e 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

been a lot of talk about what the neighbors are allies in the region have identified a problem with it cuban u.s. policy so what is really the best way we can engage some of these partners in the region who now can point to a change in policy to use them in a way to help bring about liberties and democracy in cuba that we all want to? what's the strategy for effectively engaging others in the region to be partners in this work now but the policy has begun to change? the second is how can we as a congress best advance this issue of human rights? this continues to be a very serious issue. how do we play world in enforcing real progress in helping with the human rights issue and finally to build on mr. sires question how do we ensure that this

economic engagement that is intended here intended to support the cuban people does not instead fortified the government at this very critical time? how do we protect against unintended consequence when we think we are helping entrepreneurs in the private sector strengthened but at the same time and affect helping the government while others are beginning to retract some of their support. >> thank you. a couple of things. on engaging our allies there are a couple of thoughts i have about that. one is that all of the countries in the region as well as our european allies and others, many of them were hesitant if not outright refused to engage with many of the democracy activists for

years. i am very optimistic not having seen concrete results already that they have lost that fear with their change in policy. i think that's usually important. the rhetoric outside the country's important in dialogue but engaging with these activists and supporting them on the island i think is just as important. these people are often accused of being -- and i think others need to embrace them openly and talk and engage with them and hear from them. we are all saying that to them. the other thing is in terms of congress i hope as many as possible will have real congressional delegations that will go to the island and see in cuba civil society and that includes in the arts, and the democracy area as well as entrepreneurs and hearing from the ones that i heard from how they are trying to keep those

funds from going to the cuban government but how they believe they are making their own way independently even if some of those funds are going to the cuban government. i think the psychology of those entrepreneurs is breaking away from the states that is worth that price. the cuban government went through the period of a decline in the soviet union were dropped by -- gdp by 30% and they survived. i think it's important to support those. >> thank you so much. we turned to mr. salmon of arizona. >> thank you. ms. jacobsen when specifically and i'm looking for a date did he find out about the white house cuban negotiations in the context of the president's announcement? >> what i can tell you representative salmon is that i was aware from throughout that the nsc and the white house was

undertaking efforts with allen gross because we were working on the gross case with the family. >> understand that the winnakee find out specifically about the negotiations going on for this past year? what date did you find out about those? >> it was about six months before the announcement that i knew more of the content. >> when did you find out about the announcement itself? >> when the actual date of the announcement was decided i knew about it. >> you find out that she found out simultaneously to the announcement being made? >> no, no, no as that was being decided i knew about that. in other words they knew about the decision to announce the new policy about six weeks as it was being decided before and so the date of the announcement i

knew about as that was being decided at the white house. >> okay. can you tell me what resources, what u.s. resources were used to ensure that sub -- gerardo hernandez could artificially inseminate his wife? what resources do you have for that? >> what i can tell you on that is that we have come the state department from my perspective has always facilitated the visit of his wife to the prison in california when he was incarcerated. so those were the resources that we expended in terms of her visit. >> by transferring and i understand that he was able to artificially inseminate his wife and that was done facilitated by the u.s. government. >> beyond their efforts to facilitate her visit, the rest

was done by the department of justice and i would have to defer to the department of justice. >> i would like to know that but i think it's incredulous that a u.s. priority would be to make sure that he fathered a child while he was in incarceration. i will wait for the answer on that. the last question, the secret negotiations went on for over a year and reportedly consisted of seven meetings so when you went to havana last month the cubans made it clear they would not allow it diplomat to speak to dissidents in an organization was not possible without the return of our naval base in guantanamo bay as well as other nonstarters that we talked about today. so what did we really accomplish other than a t-shirt that i had meetings for a year ago i got was this t-shirt. >> i guess i would start out by saying we got allen gross home

and you know that but beyond that the beginning of this process of normalization starts with diplomatic relations which is only the first part. normalization will take years and we made it very clear that it includes things like property claims which has to be part of this discussion, judgments against the cuban government which has been adjudicated in u.s. court which has to be part of it. that's a much longer process and we have not ceded to anything things. >> and i don't expect that we will acquiesce to any of those things. >> at the start of the process. >> understand that what was your response when they said we are not going to do anything on normalization? >> what they meant by normalization is the end of the year-long process not restoration of diplomatic relations which is the first part. i'm presuming that they

mean they won't have full normalization but they will have restoration of diplomatic relations. smack thank you. i yield back my time. >> thank you very much. mr. connolly of virginia's recognize. >> i thank the chair. ms. jacobsen i believe in politics and diplomacy and a very simple adage don't give it away for nothing. i'm very troubled by the abrupt change is precisely a moment where we actually have leverage. for 50 years one could argue the castro brothers have loved policy because it's helped keep them in power fair enough but that was then and this is now think a change. they're hurting. the economy is hurting. their oil supplier is

hurting and if they look out to the future it's very difficult to see a viable cuban economy without major change including a change in their relationship with us. now i take your point about diplomatic exchange and i put that aside. but the liberalization of trade and tourism and indeed the person's call to begin the process of dismantling the embargo that has been in place for half a century i need to understand what we got in return. where's the reciprocity? why wouldn't the united states good -- use its leverage with respect human rights and press freedoms and with respect to religious freedoms with respect to political dissidents? i am reading from state department personnel dancer that the god was we are not doing that.

that's shocking and i think a disappointment to many that we wouldn't use the leverage we finally have too some good point. i wonder if you would address that because i think we have squandered the leverage. >> first i want to start out by saying what liberalization there has been in regulations and my colleagues would certainly specify in all of this is very specific and i think mr. smith repeatedly noted that most transactions still remain prohibited. >> if i may, fair enough but the president -- promised the presence that explicitly we are going to start the process of dismantling the embargo. the cubans see promise not just here now but a pathway towards the dismantlement of the policy in place for half a century.

>> the cubans keep demanding this in part because it still there. and they know this is not a big liberalization yet. and the most important thing that we have made clear clear to them as we have not let up on cumin -- human rights. if you want to be transactional but the cuban government the problem with that is that they won't trade for anything. and we will end up still not helping the cuban people. the goal of these policies is not to do something that relies on the cuban government agreeing to give the something for the human rights concession. we want to try and go directly to the cuban people. now it's true they may not like the telecommunications companies or

more internet access that what has been news in oliver cuban would every cuban knows as we are starting relations and the bogeyman of the u.s. being their problem is no longer it's no longer credible. >> again and my time is limited i appreciate that and i wouldn't deny there are lots of people who see lots of hope in what has now been started but my question is more specific. what is the reciprocity? what did we get out of this other than aspirations that things will get better with this change because they weren't getting better as the old regime? i can't think of a single thing but in terms of a policy shift a concession. i can't think of a single one.

