a way that acknowledges that we don't have to be on sort of this permanent war footing. the president can wind down the troop presence in iraq and afghanistan. we obviously have made substantial progress in that regard. when the president took office there were 180,000 military boots on the ground, american military boots on the ground in iraq and afghanistan. that number now is less than 15,000. there are some steps the commander in chief can take on his own. there are other policies that require legislative action. you've noted one of them. >> the leaders of france and germany are headed to kiev if they're not already there with a new piece proposal that seems to be getting some positive initial reaction from russia. they also seem to be not too keen on the u.s. sending -- or considering sending lethal assistance to ukraine. so i'm wondering if what the

u.s. feels about this new peace proposal from france and germany, particularly in the context of merkel coming here next week and these discussions about whether to send lethal aid. i'm also wondering if you have anything on that magical piece of paper to share with us, feel free to do so. >> purely administrative issues. >> that better not be the case. >> let me say a couple of things on this. the united states has been saying for some timing that it will -- that it's a diplomatic negotiation that's required to bring this conflict in ukraine to an end. this is not something that's going to be solved or resolved militarily but rather through diplomatic negotiations. we certainly are encouraging and supportive of ongoing efforts to try to find a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the conflict in ukraine.

one concern that we have is previous diplomatic efforts have resulted in agreements that the russians and the separatists that they back in eastern ukraine didn't live up to. there were commitments made in the context of the minstk agreement that was signed i believe back in september, it included things like withdrawing all troops and weapons from eastern ukraine and establishing effective international monitoring of the international border between ukraine and russia, returning control of ukraine's side of the border to the central government in kiev. freeing all of the hostages and working towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. that is -- i'm just going to do the math here. i think that is five or six different specific provision minstk agreement. they haven't lived up to a single one of them. that is an indication that we need serious engagement from the russians and the separatists, the likes of which we have not seen before.

we're going to continue to be supportive of ongoing efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to this situation while at the same time we're going to continue to urge the russians and the separatists that they represent to live up to the diplomats that they represent. that can and should be resolved. to that end, there is i think just sort of looking at the public schedule of members of the president's national security team you can tell that there is deepened engagement on this issue right now. secretary kerry is in kiev right now as we speak. he did a news conference a little earlier this morning eastern time with -- i believe it was with the ukrainian president while he was over there. i know that he's meeting with a number of senior officials. over the weekend, you know, the vice president is currently on his way to europe. he'll be participating in the munich security conference as he's done in years past. while he's there he'll meet with ukrainian president poroshenko and other ukrainian leaders.

on monday the president is planning to convene a meeting with german chancellor merkel while she's here in the united states so there is -- while not -- their entire meeting will not be devoted to the situation in ukraine but that will be a substantial part of their discussions. >> so focusing on that meeting then with chancellor miracle america -- merkel, you've talked about staying in lock step with our european partners on this issue, especially when it comes to the pace with which we offer sanctions. they don't think it's a good idea for us to be putting more weapons in this conflict. if chancellor merkel comes here next week and says to the president what she's said publicly, which is that germany's not going to be sending lethal assistance and they don't think it's a good idea, will the president still have that option on the table and consider sending it

regardless? >> well, the president is going to make a decision that he believes is in the broader national security interest of the united states, and part of that is understanding what sort of impact the decisions that we make have on our allies. so the president is, of course, going to reserve the right to make the decision about our broader strategy from the standpoint of the united states vis-a-vis ukraine. the president though has -- has indicated a desire to work closely with our allies, and certainly the success that we have enjoyed so far in instituting a -- an economic sanctions regime against russia has depended upon very close coordination with our allies in europe. there's no doubt about that. the sanctions regime we've put in place working in lock step with our european allies has required close consultation cooperation with europe. the reason is because the economic ties between russia and europe are much deeper than the bilateral economic ties between

the united states and russia. so being able to act in coordinated fashion has been the key to the success of that sanctions regime. but certainly the president takes very seriously the views of our allies and is going to consult very closely as we evaluate any needed strategic changes ahead okay? >> julia. welcome to the white house beat. >> thank you. >> i understand you'll be joining us more regularly. >> yes. thank you. a among the many departures we learned that fda director margaret hamburg is stepping down. what can you tell us about how you anticipate a confirmation of someone to take her place, especially considering republicans would have to confirm someone who has been critical of the fda? >> julia i can tell you that the president certainly appreciates dr. hamburg's tireless service over the last six years. there are a number of issues that she has grappled with over at the fda. the professionalism that she's brought to that job has made her

very effective as the leader of that agency. she's leaving a legacy of advancements that include biomedical innovation, modernizing the food safety system and reducing death and disease caused by tobacco. she's got quite a legacy that she's leaving. as it relates to her successor, i don't have any announcements on that at this point. certainly the president will be focusing on somebody that has the kind of impeccable medical and scientific credentials that they can bring to the job and when we have more to announce on this we'll let you know. i mean i guess we'll just say one other thing that when -- you know when the president does make an announcement, you know, we're confident will -- that he will appoint the individual that will merit strong bipartisan support. >> and there's been a major hack into insurer anthem. there are about 80 million

accounts that had their information stolen. how big of a deal is this? has the president been briefed? also since anthem has a large federal employer population i was wondering if anyone at the white house happened to be affected? >> well, julia, i can tell you that we're certainly aware of these reports. the fbi is leading an investigation to determine what exactly happened and to try to determine the scope of the impact so for specific questions about this incident i'd refer you to the fbi. i don't have any information to share in terms of the individual impact or the individuals who may have been affected by this incident. it does -- it does serve as a useful opportunity though for me to remind you of two things. the first is, we did spend some time a couple of weeks ago talking about specific legislative proposals that have been put forward by this administration to try to address cyber security and there are some important steps that are included in that legislation

that would improve the federal government's response to situations like this and would improve coordination between law enforcement authorities, private industry and consumer advocates to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to both harden the defenses of organizations that are directly affected, to communicate information about the intrusion to make sure that similar tactics that may prove damaging in one scenario can't be used against other companies and then we also want to make sure that we have a codified system for making sure that consumers are properly informed and educated about what steps they can take to safeguard their data. so there's a lot of important work that needs to be done around this in the united states congress. the good news is this is not an idea logical issue and that there are republicans who have indicated that they also understand how serious this is.

we are hopeful that by working with congress we can make some important progress and take some steps that would actually safeguard the american people and their data. the last thing is that -- is just a reminder that there will be quite extensive discussion of these kinds of issues at the cyber summit that the administration is hosting out at stanford university next week. and so we're looking forward to the opportunity to convene meetings with leaders in private industry leaders in the tech sector who have some expertise around some of these issues, government officials not just at the federal level but the state and local who all have equities in dealing with this rather complicated policy issue but the consequences for us dealing with this policy issue are significant and certainly the president and his administration take it very seriously and are hopeful that we'll see others on the other side of the aisle also take it seriously as well. margaret? >> the president met with a group of muslim leaders

yesterday. the white house hasn't released a formal what happened. i was wondering if you can talk us through why. was it considered a private meeting? are there concerns of you know -- i don't know. >> i don't have a list of those who attended, but let me see if i can try to extract some more information from you -- from them for you. >> that would be great. thanks. i just wanted to do cleanup on a couple of things. on aumf you were saying you could expect the language reasonably suited. >> relatively suited i think is what i said. >> would you rule out like the end of this week? >> you mean as in tomorrow? >> right. >> i -- i wouldn't necessarily rule it out. i don't think it's going to be tomorrow, but he's -- these kinds of plans often have a way of changing. i think relatively soon is the best guidance i can offer you at this point. >> okay. and if i can do bebe-gate or speech-gate, whatever you want to call t. two-parter. is nancy pelosi still talking

about whether she may boycott that speech. i was wondering if you could give us some clarity about the white house and president's thinking on whether this is an appropriate individual decision for democrats, whether you're offering any guidance when people call to ask. also, what does he think about the fact that this has caused so much controversy? >> well, as i mentioned yesterday, the president does believe it is up to individual members of congress to make their own decision about whether or not to attend. you know, the concern that we have exhibited here is not just about the departure from protocol in terms of extending the invitation but also the president believes very firmly in continuing an important tradition, which is to ensure that the strong relationship between the united states and israel is protected from partisan politics, that we shouldn't allow the relationship between our two countries to be reduced to a relationship between two political parties.

