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

93–534PDF 2015

THE PRESIDENT’S NEW CUBA POLICY AND U.S.

NATIONAL SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 26, 2015

Serial No. 114–26

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 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

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 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

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. Chris Simmons, editor, Cuba Confidential ..................................................... 8

Mr. Fernando Mene ́ndez, senior fellow, Center for a Secure Free Society ......... 13

Jose ́ Azel, Ph.D., senior research associate, Institute for Cuban and CubanAmerican Studies, University of Miami ............................................................. 28

The Honorable Dennis K. Hays, director, The Emergence Group ....................... 34

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Chris Simmons: Prepared statement .............................................................. 11

Mr. Fernando Mene ́ndez: Prepared statement ...................................................... 15

Jose ́ Azel, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................................... 30

The Honorable Dennis K. Hays: Prepared statement .......................................... 36

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 68

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 69

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and chairman, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere: Thomson Reuters article dated February 25, 2015, entitled ‘‘Cuba 

says fast track to restoring ties ‘depends on U.S.’ ’’ .......................................... 70

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

State of Florida: Letter dated February 24, 2015, to President Barack 

Obama from Mayor Toma ́s P. Regalado, City of Miami, Florida ..................... 72

(1)

THE PRESIDENT’S NEW CUBA POLICY AND 

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 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 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Duncan 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

will come to order. 

I will start by recognizing myself and then the ranking member 

to present our opening statements, and then we will recognize the 

witnesses as well. So we will go ahead and get started. 

In July 1985, President Ronald Reagan outlined Cuba’s support 

for terrorism since the 1960s through its actions in openly arming, 

training, and directing terrorists operating on at least three continents, in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. Reagan also 

cited repeated sanctions by the Organization of American States 

against Castro for sponsoring terrorism in places and countries too 

numerous to mention. 

During this time, Cuba was also hosting a Soviet combat brigade, 

a submarine base capable of servicing Soviet submarines, and a 

military base that Soviet military aircraft regularly used. Cuba’s 

actions landed it on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list in 1982, 

and it has remained there ever since. President Obama’s announcement in December 2014 that the U.S. would reconsider the terrorism designation as a part of its pursuit of normalized relations 

with Cuba is deeply concerning given Cuba’s record on multiple 

levels. 

I would like to enter into the record at this point an article that 

says—it is, ‘‘Cuba Says Fast Track to Restoring Ties Depends on 

the U.S.,’’ and in the article it says that the U.S. needs to remove 

them from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list if we are to move 

forward. So I will enter that in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Today I want to consider the U.S. national security implications 

of President Obama’s Cuba policy shift and potential 

vulnerabilities to America as a result. First, Cuba’s record of supporting terrorism and violence in the Western Hemisphere threatens the U.S. national security interest in the region. 

2

According to the State Department’s country reports on terrorism 

in 2013, which was issued in April 2014, Cuba has long provided 

safe haven to members of the Basque Fatherland and Liberty, or 

ETA, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as 

FARC, both considered foreign terrorist organizations by the 

United States. Cuba also continues to harbor fugitives wanted in 

the United States through providing support, such as housing, food 

ration, books, and medical care. 

Furthermore, the U.S. fugitives, such as Joanne Chesimard—and 

I don’t know if I pronounced that correctly—who is on the FBI’s 

Most Wanted Terrorism list, remain protected by the Cuban Government for their crimes against the Americas. 

In addition, according to the Institute for Cuban and Cuban 

American Studies at the University of Miami, Cuba provides intelligence to Hezbollah and Hamas. For instance, Arab Shiites Ghazi 

Nasr Al Dan and Fawzi Kanaan based in Venezuela coordinate 

with the Cuban Government to raise funds for Hezbollah and facilitate Hezbollah’s travel in the region. Likewise, Hezbollah and 

Cuba, a Hamas-funded Turkish charity, operates in Havana and is 

a member of the Union of Good, an entity that financially supports 

Hamas. 

Second, Cuba’s record as a foreign intelligence collector and trafficker threatens United States national security and the safety of 

Americans. Overt in its espionage against the United States, and 

in selling U.S. national security secrets to other regimes, such as 

Venezuela and Iran, Cuban intelligence services have been described by former CIA Cuban Analyst Brian Latell as among the 

four or five best anywhere in the world. 

In 2002, Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst Ana Montes was 

convicted of spying for Cuban intelligence for 16 years. This month, 

the DIA Director, Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart, maintained 

that foreign intelligence threats from Russia, China, and Cuban intelligence services continue to be a challenge with Cuban intelligence services remaining the predominant counterintelligence 

threat to the United States emanating from Latin America. 

American tourists or businessmen and women who visit Cuba 

could find themselves subjected to Cuban surveillance. By staying 

in hotels, which are run by the way by the Cuban military and 

staffed by Cuban intelligence agents wired for video and audio recording, American visitors are prey for Cuban espionage. 

In view of this, I believe it is critical that the Obama administration fully assess these potentially great vulnerabilities to American 

citizens and its review of Cuba’s sponsorship of terrorism. Any attempt by the Obama administration to delist Cuba without first 

providing Congress with a comprehensive damage assessment of 

Cuba’s counterintelligence activities against Americans could invite 

even more Cuban espionage against unsuspecting Americans in the 

future. 

Thirdly, Cuba’s relationship with hostile regimes, such as Iran, 

North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela, threaten U.S. national 

security interests. Cuba is a strong supporter of Iran’s illicit nuclear program and the Assad regime’s brutality against its people 

in Syria. In July 2013, Cuba was caught red-handed proliferating 

illicit military equipment, including fighter jobs, surface-to-air misVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 May 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\022615\93534 SHIRL
3

sile system components, and ammunition to North Korea, illegally 

circumventing the U.N. embargo. 

In Venezuela, Cuba has trained pro-Maduro groups who use violence against Venezuelan student protesters, and media reports in 

January of this year found that hundreds of Cuban military personnel had been stationed in Venezuela. Most significant for the 

U.S. homeland, Cuban-Russian relations have continued to deepen. 

In February of last year, 2014, the Russian Defense Minister 

stated that Russia wants to build a military base in several countries in our hemisphere, including Cuba. In April 2014, the U.S. observed two Russian ships operating in waters beyond the U.S. territorial seas near Cuba, and press reports suggested that the ships 

were part of a spying operation against the U.S. 

Furthermore, in July of last year, Russian President Vladimir 

Putin visited Cuba and forgave 90 percent of Cuba’s debt since the 

Soviet period—the largest debt forgiveness agreement in Russian 

history. Now, what is that all about? 

Press reports have also stated that Russia and Cuba agreed to 

reopen the Lourdes base, an electronic listening post, which is only 

150 miles from the United States coast. Last month, a Russian signals intelligence ship made an unannounced visit to Cuba on the 

eve of U.S. talks with Cuba in Havana on restoring diplomatic relations. And also, last month, Cuban President Raul Castro demanded that the U.S. hand back the U.S. naval station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before Cuba and the U.S. could attain normalized 

relations. 

Given Cuba’s alliances with unsavory regimes, the U.S. national 

security impact of complying with such brash demands would sever 

the U.S. military efforts in the region. Gitmo is the oldest overseas 

U.S. naval base and only permanent DoD base in the region. It is 

critical for U.S. national security interests, and it houses not only 

the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, but also the Homeland Security 

and State Department’s Migrant Operations Center. Its location 

enables U.S. forces to maintain strategic operational and tactical 

advantages across a full spectrum of military operations and regional security cooperation efforts. 

Fourth, a criminal pipeline from Cuba to Florida threatens the 

United States’ national security interest with Cuban migrants exploiting U.S. law, stealing from the American taxpayer, and paying 

the Cuban Government to live large off the cash in Cuba. 

In January 2015, South Florida’s Sun Sentinel published the 

findings of a year-long investigation which showed that crooks from 

Cuba had robbed American businesses and taxpayers of more than 

$2 billion over two decades. Cuba benefits from organized crime 

rings operating in Cuba and the United States. 

For example, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where 24 percent 

of the population was born in Cuba, immigrants from the island account for 73 percent of arrests for health care fraud, 72 percent of 

arrests for cargo theft, 59 percent of arrests for marijuana trafficking, and half of the arrests for credit card and insurance fraud. 

However, Cuba exploitation of Americans is not limited just to 

Florida. According to the Sun Sentinel’s analysis, over the past two 

decades Cuba natives with addresses in Florida have been convicted in 34 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC. In addition, 

4

a 2012 case showed that a Cuban crime ring stole 22,000 credit 

card numbers and then used them to buy 60,000 gift cards worth 

$15 million from Walmart stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico. 

Some of the convicted individuals learned their illicit trade in 

Cuba before immigrating to the United States, and some fugitives 

who returned to Cuba had to give the government a cut of the 

money benefitting the Castro regime. The investigation also found 

that the Obama administration’s recent Cuba policy change in loosening U.S. regulation on travel and money to Cuba may actually 

increase organized crime as well. 

This is particularly concerning given the surge in Cuban migration in the United States following the Cuba policy change. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, Cuban migrant flow increased 68 percent from 2013 to 2014, and Cuban migration to the U.S. is also 

much higher thus far in 2015 than it was at the same time last 

year. 

In conclusion, Cuba’s role in supporting terrorism and violence, 

conducting foreign intelligence operations against the United 

States, partnering with global bad actors, and enabling a criminal 

pipeline from Cuba to Florida is clear. Such a record necessitates 

that we carefully examine the impact that the Obama administration’s Cuban policy change may have on U.S. national security and 

Cuba’s ability to more easily conduct its illicit operations. Today’s 

hearing could not be more timely given that U.S. and Cuban officials meet in Washington tomorrow to continue discussing reestablishment of diplomatic relations. 

With that, I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Sires, for his 

opening statement. I look forward to a very robust hearing today, 

providing information to Members of Congress, as we move forward 

addressing these policy changes. 

So, Mr. Sires is recognized for an opening statement. 

Mr. SIRES. First, let me thank you, Chairman, for holding this 

hearing, and thank all the people that are here today. 

It has been no secret that I have been disappointed and concerned regarding the administration plans to loosening sanctions, 

initiating discussion to reestablish diplomatic relationships with 

the Cuban regime. I understand talks have just started, but preliminary and secret negotiations were taking place for months prior 

to the President’s announcement this past December. Neither prior 

nor since the December announcement has the Cuban regime relented its practice of restraining the Cuban people and abusing 

their human rights. 

Just days after the December announcement, Raul Castro dispelled any misgiving and declared that the regime would not abandon its Communist path, let alone lose any stronghold over the 

Cuban people. And what should have been a joyous moment to celebrate the release of Alan Gross was clouded by the actions taken 

by the administration to secure his release. 

I also find that easing of travel and commercial restriction was 

misguided, as it will only boost revenues for enabling state-controlled economy, and the administration has clearly fell short in 

failing to secure the return of fugitives. Joanne Chesimard, the 

FBI’s number one Most Wanted Terrorist, has remained free in 

5

Cuba for 30 years after having murdered New Jersey State Trooper 

Warner Foerster and escaping to Cuba. 

What is astonishing is that all of—for all the talks of additional 

actions to be taken by the United States, little has been said of the 

steps that the Cuban regime must take. In my opinion, far too 

much has been given already. We need to see more concrete measures in terms of human rights, political freedoms, and the release 

of all political prisoners permanently, and that is just the beginning. 

And yet for their part Cuban authorities have not only made 

clear that futures such as Chesimard’s are off the table, but that 

relations cannot be normalized unless the U.S. lifts the embargo, 

returns Guantanamo, and abandons support of Cuba’s dissidents 

that do nothing more than advocate for freedom and respect for 

human rights. If that were not enough, Cuban authorities are also 

insisting on being removed from the State Department’s State 

Sponsors of Terrorists list. 

This is a dangerous and concerning action that I feel the administration has prematurely conceded to consider. I feel that before 

any consideration is given to removing Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorists list that Cuba should, for its part, return the FBI 

number one terrorist, Joanne Chesimard, alongside the countless 

U.S. fugitives hiding in Cuba. 

The Cuban regime claims its innocence in regards to its designation on the state-sponsored terrorism list, but the Cuban regime’s 

actions have been anything but innocent. The Cuban regime has a 

long and sordid history of supporting anti-U.S. intelligence efforts 

and colluding with questionable state actors like Russia, North 

Korea, and Venezuela, whose governments espouse anti-Americanism and pose a security concern to either their neighbors or 

their own people. 