>> i believe that we also will get some things that matter in opening our embassy and hopefully the ability to travel throughout the country and support more people. we can't move outside of havana right now. >> that is what you hope to negotiate. >> that is necessary for opening an embassy. that part of it. i also think we will have all of these dialogs that they want to have for cooperation. that will be part of those concessions as well. it is to come, i agree. >> chairman nye no my time is up but i want to underline i always make the mistake in foreign-policy to give it away for nothing. >> thank you mr. connolly and now we turn to mr. duncan they chairman of the subcommittee on â >> trade in lifting sanctions is seen as a cure-all foreign-policy with regard to oppressive regimes like cuba. in light of the sanctions in

venezuela the same week in cuba is this an indication that we may see similar normalize relations with other oppressive regimes? >> the sanctions that were imposed of -- on venezuela this past week were additional sanctions. >> the same week as the president started normalizing relations in cuba and sanctions on venezuela. >> of you are talking about the signing of the legislation passed by congress that includes visa sanctions and asset thesis. >> are we going to see more normalization center they're going to be other surprises? >> i can't speak out of my region but i don't expect to see any surprises on venezuela. we have been consulting on that and i expect to continue and any surprises on cuba will continue to consult on that.

>> i think you are surprised over the cuba talks and you weren't read into it until late in the discussion but let's move on. many the people that i speak with about this policy shift on cuba in congress talk about the point to the freedom afforded americans to travel to cuba. the same freedom of travel is the same freedom of travel afforded to the cuban people to travel to united states should all american travelers really stay with his family traveled they stay in hotels by the cuban military and the cuban constitution requires commerce to be controlled by the state so how does increasing commerce with the castro monopoly helped the future? >> let me start out by saying on travel by cubans we are looking at the carefully since a 2013 decision by the cuban government to allow more people

to travel. you have been able to have dissidents here to speak in front of this house who have never been able to before but it's by far not good enough. there still people who can't travel and they should be able to. they should all be able to travel freely. that being said on the trade portion i will go back to what i said. we understand there will be some benefits to the cuban government. we really to believe again because of the people we have talked to who are entrepreneurs because of activism or because a part of this -- artists are some of the small agricultural growth that they will benefit more than the government will. if we are able to implement these regulations and get them the equipment they need that the government will provide. >> they will benefit from an economic transaction that i will give you that, we will see but how about other freedoms? what was negotiated and thus economic freedom of assembly and protest and i point to the

testimony yesterday and i think chris smith talk about it but the truth is the government of cuba represses are right to freedom of religion and association so we go out to participate in religious activities on sundays. they government is a pressing activist gathering together to discuss issues that are important on so protesting against a repressive government is -- so i i asked us what is u.s. bartering exchange for this policy shift other than allen gross's release that benefits the cuban people and gives them more freedom? i want this to be about the cuban people and if we are truly going to pursue a policy to normalize relations about to be about the cuban people and not the castro regime and the castro regime is the only thing that i think benefits from this that i don't see where private property rights and you mentioned that earlier and i

think i will ask a question of private property rights and claims by american cubans and americans and cuban people in general that property was nationalized by the federal government. how are we going to address that that? i think the private property rights are so important and left out of this discussion you and i talked about this the other day. i think that is critical. i'd like you to talk about the freedoms for the american people in the remaining 20 seconds that i have. >> thank you mr. chairman and i agree with you that all of those things are what we are seeking and i think we all agreed that's the goal here. >> tell me how does this policy get us to the school? >> number one by having a lot more people able to work with us on it from outside of cuba than ever before. we were alone. we were not joined by anyone else. we are more effective with eliza number two we believe there were no concessions here. some of these

things are things that we are doing that deeply worried the cuban government because they may not be able to control them. we don't believe anything we did on december 17 that the president and secretary have said were concessions to the government. >> my time is up but the concessions for the cuban people are -- and i yield back. >> now we yield to mr. lowenthal of california. >> thank you mr. chairman i would like to preface my remarks by saying i have been touched listening to the experiences of those that have been the most affected by the repressive regime and join with congressman cicilline and congresswoman bass in saying that i have been touched by their testimony and congressman sires and ros-lehtinen to talk about their families and some of the impacts but having said that i am very supportive of

our re-engagement and a restoration of diplomatic relations. i say that not because i support many of the repressive issues but i say that as someone who represents one of the largest if not the largest vietnamese american communities in the united states. people who escaped intolerable situations who i believe are certainly very against the existing regime in vietnam, have benefited by having greater ability to communicate the sum of their concerns and they have had it by having the u.s. ambassador to vietnam, to a unity which is not at all supportive of the government didn't really have a dialogue and be able to express some other concerns. i see that as a very positive step. my question actually going forward will there be a strategy to

reach out to the cuban american community in the united states who have been suffering a great deal and as my first question. >> absolutely sir. we have begun to do that knowing that the people in that community are diverse as well and seeing activists within cuba among the four points they could agree on was the cuban diaspora has to be taken into consideration. >> that so important and i really think it's very important and i also would like to know what we see as we move forward. there's more trade in more tourism how we are going to deal with many of those tourists going back to cuba and speaking out against their government and we talked about some of those issues. >> we certainly consider that in terms of cubans coming to the united states and when that

travel policy was liberalized there is anon on enormous concern among activists that they spoke freely they either wouldn't be able to go home perhaps or if they went on they wouldn't be able to travel again. the fact that some of them have now been able to travel repeatedly is a good sign but everyone still is fearful. and we have raised that issue. >> does anyone else have any issues or want to respond to some of the issues as the policies began to change? what do you see as some of the consequences? i am wanting to move forward. where do we go from here? where d.c. thinks we need to look at as the policy has changed? >> certainly the treasury's doing a lot of outreach in american public and then secondly we will be watching carefully to see how they play

out in practice. 15% of the cuban population private sector are looking to grow these opportunities so that something will certainly look at carefully. >> i would echo those comments. implementation is what we will be looking out over the next few months and years actually to see what the effects are and what we need to do. >> is a member also because of course land my own concerns and also the concerns of the communities i represent i have been an active member of the tom lantos human rights commission. i have adopted prisoners of conscience in vietnam. i have put pressure on the vietnamese government to release some of these prisoners. i would like to see some of the same efforts increase as we go forward with the change in policies in cuba. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you mr. lowenthal and we go to mr. brooks of alabama.

