interested in discussing her return. on other cases, we have made some more progress. there have been felons, accused felons expelled to the united states. this is a very high priority for us. we are frustrated we have not made progress. there are other cases that we will continue, all of these cases, we will continue to pursue. we are going to have further dialogue on fugitives in law enforcement because this is critical to us. that is part of what we hope we will do better on in having conversations that are more expansive with our justice department colleagues. this is a critical part of having a channel. >> we all know the castro brothers have pushed this as a major diplomatic win. i would have hoped that human rights concessions were -- would come first before being recognized diplomatically. >> we go now to mr. greg meeks of new york.

>> it is good being with you. let me first go on record saying i wholeheartedly agree with the president's change in direction. i think it is clear that over 50 years nothing has changed with the policy we had. time says if you don't do the same thing over and over again and you get the same result. i wholeheartedly agree. i should also say that i do feel the passion of, for example, my good friend the ranking member of the western hemisphere, listening to his opening statement. and i would hope the kinds of questions just because the passion he has is for the people of cuba. in his opening statement, some of the quest as he has, hope it is that kind of dialogue that goes forward -- with some of the questions he has a trying to make sure there is a better day for the cuban people. and so in that regard, i've been

down all of -- been to cuba several times in other places in latin america and the caribbean. and i have found that one of the major obstacles we have had in the region is on cuban policy. it has caused friction. they have all said to me that we need to change. when i look at it, and i think about multilateral relationships as opposed to unilateral, we were the only country in the world, all our major allies, everybody, that has sages against cuba. unlike this administration has been successful putting together sanctions. when we were together, we are more successful. even iran with the p-5 plus one. even in russia. when we work closely with everyone. i want to that to happen with our own hemisphere. our closest and biggest allies -- the one thing that we should

do in latin america is make it better for all of us to change our cuban policy. now, that being said can we now, with the changing dynamics or with the new policy, after that what realities with our allies? will they work with us and change and make human rights an issue, so we can make a difference in the lives of people that are living on the island? >> congressman, i think that is a critical point. and 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? you can start raising the issue of human rights and democracy in cuba much higher on your agenda. we believe this is going to be a very important turning point in countries engagements.

especially countries you have a history of working on these issues in the region. that have been afraid to work with us to closely because of not wanting to appear aligned with our previous policy. that has been evident in working on the summit where we were able to work strongly now with countries to highlihght the democratic government and citizen precipitation -- citizen dissipation themes and accelerate planning on the civil society dialogue. it has been 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 the human rights activists. they never come to those receptions in the past. almost universally -- there are few countries that have routinely come. they call 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 have had before. that is what we are hoping for. >> let me ask you. i'm going to ask two questions will quit. one, given that -- and i know there has been talks -- 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. what if any impact would having an open internet have on the civil society? >> yeah. i mean, i think that would be huge. on cuban civil society, i think the thing that struck me in both the small meeting with cuban dissidents and then a much larger one including many members -- 12 members of the 57 who were released for a half years ago, are not able to

travel. they are not permitted by the 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 also met with one of the younger members of this group. i was struck by the diversity of views. some support the change in policy and some are obviously very strongly opposed. 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 is really crucial. and i do not know whether the cuban government will allow that opening. they have said they well. they said they are interested in telecommunications. it is obviously critical to economic progress. but i think that is why we have to address -- 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 reasons they cannot do it. >> we go now to california. >> 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 r egime into a more democratic regime, the president is acting as if he has the right to rule by dictate and over his -- his changing our country to be more like castro than having castro change to be more like a free and open society. ruling by dictate, having secret negotiations, is not what america is all about. that is not the way we make policy here. and many of us are very disappointed. this is not the first case of this however.

but dealing with a regime that is as odorous. is odorous the word i want? onerous and odorous. i think it's both. but we have her regime that stinks one way or the other and is oppressive one or your the other. that we are doing with. but yet, we have had secret negotiations and deals that are announced to to us, and you are here to explain it. so let me ask this. when you said there are no concessions, you mean we go into an agreement with a regime and we have had 50 years of american policy has changed, and there are no concessions from the cuban government? >> i don't think there were

concessions fro mthe um the u.s. government -- >> we changed 50 years of american policy. isn't that concession enough? thank you. with the changes we can expect, 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 would be independent unions. say, more economic activity? was that any type of concession -- no concession. is there agreement that they will permit independent unions in cuba? >> there were no agreements. >> ok. so we are going to open up economic trade, no unions. we have also heard that maybe the money that is going into the

pockets of the working people is going to be transferred directly to the government or that mon might go directly to the government and then beey headed out to the working people. is that right? we agreed to that? >> we believe on balance the cuban people will benefit more from this than the government will. >> that is not the question. whether you think. whether we think it. do you think the cuban people will be working for these companies, now will be permitted to going to cuba, that the cuban people want their government to take their pay and give them back a pittance? whose side are we on? we are taking the money from the central government. are they going to be opposition parties, opposition partiesn -- ne opposition partiesw? >> we will continue to support

those who want their voices heard peacefully. >> but there have been no concessions on their part. we have changed five decades of u.s. policy, and they still will have no independent unions opposition parties. i can't imagine they are going to have opposition newspapers. listen, this is a regime, the castro brothers came in and once in power they murdered the patriots who overthrew the regime. they personally did. the fellow we were negotiating with took a pistol and went 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 are dealing with. not to mention the criminals they have given safe haven to.

