rising influence of china. i think that is good for them and good for us. i think there is a bipartisan opportunity. when you look at the transatlantic opportunities. both of those are different in the details of be very important. i think there is an opportunity for us to engage and strengthen our relationship with our allies. i think it is good the president talked about those trade deals, ideas he could work through with the -- the idea is, that could be good for us not only economically, but it can also help with our foreign relations as well. >> so you don't have your own kissinger advising you? >> we have a number of people we talk to and consult with. there was no one person i would say is a determinant influence. i prefer to talk to a wide array of people and make my own decisions. >> [indiscernible] what factors are you still weighing at this point?

how do you see the governor's race playing out in louisiana? >> in terms of my timeline, it will be the next few months. my wife and i continue to think about it. as we were saying earlier, i think everybody is thinking about this. who is the next president is not as important as what the next president does. we face serious challenges. this is an election that will be a series election, not just about who can tell the best jokes or deliver the best speech. this is a consequential election about the future direction of our country. i am not just thinking about the election but the issues and giving serious thought to where our country needs to go on energy, education, foreign policy, health care, and a number of other areas. i strongly encourage anyone else to do that. i don't know how you get into a race this important without giving serious thought to the issues. that is part of what i'm doing at this time. trust me, when i do make a

decision it will not be a , secret. i'm happy to tell you and everybody else. i will say this -- for me, it will not be about fundraising or polling. it will be about restoring the american dream. i have been blessed. i will give you the entire story all over again, but i have been blessed. my parents came over 40 years ago in search of an opportunity. i feel like my brother and i have been able to live the american dream. i want my children and grandchildren to be able to live that dream as well. in terms of the louisiana governor's race, for those of you that don't know we have an , open primary. im term-limited. we will have an election later this fall where everybody runs against everybody. top two candidates if there is , not a winner in the primary, that would go to a runoff. we have always had a runoff with one exception, in 2007 when i won in the primary. i think it is likely we will have a runoff. there are a number of candidates who have announced or are considering running, on the republican side, we have a number of candidates.

i think it is very early but i , think there's a chance for the first time in our state's history we could end up with two republicans in a runoff for the governor's race. it is not evitable, but -- it is not inevitable, but there a real chance that could happen. there are a number of credible candidates. it is too early. they have not really started engaging each other. you have a number of candidates that have raised significant funds and are beginning to make their moves. i would encourage these candidates to make known the positions on a number of issues. we made a commitment when i was running we would not raise taxes. i think these candidates need to talk about that. we put a lot of emphasis on education. i want to hear where these candidates stand to make sure they do not reverse the hard-fought gains. i think the voters will have a number of choices. what is interesting is we could have two republicans. the reason that is so interesting is the reason we have the open primary system, it goes back to the 1970's. edwin edwards ran against bennett johnson in a fierce race for governor. got into a runoff, beat him in the early 1970's.

it was a close race. bennett went on to become a senator. edwin thought this was unfair he had to run two tough elections and face this republican who had no opposition. you have to remember at the time, republicans were maybe 2% of registered voters in the state. and when thought it was unfair the republican did not have to compete as well, so he decided to do an open primary figuring you would have two democrats and at least a democrat and a republican. he thought it would save time. in the short-term, it allowed the republican party to grow to about 1/4 of the voters in louisiana. when my parents came to louisiana, it was common for registrars to tell people not to register as republican. you were told if you registered as republican with a close election, you would not get to vote because the elections are done by the time you get to vote. it gave more people an

opportunity to register as republicans. ironically, i don't think edwin intended this, it allowed the party to grow. the open party system for the first time produced two republicans in a runoff. as a republican, i would be pleased. i don't think there is a very good chance even if a democrat , makes it in the runoff, i don't think there is a good chance the democrat would win. that does not mean the democrat can't win again in the future. i don't think that is what the stage once at this point. when i ran for my first term there was only one statewide , elected republican. now all of them are republican. today, we have for the first time ever a majority in the house and senate. when we say ever, i mean since reconstruction. we have not had a house majority in the house or senate in modern times. it could be two republicans in the runoff. >> i think that will be it.

i have a number of colleagues that want questions but we are out of time. thanks for doing this. we appreciate it. >> thank you. i encourage you to read the paper as well. thank you for having me. [laughter] [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] >> federal health officials will testify at a senate committee about vaccine use in the reemergence of certain preventable diseases in the u.s.. we will also hear from pediatric infectious disease specialist dr. mark sawyer. live coverage starts tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on c-span three, bob packwood and bill bradley, both of whom were part of a taxi with president reagan -- tax deal with president reagan, will talk about possible changes to the u.s. tax code. that is also live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. february is black history month and the c-span bus is on the

road visiting the top historically black colleges and universities to speak with their faculty and highlight their role in the american education system. tomorrow during "washington journal," we will be at fisk university and talk with its president. wednesday, we will meet with the president morehouse college. in thursday, we will speak with the president of spellman college. >> posted an event on school choice. here is part of that. >> most of k-12 education is driven by states and communities. there is a question of how much the federal government should be involved. i wonder how that comes to the school choice conversation. what role, if any, should the federal government be playing in supporting school choice or is that a state and local conversation? >> i'm someone who believes the best decision for education will

always come at the local level. it really is with local school boards parents and community. that is for the best decisions are going to come. reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act, it was at one time termed no child left behind, is up for reauthorization. it is overdue. this new congress here in 2015 believes that moving forward on some education priorities needs to be at the top of the list for this congress. and it is going to be done in a way that is empowering local communities to make those decisions. as you mentioned, there is a limited role for the federal government. there are some low income dollars that the federal government has him and sent to the state. within our reorganization, we want those dollars to follow the student. we give the states the option to

allow those dollars to follow students. we do encourage an expansion of charter schools. what the federal government has done so far is big legally -- is basically say we want more charter schools in america, but it gives more tools for those charter schools to be improved, to allow for focusing on charter schools that have proven themselves to be successful and lifting them up as models. perhaps allowing for those who want a wage and lottery to do so, to focus on poverty issues and disabilities and allow more options. we also want to hold charter schools accountable and ensure those who are not performing well are held accountable. those are some things. it is really empowering local communities and local school boards to make those decisions. the only other issue i might put on the table is that i am really excited about encouraging

schools to look more and blended learning. i just introduced some legislation along with senator rubio and senator hatch in the senate that is focused on promoting this blended learning, which i think is so the next generation of focusing on individualized education so we know in real time how each student is doing day by day empowering the teachers. i visited a school in anacostia. it is a tough neighborhood in washington dc. the school last year embraced blended learning and the teacherzs were really engaged and inspired about coming to work every day. the students were anxious to learn. the principal could look on her wall everyday and know how every student in that school was doing. in a short time, that school had seen tremendous growth.

