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.

would the administration -- give back a naval base? >> that issue is not on the table -- >> would the -- >> i don't -- >> it could be on our table. would you object? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> let me go to mr. smith. we have the act that doesn't allow us to deal with certain properties seized by americans. you have travel, credit cards, et cetera. how do you plan to make sure american travellers aren't confiscated from americans or otherwise violating the cuban solidarity.

>> that act says you can't provide a loan to further transactions about a confiscated propertiment doesn't say you can't stay at a hotel or -- >> does the credit card company extend the loan when you use a credit card to pay for a hotel stay at a confiscated property? >> a credit card may extend a loan to the traveller. >> so you are extending a loan to facilitate staying at the hotel, that's in conformity with the act? >> we have the act replicated in regulations. we will follow to the letter what's in the act because we have with it in our regulations. we will follow that. nothing that we have authorized would abridge those provisions of the act. >> i would just close by saying i might be more impressed by the policy if it hadn't been such a big shock and if congress had been involved.

this u.s. government will work better with one foreign policy that reflects the views of both elected bodies instead of a view of congress as simply an annoy annoying body that has to be consulted now and then. i yield back. >> we go to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much for calling this important hearing. i say to the distinguished witnesses and welcome to oh the committee. the washington post has done several editorials. the soviet union and certainly venezuela are less able to prop them up. president obama's betrayal of democrats and the fact we should have listened to the ladies in white who will be testifying here tomorrow at a hearing i'm chairing. she with ms. fonseca, two of

those individuals are going back. talk about bravery. speaking to the senate. now to the house. they're going back. and yet the post which is hardly a conservative bass chon talk thes about a betrayal of cuban democrats. with no consequences in sight cuba continues to crack down on free speech. i would ask you, now an assessment since it's been in effect. the negotiations and publicity or visibility of them. are there second thoughts? 2012, iliana ross layton and i heard from dr. b with ichette who said the same scenarios playing out were free. five have been rearrested. it's part of the modus operandi. some 100 to 200 have been

arrested. is it true or not. some comments have been made they may go to cuba. that's not the issue. they need to go to the prisons. last time they were able to negotiate that when he walked point in the 1990s i was with him in je rene va when he secured that. representatives went into the prisons, interviewed people and everybody, including family members were severely retaliated against. they have to have unfettered access to the prisons meeting with fidel castro or oh anybody under him. just doesn't cut it. i would like to go again. i tried repeatedly. madam secretary maybe you can facilitate that. i want to lead a delegation to the prisons. i have been to prisons in the soviet union. east bloc countries. as well as in asia. cuba is the one.

please help us. let me ask you into the negotiations. there are many convicted felons who gunned down forester in cold blood. shot this the back of the head. escape from prison. she got asylum there. was it part of the negotiation, or was it not. with regard to that, please answer and i will come back. let me say that the whole point of this new policy is not that we are telescoping to the government that they don't have to change or we expect them to change. certainly we want those practices to change. we are not naive about how

quickly they might change. our efforts empower the cuban people to take their lives into their own hands. i had not heard a hundred to 200 people were arrested. there were as many as 50 orrer more arrested around the time of a performance artist. to the best of my knowledge, most if not all had been released. there are severe constraints on them . none should have been arrested. just as there are political prisoners who should be released. i want to be clear about the fact that a downturn in detentions is not good enough. no matter -- >> if they arrest, reazest, let out. 17 years in prison. he's been tortured. he said you have to get real substantive concessions. >> i saw oscar when i was on the island. i have the utmost respect and admiration for him and his views

on thisment let me say every time i talk with the cuban government i mention the case of joann chessamart. other funl tif cases. we have not gotten a positive response. >> what did they say? >> they are not interested in discussing her return. now on other cases. they have made more progressment there have been felons accused felons expelled to the united states. this is a very high priority for us. we are frustrated that we have not made progress. there are other cases we will continue. we will continue to pursue. we are going to have further dialogue. this is critical to us. that's part of what we hope we will do better on in having conversations that are more expansive with the justice department colleagues. this is a critical part of

having a channel. >> one last thing. we know the castro brothers pushed this as a major diplomatic win for them. we all would have hoped human rights concessions would have been first before being recognized diplomaticalliment. >> mr. greg meeks of thork. >> good being with you. let me say i agree with the president's change in direction. i think it's clear that over 50 years, nothing has changed with the policy that we had and time says if you don't do the same thing over and over again you get the same result. i agree and think the time is there for a change in policy. i do feel the passion of my good friend, the ranking member of the western hemisphere listening to his opening statement.

i would hope that the kinds of questions because clearly the passion he has is for the people of cuba. in this opening statement some of the questions he has, i hope there is a dialogue that goeser forward. this should be about trying to make sure there is a better day, a better change in the policy for the uh cuban people. i have been down to cuba several times and all other places in latin america cuba et cetera. one of the major obstacles is on our cuban policy. it's caused friction, et cetera. they have all said to he me we needed to change. in fact, when i look at it and i think about multilateral relations as opposed to unilateral relations we were the only country in the world, the only country in the world. all our major allies, everybody that had sanctions against cuba unlike this administration has been successful putting

together huge sanctions when we worked together. that's what's taking place. even with the p-5 plus one. with the russian sanctions it's when we worked closely with everyone. i would like that to happen on our own hemisphere. we need to work closely with allies. our biggest allies, the one with thing we should do in latin america to make it better for us, they say change our cuban policy. that said, with the changing dynamics or with the new policy after that what realities with our allies and can we put additional pressure or will they work with us to change and make human rights an issue high on their agenda to make a difference in the lives of the people living on the island. >> i think that's a critical point.

the next part of the question we support on cuba. this is a very important day in latin america and for relations, you can start raising the issue of human rights and democracy in cuba higher on your agenda. we believe this will be an important turning point in countries' engagement, especially countries with a history of working on issues in the region. that have been afraid to work with us too closely because of not wanting to appear aligned with our previous policy. that's been evident in working on the summit where we were able to work strongly now with countries to highlight the democratic governance and citizen participation themes in the summit and accelerate planning on the civil society dialogue. it's been evident even when i was this in cuba two weeks ago

and we invited ambassadors not from this hemisphere. i spoke with them separately at one point. we invited ambassador as from europe and asia, for example, to a reception with the dissidentses and human rights activists. they never came to those in the past. there were a few countries that have routinely come. they all came. they were able to interact with dissidents for the first time. the dissidents had access to a wider range of diplomats than they had ever had before. that's what we are hoping for. >> i'm going to ask two questions quick. one, given that and i know there is talk. has there been real reaction directly from the cuban civil society after the announcement as well as when i was there one problem was getting on the internet. and the internet would be open and what, if any impact would

having an open internet have on civil society? >> that would be huge. the thing that struck me in the small pete meeting with cuban dissidents and a larger one including 12 members of the 57 who were released four and a half years ago are not permitted by the cuban government to travel. that has to change. they need to be able to travel. i met with el critico, one of the younger members of the group. i was struck by the diversity of uh views. some support the change in policy. we want to hear from and support all of them. i think that's crucial are. i don't know whether the cuban government will allow the

opening. they have said they will. they have said they are interested in telecommunications. i think that's why we have to aggressively try and make it possible for our companies to provide that service and see whether the cubans are willing without the excuse that the americans are the reason they can't do it. >> now to mr. dana roarbucker of california. >> thank you very much. secretary jacobson this is a difficult task for you to be here. i am only -- you know one of the main concerns that we have here that instead of changing the castro regime into aer more democratic regime, the president is acting as if he has the right to rule by dictate and over his presidency is changing our i country to be more like castro

than having castro change to be more like a free and open society. having secret negotiations is not what america is all about. that's not the uh way we make policy here. many of us are disappointed. this isn't the first case of this, however. dealing with a regime that's as odorous -- is that the word i want? own onerous. it's both. we have a regime that stinks one way or the other. it's oppressive one way or the other. yet we have had secret negotiations and deals that are announced to us. we were here to explain it. let me ask this.

