[Senate Hearing 107-741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-741
BRIDGES TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE ACT OF 2001, S. 1017
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
PEACE CORPS AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ senate
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-470 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Virginia
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, PEACE
CORPS AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman
BILL NELSON, Florida LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Aronson, Hon. Bernard W., former Assistant Secretary of State for
Inter-American Affairs; co-chair of the Council on Foreign
Relations Independent Task Force on Cuba, managing partner,
ACON Investments LLC, Washington, DC........................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Bridges, Kenneth R., M.D., director, Joint Center for Sickle Cell
and Thalassemic Disorders, Brigham and Women's Hospital,
Boston, MA..................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Chang, Nancy, senior litigation attorney, Center for
Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY....................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Colas, Ramon Humberto, former co-founder of Independent Libraries
in Cuba, Miami, FL............................................. 55
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared
statement submitted for the record............................. 60
Leshner, Alan I., Ph.D., chief executive officer, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC..... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Morton, Donald L., M.D., medical director and surgeon-in-chief,
John Wayne Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, CA.................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Rasenick, Dr. Mark M., professor of physiology and biophysics,
and professor of psychiatry; director, biomedical neuroscience
training program, University of Illinois Chicago, College of
Medicine, Chicago, IL.......................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
(iii)
BRIDGES TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE ACT OF 2001, S. 1017
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere,
Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
J. Dodd (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Senators Dodd, Bill Nelson, Chafee and Allen.
Senator Dodd. The hearing will come to order. My apologies
to our witnesses. We had a vote that delayed us getting started
here.
I want to thank my colleagues for coming. I want to thank
the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Chafee, who
has a strong interest in the Americas, and in a very brief
amount of time has become a tremendous asset to this committee
and a tremendous asset to the subject matter and discussion of
the events in the Americas, as well as my new friend from
Virginia, former Governor and now a colleague who has showed a
wonderful interest in the Americas as well. We welcome them
immensely.
Senator Nelson will be here with us shortly. And we welcome
you, Bernie; nice to have you back before the subcommittee.
We've been friends for many years and I have a high regard and
respect for Bernie Aronson. And I am anxious to hear your
thoughts in a few minutes.
Let me share if I can some opening comments. I will turn to
my colleague, Senator Chafee after that for any opening
comments he may have. Senator Allen, if you would like to make
some comments before we go that way and we'll hear from our
witnesses and move along. But I'm very grateful to all of you
for being here.
Today the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps
and Narcotics Affairs continues its series of hearings on U.S.
policy in the Western Hemisphere. And subject to today's
hearing is the U.S.-Cuban policy and how that policy might be
reshaped to better serve the interests of the United States.
It is very clear that there is a growing support in the
U.S. Congress for making some changes in U.S. policy. Since
1999, numerous votes have occurred in support of lifting
restrictions on travel to Cuba and on the sale of food and
medicines.
Each time the House leadership has stepped in to thwart the
will of the Congress by stripping the provisions in the various
bills in conference, in some cases over the objection of the
conferees themselves.
Despite the House leadership's best efforts, they have
backed off efforts to remove a provision of the fiscal year
2001 Agricultural appropriations bill that contained language
authorizing the issuance of 1-year licenses for the sale of
food and medicines to Cuba but were successful in placing
restrictions on the financing of those sales.
Whatever the shortcomings of the provision that passed, it
was an important first step, I believe, that hopefully has
broken the congressional stranglehold on U.S. policy.
So what are the next steps. Last year in an effort to build
on congressional actions on the food and medicine issues and to
move forward to bridge the divide between the United States and
Cuba, I introduced legislation that would comprehensively
modify existing U.S.-Cuban policy.
Each piece of the proposal is intended to try and foster
some greater understanding between the American and Cuban
peoples themselves and show by example what it means to live in
a free society. This legislation was the focus of today's
hearing.
The bill I think is amply titled the ``Bridges to the Cuban
People Act.'' I have been joined in this bill by 26 of our
colleagues including Senator Chafee, the ranking member of this
subcommittee. I am very grateful to Senator Chafee and other
members of the committee who have joined us here this afternoon
to talk about this subject matter, and to those who have joined
with us in co-sponsoring this bill to restore some of what we
believe is common sense policy toward Cuba, and to bring that
policy to the line where the American people are on the
subject.
Our bill as proposed would increase humanitarian trade
between Cuba and the United States, support people-to-people
contacts by providing scholarships and loosening travel
restrictions. It would also allow Americans to benefit from the
medical advances in Cuba, remove caps on the amounts of money
that Cuban-Americans can send back to their loved ones, their
families, on an annual basis, and enhance the President's
flexibility to make further calibrations in U.S. policy as he
might decide.
Let me tell you what it does not do. It does not eliminate
its entirety of U.S. embargo against Cuba. And while I
personally believe that such a profound change in our policy
would greatly accelerate Cuba's peaceful transition to
democracy, I know at this juncture that a number of our
colleagues are not prepared to sign onto such a dramatic change
in our policy.
Rather, this bill creates specific exceptions to the
embargo that will among other things allow American farmers and
businesses to sell food, medicine and agricultural equipment to
Cuba without the burden of securing annual licenses, and will
allow our farmers and businesses to use American banks and
American financing to conduct these sales.
Both of these changes along with the lifting of shipping
restrictions are designed to allow sales to move forward in a
way that is less burdensome to American farmers and industry.
We are fortunate to have with us this afternoon the former
Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Bernie
Aronson, to share with the committee his views on the
legislation and on the U.S.-Cuba policy in general.
Bernie Aronson is extremely well-qualified to do so not
only because of his previous government service but also
because since 1998 he has been the co-chair of the Council on
Foreign Relations Task Force on Cuba reviewing this issue and
debating it with a broad cross-section of Cuban experts. And I
thank you, Bernie, for being here this afternoon.
Much of the debate on U.S.-Cuban policy is centered around
whether our policy is achieving its objective of bringing
democracy to Cuba or whether it is needlessly causing suffering
to the 11 million people living on the island of Cuba. Those
are very important questions.
But the most important question in my opinion is whether it
is serving the American people's interests. Is it really in our
Nation's interest to deny the American people access to
promising Cuban medical advances and data that could save
American lives and improve the delivery of public health
services, particularly in rural communities?
I do not believe that it is. That is why I have included in
the bill language that modernizes our approach to Cuba's
medical exports. Cuba is currently involved in the development
of some medicines that are not available in the United States
such as the meningitis B vaccine, certain kinds of anti-cancer
vaccines and other products that literally could save American
lives today, some of which we will hear about this afternoon
from our other witnesses in panel two.
Our legislation would allow Cuba with the approval of the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to export to the United
States medicines for which there is a medical need in the
United States, provided the medicine is not currently being
manufactured in our own country. In this way, we can begin to
build on the strong tradition of medical research in Cuba and
to encourage the free exchange of ideas and experiments between
scholars.
Several weeks ago we heard from the administration
witnesses that testified that because Cuba has a highly
sophisticated biomedical industry, it has the potential, let me
repeat, the potential to produce biological products that may
have dual-use capabilities. At no time during that hearing did
these witnesses state that they had any evidence that Cuba has
manufactured biological weapons. Much of what was said in both
open and closed session was highly speculative.
By contrast today, we are fortunate to have with us a
distinguished panel of medical and scientific experts who will
speak knowledgeably about what Cuba's biomedical industry is
doing. They will also discuss the implications of current
prohibitions on cooperation in the biomedical sector, and the
benefits that would accrue to the United States from closer
collaboration between the United States and Cuban scientific
and medical communities.
Our panelists, Dr. Ken Bridges who is the director of the
Joint Center of Sickle Cell and Thalassemic Disorders at the
Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts; Dr. Alan
I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, here in Washington, DC; Dr.
Donald L. Morton who is the medical director and surgeon-in-
chief of the John Wayne Cancer Institute in Santa Monica,
California; and Dr. Mark M. Rasenick who is the professor of
physiology and biophysics, professor of psychiatry and director
of biomedical neuroscience training programs at the University
of Illinois Chicago, Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago,
Illinois. And gentlemen, all of you, we thank you for being
here. And we'll introduce you in a few minutes.
Another major focus of today's hearing which is also
addressed in the bill is a matter that is adversely affecting
the lives of average Americans, namely abridgments to their
rights to travel.
Cuba does not pose a threat to individual Americans. It is
time to permit our citizens to exercise their constitutional
right to travel, in my view, to Cuba. No one seriously argues
that we ban travel to Cuba out of concern for the safety of
Americans who might visit the island nation.
Today Americans are free to travel to such countries as
Iran, North Korea, founding members of President Bush's ``axis
of evil'' club, I might add, they can travel as well to the
Sudan, Burma, Syria, Afghanistan but not to Cuba, 90 miles off
the coast of Florida.
This afternoon we will hear from Ms. Nancy Chang for the
Center of Constitutional Rights about how these travel
restrictions are making criminals of ordinary Americans, how
our citizens are being intimidated by Customs and Treasury
officials, simply because they have sought to visit Cuba.
Ironically, it is those Americans who respond truthfully to
questions by Customs officials about their visits to Cuba who
are the ones being subjected to pre-penalties and other forms
of intimidation.
More than 400 individuals have recently been targeted by
the Office of Foreign Asset Controls for enforcement action,
that is civil penalties ranging from $7,500 to $17,500. I
thought it was the Castro regime it was trying to punish, not
American students, artists and Cuban-Americans visiting loved
ones on the island of Cuba.
We Americans have a unique way of spreading our influence.
It is by being ourselves. Look at the current visit to Cuba by
former President Jimmy Carter. Although it was less than a week
long, he was able touch the lives of millions of Cubans.
He was able to bring news to them about what is happening
inside their own country. That was remarkable. And so much more
like that is possible in my view with further contacts. It has
been through person-to-person and cultural exchanges that we
have helped to shape the evolution of our hemisphere from one
rule, predominantly by authoritarian and military regimes, to
one where democracy is the rule.
Our current policy toward Cuba limits our ability, in my
view, to spread our influence. It removes our most potent
weapon in our effort to combat totalitarianism, and that is our
own people. They are sometimes the best ambassadors of our
Nation. They are the ones who can make a difference as they
have in many, many occasions all across the globe.
And it has been possible to engage in the free exchange of
ideas between Americans and Cubans is I think one of the best
ways to encourage democracy and to build the bridges between
the American and Cuban people.
The bill before us would unleash America's goodwill
ambassadors by removing restrictions on travel to Cuba. It is
my hope that today's hearing will shed some light on the damage
that our current policy is doing to U.S. interests and provoke
some thought and debate on some alternative approaches to
achieving our shared goals of seeing a peaceful and democratic
Cuba, 90 miles from our shore.
We all agree that the present government is one we want to
change. The question is how do you do that. How do you build
the transitions to a new Cuba that will come. Again, I want to
thank our witnesses today for being here. I look forward to
their testimony and the questions in the period that will
follow.
Now, let me turn to my colleague from Rhode Island for any
opening statements he wants to make. And then I will ask my
colleagues and hear any brief comments they would like to make,
and then we will get to the witnesses.
Mr. Chafee.
Mr. Chafee. Thank you, very much Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing on this important and beautiful piece of real
estate, located as you said, just 90 miles from our own border.
I was fortunate enough to visit Cuba in January. And as I've
said before, you can feel the change in the air.
The reasons for this change probably involve a combination
of the President softening as he gets into his 70s--as many
human beings do--as well as the hard reality that the Soviet
Union has broken up and no longer provide Cuba $4\1/2\ billion
of aid a year.
So they are having to open their borders. And you are
seeing people from around the world in Havana. You are seeing
Canadians, Swiss, Spaniards and other Europeans. There are also
other North Americans and South Americans in Havana.
Cuba is changing. The United States must decide whether we
are going to welcome these opening of doors or whether we are
going to be reactionary and not do what's in our own best
interest by taking advantage of the opportunities that are
coming our way. So I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses.
Senator Dodd. Very good. Senator Nelson, any opening
comments you would like to make?
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I think because the winds of
change are blowing in Cuba and that an examination of this
issue in this hearing is a very constructive one, just as you
were so kind to me a week ago in bringing to the attention of
the full committee here my resolution of support for the Varela
Project.
Here's a project that was not known too much outside of
Cuba until President Carter spoke about it in his address to
the Cuban people. And here are over 11,000 very courageous
citizens that dared to put their name and address under the
legal processes of the Cuban Constitution that says that if
10,000 petition the government, the issue goes to the National
Assembly.
And this was a petition on the things that we take for
granted here, that we want so desperately for Cuba to have:
free and fair elections, the freeing of political prisoners,
the opportunity for a free-market economy to operate instead of
a state-controlled economy.
Those are examples of the freedoms that were articulated by
these courageous 11,000 souls, only to see that the Castro
government's response was to have a mass demonstration against
that project. And that is just simply not constructive. And yet
I'm grateful to you for having brought up that Varela
Resolution so the U.S. Senate could go on record as we did, 87
to 0, to clearly state that we yearn for the freedoms.
So I think coming out of this hearing can be a lot of
constructive comments. You know that my politics is a little
bit different because I have a large Cuban-exiled community
that has experienced this traumatic experience of so many of
their loved ones having been jailed and tortured and then
having to pick up roots and flee, often with nothing but the
clothes on their back. And so I have my concerns about dealing
with this government.
But nevertheless, the issues that you have put forth here
are legitimate issues that we should discuss and come to some
conclusions.
This legislation also removes restrictions with regard to
vessels entering U.S. ports. And of course one of the things
that I hope will come out in this discussion is particularly at
this time of risk to our homeland, and given the fact that one
of the points of vulnerability are our deep water ports, and
Florida by the way has 14 of them, and the fact that Cuba is
still listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, what are the
thoughts that should come forth in the testimony on whether or
not that increases the risk to our safety here at home.
So I look forward to this, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
again for your leadership.
Senator Dodd. Thank you. I want to commend my colleague
from Florida for his resolution on the Varela Project. And I
was happy to see to it that it was considered here and
considered on the floor of the Senate and too co-sponsored in
support of the resolution.
It is not inconsistent at all with the United States here.
I think it is a common goal, common desire here to make sure
people have the rights that they ought to have in a free
society. And there may be some division over how best we can
achieve these goals, but no one disagrees I hope over what our
goals are. So I appreciate your comments.
With regard to the ships coming in, of course, it is common
knowledge that we only inspect less than 2 percent of the
vessels that come into our country. And certainly that needs to
change dramatically. Just a fraction of these container vessels
are examined.
So I would anticipate that any ships coming here would be
subjected to the same kind of scrutiny we anticipate elsewhere.
And I look forward to that.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
continuing this discussion. I associate myself with the remarks
of Senator Nelson and commend you for having this hearing. And
clearly I think we all want to get to the same goal. The
question is how do you get to that goal for the people of Cuba.
Senator Nelson deserves a lot of credit and so does the
United States Senate for the unanimous vote standing by the
side of others in support of the Varela Project. Now, what has
been the response to this? I am going to go to the Washington
Post today, which most would not consider a Jeffersonian
conservative editorial page, but----
Senator Dodd. You keep on picking on that paper.
Senator Allen. I am not picking on the paper. I am going to
vote for the paper with the free press. I will probably be
blasted for using them as exhibit A in their articulation, and
I quote, from today's paper, ``When feeling threatened, Fidel
Castro has a stock response. Order the Cuban people to
participate in a mass demonstration. It is an old technique of
totalitarianism that offers the dual benefit of providing the
outside world with an illusion of strength while reminding
citizens that the state controls their lives to such an extent
that it can force them to join such spectacles.''
So something must have thrown a real scare into the 75-
year-old dictator, and I am quoting still; ``last week he
orchestrated a forced march through the center of Havana and
dozens of other towns that by official count rounded up eight
million of Cuba's eleven million people.''
Then he forced the country's voting population to line up
again beginning last week to sign a petition that calls for his
failed Soviet-style economic and political system to be
enshrined as untouchable in the national constitution.
Naturally, Mr. Castro said he only was responding to
provocation from the United States, the excuse for most
everything he does.
President Bush recently delivered a speech calling for
democracy and Cuban reform and support for U.S. economic
embargos, I will not read the whole thing but that is the
point. That is the response to the Varela Project.
Now, the issue here is how do we respond in a way to take
into consideration first our concern for the people of Cuba and
actually make sure we are not increasing their suffering by
inadvertently perpetuating the power of the group that is
really the cause of their pain. I do not think there is any
question whatsoever that we agree there.
Now, we have witnesses, esteemed witnesses who I know are
all very well-meaning, as is the chairman, but I think for
example, we ought to understand that while we have a natural
instinct to believe that unrestricted travel can help promote
freedom, sadly this has not proven to be the case with Cuba, in
that as Senator Chafee mentioned, all the countries from
Europe, from South America, from Canada and others who visit
Cuba has not had any appreciable beneficial impact on the
freedoms of the people of Cuba.
And as far as our travel, the so-called travel ban, family
members are allowed to travel annually to Cuba, as are
academics, there are cultural exchanges and sports and music
allowed, so are relief organizations and the media. I think
that those who advocate travel to Cuba would probably have more
sympathetic argument or may be more persuasive if Castro would
allow their citizens, the people of Cuba, to travel as freely
as our in-born Latin nations.
Today in Cuba the vast majority of their citizens are
barred from entering these tourist hotels and resorts, a
practice that is called tourist apartheid. It is a crime for a
Cuban citizen to criticize the Castro regime to a foreigner,
punishable, and this is on the books, punishable by up to 3
years in prison.
The people who work at these tourist resorts get their jobs
through loyalty to the Communist Party and still have a lot of
their wages taken by the regime. And of course the dollars that
might come from Canada or Euros or other hard currency are paid
to them in devalued Cuban pesos.
It also appears that black Cubans are discriminated against
in the tourist industry, and are grossly under represented in
the senior ranks of the Communist Party, the military and the
police. And I don't think many of us would agree that we ought
to be patronizing hotels that discriminate against people based
on their skin color.
Now, many believe that there is a potential market for
agricultural products. In recent months Cuba has bought, and
because the U.S. law requires it, they have paid cash for a
number of their purchases.
The Castro regime has been able to do this because they
have stopped making payments on the massive debts they owe to
the Europeans and others. I could go into all of this, but they
owe nearly $4 billion of debt to the so-called Paris Club of
creditor nations. I don't think we should be putting the United
States as a volunteer as a new source of credit.
Now, if you want to look at the Castro regime and how they
stifle all forms of economic or independent economic activity,
there is an index, so-called Index of Economic Freedom put
together in combination with apparently the Wall Street Journal
and the Heritage Foundation. And they rank 158 countries,
excuse me, 156 countries as far as their economic freedoms.
The United States is tied for fourth. For everyone's
interest, Hong Kong is No. 1, Singapore No. 2, New Zealand No.
3, Estonia, Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, United States
tied for fourth on various factors on economic freedom.
Ranked number 145 is Syria, 147 Zimbabwe, 151 is Iran. Cuba
is listed 153, 153 out of 156 countries as a place to do
business in this year's Index of Economic Freedom. They beat
out Libya, Iraq and North Korea. Cuba is clearly bankrupt.
Senator Dodd. You can go to those other countries. You just
can't go to this one.
Senator Allen. Well, the reality is, is we do not have
people investing in North Korea, Libya or Iraq either. A
default to countries is one thing, but I would ask my
colleagues to really conduct as we go forward here, simple due
diligence, a review before getting too excited about the
prospects in Cuba.
And I do believe the President has a very constructive,
positive plan. It is one that I think is a good outline as to
where we need to be moving in this regard and facilitating
several points. And there actually are some concurrences here.
One is humanitarian----
Senator Dodd. Wrap this up.
Senator Allen [continuing]. Assistance to non-governmental
groups. I think the idea of calling for a resumption of direct
mail to and from Cuba is a good idea. It would cause no problem
to us to see what Fidel Castro says. And also here is where
there is a correlation, is the idea of providing or
establishing scholarships in the United States for Cuban
students. And I commend the chairman for including that in his
measure.
So I think that we need to stand with the opressed, not the
oppressors. I think we need to take great care not to
legitimize or perpetuate a system that gives neither food or
freedom to the people of Cuba. Let us side with the Cuban
people, not with the Castro regime. And in Spanish that would
be ``Defendamos al pueblo Cubano y no al regimen del Fidel.''
Thank you. Gracias, Mr. Chairman, Senor.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Aronson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD W. ARONSON, CO-CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL
ON FOREIGN RELATIONS INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE ON CUBA, MANAGING
PARTNER, ACON INVESTMENTS LLC, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Aronson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank the committee for this opportunity to testify and thank
the chairman for his kind personal words.
I have many fond memories of many hearings in this very
room. And I think we tackled some very tough problems in this
hemisphere in those days. I think we made some progress in no
small part due to your leadership.