and that is something that the president is concerned about and, frankly, the seriousness with which the president considers this principle is what's driving the decision to not meet with the prime minister when he's here. as you know when the prime minister is in the united states during the first week in march, he'll be up for an election that's scheduled for just two weeks later back in israel and the president is conscious of ensuring that we don't leave anybody with the appearance or even with the appearance of somehow interfering in that election by weighing in on one side or the other. the president takes these issues very seriously, but ultimately those kinds of decisions about whether or not to attend and what sort of impact that might have on an ongoing election in another country or what kind of signal that might send is a decision that every individual member of congress needs to make for themselves. >> has he gone as far as to say that he doesn't really think that the prime minister should

go through with the speech or have you drawn a line? >> no. >> are you saying that? >> i'm not saying that. >> you could say that. >> i'm not saying that. >> to clean up on josh's question. he knows the pope is coming so he's probably not shocked that the pope is addressing congress and he's probably fine with it, but was there any coordination this time around? was there any effort by the speaker's office to make a good-faith gesture to say, look, no hard feelings let's coordinate stuff? >> i can't speak to all of the conversations that may or may not have occurred in advance of that specific invitation, but certainly the president and the team here was aware of the pope's intent to travel to the united states and an attempt to spend some time in washington d.c. i know that there are still some details of that schedule that are getting locked down. i don't want to get ahead of any plans announced by the vatican. >> justin, i understand you announced a new job. >> moving up a couple of rows.

>> congratulations. nancy pelosi today backed the senate armed services committee, they sent a letter to the white house asking for aid for jordan. you were asked and you said it would depend on a specific request from jordan. i was wondering if you had anymore details and if so the if the administration was working to fulfill it. >> well what i know justin is that the -- that the united states has a very deep security relationship with jordan and that involves providing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in security assistance to the jordanians. much of that security equipment is used to contribute against the broader international campaign against isil. i know there had been some

interest in the -- expressed by the jordanians and others to express what was in the pipeline. this is not unlike other countries we have a security relationship with. that's something we're always working on. i can tell you we're always looking for ways to deepen our relationship with jordan. i can tell you while the king was here on tuesday there was the signing of a memorandum memorandum of understanding between the united states and jordan that would extend our security situation -- our security relationship into 2017 and would guarantee the provision of security assistance on the order of about $400 billion a year. so it's a substantial commitment of military assistance and it's one that is not just a short-term relationship but one that is a long running one and

one that we acted to extend while the king was visiting earlier this week. >> i just wanted to ask about the status of dhs funding. obviously the senate has been voting and blocking the house bill. mitch mcconnell says that he expects to work out a deal in the next couple of weeks. i'm wondering, has it gotten to the point where you have had conversations with possible bl sweeteners to get it through the house andersen mate? >> i'm not aware of any conversations like that. they have a responsibility to pass funding for the department of homeland security. as you've heard me say that before it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which there's a good time for us to muck around with funding for the department of homeland security, but now seems like a particularly bad time to do so. and so we're hopeful that republicans will embrace their responsibility that they have now that they're in control of the united states congress to

use the power of the purse that our founders gave to them to make sure that our department of homeland security is fully and properly funded. we certainly don't want to have a scenario where we have men and women in uniform, our federal law enforcement officers, people responsible for protecting our ports, people responsible for protecting our transportation system and particularly our air transportation system. those individuals shouldn't have to go without a paycheck and i can't imagine why anybody would think that would be anything but bad for our national security. so we're hopeful. you know republicans have a couple of weeks to figure this out. we're hopeful they will. i don't like to stand up here and say i told you so, but we did spend some time last fall where i noted that i felt it was going to put republicans in a really difficult situation to threaten funding for the department of homeland security merely over a political disagreement, but unfortunately

that seems to be the situation in which republicans find themselves. i think they're finding that certainly the vast majority of americans don't find this to be a particularly persuasive argument they're making. we're hoping they're going to put politics aside, focus on their correspondsbility to actually fund the united states government, particularly critically important functions like homeland security. john. >> first off quick question on the meeting with the muslim leaders. why was the decision made not to allow any press coverage of that meeting? >> well, you know, john, the president has many meetings at the white house and certainly not all of them include some press coverage. so we did, however want to make sure that we were as transparent as we could be about the fact that the meeting was taking place and i understand that there was a blog post put up to sort of characterize the discussion that occurred, but there was no post parade planned. if there was the president met

with dream net folks. >> right. >> and a question on saudi arabia in light of these allegations made by zakarias zakarias mousaui. what is the white house position on that section of the 9/11 report that has been classified that may or may not shed some light on this issue? >> john i can tell you that the administration in response to a specific congressional request last year asked the intelligence community to conduct a classification review of that material and we did so in keeping with the standard procedure for determining whether or not it's appropriate to release classified material. and all i can tell you is that that process is ongoing. >> do you have a sense of when that process will be finished? >> i don't have a time line for when that classification process will be completed. >> what do you make of these allegations? obviously they come from a

convicted terrorist. what did -- does the white house believe there's anything to the suggestion that the saudis may have been more involved? >> well john i'm not going to comment on those assertions from somebody who as you point out, has been convicted of very serious terrorism charges. i'm just going to reiterate something that we have said many times and i think was on display when the president stopped in riyadh on his way back from india last week. specifically, that is that the united states and saudi arabia maintain a strong counter terrorism relationship as a key element of our broad and strategic partnership. >> a question on the departures. obviously fiver, palmieri, poe des stay despodesta. >> doing it alphabetically. >> but that's a lot of -- that's a significant percentage of the president's senior advisory team

here at the white house leaving at roughly the same time. is there a sense that people are kind of running for the exits for the -- you know, the rez of this presidency? what's the president going to do about replacing them? >> joe i can tell you that the three individuals that you named are people who have made substantial contribution to the president's success here in his presidency. and they have made contributions that are difficult to measure on a whole range of issues. so there's no denying the fact that these are people who have served the president and the american people exceedingly well while they've been here. one of their principle accomplishments was to build a team here at the white house that has been very successful in ensuring the president's success in executing the kinds of strategic decisions that have been really good for the country. even in just the last several months we've seen the president take the kinds of steps, whether it's securing an historic agreement with china to

taking -- announcing executive actions on bringing greater accountability to our immigration system. there are a whole host of things, particularly in the last few months, where the president has demonstrated and built up some momentum. the team that those individuals have built are largely responsible for that success. and they -- i think when you get a chance to speak to all of them, each of them will tell you that this team is poised to continue that success and to build on that momentum. and i think they would also say, and from covering white houses in the past i think you have a good sense of this, too, is that particularly near the end of, you know, the last couple years of a presidency an infusion of fresh legs and different perspective can be a really useful thing. and so i think the president and dennis will take very seriously the responsibility that they have to replenish the leadership, to work with the team that's already in place to

continue the president's success. >> specifically on pfeiffer and podesta, obviously we'll have a new communications director coming in. will those two jobs be replaced with similar job responsibilities? >> mr. podesta will be replaced by brian dease who's been the deputy director at omb. i think i'd be the first to admit that it's impossible to replace john podesta. certainly brian will be stepping in to fill his shoes and take on many of the responsibilities that john fulfilled here. the president has spoken about the fact that he's excited about brian taking on these responsibilities. as it comes to replacing pfeiffer and the impossibility of doing that, there is still discussion about how to do so much of the work dan did around here. my zblel several people family members of 9/11 victims have said that president obama told

them personally that he wanted to release these classified pages, that he would do that soon. so in -- we know that it's going through this lengthy process, but does he still in principle agree with declassifying? >> i'm not going to read out any private conversations the president had, but i will tell you in response to these requests the president has moved forward with asking the intelligence community to conduct a classification review and that is standard protocol. create an additional problem or vulnerability. there's a procedure for when the administration is considering it. >> saying that, you're not

saying that the moving forward is an indication of his support of declassifying it or are you? >> what i'm saying is that the -- there is a process in place for evaluating whether or not it is possible to release this information without harming national security. i'm confident that the president would while being a stallwart advocate for transparency, not be supportive of harming our national security. >> several people have said the same thing about what the president told them. you can't say whether he did, indeed, at the time say those things to those family members? >> i'm not going to read out any private conversations the president may have had. >> sorry. >> that's okay. >> on ukraine several months ago whenever legal aid was asked about the administration would always say there's a serious concern about not fighting a proxy war. obviously that's a serious concern to the point that at the time lethal aid would not be considered.