The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency has—was penetrated by 

Cuban spy Ana Montes, undetected for an astonishing 16 years 

until detained in 2001. Most recently, in 2013, Panamanian authorities seized a North Korean freighter declared to be carrying 

10,000 tons of sugar from Cuba only to discover a hidden cargo of 

Soviet-made anti-missile system components, fighter jet parts, and 

engines. And in July 2014, a United Nations panel of experts determined that both the shipment and the transactions between Cuba 

and North Korea were in violation of the U.N. sanctions. 

Trust must be earned. It is not just given. The Cuban regime forfeited that privilege over 50 years ago and has done nothing since 

to garner the trust of the Cuban people or the international community. While I do not agree with the direction our administration 

has taken in regards to Cuba, I implore the United States to proceed with caution and not to concede to any of the Cuban’s regime’s 

demands until more significant steps are taken. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the ranking member. The Chair will now 

recognize one of my heroes in Congress and the former chairwoman 

of the full committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen from Florida, for her opening statement for as long as she wants to——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for your dedication to freedom and democracy and for calling 

6

this important and timely hearing. Let me be clear: Cuba poses a 

clear and present danger to the United States. The Castro regime 

undermines our national security at every turn and reinforces instability in the entire region by exporting the Cuban military and 

espionage apparatus across the region. 

The ALBA countries have secret security advisors who are Cuban 

nationals. Some ALBA countries even send diplomats overseas who 

are undercover Cuban agents. Cuba is an avowed enemy of the 

United States, and let me cite these bullet points just in the recent 

years that the Castro regime has done. Has killed American citizens in the Brothers to the Rescue shootdown 19 years ago this 

week. Has worked with the Russians to try to reopen the Lourdes 

spy facility in Cuba. Has allowed Russian spy ships to dock in Havana as recently as just a few days ago. Was caught sending arms 

and military equipment last year to North Korea in violation of 

multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. 

The Castro regime is hiding U.S. fugitives of law and has given 

asylum to Joanne Chesimard, who is considered a Most Wanted 

Terrorist by our FBI. It has given safe haven to terrorist groups 

such as the FARC and ETA, has sent military advisors to Venezuela who have caused the deaths of many Venezuelans due to the 

violence perpetrated by the thugs of Nicolas Maduro. 

The Castro regime has penetrated our own intelligence services 

with spies working for the Castro regime, like Ana Belen Montes 

and Kendall Myers, had Cuban agents torture and beat American 

POWs at a prison camp in North Vietnam known as the Zoo, has 

sent troops to Angola in 1970s and ’80s to further destabilize the 

country and fight alongside leftist movements contrary to U.S. security interests, has ties with Iran, with Russia, with Syria, and 

the list goes on, Mr. Chairman, yet all of these realities have been 

ignored by the Obama administration. 

Tomorrow, as we have pointed out, the Department of State will 

roll out the red carpet for officials from the Castro regime. The lead 

negotiator for the Castro regime is Josefina Vidal, who was a 

Cuban spy in the United States who was actually kicked out, along 

with her husband, from the U.S. due to their illicit espionage activities. And now she is negotiating for the Castro regime. 

I firmly believe that the President’s concessions to the Castro 

brothers on December 17 pose a real national security threat, and 

here’s why. It is well-known that Cuba has one of the world’s most 

advanced espionage apparatus, and that apparatus is aimed right 

at our country and here, very much active in our nation’s capital 

in Washington, DC. 

We know that Cuba has had spies on the Hill and in many U.S. 

Government agencies, so the President’s new policies will provide 

an injection of new money to the regime, millions of dollars, and 

this new money will go straight into the pockets of the Castro 

brothers and the Cuban military, which owns and operates the 

tourist industry in Cuba. 

With this new infusion of capital, the Cubans will be able to provide more resources toward their espionage activities directed at 

us. And what will they do with the intelligence that they gather? 

They will sell it to our enemies, to the highest bidder on the black 

market. These are just some of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, of why 

7

Cuba does pose a national security threat to the U.S., and why it 

should remain on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. The White 

House must stop putting politics ahead of our national security. 

On July 3, 1961, President Eisenhower terminated diplomatic relations with Cuba after the Cuban regime decided to expel several 

United States personnel from Havana. President Eisenhower responded by stating, and I quote, ‘‘This calculated action on the part 

of the Castro Government is only the latest of a long series of harassments, baseless accusations, and vilification.’’ Eisenhower continued, ‘‘There is a limit to what the United States and self-respect 

can endure. That limit has now been reached. Meanwhile, our sympathy goes out to the people of Cuba now suffering under the yoke 

of a dictator.’’

President Obama should learn from history that negotiating with 

the Castro regime is a failed endeavor. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to 

enter into the record a letter addressed to President Obama signed 

by the mayors of the city of Miami, Coral Gables, and Doral expressing their opposition to the December 17 accord. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Without objection. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the lady for her comments, and I 

will now—if any other member has an opening statement, just in 

the essence of time we will—okay. I am going to recognize the rest 

of the members for a minute, real quickly. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Needless to say, I support the 

President’s position and the President’s opening diplomatic relations with Iran. What we need to look at, since 1960, 1959, have 

the policies that existed for over 50 years, has it been successful? 

Who agrees with us? Which countries? We have got allies all over. 

Has it helped us as members of the United States, or has it hurt 

us? Has it really changed the conditions for the people in Cuba? 

And we know that there is a lot of work to be done. I am not 

saying that. We know that with diplomatic engagement there is a 

lot of hard work to be done. 

But I challenge principally the Western Hemisphere. Canada 

doesn’t agree with us; they are a strong ally. Colombia doesn’t 

agree with us. Brazil doesn’t agree with us. Chile doesn’t agree 

with us. Peru doesn’t agree with us. In fact, they say that that is 

the one thing the United States standing by itself has been a hindrance to working with everyone on the Western Hemisphere. We 

need to work collectively together, and in that way we can have the 

change that we are looking for. 

I said yesterday it is difficult when you are trying to work in 

multilateral ways. Doing it unilaterally doesn’t work. So I am saying let us focus to get the change that we need in Cuba, but let 

us get a policy that works because the policy that has been in existence for the last over 50 years has not been successful. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The Chair will now recognize Mr. DeSantis from 

Florida for an opening statement. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think 1959 is as 

relevant as right now. Does this change benefit the Castro regime 

or the Cuban people fighting for freedom, or the American people? 

8

I think the answer clearly is this is a lifeline for the Castro regime. 

They may be removed now off the State Sponsors of Terrorists list. 

This is a regime, as my colleague from New Jersey said, Joanne 

Chesimard, she is being harbored there. She is on the FBI’s top 10 

Most Wanted Terrorists list. The Cuban Air Force officers who 

have been indicted by the Federal Grand Jury, they get medals in 

Cuba. They are not held to account. They have been caught shipping weapons, this regime, to North Korea, one of the worst regimes in the entire world. 

And of course the Cuban military and the Cuban regime are 

working with Maduro’s henchmen who are repressing the freedom 

fighters in Venezuela. And of course they have offered an operational presence in Cuba to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. We have seen 

that, obviously, before in the past. So what exactly have they done 

to cause the U.S. to remove it from the State Sponsors of Terrorism? Nothing. 

My friend on the other side of the aisle says we need to work 

multilaterally. These are unilateral concessions that this regime 

has done absolutely nothing to earn. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am sure we will get into some of those topics, so 

let us go ahead and introduce our witnesses. Before I do, we are 

operating on a lighting system that you have in front of you. When 

I recognize you, it will turn green; you will have 5 minutes. When 

there is 1 minute remaining, it will turn yellow. That is a warning. 

And when it turns red, your time is up. Please finish your statement, finish your sentence, and then we will move on. We are 

going to try to stay on time with four witnesses. 

So without further ado, I will recognize the witnesses. Mr. Simmons, for the panelists and for the committee, their bios are in our 

file, and they are made of record. I am not going to—I am going 

to dispense with reading their bios today in the essence of time. 

So, Mr. Simmons, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. CHRIS SIMMONS, EDITOR, CUBA 

CONFIDENTIAL 

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on the national security threat posed by Cuba. As Washington considers a radical change in our relationship with Havana, 

Cuba’s world-class espionage operations against us demand careful 

review and deliberation. 

I had the privilege of serving as a counterintelligence officer with 

the U.S. Army and Defense Intelligence Agency for over 20 years. 

With regard to Cuba, I was deeply involved with most U.S. counterintelligence successes against Havana from 1996 through 2004. 

I was a central figure in the Ana Montes spy case, and the lead 

military official in the 2003 expulsion of 14 Cuban diplomat-spies. 

Underestimated and misunderstood for more than half a century, 

Havana remains a clear and present danger to the United States. 

It is a national security state, and its miliary and intelligence agencies exist solely to ensure regime continuity. Its spy services are 

augmented by a million-member neighborhood informant program 

known as Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. These entities combine to give the regime an omnipresent intelligence strucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 May 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\022615\93534 SHIRL
9

ture that is, on a per capital basis, 34 times larger than that of the 

entire U.S. intelligence community. 

Castro’s spies also benefit from a narrow focus on just two enemies—the Cuban people and the United States. In fact, the regime has three separate intelligence agencies arrayed against the 

United States. One of these services, the vaunted Directorate of Intelligence, is now ranked fifth or sixth in the world. 

Greed, not self-defense, is Cuba’s sole motive for its espionage efforts against the United States. Havana long ago earned the nickname ‘‘Intelligence Trafficker to the World,’’ for its sale and barter 

of stolen U.S. secrets. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union 

and the loss of Moscow’s $3 billion annual subsidy, its auctioning 

of U.S. classified information skyrocketed. Its information 

brokering is now a key source of revenue, earning hundreds of millions of dollars annually in goods, services, and cash. 

The administration’s current outreach offers five seemingly unanticipated consequences, which Havana will exploit as catalysts to 

increase espionage against the United States. 

First, opening Cuba to U.S. travelers will bring a huge influx of 

desperately needed cash to Cuba’s intelligence and security services 

that, along with their military brethren, run the entire tourism sector as profit-making enterprises. 

Second, this flood of American tourists will provide Cuban spies 

unprecedented access to assess and recruit the next generation of 

American spies. Home field advantage will not only provide a secure environment for espionage, but also drive down the cost for 

doing business. 

Third, unrestricted access to U.S. technology will trigger significant upgrades in Havana’s technical capabilities for espionage and 

repression. No longer will it be encumbered by the expense and 

time delays prompted by circumventing the U.S. embargo. 

The fourth benefit will be the end of travel restrictions on U.S.-

based diplomat-spies. This advantage will eventually be further enhanced by the opening of an Embassy, as well as consulates and 

Prensa Latina offices. I will remind everyone that when the U.S. 

broke relations with Cuba in 1961, Havana had 28 consulates from 

coast to coast, and Prensa Latina offices and correspondents in half 

a dozen cities. 

The fifth gain to Cuba is a huge boost in the notion that Cuba 

poses no threat to the United States. This well-choreographed myth 

has been aggressively promoted by the regime for the last five decades. The advantage the administration gave Havana with this 

new initiative elevates this fairy tale to heights Havana could not 

have achieved on its own. 

I would like to conclude by making a single recommendation to 

the committee. Do everything in your power to degrade or defeat 

Cuba’s intelligence operations. Havana’s appetite for U.S. secrets is 

voracious, and our failure to counter their spying simply fuels their 

addiction. Expanding relations accomplishes nothing—nothing 

other than to make Cuban intelligence more effective, efficient, and 

profitable than it has ever been. 

I hope this hearing will help educate all parties as to the high 

costs of ill-advised outreach. I am grateful for the opportunity to 

10

be here today, and I look forward to the question and answer period. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]

11


93534a-1.eps
12


93534a-2.eps
13

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

Mr. Mene ́ndez is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FERNANDO MENE ́ NDEZ, SENIOR FELLOW, 

CENTER FOR A SECURE FREE SOCIETY 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Sires——

Mr. DUNCAN. Just pull that mic just a little bit closer to your 

mouth, and it will make it easier. Thanks. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Sires, and distinguished members of the committee. It is 

an honor to be here and to be asked to share my analysis with you 

this morning. I will give a little bit of context in my analysis on 

three issues—economic changes in Cuba, political changes, and national security implications of Cuban efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, of events in Cuba, it can be safely said that the 

more things change, the more they stay the same. Economically, 

while Cuba has undertaken a number of reforms, the efforts reflect 

chronic problems and the inability of the command economy to 

meet the needs of its population. The urgency of this open secret 

was made public when Raul Castro declared in 2010 that either we 

change or we sink. 

