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? >> i don't see that discussion taking place. >> that's not what i was asking for. that was in your testimony. what -- can you make a commitment? you got to see it from our side here. we were shocked, so you telling me that you're not thinking of something means i got to get shocked tomorrow. the administration was so angry that they hadn't been consulted on bringing one guy to speak here. there was not a lot of consultation on this change of cuba policy. would the administration object to language in our appropriations bill designed to make it impossible for this administration to give back the

naval base? >> that issue is not on the table with the -- >> would the -- it could be on our table. would you object? >> i don't know the answer to that, as a matter of executive policy. >> let me go on to mr. smith. we have the cuban solidarity act that doesn't allow us to deal with certain properties that have been seized by americans. you've got new regulations on travel credit cards, etc. how do you plan to make sure that american travelers aren't making -- breaking the law from staying in hotels violating the cuban american solidarity act? >> one thing i should say about that, the act, what that does is you can't provide a loan or credit or provide financing to further those transactions involving confiscated property. it doesn't say you can't stay

at a hotel or engage in any kind of -- >> does the credit card company extend a loan when you use a credit card to pay for a hotel stay at a confiscated property? >> the credit card company may extend the loan to the traveler. >> facilitate staying at the hotel, you think that's in conformity of the act? >> certainly we have the provision of the act that is replicated in our regulations. we will follow to the letter what is in the act, because we have it in our regulations. we will follow that. but nothing that we have authorized would come abridge those provisions of the act. >> i would just close by saying i might be more favorably impressed by the policies if it hadn't been such a complete shock and if congress had been involved and this u.s. government will work better if we coordinate on foreign policy and have one national foreign

policy that reflects the views of both elected bodies instead of a view of congress as simply an annoying body that is consulted now and then. i yield back. >> we go now to mr. critz smith of new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for calling this comprardly important hearings. i say to my distinguished witnesses, and thank you for coming, obama gives the castro regime in cuba an undeserved bailout, pointing out the soviet union and certainly now venezuela less able to prop them up now potentially u.s. funds will do that. secondly, president obama's betrayal of cuban democrats and the fact we should have listened to the ladies in white who will be testifying here tomorrow on a hearing i'm chairing. she along with two others, who are going back -- two of those individuals. talk about bravery. speaking to the senate, now

speaking to the house and they're going back. and yet the "post," which is hardly a conservative bastion, talks about a betrayal of cuban democrats. with no consequences in sight, cuba continues to crack down on free speech. i wish you -- an assessment since it's been effect, the negotiations and visibility of them, are there any second thoughts? i say that, 2012 ileana ros-lehtinen and i had a hearing and we heard from a doctor who spent 11 years in prison and the same type of scenarios were pointed out, even the 53 were free three were rearrested. we understand -- and maybe you can verify that, that some 100 to 200 additional prisoners arrested in the last few weeks, is that true or is that not? some comments have been made that icrc may get to go to

cuba. that's not the issue. they need to go to the prison. and the last time one was able to negotiate that when he walked plank on behalf of -- in the 1990's, and i was with him in geneva at the human rights commission when he secured there, representatives went into the prison, interviewed people and everybody, including family members, were severely retaliated against. the icrc has to have unfettered access to the prisons. meeting with fidel castro or anybody under him just doesn't cut it. i would like to go again. i have tried repeatedly. madam secretary, maybe you can help facilitate that. i want to go to the prison and lead a delegation to the prison. i've been to prisons in the soviet unions. in the prisons in east block countries. as well as in asia. cuba is the one that won't let me or others into the prisons. please help us with that. if you could answer those questions. let me ask you in the negotiations there are many

convicted felons, including one who gunned down a forester in my state in cold blood shot in the back of the head gang land style having escaped from prison convicted a fugitive felon and yet she got asylum there. was that part of the negotiations discussions, or was it not? finally, just let me ask with regards to -- with the time i have, please answer those and i'll come back. >> ok. let me say the whole point of this new policy is not that we are telescoping to the cuba government that they don't have to change or that we expect them to change right away. certainly we want that -- those practices to change. we simply are not naive about how quickly they may change. and so our efforts are to empower the cuban people to take their lives into their own hands. i had not heard that 100 to 200 people had been arrested.