now, how we can change five decades of policy by dictate from our president here, and then we hear there is no concessions on their side. is disillusioning on our part. and upsetting. thank you. >> thank you. >> 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. >> authorized by the cuban government? >> they are legal. there are private businesses. >> i can tell you about 15%> 85% of the businesses in cuba are owned by the military. the hotels are owned by the military. the bed and breakfasts are run

by families of the military. the umbrella agency -- one of the castros. so 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 very many people. the private sector that runs a hot dog stand maybe. but we're talking about the big businesses which employ people. is run by the generals. 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. in 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. these are the things you have to negotiate away from the cuban government. if your intention really is to help the cuban people, the ordinary cuban people, you are not helping them. this is a society that has upheld themselves with this kind of business they are running. >> so, just be clear -- the changes we have made in regulations are designed exactly to get items to 15%. that is the way the regulations are structured. those items cannot be exported without individual licenses -- they have to go to the true private sector. >> in terms of millions of dollars, this all changes. what you think is going to benefit the cuban government how many millions? >> we do not have a figure, any millions that would benefit the government. i think the changes have been focused on private entrepreneurs, small scale

business, private business. i repeat that most of the transactions between the united states and cuba remain prohibited under these changes. we have just carved out a few areas that are focused on private entrepreneurs. >> i mean, if we go into sell wehatheat to cuba or buy sugar. there is no crop of sugar in cuba. cuba used to be the world supplier of sugar. cuba does business with the rest of the world. thsiis whole idea that you have to grow this in a corporate -- in a corporate has ruined the entire economy. there is no real free business in cuba. even the people that you deal with that you say they got 200 licenses, the cuban government can remove those licenses. >> is it true -- if i could -- i

met with seven or eight of these onto the norse, -- entrepe reneurs. restauranteur, a barber, a woman making soap. you can see people beginning to separate their own economic future from the government's. and having trouble because they cannot get the supplies. the state does not want to provide them the supplies. that is who we are trying to help. >> you -- the elite in cuba have all the supplies. this is what i am trying to break. this is what runs the island. the generals. you see them driving in the cars, living in the houses that were repossessed from people who worked hard in the business before the -- before the castro takeover. i just do not see where we have

any more leverage to get some of these changes to help the cuban people. i would just -- was a just talking to my colleagues. my aunt came from cuba. i do not have a birth certificate. i asked her to get me one. you know when she went to the minutes of a building what they said to? we cannot give you up with a difficult because we have you classified as a terrorist. i left at the age of 11. so i'm a terrorist. i do not want to share the story of what happened to my cousin whose son was educated because -- in russia to become an engineer. you know it's too tragic to share that story with you, because my feelings are that these people are just dictators. they are brutal dictators. people forget that raul

castro set up the firing squads in cuba that killed thousands of people. i see people wearing the shape of our -- che guevarra shirt. >> thank you. mr. schappert of ohio. >> thank you for calling this very important hearing to discuss the administration's's new new cuba policy. i believe the president's announcement to unilaterally change policy towards cuba sets a dangerous precedent. it furthers an ongoing pattern of his utter disregard for congress. but that is the way this administration operates. it gives a backhand to the elected representatives of the american people, treats congress like the proverbial mushrooms. keep them in the dark and feed them manure. ms. jacobson, you said there were no concessions and this wasn't necessarily something that the cuban government

wanted. those statements on her face they are not credible. you also said the obama administration was under no illusion about the nation -- about the nature of the cuban government. i would submit 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 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 your you are hearing it on both sides of the aisle. utter disregard for the elected representatives of the american people is disgraceful. and it is justice-flawed. i would like to yield the

balance of my time to the gentlelady from florida, who was born in cuba. and feels just as passionately about this is anybody in this place. >> following up on your thought about the victims of fertility wherever those -- victims of brutality, i wanted to give ms. jacobson the opportunity to answer the alejandre family questions. how can she explained to her daughters why their grandfather, who was killed by the castro regime his life meant nothing? and the person who was 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 saying 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 -- by you and others that a trade would not take place, a trade by any other name. this is a swap, was it not? >> but 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. >> had the state department not met with the family and did not the state department time and time and time again tell her that her hernandez would not be set free by this administration? yes or no? >> to the best of my knowledge this -- >> did secretary kerry state right here to us that such a swap would not take place? >> a swap for alan gross would

not take place we affirmed in did not do. >> you just call it something else and say -- >> we do not believe that is what took place. >>[talking over each other] >> were they under the impression, because you gave it to them, that that exchange would not take place? that hernandez would serve the complete sentence? did you give that impression at any time or anyone in the state department? >> certainly, i regret if the family felt additional pain because of an impression -- >> an impression? they had a false impression that you were all this time, that you are meeting with them, while you were meeting with them you were already cooking up this swap, that hernandez for all intents and purposes, what happened is he was set free? he was pardoned by president obama and returned to cuba. but that was just the impression they got, a false impression

because you are never going to do that. while you met with them -- don't you at least feel little bit bad that you were lying to them? >> in the first place, no one who met with the family ever lied to the family about what our understanding hernandez was in jail. >> i'm going to enjoy listening to the families when they hear that testimony coming from you. just pathetic. thank you. now ms. bass of california. >> thank you very much, madam chair. let me 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. but you know, to talk about it