The reforms, however, are limited, slow, tentative, reflecting internal differences among the ruling circles about their desirability. 

What remains the same, however, is the military’s control, as others have mentioned, of the $3 billion a year tourism industry. This 

helps explain why inflows of foreign investment, trade, and currency from Canada, the European Union, and countless other numbers—other countries have not resulted in generalized prosperity 

for the majority. 

Politically, in Cuba, there is an existential crisis combining the 

physical disappearance of the historic leadership and the emergence of a new generation of leaders. While the new leaders are the 

product of the last 50 years, they lack significant experience in 

making unsupervised decisions and policy. If, and when, they consolidate their power, the question will remain whether they will follow the current course or begin to respond to the aspirations of a 

new generation of Cubans who, unlike their parents, are not prepared to sacrifice their lives for a utopia that will never come. 

What remains the same is that when Raul Castro responded to 

U.S. and treaties to normalize relations, he appeared in military 

uniform, making it unequivocally clear who remains in charge. 

Through its alliances with Venezuela and the other ALBA countries, Cuba has gained considerable legitimacy by establishing, 

hosting, and presiding over CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, remarkable by its absence of Canada 

and the United States. 

Meanwhile, Cuban intelligence and security apparatus have projected themselves across the Americas. For instance, through 

ALBA, they have designed—Cuba has designed the biometric information system of several countries. In our Canada On Guard Report, which is entered into the record, we site an unclassified document from the Canadian Border Security Agency showing that at 

least 173 cases of Venezuelan passports were issued to Middle 

14

Eastern nationals to circumvent Canada’s immigration system. 

these 173 are merely the ones that we know about. In the current 

global climate, these types of activities present a clear and present 

danger to U.S. national security. 

Cuba continues, whether through diplomatic or other means, to 

pursue its objective of shifting the balance of power in the Americas. This is being facilitated because in the Americas, Mr. Chairman, the United States is visible by its absence. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mene ́ndez follows:]

15


93534b-1.eps
16


93534b-2.eps
17


93534b-3.eps
18


93534b-4.eps
19


93534b-5.eps
20


93534b-6.eps
21


93534b-7.eps
22


93534b-8.eps
23


93534b-9.eps
24


93534b-10.eps
25


93534b-11.eps
26


93534b-12.eps
27


93534b-13.eps
28

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman, and the Chair will recognize Dr. Azel. 

STATEMENT OF JOSE ́ AZEL, PH.D., SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, INSTITUTE FOR CUBAN AND CUBAN-AMERICAN 

STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI 

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

Sires, my hometown representative Dr. Ros-Lehtinen. Distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to have this opportunity to share my analysis on the U.S. national security implications of the administration’s new Cuba policy, and I commend 

you on calling this hearing on what is often a misunderstood threat 

to our national interest. 

Last year, when The New York Times editorial board and others 

intensified their campaign for a unilateral, unconditional change in 

U.S.-Cuba policy, I published an essay titled ‘‘WWCD.’’ That is, 

What Would Castro Do, if the United States were to unilaterally 

and unconditionally end economic sanctions? 

I argued then that not probing how Castro would respond was 

an irresponsible omission, since the formulation of U.S. foreign policy is often compared to a chess game in which every prospective 

move is analyzed with an eye to what the adversary’s countermove 

would be. A foreign policy move always seeks reciprocity. 

General Raul Castro has now provided a comprehensive answer 

to my, ‘‘What Would Castro Do?’’ question. On the 28th of January, 

speaking in Costa Rica, General Castro set his demands. Before the 

two nations can reestablish normal economic relations, the United 

States must: 1) unconditionally eliminate all economic sanctions; 2) 

return to Cuba the Guantanamo U.S. naval base; 3) stop all the 

transmissions of Radio and TV Marti; 4) compensate Cuba for the 

supposed damages caused by the embargo, which Cuba now estimates at $116 billion and counting; and 5) eliminate Cuba from the 

U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list. 

The General declared, ‘‘If these problems are not resolved, this 

diplomatic rapprochement would not make any sense, and it would 

not be ethical or acceptable to ask Cuba for anything in return. 

Cuba will not negotiate on these internal matters which are absolutely sovereign.’’

With the General’s impossible preconditions now known, advocates of unconditional concessions to the Castro regime will likely 

double down and begin spinning all sorts of dangerous arguments 

as to why we should stay the course. We will hear perhaps that, 

‘‘Well, General Castro was just laying out a starting negotiating position or that, since we have tried economic sanctions for so long, 

should we not give this new policy some time?’’

And much more troubling, we may even begin to hear arguments 

that Cuba may indeed be entitled to compensation from U.S. taxpayers, or that the naval base in Guantanamo is an unnecessary 

and expensive relic of the Cold War. Distinguished members, when 

you hear these arguments, just consider for a moment how Mr. 

Putin and the Russian navy would love to have a warm water port 

in the Caribbean of the quality of our Guantanamo naval base. 

Consider, also, that if we further remove travel restrictions, thousands of small private vessels from South Florida will begin visVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 May 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\022615\93534 SHIRL
29

iting Cuba on a regular basis and may return with hidden cargo. 

We can all use our imagination as to the nature of the cargo, 

whether drugs, contraband goods, or human trafficking. Our overstretched Coast Guard would not be able to effectively monitor 

thousands of private vessels traveling regularly between Cuba and 

South Florida. 

Given the long-standing and close links between Cuba and Iran, 

this ocean travel possibility exposes our border security to new and 

serious vulnerabilities to terrorism and contraband. Moreover, the 

President’s new measures will enrich primarily the Cuban military 

and will not impede General Castro’s close alliance with Iran, Russia, or Venezuela. It is hard to discern how fortifying a totalitarian 

government promotes democracy. 

The new Cuba policy has legitimized the Cuban regime in the 

eyes of the world. By sanctioning an oppressive regime that violates human rights with abandon, the President has reversed our 

long-standing support for democratic governance in Latin America. 

The gratuitous normalization with an oppressive military dictatorship sends the wrong message to the continent. Every Latin 

American would-be dictator now realizes that suppressing civil liberties in their countries is not an impediment to having a good diplomatic and commercial relationship with the United States. 

Contrary to the argument of some that the new policy will help 

improve relations with Latin America, our implicit seal of approval 

over military dictatorship further weakens American influence and 

prestige in the region. It encourages anti-American leaders everywhere to take positions inimical to U.S. interests as Cuba has done 

for decades. One unfortunate visual the new policy has conveyed is 

that taking American hostages can be very rewarding. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Azel follows:]

30


93534c-1.eps
31


93534c-2.eps
32


93534c-3.eps
33


93534c-4.eps
34

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Doctor. 

And, Ambassador Hays, let me thank you for your service and 

recognize you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS K. HAYS, 

DIRECTOR, THE EMERGENCE GROUP 

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you 

and the members of the committee for a chance to appear before 

you today. With your permission, I would like to submit my written 

statement and then perhaps summarize the points in it. 

One of the key issues that I believe has come up is is that a lot 

of this was developed through the process of secret negotiations. I 

have some experience with secret negotiations, and certainly with 

respect to Cuba I can say that we are very bad at them. And we 

are bad at them not because we don’t have skilled negotiators who 

have good intentions, but rather that the very dynamic of secret 

negotiations, particularly those conducted over a length of time, 

reach the point where the purpose is to reach agreement rather 

than specifically what is in the agreement. And I think this dynamic is certainly played out. 

Secondly, Cuban negotiators tend to be very professional, very 

knowledgeable. They can even be very charming, but they are also 

extremely focused. My experience in negotiating with the agents or 

representatives of the Cuban regime is is they have a great focus. 

Their concern is what is it that we can give to them, not necessarily what it is that they would give to us or do for us along 

this way. 

In my diplomatic training, I was told always to look at intentions 

and capabilities. In many countries, it is difficult to determine 

what intentions are, because there are multiple sources of information and power along the way. That is certainly not the case with 

Cuba. For over 50 years, there has been a very clear intention, 

which is to harm the United States in every way that it is possible. 

This is done both through public statements, including those that 

my colleagues have mentioned made in the last few days and 

weeks, and it is also with respect to the—to the actions that have 

been taken and continue to be taken at this time. 

In addition to intentions, you also have to look at capabilities, 

and here I think there is an interesting point. There is a clear pattern over the years. When the Castro regime has resources, it 

tends to be more active in advancing its goals to the detriment of 

us. But when it has fewer resources, it is not able to do this. We 

are all aware that during the time of the special period in the early 

’90s when the Russian subsidy stopped, also the Cuban foreign adventurism was reduced considerably, and there also were the first 

economic reforms that have taken place in Cuba, things like the 

farmers’ markers and the very beginning of some small businesses. 

Fidel Castro at that time said he was doing this because he was 

forced to do it, not because he wanted to. As soon as additional resources began to flow in from other sources, these economic reforms 

were pulled back and the individuals were denied the opportunity 

to continue to grow and contribute to their country. 

I think an important point here is to look—when you look at our 

embargo, and what is it embargoes do with totalitarian regimes? 

35

They deny those regimes unearned resources. It is a different dynamic that you get when you have an embargo against a more 

democratic country where you have a population that feels pressure 

perhaps and is able to reflect that pressure upward to their political leadership. In a totalitarian society, that does not exist. 

The purpose of an embargo is to deny unearned resources to a 

malevolent regime. And I think that is what our embargo was designed to do, and I think it is what it continues to do. 

You know, it is almost amusing to see the statements that have 

come out in the past few days, particularly with respect to Cuba’s 

place on the list of Sponsors of Terrorism. I saw yesterday there 

was a report out that it is on to us in order to address this and 

to remove them from the list of terrorism before we can go further 

with diplomatic relations. 

So we have a situation where we have something that they want, 

which is to get off the list, and we have something else that they 

want, which is to have full diplomatic relations with us. So everything is what they want; nothing has been addressed with respect 

to the issues that we have raised. Members of the panel and yourself, sir, have raised a lot of these, everyone from Joanne 

Chesimard to the actions that are taking place, the agents that are 

in Venezuela, and down the line. 

And on this, you know, having sort of a focus on Latin America, 

I follow these things relatively closely. One thing that we have not 

seen, particularly as this rapproachment has come along, is any indication that our friends and allies in Latin America will step up 

to the plate and condemn the actions, not just in Cuba but also in 

Venezuela that are taking place at this time. 

I think it is important that we stand fast and strong. Our natural ally in Cuba is the Cuban people, the Cuban dissidents, the 

ones who are prepared to put their livelihoods and even their lives 

on the line in order to advance the cause of freedom. Cuba will be 

a great friend and neighbor to the United States again, but it will 

not be a good friend and neighbor until the Castro regime is removed, and we give the Cuban people a chance to express their 

will. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hays follows:]

36


93534d-1.eps
37


93534d-2.eps
38


93534d-3.eps
39


93534d-4.eps
40


93534d-5.eps
41

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the gentlemen. Excellent. Apparently, it is obvious that you guys have studied the Cuba issue a lot 

more than elements within the administration. You bring a very 

concise message to this committee, and it is much appreciated. 

I have a message for Raul Castro in Cuba. You can get off the 

State Sponsors of Terrorism list if you quit sponsoring terrorism, 

if you quit providing illicit arms to North Korea outside of the embargo. You could probably have normalized relations with the 

United States if you allowed more economic freedom, personal freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, for the people of Cuba. 

Make some reforms. We got nothing out of this deal that benefitted 

the Cuban people. 

I asked Secretary Kerry yesterday, ‘‘Is the State Department and 

the President going to remove Cuba from the list?’’ He said, ‘‘We 

are reviewing it.’’ Staff talked to their staff. Looks like it may be 

that June is a target date for that. We are not going to give Guantanamo Bay back, not as long as I have a vote in the United States 

Congress, and I think my colleagues do as well. 

I am fearful that we just won’t make the lease payment because 

it is a leased property, at a very affordable lease rate if you know 

what the lease is. Whoever negotiated that deal needs to negotiate 

more on behalf of the United States of America. 