there were certainly as many as 50 or more arrested around the time of tonya brugara a performance artist. to my knowledge, most if not all have been released, although there are severe constraints on them and none of them should have been arrested. just as there are still political prisoners in cuba who should be released. i want to be clear about that. and the fact that a downturn in detentions is not good enough. no matter that -- >> again madam secretary, they were arrested, let out and rearrested. tuniz -- one testified way by phone, don't let the embargo. you got to get real substantive -- >> and i saw oscar by set when i was on the island and i have the utmost respect for him and his views on this. i mention the case of jo ann.

i am a daughter of new jersey. i grew up with this case. and other fugitives. >> what's their response? >> we haven't gotten a positive response on jo ann. >> what have she said? >> they say they're not interested on discussing her return. there are other accused felons that left the united states. we are frustrated we have not made progress. there are other cases that we'll continue -- all of these cases we'll continue to pursue, we are going to have further dialogue because this is critical to us. that's part of what we hope we will do better on in having conversations at that are more expensive with our justice department colleagues. that is a critical part of having a channel. >> just one last thing. we all know the castro brothers have pushed this as a major diplomatic win for them.

i would have hoped and i think we would have hoped that human rights concessions would have been first before being recognized diplomatically. >> we go now to mr. greg meeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, good being with you. let me first going on record that i wholeheartedly agree with the president's change in direction. i think that it is clear that over 50 years nothing has changed with the policies that we had and time says if you don't do the same thing over and over again you get the same result so i wholeheartedly agree and think the time is finally there for a change in policy. i should also say that i do feel the passion, for example, my good friend, the ranking member of the western hemisphere in just listening to his opening statement and i would hope that the kinds of questions -- because clearly the passion he has is for the people of cuba. and listening to his opening

statement, you know, some of the questions he has i hope there is that kind of dialogue that goes forward because this should be about trying to make sure there is a better day and better change in our policy but a better day for the cuban people. and so in that regard, and i've been down all of -- been to cuba several times and all other places in latin america, in the caribbean, etc. and i have found that one of the major obstacles that we've had in the region is on cuban and our cuban policy. it has caused kind of friction etc. they've all said to me we needed to change. in fact, when i look at it -- and i think about multilateral relations as opposed to unilateral relations, we are the only country in the world, only country in the world, all our major allies, everybody, that had sanctions in cuba unlike, for example, this administration has been successful putting together huge sanctions when we work together, i think we're more successful. i think that's part of what's

taken place. even with iran. even with the russian sanctions is when we work closely with everyone. i'd like that to happen right here in our own hemisphere, we need to work more closely with our allies. our closest and biggest ally that i talked in latin america -- the one thing we should do in latin america that would make it better for all of us in the western hemisphere, they said change our cuban policy. that being said, can we now -- 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 and make human rights an issue, high on their agenda, so we can make a difference in the lives of the people who are living on the island? >> congressman, i think that's a critical point. the next part of the question, we support your policy on cuba. this is a very important day in latin america and for your

relations with us, how can we help is, well, you can start raising the issue of human rights and democracy in cuba much higher on your agenda and we believe this is going to be a very important turning point in countries' engagement, especially countries which have a history of working on these 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 has been evidence in working on the summit where we were able to work strongly now with countries to highlight the democratic governance and participation, themes in the summit and accelerate plans in the civil dialogue. it's been very evident even when i was in cuba two weeks ago and we invited ambassadors, not from this hemisphere. i spoke with them separately at one point, but we invited ambassadors from europe and asia, for example, to a