and understand any knowledge 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 i've always felt is that as an american, i want to be able to travel anywhere in the world. and i cdid recently go to cuba specifically looking at a drug the cubans have invented for diabetes. and i want to talk about that in a minute. i have a couple of questions. i know that this april there is 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. >> 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 hemisphere for the united states on other objectives that we have, high priorities for us. president santos called it historic. it changes the entire did that. -- debate. they feel strongly that 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 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. we know this is a concern in other countries in the hemisphere. >> ok, about the trip i

mentioned i recently took. it was the congressional diabetes caucus. when specifically because in cuba they have developed a drug. it basically is a drug that reduces the need for invitations 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 trials, but because of our policy is no -- it's not approved to be marketed in the u.s., which means a company is not going to invest in the clinical trial if they cannot market it. i'm wondering if the changes that have been made it in the law would allow for this. what the cubans are reporting and we have to test it, they have been able to reduce the need for every tatian 70%. and we have tens of thousands of people in the united states or

diabetics who wind up losing their feet because of diabetes. are you aware of what i am talking about? >> i am. nothing in the recent changes changes our policy with respect to those types of drugs, but they are not prohibited from coming into the united states flat out. those companies can apply to -- for a license. with a long history of evaluating those applications. we refer them to other agencies in the government including the state department and the fda. we evaluate whether the import of any additional u.s. activity with respect to those drugs make sense. then we can grant what is called a specific license to authorize it. >> the other pressure i feel coming from california from the agricultural industry. and i am wondering if the policy changes would lead to our ability to export. there are a number of companies in california that are interested in exporting

agricultural goods as well as livestock. >> what we have heard over time is that, even though there are certain categories of transactions and goods that have been authorized, we have heard from exporters and many members of congress that our previous financing rules did not help the situation and did not help them to be competitive with their counterparts in other countries. so what we did is we made a change to provisions in a statute that deals with the term cash in advance. and basically we made it more advantageous for u.s. exporters to export their 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 will 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 do not 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 cu rrent u.s. policy toward cuba? that we basically have no contact with them, we do not trade with them generally. this policy that we have been talking about that has been implement it for 50-something years. what is the purpose, what is the goal of that policy? is that clear? >> you mean the previous policy? >> the 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. 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'm just trying 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, for example, 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 two 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 other 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. all i'm saying is 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.

normalizeation 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. >> 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? are there going to be other surprises? 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 state-owned 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 monopolies help the cuban people? >> it has gotten better. you have been able to have some dissidents here to speak in front of this house who have never been able to before. but it is by far not good enough. it is people who can't travel

and they should be able to. they recollected all be able to freely. let me say on that trade portion, i will go back to what i said. we understand there will be some benefits to the cuban government. we really do believe, again because of people that we have 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 will benefit from maybe some economic transaction. i'll give you that. we'll see. how about other freedoms for the cuban people? what was negotiated in this? freedom of speech? freedom of religion? economic freedom? freedom to protest. i think chris smith talked about it. she said the truth is the government of cuba represses our right to freedom of religion and

association so we go out and participate in religious activities on sundays and are retained. government is constantly repressing activist who is try to gather and discuss issues that are important to them. what did the u.s. barter in exchange for this new policy shift other than gross' release? it ultimately gives them more freedoms. i want this to be about the cuban people it ought to be about a cuban people and not castro regime. the castro regime is only the one i see this benefits from this. i don't see where private property rights are going to -- maybe, you mentioned that earlier. i think somebody asked that we. private property rights, cuban americans and cuban people in general, the only property that that was nationalized by the federal government. how are we going address that?

i think the property rights is so important and is sort of left out of this discussion and we talked about this in my office the other day. i think that is critical. talk about the freedoms for the cuban people in the remaining 20 seconds i have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with you all of those things are what we are speaking about. i think we all agree that is the goal. >> tell me how the policy get us to that 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 there were no concession here's. some of these things are things that we are 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 17 as the president and the

secretary have said were concessions to the government. >> well, my time is up and the concessions for the cuban people are important. i yield back. >> thank you so much. we yield to mr. loun that will of california. >> thank you. i would like to preface my remarks by saying i have been touched listening to the experiences of those who were most affected by the oppressive regime. i have been touched by the testimony of congressman sires who recollects talks about their families and some of the impacts. having said that, i am very supportive of our reengagement and the restoration of diplomatic relations. i say that not because i support many of the repreasive issues be as someone who represents one of

the largest if not the largest vietnamese communities in the united states. people who escaped also an intolerable situation. i believe certainly very, very against the existing regime in vietnam. have benefited by i think greater ability to communicate some of their concerns. and they have 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. 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 have been suffering a great deal and who have the relatives. so that is my first question. >> absolutely. absolutely sir.

we have begun to do that knowing that the views in that are diverse as well. seeing that activists within cuba among the four points they could agree on is that the cuban -- has to be taken into consideration. >> i think that is so important. i really think that is very important. i also would like to know what people have -- what we see as we move forward, there is more trade and more tourism. how we're going to deal with when many of those tourists go back to cuba and speak out against their government. have we talked about some of those issues? >> certainly with considered 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 wouldn't be able to go home or the if they went home they would not ever be able to travel again. the fact now that some of them

have been able to travel repeatedly i think is a good sign but everyone is still fearful. we raised that issue. >> does anyone else have any issues or want to respond to any -- some of the issues as the policy 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? where do you see things a we need to look at as this policy has changed now. >> two points i would make are one, the treasure are doing a lot of outreach to all segments of the american public. to understand what the new changes are. secondly, we will 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, the private sector, we're really looking to strengthen and grow that. that is something we're looking at very carefully. >> i would echo those comments.

