, is recognized 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

in 2001, I offered an amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill to facilitate lifting the travel ban, but if and only if certain fundamental human rights conditions were met: First, release 

all political prisoners; and second, return to the United States 

those murderers and felons who had escaped to Cuba, including 

and especially Joanne Chesimard, a woman who was convicted and 

sentenced for the brutal execution-style murder of a New Jersey 

State Trooper named Werner Forester. 

Chesimard today has a life of luxury and privilege, an affront to 

every law-abiding citizen, not just in the United States, but also in 

Cuba, and the Forester family continues to live with a great tragedy. Today, hundreds of men and women languish in Castro’s 

gulags. Dr. Oscar Biscet and others are systematically abused, tortured. The House got it right in 2001, sadly the amendment was 

dropped by the Senate. Lift the travel ban if and only if these conditions are met. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely 

hearing on the travel ban to Cuba. For many developing nations, 

tourism has mutual benefits, providing a means of attracting interest in their culture and in American dollars. I do not believe that 

tourism is the silver bullet that will reduce poverty, encourage democracy and restore social equality. However, there is value to 

opening the doors of tourism to Cuba. 

Tourism is a dialogue, even if only indirectly, with the Cuban 

people. It signals our openness to discourse, and I believe this will 

give hope to Cubans wishing to return to their homeland, so I look 

forward to hearing the testimonies of our panelists. I want to thank 

you for the hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. BURTON. Well, I appreciate you having this hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. I wish everybody that is concerned about this would 

talk to Armando Valladeras, who spent years and years in a ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\111909\53673 HFA PsN: SHIRL
10

munist gulag down there in Cuba, and listen to what he has to say. 

Every dollar, every single dollar that goes to Cuba, helps Castro. 

They exchange that money and they pay those people down there 

in the local currency, and they get a pittance for the work that they 

do. 

There are 10 million people in Communist gulags in Communist 

China. We do business with them, but they haven’t changed. They 

haven’t changed in Vietnam either. This is 90 miles from our coast, 

90 miles from our coast and they are working with Chavez and 

South America. They are working with the Communist movement 

every place they can, and they are still a threat to the United 

States. We shouldn’t send any money down there, not a dime, except maybe for humanitarian purposes, until this regime is removed. 

They need democracy in Cuba. Viva Cuba——

[Applause.] 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Please, please, let us—we will hear your applause, just don’t make 

them. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires, is recognized for 

1 minute. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lifting travel restrictions 

could send countless of American tourists to Cuba, and when the 

tourists visit the island, that money does not help the Cuban people. It does not trickle down to the Cuban people. It goes into the 

pockets of an oppressive government. By lifting travel restrictions, 

we are unequivocally funding an oppressive regime. This oppression of the Cuban regime is systemized and constant. 

A couple of weeks ago, agents rounded up and beat blogger Yoani 

Sanchez and others who were on their way to a peaceful demonstration to promote human rights and denounce violence. For 

this, they were beaten. Just yesterday, Human Rights Watch released a 123-page report detailing atrocities conducted by the 

Cuban regime. The report documents unwarranted threats, violent 

attacks, arrests and imprisonment. 

This is the reality in Cuba, and it is this oppressive activity that 

increased travel would help fund. Is that it? 

Chairman BERMAN. That is it, for now. The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, do you seek recognition? 

Mr. ROYCE. I do, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, Mr. Chairman, promoting this type of travel to 

Cuba might be a good strategy if it would promote democracy or 

human rights or our security. It won’t. Or if tourist dollars spent 

there empowered the average Cuban, or helped build civil society, 

or escaped the regime’s grasp. They don’t. Or if American tourists 

would be free to interact with all Cubans, holding open conversations. They won’t. I do wonder who frolics on the beach knowing 

that freedom-seeking Cubans are brutalized nearby, or as one witness testifies, watches macabre, real-life puppet shows of repressed 

Cubans hailing the dictator. 

That is the tourist industry. Some don’t recognize that we have 

determined, dangerous enemies. I do. Empowering the security apparatus of Cuba, a terrorist state, is a very wrong way to go. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

11

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Does 

the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition? The gentleman is 

recognized for 1 minute, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not like we 

haven’t done anything. Earlier this year in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, we actually did relax certain restrictions on Cuban travel, but now, I believe, having extended that olive branch, it is up 

to the Castro regime to respond. Further relaxing the current travel and trade restrictions without reciprocal actions in Cuba only 

undermines our efforts to improve human rights and might embolden a Castro regime in its twilight. 

While I sympathize with the plight of those with family in Cuba, 

I believe we cannot afford simply to give away what leverage we 

still have over the Castro regime if we are seriously intending to 

realize improvements for the Cuban people and their families here 

in America, and I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. You 

know, when I was elected to this office, I thought I was being elected to be a Member of Congress, not a travel agent, but from some 

of the discussion already today, we are being told that you ought 

to travel to Bermuda or to Haiti, but don’t travel to Cuba. I would 

suggest that is not our role here. I mean, if we want to be a travel 

agent, let us go be a travel agent, but otherwise, some people 

think, myself included, that we will actually promote democracy by 

allowing Americans to travel to Cuba. 

Some people are on the other side and don’t believe that. Fine. 

After 50 years, I think the arguments are probably on my side, but 

let us call it a draw. If it is a draw, shouldn’t the default be freedom? This is not a sanction on Cuba. This is a sanction on Americans. We can leave the discussion, and we will, about the embargo 

for another day. This is a discussion about, will we allow our constituents the freedom to make their own choice on where to travel, 

and not tell them, we want you to travel here and not there? I yield 

back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired. The 

gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is recognized 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

hearing. I just want to say for the record, my utmost respect for 

those of my colleagues whose lives and families were directly affected by the policies of the Castro regime. I have heard the stories 

of how they left their homes and their belongings for fear of their 

lives, and how they have had to escape Cuba, and come to America. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a very emotional issue, one that I can say 

is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. 

It is an issue about America. And whether or not the restrictions 

on us, the American people, the right to travel as we please, I 

think, is really the question. Whether it will bring greater democracy to Cuba, I think I share the gentleman from Arizona’s sentiments. The idea here is, are we restricting the right of all Americans, wherever they may want to go as fellow Americans, whether 

it be in Cuba or any other country of the world? 

12

We go to China. Certainly not all the freedoms are given in 

China. I have a lot more to say, but I thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, is recognized for 

1 minute. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Ranking 

Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I grew up in Charleston, South Carolina, during the heights of the Cold War. I remember well the 

threat posed by a Communist regime 90 miles from Florida. I firmly believe that lifting the travel ban only serves to enrich the corrupt Communist elite. I am hopeful that Castro’s rule over Cuba 

will be coming to an end soon. 

When this happens, this will allow the people of Cuba and the 

United States to finally engage in a full, free, democratic process. 

Why reward someone who for decades has threatened the American people with harm? Some may say that opening up Cuba will 

allow the people there to achieve better lives. For decades, European countries have permitted millions of tourists to travel to 

Cuba, but the current oppressive regime continues to govern by 

force, instilling fear in its people. 

It should be noted that the private humanitarian missions are 

important and acceptable, are already permitted and legal under 

U.S. law. Change in U.S. policy should be based on change in 

Cuba. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Does 

the gentleman from New York seek recognition? Mr. McMahon? 

The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to quote 

from the State Department’s 2009 country description by the Bureau of Consular Affairs of Cuba:

‘‘Cuba is a totalitarian police state which relies on repressive 

methods to maintain control. These methods include intense 

physical and electronic surveillance of both Cuban citizens and 

foreign visitors. Americans visiting Cuba should be aware that 

any encounter with a Cuban citizen should be subject to surreptitious scrutiny by the General Directorate for State Security of Cuba. 

‘‘Also, any interactions with average Cubans, regardless of 

how well-intentioned, can subject that Cuban to harassment 

and/or detention and other forms of repressive actions by state 

security elements. The Government of Cuba bases much of its 

legitimacy on being strongly opposed to the U.S. Government. 

Nevertheless, its need to earn hard currency through the tourist industry prompts it to encourage tourism from any source.’’

Again, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t make that up. That is from the 

State Department’s 2009 country description, and I submit that for 

the record for thought of those who would lift the travel ban. 

Chairman BERMAN. It will be included. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Florida—has already had 

his time. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, instead of Russian missiles, Cuba harbors convicted terrorists, spies, and imprisons its own people and 

13

calls them political prisoners, and the profits from this so-called 

tourism that we are talking about, which included $2.7 billion last 

year, go not to the people but directly to the Cuban intelligence and 

its military. Now, why would we in our right mind ever want to 

help subsidize the enemies of the United States? 

And this is, we are talking about sending Americans to hotels 

that, just like in the old Soviet Union days when I was in Moscow 

in the 1980s, the Russian citizens couldn’t go in those hotels. They 

are all for tourists, and the same is true in Cuba, but it seems unconscionable to me that we would encourage our citizens to vacation while Cubans are persecuted by their own government by the 

Castro brothers, and I think the travel ban should remain in effect. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly want to 

say that as we are listening to our witnesses and to each other, we 

have to know how many other countries that we, as Americans, 

travel to that aren’t democracies, that don’t have human and religious rights that we would agree with, and ask our question, why 

should we treat Cuba any differently? I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentleman from Florida, do you seek recognition? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman, Mr. Bilirakis, is recognized 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, sir. The idea that increased travel 

would have a real impact on openness in Cuba is misguided. Castro 

is the problem, not American policies. We should not be in the business of perpetuating the Castro regime’s propaganda apparatus 

that blames the U.S. for the island’s suffering. Lifting travel restrictions would directly provide tourist dollars to the Marxist regime in order to fund its tools of oppression. 

There is no free market in Cuba, just a giant money laundering 

machine for a tyrant bent on maintaining Soviet era policies that 

otherwise met their demise with the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 

years ago. We must maintain travel restrictions to prevent the regime from using tourist dollars to further oppress the Cuban people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cuba is the only nation in 

the world where Americans are forbidden to travel by their own 

government, the only one. Our Government will not stop Americans 

from traveling to Afghanistan, North Korea, Sudan or Burma. 

Americans are free to travel to every nation except for a small island 90 miles off the coast of Florida, and our President just completed a very successful visit to a Communist country, China. 

By any objective standard, our current policy toward Cuba just 

hasn’t worked. It was clear to me when I first traveled to Cuba in 

the mid-70s as a congressional staffer, and it is even clearer to me 

now, over three decades later. Earlier this year, I led a congressional delegation to Cuba. We believe there are new opportunities 

14

to rethink U.S. policy with our nearest Caribbean neighbor. Americans should not be denied the right to travel to Cuba. 

Americans, mind you, have become isolated. We should be free 

to be part of the global community. It is our democratic right to 

travel to Cuba. We don’t want to deny our citizens their free democratic rights based on what regime or what government is in place, 

because we don’t deny Americans the right to travel anywhere else 

in the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank, 

and applaud, and incorporate by reference the eloquent statements 

of the ranking member, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I believe her comments were spot on. I am opposed to lifting the travel restrictions 

to Cuba unless and until Castro’s Cuba either, at the very least, 

reforms its behavior, at the very most, changes its regime, and I 

am a little baffled by Mr. Flake’s comment. 

I don’t think anybody here was acting like a travel agent, but if 

I could capitalize on what Ileana said, if you have a burning desire 

to go somewhere, let me suggest if you don’t go to Florida, you 

come to Las Vegas instead of Cuba. [Laughter.] 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady, the leader of the 

tourism caucus, has expired. [Laughter.] 

The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in one of the 

rare moments where I disagree with my colleague from Arizona. 

We are usually pressed hard against the railing on the right together, but on this one, we will agree to disagree, but I do so respectfully, and not as a travel agent. As we all know, travel to 

Cuba is not banned. There are actually 18 categories for which 

travel to Cuba is permitted. What is restricted, and what this hearing primarily boils down to, is tourist travel to Cuba. 

We are not talking about opening Cuba’s free and open tourist 

industry. There is no such thing. What we are talking about are 

hotels and services which pay directly into the pockets of Cuba’s 

Government and military. The average Cuban citizen can’t even 

approach these exclusive hotels. Those who are permitted to be 

there for work are not paid adequately and are required to toe a 

strict party line. Those who argue for lifting this travel restriction 

say that Cuba will open up democratically. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. PENCE. Well, I ask unanimous consent to submit my entire 

statement for the record. 

Chairman BERMAN. Oh, absolutely, and we will be coming back, 

of course, for a 5-minute questioning period. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Meeks, 

is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it just seems 

to me, we fight for freedom in this country, and therefore, it seems 

that what this hearing is simply about is the freedom of the American people being able to choose where they want to go. This is the 

only country where the Americans have placed upon ourselves a 

15

ban of travel. I hear a number of members talk about some of these 

other countries that are so bad, yet we don’t have such bans in 

these other countries as we have on Cuba. 

So, it seems to me that the only place where there is even a tourist travel ban in the world that we place on ourselves is in Cuba, 

but yet we have some of these other governments that are Communist, etc., and I here members talking how bad the place is, but 

yet they have visited these places. Leave it up to the American people. Those who don’t want to go won’t. Those who do will, but leave 

it up to the American people to make the choice, because that is 

what freedom really is about. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think that 

I have listened to both sides of the argument here, and I think that 

we have an excellent opportunity. Where we have been is we are 

at a stalemate. No question about the violation of human rights, 

and no question about where we have gone in terms of our need 

for economic exchange with Cuba, but doing nothing keeps us 

where we are. Why not use this opportunity to get something out 

of this? 

I say yes, let us open up and let us travel. Now, we have got to 

understand, the ban doesn’t stop the travel. What the ban does is 

stops the money, the finances from going there. This is a multibillion-dollar deal, and we need to go to the Castro brothers and say, 

let us make a deal. We will open up this ban, we will stop this, 

we will bring the tourists in, we will bring the billions of dollars 

in, but you have got to do this. 