reception with the dissidents and human rights activists. they never come to those receptions in the past. almost universally. there are a few countries that have routinely come. they all came. and they were able to interact with dissidents for the first time. the dissidents had access to a wider range of diplomats than they ever had before. that's what we're hoping for. >> let me ask -- i have two questions real quick. one, given that -- and i know there's been talk. has there been any real reactions directly from the cuban civil society after the announcement? as well as when i was down there, one of the problems i had was getting on the internet. and the internet now would be open and what, if any impact would having an open internet have on the civil society? >> yeah. i think that would be huge. on cuban civil society i think

the thing that struck me in both a small meeting with cuban dissidents and then a much larger one including many members, 12 members of the 57 who were released 4 1/2 years ago are not able to travel. they're not permitted by the cuban government to travel. so i was able to see many of them and that has to change. they need to be able to travel. but what i was struck by -- i met with one of the younger members of this group. i was struck by the diversity views. some support these measures and the change in policy and some are obviously very strongly opposed. and i think that has to be respected and we want to hear from and continue to support all of them. the second thing is on the internet, i think that's really crucial and i don't know whether the cuban government will allow that opening. they've said they will. they said they're interested in telecommunications. it's obviously critical to economic progress. but 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. >> we go now to mr. dana rohrabacher of california. >> well, thank you very much, secretary jacobson. this is a difficult task for you to be here. i am only -- i think one of the main concerns we have here instead of changing the castro regime into a more democratic regime, the president is acting as if he has the right to rule by dictate and over his presidency is changing our country to be more like castro than having castro change to be more like a free and open society. these ruling by dictate and

having secret negotiations is not what america's all about. that's not how we make policy here. many of us are very disappointed. this isn't the first case of this, however. dealing with a regime that is oderous -- is that the word i want? onerous and oderous, i think it's both. there you go. but we have a regime that stinks one way or the other and it's oppressive one way or the other that we're dealing with, but yet we have had secret negotiations and deals that are announced to us, and you were here to explain it. so let me ask this -- when you said there are no concessions, we go into an agreement with a

regime and we've had 50 years of american policy has changed and there have been no concessions by the could youan government? >> i don't -- by the cuban government? >> i don't think there were concessions by the u.s. government going into -- >> we changed 50 years of american policy, isn't that a concession enough? all right. thank you. let me ask you this -- with the changes we can expect, was there -- is there any agreement that part of this 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? say we're going to have more economic activity, was there any type of concession -- well i don't think there was a

concession. an agreement they would promote independent unions in cuba? >> there were no agreements. >> ok. we're going to open up economic trade. trr no unions. we also heard that maybe the money that's going into the pockets supposedly into the pockets of the working people, a lot of it will be transferred directly to the government. or that money might go directly to the government and then be hand out to the working people, is that right? we agreed to that? >> we believe on balance the cuban people will benefit more than the government will. >> that's not the question whether you think it. and whether we think it. does the -- do you think the cuban people want -- the people will be working for these companies that we now are permitted to go into cuba that the cuban people want their government to take their pay and give them back a bidans? >> i'm sure not. >> whose side of the people are

we on? are they going to be opposition parties -- new opposition parties? >> we'll continue to support those who want to have their voices heard peacefully. >> there's been no concessions on their part, so we've changed five decades of u.s. policy and they still won't have any independent unions, opposition parties. i can't imagine that they're going to have opposition newspapers. no more -- and the rallies. listen, this is a regime the castro brothers came in and once they were in power, they murdered the patriots who overthrew the batista regime. they personally did. they took a pistol and took these patriots out and shot them in the head by the hundreds. and after that they decided to have a relationship with the soviet union, which was then our main enemy. and encouraged the soviet union