i think the implementation is what we're going to be looking at over the next four months and years actually to see what the effects are and what we need to do. >> as a member also because of my own concerns and the communities i represent, i have been a very active member of the human rights commission. i have adopted prisoners of conscious in vietnam. actually put pressure on the vietnamese government to begin to release some of these prisoners. i would like to see some of the same as we go forward with a change policy in cuba. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. lowenthal. 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 example, i would like to just make a quick comparison between cuba and saudi arabia, looking at some of the similarities between countries. some of the differences and also the ways in which each is treated by the united states government. on trade american-cuban trade is very limited, as we all know. less than $500 million per year in exports by america to cuba. but america-saudi trade is very robust. roughly $80 per year, perhaps higher. on travel, travel to cuba, very limited by the united states government. saudi arabia, 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 know diplomatic interaction. i can go on and on, but i think it is fair to say that the united states treats cuba substantially different 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 have heard some comments as to how bad it is the question is saudi arabia worse? 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. a recent example facing 1,000 lashes and six-10 years in

prison assuming that the lashing does not kill him. on the issue of dictorial governments, one would be hard pressed to determine which family government, that of cube i's or the saudis is more is -- cuba's or saudi arabia is more dictorial. terrorism. 15 of the 19911 terrorists were saudis. bear in mind that terrorism funding originates in saudi arabia. in fairness, moach of it opposed by the regime. nulls, a lot of the money for terrorism comes from saudi. one can have a lively debate concerning whch is 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 ilingts behavior, but on -- -- its behavior, but on the policy argument and the change in that policy. 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 need to be pursued

aggressively all over the world and that they are best pursued and you could expect this from a diplomatic at the state department, via diplomatic relations and having embassies. 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. on one hand we can be open, hoping that our relations with this country will cause them to accept freedoms that we cher niche america or we can be very restrictive as we have been with cuba, north korea and other countries and hope that the punishments are sufficient. what do you think is best for cuba? >> i think we're most effective when we have allies with us and we are alone via a vis cuba.

i believe allies, not the cuban government will be affected. >> thank you for working so quickly to make sure this economy was able to work on this policy shift. let me first say in the immediate term i have serious concerns about the castro's concerns about human rights abuses and i hope that we expect and demand more of them. coincideing with the administration's announcement, one of the major newspapers published an article called plundering america. how networks have exploited u.s. policy toward cuba. they opened their doors to the queue cuban people so they could have a better life and the overwhelming majority of those who have come here have made incredible contributions to this country. the great examples we have here

on this panel. my league colleagues and friends. policies that were put in place to ensure those sought renew jersey u.s. would still be able to see their families or send remitances are taken advantage of by a small minority for criminal gain. it has turned our humanitarian policy into an underground criminal enterprise using their ability to and from cuba for fraudulent activities. sending cash back to the island. they have turned our open door policy into a revolving door enabling and i quote crooks from the island to rob american businesses and taxpayers by $2 billion over two decades. as the administration rebalances i hope we're not ignoring the years of criminal activity that the castros have

turned a blind eye to at best. we need to know to what extent the people connected to the regime have been or will continue to be involved in these illegal crime rings. i would like to know if your initial round of talks with the cubans included any zugs of -- discussion of fugitives from cuba? >> thank you. it did include the question of fugitives. it did not include extradition. we have an old extradition treaty. i have no idea whether we'll get back to actually using it but it questioned fugitive issues. >> can you elaborate a bit on the extradition you referred to,

the situation that we have now but in the talks. >> let me -- how did the talks focus? >> i just want to be clear. the morning of the talks that i had were on the diplomatic restoration. the afternoon 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? that is 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 to set those up as quickly as possible. part of that conversation 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 have actually begun that one. we'll ve a separate conversation on law enforcement and fugitives and basically as we can set these up in the time schedule the cubans are a little bit overwhelmed by our new wanting to have dialogues on lots of

different subjects. they have accepted the idea of having that and will get them set up as soon as we can our justice department colleagues. >> thank you mr. smith. understanding that much of this falls under law enforcement agency's purview has your agency looked at where the money is coming from interest these cuban criminal networks? where that money goes or the role of the cuban government of response oring or training these individuals or what is being done to impede their activities? >> that works on a variety of issues with respect to sanctions. with respect to particular issues with regard to money flow or anything that might impact the u.s. law or sanctions i couldn't talk about anything that we would actually be looking at. >> can you speak to 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 would refer to the department of justice. i think it would have the primary equities there and the primary statutes that would be vovet. what we would do is enforce the sanctions laws and very little to impact our regulations that we would enforce. >> thank you. gentleman's time has expired. mr.s do santos from florida. >> thank you. later in your answers you conceded that tin creased economic activity will have some benefit to the cuban government. that is a concession, is it not? >> it is a benefit they may receive. >> especially given their two main patrons, venezuela and russia, they are 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 mr. sires pointed out, money that goes into that country is going to be controlled by the government. and if you are going to argue differently, why is it that really we're the only country that has had these restrictions. you had open relations with switzerland, australia. how come with all of those ties the cuban people have not benefited? you said in your testimony and response to mr. poe that the cuban people are not better off after 50 years of our policy. if all the other countries in the world are so good, why haven't the cuban people benefited from those policies? >> i think part of problem in term of the actual 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. >> they said they are not going to change. he said they are not changing. he said this is a victory for the cuban revolution and we're not going to change. 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 is a change i think the benefits are going to be bottled up at the top. >> remitances also go directly to cuban people. we have raised the remitance amount. one of the reasons they have not rushed to us to implement the telecommunications proinvitations the internet provisionings, they know full well that they probably won't be able to control it and that the benefits may well reach the cuban people. they are probably not likely to do this. let me ask you this. when you took your trip, were you given access to any of the place where is political prisoners were being held? >> i was not. >> ok. is therity -- is there any