when you said there are no concessions, we are dealing -- we go into an agreement with a regime regime. we have had 50 years of american policy has changed. there are no concession s from the cuban government. >> i don't think there were concessions from the u.s. government in going into -- >> we have changed 50 years of american policy. isn't that a concession enough? with the changes we can expect was there an agreement if part of the ending of u.s. policy of making a stand that there be a more democratic and open society before we have a more expanded relationship with them, is there any agreement part of this that there will be, for example independent unions? saying we'll have more economic

activity? was there any type of concession? well, the word concession. agreement that they would permit independent unions in cuba? >> there were no agreements ahead of time. >> so we are going to open up economic trade. there are no unions. we have also heard that maybe the money that's going into the pockets of the working people is actually a lot of it going to be transferred to the government or that money may go to the government and then be handed out to the working people. is that right? we agreed to that? >> we believe the cuban people will benefit more than the cuban government will. >> that's not the question. whether uh you think it and we think it, do you think the cuban people -- people will be working for companies that now we have permitted to go into cuba and the cuban people want their government to take their pay and

give them back a pittance? >> i'm sure they don't. >> fine. whose side are we on? the side of the people taking money from the central government. are there going to be new opposition parties? >> we are going to continue to support those who want to have their voices heard peacefully. >> we will. there's been no concessions on their part. we have changed five decades of u.s. policy and they still won't have any independent unions opposition parties. i can't imagine that they are going to have opposition newspapers. and the ral lis. listen. this is a regime the castro brothers came in and once they were in power they murdered the patriots who overthrow the bautista rejoem. they personally did. the fellow we were feg yating with took a pistol and took patriots out and shot them in the head by the hundreds. after that they decided to have

a relationship with the soviet union, then our main enemy and encouraged them to put missiles with with nuclear weapons on oh them and encouraged them to use them on the united states. this is the regime we are dealing with not to mention criminals they have given safe haven to. how we can change five decades of policy by dictate and we hear there are no concessions on their side and disillusionment on their part and upsetting. thank you very much. >> thank you. now to mr. sears of new jersey. >> thank you. can you tell me what percentage of the cuban businesses are owned privately? >> i can't tell you a precise percentage. there are over 200 categories of economic activity authorized by

the cuban government. we recognize -- >> authorize bid the cuban government? >> that they are legal and there are private businesses. >> mr. smith? >> i don't have anything additional. >> i can tell you. 15%. 85% of the businesses in cuba are owned by the military. the ho tells are run by the military. the bed and breakfasts are run by familieses of the military. the umbrella agency that approves the businesses, the son-in-law, one of the castros. when you say to me that the cuban people which is what i'm interested in are going to benefit by doing business with the cuban people you are not reaching many people. the private sector that runs the hot dog stand, maybe. we'll talk about the big businesses which employ people is run by the generals. if you want to put a business in cuba.

you want a build mcdonald's and you need a hundred employees. you have to go to the government and they give you the rate and the employees. those employees are people who are part of the government system. the people fighting for liberty and fighting for democracy on the island are basically left out. it is to help the ordinary cuban people. you're not helping them. this is a society that held themselves with this kind of business they run. >> so the changes we have made are to get up thes to the 15%. that's the way the regulations are structured. the items can be exported without individual licenses have to go to the true private

sector. >> in terms of millions of dollar s dollars what do you think will benefit the cuban government? how many millions? >> we don't have a figure on any millions would benefit the cuban government. the changes have been focused on private entrepreneurs small scale, private business we are with talking about. most of the transactions between the united states and cuba remain prohibited under the changes. we have just carved out a few area s areas focused on the private entrepreneurs. >> are we going to buy sugar from cuba? cuba used to be the leading world supplier of sugar. cuba does business for the rest of the world.

they had a corporate -- has ruined the entire economy. there is no real free business in cuba. the people you deal with that said they have 200 licenses the cuban government can remove those licenses at a drop. >> it's true, but i let with seven or eight entrepreneurs. people trying to run their own businesses. restauranteurs, barber, a women making soap, doing decorations on clothes. you can see people separating their economic future from the government and having trouble because they can't get supplies. the state doesn't want to provide supplies. that's who we are trying to help. >> but the elite in cuba have all the supplies. this is what i'm trying to

break. this runs the island. >> people are living in cars houses repossessed from people who worked hard before the castro takeover. i don't see where we have leverage to talk to the cuban people. when she went to the municipal building they said we can't give you a birth certificate because we haven't classified as a terrorist. i left at 11. i'm a terrorist.

in russia become an engineer. it's too tragic to share the story with you. you know, my feelings are that these are were you brutal dictators. castro set up firing squads that killed thousands of people. i see people wearing a guevara shirt. i'm sorry. thank you. >> thank you. mr. chabot of ohio. >> thank you for calling this important hearing to discuss the new cuba policy. i believe president obama's announcement to unilaterally change u.s. policy toward cuba sets a dangerous precedent. it furthers an ongoing pattern of his disregard. but that's the way the

administration operates. it gives a back hand to the elected representatives of the american people. treats congress like the proverb ral mushrooms. keep them this the dark. feed them manure. you said there were no concessions and this wasn't necessarily something the cuban government wanted. those statements it's not credible. you said the obama administration was under no illusion about the nature of the cuban government. i would submit the administration is just about as naive about the nature of the cuban government as it was about isis when the president famously described them as the jv or junior varsity. tell that to the families of those who have been brutally massacred by those barbarians. this cuban policy this new

policy is in my view, tragically flawed. the way it was brought about with such utter disregard -- and you are hearing it on both sides of the aisle here. utter disregard to the elected representatives of the american people is disgraceful and just as flawed. i would like to yield the balance of my time now to the gentle lady from florida who was born in cuba and feels as passionately as anybody in this place. >> thank you so much. following up on your thought about the victims of brutality, wherever those victims are, to answer the family questions. how can marlene alejandre explain to her daughters why their grandfather who was killed by the castro regime his life meant nothing and the person who

was in jail as a coconspirator of the murder of her father with was pardoned set free returned to cuba and received a hero's welcome. what does she say to her girls? >> let me say i can never bring back her grandfather. i can never do more than express my sadness and my condolences at the start for something that should not have happened. >> when sefs told a trade would not take place this is a swap. was with it not -- >> i just want to say an ex kpaeng change of intelligence agents between two countries is something that this government and previous administrations have done many times. >> but had the state department not met with the family and time

and again tell her that hernandez would not be set free by this administration? yes or no? >> to the best of my knowledge -- >> did secretary kerry say right here to us that such a swap would not take place? >> that a swap for alan are gross would not take place we affirmed and we did not do. >> you call it something else and say we were telling the truth. >> i don't believe that's what took place. >> was the family under the impression because you gave it to them that gerardo hernandez would serve the complete sentence? did you give that impression or anyone at the state department? >> i regret if the family felt additional pain because of an impression they had. >> an impression? they had a false impression that you were all this time you were meeting with them, while you

were meeting with them you were already cooking up this swap, whatever you call it that gerardo hernandez for all intents and purposes was set free. he was pardoned by president obama. he was returned to cuba, given a hero's welcome. that was the impression they got. it was a false impression. you were never going to do that. you met with them. don't you at least feel bad you were lying to them? >> in the first place, no one met with the family ever lied to the family about what our understanding, gerardo hernandez was in jail -- >> uh my time is over. i will enjoy listening to the families when you hear testimony coming from you. it's pathetic. thank you. now ms. bass of california. thank you. >> thank you very much.

let me say before i begin that i find it particularly difficult to talk about cuba because i want to acknowledge the experiences and the family situations of my colleagues mr. sears and ms. ross-latham. to talk about it and understand and ak a knowledge what your families went through, i understand. i do support what's happened in changing our relation with the island. i want to travel anywhere in the world. i did go to cuba looking at a drug that the cue bans have invented for diabetes. i want to talk about that in a minute. i have a couple of questions. i know that there is the summit of the america s. i wanted to know what the

reaction has been from the international community about cuba's participation and other world leaders regarding the policy change. >> congresswoman we have really seen universally from the hemisphere and those participating in the summit that they strongly support the policy, that they think it changes the dynamic this the hemisphere for the united states on other objectives that we have. high priorities for us. president santosle called it historic. it changes the entire debate, said president rusef of brazil. they feel the policy of isolating cuba was not the right one. we obviously disagreed with them for many years. but we found that it was isolating us in conversation in

impeding our ability to have conversations on human rights and democracy, not just in cuba because they would not engage on the issue. but also our ability to engage with them on human rights and democracy issues, broadly speaking throughout the hemisphere. we know this is a concern in other countries in the hemisphere. >> okay. you know about the trip that i mentioned i took. it was the congressional diabetes caucus. in cuba they have a drug called herberprat-p which reduce it is need for amputations in do i bet ticks. i understand and i think my question is directed to mr. smith. as i understand this drug has been approved for a clinical trial. because of the policy it's not approved to be marketed in the u.s. which means a company is not going to invest in a clinical trial if they can't