well, now that it is being considered, has something trumped the risk that is still the same of either escalation or the proxy war? >> well, that's a good question michelle. i think what i can say is it's indicative of the kind of commitment that this administration has to regularly re-evaluate and re-assess our strategy for accomplishing something. and we do that -- we do that in a variety of areas, and this is something that we're constantly focused on, making sure that at every turn we have a strategy that optimizes our likelihood of success. what we have seen over the last several months when it comes to ukraine is a -- is the success of a strategy of putting intense pressure on the putin regime by putting in place sanctions. we've seen that those sanctions have had a pretty devastating impact on the russian economy. that, of course, has been coupled with falling energy prices and other things. that would not have been

possible without the close coordination with our allies and friends in europe. but it has not resulted in the kind of decision making we would like to see from the putin regime that would cause them to actually live up to the kind of commitments they made in the context of the minstk negotiations. that's part of why we're considering, you know, a wide range of things as it relates to our strategy. and, you know, certainly one of the things that we believe is necessary based on this you know constant reassessment is that there is additional economic assistance that can be provided. that's why the administration earlier this year put forward a specific request to the congress to pass legislation that would offer up an additional $1 billion in loan guarantees to the ukraines to offer up that financial assistance. the ukrainian economy has also been destabilized by the

activities of the russian-backed separatists in eastern ukraine. this is a multi-faceted strategy that we're considering very carefully. >> at the risk of things escalating does this still exist? >> the concern that we have is two things. one, the president -- the president mentioned this in the news conference that he hosted with prime minister modi in india. the president noted that we were going to -- that this conflict was not going to rise to the level of a military confrontation between the united states and russia. the president has been very clear about that. so there are things that we are going to continue to avoid but, you know, one of the concerns that we have about providing military assistance is it does owe contain the possibility of expanding bloodshed. that's actually what we're trying to avoid. the whole reason that we are

trying to encourage both sides to sit down and hammer out a diplomatic agreement is end the bloodshed and end the escalating conflict in that country and the fact is we have seen the ukrainian government live up to a lot of those agreements and at least try to implement them but those efforts have been entirely undermined by russian backed separatists with the full support of russia completely ignoring those commitments that they've made just a few months earlier. >> april. >> josh, i want to ask you a question about boko haram. what is the relationship between the united states government and the nigerian government at this time, particularly as it relates to the fighting against terror in nigeria with boko haram? >> well, april, i can tell you that there continues to be an interdisciplinary team in abouga right now. these are government officials with a wide variety of skills

and expertise, some of them in the military who are offering counter terrorism assistance to the nigerian government. we certainly are supportive of the efforts taken by the nigerian government to combat this terror threat that they face in their country. we have in the past and i'll do it again expressed concerns about some of the things that the nigerian government has done in the name of counter terrorism that has trampled some of the basic universal human rights that we are very protective of in this country. we have urged them as they take these steps to address terrorism in their own country to be respectful of the human rights of their people. certainly we have a counter terrorism cooperation and that continues. >> that statement that you just made, what is the level of expectation from this white house as it relates to the upcoming elections in nigeria as

well as finding any of the missing girls? >> well certainly we want to assist the nigerian government in carrying out -- or supporting them as they carry out an election that is free, fair and transparent and ends with a result that reflects the genuine will of the nigerian people. >> change in leadership? >> no that's a decision for the nigerian people to make. we certainly want to support the nigerian government as they hold an election that is open and transparent and actually has a result that reflects the will of the nigerian people. you know our efforts to support their -- the nigerian led operation to try to safely recover the chubuk girls continues. this is very difficult work and our concern about this continues. >> i want to ask one last question on this. there's a lot of concern a lot of conversation about isis and

stories about isis. how does this look at. we're both on the same equal footing of terror items affecting the world. >> april somebody at the national security council can give you a more thought full answer. i'll take a crack at it. the way the president views these kinds of things is through the prism of what's best for american national security and our security interests around the globe. that is the appropriate level of the u.s. involvement in these efforts and it is how we evaluate the kinds of steps that we need to take whether it's direct military intervention or otherwise to try to help these countries counter these extremists that are operating in their country.

so i guess the point is it's difficult to compare them by looking at what impact they have on national security. i can put you in touch with somebody in the national security administration that can give you a more detailed assessment. >> the federal government spent billions of dollars to convert to electronic records and the fbi says the standards are very lax, their words. so after all that investment why isn't the health care system security morrow bust? >> that conversion to electronic health records has saved money and saved lives. that's the principle reason for doing that. and so this issue of cyber security is something that

industries all across the country and around the world are grappling with right now. this is a perfect sis accident problem in the industry. the entertainment industry had a high profile issue they were dealing with. it is one that affects the health care industry as well. that's why it's so important for us to take a comprehensive approach to dealing with this challenge. that's part of the goals of the legislation that we've put forward and hope that congress will pass and it's certainly the kind of thing that will be under discussion at the cyber security summit that the president is convening next week. >> that's not near translation of legislation. >> we've put forward specific legislative language and sent it to congress. now i recognize that republicans in congress have their own ideas about how they want to change legislation, but certainly the president is very forward leaning and aggressive in making exactly clear exactly what he believes this country can do to

strengthen our cyber security defense and react when a cyber breach has been detected. >> does the president believe that president putin has aspergers syndrome? >> i saw that report today. i don't have any comment on that. >> this was done by an outside consultant for the pentagon which adds some credibility apparently. >> i'm not saying it's uncredible. i'm saying i don't have a personal reaction. >> finally kerry said in kiev that the president decides soon on lethal assistance for ukraine. what's soon? >> i don't have any update on that. there's no decision at this point that's been made. like i was telling michelle, we do have a posture of continually, you know, re-evaluating and reassessing

the success and progress that we've made based on the strategies that are currently implemented, and part of that evaluation process includes raising the question about whether or not we need to make some changes to our strategy to make us -- to make it more effective. that's something that we're doing on a continual basis. if there are any high profile announcements to make around those -- around that strategy, i'll let you know. >> on pope francis's speech to congress, will vice president biden attend or will he be out of the country? >> the speech for the pope is slated for september and the vice president's scheduled for that period of time has not been set but i -- >> i can't say the same about prime minister netanyahu? >> the vice president's schedule for the first week of march is also not yet set. as i mentioned earlier i guess it was yesterday, i noted that the vice president takes very seriously the ceremonial

responsibilities he has before the united states senate. participating in the convening of joint sessions of congress. there has been one previous occasion where he's been unable to attend a joint session of congress because he was traveling overseas. when we have more details about the vice president's schedule for the first week of march we'll let you know. >> follow up about the two questions you got about meeting with muslim leaders yesterday. we were specifically told that you would not release it yesterday because they were private citizens who came in. now as you yourself noted the president met with private citizens who were dreamers they're pretty young. he brought in tv cameras. we didn't get all their names. they're private citizens as well. i'm sort of curious, you suggested at the beginning that you might get the names. >> i'll see if i can do that for you. one thing we do know is that the names will be included in the waves records that are released. >> down the road. >> yeah. at least at some point they will be released. i know that some of the

individuals who participated have spoken publicly. you know at least -- >> doesn't that make it -- just put the list out there. >> that's what i told you i'll check. >> last night they told us they wouldn't put it out. put that on the record. two quick things. jordan. i still didn't hear a direct answer like yesterday. so will the president help approve more weapons to jordan? >> ed we have this continuing security relationship with jordan. >> there's a crisis right now, bombs are being dropped in syria. i understand the long term, but the king went back there and said there's a crisis, we're going in. so will the president approve it? >> well ed this is a -- the united states remains committed to ensuring that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our partners in jordan at this very serious time. it is clear because of the terrible violence that was

released via video yesterday that that nation is going through a very difficult time and they can count on their partners in the united states to stand with them at that very difficult time. they can count on the president of the united states being a strong advocate for making sure either they get that assistance they need. >> what justin said about nancy pelosi she said, i believe the administration should move quickly to give more capacity to jordanians. it's a top democratic leader saying, let's go. >> what i can tell you is that the president will continue as he has in the past to be a strong advocate for making sure that the united states is doing all that we can and all that we should and all that we promised we would do to show our support for the jordanian people including providing needed security. >> giving a speech about laying out the sort of official national security strategy.