discussion, they were -- when castro took power including cuban citizens who were exiled? >> properties have to be part of normalizeation. >> what was their response? >> they agreed that that has to be part of conversation and responded that they had issues they wanted to raise with us about losses under the embargo. >> one of the issues is get moe. -- gitmo can you say that january 20 degrees, that it will still be under u.s. control? the naval base? >> i am certain that guantanamo bay will still be a u.s. base but i can't tell you a hypothetical about what may be part of these normalizeation talks but it is not only the

table for us right now. i don't envision that. i'm not a high enough ranking person to know and i'm not from the department of defense, etc., to know whether it could be in the future and -- but -- >> i'm just talking about over the next two years that this administration is in power. >> i can't vision that. >> cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. the federal statutes in order to be removed from that list are certain criteria. one of them is that the government has to provide insurances that they will not support international terrorism. has the cuban government provided those insurances stand so, are they credible? >> cuba has rejected international terrorism and we're in the process now as we review this of also looking at their statements and evaluating whether they have or whether they will give such a -- >> i'm concerned. if they say they are not going to change and they have been a state sponsor of terrorism to

me that is a declaration to the contrary. my final question is does the administration believe that the president has the authority to lift the embargo? >> clearly not or he wouldn't have welcomed or encouraged the debate in congress. >> we have been down this road before. he said he could continue the things a number of times and then turns around and does nefment i thinks it is important to get this on the record. the statute is very clear about what would have to happen in order to have a waiver on these restrictions. there is no evidence any of that criteria has been met. is that accurate? >> i'm sorry. a waiver of what kind of restrictions? >> that can be waved requires there are certain provision s that arelisted 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. mr. castro of texas. >> thank you, chairwoman.

like many of my colleagues, i have been muferede by the testimony and my colleague, a cuban american and many cuban americans, particularly the more senior generation lost their family members and property and lost their livelihoods in their country and more many years, i think much of our foreign policy towards cuba was in great donchese that fact. when you -- deference to that fact. when you hear the story, that is understandable. i think with the president's change in normalizeation and diplomatic relations towards cuba that the power of american culture and the power of technology and our democracy will ultimately win out. i think in many ways this was the start of a new revolution in cuba. as the castro brothers are in the winter of their reign, i see this as positioning the united states for when they are gone. let me ask you how does it

position our country once these folks are no longer in power? >> thank you congressman. i think, you know, this really is the question, one of the things a is critical is the next generation of activists, of leaders, we want to keep base 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 brugera wanted to have performance art in revolutionry square and asked cubans to speak openly, 300 artists wrote in support of her effort. many had never made a political statement before. so it is the idea of 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 cuba have no access, even to the internet. is that right? >> absolutely. >> also, i don't know, i got here a little bit late. like many of my colleagues here, i have two committee meetings at the same time. let me ask you what become turnovers wet foot, dry foot policy? >> at this time we have no intent to change that law. the law is obviously on the books. that would have to be changed by congress. we have no plans to request such a change. >> ok. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, 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 that i have heard today about how nothing has changed within the country. and i'm interested in a couple of things because much of it has been covered already. the president broke with policy by appointing a couple of white house aides to construct the secret negotiations. i'm interested and i think it is probably ms. jacobson because you seem to have at some point been brought in 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 one of the two people engaged in those discussions is a foreign

service officer online to the white 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 department. >> 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, ms. jacobson. many of the questions are -- 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 brute alliesation of families. how you're going to compensate these families for their personal loss during the castro takeover and since.

there has 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 normalizeation of relations that is making the relationship with cuba look like every other normal one, and that is 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 claims settlement commission has. >> i just wanted on the record so i understand because you separated between diplomacy and complete normalizeation, which would be lifting the embargo and things that president says he cannot do as an executive. only congress. when we talk about the diplomacy, opening an embassy and hopefully getting to travel across the island, which right

now as not been assured. that is diplomacy. these few things 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? >> i think in all of these kind s of cases and i'll ask my colleagues if they have any comment but it may be the department of justice that would be a better place to answer this. in all of these kinds of things it has to be agreed mutually between the two countries. >> i understand. but you led us to believe or led me to believe that when these

discussions were taking place these are issues that were being raised and discussed. there are things that are going to be required if the congress is ultimately going to approve full normalizeation? >> right. and that means the sats factory resolution, which means that we have to be satisfied but the cuban government will have to be satisfied too for an agreement. >> and that would include this harboring or murderers and thieves and criminals by the castro regime? >> the question of fugitives. if you mean the question of fugitives? >> i added it to it. you put all of these together today. my time is running out. you made it sound as though these are going to be necessary requirements to a final agreement if it is actually going to be fully normalize. i believe my time is expired. >> thank you so much. mr. clawson of florida. >> thank you for coming today. i would 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 49% of the jewish folks left after the revolution, some of them came to my district so this is a question i'm sure that is on a lot of their minds of those that remain that are family members. but there is 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. i'm wondering about the 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? >> i think it is really important, congressman the regulations, i could let my colleagues -- this really ebs panneds the ability to have religious groups to go because what we have done is make the religious missions part of it. the religious opportunities, general license. and so we're hoping that there are a lot more religious group s that areable -- are able to go and be counterparts in cuba and have that interaction. in term turnovers tolerance for religious freedom in cuba, i certainly hope 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 commutch and there was recently -- church, and there was recently the announcement of a new church to be built. a new catholic church to be