market it. i'm wondering if the changes made in the law would a low for this. basically what the cubans are reporting and we have to test it and see if it's correct they have been able to reduce the need for amputations by 70% and we have tens of thousands of people in the united states who wind up losing their limbs feet because of diabetes. are you aware of what i'm talking about? >> madam, i am. nothing changes our policy with respect to those types of drugs. they are not prohibited from coming to the united states flat out. they can apply for a license. we have a long history of evaluating the license applications. we refer them to other agencies including the state department often the food and drug administration. we evaluate whether the import of any additional u.s. activity with respect to those drugs makes sense and we can grant

what'sle called a specific license to authorize it. >> the other pressure i feel coming from california is from the agricultural industries. i'm wondering if the policy changes would lead to our ability to export. there are a number of company s in california interested in exporting agricultural goods and livestock. >> what we have heard over time sven though there are certain categories of transactions and goods that have been authorized including agricultural products we have heard from exporters and members of congress that our previous financing rules didn't help the situation and didn't help them to be competitive with their counterparts in other countries. so we made a change to provisions in a statute that deals with the term cash in advance. basically we made it more advantage wous for u.s. exporters to export products. this is what they have been

asking for to make them more competitive and what many members of congress have been asking us to do. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. we'll go to judge po of texas. >> let me start with the with presumption that cuba is a violator of human rights. i think we all know that. especially folks in cuba. the policy of the president, i don't want to go into the issue of whether with or without approval congress made decisions. i want to go to something i have a question about. what is the purpose of the current u.s. policy toward cuba that we have no contact with them, don't trade generally.

the policy implemented for 50 something years. what's the goal of the policy? is that clear? >> you mean the previous policy? >> until it was changed by this president. tweaked a little bit. >> the goal of the previous policy was that via isolation and keeping our distance from the government we would hope to bring about change in the regime and simultaneously hope to empower the cuban people to make that change. >> change the regime change communism communism, change what? >> certainly behavior toward their own citizens. >> so cuba changes the treatment of cuban citizens.

>> i'm not trying to catch you on semantics. our goal for the cuban people to be treated like they should be. >> in terms of international human rights standards and that sort of thick, yes. >> would you say that has not worked? >> i would. >> 50 years doing something. if it doesn't change that policy or goal has not been achieved because the uh cubans are treated, i think, just as bad as they ever have been. >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> let me ask you, is the goal ever to do what relationship with cuba whatever that may be in the future. is that for america's benefit or cuba's benefit? as we look at changes toward cuba we want to help americans to travel? is that the goal that we are moving towarder or are we

looking toward what's best for the cubans? >> our goal is to do what's in our national interest and help the uh cuban people to be able to do what they wish to be able to make their own decisions. >> it's both. >> yeah. >> the first priority is to do what's inner our national interest which includes our core values of democracy and university rer sal human rights. would our policy have anything to do with helping trade iran,

iraq. you can see that hadn't worked out so well. they want to trade long grain rice to cuba. the cubans want the to buy long grain rice as opposed to california short grain rice. they doment set aside all the other issues. would that not be in the best interest of the united states and american exporters that with we would facilitate trade with cuba? >> you're going to get me into trouble. i'm not sure i can set aside the other issues. if i really could in a vacuum it would be in our interest. i'm not sure we always do those things in a vacuum though. >> i understand. there are a lot of issues to be involved. what i'm saying is not having

this barrier to me of trade hurts americans. i don't know about the cubans. they get rice from vietnam. i'm out of time. i have other questions i would like to sub pit for the record. >> without objection. >> to bansed. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll go to mr. salini of rhode island. >> thank you. i, too, want to begin by acknowledging the experiences and passionate leadership on cuba american relations by chairwoman ross-layton and mr. sears. thank you for being so open with your experiences with the committee. it adds toer our understanding of the really complicated issues. i think all members of the committee are equally and deeply committed to help the cuban people achieve freedom in democracy. the difference of opinion is what's the best strategy for

bringing that about and i thank the witnesses for being here today. i suspect you will keep congress informed throughout the discussions with the cuban government. i am hopeful and i think most americans are hopeful the president's efforts to engage in real substantive negotiations with the cuban government will ultimately advance to the national security interests of the united states and benefit the cuban people. like most americans i remain dep lie concerned about the long record of human rights abuses and the dethe nile of basic freedoms caused at the hands of the cuban dictatorship. while our current policy failed to bring about lasting change in cuba cuba, we have to be sure we are updating the policy in a measured comprehensive, thoughtful way aligned with the current reality. my hope is the president's -- more tolerant society for the uh

cuban people. my questions really are -- three questions. i will invite you to respond. the first is there's been a lot of talk about what the allies in the region have for a long time identified as a problem. what's really the best way a that we can engage some of these partners in the region who now can point to a change in policy to really use them in a way to bring about the kind of liberties and democracy in cuba we all want. what's the strategy for effectively engaging others in the region to be partners in this work now that the policy has be gun to change. how can we as a congress best advance this issue of human rights which continues to be a very serious issue in a variety of ways. how do we play a role in forcing real progress and helping

progress on the hewlett-packard rights issue. finally, to build on mr. sears's question, how do we ensure this economic engagement that's intended here which is of course intended to support the uh cuban people does not instead fortify the government at a particularly critical time. how do we protect against an unintended consequence where we think we are helping entrepreneurs in the private sector strengthen but at the same time are, in fact, helping the government at a moment when others are beginning to retract some of their support. i invite you to respond to those questions, please. >> thank you. a couple of things. on en gauging ourle allies there are a couple of thoughts i have about that. one is that all of the country this is the region as well as our european allies and others have em ba sis on the island. many of them were hesitant if

not outright refused to engage with democracy activists for years. i am very optimistic if not having seen already they have lost the fear with the change of policy. that's hugely important. the rhetoric outside the country is important if dialogues. but engaging with activists and supporting them on the island, i think, is just as important. these people are often accused of being ourle tools. i think others need to embrace them openly and talk to them, work with them engage with them, hear from them. we are saying that to them. the other thing is in terms of congress i hope as many as possible will have real congressional delegations that will go to the island and see as many in cuban civil society including in the arts, in the democracy area as well as

entrepreneurs and hear from the ones i heard from how they are trying to keep those funds from going to the uh cuban government. but how they believe they are making their own way independently even if some of those funds are going to the cuban government. i i think the psychology of those entrepreneurs is a breaking away from the state that is worth that price. the cuban government went through the period of decline of the soviet union where it dropped gdp by 30% and it survived. it is important to support the efforts. >> thank you. >> we turn to mr. salmon of arizona. >> thank you. ms. jacobson. when specifically -- i'm looking for a date -- did you find out about the white house cuba negotiations and the content of the president's announcement? >> what i can tell you,

representative salmon, is that i was aware from throughout that the white house was undertaking efforts to secure the release of alan gross. we were working on the gross case with the family. >> i understand that. when did you find out specifically about the negotiations that have been going on for the past year? what didier cuche you find out about those? >> it was about six weeks or two months before the announcement that i knew more of the content of those discussion ss. >> okay. when did you find out about the announcement itself? >> when the actual date of the announcement was decided, i knew about it. >> you found out simultaneously to the announcement being made? >> no, no, no, no, no. no. as that was being decided, i knew about that. in other words, i knew about the decision to announce the new

policy about six weeks as it was being decided before, and so the date of the announcement i was -- i knew about as that was being decided at the white house. >> okay. can you tell me what resources, what u.s. resources were used to ensure that girardo hernandez, convicted of killing four u.s. citizens and a member of the cuban five could artificially inseminate his wife? what u.s. resources were used for that? >> what i can tell you on that is the state department from my perspective, have always facilitated the visits of his wife to the prison in california when he was incarcerated. >> right. >> those were the resources that we expended in terms of her visit. same resources. >> but transferring, i understand he was able to artificially inseminate his