to put missiles that had nuclear weapons on them and encouraged them to use them on the united states. this is the regime we're dealing with. not to mention the criminals that they've given safe haven to. now how we can change five decades of policy by dictate from our president here and then we hear there's no concessions on their side is disillusioning on our part and upsetting. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. rohrabacher. now we go to mr. sires of new jersey. >> thank you. mr. smith and mr. berman, can you tell me what percentage of the cuban businesses are owned privately? >> i can't tell you a precise percentage but certainly there are over 200 categories of private sector economic activity that are authorized by the cuban government. so we recognize. >> authorized by the cuban government. >> they're legal and there are

private businesses. >> mr. smith, do you? >> don't have any. >> i can tell you. about 15%. 85% of the businesses in cuban are owned by the military. the hotels are owned by the military. the bed and breakfasts are run by the families of the military. the umbrella agency that approves all businesses are the son-in-law of one of the cast rose. so when you -- castros. so when you say the cuban people, which i'm interested in, are going to benefit by doing business with the cuban people you're not reaching very many people. you know, the private sector that runs the hotdog stand, maybe. but we're talking about the big businesses which employ people is run by the generals. and if you want to put a business in cuba, you want to build mcdonald's and you need 100 employees, you have to go

to the government and they give you the rate and they give you the employees. and those employees are people who are part of the government system. so the people that are fighting for liberty and fighting for democracy on the island are basically left out. if your intention is really to help the cuban people, the ordinary cuban people, you're not helping them. this is a society that has held themselves with this kind of business that they run. >> so just to be clear, the changes we made in these regulations is to give the items to the 15% that that's the way the regulations are structured, so those items that cannot be exported without individual licenses have to go to the true private sector in cuba. >> in terms of millions of dollars, mr. smith what do you

think will benefit the cuban government? how many millions? >> we don't have a figure, any millions that benefit the cuban government we think the changes have been [no audio] most of the transactions between the united states and cuba remain prohibited under these changes. we just carved out a few areas, as mr. borman talks about, that are focused on the private entrepreneurs. >> i mean, if we go to sell wheat cuba or buy sugar from cuba -- cuba used to be the leading supplier of sugar. this whole idea that you have to grow this -- corporate has

ruined the entire economy. there is no real free business in cuba. even the people that you deal with that you say got 200 licenses, the cuban government can remove those licenses at a drop. >> it's true, mr. sires, if i could. i met with seven or eight of these entrepreneurs, people really trying to run their own businesses restaurateurs barber. a woman making soap. a woman doing decoration on clothes. and you can see people beginning to separate their own economic future from the government and having trouble because they can't get the supplies. the state doesn't want to provide them the supplies, that's who we're trying to help. >> but yet the leaders in cuba have all of the supplies. that's what i'm trying to break. this is what runs the island. the generals the people you see driving in the cars you

see them living in the houses that were repossessed from people who worked hard in their businesses before the castro takeover. i just don't see where we have any more leverage to get some of these changes to help the cuban people. i was just talking to my colleague. my aunt came from cuba a couple years ago. i don't have a birth certificate. i asked her, when you go to cuba, can you please go get me a birth certificate. i don't know what my mother did to it. do you know what they told you, we can't give him a birth certificate because he's classified as a terrorist. i left at the age of 11 so i'm a terrorist. i don't want to share the story what happened to my cousin who's her son who was educated. went to russia to become an engineer.

you know, it's too tragic to even share that story with you. my feelings are that these people are just dictators. they're brutal dictators. people forget that raul castro set up the firing squads in cuba that killed thousands of people. i see people wearing a shirt -- i'm sorry. thank you. >> thank you, mr. sires. mr. chabot of ohio. >> thank you, madam chairman, and thank you for calling this very important hearing to discuss the administration's new cuba policy. i believe that president obama's announcement to unilaterally change u.s. policy toward cuba sets a dangerous precedent. in fact, it furthers an ongoing pattern of his utter disregard for congress, but that's the way this administration operates. it gives a backhand to the elected representatives of the american people, treats