last time it was done was 2010. the news reports and the speech we looked at said that the point of it was the administration strategy basically was that the u.s. needed to focus on a broader agenda and not just organized national security policy around counter terrorism. he had to focus on threats and not using national power. in retrospect was that naive? >> not at all. in fact, i think one clear piece of evidence to indicate that that strategy has enjoyed some success is the information that the president built and led a coalition of more than 60 nations to take the fights to isil and degrade and ultimately destroy them. it's not excludessively american planes that are dropping bombs. that we welcome the participation of our allyies in

europe. they're working side by side with american military pilots to strike targets on the ground. we're working closely with saudi arabia, for example, to get to work on a program that would train and equip moderate syrian opposition fighters so that they can take the fight on the ground to isil. i think that is an indication of how we can use american influence to protect american national security interests. now, of course, and i had this conversation with michelle a little bit yesterday, of course united states military is taking a leadership role. they are shouldering most of this burden but by making sure that we're including our partners that also have significant military capabilities we can reduce the strain and burden on the american military and on the american taxpayers, by the way, but also do that in a way that gets them more bought in on this fight so the united states is not standing alone countering this threat, but that we have countries around the world

contributing to this effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. >> chris. >> thanks, josh. >> on the aumf -- >> prolific today. zb a go ahead. >> john boehner said he thought they would get it in a couple of days. is the language done? >> the language is still the subject of ongoing discussions between administration officials and democrats and republicans on capitol hill. the goal here was to ensure that we submitted legislation that could attract bipartisan support and to that end we've worked to submit that language so we could have reasonable degree of confidence that the legislation would get exactly that kind of support. >> is that -- >> i think it's fair to say we

have made substantial progress since the president convened that meeting where this was discussed. >> the other thing that john boehner said today was that it was going to be incumbent on the presidentship to make the case about why we have to fight this fight and he suggested that actually passing the authorization, i'm going to quote him this is not going to be an easy lift. does the white house anticipate this is going to be tough to pass? >> i would anticipate when we're talking about an issue as weighty as an authorization for the commander in chief to use military force, that these are very significant issues and people have very strongly held views about it. so i would anticipate there would be a very robust debate and let's face it, chris, things that aren't that serious have a hard time getting through the united states congress these days. when we're talking about something as weighty as an authorization to use military force, i would anticipate that it will require significant effort from the leaders in both parties and chambers of congress. i think as evidenced from the

robust consultation that has taken place between the administration and capitol hill that the administration is also committed to dedicating some resources to the passage of this new aumf. the reason for that, it's important people don't lose sight of this the president believes it sends a very powerful signal to the american people, to our allies and even to our enemies that the united states of america is united behind this strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. across branches of government and across parties even in this divided time in our nation's political history democrats and republicans are committed to this very important tas zblkk. >> do you expect even though there may be robust debate it will be done? >> i won't make a prediction like that. i will make a prediction we will work very closely with democrats and republicans to try to move this through both houses of congress, but i'll let people who are much more astute analysts of congressional action give you an approximation of the

likelihood of the passage of a new aumf. >> i just want to ask you about the visit by benjamin netanyahu and meeting with him. it certainly looks like he's likely to win re-election, even before this happened. how problematic is this for the president, shall we say less than cozy relationship with mr. netanyahu and has this been damaging overall to u.s./israeli relations? >> well, let me just state at the beginning that i'm not going to speculate about the outcome of the election because, again, i wouldn't want even my uninformed speculation about israeli politics to be construed as interfering in that election in any way. but what i can talk about is the relationship between the -- between president obama and prime minister netanyahu, and i think what is clear from the public statements of both men is

that the counter terrorism and security relationship between our two countries has never been stronger. in fact, it's the prime minister himself who said that the level of security cooperation between united states and israel is unprecedented and that reflects a commitment from people on both sides of this relationship working together to pursue the national security interests of both their countries. it's in the interests of the united states of america for the united states to have a strong security relationship and security partnership with israel, our closest ally in the middle east. the people of israel it's important to have a strong and functioning security relationship with the united states. just last year when innocent israeli citizens were in the line of fire from extremists in gaza who were firing rockets across the border, the united states acted to ramp up our assistance to the israelis and

provide additional funding for the iron dome program so that that program could be resupplied and the iron dome program is the program that's used to shoot down rockets that are destined for israeli population centers. so you know, there is an important relationship between our two countries and both prime minister netanyahu and president obama have succeeded in ensuring that that strong relationship continues to serve very well the populations of both our countries. >> so what mr. schultz has passed me is that apparently justin in answering your question i misspoke. i don't remember misspeaking but apparently i did. i noted that the united states and jordan earlier this week just two days ago had signed a memorandum of understanding between our two countries. apparently i said a billion when i meant to say million. the memorandum of understanding relates to 3 to $400 million a year -- million dollars a year in security assistance through

2017. apparently i said billion and i regret the error. j.c. >> what's the difference really? >> back to the arabian peninsula. does the situation in yemen, which we haven't really discussed in about a week raise the threat level to the united states? and does it raise the threat level in the region? can you update us on the situation there vis-a-vis the u.s. presence? >> i assume you're asking the question about reports overnight about an operation that may have taken out a senior aqap leader and some other fighters there. >> among others. >> right. i -- i know that the reporting speculated on u.s. involvement, and i'm just -- as in previous cases where these kinds of things have been reported, i'm just not going to be in a position to comment on them. but what i can say is that the president's been very clear about the need to continue our counter terrorism operations in

yemen. those operations -- those counter terrorism operations continue. i know there's also been some reporting that speculated that the coordination between the united states and yemen had been stopped in light of the

we are concerned about the ties between that movement and the iranian regime, but we have not, we don't have clear evidence, at least the last time i talked about this with our national security team that iran is exercising in the control authority at this point. okay? alexis? alexis. >> on the ukraine question. is president obama expecting to be influenced by angela merkel's stated position since the vice president will be seeing her? is the position of the german chancellor on this question a major influence about whether the u.s. should be there sf. >> alexis, i don't want to have

private conversations between the president and chancellor merkel. you will recall on our flight back from saudi arabia i believe the president had the opportunity to speak on the television with chancellor merkel and i don't know if it was on the flight or from saudi arabia on the way back. the last week the president did have the opportunity to visit with her and the president speaks with the chancellor quite frequently on a wide range of issues. not just on ukraine but the economic situation of the eu as it relates to greece and there a host of other areas where they cooperate very closely. i think that is an indication to you that the personal opinion of the chancellor matters a great deal to the president. he values her advice and insight and he certainly wants to understand her perspective when it comes to the impact that u.s. decisions could have on germany

and on the people of germany. and that is why it's critical that they have the kind of relationship where they can speak frankly with one another and they can represent the views of their people and advocate for the best of their two countries. so often what they find when they talk is the national security interests for the people of germany are cleanly aligned with the security interests of the united states and the people of this country and that that makes us such close allies and the president is going to be in the white house. >> the assessment of this question might conclude in time for him to join the chancellor in talking about this. >> can you say what access the media will have? >> maybe you will have the opportunity to ask her about