You have got to release the prisoners, you have got to do something about the human rights, and let us remember, I believe that 

having more Americans on the streets in Cuba will help us to move 

quicker to a democracy in Cuba. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member RosLehtinen. I thank you for allowing me to speak to an important 

issue to our South Florida community. Let me start by saying I 

have always supported a common sense Cuba travel policy, and I 

believe that family members should not be separated, so I did support President Obama’s series of changes to U.S. policy which allow 

for lifting of restrictions on travel and remittances for Americans 

with family members in Cuba. 

The goal is to ensure that Cuban-Americans are able to move 

freely to visit their families. This is a large step, and the Cuban 

Government should not squander this new willingness and this opportunity that has been presented. Now that the United States has 

made changes to some of its longstanding policies toward Cuba, I 

believe it is time for the Cuban Government to respond in kind. Before permitting free travel between our two countries, the Cuban 

Government must respond to legitimate claims that have been asserted by the United States and its citizens for many years, and 

it is imperative that these be dealt with promptly. 

I thank the chairman and look forward to——

16

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

now our final recognition before we get to the witnesses, the 

gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and 

thank the ranking member for the cooperation of this hearing. 

Some years ago, I was involved in the tragedy of Elian Gonzalez, 

the loss of his mother and family members that wanted to raise 

him. I indicated in my preference, after meeting the grandmothers, 

who lived in Cuba, that he should be returned to family. As I did 

that, I did not ignore the family members who are here in the 

United States, and I frankly believe he should have the benefit of 

all family members. 

So I think it is important that we open the doors of opportunity 

and that we recognize that, as we have opened the doors to China, 

that is not perfect, we open the doors to Cuba, and our intervention 

and involvement is critical. At the same time, we ask for concessions, interaction with the Cuban Government, and if we do that, 

we make America the greater country and we work together with 

the Cuban people. Let us lift the embargo. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. All 

time for 1-minute statements has expired. We are now going to 

turn to our excellent panel of witnesses, one of whom will be with 

us by videoconference. 

First, I will introduce all the witnesses. General Barry McCaffrey 

is president of his own consulting firm based in Arlington, Virginia. 

He is also an adjunct professor of international affairs at the 

United States Military Academy at West Point, and serves as a national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News. From 1996 to 

2001, General McCaffrey served as the director of the White House 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Prior to that, General 

McCaffrey served as the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed 

Forces’ Southern Command, coordinating national security operations in Latin America. 

Ambassador James Cason is currently president of the Center for 

a Free Cuba. He is a retired career Foreign Service officer, with 30 

years of experience in Latin America. He was nominated by President Bush to be U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay and confirmed by 

the Senate. Prior to his posting in Paraguay, Ambassador Cason 

was chief of mission at the United States Interests Section, Havana, Cuba, from September 10, 2002 until September 10, 2005. 

Ambassador Cason retired from the Foreign Service in 2008. 

By videoconference, Miriam Leiva has been a human rights activist and independent journalist since 1995. In 2003, she was one 

of the founders of the Ladies in White, a women’s organization that 

advocates for Cuban prisoners of conscience. In September 2008, 

she left the movement to focus on journalism and direct aid to 

Cuban prisoners of conscience and their families. A former Cuban 

diplomat, Leiva was expelled from the Foreign Ministry in September 1992 ‘‘for lack of political confidence,’’ and when she refused 

to divorce her husband, independent journalist and economist 

Oscar Espinosa Chepe, after he was accused of being a 

counterrevolutionary. Ms. Leiva will testify by videoconference 

17

from the United States Interests Section in Havana, Cuba. Please 

note that there is a 4-second delay in the transmission. 

Ignacio Sosa is an executive board member of Friends of Caritas 

Cubana, a non-profit organization that raises aid for Caritas 

Cubana, the only non-governmental humanitarian organization 

with national reach in Cuba. He is a former executive board member of the Cuba Study Group. Mr. Sosa has been active in seeking 

an end to the isolation of Cuba, and he testified previously before 

the International Operations and Human Rights Subcommittee on 

lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban-Americans. 

Berta Antunez is a Cuban citizen who has been active in the 

human rights movement in Cuba. Ever since she became aware of 

abuses committed against her unjustly imprisoned brother, Jorge 

Luis Garcia Perez, she came together with a group of other Cuban 

mothers in defense of prisoners’ rights. In the early 1990s, she 

helped create the National Movement for Civic Resistance, Pedro 

Luis Boitel, to fight harassment against their relatives in prison. 

Her movement has been active in ensuring prisoners’ rights and 

publicizing human rights abuses against political prisoners. 

Our last witness is Philip Peters, vice president of the Lexington 

Institute. He served in the State Department’s Latin American Bureau during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. 

He has reported on Cuban economic topics and analyzed U.S. policy 

toward Cuba for more than a decade and writes the blog, The 

Cuban Triangle. He holds degrees from Georgetown University 

School of Foreign Service and graduate school. 

Thank you all very much for being with us. General McCaffrey, 

why don’t you start? 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL BARRY R. MCCAFFREY, USA, 

RETIRED, PRESIDENT, BR MCCAFFREY ASSOCIATES, LLC 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you and Congressman Ros-Lehtinen for the opportunity to be here to join this 

very distinguished panel. I think it is an appropriate time to address this issue. Let me, if I may, add, I provided most of you with 

a copy of some other work I have done, particularly an op-ed I submitted at the Miami Herald a few months back dealing with this 

issue. A couple of thoughts. 

In January I will be back in Cuba again as an Adjunct Professor 

of International Affairs to listen to the situation on the ground and 

try and learn how we can move forward in the coming years to 

bring back into the community of nations the Cuban people, from 

which they have been isolated while under the control of a totalitarian regime for the better part of 50 years. I take great sympathy 

with every remark made dealing with the suffering of the Cuban 

people, both economic and political. 

In January, I will also be the head of a delegation form the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund where we will again visit Vietnam, 

a place I fought on three combat tours, where we suffered 58,000 

killed in action, over 300,000 wounded, where the Vietnam veteran, 

3.5 million of us, have reached out to the Vietnamese people. We 

have de-mining projects, I will be opening a school in Quang Tri 

Province, etc., and I mention that just to put in parallel a viewpoint that I find our current policy toward Cuba, both in terms of 

18

the tourism ban as well as the economic embargo, to not make 

sense. 

It doesn’t work, and more importantly, we have got Mr. Castro 

with one foot in the grave and the transition to power looming in 

front of us in the coming few years, and I would argue we want 

to engage with these people and try and bring them back into the 

rule of law and the coalition of democratic states. Again, I would 

underscore I understand the repressive nature of the regime. I 

don’t think tourism in and of itself is going to blow away this mantle of oppression, but I do think it will allow the freedom of the 

American people to directly engage with the Cubans. 

I think our interests are served by lifting this tourism ban. I 

might add, and I say this as sort of a hard-nosed national security 

professional, I do not believe that the Cubans in any way are a significant threat to our national security interests. I think their very 

high-energy intelligence service is primarily a defensive measure in 

which they see us as their principal and overwhelming threat. I 

also think they are paranoid about it, which I tell them frequently. 

I think it is silly to think we are going to take military action 

against Cuba, but I think that is a lot of what is guiding them, but 

right now, you have got an island down there of 11 million people, 

desperately impoverished, except for the Communist elite, who are 

wearing good clothing, driving cars, have an opportunity to travel, 

but the actual military capability of the Cubans are almost nonexistent and I don’t see them as a national security threat. 

So again, I very much identify with the many comments in the 

room, but I think Congresswoman Lee and Congressman Flake 

captured my view that this is also a freedom of choice issue for the 

American people. Thanks for allowing me to make these comments, 

and I look forward to responding to your own interests. 

[The prepared statement of General McCaffrey follows:]

19


53673a-1.eps
20


53673a-2.eps
21

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you, General. 

Ambassador Cason? 

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JAMES CASON, FORMER CHIEF 

OF MISSION, U.S. INTERESTS SECTION, HAVANA, CUBA 

Ambassador CASON. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

address you today. I recently spent 3 years of my life as head of 

the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. Not many Americans have 

lived in a totalitarian country, so I speak to you from first-hand 

knowledge, not only of Latin America where I lived for 32 years, 

but also about the sad Cuban reality. I wish I could point to a policy, anybody’s policy, that will induce the Castro brothers to embrace democracy and individual freedom. 

Unfortunately, no one in the world has been able to find a way 

to get Fidel and Raul to change their totalitarian stripes. I believe 

that no significant change is possible in Cuba while those two live. 

If I thought trade, tourist travel and investment were the miracle 

cure for ending dictatorship, I would be the first to advocate a 

change in policy, but there is simply no historical precedent or rationale for the argument. 

We typically hear four arguments for liberalizing travel. The first 

is that flooding Cuba with American tourists will instill greater 

yearning or understanding of democracy in Cuba; secondly, that 

tourist spending will help average Cubans; third, that our policy of 

isolating the regime has failed, so we should try something different; and finally, the libertarian argument that Americans have 

a constitutional right to go wherever they choose. 

Starting with the let us flood them with tourists proposal, why 

won’t this help bring democracy to Cuba? It is because the Cuban 

authorities strictly limit and harshly penalize the interaction of ordinary Cubans with foreigners, and about the only Cubans tourists 

are going to meet are hotel workers. There are 103 hotels catering 

to foreign tourists in Cuba. Sixty-seven percent of these are located 

in the remote keys and in Varadero. 

There are only 5,632 rooms for about 10,000 tourists in Havana, 

a city of 2.1 million. That works out to one tourist for 210 Cubans. 

Tourists are simply diluted in this sea of Cubans. The regime 

charges average Cubans the highest rack rate possible to stay in 

tourist hotels. That means that a night’s stay would require an average Cuban’s salary for a year. Again, that is why you are not 

going to find a regular Cuban in your hotel. 

The Cubans the tourists are permitted to see and question are 

trained to say the right thing. There is another problem with this 

flood argument. Few Americans speak Spanish well enough to hold 

a conversation on democracy or anything else with the average 

Cuban, who also rarely speaks English. Tourists go to Cuba for 

rum, sun, cigars, song and sex. They don’t go to Cuba to spread democracy. At any rate, most Cubans know very well what democracy 

and freedom are. 

They have relatives, millions of them abroad. They don’t need to 

be convinced to love or understand democracy. What they lack is 

a way to influence regime behavior. Tourism and trade have not 

brought down a totalitarian regime anywhere in history. That is 

because dictators refuse to let tourism do its alleged subversive 

22

work. If Castro thought that he could not control tourism, he simply wouldn’t allow them in, but they can control it well. 

In the last decade alone, 15 million tourists from democracies 

have visited the island, including several hundred thousand Americans. Despite this, Cuba has not democratized or even liberalized. 

In fact, it has gone backwards. If tourism had any value as a catalyst for democracy, it would be the polyglot Europeans who would 

have a better chance at engaging Cubans, yet there is absolutely 

no evidence of any liberalizing impact of their stays or imprint of 

their footprints on the regime’s behavior. 

It would be more accurate to attribute a strengthening of the 

state security apparatus to their expenditures, since the Cuban 

military owns the hotels they stay in and gets first crack at the 

cash flow. What about Cuban-American travel? Well, they spend a 

lot of money there, and I support it on humanitarian grounds, but 

nothing politically has come or can result from the visits of these 

Cuban-Americans because they have to get Cuban passports, they 

are screened, they are monitored they are videoed. 

If they misbehave, they are expelled or never allowed back in, 

and they don’t want to jeopardize their chance of returning. Therefore, they don’t get into trouble. And Cuba treats Cuban-Americans 

as Cuban citizens. It does not recognize dual citizenship. So a 

Cuban-American who gets into trouble will be denied access to 

USINT, and so they stay out of trouble. 

A final thought, when American tourists want to go to Cuba, 

usually in our winter and during vacations, the island’s 30,338 

four- and five-star hotel rooms are booked solid with Canadians 

and Europeans. Would Fidel oust them to make room for Americans? Would he want to be dependent again on fickle Americans in 

this critical industry, American policy? I doubt it. 

Now to the argument that tourist expenditure will trickle down 

to the average Cuban Jose. Well, again, 15 million Europeans have 

spent tens of billions of dollars there. The benefits go exclusively 

to the state. Poor Jose has seen none of it. The regime knows how 

to and has prevented seepage or trickle-down from tourist expenditures. The tourists stay at all-inclusive hotels. The state owns the 

hotels, the bars, the restaurants, the clubs, the cigar and rum 

shops and the souvenir stands. 

The tourists can buy very little from average Cubans, and the 

hotel worker gets to keep very little of what a tourist spends. They 

only get 5 percent of the salary that goes to the joint venture partners. They can’t unionize, they can’t complain, they can’t fight 

back. Again, the Cuban military controls the tourist industry. The 

third argument for a change in travel policy reflects the exasperation at the failure of anybody’s policies in the world, anybody’s in 

the world, to induce Castro, the world’s most successful enduring 

tyrant, to morph into a democrat. 

So the cry comes out, let us just try something different, but 

what would be a new policy for us has already been tried and is 

policy in just about every country in the world, and there has been 

no positive impact on human or other fundamental rights in Cuba 

as a result. Everyone in the world but us talks, engages, invests, 

travels and trades freely with the regime, giving it the wherewithal 

to survive. We allow hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans to 

23

take goods and cash into Cuba and we sell Cuba a good percentage 

of its food. 

Again, what impact has this had on the regime? Have they released political prisoners, allowed free elections, opened up the 

internet, given labor rights, allowed families to start businesses, or 

given Cubans the right to travel freely and live where they want? 

No. Lifting the travel ban now will amount to giving away future 

leverage for nothing in return. We should hold this in reserve until 

the demise of the Castro brothers. An end to the travel ban should 

be used as leverage, as a carrot in support of those in a future 

transitional regime who will have a voice in whether Cuba goes toward more or less freedom. 

And regarding the so-called rights of travel of Americans to go 

anywhere they want, the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 in Regan 

v. Wald that Americans do not have a constitutional right to go 

where they want if the government has a policy reason not to allow 

that travel. So before we normalize relations with Cuba, the regime 

must show it is normal. It must engage in dialogue with its own 

citizens. Normalization is not an end in itself. 