>> thank you madam chairman. i believe that american policies should be consistent throughout the globe as best as we can do so and by way of example i would like to make a quick comparison between cuba and saudi arabia looking at some of the similarities between the countries and some of the differences and also that different ways in which each is treated by the united states government. on trade american cuban trade is very limited as we all know, less than $500 million per year and exports by america to cuba by the american saudi trade is very robust roughly $80 billion per year perhaps higher. on travel, travel to cuba is limited by the united states government.

saudi arabia quite the opposite. embassies and diplomatic interactions. saudi arabia we have and embassies of significant diplomatic -- and in cuba we have numbers and little to no diplomatic interaction. i could go on and on but i think it's fair to say the united states treats cuba substantially differently than saudi arabia. as i listened to the witnesses and member comments concerning cuba and why cuba must be treated differently i can't help but emphasize some of the similarities and differences that have been pointed out. on the issue of freedom of religion as bad as cuba may be and we have her comments as to how bad it is the question is to saudi arabia worst? one member, and the one religious observance requires cuban government consent get given saudi arabia open worshiped by christians is a criminal offense. if a the muslim dares question whether islam is the

true religion he is severely punished. badawi being a recent example facing 1000 lashes and six to 10 years in prison assuming of course that the lashing does not kill him. on the issue of dictatorial government one would be hard-pressed to determine which family government that of cuba's or the saudis is more dictatorial and i think you can have a robust debate concerning that issue. on the issue of terrorism bearing in mind that 15 to 19, 9/11 terrorists were saudis and also bearing in mind that so much terrorism funding originates in saudi arabia and fairness opposed by the assad regime but a lot of the money comes from a country saudi arabia. one could have a lively debate concerning which country poses a greater threat to world peace. given some of the

similarities and also some differences with saudi arabia being treated by the united states of america what factors in your mind justify treating cuba so much worse than saudi arabia that supports the fifth-year policy that the united states has had with respect to cuba? >> thank you. congressman i think our own few has been pretty clearly laid out by the president and the secretary certainly made a number of comments that we believe that cuba not on its merits necessarily in terms of its behavior but on the effectiveness of policy arguments, the efficiency and what is in our national interest to merit a change in that policy that was announced in december.

i can't necessarily make that comparison between saudi arabia and cuba but i will say that we believe very strongly that the values and the ideals of the united states need to be pursued aggressively all over the world and that they are best pursued and you could expect this from a diplomat at the state department diplomatic relations and having empathy gosar concessions in kits. we do them effectively when we have faith presents and that's why let's have a presence in cuba. >> i am running short of time. america is always faced with the difficult choice that of one hand we can be open hoping that our relations with this country will surely cause them to accept the freedom that we cherish in america where we can be very restrictive as we have been in cuba and north korea and other nations in hopes that the punishment will be sufficient. what do you think long-term is best for cuba? >>

i think we are most effective when i have allies with us and we were alone so i believe the openness with allies to the cuban people and not the cuban government will be affected. >> the gentleman's time has expired and mr. deutsch is recognized. >> thank you for working so quickly to ensure the committee was able to hear from a district on the policyshifts. the administration's announcement has a tremendous impact in the me first say in the immediate term i have serious concerns about the castro regime's continuing -- as many my colleagues have brought up today and i hope that we expect and demand more of them. the administration's announcement one of the major newspapers publish an in-depth feature called plundering america which expose a way which underground criminal networks have exploited u.s. policy toward cuba. madam chairman denies its open

its doors to the cuban people so they could have a better life free from the oppressive castro regime and the overwhelming majority of those who come here have made it an incredible contribution to this country and become a deep fabric of our society. great examples we have here on this panel are colleagues and my friends. policies put in place to ensure that those who sought refuge in the u.s. would still be able to see their families or send remittances are being taken advantage of by small binaries for criminal gain. officials engaged in organized criminal activity have turned her humanitarian policy into an underground criminal enterprise by using their ability to return to and from cuba to engage in illicit fraud activities particularly the report noted medicare fraud and transporting large sums of cash back to the island and evading arrest from the cuban regime as that they will not exit ip switches. they have turned her open door policy into a revolving door enabling and i quote groups from to interrupt american businesses and taxpayers of more than $2

billion over two decades end quote critic as administration rebalances his relationship with cuba hope we are not ignoring criminal activity that casters have turned a blind eye to at best and we need to know what extent the regime for people connected to the regime have or will continue to be involved in these illegal crime rates? assistant secretary jacobs and i'd like to know if your initial round of talks with cuba included discussion of extradition of fugitives from cuba and if not when and how will this issue be raised? >> thank you congressman and it certainly did include the discussion of fugitives. it did not specifically include the question of extradition. as you know we have a very old extradition treaty that has not been used in many years. i have no idea whether we will get back up eventually to actually using it but it certainly includes the question of fugitives and the desire to

have much more in depth conversation about law enforcement and fugitive issues in the future. >> can you elaborate a bit? extradition you refer to is the situation we have now but in the talks how did they talks focus? >> i just want to be clear the morning of the talks on the diplomatic restoration. the afternoon talks were on a whole series of subjects on which we are going to have experts who are not may have much more substantive conversations about what we want and that is one of the subjects. >> and what will be the context of those discussions and when will they take place? >> we are going to try to set this up as quickly as possible. part of that conversation began in the migration talks because we take with us are lawyers and the department of justice and we talk about fugitives in the context of the migration talks

but we have actually begun that one. we will have a separate conversation i'm unfortunate fugitives basically as we can set these up into time schedule. the cubans are a little bit overwhelmed by her new wanting to have dialogue on subjects. >> where would the -- the money goes or the role of the cuban government in sponsoring or even training these individuals or what's being done to impede their activities? >> they work with orlaw enforcement colleagues. with regard to money flows or

thing that is might g pact u.s. law or u.s. sanctions i couldn't talk about anything that we would be actually looking at. >> can you sfeek to the specific situation that was described at great length in these newspaper reports? so >> ilt refer to theclick the details, the think department of justice. their with they're primary equity in the statutes that would be involved, reinforce the section was, and very little from what i've seen impact regulations we would enforce. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. >> sec. jacobson, you certainly did not make concessions to the cuban government would later in your answers you conceded the increased economic activity will have some benefit to the cuban government. that is a

concession, is it not? >> it is a benefit. >> especially considering they're two main patrons venezuela and russia are reeling with the change in world oil prices and the castro government very much wants any type of patronage they can get. money that money that goes into that country we will be controlled by the government if you are going to argue differently, why is it that we are really the only country that has these restrictions. open relations, how come with all of those ties the cuban people have not benefited? you said in your testimony that the cuban people are not better off. my question is, if the other policies of all the other countries are so good, good, why haven't the cuban people benefited?

>> part of the problem in terms of actual economic policy is that they have not modernized they're system, opened her system, made of foreign investment while. >> and they said that they are not going to change. this is a victory a victory for the cuban revolution, and we are not going to change. i don't see where you get that the people of cuba will benefit more than the regime until there is a change i think the benefits will be bottled up at the top. >> remittances go to the cuban people. in addition 11 of the reasons they have not rushed to implement the telecommunications provisions or the internet provisions they provisions, they have been wary of this because they no full well they probably will not be able to control it and the benefits may well reach the cuban people.

>> let me ask you this, when you took your trip were you given access to the places where political prisoners are being held? >> i was not. >> is their any discussion, the administration trying to get property returned that was confiscated and american citizens when castro took power? >> we made clear in the conversations that the issue of property has to be part of normalization. >> what was they're response? >> they agreed it has to be part of the conversation and responded that they had issues they wanted to raise about losses under the embargo. >> one of the issues, gitmo, issues, gitmo, can you categorically state on january 20, 2017, at 12:00 p.m., that it we will still be under us control?