built in cuba. it is 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 and seek what is called a specific license to go to cuba and engage in religious activities. one of the changes we made was to authorize that in our regulations, which means that people may now go to cuba for religious activities for religious purposes without coming to this government agency to seek approval first. >> there is two pieces on our side. one is that for those trips that are 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 speffings authorization from us and another piece of our licensing allows materials to be exported for private sector use including building of churches for example. without a general license. >> 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 and 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 meaningful opening meaningful religious awakening on the island for so many who want it. >> thank you sir. >> i have no more to say. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. clawson. mr. weber of texas. >> thank you madam chair. i apologize. are you going to be ok while i question her? >> yes, sir. >> ok. thank you very much.

ms. jacobson, let me start off by saying i really appreciate your professionalism and demeanor and your attitude. you have done a good job and i appreciate that. are the state and treasury regulations now fully in compliance with 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 does want the day that is happening in congress. i appreciate the remarks from my colleague from texas about moving past the regime. i have rice farmers in texas in my district and other producers as well in five ports.

they are 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 interfreerns the administration? >> i think that is a great question and we know there is a lot of interest in that. i actually may defer to my colleagues on some of this. >> they will feel good about that. >> they will. it will give me a chance to have a little bit of water. >> yes, mr. smith? >> we made changes in the current set of regulations that changed the financing terms in terms of what ag had requested. it should be easier. >> without a lot of red tape. >> without coming for any retirements. >> > anything we were not able to address was a requirement that there be a license. that's currently a 12 day process. >> 23 d processay -- 12 day

process. >> if it is an application, so they get an answer yes or no. >> changing the cash in hand rule, one of the changes was ofac. anybody? >> when you say other than changes -- >> that would give us new opportunities for ag products. >> we allowed u.s. banks to establish accounts and cuban banks and what helps with that is with the ag trade, now an american exporter has to get payment from a cuban exporter and it has to go through a third country and then it comes to the united states. under this rule, they can pay to wrigley in the payment can be made faster and easier and make exporters more competitive -- they can pay directly. >> the travel general licenses now make it easier for people who want to investigate business opportunities in the ag sector without coming in.

>> in many cases before, exporters were have to come in to seek a specific license. now they do not have to for a variety of activities they would use associated with trade like marketing and any export, the delivery. all of that work can be done without coming into us to seek that license. >> that is an improvement. joaquin asked about the drive foot, what foot policy. tell me what that is. >> the cuban adjustment act allows that cuban citizens who arrive on u.s. soil are permitted to adjust their status and remain whereas those that may be interdicted by the coast guard if they have no protection concerns, may be returned. >> that is my questions. i thank you all for your testimony. >> thank you very much, mr. weber. we are going to a second round

of questions. there are three of us left in case you wanted to ask another question. the foreign claim commission has found that there are almost 6000 u.s. calaims that are judged to be qualified for compensation by the castro dictatorship. the value of those claims by adding a 6% simple interest makes the total possible value of american claims to over $8 billion today. i do not think the state department will enforce helm s-burton by investigating trafficking in confiscated u.s. properties, nor enable u.s. property owners to secure compensation for the unauthorized use of property subject to a claim. do you think you will areor wont't?

i worry the administration will use her influence to go further. will we help cuba get membership into the world bank, the imf the idb, other multilateral development banks? willie prevent any assistance or any other financing or benefit from -- will we prevent any other assistance or benefit until the claims have been resolved to the satisfaction of american owners? 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 of those three conditions have been met that would satisfy the embargo or justify the embargo being lifted? first, on the claims on what we are going to do if we are going to help cuba get into these organizations.

and then the three conditions under helms-burton. >> let me start off by saying i have been cognizant of the importance of resolution of the claims, issues and judgments from the very beginning. settlement commission acted to adjudicate and assigned values to those claims. we believe very strongly that has to be part of future conversations over the next years, however long normalization may take. those are extremely difficult to have with any foreign government, as those commission's dealings have proven. but we intend to pursue that certainly as part of our discussion. i raise that in the first conversation knowing that we were not going to talk about it that day deeply but it must be

part of full normalization. second on the international financial institution, there is 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 lots -- >> you say right now. do you first see this --cuba moving in that direction? >> i think we all hope for the day when there would be logical membership, because it would be a free and open cuba with an open economic system that would be a logical member. i do not know exactly out what point. -- at what point. we also hope at some point that they may ask for help to open their system. they are not for now. >> just as we said we were not going to swap spies and we did even though 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 credit to continue to pressure people? >> we are not advocating for their membership, but we also want to make sure that at some point it may be useful to have organizations like the imf not give them help but help them open their economy, which is what they -- >> these institutions are keeping them from opening the economy? >> they don't necessarily -- >> let me go to 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? >> i'm sorry. i do not have those in front of me conditions of the legislation? >> i hope when you are negotiating, you keep in mind u.s. law.