We can’t normalize with a totalitarian regime or cast aside our 

longstanding focus on human rights in Cuba in a quest to do something different, or in our haste to end the Cuban problem as a foreign policy issue. Normalization will result from Cuban actions to 

respect internationally recognized obligations and principles, and 

as we debate the future of our Cuba policy, let us not cease our 

support for dissidents and civil society, people on the island who 

want to have a say in what is best for their future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Cason follows:]

24


53673b-1.eps
25


53673b-2.eps
26


53673b-3.eps
27


53673b-4.eps
28


53673b-5.eps
29


53673b-6.eps
30


53673b-7.eps
31


53673b-8.eps
32


53673b-9.eps
33

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you, Ambassador, and now from Havana, Ms. Leiva. It is your turn. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MIRIAM LEIVA, INDEPENDENT 

JOURNALIST AND FOUNDER, LADIES IN WHITE 

Ms. LEIVA. Please allow me a few words first in Spanish. [Spanish testimony.] Ladies and gentleman, my husband, Oscar 

Espinosa Chepe, and I deeply appreciate this occasion to express 

our views concerning the very important issue to Americans and 

Cubans within our island nation and in exile that you are considering today. We fully support lifting the travel ban to Americans 

to visit Cuba. I assume you know that we have been dedicating our 

lives for the past 17 years to promote the well-being of our people 

through human rights activism. 

Oscar is an independent economist and journalist and was sentenced to 20 years in prison during the 2003 crackdown on 75 

peaceful individuals. Fifty-three of them are still in terrible prison 

conditions, and in Cuba there are over 2,000 political prisoners altogether, yet they do not feel hate, nor want revenge. Oscar was 

granted conditional release due to his very poor health but can be 

returned to jail at any moment, since under the terms of his parole 

he cannot write or talk openly, yet continues to do so. 

I am also an independent journalist and when he was in prison 

I was one of the founders of Ladies in White, for the release of the 

75, until last year when I decided to focus on writing and directly 

assisting the prisoners and their families. To know the developments in a country and its people, to exchange ideas and experiences, to disseminate democratic traditions, it is essential to be 

there. Citizens of almost all countries find traveling commonplace, 

except for Americans and Cubans, although we are only separated 

by the short distance of the Florida Straits. 

The comprehensive links forced by generations, which intertwined our history through commerce, science, culture, music, 

sports, dreams and families, have suffered a great deal during the 

last five decades of estrangement. It is very difficult to understand 

that in the last 8 years, the United States has become Cuba’s principal food supplier and fifth largest trading partner, but Americans 

cannot walk our streets or chat with our people. 

Only recently we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of 

the Berlin Wall. It should be recalled that the Iron Curtain started 

to fall, to open up, by millions of Westerners visiting the countries 

beyond it. We are grateful to the visionary politicians who carried 

out the ‘‘Policy toward the East’’ that helped create the conditions 

for the swift and peaceful outcome. Americans played a significant 

role there. Today, you have a similar opportunity regarding Cuba. 

We are aware of the concern of many distinguished congresswomen and men over the financial impact of American tourism on 

the Cuban economy. Fearing the possibility of giving breath to the 

totalitarian regime. We believe that many thousands of Americans 

visiting Cuba would benefit our society and enhance our people. 

Firstly, through the free flow of ideas and further by pressing the 

government to open up self-employment to provide goods and services such as renting rooms because the capacities in the hotels 

would be surpassed. 

34

It would improve the impoverished living standards, far more 

critical today than in the 1990s when some were allowed. Everyone 

will know that the Cuban state could not claim credit over this improvement, but that this comes from Americans. Cuban authorities 

have closed all private initiative to tie up the people economically, 

as a means to have them politically dependent. Of course, American visitors would spend money, collected by the Cuban Government, but it is so inefficient that it would only be able to keep 

small amounts; very little to cover its great needs. 

It is incapable of producing the scarce and low-quality food sold 

to our nationals and has to buy more than 80 percent of it abroad. 

Where? Mostly in the United States. Right now, it is impressive to 

find so many American products in our very limited supplied 

stores. No other country can compete in terms of quality and proximity, both of which stimulate trade in many ways. Imagine then 

the return of the money Americans spend, through purchases from 

American farmers and other businessmen, in order to supply hotels, restaurants and stores. In the short-run, many other possibilities would flourish. 

Cuban authorities have blamed the American embargo for great 

economic problems existing in our country, and deceived national 

and international public opinion by expressing desire of its lifting. 

In fact, they have used the embargo to justify all their 

wrongdoings, economic inefficiency, mismanagement and repression. They fear losing that alibi, just as they panic at the idea of 

having no excuse to prevent Americans from coming in. 

In spite of the propaganda and manipulation about what goes on 

beyond our tight sea boundaries, most Cubans find ways to know, 

are eager to listen, have lost faith in the unfulfilled promises, are 

exhausted by daily shortages and do not foresee a decent future. 

After 50 years of being locked away from the world, Cuban society 

is on the cusp of changes. It is not a matter of natural generational 

decay, but the exhaustion of a system that has fallen into a deep 

economic, political and social crisis with no solution other than 

deep changes. 

They might come from the power structure, aware of their inevitability, or from the people out of desperation and their civil commitment. They could be in a velvet fashion or in turmoil with great 

repression. We strive for understanding among all Cubans, for advancing democracy in a civilized and peaceful manner. The future 

of Cuba depends on what we Cubans do today, yet we are positive 

that less tension in the relations between Cuba and the United 

States will favor our goals. 

In a country where it is impossible for most citizens to have 

internet at home, we cannot dream of communicating with Americans in a way that is so common nowadays in most parts of the 

world, nor could anyone be able to experience reality here if he 

does not set foot on our land. This year we enjoyed an art exhibition from New York, but we could not have the pleasure of the 

New York Philharmonic Orchestra performing. Many scholars, scientists, businessmen, entrepreneurs, farmers, sportsmen, politicians and common people were not able to interact. 

Americans and Cubans have to stand up to the 21st century and 

restart our walks together, respecting the rights of our peoples, faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\111909\53673 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

cilitating the path toward democracy, not waiting for Cuban authorities’ gestures, but being proactive. We hope to greet you soon 

in Havana when all Americans could visit Cuba. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leiva follows:]


53673c-1.eps
36


53673c-2.eps
37

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony and 

for your courage. And now, Mr. Sosa. 

STATEMENT OF MR. IGNACIO SOSA, EXECUTIVE BOARD 

MEMBER, FRIENDS OF CARITAS CUBANA 

Mr. SOSA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Ros-Lehtinen, for the opportunity to speak here today. I 

am a Cuban-American son, brother, nephew and cousin of Cuban 

heroes who fought in the Bay of Pigs and served time in Castro’s 

jails. As a Hispanic and a Republican, I am a member of two minorities in my home state of Massachusetts and one of the 13 percent who voted for George W. Bush in 2004. However, I am part 

of a new and growing Cuban majority, the 67 percent that seek to 

end the isolation of Cubans and Americans from each other, and 

that is why I am here today. 

The ban on American travel to Cuba is an affront to those who 

believe that the right to travel is a fundamental right of all American citizens. We who believe in limited government object to the 

Orwellian notion of requiring a government license to travel to 

Cuba, the only country for which such a license is needed. The 

travel ban is a violation of our inherent right to privacy, of our 

right to free speech, of our right to freely associate with whom we 

wish, and of our right to pursue happiness. 

In a globalized world, travel acts as a powerful transmitter of 

new ideas that enriches both the traveler and the country visited. 

Cuba today is an island isolated not only from its largest neighbor 

but also from the free flow of ideas and people. Yet, the rise of 

independent bloggers on the island reminds us that even the most 

repressive of governments cannot stop new technologies from 

spreading timeless ideas of freedom and democracy. 

It is time for Americans to start developing relationships with 

Cubans from all walks of life. This is especially true as Cuba nears 

its rendezvous with leadership change. Sharing our hopes and 

dreams with those who live in the quiet despair of Communist 

Cuba can only help reawaken the thirst for freedom that resides 

in every repressed Cuban heart. To those who point to the large 

number of Canadian tourists who travel to Cuba and say, how 

come Canadian tourism has failed to produce material change for 

Cuba, I say this is a completely false analogy. 

The population of Canada is almost one-tenth the size of the 

United States. Moreover, Canadian Hispanics and African-Canadians account for a combined 4 percent of that country’s population, versus a combined 28 percent for those same ethnic groups 

in the United States, and I would add that the percentage of Hispanics and people of African descent from European countries is 

even smaller. So not only are the numbers of American tourists 

traveling to Cuba going to be much greater than anything we have 

seen from Canada, but those American tourists are much more 

likely to share demographic and cultural ties with the Cuban people, and by the way, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 34.5 

million Americans speak Spanish as their first language. That is 

more than the entire population of Canada. 

The recent incident involving Cuban security forces beating and 

detaining three well-known dissident bloggers is a useful reminder 

38

of the totalitarian nature of the Cuban Government. The assault 

and arrest of the bloggers occurred just when the United States 

asked Cuba for progress on human rights as part of a potential 

roadmap to normalizing relationships. This is no coincidence. History is littered with instances of Cuba taking deliberate steps to 

sabotage American efforts toward rapprochement. 

It is clear that Cuba, like Iran, uses hostility from the United 

States as a way to legitimize its totalitarian government and explain away decades of failed economic policy. President Obama, 

Secretary Clinton and the U.S. Congress should not take the bait 

being offered by the Cuban Government when it attacks the Cuban 

bloggers. It is important that the United States pursue policies 

that increase people-to-people contact between the two countries, 

regardless of whatever steps the Cuban Government might take in 

response. 

Conditioning improvements in the effectiveness of U.S. policy to 

whatever actions Cuba pursues effectively puts control of our foreign policy in the hands of the Cuban regime. Lifting the ban on 

American travel to Cuba and allowing more Cubans to enter the 

United States on travel visas will do more to further the cause of 

freedom than the tit for tat of diplomatic gamesmanship. The real 

losers in that game are always the same, the long-suffering people 

of Cuba. 

As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin 

Wall, it is important to remember that none of the Eastern European countries that threw off the yoke of Communism were isolated from their Western neighbors, not one. Moreover, it was exposure to Western travelers, media, and a general familiarity with 

the how the West works that inspired millions in Eastern Europe 

to seek a future free from Communism. 

Cuba is no different. It is time to put the Cuban Government on 

the defensive by removing all United States Government obstacles 

to the isolation of Cubans from Americans. If Cuba’s Government 

fails to respond with greater openness, the blame will fall squarely 

where it belongs, on the shoulders of the Cuban Government. 

America should never again allow the Cuban Government to use 

American policy as a scapegoat for that regime’s many failures. 

So, I finish my pleading with the members of this distinguished 

committee in the House of Representatives to pass the Freedom to 

Travel to Cuba Act. I also ask Senator Kerry, as chairman of the 

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, to cosponsor and mark up 

the Senate version of the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. Thank 

you and may God bless America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sosa follows:]

39


53673d-1.eps
40

Chairman BERMAN. Ms. Antunez is next. She will speak in Spanish, and then her comments will be translated, and so this will 

take a little longer than the normal presentation. Ms. Antunez. 

STATEMENT OF MS. BERTA ANTUNEZ, SISTER OF FORMER 

POLITICAL PRISONER JORGE LUIS GARCIA PEREZ 

(‘‘ANTUNEZ’’), PRO-DEMOCRACY ACTIVIST 

[The following statement was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. Good morning. My name is Bertha Antunez 

Pernet. I come here today as the sister and niece of political prisoners. I left Cuba a short time ago. As an activist in my country, 

I worked as best I could to organize the family members of political 

prisoners to advocate for their release. 

My uncle, Omar Pernet, who has serious health problems after 

spending several years in prison, was removed from prison to Spain 

last year. My brother, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, usually known as 

Antunez, who served 17 years as a political prisoner, remains in 

Cuba, struggling for freedom as part of the resistance for the rights 

of the Cuba people, and for the democratic change that the majority of the people want. 


53673d-2.eps
41

The Castro Government’s war again those Cubans who peacefully advocate for change in Cuba seeks to maintain and increase 

repression, while avoiding criticism on the global stage, and international condemnation of its repressive conduct. 

The Castro regime feels emboldened by the half-dozen Latin 

American heads-of-state who travel to Havana to embrace the region’s longest reining and bloodiest dictator; by Spain’s policy toward the island, the objection of which is to bolster and uphold the 

dictatorship, and by the increasing influence of Hugo Chavez in the 

region. 

On the other hand the regime fears the ever more manifest defiance and non-cooperation of the Cuban people. Therefore, perceiving the weakness in the world democratic community, it has 

made its dirty war ever more public in an effort to still the unrest 

in the hearts of the Cuban people. The physical attack on blogger 

Yoani Sanchez and her companions just a few days ago is an example of this. 

My own brother, Jorge Luis’, release from prison in April 2007 

has decided to remain in our country in order to continue the civic 

struggle for democratic change. He has been the target of constant 

arrests, beatings, and harassment by Castro’s repressive apparatus. 

Jorge Luis has seen how the Castro regime becomes bolder and 

bolder in its repression as it receives unilateral concessions from 

the world’s democracies. 

In April of this year, in a letter to the Cuban-American Members 

of Congress, he wrote that it is extraordinarily remarkably that 

while the Castro regime increases repression, that the mistreatment of our compatriots inside and outside of the prisons increases, 

certain particular sectors of the United States seek engagement 

with the oldest and most repressive dictatorship of the continent. 

Therefore, I believe that this is not the time for the United 

States Government to transform its policy regarding travel to 

Cuba. Indeed, those who in good faith believe that by doing this 

that they will help the Cuban people are mistaken. 

I say this as someone who was born and lived all her life in Cuba 

until a short time ago, and I am speaking to you about the reality 

I know well. Throughout all my life, I have faced and confronted 

the prison wardens, the state security agents, the military personnel, and agents of repression, who are the true face of the regime. 

I know the regime’s contempt for the Cuban people, and how 

they show no mercy to those of us who are Black. The experiences 

that I have lived through do not allow me to fall under the spell 

of the regime’s sophisticated diplomats, agents of influence in key 

positions, or of its professional propagandists. 