>> i am certain that guantanamo will still be a us-based, but i cannot tell you a hypothetical about what may be part of normalization talks. it is not on the table for us, and i cannot envision that. i am not a high enough ranking person to no whether it could be in the future. >> i am just talking about over the next two years of this administration. >> i cannot envision that. >> cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. the government has to provide assurances that they we will support international terrorism. has the cuban government provided those assurances? >> cuba has repeatedly rejected international terrorism, and we are in the process right now as we review this of looking at

statements and evaluating whether they have or that they we will. >> i am concerned to me that is a declaration to the contrary does the administration believe the president has the authority to unilaterally lift the embargo? >> clearly not overhead would not have and encouraged the debate in congress. >> i think i think it is important to get this on the record. the statute is clear about what has to happen, and there is no evidence that any of those criteria have been met. >> i'm sorry, i waiver? >> any type of restrictions that can be waived retires their are certain restrictions that are lifted >> to act to lift the embargo that the president was clear he

wants to be debated in congress. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. castro of texas. >> i have been moved by the testimony and also my colleague, cuban-american, and many, particularly the more senior generation lost family members, property, they're livelihoods in they're country and for many years much of our foreign policy was in great deference to that fact. when you here the stories, it is understandable. i think i think with the president's change in normalization of diplomatic relations the power of american culture and our technology and democracy will ultimately win out and in many ways was the

start of a new revolution. i see this as positioning the united states for when they are gone. how does it position our country once these books are no longer in power? >> thank you. this is the question. one of the critical things is the next generation of activists, leaders. one of the most important things is how we work with the current human rights activists and leaders, the new entrepreneurs and artists. how do we encourage them. performance art and asked cubans to speak openly 300

artists wrote in support it is novel and important. >> true. in places like china they cannot access social media but have access. >> it has to be changed by congress. we have no plans to request such a change. >> thank you. >> i yield back.

>> thank you, madam chair. it is interesting, i feel often if something has not been working for 50 years you should look at changing it, but know one seems to go directly to the issue except some of the comments i have i have heard today about how nothing has changed within the country. i am interested in a couple of things. the president brokered policy by empowering white house aides to conduct secret negotiations. i think it is probably ms. jacobsen because at some time you were brought in and made aware, what happened because that moment in time with when the president decided to appoint these negotiations in secret and why?

why did he break from policy? >> i cannot answer that question on behalf of the president. what i can tell you is that one of the two people engaged in those discussions is a foreign service officer on loan to the white house, one of our foremost experts on july having served their and on the cuban issue at the state department. >> but you don't no what suddenly sparked now is the time this has to happen? >> i think their has long been a concern within the administration that the policy was not effective in empowering the cuban people. >> let me ask you this then, ms. jacobson. many of the questions -- i heard i heard from representative connelly and others, what did we get. if i understand your testimony today, the secret negotiations included, for instance discussions about the

brutalization of families, in other words, how you compensate families for personal was during the castro takeover and cents and there has been a promise that would be part of the negotiations before they're we will be a proposal to dismantle the embargo. >> what has to be part of full normalization of relations that is making a relationship with cuba look like every other normal one -- and that is the full range of things, not just diplomatic relations -- is a process and resolution of this long-standing issue of claims which the foreign claims settlement commission's has in judgment >> and i wanted on the record so i understand because you separated between diplomacy and complete normalization which would be lifting the embargo

and things the president says he cannot do as the executive arm of congress. we talk about diplomacy, opening an embassy, hopefully getting to travel across the island which right now has not been assured, that is diplomacy. there are a few things the administration can do without congressional approval. the next step, there has been a promise that they're we will be as part of any agreement moving forward, any final agreement and understanding as to how these families will be compensated for the personal and property loss. is that correct? >> their will be a process with the cuban government to come to resolution of those issues. >> so you may not require they be reimbursed or compensated for loss? >> i think in all of these kinds of cases -- and i will ask my colleagues if they have comments, but it may be the department of justice that is

better placed to answer this -- it has to be mutually agreed between two countries. >> i understand, but you lead us to believe, at least to me, these were issues that were raised and have been discussed and would lead me to believe they're are things that we will be required if congress is ultimately going to approve a full normalization. >> right which means a satisfactory resolution which means we must be satisfied but the cuban government will have to be satisfied, to. >> and that would include harboring of murderers and thieves and criminals by the castro regime? >> the question of fugitives , if you mean the question of fugitives â >> i added it. you put all of this together today, and i see my time is running out. you made it sound as though these will be necessary requirements to a final agreement.

i final agreement. i believe my time has expired, madam chair. >> thank you. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you for coming today. i would like to ask a question or two about this deal's impact on religious freedom in cuba. i represent southwest florida. 94 percent of the jewish folks left after the revolution, some came to my district, so this is a question, i'm sure, is on a lot of they're minds of those that remain that are family members. there are also other religious folks that have been persecuted in cuba, christians. we don't talk a lot about mormons, but there are two mormon branches, i understand, in cuba and other religious minorities as well. i wonder about the impact of this deal of tolerance for religion in general. and will and will missionaries and other folks from different sex be allowed to go and help their

brothers and sisters >> i think it is important congressman, the regulations -- and i can let my colleagues -- this expands the ability of religious groups because what we have done is make religious missions part of religious opportunity general license, and so we are hoping that they're are more religious groups that are able to go and see counterparts in cuba and have that interaction. in terms of the tolerance for religious groups in cuba, i hope they're we will be an impact certainly by having the brethren.

i visit the jewish community every time i go to cuba and visited this time with the church. and there was recently obviously the announcement of the knew church to be built, a new catholic church to be built, but it is an important part of what we are hoping to stimulate as part of civil society. >> i could just add to that that in the past many americans had to come and seek what is called a specific license to be able to go to cuba to engage in religious activities, and one of the changes we made was to authorize that in our regulations, which means people may now go for religious activities, for religious purposes without coming to this government agency to seek approval 1st. >> and their are two pieces on our side. one, for those trips generally authorized for religious purposes the things travelers want to be taking with them can be done under regulation rather than waiting

for specific authorization and another peace allows building materials to be allowed, for allowed, for example building of churches, again without individual authorization. >> i hope we will have measurable sphere. i am always worried about bait and switch infusing some other aspect of the law to get around things that are uncomfortable. i personally think it is hard to have a meaningful life for a lot of folks if they don't have a meaningful religious experience. i hope the administration will follow up to where we actually see meaningful, opening, meaningful religious awakening of the island for so many that wanted. >> thank you, sir. >> i have have know more to say. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas.