I've said this before but not in this forum, the beginning
of that progress was the Bipartisan Accord on Central America
which we negotiated in March 1989. On that platform we promoted
the first democratic elections in Nicaragua, ended the war
there and went on to support successful negotiations in El
Salvador.
That bipartisan accord which President Bush the first
signed, really depended on leadership in this body. And, Mr.
Chairman, I think your leadership and trust in us made a big
difference in our ability to move forward. And I give you great
credit for the outcome of that.
I am glad to see this committee paying attention to Latin
America. In my experience we get in trouble in this hemisphere
not because we intervene too much, but because we do not pay
attention enough, and we allow problems to grow and fester into
crises. Then we try to jump in when the choices are very
narrow.
So I give you credit for that. I hope you will continue to
pay attention to the hemisphere because I think there are deep
problems today in many countries that you know of and care
about from Colombia to Peru to Venezuela and Argentina.
I, also, think we have a deep interest in this issue of
Cuba. It troubles me that our debate is not more enlightened
and constructive than it is. We get polarized very quickly. We
question each other's motives very quickly.
And I would like to try to frame the debate in a way that I
hope would contribute more to a constructive dialog and then
speak to the legislation that you have introduced. I will
summarize my statement in the interest of time and introduce it
in the record.
One of the mantras that we hear about Cuba is that U.S.
policy since 1959 has been a failure and therefore it has to be
fundamentally changed. Advocates of the embargo say it has to
be changed by tightening the embargo, and opponents say it has
to be changed by doing away with the embargo.
I would argue an alternative thesis. I think we probably
made many mistakes in the last 50 odd years toward Cuba. There
were missed opportunities on both sides. But by and large the
policy we pursued toward Cuba was part of our security policy
toward the Soviet Union. It was a policy of containment.
It is easy to forget, sitting in this hearing room, that
there was a time a few decades ago when it was an open question
whether the future of Latin America would follow the Cuban
model led by Che Guevara and guerrillas all across this
hemisphere or it would follow the democratic model.
Today we look out and the hemisphere is led by 34
democratically elected leaders. Ours is the only regional body
in the world, the OAS, that is committed to defend democracy.
Democracy is the only legitimate form of government.
Nobody argues that it is an open question, whether Cuba is
the wave of the future, not even in Cuba, itself. So I think
that rather than flagellate ourselves and demoralize ourselves
about how our policy has failed, I think we should take some
comfort and confidence from the fact that this fight for the
democratic ideal and for the open market ideal has been won.
That does not mean that there are not deep problems with
democracy in Latin America. There are. It is under siege. It is
threatened. It is imperfect. But nobody believes that the
future belongs to Fidel Castro style socialism.
So I think what we should say is that the broad policy of
containment was successful. Now, we are in a new post-cold war
era and we must ask ourselves what are the appropriate tools
the United States should bring to bear. I think as we listen to
the debate in the subcommittee, there is also common ground.
I think we share a goal of speeding a rapid transition to
democracy in Cuba, and I would add a peaceful transition to
democracy in Cuba. So the question is how do we design U.S.
policy to accomplish that goal.
This is an old debate in foreign policy that we have around
the world. We have it about Iran. We have it about China. We
have it about North Korea. We have it about Syria. And it will
continue to recur: which is how do you influence a closed
dictatorial state and society.
Do you influence it by isolating it. Do you influence it by
engaging it. And good people are on both sides of the debate in
many instances.
When this body debated permanent normal trade relations
with China, for instance, those who advocated that step, which
I supported, argued that having trade relations with China,
having U.S. investment, having U.S. engagement over time would
empower Chinese economically which would empower them
ultimately to be independent of the state. It would force
pressures for rule-based law to be established to codify
property rights. And, over time, it would stimulate openings of
political reform. And that is certainly the history we saw in
Taiwan, in South Korea; and I would argue we also saw in
Mexico.
Many of those who advocate an opening to China advocate
isolation of Cuba to achieve the same goal. But the converse is
also true. When this body debated sanctions on South Africa,
many of those who argued we should end sanctions toward Cuba
argued that sanctions toward South Africa would be the best way
to promote majority rule.
I am not suggesting that there is a cookie cutter answer,
because there is not. I am just trying to say these are
judgment calls. And good people can differ. And we ought to
have the debate on that basis. What is the best set of policy
tools.
Senator Nelson and others talked about the Varela Project.
I am confident that Cuba cannot remain an island of
dictatorship in a sea of democracy in this hemisphere. I do not
think it can remain a closed statist economy in an integrated,
global economic system.
And I think the 11,000 courageous Cubans who signed the
Varela Project represent the future of that country and not the
Cubans who were forced through coercion and pressure and
intimidation to sign whatever the state put in front of them.
So I think we can approach this issue with some confidence.
The second point I would make is that we sometimes talk
ourselves into the notion that our policy toward Cuba has been
fixed and static, and that is not the case either. There has
been a shift since the end of the cold war, the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the end of our security concerns toward more
engagement with the island.
For instance, telephone communications were established
between Cuba and the United States as called for in the Cuban
Democracy Act in 1992. And those are commercial relationships.
We negotiated a new migration agreement in 1994 with Cuba
which continues to be in effect. The Clinton administration, on
the recommendation of the Task Force that the chairman referred
to, started to license group travel to Cuba for scientific,
cultural, education, religious, athletic and other people-to-
people exchanges.
Charter travel was expanded between the United States and
Cuba under the previous administration as well. And, as has
been noted, the last Congress authorized sale of food and
medical products, though there was a restriction on commercial
credit through U.S. financial institutions.
So, the legislation that you are considering seems to me an
evolution in this same direction but not a radical departure
from the direction that the Congress and the country has been
going in. I think there is a consensus in the Congress and in
the country that the United States should find ways to engage
with and support and encourage Cuba's nascent civil society and
fledgling private enterprises; that we should defend and assist
Cuba's brave human rights and democratic advocates and their
religious communities; that we should support humanitarian
measures to reduce the suffering of the Cuban people and try to
ease the plight of divided families across the Florida Straits.
With regards to the specifics of the legislation before the
subcommittee, I want to make a few comments and then take
questions. I support the lifting of the remittances on Cuban-
Americans. I think the net beneficiaries of these remittances
are struggling people who live under very, very dire
circumstances.
It allows them to take care of their families. And I think
it gives them a measure of independence from the state. Having
said that, I think in fairness we have to acknowledge that the
same dollars that some would deny through tourism also go to
the state, ultimately. They are spent in dollar stores.
And that just illustrates the fact that these are not black
and white issues. These are all tough choices. But I think we
should lift that restriction. And I would argue, also, as the
task force did that the committee should consider legislation
that would allow Cuban-Americans to claim family members on the
island as dependents under U.S. tax law if they meet the
traditional qualifications that the IRS establish.
I believe that Mexican-Americans and Canadian-Americans are
afforded that privilege. I think that would also give Cuban-
American families some relief who have to sacrifice their own
family's welfare to help their families on the island. I would
urge the committee to take a look at that.
With regard to the recommendations of the sale of food
products and medicine, I think allowing U.S. financial
institutions to participate in normal market terms is
warranted. The prohibition basically just means Canadian banks
or European banks will handle the financing as opposed to U.S.
banks.
I note that the bill also calls for a study by the
Secretary of Agriculture of export promotion and credit
programs with regard to Cuba. I think gathering data is always
useful. Personally I would be wary at this stage of supplying
credit enhancement to Cuba given both its own credit history
and the effective subsidies that that would represent to the
Cuban Government.
With regard to the lifting the ban on travel, I think we
need to note that the new licensing procedure has allowed tens
of thousands, I think it is actually in the hundreds of
thousands of Americans to visit. So again this is not a radical
break in policy. It is an evolution that would allow all
citizens to travel.
The argument that Senator Allen made is a legitimate
concern. It is something I share, that the Cuban Government
hires the workers and then takes their wages in dollars and
doles out about 10 or 20 percent in pesos. I think it is one of
the tradeoffs in this issue.
The same is true with remittances, however. One way the
committee might address this in the interest of trying to
broaden the consensus is to make this end of the travel ban
contingent on some changes in those provisions that would allow
the hotels involved to hire workers directly and pay them
directly. Or you could allow both travel and investment in
enterprises that hire workers directly and pay them directly.
Or the committee could ask the administration to come back 18
months after the travel ban was lifted to report on whether
progress was made in those areas. And that is something the
Congress could consider.
Another area I would urge the subcommittee to also consider
addressing is the question of resolution of U.S. expropriation
claims which was the origin of the embargo. One of the lessons
we learned in Nicaragua was that even after a democratic
transition takes place, the legacy and the wreckage left behind
by these regimes take years and decades to overcome.
Nicaragua was held back and still is held back because
investors are reluctant to invest when property claims are
uncertain and they do not know where they are investing and who
owns what and whether they will be subject to litigation.
Our task force tried to propose one method of expediting
resolution of claims by allowing claimants to take equity
interest in existing enterprises in exchange for relinquishing
their claims. There are probably many other ways to do this,
but I think the Congress should set up a mechanism to begin to
at least set up the modalities of this and maybe even begin to
engage in it.
Because when the day comes and we celebrate a democratic
Cuba, that government is going to be faced with enormous
economic problems. We would be doing the Cuban people a great
service to get ahead of the curve on this issue rather than
plague the successor government with the burden of dealing with
those issues.
I will say one final point and then in the interest of time
I will take your questions, Mr. Chairman. I hope that we can
debate Cuba and discuss Cuba without the kind of vilification
of both sides that is too often the case. On the one hand you
have the Cuban-American community which is a community I have
deep respect for.
I think the Cuban-American community is a ``made-in-
America'' success story. And these are brave, hard-working
people who came to this country often with nothing, in one
generation rebuilt Miami and became productive citizens.
And the passions they feel for their country are passions
we should understand. I think exile is always painful, but it
is particularly painful when your motherland is 30 minutes
away. Your family is trapped there. You cannot protect them.
The freedoms that you enjoy in this country are denied your
countrymen.
And I think vilification of the Cuban-American community is
a shameful practice that we hear in these debates. And I know
this committee does not participate in it, but I think we hear
it a lot.
On the other side of the coin, we learned a lot of
experience from watching communism collapse in Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union. And many good people believe that the way
to undermine and erode the Cuban Government is to engage more,
to have freedom-loving people and free people interact and to
undermine the infrastructure of this regime.
I think that their credentials and commitment to democracy
shouldn't be questioned either as it often is. I thought
President Carter's visit was a good metaphor for the tradeoffs.
President Carter was permitted to do what he did because the
Castro regime knew he would condemn the embargo.
But what he did was unprecedented in Cuba, to speak to the
Cuban people, to talk about their rights, not because the
United States was talking about it because they were enshrined
in the universal declaration of human rights to talk about the
Varela Project, to have that printed in Granma.
I think that is subversive. And I think freedom is
subversive. So I think that was a good metaphor for the
benefits of engagement.
So I commend the committee for taking these steps. I hope
we will continue this debate and this constructive tone. I
think that the future of Cuba will be democracy. The question
before the United States is whether we can get there in a
speedy, peaceful way or whether we are going to have a
prolonged, protracted and violent transition.
I think we have deep interest between the two. And I think
therefore a policy of gradual engagement as the committee is
recommending, I made some caveats which I mentioned, but I
think that that is a defensible position. And I think there is
history in many other parts of the world to justify it. So
thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aronson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bernard W. Aronson, Former Assistant
Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
I commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. In my
experience, the United States gets in trouble far more often when it
neglects Latin America then when it is involved. Today, there are
serious problems in the region that cry out for attention from the
United States--in Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Argentina and others.
Cuba, also, offers both opportunities and challenges. Important U.S.
interests are at stake in how that island nation evolves politically
and economically in the years to come. So this is a timely hearing, and
I applaud the Subcommittee for taking this initiative. I would also
like to enter in the record the first and the follow-on reports of the
Independent Task Force on U.S. Cuban Relations in the 21st Century
sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations which former Assistant
Secretary of State, William D. Rogers and I co-chaired.
Although the future of Cuba is important to the United States, in
my experience, our domestic debate too often sheds more heat on the
subject then light. One reason I think our debate is not as productive
as it could be is that it begins with a false premise and an
unnecessary pessimism. One of the mantras we hear often in this debate
is that U.S. policy towards Cuba since the 1959 Cuban revolution has
been a complete failure. I believe in retrospect we have made mistakes,
but broadly speaking I would argue that the opposite is true.
U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba throughout the cold war period was
driven by U.S. security concerns. We sought to contain Cuban
expansionism as part of a larger policy of containment directed towards
the Soviet Union and its allies. In the original article written by
George F. Kennan in Foreign Affairs in 1947, which enunciated what came
to be the containment policy, Kennan argued that only after stopping
the spread and expansionism of a totalitarian state like the Soviet
Union could forces be unleashed that would subsequently bring about
internal change. That thesis proved true about the Soviet Union. I
would argue much the same is true about Cuba.
It is easy to forget that if we were holding this hearing in the
decade of the 1960's we would be debating the threat posed by Marxist-
Leninist guerrilla groups waging revolutionary war with active Cuban
support in more then a dozen nations across this hemisphere. For many
decades after Fidel Castro seized power it was an open question whether
Latin America would follow the path of Cuba and succumb to communist
revolutions. Today, when we look out upon the western hemisphere we see
34 nations led by democratically elected leaders.
Though remnants of those guerrilla groups still exist in Peru and
Colombia and post a serious security threat, they are hardly the
vanguard of Latin America's future anymore. In this hemisphere
democracy is considered to be the only legitimate form of government,
and the OAS--through the Santiago Resolution and the newly enacted
Democratic Charter--is the only regional organization in the world
committed to the collective defense of democracy in every member state.
I don't want to suggest that the state of democracy in Latin
America today is healthy. It is deeply troubled and cries out for
attention. But whatever pressures and problems and setbacks we
confront, I believe that in this hemisphere the great battle of ideas
waged between democracy and communism, between statist closed economies
and the free market system is over. This hemisphere's future lies in a
bold vision of democratic states united in free trade from Nova Scotia
to Tierra del Fuego.
Cuba remains the lone, glaring exception to this hemisphere's
democratic tide. Cuba remains a one-party, repressive political
dictatorship where elemental freedoms from the right of association and
assembly, free speech, political pluralism, trade union and most
property rights, the right to elect political leaders, due process--
none of these basic freedoms exist. Yet I also believe that the Cuban
government has already lost the crucial battle for the allegiance of
the next generation. Few in Cuba, particularly the young, believe that
after Fidel Castro departs the scene, the current system can be
maintained intact, unchanged for long. I think there is already a
recognition among many in official positions that whatever brave
rhetorical front they may present, Cuba cannot remain an island of
dictatorship in a hemispheric democratic sea nor can it remain a
closed, statist economic system in an increasingly open, integrated
global economy.
So rather then approach U.S. policy towards Cuba from a position of
defeatism, we should instead approach Cuba with a strong sense of
confidence. The question for U.S. policymakers is: looking beyond Fidel
Castro: how do we create conditions that will speed Cuba's rapid,
peaceful--and I believe ultimately inevitable--transition to democracy.
What is at issue is an old and recurring question in foreign
policy: do we influence a dictatorial, closed regime most effectively
through isolation or engagement. We face this question in many other
parts of the world: China, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, just to name a
few. Good people find themselves on different sides of the debate
depending on the circumstance.
Consider the debate about Permanent Normal Trade Relations with
China (PNTR). Advocates--and I am one of them--argued that opening
trade and economic relations with China would over time create
pressures for rule-based law, empower a new generation of Chinese
citizens economically, and ultimately create internal pressures for
democratic political reform. That was the evolution we witnessed in
Taiwan, South Korea and I would argue also Mexico. It is the same
justification for our opening towards Vietnam. But many who advocated
such an opening towards China in the name of promoting democracy call
for continued or even greater economic isolation of Cuba to achieve the
same result. Conversely, many who argued that only strong economic
sanctions would compel South Africa to embrace democratic majority rule
argue with regards to Cuba that ending sanctions will help promote
democracy.
The point I am making is that these are judgment calls and rather
then question each other's motives, the advocates of engagement and the
advocates of isolation should instead debate how the policies they
advocate will help speed the peaceful democratization of Cuba and avoid
legitimizing and prolonging the life of Cuba's current dictatorship.
I believe that during the cold war, when security concerns were
paramount and Cuba was allied with the Soviet Union, a policy of
isolation and denial of hard currency served U.S. interests. To put it
simply, every dollar denied to Cuba was one less dollar used to buy an
AK-47 for a Cuban allied guerrilla group in Latin America or build an
airport runway in Cuba that could accommodate Soviet Backfire bombers.
With the Soviet empire gone, and Cuba, whether through conviction or
necessity, having renounced support for revolutionary violence we need
to ask whether the policy should shift accordingly.
Despite the conventional wisdom that our policy has been unmovable,
there has already been a shift in direction in the last decade since
the end of the Cold War. Telephone communication between Cuba and the
United States was re-established as called for under the Cuba Democracy
Act of 1992. A new understanding on migration was negotiated in 1994,
which continues to be in effect. The Clinton Administration, on the
recommendation of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, adopted
a new policy of licensing group travel to Cuba for scientific,
cultural, educational, religious, athletic, and other people to people
exchanges. Charter travel was expanded between the United States and
Cuba and remittances were increased. The last Congress authorized sale
of food products to Cuba, though denying commercial credit through U.S.
financial institutions.
The legislation you are considering is a further evolution in this
direction. In many ways it tracks the recommendations of the Task
Forces which the Council on Foreign Relations convened, though in
fairness to the members of the Task Force, there was far less consensus
for the recommendation to allow individual travel.
Still, I think there is a growing consensus in the Congress and in
the country that the United States should find ways to engage, support,
and encourage Cuba's nascent civil society and fledgling private
enterprise, defend and assist Cuba's brave human rights and democratic
advocates and religious communities, support humanitarian measures to
reduce the suffering of the Cuban people, and ease the plight of
divided Cuban and Cuban-America families across the Florida Straits.
With regards to the specifics of the legislation before the
Subcommittee let me make a few comments and then take any questions the
members may entertain.
I support the lifting of the current limit on remittances that
Cuban Americans may send to their relatives on the island. I believe
that this assistance reduces suffering of many Cubans and increases
their independence from the State. I would urge the Subcommittee to
also consider proposals made by the Task Force to allow Cuban Americans
to claim for dependency status for tax purposes family members in Cuba
who otherwise would meet IRS requirements. I understand that this
provision currently applies to U.S. citizens with dependents in Mexico
and Canada.
With regards to the provision on sale of food products, I believe
that allowing U.S. financial institutions to participate on normal
market terms is warranted. I note the bill also calls for a study by
the Secretary of Agriculture of export promotion and credit programs
with regards to Cuba. While gathering data is always useful, personally
I would be wary at this stage of supplying such credit enhancement to
Cuba given both its own credit history and the effective subsidies this
would represent for the Cuban government.
With regards to the lifting of the ban on travel by U.S. citizens,
I would note that with the change in licensing procedures by the U.S.
Treasury, which allow group travel for designated purposes, tens of
thousands of Americans, are already visiting Cuba. So this is a further
evolution of a policy that has already begun to change. Opponents argue
that such a policy largely benefits the government. They point out
correctly that the Cuban government hires workers for tourist hotels
and other facilities and that the foreign joint venture partners in
these hotels pay the workers' wages to the Cuban government, 80 to 90%
of which are retained by the government.
These are legitimate concerns though I would note that they
probably applied to the Soviet Union during the cold war period. There
might be several possible ways to address this issue to build broader
consensus. The lifting of the ban could be made contingent on changes
in these hiring and payment policies. Alternatively, the Administration
could be directed to report back to the Congress within 18 months to
report on the net effect of the lifting of the ban, including any
progress in changing these provisions on hiring and payment of workers
that the Congress might want to take into account. Or a broader
provision could be enacted that would permit not only travel by U.S.
citizens, but investment in enterprises where U.S. companies would be
permitted to hire and pay Cuban workers directly.
Another area, which I would commend to the Subcommittee's
attention, is the question of resolution of U.S. expropriation claims.
As you know, the embargo was originally placed on Cuba in response to
the expropriation of U.S. private commercial assets following the 1959
revolution. One of the lessons we learned from post-communist
recoveries in nations like Nicaragua is that the legacy of these
dispute claims can hobble a new democratic government for decades and
retard desperately needed investment for development because property
titles remain in dispute and subject to future litigation. The Task
Force recommended one possible way to begin to resolve these disputes
by allowing equity in existing Cuban enterprises to be used to resolve
such claims if the claimant agrees. Other mechanisms could be explored.