The real people of Cuba, the Cuban people that suffer and deeply 

desire to live in freedom, will not benefit from any tourist travel. 

Rather, those resources will serve the totalitarian regime to increase its repressive capabilities. 

Some people ingenuously think that tourists will have direct contact with the Cuban people, and that this will help Cubans to have 

a clear vision of freedom. In the first place, Cubans are repVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\111909\53673 HFA PsN: SHIRL
42

rimanded, fined, and even imprisoned for maintaining contact with 

tourists. 

There are places in Cuba where Cubans are subject to restricted 

entry or time schedules so that they will not be present at the 

same time as tourists. 

It must be understood that for years European, Canadian, and 

Latin American tourists have traveled to Cuba without having any 

impact on the Cuban reality, but rather on the government’s coffers. 

It is an error to think that American tourism will mean something positive to the Cuban people. What the Cuban people need 

once again is the support of the American people in their struggle 

for freedom. 

The Cuban people and the internal resistance, more so than they 

need tourists, need people who will stand in solidarity in the 

United States Congress, and advocate for their liberation. 

We ask recognition for the men and women who run grave risks 

for the sake of the rights of an entire people. We ask for a voice 

to be raised against the repression, the prisons, and the censorship 

imposed against our people for 50 years. 

There are those that hold that the Castro regime repress us in 

order to avoid a rapersmong with the United States. This is to mistake the real nature of that regime. The Castro regime represses 

because its priority is to stay in power. 

The reason that it has spent 50 years killing, imprisoning, prosecuting, and forcibly exiling Cubans is because it knows very well 

that the immense majority of the Cuban people desire freedom. If 

the Cuban people were not repressed, we would already be free. 

The regime wants the discussion on Cuba in a place as important 

as this to evolve around the questions of tourists or no tourists, 

commercial relations or no commercial relations, because the regime fears this Congress making the debate on how the United 

States can directly support those who struggle for Cuba’s freedom 

its priority. 

And I ask you to echo the opinion of my brother, Antunez, and 

of many thousands of Cubans on the island, on which side does the 

United States Congress wish to be; on the side of those who engage 

in repression and attempt to silence the free thought and voice of 

the Cuban people; on the side of those who today engage in torture 

in Cuban prisons; or on the side of those who engage in civic nonviolent struggle for Cuba’s freedom? 

On the side of the unarmed and repressed, or on the side of those 

who flaunt their powers self-servingly, and unscrupulously for over 

50 years? On the side of a totalitarian regime nearing its end, or 

on the side of a young and vigorous resistance that sooner, rather 

than later, shall take the reins of its country? Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Antunez follows:]

43


53673e-1.eps
44


53673e-2.eps
45


53673e-3.eps
46


53673e-4.eps
47


53673e-5.eps
48

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you. Let me explain our situation. 

There is a vote on and we are going to have to recess for about 20–

25 minutes. We will come back to hear Mr. Peters, and then we 

will have questions. 

Ms. Leiva, if you can stay to be available for questions, we would 

be very grateful. If that is not possible, we will——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask a question 

about the seating. We had a little incident and everything got 

worked out, but now folks are seated, and they probably like where 

they are seated. 

How can we make sure that they can come back to those seats, 

or will it be new seating. I am trying to avoid an incident. We have 

got lots of other people who would like to sit, but some folks are 

happy with the way it is. So let us have a policy that will apply 

fairly to everyone. I am fine with whatever you choose to do. 

Chairman BERMAN. Everyone who is seated probably should hold 

on to their seat. That is the safest way, and we will bring the caterers in while we are away. No. Look, it will be a little bit of a late 

lunch, but no one is—we do not want to get into a thing where people are coming and somebody is standing up for a second, and taking someone’s seat. That would not be fair. 

So the folks who are here, we will give you short-term property 

right to your chair. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 


53673e-6.eps
49

Chairman BERMAN. The hearing will resume. I believe that everybody has the seat that they want. We left off with Mr. Peters 

about to begin his testimony, and so we look forward to hearing 

from you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP PETERS, VICE PRESIDENT, 

LEXINGTON INSTITUTE 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, for having us here today. I am very 

pleased to be with you and to be with this distinguished group of 

witnesses on this panel. 

I want to begin by saying that I particularly appreciated your 

opening statement, Mr. Chairman, and the article that you had in 

The Miami Herald the other day. I think that it has been quite 

well demonstrated over 50 years the point that you made, that conditionality, which is a perfectly good concept to use in foreign affairs, in this case has yielded no leverage for us. 

And that the idea of conditionality in this case as we have used 

it for so many years has resulted in a policy where the levers of 

our policy are in Havana and not in our own hands, and that is 

wrong, and it prevents us from doing a lot of good things. 

You have been debating this issue for a long time, the issue of 

travel restrictions to Cuba, but now you are debating in a different 

context, and that is as a result of the measures that President 

Obama took in September of this year. 

He changed our regulations, and I think it was a very good thing 

to do, so that Cuban-Americans can now travel freely to Cuba without restriction. They can go for as long as they want. They can go 

as often as they want, and on top of that, he said they can send 

as much money as they want to their relatives. No restriction 

whatsoever. 

So this changes the issue before you. The issue before you now 

is whether to maintain this policy, where you have one ethnic—a 

division of Americans along ethnic lines, and one group has no restriction. Fifty flights a week. They are filling the airport in Miami. 

Some of them are going from New Jersey and elsewhere. 

So you can maintain this policy where one group can go without 

restriction, and the rest of us are under the sanctions and penalties 

under the Trading with the Enemy Act, or the other option is to 

treat all Americans alike, and give us all the same freedom. I obviously opt for the second one. 

It is argued that Cuba is a special case somehow, and that if we 

have contacts in Cuba that we won’t get any influence in Cuba, or 

that there is no interaction in Cuba between foreigners and Cuban 

citizens, and that other country’s travelers have had no impact in 

Cuba. 

That when travelers go there, no funds get to the Cuban people, 

or as one of the gentlemen on the Republican side said, no foreign 

travelers ever do anything to help Cuban civil society. Every part 

of that argument is a complete myth, and if you go to Cuba, you 

will see that is the case. 

And we have added to it today a statement by Ambassador 

Cason in his written testimony, that quote, most likely the Cuban 

that an American would encounter and converse with, the Cuban 

50

will not be interested in the foreigner’s view of politics, but will solicit money, toiletries, or sex, or be asked if he can help get a person out of the island. 

I think that is a myth and a pretty remarkable statement, not 

to say contemptuous. Let me be clear. I don’t believe that a policy 

of unrestricted travel by Americans is going to transform Cuba. We 

have miscalculated a lot. 

You go to the Kennedy administration, and you go to the Bush 

administration that just ended, lots of miscalculations in our policy, 

and I am not going to represent to you that American travelers are 

going to magically change the political order in Cuba. That is not 

the case, anymore than anybody can promise to you that sanctions 

will do it. 

But what we can realistically expect that if we allow Americans 

to travel without restriction that we will increase our influence in 

that country, where influence is quite low now, at a pivotal time 

in Cuba’s history. 

Unrestricted travel will create an explosion of communication between our country and theirs. You know, Congresswoman RosLehtinen rightly pointed out all the licensing categories, but a lot 

of Americans, and most importantly, a lot of institutions in our 

civil society are deterred by those categories. 

I mean, if you are a college administrator or if you work at a 

church, or if you lead a congregation at a synagogue, or you are a 

university president, you can go to any country. If you want to go 

to Cuba, you need a license form the Federal Government. 

If you want to bring a donation to Cuba, well, that is a restricted 

export. You need a license from a second agency of the Federal 

Government. That holds a lot of people back. The explosion of contacts, if we got rid of those disincentives, would be huge. 

Another point that I want to make is that there is a particular 

thing about Americans in Cuba in that historical context. The 

Cuban Government does not call Canada the empire. They don’t 

claim that Luxembourg has a policy of a genocidal blockage against 

them. 

The Cuban Government has used this idea that the United 

States is against them. That our Government is trying to bring 

them down. For years, they have used it to justify their internal 

policies, including their repression. 

If we eliminate our travel restrictions, and Americans are circulating freely there, it makes it a lot harder for the Cuban Government—and Yoani Sanchez, who has been mentioned a lot of times 

today, she has pointed this out. 

That it makes it a lot harder for the Cuban Government to make 

us this external enemy, this external threat, and a scapegoat for 

their own policies. 

Finally, about the issue of money. Obviously. Cuba is not a free 

market economy. Obviously, it is an economy dominated by the 

State, but there are entrepreneurs there, some operating legally 

and some operating not so legally. 

There are about 5,000 homes in Cuba where people have licenses 

to rent rooms in their homes. There are more of those—there are 

more beds in those homes in the City of Baracoa than there are 

in the State hotels in that city. 

51

There are hundreds and hundreds of them in Havana. These people make a livelihood when foreigners. They employ people. Sometimes legally, and sometimes not quite so legally. But they employ 

people, and they feed their families well. 

Yes, they pay taxes. We pay taxes, too, unfortunately. But they 

make a good living, and if more Americans could go, then those 

people who rent rooms in their homes, artists that make money by 

selling their work to foreigners, and other entrepreneurs—taxi 

drivers, restauranteurs—they will have a better living, and that incipient private sector in Cuba will expand. That is very much in 

our interests to see. 

I think that these are reasons why so many people in Cuba, who 

in my experience, uniformly welcome Americans, and why so many 

people in Cuba think we should change the policy as you suggested 

by allowing unrestricted travel. 

The Catholic Church has called for it for many, many years. Dissidents, such as Oscar Espinosa Chepe, Elizardo Sanchez, the leading human rights monitor in that country, Osvaldo Sia, a lay 

Catholic activist, Valdimir Roca, they have all called for an end to 

travel restrictions. 

And every time that I have seen—and again everybody is mentioning Yoani Sanchez, the blogger who was detailed recently and 

beaten. Every time that she has addressed the issue, she said that 

we should allow unrestricted travel, and she is against the whole 

embargo itself. 

So really what it boils down to, Mr. Chairman, I believe is a 

question of confidence, a question of whether we are confident that 

somehow the regime sanctions that we have maintained for all 

these years is going to have an impact, or whether something else 

might work, and whether we might have greater confidence in the 

ability of Americans to carry the American idea to Cuba, and to 

represent our system of government, exchange information, bring 

resources to Cubans, help Cuban civil society. 

Secretary Schultz wrote to you. Secretary George Schultz wrote 

to you and he pointed out that he thinks that our sanctions in general are ridiculous. He thinks that there is some kind of 

transitioning of some kind going on, and it is much more likely 

that we would get a constructive outcome if there is a lot of interaction between Cubans and Americans. 

I agree with him, and I wish I had much more confidence in unrestricted travel, and interaction between our society and Cuban 

society, and that will serve our national interests. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peters follows:]

52


53673f-1.eps
53


53673f-2.eps
54


53673f-3.eps
55


53673f-4.eps
56


53673f-5.eps
57

Chairman BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Peters, and 

all of you, and now we will start the questioning. I will yield myself 

5 minutes. This morning a number of people have mentioned Yoani 

Sanchez, the Cuban blogger, and Mr. Peters just referred to her. 

She was beaten up a few weeks ago by State security agents in Havana, while on her way—ironically enough—to an anti-violence 

demonstration. 

For those of you who do not know her, Yoani has a track record 

of telling the unvarnished truth. As a university student, she titled 

her dissertation, ‘‘Dictatorships in Latin American Literature.’’

Since it was taken as a veiled criticism of the Castro regime, she 

was denied an academic career. Now she earns a living in Havana’s 

tourist industry and blogs for free. Time Magazine named her one 

of the most influential people in the world. 

The Spaniards have awarded her their equivalent of the Pulitzer 

Prize, and last month, she was awarded the Maria Moors Cabot 

Prize, the oldest award in international journalism form Columbia 

University’s Journalism School. 

She has never been allowed to leave Cuba to collect her awards. 

She wrote an essay for this hearing, and it is part of the record; 

I would like to read just a few excerpts.

‘‘Over the course of several decades, Cuban exiles and tourists have brought part of the information that has served to 

undermine the myth of the supposed ‘paradise’ in which we 

live. . . . There is nothing more corrosive for a state that 

holds itself up as the father and savior of a nation, than the 

testimony of those who, in other latitudes, have greater space 


53673f-6.eps
58

to realize their dreams and greater tolerance for their opinions. . . . 

‘‘Faced with no evolution of our current political and social 

situation, an opening of travel for Americans could bring more 

results in the democratization of Cuba than the indecisive performance of Raul Castro.’’

And finally she says—and I am excerpting from an entire statement:

‘‘Eliminating these long obsolete travel restrictions would 

mean the end of the main elements with which official propaganda has repeatedly satanized American Administrations, 

and the achronistic travel permit that we Cubans need to enter 

and leave our country would be even more ridiculous. Of the 

phrase spoken by Pope John Paul II that January 1998 in the 

Plaza of the Revolution—‘Let Cuba open itself to the world, 

and let the world open itself to Cuba’—only the first part 

would remain to be accomplished.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

59


53673g-1.eps
60


53673g-2.eps
61


53673g-3.eps
62

Chairman BERMAN. So this is what she says, and Ms. Leiva, I 

would like to ask you to expand a little bit on the point that you 

touched on in your testimony. 

We have heard the notion that more Americans coming and visiting Cuba, their only interaction will be with a few hotel workers, 

although they are people, too, and that essentially the Castro regime will get all the financial benefits, and our notion of what 

might happen in terms of greater interaction between Americans 

and Cubans, greater information for Cubans about America, our intentions, our purposes, our lives, none of that would happen. You 

are there. Why do you think differently? 

Ms. LEIVA. The Cuban Government has always tried to prevent 

people from getting together or to knowing a tourist, or people coming from abroad. It is each time more difficult for them because 

people want to know, and are friendly, and want to talk with all 

visitors. 

Besides that the Cuban people are losing fear. Repression is still 

in place, and there is the political police and informers, and the police in defense of the revolution, but each day more and more people speak out what they feel are their daily problems. 