this. >> use the possible mechanisms through the follow-ups to the summit to accomplish some of the goals he already stated. >> as you probably saw from the read out we did from the meeting. the conversation was broad and it didn't focus on the ongoing counter terrorism efforts or efforts to try to counter radicalization attempts by extremist groups. there was an opportunity for the president to have a wide ranging discussion about middle class economics and the importance of signing is up for the deadline and healthcare.gov. there were a range of topics and certainly this is one of them. one of the benefits of convening

this summit on countering violent extremism is we can bring together leaders in law enforcement and leaders and including the muslim-american community to try to counter the radicalizing messaging from extremist organizations. these extremist organizations because of technology have more opportunities than they previously did to try to get inside the minds of vulnerable young people in the community. it's true in muslim communities, but it's true of all young people in the country. one of the things we will do in the context is spend time talking to law enforcement leaders and leaders in communities across the country including the muslim-american community about the best practices they have implemented to try to safeguard their communities. we wanted to create a scenario to identify the best practices

and communicate them to communities across the country. we will value the input from law enforcement and community leaders, both of whom have a clear interest in protecting the people in their community. okay? >> was there any invitation in september? >> not that i'm aware of? >> the difference for which i was not aware? >> neither am i. none intended. >> what is the package the president will be delivering reasonably and relatively soon? you talked about a dissatisfaction with the 2001 2002 and the express need for a new document governing the iraq and syria actions. there has been a repeal.

will this be three separate documents? the question is will there be repeal damage submit and will there be another umbrella document, another authorization to replace the 2001 2002 which the president relied on in syria? >> for me you asked serious questions and none seemed illegitimate to me. the vast majority will be not a compliment, just an observation. many of those questions will be easier after we made an document. you can expect legislative language that democrats and republicans have worked with the administration to produce. we are hopeful that that language will earn majority support in the house and the senate and will attract both the am democrats and republicans. what is in the content of that

language is something that i will be in a position to discuss after that language has been released. there is one element of your question that i wanted to clarify. at one point you described the president needing some additional authorization. the fact is that the president believes military support he authorized was something -- military force the president ordered was authorized by the u.s. congress under the 2001 aumf. this is not a matter of legal necessity. it is a matter of the president's desire to send a very clear signal to the people to allies and enemies. that the united states of america and our political system is united behind the strategy to degrade and destroy isil that the president laid out. >> something that was not in the prepared remarks and was in the

state of the union saying we need that authorization. >> that was an attempt to make the case to members of congress. it did not reflect the change in the legal analysis, but rather him urging that the broader operation would significantly benefit from this bipartisan show of unity. >> should the document that we will get soon be something that is specifically just for isis and syria and iraq or will it more largely address the authorizations that have governed the president's actions so far? >> stay tuned. mark? >> over at the prayer breakfast, they ordered public words of praise. what should chinese leaders from that. >> they had the opportunity to mead with the dalai lama at the

white house. the two did not visit on his holiness's visit to the white house this time. his help for and appreciation for the dalai lama were articulated and it's not different than the sentiment he previously expressed in the context of meetings he hosted with the dalai lama on previous visits to washington. so is the chinese government's objections to those interactions. we are cognizant of that impact but it hasn't change changed the president's view.

>> not that i'm aware of? >> they will not. >> will not. >> what is the president going to do to get this across the finish line? do you have a strategy mapped out and how much will the president be involved? >> i would say that the key part of our strategy is one being executed right now. that's to work closely with democrats and republicans and both the house and the senate to put together language they and we believe can attract bipartisan support in congress. what the president is interested in is not just passing but demonstrate support for it. again, the goal here is to

demonstrate clearly to the american people and allies and enemies that there is strong support for this commitment degrade and ultimately destroy isil. they are coordinating on the front end to make sure we have the language that democrats and republicans feel like they can support. after it is submitted, we will work with democrats and republicans to move it across the finish line. >> a staffer is taking responsibility for this and can you describe it? >> the legislative affairs department as are members of the national security team. we have a danger number of people working on this effort and what you can expect is that those members both the lawyers

and legislator's team and members of the national security team would remain. if they have specific questions that they have about the language and they want to talk about somebody on the team about it, those phone calls are returned. we will continue to stay engaged even across the wide variety of people involved in this ongoing effort. >> when the president and chancellor merkel spoke, did they discuss efforts with russia in that call? >> i don't have anything to add so i can pull that up and give you a chance to take a look. okay? thanks a lot, everybody.

>> the 30 closer vote failed for the homeland security department. security i votes were needed to advance. one republican from nevada joined all democrats in blocking the measure. barbara boxer of california did not vote. the homeland security spending bill includes provisions on immigration. current funding runs out at the end of the month. another announcement out of the capital, john boehner said pope francis will address a joint meeting of congress as far as the visit to the united states in september. the pope will be the first leader to address the joint

meeting of congress. the holy father's message of compassion and human dignity moved people of all faiths and back grounds. his teachings prayers and example bring us back to the blessings of simple things and obligations to one another. before this joint meeting, there will be a joint session with israeli prime minister netanyahu. leader nancy pelosi was asked about the visit during her weekly briefing. here's what she had to say. >> do you know when the heads of state come? people are here doing their work and trying to pass legislation and meeting with constituents and the rest. if you want to invite the head of state and have that invitation shared by the other leaders huh to demonstrate that

you are going to fill the seats. it looks like the average age of congress is 21 years old. that's not the case. not even close. you can imagine how low as you now it is my intention to go and the hope that the event will not take place. there is a serious unease. don't even think in terms of the word boycott. members will go or they don't go as they usually go or don't go.

on c-span 2 a book on after words, washington bureau chief toby heroin den on the british efforts to stop the taliban advance while a wading u.s. marines's u.s. enforcement and sunday at 10:00, senior editor on the u.s. senate's torture report and why his company decided to publish it. on american history tv all this month, interviews with korean war pow's this sunday. charles ross and an army sergeant captured by the chinese and held as a pow from 1950 to 1953. just after 9:00, a look back at selma and the voting rights act with the congresswoman and white house tor spobtent. you can find the schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you are watching.

>> more of our continuing coverage. they already from the lead negotiator on cuba. last month president obama announced that the u.s. would normalize relations with cuba and lift many of the sanctions that have been in place against the caribbean nation for decades. from capitol hill, this is just under three hours. today we look at the sudden shift on cuba policy and sudden it was. members of congress were left in the dark. most of the administration including the state department

was left in the dark as well. instead, talks with the cuban regime were conducted by two white house officials. unfortunately the white house was unwilling to provide these key witnesses today. this committee charged with oversight of our foreign policy is handicapped when those officials most involved in policy making are unavailable. the administration's growing track record of secret negotiations whether this is on the subject of iran or the release of the five taliban commanders is increasingly troublesome. had the white house consulted more widely, it may have heard that havana is facing the threats of losing venezuelan subsidies and mounting public pressure for basic reforms within the country. this could have been used to leverage meaningful concessions

on human rights in cuba by that regime. this was a one-sided negotiation with the u.s. making a serious of concessions to havana. the release of 53 political prisoners is one area in which the administration did secure a commitment from the cuban government. in an odd twist, the administration kept these names secret for weeks. only after bipartisan pressure from the committee was the list ever released and human rights advocates can track whether the individuals are put back in jail or harassed or monitored. of course four years ago raul castro promised to release all political prisoners. yet in a recent freedom house report we read that systemic use of short-term preventable detentions with beatings are used to intimidate the

opposition and isolate and maintain control. advocates put the number of political arrests in cuba last year at over 8,000 arrests. the assistant secretary, i appreciate your meeting while you were in havana last month. i am very concerned that your cuban counter parts are attempting to link your discussions to a commitment that the u.s. sees all democracy programs. indeed castro is making more demands. they called for the return of the naval station and end to u.s. broadcast and just compensation in his words. there is little debate over the experience of this facility for the u.s. navy to conduct counter narcotics, intelligence and humanitarian missions. our broadcasts are vital until a free meeting is allowed to operate. i hope the state department is

