U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–292—PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–937

PROMOTING AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL AND

MEDICAL EXPORTS TO CUBA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 1673

DECEMBER 11, 2007

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

RON WYDEN, Oregon

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine

JON KYL, Arizona

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from Iowa ................................................. 2

WITNESSES

Wilkerson, Col. Lawrence (Ret.), former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State

Colin Powell; and co-chair, U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative, New

America Foundation, Washington, DC ............................................................... 3

Suchlicki, Dr. Jaime, professor of history and director, Institute for Cuban

and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami, Miami, FL ..................... 5

Lazo, Sgt. Carlos, Washington State National Guard, Lynnwood, WA .............. 7

McClure, David, president, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Lewistown,

MT ......................................................................................................................... 9

Calzon, Frank, executive director, Center for a Free Cuba, Washington, DC ... 10

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL

Baucus, Hon. Max:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff:

Letter to Senators Hatch and Leahy from Donald R. Dinan, dated August

4, 2004 ............................................................................................................ 25

Bunning, Hon. Jim:

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Calzon, Frank:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 29

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 36

Grassley, Hon. Chuck:

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2

Lazo, Sgt. Carlos:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 44

McClure, David:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 66

Suchlicki, Dr. Jaime:

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 68

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 84

Wilkerson, Col. Lawrence (Ret.):

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement with attachment ............................................................. 87

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 96

COMMUNICATION

de la Pen ̃ a, Miriam and Mario ................................................................................ 99

(1)

PROMOTING AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL AND

MEDICAL EXPORTS TO CUBA

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC.

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Salazar, Grassley, Bunning, and Crapo.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order.

A little more than 2,000 years ago, the Roman author, Publius

Syrus said, ‘‘It is folly to punish your neighbor by fire when you

live next door.’’ We are here today to consider one of our neighbors,

Cuba. We are here to consider whether or policies toward this

neighbor commit the folly against which Syrus warned.

Many aspects of the government’s Cuba policy are, indeed, folly.

The government’s policy is stuck in the past and it no longer makes

sense for either Cubans or Americans. It undermines America’s

economic competitiveness and does not help promote our overall

foreign policy goals.

It is high time to rethink Cuba policy and direct it toward today’s

realities and opportunities. Most importantly, we have to look at

how our policy affects our economy and our competitiveness. For

instance, American businesses can neither export to, nor invest in,

the Cuban market of 11 million people. We sit on the sidelines

while our competitors, Canada, China and Brazil, take full advantage of our absence.

American farmers and ranchers are supposed to be one exception

to this policy. Congress enacted landmark legislation in 2000 to

make agriculture sales to Cuba possible. But in stark defiance of

Congressional intent, the administration enacted rules in 2005 to

make such sales extremely difficult. As a result, our own government’s rules give farmers and ranchers in other countries a competitive advantage over American farmers and ranchers. It makes

no sense.

We must also rethink the travel ban and how it affects American

families. How does it affect Cuban families? How does it affect

American business people, students, and missionaries? How does

preventing approximately 1 million Americans a year from traveling to Cuba actually encourage positive change on the island?
2

Finally, let’s think about the big picture. Do sanctions make

sense in today’s economy? How does our Cuba policy fit in with our

larger policy goals? What signals does it send to the world, and

what signals does it send to our neighbors?

I have thought carefully about our Cuba policy and I have seen

the problems up close on several visits to Cuba, but I have also

seen opportunities. That is why I, along with Senator Crapo and

other colleagues of the Finance Committee, introduced legislation

this year, the ‘‘Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2007,’’ to address these very real problems and

opportunities.

Today’s hearing examines the issues raised in this bill, including

agricultural sales and the travel ban. We have invited a distinguished panel of witnesses, three of whom have traveled from different corners of our country to represent a broad range of opinions.

Let me give a special welcome to a Montana farmer and my

friend, Dave McClure. He was in Cuba just last week with seven

other Montana farmers and ranchers, and I look forward to hearing, Dave, what you have to say.

My goal today is to begin to chart an effective way forward and

craft a policy that avoids Syrus’s folly. I hope we can put ideology

aside and make good, sound policy, policy that ignites possibilities,

not policy that stokes tensions. Then we will not only have a better

policy and a stronger economy, we will also have a better neighbor.

I would like to turn to my colleague right now, Senator Grassley.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. Thank you very much.

I welcome our witnesses. Thank you all for coming, taking time

out of your busy schedule, some of you traveling awfully long distances to be here. The committee appreciates your efforts.

Our current policy towards Cuba is designed to weaken the dictatorial regime of Fidel Castro and brother Raul Castro. In order

to isolate the Castro government, we significantly restricted our

economic interaction with Cuba, even including travel to that country. Some in Congress have questioned this policy. They contend

that the continuing to hold power by Fidel and Raul demonstrates

that our policies are not working. They have called, in varying degrees, for changes in our relationship with Cuba.

Now, in my judgment, is not the time to pull back on our efforts

to put pressure on the Cuban government. After all, although Fidel

Castro has provisionally passed the reigns of power to his brother

Raul, the Cuban government remains as oppressive as ever.

Given the current leadership situation in Cuba, now is perhaps

an appropriate time to review the status of our bilateral negotiations. Chairman Baucus has sparked this discussion by introducing

his bill entitled ‘‘Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2007.’’ This bill focuses largely on agricultural

trade between our two countries.

Over the years, I have supported efforts to expand exports of

U.S. agricultural commodities to Cuba. Iowa farmers have bene-
3

fitted from agricultural sales in that country that were made possible through this enactment.

In addition, the lifting of restrictions on U.S. food exports has

served humanitarian purposes. Cuba’s socialist agricultural system

is inefficient, and U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba provide needed

nutrition for Cuban people. Likewise, I supported, for humanitarian reasons, the ability of U.S. exporters to ship medicines and

medical supplies to Cuba.

That said, going beyond that, I am very skeptical of efforts to further broaden our bilateral economic relationships until we see

meaningful democratic reform in Cuba. I know free elections might

be inimical to some countries. We may do a lot of trade relations

with countries that don’t necessarily have free elections, but I want

to see some movement towards freedom in Cuba before I make any

additional moves because of the appalling human rights situation

there.

I look forward to this hearing, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman,

for keeping this issue before us, because sometime there’s going to

be greater freedom in Cuba, and thinking about what we are going

to do in anticipation of that is a very good move that requires leadership like yours. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Grassley.

Now I will turn to the panel. We fortunately have a very distinguished group of witnesses. Clearly, we all look forward to hearing

their testimony.

Today’s panel begins with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who has

served as Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. He currently acts as co-chair of the U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative at the New America Foundation. Next, Dr. Jaime Suchlicki,

professor of history and director of the Institute for Cuban and

Cuban-American Affairs at the University of Miami. The third witness is Sergeant Carlos Lazo, a member of the Washington National Guard and an Iraqi war veteran. Fourth, I have mentioned

earlier and will do it again, Dave McClure, president of the Montana Farm Bureau. It is good to see Dave, as always. Finally, we

welcome Mr. Frank Calzon, executive director of the Center for a

Free Cuba.