And besides that, it is very important that repression—it is not 

enough to people who have lost confidence in the government, and 

who have been deceived by the promises, and want something different. They want to have a better future, and they want to be able 

to speak, and want to travel, and want to listen. 

So the situation in Cuba has changed a lot. I won’t say that it 

is definite to overcome or——


53673g-4.eps
63

Chairman BERMAN. Ms. Leiva, I hate to interrupt you. I should 

have indicated that each member, including unfortunately me, is 

limited to 5 minutes, and I took 4 of the minutes myself. I didn’t 

leave you enough time and I apologize, but my time has expired. 

I am sure that we will be coming back to you. The ranking member, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. If I 

could direct my question to Mr. McCaffrey. Earlier this year at a 

hearing of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, you 

testified, and I quote, ‘‘Mr. Castro engaged me for a couple of hours 

on’’—and I will continue quoting you, but I always find it intriguing that people are so proud of the number of hours that Castro 

spends with them. 

He spent 2 hours. No, he spent 3 hours with me, 4 hours, 5 

hours. I guess it gives you some kind of bizarre street cred or badge 

of honor. Anyway, you say that Mr. Castro engaged you for a couple of hours. Whoa. And ‘‘he wants his spies back from Florida. I 

remember telling him, I said, ‘Mr. Castro, I am sure that you are 

very proud of these men, and they are Cuban patriots, and you will 

get them back eventually when we have normalized relations.’ ’’

I find it regrettable, Mr. McCaffrey, that you would refer to these 

Cuban spies, who were convicted in our United States fair criminal 

justice system, and whose cases were reheard again, and whose 

convictions were once again reaffirmed, as patriots, and that you 

focus on returning these spies to the Cuban regime. 

Yet, you do not mention cop killers like Joanne Chesimard, and 

other fugitives of United States law, and United States justice, who 

were given refuge by the Cuban regime. 

Also in your testimony from April of this year, you noted, and I 

quote,

‘‘There is no question that there are lots of drugs floating 

around Cuba, and particularly washing up on shore. You know, 

bundles of cocaine and marijuana. 

‘‘But it was clear to me that they were not on a government 

basis, but part of an international conspiracy to threaten the 

regime, and to threaten their sense of Communist morality.’’

Communist morality? Given the brutal repressive apparatus of 

the regime that rules Cuba, the totalitarian dictatorship, exerting 

absolute control over the island and its people, do you really think 

that Fidel, and Raul, and the regime elite, are not aware of drug 

trade in and out of the island, and do not facilitate or sponsor such 

activities? 

And also in your testimony before the Government Reform Subcommittee, you said, and I quote, ‘‘I would bring some of them’’—

meaning Cuban officials—‘‘into our schooling system. I would get 

two of them to go to Leavenworth. You know, the first 5 years, they 

would all be intel people. But eventually they would get jealous 

and some of the commerce would get the slots. So, dialogue and engagement on areas of mutual interests, that will work.’’

Now, in light of the significant threat posed to our Nation and 

our interests by Cuban espionage, and in light of the recent massacre at Fort Hood, where all of these signals, and all of these signs 

64

were completely overlooked, how can you have no problem with 

opening the doors of Leavenworth and our training programs to 

Cuban intelligence agents, who are declared enemies of the United 

States? I find that shameful, sir. 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, let me first of all correct you. My title 

is General after 32 years of military service. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I apologize. 

General MCCAFFREY. Wounded in action three times, and I am 

offended by your deliberate marginalization of my viewpoints, and 

let me go on to say that it is clear in my own mind——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I was quoting you, sir. Are those not quotes, 

sir? Are those quotes, yes or no? 

General MCCAFFREY. I am offended by your language. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. You are offended by your quotes? 

General MCCAFFREY. Now, let me go on to continue to respond 

by saying——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. What part of your quotes offend you? Your 

quotes offend you. 

General MCCAFFREY. Are you going to let me answer, or are 

you——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I have my 5 minutes. I can do what I wish 

with my 5 minutes, General. So, go ahead. I want to know. Are you 

offended by your quotes? I was quoting you. 

General MCCAFFREY. Are you done? Well, if you are asking me 

if I think that Cubans are a national security threat to the United 

States, my answer is that if you ask for the top 20 national security threats, they would not be among them. 

Now, my actual viewpoint, however, is that United States national interests will be better served by lifting the travel ban, by 

engaging in diplomatic contact with them, and by lifting the economic bans, than you will by the current policies. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The specific questions that were asked of you 

whether you do not feel that our security would be at any risk by 

your quote saying that you would invite these officials to come into 

our facilities. 

General MCCAFFREY. Oh, this is silly. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That is your quote. You are offended by your 

quote? 

General MCCAFFREY. Your argument to be honest does not apply 

to the realities. What I support is people-to-people engagement, 

diplomatic engagement——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am reading from your quote, sir. 

General MCCAFFREY [continuing]. Economic engagement, and 

those are the policies that I endorse. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Just the facts. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, is recognized. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. General McCaffrey, I want to go on the record 

and say that I consider you a great American patriot. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. DELAHUNT. But let us talk about our national security. Are 

you familiar with Admiral Jim Lloyd? 

General MCCAFFREY. Sure. He is a former Commandant of the 

Coast Guard. 

65

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Are you familiar with General Jim Thomas Hill? 

General MCCAFFREY. Yes, the former commander of the United 

States Southern Command. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that includes, I take it, the island of—the 

jurisdiction would include the Caribbean. 

General MCCAFFREY. Sure, the Caribbean. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you familiar with General Jack Sheehan? 

General MCCAFFREY. Sure, Four Star Marine, very patriotic, 

and——

Mr. DELAHUNT. And highly decorated? 

General MCCAFFREY. Yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Another patriot? 

General MCCAFFREY. Right. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you familiar with Lieutenant Robert Gard? 

General MCCAFFREY. Lieutenant General Bob Gard, yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Lieutenant General John Costello? 

General MCCAFFREY. I know him by reputation, but I don’t know 

him, yes. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Brigadier General John Adams? 

General MCCAFFREY. I only know him by reputation. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. And I know that you know General 

Charles Wilhelm? 

General MCCAFFREY. Yes, a very fine, Four Star Marine, retired, 

and a former SOUTHCOM commander I might add. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Well, I am going to read—and this was 

not a letter that was signed. It is now as I understand in the 

record, but I want to read excerpts from this letter, because it goes 

to the issue of national security, American national security. 

And this is the letter that these men signed, these American patriots, that have fought for this country. United States policy toward Cuba has not only failed in its principal objective of ending 

Cuba’s Communist system, but has harmed our interests across the 

board. 

Most important it works against our national security interests. 

In our judgment the committee would advance the best interests of 

the United States by acting favorably on H.R. 874, the Freedom to 

Travel Act. 

Do you concur with the conclusion that these gentlemen submitted for the record? 

General MCCAFFREY. I do, yes. I think it is a very sensible viewpoint. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. To Mr. Sosa. I had never heard the argument before until Mr. Cason’s testimony relative to lifting the travel ban would be of no avail because we don’t speak Spanish, and 

who is going to talk to us, and who are we going to talk to. 

And you made an observation, or I think you noted that how 

many Hispanics? 

Mr. SOSA. According to the United States Census Bureau in a 

2004 report, 34.5 million speak Spanish as a first language. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. As a first language? Okay. Well, some of us do 

speak Spanish; 34 million of us speak Spanish as a first language. 

I wonder how many of those 34 million are Americans of Cuban descent? 

66

Mr. SOSA. I think the Cuban-born citizens in this country, I 

think, are 1.5 million. I may be wrong on this. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I see. So, there are 33 million other Americans 

out there that speak Spanish as their first language. I would suggest that that argument put forth by Mr. Cason really does not 

seem to hold water. 

But he did reference a case decided back in 1984 in the midst 

of the Cold War, where he said that the authority of the President, 

if he has a policy issue, he suggested that it was unfetted and 

untrammeled. 

But let me read from the language of that case. In the opinion 

of the State Department, Cuba, with the political, economic and 

military backing of the Soviet Union, has provided widespread support for armed violence and terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. 

Cuba also maintains close to 40,000 troops in various countries 

in Africa and in the Middle East in support of objectives hostile to 

the United States foreign policy interests. Therefore, we think 

there is an adequate basis under the due process clause of the Fifth 

Amendment to sustain the President’s decision to restrict travel. 

General McCaffrey, are we faced with the same conditions today? 

General MCCAFFREY. No. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are there still 40,000 Cuban troops all over the 

world? 

General MCCAFFREY. No, I think that my take on the island 

right now is that it is one of the poorest places on the face of the 

earth with an incompetent military. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman, and just before questions, I 

want to dispel something that has been brought up a number of 

times here. It has been said that people want to go to Cuba, I believe, and Mr. Cason mentioned the tourists go there for rum, sex, 

or whatever else, this list of pejoratives. 

And I have heard from others as well that seems to indicate that 

the only reason that people go to Cuba is to lie on the beach and 

drink mojitos, and I think it is deeply offensive to a lot of Americans who go for a number of reasons, and not just to sit on the 

beach. 

And the notion that we don’t have a travel ban, and that we only 

have a currency ban, that is just grasping at straws basically. Tell 

that to the woman—and I believe she was from Indiana—who went 

to Cuba to distribute bibles with her church group. 

She was not aware of the restrictions. She went through Canada 

because that is where they were going through, and she went there 

to distribute bibles, and she got fined when she got back. I would 

like for her to say, well, there is no ban on traveling to Cuba. 

And this notion that everybody goes for these prurient reasons 

is just offensive to so many Americans who go there. Sure, every 

place in the world, you will have bad actors, but to lump everybody 

who goes to Cuba and travels to Cuba into one group, who are simply seeking sex tourism or something is just deeply offensive, and 

I have to say that from the outset. 

Mr. Cason, in your testimony, you mentioned that tourism and 

trade have not brought down a totalitarian regime anywhere in 

67

history. You note that there is no evidence to suggest that increasing tourism to Cuba will help promote democracy. 

Do you have any evidence to present that indicates that isolating 

a regime anywhere in the world like this has fostered democracy? 

Ambassador CASON. I would like to mention what Lech Walesa 

and Vaclav Havel talked about on the question of tourism and the 

freedom of Czechoslovakia and Poland. They said it had absolutely 

no relevance whatsoever. 

The point I am making is about tourist travel. We are not talking 

about the other 18 categories. The notion that allowing tourists to 

go to the areas where basically the hotel rooms are, which is 

Varadero, Cayo Coco, and other areas that I think you are aware 

of, and that I have visited, the idea that those people going there 

can somehow promote democracy, and interact with the Cuban people, in fact, it can’t happen, it doesn’t happen. 

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time. I asked you for evidence. You 

quoted Walesa and others, saying that it had no effect there. I am 

asking you, are there instances where in isolating the regime has 

had the opposite effect that you can point to? 

I would suggest that you can’t. Mr. Sosa will make a compelling 

argument that engaging the Cubans however, allowing travel and 

other means, will foster democracy. You argue that it does not. And 

I would suggest that you have no more evidence on your side than 

he has on his. 

Ambassador CASON. My evidence is history, and that there have 

been millions and millions of people from all over the world, democrats, who have gone for over 50 years to Cuba. 

Mr. FLAKE. Excuse me, but you are making the reverse argument. Tell me a time where we have had a travel ban that has actually fostered democracy in another country, and just answer that 

question. Have we and can we point to an example of that? 

Ambassador CASON. Well, I don’t think we have a travel ban on 

Cuba. I think for a long period of time large numbers of people 

have been able to go. 

Mr. FLAKE. As we have already discovered. 

Ambassador CASON. And hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans can go. My point is that they have not brought any change, 

political change, of the sort that people are arguing here should result from that. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, it has been mentioned as well that this legislation, or what we are trying to do 

here, is to encourage tourism, or to promote tourism, or to promote 

or encourage travel. 

Mr. Peters, you have studied the legislation. Does this legislation, for example, contain a grant program for travel agents to promote travel to Cuba, or does this legislation simply say you are allowed. We will give you the freedom that we give you in every 

other area? 

Mr. PETERS. It is the latter. The legislation that you are referring 

to ends the prohibition. It does not push anybody to go anywhere, 

and no, it does not have any United States Government funds that 

promote tourism or give grants to anybody with regard to travel. 

68

Mr. FLAKE. So nobody under this legislation is compelled to do 

anything. It is simply granting them the freedom should they wish 

to travel? 

Mr. PETERS. That is correct. 

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just speak a little 

bit for the 34 million people that speak Spanish. I have to tell you 

that I was a Spanish teacher for 10 years. My brother obviously is 

Cuban, my younger brother, and you ask them if they speak Spanish, and they will tell you yes. 

You talk to them, and it is an embarrassment, and they are my 

brothers. I taught in a school that was 93 percent Hispanic. You 

will ask those students if they spoke Spanish, and they will tell 

you—90 percent will say yes. 

So I am not agreeing with any of you, but this notion that 34 

million people speak Spanish, yes, they say it is their first language because they go home and say que pasa, how are you. That 

is fine. 

But my question comes to this. I am hard-pressed to think that 

if we lift the travel ban that is going to help the Cuban people 

when the government controls every single aspect, from who gets 

to rent a room, from who gets to go where, from the people that 

are coming to the island, because I assumed that they are going 

to curtail if there is a whole mass of people going to the island. 

So for me to accept the fact that this is somehow helping in any 

way, I only see them helping the government. So does anybody 

want to take a shot at that? I am sure that you all do. 

Mr. SOSA. Well, first, a couple of things. First of all, the 34.5 million comes from the United States Census Bureau, and frankly any 

one of us——

Mr. SIRES. Sir, excuse me, I am reclaiming my time. The Census 

Bureau says check if you speak Spanish. You ask my brother if he 

speaks Spanish, and he will say yes. You ask my younger brother 

who was born here if he speaks Spanish, and it is an embarrassment, and he will say yes. So, go ahead. 

Mr. SOSA. I don’t know your family, but anybody who has——

Mr. SIRES. I was a teacher for 10 years in a Hispanic district, sir, 

okay? 

Mr. SOSA. Anybody who——

Mr. SIRES. In a Hispanic district where 93 percent of the students were Hispanics. Thank you. 