But I believe that it is in the interest of a future democratic Cuba
that we begin to explore modalities for discussing and beginning to
create a mechanism for such claims resolutions even before a democratic
transition has begun. I would urge the Subcommittee to give this matter
attention in the future.
There are many other issues we could discuss. In the interests of
the Subcommittee's time I would prefer to conclude my formal remarks
and take any questions you might have. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. Very fine testimony, and
I certainly want to second your comments. I have had a deep and
abiding respect for the exiled community as well. And for those
who have not had their families suffer as many Cuban-Americans
have, I do not think they understand this is not just a neck-up
reaction. There is deeply felt, passionate feelings about what
has happened.
And I think you need to understand that and appreciate it.
And I certainly do. And I too regret that over the years this
has been--any debate about different approaches has always
resulted in name calling which I do not think has served the
interest of our own country.
After all, our primary responsibility here is to see to it
we do things that are in the interest of the United States. And
so it has been disappointing to me. It has been very, very
difficult over the years to start talking about alternatives
without being labeled, or at least attempts to label people as
being soft or non-caring about these regimes.
And I know earlier Senator Nelson made the issue of
terrorism coming from possible Cuban vessels to the United
States. Obviously all vessels that come here pose some threats
to us. And I recall very vividly it was a man name Orlando
Bosch who fired a rocket at a Polish ship in a Florida harbor
because it had stopped in Havana to come here.
So there have been terrorist acts associated here. But we
need to keep in mind that this is not all coming from one
particular angle or another.
Let me ask you, because you had your--by the way, I am
going to set the clock for 5 minutes, we have got to move this
thing along so we do not end up with lengthy statements here.
The task force on Cuba has been operating since 1998. And I
gather it is a fairly diverse group of people. And the task
force has gone out of its way to make sure that there is a wide
range of views. Is that accurate or not?
Mr. Aronson. Yes.
Senator Dodd. Give some sense of that just----
Mr. Aronson. Well, you know, we self-consciously tried to
do something that had not been done before which is to bring
together people who may disagree about the embargo and see if
we could build some common ground on other issues.
And I think particularly in the first report there was a
lot of common ground built around this notion of supporting
civil society inside of Cuba, people-to-people exchanges. The
licensed group travel was a recommendation we made and which
the Clinton administration embraced.
And I think the second group went ahead and recommended the
end of the travel ban as well. There was less consensus about
that, to be fair, because of the issue that Senator Allen
raised which is who is the net beneficiary, and there are
tradeoffs in that.
But I think that the travel ban does not exist anymore. I
do not know the exact numbers but upwards of 150,000 Americans
I think went to Cuba legally under licensed provisions last
year.
So the question is whether you have this kabuki dance where
you create a group and you go under those circumstances or you
can go as an individual. And I think the horse is already out
of the barn on this issue.
I would rather try to press in the direction I was talking
about which is to create some sort of pressure on the Cuban
Government to pay workers directly and, I mean, to allow the
enterprises to pay the workers directly and hire them directly
and allow the travel to go forward.
It is very hard to understand what causes a totalitarian
state to implode. And I have watched this process as all of us
have and I have talked to a lot of participants. But I think at
the end of the day it is when the rest of the people lose their
fear of the regime and recognize that the vast majority of
their compatriots hate the regime as much as they do.
People are afraid to talk to each other. And I think that
the engagement with free people is subversive. I went to the
Soviet Union in 1974. And I remember very well that all of the
guides that they sent with us who were all party members were
very disciplined in the beginning. And they were always on the
bus on time. And they always gave the party line.
And here we were, a group of Americans. Of course everybody
had their own views and no one came on time. And I just watched
their body language over 17 days. It was painful for them to be
around free people because they were not free people.
And I think it undermined who they were. I think they did
not like being robots around free people. I don't mean it
simplisticly. But I think freedom is subversive. And I think we
should not under estimate the intangible value of this.
But I think that those who advocate this also have to be
the strongest advocates for the human rights in Cuba and
defending the dissidents and the brave people standing up so
that everybody understands this is not just commercially
driven.
Senator Dodd. If I could add too, as well as listening to
the dissident human rights activists inside a place like Cuba
who bring a very different set of issues to the table than
those who are not necessarily living in Cuba, who care about
the issue very much, I have always found it interesting to
compare the views on some of these issues that we have raised
today, when you raise them with the people inside Cuba, many of
whom have spent years incarcerated by the Castro regime, who
have ironically a different reaction to some of these
suggestions than those who have been outside of it.
I wonder if you might, and I want to just again underscore
the point you made, I do not think there is a single approach
you could take on what works best when you are dealing with
either authoritarian or totalitarian regimes in how you respond
to it. The idea that one approach is always going to produce
the desired results I think could be proven terribly false.
You need to judge under the set of circumstances you are
dealing with, maybe sometimes the combination of things that
produce results. And I gather if you look here, I would like to
make just a quick analysis if you would, on the task force
recommendations and the bill we have before us. I mean, are
these track--we tried to in our bill track here the task force.
Mr. Aronson. They actually track almost provision by
provision. We didn't support--we didn't call for a study on
credit, but otherwise ending the ban on the sale of food and
medicine and the travel ban, scholarships. We didn't speak to
the issue of ending the provision which I think is in the Cuban
Democracy Act banning the ship travel. But I think it is a
logical extension if you allow food and medicine in.
While Senator Nelson is correct that every ship that comes
in today is an extra security concern, I think that is a
security concern. I do not think it is heightened because of it
might have stopped in Cuba, although if we discover it is, then
I think we had better stop that practice.
But I think by and large our recommendations are pretty
much on track with what the legislation calls for.
Senator Dodd. One point on the scholarship issue. The
administration proposal on the scholarship program is to allow
scholarships to go to the children of dissidents. I think the
children of dissidents ought to be able to qualify for these
scholarships, but it limits it to those people.
My view has been that you shouldn't exclude them obviously,
but you should not necessarily limit it. And I wonder our bill
does not limit it.
Mr. Aronson. I would agree. You know, one of the lessons we
learned watching Eastern Europe change and watching the Soviet
Union collapse is that in these times of transition you never
know who is who in these regimes.
Boris Yeltsin was a member of the Politburo of the Soviet
Union, the highest political body. Probably more than any other
single individual in Russian history, he put the last nail in
the coffin of Soviet communism.
And I think you find individuals whether through conviction
or opportunism or change of view, who at a time of transition
are ready to either participate in or support or tolerate a
transition. And you don't know who is who in these regimes.
I think we have to have more confidence that our values and
our system is stronger than the coercion that they live under
and that we can find allies in places we don't even know about
and don't even know who they are.
I do not know if you remember, Senator, my Soviet
counterpart Yuri Pavlov with whom I negotiated on Central
America. It was my first trip as Assistant Secretary of State.
Well, he had been a reformer all his life. But he had never had
the courage to tell anybody except one individual who said,
don't ever repeat that.
And he actively collaborated with us, and so did his
government in ending the Sandonista regime through democratic
elections, ending the war in El Salvador. I think there are
Yuri Pavlovs all throughout Cuba. And I think most Cubans
understand that the future is not going to resemble the last 50
years.
So I think having some confidence to reach out to these
people is very much in our interest. I think we will find some
allies.
Will we be used to some extent, yes. I don't think we
should allow the Cuban Government to control the process of
this scholarship. And if they do, we would have to review it.
But I think limiting it that way, I think in a way it will
stigmatize the recipients. I think that no scholarships will be
issued, to be honest.
Senator Dodd. Our time is up but you have provoked one
comment from me. I do not know if it is still the policy, and I
hope it is not, but I have a feeling it may be, and that is to
prohibit members of our own interest section to have much of
any contact with their counterparts in the Cuban Government.
Now, there are obvious reasons I suppose to be worried
about that but I propose specific examples where a couple of
young Foreign Service officers in the Cuban Interest Section
were prohibited from having contacts with other younger people
in the Cuban Government. And I thought it was a grave mistake.
These people could at the very time be the Pavlovs in the
next 15, 20 years less than that, when change occurs we have
established those contacts and relationships. Now maybe the
policy has changed but I know a year or so ago, maybe someone
correct me if it has, that does not make a lot of sense to me.
If you have an intersection there, it seems to me if you
hire smart enough people who are secure in their own
patriotism, they are not going to be coopted by people through
conversating contacts. So I hope those have changed. Senator
Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman
mentioned that you were the co-chair of the Council's Task
Force on U.S.-Cuba Relations, and in your deliberations what
impediments did Helms-Burton raise and how do we reconcile the
direction to go with the restrictions that we have under that
legislation?
Mr. Aronson. Well, actually, I am glad you asked that
question, Senator, because I think one of the provisions of
your bill would restore to the President the flexibility to end
the embargo which I think was codified by Helms-Burton. We
didn't address that issue.
One of the bargains we made was we are not going to talk
about Helms-Burton. We are going to try to find common ground
in other areas. But as somebody who comes out of the executive
branch, I think it is wise and necessary to give the President
of the United States the flexibility to conduct foreign policy.
And I would much rather see the President vested with that
authority than the Congress.
With all due respect to the Congress, I just think you
cannot have 535 Secretaries of State. And while the Congress
has----
Senator Dodd. You can have them. They just do not work very
well. We have got them.
Mr. Aronson. Yes, takes up a lot of time. So I think that
is one area which needs to be addressed. Title 3 as you know
continues to be waived, so it is there in the books, but no
President, neither President Clinton, President Bush or current
President Bush has exercised that right and believes it is in
our interest to do so.
I think that the embargo is already being amended in many
ways because ultimately what the embargo says is you cannot
spend dollars in Cuba. All of this licensed group travel is
spending dollars in Cuba.
If you have travel to Cuba, you will have more dollars
spent in Cuba. The remittances if they are lifted will add more
dollars to Cuba though they don't violate the embargo. So I
think that policy is evolving.
But I would support giving that authority back to the
President. I think that is where it belongs. Because ultimately
some President is going to want to bargain with some successor
regime. And I think that he or she should have that power to
bargain and use those chips if the Congress hasn't already
acted. I don't know if that answers the question you asked.
Senator Chafee. Thank you. Regarding the Varela Project, my
own theory is that the President in Cuba let that happen as a
signal to the West. I cannot imagine that he would allow that
to go forward without some acquiescence as a signal. I believe
he has got an ego. That is no understatement.
So he has got to send out signals to us that things are
changing and doors are opening. At the same time, though he
must protect his dream of the revolution, despite that it has
obviously failed. As I said before we have to take these
signals seriously in biomedical issues, in agriculture and in
travel. We must move forward as times are changing.
Mr. Aronson. You know, I find it curious that they allowed
the Varela Project to go forward. I think you are correct. They
could have stopped it at any time.
They did harass and intimidate a lot of the participants.
They did not make it easy for them. But I do not know why they
allowed it to happen, though they clearly are not going to let
it go any further.
That was the thrust of what was done in the last week or
so. But to me the real story is not that they let it go
forward, though I think that it is interesting, but that 11,000
Cubans were brave enough to do what they did because that took
a lot of courage.
And to me that suggests part of what we are talking about
which is the transition has already begun. We do not know how
it is going to play out, but I think it has already begun. I
think the youth in Cuba have no interest in Cuban style
socialism. I think that everybody understands that when El
Viego goes, that there is going to be a change.
But nobody knows exactly the form. And I think the fact
that the Varela Project happened is a good sign that the times
there are changing, as the great foreign policy expert Bob
Dylan once said.
Senator Chafee. I guess I am a hopeless cynic, but in the
Varela Project I believe he could be accepting of people
signing the petition. ``Go ahead and sign it,'' he might be
saying. I see the strong fist with which he rules that country
and I suppose I'm just being very, very cynical.
Mr. Aronson. You are correct that it would not have
happened without the regime, without them allowing it to
happen. And I do not really know why they did. Because he is
not really sending a signal. Because his signal is never.
He is now collecting several million signatures saying they
are going to enshrine in the constitution that socialism cannot
be altered. That is what this latest petition drive is about.
So he's trying to say maybe there are 11,000 people who signed
the Varela, but millions of Cubans love the revolution and want
it forever.
So that is the signal he is sending today. It doesn't
happen to be true, but that's the signal he would like to send.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Senator Dodd. Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Aronson,
it was good to hear your optimism and your thoughtful approach
and experience in these matters. And in trying to apply what
we've learned in history versus to the facts of the case here
which may not be applicable, but nevertheless very thoughtful
remarks. I am glad you are here to share them with us.
Your comment, freedom is subversive, I would just with all
due respect, I would just simply use the phrase freedom is
invigorating. That is the way I would look at it. But you bring
up some ideas. The contingency ideas, in other words if you
want us to have, say, the travel ban, the remittance matter,
you can almost change that just by indexing it.
But regardless, as far as your contingency approach if Cuba
and the Castro regime, allows this greater freedom and
directness whether it is in money or access to hiring, then we
will change our policies I think, Mr. Chairman, is something
worth exploring. And I would hope that you would continue to
share with us your views on how that sort of contingency
approach would go forward.
You gave some caveats. As far as financing of food or
medicine sales, you said do not finance them. Do not allow
financing through U.S. banks. What would be the financing
facilities?
Mr. Aronson. Right. I support allowing U.S. banks to handle
those under normal commercial terms. There is a provision in
the bill that calls on the Secretary of Agriculture to study
credit enhancement programs vis-a-vis Cuba. And while I think
having the study is fine, I would not support credit
enhancement, I used to know this when I was in the government
but there are various credit enhancement programs where you can
get concessionary terms to buy U.S. agriculture or goods.
We have these programs all around the world. I would not
advocate that for Cuba at this time.
Senator Allen. Do you find----
Mr. Aronson. But I do think at this point if they are going
to buy U.S. grain and get a commercial line of credit, a normal
line of credit, I do not know what the logic is of saying they
should get it from the Bank of Nova Scotia as opposed to the
Bank of America. It does not help the regime any to pick a
Canadian bank over a U.S bank which is what the current law
would require.
Senator Allen. Well, the only concern there would be
potentially is if they defaulted then the taxpayers of the
United States would be ultimately responsible.
Mr. Aronson. Well, I think in this instance it would be
private transactions. That point would be the case if it was
some U.S. Government credit enhancement programs.
But I think in this case it would just be private banks
taking the risk. So I think in that case let the market decide.
Senator Allen. The other issue that you alluded to and
discussed, and so did the chairman, was that seemingly when
President Bush's initiative for a new Cuba mentioned
scholarships, and granted it does say for family members of
political prisoners but it also establishes scholarships in the
United States for Cuban students and professionals which I
think at the least is common ground.
You know, Cuba compared to even the People's Republic of
China, there are many citizens from the People's Republic of
China who are studying in our colleges and universities and go
back. So while I am not going to say that the People's Republic
of China is the most enlightened country in the world, they at
least allow thousands of students to come here and learn.
Assuming we could get a common ground on at least that
aspect of it, what do you think the Castro regime's response
would be to allowing students to come to the United States to
study on scholarships?
Mr. Aronson. Well, I think first it depends on how it was
couched in our case. I think we should try to couch it in
educational terms and not political terms.
And then second, I think it would depend on the criteria by
which we determine they would have to be chosen. If we set
criteria that are too overtly political, probably they won't
allow it to happen. But I think if it is done for educational,
business and other purposes, I think it probably could evolve
over time; maybe not day one.
And I think the China analogy is a good one. Because one
reason why I am hopeful about the future of China, and I think
China has changed significantly in the last 20 years though it
is by no means a democratic state, but I think it has changed
from the time I first visited it, is that those students who
tend to be the sons and daughters of the elite who studied over
here in U.S. universities, about 20,000 of them. I think they
are going to be the agents of a different China.
It is not always the case, but I think young people who
have come over here and lived in a free society are not so
interested in coming back and living under the lock and key of
a totalitarian regime.
It isn't always the case, you know. Mohammad Atta was an
engineering student. And it didn't seem to have a very
constructive effect on him. But I think by and large that when
I say freedom is subversive, I think it is subversive of
totalitarianism.
Senator Allen. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. And I just come back a
bit. The question of conditionality on the remittances or on
the travel. As a general matter, I do not like giving anybody
veto power over my policies in the United States. Either you
have them or you do not have them.
When you start placing conditions on policies like that,
you too often then defer or transfer power to the very people
you want to deprive of that decisionmaking.
If I want them to build a veto power in Havana, I would
rather have us decide how it makes sense or it does not make
sense and decide on that.
I am concerned that we have seen an uptick here, some 400
people now as I mentioned in my opening comments have been
subjected to some penalties because they were truthful in their
responses about having gone to Cuba not through some licensing
process.
And with all the work we have to do to be chasing 400
Americans because they went to Cuba, when I can think of some
other people they might be keeping an eye on right now, I
wonder about the wisdom of all of that.
So I would hope we keep that point in mind as we look at
this, that I found we are getting ourselves in trouble when we
try and place conditionality, the assumption being that this is
necessarily a great asset, free travel to Cuba.
Now clearly there is a dollar amount coming in. But I can
tell you flat out that I also know they are weighing the
benefits and the liabilities. And I think one of the great
fears of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes is light.
They slide best in darkness. And when you all of a sudden
flood, as you would, we are not talking about a trip to Vietnam
or China now, but a hydrofoil will get you across there in a
matter of minutes. The notion of having thousands of Americans
and others joining, showing up; you are a closed society. That
is an intimidating prospect.
The value of having the dollars coming in is clearly an
asset. But the notion you could end up with as much I think of
an influx of U.S. citizens possibly going there has got to be
very intimidating, if your idea is to perpetuate this closed
society. So that is why I raise that issue.
But nonetheless, well, certainly any suggestions and ideas
in this area are helpful. We could carry on a conversation just
with you, Bernie. You have been very helpful. We could bring
you back. We have hearings on Mexico and Colombia.
Mr. Aronson. I'll come back for Colombia. That's a subject
I have been paying a lot of attention to.
Senator Dodd. The President elected yesterday and I would
hope that we can find some real opportunities to present
themselves in working on that issue. So we'll continue calling
on you. Thank you, sir.
I am glad you are interested. I am glad you approve that
while these aren't the hottest issues in town, other issues for
obvious reasons are, I thought as the chairman of the
subcommittee it would be worth our while to periodically do
reviews on where we are and help the people.
Mr. Aronson. I think it is very important. I think it
matters to Latin America that we are paying attention. We
obviously have important security concerns these days, but I
think there is a sentiment in the region that we are not too
engaged these days. And I think we need to send counter
signals. So I applaud the subcommittee for doing this. I think
it makes a difference.
Senator Dodd. We'll leave the record open.
Mr. Aronson. Thank you. And I'll introduce the two task
force reports \1\ with your permission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The reports referred to can be accessed at the Web site of the
Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/ and are entitled as
follows: ``U.S.-Cuba Relations for the 21st Century,'' January 1, 1999,
and ``U.S.-Cuba Relations for the 21st Century: A Followup on the
Chairman's Report,'' February 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Dodd. Thank you. We will make them part of the
record. We'd like to have them. Thank you very much.
Senator Dodd. Our second panel, I have already introduced
you, and I hope I have pronounced the names correctly. We are
going to have you join us up here at the table, Dr. Leshner,
Dr. Morton, Dr. Bridges, Dr. Rasenick. Thank you all for being
here.
Senator Nelson is going to try and get back. Again it is
like any day around here, busy days during the week in the
afternoon. Senator Allen I know wanted to stay as well, and
Senator Chafee is going to have to leave us as well. So I thank
Senator Chafee for being here.
What I would like to do is first of all thank all of you.
It is tremendously helpful to have you here and be a part of
this subcommittee hearing. I have already sort of introduced
you in terms of background and the like. I didn't give you the
lengthy introductions you probably richly deserve, but we will
leave that for the record.
Senator Dodd. Let me introduce you in the order that I
mentioned your names. Dr. Leshner, we'll start with you. You
are our lead-off witness. I am going to tell you that all of
your statements, any supporting documentation we will make a
part of the permanent record. I will ask unanimous consent to
do that.
And second, I am going to put, say, around 7 minutes on the
clock. If you can do it in less, fine; if not, fine, do not
worry about it. But just so we give you some sense so we can
try and get through the testimony, if we can.
So with that, Dr. Leshner, thank you for being here. And we
will receive your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALAN I. LESHNER, PH.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Leshner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be
here and have the opportunity to set the stage and discuss the
importance of open international scientific exchange.
I represent the largest general scientific society in the
world. We have over 130,000 members and 272 affiliated
societies. Our members come from the entire range of science
and engineering disciplines in many nations throughout the
world.
In the 21st century, the science and technology enterprise
is truly global in character. Modern information and
communication technologies as well as the ease of international
travel have transformed what once were individual national
scientific communities into really a single world community.
Collaboration across national boundaries is the norm, no
longer the exception. And virtually every country has some
scale of science it conducts, as everyone has come to
understand the centrality of science and technology to every
facet of modern life. Those peoples without access to science
and technology are doomed to be disadvantaged long into the
future.