here to assure us that none of castro's demands are being considered. in defending this policy change, the president compared our economic relationship with cuba to that of china and vietnam. in china and in vietnam while communists, at least foreign firms can hire and recruit staff directly without the pay going to the government. not so in cuba. that's more like north korea than vietnam or china. a cuban worker at the foreign-owned resort receives only a fraction of the salary as little as 5%. in the regimes of the castro brothers or the family run, the method is the same. extract hard currency from foreign businesses and invest it in the security apparatus. instead of dismantling a 50-year-old failed policy as it claims the administration may

have given a regime a new lease on life to continue the repression at home and militant support for marxist regimes abroad. before going to mr. engle i am going to yield my remaining time to elana, the chairman of this committee born in havana and the chairman that fled cuba as a refugee at age 8 and her years of work have been marked by a tireless commitment of freedom and democracy for freedom around the world. >> thank you so much. i strongly second your brave concerns about the way that foreign policy is being run from the white house by secretly negotiating with the castro regime by keeping the congress and the american people and even our own diplomats in the dark. this decision is in line with the president's other examples of executive overreach and bypassing consultations with

congress. just like the taliban the establish established a dangerous precedent that the united states does negotiate with terrorists putting a target on every american's back and jeopardizing the national security. ever since the secret negotiations began of june 2013, this is what the castro regime has been doing since they won the talks from diplomatic relations. july 15, 2013 a north korean flag and cargo ship was caught in panama after it left cuba heading to north korea after inspections. they included various components of surface to air missile systems and launchers and jet fighter parts and engines and shell casings, rocket-projectiles as the cargo was hidden under 200,000 bags of sugar. october 6th 2013. over 135 democracy activists

arrested in one day throughout cuba also arrested was the leader of the ladies in white dragged through the streets by her hair and her husband and her lawyer was also arrested. november 4th 2013. a cuban artist and young man was on the verge of death due to a hunger strike. january 24th 2014. the doctor was arrested and awarded the presidential medal of freedom by president bush. june 12th jorge luis, leader and others arrested. july 16th 2014 cuba and russia agreed to reopen the spine facility. in fact in 2014 it led to almost 9,000 arrests of pro democracy leaders. almost a 40% increase from 2013

while we were in negotiations. in 2013, 2014, and last month while the u.s. delegation arrived in havana, russia's spy ship docked in cuba. just last week last week, the castro regime sentenced a young man known as el decano to a one-year sentence. check out the charge. dangerousness likely leading to a crime. that is an actual charge. two days ago to wrap it up a cuban pro democracy activist was brutally beaten all over her face & told state security i would rather die than remain quiet and accept this. all of this happened while the u.s. was secretly negotiating with the castro regime. shame on us. thank you. >> we go to ranking member elliott engle of new york. >> thank you very much chairman. let me thank you for calling this hearing.

as the former chairman in the subcommittee, i follow cuba closely for many years and worked with elana and others trying to bring freedom to cuba. let me also thank our witnesses for their testimony and the dedicated service to their country. thank you for coming. firstly and foremost, i am delighted that alan glossy is home after five long years. i first met his wife in december of 2009. one of mys went to school with one of the children and i always felt a connection to the gross family. alan's release from prison was long overdue and i am overjoyed he has been reunited with his family. president obama announced changes in policy towards cuba but this is not the end of the story. the owness is now on the cuban government to respond by moving

forward with real reform. what does this mean? to me it means free and fair elections and respect for the rule of law and independent press and the interamerican democratic charter it. also means releasing each and every prisoner currently jailed in cuba and ending the harassment of activists. we want to see the formation of political pluralism there and only then will we be comfortable moving along the path to democracy. president obama has the authority to reestablish relations with cuba and make the regulatory changes he announced on december 17th. at the same time however congress has the authority to maintain or eliminate the trade embargo on cuba and again normalizing relations with cuba cannot be a one-way street. it cannot be. it has to be give-and-take on both sides. at this time i believe congress

must see a greater opening in cuba and before lifting the embargo. we sent a letter to secretary kerry asking for the names of the 53 prisoners the cuban government committed to releasing. i was very grateful to his rapid response with the full list of the released prisoners. to be sure the release of these 53 prisoners was a very positive step. unfortunately a few were detained because of their political activism. while these individuals are no longer in jail, we must be vigilant in ensuring their safety. i urge the state department to use the talks with cuban officials to continue pushing for the release of all political prisoners. finally let me say that the upcoming summit of the america in panama presents an important opportunity for all the countries in the region. we will be eager to hear from the society leaders along with

other independent civil society leaders from throughout the americas. i hope to be there and i hope that we'll have a delegation going there. i urge the panamanian government and leaders to be as open and transparent as possible in allowing the civil society participation at the summit. one request before i close i ask unanimous consent to commit for the record two statements. on behalf of alan gross and the second from the colleague representative barbara lee committee member with her questions for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to thank our witnesses for being here today. i look forward to hearing from each of you and thank you again for holding this important hearing. >> thank you mr. engle. we go to jeff duncan. chairman of the subcommittee on western hemisphere for a minute.

>> in addition the comments i am deeply skeptical of the obama administration's policy shift in addition circomventing congress for civil society, ignoring the season of the officer has made his decision on a new course in cuba. using speech writers to craft his policy change. mr. chairman i want to associate yourself with your remarks and this young lady from florida. emphasizing deep concern for the president's lack of transparency in the manner and process used to develop this policy change. yesterday witnesses and testimony in the senate hearing recognize that russia is one of the most openly challenged the united states in regard to cuba. these external actors that have influence in the region. in view of the events that i thought the young lady from

florida spelled out, the u.s. must protect the negotiations with the cuba government maintaining rights to the naval station in guantanamo bay. with that i give back. >> thank you. i now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee on the western hemisphere who also is the one other cuban-born member of the committee. he was born in havana. were you about 11? >> yes. >> thank you. we recognize you. >> i did come to this country when i was 11 years old in 1962 when i experienced some of the government tactics. my biggest disappointment with the process have been that i felt that the embargo and the pressure i put on cuba would lead to changes in cuba. i really don't see where it's going to lead into anything.

it's beyond me that a signature on a piece of paper somehow believe this dictators of this pressure. people are not going to benefit and we had to go through that even if you wanted to put a church through that. they have to okay the church and do we think that we are going to be able to invest and do economic progress for the cuban people? i don't see that happening. i like to associate myself with the chairman's comments and the ranking member. i don't see where we are headed with this. i know it's the last two years for the president and he has a history to build, but i was disappointed in the fact that we are not using this as a pressure point on a government that has been so brutal. there thousands of people in jail. i deal with this. my district as the second largest concentration of the

cuban-americans. i get more from the people on hudson avenue than i get from the briefings in this place. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. this morning we are pleased to be joined by witnesses from the departments of state and treasury and commerce. miss roberta jacobson is the assistant secretary of state for the hemisphere affairs and served as the deputy assistant secretary for canada and mexico. mr. john smith is the deputy director of the u.s. department of the treasury's office of foreign asset control and previously he served as an expert to the united nations al qaeda and taliban sanctions committee from 2004 to 2007. mr. matthew boreman serves as the export administration. without objection, the briefer's full prepared statement will be

made part of the record and members will have five calendar day to submit statements and questions and extraneous material that members of the committee want to put in the record. miss jacobson if you would summarize your remarks, we will hear from you. >> thank you very much chairman. ranking member engle and members of the committee and thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the new approach to u.s.-cuba policy. i want to say that i appreciate that committee's engagement in the western hemisphere and i know all of your strong commitment to democratic values and human rights and economic opportunity in the americas. i want to thank you for support in becoming the long overdue return of alan gross to his family. they worked to secure his release as the president and secretary said we are grateful

for the essential roles of canada, pope francis and the vatican in reaching an agreement that made the freedom possible. on december 17th the president announced a new policy that will enable us to advance our values to help the cuban people move into the 21st century. the approach over half a century though rooted in the best of exceptions failed to empower the cuban people. it isolated us from our democratic paper from the hemisphere and around the world. they used this policy as an excuse for restrictions on the citizens and result those most deprived were the cuban people itself. the new approach is designed to promote every cuban's universal rights as well as national interests and we are seeing signs that our updated approach gives a greater ability to engage other nations in