Mr. SOSA. Sir, anybody who has traveled around the United 

States and then to a major American city, knows that there is a 

tremendous number or people who speak Spanish. So we need to 

move on from that. 

Mr. SIRES. I don’t disagree with that. I mean, you are making it 

sound like everyone is such a fluent Spanish speaker, but never 

mind. There are so many other questions. 

Mr. SOSA. There are a lot of us. Okay. So your other point was 

would it help America if the Cuban people——

Mr. SIRES. How is it going to trickle down to the Cuban people? 

69

Mr. SOSA. Well, first of all, it is not true that every person that 

travels from the United States to Cuba is somehow followed around 

with some minder. I have been to Cuba several times, and I have 

wondered all over the island. 

I am sure that there was somebody looking one way or the other 

at what I am doing, but it did not stop me from talking to people. 

I talked to people from all walks of life in Cuba. They can’t, as 

much as they want to control, you cannot control of hundreds of 

thousands of Americans arriving tomorrow in Cuba. It is not possible. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, let me tell you a story. I have a friend of mine 

named Alex Duran from Colombia, who went to Cuba, because he 

figured that sooner or later they are going to do something. He 

went to Cuba, and when he got to Cuba, he was actually called in 

to be questioned on what he was doing there, and he is not even 

Cuban. 

So for you to say that you are not followed—I mean, every single 

thing that I get, in every conversation that I get, people are followed. People are tracked. I still have aunts and I still have cousins in Cuba, and when we get a chance through the family, this 

is the information that I get. 

And so I am just hard-pressed—look, if tomorrow the people of 

Cuba were going to benefit, I might think twice about my position. 

I just don’t think it is going to trickle down to the Cuban people, 

and that is my argument against this. 

Mr. PETERS. Congressman, I will take a shot at this. It has not 

trickled down. I would encourage you to go on the internet and 

Google the words Cuba passa particula, and look at the private 

homes that people rent. Look at the people who are renting. These 

are little businesses. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Peters, who gives them the permission to rent the 

homes? 

Mr. PETERS. Well, they are licensed by the government. 

Mr. SIRES. The government. 

Mr. PETERS. Excuse me? 

Mr. SIRES. The government gives them the permission. 

Mr. PETERS. The government, and they have to get a license to 

do it. That is right, and they pay taxes. 

Mr. SIRES. And that is my argument. 

Mr. PETERS. I am not in favor of licenses. I am not in favor of 

taxes either, but it is not unique in Cuba that people have to get 

a license or pay taxes. 

Mr. SIRES. Yes, but my argument is——

Mr. PETERS. You are asking me whether the money trickles to 

people. Those people make good money. They employ people. 

Mr. SIRES. Now do you think that any of the dissidents will ever 

be able to get a license to rent to somebody? 

Mr. PETERS. Excuse me? 

Mr. SIRES. Do you think that a dissident will ever get a license 

to rent their rooms? 

Mr. PETERS. Well, look, I am not in favor of a restriction of that 

nature, but you are asking does it trickle down to people? It absolutely does. All over the island. And there are artists that sell to 

70

foreigners, and one that I know of is an Angelica Christian who 

employs five people because he makes so much money doing it. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETERS. It does trickle down. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, I have 

been listening to the discussion today from both sides, and I think 

I have found the silver lining in today’s hearing, and that is that 

this committee should move swiftly to apply the same restrictions 

that we have on Cuba, to Iran, Sudan, and Syria, all of which are 

on the State Sponsor of Terrorism List. And at some point we 

would be willing to offer a resolution on this. 

Chairman BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MACK. Yes. 

Chairman BERMAN. You know that you would be trying to repeal 

my provision, and so would I take it personally. 

Mr. MACK. Duly noted. Mr. Sosa, if I may, in listening to your 

testimony, I find it somewhat shameful that you would interject in 

today’s debate racial and ethnic politics by arguing that only if one 

is from a particular race or ethnicity can one relate to the Cuban 

people or discuss democracy, freedom, and human rights. 

My question is what about the thousands of tourists from Spain 

and Mexico? Have these Spanish speaking tourists failed? And another question is that my good friend, the ranking member, Ileana 

Ros-Lehtinen, is she a better ambassador of freedom than I am? 

Again, it is just something about your testimony that I question 

why you would bring up race and ethnicity in this. 

Mr. SOSA. Okay. First of all, Spain was a former colonial master 

of Cuba. So that has some historical effects on the people of Cuba. 

There is no question that the people of Cuba more closely resemble 

the people of the United States, the population in general, than 

they do the people of Canada. 

That is just a fact. I am not interjecting anything. I mean, that 

is just a fact of life, and that does mean in my opinion that there 

is a much closer tie between the people of Cuba and the people of 

Canada, and certainly Luxembourg, or France, or Germany, or any 

of these other countries. 

Mr. MACK. Well, all right. Again, listening to your testimony, the 

other thing I heard, and which I thought was outrageous, was that 

somehow it was the American people’s fault for the brutal regime 

of the Castro brothers. 

That somehow the restrictions that we have on Cuba, somehow 

it is our fault that the Castro brothers continue to be a brutal regime, and maybe you and I can sit down and talk at some other 

time that I can understand. Okay. We don’t have to talk. That is 

fine. 

Mr. SOSA. I never said that. 

Mr. MACK. But what I heard you say is that if we drop the restricts, then no longer could the Castro brothers use United States 

policy, and that somehow United States policy is to blame here, 

and we hear this a lot. I mean, it is just not the case, and I think 

you are misguided on that. 

Mr. SOSA. Well, I never said it. 

71

Mr. MACK. My question is to the Ambassador. Going back to this 

idea of people traveling to Cuba, and would this money trickle 

down to Cubans. I would like for you to—and I have also listened 

to your testimony and read your testimony. If you would talk a little bit about that, because in my opinion it is not going to help one 

bit. 

Ambassador CASON. Well, one thing is whether it is going to 

help, and another thing is if it trickles down. I think very little 

trickles down. Sure, they have paladars that can have 12 people 

seated at them, and a lot of them owned by regime people behind 

the scenes. 

And sure there are some private rooms, but the vast majority of 

tourists, of those 15 million tourists, don’t go there. They go way 

out in areas where there are no Cubans, where there is no tipping, 

no chance to buy things, art work and that sort of stuff. 

Sure, some trickles down, but the idea that somehow this is 

going to bring prosperity to the average Cuban is just bunk, and 

there is no evidence again that tourism by all these people from 

other parts of the world that do speak Spanish, and that do engage 

if they find a Cuban to engage with, has many any impact whatsoever on the system. So that is what I have been arguing. 

Mr. MACK. So then all this money would then just stay in the 

hands of the Castro brothers. 

Ambassador CASON. Sure, they own the bars, and the cigar 

shops, and the rum. All of that belongs to the Cuban State. There 

is very little independent activity. There are some people, a smaller 

group, every month that try to do something independent, but they 

are rounded up and put in jail for 5 years for dangerousness. 

So does something trickle down? Yes, something does, but it is 

not going to bring democracy or anything to Cuba, or to help the 

average Cuban. 

Mr. MACK. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, sitting 

here, it sounds like those who oppose travel to Cuba are singing 

an old song. I feel like I am listening to an old record, something 

that we have all heard before, and it is fairly comfortable because 

we can sing along. 

Except that it does not fit the 21st century, and that is my opinion that it does not fit. Could you tell me, General, or Ms. Antunez, 

or Mr. Peters, do you know what kind of a—is there a difference 

of opinion between first generation Cuban-Americans, and first 

generation Cubans, and second generations? Is it changing? Are we 

missing the boat here by not paying attention to other opinions? 

Mr. PETERS. Congresswoman, I think the polling data that various polling firms have done over the years is very clear in the 

Cuban-American community. There was a recent poll that showed 

that 59 percent of Cuba-Americans support ending travel restrictions on all Americans, so that we could all travel there freely. 

And I think internally when you start to look inside those polls, 

you see that the change is driven, the change toward favoring policies of engagement is driven by greater support for that position 

72

among younger Cuban-Americans, and Cuban-Americans who have 

arrived here more recently. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Respond. 

General MCCAFFREY. I would not want to say that I am an expert on the Cuban-American community. I am in and out of Miami 

all the time, but my guess is that our current policy toward Cuba 

is not supported by the United States population. 

It has caused us to become isolated in the international community. It is painful to the Cuban people, and the Cuban mia cabanos, 

the new, younger generation, does not support it either. So I think 

those that espouse continuing the ban on travel are an isolated 

group who are rooted in the past. 

Castro is locked in 1959, and the United States Government is 

located in 1961. We need to move on. Engage the Cuban people, 

open diplomatic representation, and try and move them back into 

the community of nations. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Thank you. Let us move on to—I am going to 

change the subject, and we have our wonderful witness that we are 

looking at on the video. Ms. Leiva, let us talk about agriculture. 

Let us talk about farmers. Let us talk about what kind of food 

products the Cubans would purchase if we would open up our trade 

relations, the United States-Cuba trade relations. 

Ms. LEIVA. Well, you can imagine that the Cuban Government 

imports around 80 percent of the food that we consume in Cuba, 

and mostly from the United States. Right now, this year, the commerce, the trade, dropped by 36 percent altogether. Why? Because 

they don’t have enough money to buy. 

That means that more money in Cuba would mean that they 

would be able to buy more food and more goods that they don’t 

have. The commerce is not producing, and it is incredible how people are lacking everything they need, and each day it is more of 

a difficult situation. 

But if people could rent, and people could work, and sell to privately, and if many tourists would come, and many people from 

anywhere, the government would not be able to have all the capacities in hotels or restaurants, and this would move the people’s 

economy, and they would know that this because the Cuban Government is so wonderful that they have given the possibilities as 

the propaganda of the government is, but that is because has 

changed the balance, because Americans are coming, and visitors 

do not intend to bring down the government in any place. 

But by getting close to people and by talking, they can let everyone know what their experiences are, and the tax people open their 

minds, the people feel free, and of course, if there is an improvement economically, that would change a lot for the common people 

in Cuba. 

I think we are talking about or some people are talking with all 

my respect about a Cuba that does not exist, and is a society that 

isn’t the one that we live in. I know that they do it for the best, 

and they would like freedom immediately, respect for human 

rights, and that there would be no political prisoners, or dissidents, 

and that we would govern our country as a democracy. But——

Mr. WOOLSEY. Well, thank you so much for your patience. 

Ms. LEIVA. But it is not possible that way. 

73

Chairman BERMAN. Ms. Leiva, unfortunately, the 5 minutes has 

expired, and so we have to cut this off and go on to the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Royce, who is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question for Ambassador Cason, and it goes to the testimony that you gave. You 

mentioned the training that Cuban hotel employees receive. Can 

you expand on that? 

Ambassador CASON. Yes, the people that get to work in the hotels are a minority elite. They have to pass an allegiance test. 

These jobs are very important jobs that people have, in a society 

where very few people have a chance to have a steady job. 

The people that are at those hotels, and the people that take 

tourists around are trained to answer the questions that tourists 

will ask of them. They are trained to give the regime’s answers. 

They are not going to risk their livelihood by answering questions 

honestly, and so tourists are taken into Potemkin villages. 

And again very few of those tourists that have been going over 

the last 15 years to Cuba are staying in the urban areas in these 

little family run places. They are staying in hotels where ordinary 

Cubans are not allowed to come in, and couldn’t come in, and the 

whole environment is controlled, and the people that they deal with 

are trained people, and many of them members of the Communist 

Party. 

Mr. ROYCE. The reason that this is interesting to me is because 

yesterday morning, with our Human Rights Commission meeting 

here, we took testimony from a Mr. Kim, a defector from North 

Korea, who explained how the system works in North Korea, and 

exactly how Kim Jong-il extracts the wealth from this kind of activity. 

It is difficult to find one-for-one examples in foreign policy, but 

the idea of opening up Cuba for United States tourism really reminds me of those that have advocated for Mount Kumgang in 

North Korea, the Kumgang Mountain Resort. 

And this is of course the ideas like capitalism, I guess, will be 

slowly introduced to North Koreans, and the wages garnished by 

workers there at the resort will trickle down. But here is what in 

fact what happened. 

In fact what happens is that Communist Party members, who 

are the sons and daughters of the elite, are sent to work there. 

They are adamantly in support of the regime, and they don’t talk 

to people who go in about any of these ideas anyway. 

So they are kept at arms length, and so the reality is that you 

don’t reach the population. What you do is you pay money to bolster the intelligence apparatus, or the state, or in the case of North 

Korea, it was their weapons program. 

And I think there is an awful lot of wishful thinking. I think that 

Kim Jong-il, like Castro, would never do anything to threaten his 

grip on power, but he does not mind running that hotel out there 

because the workers at Kumgang are so highly screened, and they 

are party members, and they don’t get paid. 

The wages go to the state, and then the state feeds the Communist Party workers. So the vast majority of the money made at 

this resort is pocketed by the regime for exactly the types of purposes that you have called attention to. 

74

You also mentioned that the regime believes that it can control 

tourism. Explain that to us. 

Ambassador CASON. The regime has controlled tourism. They are 

not about to let their survival be at stake by letting the place be 

flooded by Americans. There are only a certain number of hotel 

rooms. Most of the time they are booked solid. 

So there is no room for millions of extra Americans to come 

there. You would have to kick somebody else out of the hotels, or 

raise the prices or something. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, do you think, or the bottom line for the regime, 

the Castro regime has proven very adept at warding off reform for 

a long time. Do you think that regime would make any reforms 

that would somehow threaten its grip on power? 

Ambassador CASON. Absolutely not. 

Mr. ROYCE. Or do you think that it intends to use it for more 

hard currency so it can continue to expand its intelligence apparatus? 

Ambassador CASON. That regime is not going to do anything that 

would undermine its political control, especially these 80-year-olds 

who know that they don’t have the support of the young people, 

who don’t believe that the revolution is going to provide for their 

future. They just don’t believe in the system. 

So that regime is not about to allow a large number of American 

tourists to come and wander around among the Cubans in order to 

undermine the system. It is just not going to happen. They have 

shown that they control it, and they will, as their regime’s future 

is at stake. 