congress like the per verbial mushrooms, keep them -- perverbial mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them manure. ms. jacobson, you said there were no concessions and this wasn't necessarily something the cuban government wanted. those statements on their faces, it's just not credible. you also said the obama administration was under no illusion about the nature of the cuban government. well, i would submit that the administration is just about as naive about the nature of the cuban government apparently as it was about isis when the president famously described them as the j.v. 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 and the way it was brought about with such utter

disregard -- and you're hearing it on both sides of the aisle here. utter disregard for the elected representatives of the american people is disgraceful and it's just as flawed. and i would like to yield the balance of my time now to the gentlelady from florida who is, as we all know, born in cuba and feels just as passionate just about anybody in this place, ileana ros-lehtinen. >> thank you so much, mr. chabot. and following up on your thought about the victims of brutality, wherever those victims are, i wanted to give ms. jacobson the opportunity assistant secretary jacobson, to answer the alejandro family. how can she explain to her daughters why their grandfather, who was killed by the castro regime, his life meant nothing and the personal who was in jail as a co-conspirator of the murder of her father was pardoned, set free and returned to cuba and

received a hero's welcome, what does she say to her girls? >> let me start out by that i can never bring back her grandfather. and i can never do more than express my sadness and my condolences to her at the start. >> when she was told -- >> this should not have happened. >> by you and others that a trade would not take place, a trade by any other name, this was a swap, was it not? >> but madam chair, i just want to say, an exchange 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 didn't the state department time and time and time again tell her that girardeau hernandez would not be set -- jerardo hernandez would not be

set -- gerardo hernandez would not be set free by this government? did they say that a swap would not take place? >> that a swap for alan gross not take place. we -- >> you call it for something else and say -- >> we all believe that's what took place. >> were they under the impression, because you gave it to them, that that exchange would not take place, that gerardo hernandez would not serve the complete sentence, did you give that impression? >> i regret if the family felled additional pain because of an impression that -- >> an impression. so that's all that they had? they had a false impression that you were all this time that 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 what happened was he set free. he was pardoned by president obama. he was returned to cuba. weighs given a hero's welcome. but that was just the impression that they got from -- it was a false impression because you were never going to do that. while you met with them -- don't you feel bad that you were lying to them? >> no one who met with the family ever lied to the family about our understanding. gerardo hernandez was -- >> i'm going to enjoy listening to the families when they hear that testimony coming from you. just pathetic. thank you. and now ms. bass of california. thank you, mr. chabot. >> thank you very much madam chair. let me just say before i begin that this is -- i find it particularly difficult to talk about cuba because i want to

acknowledge the experiences and the family situations of my colleagues, mr. sires and also ms. ros-lehtinen. but, you know, to talk about it and understand and acknowledge what your families went through, i understand. i do, though, support what has happened in changing our relation with the island and one of the things that i've always felt is that as an american i want to be able to travel anywhere in the world. and i did recently go to cuba specifically looking at the drugs that the cubans invented for diabetes. i want to talk about that in a minute. i have a couple of questions. i know that this april there's the summit of the americas and i wanted to know what the reaction has been from the international community about cuba's participation and other

world leaders regarding this policy change. >> congressman -- 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 whole dynamic in the united states on the other objectives we have high priorities for us. president santos of colombia called it is historic. another says he thinks it changes the entire debate president of brazil. they feel strongly that issue 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 conversations and impeding our ability to have conversations on human rights and democracy, not just in cuba , because they would not really

engage on that issue. but also our ability to engage with them on human rights and democracy issues broadly speaking throughout the hemisphere and we know this is a concern in other countries in the hemisphere. >> ok. you know about the trip that i mentioned i recently took. it was the congressional diabetes caucus. when specifically because in cuba they have developed a drug that's culled a herber prop p. it reduces the need for amputations in diabetics. as i understand and i think my question is directed to mr. smith as i understand this drug has been approved for clinical trial but because of our policy it's not approved to be marketed in the u.s. which means that a company is not going to invest in a clinical trial if they can't market it. so i'm wondering if the changes that have been made in the law would allow for this and