I would remind everybody, your full statements will be included

in the record. I would encourage you to limit your oral testimony

to 5 minutes, and let us have a good hearing here.

Colonel Wilkerson, you are first.

STATEMENT OF COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET.), FORMER

CHIEF OF STAFF TO SECRETARY OF STATE COLIN POWELL;

AND CO-CHAIR, U.S.-CUBA 21st CENTURY POLICY INITIATIVE,

NEW AMERICAN FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC

Col. WILKERSON. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. Let

me say that my perspective is that of a strategist. I was trained

as a strategist, educated as a strategist at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI, the finest educational institution for that purpose in America, as far as I am concerned.

I am a soldier of 31 years, with tours in Vietnam, Japan, Korea,

and elsewhere. I come at this from a strategic point of view and

I come at it from the point of view of a realist.
4

So, with due diligence done, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that for

almost half a century U.S. policy towards Cuba has failed, and

failed miserably. The latest indicator of that failed policy is that

while our President talks of transforming the regime in Cuba, he

is apparently unaware that Cuba has already undergone regime

change and the Cuban people await, with no small degree of excitement, what their new leader, Raul Castro, through the existing

ministries, the legislature and the bureaucracy, will do, particularly—particularly—with regard to reshaping the Cuban economy,

something that already started once Soviet subsidies were removed.

Other countries, too, await that reshaping, having carefully positioned themselves to take advantage of the changes that are occurring. No place in Cuba is more indicative of this burgeoning change

and of these poised countries than Havana Vieja, or Old Havana,

the portion of the city which literally exhales the long-ago past. It

is stunning, what the Cubans are doing with the help of foreign investors in restoring this part of Havana.

Yet, while we have significant relations on almost every level—

I was just in Beijing, for example—with communist countries

10,000 miles away, Vietnam included, we have almost no relations

with the 11 million souls on an island 90 miles off our southern

coast where all this dynamism is occurring. Cubans on the island

are energetic, talented, hardworking. We have not, through our

failed policy, as we intended to do, stolen all of their brain power

over the last almost 50 years.

Because of our failed Cuba policy, we miss valuable opportunities

to share Cuba’s rapidly growing store of knowledge with regard to

delivering health care to deeply impoverished areas, something we

could use some of, in places like Mississippi, Alabama, rural areas,

inner cities.

We have not explored the opportunities to the fullest in vaccine

development, something the Cubans are doing quite well. We are

not sharing in Cuba’s rather extraordinary knowledge of how to

deal with hurricanes and the floods that accompany them. We

turned down the offer, for example, of Cuba for help with Katrina

and Rita.

We have not explored the opportunities that might exist in

searching for non-renewable fossil fuels in Cuba’s continental shelf.

We impose some rather onerous restrictions on selling our agricultural products. We could do it in a much more cost-effective way

and in a way that, even more importantly, would benefit the island’s population.

We also, because of our failed policy, miss a range of broader opportunities to cooperate in the development in Cuba of a robust infrastructure for a growing tourist trade, as well as to assist the Cubans more generally as they reshape their economy, an opportunity

not lost by a number of other countries, as the Chairman pointed

out. In fact, it strikes me as particularly ironic that the one country

that votes with us consistently in the U.N., with our lonely, lonely

vote—184:4 I believe was the last vote—Israel, is actually participating in the Cuban economy in citrus farming and shopping center development. So, the leaders in Tel Aviv apparently are a little

bit smarter than the leaders in Washington.
5

And there is still much more to what we as a country are missing with regard to Cuba because there is a prospect of an existing

opportunity lying across the Florida Straits. That is an opening to

a brand-new approach to all of Latin America, a region of the world

that the U.S. needs to address in a far more successful way than

it has in the last few decades.

One of our own cities has become, in almost every significant aspect, the capital of that region. One need only examine the aviation

routes that start, end, and criss-cross Miami to understand how

important this new development is, or consider for a few moments

that in the next 2 to 3 decades our own public school population

will be more than 50 percent non-Caucasian, or my armed forces—

your armed forces—will go, one West Point study shows and I

think it is fairly accurate, in the next 20 years from being heavily

dependent on its African American minority in its enlisted ranks

to being very heavily dependent upon Hispanic minorities in its enlisted ranks. So we need to take advantage of this opportunity to

open a new policy with Latin America.

There is an opening to do that, in my view. A rapprochement

with Cuba, however gradually—and I do believe it should occur

gradually for a number of reasons I would be glad to explore with

you—would create the same opening in Latin America that a final

settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue would create in the Middle East.

I am not sufficiently naive to believe that either development

would solve all the problems in either area, but I do believe both

would have a dramatic impact on a new policy, and a new policy

in both areas is desperately needed. Both would give America a decisive leg up on regaining some of the prestige and power we have

lost through squandering in the world in the past 7 years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Col. Wilkerson. That was really interesting. I really appreciate that, very much. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Col. Wilkerson appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Suchlicki? Am I pronouncing it correctly?

Dr. SUCHLICKI. You have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor, very much.

STATEMENT OF DR. JAIME SUCHLICKI, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR CUBAN AND CUBANAMERICAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, MIAMI, FL

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, and thank you to

the members of the committee for the opportunity to be here.

Let me pick up on your original statement about American foreign policy, and specifically toward Latin America. Since the late

1970s and the administrations of Presidents Ford and Carter, U.S.

foreign policy towards Latin America, distinct from foreign policy

toward the rest of the world, has changed. Instead of supporting

dictatorships, which we had for the first half of the century, we

turned to supporting democracy, elections, and freedom in Latin

America—human rights.

This has been consistently our policy for the past 30 years. We

have intervened, both under Democratic and Republican adminis-
6

trations, in various countries in Latin America—Panama, Haiti,

and Grenada—to restore democratic governments. We have gotten

involved in the electoral process in the Dominican Republic and in

Peru to prevent military coups and to sustain free elections.

What message will we be sending to Latin America and the rest

of the world if we now turn to support Cuba? There has been a succession in Cuba. There has been no change. Raul Castro, the head

of the armed forces, is now running Cuba. This is a succession and

not a transition. This is a general. Cuba is controlled now by a

military regime led by Fidel’s brother, Raul Castro. Cuba, for the

past 47 years, has been a steadfast enemy of the United States. It

has been involved in supporting terrorists and guerrilla groups in

Latin America, in the Middle East, in other parts of the world.

With the support of the Soviet Union, it introduced 300,000

troops in Angola to support the coming to power of a communist

regime. This is not the result of American foreign policy, this is a

result of Castro’s anti-Americanism. Here is a leader that, since he

was a student at the University of Havana in 1948, distributed

anti-U.S. propaganda in Bogota. This is a leader who, while he was

in the mountains fighting against Batista, wrote ‘‘my real destiny

and my real struggle will be once I come to power, and that is to

fight the United States.’’

This is a leader who has opened the door to the PLO. The Jewish

Center in Havana is now the headquarters for the PLO. It has allowed the ETA, the Spanish terrorist organization, to operate in

Cuba, the IRA to operate in Cuba. This is a leader who has sent

Cuban troops to Syria to support Syria during the Yom Kippur

War against Israel. Fidel Castro has not given up on his antiAmericanism. He has been a steadfast leader against the United

States. Throughout the world, Cuba’s embassies are devoted to undermining U.S. influence, U.S. interests throughout the world.