>> i apologize. let me ask you a couple a couple of quick questions. we will you be okay while i question her? >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much. ms. jacobson, i appreciate your professionalism and demeanor and attitude. you have done a good job, and i appreciate that. of the state and treasury regulations now fully and compliance with the intent of congress, ms. jacobson, when it passed the trade sanctions reform and export sanctions act of 2,000. >> yes sir, i believe they are. >> you believe they are? going forward, and i understand you said the president wants the dialogue in congress, and i appreciate my colleague from texas' comments about moving

forward past the current regime. that was an interesting take going forward, we will the egg trade -- and i have rice farmers and texas taxes in my district who are interested in the trade part of this. will the trade of act products be able to be conducted without a lot of input and some would say interference from the administration? >> i think that is a great question. i may defer to my colleague out some of this. >> they will feel good about that. >> they will, and it will give me a chance to have a little bit of water. >> mr. smith. >> we made changes in the current regulations that changed the terms to what the act exporters requested, and requested, and so it should be easier for them to send â >> without a lot of red tape. >> without requirements. >> any input? >> one thing we were not able

to address was the requirement that they're be a license that is no more restrictive. that stays in place. >> a 12 day process. >> if someone wants to make and export. yes or no in 12 days. >> that other than changing the cash and handle, what other changes do you know? anybody. >> when you say other than â >> that would give us other opportunities for act products in particular. >> we allowed us banks to establish corresponding accounts and cuban banks, and what helps with that is if you want an american exporter ticket payment from the cuban exporter and has to go through a 3rd country. under this rule they can pay directly and can be made faster and easier and make exporters more competitive.

>> i think also the travel general license makes it easier for people who want to investigate business opportunities without waiting for a license. >> in many of the cases before they would have to come to seek a specific a specific license. now they do not have to for a variety of activities they would use associated with trade like marketing and export, delivery. >> that is an improvement. the dry foot wet foot policy, tell me what that is. >> the cuban adjustment act allows that cuban citizens who arrive on us soil are permitted to adjust they're status and remain whereas those who may be interdicted by the coast guard if they have no protection concerns may be returned.

>> that is what i figured. that is all my questions and i thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. we will now go to a 2nd round of questions. the chair recognizes herself the foreign claims commission has found their are almost 6,000 us claims that are judged to be qualified for compensation by the castro dictatorship. the adjudicated value by adding at 6 percent simple interest according to this commission makes the total principal value of american claims to over $8 billion today. i do not think the state department will enforce by investigating trafficking and confiscated us property, nor enable us property owners to secure

compensation for the unauthorized use of property subject to the claim. do you think that you will or won't? and i worry the administration will use influence to go even further will we try to get cuba into the world bank, imf, idb, other multilateral development banks, banks, or will we prevent any assistance financing, or benefit from these institutions and tell us property claims have been resolved to the satisfaction of american owners? lastly, if you could tell us the three conditions according to us law for the embargo to be lifted. and i know the president is going to present us legislation to free up the embargo. what of those three conditions have

been met that would satisfy the embargo justified -- justify the embargo being lifted? first, on the claims, what we will do if we help cuba get into these organizations and then the three conditions. >> let me start off by saying, i have been cognizant of the importance of resolutions of the claims issues and judgments from the beginning of this process. it it is it is important that those be resolved. the state department as well as other agencies, the justice department, congress foreign claims settlement act it to adjudicate and assign value to claims we believe strongly that has to be part of future conversations over the next two years, however long normalization may take. of. those are extremely difficult to have with any foreign

government,, but we intend to pursue that as part of our discussion. i raised that in the very 1st conversation, knowing that we would not talk about it that they deeply, but it must be part of full there is specific language in the law about this. we believe we are not in position right now where cuba is eligible for membership certainly. >> you say right now, do you foresee this? >> we all hope for the day were there would be logical membership. it would be a free and open cuba. i don't know exactly what point.

we hope that at some point in the future they may ask for help to open their system. they are not right now. just as we said -- >> will we be advocating for cuba's inclusion in these international organizations? >> win and advocating for their membership. we want to make sure that at some point in time it may be useful to have organizations like the imf not give them help but help them open their economy, -- >> these organizations are keeping them from opening their economy. what are the three conditions that would allow the lifting of

the embargo? what of those three have been met? >> i don't have them in front of me. >> i hope that when you negotiate you keep in mind u.s. law. the president is calling for the lifting of the embargo or it that is u.s. law. we hope you will abide by that. mr. clawson has a follow-up lasted. >> i believe that good leadership requires all stakeholders to be taken into account. companies go off track and they only think about shareholders and i think is important we keep all stakeholders and keep them into account. this felt like a sad decision because it seemed to bypass the

normal conversation with all stakeholders with respect to cuba. i want to be on the record on that. this decision doesn't feel there because the lack of process that we went through to get here, surprising people that have stakes in the game of cuba. i want to be on the record on that it makes your job a lot more difficult. i can't imagine surprising people to work for me by bypassing them in cutting a deal with somebody without them knowing it. it feels like that undercuts your authority in the future. maybe you see that different. i don't see how that's not the case. i want to say thank you for hanging in there and i think

your job got tougher and not your. i want to thank you for the service you do our country. along those lines, i want to say thanks for hanging in there today. it's not easy coming up here. you get it from both sides in our case. you have done it with humor and hung in there and kept your sense of humor. i expressed my appreciation for making time for us. >> i would request unanimous consent to present a letter about the announcement an agreement for democracy in cuba. beds from the director of this committee.

questions for the record from congressman mario diaz. our committee is adjourned.

>> federal health officials will testify about vaccine use and the reemergence of certain preventable diseases in the u.s. we will hear from pediatric disease specialist. coverage starts this morning at 10:00 eastern. bob packwood in the bradley were part of a tax deal with president reagan, they will be at the senate and its committee. they will talk about changes to the tax cut. that is live at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. on our next washington journal we will talk to jerry conley of

virginia. a congressman will discuss whether to grant authority to fight isis in syria and iraq. we will talk about historically black colleges. washington journal is live each morning.

let me think the council or generous support of this program. we've been going on now for four years. the news keeps getting better after a. when it didn't. we are here to talk about the people to people aspects. these are just as important in some ways than the technicalities of how many centrifuges iran is allowed to have. we want to see more interaction of the people of iran and the united states. i am a barbara slaven. i am delighted. we have a speaker today, someone who has been involved with iran for many years and he is a six

term congressman. during his tenure, he was on the commerce committee. he also served on the budget committee. he is currently a partner with the law firm. he advises clients in matters ending before congress. i think from our perspective, is most impressive is the has been part of something called the dialogue which is encouraged interfaith dialogue between the united states and iran. this is coordinated by the peace research institute. jim has just come back recently from his first visit to iran.

i will ask them to come up and talk about what that was like in the prospects for a better people to people relationship. iran. so congressman. thank you again for coming. >> it is great to be with you. let me say i have admired you from a far and admired the work you did. your book is one of my favorites. and i appreciate your scall scholarship on that. it is a pleasure to join you to talk about a passion of mine and that is avoiding iran >> do you want at a talk about getting involved with the

interface and what it was like being in the land. >> over the last few years, i had the opportunity to participate in the dialogue with iranians. it was composed of muslims, christians, and jews and representatives of the abraham faith participated. the fascinating part was the par advertise pants from iran were approved by the highest leadership in iran and they were what i called second tier people in iran. they were heads of the business community, presidents of the universities, personal friends of the supreme leader personal friends of the president at the time. now many of the people that we got acquainted with over a ten year period moved into positions

of key responsibilities in this new government. so i feel particularly lucky we had an opportunity to build friendships with these people. and one of the things i learned along the way is the iranians are deeply concerned about respect. the one thing they yearn for is respect. think about the whole notion of the west respecting them. very important. another thing i learned was that if you want to engage iranians and especially the shitte -- shiite muslims. you can say help me understand what the koran spells out on

everything from nuclear war to sex. i think it is a way of demonstrating respect to people of religious faith and many of the people we met during the period were sincere in their faith. many were clerics and leaders in the political and academy realm. that is the background on the issue. >> can you tell me roughly house education and workforce committee -- how many readings? these were primarily meetings in europe. >> we have probably had 20 meetings at different times. one evening, i took a group of ayatollahs to the floor of the united states representatives. i will never forget standing in the house and the iranian friends were captured by the

fact there is an inscription above the speakers house that says in god we trust. and they were fascinated by the fact there is a relief of moses looking down on the house of representatives. i think it is very important for us as we engage iran and for that matter, as we engage the broader muslim world, to respect their religion and figure out how to communicate more effective with them about the common things among christianity and islam. that is another conversation but it is an important part of the relationship that we blow by. i think because of my involvement over the last ten years in the interfaith dialogue, my name may have come on the radar screen in iran. i know a number of people in the

government and i received an invitation to talk about a conference called the world against violence and extremism. they told me i was the first former member of congress or current member of congress that has been invited to iran since 1979 to speak. i don't know if that is true or not. but that is what they told me. my topic at the last minute was can religion be a force for peace in the middle east. and the answer to that question is yes, it can be. but it can be a problem, too. but i was particularly pleased that the chief of staff and former prime minister and the

former president all three spoke at the conference and were clear, strong, and emphatic in condemning the violent acts of terrorism on the parts of isis and other religious phonetical kitchen fanatical -- groups committed in the name of islam. i wish the western media did a better job of covering the conference. i thought the statements were clear, and strong and saying the things so many of us in the united states would like to hear said by leaders in the islamic world. >> i remember clearly the first time i went to iran in 1996, aliving in the middle of the night and jet lagged, but the first impression is important. i remember being a little nervous going as a journalist afterwards afterwards. i put down my passport and this

big gruff man giving me a smile. i understand you had a positive reception shall i say. >> it was really interesting. my trip started at the pakistani embassy here in washington where the iranian intersection is located. it blew my mind. i go into a meeting and the three people that interviewed me to get my visa two had degrees from kansas state university. i used to represent kansas state and the university of kansas when i was in the congress. they were both in my congressional district. they started talking to me and one remembered me being the congressman from manhattan, kansas. and he was talking to me about the fact they got married in man manhattan and his wonderful experience in manhattan, kansas.

so fastforward to my first night in iran and i sat down to dinner with the man's assistant, and guess where he went to school? he went to the university of kansas. and he was telling me he remembered me being his congressman. and he had a conversation about the jayhawks and their season. talk about a small world, though. it blows your mind. back to your point, i arrived inat 3:30 in the morning and i think every light was on when i flew in. >> was it thursday night? >> it may have been. anyway every light that you can imagine was on and there wasn't

a cloud in the sky so it was a great view as you arrived. we arrived and i should identify doctor here sitting in the front row and he was my guide as we landed there. one of the funny things that happened is we got off the plane and went through there passport area and they were short on vips because a lot were there to atened the conference. we had to wait and while why -- we waited i started chatting with the passport patrol people. one of them who spoke good english said i hope you can get this nuclear thing worked out because we are working forward

to meeting american women here. i thought this was once again a reminder of certain things being universal. and i responded by saying to him you have to keep in mind if we do this there will probably be handsome young american men here competing with you for the attention of the persian women. we had a wonderful exchange there. and they asked me if i wanted to go by one of the ayatollah's mosque on the way to a hotel. so what do you do at 4:30 in the morning? >> it is on the way. >> long story i shot i found myself going through the memorial, shine, mosque burial sight and i thought well you know why not?

you know, so we walked through and it is pretty obvious i am a westerner, but i found it interesting. so hostile reactions from anyone. expressions were friendly. we took pictures of the facility and quitely walked out and left. we went to the hotel and in the morning, there was a session for the conference. but that was my first introduction. >> i want to open the floor to questions very soon because i know you probably have a lot of them. but i don't know if you would like to say a few words about how the vissit went. i remember many efforts made back when they were trying to

have american congressman go to iran but it never happened. there were members of the iranian parliament in i believe 2000 who came to new york. they went into the metropolitan museum of art but i don't remember if they went to washington or congress. >> thank you, barbara for putting this wonderful meeting together. before i answer that james, talk about the importance of the dialogue and talked about the iranian side and those who participated. but he didn't mention the american side. there have been many things from the leaders but the key point is we are bringing people who

distrust the leadership. you know how our political leaders respect the religious separation here. we need to bring common issues and talk about that and break the breath and also make friendships and connection and us as a human being and people who love to have relation and respect. outcome of that has been one that was a change of iran. history wasn't just officially in congressman, he was someone who takes care of families as a friend of communities you have been working on for years. that is how we were able to go to iran. and we were received well. not as an official guest but as

a friend. considering i think whoever came here yes, it has happened but not just because of the abraham trade but because of taking part in world economy bank or meetings from the parliament. there are other officials meetings going on but some have been part of the abraham dialogue. so they are friend so it is natural to have a recession or guv them a tour. >> some members of the iranian parliament have been in washington? >> i think they are coming every six months for the world bank. >> we don't do what we should be doing to encourage direct conversations.

we are dealing with very few members of the administration few members of the government congress or the executive branch, have any personal relationships with iranians and this is a tragedy. that is why i like eisenhower believe in people to people diplomacy and building relationships and friendships so when the time of crisis comes you have friendships and relation relationships to have a bases to go from. >> are there plans to get the contact? there is opposition in both bodies as pointed out to the nuclear agreement which appears to be in the process of being nu negotiate as we speak. it would seem it would be very valuable to have that contact. >> i will do everything i can to encourage that and already did

some of that. i believe one of the great problems we have to overcome is ignorance. it is amazing when i have conversations with members of the congress just how little they anyhow about iran. and there is great misunderstanding on the part of the iranians in key positions of leadership about the united states. what we can do to break down the walls of ignorance and suspicion is of value to the united states. >> did you meet any of them >> i cannot attribute remarks to specific individuals, but i did meet with high ranking members, and i can tell you they had several very important points to make. number one is hawaii -- number one is they are all deeply concerned about what affect our elections will have on obama's capacity to implement any

agreement. that was a deep concern to them. they were troubled by the prosspect of iranians putting their best deal on the table only to have it rejected by the united states congress and in the united states. this would be a political disaster for them. they need to be told if there is a deal that is worked out they want to be approved and implemented by the obama administration and will not be scuttled by the congress. the other thing i took away from the conversations especially with the members, and keep in mind these members are populated by more conservative element in iran, than the other governments perhaps, but they made it clear to me they are determined that iran will preserve its rights under the mpt specifically the right to enrich uranium for

peaceful purchases. >> there is not such a right in the mpt. >> they perceive they have the right and i am aware of that dispute. there is an intense desire that iran be able to retain some enrichment kalecapabilities. and i deconnected a greatfluxability on the part of the iranians with respect to what i call the technical enrichment questions. the level, quantity, center of centrifuges are negotiable and tied to the issue of whether and when the united states is prepared to lift the sanctions. the quicker we do that the more forthe forthecoming they will be with respect to the nuclear issues.