basically what the cubans are reporting but we obviously have to test it and see if it's correct, they've been able to reduce the need for amputations by 70% and we have tens of thousands of people in the united states who are diabetics who wind up losing their limbs, their feet because of diabetes. are you aware of what i'm talking about? >> madam i am. nothing in the recent changes changes our policy with respect to those types of drugs, but they're not prohibited from coming into the united states flat out. those companies can apply to ofac for a specific license. we have a long history of evaluating those license applications. we receive them. we refer them to other agencies in the united states government, including the state department, often the food and drug administration, and we evaluate whether the import of any additional u.s. activity with respect to those drugs makes sense. and then we can grant a specific license to offer it. >> the other pressure i feel coming from california is from

the agriculture industries. and i'm wondering if the policy changes would lead to our ability to export. there's a number of companies in california that are interested in exporting agricultural goods as well as livestock. >> so what we've heard over time is even though there are certain categories of transactions and goods that have been authorized, including agricultural products, we've heard from exporters and many members of congress that are previous financing -- our previous financing rules didn't help this situation and didn't help them to be competitive with their counterparts in other countries. so what we did was we made a change to provisions in a statute called -- that deals with the term cash in advance, and basically we made it more advantageousous for u.s. exporters to export their products. this is what they've 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, ms. bass. we'll go to judge poe of texas. >> let me start with the presumption that cuba is a violator of human rights. i think we all know that. especially the folks in cuba. the policy of the president, i think -- i don't want to go into the issue of whether with or without congress approval the president made some decisions. i want to cut to the one issue that i have a question about. what is the purpose of the current u.s. policy toward buske that we -- cuba that we don't trade with them, generally, this policy we've been talking about that's been implemented for 50-something years, what is the purpose? what is the goal of that policy?

is that clear? >> you mean the previous policy? >> previous policy until it was changed by this president, tweaked a little bit. >> the goal of the previous policy was that via isolation of cuba and keeping our distance from that government, we would hope to bring about change in the regime and simultaneously we would hope to empower the cuban people to be able to make that change. >> change of -- change the regime? change their communism? change what? >> certainly change their behavior towards their own citizens. >> ok. so that's our goal so cuba internally changes their treatment of cuban citizens? >> certainly in terms of -- >> i'm not trying to catch you on semantics. i want to see what our goal is. our goal is to do this so the cuban people are treated like

they should be? >> in terms of international human rights standards and that sort of thing yes. >> and would you say that has not worked? >> i would. >> 50 years doing something and if it doesn't change, that policy or that goal has not been achieved because the cubans are treated i think just as bad as they ever have been? >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> let me ask you this. is the policy -- is our goal ever to do what relationship with cuba, whatever that may be in the future, is that for the americas' benefit or for cuba's benefit? if we look at changes toward cuba, is it because we want to help american businesses san francisco, or americans to be able to travel, is that the goal we're moving to or are we looking to a goal what's still best for the cubans? >> our goal is to do what's in our national interest and to

help the cuban people to be able to do what they wish to be able to make their own decisions. >> so it's both? >> yeah. >> it would be both? >> i would say the first priority is to do what's in our national interest which includes our core values of democracy and universal human rights. >> ok. would that have anything -- would our policy have anything to do with helping trade from the united states? >> certainly. >> let me give you an example. i'm from texas. i represent a lot of -- not as many as used to but a lot of rice farmers. and i got elected to congress, i thought rice came in a box. i learned a lot about rice farming. there's long grain there's short grain. there's seasons and all that stuff. and for historically texas rice farmers traded internationally with iran, iraq and cuba.