We've also learned that in the 21st century context, it
works against everyone's interest to isolate any individual
national scientific community. We of course recognize the
primary need to protect individual and national security, but
there is no credible reason to limit international
collaboration in non-classified research.
In a 1999 resolution, the AAAS, the American Association
for the Advancement of Science board of directors emphasized
that progress in science and technology is greatly enhanced by
the unfettered exchange of information, especially freedom of
movement across countries and a right to travel.
They argued that such progress actually promotes national
security and promotes democratic decisionmaking and the general
welfare by ensuring access for Americans to later discoveries,
whatever their country of origin.
The AAAS board argued that progress and science will be
impeded in fact if political criteria are used to obstruct open
international discourse of scientists and engineers.
They also emphasized that the universal language of science
is often a means to bridge the political chasms that divide
nations. Numerous examples have shown that international
scientific communication can be a very successful venue through
which to begin broader diplomatic discussions.
Obvious examples include scientific collaborations that
were ongoing during the so-called cold war with the Soviet
Union and difficult times in our relations with Chile. Free and
open scientific exchange among countries builds trust and
mutual understanding.
We also believe that we have a human obligation to openly
exchange scientific information and advances. The entire world
is facing increasingly complex and often devastating problems
of poverty, environmental degradation, human disease. Science
and technology have a long and fruitful track record in helping
to solve many of the most complex problems in humanity.
AAAS believes that we in the American scientific community
have an obligation to reach out to scientists and engineers
around the globe and explore ways that science can improve the
lives of people everywhere.
Most scientists in the United States also agree that
scientific and educational exchanges with their colleagues
abroad are beneficial to the development of science in our
country. And if you take the case of Cuba that we are
discussing today in the area of environmental research,
collaboration between the United States and Cuba has resulted
in the discovery of new species, in an increased awareness
about the importance of Caribbean biodiversity and joint
publication and dissemination of other ecological and
biological information.
Additional potential benefits of increased collaboration
with Cuban scientists include ways to prevent contamination of
coastal waters and new approaches, as I'm sure you'll hear
today, to sickle cell disease and vaccines for meningitis and
hepatitis B.
Representing the scientific community, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science recently restated
its mission as to advance science and innovation throughout the
world for the benefit of all people. We believe that our
discussion today can help us realize that noble goal. And I
applaud you for holding this hearing and for raising this topic
to national attention again. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leshner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan I. Leshner, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I'm delighted to be here
and have the opportunity to discuss the importance of open
international scientific exchange. I represent the largest general
scientific society in the world with over 130,000 members and 272
affiliated societies. Our members come from the entire range of science
and engineering disciplines and many nations throughout the world.
Mr. Chairman, in the 21st century, the science and technology
enterprise is truly global in character. Modem information and
communication technologies, as well as the ease of international
travel, have transformed what once were individual national scientific
communities into a world community. Collaboration across national
boundaries is the norm, no longer the exception, and virtually every
country has some scale of science it conducts, as everyone has come to
understand the centrality of science and technology to every facet of
modem life. Those peoples without access to science and technology are
doomed to be disadvantaged long into the future.
We also have learned that in the 21st century context, it works
against everyone's interest to isolate any individual national
scientific community. We of course recognize the primary need to
protect individual and national security, but there is no credible
reason to limit international collaboration in non-classified research.
In a 1999 resolution, the AAAS Board of Directors emphasized that
progress in science and technology is greatly enhanced by the
unfettered exchange of information, especially freedom of movement
across countries and the right to travel. They argued that such
progress actually promotes national security, democratic decision-
making and the general welfare by ensuring access for Americans to the
latest discoveries, whatever their country of origin.
The AAAS Board argued that progress in science will be impeded if
political criteria are used to obstruct open international discourse of
scientist and engineers. They also emphasized that the universal
language of science is often a means to bridge the political chasms
that divide nations. Numerous examples have shown that international
scientific communication can be a very successful venue through which
to begin broader diplomatic discussions. Obvious examples include
scientific collaborations ongoing during the ``cold war'' with the
Soviet Union and during difficult times in our relations with Chile.
Free and open scientific exchange among countries builds trust and
mutual understanding.
We also have a human obligation to openly exchange scientific
information and advances. The entire world is facing increasingly
complex and often devastating problems of poverty, environmental
degradation and human disease. Science and technology have a long and
fruitful track record in helping to solve many of the most complex
problems of humanity. AAAS believes that we in the American scientific
community have an obligation to reach out to scientists and engineers
around the globe and explore ways that science can improve the lives of
people everywhere.
Most scientists in the U.S. also agree that scientific and
educational exchanges with their colleagues abroad are beneficial to
the development of science in our country. Take the case of Cuba that
we are discussing today. In the area of environmental research,
collaboration between the U.S. and Cuba has resulted in the discovery
of new species, an increased awareness about the importance of
Caribbean biodiversity, and joint publication and dissemination of
other ecological and biological information. Additional potential
benefits of increased collaboration with Cuban scientists include ways
to prevent contamination of coastal waters and new approaches to sickle
cell disease and vaccines for meningitis and hepatitis B. You likely
will hear more from my colleagues on this panel today.
Representing the scientific community, the American Association for
the Advancement of Science recently restated its mission: ``To advance
science and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all
people.'' I believe our discussion today can help realize that noble
goal.
[Attachment.]
american association for the advancement of science (aaas)
Founded 150 years ago, AAAS is the world's largest federation of
scientific and engineering societies, with nearly 275 affiliates. AAAS
counts more than 130,000 individual scientists, engineers, science
educators, policymakers, and interested citizens among its members,
making it the largest general scientific organization in the world. Our
mission is to advance science and innovation throughout the world for
the benefit of all people. Our objectives in this mission are to foster
communication among scientists, engineers and the public; enhance
international cooperation in science and its applications; promote the
responsible conduct and use of science and technology; foster education
in science and technology for everyone; enhance the science and
technology workforce and infrastructure; increase public understanding
and appreciation of science and technology; and strengthen support for
the science and technology enterprise.
The AAAS Science and Human Rights Program (SHR or the Program) was
established in 1976 to give scientists a way to help their colleagues
around the world whose human rights are threatened or violated.
Mobilizing effective assistance to protect the human rights of
scientists around the world remains central to its mission, as well as
making the tools and knowledge of science available to benefit the
field of human rights. AAAS Resources relating to scientific freedom
and travel include:
``The Right to Travel: An Essential Freedom for Scientists and
Academics,'' by Alastair T. Iles, and Morton H. Sklar; February 1996.
``The Right to Travel: The Effect of Travel Restrictions on
Scientific Collaboration Between American and Cuban Scientists,'' Elisa
Munoz, July 1998.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, doctor. I appreciate it
very much. I believe the next witness is Dr. Morton.
STATEMENT OF DONALD L. MORTON, M.D., MEDICAL DIRECTOR AND
SURGEON-IN-CHIEF, JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE, SANTA MONICA, CA
Dr. Morton. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before this committee and provide
comments and perspective on the topic of advances in medical
research in Cuba. As a cancer surgeon, cancer researcher, as
well as a cancer survivor, I have tremendous personal and
professional interest in seeing that potential advances in the
treatment of cancer from researchers located throughout the
global community, including Cuba, be made available for the
benefit of cancer patients in the United States and throughout
the world.
Cancer is a universal enemy of all mankind. Politics should
not get in the way of our being able to take full advantage of
life-saving treatments, whatever the origin.
My work in the field of cancer and immunology began over 40
years and 600 scientific articles ago. Ever since I became a
physician, I have studied how the immune system can be
stimulated to fight cancer. I have dedicated my career to
advancing research and development of promising technologies,
such as vaccines, for the treatment of cancer and eventually
for prevention.
Ultimately, I believe this will lead to breakthroughs in
cancer treatments. Today we appear to be on the threshold of
translating cancer immunology research into real treatments for
difficult cancers.
With over 500,000 people dying each year of cancer in the
United States, at a public health cost of more than $100
billion, the search for treatments and cures must continue to
be purposeful and it must be relentless.
No doubt cancer has touched the lives of everyone in this
room today in one form or another. One of every three of us
will develop cancer. And I know that this distinguished group
is working hard to promote the advancement of cancer treatment
and research. Today we need your support more than ever.
I currently lead the John Wayne Cancer Institute as medical
director and surgeon-in-chief. The John Wayne has emerged as
one of the world's most innovative cancer research centers
thanks to support from the National Cancer Institute and many
generous private donors. Patients have traveled from more than
40 foreign countries and 48 states to receive treatments from
John Wayne physicians, many of whom are listed among the
world's top cancer specialists.
More cancer patients have received cancer vaccine on
research protocols at the John Wayne than any other research
center in the world. My own research efforts are currently
focused on the development and improvement of therapeutic
cancer vaccines which are designed to stimulate the immune
system to fight cancer.
As a result of over 40 years of research, a vaccine I
developed for the treatment of advanced stage melanoma, a
rapidly progressing and deadly form of cancer with an average
survival of only 8 months, is being studied in large phase III
pivotal international clinical trials, the final step before
FDA approval.
I serve on the board of directors and as a consultant to a
biotechnology company which I founded and in which I have an
equity interest, that is working to finalize the development of
this vaccine and obtain regulatory approvals around the world
to make the vaccine available to all patients.
While on the day-to-day basis I am a surgeon, I strongly
believe in the importance of basic research. And that is what
brings me here today.
I recently returned from a licensed, scientific exchange to
Cuba, my first visit there, with all proper clearance received
from the Treasury Department. During this trip I engaged in a
rewarding academic dialog with Cuban scientists.
While I have known about the quality of their work through
public articles and presentation at American scientific
meetings for some time, I was impressed by the depth and
sophistication of their research, especially as it relates to
cancer immunology.
The Cuban researchers have made some interesting and novel
discoveries and achieved significant progress in the
development of cancer immunotherapies. Several of the
immunotherapy products that were developed in Cuba are
currently being tested in clinical trials in the United Kingdom
and Canada. One type of immunotherapy product being developed
by the Cubans is based on monoclonal antibodies, which are
proteins produced by the immune system that target cancer cells
like ``smart bombs''.
This is an area of significant interest for cancer
researchers, and there is at least three drugs approved by the
FDA that involve monoclonal antibodies. Cuban researchers have
also focused on developing therapeutic cancer vaccines that are
designed to stimulate the immune system to develop antibodies
that target cancer growth factors like epidermal growth factor
receptors and gangliosides, which are glycolipid molecules that
are present on the surface of certain tumor cells.
The vaccine being developed by the Cuban researchers have
shown promise in the treatment of kidney cancer, lung cancer,
breast cancer and melanoma, all cancers with a poor prognosis
of survival once they have spread. I left there very impressed
with the quality of basic research with these technologies.
I also left there very frustrated. The truth of the matter
is that while the research results that I had seen from the
Cuban research institutes are very promising, unless we are
permitted to test and evaluate these approaches in the United
States using the rigorous standards for medical research that
are customary here, we won't really know how effective they may
be in treating cancer. And importantly, unless subjected to the
development and approval process required by the U.S. FDA, any
products that emerge from the Cuban research will not be
available to cancer patients in the United States.
To further underscore the potential merit of medical
research being conducted in Cuba, it is my understanding that a
vaccine that was developed by Cuban researchers for the
prevention of meningitis in children is currently being tested
in international clinical trials.
Further, I understand that the U.S. Department of the
Treasury gave approval for a U.S. company to participate in the
development of this important vaccine. This is a great example
of a decision in which the well-being and health of our
children was made the highest priority.
Based upon my many years of experience in this field, it
appears Cuban scientists have made potential important advances
in cancer therapies. I believe that all U.S. citizens suffering
from cancer deserve access to potentially life-saving
therapies, and that such therapies should undergo the rigorous
development and approval process of the U.S. FDA.
Senators, I urge you to take the appropriate legislative
steps to help us to thoroughly evaluate every possible option
to save the lives of U.S. citizens afflicted with cancer. U.S.
oncologists should be given access to the broadest possible
armamentarium of options to treat cancer.
I thank you all for your continuing support of cancer
research. Let us not stop short of our goal by restricting the
evaluation of medical advances that have the potential to save
lives.
Senators, create this bridge for the benefit of cancer
patients, their families and friends. This is more than good
public policy; it is the right thing to do for cancer patients
desperate for new cancer treatments.
Senator Dodd. Doctor, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Morton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald L. Morton, M.D., Medical Director and
Surgeon-in-Chief, John Wayne Cancer Institute
Thank you for that kind introduction, Senator. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before this committee and provide comments and
perspective on the topic of advances in medical research in Cuba. As a
cancer surgeon and cancer immunology researcher, as well as a melanoma
survivor, I have tremendous personal and professional interest in
seeing that potential advances in the treatment of cancer from
researchers located throughout the global community, including Cuba, be
made available for the benefit of cancer patients in the U.S. and
elsewhere. Politics should not get in the way of our being able to take
full advantage of life-saving treatments--whatever the origin.
As Senator Dodd mentioned, my work in the field of cancer and
immunology began over 40 years and 600 scientific articles ago. Ever
since I became a physician, I've studied how the immune system can be
stimulated to fight cancer. From my early work at the National
Institute of Health, to UCLA, and now at the John Wayne Cancer
Institute, my focus on cancer has been clear: trying to understand what
happens to the immune system during cancer progression and to develop a
rational basis for cancer immunotherapy with the goal of impacting the
course of the disease to help patients live longer.
I have dedicated my career to advancing research and development of
promising technologies, such as vaccines, for the treatment of cancer.
Ultimately, I believe this will lead to breakthroughs in cancer
treatments and potentially provide cures. Today, we appear to be on the
threshold of translating cancer immunology research into real
treatments for difficult cancers. With over half a million people dying
of cancer every year in the U.S., at a public health cost of more than
$100 billion, the search for treatments and cures must continue to be
purposeful--and it must be relentless.
No doubt, cancer has touched the lives of everyone in this room
today in one form or another, and I know that this distinguished group
is working hard to promote the advancement of cancer research and
treatment. Among a long list, I am aware that Senator Helms has jointly
sponsored a bill to require health plans to cover the cost of
colonoscopies for persons older than 50 to improve early detection of
colorectal cancer; Senator Boxer is a strong supporter of the U.S.
Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, including funding
for the Lawrence-Livermore labs to use laser expertise for breast
cancer research. This kind of public policy in support of advancing
research targeted at early diagnosis and treatment is crucial in our
effort to conquer cancer. Today, we need your support more than ever.
I currently lead the John Wayne Cancer Institute as the Medical
Director and Surgeon-in-Chief. I had the privilege of caring for John
Wayne himself during his battle with cancer. JWCI has emerged as one of
the world's leading cancer research centers, thanks to the support of
the National Cancer Institute and many generous private donors. Each
year, patients travel from more than 40 foreign countries and 48 states
to receive treatment from John Wayne physicians, many of whom are
listed among the world's top cancer specialists. The John Wayne Cancer
Institute currently sponsors the third largest surgical oncology
fellowship training program in the U.S. In terms of the amounts of
peer-review funding, the JWCI is in the top 6% of the 2500 research
centers receiving NIH funding. More cancer patients have received
cancer vaccines on research protocols at the JWCI than any other
research center in the world.
My own research efforts are currently focused on the development
and improvement of therapeutic cancer vaccines, which are designed to
stimulate the immune system to fight cancer. As a result of over thirty
years of research, a vaccine I developed for the treatment of advanced
stage melanoma, a rapidly progressing and deadly form of cancer, is
being studied in large phase III pivotal international clinical trials,
the final step before FDA approval. I serve on the board of directors
and as a consultant to a biotechnology company (in which I have a
financial interest) that is working to finalize the development of this
vaccine and obtain regulatory approvals around the world to make the
vaccine available to patients.
While on a day-to-day basis I am a surgeon, I strongly believe in
the importance of basic research, and that's what brings me here today.
I recently returned from a licensed scientific exchange to Cuba--my
first visit there, and with all proper clearance received from the
Treasury Department. I have also had the good fortune of having a Cuban
research fellow visit the John Wayne Cancer Institute, during which
time we gained knowledge of Cuban scientific research efforts. As well,
during this trip, I engaged in a rewarding academic dialogue with Cuban
scientists. While I've known about the quality of their work through
published articles for some time, I was impressed by the depth and
sophistication of their research, especially as it relates to cancer
immunology.
I learned that the Cuban researchers have made some interesting and
novel discoveries and have achieved significant progress in the
development of cancer immunotherapies. Many of these discoveries are
protected by patents, which have been issued in the United States,
Europe and other countries. In addition, several of the immunotherapy
products that they have developed are being tested in clinical trials
in the United Kingdom and Canada.
One type of immunotherapy product being developed by the Cubans is
based on monoclonal antibodies, which are immune system-derived
proteins of exceptional purity and specificity that are being used to
target cancer like ``smart bombs''. This is an area of significant
interest for cancer researchers. The four monoclonal antibody products
that have been approved in the U.S. for the treatment of certain types
of cancer have demonstrated improved efficacy with reduced side effects
compared to previous standards of care.
Cuban researchers have also focused on developing therapeutic
cancer vaccines that are designed to stimulate the immune system to
develop antibodies that target epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR)
and gangliosides, molecules that are present on the surface of certain
tumor cells. The vaccines being developed by the Cuban researchers have
shown promise in the treatment of head and neck cancer, lung cancer,
renal cell cancer, breast cancer and melanoma among others, all cancers
with a poor prognosis for survival.
I left there very impressed with the quality of basic research with
these technologies. I also left there very frustrated. The truth of the
matter is that, while the research results that I have seen from the
Cuban research institutes are very promising, unless we are permitted
to test and evaluate these approaches in the U.S., using the rigorous
standards for medical research that are customary in the U.S., we won't
know how effective they may be in treating cancer. And, importantly,
unless subjected to the development approval processes required by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, any products that emerge from the
Cuban research will not be made available to cancer patients in the
U.S.
To further underscore the potential merit of medical research being
conducted in Cuba, it is my understanding that a vaccine that was
developed by Cuban researchers for the prevention of meningitis, an
infectious disease that causes substantial mortality in children, is
currently being tested in international clinical trials. Further, I
understand that the U.S. Department of the Treasury has given approval
for a U.S. company to participate in the development of this important
vaccine. However, I also understand that it took two years for the
approval to be forthcoming and it is my hope that these kinds of delays
can be eliminated by Congressional action where life-saving vaccines
are at stake. This is a great example of a decision in which the health
and well-being of our children was made the highest priority.
Based upon my many years of experience in this field, I can assure
you that it is tremendously difficult to develop therapies that can
directly affect solid tumor cancers--and the Cuban scientists appear to
have made important advances in precisely this area. I believe that all
U.S. citizens suffering from cancer deserve access to potentially life-
saving therapies, and that such therapies should undergo the rigorous
development and approval process of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.
Senators, I urge you to take the appropriate legislative steps to
help us to thoroughly evaluate every possible option to save the lives
of U.S. citizens afflicted with cancer. U.S. clinical oncologists
should be given access to the broadest possible armamentarium of
options to treat cancer, and U.S. cancer patients deserve nothing less
than the very best therapies available in the world.
Thank you all for all your continuing support of cancer research.
Let us not stop short of our goal by restricting the evaluation of
medical advances that have the potential to save lives. Senators,
create this bridge for the benefit of U.S. cancer patients, their
families and friends. This is more than good public policy; it's the
right thing to do for U.S. patients desperate for new cancer
treatments.
Senator Dodd. Dr. Bridges.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. BRIDGES, M.D., DIRECTOR, JOINT CENTER
FOR SICKLE CELL AND THALASSEMIC DISORDERS, BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S
HOSPITAL, BOSTON, MA
Senator Dodd. We welcome you to the committee. Did I
pronounce thalassemic properly? Is that----
Dr. Bridges. It's thalassemic.
Senator Dodd. I am obviously a lawyer, not a doctor talking
here.
Dr. Bridges. Thank you very much, Senator Dodd. I
appreciate the opportunity to come before the subcommittee and
to discuss some of the issues involving today not thalassemia
but sickle cell disease. And speaking after a discussion of
cancer, I think that it is somewhat of a disadvantage because
most people have never heard of sickle cell disease; and yet it
is the first disorder for which we knew the genetic basis.
Sickle cell disease is the ultimate molecular disorder in
terms of its designation. And it was discovered--now those
things roll off as you probably know almost weekly if you read
the scientific journals about a new gene which has been
discovered for a particular defect.
Sickle cell disease, the defect was discovered in 1956. And
today we still have no cure for this disorder. It is a disorder
that primarily affects black Americans because of its--and it
is a historical factor relationship to malaria which is another
story. But nonetheless, the progress that we've made over the
years toward controlling the disorder has been very important.