>> okay. that is a great introduction. and let me open to you, wait for the mike, say your name and ask a question, please. >> thank you. i am with the wes asia council and thank you congressman. my question has to do with your view of the american civil institutions like education and universities and the american people and their role unloading the charge of establishing these people-to-people contact as opposed to always waiting for either government to be the one that leads the way and opens the path whether you think civic activism in this arena could be the bridge builder that is needed right now. thank you.

>> i support all kinds of bridge building efforts whether they are academic religious, faith-based or anything we can do to encourage dialogue between the united states and iran is beneficial for both sides. we should not be afraid to learn. and so i favor that dialogue. and i must tell you that i think both sides are equally guilty of trying to prevent that kind of discussion and dialogue. we have to really think about and address that i would like to see the administration be more forthcoming and i would like to see the iranian government be more forthcoming to admitting more americans to the area and our greatest enemy in this process may be ignorance. this is 2015. we have all of the communication

availability we need. >> you talked about ignorance. what did you lease expect that surprised you on your visit? >> there is a bunch of things about iran that are fascinating to me. one thing i wish all-americans understood was 60% of the students in the universities in iran are female. a rather unique situation in islam. when i talk to my iranian friends, they share with me off the record they are troubled with what they will do with all of these educated women in the future. i find that very interesting. the other thing that is amazing to me is in the streets, it is like the worst rush hour traffic in washington all day long. the other thing i observed is

every third or forth car is drib n by a woman. it is a whole different world than saudi arabia. and the other thing i found walking the streets, and let me share with you i was in baghdad several years ago to serve as an international election monitor and the sunni areas of baghdad. when i travelled from the green zone and woke up on election day i thought i was in a thunder only to realize there were bombs going off around me. we went out into the sunni areas to observe the voting place and i had to travel with five armored vehicles and literally 15 armed guards with me and i would not have lasted five minutes i don't believe in those neighborhoods but for all of this armed protection. i talked the streets and you

know, no problem. went to the bizarre and people talked to me and visited with me and i detected no anger toward me as an obvious westerner. i felt safe on the streets. we didn't walk by the american embassy, but drove by it, and at the bizarre i felt safe on the streets there. i could not say the same being in baghdad. ...

improved relationship with the united states. let me elaborate. i left all of these conversations in tehran. tehran. the conversations i have had subsequent with a firm belief that the rabbani government really wants to get this right. they want an agreement on the nuclear question. i question. i believe they also see us as a threshold decision. decision. if we can get it right on the nuclear question then i think they believe there is

an opportunity to move quickly dealing with the other urgent regional issues the iranians with whom i visited them all of them were puzzled by the fact that the united states was so reluctant to engage iran in dealing with isis. for example, has below. they believe they believe that if we can figure out how to address each other's concerns about the nuclear question and do it in no way a way that is respective of and recognizes the concerns of israel than there is no

people who are concerned that iran will pocket and nuclear deal and use the revenues to get more money to causes and actually redouble efforts to oppose

israeli policies. so how would you answer those critics? >> i can understand that concern. we have to be mindful of the reality that when it comes to this nuclear question their is no margin for error, no margin for error. as americans i don't think we can get our head around that reality easily. having said that, i i believe strongly that we have a historic moment right now and we have -- the clock is ticking on both sides of the table. i believe that the iranians and this government want to do a deal with the united states that we will result in the lifting of the sanctions. i believe that they are prepared to give us virtually unlimited access to the nuclear facilities to

address our concerns about compliance with whatever agreement is entered into. i think that is the best way for us to achieve one of our most important objectives, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to specifically prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon that will surely lead to an arms race, nuclear arms race in the middle east which is a disaster for everybody and is in no one's interest. let me observe, i agree with general dempsey who has said the iranians are rational and i believe that. smart and sophisticated people and are good negotiators but a lot of

people in the united states do not think they are rational. i reject that. i believe they are rational. i believe -- as a matter of fact, they have told me things. jim do you think we're crazy? don't you understand that we no that you could unload one half of one of your trident submarines on our country and the rubble would bounce. do do you think that we don't understand that if we ever militarily struck israel it would result in almost the immediate annihilation of our country? they share those kind of thoughts with me. me. now, i just share them with you. i don't believe that the iranians are irrational. i believe they we will act in their own self-interest. i believe they understand that a nuclear weapon does not enhance the national security.

you know, you have the supreme leader saying that it is against islam to have weapons of mass distraction. they.to the fact that during the iran-iraq war they did not respond. one of the side notes, the chairman of the wave conference that i spoke up, he was a victim of being gassed. he has shared with me personally that he worries about what effect this is going to have on his children genetically somehow be passed to his children. he has also shared with me that he has forgiven the united states. he believes we were acquiescent, that we were not helpful in terms of preventing saddam from using the gas that was used against the iranians.

whatever that is worth. >> right there. >> arms control association. thank you for this presentation. i want to follow-up on what you were just talking about, the iranian views on nuclear weapons. did you get a sense there is a differentiation? i would assume an i/o dc commander might have a different view than ayatollah. so that is the 1st part of the question. the question. the 2nd since there is a religious component in your dialogue how you explain do you explain the christian view about the morality of nuclear weapons? >> let me take this in reverse order. first of all i believe they're are difference -- differences of opinion within iran. there are clearly people who do not want to see an

approach met with the united states. i would put those opponents in iran into categories one, those who are currently benefiting from economic sanctions, people who are making money on the economic sanctions and life is good. and then you have another group the defenders of the revolution i would call them the people who truly believe in the islamic revolution and see approach met with the united states as a threat to the revolution and believe that it means greater western influence which they perceive as being sinful and decadent and offensive to everything important about islam. so that crowd is also opposed. so you have those forces working against an agreement

and others clearly. the challenge is how do we move beyond that and take advantage of that group, a growing group who still truly want a better relationship with the united states which is where i put i put the romani government and the team that is in charge right now. the other quick observation is that all of the people i visited with have all indicated to me that they believe the supreme leader is supportive of series, these negotiations, and albeit a skeptic as to where this is going because i think the supreme leader still believes that the united states ultimate objective is regime change. in the back of his mind is thinking the united states wants to see this government go way and they want to see

a change a fundamental change in the government. the supreme leader has great skepticism, but i believe he has reluctantly agreed to proceed with these negotiations and find out where in the world that lead him. you boil it all down and the bottom line is that under all of our faith tradition, teaching, and theologies will have the right. that is maybe the common ground. >> you mentioned the supreme leader who made some interesting remarks yesterday where he once again expressed his support for the negotiations. interesting how a language gets married on the other

side. obama says that no deal is better than a bad deal. he also said he strongly implied that the deal that is now being negotiated is a deal that he could accept. there is there is some disagreement in the community about how to interpret his remarks but also there is more forward leaning and a little less hostile to the united states that they're have been recently which suggests he is preparing the ground for the acceptance of some sort of agreement which would require concessions. >> i thought it was interesting that he made the.of talking about middle ground. >> and that both sides have to make concessions. >> i had not heard that before. >> i thought it was rather unique. again i think, further indication that the supreme leader's blessing these negotiations and is guardedly optimistic that maybe something can be achieved.