advancing respect for fundamental freedoms in cuba. the cuban people will drive reforms and that's why we lifted restrictions to make it easier for cuban americans to travel and send remittances to travel and open new pathways for ak 2ke78ic and people to people exchanges. the flow of information within cuba. nobody represents american values better and increase people to people contact and empower and reduce their dependence on the cuban state. the regulatory changes will increase resources to support the cuban people and the private sector. it may enable companies to expand telecommunications and internet access. us policy will no longer be a barrier to connectivity in cuba. two week ago i made a trip to cuba that helped me understand

the burden and hope embodied in this policy when average cubans and cuban americans wished me luck or said god bless you. during talks we were clear that we have both shared interest and sharp differences. on practical issues such as establishing direct mail service or oil spill mitigation we agreed to continue and deepen cooperation. this administration is under no illusions about the nature of the cuban government. i also raised with cuban officials our concerns about the harassment, use of violence and peacefully expressing their views and with dissidents and media voices to talk about what they need from the government and from us. we will continue to use efforts to encourage our allies to take every opportunity to support increased support for rights and fundamental freedoms in cuba.

as the president said the united states believes that no cuban should face harassment or arrest or beatings simply because they are are exercising a universal right to have voices heard and we will continue to support civil society there. i encourage members visiting cuba to expand engagement with independent civil society voices and they offer us valuable insight and a diversity of views. i raised several elements of havana that inhibit the work including travel restrictions on the diplomats and limits and local access to the mission and problems receiving shipments. the resolution of these issues will enable a future embassy to provide services commensurate with the diplomatic missions around the world. i hope you won't object to having seen our diplomats in action most recently if i take this opportunity to salute the efforts to advance our interest on the island. they are dedicated public

servants. we have only just begun to normalize relations and we appreciate the views in congress on this effort towards cuba. we hope we can work to find common ground towards the shared goal of enabling the cuban people to determine their own future. thank you very much. >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for the invitation here before you to they have travel, remittances, services and trade.

they are the only sanctions program that prevent travel to a country. the recent amendments ease restrictions by licensing certain travel within the 12 existing categories of travel and regulations. this means that the travelers who satisfy the criteria of the general licenses may travel to cuba and conduct travel-related transactions without requesting authorization. travel to cuba remains prohibited. these expanded general licenses are intended to lessen the burden on authorized travelers making it easier for americans to travel to cuba to interact with the cuban people, provide humanitarian assistance and engage in educational and cultural activities.

the regulatory amendments authorize airlines to provide air carrier services to, from and within cuba in connection with authorized travel. air carriers wishing to provide services will need to secure approvals from other concerned government agencies such as the departments of transportation and homeland security. travel agents and tour group operators may now provide services in connection with authorized travel. these changes are intended to make authorized travel easier and less expensive by reducing the paperwork burden for and increasing competition among those providing travel and carrier services. to approve the speed and oversight of payments, they are authorizing banks to establish accounts at financial institutions and allow travelers

to use their debit cards while in cuba. within the context of trade they modified the regulatory interpretation of the term cash in advance that describes a financing requirement for trade between the united states and cuba that is imposed by statute. they revised the interpretation of the term to allow the export of american-produced agricultural medical, and other authorized goods to cuba so long as payment is received by the exporter prior to the goods's arrival to a cuban port. this should increase and authorized exports to cuba. cuba has an internet penetration of approximately 5%, one of the lowest in the world and in order to better facilitate to, from and among the cuban people they eased restrictions to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the united states and cuba and to increase access to

telecommunications and internet-based services for the cuban people. as i conclude i should make one thing absolutely clear. even with these changes i described, most transactions between the united states and cuba most impours, most exports and most other activities remain prohibited. as they limp emt the recent changes, we will continue to enforce the cuba sanctions program vigorously using all of the available tools and take action against violators as appropriate. the december 17th announcement laid out a course with relations against cuba driven by a hope by the cuban people. the amendments in concert with the revisions my colleague will highlight marked changes to the cuba sanctions that implement the new changes. these changes are intended to

directly benefit the cuban people and help them to determine their own future. thank you and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to describe the hospital of commerce's to implement the cuba policy changes announced by the president on december 17th. the president noted these are created to create more opportunity to promote positive change in cuba and influence outcomes throughout the hemisphere. january 16th the department of the bureau of industry amended the expoerd administration to authorize the export of certain items to cuba intended to improve the living conditions for economic activity and civil society and prove the free-throw of information to from and

among the cuban people. they expand two existing operations and create a new license and describe a licensing policy. under the embargo on trade all items subject require a license for export or reexport unless authorized by a license exception. they administer restrictions on cuba consistent with the goals and relevant law. thus they may issue licenses for transactions or make types of transactions acceptable for exceptions that support the goals of the united states policy while the embargo is in effect. only items of lower sensitivity is subjected to restrictions that are eligible for the balance exceptions. the first that was expanded is the license exception and to allow them to go you should the

exceptions. they allow more for the cuban people because those individuals will no longer have to search for a license consolidated. they expanded the license exception to authorize the commercial sale of commercial communication devices such as cell phones, mobile phones computers and radios and digital cameras. now they can be sold commercially. this license exception enables the cuba to empower the cuban private sector by supporting economic activity. authorized items include building materials for private sector use and 2508s and equipment for agriculture and goods for use for enterprises such as auto mechanics and

barbers and hire stylists. this license exception is intended to meet the goal of the cuban private sector and facilitate citizens with lower access to improve their living standards and gain greater independence from the state. other provisions of the license exception authorized the temporary export by persons authorizing items for their use and cultural ecological and scientific or sporting activities. it authorized that the export and reexport of donated items for use by the cuban people engaged by the activities and the export and reexport for individuals of nongovernment organizations that promote civil activity. these provisions implement the goals of harnessing the power of people to people engagement and reaching for a better people. as the president observed nobody represents america's values better than the american

people. to implement the goal of empowering the cuban people by increasing the power of information through the internet and the ability to communicate with everybody else through the rest of the world, they authorized that the export of items and the upgrade of telecommunications systems in addition to the communication devices by the license exceptions. the related provision authorizes the export by news bureaus engaged in the bathering of news by the general public. lastly this rule recognizes that environmental stresses are not limited by national borders and circumstances may warrant to protect air quality and water quality and coastlines. although preexisting licensing qualities authorizes such transactions, we amended to make explicit in improving such

exports. in summary, these revisions implement the recently announced changes consistent with the environment where the united states maintains on trade with cube. the change to support the goal on the united states becoming a better partner and making the lives of ordinary cubans easier and more free. it is in line with security interests. i would be pleased to answer questions. >> thank you. i would like to go to the assistant secretary jacobson with a question. administration negotiators stated that they did not seek human rights concessions in exchange for taking steps towards normalization. you know our concern about the state department and you not being included in this on the front end, being kept in the dark on it. the reality is that pro democracy and human rights

activists in cuba have lamented that human rights had these secret negotiations. in fact the lead negotiator who would be now your counter part said change in cuba is not negotiable. we have no indication that the cuban government intends to get grounded. if they ease on the people in cuba how do our concessions advance the interest of the cuban people? >> let me be clear on part of this. it's crucial to understand that there were no conegz sessions from the obama administration. moving forward with the

establishment of diplomatic relations is not a gift or concession to governments. it's a channel of communication as you know. and in fact it's not necessarily something that the cuban government wanted. in having that channel to convey those concerns and to work with allies around the hemisphere who no longer fear association with the policy they did not support. >> i could just point out, what

you are leaving out of the equation is the fact that under these initiatives that the white house took, without the state department, but the white house took the white house is now increasing the amount of dollars that flows into cuba specifically and flows into the regime and helps the regime's bottom line at a time when the regime as you could have told the white house is now facing and being cutoff in terms of venezuela venezuela. when we would exert leverage, you have a situation instead where you have got a lifeline. let me go to another question i had. that is last week raul castro stated that normalizing bilateral relations with the u.s. would not be possible until the u.s. returns the naval station at guantanamo bay to cuba. is the administration

considering transferring this military asset back to the cuban people? i will remind you when we talked with the state department before on negotiations on another subject, they are not considering the release of the cuban five. on this question on guantanamo. >> . >> i want to be clear that what we are talking about right now is the reestablishment of diplomatic relations which is first step in normalization.

obviously they raised guantanamo and we are not interested in discussing that. we are not discussing that issue or return of guantanamo. we also i want to be clear we didn't return the cuban agent but for what we wanted. >> for years the regime received broadcast by the office the cuba broadcasting as a threat. last week they referred to these as illegal and to what they expressed as the talk. >> they raised the migration talks and they raised them as part of a list of things they objected to in the normalization

talks. we have no plans to end those either. >> i am hoping to hear you say we are demanding they drop it. i am going to go to mr. engle because may time is up. thank you. >> thank you. secretary jacobson, let me give you a brought leeway. you answered some of this but i wanted it hear more. how do you answer this? we say that we gave away the store that we have leveraged and we tossed it away. didn't get concessions in exchange and if we didn't doesn't it show you that you that raul castro said that he gave up nothing and essentially we made the concessions. how do you answer that?

>> i appreciate the questions because it's important. there is nothing in what we decided on the 17th that we believe is a concession to the cuban government. we are going to try to move forward. we strongly believe having an embassy in havana will enablitous do more things that help us more effectively empower the cuban people. not high on the cuban government's list of desires. we also believe that by allowing american companies to engage in telecommunications, sales and acting to get greater information into cuba to work with the entrepreneurs who i sat

down with while i was there we can begin to increase the pace at which people separate themselves from the state. also not something that the cuban government has on its list of priorities. i think they may timeout this as support for their government but we have diplomatic relations with lots of governments around the world with whom we sharply disagree. it's a channel. it's a mechanism. it's not as somebody said yesterday on the senate side, not the good house keeping seal of approval. we will speak out on human rights to support democracy activists. but we believe that this policy has become such an irritant in our work with other latin american countries with the european allies, that it also enables us to work more

effectively with them in bringing about that support in cuba. >> thank you. i mentioned in my statement that i was pleased with the release with the 53 political prisoners. obviously much more remains to be done on the human rights front in cuba. on human rights and national reconciliation reported 8899 short-term detentions in the year 2014. that was a 39% increase over 2013. what's the obama administration's strategy for pushing to improve the human rights record? are we working with other governments in the region and the european union to urge the government to put an end to detentions and harassment of dissidents? >> that's an important point because the question is a crucial one. we obviously have seen a shift from longer term sentences to short-term detentions.

that number has gone way up in the last year and it's of enormous concern to us. we have made it clear both to the cuban government directly talks and others but also with allies to international organizations that it's unacceptable. we do believe and we have had the conversations already that it helps us work with other governments. the reaction was we strongly support your policy shift. it's changed the dynamic. what can we do the to help? as we prepare for the summit of the americas which you mentioned. we believe that cue oh ban civil uh society activists, independent human rights activists will have an opportunity to interact with latin american leaders for the first time. all of those things will help. that same national commission has noticed a drop in short term detentions in january. not a trend. i want to be clear about that.

we cannot know whether that's the beginning of a trend. we will be watching that carefully. because it must end. not just come down, but it must end. >> p you mentioned civil society. i want to ask my final question about civil society and the summit of the americas. with a conversations have you had with your panamanian counterparts to be sure there is robust participation from cuban civil society in the summit of the americas and in your discussions with oh fishes in havana did you urge them to urnl leaders to participate. did you encourage human political dissidents to participate in the summit? >> the answer to all those questions is yes. we have had extensive conversations with the panamanian government, with the nongovernmental organizations that will be organizing the civil society forum with other

ngos around the hemisphere including in the united states as well as making sure the rules for the summit aren't the same as in previous years. previously you could only participate if you were an ngo registered with the oas which would preclude cuban independent organizations. that will not be the case this year. so that cuban disthe dents and independent organizations may be invited. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we go now to eliana russlehtinen. >> the u.s. has been negotiating with this sadistic dictatorship for 20 months because it is still secret. for 18 of those months the white house negotiated in super secret to trade three convicted spies for an innocent american even if you say that was in the a swap it's just so disingenuous.

assistant secretary jacobson, this week in the senate, just yesterday you testified, "this policy is not based on the cast troe regime changing" and you have said that now. we have no illusions over that. let me get this straight. we are telegraphing to the castro regime that ahead of time that it doesn't have to change. we have no illusions that it's going to change so we are going to get further concessions from this administration, what's the point of negotiation if we say we are negotiations we have no illusions. let's see where this leads. the media have been reporting this week that arrest in cuba for last month in january decreased to to 178 making it seem like the arrest of peaceful pro democracy is a low number.

only could the arrest of 178 people in one month be consider add victory. her father was murdered by castro regime when her brothers to the rescue plane was shot down over international waters. the president released and pardoned a cuban spy who was convicted in uh our u.s. courts for conspiracy to commit murder for his connection to the shoot-down. the family wants me to ask, how will i explain to my little girls their u.s. marine vietnam veteran grandfather was denied

the only justice for his murder when hernandez was set free pardoned and returned to cuba? why was the u.s. willing to give him the opportunity to father a child while he was in prison? when some of the victims of the shoot down will never have children of oh their own. as if negotiating in secret isn't bad enough the castro regime continues to defy the administration as the chairman pointed out. such as demanding the land of guantanamo which is vital to security interests. it's pathetic for the strong country to look weak when negotiating with the castro regime. isn't it true that cuba owes

american taxpayers at least a billion dollars for the unlawful taking of property of businesses, of unpaid debts owed to the american citizens? isn't it true cuba has failed to epee claims for close to 60 years. isn't it true that u.s. law requires that thies claims be resolved before relations be normalized? i urge your departments to illegally confiscated properties will be resolved. u.s. claim holders deserve claims to be protected. don't you agree? assistant secretary jacobson it is important to note what the castro regime will do with the new assistance president obama will provide on telecommunications. pope benedict visited the island.

he blocked the phones of the opposition leaders. castro held an american jail for five years for trying to provide internet equipment to the jewish community in cuba. the track record is clear about kas tr and his hatred of the equipment. in the latest misguided talks the castro regime asked the u.s. interest section to stop providing for the uh cuban people. the track record is cleared has no intense of opening up the internet or telecommunication opportunities. if given the opportunity it will probably be used to further oppress the people of uh cuba and then just one last thing you can answer when you can in writing. did secretary kerry lie to congress when he told us we would not free up the

convicteded murder, the convicted spies. or was he kept out of the dark of the negotiations? were you part of the negotiations from the start or did you enter them later on? run out of type. >> i will suggest a response in writing. we can go to brad sher man. >> thank you. this comes from an american view that's all about us. it must be our policy that may have been different. our policy is exactly different or has been for the last 50 years than europe and canada's policy. maybe it's ours. ms. jacobson cuba got caught

smuggling 240 tons of weapons to north korea, violated u.s. sanction s sanctions. are these reasons to keep cuba on the list? >> we are reviewing the trempl list now. we are evaluating the evaluation. we also made clear when we were looking at that incident. we didn't think cuba's behavior violated the regime. the only entity that was sanctioned was the result of the investigation was the north korean company which can no longer operate. >> i have to reclaim my time. i have so many questions. ms. jacobson americans paid in blood for cuban independence.

we got a base in guantanamo that'sle valuable to our national security. are you prepared and hopefully this is a yes or no question to say right now this administration will not abandon return or fail to pay the modest fee so that we can have that naval base for the next two years. that was in your are testimony. you've got to see it from our side here. we were shocked. you telling me that you're not thinking of something means i have to get ready to get shocked tomorrow. the administration was so angry that they hadn't been consulted on bringing one guy to speak here it was not a lot of consultation on this huge change in cuba policy.