But curing the disorder and controlling the disorder are
really different. We at some point will have genetic
engineering and we will be able to cure this disorder. In the
meantime, projects, treatments that involve control for this
disorder that affects 70,000 people in the United States and
produces severe disability. Severe pain is the major
manifestation, and severe loss of longevity because people's
lives are shortened to an average of about 40 years if they
have sickle cell disease.
Working with the kind of physician network that exists in
Cuba would allow us to investigate more quickly the drugs, the
materials that are now coming into the market that we have to
understand their value in order to allow American citizens to
benefit from these advances.
I think that the bill which has been put before the Senate
or before the subcommittee, I should say, for consideration is
extremely important because it would allow us to take advantage
of some very, very important aspects of the medical care in
Cuba, which by the way is very good in terms of their basic
medical care.
One of the things we have to carry out are trials. And in
order to carry out a trial you have to know where the patients
are. And in this country we don't have a disease registry for
sickle cell disease. In Cuba, there is. And therefore we know
where the patients are, or they know where the patients are.
We are really hampered by the inability to enroll patients
in trials. And if we were able to cooperate with Cuba, in my
statement I mentioned a most promising drug which has come
along, hydroxyurea. When we conducted the study in the United
States, 23 centers throughout the United States were engaged to
enroll 300 patients.
We could have enrolled half of those patients in Cuba and
moved the study along much faster. That kind of cooperation is
really what we need.
The other issue is the fact that most of the care networks
for patients have been developed for urban patients. And we now
know that more than half the people in this country with sickle
cell disease are not urban. They are in the rural areas
throughout the south and other places. How do we deal with
that.
Cuba has developed programs that address that kind of issue
because that is exactly their patient profile. So rather than
reinventing the wheel, there are things that we can do through
cooperation that will allow us to benefit Americans to move
more quickly to the table treatments and therapies as well as
provide more effective service for Americans afflicted by this
terrible and debilitating disorder.
Senator Dodd. Very good. And we will come back with some
questions for you shortly, but we appreciate your being here
and your eloquence on the subject matter.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bridges follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth R. Bridges, M.D., Director, Joint Center
for Sickle Cell and Thalassemic Disorders, Brigham and Women's
Hospital, Boston, MA
the negative impact of the u.s. embargo of cuba on americans with
sickle cell disease
Sickle cell disease is one of the most common genetic disorders in
the United States, affecting about 70,000 people. Despite a thorough
understanding of its genetic basis, no cure exists. Sickle cell disease
produces repeated episodes of tremendously severe, incapacitating pain
throughout the body. The condition can damage nearly every organ in the
body, with sequelae ranging from strokes in children as young as 2
years of age to heart, liver and lung failure. The disorder occurs
primarily in black Americans, shortening the life spans of its victims
to 42 years for males and 48 years for females.
Treatment of sickle cell disease has improved significantly in the
past 15 years, propelled by landmark investigations funded by the
National Institutes of Health. Chronic penicillin treatment in young
children prevents morbidity and mortality from overwhelming bacterial
infections. Investigators found that the drug, hydroxyurea, can prevent
sickle cell pain episodes and even reduce mortality from the disorder.
Hydroxyurea remains the only medication that can prevent complications
from sickle cell disease.
Despite these advances, people with sickle cell disease still have
hard lives and face formidable peril. A workshop sponsored by the
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the Maternal and Child Health
Bureau and the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research on June
13 and 14 addressed The Unmet Health Care Needs of People with Sickle
Cell Disease. Experts from around the country along with patient
advocates charted the challenges that still hobble people with the
disorder, both literally and figuratively. A major question raised at
the event was how investigators and health care providers could speed
treatment development while a cure is being developed.
The Pugwash Conferences workshop on Medical Research in Cuba:
Strengthening International Cooperation, held in Havana, Cuba 15-17
February 2001 produced information directly relevant to issues raised
in the recent workshop in Bethesda. The population of Cuba is
heterogeneous and includes many people of African heritage, thirteen
percent of whom have sickle cell trait. The health care providers in
Cuba have many resources that would allow a fruitful cooperative effort
between our country and theirs.
Cuba has a well-established patient care network. Excellent
facilities for patient trials exist both in Havana and Santiago de
Cuba. Cuba has a registry of patients with sickle cell disease, which
is a valuable tool in clinical investigation. Knowledge of the
whereabouts and current management of patients is essential to clinical
investigation. Important investigations become unwieldy and sometimes
impossible without these logistics.
An example is the NIH-sponsored Multicenter Study of Hydroxyurea in
Sickle Cell Anemia that proved the value of the drug to adults with
sickle cell disease. The dispersed nature of patients in the U.S.
combined with the absence of a disease registry forced the principal
investigators to include 23 centers in the trial and spread the
enrollment of the 300 patients over a period of years. Although the
trial was officially closed in 1995, the need for follow-up continues
to this day. As many as half the patients in this enormously important
study could have been enrolled at a single site in Cuba, thereby
accelerating a study that has been pivotal to victims of this disease.
Currently, a large number of new therapies for sickle cell disease
are reaching the stage of clinical trial. A research bottleneck is
developing because no patient can participate simultaneously in more
than one trial. Without a sickle cell disease registry or some other
mechanism that allows them to reach out beyond their own local
populations, some treatment and investigation centers in this country
are literally running out of eligible subjects. Disease of the hip
joint cripples many people with sickle cell disease, sometimes leaving
them confined to wheel chairs. Investigators at the Children's Hospital
of Oakland have coordinated a study to determine the best way of
treating or preventing the hip problems. Too few patients have been
enrolled over the course of four years to make any recommendations in
large part due to the lack of a network for clinical trials.
Cooperation between the U.S. and Cuba would not be a one-way street
with respect to knowledge, expertise and experience. The Bethesda
workshop identified care coordination of rural patients with sickle
cell disease to be one of the glaring deficiencies of our current
medical system. The sickle cell disease centers exist in major cities
such as Boston, Atlanta, New York and Los Angeles. Providers in this
country must develop ways of serving the needs of people who are
outside the urban centers.
The network developed in Cuba deals effectively with rural people
who constitute a significant fraction of the population affected by
sickle cell disease. A cooperative program between American and Cuban
physicians would eliminate the necessity of reinventing the wheel in
the U.S.
Despite knowledge of the precise genetic defect that produces the
sickle cell gene mutation, we do not know key aspects of the process
that leads to disease expression. Ten-percent of children with sickle
cell disease have strokes. What differentiates these children from the
90% who dodge this often-lethal complication? Currently we have no
solid leads.
Cooperative work with Cuban physicians could open new avenues and
point the way to new treatments. Knowledge of the patient population
would allow the selection for study of children with sickle cell
disease who differ primarily by a history of stroke. Careful
examination by laboratory and genetic testing could allow isolation of
the factors responsible for stroke. With this information, stroke
prevention would be an attainable goal.
Lifting the economic embargo, at least as it applies to medical
care, would allow American and Cuban physicians to work together on the
problems of sickle cell disease. Our society values each human being as
an irreplaceable gift to the world. American and Cuban physicians alike
want nothing more than a chance of preserving our most valuable asset:
the health of our people.
Senator Dodd. Dr. Rasenick, we thank you as well for
joining us. You are an honorary Connecticut resident I guess,
having graduated from Wesleyan University and Yale University
Medical School; so we will temporarily claim credit for you.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK M. RASENICK, PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY AND
BIOPHYSICS, AND PROFESSOR OF PSYCHIATRY; DIRECTOR, BIOMEDICAL
NEUROSCIENCE TRAINING PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS CHICAGO,
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, CHICAGO, IL
Dr. Rasenick. Thank you. And thank you for inviting me, Mr.
Chairman. I'll summarize my remarks and leave the rest in the
record. My day job is a neuroscientist. I study the molecular
and cellular basis of the brain with the hope of understanding
depression, how it works and how we can fix it.
But I am also very interested in using science for peace
and cooperation. And I organized a meeting in Cuba, a
neuroscience meeting in Cuba in which we had 20 neuroscientists
in Havana, 2 years ago. It was the first meeting of its kind
and it really began to bring scientists together.
I made six trips to Cuba over the last 4 years, and I have
met with most of the leaders of the Cuban biomedical research
community. I am familiar with both their capabilities and the
challenges they face.
First, I would like to discuss some of the advances made by
Cuban scientists which could benefit those of us here in the
United States. And I'll start with, I'll break them in a few
categories. The first point is going to be clinical immunology,
interferons and vaccines.
We've heard from Dr. Morton about vaccines, and it is
noteworthy that only the Cubans have developed a meningitis B
vaccine. In addition to that, the Cubans are really at the
forefront of interferon research. Interferons are proteins
which can be used to kill cancer cells, kill viruses and
suppress the immune system.
In the United States, we've used them for therapy for
hepatitis and therapy for multiple sclerosis. The Cubans are
even experimenting with using interferons as a treatment for
schizophrenia.
Another thing I would like to talk about is low-cost brain
imaging. Now, the Cubans have made their own MRI machines
because no one would sell them MRI machines. And they have used
very small magnets, and they operate them with a personal
computer, yet they get decent images.
Now, if we were able to import this technology, two
benefits would be the development of smaller, lighter and
cheaper MRI machines which could benefit rural America. And
also if we were able to get the computer algorithms that they
have been able to use, we could make our more powerful machines
even more powerful and get much better resolution on our
images.
The Cuban Neuroscience Center has also developed very low-
cost brain imaging techniques using electroencephalography or
EEG. That is basically putting a bathing cap with a bunch of
electrodes over the head and a readout of the electrical
activity of the brain.
They have been able to use computers to map that activity
so that they can get an image of the brain. This is really
cheap technology. And they have been able to use it to pinpoint
damage from a stroke. By bring this technology out to rural
America and transporting by telephone line the computer files,
we could have specialists in more concentrated and more
sophisticated medical centers determine how a patient was
affected. These doctors could indicate how to proceed in
treating patients without having to transport them to the
sites.
Dr. Leshner talked about Cuba biodiversity and Cuban
natural products. And the Cubans have been pioneering using
natural products for a variety of purposes. They have made a
drug from sugar cane to treat both cholesterol and high blood
pressure. And I guess it is sweet at the same time, which would
be nice.
Senator Dodd. Just won our case here.
Dr. Rasenick. And they have also made products from the
marine organisms which Dr. Leshner was talking about, some of
these are calcium channel blockers, which could be used to
fight cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Bridges and Dr. Morton have talked about clinical
trials. And U.S. companies often use offshore sites to test
drugs, especially in the later stages of development. As Dr.
Bridges indicated, Cuba has highly trained medical personnel;
and extensive medical records are available. This really makes
Cuba an ideal site for clinical trials.
Studies for new psychiatric drugs are currently being
conducted in China by at least one U.S. drug company. And Cuba
would be a much more palatable site. The benefits for both
Cubans and Americans are significant.
Cuba is also developing a municipal system for clinical
genetics. Now, this is the era of the genome. And when we have
very sophisticated medical records where people are generically
well-known, this really offers a possibility to collaborate
with the Cubans in gene mining--understanding the genotype of a
population and understanding which genes are responsible for
which diseases. This could be very beneficial in bringing about
new therapies, based on generic causes for identified disease.
I would like to specifically talk about S. 1017 and how
that would facilitate the above technology. Title IV of section
403 of the Bridges to the Cuban People Act would allow for us
to begin to profit from partnerships with Cuban bioscience and
biotechnology.
We have heard today about how this would benefit us, and I
will speak in a moment how it might benefit the Cubans. I want
to reaffirm that this does not need to be the province of a
single political party. In Illinois, our Republican Governor,
George Ryan, has led two delegations to Cuba and is convinced
that opening up trade is as good for Americans as it is for
Cubans.
So what will S. 1017 do that will allow for mutual benefit?
Well, title III, section 301(a) allows for increased cultural
exchange and provides for scholarships. We've heard about that
a moment ago.
I would like to urge you to change it a little bit because
the bill does not allow for scholarships in biological or
biomedical science. But I hope it can be changed. And if young
Cuban nationals who engage in science went back, the excitement
for the free exchange for ideas would be wonderful for Cuba.
And, finally, I'd like to address the importance of S. 1017
for the Cuban people. One of my Cuban colleagues once told me
that the three great successes of the Cuban revolution were
education, health care and scientific research, while the three
great failures were breakfast, lunch and dinner.
S. 1017 would create markets for our farmers while assuring
that Cuban children have adequate nutrition. I have spent many
hours in psychiatric hospitals viewing patients who were
suffering from the side-effects of older-generation
antidepressant or antipsychotic drugs because they didn't have
access to the newer drugs with a more benign side-effect
profile.
Bridges to the Cuban People Act will not only help to ease
their suffering but allow many of them to return to a normal
life. We Americans have been carrying on a boycott against 11
million people for 40 years because of a hostility toward the
government of Fidel Castro. The boycott serves to push Cuba
closer to a two-class society, those who get dollars from their
relatives versus those who don't. But it has had no obvious
effect on the government.
We are told that we just need to keep the pressure on a
little longer. As a scientist, I would never do the same
experiment for 40 years if it didn't work. As Senators, I hope
you realize the importance of heeding the needs of our children
as well as children 90 miles off our shores.
We need to move forward toward that goal. And the passage
of S. 1017 is a good start.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rasenick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Mark M. Rasenick, University of Illinois
Chicago, College of Medicine
Thank you, Senator Dodd, for inviting me to testify before the
subcommittee.
I am a Professor of Physiology & Biophysics, Professor of
Psychiatry and Director of the Biomedical Neurosceince Training Program
at the University of Illinois Chicago, College of Medicine. In addition
to teaching, I have a research program that has been funded by the
National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging
and other Federal Agencies since 1984. My research concerns how
structural properties of nerve cells are altered by neurotransmitters.
We hope that this will lead to understanding the molecular and cellular
basis of depression and of certain dementias such as Alzheimer's
Disease. Further, we are studying how antidepressant drugs work and we
hope to use this information to develop more effective therapies for
depression and related psychiatric disorders.
In addition to science, I have been active in public policy. Two
years ago, I was on sabbatical and served as a Robert Wood Johnson
Fellow with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions and with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, (D Mass.). Another policy
issue in which I am involved is using biomedical research as an
instrument of peace and social change. I am working with the Society
for Neuroscience to help develop a Neuroscience Research infrastructure
in Vietnam and have founded the ``Interamerican Consortium on Basic and
Clinical Neuroscience''. In this latter capacity, I organized a
binational meeting on U.S.-Cuban neuroscience cooperation which was
held in Havana two years ago. During my six trips to Cuba over the past
four years, I have met with most of the leaders of the Cuban biomedical
research community. I am quite familiar with both their capabilities
and the challenges they face.
My testimony today will address some of those biomedical advances
as well as the challenges faced by Cubans generally and Cuban
scientists particularly.
First I would like to discuss some of the advances made by Cuban
scientists which could benefit residents of the U.S.
1. clinical immunology: interferons and vaccines
Interferons are a family of proteins which have been shown to be
cytotoxic (kill cells), immunosupressive and antiviral (depending upon
the type of interferon). Significant research was done with interferon
and it was hailed as the next cure for a variety of human cancers. It
turned out that interferon was useful against hairy cell leukemia, but
otherwise was ineffective for cancer chemotherapy. Applied interferon
research was generally abandoned except for the efforts in Cuba.
Interferon-based drugs have recently been used successfully to treat
multiple sclerosis and heptitis and may have a role in treating other
neurodegenerative disorders. The Cubans have even been testing
interferon as a treatment for schizophrenia. Cuban interferon
technology could be paired with U.S. research to aid in new drug
discovery efforts.
Cuban science has been successful in the development of a vaccine
against N. meningitidis, the organism that causes meningitis B. The
current meningitis vaccine available in the U.S. (used for college
students in dormitory living situations) does NOT protect against the B
serotype. SmithKline Beecham has secured an agreement to manufacture
and distribute this vaccine, and is currently working with it in
Europe. Havana's Findlay Institute, where this was developed, has a
number of other products in various stages of development. The ability
to cooperate with U.S. drug companies, which can stage large clinical
trials, will be of significant benefit both to Americans at risk for
those diseases as well as the companies which participate in
development of those therapies.
2. low cost brain imaging
The Cubans have developed technology which allows them to use a
small and relatively weak magnet (about tenfold lower in strength than
magnets used in MRI machines in the U.S.) to get reasonably good images
of the brain and various body parts. The Cuban MRI machines are
operated with a personal computer (as opposed to the large computers
needed for U.S. MRI instruments). Two benefits of importing this
technology are: 1) development of smaller, lighter and cheaper MRI
instruments which can be installed in more rural settings and in parts
of the world where funds for large, sophisticated MRI instruments are
not available, and 2) adapting novel computer algorithms to larger MRI
instruments in order to improve resolution.
The Cuban Neuroscience Center has also developed sophisticated
Electroencephlographic (EEG) Imaging techniques. Using a 128 lead (we
do EEG with 21) EEG, the Cubans have developed both equipment and
computer algorithms which create an image of brain activity at very low
cost. They have used this not only for epilepsy, but also to pinpoint
the area of damage after a stroke with greater accuracy than a CAT
scan. This technique could be used easily in rural locations which
could transmit the computer files for analysis at a referral center.
3. cuban natural products
Cuban scientists have isolated a product from sugar cane which
appears to lower cholesterol AND inhibit clotting. This compound might
prove to be an ideal one to treat atherosclerosis, as it would inhibit
the formation of cholesterol plaques as well as preventing the clotting
which leads to blockage of blood vessels. Many U.S. patients are
currently treated with two drugs for these purposes. Cubans have also
isolated several interesting compounds from local marine life. These
compounds are toxins which marine animals use to immobilize prey. Some
of these compounds have very specific actions on certain types of ion
channels and the potential for drug development is intriguing. (Note
that specific inhibitors of calcium channels are in widespread use for
the treatment of cardiovascular disease).
4. sites for clinical trials and collaborative research
U.S. drug companies often use offshore sites to test drugs,
especially in the later stages of development. Trials must be conducted
by highly trained individuals and work best if the patients have a
well-documented medical history. Cuba, with its highly trained medical
personnel as well as the extensive medical records available for most
patients, makes it an ideal site for doing this. Studies for new
psychiatric drugs are currently being conducted in China by at least
one U.S. drug company. Cuba would be a much more palatable site and the
benefits for both Cubans (funds to defray costs of the trials and the
availability of the newest drugs) and Americans (an ideal study
population very close to the U.S.) are significant. An interesting new
area of development is the investment Cuba is making, in developing a
municipal system of clinical genetics. The National Center for Medical
Genetics is being upgraded, and dozens of additional clinical
geneticists have been trained in the last year. In the genome era is
this a valuable asset for research, that is supported by the extensive
system of primary care (and extensive and accurate medical records) in
Cuba. This offers the possibility to collaborate in ``gene mining''
with the hope of identifying genes responsible for various human
maladies and identifying novel drug targets for those diseases. Cuba
offers unique advantages for this kind of research, and we should be
actively collaborating with them on it.
Provisions of S. 1017 which will facilitate access to the above-
mentioned technologies
Title IV section 403 of S. 1017 (Bridges to the Cuban People Act)
would allow for us to begin to profit from partnerships with Cuban
Bioscience and Biotechnology. We have heard today about how this would
benefit us and I will speak in a moment about how it will benefit the
Cubans. This is not an issue that needs to be the province of a single
political party. In Illinois, our Republican Governor, George Ryan, has
led two delegations to Cuba and is convinced that opening up trade is
as good for Americans as it is for Cubans.
What else will S. 1017 allow for that will be of mutual benefit?
Title III, Sec. 301(a) allows for increased cultural exchange and
provides for scholarships for Cubans to study here. I have interacted
closely with young Cuban neuroscientists. Most are clinically trained
and would love to spend two years learning basic neuroscience. At this
point, the bill does not allow for scholarships in Biological or
Biomedical science, but I hope that this can be changed. Young Cuban
Nationals who engage in this activity will bring back not only
knowledge, but an excitement for the free exchange of ideas. It is
equally important that senior scientists and clinicians engage in
mutual exchange programs and you might consider modifying S. 1017 to
help promote this as well.
S. 1017: benefit to the Cuban people
Finally, I would like to address the importance of S. 1017 for the
Cuban people. One of my Cuban colleagues once told me that the three
great successes of the Cuban revolution were Education, Health Care and
Scientific Research while the three great failures were Breakfast,
Lunch and Dinner. S. 1017 would create markets for our farmers while
assuring that Cuban children have adequate nutrition. I have spent many
hours at psychiatric hospitals viewing patients who were suffering from
side effects of older-generation antidepressant or antipsychotic drugs,
because they didn't have access to the newer drugs with a more benign
side-effect profile. S. 1017 will not only help to ease their
suffering, but allow many of them to return to a normal life.