wife and that was facilitated by the u.s. government. >> beyond our efforts to facilitate her visit, the rest was done by the department of justice. i to the department of justice. >> i'd like to know that. i think it is incredulous that it would be a u.s. priority to make sure that hernandez fathered a child while he was in incarceration incarceration. so i'll wait for the answer on that. last question, these secret negotiations went on for over a year and reportedly consists of seven meetings. so when you went to havana last month for talks the cubans made it very, very clear they would not allow our diplomats to speak to dissidents and normalization without possible without the return of our naval base in guantanamo bay. as well as other non-starters that we've talked about today. so what did we really accomplish other than maybe getting a

t-shirt that i had meetings for over a year and all i got was this lousy t-shirt. >> i guess i would start out by saying we got an intelligence asset out of cuba who was languishing in jail there and we got allan gross home and you know that. but beyond that, the beginning of this process of normalization starts with diplomatic relations which is only the first step. norming aization is going to take years and we made it very clear that it includes things like property claims which has to be part of this discussion. judgments against the cuban government which have been adjudicated in u.s. courts which has to be part of this. so that's a much different process and we haven't acceded to any of these -- >> no and i don't expect that we will acquiesce to any of those. >> it is the start of the process. >> i understand. what was your response until they said we're not going to do anything on normalization until you do these things. >> what they meant by normalization is the end of that

year's long process, not restoration of diplomatic relations which is the first part. so sim's presuming that they mean they won't have full normalization until all those things are done but they will have a restoration of diplomatic relations. >> okay. thanks. i yield back. >> thank you very much sir. mr. connelly of virginia is recognized. >> i thank the chair miss jacobson, i believe in politics and diplomacy in a very simple adage -- don't give it away for nothing. i am very troubled by the abrupt change in u.s. policy with subat the precise moment when we actually have leverage. for 50 years one could argue the castro brothers have loved u.s. policy because it's helped keep them in power.

fair enough. but that was then. this is now. things have changed. they're hurting. the economy's hurting. their oil supply is hurting. as we look out to the future, very difficult to see a viable cuban economy without major change, including a change in the relationship with us. now i take your point about diticdit ic diplomatic exchange and i put that aside. but the liberalization in trade tourism and investment and indeed the president's call to begin the process of dismantling the embargo that's been in place for half a century, i into ed to under -- i need to understand what we got in return. why wouldn't the united states use its good offices and its leverage with respect to human rights, press freedoms, with respect to religious freedoms,

with respect to political dissidents. in our briefings from state department personnel, the answer we got when we asked that question was we're not doing that. that to me i must admit, that's shocking. and i think a disappointment to many that we wouldn't use the leverage we finally have to some good point. i wonder if you'd address that. because i think we've squandered leverage. >> first i want to start out by saying that what liberalization there has been in regulations and my colleagues would certainly specify on all of this is very specific and i think mr. smith repeatedly noted that most transactions still remain prohibited. >> if i may. fair enough. but the promise of the president -- he said explicitly we're going to start the process of dismantling the embargo. cubans see promise. not just here and now. but a pathway toward the

dismantlement of a policy we've had in place for half a century. >> the president said he'd like to see the debate over that. there's no doubt. but the cubans keep demanding this in part because it's still there and so they know that this is not a big liberalization yet. in addition i think the most important thing that we have made clear to them is we're not letting up on human rights. if you were to try and be transactional about this with the cuban government the problem with that is that they won't trade for anything and we will still end up not helping the cuban people. the goal of these policies is not to do something that relies on the cuban government agreeing to give us something for a human

rights concession. we want to try and go directly to the cuban people. now it's true they may not let the telecommunications companies work or more internet access. but what has been news all over cuba and every cuban knows is that we're restarting our relations and the boogie man of the u.s. being their problem is no longer -- it's no longer credible. >> again, my time is limited. i appreciate that. i wouldn't deny that there are lots of people who see lots of hope in what has now been started. but my question is really more specific. what is the reciprocity. what did we get out of this other than the aspirations that things will get better were this change because they weren't getting better under the old regime. i can't think of a single thing -- the release of mr. gross, of course. but in terms of a policy shift,

a concession. i can't think of a single one. >> well, i believe that we also will get some things that matter in opening our embassy and hopefully the ability to travel throughout the country and see more people and support more people. we can't really move outside havana right now. >> that's what you hope to negotiate. >> but that is neglectcessary for opening an embassy. that's part of this. i also think that we will have all of these dialogues that they want to have for cooperation that will be part of those discussions as well. it is to come i agree. >> madam chairman, i no he my time is up but i want to underline, i always think it is a mistake in foreign policy to give it away for nothing. >> thank you mr. connelly. and now we turn to mr. duncan, chairman of our subcommittee on western hemisphere. >> thank you madam chairman.

in trade and lifting of sanctions is seen as a cure-all foreign policy with the obama administration with oppressive regimes like cuba why did the u.s. impose sanctions on cuba the same week? will we see other normalizations relations with other oppressive regimes? >> sanctions imposed on venezuela this week were additional visa sanctions. >> in december the same week as the president started normalizing relations with cuba he imposed sanctions on venezuela. >> if you are talking about the signing of the legislation that was passed by congress that includes both visa sanctions and asset freezes. it is not a trade sanction bill. >> are there going to be other surprises? we didn't see cuba coming. what are we going to see with venezuela, north korea or any of the others? are we anticipating any of that? >> i can't speak outside my region but i don't expect you to see any surprises on venezuela.

we've been consulting on that and i expect to continue. nor any surprises on cuba. we'll continue to consult on that. >> i think you were surprised over the cuba talks that you weren't brought into it until late in the discussions but let's move on because many of the people that i speak with about this policy shift on cuba some even here in congress, talk about -- and point to the freedom now afforded americans to travel to cuba. so i ask, is the same freedom of travel a two-way street? is the same freedom of travel afforded to the cuban people to travel to the united states, and in this policy shift all american travelers really stay -- unless it is family travel they stay in hotels owned by the cuban military, article 18 of the cuban constitution requires all foreign commerce to be controlled by the state. how does increasing commerce with castro monopolies help the cuban people? >> let me start out by saying on

travel by cubans we're looking at that really carefully since the 2013 decision by the cuban government to allow more people to travel, it has gotten better. you've been able to have some dissidents here to speak in front of this house who's never been able to before but it's by far not good enough. there are still people who can't travel and they should be able to. they should all be able to travel freely. let me say that on the trade portion, i will go back to what i said. we understand that there will be some benefits to the cuban government. we really do believe again because of people that we've talked to who are entrepreneurs because of activists, because of artists, because of some of the small agricultural folks working that they will benefit more than the government will if we are able to implement these regulations and get them the equipment they need that the government won't provide them. >> they'll benefit from maybe some economic transaction.

i'll give you that. we'll see. how about other freedoms for the cuban people? who was negotiated in this? freedom of speech freedom of religion, economic freedom freedom of assembly and protest. i point to the testimony yesterday, i think chris smith talked about it. "the truth is, the government of cuba represses our right to freedom of religion and association and so we go out participate in religious activities on sundays, then are detained. the government is constantly repressing activists who try to gather together to discuss issues that are important to them." so the right to peacefully assemble and protest against a repressive government is still there. so i ask this -- what did the u.s. barten in exchange for this new policy shift other than alan gross' release that benefits the cuban people and ultimately gives them more freedoms? i want this to be about the cuban people. if we are truly going to pursue a policy to normalize relations it ought to be about the cuban people and not the castro regime and the castro regime is the

only one i see that benefits from this. i don't see where private property rights are -- maybe but private property rights and claims by cuban-americans and cuban people in general that own property that was nationalized by the federal government. how are we going to address that. i think the private property rights is so important and is sort of left out of this discussion. you and i talked about this in my office the other day. i think that's critical. so i'd like you to talk about the freedoms for the cuban people in the remaining 20 seconds that i have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with you that all of those things are what we're seeking. and i think we all agree that's the goal here. >> so tell me how this policy gets us to this goal. >> the policy gets us to this goal number one by having a lot more people able to work with us on it from outside cuba than ever before. we were alone. we were not joined by anyone

else. we are more effective with allies. number two we believe that there were no concessions here. some of these things are things that we're doing that deeply worry the cuban government because they may not be able to control them. and we don't believe that anything we did on december 17th as the president and secretary have said were concessions to the government. >> my time is up. the concessions for the cuban people are important. >> now i would yield to mr. loenthal of california. >> i have been touched listening to both the experiences of those that have been the most affected by the repressive regime, and that's been joined with congressman congresswoman bass and saying that i have been touched by the testimony of both congressmen

who talked about their families and some of the impacts. but having said that i am very supportive of our re-engagement and the restoration of diplomatic relations. i say that not because i support many of the repressive issues that take place, but i say that as someone who represents one of the largest, if not the largest, vietnamese-american communities in the united states people who escaped also an intolerable situation, who i believe, while certainly very, very against the existing regime in vietnam, have benefited by having, i think, greater ability to communicate some of their concerns. and they had it by having the u.s. ambassador to vietnam come to a community which is not at all supportive of that government and really have a dialogue and be able to express some of their concerns.

i see that as a very very positive step. so my questions are, as we go forward, will there be a strategy also to reach out to the cuban-american community in the united states who had been suffering a great deal as have their relatives. that's my first question. >> absolutely. absolutely, sir. we have begun to do that knowing the views in that community are diverse as well. and seeing that activists within cuba, among the four points they would agree on was that the cuban cuban cuban cuban diaspora. >> as there is more trade and more tourism, when many of those tourists go back to cuba and speak out against their government that's in cuba have we talked about some of those

issues? >> we certainly consider that in terms of cubans coming to the united states and when that travel policy was liberalized there was an enormous concern among activists that if they left and spoke freely they either wouldn't be able to go home, perhaps, or if they went home they'd never be able to travel again. the fact that some of them have now been able to travel repeatedly i think is a good sign. but everyone still is fearful. >> as i am. so with that -- >> and we raised that issue. >> does anyone else have any issues or want to respond to any -- some of the issues as the policies begin to change what you see in the future as some of the consequences. not so much the reasons -- i'm wanting to move forward. where do we go from here? what do you see things that we need to look at as this policy has changed now? >> two points i would make are one, we certainly with treasury are doing a lot of outreach to all segments of the american public to understand what the

new changes are. secondly we'll be watching very carefully to see how they actually play out in practice because coming back to the 15% of the cuban population, the cuban economy in the private sector, we are really looking to strengthen and grow that with these opportunities so that's something we'll certainly be looking at very carefully. >> i'd echo those comments. i think the implementation is what we'll be looking at over the next few months and years actually and to see what the effects are and what we need to do to make these -- >> as a member also -- because of my own concerns and also because of the concerns of the communities i represent i'm a very active member of the tom lantos human rights commission. i have adopted prisoners of conscience in vietnam. actually put pressure on the vietnamese government to begin to release some of these prisoners. i would like to say these same efforts continue to go forward

with the changed policy in cuba. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. we go to mr. brooks of alabama. >> thank you madam chairman. i believe that america's policy should be consistent throughout the globe as best that we can do so by way of champ, i'd like to make a quick comparison between cuba and saudi arabia looking at some of the similarities between the countries, some of the differences. and also the disparate ways in which each is treated by the united states government. on trades, american-cuban trades is very limited, as we all know. less than $500 million per year in exports by america to cuba. but america-saudi arabia trade is very robust. roughly $80 billion per year, perhaps higher.

on travel. travel to cuba. very limited by the united states government. saub, quite the opposite. on embassies and diplomatic interaction. in saudi arabia we have an embassy and very significant diplomatic interaction. in cuba we have no embassy and little to no diplomatic interaction. i could go on and on but i think it is fair to say the united states treats cuba substantially differently than saudi arabia. as i have listened to the witnesses and member comments concerning cuba and why cuba must be treated differently i can't help but emphasize some of the similarities and differences that have been pointed out. on the issue of freedom of religion, as bad as cuba may be -- and we've heard some comments as to how bad it is -- the question is is saudi arabia worse? one member commented that some religious observance requires cuban government consents.

yet, in saudi arabia open worship by christians is a criminal offense as is missionary work. if a muslim dares question whether islam is a true religion, he is severely punished punished. one recent example, a person faces 1,000 lashes and 6 to 10 years in prison assuming of course that the lashing does not kill him. on the issue of dictatorial governments, one would again be hard-pressed to determine which family government that of cuba's or the saudis, is more dictatorial. i think you could have a very robust debate concerning that issue. on the issue of terrorism bearing in mind that 15 of the 199/11 terrorists were saudis. and also bearing in mind so much terrorism funding originates in saudi arabia, in fairness much of it opposed by the riyadh regime. but nonetheless, still a lot of money for terrorism comes from the country of saudi arabia.

one could have a lively debate again concerning which country poses a greater threat to world peace. given so many similarities and also some differences with saudi arabia being treated so much better by the united states of america, what factors in your mind justify treating cuba so much worse than saudi arabia that supports the 50-year policy that the united states has had with respect to cuba? >> thank you. congressman, i think that our own view has been pretty clearly laid out by the president on the 17th and the secretary certainly made a number of comments that we believe that cuba not on its merits necessarily in terms of its behavior, but on the effectiveness of policy argument, the efficiency and what is in our national interest

merits a change in that policy. so it was announced in december. i can't necessarily make that comparison between saudi arabia and cuba but i will say that we believe very strongly that the values and the ideals of the united states needs to be pursued aggressively all over the world and that they are best pursued via diplomatic relations and having embassies. those aren't concessions or gifts. we do them effectively when we have a presence. that's why we want to have that presence in cuba. >> i'm running short of time. let me ask this final question. america's always faced with a very difficult choice. on one hand we can be open, hoping that our relations with this country will surely cause them to accept freedoms that we cherish in america. or we can be very restrictive as

we have been with cuba, north korea and some other nations in hopes that the punishment will be sufficient. what you think long-term is best for cuba? >> i think we're most effective when we have allies with us and we were alone vis-a-vis cuba. so i believe the openness with allies to the cuban people, not the cuban government, will be effective. >> gentleman's time is expired. mr. deutsche of florida is recognized. >> thank you chairman and ranking member engle to work so quickly to make sure the committee could hear from this administration. in south florida the administration's announcements had a tremendous impact. i have serious concerns about the castro regime's continuing rights abuses as many of my colleagues have brought up today and i hope that we expect and demand more of them. coinciding with the administration's announcement, one of the major south florida newspapers published an in-depth

feature called plundering america which exposed how underground criminal networks have exploited u.s. policy toward cuba. the overwhelming majority of those who have come here have made incredible contributions to this country and become a deep part of the fabric of our society. a great example we have here on this panel our colleagues and my friends chairman emeritus ross layton and representative syrez. policies were pout in place to make sure those who sought refuge in the u.s. could still see their families or send remittances are being taken of by small minorities for criminal gain. they've turned our humanitarian policy into an underground criminal enterprise by reducing their ability to return to and from cuba to engage in illicit fraud activities transporting large sums of cash back to the island evading arrest as the

cuban regime will not arrest these fugitives. they have turned our open-door policy into a resolving door enabling "crooks from the island to rob american businesses and taxpayers of more than $2 billion over two decades." as the administration rebalances its relationship with cuba, i hope we're not ignoreing the years kwf criminal activity that the castros have turned a blind eye to, at best. we need to know what extent -- to what extent the regime or people connected to the regime have been or will continue to be involved in these illegal crime rings. assistant secretary jacobson, i'd like to know if your initial round of talks with the cubans included any discussion of extradition of fugitives from cuba, and if not, when and how will this issue be raised? >> thank you congressman. and it certainly did include the discussion of fugitives. it did not specifically include the question of extradition. as you know, we have a very old extradition treaty that has not been used in many years.

i have no idea whether we will get back eventually to actually using it. but it certainly included the question of fugitives and the desire to have much more in-depth conversation about law enforcement and fugitive issues in the future. >> were the extradition you refer to the situation that we have now. but in the talks -- >> wait. let me -- >> -- how did the talks focus is. >> i just want to be clear that the morning of the talks that i had were on the diplomatic restoration. the afternoon of the talks were on a whole series of subjects on which we are going to have experts who are not me have much more substantive conversations about what we want. right? and that's one of the subjects. >> and when -- what will be the context of those discussions and when will they take place? >> right. we're going to try and set those up as quickly as possible. part of that conversation already began in the migration talks because we take with us our lawyers and the department

of justice and we talk about fugitives in the context of the migration talks. so we've actually begun that one. but we'll have a separate conversation on law enforcement and fugitives. basically as we can set these up in the time schedule. the cubans are a little bit overwhelmed by our new wantsing to have lie dialogues on lots off different subjects. they have accepted the idea of having that and we'll gets them set up as soon as we can with our justice department colleagues. >> thank you. mr. smith, understanding that most of this falls under law enforcement agency purview, has your office looked at where the money is coming from these cuban criminal networks, where all of that money which usually comes back to cuban and cash goes, or the role of the cuban government in sponsoring or even training these individuals or what's being done to impede their activities? >> we do work been law

enforcement colleagues with respect to sanctions. are respect to any particular issues with regard to money flows or might impact the u.s. law or u.s. sanctions, i couldn't talk about anything that we could actually be looking at. >> can you speak to the specifics -- the specific situation that was described at great length in these newspaper reports? >> i think most of what you described at great length from the newspaper reports and the details from the newspaper reports i'd refer to the department of justice. i think it would have the primary equities there and the primary statutes that would be involved. what we would do is we enforce the sanctions laws and very little from what i've seen impact our regulations that we would enforce. >> thank you. >> thank you. gentleman's time has expired. mr. disantos of florida. >> thank you. secretary jasony jacobson you said that we did not make concessions

to the cuban government but later in your answers you conceded the increased economic activity will have some benefit to the cuban government so that is a concession, is it not? >> it is a benefit they may receive. >> especially given their two main patrons -- venezuela and russia -- they're reeling with a change in world oil prices and i think the castro government very much wants any type of patronage they can get. i think as was pointed out money that goes flu that country is going to be controlled by the government. if you are going to rgargue differently, why is it we're really the only country that has these restrictions. you have open relations switzerland, australia whoever. how come with all those ties the cuban people have not benefited? because you said in your testimony, in response to the question by mr. poe, that the cuban people are not better off after 50 years of our policy. my question is if the other policies of all the other

countries in the world are so good, why haven't the cuban people benefited from those policies? >> congressman, i think part of the problem in terms of actual sort of economic policy in cuba is that they have not modernized their system, opened their system, made a foreign investment law that adequately attracts investment to have those other countries be part of it. >> and they said that they are not going to clang. raul castro said they're not changing. he said this is a victory for the cuban revolution and we're not going to clang. so i don't see where you get that the people of cuba are somehow going to benefit more than the regime. i think the regime will benefit from this, but until there's a change, i think the benefits are going to be bottled up at the top. >> but remittances also go directly to kooushen encuban people. we raise the remittance amounts in addition. one of the reasons that they haven't rushed to us to implement the telecommunications provisions or the internet provisions, they've been very, very wary of all of this, is because they know full well that

they probably won't be able to control it and that the benefits may well reach the cuban people. >> so they're probably not likely to do -- let me ask you this. when you took your trip were you given access to any of the places where political prisoners are being held, to view that? >> i was not. >> is there any discussion -- has the administration tried to get property returned that was confiscated both of american citizens when castro took power, including cuban-americans who were exiled? >> we made clear in the conversations that the issue of its appropriated properties has to be part of norming aization. >> what was their response? >> they agreed that that has to be parts of the conversation and responded that they had issues they wanted to raise with us about losses you understand the embargo. >> one of the issues i know they want is gitmo. can you categorically state that on january 20th, 2017 at 12:00 p.m., a date that a lot of my constituents are looking forward

to, that gitmo will still be under u.s. control the naval base? >> i am certain that guantanamo will still be a u.s. base, but i can't tell you a hypothetical about what may be part of these normalization talks. but it's not on the table for us right now, and i don't envision that. but i'm not a high enough ranking person to know -- and i'm not from the department of defense, et cetera -- to know whether it could be in the future and -- but i can't -- >> sim's just talking about over the next two years as this administration's in power. >> i can't envision that. >> cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. the federal statutes in order to be removed from that list, there are certain criteria. one of them is that the government lass to provide assurances that they will not support international terrorism. has cuba -- the cuban government provided those assurances, and if so, are they credible? >> cuba has repeatedly rejected

international terrorism and we're in the process right now, as we review this of also looking at their statements and evaluating whether they have or will give -- >> i'm concerned because if they say they're not going to change. they've been a state sponsor of terrorism. to me that's a declaration to the contrary. my final question is, does the administration believe that the president has the authority to unilaterally lift the embargo? >> clearly not, or he wouldn't have will beingelcomed and encouraged the debate in congress. >> well, we've been down this road before because he said he couldn't do things a number of times, then turns around and does them. so i think it is important to get this on the record. the statute is very clear about what would have to happen in order to have any type of waiver of these restrictions. there is no evidence that any of those criteria have been met up to this point. is that accurate? >> i'm sorry. a waver iowa of -- to what lifting of what kind of restrictions? >> any type of provisions that

can be waived requires -- there are certain provisions that are listed that must occur in order for the president to act. >> to act to lift the embargo the president was clear in the state of the union that he wants that to be debated in congress. >> gentleman's time has expired. thank you. mr. castro of texas. >> thank you madam chairman. like many of my colleagues i've been moved by the testimony of the cuban-americans and many cuban-americans, particularly the more seen your generation lost their family members, lost property, lost their livelihoods in their country. and for many years i think much of our foreign policy towards cuba was in great deference to that fact. and when you hear the stories, that's very understandable. i do think with the president's change in normalization in diplomatic relations towards cuba that the power of american culture and the power of our

technology and our democracy will ultimately win out. and i think that in many ways this was the start of a new revolution in cuba, and as the castro brothers are in the winter of their reign, i see this as positioning the united states for when they are gone. so with that in mind let me ask you how does it position our country vis-a-vis cuba once these folks are no longer in power? >> thank you congressman. i think this really is the question question. one of the things that's critical is the next generation activists, of leaders. we want to keep faith with them. i thought one of the most important things in this policy is how we work with the current human rights activists and democracy leaders. the new entrepreneurs and artists and expand civil society. how do we encourage them, when

tommy brugara wanted to have a performance art in revolutionary square and skwedasked cubans to speak, 300 artists spoke in her effort. nobody had ever made a political statement before. so it is about expanding people's engagement in civil society, which is novel and is important in preparing for what comes next in cuba. >> sure. and i know in places like china for example, they can't access social media sites but they have access to the internet. many in cuba have no access even to the internet. is that right? >> absolutely. >> and also -- i got here a little bit late because like many of my colleagues here i have two committee meetings at the same time. but let me ask you, what becomes of the wet foot/dry foot policy. >> at this point, congressman we have no plans to change that law and the law obviously is on the books. that would have to be changed by

congress. we have no plans to request such a change. >> okay. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. castro. mr. emmer of minnesota. >> thank you madam chair and thank you to the panel. it is interesting. i hear often in the past few weeks that if something hasn't been working for 50 years, you should look at changing it. but nobody seems to go directly to the issue except some of the comments i've heard today about how nothing has changed within the country. i'm interested in a couple of things. because much of it has been covered already. but the president broke with policy by appointing a couple of white house aides to conduct these secret negotiations. i'm interested -- and i think it is probably miss jacobson because you seem to have at some point been brought from and made aware of what was going on -- what happened that caused that

moment in time where the president decided to appoint these two to negotiate secretly with the cubans, and why? why did he break from policy? >> i can't -- i can't answer that question on behalf of the president. what i can tell you is that 1 of the 2 people engaged in those discussions is a foreign service officer on loan to the white house house, a foreign service officer who is one of our foremost experts on cuba having served there and on the cuba issue at the state downtown. >> but you don't know what suddenly sparked, now is the time that this has to happen. >> i think there has long been a concern within the administration that the policy was not effective in empowering the cuban people. >> let me ask you this then miss jacobson. because many of the questions are -- i mean i heard from representative connelly and others -- what did we get.

if i understand your testimony today, these secret negotiations, included, for instance discussions about the brutalization of families. in other words, how you're going to compensate these families for their personal loss during the castro takeover and since. and there's been a promise that that will be part of the negotiations before actual -- there will be a proposal to "dismantle" the embargo. >> what has to be part of full normalization of relations -- that is, making the relationship with cuba look like every other normal one, and that's the full range of things, not just diplomatic relations -- is a process and a resolution of this long-standing issue of claims which the foreign claim settlement commission has, and judgments. yeah. >> and i just want it on the

record so i understand, because you've separated between diplomacy and complete normalization which would be lifting the embargo and things that the president says he cannot do as the executive only congress. >> right. >> when we talk about the diplomacy, opening an embassy hopefully getting to travel across the island which right now has not been assured, that's diplomacy. and these few thins that the administration can do without congressional approval. the next step, my understanding from your testimony today is there has been a promise that there will be as part of any agreement moving forward, any final agreement, an understanding as to how these families will be compensated not only for their personal loss but for their property losses. is that correct? >> there will be a process with the cuban government to come to resolution of those issues. >> so you may not require that they be reimbursed or compensated for loss of --

