U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

95–131PDF 2015

FUTURE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CUBA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 18, 2015

Serial No. 114–51

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Mauricio Tamargo (former chairman of the Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission) ......................................................................................................... 5

Mr. David Bradley (former chief counsel of the Foreign Claims Settlement 

Commission) ......................................................................................................... 17

Javier Garcia-Bengochea, M.D., certified claimant .............................................. 28

Ms. Carolyn Chester Lamb, certified claimant ..................................................... 34

Ms. Amy Rosoff, heir of certified claimant ............................................................ 41

Ms. Anna-Lee Stangl, senior advocacy officer for the Americas, Christian 

Solidarity Worldwide-UK .................................................................................... 48

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Mauricio Tamargo: Prepared statement ......................................................... 8

Mr. David Bradley: Prepared statement ................................................................ 19

Javier Garcia-Bengochea, M.D.: Prepared statement ........................................... 31

Ms. Carolyn Chester Lamb: Prepared statement ................................................. 37

Ms. Amy Rosoff: Prepared statement ..................................................................... 43

Ms. Anna-Lee Stangl: Prepared statement ........................................................... 51

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 62

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 63

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey: Prepared statement ................................................... 64

Ms. Anna-Lee Stangl: 

Letter dated June 5, 2015, from Reverend Mario Felix Lleonart Barroso 

to the Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of South Carolina, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere ....................................................................................................... 65

Letter dated June 8, 2015, from Reverend Omar Perez Ruiz to the Honorable Jeff Duncan ............................................................................................... 66

Declaration of Rights of the Primera Iglesia Bautista de Holguin .................. 68

(1)

FUTURE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CUBA 

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Duncan 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. A quorum being present, the subcommittee will 

come to order, and I would now like to recognize myself for an 

opening statement. Before I do, I will mention that votes will be 

called during this hearing, and we will adjourn. We will see how 

far we get, and then we will adjourn and possibly come back. And 

if we get far enough, we may just adjourn the hearing all together. 

But we will just see how far we get. 

Also, I want to ask unanimous consent for Tom Rooney from 

Florida, to sit on the dais when he gets here and offer a statement. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

As a businessman who is involved in the real estate industry, I 

have a keen level of interest in today’s subcommittee hearing to examine the issues of property rights in Cuba, and U.S. and Cuban 

property claims against the Castro regime. I believe that in the 

Obama administration’s zeal to engage the Castro regime at any 

cost, we have lost sight of a critical issue that has not received the 

priority that it deserves. Thousands of Americans and Cuban citizens suffered humiliation and financial distresses of having their 

private property stolen from them, some of them at gunpoint. 

Today there has been no justice for that their claims. 

Lest we forget, I think it is important for the American people 

to remember what led in part the U.S. embargo against Cuba. In 

1959, Fidel Castro brutally seized power and quickly nationalized 

the American-dominated sugar and mining industries. He froze 

bank accounts and confiscated property from thousands of both 

Cuban and American citizens and businesses in what the InterAmerican Law Review called the largest uncompensated taking of 

American property by a foreign government in history. 

This stealing of American private property in part led the U.S. 

severing diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961 and enacting a 

trade embargo and sanctions. In 1964, President John F. Kennedy 

signed a bill into law authorizing the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to begin a Cuba program to address the claims 

of U.S. citizens against the Castro regime. Since that time, the 

2

Commission has adjudicated almost 8,900, 8,900 U.S. claims, finding almost 6,000 of those claims to be certified. When we look at 

the financial value of these claims today, the total cost comes to 

over $6 billion. 

Now the Obama administration’s reengagement with the Communist Castro regime, restoration of diplomatic ties, and pursuit of 

normalized relations have been performed ostensibly to empower 

the Cuban people. However, I have not seen any evidence of things 

getting better for the Cuban people. In fact, since December’s announcement, we have seen almost a 120-percent increase in the 

number of Cubans fleeing to the United States; over 3,000 political 

arrests by the Castro regime; spikes in violence against democracy 

activists; and re-arrest of most of the 53 political prisoners who 

were released as part of the December agreement. 

The American people who decided to travel to Cuba under the relaxed Obama administration rule should at least be aware that 

their decision to spend money on Cuban hotels, tourism, rum, or 

cigars directly props up the Communist military intelligence services and human rights abusers in the Castro regime. Americans 

should know that the hotel they vacation in may very well be a 

property that was stolen from an American citizen. 

As I stated at our last subcommittee hearing on Cuba back in 

February, I strongly oppose the Obama administration’s decision to 

normalize relations with the oppressive Communist Cuba Castro 

regime. U.S. law requires a change of the very nature of the regime 

through the establishment of democracy and allowance of freedom. 

U.S. law also requires the resolution of property claims issue. 

In 1996, Congress expressed its intent in the Libertad Act stating that the satisfactory resolution of property claims by the Cuban 

Government recognized by the United States remains an essential 

condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. That Libertad Act is 

not being followed by the Obama administration. 

If we are truly going to reengage with the Communist Castro regime, then I believe it is critical that we not only follow U.S. law, 

but for the purposes of upholding the rule of law worldwide, we negotiate only from a position of strength on the issue of property 

claims. Should we fail to do that, I fear that we would be setting 

a terrible example and signaling to other bad actors around the 

world that they will face no consequences for stealing American 

property. This would be a terribly harmful message to send. 

Last year I had the privilege of traveling with the full committee 

Chairman Royce, Ed Royce, and Ranking Member Engel in a bipartisan delegation to South America, where we visited some of our 

best partners in the hemisphere, including Colombia and Peru. 

During our visit to Peru, I was personally delighted to sit with 

award-winning Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto one evening 

over dinner. Hernando is known best for his work on the informal 

economy and on the importance of business and property rights. 

The main message of de Soto’s work and writings is that no nation 

can have a strong market economy without adequate participation 

in an information framework that records ownership of property 

and other formal economic activity. 

3

It is in this spirit that I wanted to convene this hearing today 

because, in Cuba, most of what passes for economic activity is simply informal opportunities for the Castro brothers and the Cuban 

military to siphon off money to prop themselves up, spy on their 

people, deny basic human rights, and beat and torture people who 

disagree with them. 

So, in conclusion, the future of property rights in Cuba and the 

issue of U.S. claims against the Communist Castro regime should 

not be forgotten in any U.S.-Cuba reengagement. These issues impact not only U.S. business claimants with the highest amounts of 

certified law, such as Cuba Electric Company, North American 

Sugar Industries or Moa Bay Mining Company; these issues also 

have devastated individuals and families for generations. 

Today I hope that experiences that the witnesses will share will 

inform our actions, offer constructive ideas on what a responsible 

and just outcome on this issue would involve, and motivate the 

Obama administration to prioritize the needs of the American people above a legacy achievement with the Communist Castro regime. This hearing could not come at a more important time as recent press reports have indicated that the Obama administration 

has already made key concessions on limiting American diplomats’ 

activities and a possible future Embassy in Havana, which follows 

its removal of Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list last 

month even though Cuba continues to harbor terrorists and proliferate weapons to bad actors around the world. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our two panels of witnesses today, and I will now turn to the ranking member, Mr. Albio 

Sires, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. And I strongly concur with a lot of the comments that 

you made. 

We are here to bring attention to how the Castro brothers have 

confiscated thousands of properties from U.S. companies and 

Cuban citizens in the early years of the revolution. Before the expropriation began, over two-thirds of the Cuban economy was 

owned by private entities, many of whom were Americans. The 

Castro brothers started taking ranches and farms just months after 

Castro came into power and quickly moved to U.S.-owned oil refineries and other properties. 

Castro seized everything in sight, including 2 million acres of 

land, electric companies, the mining industry, warehouses, hotels, 

private properties, and bank accounts. Additionally, they seized almost all assets of Cuban nationals between 1959 and 1968. 

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has certified over 

5,000 claims and, when combined with interest, total almost $8 billion. As the administration continues to normalize relationships 

with Cuba, we must take time to reexamine these claims and see 

how we can get justice for these claimants before further inroads 

are made between Cuba and the U.S. 

Many of the confiscated properties have been sold and resold, 

their owners deceased, and now their families are left fighting on 

their behalf. Most families were never able to recover either financially or mentally. Being forced to give up their homes, essential 

4

belongings, and millions of dollars worth of investments cannot go 

unanswered. 

How can U.S. businesses open up economic cooperation with a 

government who profited on the back of other people’s hard work? 

Not only is it immoral to profit off of these stolen properties, but 

Cuba’s past disregard for property rights creates an unstable investment climate for private businesses. There is no way to ensure 

that the Cuban regime won’t swoop in and confiscate more properties or renegate—or renege on its so-called contracts. We must 

examine how a shift in relationship with Cuba will impact these 

long outstanding claims. 