We Americans have been carrying on a boycott against 11 million
people for 40 years because of a hostility toward the Government of
Fidel Castro. The boycott serves to push Cuba closer to a two class
society (those who get dollars from their relatives vs. those who
don't), but has had no obvious effect on the government or the popular
support for that government. We are told that we just ``need to keep
the pressure on a little longer''. As a scientist, I would never do the
same experiment for forty years if it didn't work. As senators, I hope
that you realize the importance of heeding the needs of both our
children as well as those children 90 miles off our shores. We need to
move forward toward that goal, and passage of S.1017 is a good start.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very, very much. I thank all four
of you. Dr. Morton, I know you have got a flight to catch, so I
am going to, with the indulgence of your colleagues here, ask
you some questions. Then if you have to leave, you just head
right off. I will express again our deep gratitude for your
coming a long way to be here.
And I think the big fellow would be proud of you here, John
Wayne, in coming to talk about these issues. Not only did he
suffer at the end of his life of cancer, but I think you have a
way of kind of blowing through all of this and getting to the
heart of things pretty quickly. So I am pleased you are here.
I sit on the Health and Education, Labor Committee, so we
deal with a lot of FDA issues and the like; so I am fairly
familiar as a layperson with the notion of clinical trials. But
I suspect a lot of people may not be.
The importance of the value of how they are conducted, you
touched on this a bit already but I wonder if you might just
expand upon this, in terms of new treatments why the clinical
trial issue is so important. I know others of you have opinions
on this but let me ask Dr. Morton his views on it, why this is
so critically important.
Dr. Morton. Well, the FDA and regulatory agencies
throughout the world require that any new therapy be proven
both safe and effective. And in order to prove that, one has to
do with very few exceptions randomized trials where patients
are randomly allocated to be treated with the new therapy
versus the standard therapy or if there is no standard therapy,
compared to no therapy or a placebo.
And these trials are carried out at multiple centers
throughout the world. Because our vaccine, that I am absolutely
convinced works at the John Wayne, but in order to be a benefit
to people throughout the world, one must show that it works
everywhere. And so there has to be multiple centers involved in
the trials.
And this is a, depending particularly in cancer where we
are talking about a disease that many patients because of
standard therapy may be cured by that standard therapy, then we
have to compare the incremental effect. And often a great home-
run will be considered saving 10 percent more patients with
that particular treatment.
So this requires large numbers of patients to be entered
into these trials and participate in them in order to have
unequivocal evidence of the effectiveness of that particular
new drug.
Senator Dodd. I appreciate that. How did you find out about
the Cuban work on EGF vaccine?
Dr. Morton. Well, actually it was at the American Society
of Clinical Oncology meeting last year. There were two
presentations by the Cubans. And it was really one of the more
exciting new developments.
And being interested in vaccines, I entered a dialog with
the Cuban investigators, and we had some of the young Cuban
scientists visit the John Wayne, who brought some of their
antibodies and research reagents to our laboratories that we
had an opportunity to test them. And then they invited me to
come back for a visit. And that was the reason that, how I
learned about it.
Senator Dodd. Tell me what do you need to do in order to
get the EGF vaccine in clinical trials in the United States?
Dr. Morton. Well, I think----
Senator Dodd. And how quickly do you think you know whether
or not the vaccine is as promising as it appears.
Dr. Morton. That is right. We need to have a commercial
relationship with the Cuban institute that developed it that
would allow us to import it into the United States and test it
on U.S. patients. I had been looking at new approaches to
cancer treatment for some 40 years on NIH committees and other
things, and I'll have to say that these are promising
approaches.
But it is not until we have the opportunity to evaluate
them by U.S. standards can we really know for certain that they
are going to be as effective and as promising as the
preliminary data from the Cubans suggests.
Senator Dodd. And under existing law, the hurdles there,
the normal hurdles that one faces with obviously trying to do
this with any product, vaccine being developed offshore, there
are additional ones here that you face.
Dr. Morton. Well, yes. First of all, you have to get into
the United States. And then the U.S. investigator has to apply
to the FDA for a new drug investigational ruling to test it in
the United States and describing the way that its test will be
done and so forth.
And the FDA is interested in drugs that can be--the whole
purpose of the FDA development process is to develop new drugs
for American patients.
Senator Dodd. Right.
Dr. Morton. So in order to do that, you have to be able,
the American patients must have the potential to benefit from
that involvement process.
Senator Dodd. Now, you've been at this a number of years in
the medical field. Just give us sort of a quick cursory
impression you have of lab facilities, equipment, competency. I
bet you have seen a lot that aren't so good, right here at home
probably and elsewhere.
Dr. Morton. Well, you know, I went there expecting to see a
third-world country. And I was really surprised by the
sophistication of the science and the equipment and the modern
technology and approaches that I found.
I also found the Cuban scientists to be very forthcoming
and shared openly the results of their research with me and
things that had not been published yet. So I came away
realizing that this is an untapped resource in the fight
against cancer, and that with proper collaboration and
interaction, we can more rapidly move this forward.
Senator Dodd. Well, I thank you. And there may be
additional questions we may submit to you, but I do not want
you to miss your flight. We are watching the clock up here. You
have got to go to Dulles.
Dr. Morton. I think it is too late. So I'll remain.
Senator Dodd. Let me go to you, Dr. Leshner, if you have
got a train. But I know that the American Academy for the
Advancement of Science is actively promoting the rights of
scientists for traveling to meetings, research exchanges. We
have often heard that Cuban scientists have been denied visas
to travel to the United States. I wonder if your organization
has documented that has it gotten any better or worse in the
last couple of years.
Dr. Leshner. Of course it is difficult for us to really
know the answer to that question. I think that the
bidirectional problem is the cumbersome of the processes that
prevent us from, us as a scientific community from
understanding how you go about forging collaborations and what
the rules are going to be.
We don't have specific data of course on how many entry
visas have been denied. But there have been examples of whole
conferences that have been intended for example to focus on
environmental problems in Cuba. And those have had to be
canceled because Cuban scientists either were not allowed to
leave Cuba or were not allowed to enter the United States.
Senator Dodd. Well, keep an eye on that. We would like to
know. That is one of the issues we are trying to break through
here. I wonder, by the way, I did not ask Dr. Morton here, I
realize it is not his specialty per se although, Dr. Rasenick,
you may have more because of your focus on the biomedical
areas, but I just wonder in your travels there, conversations
and so forth, we have had allegations raised, obviously you may
have read about them recently involving the dubious
capabilities and the raising the specter that actually Cuba may
have been involved in the production or developing technologies
in the biological fields of weapons of mass destruction whether
it is chemical or biological weapons.
Secretary Bolton made some pretty dramatic remarks in his
speech that provoked a lot of questions. We had a hearing here
on the subject matter not too long ago. I am just wondering in
your travels, and I realize you are not an inspector, per se,
is there any information you have picked up that we ought to
know about here which could shed light on the accusations at
all that you are aware of?
Dr. Rasenick. Do you want me to answer that?
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Dr. Rasenick. I have wandered freely through these
laboratories and no one has stopped me in any incidence
wandering the halls on a regular basis.
We could also say many American drug companies have the
capability of bioterrorism because they are growing large
amounts of bacteria or viruses, which is what the chemists are
doing in order to make vaccines. To make vaccines, you need to
grow bugs. But these companies are not making weapons.
It certainly seems like the Cubans are growing bacteria and
viruses toward commercial interests rather than to make
weapons. I would not like to accuse anyone without real data,
and there is no evidence that the Cubans have made bioweapons.
One other thing that is noteworthy is that if they were
going to make weapons for germ warfare, would they really want
to unleash it on a country that is 90 miles away from them?
That would be counter productive.
They are a little too close to really engage in that kind
of thing with us as the target. I cannot state, categorically,
that the Cubans are not making weapons, but the administration
has no data that they are.
Senator Dodd. Well, there is a difference between an
American pharmaceutical company and the Government of Cuba.
Dr. Rasenick. Of course. But I am saying that just growing
a lot of bugs does not make one a purveyor of bioweapons.
Senator Dodd. I understand your point. And I tried to make
a similar analogy but I want to also make a distinction that
there is a vast difference between motivations. We have
treaties with other countries. The former Soviet Union, we now
know, that despite treaties to the contrary they may have
substantial quantities of highly contagious biological weapons
or chemical weapons that were produced during the tenure.
Now, we have no evidence that was the case here yet except
the dual capability. But I was curious as to whether or not you
picked up anything in your travels that would show----
Dr. Rasenick. No one has ever tried to stop me from looking
at anything and I have no suspicion.
Senator Dodd. Withholding drugs from Cuba, let me stick
with you, Dr. Rasenick. Cuba has been accused of withholding
drugs to give foreigners, to give them to the foreigners and
Cuban elite in their country. Is that your impression based
upon what you have seen during your visits?
If more U.S. drugs reached Cuba, do you believe that they
would be available to average Cubans? Knowing the economic
circumstances of an average Cuban where the pay amounts to $8
or $9 or $10, I think it is a month, whatever it is, you start
looking at the costs of some of these products. I do not know
how Eli Lilly would survive if they were only going to charge
for prescription drugs based on the monthly salary of an
average Cuban.
So the issue is raised, if we allow the products to be sold
there, are we going to deny them in fact to many, many average
Cubans who will never be able to purchase them in the first
place.
Dr. Rasenick. It is interesting that you use the example of
Lilly, because one of the drugs that I am constantly asked to
bring with me when I go to Cuba is Prozac. This is noteworthy
for two reasons: One, this means that the Cubans clearly were
not trying to counterfeit this drug.
Two, as I mentioned before, the ``safe'' antidepressants,
such as Prozac, are things that the Cubans don't have access
to. I was asked to bring it for friends, but those friends are
in very high places. They are people who are highly placed in
both the politcal and the sience establishment--people who
would clearly have access to drugs if there were preferential
access in Cuba.
Yet that didn't seem to be the case. They would ask for
enough samples, to take until my next visit. It is noteworthy
that I was never asked to bring Viagra, but I assume that no
Cuban male would ever admit a need.
Senator Dodd. I am not going to touch that at all. That is
a Pfizer product anyway.
Dr. Rasenick. Yes, that it is.
Senator Dodd. Well, but the point being here, the
legitimate issue raised with the exception of the ability of
people other than through these dollar stores, I mean, I
remember meeting a man when I was in Cuba, once meeting a
person who was very, very upset because they had a sibling who
was very sick and they needed--this was not a highly
sophisticated product but they needed some antibiotics to deal
with his flu-like symptoms.
And the only place they could get them were in the dollar
stores. They were not available in the average Cuban pharmacy.
And they did not have the dollars to get them.
And it was infuriating to them to sit there and know that
in this case their brother was very sick and needed the help,
and they could not get the help except if they could do it
through areas that were only available to those who had the
dollars or with the diplomatic corner in the lot.
And I do not know if that is just an anecdotal or whether
or not that is in fact pretty standard for the average Cuban.
Dr. Rasenick. Even aspirin is in short supply there. And I
found that giving people aspirin was something that was often
appreciated enormously. But I also gave this to some of my
friends who should have had access to drugs like that.
It really is very sad. There just isn't enough to go
around. But it doesn't appear that there is preferential access
because these people were asking for it as well.
Senator Dodd. Is there any doubt in your mind that Fidel
Castro can get these?
Dr. Rasenick. None whatsoever but my concern is 11 million
other Cubans.
Senator Dodd. Dr. Bridges, I want to thank you for what you
are doing. And I don't know if you have been in touch or not
with the Black Caucus in the House. I think they could very
much benefit from some of your discussion.
You are right. What you are dealing with is in an area not
as well-known as cancer but it is tremendously important. I
want to raise the profile of what you are doing. I suggest we
put you in touch with some people there, good friends of mine,
see if we cannot heighten the interest in the subject matter.
But I wonder if you can envision an NIH study on sickle
cell treatment using Cuba as a base.
Dr. Bridges. Thank you, Senator Dodd. That is a very----
Senator Dodd. Would you participate in such a study?
Dr. Bridges. Yes, I would. In fact, Senator Dodd, I am
currently working to develop collaborations between
investigators in the United States and investigators in other
countries. The other countries currently that we are working
with are Egypt and Ghana; and I am also in contact with
colleagues in Cuba over the possibilities of working there. Of
course that is a much more difficult issue.
The reason I say Cuba's been very, very important is really
twofold. First, the organizational structure for medical care,
although certainly there is no real comparison between the
quality of medical care here in the United States, certainly if
you have a severe illness versus Cuba, but basic medical care
is very good and it is very spread out throughout the country.
And as a result, we by working together can begin to ask
questions where we can look at the entire population, the
entire population of people affected by sickle cell disease and
then to begin to dissect apart the issues.
I just want to very briefly say that we often see medicine
as being a science. And it is a science. However, there is also
a part to the activity which is more art.
And there are aspects of the approach to sickle cell
disease and other disorders that involve issues that we
consider unmet needs. There was an NIH conference just last
week, the 13th or 14th of June talking about unmet needs of
people with sickle cell disease.
And again if I could just come back very briefly to the
issue of people in rural areas, that was identified as a very
serious problem for people with sickle cell disease. How do we
get the services that exist in New York, in Boston, in
Hartford, in Los Angeles; how do we get them to Muskogee in
Oklahoma or how do we get them to a relatively isolated area.
These are problems that have not been addressed in our
country yet are of course extremely important for those
individuals who are affected. That is a problem or that is an
issue which has already been addressed in Cuba. And through
exchange we could certainly benefit tremendously.
Senator Dodd. I also want to raise this issue of the
patient registries which I think is a very important issue here
to try and deal with this. I wonder if there is any way for us
to try and replicate the patient registries that Cubans have
established here at home in the United States.
Could that be done, No. 1; No. 2, to the extent there are
difficulties doing it, are there things that the Cubans do in
terms of how they develop patient registries in certain areas
that we should learn from them by inviting some of their people
here to set up to models there.
Dr. Bridges. Yes. With respect to the establishment of
registries, that is an essential part to attacking any medical
problem. We can establish patient registries in the United
States with respect to sickle cell disease. It would be a very
difficult task beginning from top down which is how we would
think about it at this point. It is going out and finding all
the people, registering them.
What has happened in Cuba, and it is very interesting, and
that is that they have taken newborn screening. This is
something which is very important for sickle cell disease. It
is very important to know in a newborn if they have sickle cell
disease. And almost all the states now screen for sickle cell
disease.
Senator Dodd. We had a hearing last week on newborn
screening, we did, a committee I served on. And I am very
interested about the great disparity on the number of disorders
that various states test, some as low as four and others as
many as thirty.
Dr. Bridges. Correct. Absolutely.
Senator Dodd. But all of them do sickle cell.
Dr. Bridges. Almost all of them do sickle cell. And what
that creates is a tremendous data base throughout the United
States for newborns. We now know, and this has been going on
anywhere between 5 and 12 years depending on the state, all
newborns who have sickle cell disease.
However, because of the differences between the states,
there is no communication. And the way the Cubans approached
this was to begin with newborn screening, and as those children
grew up, they had a registry in place.
And so those are some of the ideas and approaches that we
could use in this country to capture information which is
already there. It's not that we are going out and creating a
new vehicle but we are capturing information which is already
there.
Senator Dodd. Well, I think that I can, again, I can make
this the subject of a separate hearing. But you have been very,
very helpful, all four of you. Dr. Morton had to try and catch
that plane, I guess. And I want to thank you. I want you to
stay in touch with us as well.
But for those who question the value of trying to maintain
or expand on some of these contacts, whether it is cancer or
sickle cell anemia or depression or neurosciences, three
wonderful examples of work that is being done 90 miles off our
shore that could be of great benefit to us here at home, not to
mention others around the world.
And that is not an endorsement of a government's system
here at all. But we have learned in various places how to walk
and chew gum in these areas where we see emerging values. And
aside from the obvious benefits here, there is a longer term
benefit I think in promoting democracy in Cuba.
And a transition would be peaceful enough so we could
realistically talk about democracy coming to Cuba when the
changes come as they inevitably will. So you play a very
important role in that. And my hope would be in a matter of
weeks or months, it would be terribly frustrating I would say
that to have a newborn child or to have a parent who was
suffering terribly and knowing that 90 miles off my shore lies
maybe some of the answers that could make a difference here.
But because we are so bogged down in four decades of
thinking that we deny ourselves the opportunity to improve the
quality of life of people here.
That is not an endorsement of Fidel Castro. It is a simple
statement that we have got to get smarter in the 21st century
than I know we have been. So your testimony is tremendously
helpful.
You are not politicians. You do not run for office. You are
not here to set foreign policy. You are merely telling us with
that within a few miles of our own shore there is some work
being done that could save lives here at home.
And if we have not figured out how to be clever enough to
take advantage of that without endorsing the government down
there, then we had better figure out a way to do it sooner than
later. So I thank you for coming here today.
Last, I want to invite our very patient panel. Nancy Chang
is the senior litigation attorney for the Center for
Constitutional Rights, and Mr. Ramon Humberto Colas, former co-
founder of the Independent Libraries Movement of Cuba.
I want to thank both of you for being here today to share
your views. I apologize for the wait that you have had, but I
hope you have found it enlightening to listen to some other
people share some thoughts.
I am going to put you on the clock here to limit your time
to some degree. So we will begin with you, Ms. Chang, and with
your testimony. And then again any and all statements you have
we will make a part of the record.
STATEMENT OF NANCY CHANG, SENIOR LITIGATION ATTORNEY, CENTER
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, NEW YORK CITY, NY
Ms. Chang. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Travel to Cuba without
a license, either to engage in non-tourist activities for which
a license is required by the Office of Foreign Assets Control
[OFAC] of the Department of the Treasury, or to engage in
tourist activities for which no license is ever available,
constitutes a violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations
and the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.
These violations expose travelers to a criminal conviction
punishable by a fine of $100,000 and a term of up to 10 years,
and to a civil penalty enforced by OFAC of up to $55,000.
The severity of the restrictions on travel to Cuba, coupled
with the draconian civil and criminal penalties that may be
imposed, interferes with the exercise of two fundamental
constitutional rights: First, our freedom to travel, which is
an essential part of the liberty of which a citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the fifth amendment.
Second, the restrictions limit our rights under the first
amendment to express our views, hear the speech of others,
gather information, associate with others, and make up our own
minds--rights that are absolutely essential to a democratic
society.
During the cold war, the Supreme Court twice upheld
government restrictions on travel to Cuba, finding them
justified by national security reasons. But the geopolitical
landscape has changed significantly since the Supreme Court
decided these cases in 1965 and in 1984.
The collapse of the Soviet bloc more than a decade ago
marked the end of the cold war and the halt of Soviet subsidies
to Cuba. The tiny island nation of Cuba does not pose the
realistic threat to national security that would justify these
curtailments of our constitutional rights.
My office, the Center for Constitutional Rights, in 1998
established a Cuba Travel Project in order to educate the
public about these restrictions. We have published a book,
``Advice for Travelers to Cuba,'' that has been in wide
circulation and provides a user-friendly introduction to this
arcane area of the law.
We currently have more than 400 individual clients who have
been targeted for OFAC enforcement actions. Our clients
represent a cross-section of America at its very best. They
work in a wide variety of professions, and include students,
professors, public service employees, doctors, and lawyers.
They range in age from their teens to their eighties. They are
spread across 35 states and the District of Columbia.
Senator Dodd. During what period of time, Ms. Chang, have
these 400 people come to your office?
Ms. Chang. Since 1998 which is in the last 4 years.
Despite their many differences, they share in common the
belief that the ties of friendship between people living in
nations whose governments are at odds can promote peace between
those nations.
Ironically, it is those who honestly report their travel to
Cuba to the Customs Service on their return to the United
States who are most likely to become the subject of OFAC
enforcement action, while those who seek to evade detection
nearly always succeed in their mission. In other words, OFAC
enforcement is typically directed at the least culpable
travelers, those who do not understand the travel restrictions
or believe themselves to be in compliance with them, and those
who are truthful.
Through our representation of these clients, the Center for
Constitutional Rights has developed an understanding of why
tens of thousands of Americans travel to Cuba each year without
obtaining a license to do so from OFAC.
Most are simply not aware of or do not understand the
complex laws and regulations that govern such travel. The
regulations simply cannot be reconciled with our democratic
values. Travel to all other socialist states including the
former Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam,
and North Korea has long been permitted.
And those who apply for a specific license to travel to
Cuba in order to engage in one of the twelve limited activities
for which such licenses may be granted consistently encounter
roadblocks that prevent them from obtaining a license on a
timely basis.
From all outward appearances, OFAC is engaged in a
deliberate strategy of discouraging the filing of license
applications and of constructively denying these applications
through inaction and delay.