We should not offer unilateral concessions to the Cuban government. If the Cuban government is willing to open up, democratize,

open up the political process, open up the economic process, we

should reciprocate. But to provide unilateral concessions without

any opening in Cuba at a time that the regime is even more repressive than it has ever been, when they are arresting dissidents,

when they are violating churches and arresting people just for

wearing a bracelet that calls for ‘‘cambio,’’ I think it would send the

wrong message to the world. It would send the wrong message to

our Latin American friends.

The policy of the United States is not only trade and business.

Business is not America’s only policy. America’s policy—and we

stand for freedom, human rights, respect for law, and our National

security, so it is not only a matter of selling our products. It is a

matter of doing what is right, and especially that for 35 years that

has been the policy in the hemisphere. We do not want to send the

wrong message, that we support a military dictatorship and we foster dictatorship in Cuba.

The embargo is not the cause of Cuba’s suffering. The cause of

the Cuban suffering is a system that has failed, not differently

from what happened in Eastern Europe. The Cuban system does

not produce, the Cuban system is not productive. State enterprises

do not produce. That is the reason why there is an economic failure
7

in Cuba. If Castro and his brother were to unleash the capabilities

of the Cuban people, we would see a different Cuba.

The fact that there are no mangoes and no potatoes and no bananas in Cuba has nothing to do with the embargo. The real embargo is what Castro has on the Cuban people, an embargo on the

control of the economy, an embargo on the Internet, an embargo on

learning and listening to the world. That is the real problem and

the real embargo.

So I call for American foreign policy to wait until there is a regime that is willing to negotiate with the United States, willing to

offer irreversible concessions. Embargo is the tool that the United

States has: trade, investment, tourism, credits, loans. This is what

we have to force a regime to come around and to change its policy.

We have waited so long. Let us wait a little longer until there is

a regime in Cuba willing to change its policy and to offer us irreversible concessions.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I would not mind taking a course

from you.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Any time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Suchlicki appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Sergeant Lazo?

STATEMENT OF SGT. CARLOS LAZO, WASHINGTON STATE

NATIONAL GUARD, LYNNWOOD, WA

Sgt. LAZO. My name is Carlos Lazo. I am a Cuban American. I

live in Seattle, WA. I am a proud member of our State’s National

Guard and serve as a sergeant and combat medic.

I speak to you this morning as a private citizen, someone who

sacrificed to come here, who believes in his obligation as a father,

who loves our country, and who believes strongly that it is wrong,

morally wrong, for the United States to divide Cuban families. This

is an injustice that I believe you must address.

I arrived in the U.S. on a raft in 1991. I came in search of freedom and greater opportunities. In 1988, I served a year in a Cuban

prison for attempting to leave the country legally. When I left

Cuba, I also left members of my family, including my two sons.

Since then, I have maintained a close relationship with them, visiting whenever I could and supporting them economically.

In 2000, I enlisted in the Washington National Guard. In 2003,

my brigade was mobilized as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We

arrived in Iraq at the beginning of 2004. After spending several

months there, during my 2 weeks of R&R, I returned from the Middle East with plans of visiting my two sons in Cuba, as I was legally allowed to do. I flew all the way from Iraq to Miami, intending to board a plane to Havana from there.

By that time, though, our government had imposed new restrictions limiting traveling to the island. These new regulations,

among other things, limited family visits by Cuban Americans to

once every 3 years. I had a ticket, but I was not even allowed to

board the charter flight to Cuba. I had to go back to the war without any chance of reuniting with my two sons in Havana, with a
8

possibility of giving what could have been my last hug to both of

them.

I returned to Iraq to fight for freedom, to fight for my adoptive

country and to promote American values and ideas. I served, and

I survived. After more than a year, I completed my tour of duty in

Iraq. I tried once more to visit my sons and family in Cuba, but

I was again denied the license to do so. Not even the fact that one

of my sons was very ill in a hospital in Havana was good enough

reason for our government to allow me to spend a few hours to

travel to Cuba. These Cuba travel restrictions make no exceptions

for humanitarian reasons.

Since I last visited my family in Cuba in 2003, I was forced to

wait until 2006 to be eligible for my next visit. Later, after battling

for many months in order to visit my sons in Cuba, I was finally

granted the chance to bring them to live with me in the U.S. I am

deeply grateful for this, but I am a member of a very fortunate minority. The majority of Cuban American families do not have this

privilege, and they find themselves unable to visit their families if

they happen to live in Cuba.

What does this mean, no humanitarian exceptions? For example,

if I visited my father in Cuba, and 3 months later he were to die,

there is no legal or humanitarian mechanism in place which would

allow me to go to his funeral. This license may be granted, but once

every 3 years, and there are no exceptions.

This regulation was supposed to deprive the Cuban government

of money and thereby assist the so-called Cuban transition to a

more democratic society, but, after 40 years, all those years have

done is impose even greater suffering on Cuban Americans here

and their families on the island. The real victims of this cruelty are

not the Cuban government or its leadership, but Cuban families

and America’s highest ideals.

These restrictions are cruel, they are inhuman, they are irrational, and they are unjust, unmerciful. Rules that prevent families

from visiting, helping, and loving each other are un-American. But

you have the power to undo them. This rule may have not humanitarian sections, but I cannot believe there is no humanity here in

the U.S. Senate. With a great deal of respect, I implore you to

eliminate these restrictions so you can reunite Cuban families on

both sides of the Florida Strait.

I would like to conclude with this quote by Alex Haley. He said,

‘‘In every conceivable manner, the family is a link to our past, a

bridge to our future.’’

Let me leave you with a question. Will America allow the future

to be defined by the cruelty of these regulations or would we instead win over our enemies with the love that a united family provides? Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Sergeant. That was very moving.

Thank you very, very much. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Sgt. Lazo appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClure?
9

STATEMENT OF DAVID McCLURE, PRESIDENT, MONTANA

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, LEWISTOWN, MT

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. It is always a thrill to come to Washington and participate in the democratic process, and I have come a distance.

It is my pleasure to offer testimony supporting the ‘‘Promoting

American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act.’’ My name

is David McClure. I am president of the Montana Farm Bureau

Federation, and a wheat farmer from Lewistown, MT.

The last week in November, I had the opportunity to travel to

Cuba with Senator Baucus’s Finance Committee staff and see firsthand the importance of promoting agricultural relations with Cuba

and the vast potential for expanding U.S. agricultural exports to

Cuba. Both goals will directly help American agricultural producers

and the Cuban people.

Foreign policy towards Cuba and unilateral sanctions is clear: we

support immediate resumption of normal trading relations with

Cuba. We believe all agricultural products should be exempt from

all embargoes and unilateral sanctions, except in case of armed

conflict. In short, food should not be used as a weapon.

We have rather attractive prices now in beef, wheat, and other

products, but now is not the time to let up on expanding markets,

as those increased prices for our products will ensure that we

produce more. So, now is the time to try to develop those additional

markets.