The issue of confiscated properties by the Cuban regime has always been a major hurdle in normalizing the relationships with 

Cuba. Just because the administration has shifted the strategy 

doesn’t mean we should detract from our effort to find an equitable 

and long overdue solution for the victims. Today we will be able to 

hear from experts from the Foreign Settlements Commission that 

have gone through the efforts of certifying these claims as well as 

victims whose families have lost their homes and businesses to the 

Castro regime’s greed. I look forward to hearing from our panelists 

on how we can address these critical issues. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

By unanimous consent, we allowed Representative Rooney from 

Florida to sit on the dais. I now recognize Mr. Rooney for an opening statement. 

Mr. ROONEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. I will 

just say that I appreciate you having this hearing to the panel 

members that are here. You know, what brought this about for me 

was, as a Member of the Florida delegation, going to law school at 

the University of Miami and getting to meet some of the constituents or some of the citizens that lived down there and coming to 

recognize that as naive as I was at that point, that a lot of the people that I met were actually people that lived in Cuba, that left—

that the ranking member was speaking of—thinking that some 

day, some day soon after they left Cuba, that they would lock their 

doors and that they would be back relatively in short order. 

And it just dawned on me talking to these people, who are a little bit older now, that they really believe something that if that 

would happen to American citizens, something so fundamental that 

you owned this property or you owned this business, and for whatever reason, you had to leave, and you turned around and locked 

the door behind you thinking that I will be back in a couple of days 

or a week or at the most, you know, a month, but that that which 

I built, that which I owned, something so dear to us as Americans 

as our property rights, would be mine again. And to have that decades, decades go by, and to not be able to return to that which is 

rightfully yours, for us to say that we are going to ease restrictions 

in Cuba and not follow the law, as Mr. Duncan referred to the 1996 

Libertad law, I think would be unconscionable and something so 

unfair as we know it as Americans is to deprive people of their 

rightful property. 

And a lot of people, even people on my side of the aisle, sometimes say: What is the difference between Cuba and China and 

5

other Communist countries that we do business with? I mean, after 

all, it has been a long time. Let’s just forget about it and move on. 

The difference is that I have constituents, people that are alive 

and well, that owned property in Cuba, that left, that live in the 

State of Florida, that belief that our Government will take care of 

them, that are citizens now, but when they ease restrictions with 

Cuba, that when we do that as a government, we are going to follow U.S. law, and we are going to demand that this President first 

recognize by forcing the Castro regime to recognize the property 

rights of those people that are still alive today, living in Florida, 

that are constituents, and that it is our responsibility as their 

elected officials to make sure we follow the law. 

So when people ask you, ‘‘What is the difference between China 

and other Communist countries that we do business with and 

Cuba?’’ the difference is, is that they are our constituents, and we 

owe it to them to enforce the law, to follow the law, and to live the 

American spirit, which is property rights. That goes back to our 

very founding. And if we don’t do that, then we are, I think, neglecting the very fabric of what this country is. 

So I really appreciate as we—as this administration decides to 

move forward in easing restrictions, if they are going to do that, 

the very first step in making what past wrongs there were right 

would be to make sure that our constituents in the State of Florida 

and across this country are made whole again by that which was 

taken from them, their property in Cuba. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for letting 

me sit in today. I appreciate you hearing this bill. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his 

comments and remind other members that opening statements 

may be submitted for the record. 

Before I recognize the panel, let me just explain the lighting system. You have got 5 minutes. The light will be green until it gets 

to 1 minute. It will turn yellow, and then when you are out of time, 

it will be red. At that point in time, if you could just wrap up your 

final statement. And you have submitted your testimony for us beforehand, which we have had the opportunity to read, and so if you 

don’t get through the complete statement, we have it. We have 

read it. We are understanding. 

But we want to get you on the record verbally, so I will now recognize our panelists, and our first panelist is Mr.—if I pronounce 

this wrong—Tamargo. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Tamargo. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Tamargo, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MAURICIO TAMARGO (FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION) 

Mr. TAMARGO. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member 

Sires, and members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to appear 

before this great committee where I used to work. I have been a 

long time—it has been a long time since certified claims have been 

give then much public attention. I commend the subcommittee for 

convening this hearing, and I hope the subcommittee continues to 

play an active role in the long, overdue settlement of these claims. 

6

I will summarize my remarks and ask that the full text of my testimony be placed in the record. 

I also request, if possible, that the record be held open for those 

certified claimants who were not able to testify so they can submit 

a statement for the record. 

Over 55 years ago, the revolutionary Government of Cuba confiscated the real and personal property of thousands of Americans 

and others who were living and doing business in Cuba. To this 

day, that chapter in U.S. history represents the largest confiscation 

of American property and there has been no progress in settling 

these certified claims. I am encouraged but guarded by the possibility of serious negotiations between the United States and Cuba 

regarding the certified American claims. 

We have heard different numbers as to how many certified 

claims there are. There are, in fact, 5,913 certified claims. When 

certified, they were valued at $1.8 billion. Today they are valued 

at around $7 billion to $8 billion, due to the 6-percent simple interest called for under international law and certified by the commission. 

No American claims program has been left pending and unpaid 

for this long. I do not count the Soviet program because although 

it is still pending and unsettled, it was partially settled. 

Many ideas and proposals are floating around as to how to settle 

these claims. Some have asked me about the property problem between the U.S. and Cuba. My answer to that is that there is no 

property problem because, unfortunately, there is no property. 

Under international law, the American property is gone. The 

Cuban Government confiscated it, but the U.S. has a right to fair 

compensation for its citizens. 

Not only do I believe the U.S. should settle for nothing less than 

the full price of the claims, plus 100 percent of the interest, but I 

call on the administration and the Congress to hold fast and not 

remove any key element further from the embargo that remains 

unless the claimants receive full and fair payment for their certified claims. 

As requested, I have a few legislative recommendations. First 

and foremost, these claims are the reason the embargo was created. Congress must not pass any legislation further easing the embargo unless these certified claims are paid and settled. We only 

get one shot at this. We have only one thing Cuba wants: It is access to the U.S. market through lifting the embargo. If the Congress gives that away without getting these claims paid, then the 

Congress will have failed to stand up for these American families 

and companies. 

Second, I urge the Congress to enact legislation to grant limited 

authority to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to update 

the certified claims as to who is the current certified claimant. As 

I have already explained, claims programs are not designed to go 

unpaid for 55 years. Multiple generations of claimants have come 

and gone, and it will take years to ascertain who are the certified 

claimants right now. Also, do the same for the Soviet certified 

claims. Not only is this good governmental housekeeping, but it 

costs us nothing, and it sends a strong message to Cuba. 

7

Thirdly, I am hopeful that the certified claims will be paid in 

these negotiations, but you never know. We have been waiting 55 

years, and we may get the same status quo. We know the current 

American trade and travel business with Cuba is trespassing on 

stolen American property. We know this because a runway expansion at Jose Marti Airport is on land which is the subject of a certified claim and also probably true of other Cuban airports and the 

Port of Mariel and other Cuban ports and probably most of the infrastructure. Also, they all use land which is the subject of American certified claims. 

Congress needs to enact a trespass penalty of 10 percent on all 

trade, travel, commerce, remittances, toll calls, gifts, flyover fees, 

port duty, everything. The proceeds collected by the trespass penalty would go to a fund which would pay all of the certified claimants for their full amount, including interest. The trespass penalty 

would not release Cuba of its debt, but now the debt will be owed 

to the U.S. Government. 

Those doing travel and trade with Cuba should just consider the 

trespass penalty as the cost of using someone’s property. The current ongoing, never-ending waiting is ridiculous and intolerable to 

the certified claimants. It is the U.S. Congress’ responsibility to 

end this embarrassing 55-year wait by our fellow Americans. 

Fourth, the final recommendation is not to Congress. It is to all 

of those American families and companies who are holding certified 

claims against Cuba. I urge you to get engaged in this discussion 

and to write your Congressman, your Senators, the President, the 

State Department, and keep writing and calling them. American 

certified claimants need to demand that their claims be settled, 

and if they are not going to be settled, then they should be paid 

this trespass penalty. It is wrong to continue to hold these certified 

claimants hostage to this never-ending battle over Cuba policy. It 

is not fair to these American families and companies who did nothing wrong except have the courage to invest in Cuba. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tamargo follows:]

8


95131a-1.eps
9


95131a-2.eps
10


95131a-3.eps
11


95131a-4.eps
12


95131a-5.eps
13


95131a-6.eps
14


95131a-7.eps
15


95131a-8.eps
16


95131a-9.eps
17

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman. 

In my haste, I failed to mention the biographies of the witnesses 

and panelists are in our binders, and we have had the opportunity 

to read through those. 

Mr. Bradley, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID BRADLEY (FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION) 

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes, sir. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me. You have 

my bio, so you know I retired from Federal service in 2008 after 

20 years as chief counsel with the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. I am pleased to be invited here today to say some words 

about the Commission’s Cuba claims adjudication program. 

As we know, following the overthrow of the Batista regime in 

Cuba and Fidel Castro’s takeover on January 1, 1959, the Castro 

regime began a comprehensive drive to seize business enterprises, 

assets, and other private property on the island. Given the extensive American involvement in Cuba’s economy at the time, American companies and individuals were particularly affected by these 

actions. Some of the takings were overt, such as the outright nationalization of certain industries under law 1076 of December 5, 

1962, and the expropriations under law 851 of July 6, 1960, which 

were directed toward Cuban concerns in which Americans held majority interest. In addition, all properties of persons who had left 

Cuba were confiscated under law 989 of December 6, 1961. 

Other takings were more subtle such as administrative requirements placed on mining and oil concession holders to reregister 

their concessions under circumstances that made compliance impossible. 

One of the first U.S. responses to these actions was an effort by 

Senator Bourke Hickenlooper to amend the Foreign Assistance Act 

of 1961 to impose a trade embargo on Cuba and prohibit the furnishing of foreign assistance to the ‘‘present Government of Cuba.’’ 

However, the amendment was not enacted, and the Department of 

Treasury did not move to freeze Cuban assets in the United States 

until July 1963. Consequently, most of those assets, possibly as 

much as $500 million had already been transferred out of the country, primarily to Canada, by the time the blocking took place. 

In October 1964, Congress passed, as you mentioned, House of 

Representatives bill H.R. 12259, which became Public Law 88666 

and is codified as title V of the International Claims Settlement 

Act of 1949, as amended. The statute authorized and directed the 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to determine the validity 

and amount of U.S. nationals’ claims against Cuba for expropriation and other taking of property and other assets affected on or 

after January 1, 1959, and certify its findings of the amounts of the 

losses sustained to the Secretary of State. In addition, the Commission was authorized and directed to determine the validity and 

amount of claims against Cuba for disability or death of U.S. Citizens resulting from actions taken by or under the authority of the 

Cuban Government. 

The purpose of the adjudication process was to compile a record 

of the claims which could eventually serve as the basis for a lumpVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:15 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\061815\95131 SHIRL
18

sum settlement agreement with a future Cuban Government. The 

period for filing claims officially commenced November 1, 1965, and 

was to end on May 1, 1967. By law, the program was to be completed as of May 1, 1970. However, due to budget cuts from Fiscal 

Year 1969, the program could not be completed by the statutory 

time, and further legislation was finally obtained which extended 

it to July 6, 1972. 

As has been mentioned, a total of 8,816 claims were evaluated 

in the course of the program. Of these, 5,911 were certified as valid 

with a total value of over $1.8 billion, not including interest. Adding the interest component, the claims come to over $7.6 billion in 

worth. 

I should also mention that two small—two additional claims 

were certified by the Commission in 2006 in a small second program we conducted at the request of the Secretary of State. Of the 

claims, over $1.6 billion was certified in the names of 898 American 

corporations, with 5,913 totaling $221 million certified in the 

names of individuals. 

We had 131 certifications in excess of $1 million, and the largest 

certification, in favor of the Cuban Electric Company, amounted to 

over $267.5 million in principal amount. 

This concludes my statement, and I will be happy to try to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]

19


95131b-1.eps
20


95131b-2.eps
21


95131b-3.eps
22


95131b-4.eps
23

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I want to thank the panelists for excellent 

opening statements. 

I want to align myself with the comments by Representative Rooney. One of the fundamental principles of a free society and free 

economy is private property ownership. And the understanding 

that if you invest money in real estate, develop a home or a business, or business property, or even develop a business in general, 

that you own that property, and you have some sort of free assurances that it won’t be confiscated by a government, whether it is 

this government or a government abroad if you are an American 

investor. 

And so the claims are clear that Americans and Cuban Americans—the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has adjudicated 

a lot of these, as we have heard. So now we see the Obama administration acting in defiance of the 1996 Libertad Act and really in 

defiance, I think, of what the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission has proven through its adjudication. And so what is the role 

of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission if we are just going 

to ignore its findings, if we are not going to apply those findings 

to future negotiations and normalization of trade? 

So the question I have to you is what role do you expect the 

FCSC to play in relation to the State Department’s prioritization 

of the resolution of almost 6,000 certified claims? What role is the 

FCSC playing now with the administration? 

Mr. Tamargo? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Traditionally, when those negotiations begin in 

other situations in previous settlement discussions, the Commission plays a technical supporting role. The lead negotiating—all of 

the negotiating is done by the State Department, and——

Mr. DUNCAN. But it sounds to me like the State Department is 

ignoring. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Well, they have put out some public statements 

to the effect of that. This is on their list of things to discuss with 

the Cuban Government, and but they have not as of yet to our—

well, as far as the public is aware, the public record is aware, 

began those discussions yet. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. So there have been two Cuba programs with 

FCSC? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Correct. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Almost 9,000 claims have been brought before 

those two programs. Should there be a third? 

Mr. TAMARGO. It would depend on, traditionally, under international law, each country adjudicates the claims of its own citizens. And under international law, it was citizenship at the time 

of the taking. That is under international law. The U.S. Congress 

is not bound by it. And, you know, they could choose to interpret 

or create a program that would go beyond international law and 

adjudicate claims for claims of individuals that were not American 

citizens at the time. But one must be aware that there are millions 

of those. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Mr. TAMARGO. I would imagine that would encompass——

24

Mr. DUNCAN. Millions of those that were Cubans at the time the 

property was seized that are now Cuban Americans because they 

have immigrated here. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Yes, yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But the way I see it, they still have claims on property back in Cuba that was seized by the government when businesses were nationalized. 

Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Traditionally, this issue of property ownership 

interruption by Communist governments have happened throughout history. And every country has had to create some sort of reconciliation commission. This problem ultimately will have to be 

dealt with by the Cuban Government. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Which doesn’t seem willing at this point in time to 

make any concessions. They are just saying: Okay, we will open up 

our relations. We are not going to change our principles of economic freedom or the lack thereof. We are not going to give the 

Cuban people more freedom of speech, more freedom to peacefully 

assembly, more freedom to worship, more freedom to the Internet 

and access to free press, no information sharing. 

They are being kept in the dark. They had their property seized, 

and yet the Castro brothers are sitting there making demands on 

the United States Government if we want to go back in there and 

normalize relations. The Cubans aren’t doing anything. 

And so just a followup question, do you think the Obama administration’s policy changes on Cuba will have any effect on the status of these 6,000 claims? 

Mr. TAMARGO. I am hopeful but guarded that they will be taken 

up between the two countries. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh, we are all hopeful. 

Mr. TAMARGO. It is up to the Congress to make them happen. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Amen to that. 

Mr. TAMARGO. Because it is the Congress that would need to lift 

the remaining elements of the embargo that have not already been 

lifted. And if Congress refuses to lift the embargo until these 

claims are paid, then these claims will be paid if Cuba wants access to the U.S. market. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And, honestly, I think the Congressmen and 

women that I talk to believe that we ought to keep the embargo 

in place until some of this is addressed, but I don’t have a poll on 

that. 

Mr. Bradley, would you like to add anything to this discussion? 

If not, I am going to move on to the ranking member. 

Mr. BRADLEY. I would just say, speaking as a private citizen, I 

am aware that in past situations, such as—I would point to Vietnam in particular. Vietnam still is a Communist country, but it 

recognized—and certainly Senator Helms played a big role in insisting that property claims were taken up early in the progress of 

arriving at normalization between Vietnam and the United States. 

And so that same analogy should apply here, in my view. Or that 

same mindset should apply. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, I appreciate it. I am going to turn 

to the ranking member. As you can see, I am a little passionate 

about this issue because I believe that the Castro brothers are 

25

making immense demands on the United States for this normalization. And the administration is just giving in over and over and 

over without asking for concessions from the Cuban Government if 

we are going go forward with this, more concessions for the Cuban 

people, which I have a heart for. And you heard some of the things 

I talked about. 

But I think that—I go back to Tom Rooney’s comments, one of 

the fundamental principles of a free society and free economy is the 

right to own property, an understanding that I own this parcel, and 

you own that parcel, and I have got fee simple claims to this. 

And so I think this is an important aspect that I am glad we are 

doing this hearing today because before we go forward any more, 

this issue has to be addressed and I am glad we are addressing it 

today. 

I turn to the ranking member. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, it wasn’t just corporations and warehouses.You know, 

many Cuban nationals lost their properties. I can tell you, I came 

to this country; I was 11 years old. I still remember the military 

coming into the house, taking inventory of any items that we had 

in the house because you could not remove any item from the 

house. If they came back after you got your visa and there were 

items missing, they would revoke your visa. 

I remember when they changed the currency, so if you had X 

amount of money in the bank the government only said to you: You 

can only have this amount, and we are taking the rest of your 

money. 

I mean, I just we will never—I don’t anticipate that my parents, 

who built their own houses, they are both passed away, and you 

know, I might not be hopeful of anything. But I am just hopeful 

all of those people who worked their businesses, who, through their 

sweat, built something, a dream in their lives, could get some sort 

of compensation. And we cannot have a government in Cuba that 

stole that property and now use that property to continue their 

military machine on the island because all of those properties are 

owned by the military of Cuba. And they run the hotels. They run 

the businesses. 

So, for me, this is a crusade because I left when I was 11 years 

old. And I have this opportunity to serve in this great body and 

this great country, which gives me the opportunity to express how 

I feel about what the Castro brothers have done. They have stolen 

property from people who worked all of their lives. 

So, with that, I am just going to ask, during your time at the 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, what were the challenges 

that you encountered? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Thank you, Congressman. 

For me, my challenges were to remain empathetic but impartial 

because the claimants always had to prove their claim. And I, too, 

am from Cuba, and I experienced the same issue when I was a 

child—well, my family did when I was a child. And the stories of 

the claimants who are always quite emotional, and in my testimony, I describe the feeling of losing your property and business 

in this traumatic way, and I observed this in all of the claimants 

26

that I speak with, that it must be what it was—what it feels like 

when you lose a child because you never forget it. 

And people think it is just property, but to the people it happens 

to, it is not just property. It is their lives. They pour their lives into 

that house, that business, those shops, and when it happens to 

them, it is quite dramatic, and they never forget it. And that is 

why it is important that the Congress hold fast on the embargo and 

allow these claimants to find closure. 

But the Commission’s work is very important. It has handled a 

lot of difficult issues. The claims process is transparent, so no one 

can challenge its validity or its approach to these claims because, 

as I explain later in the testimony, these negotiated settlements 

are two voluntary bilateral agreements between two countries, and 

both countries need to have confidence in the other country’s 

claims. And so our claims need to be on the record, transparent, 

and clear as to the value and how we came to the value and who 

is the claimant and their nationality at the time. And that is all 

part of the claims process. And you have to be faithful to the claims 

process if you expect to have a successful negotiated settlement 

agreement. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Bradley, would you like to add anything to that? 

Mr. BRADLEY. No. Mauricio was the chairman for——

Mr. TAMARGO. Eight years. 

Mr. BRADLEY [continuing]. Eight years. He has covered it pretty 

well. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

The chair will now go to Mr. DeSantis from Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to the witnesses. 

You know, it is puzzling to me dealing with the Cuba issue. We 

deal a lot with the Iran issue on this full committee, and it seems 

to be that the policies that the administration pursues are basically 

unilateral concessions to bad regimes. And, really, that serves as 

a detriment of the populations in those countries. 

I mean, in Iran, there is a green movement that was really 

threatening the viability of the regime. The administration chose to 

not embrace that because they wanted to try to have a better relationship with the ayatollahs, and what we have seen since then is 

us engage in a lot of negotiations on a nuclear issue where it has 

been concession after concession, and it doesn’t seem like we have 

received much as a result. 

And I think the same thing with the Cuba issue, the policy is 

really a lifeline to the Castro regime and to the brothers and to the 

military. It is not doing anything to benefit the Cuban people. It 

is further solidifying the regime, and we are not getting, I mean, 

what have we received in the United States for these new policies? 

You know, we haven’t received anything of note. They are still harboring terrorist fugitives in Cuba, people who are enemies of the 

country. 

So it is really, really frustrating and the property to me is just 

an easy issue because if you are having a new relationship and you 

want to have—and the regime is going to move toward openness, 

well, obviously, you give back the property. I mean, to me, that is 

27

just a bare minimum. And we haven’t seen any property given 

back. 

So this whole policy, I think, is not going to be successful, just 

as the Iranian policy is not going to be successful. I know that we 

are going to be voting, and I know we have another panel, so I really appreciate your testimony, both of you. 

I will go ahead and yield back the balance of my time so we can 

move forward. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the gentleman. 

And I was just monitoring votes, which they say they are going 

to call in a few minutes. 

So Mr. Donovan from New York is recognized. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

That is the chairman’s way of telling me be very brief. As my 

friend from Florida just said, there are people like Joanne 

Chesimard, who have escaped the justice system of our United 

States after killing a New Jersey State trooper, and we are not demanding her return before we negotiate. And the poor people of 

Cuba whose human rights are still being violated; we are not asking for anything in exchange. It seems like the regime is making 

all of the demands on our country. 

So I just wanted to thank you first for coming here and addressing this important issue for the Cuban people, the residents there, 

and ask if you think there is anything else. I mean, you are well 

aware of what Congress is doing to try to rectify this wrong. Is 

there anything else that in your opinion should be done by this legislative body that will help this process along? 

Mr. TAMARGO. Thank you, Congressman. 

Three things: Do not lift the remaining elements of the embargo 

that are in place; two, create the housekeeping and updating of the 

current certified claims; and, three things, create this penalty, trespass penalty, so that these certified claimants no longer are held 

up by this gridlock over Cuba policy. Those three things should be 

done. 

I would also point to the Libyan settlement agreement as a possible model because that was a very complex settlement agreement. 

It took a long time. The Congress was involved in that one. Unfortunately, I don’t see the Congress involved in the current ongoing 

negotiations with Cuba. 

But at some point, the Congress needs to become involved because there are many more elements to this normalization process 

besides the certified claims. There is the Joanne Chesimard matter 

and the other criminals. There is the judgments that exist in the 

U.S. If there ever is commerce between our countries, judgments 

could be attached to certain commerce that would be going on. So 

a lot of other issues have to be dealt with, and the Congress is 

going to have to be the one to deal with them. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman—finished? 

Mr. DONOVAN. Yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. I want to thank the gentleman. He is a 

brand new member of the subcommittee, and we want to welcome 

him, a new Member of Congress as well. 

28

They have just called votes, so what we would like to do is go 

into recess, pending call of the chair. Come back as soon as we can 

after the last vote, and what we will do is, we will adjourn this 

panel. And when we reconvene, we will bring up the next panel. 

I want to thank the panelists for being here, great testimony, 

and great work, and I look forward to working with you. 

And, with that, we will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. We will go ahead and reconvene the hearing and 

welcome our second panel. Their biographies are in the information 

provided to the committee beforehand. 

I will go ahead and recognize Dr. Garcia-Bengochea. 

STATEMENT OF JAVIER GARCIA–BENGOCHEA, M.D., 

CERTIFIED CLAIMANT 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Thank you and good morning. 

My name is Javier Garcia-Bengochea. I am a neurosurgeon in 

Jacksonville, Florida. I’m here not to discuss the litany of atrocities 

emblematic of Cuba under a Castro but to testify about the importance of property. It is sufficient prologue to say that, in Cuba, virtually everything is stolen. 

My family left Cuba when I was 15 months old, after Fidel Castro confiscated 386 Cuban businesses on October 14, 1960. One of 

these, La Maritima Parreno, established in 1919, was a commercial 

shipping port and warehouses in Cuba’s second largest city, 

Santiago, and a privately held Cuban corporation in which we had 

significant ownership. 

La Maritima and its president, my cousin Desi Parreno, had supported the revolution in its difficult early days. Fearing arrest if he 

challenged the dictatorship, Desi left Cuba the following day, having transformed from progressive to conservative overnight. 

A Princeton graduate and valedictorian of his 1938 class, Desi 

was no rube. He understood the impact of the confiscations on the 

rule of law and order. Like my parents, he feared civil war. Four 

days later President Eisenhower initiated sanctions that became 

the embargo. Eventually, Desi’s brother, Alberto, an American citizen and New York lawyer would receive certification from the U.S. 

Treasury for his loss. 

The world would isolate Cuba only to resume relations after settling the relatively small international claims. The claims of Americans and Cuban nationals, by far the largest groups, remained unsettled. These are the very reasons for the embargo, yet, incredibly, 

until today, they have yet to be mentioned, despite that Cuba has 

confiscated billions in foreign assets and incarcerated dozens of foreign executives, some without charges since 2008 alone. 

Americans assume when they invest in Cuba clear title and basic 

protections will be in place. Nothing could be further from the 

truth. Contract sanctity, an independent judiciary, and transparent 

regulatory and enforcement agencies do not exist there. 

Every American enterprise in Cuba, including tourism, will necessarily traffic in stolen properties, including brands and trademarks, maybe those of an American. 

29

That has certainly been my experience. The State Department, 

for example, has occupied a penthouse apartment since 1977 in a 

building I own without my permission, much less payment at least. 

At least two groups, Smith College and The Met, have received 

licenses to traffic in my port property. 

Countless licensed travelers have paid admission to Havana’s 

Museum of Fine Arts to view paintings stolen off the walls of our 

home. 

Foreign entities Fred Olsen Cruise Lines and China Harbor Engineering Company do business in the U.S. while using my stolen 

port. 

How is that right or even legal? The claims must be settled, or 

there will be conflict. Although Cuba is bankrupt, there are ways 

this can be accomplished. They can simply return the property, despite the unsavory proposition of partnering with totalitarians. 

Cuba can pay with earns from state-owned tourism, rum, art, 

and tobacco sales. Remittences to Cuba supporting ventures using 

stolen property could be taxed. Anti-trafficking laws should be robust and enforced, like title IV in the visa application. Title III of 

Helms-Burton should no longer by waived. If a foreign terrorist 

who damages our property abroad can stand trial in U.S. court, so 

can foreign traffickers. 

If Congress eliminates the embargo and leverages without a fair 

settlement, then the U.S. Government should contribute. So-called 

business groups such as Engage Cuba and the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, who disgracefully lobby to lift sanctions without considering the claim, should pay, as well as companies who profited 

from sales allowed to Cuba since 2003. 

The claimants can receive tax credits and effectively pay themselves. The marketplace should be created to permit competitive 

bidding for the claims. When change, democracy comes, joint ventures and contract between the regime and foreigners will be canceled. Confiscated properties will be returned to the rightful owners. 

Unfortunately, American enterprises that capitulate with Cuba’s 

dictatorship will oppose change. We have linked their success to 

the survival of the Castro regime. 

I will finish with an encounter in Cuba 2 years ago. Before the 

revolution, my father was Cuba’s premier neurosurgeon and considered a pioneer of modern neurosurgical training there. I was invited to speak in a neurosurgery meeting in Havana, and after initially declining, I decided to attend. Ignatio, which is not his real 

name, owned a taxi service of vintage American cars. He was an 

IT specialist at a foreign firm in Cuba that closed after being 

robbed by the regime who overlooked turning off his Internet connection. He ordered parts online from the U.S. Brought in by mules 

and impeccably rebuilt his 1959 Bel Air. Upon congratulating him 

for his success, he expressed deep concern that, as others made 

money and spent conspicuously, they, the government, would confiscate everything ‘‘when it was no longer convenient for them.’’ In 

a surreal yet transcendent moment, he admitted he had become 

‘‘what you call in your country a conservative.’’

Ladies and gentlemen, what is past is prologue. Unless the 

claims are settled, any American enterprise in Cuba will have the 

30

legitimacy of a drug deal. Trafficking and stolen property is not 

economic opportunity. It is not pro-business or normal. It is criminal and immoral. Property rights are the foundation of our economy and society. They promote competition through nonviolent and 

lawful means and define our human rights. Without them, there is 

no capitalism or economic development. A just claims settlement 

will protect future American businesses in Cuba and burgeoning 

Cuban entrepreneurs. 

The strength of our relationship with Cuba will directly correlate 

with the strength of the claims and settlements. Indeed, these 

claims are a litmus test of government and civil society itself. Validating the kleptocracy will undoubtedly bring more confiscations 

and the prospect of sanctioning Cuba, an embargo, again. To paraphrase the prophet Isaiah: Peace is the work of justice, so too is 

normalization. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Garcia-Bengochea follows:]

31


95131c-1.eps
32


95131c-2.eps
33


95131c-3.eps
34

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank you for that testimony. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for sharing their stories with 

us today. 

I recognize Ms. Chester lamb. 

STATEMENT OF MS. CAROLYN CHESTER LAMB, CERTIFIED 

CLAIMANT 

Ms. CHESTER LAMB. Thank you, Chairman Duncan, Ranking 

Member Sires, and members of the committee for your leadership 

and attention to this matter to Americans and throughout the 

United States. We have been waiting a long time. 

My name is Carolyn Chester. I live in Omaha, Nebraska. I am 

a single, divorced mother of one teenaged son. And I have been the 

sole supporter of my family since 2010. I have a modest house. I 

live a modest lifestyle. And I drive a 16-year-old car. 

I represent my family’s claim, number 1704. My father was Edmond Chester, and he was the director of CBS News. But most of 

you probably have never heard of him. My father supervised famed 

reporters, such as Edward R. Murrow, Eric Sevareid, and Howard 

K. Smith, all recognizable names, but not his. 

My father a true patriot and combatted communism as a soldier 

in World War I and an executive with CBS when he worked with 

our State Department’s Office of Inter-American Affairs’ Voice of 

America. When the Communists took Cuba, they also took over the 

radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, and they were able to manipulate and rewrite history. That is when the lies an slanders of 

those who were in Cuba before 1959 started. 

My father’s best friends were all patriots, and one of them was 

my godfather, General T. McInerney, who served as lieutenant 

colonel under General Eisenhower’s staff and the director of public 

relations for the U.S. Department of Justice. Excuse me, I am a little nervous. 

I was just 6 months old when my family’s properties were taken. 

So I refer to the letter that my father wrote to the Foreign Claims 

Settlement Commission, which explains the circumstances. Their 

property was actually taken in January 1959, before Castro created 

laws to make it legal to steal. They took an 80-acre farm from the 

Isle of Pines, Cuban telephone stock, our cars, jewelry, furniture 

and all our personal possessions that were in our apartment in 

Miramar. My parents spoke frequently about Cuba and what happened to them, and they thought justice would be served during 

their lifetime, but it was not. 

There was a time that our legislators and fellow Americans 

cared, but with time and memories passing, the confiscation has 

faded. It is almost as if the event has been erased from time and 

history. However, this still happened. It is very real, personal to us 

and just because it happened a long time ago does not mean it 

didn’t happen because it did. 

I know from speaking to people about the U.S. certified claims 

that most don’t understand anything about it, but it is very simple: 

We are Americans who were living, working investing in Cuba 

when the Communists took over and took our properties. We were 

not at war with Cuba, and this was the first time in U.S. history 

that American properties were expropriated during peacetime. 

35

Families lost their livelihoods and suffered financial ruin for the 

loss of their possessions. Castro didn’t just confiscate out properties, but he also took the hopes, dreams that our parents once 

had for our future. Excuse me. 

The confiscation also affected my father’s health. I was only 11 

years old when his health began to decline. I remember that my 

father was in and out of hospital many times over the years, and 

my mother took care of him for many years, always hoping that he 

would improve. But he did not. Edmund Chester died 1973 when 

I was 15 years old. I never really knew what he died from, but 

looking back at it, I think it was from the Cuban loss and the 

stress. It caused him a series of strokes, and he also suffered from 

bouts of confusion. I remember one incident when I was just a little 

girl. He was frightened because he thought Castro’s henchmen 

were in the house wanting to kill him, but nobody was there. 

So it was not until much later on in life that I understood why 

he was so scared. In 1959, a group of Castro’s men shot at our 

home as they drove into our driveway. I remember hearing about 

this when I got older, and I also remember seeing the bullet holes 

wall in our wall of our family home in Mount Dora, Florida. So his 

paranoia was not unwarranted. 

After my father passed away, my mother was left alone to raise 

her children without any source of income. My mother did the best 

she could, and in the end, she sold everything, including personal 

items to survive and support us. We never faulted her for selling 

our inheritance in order to make ends meet. And in the end, we 

were left with debt to pay back her creditors. We didn’t abandon 

our properties. They were taken from us. And in many cases, 

claimants’ properties were taken at gunpoint by Castro’s soldiers. 

We didn’t have any warning by our Government that the new 

Cuban Government was planning to steal our properties, yet apparently Castro’s manifesto was writ 10 years ago and published 

in Mexico. He threatened that he would do this, and he did. And 

our Government failed to protect us, and now some 55 years later, 

here we are defending our claims. We are Americans who were the 

victims and not the culprits. 

The notion that claimants should discount their claims in order 

to make way for commerce is unacceptable. We are not responsible 

for the economic failures of the communism since we have already 

paid with our family fortunes. Furthermore, punitive damages for 

the pain and suffering that this has caused our families, along with 

55 years of waiting, should have been included in this determination of the value of our claims. 

All foreign businesses have 50/50 partnerships with the Cuban 

Government, so that means profits are being split. So the United 

Kingdom and Canada, who are our allies, have enacted laws to protect their Cuban investments from our Helms-Burton Act. When a 

foreign company operating in Cuba opts—pays their workers’ salaries, it must all go to the Cuban Government, who keeps 96 percent of it, leaving their worker with a pittance of their salary, and 

so they are treated as slaves. 

The Cuban Government also collects loss of money skimming off 

the remittence sent by Cuban Americans to their relatives in Cuba. 

36

The Cuban Government does have a way to pay us back. They just 

don’t want to because they are used to taking. 

I know that many will still think that the Cuban Government is 

poor, and that’s fine. But you must realize that once the floodgates 

of trade with the U.S. opens, there will be means to pay us back, 

and we will accept payments, as long as it is paid back in full. 

It is also very disturbing for me to hear that those working uncomfortably close with the Cuban Government—Americans—tell us 

that we should only get pennies to our dollar. It is well-known fact 

that the junta running Cuba has hired expert international accountants and lawyers to hide their fortune in offshore accounts 

that can never be traced. Our Office of Foreign Asset Control has 

collected billions and billions in fines from banks and businesses 

that broke our laws. So a portion of that money should have been 

used to pay back the Americans. 

Another solution would be to get another entity to pay our debt. 

There are a lot of U.S. conglomerates that are biting at the bit to 

do business with the Cubans. And if they want to get rid of us because they cause an obstacle, they should just pay—buy our debts 

and deal with the Castros themselves because we have been dealing with it for 55 years. 

There is also Cuban money that was frozen a long time ago that 

should have been part of the legislation. But that was admitted. All 

we want is our payment for our claims set by the Foreign Claims 

Settlement. And I think 55 years of a lifetime is waiting too long. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. I am finally feeling 

like someone gives a damn. God bless you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chester Lamb follows:]

37


95131d-1.eps
38


95131d-2.eps
39


95131d-3.eps
40


95131d-4.eps
41

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ms. Chester Lamb. 

Ms. Rosoff, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. AMY ROSOFF, HEIR OF CERTIFIED 

CLAIMANT 

Ms. ROSOFF. I’m here on behalf of my family, especially my 

mother, who is 80 and could not be here today. I am representing 

the three certified claims my family has filed with the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the 

opportunity to share my family’s story. 

My grandfather, Morris Schechter, later called Mauricio, moved 

to Cuba in 1902. He started a business and was a founding member of the United Hebrew Congregation in Havana. In 1913, he 

married my grandmother, Jeannette, and they became pillars of 

the Cuban American Jewish community. Jeannette and Mauricio 

had four children, two of whom died in Cuba and are buried in 

Guanabacoa Jewish Cemetery that Mauricio helped consecrate in 

1910. 

My grandmother’s house is the main part of CU–1458. My cousin, Robert Schechter, visited Cuba as part of a mission trip several 

years ago and was actually able to visit the house. At the time, and 

as far as I know to this day, it was being used by the Chinese Embassy. Claim CU–1090, filed by my father, Roy, is based on the 

value of stocks and business holdings, including a shirt factory and 

wholesale business, a farm, and a portion of my grandmother’s 

house. 

My father born June 1924 and attended Ruston Academy, a bilingual school. He later attended the University of Michigan but 

soon enlisted in the U.S. Army and fought in the Pacific theater 

during World War II. He returned to Cuba after the war and 

worked in the family business Compania Onyx, which manufactured clothing. 

My father took over the business following the death of his father 

and older brother. In 1957, he married my mother, Lois Levine, 

and she joined him in Cuba. My maternal grandfather, Herbert Levine, also invested in Cuba and formed Rainbow Development Corporation, claim CU–611. This claim is comprised of attractive land 

that had timber and very pure silica sand. They grew tobacco, tomatoes, and built a saw mill that provided jobs for local residents. 

The Saw Mill was sabotaged during the revolution and set on fire. 

My mother said they think it was because they were Americans. 

The last time my parents went to the farm, planning to do the 

payroll, they were met by armed soldiers, and after a brief discussion with them, my parents drove away, never to see the farm 

again. Immediately after the revolution, business was actually 

good. In fact, my father invested money in updating machinery at 

the factory. After about 6 months, however, Castro imposed regulations that made it impossible for the factory to be productive. Essential commodities, such as buttons and bindings, were impossible 

to find since they couldn’t be imported. So they had no means to 

really make a living anymore. 

Leaving Cuba was a very difficult decision for them, but since 

they couldn’t make a living, they really felt they didn’t have a 

42

choice. They paid off all of their debts so that when they could one 

day return to Cuba, they would be in good standing. They left on 

one of the last ferries to Key West in April 1961, taking only 

clothes with them. 

My mother hid her wedding ring in a cloth diaper she stained 

with vanilla and smuggled it out in my brother’s diaper bag. She 

figured that if the soldiers wanted to search a dirty diaper bag, 

they were welcome to her ring. They ended up in Nyack, New York, 

staying with my mother’s parents. 

My father had great difficulty finding a job and eventually went 

to work in my grandfather’s shoe store. I grew up knowing that my 

father hoped he would one day return to Cuba, but he passed away 

in 2004. And I know a part of him is still in Cuba. 

My grandmother, Jeannette, didn’t plan on leaving Cuba, since 

her husband and two children were buried there in Guanabacoa. 

She left on what she thought was a vacation, but the political climate changed while she was in the States with family, and she 

couldn’t return. 

My grandmother was in her seventies, frail, and had left her 

home with virtually nothing. She settled in Miami and lived with 

her sister-in-law where they lived very frugally in a small apartment. She spent last years in a nursing home and passed away at 

the age of 96, heartbroken that she never returned from her vacation. 

I would love to reclaim ownership of my grandmother’s house. It 

is truly a family legacy and has great sentimental value to us. I 

don’t know how realistic that is, but as far as the other two claims, 

I think that a fair, just financial settlement may be the best outcome. My father and grandmother had their homes, businesses, 

property, and investments stolen from them. There is no way to 

quantify it. Their lives were redefined without their consent and 

multiple generations of our family have been affected. When my father filed the claims, it was in good faith that they would be honored and settled fairly. 

We look to you as our Representatives to champion—not just a 

new chapter in the political playbook—but to work side by side and 

as innovators in advocating justice. There is bound to be burgeoning opportunity in Cuba in the next few years, but it should 

not be at our expense. In this way, perhaps a plan can be crafted 

that ensures fair compensation to those of us who had property 

seized while also allowing investment in a brighter future for the 

Cuban people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosoff follows:]

43


95131e-1.eps
44


95131e-2.eps
45


95131e-3.eps
46


95131e-4.eps
47


95131e-5.eps
48

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you so much for that testimony. 

Ms. Anna-Lee Stangl. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ANNA–LEE STANGL, SENIOR ADVOCACY 

OFFICER FOR THE AMERICAS, CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY 

WORLDWIDE–UK 

Ms. STANGL. Good morning, thank you so much, Chairman Duncan, for allowing me to give this testimony this morning. And 

thank you to all those in attendance for your attention to this important issue. 

Before I begin my testimony, I would like to ask that a set of letters from Cuban pastors to you, Chairman Duncan, be entered into 

the record. 

Religious groups of all types, Catholic and Protestant as well as 

other religious groups in Cuba, saw many of their properties confiscated in the years following the revolution. The return of some 

of these properties has been a key focus area of talks in recent 

years between the Roman Catholic Church and the Cuban Government. 

Other religious groups have also held dialogues with the Cuban 

Government with the same objective with varying degrees of success. 

In recent years, the churches most vulnerable to the threat or act 

of government confiscation of their property have been what are 

usually referred to as house churches. Many are actual houses that 

have been converted by the owner at some point into a church. 

Others are buildings built more recently on private property and 

used exclusively as churches but without permits for religious activity. 

Properties linked to unregistered religious groups are particularly vulnerable. One emblematic example have been the property 

located at Avellaneda 278 between San Esteban and San Martin 

Streets in the historic city center Camaguey. This property was acquired by the Reverend Omar Gude Perez and his wife Kenia 

Denis Bravo in 2003. A relatively large property for the location, 

it has acted as family home and place of worship. It is also a training center for church leaders from across the country who are affiliated with the Apostolic Movement, a charismatic Christian network of churches that authorities have refused to register. 

Before leaving the country in 2013, having received asylum in 

the United States, Reverend Gude and wife officially transferred 

the property to their nephew, Reverend Yiorvis Bravo. The transfer 

was carried out legally, in line with Cuban laws. The transfer papers were in fact signed by government notary. Reverend Bravo 

Denis was already living in the property with his wife and small 

child and subsequently took over the church and religious training 

center. 

In September 2013, the government summoned Reverend Bravo 

to a court hearing where they summarily found his ownership of 

the property to be invalid, despite the paperwork provided, and declared it belonged to the government. The government notary who 

had signed off on the transfer did not appear. Reverend Bravo refused to vacate the property and was subject to a day’s long active 

repudiation. 

49

Shortly thereafter, Reverend Bravo was summoned by housing 

ministry officials, who offered to allow him to stay on the property 

as a rent-paying tenant to the government if he agreed to submit 

all planned religious activities to the government in advance. The 

government set the rent for his own property at $300 per month, 

15 times the annual salary for a Cuban. 

He turned down this offer, refused to sign the papers, and stated 

his intention to remain in the property. To date, he has managed 

to do so, although the government has repeatedly declared that it 

still considers itself to be the owner of the building and reserves 

the right to evict the family any time. We believe they have not 

been evicted by force thus far because the case has received international attention. But the vulnerability of the family, who have 

been stripped of property rights, remains of great concern. 

This year on May 21 the legal offices of Poblete Tamargo submitted a request for precautionary measures on behalf of Reverend 

Bravo to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. Both Reverend Omar Gude and Yiorvis Bravo have submitted letters, which 

I mentioned earlier. 

We regularly receive reports of threats of confiscation of properties from unregistered religious groups, such the Apostolic Movement, but the government is also guilty of targeting the property 

of historic and registered religious groups. The threat or act of confiscation of church properties has often appeared to be a tactic of 

the government to pressure or punish a church or larger denomination. 

One of the most egregious cases was the 2012 retroactive nationalization of the historic property belonging to the Baptist Church 

in Yaguajay in the Province of Sancti Spiritus. The church is part 

of the Western Baptist Convention of Cuba, one of the largest historical and registered denominations in Cuba. 

More recently, CSW has received worrying news that new legislation, which came into effect in January of this year, is being used 

to justify the arbitrary expropriation of private property, including 

religious properties. On the surface, legal decree 322, the general 

law on housing, appears to be meant to regulate private properties, 

mostly homes, and enforce zoning laws, following other reforms 

that affect property rights. 

However, our contacts on the island say that the law is being 

used by government officials to claim the right to seize church 

properties and to force the churches into the role of paying tenants. 

You may recall this is identical to the offer made to Reverend 

Bravo in 2013 prior to the adoption of the law, which suggests that 

it is a strategy that has been in development for some time. 

Cuban lawyers have told CSW that although the law does not 

specifically mention religious groups, government officials have 

claimed it gives them authority to expropriate property when they 

deem it necessary. To our knowledge, the largest church to be effected thus far by legal decree 322 is the Maranatha First Baptist 

Church in Holguin. This is another registered and historic religious 

property. Last month, the leadership of the church was informed 

by provincial Communist Party officials and housing ministry officials that their property was being confiscated and their status 

changed from owners to renters. The church has held title to the 

50

property since 1947, originally through the American Baptist Home 

Mission Society of Cuba, and was officially registered as part of the 

Eastern Baptist Convention of Cuba in May 1954. Leaders of the 

church have published an open letter calling for support as they resist government attempts to seize their property. 

I am humbled to be here today, speaking on behalf of Cuban men 

and women who have for generations now maintained and cared 

for religious properties which have been and are sanctuaries for 

hundreds of thousands of Cubans in the face of great pressure and 

open hostility. 

While this is a historic problem, it has not solely affected religious properties. It is also a current problem of ongoing violations. 

Much attention has been given to Raul Castro’s announced property reforms, but less attention has been given to the detail of 

these reforms and their impact, potential and real, on ordinary Cubans. This subcommittee has a key role to play in putting a spotlight on those details and highlighting how, even today, Cubans 

continue to be vulnerable to the arbitrary expropriation of their 

property by government. 

Even as the administration continues to pursue a dialogue with 

the Cuban Government, it is key that human rights, including 

property rights and religious freedom, be a central component of 

that dialogue. I would respectfully ask that the members of this 

subcommittee continue to hold the administration accountable for 

the content of the dialogue and any agreements. And at the same 

time, you make it clear to the Cuban Government, through statements or letters, these actions are not going unnoticed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stangl follows:]

51


95131f-1.eps
52


95131f-2.eps
53


95131f-3.eps
54

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank all the panelists. 

As you may have heard, there was a murder of nine people in 

my State yesterday evening, and I am going to have to step out of 

the hearing. 

I am going to ask Mr. Yoho to accept running the rest of the 

hearing. 

I want to thank the panelists before I leave. Your testimony was 

valuable, and I have enjoyed learning about this issue, and I stand 

passionately with for you for your property rights. 

With that, I will turn this over to Mr. Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO [presiding]. I appreciate your being here and testifying. And I hear your stories, and it rips at the heartstrings. And, 

you know, being here on this panel of Foreign Affairs, over the last 

2 years, we have heard these stories about Cuba and what is going 

on. And I find it disheartening that this administration announced 

normalizing relationships with Cuba back in December 2014. 

The Obama administration announced a new Cuba policy to 

move toward normalization relationships between U.S. and Cuba, 

and reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. We have got a 

law that already states how we go about that. It was the Cuban 

Liberty and Solidarity Act of 1996. And it states in there that once 

Cuba moves toward normalizing their government in a transitional 

government and having a Democratic process, we will move into 

that direction. We haven’t done that. And so, again, we see a situation where we are putting the cart before the horse. And once you 

get to that point, it is hard to go back. 

In addition to that, when President Obama talked about normalizing this is a failed policy after 50 years is what he has felt like 

with our policies toward Cuba. I look back at what Raul Castro 

said; he started making demands on us wanting to normalize relationships with Cuba. I have got to give him credit for having that 

kind of gravitas—I won’t say another word—but for him to have 

that kind of a backbone and say: You are not going to normalize 

relationships with us until you do this. I think, wait a minute, we 

are the ones with the cookie. We are the ones that, had we followed 

through on the sanctions that were put in place and put more pressure on countries that were dealing with Cuba, it might have had 

a different outcome, and we might have a transitional government 

in place. 

And I look and I understand where you guys are coming from, 

and I stand 100 percent with you. Before we move forward, these 

things have to be negotiated. And they should be at the negotiating 

table before we start normalizing relationships with Cuba. I would 

think that we would—we would be the ones in the driver’s seat. We 

are the ones that should be dictating that we will normalize these 

relationships with Cuba if you compensate people for property that 

was stolen. 

Coming from Florida, I lived in south Florida growing up, and we 

have just had a tremendous amount of Cuban friends, hard-working people—I live up in north central Florida now. The Cuban population is everywhere, great people, hard-working, and they love 

their country, their ancestry. We want to make sure that, as we 

move forward, that we take care of those things. I think that anything that this body does—speaking for myself, not for this comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:15 Jul 16, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\061815\95131 SHIRL
55

mittee—anything that we do in government here should be to make 

sure that that wrong gets righted so that the people that had that 

property stolen gets put back into their hands. And thank you. 

I have got a few questions here. Adequate compensation for U.S. 

claims: What would a responsible and just outcome look like for the 

thousands of Americans who have had their property stolen—and 

we will use the word ‘‘stolen’’—by the Castro regime? Dr. Garcia. 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Well, that’s a complicated question. Obviously, there are formulas. There is an international formula. I 

think we have to get our arms around what is the enormity of the 

problem. How many claims are still actively being pursued? There 

are several layers to this onion, of course. There is the strict economic damages; how much the claims were at the time? They were 

grossly undervalued at the time. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. What has happened to them since then, 

obviously. The economic damages to the claimants. Ironically, the 

best source for that probably is the very thieves themselves, the 

Cuban Government. They claim that they are owed $1.1 trillion in 

damages from the embargo. That’s damages to the claimants; that’s 

the property owners, the private industry. 

Mr. YOHO. And, again, it goes back to the gravitas of the Castro 

regime saying: Oh, we have been damaged instead of looking the 

other way. 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, that is the 

most disingenuous argument. 

Mr. YOHO. It really is, and I agree with you. Let me ask one 

other question here. With the U.S. legislation on the property 

claims issue that’s in the House and the Senate—are you guys familiar with that? 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. It is H.R. 2466, that would require a claim for resolving U.S. property claims before the President could further ease restrictions on travel and trade. Do you guys have any view on that? 

Have you guys in your communities looked at that? Does anybody 

want to respond to that? 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. If I may. 

Mr. YOHO. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Yes, in fact. This is not a left, right, Republican, Democrat issue. This is the blocking and tackling the 

very foundation of economic relationships. One layer of this onion, 

as I said, are the certified claims, but there are hundreds of thousands of Cubans in exile who owned property. And there are millions of Cubans in Cuba who own property who are 

disenfranchised. I don’t know how we can look into 

disenfranchising these people, putting them on the sidelines and 

opening up a so-called economic tie. This is crony capitalism to create these rules that exclude some people but favor others, and this 

is truthfully what has been going on. 

Mr. YOHO. You brought up a great point, it comes down to the 

rule of law. And if you don’t have a government that follows the 

rule of law, you get into these situations. And that is why it goes 

back to before we move forward, we need to make sure they have 

56

a good transitional government that is going to go respect property 

rights and follow that rule of law. 

I am going to pass this on to the ranking member, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to assure the panelists that we are not giving up on 

this. 

Ms. CHESTER LAMB. Thank you. 

Mr. SIRES. We are committed. We continue to fight. Where it 

ends hopefully will be a place where we all can be, you know, comfortable with. 

I really don’t know how we negotiate, you know, with the Cuban 

Government. But we seem to give into everything and not get anything in return. I am very uncomfortable with that. 

Some people say the embargo is 50 years, 55 years, whatever. I 

understand that. But we do have embargoes in Iran. We do have 

embargoes—sanctions in Russia, and we are not going to remove 

anything from those countries until we get something back. I don’t 

understand why the same premise cannot be toward Cuba. If we 

are going to lift some of these things that we currently have in 

Cuba, why not get something in return? And certainly property 

value is one of the issues that is most prominent. 

Like I stated before, my parents lost their house, you know, I 

don’t think we will ever get it back. But there are people who lost 

a lot more than we did, and I am going to certainly fight for those 

people that lost——

Can you just tell me what has been the biggest challenge for 

you? Yes, go ahead. 

Ms. CHESTER LAMB. Everyone talks about Cuba, and who is behind this, and the President wants freedom. Honest to goodness, it 

is U.S. businesses and their multinational subsidiaries that have 

spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands on attorneys to lobby 

to end the embargo. A lot of this is—the people behind it is big 

business. And guess what, we are just an obstacle; move us out of 

the way so they can make way for commerce. So that is the biggest 

obstacle is that we are up against big money, and you know how 

that usually goes. 

So that’s why I appreciate the fact that you all are actually here 

trying to find justice for us because, in all my research—and I have 

been doing this since 2008—it is just amazing how many people are 

actually U.S. businesses that are in Cuba investing right now because American lawyers that are experts have shown them the 

loopholes. This is how you can invest in Cuba now. Why? Because 

when the economy opens up and trade opens up, you will have a 

foothold. 

If you notice, by now everyone does, that the Cuban Communists, 

they control monopolies, so it is a perfect situation for a U.S. business to go in there and do business with the Cuban Government 

because, therefore, they are in a monopoly, and they have no competition. There is a lot of big money that is behind this, and they 

would like to see us go away. And that, to me, is the biggest obstacle. 

Ms. ROSOFF. I think we also face an obstacle in that the perception in the American public is that the Cuban claims are ancient 

history and that nobody really pays attention to them anymore, but 

57

it is very real for us. My mother is still alive. She, you know, still 

shares stories about what happened to them. We grew up with 

this, and it is our current history, and I think people don’t know 

what happened. There is perception that, you know, Cuba was just 

an American playground and that people didn’t have lives there; 

they didn’t invest there, you know. Not everybody that was in Cuba 

in the 1950s were gangsters and, you know, gamblers. People built 

lives. These were real lives of Americans, and they lost everything 

there. And their generation and descendants were all affected by 

this. I think those perceptions are really been promoted recently in 

a lot of stories and in the romantic notion of Cuba as this beach 

playground. 

Mr. SIRES. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Ms. STANGL. I think as far as the biggest obstacle we face in raising these issues is fear. We are working with Cubans still in Cuba 

who have managed in some way to retain what little they can. We 

are talking about church properties that are in disrepair because 

the government’s refused to allow them to make any reparations—

repairs on those buildings. Overcrowded, very kind of bad circumstances. 

A number of pastors we reached out to about this hearing and 

asked if they would be willing to come testify, and they are too 

afraid because they are afraid that what little they have managed 

to hold on to will be taken away from them. Their fear is justified. 

We have seen just this year since the negotiations began, things 

have gotten worse. So we have had many, many more properties 

suddenly being confiscated and many more threats of confiscation. 

And as long as that continues, I don’t see how the Cuban Government can be thought to be credible. 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Well, I was going to echo those sentiments and add that the notion of investing in a country with no 

property rights is absolutely ludicrous. Aside from the fact Cubans 

have no money, but there is a capricious nature to this. How these 

claims are settled is probably in the grand scheme when I am dead 

and gone more important to American businesses and entities that 

look to invest in Cuba, much less the Cuban—the burgeoning 

Cuban entrepreneur, the poor guy, the taxi driver—it is probably 

more important to them in the long run than it is to the existing 

claimants how we handle this. This is an absolute fundamental 

issue. 

And, again, I wouldn’t pit it as partisan. It is not for or against 

the embargo. This is the rules of the road. We have got to understand them before we move forward in this. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. Good answers. They have called votes. 

We are going to go to Mr. DeSantis from Florida, but before we 

go there, what you just brought up is what this is all about because 

if we set a bad precedent here, what happens in China with American businesses that sit up there? If China says, You know what, 

we are going to take—or any other foreign country or what happened in Crimea with Ukraine and Russia, you know, if we don’t 

stand strong as the American Government and say, we are not 

going to tolerate this. This sets that precedent for future generations, as you pointed out, and I appreciate that. 

58

Mr. DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the witnesses. 

Dr. Garcia, when you see a lot of the American businesses lobbying to do business in Cuba, knowing that they may be using the 

port that you have rights to or other confiscated property, what do 

you think of that? 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. Well, I think it is outrageous. It is not 

only hypocritical; imagine if the roles were reversed. This is not 

who we are. If we are—as the President appears to have converted 

and become American exceptionalists, that we will go over there 

and convert the Castros and convert the Cubans. Well, this is not 

who we are. We are not people who traffic in stolen property. We 

are not opportunists at the very best. So it is disgraceful, truthfully, it really is. It violates every business, ethical, and moral principle that we have constructed our society from. 

Mr. DESANTIS. It is not really a free market, you know, free market openings constrained by the rule of law. It is really just cronyism, where you have a corrupt regime and there is a profit arrangement with a private entity. But, ultimately, that is as you 

said the whole basis of that is capricious. 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. It is Putinesque. It is what is happening 

in Russia. It is crony capitalism. At the very best, it is a sinister 

form of trickle-down economics. You are engaging a military oligarchy. We think of the Cuban Government as this state. The government itself is an enormous bureaucracy that insulates these military oligarchical families from the Cuban people. They operate in 

an entirely different orbit, and that is who we are dealing with. 

That violates every principle we stand for. 

Mr. DESANTIS. If you left the hearing and, as you were going, the 

President’s motorcade popped out and you had a minute to talk to 

him, what would you say to the President about this issue? 

Dr. GARCIA-BENGOCHEA. I would tell him that, first of all, history 

repeats itself, human nature remains the same through time, and 

he’s forgotten the history here. And if he is really concerned about 

growing prospects for American business and for helping the 

Cuban people, he has to get back to this fundamental social contract of property rights. It is one of the most innate human sentiments and experiences we have, children fighting over a toy. Once 

you set the rules of the road, there is harmony. He needs to set 

back and use this as the foundation, as the cornerstone of building 

a new relationship with a free and democratic Cuba. Let’s face it, 

there are no free markets without free people. It really boils down 

to that. And so that’s what I would tell him, go back to the blocking 

and the tackling the fundamentals, our DNA, and construct from 

there and get more peripheral maybe esoteric in your objectives. 

Mr. DESANTIS. That’s what is concerning me about the policy is 

we are not—we are ignoring this basic building block of property 

rights. And, yet, if you look at the political repression, that has increased since the change in policy. And so you are not laying the 

foundation where you have a rule of law and property rights. And 

you are certainly not in a situation where the Cuban people are 

now able to exercise political or religious freedom. I mean, it has 

not gone in the right direction so I think it’s been a lose-lose so far. 

59

Ms. Chester, I really appreciated your testimony. What would 

you say to the President about this issue if you could talk to him? 

Ms. CHESTER LAMB. I would ask him why he responded to my 

email by calling me a Cuban exile. I’m an American. I am not 

Cuban. 

Then I would ask him why he’s not paying attention to the law 

the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission due diligence many, 

many years. My parents had to go through a lot of work to prove 

what their losses were. Why is that being ignored? Why have we 

been ignored for so long? 

I am actually tired of this issue. I don’t really want to sit here 

for months and months to figure this out. I want it to be figured 

out. I want us to be paid, and somebody else figure it out because 

right now there’s 5,913 claimants that you are dealing with. So you 

don’t really want to deal with 5,913 people, I don’t think. So we 

need to be paid, and if somebody else can take that debt since we 

have been holding it for 56 years, then they can deal with the 

Cuban Government because we are tired of waiting. 

Mr. DESANTIS. What is more important, the money or the admission of wrongdoing by the Cuban Government? 

Ms. CHESTER LAMB. You know, it is kind of hard to fight the Castro propaganda machine. When you take over newspapers, and 

televisions and radio stations, it is really hard to rewrite history or 

change people’s mind. 

Mr. YOHO. Ms. Lamb, I am going to have to cut you off there so 

we have time for Ms. Kelly from the State of Illinois for a few minutes before votes. 

Ms. KELLY. I don’t really have a question, but just to say that 

I represent a family who had a textile business, Flamingo Knitting 

Mills, and was seized in 1959 in Havana. So the issue of normalizing relations is quite personal to this family as it is to so many 

families in America. And even, you know, okay, they get a lumpsum payment, but even if they got the property back, the property 

is something else now, so what would they do with it? They can’t 

kick—they wouldn’t kick people out, or you know, it still wouldn’t 

be the same from before. 

Ms. CHESTER LAMB. Right, exactly. 

Ms. KELLY. I yield back. 

Mr. YOHO. I thank you. 

I appreciate you guys being here, speaking and expressing your 

sentiments of what is going on there. 

I am a sponsor of H.R. 2466, which is the U.S. legislation on the 

property claims issue. So make sure you follow that. Get people to 

support it. 

And pursuant to committee rule 7, the members of the subcommittee will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the official hearing record. 

Without objection, the hearing will remain open for 5 business to 

allow statements, questions, and extraneous material for the 

record, subject to the length limitation in the rules. 

There being no further business, the subcommittee is adjourned, 

and we thank you for participating. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(61)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

62

f


95131n.eps
63

f


95131m.eps
64

f


95131g.eps
65

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. ANNA-LEE STANGL, SENIOR ADVOCACY

OFFICER FOR THE AMERICAS, CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY WORLDWIDE-UK

f


95131h.eps
66

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. ANNA-LEE STANGL, SENIOR ADVOCACY

OFFICER FOR THE AMERICAS, CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY WORLDWIDE-UK


95131i-1.eps
67

f


95131i-2.eps
68

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. ANNA-LEE STANGL, SENIOR ADVOCACY

OFFICER FOR THE AMERICAS, CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY WORLDWIDE-UK


95131j-1.eps
69


95131j-2.eps
70

f


95131j-3.eps
71

NOTE: Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Jeff Duncan, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina, and chairman, 

Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, is not reprinted here but is available

in committee records or may be accessed by a link on the following Internet page:

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=103642. 

Æ