OFAC has never been required to account for its licensing
decisions to the Congress much less the public. And the secrecy
behind which it is permitted to operate allows for the
introduction of bias, partiality inconsistency, and
irrationality, which are anathema to our democratic process.
Particularly troubling are new OFAC guidelines on specific
license applications for people-to-people educational
exchanges. Among other things, these guidelines impose a
political litmus test by making a factor of consideration
whether the predominant portion of the proposed activities will
be with persons or entities that are not acting directly or
indirectly for or on behalf of the Government of Cuba.
In doing so, these guidelines contravene first amendment
principles and, because the educational system in Cuba is state
run, they would appear to impose limits on the ability of
travelers to meet with and learn from Cuban university
professors.
The Center's clients also provide a firm basis for
understanding the hardships that travelers to Cuba endure,
first at the hands of the Customs officials that they meet at
the airport, and later at the hands of OFAC.
With disturbing frequency, our clients have reported that
Customs agents were verbally abusive to them, screamed directly
in their faces, accused them of being criminals, interrogated
them in a belligerent and intimidating manner, dumped their
belongings on the floor, detained them for hours on end, and
coerced them into making statements about their trips by
threatening to take away their passports or to keep them in
detention or to not allow them to board a plane.
Then upon their return from Cuba, travelers who are
identified by Customs are turned over to OFAC. We have seen
penalties imposed in pre-penalty notices of $7,500 for a single
trip and as much as $27,500 for those who have gone on three
unauthorized trips.
As a practical matter, these restrictions will not be
lifted until Congress enacts legislation such as the Bridges to
the Cuban People Act.
I have examined section 201 of this proposed legislation
and I am very pleased to see that it explicitly repeals the
existing statutory authorization for the restrictions which are
the Helms-Burton Act and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000.
Legislation that would simply cutoff funding to OFAC
without at the same time legalizing travel to Cuba would not
resolve the problems at hand.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile
Crisis. Congress should seize this moment to take a crucial
first step toward mending the cold war-era fences that separate
us from one of our nearest neighbors.
Thank you again for inviting the Center for Constitutional
Rights to address this matter. I ask that my full written
statement be included in the record of this hearing.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. And it will be.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chang follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Chang, Senior Litigation Attorney, Center
for Contitutional Rights
Senator Dodd and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
providing the Center for Constitutional Rights with this opportunity to
discuss the pressing need for legislation ending governmental
restrictions on travel to Cuba. First, I will discuss how the current
travel restrictions undermine our civil liberties without enhancing our
national security. Second, I will discuss how the Department of the
Treasury's enforcement of these restrictions selectively and unfairly
targets individuals for penalties that they do not deserve. Third, I
will discuss how enforcement efforts are being stepped up at a time
when the Department's resources are needed to fight terrorism. Lastly,
I will discuss why the restrictions will remain in place unless and
until Congress enacts the Bridges to the Cuban People Act of 2001 or
similar legislation to terminate them.
i. the current restrictions on travel to cuba undermine our civil
liberties without enhancing our national security
Travel to Cuba without a license--either to engage in non-tourist
activities for which a license must be obtained from the Department of
the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC),\1\ or to engage
in tourist activities for which no license is available \2\--
constitutes a violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations \3\ and
the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.\4\ Only travelers who are fully
hosted while in Cuba and successfully avoid spending so much as a
single penny of their own money on travel-related transactions, are
exempt from these travel restrictions.\5\ Each violation of the
restrictions exposes the traveler to a criminal conviction punishable
by a fine of up to $100,000 and by imprisonment for a term of up to 10
years.\6\ In addition, each violation exposes the traveler to a civil
penalty, enforced by OFAC, of up to $55,000.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 31 C.F.R. Sec. 5 15.560(a)(1)-(12) (authorizing travel to
Cuba under tightly prescribed conditions).
\2\ See Agricultural Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Programs for Fiscal Year 2001,
Sec. 910(b), amending the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act at 22 U.S.C. Sec. 7209 (barring the licensing of travel to Cuba
that does not fall within the categories of travel expressly authorized
under 31 C.F.R. Sec. 515.560(a)(1)-(12) and designating them as tourist
activities).
\3\ 31 C.F.R. Part 515.
\4\ 50 U.S.C. Appendix Sec. Sec. 1 et seq. The restrictions on
travel to Cuba are also codified in the Cuban Democracy Act of 1982, 22
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6001 et seq., the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act), 22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 6021 et
seq., and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, 22
U.S.C. Sec. 7209.
\5\ See 31 C.F.R. Sec. 515.420.
\6\ 31 C.F.R. Sec. 500.701(a)(1).
\7\ 31 C.F.R. Sec. 500.701(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The severity of the restrictions on travel to Cuba, coupled with
the draconian criminal and civil penalties that may be imposed upon
their violation, interferes with, and effectively prevents, the
exercise of two fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution.
First, the restrictions limit our freedom to travel, which is ``a
part of the `liberty' of which [a] citizen cannot be deprived without
the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.'' \8\ The Supreme
Court has explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125 (1958).
This freedom of movement is the very essence of our free
society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the
right of association, it often makes all other rights
meaningful--knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing,
observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is
curtailed, all other rights suffer, just as when curfew or home
detention is placed on a person.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 520 (1964)
(Douglas, J., concurring).
Second, the restrictions limit our rights under the First Amendment
to express our views, hear the speech of others, gather information,
and associate with others--rights that are essential in a democratic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
society. As Justice William Douglas astutely observed:
The right to know, to converse with others, to consult with
them, to observe social, physical, political and other
phenomena abroad as well as at home gives meaning and substance
to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Without those contacts First Amendment rights suffer.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 24 (1965) (Douglas, J.,
dissenting).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government regulations that infringe upon fundamental rights will
not be upheld unless they are necessary in order to achieve a
compelling governmental objective and are narrowly tailored to
accomplish that objective. In a suit filed just two months after the
Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the Supreme Court was quick to uphold
governmental restrictions on travel to Cuba, finding them justified by
the ``weightiest considerations of national security.'' \11\ Two
decades later, in 1984, a more restrained Supreme Court--by a narrow
margin of five votes to four--again upheld such restrictions upon
accepting at face value the Department of State's opinion that the
political, economic, and military backing of Cuba by the Soviet Union
and Cuba's military activities in the Western Hemisphere continued to
sustain the restrictions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. at 16.
\12\ Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, 243 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The geopolitical landscape has changed significantly since the
Supreme Court decided these two cases. The collapse of the Soviet bloc
more than a decade ago marked the end of the Cold War and the halt of
Soviet subsidies to Cuba. In the late 1990's, the Department of
Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and
the National Security Agency finally acknowledged what had been obvious
for quite some time--that the tiny island nation of Cuba does not pose
a realistic threat to the national security of the United States or the
Western hemisphere.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency,
and Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the
National Security Agency, and the United States Southern Command Joint
Intelligence Center, ``The Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security,''
November 18, 1997, available at http://www.defenselink.millpubs/
cubarpt.htm; Dana Priest, ``Cuba Poses `Negligible' Threat, Report
Says,'' The Washington Post, May 7, 1998, at p.A8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet the Cuban Assets Control Regulations continue to infringe
on the fundamental rights of Americans, even when our government can no
longer establish that they are necessary in order to achieve a
compelling governmental objective, much less that they are narrowly
tailored to accomplish such an objective. These regulations illustrate
a fatal flaw in the Trading with the Enemy Act. As four Justices of the
Supreme Court pointed out, the Act has served as a ``one-way ratchet to
enhance greatly the President's discretionary authority over foreign
policy'' and to permit the President to cling to that authority long
after the national emergency that served as the basis for its grant has
ended.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. at 245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. the department of the treasury's enforcement of the restrictions on
travel to cuba selectively and unfairly targets individuals for
penalties that they do not deserve
In 1998, the Center for Constitutional Rights established a Cuba
Travel Project in order to educate the public about the restrictions on
travel to Cuba and to provide legal representation to individuals and
organizations subject to OFAC enforcement actions under the Cuban
Assets Control Regulations.\15\ During the four years that the Cuba
Travel Project has been in operation, the Center has advised thousands
of individuals and dozens of organizations from all across the United
States on the laws and regulations governing travel to Cuba. A
bilingual pamphlet published by the Center, Advice for Travelers to
Cuba, provides a user-friendly introduction to this arcane area of the
law and is in wide circulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ On June 17, 2002, Matthew Scott replaced Anna Liza Gavieres as
the Coordinator of the Center for Constitutional Rights' Cuba Travel
Project. The attorneys associated with the Cuba Travel Project
currently include William Goodman, Michael Ratner, Shayana Kadidal,
Michelle DePass, Robert Bloom, Anthony DiCaprio, Margie Rather, John
Speyer, and myself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, the Center represents more than 400 individuals who have
been targeted for OFAC enforcement actions under the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations. Each client has received from OFAC either a
``Requirement to Furnish Information'' demanding a written response to
a set of questions about his or her travel activities andlor a ``Pre-
Penalty Notice'' alleging that he or she traveled to Cuba in violation
of the regulations. In the case of the more than 250 Center clients who
have received a Pre-Penalty Notice, OFAC has demanded civil penalties
that generally range from $7,500 to $27,500 per person.
The Center's clients represent a cross-section of America at its
very best. Included among their ranks are doctors, lawyers, educators
from the elementary school level to the university level, students in
high school, college and graduate school, journalists, writers,
artists, dancers, film makers, urban planners, public health workers,
social workers, law enforcement officers, civil servants,
entrepreneurs, computer experts, and engineers. They range in age from
their teens to their 80's, and they are spread across 35 states and the
District of Columbia.
While their reasons for traveling to Cuba are varied, none have
engaged in activities that would--at least under any fair and rational
system of justice--be considered grounds for imposing the criminal and
civil penalties called for in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and
the Trading with the Enemy Act. Some clients traveled in order to
deliver food, medicine, and other forms of humanitarian aid to the
Cubans, and to donate their time and professional services in Cuban
hospitals and schools. Some clients traveled in order to visit their
Cuban relatives, friends, and co-religionists. Some clients traveled in
order to scatter the ashes of their loved ones and to visit grave sites
of family members. Some clients traveled to return to the missionary
churches and military stations on the island where, decades ago, they
had been stationed. Some clients traveled in order to study the Spanish
language, to learn about Cuba's history, geography, and people, and to
write books and articles on Cuba. Some clients traveled in order to
attend professional meetings, sporting events, tournaments, and
cultural events. Some clients traveled in order to study Cuba's
internationally acclaimed programs in public health, sustainable
agriculture, and energy conservation. Some clients traveled in order to
study its political system and to meet with its proponents and
opponents. And some clients traveled in order to experience the beauty
of the Cuban beaches and countryside, sail, and to swim, fish, scuba
dive, bicycle, birdwatch, and tour the sights.
Despite their many differences, the Center's clients share in
common a belief that ties of friendship between people living in
countries whose governments are at odds can promote peace between their
nations. They are also united in their desire to see for themselves
what life is like in Cuba. They export an enthusiasm for all that is
positive about life in United States and share with their fellow
Americans the best of what Cuba has to offer.
The Center's clients represent only an infinitesimal fraction of
the tens of thousands of Americans who have traveled to Cuba in
violation of the travel restrictions.\16\ However, the Center's clients
represent a substantial percentage of the individuals against whom OFAC
has brought enforcement actions.\17\ Thus, the overwhelming majority of
travelers who violate the travel restrictions are not known to OFAC; in
the alternative, they are known to OFAC but OFAC has chosen not to
pursue them. Ironically, those who honestly report their travel to Cuba
to the Customs Service on their return to the United States are the
ones who are most likely to become the subject of an OFAC enforcement
action, while those who are seeking to evade detection nearly always
succeed in their mission. In other words, OFAC enforcement is directed
at the least culpable travelers--those who do not understand the travel
restrictions and believe themselves to be in compliance with them, and
those who are truthful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The New York Times has estimated that 40,000 to 50,000
Americans visited Cuba illegally in 2000. See Frank Bruni, ``Bush
Administration Showing Willingness to Enforce Law on Visiting Cuba,''
The New York Times, August 5, 2001. However, the United States-Cuba
Trade and Economic Council has estimated that 176,000 U.S. citizens
visited Cuba in 2000, of whom approximately 22,000 traveled in
violation of the travel restrictions. See Kevin Sullivan, ``Americans
Defy Cuba Embargo,'' The Washington Post, October 13, 2001. The Council
estimates that, of the remaining visitors, approximately 124,000 were
Cuban Americans who are allowed one trip per year to visit close
relatives in circumstances that demonstrate humanitarian need, and that
approximately 30,000 made visits authorized by OFAC. Id.
\17\ OFAC stated in September 2001 that it had a backlog of 357
hearing requests. See infra Note 25. Presumably this number is much
higher today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through its representation of these clients, the Center has
developed a clear understanding of why so many Americans travel to Cuba
without first obtaining a license to do so from OFAC. First, most
Americans are not aware of, or else do not understand, the complex laws
and regulations that govern such travel and, as a result, incorrectly
believe their travel to be legal. The Cuban Assets Control Regulations
are obscure and replete with provisions that are lacking in clarity.
Moreover, the regulations cannot be reconciled with our freedom to
travel, which is ``a part of our heritage'' and ``basic in our scheme
of values,'' \18\ and with our First Amendment rights to engage in the
free exchange of ideas and to form our own opinions on matters of
public concern. Indeed, travel to other socialist states, including the
former Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, and North
Korea, has long been, and continues to be, permitted. Perhaps it is for
these reasons that Americans are quick to believe advertisements
falsely claiming that Americans may travel to Cuba lawfully as long as
they pay for their trip in advance to a travel agency in a third
country and spend no cash while in Cuba.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. at 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Americans who are intent on visiting Cuba as tourists are
left with no option but to violate the Cuban Assets Control Regulations
and to expose themselves to the imposition of harsh criminal and civil
penalties. OFAC is barred by statute from granting a license for travel
in Cuba to engage in tourist activities.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See supra Note 1. A number of the Center's elderly clients
have spoken with great emotion of their determination to visit Cuba
while they still retain the physical ability to endure such a trip and
the mental ability to appreciate the experience. Some of these clients
have ties to the island nation dating back to its pre-revolutionary
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, some Americans have such a strong moral opposition to the
embargo and that they travel to Cuba in deliberate violation of the
travel restrictions as an act of civil disobedience. These individuals
include the many hundreds of people who have joined caravans organized
by Pastors for Peace that deliver humanitarian aide and medical
supplies to Cuba.
Fourth, Americans who apply for a specific license to travel to
Cuba in order to engage in one of the limited activities for which
licenses may be granted under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations have
consistently encountered roadblocks that have prevented them from
obtaining a license on a timely basis. From all outward appearances,
OFAC is engaged in a deliberate strategy of discouraging the filing of
license applications, and of constructively denying the applications
that are filed through agency inaction and delay. OFAC is notorious for
incessantly demanding detailed information concerning travel
itineraries and the bona fides of the organizations sponsoring trips
and their travelers, and for sitting on this information once it is
provided. OFAC has never been required to account for its licensing
decisions to Congress, much less to the public, and the secrecy behind
which it is permitted to operate allows for the introduction of bias
and partiality into the decision-making process, and for its
inconsistent, irrational, and unfair treatment of license
applications.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See e.g., ``OFAC Travel License Survey Responses, Summary
Report,'' Fund for Reconciliation and Development (February 8, 2002)
(submitted to the Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government of
the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 11, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particularly troubling are new guidelines for specific license
applications for people-to-people educational exchanges. These
guidelines go so far as to request ``[a] full-time itinerary, broken
down by half-day or smaller intervals, describing for each interval
what the focus and nature of activities will be under the educational
exchange program,'' and stating the ``ratio of Cuban nationals to U.S.
participants in each event.'' \21\ To make matters worse, these
guidelines impose a political litmus test by making a factor of
consideration ``[w]hether the predominant portion of the proposed
activities will be with persons or entities that are not acting,
directly or indirectly, for or on behalf of the Government of Cuba or
its parastatal industries or enterprises.'' \22\ In doing so, the
guidelines contravene basic First Amendment principles. Also, as a
practical matter, because the educational system in Cuba is state-run,
they to impose limits the ability of travelers to meet with and learn
from Cuban university professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Department of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control
``Guidelines for License Applications: Specific Licenses for Cuba
Travel Transactions Related to Educational Exchanges Not Involving
Academic Study Pursuant to a Degree Program.''
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One victim of the new guidelines is Dr. John Gilderbloom, Executive
Director of the Cuba Research and Education Programs and a professor of
urban and public affairs at the University of Louisville.\23\ On June
17, 2002, Dr. Gilderbloom was informed via telephone by two OFAC
officials that his organization's application to renew its expired
specific license for educational exchanges--exchanges in which American
experts in architecture and planning could meet with and study from
their Cuban counterparts--had been finally denied. Since 1997, trips
run by the organization have been accredited by the prestigious
American Institute of Architects and the American Planning Association
for continuing professional education credits. The application had been
filed 15 months ago, in March 2001, and Dr. Gilderbloom had worked and
reworked it numerous times in an effort to meet the specifications of
various OFAC officials. Even with the helpful intervention of Senator
Mitch McConnell and Representative Ann Northup, the application was
rejected by OFAC officials on numerous occasions prior to being finally
denied on June 17th. Dr. Gilderbloom was informed on June 17th that his
organization's application failed to meet the new guidelines because
the proposed trips did not to call for sufficient contact with Cuban
nationals not affiliated with the Cuban government, and because the
inclusion of architectural tours and museum trips made the program
``too much of a tourist program'' and allowed for ``too much self-
fulfillment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ This discussion is based on the author's telephone
conversations with Prof. Gilderbloom on June 18, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To complicate matters further, OFAC routinely fails to process
applications in a timely manner, a practice that is unacceptable given
the substantial commitments of time and money required of travelers in
advance of an international trip. Those familiar with the application
process have learned that they must conduct a steady and persistent
campaign of follow-up telephone calls and faxes to OFAC in order to
stand even a chance of obtaining a license in advance of a trip's
scheduled departure date. Furthermore, those applicants who are
fortunate enough to receive specific licenses are saddled with
burdensome documentation requirements.
Fourth, the few Americans who qualify for travel on a general
license, or whose travel is fully hosted, are not required to apply for
a license and, as a result, lack documentation from OFAC establishing
that their travel to Cuba was lawful. On their return to the United
States, these individuals are frequently subjected to harassment,
detention, and confiscation of goods purchased in Cuba by untrained
Customs officials who rigidly adhere to the false belief that travel to
Cuba is illegal unless the traveler is able to produce a copy of a
specific license from OFAC authorizing the travel. Some of these
individuals have even been subjected by OFAC to enforcement actions.
Furthermore, the Center's clients provide a firm basis for
understanding the hardships that travelers to Cuba endure--first at the
hands of Customs officials, and later at the hands of OFAC--when our
government suspects them of violating the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations.
With disturbing frequency, the Center's clients have reported that
Customs agents were verbally abusive to them upon their return from
Cuba. Customs agents have screamed directly into their faces, accused
them of being criminals, interrogated them in a belligerent and
intimidating manner, dumped the contents of their suitcases and bags
onto the floor, detained them for hours on end, and coerced them into
making oral and written statements about their trips by threatening to
take away their passports, keep them in detention, and not allow them
to board a plane until such a statement was provided. Travelers'
requests to speak to their attorneys have been ignored. These
detentions have caused travelers to miss their connecting flights,
sometimes forcing them to spend the night at the airport waiting for
another flight.
The Customs Service appears to have initiated a practice of
stationing inspectors in Canadian airports to surveil Americans as they
board and deplane flights between Cuba and Canada. A client of the
Center was disturbed to receive a Requirement to Furnish Information
last year that advised her that she had been observed by Customs
inspectors when her Cubana Airlines flight arrived in Montreal. To its
credit, the Canadian government has voiced concerns that the United
States may be acting in violation of the 1974 Pre-Clearance Treaty
between the United States and Canada.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Glen McGregor and Mike Trickey, ``Canada Opposes U.S.
Crackdown on Cuba Visitors,'' Ottawa Citizen, September 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Customs Service also appears to be placing the names of a
select group of persons who are suspected of traveling to Cuba in
violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations on a watch list used
by the agency to screen for travelers who are of concern to law
enforcement agencies. Many of the Center's clients have complained that
after having been stopped by Customs agents on their return from Cuba,
they have been subjected to heightened inspection procedures at
airports whenever they travel internationally.