Our Montana trip to Cuba, I am convinced, will produce sales for

many Montana producers of seed potatoes, barley malt, perhaps

some high-end pork cuts, beef genetics, and peas and lentils. Those

are some specialty products that I am convinced we will be able to

move into that area. We believe that the United States is a natural

supplier of agricultural products to Cuba just because of location.

I did travel to a neutral location in Mexico in 2002 and met with

the officials of Alimport of Cuba, their importing officials. There

was interest then, but I see increased interest in importing products from the United States today just because of the increased

cost of fuel, increased ocean freight charges. They are looking at a

more reasonable supplier, and we think that we can do that.

Most contracts made with the Cuban government for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products have used payment in cash in

advance as a method of payments. Under its original interpretation, U.S. agricultural products could be shipped to Cuba, but all

certificates, title, and ownership could only be transferred once

payment was received from Cuba. This has resulted in the loss of

sales, putting U.S. agricultural producers in a position of being

viewed as an unreliable supplier.

Another problem is that most of our buyers are allowed to come

to the United States, look at our production and our food safety facilities. We would like to see the travel restrictions relaxed so that

Cuban purchasers can come to the United States, tour our facilities, and we can give them reliable sales of our products. Denial

of visas associated with those commercial visits is contrary to how

we do business with any other country.

The Cuban market must remain open for export sales of U.S.

food and agricultural commodities. Maintaining our current trade
10

with Cuba and taking steps to lift the restrictions to trade that remain are needed in order to improve our bilateral relationship with

Cuba and foster democratic reform. Agricultural trade is a great

first step.

I appreciate your time and look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dave, very much. I appreciate it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure appears in the appendix.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Calzon?

STATEMENT OF FRANK CALZON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

CENTER FOR A FREE CUBA, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. CALZON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.

Grassley. I am delighted to be here. Thank you for the opportunity

to appear before the committee.

I am the executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of human rights on

the island.

Many have called in recent days for an investigation of the CIA

burning of interrogation tapes of enemy combatants, but this is not

the only intelligence matter that Congress has to look into. Why

not ask the intelligence community to disclose the full damage done

by Ana Belen Montes, a high-level intelligence analyst serving a

25-year sentence for spying for Havana?

She divulged American secrets and prepared numerous reports

for the Pentagon that were sometimes leaked. She helped shape

the debate on Cuba. Congress should realize that the arguments

advanced sometimes by others were, actually, earlier advanced by

her. It is simply recycled Cuban government disinformation.

The Department of State lists the Castro dynasty as a ‘‘State

Sponsor of Terrorism.’’ The Castro brothers provide a safe haven

for U.S. fugitives, including killers of American police officers. The

Castro brothers have murdered American citizens and nurtured

like-minded anti-American regimes. The Castros’ support for terrorism and their cooperation with violent anti-American groups

and regimes cannot be swept under the carpet.

What is happening outside of these chambers should be taken

into account in this discussion. There has been a renewal of political repression on the island. As Dr. Suchlicki indicated, Cuban police just a couple of days ago broke into a Catholic church and took

away, beating up, a number of Cubans. Other dissidents were detained just yesterday.

But Cuba’s peaceful opposition has not been cowed. The European Union has awarded, in recent years, Cuban opposition leaders

with the distinguished Sahkarov award. The Europeans have conditioned Havana’s admittance to a tariff accord on respect for minimal human rights standards.

The Europeans are not offering unilateral concessions to Havana.

They want to see some change before they give some benefit to the

regime. The President, just a few days ago, awarded the Medal of

Freedom to Oscar Elias Biscet, an Amnesty International prisoner

of conscience sentenced to 25 years. This is not the time for the

U.S. to cuddle Havana. As Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has
11

said, ‘‘In Cuba, Fidel Castro is still the one man through whom everything has to go. Any trade that goes through Cuba is going to

strengthen Cuba’s regime.’’

Or as former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote in a 2002 letter to Congress, ‘‘Trade by other nations with Cuba has brought no

change to Cuba’s despotic practices.’’ Secretary Powell said, ‘‘Two

governments have approached the United States to complain that

Cuba’s payments of cash for U.S. agricultural products have meant

that they are not getting paid at all. . . .’’ The Cuban government

is robbing Paul to pay Peter.

‘‘The lack of a sound economic rationale,’’ said Secretary Powell,

‘‘makes it more likely that Castro will use any liberalizing of our

trade position for his political benefit.’’ I believe we ought to pay

attention to what Secretary Powell said.

The situation has not changed since then. I would like to ask

that the letter of Secretary Powell be included in the record of this

hearing.

Senator GRASSLEY. Without objection.

[The letter appears in the appendix on p. 33.]

Mr. CALZON. Thank you, Senator.

I also deplore the tendency of some members of Congress who

want to assert not only the responsibilities of the Secretary of

State, but the duties of consular officers responsible for issuing

visas. Congressional micromanagement of foreign policy is a mistake. Cuba should not be an exception to U.S. restrictions in State

sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and North Korea.

It is wrong, in the aftermath of the vote of the Venezuelan people, to send a message that a regime could bring the world to the

edge of nuclear armageddon, confiscate American property, murder

Americans, and while it continues its anti-American campaigns the

U.S will reward it with business as usual and access to U.S. financial institutions.

Ordering the executive branch to facilitate travel to the U.S. by

Castro’s government officials denies the President of the United

States one of the few levers he has to influence the regime’s behavior. At the very least, these hearings need to include a review of

the lack of reciprocity in the treatment of American diplomats stationed in Cuba and Castro’s government officials, including Castro’s diplomats in the United States.

The U.S. diplomatic pouch has been broken into. Is this the time

to reward such behavior? Havana is broke. If the U.S. were to facilitate trade with the Castro brothers outside current guidelines,

it could end up holding the bag at the end of a long line of creditors.

Some of the trade with Havana, Senators, is likely to have violated American law. I urge you to ask the Justice Department to

look into it. At least in one case, a multi-million dollar sale was

canceled when a company executive discovered their export deal included the commitment to lobby the U.S. in exchange for Castro’s

business. That is illegal. American exporters believe they are selling products. The Castro brothers believe they are hiring advocates

and lobbyists.

There is also the travel ban which U.S. courts have found constitutional. Cubans, like blacks during South Africa’s apartheid,
12

are not allowed to stay in hotels and other places set aside for tourists. Cuban nationals who have been granted political asylum in

the United States should not demand the right to travel on vacation to Cuba. Finally, Cuban Americans should be permitted limited travel to the island for emergency, humanitarian reasons, but

Cuban Americans should also fall under the ban that prohibits

American tourism to the island.

Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calzon appears in the appendix.]

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. I am going to ask questions, since

the Chairman stepped out momentarily. He will be right back.

I will start. Dr. Suchlicki—if I pronounced it right—to what extent does the Cuban government use our trade embargoes as a

scapegoat for economic conditions in that country? I will give you

an example. Earlier this year it was reported that the Cuban Communications Minister, Ramiro Valdes, insisted that if few Cubans

had Internet access, it was because the U.S. trade embargo prevented Cuba from having decent Internet connections.

How would you respond to that?