>> i think in all of these kinds of cases -- i'll ask my colleagues if they have any comment but it may be department of justice that would be better placed to answer this -- in all of these kinds of things, it has to be agreed between -- mutually between two countries to resolve -- >> i understand. but you led us to believe -- athlete you led me to believe that when those discussions were taking place, these were issues that had in fact been raised and discussed. it would seem to me that there are things that are going to be required if congress is ultimately going to approve full normalization. >> right. and that means a satisfactory resolution, which means we have to be satisfied. but the cuban government will have to be satisfied, too, for an agreement. >> and that would include this harboring of murderers and thieves and criminals by the castro regime. >>. question of fugitives -- if you mean the question of fugitives or -- >> i added it to it. you put all of these together today. i see my time's running out.

my point is you made it sound as though these are all going to be necessary requirements to a final agreement. if it's actually going to be fully normalized. i believe my time has expired. >> thank you so much. mr. clausen of florida. >> thank you for coming today. i'd like to ask a question or two about this deal's impact on religious freedom in cuba. i represent south florida southwest florida. and of the 94% of the jewish folks left after the revolution. some of them came to my district, so this is a question i'm sure that's on a lot of their minds of those that remain that are family members. but there's also other religious folks that have been persecuted in cuba. christians. we don't talk a lot about mormons much but there are two mormon branches, i understand,

in cuba. and other religious minorities as well. so i'm wondering about the imfactim impact of this deal on tolerance for religion in general, and will missionaries and other folks from different sects be allowed to go now and help their brothers and sisters on the island? >> well, i think it is really important, congressman, the regulations -- i could let my colleagues -- this really expands the ability of religious groups to go because what we've done is make the religious missions part of this the religious opportunities general license. so we're hoping that there are a lot more religious groups that are able to go and see counterparts in cuba and have that interaction. in terms of the tolerance for religious freedom in cuba i certainly hope that there will

be an impact certainly by having their brethren come and work with them and support them. i visit the jewish community every time i go to cuba and i visited this time with the church. and there was recently obviously the announcement of a new church to be built. a new catholic church to be built in cuba. but it's a very important part of what we're hoping to stimulate as part of civil society. >> i could just add to that, in the past, many americans had to come to seek a specific license to be able to go to cuba to engage in religious activities. one of the changes that we made was to authorize that in our regulations, which means that people may now go to cuba for religious activities for their religious purposes without coming to this government agency to seek approval first. >> and there's two pieces on our side. one is that for those trips that are now generally authorized for

religious purposes the things that the travelers want to bring with them also can be done under general authorization rather than coming and waiting for a specific authorization from us. and another piece of our license exception allows building materials to be exported for private sector use, including building of churches for example, again without individual licenses under this general authorization. >> i hope that we will have measurables here. i'm always worried about bait and switch and using some other aspect of the law to really get around things that are uncomfortable. i personally just think it is hard to have a meaningful life for a lot of folks if they don't have a meaningful religious experience. i'm hoping that the administration will follow up here to where we actually see meaning ful meaningful, religious awakening on the island for so many that want it. >> thank you sir. >> i have no more to say.

i yield back. >> thank you. mr. weber of texas. >> thank you madam chair. gentlemen, i apologize. you all seem to be getting a lot of questions. are you all going to be okay while i question her? >> yes, sir. >> okay. thank you very much. miss jacobson let me start out by saying i have really appreciated your professionalism and your demeanor and your attitude. you've done a good job and i appreciate that. are the state and treasury regulations now fully in compliance with the intent of congress when it passed the trade sanctions reform and export enforcement act of 2000? >> yes, sir. we believe they are. >> you believe that they are? going forward -- and i understand you said the president wants -- he doesn't want the dialogue that's happening in congress.

and i appreciate joaquin castro, my colleague from texas's comments earlier about moving forward past the current regime. that was an interesting take. but going forward, will the ag trade -- i have rice farmers in texas in my district and other producers as well. and five ports. so they're very interested in the trade part of this. will the trade of ag products be able to be conducted without a lot of input and some would say interference from the administration? >> i think that's a great question and we know that there is an enormous amount of interest in that. i actually may defer to my colleague on some of this. >> they'll feel good about that. >> they will. and it will give me a chance to have a little bit of water. >> okay. yes, mr. smith. >> we made changes in the current set of regulations. that changed the financing terms to what ag exporters had requested. and so it should be easier for them to be able to send -- >> without a lot of red tape. >> -- without coming in to ofac

for any requirements. >> good. >> one thing that we were not able to address in our changes were -- is the requirement that there be a license that's no more under the license exception. that's currently a 12-day process. >> 12-day process. >> for somebody that wants to make an ag export, comes in and submits an application and gets an answer yes or no in 12 days. >> well, then other than changing the cash in hand rule, what other changes in ofac do you know are in the offing? anybody? >> when you say "other than --" >> that would actually give us potentially new opportunities for ag products in particular? >> so the other thing we did was we allowed u.s. banks to establish correspondent accounts in cuban banks. and what helps with that and with the ag trade is right now that if you want an american exporter has to get payment from a cuban exporter and it has to go through a third country, tlen

come to the united states. now under this rule they won't. they can pay directly and the payment can be made faster and easier and make ag exporters more competitive. >> okay. >> i think also the travel general licenses now make it easier for people who want to investigate business opportunities in the ag sector to go to cuba without coming in and waiting for a license. >> in many of the cases before exporters would have to come in to ofac to seek what's called a specific license to travel down there. now they don't have to for a variety of techniques there are a variety of activities they would use associated with trade like the marketing and the export, the delivery. all of that can be done without coming in to us to seek that license. >> okay. that's an improvement. then i'm going to come back to you. joaquin asked about the dry foot/wet foot policy. tell me what that is. >> it's the cuban adjustment act allows that cuban citizens who arrive on u.s. soil are permitted to adjust their status

here and remain whereas those who may be interdicted by the coast guard are -- if they have no protection concerns may be returned. >> that's what i figured. that's my questions. i thank you all for your testimony. >> thank you very much. we were going to go to a second round of questions. there are the three of us left in case you wanted to ask another question. the chair recognizes yourself. the foreign claims commission has found that there are almost 6,000 u.s. claims that are judged to be qualified for compensation by the castro dictatorship. the adjudicated value of those claims by adding a 6% simple interest according to this commission, makes the total principal value of american claims to over $8 billion today. i don't think the state department will enforce

helmsburton by trafficking confiscated property nor allow property owners to secure authorization for the unauthorized use of property subject to a claim. do you think that you will or won't? and i also worry that the administration will use our influence to go even further. will we try to help cuba get membership into the world bank, into the imf, into the idb, other multi-lateral development banks and will we prevent any assistance, any financing or any other benefit from these institutions until u.s. property claims have been resolved to the satisfaction of american owners? and lastly, if you could tell us, what are the three conditions according to u.s. law under helms-burton for the embargo to be lifted. i know the president is going to

present us legislation to free up the embargo. what are the -- what of those three conditions have been met that would satisfy the embargo or justify the embargo being lifted. so first on the claims on what we're going to do if we're going to help cuba get into these organizations. and then the three conditions under helms-burton. >> let me start off by saying that i have been cognizant of the importance of resolution of the claims issues and the judgments from the very beginning of this process. it is very important that those be resolved. the state department, as well as other government agencies the justice department under which the autonomous fror are inclaims settlement commission acted to adjudicate and assign values to those claims. we believe very strongly that that has to be part of future conversations over the next years, however long

normalization may take. those are extremely difficult obviously to have with any foreign government as those commissions dealings have proven. but we intend to pursue that certainly as part of our discussion. i raised that in the very first conversation. knowing that we weren't going to talk about it that day deeply but it must be part of full normalization. second, on the international financial institutions there is obviously very specific language in the law about this. we feel that we are not in a position right now where cuba is eligible for membership certainly. and there are dshg-- >> you say right now. do you foresee that cuba will be moving in that direction? >> i think madam chair, we all hope for the day when it will be logical membership because it will be a free and open cuba

that would be a normal logical member. we all hope that the some point in the future they may ask for help to open their system. they're not right now. >> but just as we said that we weren't going to swap spies and we did even though it is a rose by any other name but you call it something else. will we be advocating for cuba's inclusion in these international organizations that would allow to give it credit to continue to oppress the people? >> we're not advocating for their membership. but we also want to make sure that at some point in time it may be useful to have organizations like the imf, not give them help but help them open their economy -- >> because these institutions are keeping them from opening the economy. >> no, no no. they don't necessarily -- >> let's go to the three

conditions. what are the three conditions that would allow the lifting of the embargo and what of those three have been met by the castro regime. >> ima he sorry, i don't have them in front of me. the three conditions in the legislation? >> i hope that when you're negotiating with the castro regime you keep in mind u.s. law. u.s. law is the act of 1996. the president is calling for the lifting of the embargo. please go and check that out because -- >> i certainly will. >> -- that is u.s. law and we are hoping that you abide by that. >> absolutely. >> mr. clausen has a follow-up question. >> i believe that good leadership requires all stakeholders to be taken into account companies go off track when they only think about shareholders. and in government i think it is even more important that we keep all stakeholders and take them into account and that they are consulted. this felt like a sad decision to

me because it seemed to bypass a normal conversation with all stakeholders with respect to cuba, stakeholders that live in our country, family members and others, that got surprised as you did as stakeholders that work on the front line. and i kind of want to be on the record on that. because i think when we bypass stakeholders we make unfair decisions that are narrow in their bandwidth. and this decision doesn't feel fair because of the process or lack of process that we went through to get here, surprising people that have stakes in the game of cuba. so i wanted to be on the record on that. i think it also makes your job on the front lines a lot more difficult. i can't imagine surprising folks that work for me, bypassing them and cutting a deal with somebody that -- without them knowing it. it feels like that undercuts your authority in the future. and maybe you see that different, but i just don't know how that's not the case.

so i want to say thank you for hanging in there. i think your job's just got tougher, not easier. and i want to express my appreciation for you all and the service you do our country and even in times made more difficult like now by leadership. then along those lines, i want to say thanks for hanging in there today. it is not easy coming up here. you get it from both sides in our case. so you seem to have done it with humor and hung in there and kept your sense of humor here. and for that most of all i express my appreciation to you all for making time for us. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. i request unanimous content to submit for the record a record from south florida state and local elected officials to president obama to express their profound disappointment over the december 17th announcement, an agreement for democracy in cuba which is a ten-point road map from the people of cuba toward a real transition to democracy.

op edz from the former staff director ever this committee and questions for the record. and with that, our committee is adjourned.

the house foreign affairs committee also met again today on cuba looking at the state of human rights in the country. witnesses testifying include several human rights activists and a former political prisoner who outlines human rights violations and the need for political change as cuba normalizes relations with the u.s. from capitol hill, this is 2:40 minutes.

good morning to everyone and welcome to this very timely and important hearing on human rights in cuba. we are hear to examine the state of human rights which is a very timely topic indeed given the obama administrations change in policy towards cuba announced the end of last year. we are here to ask whether in undertaking this change in policy the obama administration used the considerable leverage that it wields to seek to better the condition of the cuban people, or whether as i fear as one opportunity squandered in haste to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough and even create a legacy for the president. thus it is not only about castro regime accountability but also the obama's administration role

in reminding the world that the kwooub cuba remains a communist dictatorship. and i would underscore an estimated 178 political dissidents in the last month alone. and one whose cad owe raul castro would not change in response to the obama administration's recessions. this regime continues to harbor fugitives from the justice. as much as joann chesmarch whose convicted of march of a state trooper in my own home state of the new jersey. the officer was gunned down gangland style after she escaped from prison. and yesterday roberta jacobson

sob appeared before the committee and i asked what the response was when she raised the issue of joann to justice? she replied the cuban government stated it was, quote, not interested in discussing her return, closed quote. that is unacceptable. i have a statement i asked to be submitted for the report from chris ber bergo of new jersey. where it states on behalf our jersey state troopers that quote, we are shocked and very disappointed that returning a convicted kill ore after state trooper was not already demanded and accomplished in the context of the steps announced by the white house regarding this despottic dictate irship. i also point out as an aside that president bergos and new jersey state police superintendent rick fuentes both

wanted to be here and i look forward to hearing from them in a follow-up hearing. and fortunately it is a tremendous honor and privilege to have with us today three extraordinarily brave and uniquely qualified witnesses to the brutality of the cuban dictatorship. three human rights activists who at great personal cost to themselves and their families have and continue to stand up for human dignity. we will hear habit the deplorable state of human rights in cuba. just read the state department report on human rights as well as other reporting that has been done by other ngos. and it couldn't be more clear that human rights are violated with impunity by the castro brothers and their regime. i would note parenthetically that years ago during the reagan administration i met with amandde velidares who spent two

decades in the cuban system. i read his book. ill ileana and her staff we went time and again asking them to look at the deplorable human rights in cuba. when i met him he was able to get the u.n. to look at pass resolution condemning the deplorable situation in cuba and to deploy a team to go to the prisons and investigate these terrible abuse of human rights. there were promises made by fidel castro that there would be no retaliation against those who spoke in prison and the family members and friends who came forward to bear witness to a terrible truth and set of truths. everybody was retaliated against. the people in the prisons as well as their families and regrettably the u.n. was unable, perhaps unwilling but certainly

unable to do anything to stop that retaliation. i have pushed for years to go to cuba. i have been denied a visa for two decks or so. i want to go to the prisons. of course i'd meet with fidel if i was able. we can't get that visa. both frank wolf and i tried a number of times and it got so bat that at one point fidel kas castro said we were provocateur provocateurs. i want to meet with the dissidents in the camp 35 where people were tortured by that dictatorship. when gusmow became the president of the east -- i went and saw him. we can't get into cuba. we even got into beijing prisoner number two where 40 activists were being forced to do labor.

head shaved, gone. looked like concentration camp victims. and yet wolf and i, mr. wolf and i could not and continue -- i can't get into those prisons. so i will be asking the government again. have already asked and have asked our government to help facilitate it to go to the prisons. and in the icrc yesterday t red cross. i asked secretary jacobson that much has been made that the icrc might be able to get into the country. that is unacceptable. get into the prisons and indeed there that is to be no retaliation to those who speak out. i would point out that after testifying here today in public. and i thank c-span and the journalists for taking this story and making aamericans aware of what is actually happening in cuba right now as we meet. they will be returning to cuba. and this committee and i know

the entire congress will be watching to ensure their safety and well-being and health is not further jeopardized. but the courage to come ford a congressional hearing, hearings. our friends on the senate side received compelling testimony as well. and to bear witness to an ugly truth of teacher. i recommend everyone go back and reread "against all hope." he talked about dissidents in vats of the excrement. so bad it went into their ears and nose and they got infections. he told me he and his wife when they finally got to the united states and got asylum, he said he couldn't even change diapers because the smell of excrement brought back like ptsd the

memories of the cruelty imposed upon them. the castro brothers and many in this regime ought to be at the hague for crimes against humanity. that is how bad it is. these are among the worst abusers of human rights in the entire world. so again i want to welcome our brave and courageous witnesses. i want to thank ms. ros lehtinen and she has been such a leader for so long in raising the truth of what is going on in this gu log island. i have much more to say but i'll put the rest of it into the record. i want to thank our witnesses again. i look forward to hearing thinker testimony. -- >> mr. chairman [inaudible]. >> mr. chairman i just want to take a brief moment before we

turn to the brief topic of the human rights in cuba to respond a topic in last committee meeting. you made comments and enfwajd in line of questioning some understood as suggesting that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans gender people do not have the basic human rights. after exchange exchanging letters with you that i think it's important to note that while we have very different preponderances on the marriage equality you oppose i, i support it. we both agree lgbt people have the same rights as all others to live free of the violence and persecution. you said quote unequivocablely oppose acts of violence against anyone and believe human rights apply to all. and all individuals including lgbt persons should be treated with respect and compassion. i want to thank you with the opportunity to clear up the

confusion over your statement and to reaffirm our shared passion for protecting hurmts of all people. lgbt rights are human rights and they are entitled to live rights free from violence intimidation, discrimination and harm. thank you mr. chairman and yield back. >> thank you mr. cicilline. i would again say we do have a fundamental difference. i don't support homosexual marriage. i know you do and i certainly support your views. i want to also point it ie universally recognize human rights for all. and again i'm glad we were able to work together. why don't you go. >> there mr. chairman. and i