Mr. ROYCE. Have the years of European travel to the island put 

a dent in the regime’s control in your opinion? 

Ambassador CASON. Absolutely not. There is not a sign of political reform that has come from any of those 15 million tourists. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me welcome all of our 

guests here, and witnesses today, and I especially want to greet 

Ms. Antunez. Thank you for being here. Let me just first say to my 

colleague, Mr. Mack, I want to just mention one point to you as it 

relates to race. 

Race is a factor in so many issues, both here and in Cuba. Actually, Ms. Antunez also pointed to the fact—and let me read you 

this. She says I know the regime’s contempt for Cuban people and 

how they show no mercy to those of us who are Black. So she also 

raised the issue of race, which is a good thing to do. 

Now, I want to just say to you, Ms. Antunez, that I share many 

of your concerns about the lives of Afro-Cubans, and I understand 

it, because as an African-American myself, I remember the days of 

the United States Government’s Jim Crow laws, where AfricanAmericans could not vote. 

My father was a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, 

and I remember very vividly being turned away at restaurants and 

movie theaters. He had his United States Army uniform on, and 

we were told that we were not allowed because we were Black. 

75

I also remember when I started school that I could not go to public school because I was Black. I also remember, and this is in my 

lifetime, when Black people were lynched, when they were hung. 

I remember these things very well. 

This was not long ago, and we are still here in my own country 

dealing with discrimination and inequalities, often times with race 

as part of the reason for these inequalities. So I have experienced 

a lot, and I understand what you are trying to say. 

But yet I don’t remember many countries at all refusing their 

citizens the right to travel to the United States, or to engage in an 

embargo against my country because of these gross human rights 

violations that I have experienced, and many of my colleagues in 

the African-American community. 

I believe that African-Americans can demonstrate to Afro-Cubans 

how African-Americans have challenged our Government for freedom and for equality. The embargo and the travel ban have kept 

us, has put this barrier up, and has kept us from helping you, and 

for sharing with you our struggles, and what we have had to do 

to fight just for the right to be part of this country. 

So why wouldn’t ending the travel ban be in the best interests 

of Afro-Cubans? 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. I am very happy that this topic has come up and 

that you have addressed it, because my own people, and my own 

family, are living through some of the same kinds of things that 

you have just cited. 

And I am thinking specifically of my brother, who, because he is 

Black and opposes the regime in our country, they have even sicced 

dogs on him, and it is not something that I am jus saying. He bears 

the scars on his body. 

And I am also thinking of my sister-in-law, who was beaten by 

the political police on the streets of Cuba, and addressed as Black, 

and with other epitaphs in an obscene manner merely because she 

was defending the rights of one of her fellow citizens. 

Chairman BERMAN. I am going to ask for unanimous consent for 

an additional minute for the time taken. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that 

you are a wonderful translator, but I believe that the first part of 

her sentence was saying that I don’t have to rely on memories and 

on recollections. It is something that I live with every day. 

Ms. LEE. May I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman BERMAN. It is your time. 

Ms. LEE. This is something that we continue to live with every 

day also, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I don’t doubt it, Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. So just understand that the point is that I don’t remember, and I don’t see many countries not allowing their citizens the 

right to travel to America because we still have so many violations 

of human rights here in our own country. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I just want to be—I am not part of the blame 

America first crowd. I wanted to just clarify more accurately what 

she had said. 

Chairman BERMAN. All right. The time of the gentlelady has expired. I will give the translator time to translate the answer. 

76

Ms. ANTUNEZ. Thank you. I am speaking about the facts that I 

have gleaned from my own life experiences, and I would like to say 

that I am sure that American tourism would actually be fatal for 

us, and the space that we have won through our non-violent activism. 

Not because I don’t want something good for my country, but because I don’t need to go on the internet to know the effects of repression that would come about as a consequence of this policy. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. The 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just 

point out that Congresswoman Lee, among others, were permitted 

to visit Cuba last winter, and meet with the Castro brothers, and 

some in her delegation were absolutely effusive in their praise for 

those two individuals. 

I know that Berta Antunez tried to give you a letter, and I am 

not sure, Ms. Lee, if you actually raised the case of Antunez, or 

whether or not you tried to visit him. He was on a hunger strike 

at the time, a hunger strike on behalf of human rights, and to the 

best of my knowledge, you did not visit with him while you were 

there. 

Ms. LEE. Do you want to yield? 

Mr. SMITH. I will yield at the end. I, along with Frank Wolf, have 

tried for years to get into Cuba to visit with political prisoners and 

to visit with people like the great Antunez. We have been turned 

down every time because Frank Wolf and I want to raise prisoners 

of conscience. 

We want to go to the prisons. We have been in gulags in China, 

gulags in Indonesia, gulags in the Soviet Union, including the infamous Perm-35, which is where Natan Sharanski had spent his 

time. 

In the late 1980s, Armando Valladeras and I were in Geneva. He 

actually got the United Nations Human Rights Commission, very 

often a very weak organization, to focus and to bring scrutiny to 

the prisoners in the gulags. 

They sent a fact finding team. Since then the International Committee for the Red Cross has been denied. There is a travel ban on 

the ICRC going to Cuba, and going to the prisons. There is a travel 

ban on the Human Rights Rapporteur from the United Nations—

that mandate has ended, but there was a travel ban preventing his 

investigation. 

I would ask General McCaffrey, have you ever asked Castro to 

permit the ICRC to visit Cuban political prisoners? What specific 

individuals have you raised with Fidel Castro and others in the 

government, and have you asked Castro to let you visit those prisoners of conscience yourself? 

I don’t have access. Those of us who raise these issues can’t even 

get in the door, and you certainly, I think, do an enormous amount 

of good on that. Yesterday, Colonel Fuentes, the superintendent of 

the New Jersey State Police, said every law enforcement officer in 

New Jersey wants cop killer Joanne Chesimard returned to prison 

in New Jersey. 

She brutally gunned down an officer in East Brunswick on the 

New Jersey Turnpike, and then made her way to Cuba, where she 

77

lives in the lap of luxury. I would also ask you finally before my 

time runs out, I mentioned earlier that in 2001, I got legislation 

passed in the House and it later died in the Senate as so many 

things related to human rights do over there, that called for two 

conditions, modest, minimalist conditions, for lifting the travel ban. 

First, release the political prisoners, because they are being tortured as we meet here today, and secondly, allow us to get back 

the almost 80 individuals who have committed felons, like Joanne 

Chesimard, and now are living in Cuba in a safe harbor. So, General, if you could. 

Colonel Fuentes is the New Jersey State Police officer who made 

a strong and a compelling case yesterday as he and other law enforcement people do, and have you raised that case? 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, let me say that I think you ought to 

be very proud of your work in this area, and I certainly endorse 

entirely your viewpoints. I think the notion that there is a totalitarian government in Cuba, and great repression, and there is a 

lack of freedom on unionization, assembly, freedom of speech, is 

unarguable. 

And I personally have raised with both Fidel—and not for 2 

hours. I actually had 7 hours with him—that this is a major point 

of United States foreign policy, and to try and reduce the perceptions throughout the global community that there are repressive totalitarian regimes. 

And I have also raised the same point with the Cuban Ambassador, and their intrasection, that that is probably the easiest thing 

they could do is drop their repressive imprisonment of these dissidents. So I share your viewpoints. 

Mr. SMITH. General, would you help me and Frank Wolf get into 

Cuba? 

General MCCAFFREY. If there is any modest contributions I can 

make, and I have great admiration for Frank Wolf. He is one of the 

finest men that I have seen in public life. 

Mr. SMITH. We would like to go as early as December and go to 

the prisons. 

General MCCAFFREY. Well, I would not think that I have great 

leverage, but anything that I can do is at your service. 

Mr. SMITH. Would you, Mr. Peters, help us get in? 

Mr. PETERS. Well, I don’t think I have any particular leverage either, but I am happy to work with you. In fact, your staff contacted 

me some months ago, and I told them that I was happy to work 

with them, and I am happy to work with you. 

With regard to the—and I am from New Jersey, too, as you 

know. I understand what you are saying about Joanne Chesimard, 

and of course she should be returned. I don’t think it is a very simple process. 

Mr. SMITH. Have you raised it with government officials? 

Mr. PETERS. No, I have not raised that case with government officials. 

Mr. SMITH. Why not? 

Mr. PETERS. Excuse me? 

Mr. SMITH. Why not? 

Mr. PETERS. Well, I will tell you what I have done. I will tell you 

that I have raised the issue of human rights with them in the past, 

78

and every single time that I have gone with a Congressional congregation, I am proud to say that Congressional group has raised 

the issue of human rights, including with specific names. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is recognized for 5 minutes, and that will probably be the last person to 

be recognized. 

And let me just interject here that if anyone else is prepared to 

come back right after these two votes, we will continue the hearing, 

assuming our witnesses don’t pass out. So, (1) whoever wants to 

come back, and (2)—well, we will come back. Can the witnesses 

stay? 

Ambassador CASON. I have a plane that leaves at 3 o’clock. 

Chairman BERMAN. The Ambassador can’t stay. Mr. Sosa can 

stay. 

General MCCAFFREY. I have to be at a meeting at 2 o’clock. 

Chairman BERMAN. The General can’t stay. Mr. Peters can stay. 

Ms. Antunez, can you stay? Ms. Leiva, can you spend another 45 

minutes so we can finish the hearing? 

All right. The gentleman from American Samoa is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

witnesses for their most eloquent statements. I think at the height 

of the Cold War, when we talk about the Cuban missile crisis, the 

Bay of Pigs, this has become not only an emotional issue for our 

country, but at that time as national security seemed to be the 

number one issue in the minds of our leaders on top of the Cuban 

missile crisis. 

And I would like to ask General McCaffrey: You had mentioned 

that Cuba is no longer really a threat to our national security given 

your wealth of experience, not only as a military flag officer, but 

certainly someone who has worked on national security issues. Can 

you elaborate on that a little more? 

General MCCAFFREY. I apologize, but with national security 

issues, we have got a lot of them, and we certainly have a hostile 

Cuban Government, with an internally repressive regime. In the 

past, they had a history of confronting United States foreign policy 

issues. 

Castro has clearly allied himself with Chavez right now, and is 

causing many problems as he could, I am sure, in Venezuela. Now 

having said that, our national security concerns oriented around a 

dozen different threats, and some of them are hugely important to 

us, and they don’t include Cuba. 

So my own view is that the reason we have to worry about Cuba 

is that I fear when Castro passes away, which I am confident he 

will, and that we see the unraveling of this repressive regime, we 

are going to end up with millions of Cubans seeking freedom, and 

fleeing the island. 

So I actually look at the National Guard, who I will be talking 

to tomorrow night, and others, as having a huge challenge in the 

coming years, and how do we deal with a humanitarian disaster if 

we are not engaged with the Cubans now. 

I want to know who the 45-year-olds are who are going to run 

the government, and I want to see us engage militarily, politically, 

79

diplomatically, and intelligence services, in trying to bring these 

people out of their isolation. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know that in my travel to Cuba, I had to 

go through Cancun to get some kind of special visa in order to get 

to Havana. I want to ask Mr. Peters the question about the quote 

that he made here and the very interesting statement that he 

made, that investors from all over the world operate joint ventures 

in Cuba. 

Spanish companies are making an effort to drill oil in Cuban ter- ritorial waters. Venezuela pays Cuba over $1 billion per year for 

services of Cuban doctors and other workers. Iran extended Cuba 

$445 million in credits in November of this year. Brazil extended a $1-billion line of credit last year. Funds are 

being used for port and road developments, and other projects. 

China has also extended a $600-million line of credit to Cuba in 

September of this year, including $260 million for grain purchases. 

That is a very interesting comment here in terms of the economic 

situation and the economic sanctions. In your opinion do you think 

that the real basis of our involvement in Cuba, first, as it was in 

the early part of the last 50 years, was national security? 

Now as you look at the economic conditions, do you really think 

that this really has the basis of how things may change in the future if Castro should depart from this earth in the coming period? 

Mr. PETERS. Congressman, the point that I was making in that 

passage was that we often think that because we have sanctions 

against Cuba that the Cuban economy is on the brink, or that we 

are squeezing them somehow, and that is not the case. 

The economic situation there is not good, but as all those facts 

indicated, and as others do, they are not isolated. They are engaged 

with the rest of the world, and whether we like it or not, that economy is not teetering. 

And more importantly from the point of view of the purpose of 

our sanctions, our sanctions have never had the effect, and the economic troubles that they have experienced, and they have been 

very severe, and they seem more severe now than they were even 

last year, have never put the power of the government on the line. 

And so there is no politically decisive impact in our sanctions. It 

doesn’t make a difference between the Communist government surviving or the Communist government not surviving. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Unfortunately, my time is short, and there 

is not enough time to ask some more questions. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlemen’s time has expired. We have 

two votes, which means that this will be much quicker than the 

last time. We will go down there and we will vote, and we will vote 

a second time right away, and be back in about 15 minutes maximum, I think. 

And if you can stay, great, any of you, but we hope as many of 

you as can will, and hopefully the members that want to ask questions, we will be back here right away, and if no one is here, we 

will just adjourn it. So with that the committee is recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BERMAN. Okay. We are smaller, but more robust. The 

gentlemen from New York, Mr. Meeks, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

80

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for staying. This has been a crazy and busy day, and I know that this issue 

is a very emotional issue, and unfortunately when emotions are involved, sometimes logic stops. 

And so I just want to say that it has been a long time since we 

have had a different policy in Cuba, and when I think about the 

whole situation, one of the reasons why people talk about national 

security, et cetera, it was initially the alliance between Cuba and 

Russia, and yet we never put a ban on traveling to Russia, and we 

always had conversation with the Russian Government. 

And now we have even are working with them in the G–20 and 

other places, and it seems as though when Cuba was a threat to 

the United States was only because of Russia, and the missile crisis, and not because of Cuba in and of itself. 