Dr. SUCHLICKI. That is nonsense, in one word. Look, the embargo

is not the cause of the problems of Cuba. The problems of Cuba are

a system that does not produce, that does not allow for productivity

of the Cuban people. The Cuban government controls the Internet

because they do not want alternate ideas to enter Cuba. They want

to control the thought processes. They write the books that the

children read. They control education at all levels. There is only

the government media. There is only radio controlled by the government. So, Cuba is a totalitarian country resembling North

Korea, not resembling any other democracies in Latin America.

Senator GRASSLEY. Also to you, Professor: proponents of lifting

the economic embargo argue that it would be win-win in that Cubans would have access to our products and U.S. exporters would

enjoy the benefits of more commercial sales. In practice, Cuba already has this type of trading relations with open market economies of Europe and Canada.

To what extent does Cuba’s performance as a trading partner of

Europe and Canada undermine that argument, and more specifically, what is to guarantee that, if we lift the embargo, our exporters would actually be paid by the Cubans?

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Well, let us distinguish between paying in cash,

which Cuba does now and is buying all kinds of agricultural products in the United States for cash—if the United States were to

provide Cuba credit, Cuba is a deadbeat country. It owes the rest

of the world. In 1991, I was invited to Moscow to go talk to the

Russian leadership, and they were worried about the $19 billion

that Cuba owed them. I told them they would never collect.

Two months ago, I had a delegation of Japanese foreign ministry

people saying, oh, Cuba owes us $2 or $3 billion, how can we collect

on this debt? I said, you are never going to collect. We did a study

at the University of Miami, which I would like to introduce into the

record, if you do not mind, dealing with the countries that Cuba

owes money to, starting with Venezuela, $6 billion; Japan, $2.2 billion; Spain, $2 billion; Argentina, $1.9 billion; China, $1.7 billion;

France, $1.4 billion, and on, and on, and on. Cuba owes everybody,
13

and Cuba does not have the capacity or the will to pay any of these

countries. So, this report, if you will allow me——

Senator GRASSLEY. We will take it however under the rules we

take studies like that, yes.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. All right.

[The study appears in the appendix on p. 76.]

Senator GRASSLEY. Colonel Wilkerson, you state in your testimony that our policy with respect to Cuba has failed miserably, yet

you do not address why you draw that conclusion. You also state

that our Cuba policy ‘‘is just as responsible for keeping Castro in

power as Castro himself, perhaps more so.’’

Europe and Canada have traded openly with Cuba for years, yet

the Castro government remains in power. Does that not undermine

your assertion? I have a couple more questions. Are there not other

factors influencing here? For example, what role has financial support from Venezuela, and previously from the Soviet Union, had to

keep Castro in power?

Separately, I note that Amnesty International cites Cuba for imposing severe restrictions on freedom of expression and association,

harassing and intimidating dissidents and activists, and detaining

scores of people without charges on suspicion of counter-revolutionary activities.

The Cuban government has also restricted free travel within its

territory for representatives of the human rights organizations. To

what extent have such oppressive government policies helped to

keep Castro in power? Then that will be my last question.

Col. WILKERSON. All right. First of all, I would like to just throw

out the possibility that Argentina, Canada, and other countries

doing business with Cuba sort of belies the fact that they are not

being paid. I really do not think I would be continuing to do business with a country that did not make good on its debts.

I would also point out that my latest briefing from the CIA, even,

indicates that Cuban growth is somewhere in the high single digits,

if not the low teens right now. And of course, Cuba’s official figures

are somewhere around 12, 13 percent. There is no question that

once Soviet subsidies were withdrawn, that Cuba had enormous

problems.

It is a subject that I think medical personnel are going to be

studying in the future. Medical personnel on the island are already

studying it. Nutrition alone, the deficiency in nutrition alone,

caused Cubans to have an island-wide, almost, weight loss and

caused certain diseases to erupt that had not erupted before, and

caused other diseases to come back that they thought were licked,

because the subsidies being pulled out so abruptly essentially sent

Cuba into a tailspin.

But that is the past, just as I think Fidel Castro is the past. I

doubt that he is going to survive another year or two. I think Raul

Castro is the past also. I think what we are looking at right now

is a situation on the island where the Cubans have, through their

talent, hard work, and energy essentially pulled themselves up by

their bootstraps, with some help from the Chinese, from Venezuela,

and others. I was impressed by the almost exquisite nature of the

barter agreement they have with Venezuela, for example.
14

They sit down and compute exactly how much some 20,000-plus

doctors and medical technicians and so forth operating in the

barrios—incidentally, where no doctors have operated in the past—

in Venezuela, bringing health care to people who have never had

health care before, how much that costs. Then they compute how

much the heavy fuel oil on the market costs and they exchange

heavy fuel oil for medical service. That is a pretty exquisite barter

relationship and it shows a lot of talent and skill in putting something together that keeps Cuba from sinking.

The other thing about the Soviet subsidies is, there is no question in my military mind that one of the reasons Fidel Castro went

abroad when he went abroad was not because he was an ardent

revolutionary seeking to bring to sub-Saharan Africa some kind of

Fidel Castro-like leadership. It was because the Soviet Union asked

him to. And since he was so beholden to the Soviet Union, he put

his soldiers wherever the Soviet Union asked him to put them.

Now for some reason—do not ask me why—he is putting doctors

where people ask him to put them. It is stunning, what he is doing

to our public diplomacy in Latin America with his public diplomacy

of medical personnel. When we send a hospital ship to call in a few

port cities around the perimeter of South America, it gets very little notice. When he sends 20,000 doctors to operate in poor areas

where they have never operated before, it gets a heck of a lot of

notice.

I would say that right now, in the realm of public diplomacy,

Fidel Castro, however much we may all hate him, is putting us to

shame. I do not care what his motivation is. I am a realist. I am

a strategist. We are losing the battle. We are losing the battle for

the hearts and minds of Latin America. It is not too difficult to see

when you are down there reading the headlines and reading the

newspapers.

We are also losing the battle with respect to what he is doing—

and I have to differ sharply here with what most Latin Americans

would say about the embargo on Cuba, because most Latin Americans would say it is nonsense. That is the reason the votes are 180

to 2, or 3, or 4 in the U.N., every time the embargo comes up. So

I have a very different view from a realistic point of view of what

we could do with that island to the south of Florida, if we were to

open up.

Let me just quote Colin Powell in a private conversation. He had

a conversation that was not written by Roger Noriega or Otto Reich

at the State Department. Colin Powell said, ‘‘It’s the dumbest policy on the face of the earth.’’ If we opened up, Fidel Castro, Raul

Castro, would be gone in a couple of years because they would be

drowned in what America’s opening up would put on that island.

In other words, if you open up and you flow freedom to them, freedom will happen.

If you close it down, if you shut it down, if you embargo, if you

continue to do that, all you are giving is the dictatorship more tools

with which to reinforce its own view of El Colosso del Norte and

its own view of how America operates in the world. And worse, you

are sending signals, much as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and

other signals we have sent recently.
15

You are sending signals to the rest of the world that we are lunatics. We do not understand the realities of power. We do not understand the realities of strategy in the world. We do not have a longterm plan. Our long-term plan is captured by Dade County, FL and

the few Cuban Americans who want to keep the policy that we

have right now. I do not think there is anybody in the world, from

Canada, to Tokyo, to Berlin who does not understand that, except

perhaps us here in Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Colonel, very much.

I have a question. When Congress passed the Trade Sanctions

Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, the Treasury Department issued regulations to implement it. I think the record will

show that sales really took off. I mean, it worked quite well. It took

off in 2001.

Then after several years of expanding farm sales to Cuba, Treasury changed its mind and issued a reinterpretation of the law in

2005. That is after the 2004 elections. Congress, including many

members of this committee, vigorously protested the new rule. We

feared it would result in reduced market share for U.S. agricultural

exports. It turned out we were right.

I am told that before the rule was implemented, there was an

interagency discussion that included the State Department. For 3

years, Colonel, I have been trying to get a straight answer. If you

could shed some light on this, I think it would be very helpful.

Who is driving this process, this change? Who made the decision,

essentially, to sacrifice the interests of farmers and ranchers with

this new policy that shut us out of Cuba and which dramatically

limited the ability of American farmers and ranchers, even on a

cash basis, to sell to Cuba?

Col. WILKERSON. Like so many things with this administration,

I could never take this into a courtroom and expect a conviction.

But it is my very firm view that some people who wanted to reward

voters in Florida, not just for 2004 but for 2000 as well, and Roger

Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, were at the heart of this. Otto Reich before him—and Karl

Rove was involved—decided that the best way to pay back those

voters in Florida was, in fact, to tighten everywhere they could

tighten with regard to Cuba.

So as I said before, we have a farm policy that is essentially hijacked by a few people who see the island through a lens that is

about 50 years old now, and that lens, in my view, is no longer the

right lens to use. I think we should use a realist lens to look at

that island.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Is it possible to rebut some of these statements?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I will call on you next.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Good. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. But I would just say, you are basically saying—

is that a political decision, Colonel, in your judgment?

Col. WILKERSON. That is my judgment. I saw most of the documentation, the summaries of conclusions, and so forth. But I could

not carry that into a courtroom.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.
16

As you were speaking, I just reflected back on my experiences.

I have been down there a couple of times. I was almost stunned

with the medical training. I saw the hospital or medical school

where a lot of these doctors are being trained, and they explained

to me, they are going all over the hemisphere.

Col. WILKERSON. There were 15 Americans down there when I

was there, and one of the Americans from the Bronx came up to

me and said, you know, I am the oldest guy here. I had to get a

waiver to be here. But let me tell you what we do. I said, how do

you get certified in America? He said, let me tell you what we do.

Every Saturday we Americans get together and we set up stations all around the hospital. This is every Saturday, and I run

this. We get the board certification papers from previous years

from the various States, we bring them down here, and we quiz

these kids every Saturday for four hours. We put them through the

board certification process for their State. These are dedicated people down there doing this. This is not about communism. This is

not about putting soldiers in Angola. This is about health care.

The CHAIRMAN. I must say, too, when I was there, one can only

trust one’s own instincts and one’s judgments. But when I visit

Cuba, to be honest, I have the same reaction that apparently Secretary Powell had: our policy is nonsense. It is ludicrous. When I

have been down there I ask myself, what planet are we on?

I notice my good colleague from Kentucky. I can hear him kind

of erupting over here. But I can tell my colleague, when I am down

there, Senator—and I know you have been down there a few times,

too—it is amazing to me that we have this backwards policy. In my

personal judgment it makes no sense whatsoever.

Doctor?

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Let me disagree. If we lift the embargo without

any concessions and change in Cuba, what we will be doing is trading with state enterprises, supporting state enterprises, strengthening those state enterprises. We would be providing money to the

Cuban government. The military operates 60 percent of all businesses and enterprises in Cuba. We would be strengthening the

Cuban military, not changing it.

We would allow Fidel Castro to select, Microsoft yes, IBM no,

Coca-Cola yes, Pepsi-Cola no. He would pick up on who he wants

to invest in. It is not an open society where you can go and invest.

You have to deal with the Cuban government. All businesses in

Cuba are in partnership with the Cuban government. The Canadians, the French with Pernod-Ricard, the Spaniards and the hotels, they are all in partnership with the Cuban government.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that.

Let me ask Colonel Wilkerson, so what about that, Colonel? Dr.

Suchlicki says, first of all it is a closed society. It is a dictatorship.

We Americans support democracy. We would be sending the wrong

signal by opening up trade to Cuba as a dictatorship, not a democracy. Second, it is a planned economy, dealing with state-owned enterprises. I am curious what your reaction to all that is.

Col. WILKERSON. Well, some of that is true, of course. I am a person who advocated dealing with North Korea, which makes Cuba

look like a paradise, 7 years ago. But I am a realist. Let me just

read you something from an official government report with regard
17

to Vietnam and our rapprochement with Vietnam: ‘‘Vietnam’s very

successful adoption of a market economy began with agricultural

reform approved by the six-party Congress in 1986 and flourished

after the first Bush administration eased U.S. travel restrictions in

1991, and President Clinton lifted a unilateral embargo in 1994.’’

That is a communist country. That is a communist country that we

killed 2.5 or 3 million people of in a war, and they killed about

58,000 of my friends who are over on that wall over there.

The CHAIRMAN. If you could, very quickly, because my time is expiring.

Sgt. LAZO. I lived in Cuba for 27 years. I am the best ambassador

of democracy and Americans or Cuban Americans going over there.

The people in Cuba, when they talk about their political situation,

they say that the main reason for not changing is the Americans,

because they keep these policies and it seems like Americans want

to keep Castro there by not changing the policies that they have

been keeping for 50 years. That is what I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator Bunning?

Senator BUNNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to get to the reason for the hearing, to start with.

Mr. Calzon and Dr. Suchlicki——

Dr. SUCHLICKI. You can call me Jaime if it would be easier.

Senator BUNNING. Jaime?

Dr. SUCHLICKI. Yes.

Senator BUNNING. All right, Jaime. As you both know, when the

Cuban government took over, it nationalized companies still operating in Cuba, all of them. One of the most prominent of these was

the makers of Havana Club Rum. The owner of this successful company that had been in existence since 1878 fled to the United

States and later sold the rights to the Havana Club brand.

Even though Cuban-made rum cannot be sold in the United

States, the Cuban government is waiting for the day when the

trade ban is lifted. To pave the way for this, Cuba enlisted the support of a French company and the European Union to file a court

challenge and a WTO challenge to a part of the trade ban that applies to the Cubans’ confiscated trademarks.

In the year 2002, the World Trade Organization ruled against

Cuba and its allies, but it did find that there was a minor defect

in the U.S. law that needed to be corrected. I am sorry to say that

the legislation we are considering today would reverse a rare victory for the United States at the WTO and allow the Castro regime

to profit from its ill-gotten gains.

In other words, when they took over the company. It would allow

Cuba and its allies to file a lawsuit to stop pre-Castro Cuban companies—the rightful owners—the victims of the Castro appropriations, from using the business trademarks in the United States.

Because of the way it is drafted, it is a virtual gift to the Cuban

government.

Our U.S. Trade Representative has said alternative legislation I

have co-sponsored, together with Senator Ensign, would address

the problem the WTO identified and it would do so without changing United States policy on Cuba’s confiscated trademarks.
18

I would urge the Chairman to work with me and Senator Ensign

if he is truly interested in fixing the WTO defects instead of sanctioning Cubans’ actions.

What is your candid opinion of the legislation before us today as

it relates to the Havana Club trademarks and other confiscated

brands? I would ask the two of you.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. You are absolutely correct. The Arrechabala family, which owned the Havana Club Rum, sold their trademarks to

the Bacardi Company. They are the legitimate owners of that

brand. Cuba not only confiscated the trademarks of Arrechabala,

but many other trademarks, and confiscated about $3.5 billion in

American properties. This would be a gift that Cuba does not deserve and has not earned. It would change the ruling included in

this bill.

Senator BUNNING. All right.

Mr. Calzon?

Mr. CALZON. Well, Senator, I am not an expert on commercial

issues of that nature, but it seems to me that it does not make any

sense for the U.S. Senate to be doing favors for the Castro government in this regard. If you would allow me to say something very

briefly about Mr. Wilkerson’s characterization of what I quoted by

Secretary Powell.

Senator BUNNING. Secretary Powell?

Mr. CALZON. Secretary Powell said a number of things. I am not

here to attack Otto Reich or anybody else. That is a personal issue

that the Colonel ought to deal with with them. I think it is sort

of unfair to bring other people into a debate when they are not here

to present their views.

But in any case, I have a little respect for Secretary Powell. Secretary Powell did say that trade——

Senator BUNNING. Can you hurry? Because I am getting time

limited here.

Mr. CALZON. Trade by other nations with Cuba has not brought

change to Cuba’s despotic practices. As Secretary Powell said, ‘‘Two

governments have approached the U.S. to complain that Cuba’s

payments of cash for U.S. agricultural products have meant that

they are not getting paid at all.’’ Is the Colonel saying that the Secretary lied when he said that? Is that inaccurate?

Senator BUNNING. I do not think you speaking to him or him

speaking to you is the way that we conduct hearings here in the

U.S. Senate.

Mr. CALZON. Well, my point, Mr. Chairman, is that I quoted Secretary Powell in a public statement, and then another witness challenged those statements. Those two statements that were read are

facts. They are not opinions. So either the Secretary told the truth

or he did not. I think we ought to clarify and ask the witness who

challenged those statements to tell us if those two things are accurate when the Secretary wrote it.

Senator BUNNING. Let me conclude. I have gone over by a

minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Go ahead.

Senator BUNNING. I have lived in Cuba. Five months, I lived

there. Fidel was in the mountains. I was doing other things besides

being a politician. I can tell you this: when Fidel Castro took over
19

Havana, with our help, and took over Cuba with our help, with our

State Department’s help, it was the worst possible thing that could

happen to that island.

Nothing in the 40-plus years that he has been the ultimate dictator of that island has changed for the better. So what you all are

suggesting, trade, opening up, and doing all those things, would not

significantly help the Cuban people.

As far as doctors, trainees, and all those people, the only reason

they are in Cuba getting their medical degree is they cannot get

into a medical school in the United States of America. That is a

fact, because I had a son-in-law go to Mexico to get his medical degree because he could not get in a medical school in the United

States of America, and got one in Guadelajara. So I just wanted to

put that on the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Colonel Wilkerson, I will give you an opportunity to respond to

Mr. Calzon’s statement if you wish to. I just want to give you that

opportunity.

Col. WILKERSON. Well, I would rather not make it personal here.

I would rather talk about the present and future.

The CHAIRMAN. And there is no need to make things personal.

I just thought I would give you the opportunity if you cared to.

Col. WILKERSON. I appreciate that. My view is on the present

and the future. I hear so much about the past. Yes, the past is important, but in this case we have to move on. There is so much that

has changed, in my view, with respect to the power calculus, both

on our side and on the Cuban side. And Castro is gone. I mean,

my father is 92 years old and I am going to go to South Carolina

very shortly for a funeral, I know. Castro is in the same position

my father is. He is not going to be here much longer. And Raul is

not a young chick either.

So we are looking at the possibility of a significant power change

in Cuba and we are looking at the potential for the United States

to influence that power change. We are not going to influence it by

the kind of statements that our President recently made, tightening down on the embargo rather than beginning to loosen up and

position ourselves a little bit better for the change that is coming.

That is the reality that I am trying to point out.

I was also in Cuba when I was 13 years old, in 1958. I will tell

you that my grandmother, who is the greatest influence on my life,

wonderful woman, 62 years she taught first grade without missing

a day, 59 years she taught Sunday school without missing a day,

extraordinary woman, traveled all over the world and drug me

around. Let me tell you what my grandmother said to me when we

got off the boat in Havana. She said—and I am 13—‘‘Be sure you

do not go into any of the houses of ill repute or the casinos.’’ That

was Cuba in 1958, with the mafia running rampant, with Batista

probably one of the most corrupt dictators in the history of the island, and that is saying something.

So I do not have this longing for the pre-1959 Cuba. At the same

time, I do realize that Castro and his brother and the group that

are down there are not any patriots. They are not Thomas Jeffer-
20

sons. But it is going to change. We are just ill-positioned to take

advantage of that change.

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel, your example tends to prove one of my

theories. You show me an achiever, and I will show you that one

of his or her parents is a teacher. In your case, it is your grandmother. I have found that to be very true, that if the parent is a

teacher, or grandparent is a teacher, that person’s children are

going to more than likely be achievers than not.

Dr. Suchlicki, that is true in your case, too.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. I have three children. Some of them are achievers.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Not all of them. They are just sleepers.

They are going to come along. [Laughter.] Mr. Calzon, and also

you, Doctor, how have your personal visits to Cuba lately informed

your views on what we should or should not do? I say that because

I have been down there a couple of times. It leaves a very strong

impression.

Those visits have informed my view of what should be done

there. I have met with Fidel Castro and with Pedro Alvarez, who

is one of the chief persons to buy agricultural products. I have

spent a lot of time with him. I spent time with Oswaldo, one of the

dissidents down there.

I have spent time with a lot of people down there at all levels.

That has helped inform my view of what we should be doing there.

Mr. Calzon, in your recent visits, whom have you talked to down

there and how has that informed your views of things?

Mr. CALZON. Well, Senator, with all due respect, I think the

premise of your question is one of the great fallacies of the social

sciences, because you do not have to have been in with George

Washington 200 years ago to know about the America Revolution.

What I do professionally is, I monitor Cuba. I interview people who

come from Cuba. I receive documents from Cuba. I monitor Cuban

broadcasts.

This is the same thing that was done by the Soviet Union. We

discovered, after the Soviet Union collapsed, that people that did

that kind of work had a much better idea of what was happening

in the Soviet Union than the occasional visitors who went there

and saw the villages and the Cuban government officials.

So I do not go to Cuba because I am a Cuban. Unlike an American who could come home any time, Cubans need a permit from

the Cuban government to return home. You are dealing with travel

issues here. You might want to ask your Cuban government contacts to allow Cubans not to go to Cuba every 3 years, but to go

to Cuba at least once without having to have the ideological approval of the Cuban government. You are in a position to ask the

Cuban government to do that, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. As you are aware, I am the director of the Cuba

Transition Project at the University of Miami. We have staff. Some

of the staff has gone to Cuba. We have a debriefing program, a

focus group program with people who arrive from the island. We

are also informed by the ambassadors who are there. We are in

close consultation with a number of ambassadors from European
21

and other countries who go to Cuba and do come by the institute

and brief us.

We also have contacts with the U.S. Government, naturally; I

brief the CIA, they do not brief me. So this is a very, very detailed

program to analyze, to study, and to learn what is happening in

Cuba, not different from what Harvard had dealing with Eastern

Europe and the Soviet Union. So we are very much on top of the

attitudes, the values of the Cubans and what is happening on the

island.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it.

Sergeant Lazo, your experience. I heard you say in your testimony you had a hard time getting there.

Sgt. LAZO. Yes. Well, before the travel restrictions were implemented in 2004, I used to go to Cuba once every year. My father

was very sick over there and sometimes we had humanitarian exceptions to go. It means that I have been in Cuba a lot of times

from 1991 to now.

The CHAIRMAN. And based upon those visits and your experiences there, how has that shaped or informed your views as to

what American policy should be?

Sgt. LAZO. Well, I talk to regular Cubans. When I go to Cuba,

I go to my neighborhood and I sit down with my family, but I also

sit down with the neighbors, the people who saw me when I grew

up, when I was a kid. They are waiting for me over there when

I go over there. They want for me to tell about, what is democracy

about, what is America, what I have done.

I went to Cuba to see my brother in the beginning of this year.

The whole family, the whole neighborhood was there, trying to see,

trying to learn what I have done in Iraq, what a combat medic was.

I mean, they are hungry for knowledge. They are hungry for news.

They want contact with people.

The CHAIRMAN. So what do you take away from those visits?

They want news. They want contacts. Anything else?

Sgt. LAZO. I have talked to regular people. I never have talked

to—I mean, just regular neighbors. And as I said before, when you

talk to somebody, regular neighbors, and most of them, they are

not for Castro, they are basically regular people and they said that

a change in the policy of the United States not allowing contact

would be a good thing for the Cuban people. That is what I hear

in my personal experience.

They say the response for this mess that we have here is, there

is not a change in American policy, because the Cuban government

blamed everything on the embargo. It is a joke. When you do something in your house wrong and your wife tells you something, you

say ‘‘blame the embargo.’’ It is a joke. I mean, it is something, and

that is what the government uses that for. That is my personal experience.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClure, you were there recently. What personal experiences did you have there that might bear on what you

think our policy should be?

Mr. MCCLURE. I can give a couple of personal experiences that

were rather touching. But first of all, I think that engaging Cuba

with sales and travel might be an example of how we can influence

the transition from the Castros. As we returned on the charter
22

plane that we were on, there was a young girl, Cuban girl, 21 years

old, who had finally gotten permission to travel to Miami to see her

father. She was 21 years old. She had not seen her father for 15

years. That is wrong. But I think only maybe through engagement

can we influence that transition.

I am a farmer, a producer, but I am also looking for markets.

They are already buying these products from Canada or Europe or

somewhere else. I just think economically it makes sense for them

to buy from the U.S. just because of location and less transportation costs. But I am not an expert in diplomacy, so I will leave

my story with you.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have to wrap up here. I am way

over my time. Senator Bunning, I am way over mine. You are next.

Senator BUNNING. Thank you very much.

Anybody, in March, 2008, Cuba is scheduled to hold national

elections. They are scheduled. I firmly believe that the Cuban government is at a critical crossroads, much like our good Colonel. It

can either show the international community that it truly cares

about its people by holding free and fair elections and giving them

the opportunity to work towards economic reform, or it can continue to rule with an iron fist.

I fear that premature lifting of our trade embargo on Cuba could

jeopardize this outcome for the people of Cuba, giving the Castro

brothers little incentive to hold open elections. Do you believe that

lifting the trade embargo on Cuba would affect the likelihood of

free and fair elections? If so, how?

Mr. CALZON. Well, it is obvious that making unilateral concessions to Havana is not going to get them to do anything. The Europeans finally have come around to that position of saying Havana

must change before Havana gets into the Cotonou agreement. Just

let me say also that the hope expressed by Mr. McClure, that by

opening up and having trade that there will be influence, has been

shown to be false.

When trade began with Cuba, I approached some of the people

who were going to Cuba. I thought it was a wonderful thing. Why

do you not try to get some political prisoners out? Why do you not

try to help in that regard? The result has been the opposite, Senator. People trading with Cuba, for the most part, have become advocates and lobbyists of the Cuban government instead of influencing the Cuban government to respect human rights in Cuba.

Senator BUNNING. All right.

Col. WILKERSON. I have a completely different view of free and

fair elections. I watched Hamas get elected.

Senator BUNNING. Who?

Col. WILKERSON. Hamas get elected.

Senator BUNNING. Oh, yes.

Col. WILKERSON. I can go back in history and tell you that——

Senator BUNNING. That really helped us out.

Col. WILKERSON. Yes. I can tell you that Adolph Hitler was elected. There is a lot more, I think, that is vital and important to freedom as the best human condition, democracy as the best governance system to monitor that condition, and free markets as the best

system, economically speaking, to bring prosperity to that governance into that condition, a hell of a lot more than elections.
23

Senator BUNNING. Well, we have major differences of opinion

here.

Col. WILKERSON. I would be perfectly willing to wait to lift the

embargo after March, but I do not think you are going to see free

and fair elections there any more than you are in Beijing or you

are in Hanoi.

Senator BUNNING. No. We did not see any.

Col. WILKERSON. In either of those cities.

Senator BUNNING. No, neither one.

Col. WILKERSON. You had 1.3 billion people, and the United

States is 300 million.

Senator BUNNING. And they still suppress religion, and they still

suppress people——

Col. WILKERSON. That is true.

Senator BUNNING [continuing]. In every one of those countries

you are talking about.

Col. WILKERSON. That is true. And they own 1.4 trillion U.S. dollars right now. That scares me more than anything.

Senator BUNNING. Whoopee! That does not scare me a bit. We

have lots more.

Go ahead.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. The elections are the same elections that have

been held in Cuba over the past 47 years.

Senator BUNNING. That is what we are going to get.

Dr. SUCHLICKI. The Communist Party selects the candidates.

Those people come to the National Assembly. The National Assembly does what the Communist Party, the Politburo, tells them: it

is going to elect Fidel, Raul, or someone else. These are not elections that are in any way meaningful.

Senator BUNNING. All right.

Sgt. LAZO. I do not have a way to know if the elections are going

to be influenced by the lifting of the embargo. I do not know how

the embargo can influence that. What I know by fact is that lifting,

or at least changing the current travel ban to allow Cuban Americans to visit over there, to influence with our values the Cuban society, this is going to be a good thing.

Senator BUNNING. You should visit with Senator Martinez and

get his view.

Sgt. LAZO. I have talked to the Senator already.

Senator BUNNING. It would be good for you to get together with

him and listen on both sides of this issue.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I thank the panel very much. This has been very enlightening.

Thank you very much.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]

(25)

A P P E N D I X

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
(99)

COMMUNICATION