the act of 1996. the president is calling for the lifting of the embargo. please go and check that out. that is u.s. law, and we are hoping you will abide by that. >> absolutely. >> mr. clawson 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. in government, i think even more important that we keep all stakeholders and take them into account and that they are consulted. this felt like a sad decision because it seemed to bypass the normal conversation with all stakeholders with respect to cuba stakeholders that live in our country, family members that got surprise, as you did as stakeholders that work on the front lines. i kind of want to be on the record on that, because i think

when we bypass stakeholders were make unfair decisions that are narrow in their bandwidth. and this does not feel -- this decision does not feel fair because the process or lack of process that we went through to get here surprising people that have stakes in the game of cuba. i think it also makes sure 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 without them knowing it. it feels like that undercuts your authority in the future. and maybe you see that different, but i just do not know how that is not the case. so i want to say thank you for hanging in there. i think your job just got tougher not easier. i want to express my appreciation for you all, the service you do our country and even in times made more difficult like now by leadership. 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 have seen -- you seem to have done it with humor and hung in there and kept your sense of humor. for that, most of all i express my appreciation to you all for making time for us. thank you. >> yeiields back. i request unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from south florida state and elected officials to president obama to express the profound disappointment over the december 17 announcement. an agreement for democracy in cuba which is the roadmap toward a real transition to democracy. op eds from the former staff director of this committee.a and questions for the record from a congressman. with that, our committee is adjourned. [gavel pounds] [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]

[note audible conversations] -- no audible conversations]

>> the senate armed services committee meets today to look at the detention facility at guantanamo bay cuba, and u.s. attention policy. the director of the national counterterrorism center will be among the witnesses at the hearing. you can watch it live beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3 and c-span.org. >> this sunday on q&a, david brooks, columnist for "the new york times" on writing an article for "the times." the sydni awards. >> the awards are given for the best essays of the year. and they can be in journals or they can be an "the new yorker, or obscure literary magazines. the idea is they would, around christmas week, between christmas and new year's. that is a good week to step back and not read tweets, not even newspaper articles, but to have

the time to read something deeper and longer. and to celebrate those longer pieces. i d believe magazines change history. o"the new republic" until his recent a structure was the most influential magazine of the 20th century. it did change history. it created a voice for modern liberalism. conservatism barely existed until "national review." >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. newly elected maryland governor larry hogan is the only republican in that post in the last 45 years. in his first state of the state address, governor hogan called for reducing the budget deficit and repealing scheduled tax increases. he also discusses maryland's charter schools and cleaning up the chesapeake bay. courtesy of maryland public television, this is a half hour. >> and you very much.

good afternoon. you left me with no mic, come on. >> the president of the senate did it. >> come on mike. mike. [laughter] one of these guys is up to no good. speaker busch, president miller, members of the general assembly, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. it is an honor, and i am truly humbled, for the opportunity to appear before this 435th general assembly as maryland's new governor to report on the state of our state. marylanders are among the nation's hardest working and most educated people. we have universities and schools that are among the best in the nation. no state can match the beauty of the chesapeake bay, our beaches

and farms, or the mountains of western maryland, the port of baltimore, or the historic charm of every corner of our state. but while our assets are many, and our people are strong and hopeful, their state is simply not as strong as it could be or as it should be. we have a lot to do, to get maryland back on track and working again. the challenges we face are great. high taxes, overregulation, and an antibusiness attitude are clearly the cause of our economic problems. our economy is floundering, and too many marylanders have been struggling, just to get by. 40 consecutive tax hikes have taken an additional $10 billion out of the pockets of struggling maryland families and small businesses.

we've lost more than 8,000 businesses, and maryland's unemployment nearly doubled. we're number three in the nation in foreclosures, and dead last in manufacturing. we've had the largest mass exodus of taxpayers fleeing our state of any state in our region, and one of the worst in the nation. and, while most states around the country have turned the corner -- sadly, maryland continues to languish behind. the federal government ranked our state's economy 49th out of 50 states. that is simply unacceptable. according to a recent gallup poll, nearly half of all marylanders would leave the state if they could. as a lifelong marylander who loves this state that just breaks my heart. we fail all marylanders if we simply accept these dismal facts as the status quo.

well, i refuse to accept the status quo, because the people of maryland deserve better. [applause] please. over the past few years, as i traveled across the state, i listened to the concerns of marylanders from all walks of life. the common theme i kept hearing was frustration. people everywhere feel a real disconnect between annapolis and the rest of maryland. they feel that we are way off track, heading in the wrong direction and that change is desperately needed in annapolis. the problems we face aren't

democratic problems, or republican problems. these are maryland's problems. and they will require common sense, maryland solutions. with the will of the people behind us, and with all of us working together, we can put maryland back on track. and we will. [applause] today, marylanders look to us for leadership. they look to us to put maryland on a new path, toward opportunity and prosperity for all our citizens. ladies and gentlemen, it is time for us to listen to maryland's hard working taxpayers and our job creators. the people of maryland simply cannot afford for us to continue on the same path of more spending, more borrowing, more taxes, and politics as usual.

it is time for a new direction for maryland. [applause] our administration will chart a new course -- one guided by simple, common sense principles. our focus will be on jobs, struggling maryland families and restoring our economy. and every decision i make as governor will be put to a simple test. will this law or action make it easier for families and small businesses to stay in maryland? and will it make more families and small businesses want to come to maryland? our administration will work with all of you to enact the necessary budgets, tax reductions, regulatory reforms

and legislation that is necessary, to ensure that we turn our economy around. just 24 hours after being sworn into office, i proposed a budget for fiscal year 2016 that fairly and responsibly controls spending. when my team began the budgeting process, we encountered a baseline budget of $17 billion in expenses and projected revenue of only $16.3 billion. the state was poised to somehow spend $700 million that we simply did not have. mandatory payments on state debt had increased by 96 percent just this year.