And so I don’t see where Cuba is a threat to the United States 

of America at all at this particular point. That being said, let me 

just ask Ms. Antunez that recently the President of the United 

States allowed or ended all restrictions on travel to Cuba by 

Cuban-Americans. 

And I was wondering whether or not you believe that such travel 

should be prohibited, or whether Cubans should be free to go to 

Cuba? 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. I am sorry, could you repeat the last part of your 

question? 

Mr. MEEKS. Whether or not such travel by Cubans to Cuba, 

should that be prohibited, or should Cubans to Cuba be allowed? 

Cuban-Americans. 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. In the first place, ending tourism or any travel, 

anything that will bring additional means to the Cuban regime and 

continuing its repression, and strengthening itself, and keeping its 

hold in power, anything that would do that is not convenient for 

the Cuban people. 

Mr. MEEKS. No, that is not my question. My question do you 

think it is okay for Cuban-Americans to be able to go visit Cuba? 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. I would like to say that I think at this time that 

it is correct to maintain the policy that the United States Government has maintained all these years of allowing the real Cuban 

people who are suffering to win space for themselves through nonviolent activism, and that we would lose if an uninhibited flow of 

people bearing resources for the regime were to come into Cuba. 

Mr. MEEKS. That is not answering my question. Maybe I should 

move on, because the question was a simple question of whether 

or not Cubans should be visiting—Cuban-Americans should be visiting Cuba, and where there is family contact, and there are family 

ties, and that is the essence of my question. It is not a complicated 

question at all. 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. No. 

Mr. MEEKS. That is that. Thank you. Finally. 

Chairman BERMAN. You have 13 seconds. 

Mr. MEEKS. Well, let me end with this. I have 13 seconds. I wish 

I had time to ask questions. I will say this that in the words of a 

President——

81

Translator. She did not understand your question, Congressman. 

I am sorry. 

Mr. MEEKS. I don’t have much time. I am just going to end, but 

in the words of a President that I didn’t agree much with, a President said that civilized people everywhere have a stake in keeping 

contact, communications, and creativity as broad, meek, and free as 

possible. The way that governments can best promote contacts 

among people is by not standing in their way. That President was 

Ronald Reagan. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thee is a number of 

reasons why I am opposed to this move, and rather than ask a 

bunch of questions, because some of the questions that I wanted to 

address were to General McCaffrey and Ambassador Cason. 

But when an American company or hotel down there pays their 

employees, the money goes through the government, and if they 

make $400 a month, that is reduced by 26 times, because the currency they have down there is worth one-twenty-sixth of a dollar. 

And these people can’t go and swim in the pools, or run around 

these hotels, and have the freedom that you would expect them to 

have because they are under the heel, the boot, of the Castro regime. 

Castro is working with Chavez, and Chavez is supplying money 

now, and Chavez wants to revolutionize Central and South America, and he is one of the compatriots now with the Castro brothers. 

And they want to turn that into a Communist regime, and reverse 

everything that Ronald Reagan was able to get accomplished when 

he was President. 

If you drive a cab, if you work in a gas station, or a restaurant, 

you are pre-vetted, and once again, you get those jobs only after 

the pre-vetted has taken place, and you get about one-twenty-sixth 

of what you earn if you are paid in American dollars. 

There is no limitation that I know of on humanitarian aid or 

food. I have heard several of the people testify today that they don’t 

get enough food, and that we are stopping it. I have talked to a supermarket chain in my district, and they were telling me how they 

are selling food to Cuba on a regular basis, and there is no restricts. 

And humanitarian aid I know is not being restricted. One of the 

things that the KGB taught Castro early on in his administration 

down there, if you want to call it that, was that the way to keep 

control of the people is to have somebody that is a spy, or whatever 

you want to call it, in about every three or four blocks, a block captain. 

And if somebody complains about what is going on, they report 

it to the authorities, and then of course the person that is accused 

of that suffers the end result. And you talk about travel to Cuba 

changing things. 

As I recall, and I was talking to Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, our 

ranking Republican, that during the Carter administration there 

were no restrictions whatsoever, and the repression under the Castro regime was just as severe as it is today. 

82

People were thrown into the gulags, and I think Armando 

Valladeras was through into jail at that particular time, and I wish 

everybody who thinks we ought to start working with the Castro 

brothers down there would read his book. 

It is called Against All Hope, and it is a clear depiction of what 

people go through if they are a person that disagrees with the administration down there, and is thrown into the gulags. It is just 

horrible what they have to go through. 

I was going to ask General McCaffrey, as he was asked by Mr. 

Smith, did you ever try to get into the prisons, and Mr. McCaffrey 

never answered that question, and I think the question was also 

asked of you, and after I finish my remarks, I would like for you 

to answer that. 

Have you ever asked to go in and see political prisons, and if so, 

were you allowed to go in and see the political prisoners, and if you 

didn’t ask to go in to see them, I would like to know why you 

didn’t, because that is one of the major things that we have been 

concerned about for a long time. 

Cuba is still by the State Department considered a terrorist 

State, and I think we ought to take that into consideration as well 

until there is a reversal of that, and with that, if you would like 

to answer that question, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Burton. If there is time, I would respond to what you said about the hotels and the taxi drivers, because I don’t think that is quite accurate, and so there isn’t. 

Mr. BURTON. Just the question that I asked. That is the one that 

I want to know. Did you ask about the prisoners? 

Mr. PETERS. No, I have never asked to go into prisons to visit 

political prisoners. I have never done that. I have advocated on behalf of Prisoners of Conscience. I have visited former Prisoners of 

Conscience, and I have visited dissidents, and——

Mr. BURTON. Well, real quickly, why didn’t you ask to go and see 

them? 

Mr. PETERS. And every single time that I have gone with a Congressional delegation, I am proud to say that delegation has advocated in favor of human rights, including with specific names. 

Mr. BURTON. Why didn’t you ask to go in and see the political 

prisoners? 

Mr. BURTON. I have talked to dissidents on many, many occasions. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I do 

want to remind everyone that there is a hearing that is scheduled 

to start at 2 o’clock by the Subcommittee on the Middle East and 

South Asia, and I will recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. 

Sheila Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank both you and 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for allowing members to come back and for 

completing this hearing. It is a very important hearing, and I want 

to thank the other witnesses in these absence, and those who were 

able to stay. 

I want to applaud President Obama when he took the constructive step of allowing Cuban-Americans to visit family in Cuba as 

often as they please. I think it was a magnificent step, and Mr. PeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:31 Jan 28, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\111909\53673 HFA PsN: SHIRL
83

ters, I think you acknowledged that is a policy change that is productive. 

I started my opening remarks by suggesting that I was engaged 

because of my committee assignment with the Elian Conzalez 

issue, or circumstance, and I believe there was right on both sides, 

but I think we were right to reunite this child at that time with 

his family in Cuba, but I think it is also important for his Miami 

family to be able to see and to interact with their family. 

I believe that my colleague articulated the tribulations and the 

challenges of African-Americans in this country. As I understand 

Mr. Delahunt’s legislation, and which I have cosponsored and support, and hope that I have done so, and think it is an important 

policy change, there is no ban. 

We have focused on tourism, but frankly activists, human rights 

activists, individuals who wish to engage in promoting the collaboration with Afro-Cubans on pressing for their rights, all of those individuals I understand, if this was ever to become law, would not 

be banned. 

The question would be, of course, how would Cuba receive them? 

So my pointed questions go to the fact that I believe that we should 

have a quid pro quo. We are stifled in memory. Our policy is that 

we don’t speak to them. We don’t travel there. 

And frankly that was the policy of China. There are some of us 

who are still fighting the human rights abuses in China, but we 

just had the encounter of our head-of-state visiting in Asia, and so 

we are multi-tasked. 

And I think in Cuba that we should be multi-tasked, and that 

is engage, but also assess, critique, persist, and to those who are 

in this audience who have been incarcerated, know that we are not 

abandoning your pain. 

We understand the pain of incarceration and oppression. For 

those of us who watched the horror of South Africa, we know what 

it was like to see people of our, if you will, kinship be so treated, 

but look at the relationship of South Africa today. 

So, Mr. Sosa, I ask you a question about this effectively, if you 

would, but you suggest that conditioning on United States policy to 

actions taken by the Cuban Government effectively puts control of 

our foreign policy in the hands of Cuba. 

Just a quick question because my time is going, and a quick answer. Do you believe that it should be a bilateral, a multi-tasked, 

approach, and eliminate the travel ban, but at the same time be 

engaged for responses or concessions by the Cuban Government; 

yes or no? 

Mr. SOSA. Eliminating the travel ban should be unilateral. It is 

an extra essential threat to the Cuban Government. The embargo 

on the other hand, and lifting that embargo, would require some 

concessions in my opinion, particularly in the human rights side, 

and I would not be in favor. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So we should be multi-tasked. The travel ban 

should be lifted, but we should be engaging on what we think 

would be effective in a policy change as it relates to the embargo 

issue including human rights; is that correct? 

Mr. SOSA. Yes. 

84

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Let me speak to Ms. Antunez. Ms. 

Antunez, could we be of help? You may have heard of the NAACP, 

the Urban League, which is a national activist and civil rights 

group, that African-Americans have in essence found opportunities. 

You may have heard of Dr. Martin Luther King, who obviously 

has passed. Would this kind of effort and energy in helping AfroCubans be received warmly by you and our friends in Cuba, particularly the Afro-Cubans? 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. Well, if I understood your question correctly, yes, 

that would be good. I actually tried to do this on a prior occasion. 

I tried to ask for help for the people of Cuba, and on this occasion, 

I brought a letter from my brother, Antunez, to the Congressional 

Black Caucus, who had traveled to Cuba. 

I wanted to try and meet with you so that I could explain to you 

the situation in Cuba. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I think this hearing—and, Mr. Chairman, if I just may finish—I think this hearing is almost finished, 

and if you have a letter, I will stand by to the end of this hearing 

and receive your letter, because I think American influence to the 

end of the travel ban would be of assistance to all Cubans, including Afro-Cubans. I am prepared to engage with you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentlelady has expired. Why 

don’t you translate this. 

Ms. ANTUNEZ. Yes, I don’t have a letter with me now. I brought 

a letter in April directed to the members of the Black Caucus from 

Cuba at a time when my people, and specifically my brother, were 

suffering, both in health and also from political repression. They 

were in very bad circumstances, and that letter was not received 

at that time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, take the help when it is offered, and it 

is offered today. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The chair recognizes the gentlelady, the 

ranking member. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I have heard from a lot of folks in wanting 

to lift the ban group here, and they have their stickers, and thank 

you for being here, and I also want to point out and say thank you 

to the ex-political prisoners from Cuba who are now residing in 

New Jersey for also coming over here. Thank you so much. It is democracy at work. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. Just in closing the hearing, I want to thank 

the ranking member for her cooperation. This was a vigorous and 

fascinating exchange of views, and our witnesses were very helpful, 

the ones remaining and the ones who had to leave. 

I think it was a great example of democracy in action, and clashes of views and ideas, and the one thing that I think the entire 

committee shares is a desire that one day in Cuba that kind of 

peaceful clash of ideas can be expressed in the political system in 

Cuba. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman from Maine is recognized. 

85

Mr. DELAHUNT. I don’t want to give you the last word, but if you 

would indulge me for a moment. The question has been asked of 

various individuals when they go to Cuba do they ask to see political prisoners. 

I want it to be noted for the record that my first trip to Cuba 

occurred in 1988, as a part of the human rights project. At that 

point in time, we asked and requested a meeting with a group of 

prisoners in combutardo del taste, and probably mispronouncing it, 

who identified themselves as los plantados. 

I have a sense that some of them are here today. Let me just 

suggest this. We did press the government after that visit, and I 

certainly am not taking credit for it, but I am aware that approximately 9 months to 1 year later los plantados were released at 

some time, but we don’t know. 

Good things can happen if we continue to press, and I have been 

on trips with Mr. Peters. I can assure you that in every single occasion that we have pressed. We have met with dissidents. Miriam 

Leiva, and her husband, Oscar Espinosa Chepe, are friends of 

mine. I know the pain and anguish that they have suffered as well. 

So I say this to everyone that is here in the audience today, we understand. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, would you just indulge me for 

just a moment? 

Chairman BERMAN. No, I get the last word. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want you to have the last word, and so 

would you yield for just a brief moment, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. Okay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me just say that I indicated to my dear 

sister, Ms. Antunez, that help is here and take advantage of it. Let 

me say, not having been present in April, let me convey at least 

the openness of all Members of Congress, including the Congressional Black Caucus, to the issues of oppressed people, and I do 

want to stay behind in all sincerity either to receive information or 

to be able to reach back to you, because if we are nothing in this 

country, we are people who fight against oppression, and we are 

willing to fight against oppression on your behalf. I yield back to 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you, and now the hearing on another 

form of oppression, and against religious freedom, is going to take 

place by the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, I believe, and with that, thank you all, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(87)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

88


53673n.eps
89


53673m-1.eps
90


53673m-2.eps
91


53673m-3.eps
92


53673h-1.eps
93


53673h-2.eps
94


53673i.eps
95


53673j.eps
96


53673k-1.eps
97


53673k-2.eps
98


53673k-3.eps
99


53673l-1.eps
100


53673l-2.eps
101


53673l-3.eps
102


53673o.eps
103


53673p-1.eps
104


53673p-2.eps
105

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HOWARD L. BERMAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


53673q.eps
106


53673r.eps
107


53673s.eps
108


53673t-1.eps
109


53673t-2.eps
110


53673t-3.eps
111


53673t-4.eps
112


53673u-1.eps
113


53673u-2.eps
114


53673v-1.eps
115


53673v-2.eps
116


53673v-3.eps
117


53673w.eps
118


53673x-1.eps
119


53673x-2.eps
120


53673x-3.eps
121


53673x-4.eps
122


53673y.eps
123


53673z.eps
124


53673aa-1.eps
125


53673aa-2.eps
126

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


53673ab-1.eps
127


53673ab-2.eps
128


53673ab-3.eps
129


53673ac-1.eps
130


53673ac-2.eps
131


53673ad-1.eps
132


53673ad-2.eps
133


53673ad-3.eps
134

Æ


53673ad-4.eps