the other side of this, what happens if we fail? what happens if we fail? that is the question i would have. it is one thing to come in and condemn negotiations and be critical. i think i think it was president truman that once observed that any jackass didn't kick a barn down. it takes a carpenter to build one i'm not. but my.is, it is easy to be critical. it is hard to negotiate these kind of deals, and hard to build trust. the failure to complete an agreement right now and the failure to improve this relationship has very

dangerous consequences for the united states some people asked me why and the world you're involved and why you care. and you know i must tell you i don't have a client in any of this. but the reason i care deeply is because it's all about my kids and grandkids, i suppose. as we look over the next 20, 25 years what years what we see on the horizon. an enormous economic challenge to this country than we look at the world of islam. 1.3 billion muslims. this is just country boy

kansas common sense. sense. we cannot as a country of 307 million people confront the economic challenges that are surely to be on the horizon. we cannot confront those economic challenges while being sucked into a prolonged war in the world of islam. where does this end? and for goodness sakes, if we think we are as original country to engage in more and more wars in the world of islam while taking on the economic challenges of asia we are fools. we don't wake up 20 or 30 years 46. that's why it is so important for us to prevent more wars in the world of islam.

one of the things that i thought about and have shared when we approach the world of islam muslims are directed, directed, commanded, time to follow the teachings of all of the profits from all the prophets including jesus. now in the world of christendom are we supposed to be following jesus as well? whether we see him as savior a profit it's posted be following the teachings of jesus, jesus, isn't they're a space here for conversation? and why can't we have that conversation? and i believe if we can engage the world of islam where they are and religion is a big part of the life there life just as it is in kansas, by the way.

i think that their could be an interesting conversation. that takes me back to the.someone raised about the need for more dialogue between the faith communities here and their and academic communities. i think that opportunity exists and should be pursued >> before we continue i want to recognize former congressman jim moody's brilliant idea it was to invite congressman flattery to come and talk to us about his trip as good as he predicted. i want to acknowledge that. >> i have been talking to iranian immigrants to the us will have relatives. and i talked to a lady and said, what do the average people want? she said, they want to be able to travel to disney world.

abcaseven and it just blew me away. in the 80s i want to leningrad and they wanted lipstick from l'oreal, cover girl, cosmopolitan magazine. there is just so much about this issue and it is always focused at the radicals. who is speaking out for the moderates? >> and iran? >> how about just the general population? they did a poll back in 1999 and it was about 70 percent at the time. the government was so upset that it but the poster in prison but the poster was a former hostage holder. so what you experienced with the people at passport control and so on is certainly more common than the death to america that we usually hear about.

>> you know let me strike a balance here. and i believe that if they fail more hard-line government in iran. forces in iran who are opposed to give up any of their nuclear and

respectability and project there own devices will probably develop a nuclear weapon. the challenge for us to automatically is to empower those in iran to see that that is a foolish course and the wiser is to engage with the united states and find solutions to this nuclear question and move on quickly to address those regional issues where we have a common interest. and in my conversations over ten years for many of them we will tell me that when it comes to the palestinians the palestinians in other words, whatever the palestinians will accept they we will accept. i think that if we got this deal of the nuclear question it we will reduce hopefully the anxiety and the fear legitimate fear and that

would make it easier for us to have conversations about the south of lebanon and hamas. we should not be afraid to have those discussions and conversations. conversations. i think the 1st.is to get this nuclear deal done in a way that is the best way available, best reasonable way available to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. let me just observe if we enter into an agreement with iran and everybody pretty much agrees that they have complied with the agreement that was entered into and have eliminated uranium enriched to the 20th

percent level in the frozen the program, so any suggestion that if these negotiations have somehow been to the us and the west this advantage is just wrong. the program is basically frozen in place. that is moving us toward a situation where ron does not have a nuclear weapon. when sanctions when into place in the place and we pat ourselves on the back but the bottom line sanctions line, sanctions in place, about 200 centrifuges spinning. by their own admission today they're are 20,000 centrifuges online. you tell me. >> lady back they're. >> thank you.

i would just like to get your feedback on how you view what is happening in congress right now with the threat of sanctions in the event -- it is pretty fluid, i think, with sen. menendez changing his position. but how you view that situation in congress with the threat of new sanctions possibly derailing the nuclear negotiations and also if you could comment, is it normal for the president to be negotiated -- negotiating what is effectively an arms-control deal without bringing it to the congress to be ratified? >> number one i encourage

my friends in congress to avoid supporting additional sanctions at this time. it's counterproductive. i don't think it will accomplish anything. it risks blowing up the negotiations. i think the congress is very troubled the fact that these negotiations are extending indefinitely. yet it is a little bit like budget negotiations. everybody holds out to the last minute to get the best deal they possibly can. that is part of the art of negotiating. you know i think we have to be patient but i do believe as i i said earlier the clock is ticking on both sides of the table we have situations where the romanian government have to

have some success here and have to be able to demonstrate to their constituents that an improved relationship with the united states and the west will yield benefits. if they are not able to so that their popularity and politics collapses as well. so i kept hearing when i was in iran that we have a window of opportunity and it we will stay open indefinitely. the clock is ticking on both sides and i i think it is time for us by the end of march to have the framework of an agreement quex's supreme leader said he did not want a true faith agreement. anybody as precise and agreement as we possibly can have negotiated beyond the

end of march. by the end of march it is urgent for both sides to have a list of framework agreed upon. be careful not to get into much trouble, but the iranians asked me -- and i heard this in several different places can the united states really do a deal that is opposed by the government in israel? and they were constantly asking me about the influence with the united states congress and how you deal with that. those questions those questions are on the minds of irradiance. they are very sophisticated well-informed observers of the american political process. as americans we have to make darn sure that we do not miss a historic opportunity to improve significant

relationship the relationship with iran because of our own domestic politics. that would be a tragedy. the last .. was the whole issue -- >> arms-control. >> let me just tell you as a former member of congress i believe i believe the president and administration will be well advised to engage daily in communication with key members of the united states and to bring the senators i think there are some senators on both sides of the political aisle that understand the urgency, the historic moment that we are in, and i believe that with the president and secretary kerry and others being personally involved on a regular basis that we should be able to build bipartisan support for some kind of a reasonable agreement. we should not prejudge this. this is a thing that is very troubling to me when i read