we face an $18.7 billion unfunded pension liability. faced with this troubling reality, we revised that script delivering a fiscally responsible budget that only expends what we take in. this is just common sense. [applause] and will come as no surprise to anyone that manages a family's finances, or runs a small business. our team created a structurally balanced budget for the first time in nearly a decade. [applause] this budget sends a clear and important message that the days of deficit spending in maryland are over. [applause]

we had to make some very tough decisions in just the first few days of our administration in order to get this state budget under control. but our budget puts maryland on sound financial footing, without raising taxes or fees, without eliminating agencies departments, or services without imposing furloughs and without laying off a single state employee. our new budget also funds our priorities, including providing record investment in k12 education and increased investment in higher education. [applause] this proposed fy2016 budget is just a start. we will have much more to do in the days and months ahead to correct our state's fiscal course. i am eager to work cooperatively

with the general assembly to meet these challenges head on. before i became governor increases in spending were promised that simply could not be kept. if ever maryland needed a dose of honesty, it's now. the debates that take place in this chamber in the weeks ahead cannot ignore the certainty of our current fiscal situation. we will make every effort to be fair, judicious and thoughtful and my administration will work hard to preserve jobs and to fund priorities. budget choices are never easy, and you may have different ideas and solutions. and we look forward to hearing them, and to working together with you to find common ground. as long as those solutions don't include increasing taxes spending more than we take in, or going further into debt.

and remember, every penny that is added to one program, must be taken from another. failing to spend the taxpayer's money in a responsible way could eventually jeopardize our ability to adequately fund education, transportation, environmental programs, and provide support to the vulnerable and those most in need. we simply cannot let that happen. so, how do we begin to change

direction, and to improve the state that we all love? it wont happen overnight, and there will be times and issues that will test us all, but there are a number of initial actions that i believe we must begin working on immediately. making maryland more competitive maryland's antibusiness attitude, combined with our onerous tax and regulatory policies have rendered our state unable to compete with any of the states in our region. it's the reason that businesses jobs and taxpayers have been fleeing our state at an alarming rate. it's at the heart of the fiscal and economic issues we are currently dealing with, and it is something we must find solutions to. a year ago, i held my second annual change maryland business summit on improving maryland's economic competitiveness. we became the leading voice on these issues it's the reason i have the honor of being your governor, and it will be the primary focus of our administration. [applause] i want to commend senate president miller and speaker busch for recognizing the need

to make maryland more economically competitive. a year ago, at their urging, this legislature created the maryland economic development and business climate commission, also known as the augustine commission, to make recommendations to make maryland competitive. it was a great first step, and we are anxiously awaiting the recommendations of this commission. but, i am confident that we will find many areas of agreement to make maryland a more business friendly and more competitive state, so that we can create more jobs and more opportunities for our citizens. making state government more efficient and more responsive i'm proud of the experienced diverse and bipartisan cabinet that we have assembled to take

over the reigns of state government. many of them bring fresh innovative ideas and valuable real world, privatesector management expertise to their agencies. their primary mission will be to find ways to restructure their agencies and to make state government more efficient, and more cost effective. but, we also want to change the culture of state government. the voters have given us an opportunity to build a government that works for the people and not the other way around. comptroller franchot noted at his swearingin last week that we must reinstate old-fashioned customer service to every aspect of government. i completely agree and together we will. [applause]

third, dealing with the problem of storm water management and working to restore our most treasured asset, the chesapeake bay, is a goal we all strongly agree on. but in my humble opinion passing a state law that forced certain counties to raise taxes on their citizens against their will may not have been the best way to address the issue. if there was one message that marylanders have made perfectly clear it was that taxing struggling and already overtaxed marylanders for the rain that falls on the roof of their homes was a mistake that needs to be corrected. [applause]

this week, our administration will submit legislation to repeal the rain tax. four, tax relief for retirees nearly every day i hear from folks who say that they love the state of maryland, that they have spent their entire lives here, and that they don't want to leave their kids and grandkids. but, that they simply cannot afford to stay here on a fixed income. we are losing many of our best and brightest citizens to other states. eventually, once we solve our current budget crisis, and turn our economy around, i want to reach the point where we are able to do away with income taxes on all retirement income just as many other states have done. this week, we will start heading

toward that goal by submitting this week we will start heading towards that goal by submitting legislation that repeals income taxes on pensions for retired military, police fire, and first responders. [applause] these brave men and women have put their lives on the line for us. they deserve it and they've earned these tax breaks. [applause] number five. tax relief for small businesses. now, i've spent most of my entire life in the private sector running a small business in a state that at times seems openly hostile to people like me. there is much more for us to do. but as a first step i'm

proposing cutting personal property taxes for small businesses. this burdensome tax and bureaucratic paperwork discrrges the creation of new businesses and drives small businesses and jobs elsewhere. [applause] this legislation would create a tax exemption for the first 10,000 in personal property, entirely limb -- eliminating this tax for one half of all maryland's businesses. after siphonning a billion dollars for the transportation frusttund, a decision was made to enact the largest gas tasme. this legislation also included language which would automatically ip crease its taxes every single year without