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

i don't know about the cubans. they get their rice from vietnam. so -- i'm out of time. i have some other questions that i'd like to submit for the record. >> without objection. >> to be answered. thank you very much. >> thank you judge poe. we'll go to mr. cicilline of rhode island. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the witnesses. i, too want to begin by acknowledging the experiences and passionate leadership on cuba-american relations by chairwoman ros-lehtinen and mr. sires and thank you for being so open with your experiences with this committee. i think it adds to our understanding of these really complicated issues. i think many -- i think all members of this committee are equally and deeply committed to help the cuban people achieve freedom and democracy and i think the difference of opinion is what is the best strategy for bringing that about. and i really thank the witnesses for being here today. i expect you'll continue to

keep congress informed throughout these discussions with the cuban government. and i am hopeful -- i think most americans are hopeful that president's efforts to engage in real and substantive negotiations with the cuban government will ultimately advance the national security interests of the united states and benefit the cuban people. but i think like most americans i remain very deeply concerned about the long record of human rights abuses and the denial of basic freedoms that have been caused at the hands of the cuban dictatorship. while our current policy has failed to bring about lasting change in cuba, as we update our policy i think we have to be sure we're doing it in a measured, comprehensive and thoughtful way that's aligned with the current reality. and my hope is that the president's efforts here are met with honest engagement by the cuban government to a more open, free and tolerant society for the cuban people. my questions really are -- i have three questions and invite either to respond.

the first is -- there's been a lot of talk about what our neighbors, our allies in the region have for a long time identified as a problem, the cuba-u.s. policy. so what is the kind of best way that he can engage these partners in the region who now can point to a change in policy to really use them in a way to help bring about the kind of liberties and democracy in cuba that we all want? what's the strategy for effectively engaging others in the region to be partners in this work now that policy has begun to change? second is -- how can we as a congress best advance this issue of human rights which continues to be a very, very serious issue in a variety of different ways how do we play a role enforcing real progress and helping progress on the human rights issue? and finally, to build on mr. sires' question, how do we

ensure that this economic engagement that is intended here, which is, of course intended to help support the cuban people, does not instead for theify the government at a particularly critical time? how do we protect against an unintended consequence where we think we're 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? so i invite you to respond to those questions, please. >> thank you. a couple of things. on engaging our allies, there's a couple of thoughts i have about that. one is that all of the countries in the region, as well as our european allies and others have embassies on the island. many of them were hesitant, if not outright refused to engage with many of the democracy activists for years.

i am very optimistic, if not having seen concrete result already that they've lost that fear with our change of policy. i think that's hugely important. their rhetoric outside the country is important in dialogue, but engaging with these activists and supporting them on the island i think is just as important. these people are often accused of being our tools. i think that others need to embrace them openly and talk to them, work with them, engage with them, hear from them. we are doing that. 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 and that includes in the art, in the democracy area as well as entrepreneurs and hear from the ones i heard from, how they're trying to keep those funds from going to the cuban

government but how they believe they're making their own way independently even if some of those funds are going to the cuban government. because i think the psychology of those entrepreneurs is of breaking away from the state that is worth that price. the cubans -- cuban government went through the period of decline of the soviet union where it dropped g.d.p. by 30% and they survived. i think this is important that we support those efforts. >> thank you so much, mr. cicilline. >> i yield back. >> and 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 cuban negotiations and the content of the president's announcement? >> what i can tell you, representative salmon, is i was aware from throughout that the

white house was undertaking efforts to secure the release of alan gross because 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 date did 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 discussions. >> ok. 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 there was an announcement being made? >> 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. >> ok. can you tell me what resources, what u.s. resources were used to ensure that gerardo hernandez, convicted of killing four u.s. citizens 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 that we have always -- the state department, from my perspective, have always facilitated the visits of his wife to the prison in california when he was incarcerated. >> right. >> so those were the resources that we expended in terms of her visit. >> but in -- transferring. i understand that he was able to artificially inseminate his wife and that was done by -- that was facilitated by the u.s. government. >> beyond our efforts to facilitate her visit, the rest