again, it comes down to empowering local communities local school boards, giving them more choices and allowing them to decide what is best for the kids in the community so they can reach their full potential. [applause] >> congresswoman, i would love to hear you a bit further on this point. you talk for instance about charter accountability. charter schools have to get permission to authorize and part of the deal is they can be shut down if they are not serving well. given your own experience as a mom with a child with special needs, recent research has found that parents in the d.c. scholarship program seem not to put a high premium on test scores. they look at a number of other factors and test scores do not show up when you interview them about what they are concerned about. when you think about good

charter school accountability and how you make sure schools are serving kids well, how much of that should be a question of student achievement and reading and math assessments and how much it be something else? >> that is a great question. i think it is important that we are looking at how parents and school boards make sure that they have the information so that they can make the best decision possible. sometimes transparency as to what is really happening in a school can be difficult to get. i think it definitely goes beyond a test score itself. that is one measurement. there are other issues i think need to be taken into consideration as we make those decisions. ultimately it's about transparency so parents can be involved in making that decision and that the administration of that school will know what is really going on, and if the children are getting the education that they need. >> i will piggyback on what cathy was talking about there.

one of the things i realized with the d.c. opportunity scholarship program was the level of parental satisfaction was over 90%. when you think about why that is, part of that is because of the environment that their children are in. it is a culture that is conducive for learning and high achievement, but also encourages each child to maximize their own potential. when you factor in the actual academic progress being made by students, i think a part of the foundation for that academic achievement seems to be a culture that is conducive for achieving and an environment that seems to be best for the child. the parent seems to be very excited about a place where their child gets a quality education and the child is safe. the environment is a small one. the teachers are loving and

invested. i think that is why so important , the other characteristics of a successful program that goes beyond simple academic achievement. >> governor, you have been wrestling with this on the ground. curious how in louisiana you have struggled to ensure that schools of choice are good schools without taking the ability to make sure parents are not just about testicles. >> i think charter school -- are not just talking about test scores. >> the reality is parents will vote with their kits. there is an accountability there. when it comes to transparency and parental information, i think cathy was exactly

right. you have to provide information to parents, but they make decisions based on a number of factors. i have met with monson new orleans who told me that this the first time, now that their children are going to charter schools, saying this is the first time my child has gone to school wearing a uniform. this the first time my child is thinking about going to college after they finish school. there are a number of factors parents use. i want to talk about the issue of tests. the reason we have tests -- i think it was a rightful response to the fact that many schools especially those serving disadvantage, low income, minority students were not doing a good job. there was an impulse to correct that. the pendulum has swung the other way where we are so assessed with test. in some classes we are pretesting and pre-pretesting.

we have crowded out arts and music in social studies because all we are testing is math and reading and that comes to dominate a school day to the detriment of these other areas. there are two things we need to do a test. need to benchmark the test so the school has diversity of choices. everybody has to use a top-down approach. there are many great assessments. why not have a benchmark? people have been this before where you can compare how people are doing across different states or country. i think we need to be more aggressive in giving schools waivers. when they have done a good job they have a way to waive these things. if we are teaching a year's worth of work in a year's time, we should not be held to the same micromanagement of all these tests. you can have accountability with flexibility. in terms of the federal government's role, i'm so proud

of the center. he has so many great pieces of legislation. yes one that gives military families for choice. it really does follow the student. legislators will vote for funding for kids that may want technical education, perhaps special needs, and they get extra dollars, but those dollars don't help to go educate those children. so often we fund our schools based on seniority and staffing costs. as a result, the dollars the senators vote to give don't end up benefiting those kids. i hope they will reduce the role of the department of education. the department of education should be involved in civil rights, transparency, and deregulation and that is about it. everything else should be done at the state and local level quite frankly. [applause] i won't start a whole new topic

but i do think that means you need to get rid of, gore. [laughter] that is a whole, -- get rid of common core. [laughter] that is a whole different topic. >> one of the things we talk about a lot when it comes to school choice is whether it is for families that are trapped in schools that are not working for those children or whether school choice is a mechanism for helping all families educate their children better. for instance, it is useful to know that about 70% of their families give their child an a or b. is 30% of families that are frustrated. i'm curious to see if you think this is for families that feel trapped or for everyone. >> school choice is for everyone. if my child is at what many would consider a great public school, but he is not learning,

it is not helping him. if a family is trapped at a school and they want to go somewhere else and they can't, and they know it is not working then i hear from the school district. you've got to give us more money. that is the problem. the $12,500 we spend on the child, that is not enough. we need $20,000. we appropriate the money and the child is still at the school. sat scores are bad. mama knows that the child is not learning to read and they are still stuck there. if we allow freedom to work, if we give that child in a rural area who has basically no choice there at a school, failing, mama knows the child is not getting opportunity that she wanted her child to have. we give that child an opportunity and he goes somewhere else, he may drive 50 miles to the nearest town to a better public school.

if we allow choice, some choice is better than no choice. the more choices, the greater the freedom. the greater the freedom, the better quality of the education. those schools that are losing students, well, they've got to do something a little bit different to retain those students. the poor-performing schools they do better. the good schools, they do even better. because when we are competing for dollars, when you are competing for the backpack funding, you will do what is necessary to grow your school and to create educational choices and opportunities. school choice is for everyone. it is not just for those in bad schools. it is not just for those who have really good schools. if your school is not working it is not working.

you need another choice. >> senator, howdy respond to those that say, look, i hear what you are saying about freedom, but it feels like charter schooling, it feels like an attack on traditional school districts, it feels like you are trying to dismantle something that is important to america? both of you. we have too many senators. >> i introduced some of the first school choice legislation in our state back in 1998. i introduced bill after bill and bill. i hear from my good friends were public school teachers, what are you trying to do? are you trying to destroy public education? what a horrible statement. no one wants to try to destroy public education. we just want to make sure educational opportunities are available for every child. freedom works. we have examples. we can see where school choice programs have worked in states where they tried it. every change we have made in our

state, whether it was creating the legislation to allow for charter schools -- you are destroying public education. but we created charter schools and, wow, it worked. we were not creating them fast enough so we create a statewide charter public school district. we have more charter schools. we created more choices for the public. it worked. then we made it so you could have opportunity scholarships for exceptional needs children, our first choice program that involve the private sector. i don't think we got too many naysayers now. every time we have been able to expand choices in our state, we have proven that it works, that benefits both public schools and all schools. when parents make that choice, when they are empowered to make that choice, all schools perform better. there are some with power and money. they never want to give it up.

that is one thing about government. those with power and money never given up voluntarily. there has to be grassroots fight. freedom is worth fighting for. i think those who are listening and understand that freedom works. let's fight for you. >> senator scott, how do you respond? >> there is no doubt that education is improving and a large part of the improvement we have seen has become of the competition in the education state. let's focus for just a few minutes on the public school options and forget about the private school choice. frankly, if you think about the advent of magnet schools charter schools homeschool, online schools virtual schools five of those options i named were in the public footprint. the reality of it is there is a way to improve education that includes public school options.

indeed the most powerful tool the parent has his choice. i say let us not relegate that choice simply to the public footprint. i am a big believer that whatever the parent says works for her, very often it is a single mom who is already working two shifts, like mine was, let's give her the peace of mind to choose the quality of education that she has determined for her child. and when that happens, i believe that that competition will draw even better results in the local neighborhood school. when that happens, kids get a far better education. i think their expectations and life skyrocket and we all benefit from that. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through its first session new congress, best access on c-span, c-span 2,

c-span radio, and www.c-span.org . >> e-house panel looks at possible u.s. policy changes with cuba. secretary of state roberta j prison -- roberta jacobson talks about the future of the guantanamo bay detention facility. it is two hours and 40 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order. we look at the obama administration's sudden shift on cuban policy and sudden it was. members of congress were left in the dark. most of the administration am a including the state department was left in the dark as well. instead, talks with the cuban

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

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

over 8000. assistant secretary jacobson, i appreciate your meeting with dissidents when you were in havana last month but i am very concerned that your cuban counterparts are attempting to link your discussions to a commitment that the u.s. sees -- cease all democracy programs. castro is making more demands. last week the dictator called for the return of the u.s. naval station, an end to u.s. broadcasts, and just compensation. there is little debate over the importance of this facility for the u.s. navy to conduct counter narcotics, intelligence, and humanitarian missions. our broadcasts are vital until a free media is allowed to operate. i hope the state department is here to assure us that none of castro's demands are being

considered. in defending this policy change, the president compared our economic relationship with cuba to that of china and vietnam. but in china and vietnam, while communist, at least foreign firms can hire and recruit staff directly without pay going to the government. not so in cuba, which is more like north korea that it is vietnam or china. a cuban worker at a foreign-owned resort receives only a fraction of their salary, as little as 5%. in the regimes of the castro brothers, the method is the same. extract hard currency from foreign businesses and invested in these security apparatus. instead of dismantling of 50-year-old failed policy as a claims, the administration may have given a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life to

continue its repression at home and militant support for marxist regimes abroad. before going to mr. ingle i am going to yield my remaining time to ileana ros-lehtinen. the chairman emeritus of this committee. fled cuba as a refugee at age 8 and her years of work on this committee have been marked by a tireless commitment to freedom and democracy for people around the world. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. i strongly second your grave concerns about the way that foreign policy is being run from the white house, by secretly negotiateing with the castro regime while keeping the congress the american people even our own diplomats in the dark. this foreign policy decision is in line with the president's other examples of executive overreach and bypassing consultations with congress, just like the taliban 5 trade with berg dal, the president has

established a dangerous precedence that the united states does in fact negotiate with terrorists. ever since the secret negotiations began of june 2013 this is what the regime has been doing since day one of the talks as the u.s. establishes diplomatic relations. just a few examples. july 15 2013, a north korean flag cargo ship was caught in panama after it left cuba heading to north korea after exppingses the shipment included components of air missile systems and launchers, shell casings, robert propelled projectiles and the cargo was hidden under 200,000 bag s of sugar. october 6 2013, over 135 democracy activists arrested in one day throughout cuba, also

arrested with the leader of -- who was dragged through the streets by her hair and her was also arrest november 12, 2013. a young man was on the verge of death due to a hunger strike. january 24, 2013, a man was arrested awarded the presidential medal of freedom by president bush. the ladies in white leader, and others arrested. july 16, 2014. cuba and russia agreed to reopen the spying facility. in fact, in 2014, it led to almost 9,000 arrests of pro democracy leaders in one year. almost a 40% increase while we were in negotiations in 2013, 2014 and last month while the

u.s. delegation arrived in havana russia's spy ship docked in cuba. just last week a young man was sentenced to a one-year prison sentence. check out the charge. dangerousness likely leading to a crime. that is an actual charge in castro's cuba. two days ago, just to wrap it up a cuban pro was beaten she said she would rather die. all of this happened while the u.s. was secretly negotiating with the castro regime. shame on you. thank you.

>> i have followed cuba for many years. i thank our witnesses for their testimony today. thank you for coming. i'm delighted that alan is finally home after five long years. one of my son went to school with one of the gross' children. i always felt a connection to the family. his release from prison is long overdue. as we all know, president obama announced several major changes in u.s. policy toward cuba but this is not the end of the story. the own us -- onus is now on the cuban government to respond by moving forward with real reform. what does this mean? to me, free and fair

electionses. right-field line for the rule of law. an independent press and upholding the values enshrined in the interamerican charger and lesion each political prisoner currently jailed in cuba and ending the harassment of political activists. only then will we with b comfortable with cuba moving along the path to democracy. president obama has the authority to re-establish relations with cuba and make the regulatory changes that he announced on december 17. at the same time, however, congress has the authority to maintain or eliminate the trade embargo on cuba and again, normalizing relations with cuba cannot be a one way street. it cannot be. it has got to be give and take on both sides. at this time, i believe that congress must see a greater political opening in cuba before lifting the embargo.

last month month chairman royce and i sent a letter to secretary kerry. i was grateful for his rapid response to our letter with a full list of the released prisoners. to be sure the release of these 53 prisoners was a very positive step. unfortunately, a few of these prisoners were subsequently the detained because of their political act vism. while these individuals are no longer in jail we must be vigilant in ensuring their safety. i urge the state department to continue its talk with cuban officials to continue pushing for the release of all cuban prisoners. an important opportunity for all of the countries in the region. we will be eager to hear from cuban civil society leaders along with other independent society leaders from throughout the americas.

host: to be there and i hope that we will have a bipartisan delegation going there. i urge the panamanian government and all regional leaders to be as open and transparent as possible. one request before i close, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to summit for the record two statements. one on behalf of alan gross and the second from barbara lee, a former foreign affairs committee member along with her questions to the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. i would like to close and thank all witnesses for being here today. thank you once again mr. chairman for holding this important hearing. >> we go go to mr. duncan. >> thank you mr. chairman. in addition to the other comments i remain deeply skeptical of the obama

administration's unilateral cuba policy shift. filing consult any cuban dissidents. -- filing consult any cuban dissidents. uses political speech writers and the national security council staff to craft its policy change. i want to associate myself with your remarks and the young lady from florida. yesterday, witness in testimony in the senate hearing recognized that the reck -- that russia is one of the most openly challenged the united states in regard to cuba. these actors that had unless in the region. in view of the events that i thought the gentle lady from florida spelled out the u.s. must protect the national security interests and the

future negotiations with the cuba government including maintaining guantanamo bay. with that i yield back. i recognize the ragging member on the subcommittee on the western hemisphere who also is the one other cuban born member of this committee, he was also born in hatcha. were you about 11 when you -- >> -- in havana. >> yes. i did come to this country when i was 11 years old in 1962. but my biggest disappointment with this process has been that i always felt the embargo and the pressure we will putting on cuba will lead to changes. i do not see where will lead to anything.

you know, it is beyond me that a signature on a peace of paper somehow relieves this dictators pressure. people are not going to benefit. you still have to go to the government. even if you want to put a church a church in cuba, they have to go through the government do we think we are going to be able to invest and do economic progress for the cuban people? i don't see that happening. i don't see where we are headed with this. i know it is the last few years for the president but i was disappointed in the fact that we are not using this as a pressure. -- pressure point on a government that has been so brutal. there are thousands of people in jail. my jail. my district has the 2nd largest population of cuban-americans in this country. i get more intel from the people on hudson avenue and union city then some of the people in this place.

i thank you, mr. chairman. >> this morning we are pleased to be joined by witnesses from the departments of state and treasury and commerce. ms. miss roberta jacobsen is assistant secretary of state for the bureau of western hemisphere affairs and formerly served as the deputy assistant secretary for canada and mexico. mr. john smith is the deputy director of the u.s. department of the treasury's office of foreign asset control and previously served as expert to the united nations al qaeda and taliban sanctions committee from 2004 to 2007. mr. matthew borman currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary of commerce for export administration. without objection the brief and full prepared statement will be made part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit any extraneous material.

>> so ms. jacobsen, if you would please summarize your remarks in five minutes. then we'll hear from the other two witnesses. >> thank you very much, chairman, ranking member, members of the committee command thank you for the opportunity to testify on knew approach to u.s. cuba policy. i appreciate this committee's engagement in the western hemisphere and know all of your strong commitment, the democratic values, social and human rights and diplomatic community in the americas and cuba and thank you and support for the long overdue return for alan gross and his family. during his detention the administration has worked closely with many members of congress in both parties to secure his release. we are grateful for the essential role of canada, pope francis, and the vatican in reaching an agreement that made

mr. gross is freedom possible. on december 17 the president announced a knew policy toward cuba, one that will better enable us to effectively advance our values and help the cuban people move into the 21st century. our previous approach to relations with cuba over half a century were rooted in the best of intentions, failed to empower the cuban people, instead isolating us from our democratic partners in the semester and around the world. in addition, the cuban government use this policy as an excuse for restrictions on its citizens and as a result a result those most deprived with the cuban citizens themselves. we need to promote human rights and national interest and are already seeing signs our updated approach gives us a greater ability to approach other nations in the hemisphere advancing respect for fundamental freedoms and cuba. ultimately it we will be the cuban people who drive economic and policy reform, which is why

we lifted restrictions for cubans to travel and open new pathways for academic, religious, and people to people exchanges. our new steps build upon this foundation by authorized travel. no one represents american values better than the american people and increased people to people contact will empower the cuban people and reduce they're dependence on the cuban state. the regulatory changes will increase financial resources to support the cuban people and the emerging cuban private sector and enable us countries to expand telecommunications. u.s. power will no longer be a barrier to connectivity. two weeks ago i made a trip that helped me understand the burden and hope embodied in this policy when average cubans and

cuban-americans wished me luck or said god bless you and encouraged our effort. we were we were clear our governments have both shared interest and sharp differences. we agreed to continue dialogue and deepen cooperation. this administration is under no illusion about the nature of the cuban government. i also raised with cuban officials our concerns about their harassment, use of violence, and arbitrary and arbitrary detention of cuban citizens peacefully expressing views and that they need independent media voice is to talk about what is needed from their government and from us. we will continue to use diplomatic efforts to encourage our allies, now more likely to work with us to take every opportunity to increase respect for human rights and fundamental freedom in cuba. as the president has said, the united states believes no cuban

should face harassment or arrest or beating simply for exercising a universal right to have there voice heard, and we will continue to support civil society there. i encourage members visiting cuba to expand their engagement with independent civil society voices in cuba who offer valuable insight and a diversity of views. i raise several elements, travel restrictions, limits on staffing, local access and problems receiving shipments. the successful resolution will enable a future us embassy to provide services commensurate with our dip make it missions around the world. i hope you will not object to help seen our diplomats and action in action as i take this opportunity to salute they're tireless effort to advance our interest on the island. we have only just begun this

effort and appreciate their is a diversity of views. we hope that we can work together to find common ground toward our shared goal of enabling the cuban people to freely determine there own future. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss our recent amendments. i will be addressing the key changes we made to the regulations that treasury office of foreign assets control made january 16 to implement changes to us policy toward cuba announced by the president the month before. these amendments these sanctions related to cuba in a number a number of key areas including travel, remittances, financial services and trade and are intended to have a direct a direct and positive impact on the lives of the cuban people.

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

air carrier services to, to, from, and within cuba in connection with authorized travel. air carriers will need to secure regulatory approval from other concerned us government agencies such as the department of transportation and homeland security. travel agents and tour group operators also may now provide travel services in connection with authorized travel. these changes are intended to make authorized travel easier and less expensive by reducing the paperwork burden for and increasing competition among those providing travel and carrier services. to improve the speed efficiency, and, and oversight of authorized payments between the united states and cuba banks have been authorized to establish correspondence can -- accounts and financial institutions and allow travelers

to use credit and debit cards while in cuba. within the context of trade there has been modification of the regulatory financing requirement for trade between the united states and cuba imposed by statute. they have now revised its interpretation of the term to allow the export of american produced agricultural, medical, and other authorized kids so long as payment is received by the us exporter prior to the goods arrival to the a cuban port which should increase authorized us exports to cuba has an internet penetration of approximately 5 percent, one of the lowest in the world. in order to better facilitate the free flow of information we eased restrictions to better provide efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the united states and cuba and to increase access to telecommunications and internet -based services for the cuban

people. as i conclude, i should make one thing absolutely clear. even with these changes i described most transactions between the united states and cuba, imports, exports, and other activities remain prohibited. as these recent changes are implemented we we will continue to enforce the sanctioned program vigorously using all available tools and take action against violators as appropriate. the president's december 17 announcement laid out a new course for relations with cuba driven by a hope for a more positive future for the cuban people. amendments to regulations in concert with the regulatory provisions my colleague at mers will highlight marks significant changes to our policy that implement new changes announced by the president. these changes are intended to directly benefit the cuban people and help them to determine there future. -- their own future.

thank you, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear to discuss the cuba policy changes announced by the president on december 17. as the president noted, these are intended to create more opportunities for the american and cuban people, promote positive change and influence outcomes throughout the western hemisphere. on january 16, the department of commerce bureau of industry security amended the export administration regulations to authorize the export to cuba intended to improve the living conditions of the cuban people support private sector economic activity, strengthen civil society, and improve the free flow of information. regulations were amended to expand general light -- general licenses, create a knew license exception. under the embargo on trade, all items subject to the regulations

require license for export or re-exports unless authorized by an exception. consistent with the goals of the embargo and relevant law. they may issue licenses for specific transactions or make types of transactions eligible for exceptions that -- support the goals of united states policy. while the embargain ee in effect. -- embargo is in effect. only items of lower restrictively are eligible. the 1st license exception that was expanded is related to gift parcels. the change is to allow consolidated shipments to go under this exception, previously requiring individual exceptions which we will allow more donations to the cuban people because individuals who wish to

donate will no longer have to search for license consolidator. the i.s. also expanded also expanded license conception consumer communication devices to also authorize the commercial sale of commercial communication devices such as cell phones, mobile phones, computers, radios, previously only authorized if donated. now they can also be sold commercially. the new exception created is for the people and enables the export and re-export of items intended to improve the private sector authorized items include building materials for private sector use, tools and equipment for agricultural activity and goods for use by private sector entrepreneurs. such as automechanics and

restauranteurs. this license exception is intended to support the cuban private sector and facilitate cuban citizens to lower-priced access to consumer goods and gain greater independent axis from the state. others authorize others authorize the temporary export of persons leaving the united states of items for cultural ecological, historic preservation, scientific, or sporting activities, authorizing the export of donated items to the cuban people and the export of items to human rights organizations, individuals, or nongovernment organizations. these provisions implement the president's goals of harnessing people to people engagement. and of helping the cuban people reach for a better future. as the as the president observed, nobody represents american values better than the american people. to implement the president's goal by increasing access to information primarily through the internet license exception

authorizes the export of cuba of items for the establishment and upgrade of telecommunication related systems in addition to telecommunication devices a related division authorizes the export of certain items for use by news media personnel and us newsreels engaged in the gathering and dissemination of news. lastly we recognize this is not limited by national borders and circumstances may need to be changed to protect air quality water quality, and coastlines. although there was previous flexibility, we have amended the regulations to make explicit the general policy. in summary, the, the use of regulatory provisions to implement the recently announced changes consistent with the

comprehensive embargo the united states maintains on cuba and support the president's goal of the united states becoming a better partner in making the lives of ordinary cubans a little easier. and more free and is in line with the cuban national interests. i am pleased to answer questions. >> thank you. i would like to go to assistant secretary jacobson with a question. administration negotiators stated that they did not seek human rights concessions in exchange for taking steps toward normalization. you know our concern about the state department and you not being included in this. but the reality is that pro- democracy and human rights activists and cuba have lamented that human rights were not

entered in with these secret negotiations. in fact, the lead cuban government negotiator who would be now your counterpart said, changing cuba is not negotiable. we have no you know, indication here that the cuban government intends to give ground, and so if the regime refuses to ease its oppression on the people of cuba, how do our concessions advance the interest of the cuban people? >> let me be clear, mr. chairman, on part of this. i think it is crucial to understand that there really were know concessions from the obama administration. moving forward with the establishment of diplomatic relations is not a gift or concession to government but a channel of communication.

as you know, having embassies in countries is often not seen as a gift, quite the contrary. we are quite irritating to governments sometimes and it is not necessarily something that the cuban government wanted. but we think the things that were announced on december 17 are much more effective ways to pursue our own national interest. we believe that we can more effectively pursue the human rights policy, the democracy policy that we want and having a direct channel with the cuban government to convey concerns and work with allies around the hemisphere no longer fear association with a policy they did not support. >> well, i could just point out what you're leaving out of the equation is

the fact that under these initiatives that the white house took without the state the white house is now increasing the amount of dollars that flows into cuba specifically, that flows into the regime and helps their bottom line at a time when the regime, as you could've told the white house, now faces being cut off in terms of the subsidy from venezuela. at the very time that you would think we would exert leverage, you have a situation instead where you have got a lifeline. that's my concern. let me go to another question i had. and that is last week raul castro stated that normalizing bilateral relations with the u.s. would not be possible until the u.s. returns the naval station at guantanamo bay to cuba. is the administration considering transferring this military asset back to the cuban

people? i'll remind you, when we talked with the state department before i negotiations on another subject, the state department spokesman said unequivocally that the united states is not considering the release of any member of the cuban five. one of who was convicted for his part in killing four americans for alan gross. we have got a little history of hearing one thing and then finding out another after-the-fact. on the issue of guantanamo. >> the issue of montano is not on the table and these issues. i want to be clear what we are talking about is the reestablishment of diplomatic relations which is only one first step in normalizations. obviously, the cuban government has raised guantanamo. we are not interested in

discussing that. we are not discussing that issue or return of guantanamo. we also, i want to be clear, we didn't return the cuban agents for mr. gross. we returned the cuban agents for an intelligence agent that we wanted. >> let me ask you one last question. for years to regime has perceived -- received broadcasting as a threat. last week the cuban government refer to these as illegal, and castro has demanded to the broadcast be stopped. to what extent has our broadcast been discussed? >> the cuban government has always raised radio and tv marti both in migration talks, and they raise them again as a part of the list of things they object to in the normalization talks. but we have no plans to end those, either. >> i know cuba is demanding they

be shut down. i'm hoping to hear you say that we are demanding that cuba drop its jamming. but thank you. i am going to go to mr. engel because my time is up. >> thank you. secretary jacobson, let me give you broad leeway because you have answered several -- i want to hear more. how do you answer the critics who say that we gave away the store, that we've, we had leverage and we just tossed it away, did not get concessions in exchange, and if we didn't, doesn't it show you the true intentions of the castro regime? raul castro has to how to the fact that he gave up nothing and essentially we made all of the concessions. how do you answer that? >> i appreciate the question congressman. because i think it is important. there's nothing in what we decided on the 17th that we

believe is a concession to the cuban government. it is true that we have begun to talk about diplomatic relations. it is also true that we're going to try and move forward with embassies in each other's countries. we strongly believe having an embassy and havana will enable us to do more things that help us and power the cuban people. not high on the cuban government's list of desires. we also believe that by allowing american companies to engage in telecommunications sales and acting to get greater information into cuba, to work with the entrepreneurs who i sat down with, we can begin to increase the pace at which people separate themselves from

the state. also, not something the cuban government has on its list of priorities. i think that they may tout this as support for their government, but we have diplomatic relations with lots of governments around the world with whom we sharply disagree. it is a channel. it is a mechanism. it is not, as somebody said yesterday on the senate side, it is not the good housekeeping seal of approval. we will continue to speak out on human rights. to support democracy activists. but we believe that this policy has become such an irritant in our work with other latin american countries, with our european allies, that is also enables us to work more effectively with them in bringing about that support in cuba.

>> thank you. i mentioned in my statement that i was pleased with the release of the 53 political prisoners, but obviously much more remains to be done on the human rights front in cuba. the havana-based cuban commission on human rights reported 8899 short-term detentions in 2014. that was a 39% increase over 2013. so, what is the obama administration strategy for pushing the cuban government to improve its human rights record? are we working with other governments in the region and in the european union to urge the cuban government to put an end to short-term detentions? >> i think that is a really important point, because i think this question of short-term detentions is a crucial one. we obviously have seen a shift from longer-term sentences to short-term detentions. that number has gone way up in the last year.

it is of enormous concern to us. and we have made it clear, both to the cuban government directly now in these talks and others but also with allies international organizations that it is unacceptable. we do believe and we had those conversations already that the new policy enables us to work better with other governments. the reaction of many governments in the region was we strongly support your policy shift. it has changed the dynamic. what can we do to help? as we prepare for the summit of the americas, which you mentioned, we believe that cuban civil society activists, independent human rights activists, will have an opportunity to interact with latin american leaders for the first time. all of those things i think will help. that same national commission has noticed a drop in short-term detentions in january. not a trend.

i want to be clear about that. we cannot know whether that is the beginning of a trend, and we will be watching them very carefully because it must end. not just come down, but it must end. >> you mentioned civil society. i want to ask my final question about civil society and the summer of the amir -- the summit of the americas. what compensations -- what conversation have you had with your panamanian counterparts to ensure there is robust precipitation -- robust participation from cuba at the summit? and in your discussions with cuban officials in havana, did you urge them to allow civil society leaders from the island to participate in the summit? did you encourage political dissidents to participate in the summit? >> the answer to all those questions is yes. we have had extensive conversations with the panamanian government. with the nongovernmental organizations that will be

organizing the civil society forum. with other ngo's, including in the united states. as well as making sure the rules for the civil society summit are not the same as in previous years. a beasley, it had them that you could only participate if you were an ngo registered with the oas, which would preclude cuban independent organizations. that will not be the case this year. so that cuban dissidents and independent organizations may be invited. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we go now to iliana. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. as we know the u.s. has been negotiating and secret with this statistic dictatorship for now 20 months, because it is still secret. for 18 of those months, the white house negotiated to trade three spies for an innocent american. even if you say that was not the swap. that is so disingenuous. assistant secretary jacobson this week in the senate, just

yesterday, you justified -- you testified "this policy is not based on the castro regime changing. we have no illusions over that." so, let me get this straight. we are telegraphing to the castro regime ahead of time that it does not have to change. we have no illusions that is going to change. so we are going to get further concessions from this administration. what is the point of negotiations then if they were negotiating, we have no illusions. let's see where this leads us. the media have been reporting this week that arrests in cuba for last month, and january, decreased to only 178. making it seem like the arrests of peaceful, pro-democracy activist -- 178 of them -- is a low number. only in castro's cuba could the arrest of 178 people in one month be considered a victory.

now, for the president's state of the union address last month, i invited marlene the daughter of armando alejandre. they were kept in the dark about this trade -- nontrade. her father was murdered by the regime when his brothers to the rescue plane was shot down over international waters. on december 17, the president released and pardoned a cuban spy convicted in our u.s. courts for conspiracy to commit murder for his connection to the shootdown. so the family wanted me to ask you these questions, assistant secretary jacobson. how will i explain to my three little girls of that fair u.s. marine vietnam veteran grandfather was denied the only justice for his murder when hernandez was set free, pardoned and returned to cuba?

next question. why was the u.s. so giving to with it -- to give her an and is the opportunity to father a child while he was in prison when some of the victims of the shootdown will never be able to have children of their own? now, as if negotiating in secret is not bad enough, the castro regime continues to defy this administration , as the chairman had pointed out, setting preconditions publicly on the negotiations such as demanding the return of the land of guantanamo which is so vital to u.s. national security interests. it's so pathetic for this strong, wonderful, generous country to look so weak when negotiating with the regime. isn't it true that cuba owes american taxpayers at least $8 billion in certified claims for the unlawful taking of property, of businesses, of unpaid debts

owed the american citizens? cuba has failed to pay these claims for close to 60 years. isn't it true that u.s. law requires these claims be resolved before relations be normalized? so i urge all of your departments to explain how it illegally confiscated properties will be resolved? u.s. claim holders to serve their claims to be protected. don't you agree? assistant secretary jacobson, it is important to note that what the castro regime will do with this new assistance that president obama is going to provide on telecommunications. now, in 2012, pope benedict visited the island. the regime responded with rounding up and arresting hundreds of civil society individuals and he blocked the

phones of opposition leaders. as we know, castro held an american for five years for trying to provide internet equipment to the jewish community in cuba. so the track record is clear about castro and his hatred of this telecommunication equipment. and in this latest misguided talks, the castro regime asked the u.s. interests section to stop providing internet services for the cuban people. the track record is clear. there is no intent of opening up the internet or telecommunications opportunities. if given that opportunity, it is probably going to be used to further oppress the people of cuba. and then, just one last -- you can answer it in writing. did secretary kerry lied to the congress when he told us that we would not free up these convicted murderers, these spies? four was he kept out of the dark of these negotiations -- or was he kept out of the dark of these negotiations?

were you part of the negotiations from the start or did you enter them later on? i have run out of time. thank you. >> i'm going to suggest a response in writing. that way we can go to brad sherman of california. >> thank you. said that our policy toward cuba for the last 50 years has failed. this comes from an american view. it is all about us. that the only thing that, if cuba is not better, it must be our policy. our policy is exactly different or has been for 50 years, than europe's and canada's policy. maybe it is their policy that failed to bring democracy. maybe it is ours. ms. jacobson, cuba got caught smuggling 240 tons of weapons to north korea, violated u.n. sanctions.

cuba's not cooperating in the investigation. are these reasons to keep cuba on the state-sponsored terrorism list? >> congressman, we are undertaking the review of the state-sponsored terrorism list right now. we are evaluating all of the information. >> i know that. >> we also made clear when we were looking at that incident with the gang that we did not think cuba -- we did think cuba's behavior violated the sanctions regime. the only entity that was sanctioned as a result of that investigation was the north korean company which can no longer operate. >> i've got to reclaim my time. i've got so many questions. ms. jacobson, americans paid in blood for cuban independence. we got a base in guantanamo that is valuable to our national security. are you prepared, and hopefully

this is a yes or no question, to say now this administration will not abandon, return or failed to pay the modest fee so that we can have that naval base for the next two years? >> i don't see that discussion taking place. >> that is not what i'm asking for. that was your testimony. can you make a commitment? you have got to see it from our side. we were shocked. so you telling me you're not taking a something means i have to get ready to get shocked tomorrow. the administration was so angry that they hadn't been consulted on bringing one guy to speak here. it was not a lot of consultation on this huge change in cuba policy. would the administration object to language in appropriations bills designed to make it

impossible for this administration to give back the naval base? >> that issue is not on the table. >> it could be on our table. would you object? >> i do not know the answer to that as a matter of -- >> let me go on to mr. smith. we have got the cuban liberty and democracy solidarity act. it does not allow us to deal with certain properties that have been seized by americans. you have got new regulations on travel, credit cards, etc. how do you plan to make sure american travelers are not breaking the law by staying at hotels that were confiscated from americans or otherwise violating the cuban liberty and democracy solidarity act? >> one thing i should say at the start -- what that does is say you cannot provide financing to further those transactions to -- involving confiscated property.

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

national foreign policy that reflects the views of both elected bodies instead of a view of congress as simply an annoying body that has to be consulted now and then. i yield back. >> we go now to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you so much. i say to my witnesses in welcome to the "washington post" has done several editorials. pointing out that with the soviet union and now venezuela less able to prop them up, now potentially u.s. funds will do that. secondly, president obama's betrayal of cuban democrats and the fact that we should have listened to the ladies in white who will be testifying tomorrow. two of those are going back. two individuals.

talk about bravery. speaking to the senate,into the house. they are going back. and yet the "post" talks about betrayal of cuban democrats. another editorial said that with no consequences in sight, cuba continues to crackdown on free speech. i would ask you, now an assessment since it has been -- the negotiations and the publicity of them -- are there any second thoughts? 2012, we had a hearing. we heard from a doctor who spent 11 years in prison and the same type of scenario was playing out, even some of the 53 that were freed. he was in and out of prison constantly. it is part of the modus operandi. maybe you can verify that some 100 to 200 additional prisoners over the last six weeks have been arrested. is that true or is that not? some comments have been made

that the -- they may get to go to cuba. that is not the issue. they need to go to the prisons. the last time they were able to negotiate that when he walks point on behalf of, in the 1990's. i was with him in geneva when he secured that. representatives went into the prisons, interviewed people, and everybody including family members were severely retaliated against. the icrc has to have unfettered access to prisons, meeting with fidel castro are anybody under him does not cut it. i would like to go again. i have tried repeatedly. madame secretary, maybe you can facilitate that. i want to go to the prisons and lead a delegation to the prisons. i have been to prisons in the soviet union, in prisons in east bloc countries. as well as in asia. cuba's the one that will not let me or others into the prison. please help us with that. if you can answer those questions. let me ask you in the

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

there were certainly as many as 50 or more arrested around the time of -- the performance artist. to the best of my knowledge, most if not all have been released, although there are severe constraints on them. and none of them should've been arrested. just as there are still political prisoners in cuba who should be released. i want to be clear about that. and the fact that a downturn and detentions is not good enough. no matter that -- >> they arrest, re-arrest. let out. 17 years in prison. he has been tortured. a doctor testified by way of phone. he said, don't lift the embargo. because you have got to get substantive -- >> i saw oscar on the island. i have the utmost admiration for him and his views on this. let me also say that every time i talk with the cuban government

i mention the case of joanne -- i'm a daughter of new jersey. i grew up with this case and other fugitive cases. >> what is their response? >> we have not gotten a positive response. they have said that they are not 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 questions 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 sanctions 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 highlight the democratic government and 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 all came. and they were able to interact with dissidents for the first time. the dissidents had access to a wider range of diplomats than they have had before. that is what we are hoping for. >> let me ask you. i'm going to ask two questions . 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 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 regime 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 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 from 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 mone might go directly to the government and then be handed 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, n opposition parties -- new opposition parties? >> 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. 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 wheat 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. this 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 entrepreneurs. 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. >> yet 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 was 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 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 -- che guevarra shirt. >> thank you. mr. schappert of ohio. >> thank you for calling this very important hearing to discuss the administration's 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 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 -- 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 herrado 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. >> 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 did 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 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 amputations in diabetics. as i understand, and i think my question is directed to mr. smith, as i understand this drug has been approved for clinical 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 amputations by 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 don't want to go into the issue of whether with or without congress approval the president makes a decision. i want to touch on one issue that i have a question about. what is the purpose of the current u.s. policy or cuba? do we basically have no contact with them and we don't trade with them generally so the

policy we have been talking about that has been implemented for 50 something years what is the purpose? what is the goal of the policy? >> you mean the previous policy? >> the previous policy obtained by the president tweaked a little bit. >> the goal of the previous policy was via isolation of cuba and keeping our distance from the government that we would hope to bring about changes in the regime and simultaneously we would hope to empower the cuban people to be able to make that change. >> change the regime? change communism, change what? >> certainly change their behavior towards their own citizens. >> so that's our goal so cuba inherently changes the treatment of cuban citizens? >> certainly -- the. >> i'm not trying to catch you on semantics. the goal is to do this so cuban trade -- people are treated like they should be? >> in terms of

international human rights standards and that sort of thing yes. >> would you say that has not worked? 50 years doing something and if it doesn't change that policy or goal has not been achieved because the cubans are treated better than i ever have been. >> i believe so, yes sir. >> let me ask you this. is our goal ever to do what relationship whatever that may be in the future, is that for the americans benefit or cuba's benefits? as we look at changes toward cuba is this because we want to help american businesses for example or for americans to be able to travel. is that the goal that we are moving to or goal that what is the best for the cubans? >> our goal is to do what is 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 would be both. >> i would say the first priority would be to do what is in our national interest which includes our core values of democracy and universal human rights. >> okay. what our policy has anything to do with healthy trade from the united states? >> certainly. >> let me give you an example. i'm from texas and we represent not as many as we used to put a lot of rice farmers and when i got elected to congress i thought that rice came in a box but i learned a lot about the rise through there as long grain and short grain into seasons and all that stuff and historically texas rice farmers traded internationally with

iran, iraq and cuba. you can see that hasn't worked out so well. they want to trade long grain rice to cuba and the cubans want to buy long grain rice. they want california short grain rice. 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 you? >> you are going to get me into some trouble because i can't set aside all the other issues that if i really put it in a vacuum it would be in our interest so we always do those things in a vacuum. >> i understand that. what i'm saying is having this barrier of trade hurts americans.

i don't know about the cubans. they get their rise from vietnam. i'm out of time. i have some other questions that i would like to submit for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you judge pirro and we will go to mr. sweeney from rhode island. >> thank you madam chair and thank you to the witnesses. i too want to begin by balancing the experiences and passionate leadership on cuban-american relations by the chairwoman ros-lehtinen and mr. sires and i thank you for being so open with your experiences to the committee pretty think it adds to our understanding of these complicated issues. all members of this committee are equally committed to helping the cuban people achieve freedom and democracy and a difference in opinion is what the best strategy for bringing that about. i think the witnesses for being here today and i expect he will continue to keep congress informed throughout these

discussions with the cuban government. i am hopeful and i think most americans are hopeful that the president can engage in real and substantive negotiations with the cuban government and will pass than united states invented the cuban people. like most americans i remain deeply concerned about the long records of human rights abuses that have been caused at the hands of the cuban dictatorship. while our current policy brings about change cuba as we update our policy or think we have to make sure we are doing it in a measured comprehensive and thoughtful way that aligns with the current reality. my hope is that the president efforts are met with honest engagement by the cuban government for more open free and tolerant society for the cuban people. three questions in a fight you to respond. the first is there has