Upon their return from Cuba, travelers who have been identified by
Customs as having traveled in violation of the regulations receive a
Pre-Penalty Notice from OFAC assessing a civil penalty of approximately
$7,500 when a single unauthorized trip is alleged, $17,500 when two
unauthorized trips are alleged, and $27,500 when three unauthorized
trips are alleged. Alarmingly, a family of four that travels to Cuba
together can expect a civil penalty of $30,000. In addition, starting
in November 2001, the Center has seen Pre-Penalty Notices that demand
civil penalties from travelers--not for traveling in violation of the
Cuban Assets Control Regulations--but for failing to respond to a
Requirement to Furnish Information form demanding details about their
trip. In November 2001, OFAC sent a Pre-Penalty Notice demanding a
$1,500 fine for the late submission a Requirement to Furnish
Information form. And in January 2002, OFAC sent at least two Pre-
Penalty Notices demanding $10,000 for the failure to submit a completed
Requirement to Furnish Information form. In one case, the Pre-Penalty
Notice did not even allege that the traveler had violated the Cuban
Assets Control Regulations.
The penalties demanded by OFAC are plainly excessive and
unreasonable. The penalties are set without consideration of whether
the traveler reasonably understood his or her travel to be lawful, how
long the traveler stayed in Cuba, the nature of the traveler's
activities while in Cuba, and whether the traveler's activities fell
within the parameters of activities that are licensable. Moreover, OFAC
sets penalties without consideration of the purported purpose of the
travel restrictions--the amount of United States currency that the
traveler has introduced into the Cuban economy.
iii. moreover, these enforcement efforts are being stepped up at a time
when the department's resources are needed to fight terrorism
Between January 2001 and the present, the number of individuals who
have received Requirement to Furnish Information forms and Pre-Penalty
Notices from OFAC has skyrocketed. Not until July 2001, following
widespread complaints of a Bush Administration crackdown on Americans
traveling to Cuba, did a spokesperson for the Department of the
Treasury finally acknowledge that ``a higher incidence of penalty cases
are being issued at this time.'' \25\ This increase, however, was
attributed by the spokesperson ``solely to the normal ebb and flow of
OFAC's workload rather than a shift in policy.'' \26\ Soon thereafter,
the Department reported that while OFAC had issued only 188 enforcement
letters in all of 2000, it had issued 517 such letters between January
and July of 2001. \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Rafael Lorente, ``U.S. Tightens Cuban Embargo,'' The
Washington Times, July 5, 2001.
\26\ Ibid.
\27\ See Sullivan, ``Americans Defy Cuba Embargo,'' supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase in OFAC enforcement activity caused the Center for
Constitutional Rights' Cuba Travel Project to be flooded with new
requests for legal representation. Between January and June of 2001,
the Center accepted 162 new cases for representation--far more than the
137 cases it accepted in all of 2000, the 55 cases that it accepted in
1999, or the 49 cases that it accepted in 1998. When caseload of the
Cuba Travel Project exceeded 400 at the end of June, 2001, the project
was forced to turn away new cases for the first time since it opened
its doors in 1998. In order to fill the void caused by its inability to
accept new cases, the Center, in conjunction with the National Lawyers
Guild, formed a ``Wall of Lawyers'' project. Lawyers from all across
the nation have agreed to provide legal representation to individuals
accused by OFAC of violating the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.
For the first few months following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, OFAC slowed down its enforcement of the
restrictions on travel to Cuba. However, the agency has apparently
decided to make up for lost time. In the first five months of 2002,
OFAC issued 35 new Pre-Penalty Notices to existing clients of the
Center. This is an unusually high number of Pre-Penalty Notices for the
Center to receive given the fact that it closed intake in June 2001,
and it is a strong indication that OFAC is once again stepping up its
enforcement of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. In addition, the
Center was recently informed by OFAC officials that Administrative Law
Judges will soon be conducting the hearings that have been requested by
individuals who have been charged with violating the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations. During the ten years that the Cuba Democracy Act
of 1992 has provided such individuals with the statutory right to an
Administrative Law Judge hearing, the Department of the Treasury has
not had a single judge on staff.\28\ The backlog of requested hearings
is likely to number in the hundreds.\29\ OFAC's stepped up enforcement
of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations at a time when it has been
charged with the responsibility of tracing and blocking the assets of
the terrorists responsible for the attacks of September 11 is
profoundly troubling.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Ken Guggenheim, ``Lengthy Backlog of Cuba Travel Cases,'' AP
Online, December 16, 2001.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Executive Order 13224, ``Blocking Property and Prohibiting
Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support
Terrorism'' (September 24, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. the restrictions on travel to cuba will remain in place unless and
until congress enacts the bridges to the cuban people act of 2001 or
similar legislation to terminate them
Neither the executive branch nor the judiciary is likely to bring
about an end to current restrictions on travel to Cuba. Now that Cold
War tensions have been defused and Cuba no longer presents a credible
military threat to the United States, it is possible that the courts
will no longer be willing to accept at face value the government's
assertion that the travel restrictions are justified on national
security grounds. However, the judiciary has a long tradition of
deferring to Congress and the Executive on matters of foreign policy,
particularly where--as here--the two political branches are in
alignment with one another. As recently as 1996, the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit refused to look behind the government proffer in
support of the travel restrictions.\31\
And even if the executive branch were so inclined, it has been
barred since October 28, 2000, from granting licenses for travel to
Cuba for any activities other than the limited activities for which
licenses are currently permitted under the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations. In essence, the 2000 amendment to the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act has codified the travel restrictions
set forth in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations into law and has
barred new categories of travel activities from being licensed.\32\
Thus, as a practical matter, the restrictions on travel to Cuba
will not be lifted unless and until Congress enacts the Bridges to the
Cuban People Act or similar legislation to terminate them. Such
legislation should explicitly repeal all existing statutory
authorization for the restrictions, including the Helms-Burton Act, 22
U.S.C. Sec. 6032(h), and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000, Sec. 910. The Bridges to the Cuban People Act
repeals these two provisions.
In addition, such legislation should provide for the dismissal of
all pending OFAC enforcement proceedings under the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations. Individuals subject to these proceedings have already
endured the anxiety and the taint of having unresolved charges of
wrong-doing filed against them without the ability to have their
requests for an Administrative Law Judge hearing fulfilled. These
charges have been pending for upwards of 10 years due to the Department
of the Treasury's failure to comply with its obligations under the
Cuban Democracy Act of 1992. The dismissal of these cases would also
serve the public interest, as it would permit OFAC to shift its
precious resources away from Cuba--which is not a danger to the United
States--and direct its resources toward the prevention of a future
terrorist attack.
Legislation that simply cuts off funding to OFAC for enforcement of
the travel restrictions without at the same time legalizing travel to
Cuba will not resolve the lack of accountability that is inherent to
any licensing permit scheme. Such a half-hearted measure could
inadvertently make it impossible for people wishing to travel to Cuba
to obtain specific licenses for such travel. And in the event that
people chose to travel without a license, their travel could form the
basis of a future OFAC enforcement action should funding to OFAC for
enforcement be restored at some future date.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Congress should seize the moment and take a critical first step towards
mending the Cold War-era fences that separate us from one of our
closest neighbors. The restrictions on travel to Cuba have long
outlived their usefulness. Moreover, their senselessness, and the
arbitrary and unfair manner in which they have been applied, only serve
to breed contempt and disrespect for the laws of this nation. Their
repeal by legislation is long overdue.
Thank you once again for providing the Center for Constitutional
Rights with this opportunity to address the Subcommittee on the need
for legislation ending governmental restrictions on travel to Cuba.
--------------
\31\ See Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 83 F.3d 1431 (9th
Cir. 1996).
\32\ See supra Note 1.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Colas.
STATEMENT OF RAMON HUMBERTO COLAS, CO-FOUNDER, CUBAN
INDEPENDENT LIBRARIES MOVEMENT, MIAMI, FL
Mr. Colas. Gracias, Senor Presidente para la opportunidad--
--
Senator Dodd. Yo no soy El Presidente, pero gracias para
las palabras.
[Whereupon a conversation occurred in Spanish.]
Mr. Colas [by translator]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and the
committee to discuss U.S. policy toward Cuba.
The United States embargo of Cuba is at the center of much
political debate in various U.S. institutions. The effort to
lift it appears to advance in equal measure to that which seeks
to maintain it.
Those who argue for a lifting of the embargo advance the
following arguments: That it's not practical, that it has not
changed anything in Cuba since its application, and that the
Cuban people are suffering the worst consequences. Those
against lifting of the embargo maintain that it is a policy
tool used to pressure the Cuban regime and should be applied
strongly.
I count myself among those who believe that lifting the
embargo would not benefit the Cuban people. To lift this
measure would breathe new life into the Castro regime and would
give it access to credit and finances that would only be used
to further repress my compatriots on the island.
No one can ensure that lifting the embargo would encourage
a non-violent transition in Cuba. Fidel Castro is determined to
remain in power at all costs and needs money in order to
further his ends. To lift the embargo would only help to
perpetuate Castro's system.
The control that the Havana regime exercises over the Cuban
people allows it to portray the United States as the root of
all of Cuba's misery. This proposition is false. It's the great
hypocrisy of a system whose failures are always someone else's
fault.
In this case, U.S. policy toward Cuba is used as a pretext.
Castro seeks to depict those who favor maintaining economic
sanctions against his regime as heartless and as virtual
criminals.
One of the accomplishments of the recent visit to Cuba by
President Jimmy Carter was that the former President explained,
in the presence of the Cuban dictator, that the embargo is not
the reason for the lack of food and medicine on the island.
Those who favor the embargo--those who favor lifting the
embargo have not looked at the interior of Cuba. They do not
realize that a dictatorship exists that imprisons those who
oppose it. They ignore the fact that human rights are violated,
that Cubans cannot participate in the economic life of their
country, that only one political party exists, that there is no
freedom of association, that travel within the national
territory is restricted and that citizens must obtain the
regime's permission to travel abroad.
Intellectual freedom is violated. Books are banned.
Education is subsumed by ideology. Worst of all, there is no
liberty.
To what extent is it moral to favor a regime that treats
its citizens as non-persons and elevates foreign nationals
above the native-born. United States citizens can travel to
whatever part of the world they choose. But this nation should
not taint the honor of its democracy by offering support to a
regime that does not allow its people to be free.
Why was the South African regime isolated when it
maintained its policy of apartheid against the African
population. But now there are those who believe we should not
respond similarly in the case of Cuba when faced with
comparable violations of human rights.
In reality, there is only one true embargo and that is the
embargo that Fidel Castro maintains against the Cuban people.
His restrictions are the ones that should be lifted, against
which actions should be taken.
What matters to Cubans is not the U.S. embargo. What
matters to my compatriots is their lack of freedom. Oswaldo
Paya Sardinas, leader of the Varela Project, has said that the
lack of freedom in Cuba is the main concern and that we should
be asking Cubans about their rights rather about the policies
of the foreign government.
Policies that put pressure on the Cuban regime should not
be discarded. They are effective because they allow dissidents
to gain vital spaces and they encourage the nations of the
world to look critically upon the situation in Cuba.
The results achieved this year in Geneva, where Latin
American nations were united in voting against Cuba,
demonstrated that with pressure, the destiny of a people can be
defined. Every day there are more people that believe that Cuba
could advance toward democracy if willingness existed on
Castro's part.
A lifting of the embargo would allow Castro and his regime
to ignore world opinion and give him the opportunity to regain
his equillibrium. He would continue to endanger peace in the
region, and above all else, he would not permit his people to
be free.
There exists a myth that lifting the embargo would
facilitate people-to-people contact and that this would somehow
create a new awareness among the people. No one can ensure this
result in a country where the secret police monitors every
tourist and where Cubans are sanctioned for making contact with
foreigners.
People-to-people contact can best be encouraged by
providing aid to Cuba's emerging civil society and to the
different opposition groups. Observe, for example, how Project
Varela defied the authority of the regime and expressed the
desire of thousands of Cubans to change the system.
Can anyone guarantee that with a lifting of the embargo
Cubans will have access to the Internet and to all types of
information, that they will be allowed to participate freely in
the economic life of their country, and that political spaces
will be opened up.
Can anyone guarantee that food and medicine will be put in
people's hands, that the right to private property will be
respected, and that my compatriots will be able to live their
lives as they see fit.
No one can guarantee this. In that case, let us simplify
things. Let us look objectively at reality and let us try to
change without exacting a new toll of sacrifice from the Cuban
people.
Please permit me to cite two examples. First, the Cuban
Government spends several million dollars to buy 500 tons of
frozen chicken from the United States. No one in Cuba has seen
that chicken on his table, yet tourists are feasting on it in
the hotels where my compatriots are forbidden from entering.
This is what happened to every form of aid that has passed
through Castro's hands.
Permit me a second example. This involves the destruction
left behind in Cuba last year by Hurricane Michelle. The United
States offered to provide food, medicine and rebuilding
materials for homes, and asked that experts be allowed to visit
the island to assess the damage and estimate the amount of aid
needed.
The Havana regime refused to accept any such aid because it
knew that these resources would not be placed under its
control. In addition, it could not allow its enemy of 40 years
to help the Cuban people because this would deprive it of the
excuse that the United States is the cause of all of Cuba's
misery.
Mr. Chairman, what Cuba needs most is freedom and respect
for fundamental rights. Once these essential hurdles are
crossed, everything else will be up for discussion. I ask the
members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support a
policy of political and economic pressure on the Havana regime
that will only be modified when changes take place in Cuba that
allow all Cubans to live in freedom.
Senator Dodd. Thank you. I let you go a little longer there
because the translation makes it a little more difficult. But I
thank both of you for being here.
Very quickly, Ms. Chang, what changes if any should be made
to existing travel regulations and if enacted in law would
section 201 of the bill remove impediments to U.S. persons'
ability to travel to Cuba in your opinion.
Ms. Chang. I think section 201 is very well thought out. It
repeals the two statutes that lock in place the current
restrictions on travel to Cuba. We now have 12 categories in
which travel can be licensed. And that is because of Helms-
Burton. By removing and repealing those provisions, we allow
free travel to Cuba.
Senator Dodd. OK. Now I asked you earlier how long. You
mentioned the 400 people. I mentioned it in my testimony, you
mentioned that since 1998. Is there a distinction that you can
identify between the previous administration and this
administration and the implementation of these travel
restrictions or has it been basically continuing?
Ms. Chang. A very dramatic change has taken place. Early in
2001 our office noticed that our intake was skyrocketing. We
had so many calls for new assistance we had to close down our
intake.
And of course the Bush administration acknowledged that it
has increased enforcement. Since September 11 serious questions
have been raised as to why we are expending resources going
after 75-year-old women who go on bike tours to Cuba innocently
thinking that they are in compliance with American law.
Senator Dodd. Well, if we are going to work at this, I
think we may get some changes. And I appreciate your support.
And Mr. Colas, I appreciate your testimony here and
appreciate your point of view. Do you want to translate while I
am talking? If I do it in Spanish, then I am going to lose my
stenographer here.
I found it most interesting, I had similar conversations
with the human rights community and the dissident community
within Cuba. I noticed that former President Carter had a
similar response when dealing with the dissident community in
Cuba.
They bring a very different set of reactions to at least a
partial lifting of the embargo. I do not think any of them
endorse, maybe some do, a full lifting. But certainly it was
the consensus in the dissident community that the continuation
of the embargo has not worked.
Now, these are the Cubans in Cuba. These are the dissidents
that have not left but they are in the country who are
recommending a different set of policies than what you are
recommending, unless you have different information.
But my information is there are different points of view on
dissidents and human rights activists in Cuba versus the
dissident community outside of Cuba, if you will.
Mr. Colas. Mr. Chairman, I've been out of Cuba 22 weeks. I
speak every week with folks in Cuba. Jimmy Carter met with 23
opposition members in Cuba, 23 of whom I know and with whom I
have strong bonds of friendship. But they are not the
representatives of the entire opposition in Cuba which is much
more than 23.
In addition to those 23 people, there are some who do not
share their point of view that the embargo should not be
lifted.
Senator Dodd. They didn't say that. I do not want to put
words in their mouth. None of them I am aware of were of the
view that the embargo ought to be completely lifted, maybe
there were one or two. But according to President Carter when I
talked to him----
Mr. Colas. At least Argo Sanchez I believe is the one who
said that the embargo should be entirely lifted.
Senator Dodd. But the entirety of them believe that at
least a part of the embargo ought to be lifted and travel
restrictions ought to be lifted.
Mr. Colas. I respect that opinion. I would have to say that
there has been a broadening in recent years of the number of
opposition members, including many who live outside of Havana.
And unfortunately when foreign visitors come to Cuba, they tend
to meet with the same group of people.
And the points of view I, would say the points of view of
people in the provinces that this broader opposition movement
is rarely if ever considered by these foreign visitors.
Senator Dodd. Let me ask you this, if I can, Mr. Colas. Is
it your testimony here then today that those groups that
President Carter met with do not represent the general views of
the dissident community in Cuba, that it was a false impression
he received by the dissident community; what they had to say
was not representative of what the majority of Cuban dissidents
feel?
Mr. Colas. No. No. That is not my testimony.
Senator Dodd. I am sorry. What did he say?
Mr. Colas. No. That is not my testimony. But I maintain
that the opposition in Cuba is more than that group of people.
Senator Dodd. I know that. No one is arguing it is more
than 23 people. But do they represent what the dissident
community feel, the larger community. Is that an accurate
representation or are you suggesting that it is a false
representation?
Mr. Colas. No. No. No. It was the representation of the
points of view of the opposition groups that were present, but
not of all opposition groups on the island.
The 30th of November Party is one of the opposition groups
that has one of the broadest bases of support. And yet it was
not represented at the Carter meetings. The Cuban Reflection
Movement is the broadest based movement in Central Cuba also
was not represented at the Carter meetings.
The Pedro Luis Boitel Movement also was not present at the
Carter meetings.
Senator Dodd. And your view is those groups have a very
different point of view than the groups with whom President
Carter met?
Mr. Colas. Yes, it is. I would just like to also stress
that Oswaldo Paya Sardinas expressed the point of view that
what is important for Cubans is not the embargo but the lack of
freedom for Cuba and that that is truly the first priority.
Senator Dodd. Thank you very much. I thank all of our
witnesses today for being here. We will leave the record open
for members who would like to raise some additional questions.
I find your testimony helpful obviously as we try and
examine these policies and what may work. I would appreciate
any further comment about the proposed legislation that we have
introduced.
We have 26 other co-sponsors in the Senate, a bipartisan
group, and look forward to moving the legislation on to the
floor of the Senate. With that, I thank all of you for being
here. And this meeting will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:18 p.m., the committee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Additional Statement Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Senator Russell D. Feingold
I am pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee is considering
the important issue of our relations with the people of Cuba. I have
long expressed serious reservations over the dismal human rights record
of the Castro regime, and I have few illusions about the intentions of
the Cuban government. As a leading voice on human rights, the United
States must not minimize the abuses of that regime, nor should we
abandon our efforts to promote democratic reforms in Cuba. The recent
visit of President Carter to Cuba, along with the surprising success of
the Varela Project in promoting a more open consideration of democratic
reforms in the country, may offer the first glimpse of a democratic
future for the island. The United States must continue to promote this
peaceful process of liberalization and change in Cuba.
At the same time, we must also recognize that our embargo has
failed to achieve its objectives, most notably by failing to promote a
more meaningful improvement in the human rights landscape in the
country. Instead, it has provided the government with a pliable excuse
for its human rights failings, and for every other hardship in the
economic, social and cultural life of the country. At this point,
taking the best interests of the Cuban people into account, we must
begin to ease the embargo, especially with respect to food, medicine
and educational opportunities that would improve the health of the
Cuban people.
Let me be clear. I do not support a complete normalization of
relations with Cuba. I believe that limited sanctions must be
maintained to provide ongoing leverage and to help us achieve our
broader human rights objectives. But the near total embargo that now
exists has not been effective. Recognizing this lack of progress, I
believe it is time to take groundbreaking steps to ease aspects of the
embargo, but not the entire embargo, and that such a gesture could
dramatically increase our leverage with both the people and the
government of Cuba. Indeed, by demonstrating our good intentions and
our willingness to consider new approaches and new relationships with
Cuba, we would ultimately be in a better position to demand, and
perhaps achieve, improvements on a range of human rights issues in
exchange for ongoing progress in our economic relationship. This
initial overture from the United States is needed to launch such a
dialogue, and to diminish Castro's longstanding excuse for the
country's hardships.
I believe the liberalizing steps that are proposed in the Bridges
to the Cuban People Act of 2001 strike a responsible balance in easing
sanctions, while maintaining sufficient leverage to promote future
human rights reforms. I was pleased to co-sponsor the bill last summer,
and I am equally pleased that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere is
taking a closer look at it today. The world has changed in many ways
since the Cuban embargo was first adopted. It is time to take a
compassionate look at its effectiveness, and to consider options for
easing the embargo that would increase our leverage with the Cuban
government and improve the health and well-being of the Cuban people.
-