This is a strategic base for the United States, but we don’t want 

to give that back to Cuba. They can turn around and give it to the 

Russians to have a warm water port in the hemisphere. That 

would be wrong. I want to see more freedom and economic opportunity, economic freedom, more freedom of speech, more involvement in self-governance for the Cuban people. Those are things—

those are ideals and the principles that Americans adhere to. That 

is what we would love to see for the Cuban people. 

We see nothing out of the Obama administration for the Cuban 

people. The economic benefit they may get is maybe some artwork 

purchased on the street by American tourists, but every other economic transaction benefits the Castro regime. It is a national security issue that is the emphasis of this hearing today. 

We have got the Lourdes base, which is an intelligence-gathering 

base in Cuba, 150 miles off our shore. To your knowledge, Mr. Simmons, has the U.S. ever conducted a comprehensive damage assessment of the Cuban espionage against the United States? 

Mr. SIMMONS. To the best of my knowledge, every damage assessment is done on a case-by-case basis. For example, with Ana 

Montes or Kendall Myers, I am not aware of any comprehensive 

look back over the last 55 years. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you agree with my assessment earlier that 

Americans could be targets of espionage should they travel to Cuba 

and stay in military-owned intelligence-operated hotels? 

Mr. SIMMONS. I disagree with the word ‘‘could.’’

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. I take it as they will. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Absolutely. As I indicated in my statement, for 

several years now, essentially 20 years almost, since the end of the 

Soviet aid, the Castro brothers have allowed the intelligence and 

military services to run the tourism sector as a profit-making enterprise, one in which they are now allowed to recycle part of the 

earnings into their own intelligence budgets. 

42

So every tourist that says at the Hotel Nationale or any other entity in Cuba not only pays for the spying against them, but allows 

repression to increase to levels that were not previously achievable. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. So do you believe that more Americans 

could possibly be recruited to spy for Cuba as a result of this policy 

shift? And we had the DIA agent that I mentioned in my opening 

statement. Do you think more Americans could be recruited? 

Mr. SIMMONS. I think opening diplomatic relations with Cuba 

means open season for espionage operations. It also incentivizes 

what has already been a cash cow for the Castro regime, drives 

down the cost of espionage, and gives them access throughout the 

United States, which they haven’t had in—since 1961. 

Mr. DUNCAN. You know, there is a lot of outage within the American people and with Members of Congress on both sides of the 

aisle to Edward Snowden’s release of security intelligence to Russia. Who would the Cubans possibly give intelligence that they 

gathered from Americans to? 

Mr. SIMMONS. We know historically they have provided information to Russia, China, North Korea, Haiti, any nation that has 

something to offer in trade, whether it is cash or quarterly weapons 

shipments from China. 

I think a more recent example, if I may, I recently became aware 

that Cuba ran a long-term penetration of the National Reconnaissance Office until 2012. I have confirmed this with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Director of National Intelligence has 

taken—failed to answer my queries. What I found out from the Air 

Force, that this long-term penetration was briefed by Master Sergeant Tessa Fontaine to the Director of National Intelligence, and 

the case apparently ended shortly before our secret negotiations 

began. 

Given Cuba’s total absence of a satellite reconnaissance program, 

my question to the committee would be: Who were they selling that 

information to? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. Yes, thank you. I agree. I want to point to 

something in the remaining time I have got that Dr. Azel had in 

his opening statement, that General Castro is making demands on 

the United States for normalized relations. And you say that—and 

this is from General Castro, unconditionally eliminate all economic 

sanctions, return Cuba the Guantanamo Bay naval base, stop all 

transactions of Radio Free American, Radio-IV Martin, compensate 

Cuba for supposed damage caused by the embargo, which Cuba estimates at $116 billion, and that number is growing. Who knows 

what the number will be? And eliminate Cuba from the U.S. State 

Sponsors of Terrorism list. Those are his demands on the United 

States. 

The demands that the United States made on Cuba—can you answer that question? What demands did the United States make? 

Mr. SIMMONS. None that I am aware of, and that is why this unconditional unilateral—is what I really fear we are doing, is not 

asking anything in return. And, unfortunately, I suspect that we 

may begin to hear some arguments that, again, you know, maybe 

the U.S. naval base is not that important or, yeah, maybe Cuba is 

entitled to some compensation, and the like. And that is really my 

fear going forward. 

43

Mr. DUNCAN. Spot on. My time is up. I am going to yield to the 

ranking member, and I will look forward to the second round of 

questioning. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. You know, one of my disappointments is 

being that I always felt that the embargo was a pressure point on 

Cuba, and that we would take the embargo off when we get some 

concessions, especially concessions that led to a free economy where 

people could move ahead, where people could have free elections, 

where you could have actually freedom of the press. 

But, you know, as I looked over the years, Cuba has dealt with 

its economy with every other country just about, and they have 

made big investment in Cuba, people like Italy, countries like Italy, 

Canada. But, you know, the more I read is those countries have 

pulled out of some of these deals. Can you talk a little bit about 

that? I know Italy closed its hotels and some of the deals that they 

made with Cuba. Also, some of the countries invested in trying to 

find oil. They walked out of Cuba. And, in some cases, the Cuban 

Government just took over the businesses. Can you talk a little bit 

about that, Dr. Azel? 

Mr. AZEL. Yes, certainly. A couple of years ago, I believe I was 

hosting—speaking at a conference of venture capitalists that had 

flown to Miami, and they were very interested in looking into 

Cuba. When I mentioned that just that week the Cuban Government found itself completely short of cash and took over all the 

bank accounts of foreign companies in Cuba, just took over all the 

bank accounts. Period. It is amazing what a government like the 

totalitarian regime can act arbitrarily at any given time and just 

take over bank accounts in that particular case. 

Cuba has a history of not paying its debts. That is one of the reasons why we see Cuba in this kind of a situation. And some of 

these companies that are having adversity in Cuba are pulling out 

simply because you have to do business with a totalitarian regime 

in which the regime will be a majority shareholder, for example. 

The Cuban Government, the Cuban military, will have to own 51 

percent of the company. Just one of the drawbacks, for example, 

those companies cannot hire their own employees. They have to request the employees from the Cuban Government. The Cuban Government will then send the employees. Interestingly enough—and 

this in my mind is a form of slavery—the Cuban Government will 

pay the employees about 3 percent of what the companies are actually paying the Cuban Government. And the Cuban Government 

retains 97 percent of the salaries of the employees working in 

Cuba. 

Mr. SIRES. So I would think that if any company wanted to invest in Cuba from this country, some of those things have to 

change. 

Mr. AZEL. Oh, absolutely. And perhaps most important of all you 

would have to have an independent judiciary that can adjudicate 

claims. Cuba, of course, does not have anything near an independent judiciary and will act capriciously and arbitrarily at any 

given time it chooses. 

Mr. SIRES. But this is not the first time that Cuba has just arbitrarily taken over bank accounts. I remember when I lived there 

44

that one of the things they did was that, and they just gave people 

X amount of money, but they took everything else that was in the 

bank for the government. So this is a pretty common practice, but 

it——

Mr. AZEL. It has, and it was done actually by Fidel Castro. Shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he reversed all the 

changes he had produced at that time. So, yes, this is their pattern. 

Mr. SIRES. I was just wondering, Mr. Simmons, how much influence do you think the Cubans have in Venezuela currently? 

Mr. SIMMONS. I believe it is fair to say Cubans are running Venezuela. 

Mr. SIRES. How many people do you think—how many Cubans 

do you think are in Venezuela running Venezuela? 

Mr. SIMMONS. The estimates I have seen range in the several 

thousands. 

Mr. SIRES. And, Ambassador, I guess you experienced negotiating 

with the Cuban Government was, how can I say, very enlightening. 

Do you think we are prepared to negotiate with the Cuban Government now? 

Mr. HAYS. Well, sir, I think it is always an issue is is that you 

have one side, the Cuban side, which is extremely focused on a certain set of results to come. And that set of results is that they are 

more than happy to take anything we give them, but they do not 

give anything back in return. And I can tell you from personal experience that is very frustrating when you are trying to—the whole 

idea of a negotiation is you reach agreement with somebody by giving a little and getting something back. 

In the absence of that, and what I fear, is there often is a case—

I think as some of my colleagues mentioned—is that over time you 

justify, in fact, giving the other side what they want, and you don’t 

ask for something in return. 

Mr. SIRES. They were currently negotiating with the European 

Union, and basically when they got what they wanted they just 

walked out of the negotiations. There is no negotiation going on 

now with the European Union, is there? 

Mr. HAYS. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. SIRES. But they did walk off the——

Mr. HAYS. This is—I mean, there is not just a pattern, I mean 

it is an actual process that they go through. And, again, for 50 

years I think the United States has been prepared to have some 

kind of discussion with the Cuban Government, but it has to be on 

terms of having something where our interests are protected in advance, not just their interests. 

Mr. SIRES. This is my concern, that they are going to say, ‘‘Look, 

we are negotiating. We have come to an impasse with the United 

States. I think there is no more negotiations to be had.’’ This is my 

concern, that we are going to end up holding the short end of the 

stick sort of. 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. As I mentioned, if the goal is to have an 

agreement, and it doesn’t matter what that agreement is, you can 

always get there. But if you care about what is in the agreement, 

you need to be very careful. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. Thank you. 

45

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the ranking member. I think what 

he is trying to say is past performance predicts future results. 

The Chair will recognize Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for your testimony, gentlemen. I am going to ask a series of questions. You won’t have enough time to answer, but in the 

second round we will get around to that. 

I am just reading about this interesting Jay Weaver story in the 

Miami Herald that appeared yesterday, and it talks about this incredible enterprise that the chairman cited about laundering—this 

case was laundering $238 million in dirty Medicare dollars from 

Florida into Cuba’s banking system and how—and, by the way, this 

money was funneled as remittances. And, you know, part of the 

changes that the President has made is allowing remittances to be 

used through—be sent through a general license, non-family members, complete strangers. 

So there is going to be even less scrutiny paid to a lot of this 

money laundering. And if we are cutting Medicare, you just need 

to look at South Florida and find out who is responsible for a lot 

of the money not getting to your parents and your grandparents. 

And I will ask you to comment on that. 

But, Mr. Simmons, thank you so much for your great service to 

our country, 20 years in the U.S. Army and DIA. And I was wondering if you could elaborate on Ana Belen Montes, because for 

many folks that is history that they just don’t even remember who 

she was, this high intelligence—high-level intelligence officer who 

was spying for the Castro regime and is now serving a sentence in 

our prison. She pled guilty because the evidence was overwhelming. 

If you could remind us of who she was, why it was important to 

catch her, what impact she has had in many of the studies that 

have been given to Congress about whether the Castro regime 

poses or does not pose a threat to national security. 

And, Dr. Azel, welcome back to our committee. It is wonderful to 

recognize someone who is one of our professors in my alma mater, 

the University of Miami. Go ’Canes. And I was wondering if you 

could put Cuba in a regional context. The administration likes to 

say that everyone in the region supports their initiative, but they 

forget to mention that the same countries are so afraid of the Castro regime and its ability to export chaos and unrest in their countries. 

And Mr. Sires was talking about that, instead of the administration caring so much about this failed policy and how it will benefit 

the region, don’t you believe that this new initiative is really sending a message to our allies in the region that we no longer rate democracy as high. We no longer care so much about the rule of law, 

human rights, as highly as we used to, because now we have broken all of that and said, ‘‘Everything is fine. Everything is fine in 

Cuba.’’ And is that message not detrimental to U.S. interest in the 

region long time? 

And, finally, Ambassador Hays, thank you as well for your distinguished career in the Foreign Service. I wanted to ask you about 

your time in the important post as Coordinator for Cuban Affairs. 

It is my understanding that you left the position due to some disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:21 May 28, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_WH\022615\93534 SHIRL
46

agreements with the Clinton administration regarding Cuban policy. Can you please describe, if you might, why you left, what objections you had with the Clinton administration on Cuban policy. 

And we will start with you, and I know we won’t have enough 

time, but we will have a second round, the chairman says, and 

then you can elaborate. I don’t want to take up a whole lot of time. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you. Having spent 6 months debriefing Ana 

Montes, there is no way in under a month I could accurately assess 

everything she did. Let me suffice to say that in the 16 years that 

she spied within the Defense Intelligence Agency—and, actually, to 

precede that, she was directed into the Defense Intelligence Agency 

by Havana. She initially worked Central America where she 

worked against our operations in Central America. 

During our secret war in El Salvador, she was pre-briefing every 

Special Forces team that went down range with the intent of warning Cuba and the FMLN Guerrillas where Americans would be and 

the exact times. In 1987, she actually visited the headquarters of 

El Salvador’s 4th brigade, which was overrun a month later and a 

Green Beret sergeant was killed in what was then the largest attack of the war. 

And while I am not saying she was the only agent that the Cubans had, we know they had agents on the camp. I think that goes 

to show the height of Cuba’s arrogance when they would send one 

of their—an agent we believe was ranked in their top 10 to one of 

our biggest allies, and then overrun their camp 4 weeks later. 

She was also tasked by Havana to provide warning on the Panama invasion. We know at the time of her arrest she was to be 

moved over to the Afghanistan Task Force where she would have 

compromised operations again. And it was the decision of the leadership to arrest her before she could put any more American lives 

at risk. 

We also know that after her arrest the Russians sent essentially 

a letter of sympathy to Cuba for the loss of such an important 

asset. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And if I could—what connection did she have 

with Congress? Did she have anything to do with writing reports 

and briefing Members of Congress about the threat or non-threat 

that the Castro regime poses? 

Mr. SIMMONS. Absolutely. For much of her time within the agency, when she became head of the Cuban Political and Military Affairs, she essentially became the lead Cuba analyst for the entire 

intelligence community. So not only did she help turn on and turn 

off U.S. collection against Cuba, in many ways she helped shape 

U.S. intelligence policy against the island. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Are her reports still——

Mr. SIMMONS. Posted online——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [continuing]. Posted? 

Mr. SIMMONS [continuing]. At the Pentagon? Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

know I am out. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you for your leadership. 

I will now go to Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first ask—I guess 

I will ask the Ambassador. Is diplomacy easy or hard? 

47

Mr. HAYS. I am sorry? Say that——

Mr. MEEKS. Diplomacy. You believe in diplomacy, I——

Mr. HAYS. Oh, yes, sir. Very much so. 

Mr. MEEKS. And is that easy, or is it hard? 

Mr. HAYS. Sometimes a little of each. 

Mr. MEEKS. Okay. But it is essential, isn’t it? Because what I 

want to do first of all, let the record be clear—and I want Congress 

to end the embargo, but the President can’t end the embargo, so 

we are not talking about the embargo here. That only can be done 

by Congress. 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. We are talking about diplomacy. 

Mr. HAYS. Correct. Yes, sir. Well, I think the key of diplomacy 

is is you have individuals who then have an understanding of the 

history, the culture, the political pressures, the desires of the people that you are talking to and negotiating with. So, with that, you 

have a chance to——

Mr. MEEKS. So should we end diplomatic relationships with 

China? 

Mr. HAYS. No, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. Should we end, even though we are in the middle 

of this right now, diplomatic relationship with Russia? 

Mr. HAYS. No, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. And if all of the information that I am hearing thus 

far about our national security is because Cuba could give something to Russia, who has the most technology, would you think 

that—does Russia have more spy technology than Cuba? Does 

China have more spy technology than Cuba? 

Mr. HAYS. Well, in all of these instances, I think the United 

States has an obligation to protect its own interests and to do so 

as it is appropriate. And I would never say that we do not have 

discussions and negotiations with, say, the Cuban Government. 

What I am saying, though, is that it would be very——

Mr. MEEKS. So what we should have, then, is some form of diplomatic relationships as generally is done through Ambassadors, so 

that we could try to talk and work things out with countries that 

we have good relations with and countries that we have bad relations with. We would have diplomatic relations right now if those 

individuals—talking those through. 

In fact, even as we go through all of the negative aspects with 

Russia and the Ukraine right now we still have a Russian Ambassador in the United States, and we still have an American Ambassador talking to Russians, don’t we? 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEEKS. Okay. Now, the Cuban people—let me just ask this, 

and I will ask Mr. Mene ́ndez, because he hasn’t said much, since 

1961, to date, has the conditions for the people of Cuba improved? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. No, they have not. 

Mr. MEEKS. They have not. So the conditions of the individuals 

in Cuba from 1961 until the year of our Lord 2015 is exactly the 

same. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. No, it is worse. 

Mr. MEEKS. It is worse. What have our policies changed since 

1961 until 2015? Has it changed? Has our policy to Cuba changed? 

48

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Our policy has not changed. 

Mr. MEEKS. It has not changed. So, therefore, wouldn’t it be logical to say that we have had one policy and nothing has changed, 

that that policy then was unsuccessful. It did not work to the benefit of the people of Cuba, because their conditions have not 

changed. 

In fact, based upon your testimony, given what our policy has 

been, et cetera, it has even gotten worse. So does that not also say 

that if something—and the chairman said past performance shows 

future results. So our past performance also——

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. May I——

Mr. MEEKS [continuing]. Has shown that—I will give you a 

chance. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Okay. 

Mr. MEEKS. But shows that we have done this repeatedly, over 

and over again, and it hasn’t worked in over 50 years. And so then 

that shows that the results probably will be, if we continue to do 

the same thing with nothing changing, that the result will be the 

same. We will—there will be nothing that has changed for the people of Cuba who are living in Cuba. 

Let me just go to this, because I don’t know whether you have 

or not, but I know I have visited Cuba several times, the last time 

about 5, 6 months ago. I have had the opportunity to walk the 

streets freely and just stop people who didn’t know that I would 

stop them and ask them whether or not they think that the policy 

of the United States toward Cuba—and they did not ask them in 

regards to the embargo and diplomacy. The President is only talking about diplomacy because that is the only thing he has jurisdiction over. 

I stopped some young people, et cetera, and they told me they 

don’t understand why we still have this policy, that it hasn’t 

worked, and that we should change it. If you talk to the people that 

are living in Cuba, as I did, you know, just not—just stopping folks, 

not someone that told me that I had to talk to this individual or 

that individual. 

So as I deducted from my visits and trying to talk to people, 

same thing I have done in other places, is to ask the people that 

were living there what did they think about our policy. Many of 

them, they object to the regime and a number of the things that 

has taken place there. But they want the policy to change. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair will recognize Mr. DeSantis for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the 

fact that things haven’t ‘‘changed’’ for the Cuban people, or have 

even gotten worse under the embargo, to me that is an indictment 

on the Castro regime. Why have they not changed? Why is life so 

miserable for those people in Cuba? 

And guess what, Mr. Mene ́ndez? There is a world-wide embargo 

on Cuba, is that why? So do they trade with all these other countries? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. They trade with practically every country on the 

planet. 

49

Mr. DESANTIS. And the money that goes into that country, does 

that go to the pockets of the Cuban people, or does that go to the 

military and to the regime? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Absolutely not directly to the people. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So we have evidence about what happens when 

you engage with more economic activity with this country. Look, if 

I thought that this would liberate the Cuban people and we would 

have a democratic transformation, man, sign me up. But this is 

going to fortify the regime at a time when it is not only weak, when 

its patron states are weak, but when we can actually look at how 

old these Castro brothers are and say, ‘‘Man, we could really leverage this for a democratic transition at one point.’’ And so I think 

it is really troubling. 

Let me ask you this, Dr. Azel. Assistant Secretary Jacobson was 

in front of the full committee recently, and she seemed like it is 

kind of a fait accompli that the State Sponsors of Terrorism designation is going to be removed. Is there evidence that Cuba is still 

a state sponsor of terrorism right now? 

Mr. AZEL. I think that there is. That is really not my field, but 

I think we see Cuba constantly trying to penetrate the United 

States in every conceivable way. Recalling a comment made earlier, 

at the Institute for Cuban-American Studies, I had the opportunity 

to interview a defector from the Cuban Government, and he actually was the person responsible for setting cameras in the 

Nationale Hotel to tape surreptitiously American visitors to the 

hotel. 

So Cuba is deeply engaged in trying to generate intelligence and 

market that intelligence to places like Iran. And I think that is profoundly troubling. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Oh, absolutely. And this could be Mr. Mene ́ndez 

or Mr. Simmons. The Cuban support for the repression in Venezuela, can you discuss that? And also how there is intelligence 

that then gets shared through there to other terrorist groups 

throughout the world. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Could I answer? 

Mr. DESANTIS. Sure. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. The Venezuelan situation, clearly there are approximately 50,000 to 60,000 Cubans in Venezuela at different levels. Some are doctors, some are teachers, many intelligence. They 

run most of the Ministry of the Interior, and they have a considerable amount of—let us say that the recommendations that they 

make are considered orders in the Venezuelan military. 

I just wanted to respond to Mr. Meeks. He said that he was making a logical argument. Actually, the argument you made was a 

non sequitur. It is a non sequitur because U.S. policy is not responsible for the conditions of the Cuban people. It is the system that 

the Cuban ruling elite has had for more than 50 years that is responsible for the condition of the Cuban people. 

It is that system which trades with practically every country in 

the world and trades with it in a particular way. There is, for example, the Enterprise Management Group called GAESA. Are you 

familiar with that, Mr. Meeks? Do you know who the person who 

runs GAESA is? 

50

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, you can continue addressing him, but it is 

my time that——

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. I am sorry. 

Mr. DESANTIS [continuing]. So if I could continue, because he is 

not going to be able to answer you because he doesn’t control the 

time. But I would like you to continue to engage that. 

So let us just assume that maybe he doesn’t know, so can you 

educate us about it? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. There is a gentleman by the name of Luis 

Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejo, big name. He runs GAESA. He 

runs the holding company for the military. That gentleman is the 

son-in-law of Raul Castro. It is a family-owned business, Mr. 

Meeks. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Let me ask you, Dr. Azel, about Gitmo. That has 

been something—obviously, the United States has had a presence 

at the naval station down there for quite some time. There is a lot 

of politics with this administration about the terrorist detainees. 

But take that aside, just the base as it existed, say, pre-September 

11, if that were to be returned to Cuba, how could they use that 

to harm U.S. security interests in the Western Hemisphere? 

Mr. AZEL. I would suspect that the next day that the base is returned to Cuba, Cuba would immediately lease it to either Russia 

or China. The base, as we know, is an excellent facility, very deep 

waters outside of Guantanamo where submarines can be hidden 

and very difficult to locate. Cuba will generate revenue by leasing 

that facility to the Russian Navy, for example, who would love to 

have a warm water port in the Caribbean. 

Mr. DESANTIS. My time is almost up. I just want to say, Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for being so diligent on this. You know, the 

President recently instructed the American people not to get on our 

high horse about jihadists because of the Crusades that happened 

1,000 years ago. And yet here he is trying to establish a relationship with the exact same regime that 50 years ago wanted to nuke 

the United States, and Khrushchev is the one that had to stop 

that. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The Chair is trying to be fair. Mr. Castro is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman, and thank——

Mr. DUNCAN. Actually, Mr. Castro, Mr. Grayson was on the list 

first. I didn’t see Alan over there. So he is recognized for 5 minutes. 

My apologies. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. True or false. We have gone from a 

Cuba policy of all stick and no carrot to a Cuba policy of all carrot 

and no stick. Mr. Simmons? 

Mr. SIMMONS. True. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Explain why. 

Mr. SIMMONS. I think we need to look no further than who it is 

we are negotiating with. As the Congresswoman pointed out earlier, for the last 5 years we have been negotiating with Josefina 

Vidal who—in 2003 I was part of a DIA-State Department-FBI 

team that threw her out for her espionage activities. And now I 

predict that if we do open—allow an Ambassador to be posted to 

51

this country, she will be the first Cuban Ambassador to the United 

States. 

And when you allow an expelled intelligence officer who has devoted her life to working against the U.S. Congress and the U.S. 

intelligence community and the U.S. business community, that 

shapes the tone for everything Cuba intends to do. 

During the period that Alan Gross was held in Cuba——

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Simmons, I am sorry. I have just 5 minutes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Mene ́ndez. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. True, sir. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Why? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Because we don’t seem to have a strategy. We 

seem to—we are talking about negotiating, but we are not negotiating. It is not clear what our national interests are in this situation. It is not clear what the vital national security issues are in 

this situation. Unfortunately, I don’t think the administration has 

made it clear why we are even doing this. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Good. Doctor? 

Mr. AZEL. Well, absolutely, there is no question in my mind. And 

I outlined in my testimony that Cuba—General Castro has outlined 

his five demands for relationships. We don’t know what our demands are. What exactly is it that we are asking the Cuban Government to do? I cannot find anything of substance. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What do you think we should ask the Cuban Government to do? And how should we make that a quid pro quo? 

Mr. AZEL. Well, in an ideal world, we should ask the Cuban Government to hold free elections, among other things, to let the 

Cuban people decide how they want to be governed, obviously to release all political prisoners, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, just the normal human rights that we expect. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And what do we use as a quid pro quo for that? 

Mr. AZEL. Well, right now, I am afraid we have given up our bargaining chips without getting anything in return. In a situation 

where they may—emerging Cuba in the future, and I don’t see any 

changes with the Castro brothers in power, but where they may 

emerge a reformer down the line, we would have had the opportunity to offer lifting economic sanctions, to offering assistance of 

all kinds, if we were to see a genuine transition to democracy and 

free market in Cuba. 

All we have seen is a succession from General—from Fidel Castro to Raul Castro, and perhaps another succession in the future 

to Alejandro Castro Espin or somebody else in the Castro family. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Ambassador? 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. Well, I would say we still have some sticks. 

Obviously, we have an economic embargo. Cuba is on the terrorist 

list. And the fact that a lot of importance is being placed on these 

issues right now I think is evidence that the Cuban Government 

feels that as a stick and is trying to get it removed. 

Again, I would never say that one should never have discussions 

or negotiations. What I say is that let us go into this in a way that 

we can advance our interests, and then also the interests of the 

Cuban people. But definitely we still have some sticks at this time. 

52

Mr. GRAYSON. Is there any indication that the Obama administration is saying something along the lines of ‘‘If you do this, we 

will do that. If you don’t do this, we will not do that’’? Anything 

resembling actual negotiating? Ambassador? 

Mr. HAYS. I am unaware of anything that is worded in quite that 

way. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Should there be? 

Mr. HAYS. I would say yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And what would be first on your list? 

Mr. AZEL. Well, I think the topic of the day seems to be the terrorist list. And, again, there are a whole set of issues there, everything from Joanne Chesimard to withdrawing the agents in Venezuela to cutting ties with Hezbollah and Iran to, you know, returning Medicare fraud practitioners. And all of those are very specific actions. All of them could be undertaken by the Cuban Government at this time. And all of them would be indication that they 

are, in fact, interested in having a fruitful discussion with us. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. My time is up. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. The Chair will now go to Mr. Yoho from 

Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. Gentlemen, I appreciate you being here on this timely subject. 

Let us see. Ambassador Hays, number one, I saw you are a 

Gator. I appreciate that. You and I were there about the same 

time, so go Gators. 

Mr. HAYS. Very good. 

Mr. YOHO. In your statement, you said Raul Castro has characterized Cuba’s relation with Iran as excellent, building on the foundation Fidel Castro established years ago when he declared in 

Tehran that Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can 

bring America to its knees. 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. That was a statement that got a lot of attention at the time, but I think a lot of people have forgotten that. 

Mr. YOHO. Do you feel anything has changed since then? 

Mr. HAYS. No, sir. Again, you have to look at intentions and actions, and there is nothing in their public statements or their actions which would lead me to feel that they have come to a different opinion. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. And as we grow up, our parents warn us, 

‘‘Don’t hang around with that person because they have bad habits. 

If you hang around and associate with them, you are going to turn 

out like them.’’ And we look who they hang around with. 

Mr. HAYS. Correct. 

Mr. YOHO. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela. And they are all 

against the ideologies that we have. And so I think the proof is in 

the pudding there. 

Mr. Simmons, did it help—actually, if you guys can answer this 

real quickly—did it help and improve the lifestyle of the Cuban 

people? And I think we all said no, right? 

Number two, did it increase their liberties and freedoms in accordance with our beliefs and Western ideologies? That would be a 

resounding no? 

53

Did it strengthen the anti-Cuban Government—anti-American 

Cuban Government run by the Castro brothers with the release of 

the sanctions? Or trying to normalize it. 

And I just want to make a comment, with my colleague, Mr. 

Meeks, saying if something doesn’t work for 50 years, you need to 

change it. There are so many things in here, in America, that we 

should look at—the War on poverty we have been fighting for 50 

years. We put $20 trillion into that, and we are going backwards. 

So just because it doesn’t work doesn’t mean you stop doing those. 

You improve on those. 

In your opinion, did President Obama’s decree make America 

safer and more secure, in our hemisphere and as a nation? Mr. 

Simmons? 

Mr. SIMMONS. No, it made us weaker and more——

Mr. YOHO. And I am going to come back to that. Thank you. 

Mr. Mene ́ndez? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. No, it has not. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Azel? 

Mr. AZEL. Absolutely not. It has sent the wrong message to the 

continent, and every would-be dictator now knows that they don’t 

have to respect human rights. 

Mr. HAYS. No, it has not. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. So one would have to think, what was the 

purpose of this? And, I mean, I was shocked to see that we gave 

up the farm again, like we did with Iran, to have some grand negotiation, and we all know the nuclear negotiation with Iran is a 

farce. You know, the whole thing was built around preventing Iran 

to have a nuclear weapon, but it sunsets in 3 to 5 years, some people say 10 years. 

The time period really doesn’t matter, because it is going to sunset, and Iran will have nuclear weapons. And so you have to think 

about why would the leader of the world’s lone superpower—and 

I go back to 1996 when Bill Clinton said, ‘‘America can no longer 

afford to be the world’s lone superpower.’’

And then I look at the policies over the last 10, 15 years, and 

I kind of feel that. I mean, with what you guys just said, we are 

weakening America’s security, we are weakening our status in the 

world. Not that we care about status, but we want security, because that is the number one job of this country. 

Do you believe, and this may be a tough question for you to answer, that President Obama’s decision, was it out of ignorance, incompetence, or design? And if you don’t want to answer that, I understand because I have a thought I want to put in there. Nobody? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Well——

Mr. AZEL. I will——

Mr. YOHO. Go ahead, Mr. Azel—Dr. Azel. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Absolutely by design, and I think probably prior 

to the administration. And the reason we are seeing it now is because there are 2 years left. 

Mr. YOHO. By design. Dr. Azel? 

Mr. AZEL. I would agree with that. It is by design, perhaps looking for a legacy or the like. But it was by design. 

Mr. YOHO. A legacy of weakening America. 

Mr. AZEL. I suspect that would be the end result of this——

54

Mr. YOHO. You know what? And there are going to be people that 

will come after me because of these statements. Whether it is ignorance, incompetence, or design, I really don’t care the reason, because none of them are acceptable for America in American citizens. We should do everything we can to make this country stronger. And if we are going to negotiate with people, we should have 

our—not our standards, but I would think people want the liberties 

and freedoms that we have, and I think this is a misstep of this 

administration, and I am appalled. 

My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Castro is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you 

to the panelists for sharing your testimony today. 

I think you would agree, since the 1960s, we essentially have 

tried almost everything with Cuba, except for direct military action—the embargo, no diplomatic relations, covert action, sponsored 

military action with the Bay of Pigs. And so I know there has been 

a lot of thoughtful debate about the President’s decision and what 

it means and what it portends for the future. 

And the way I see it, I see the President positioning the United 

States for the day when the Castro brothers no longer rule Cuba. 

Fidel Castro is 88 years old this year. Raul Castro is 83 years old. 

They have already beaten the actuarial tables and can’t imagine 

that, you know, they are going to beat Mother Nature. I mean, at 

some point Cuba is going to transition out from under their leadership, and I see this action as the President positioning the United 

States to be there to work with the new leaders of Cuba when that 

happens. 

Now, this is normalization of diplomatic relations. As everybody 

has noted, the embargo still exists. There is still, you know, this 

economic component to it that is still in place, but—and I know 

that you guys disagree with most of my position, but imagine that 

we hadn’t normalized diplomatic relations and, you know, both 

those brothers are gone within the next 6 months. Then, what 

would have happened with the relationship between the United 

States and Cuba? 

And my worry there is that if you are not in position already 

when that happens, I think you are behind the eight ball, because 

you have got China, who has been much more active in Latin 

America, for example. I was with a group of Argentineans last 

week, an exchange group, and one of them asked me, he said—I 

said I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He said, ‘‘Are you not 

concerned with all of the activity that China is conducting and all 

the business that China is conducting in Latin America?’’

And so how do you see that? Let us say the President had not 

taken this action and the brothers are gone in 6 months or a year. 

I mean, how would this have been resolved? What would be—in the 

rosiest case scenario, you know, how would this have turned out? 

Anybody. Anybody that wants to address this. 

Mr. AZEL. Thank you for your question. Cuba is a military regime with a military structure. What we have seen is a succession. 

We have not seen anything close to a transition as we saw in Eastern Europe. 

55

If the Castro brothers are gone, that would probably be the opportunity at that moment to advance U.S. national interest. If we 

have already given up all of our negotiating position a priori, then 

we are not going to be able to influence that next generation. 

Mr. CASTRO. Now, we still have the embargo in place, which is 

a huge economic, you know——

Mr. AZEL. It is a little bit of a shell, and we are undermining it 

all the time. So——

Mr. CASTRO. And so, for example, and I take your point, you 

know, but for example they are getting a lot of their energy from 

Venezuela, right? I was one of the sponsors of the bill to expedite 

liquefied natural gas exports to other countries. It would be wonderful if we could become an energy supplier, once the Castros are 

gone, to Cuba—I think most folks would agree with that—so that 

they are not in the hands of these—some of these nations that are 

run by rogue dictators. 

But it just—it is hard to me to see a benefit in waiting until suddenly the country goes into chaos, because now for the first time 

in 60 years or so there is going to be new leadership, and then trying to step in in that moment of tumult. I just think that is incredibly hard. The way it exists now, you have already done one part, 

which is you are at least talking to each other. You know, now I 

think—I think realistically what is going to happen is we are not 

going to lift the embargo until those brothers are gone. I think that 

is what is going to happen. 

Mr. AZEL. Well, I hope so. But it is also—the flip side, it is hard 

to see how fortifying a totalitarian regime advances democracy. 

And I don’t see how fortifying a regime does that. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Thank you for that question, Mr. Castro, which 

I thought was very thoughtful. It is very nice to see a Democrat 

in this day and age thinking strategically about the security of the 

United States. 

Mr. CASTRO. There is a few of us here in Congress. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. I know there are. 

Mr. CASTRO. Believe it or not. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. I know there are. There are those Henry Jackson 

Democrats. 

I think that in my opening statement I mentioned precisely that. 

There is this new generation of Cuban leaders. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. What we don’t know about them is what they 

really think, because they have been in positions of executing policy, but the policies always come from above. And the historic leadership is, frankly, dying. 

So in some ways, if you thought about it strategically, it would 

make more sense for us to wait to see if in fact this new leadership 

has a different approach or if——

Mr. CASTRO. I am running out of time. And I just think that it 

is tougher when you are not talking to anybody over there, you 

know? Then, all of a sudden, boom, it is all gone and—anyway. 

Thank you, Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from 

New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

56

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this very 

important hearing. And I apologize for being late—I was the speaker at an autism conference—so I will look forward to reading your 

testimonies. 

Let me just say a couple of points. I remember traveling with 

Armando Valladares, and anyone who hasn’t read his book, I 

strongly encourage that they do so as well as other books written 

by those who endured torture and incarceration. His book Against 

All Hope, I have read it twice. I have been with him. Matter of fact, 

I was with him at the Human Rights Commission when he singlehandedly was able to get the U.N. Commission to deploy people to 

go to the prisons. They got iron-clad promises that nobody would 

be retaliated against. Everybody was retaliated against, including 

those who were in prison. 

But here is a man who detailed the unspeakable crimes committed by the regime, by Castro, and a whole line of other people 

who carried out not just orders, but on their own carried out terrible, barbaric acts against people. I mean, he described so many 

tortures, it was almost like what happened in the Hanoi Hilton 

that was commonplace, and still is, against these political and democracy activists. 

I, frankly, feel rather than rewarding and enabling a dictatorship, because I do believe that the line of succession—we have seen 

this—you know, the great hopes that people had falsely about Vietnam—and this seems to be a Vietnam model. I have offered, and 

it has passed three Congresses in a row, failed in the Senate, never 

got a vote—the Vietnam Human Rights Act—that we should have 

insisted that human rights went first, and then all of the other 

benefits, especially the economic benefits, would follow thereafter. 

That didn’t happen. 

Vietnam today is in a race to the bottom with China in terms of 

incarcerating religious believers and democracy activists and journalists and bloggers. The same thing has happened in Vietnam—

I should say in Cuba. This is a lifeline—as The Washington Post 

so aptly said, a lifeline to this dictatorship. 

It is not about the transition somehow matriculating toward democracy. This will almost ensure—hopefully it doesn’t but could ensure—that the torturers get the baton when all is said and done. 

And that is what I am very worried about, the Vietnam model and 

the China model, and you might want to respond to that. 

Frank Calzone is sitting right behind you. Frank Calzone, in 

2004, was mugged, was hit by so-called diplomats from Cuba when 

he was at the Human Rights Commission. And I have been with 

Frank many times to those Commission meetings. He brought forward some horrific, and very damaging to the regime, information 

about human trafficking and child sex trafficking. 

I wrote the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It is our landmark 

law on combatting trafficking. Cuba is a Tier III country, sex tourism, where young children are abused. Who benefits? Fidel Castro 

and his henchmen from the monies that are brought in from that. 

It is amazing to me that those issues are not front and center. 

Nancy Pelosi makes a trip down to Cuba. Did she go to the prisons? Did she meet with the dissidents who are outside? Apparently 

not. I have tried to go to the prisons for 20 years, and I can’t even 

57

get a visa. If you go there, you meet with Fidel, say some nice 

things and couch your human rights concerns in very, very diplomatic speak. You are invited any day of the week. 

So very concerned. I am going to make a reapplication to go 

there. I want to go to the prisons the way the ICRC and others 

ought to have been done—been doing for the last 50-plus years. So 

maybe you might want to speak to the trafficking issue, if you 

would. How many political prisoners, democracy activists, innocent 

men and women, has this regime tortured years to date? 

Frankly, I believe the Security Council of the United Nations 

should make a referral for crimes against humanity. We talk about 

Assad and many others and their butchery. What goes on in those 

prisons is equally egregious, and I respectfully would ask the administration—all of this talk about—and the political niceties, 

where the horrific details of torture are swept under the table, 

somehow we will get to that later, or in some kind of human rights 

dialogue, like we have with Vietnam. 

Those human rights dialogues are almost without any redeeming 

characters to it, because it—and we do the same thing with China, 

rather than making it centerpiece with our relationship with those 

countries as we should with Vietnam. 

Let me just—so if you could speak to that if you would, trafficking, human rights, how many prisoners, and whether or not a 

referral might be—Ambassador Hays. 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. I will start off. 

Mr. SMITH. Quickly. 

Mr. HAYS. You are probably aware there were reported 100 arrests last weekend of democracy activists, another 40 just a couple 

of days ago. And it is one of these things, if you get into a numbers 

game, and you have someone who is in prison and you let them go 

on Monday and then you rearrest them on Tuesday, you could say 

you have released a prisoner but the fact is is that you are still in 

prison. 

The regime over the years of course has a horrific record. All 

forms of dissent are put down hard. One of the key things I think 

that the Castro regime does better than anybody is by controlling 

all of the economic levers on people’s lives they are able to control 

the political levers on their lives. 

If you get out of line, you could lose your job, your house, your 

children’s education, not to mention your freedom. And this all together forms a very strong way to repress any kind of democratic 

thought. 

I would just note, Mr. Castro, that the Castros’ mother I believe 

lived to be 96, so we can’t just say that this is something that could 

go away overnight. What we have to be very careful to do is not 

to freeze in place a system which will perpetuate these outrageous 

acts. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am going to allow some lenience. We don’t have 

anyone else on the minority side. We were going to have a second 

round, so I am going to allow a little more lenience here, because 

members are leaving. But I want to hear this. Human rights is a 

huge issue I think for both sides of the aisle. 

58

Mr. AZEL. Well, it certainly is. And although Cuba has changed 

its methodology, in the early days of the regime there were long 

prison sentences. They have now pretty much implemented a catch, 

intimidate, and release type of approach to human rights. So the 

numbers are sometimes hard to get. 

I did want to address briefly Mr. Castro, I think it was. I appreciate your strategic concerns. I would encourage you to see—there 

is an interview with Alejandro Castro Espin, Raul Castro’s son. It 

is a 30-minute interview, was just done in Greece actually. It gives 

us a glimpse as to what is in Cuba’s future, and it is really troubling to see that. 

Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen had asked me earlier about the 

impact in Latin America. And it is important to note that since the 

1970s our policy toward Latin America has emphasized democracy, 

human rights, and constitutional government. Arguably, our policy 

has not been uniform throughout the world. This is true. But until 

recently defending democratic values was indeed our long-established policy in Latin America. 

We have now, I believe, abandoned that by sending a message 

to Latin American leaders that suppressing civil liberties is no 

longer primarily a concern of the United States, and I think that 

will become very dangerous for our national security. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. I am going to ask that—we are going into 

another round of questions. And I am going to ask you if you want 

to follow back up with a little more information in answering some 

of the other questions, just in the essence of time, to try to get 

through this. 

So I am going to recognize myself for another round of questions. 

And if you want to address your answer, Mr. Mene ́ndez, to Mr. 

Smith briefly, I am fine with that. 

But I want to ask all of you, do you think that Cuba has given 

U.S. intelligence to Iran, North Korea, in addition to any other 

countries? And I ask every one of you that. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Absolutely. And I would also remind the committee that we know for a fact that every major U.S. military operation since the 1983 Grenada invasion, Cuba has warned our enemies in advance with the hope of killing Americans. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Mene ́ndez? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Unequivocally. The enemy of my enemy is my 

friend. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Dr. Azel? 

Mr. AZEL. Absolutely. There is a gentleman in South Florida who 

was Raul Castro’s secretary that actually flew to Iraq and gave 

Saddam Hussein some of our plans for the invasions. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ambassador. 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. On a daily basis. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. I want to shift things again here, because I 

am not going to take the whole 5 minutes. But, Ambassador Hays, 

you made a great point in the end of your testimony, what Cuba 

could do in actually doing something as we open up these relations. 

Return scores of felons who have fled the U.S. justice that are 

currently residing in Cuba. Remove all intelligence and internal security officers from Venezuela and Nicaragua and other nations in 

the hemisphere. Extradition to the U.S. of General Ruben Martinez 

59

Puente, mig pilots Lorenzo Alberto Perez-Perez and Francisco 

Perez-Perez, return those, extradite those to the U.S., so they can 

face justice. 

Expulsion from Cuba of unrepentant members of FARC, ETA, 

Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations. Provision of full information of armed shipments to North Korea and possibly other nations, because we don’t know—Panama helped us catch that one, 

but we do know transponders have been cut off if ships traveled 

into Cuban waters. 

Support sanctions against Iran. Stop Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies from using facilities such as the Lourdes to spy on 

the United States of America. These are things that the Castro regime could do. Great points. 

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. And Cuban negotiators always will try to 

keep an argument up on a very high and loose level where there 

is no actual requirement for them to do anything. What I tried to 

capture here were some very specific things that could be done if 

in fact they had an intention to reach out to us in some meaningful 

way. But I would be very surprised if any of this is on the table 

at the discussions tomorrow. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. So I will end and just say there is a lot 

of brave men and women in Cuba who have—in face of adversity 

have spoken out against the regime and risked being arrested. And 

a lot of them have been arrested and in and out of prison, brave 

men and women that I want to see supported through U.S. policies 

as we move forward. 

So I am going to yield time to Mr. Castro, 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. Thank you, Chairman. 

And, Doctor, I will take a look at that video that you referenced 

and look through it. I guess for a second imagine that we are 20 

years down the road, and almost certainly both Castro brothers are 

gone, and whatever scores there are to settle between the United 

States and Cuba have at least—we have gone a long way in doing 

that. 

What role, 20 years from now, do you envision Cuba playing with 

respect to the United States and with respect to Latin America? I 

mean, what is their place in the region and, you know, their relationship with the United States? 

Mr. AZEL. Well, one of the not-so-well-understood situations is 

that Cuba instills a lot of fear in the Latin American countries. 

And we tend to think that maybe it is respect for the Castro regime, but it is mostly fear because Cuba has the ability to influence 

and mobilize Latin American leftist movements against democratic 

movement in Latin America. So that is one of the dangers. 

Ideally, we would like to see a transition to democracy and free 

markets, in which case obviously Cuba could be a positive influence. But, unfortunately, as things stand right now, what we have 

seen so far is just a succession and we may see another succession 

to another military regime of some sort, but not a genuine transition. 

The video I referenced earlier of Alejandro Castro Espin makes 

it very clear that they have already orchestrated a succession in 

Cuba, and it is not a succession toward democracy and free markets. It is a succession along the same lines. 

60

Mr. CASTRO. Gentlemen, anyone? 

Mr. SIMMONS. I would just like to add that the transitions in national security states have a very problematic history. We have 

seen that in Russia, we saw that in the former Yugoslavia, but the 

point is well made. The initial transition has already occurred from 

Fidel to Raul. 

Now, given that 55 years of national security are built into continuing the regime, the government will move forward little 

changed. The only real difference will probably be a little bit more 

pragmatic approach, but they will stick with what they have always known. That is their comfort zone. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. Ambassador? 

Mr. HAYS. I tend to be optimistic by nature. If you are looking 

20 years out, I see a free and democratic Cuba where the people 

have the ability to read and speak and assemble as they would like 

to, travel as they would like to, and they will be a great and strong 

friend of this nation. 

You know, one of the things that always bothered me as I would 

meet people on the island, or from the island, is that you have—

probably we are on our third lost generation now of people who just 

are waiting for something to change in their life, to have the ability 

to set up a small business to do the sorts of things that you and 

I take for granted. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Mr. HAYS. And one of the great tragedies is that time is passing 

and these people are getting left behind. 

Last point on that is, you know, I am a Floridian, a Gator, and 

I grew up, you know, Ralph and El Martinez, their parents. I used 

to go over and eat rice and beans at their house, and these sorts 

of things, so I have lived this. 

And one of the things that I am absolutely convinced of is, when 

the moment comes, and when there is a free and independent 

Cuba, there will be an outpouring of support and help from not just 

the Cuban community but the entire American people for them, to 

help them, because it will be a difficult transition. I mean, we 

can’t—there is another hearing to get into all of the problems that 

are going to come when you release that pressure and things start 

popping up. But I am optimistic. 

Mr. CASTRO. So what is so remarkable, you know, so, for example, in 2010 I was in China for the World Expo. And, you know, 

in China you can’t use Facebook, for example, but they allow internet access. In Cuba, they have essentially been denied even—a lot 

of people—internet access. I mean, this is a land that has been—

has stood still in time essentially, if you look at the vehicles on the 

street, for example. 

And so I think also, the President’s action, part of it is a bet that 

American culture and notions of democracy will ultimately hasten 

change. You know, and only history will prove whether that was 

true or not. But I think that is a sincere hope. 

And so I hope you are right, Ambassador, that 20 years from now 

that is where Cuba is, and they are a good, you know, neighbor of 

the United States and trading partner with the United States, because it is a country with such incredible beauty and incredible potential. 

61

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

wanted to give the panelists an opportunity to answer my longwinded question. Maybe we will ask with—we will start with Ambassador Hays. 

Mr. HAYS. Okay. Yes, ma’am. Thank you. You had asked about 

an earlier experience in my life when I did resign from the position 

of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs. At that time, I was, among other 

things, negotiating with the Cuban Government over migration 

issues and related issues. 

There also were, of course, secret negotiations going on at this 

time, which led to a decision. And, again, this is in the wake of the 

Rafter Crisis in Guantanamo, and what have you, to where we 

agreed to the forcible repatriation of Cubans who were trying to 

flee the dictatorship, that we would take people back in chains, 

back to Cuba, without due process. 

And, furthermore, we committed—we, the United States, committed that we would guarantee that individuals who were returned to Cuba would not be subject to penalty. This was a line 

that was written into their initial document. Three weeks later, 

that line had disappeared, and in subsequent documents you do not 

see the guarantee that the United States made to protect these 

people. 

As the Coordinator of Cuban Affairs, I would have been responsible for enforcing this action, which I did not feel was in the best 

interest of the United States or certainly not the people trying to 

flee the horrible situation that they were in. I did resign from my 

position. I should note I did not resign from the Foreign Service 

and was subsequently nominated by President Clinton to my Ambassadorship. Warren Christopher, a man who will always be close 

to my heart, was very supportive at this time. 

But if I could very quickly link it back to my earlier comments 

is that part of this is when you do have secret negotiations, when 

you don’t have outside, if you will, or even different voices that can 

look at something and say whether it makes sense or not, I think 

we put ourselves at risk. And that was the case then; I think it is 

the case now. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And if I might add, and what has changed 

since you left for a very principled stand—and I congratulate you 

for that—is that there has been an uptick in the number of Cubans 

who have left the worker’s paradise, and they have come to my 

shores right there in my Congressional District. And they are willing to risk the thing they have left, their very lives, to come to this 

country, even though they have been fed propaganda for more than 

50 years that says we are the enemy, and that all these countries, 

they love you, but the United States is the enemy. But where do 

they want to come when they have the opportunity? Right here. 

And many individuals say that we will still continue with the 

Cuban Adjustment Act and the Wet Foot, Dry Foot, and it is really—would be hard to say how that would stay in place when we 

have diplomatic relations. And yet this special status is bestowed 

only to Cubans who might—will fear persecution were they to be 

62

sent back, and how could that be true with all these arrangements 

that we now have in place. 

And what is true is that since these secret negotiations have 

taken place, and now 19 months or so, 20 months, the number of 

arrests in Cuba have also skyrocketed. There have been 300 arrests 

in Cuba in the past month, and obviously the message to the Castro regime is we will look the other way, because that is an inconvenient truth for us. So——

Mr. HAYS. If I could just mention——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Mr. HAYS [continuing]. On that again is we would hope our Latin 

American allies would also speak out against these arrests, but 

we—to my knowledge, I have not seen that. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. The silence is deafening. And it is no surprise that Nicolas Maduro, the thug of Venezuela, went to Cuba 

and then the next day these violent attacks on peaceful protesters 

broke out, and a 14-year-old Venezuelan teenager was shot in the 

head as he was attempting to go to school, because now legally the 

police thugs have been given carte blanche that they can fire on 

peaceful demonstrators and can mortally wound them. 

So that is the reward that they get. He gets his marching orders 

from Cuba and goes to kill his own people in Venezuela. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Yoho. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I find this a very 

enlightening discussion. 

Mr. Mene ́ndez, you stated that there is roughly 40,000 to 50,000 

Cubans in Venezuela. Does that include military personnel, i.e. soldiers? Or is that——

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. So that number is—because I have heard 

numbers up to 100,000. And when they were having the riots in 

the streets, I think it was last year, we heard of Cuban soldiers on 

the street shooting into the crowds. Is that factual? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. There is I believe a special forces team called 

Avispas Negras, Black Wasps. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. And I believe they were involved in some of it. 

I don’t have any actual data, but I do believe that many people 

have said this, that they were involved. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. And then, the way I understand it is President Maduro is surrounded by Cuban Secret Service. Is that correct? Mr. Simmons——

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO [continuing]. You are nodding. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. Ever since the Chavez regime, the security of 

the President and key leadership decisions are made in conjunction 

with Havana. 

Mr. YOHO. So I see the Venezuelan state as an extension of the 

Cuban state that has become stronger in their nature and are 

working through Venezuela. And we already know of Hezbollah 

coming through Venezuela, getting the Venezuelan passports, going 

to Canada. I mean, we know that is factual. 

63

Let us see. What do you think the misdirected foreign policy with 

Cuba from President Obama says to other countries that we have 

sanctions with? And Iran, with the nuclear negotiations, Russia 

dealing with Ukraine, China and the South China Sea and what 

they are doing in there, how does that affect all of our other relationships with those countries? Just quickly, all four of you, if you 

can. 

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, again, going back to my earlier point about 

the Cuban penetration of the National Reconnaissance Office, the 

Cuban leadership takes an intelligence-centric view of the world. 

And so their takeaway on this penetration was, after their agent 

having been caught, we immediately entered into secret negotiations, so they see this as a reward. And it is hard for them to separate the two. I would suggest that they won’t separate the two. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, and then you get somebody like Raul Castro, 

giving the demands when the sanctions can’t—well, we will take 

the sanctions if you do this and this, and it just—it is ludicrous. 

Mr. Mene ́ndez? 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. I think the negotiations, in and of themselves, 

are a victory, whether they get anything or not. I think it is just 

being able to sit down with the United States and say, ‘‘Look, we 

are legitimate.’’ And that is the message that is being sent throughout Latin America, that——

Mr. YOHO. Well, and then look at Iran. I mean, in that negotiation, they are saying, ‘‘Well, heck, you guys gave up the farm here. 

We are just going to hold those. We will just be silent.’’

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. We are 0 for two. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Azel? 

Mr. AZEL. One terrible message that the new policy has just sent 

to Latin America, and the rest of the world, is that taking American hostages can be very rewarding as it has been for Cuba. 

Mr. YOHO. I agree. Ambassador Hays, I have got another question for you, if you don’t mind. You say you see a democratic Cuba 

in the future. What has to happen for that—in order for that to 

occur? I mean, what are the dynamics that you see transpiring? 

Mr. HAYS. Well, I mean, there are a lot of possibilities. Not all 

of them are good. There could be chaos in the wake of a collapse 

of the regime. Again, because Cuba for so long has been at a point 

where there is basically the Castro brothers, and the two of them 

are one individual, when they are gone, obviously you are going to 

have different groups that have different aspirations. 

Unfortunately, at the moment, all of them tend to be the senior 

military command, and I think that is what is most likely to follow 

from that. But Cuba also has a very rich history of dissent of people who are prepared to stand up and fight for their freedom and 

their neighbors’ freedom. That is who I think we should be supporting. That is who I would put my bets on——

Mr. YOHO. Let me add this to——

Mr. HAYS [continuing]. To do this. 

Mr. YOHO. Do you see that happening? All four of you, will that 

happen if America continues to decline in strength and we have a 

foreign policy that confuses not just our allies but the people that 

aren’t real friendly to us. Do you see that happening in Cuba? 

64

Mr. HAYS. I think the United States—the United States is the 

primary force in the world pushing for democracy and human 

rights. And if we lose that position, I don’t think there is anyone 

that can take our place or would take our place. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Azel? 

Mr. AZEL. I think there is a misunderstanding in our foreign policy that diplomatic engagements and commercial relationships 

leads inexorably to political reforms. Our engagement with China 

and with Vietnam for nearly 40 years now has shown that that is 

demonstrably false. 

Mr. YOHO. I am out of time, and I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

And we will go to the last Member of Congress, Mr. Smith, for 

5 minutes. 

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

You know, Ambassador Hays, you may recall I held a series of 

hearings on the Castro-Clinton accords, and I appreciate the very 

principled stand you took to express your profound displeasure, especially when the benign treatment when a forcible repatriation 

was about to occur via a U.S. Coast Guard cutter that—and we 

know—and I remember asking, how do we know that once that 

person is returned that they are not beaten to a pulp and tortured 

and sent to—you know, to prison for a very long time. And there 

was never a good answer. 

So thank you for your leadership on that. That accord between 

Bill Clinton and Castro is infamous—infamous. We enable dictatorship and people fleeing dictatorship, and we sent them back, in violation of refoulement and every other principle of protecting true 

refugees. So thank you for your principled stand. 

You know, several delegations are likely to make their way, and 

I don’t know if I will ever get a visa. What would be your 

thoughts—you know, when Ronald Reagan and Shultz went to the 

Soviet Union—and that was at the—you know, the Cold War was 

obviously fever pitched, nuclear weapons faced at both nations, 

really throughout the world, but the Soviet Union and the U.S., 

and yet we made Soviet Jews and human rights the centerpiece of 

our policy. 

Whenever Shultz and others—Secretary Shultz went there, and 

I went to the Soviet Union many times, and the East Bloc countries, they always met very publicly with the dissidents. Please, 

your thoughts on delegations asking to visit the prisoners, one; and 

those who are dissidents out of prison in a very public way—I 

mean, we had Artunez testify at my hearing just a few weeks ago. 

What a courageous man, 17 years in prison, and he talked about 

the very special brand of racism practiced by the Castro brothers 

against Afro-Cubans. 

Dr. Bicet, who we also had appear via a phone hookup, after 

spending all of those years in prison, he talked about that very special Afro-Cuban discrimination by the regime, which is in a league 

of its own in terms of its insidious nature. So if you could speak 

to that as well. 

The lessons learned, Bill Clinton, in May 26, 1994, shelved—

ripped up his own Executive Order linking human rights with 

65

trade. I can tell you beyond any—I think I have held 49 hearings 

on human rights abuses in China. They don’t have a free internet. 

It is absolutely controlled by the government. The Great Chinese 

Firewall is intact and, regrettably, catching dissidents and Falun 

Gong and everybody else every day of the week. It is like a portal 

into the individual’s home or if they go to a cafe and sign in. 

Why didn’t we learn the lesson? I mentioned Vietnam before, but 

China as well. China is one of the most egregious violators of 

human rights in the entire world. They have—the Laogai is filled 

to overflowing with political prisoners, labor activists, Falun Gong, 

religious—Catholic Christian, you name it. They are all suffering 

if they speak out against the regime, and now they are exporting 

their brand of dictatorship to Africa, or trying to, and elsewhere 

around the world. 

We know for a fact the Europeans, the Canadians, traded to 

their heart’s content with Cuba. There was no amelioration of the 

human rights abuses because of that. If anything, they got hard 

currency to continue on. Again, I thought The Washington Post editorial just the other day about the lifeline that has been extended 

to the Castro brothers and those who follow the dictatorship was 

very much on point. So if you could speak to that as well——

Mr. HAYS. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. And——

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Please. 

Mr. HAYS. You know, I remember the story that this Russian dissident, Sharansky, tells about when he was in the Gulag, and his 

jailers came to him and laughed because President Reagan had 

called the Soviet Union the ‘‘evil empire’’ and they were making 

fun of this. But the message that Sharansky and the other political 

prisoners took is that there was someone out there who actually 

cared about them. 

I cannot overstress the importance for someone who is a political 

prisoner to know that someone is aware of their fate. There is nothing worse than being felt that you have been abandoned and forgotten. So I would certainly encourage every delegation that goes to 

Cuba to insist on seeing not just the dissidents but also perhaps 

getting into the prison. 

And, very quickly, I am often approached by people, you know, 

‘‘I am going to Cuba, and I am’’—I say, ‘‘Look, if you are going to 

go to Cuba, here is what I would like you to do. I would like you 

to carry a box of Spanish language books with you. And when you 

get to Cuba, just pass them out on the street or give them to an 

independent library along the way, and you will have done some 

good.’’

But if you want the true Cuban experience, tell the Customs officer on your arrival that that is what you intend to do. I have yet 

to have anybody come back and tell me they have successfully done 

this. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. AZEL. So we tend to look at foreign policy through the lenses 

of our own cultural experience, and we tend to think as Americans 

that if we can just sit down and talk we can solve all the problems. 

66

We fail to realize that when dealing with totalitarian regimes like 

China and Cuba, that is not the case. 

Mr. MENE ́ NDEZ. I think what Ambassador Hays just said, I want 

to just add to it. And I would recommend to you that the entire 

committee make a serious demand, and that demand is that the 

International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed into Cuban 

prisons. And I think that is something that could be done on a bipartisan basis and would seriously, seriously aid those inside the 

prisons. 

Mr. SIMMONS. And I would agree and simply add that any time 

you are dealing with a police state, when you are silent on human 

rights, that is all the applause they need. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to—first off, I want to thank Mr. Castro for filling in for 

Mr. Sires as the ranking member, and welcome to that chair. I also 

want to thank Albio Sires for his leadership on the Cuban issue 

from the minority side. He has been a valuable source of information for me personally, and I hated he had to leave. 

I also want to thank T&I Committee for allowing us to use the 

committee room today, and Chairman Shuster, so that is on the 

record. 

And pursuant to Committee Rule 7, members of the subcommittee are permitted to submit written statements for the 

record, and we are going to hold that open for 5 business days for 

any statements, questions, or extraneous materials to be submitted 

for the record and subject to the length limitation in the rules. 

I want to thank the witnesses and the panel today, because you 

provided some valuable information. It was a great exchange on 

both sides of the aisle here, and we are going to continue delving 

into this Cuba policy and what it means to the Cuban people and 

what it could possibly mean to relations and national security for 

the United States, which was the focus of our hearing today. 

So I want to thank the members for participating. And without 

any further business, we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(67)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

68

f


93534n.eps
69

f


93534m.eps
70

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


93534e-1.eps
71

f


93534e-2.eps
72

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Æ


93534f.eps