was done by the department of justice, and i would have to defer to the department of justice. >> i'd like to know that. i think it's incredulous that a u.s. priority to make sure that hernandez fathered a child while he was incarceration. so i'll wait for the answer on that. last question. these secret negotiations went on for over a year and reportedly consisted of seven meetings. so when you went to havana last month for talks, cuba made it very, very clear they would not allow our diplomats to speak to dissidents and normalization was not able without the base in guantanamo bay and the other nonstarters. what did we really accomplish other than, you know, maybe getting a t-shirt that i had meetings for over a year and i got was this lousy t-shirt? >> well, i guess i would start

out we got an intelligence asset out of cuba who was languishing there and we got alan gross home and you know that. the beginning of the process of normalization starts with diplomatic relations which is only the first start. normal stpwhration is going to take years -- normalization is going to take years and it starts with property claims which has to be start of this negotiation. judgments which has to be part of this. so that's a much longer process and we haven't aceded to any of the things. >> no, i don't think that we will acquiesce to any of those things. >> it's the start of the process. >> i understand. but what was -- what was your response when they said we're not going to do anything on normalization until you do these things? >> but 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 i'm 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. >> ok. thanks. i yield back my time. >> thank you very much sir. mr. connolly of virginia is recognized. >> i thank the chair. ms. jacobson, i believe in politics and in 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 to cuba at precisely a moment where we actually have leverage . for 50 years one could argue the castro brothers have loved u.s. policy because it's helped coop them in power. fair enough. but that was then. this is now. things have changed. they're hurting. the economy's hurting.

their oil supplier is hurting. and as they 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 diplomatic exchange. and i put that aside. but the liberalization in trade and 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 need to understand what we got in return. where's the reciprocity? why wouldn't the united states use its good offices and its leverage with respect to human rights, with respect to 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, we're not doing 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. and 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. >> well -- >> so 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. >> and the president said he'd

like to see the debate over that, 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 end up still 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

telecommunication 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 boogieman of the u.s. being their problem is no longer -- it's no longer credible. >> again my time is limited. i appreciate that. and i wouldn't deny that there are lots of people who see lots of hope and what has now but started -- in what has now been started. but my specific question is, what is the reciprocity? what did we get out of this other than the aspirations that things will get better because of this change because they weren't getting any 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. >> the only other -- 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 necessary for opening an embassy. that's part of this. i also think that you know, 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 know my time is up, but i want to underline, i always think it's a mistake in foreign policy to give it away for nothing. >> thank you mr. connolly. and now we turn to mr. duncan, the chairman of our subcommittee on western hemisphere. >> thank you, madam chairman. you know, trade and lifting of sanctions is seen as a cure-all with regard to the oppressive

regimes as cuba, is this an indication we may see similar and normalized relations with north korea, venezuela or other oppressive regimes? >> the sanctions that were imposed on venezuela this past week were in fact additional visa sanctions. >> in december, the same week as the president started normalizing sanctions in cuba, he -- >> if you are talking about the signing of the legislation passed by cuba that includes both visa sanctions and asset freezes, that's not a trade sanction bill. >> are we going to see any more normalizations? we didn't see cuba coming. what will we see with venezuela, north korea or any of the others? >> i can't speak outside my region but i don't expect to you 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 and you weren't brought in -- i read into it -- until late in the discussions. 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 two-way street, the same travel afforded to the cuban people to travel to the united states? and in this policy shift all american travelers really stay unless it's family travel, they stay at hotels owned by the cuban military only stayed on enterprises, can't accept credit card. the article requires all foreign commerce to be controlled by the state. so how does increasing commerce with castro any noplies -- >> we will leave this hearing at this point. it continues live online on our website c-span. in a moment we'll go live to the house floor. members will be considering

debate rules for bills dealing with federal mandate reporting which they plan to finish today and small business regulations to be debated tomorrow. and now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest