U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–157PDF 2015

CUBA: ASSESSING THE ADMINISTRATION’S

SUDDEN SHIFT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 4, 2015

Serial No. 114–15

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western 

Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................. 6

Mr. John E. Smith, Deputy Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury ................................................................................ 12

Mr. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export 

Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce ..................................................................................................................... 20

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson: Prepared statement ................................... 8

Mr. John E. Smith: Prepared statement ............................................................... 14

Mr. Matthew S. Borman: Prepared statement ...................................................... 22

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 66

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 67

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: 

Letter from the White House dated January 30, 2015 ..................................... 69

The Wall Street Journal article entitled ‘‘The U.S.-Cuba Deal Heightens 

the Spy Threat’’ ................................................................................................ 71

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: 

Statement for the record by Alan P. Gross ........................................................ 73

Statement for the record on behalf of the Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of California .................................... 75

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida: 

Letter to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States 

of America, from officials of Cuban-American communities in the State 

of Florda dated February 3, 2015 .................................................................... 76

National Review Online article entitled ‘‘Yes, Cuba Is a State Sponsor 

of Terror’’ ........................................................................................................... 78

The Hill article entitled ‘‘U.S.-Cuba policy: Myth vs. reality’’ .......................... 81

National Review Online article entitled ‘‘Call Cuba to Account’’ ..................... 83

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 86

Written responses from the Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Edward R. Royce ................................ 87

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel to Mr. 

John E. Smith ....................................................................................................... 88

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel on behalf 

of the Honorable Barbara Lee ............................................................................. 89

Written responses from the Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen .......................... 90

Written responses from the Honorable Roberta S. Jacobson to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Paul Cook, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California ................................................................ 93

(1)

CUBA: ASSESSING THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

SUDDEN SHIFT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

Today we look at the Obama administration’s sudden shift on 

Cuba policy. And sudden it was. Members of Congress were left in 

the dark. Most of the administration—including the State Department—was left in the dark. 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 policy making 

are unavailable. The administration’s growing track record of 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 onesided ‘‘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. But in an odd twist, the administration kept these names secret for weeks. Only after bipartisan pressure from the committee 

was the list ever released, and human rights advocates can now 

track whether these individuals are put back in jail, harassed, or 

monitored. 

Of course, 4 years ago, Raul Castro promised to release all political prisoners. Yet in a recent Freedom House report, we read that: 

‘‘Systematic use of short-term ‘preventable’ detentions—along with 

harassment [and] beatings,’’ are used to intimidate the opposition, 

to isolate dissidents, and maintain control. Advocates put the number of political arrests in Cuba last year at over 8,000. 

Assistant Secretary Jacobson, I appreciate very much your meeting with dissidents while you were in Havana last month. But I am 

2

very concerned that your Cuban counterparts are attempting to 

link your discussions to a commitment that the U.S. cease all democracy programs. 

Indeed, Castro is making even 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,’’ in his words. There is little debate over the importance of this facility for the U.S. Navy to 

conduct counternarcotics, intelligence, and humanitarian missions. 

And of course, our broadcasts are vital until a free media is allowed 

to operate. I hope the State Department is here today to assure us 

that none of Castro’s demands are being considered. 

In defending this policy change, the President has compared our 

economic relationship with Cuba to that of China and Vietnam. 

But in China and in Vietnam, while Communist, at least foreign 

firms can hire and recruit staff directly, without their paying directly to the government. 

Not so in Cuba, which is more like North Korea than it is Vietnam or China. A Cuban worker at the foreign-owned resort receives only a fraction of their salary, as little as 5 percent. So in 

the regimes that the Castro brothers or the Kim family run, the 

method is the same; extract hard currency for foreign businesses 

and invest it in the security apparatus. 

Instead of dismantling a 50-year-old failed policy, as it 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. Engel, I am now going to yield my remaining 

time to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman emeritus of this committee. Born in Havana, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen fled Cuba as a 

refugee at age 8. Her years of work on this committee have been 

marked by a tireless commitment to freedom and democracy for 

people around the world. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

strongly second your grave concerns about the way that foreign policy is being run from the White House by secretly negotiating 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 Bergdahl, the President has established a dangerous precedent that the United States 

does, in fact, negotiate with terrorists, putting a target on every 

American’s back and jeopardizing our national security. 

Ever since the secret negotiations began of June 2013, this is 

what the Castro 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 flagged cargo ship called Chong 

Chon Gang was caught in Panama after it left Cuba heading to 

North Korea. After inspections, the shipment included various components of surface-to-air missile systems and launchers, MiG–21 jet 

fighter parts and engines, shell casings, rocket propelled projectiles 

as the cargo hide under 200,000 bags of sugar. October 6, 2013, 

over 135 democracy activists arrested in 1 day throughout Cuba. 

Also arrested was the leader of the Ladies in White, Berta Soler, 

3

who was dragged through the streets by her hair, and her husband, 

Angel Moya, was arrested. 

November 4, 2013, a Cuban artist, a young man called Critico, 

was on the verge of death due to a hunger strike. January 24, 

2014, Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, arrested. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush. June 12, 2014, Jorge 

Luis Garcia Perez Antunez and Yris Perez Aguilera, Ladies in 

White, leader Berta Soler and Angel Moya, and others arrested. 

July 16, 2014, Cuba and Russia agreed to reopen the Lourdes missile—the Lourdes spying facility. In fact, in 2014, Mr. Chairman, 

it led to almost 9,000 arrests of pro-democracy leaders in 1 year. 

Almost a 40-percent increase from 2013, 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, and just last week, 

last week, the Castro regime sentenced a Cuban rapper, a young 

man known as El Dkano, to a 1-year prison sentence, and check 

out the charge: ‘‘Dangerousness likely leading to a crime.’’ That is 

an actual charge in Castro’s Cuba. And 2 days ago, just to wrap 

it up, Mr. Chairman, a Cuban pro-democracy activist, Arelis 

Palacio, was brutally beaten all over her face and body, and she 

told state security, ‘‘I would rather die than remain quiet and accept this.’’

All of this happened while the U.S. was secretly negotiating with 

the Castro regime. Shame on us. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to our ranking member, Mr. Eliot 

Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Chairman Royce. Let me 

thank you, firstly, for calling this hearing. As a former chairman 

of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I follow Cuba closely. 

For many years, I have worked with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and others trying to bring freedom to Cuba. 

Let me also thank our witnesses for their testimony today and 

for their dedicated service to our country. Thank you, to the three 

of you, for coming. 

First and foremost I am delighted that Alan Gross is finally 

home after 5 long years. I first met his wife Judy back in December 

2009. One of my sons went to school with one of the Gross’ children. So I have always felt a connection to the Gross family. Alan’s 

release from prison was long overdue, and I am overjoyed that he 

has been reunited with his family. 

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 onus is now on the Cuban Government to respond by 

moving forward with real reform. And what exactly does this 

mean? To me it means free and fair elections, respect for the rule 

of law, an independent press, and upholding the values enshrined 

in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. It also means releasing 

each and every political prisoner currently jailed in Cuba and ending the harassment of political activists. We want to see the formation of political pluralism there. Only then will we be comfortable 

with Cuba moving along the path to democracy. 

4

President Obama has the authority the reestablish relations with 

Cuba, and to 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, and at this 

time, I believe that Congress must see a greater political opening 

in Cuba before lifting the embargo. 

Last month Chairman Royce and I sent a letter to Secretary 

Kerry. We asked for the names of the 53 political prisoners the 

Cuban Government committed to releasing. I was very grateful for 

Secretary Kerry’s 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 detained because of their political activism. 

While these individuals are no longer in jail, we must be vigilant 

in ensuring their safety. I urge the State Department to use its 

talks with Cuban officials to continue pushing for the release of all 

political prisoners. 

Finally, let me say that the upcoming Summit of the Americas 

in Panama presents 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 civil society leaders from 

throughout the Americas. I hope to be there, and I hope that we 

will have a delegation, a bipartisan delegation, going there too. I 

urge the Panamanian Government and all regional leaders to be as 

open and transparent as possible in allowing for civil society participation at the summit. 

And one request before I close, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 

consent to submit for the record two statements; one on behalf of 

Alan Gross, and the second from our colleague Representative Barbara Lee, a former Foreign Affairs committee member, along with 

her questions for the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to close again by thanking our witness for being here 

today. I look forward to hearing from each of you, and thank you 

again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

We go now to Mr. Jeff Duncan, chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Western Hemisphere for 1 minute. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and in addition to the 

other comments, I remain deeply skeptical of the Obama administration’s unilateral Cuba policy shift. In addition to circumventing 

Congress, failing to consult any Cuban dissidents or civil society, 

and ignoring the wisdom and advise of seasoned American foreign 

service officers, the President’s made his decision to embark on a 

new course in Cuba, using political speech writers on the National 

Security Council staff to craft his policy change. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with your remarks and 

those of the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, emphasizing my deep concern for the President’s lack of transparency and 

the manner and process used to develop this policy change. 

5

Yesterday, witnesses in testimony in the Senate hearing recognized that the Western Hemisphere—excuse me—recognized that 

Russia is one of the most—openly challenged the United States in 

regard to Cuba; these are external actors that have influence in the 

region. 

And in view of the events that I thought the gentlelady from 

Florida spelled out, the U.S. must protect the United States’ national security interest in any future negotiations with the Cuba 

Government, including maintaining U.S. permanent rights to the 

U.S. Naval station in Guantanamo Bay. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. I now recognize the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere who also is 

the one other Cuban-born member of this committee. Mr. Sires also 

was born in Havana. Were you about 11 when you——

Mr. SIRES. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you. Mr. Albio Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yeah, I did come to this country when I was 11 years old in 1962, 

and I experienced some of this government’s tactics, but I am—my 

biggest disappointment with this whole process has been that I always felt that the embargo and the pressure that we were putting 

on Cuba would lead to some changes in Cuba. I really don’t see 

how what we negotiated is going to lead into anything. You know, 

it is just beyond me that a signature on a piece of paper somehow 

relieves this dictator of this pressure. 

People are not going to benefit. You still have to go through the 

government for anything. Even if you want to put a church in 

Cuba, you have to go through the government. They have to okay 

this church. And do we think that we are going to be able to invest 

and do economic progress for the Cuban people? I don’t see that 

happening. 

And I would like to associate myself with the chairman’s comments and my ranking member’s. 

I just don’t see where we are headed with this. I know it is the 

last 2 years of the President. I know that he has a history to build, 

but I was disappointed in the fact that we are not using this as 

a pressure point on a government that has been so brutal. There 

are thousands of people in jail. I deal with these people today. My 

district has the second largest concentration of Cuban Americans 

in this country. I probably get more intel from the people on Hudson Avenue in Union City than I get from some of the briefings 

that I get in this place. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

This morning we are pleased to be joined by witnesses from the 

Departments of State and Treasury and Commerce. 

Ms. Roberta Jacobson is the Assistant Secretary of State for the 

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, and formerly served as the 

deputy assistant secretary for Canada and for Mexico. 

Mr. John Smith is the Deputy Director of the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control, that is OFAC, 

and previously he served as an expert to the United Nations AlQaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee from 2004 to 2007. 

6

Mr. Matthew Borman currently serves as the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration. 

Without objection, the briefers’ full prepared statements will be 

made part of the record. Members will have 5 calendar days to submit statements and questions and any extraneous material that 

any of these members of this committee want to put in the record. 

So, Ms. Jacobson, if you would please summarize your remarks 

in 5 minutes, and than we will hear from the other two witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERTA S. JACOBSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Royce, Ranking 

Member Mr. Engel, and members of the committee. And thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on the new approach to U.S.-

Cuba policy. I want to say that I appreciate this committee’s engagement in the western hemisphere, and I know all of your strong 

commitments to democratic values, human rights, and social and 

economic opportunities in the Americas and in Cuba. 

I want to thank you also for support in welcoming the long overdue return of Alan Gross to his family. During Mr. Gross’ 5 long 

years of detention, the administration has worked closely with 

many Members of Congress in both Houses and from both parties 

to secure his release. As the President and the Secretary have said, 

we are also grateful for the essential roles of Canada, Pope Francis, 

and the Vatican in reaching an agreement that made Mr. Gross’ 

freedom possible. 

On December 17th, the President announced a new policy toward 

Cuba, one that will better enable us to effectively advance our values and help the Cuban people move into the 21st century. Other 

previous approaches to relations with Cuba over half a century, 

though rooted in the best of intentions, failed to empower the 

Cuban people. Instead, it isolated us from our democratic partners 

in this hemisphere and around the world. In addition, the Cuban 

Government used this policy as an excuse for restrictions on its 

citizens, and as a result, those most deprived were the Cuban people itself. 

Our new approach is designed to promote every Cuban’s universal rights, as well as our national interests, and we are already 

seeing signs that our updated approach gives us a greater ability 

to engage other nations in the hemisphere in advancing respect for 

fundamental freedoms in Cuba. 

Ultimately, it will be the Cuban people who drive economic and 

political reforms. That is why we lifted restrictions to make it easier for Cuban Americans to travel and send remittances to their 

families in Cuba and open new pathways for academic, religious, 

and people-to-people exchanges. Our new steps build on this foundation by increasing authorized travel and commerce and the flow 

of information to, from, and within Cuba. 

Nobody represents America’s values better than the American 

people, and increased people-to-people contact will empower the 

Cuban people and reduce their dependency on the Cuban state. 

The regulatory changes we announced will increase financial resources to support the Cuban people and the emerging Cuban priVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\020415\93157 SHIRL
7

vate sector, and they enable U.S. companies to expand telecommunications and Internet access within Cuba. U.S. policy will 

no longer be a barrier to connectivity in Cuba. 

Two weeks ago I made a historic trip to Cuba, one 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 efforts. During talks, we were 

clear that our Governments have both shared interests and sharp 

differences. On practical issues, such as establishing direct mail 

service, counternarcotics, or oil spill mitigation, we agreed to continue dialogue and deepen cooperation, but this administration is 

under no illusions about the nature of the Cuban Government. 

I also raised with Cuban officials our concerns about their harassment, use of violence, and arbitrary detention of Cuban citizens 

peacefully expressing their views. I met with dissidents, entrepreneurs, and independent media voices to talk about what they 

need from their government and from us. 

We will continue to use our diplomatic efforts to encourage our 

allies, now more likely to work with us, to take every opportunity 

to support increased respect for human rights and fundamental 

freedoms in Cuba. As the President has said, the United States believes that no Cuban should face harassment, or arrest, or beatings 

simply because they are exercising a universal right to have their 

voices 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. They offer us valuable insights and a diversity of views. And I raised several elements in Havana that presently inhibit the work of our U.S. intersection, including travel restrictions on our diplomats, limits on 

staffing, local access to the mission, and problems receiving shipments. The successful resolution of these issues will enable a future U.S. Embassy to provide services commensurate with our diplomatic missions around the world. I hope you won’t object to having seen our diplomats in action most recently, if I take this opportunity to salute their tireless efforts to advance our interests on the 

island. They are dedicated public servants. 

We have only just begun this effort to normalize relations, and 

we appreciate that there is a diversity of views in the U.S. Congress on this effort toward Cuba. We hope that we can work together to find common ground toward our shared goal of enabling 

the Cuban people to freely determine their own future. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:]

8


93157a-1.eps
9


93157a-2.eps
10


93157a-3.eps
11


93157a-4.eps
12

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN E. SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member 

Engel, and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation 

to appear before you today to discuss our recent amendments to the 

Cuban Assets Control Regulations. I will be addressing the key 

changes we made to our regulations that Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, made on January 16th to implement 

the changes to U.S. policy toward Cuba announced by the President the month before. These amendments ease sanctions related 

to Cuba in a number of key areas, including travel, remittances, financial services, and trade, and they are intended to have a direct 

and positive impact on the lives of the Cuban people. Cuba is the 

only OFAC sanctions program that restricts travel to a country. 

The recent regulatory amendments ease the travel restrictions by 

generally licensing certain travel within the 12 existing categories 

of travel in our regulations. This means that the travelers who satisfy the criteria of the general licenses may travel to Cuba and conduct travel-related transactions there without requesting individual 

authorization from OFAC. Travel to Cuba 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 the Cuban people, provide humanitarian assistance, and engage in certain educational and cultural 

activities. 

The regulatory amendments also authorize airlines to provide air 

carrier services to, from, and within Cuba in connection with authorized travel. Air carriers wishing to provide services will still 

need to secure regulatory approvals from other concerned U.S. Government agencies, such as the Departments of Transportation and 

Homeland Security. Travel agents and tour group operators may 

now also 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 oversight of authorized payments between the United States and Cuba, OFAC has authorized 

U.S. banks to establish correspondent accounts at financial institutions in Cuba, and to allow travelers to use their credit and debit 

cards while in Cuba. 

Within the context of trade, OFAC has also modified the regulatory interpretation of the term ‘‘cash in advance,’’ which describes 

the financing requirement for trade between the United States and 

Cuba that is imposed by statute. OFAC has now revised its interpretation of the term to allow the export of American-produced agricultural, medical, and other authorized goods to Cuba so long as 

payment is received by the U.S. exporter prior to the goods’ arrival 

to a Cuban port. This change should increase authorized U.S. exports to Cuba. 

13

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 to, from, and among the Cuban people, OFAC 

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 have described, most transactions between 

the United States and Cuba, most imports, most exports, and most 

other activities, remain prohibited. As OFAC implements these recent changes, we will continue to enforce the Cuba sanctions program vigorously, using all of our available tools, and take action 

against violators as appropriate. 

The President’s December 17th announcement laid out a new 

course for our relations with Cuba, driven by a hope for a more 

positive future for the Cuban people. OFAC’s amendments to the 

regulations, in concert with the regulatory revisions my colleague 

at Commerce will highlight, mark significant changes to our Cuba 

sanctions policy that implement the new changes announced by the 

President. These changes are intended to directly benefit the 

Cuban people and help them to determine their own future. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

14


93157b-1.eps
15


93157b-2.eps
16


93157b-3.eps
17


93157b-4.eps
18


93157b-5.eps
19


93157b-6.eps
20

STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW S. BORMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR EXPORT ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. BORMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

the committee today to describe the Department of Commerce’s 

regulatory revisions to implement the Cuba policy changes announced by the President on December 17th. 

As the President noted, these changes are intended to create 

more opportunities for the American and Cuban people, promote 

positive change in Cuba, and influence outcomes throughout the 

western hemisphere. 

On January 16th, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) amended the Export Administration Regulations to authorize the export and re-export of certain items to 

Cuba that are intended to improve the living conditions of the 

Cuban people, support private sector economic activity, strengthen 

civil society in Cuba, and improve the free flow of information to, 

from, and among the Cuban people. 

BIS amended the regulations to expand two existing general authorizations, or license exceptions in the Commerce regulations, 

create a new license exception, and describe a licensing policy. 

Under the embargo on trade with Cuba, all items that are subject to Commerce regulations require a license for export or re-export to Cuba unless authorized by a license exception. BIS administers export and re-export restrictions on Cuba consistent with the 

goals of the embargo and with relevant laws. Thus, BIS may issue 

licenses for specific transactions or make types of transactions eligible for license exceptions that support the goals of the United 

States’ policy while the embargo is in effect. Only items of lower 

technological sensitivity that are subject to limited export restrictions are eligible for these license exceptions. 

The first license exception that was expanded is the license exception related to gift parcels. The change here is to allow consolidated shipments of gift parcels to go under this license exception. 

Previously they required individual licenses. This change will enable more donations to the Cuban people because individuals who 

wish to donate eligible items to the Cuban people will no longer 

have to search for a license consolidator. 

BIS also expanded license exception Consumer Communications 

Devices (CCD) to now also authorize the commercial sale of commercial communication devices such as cell phones, mobile phones, 

computers, radios, and digital cameras. Previously these were only 

authorized under the license exception if they were donated. Now 

they can also be sold commercially. 

The new license exception that we created is Support for the 

Cuban People, or SCP. This license exception enables the export 

and re-export to Cuba of items intended to empower the nascent 

Cuban private sector by supporting private economic activity. Authorized items include building materials for private sector use, 

tools and equipment for private sector agricultural activity, and 

goods for use by private sector entrepreneurs such as auto mechanics, barbers, hair stylists, and restaurateurs. This license exception 

21

is intended to meet the President’s goal of supporting the Cuban 

private sector and facilitate Cuban citizens’ lower-priced access to 

certain goods to improve their living standards and gain greater 

economic independence from the state. 

Other provisions of the license exception SCP authorize the temporary export by persons leaving the United States of items for 

their use in archeological, cultural, ecological, educational, historic 

preservation, scientific, or sporting activities. It authorizes the export and re-export of certain donated items for use by the Cuban 

people engaged in the activities I just mentioned, and the export 

and re-export of items to human rights organizations, individuals, 

or nongovernment organizations that promote independent civil activity. 

These provisions implement the President’s goals of harnessing 

the power of people-to-people engagement and of helping the Cuban 

people reach for a better future. 

As the President observed, nobody represents America’s values 

better than the American people. 

To implement the President’s goal of empowering the Cuban people by increasing their access to information, particularly through 

the Internet, and their ability to communicate with one another 

and with people in the United States and the rest of the world, license exception SCP authorizes the export to Cuba of items for the 

establishment and upgrade of telecommunications-related systems, 

in addition to the consumer communication devices authorized by 

license exception CCD. A related provision of license exception SCP 

authorizes the export and re-export to Cuba of certain items for use 

by news media personnel and U.S. news bureaus engaged in the 

gathering and dissemination of news to the general public. 

Lastly, this rule recognizes that environmental threats are not 

limited by national borders, and circumstances may warrant the 

export or re-export of certain items to Cuba to protect the U.S. and 

international air quality, water quality, and coastlines. Although 

pre-existing licensing policy provided the flexibility necessary to authorize such transactions, we have now amended the regulations to 

make explicit the general policy of approving such exports. 

In summary, these regulatory revisions implement the President’s recently announced Cuba policy changes consistent with the 

comprehensive embargo the United States maintains on trade with 

Cuba. The changes support the President’s goal of the United 

States becoming a better partner in making the lives of ordinary 

Cubans a little bit easier and more free, and is in line with U.S. 

national security interests. And I would also be pleased to answer 

questions. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Borman follows:]

22


93157c-1.eps
23


93157c-2.eps
24


93157c-3.eps
25


93157c-4.eps
26


93157c-5.eps
27

Chairman ROYCE. I would like to go to Assistant Secretary 

Jacobson with a question, because administration negotiators stated that they did not seek human rights concessions in exchange for 

taking steps toward normalization; and now you know our concern 

about the State Department and you not being included in this on 

the front end, being kept in the dark on it, but the reality is that 

pro-democracy and human rights activists in Cuba have lamented 

that human rights weren’t integral to these secret negotiations. In 

fact, the lead Cuban Government negotiator, who would be now 

your counterpart, he said, ‘‘Change in 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 repression on the people in Cuba, how do our concessions advance 

the interests of the Cuban people? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman, on part of this. 

I think it is crucial to understand that there really were no concessions from the Obama administration. Moving forward with the establishment of diplomatic relations is not a gift or a concession to 

governments. It is a channel of communication. As you know, having Embassies in countries is often not seen by governments as a 

gift. Quite the contrary. We are quite irritating to governments 

sometimes, and in fact, it is not necessarily something that the 

Cuban Government wanted, but we think it is—the things that 

were announced on December 17th are a much more effective way 

to pursue our own national interests. 

So we believe that we can more effectively pursue the human 

rights policies, and the democracy policies that we want in empowering the Cuban people, and in having that direct channel with the 

Cuban Government to convey those concerns and to work with allies around the hemisphere who no longer fear association with a 

policy they did not support because of this policy. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, but if I could just point out, what you 

are leaving out of the equation here is the fact that under these 

initiatives that the White House took without the State Department, but the White House took, the White House is now increasing the amount of dollars that flow into Cuba, specifically, these 

flow into the regime and helps the regime’s bottom line at a time 

when the regime, as you could have told the White House, is now—

now faces being cut off in terms of the subsidy from Venezuela. So 

at the very time that you think we would exert leverage, you have 

a situation instead where you have got sort of a lifeline. I mean, 

that is—that is 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? And I will remind you, when we talked with the State Department before on 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 5, one of whom was convicted 

for his part in killing four Americans, for Alan Gross. So we have 

got a little history of hearing one thing and then finding out anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\020415\93157 SHIRL
28

other after the fact. But on this question on Guantanamo if you 

could——

Ms. JACOBSON. Sure. The issue of Guantanamo is not on the 

table in these conversations. I want to be clear that what we are 

talking about right now is the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, which is only one first step in normalization. Obviously the 

Cuban Government has raised Guantanamo. We are not interested 

in discussing that. We are not discussing that issue or a return of 

Guantanamo. 

We also, I want to be clear, you know, we didn’t return the 

Cuban agents for Mr. Gross. We returned the Cuban agents for an 

intelligence agent that we wanted back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me ask you one last question. For years 

the Castro regime has perceived broadcasting by our Office of Cuba 

Broadcasting as a threat. Last week the Cuban Government referred to these as illegal, and Castro has demanded that the broadcast be stopped. 

To what extent have our broadcasts been discussed as part of 

these talks? 

Ms. JACOBSON. The Cuban Government has always raised radio 

and TV Marti both in the migration talks, and they raised them 

again as part of a list of things that they object to in the normalization talks, but we have no plans to end those either. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I know that Cuba is demanding that 

they be shut down. I am 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. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Secretary Jacobson, let me just give you a broad leeway, because 

you have answered some of this, but I want to hear more. How do 

you answer the critics who say that we gave away the store? That 

we have—we had leverage and we just tossed it away. Didn’t get 

concessions in exchange, and if we didn’t, doesn’t it show you the 

true intentions of the Castro regime? Raul Castro has reportedly 

said—touted the fact that he gave up nothing, and essentially we 

made all the concessions. How do you answer that? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I appreciate the question, Congressman. I really 

do, because I think it is important—there is 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 are going to try and move forward 

with Embassies in each other’s countries. We strongly believe that 

having an Embassy in Havana will enable us to do more things 

that help us more effectively empower the Cuba people, not high 

necessarily 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 

while I was there, we can begin to increase the pace at which people separate themselves from the state, also not something that 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 

29

is not, as somebody said yesterday on the Senate side, it is not the 

Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, and we will continue to 

speak out on human rights, to support democracy activists, but we 

believe that this policy had become such an irritant in our work 

with other Latin American countries, with our European allies, 

that it also enables us to work more effectively with them in bringing about that support in Cuba. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, 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 

and National Reconciliation reported 8,899 short term detentions 

in the year 2014, and that was a 39-percent increase over 2013. 

So what is the Obama administration’s 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 and harassment of dissidents? 

Ms. JACOBSON. 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 shortterm 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, 

and also with allies to international organizations that it is unacceptable. We do believe, and we have 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 and 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 that very carefully because it must end. Not just 

come down, but it must end. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, you mentioned civil society. I want to ask my 

final question about civil society and the Summit of the Americas. 

What conversations have you had with your Panamanian counterparts to ensure that there is robust participation from Cuban civil 

society at the Summit of the Americas, and then in your discussions with Cuban Government officials in Havana, did you urge 

them to allow for civil society leaders from the island to participate 

in the summit? Did you encourage Cuban political dissidents to 

participate in the summit? 

Ms. JACOBSON. 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 NGOs around the hemisphere, including in the United States, as well as making sure that the rules 

for the civil society summit are not the same as in previous years. 

30

Previously it had been 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. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

As we know, the U.S. has been negotiating in secret with this sadistic dictatorship for now 20 months, because it is still secret. For 

18 of those months, the White House negotiated in super secret to 

trade three convicted spies for an innocent American. Even if you 

say that that was not a swap, that is just so disingenuous. 

Assistant Secretary Jacobson, this week in the Senate, just yesterday, you testified, ‘‘This policy is not based on the Castro regime 

changing,’’ and you have said more or less that now, ‘‘we have no 

illusions over that.’’

So let me get this straight. We are telegraphing to the Castro regime ahead of time that it doesn’t have to change. We have no illusions that it is going to change. So we are going to get further concessions from this administration. What is the point of negotiations, then, if we say we are negotiating, we have no illusions, let’s 

see where this leads us? 

Now, the media has been reporting just this week that arrests 

in Cuba for last month in January decreased to only 178, making 

it seem like the arrest of peaceful pro-democracy activists, 178 of 

them, is a low number. Only in Castro’s Cuba could the arrest of 

178 people in 1 month be considered a victory. 

Now, for the President’s State of the Union address last month, 

I invited Marlene Alejandre, the daughter of our Armando 

Alejandre. They were also kept in the dark about this trade/nontrade, this swap/non-swap. Her father was murdered by the Castro 

regime when his Brothers to the Rescue plane was shot down over 

international waters, and on December 17th, the President released and pardoned Gerardo Hernandez, a Cuban spy who was 

convicted in our U.S. courts for conspiracy to commit murder for 

his connection to the shootdown. 

So the Alejandre family wanted me to ask you these questions, 

Assistant Secretary Jacobson: How will I explain to my three little 

girls that their U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran grandfather was denied the only justice for his murder when Gerardo Hernandez was 

set free, pardoned, and returned to Cuba? Next question: Why was 

the U.S. so willing to give Gerardo Hernandez the opportunity to 

father a child while he was in prison? Very interesting, 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 has 

pointed out and the ranking member, 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 is so pathetic for this strong, wonderful, generous country to look 

so weak when negotiating with the Castro regime. 

31

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 to the American citizens? Isn’t it true 

that Cuba has failed to pay these claims for close to 60 years, and 

isn’t it true that U.S. law requires that these claims be resolved before relations be normalized? 

So I urge all of your departments to explain how illegally confiscated properties will be resolved. U.S. claim holders deserve 

their claims to be protected. Don’t you agree? And, Assistant Secretary Jacobson, it is important to note 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, as you know. The 

Castro regime responded with rounding up and arresting hundreds 

of civil society individuals, and he blocked the phones of the opposition leaders, and as we know, Castro held an American jailed for 

5 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. So his track 

record is clear. It has no intent of opening up the Internet or telecommunications opportunities. In fact, if given that opportunity, it 

is probably going to be used to further oppress the people of Cuba. 

And then just one last thing, and you can answer it whenever 

you can in writing. Did Secretary Kerry lie to the United States 

Congress when he told us that we would not free up these convicted murder—these convicted spies, or was he kept out of the 

dark of these negotiations? And were you part of the negotiations 

from the start, or did you enter them later on? But I have run out 

of time. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I am just going to suggest a little response in writing, and that way we can go to Mr. Brad Sherman 

of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

It is said that our policy toward Cuba for the last 50 years has 

failed. This comes from an American view that it is all about us, 

that the only thing—that if Cuba isn’t better, it must be our policy 

that would have been the difference. Our policy is exactly different, 

or has been for the last 50 years, than Europe and Canada’s policy. 

Maybe it is their policy that failed to bring democracy to Cuba, 

maybe it is ours. 

Ms. Jacobson, Cuba got caught smuggling 240 tons of weapons 

to North Korea, violating U.N. sanctions. Cuba is not cooperating 

in the U.N. investigation. Are these reasons to keep Cuba on the 

State Sponsors of Terrorism List? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Congressman, we are undertaking the review of 

the State Sponsors of Terrorism List right now. We are evaluating 

all of the information. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I know that. Please. 

Ms. JACOBSON. We also made clear when we were looking at that 

incident with the Chong Chon Gang that we did not think Cuba’s—

we did think Cuba’s behavior violated the sanctions regime. The 

32

only entity that was sanctioned, as you know, as a result of that 

investigation was the North Korean company, which can no longer 

operate. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have got to reclaim my time. I have got——

Ms. JACOBSON. Okay. 

Mr. SHERMAN [continuing]. 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 right now: This administration will not abandon, return, or 

fail to pay the modest fee so that we can have that Naval base for 

the next 2 years? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I don’t see that discussion taking place. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is not what I am asking for. That was in 

your testimony. 

What—can you make a commitment—because you have got to 

see it from our side here. We were shocked. So you telling me that 

you are not thinking of something means I got 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 an appropriations 

bill designed to make it impossible for this administration to give 

back the Naval base? 

Ms. JACOBSON. That issue is not on the table with the——

Mr. SHERMAN. Would the—it could be—it could be on our table. 

Would you object? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I don’t know the answer to that as it is a matter 

of Executive policy. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Let me go on to Mr. Smith. We have got 

the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act. It doesn’t allow 

us to deal with certain properties that have been seized by Americans. You have got new regulations on travel, credit cards, et 

cetera. How do you plan to make sure that American travelers 

aren’t breaking the law by staying at hotels that were confiscated 

from Americans or otherwise violating the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act? 

Mr. SMITH. One thing I should say at the start about that, the 

act, though, is that the act—what that does is say that you can’t 

provide a loan or credit or provide financing to further those transactions involving confiscated property. It doesn’t say that you can’t 

have—you can’t stay at a hotel or engage in any other kind of activities. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does the credit card company extend a loan when 

you use a credit card to pay for a hotel stay at a confiscated property? 

Mr. SMITH. A credit card company may extend a loan to the traveler when you stay there. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are extending the loan to facilitate staying 

at the hotel. You think that is in conformity with the act? 

Mr. SMITH. Certainly. We have the provision of the act that is 

replicated in our regulations. We will follow to the letter what is 

in the act, because we have it in our regulations. We will follow 

33

that. But nothing that we have authorized would abridge those provisions of the act. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just close by saying I might be more favorably impressed by the policy if it hadn’t been such a complete 

shock and if Congress had been involved, and this U.S. Government will work better if we coordinate on foreign policy and have 

one national foreign policy that reflects the views of both elected 

bodies instead of a view of Congress as simply an annoying body 

that has to be consulted now, and then. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, 

for calling this extraordinarily important hearing. You know, I say 

to our distinguished witnesses, and welcome to the committee, The 

Washington Post has done several editorials, one, Obama Gives the 

Castro Regime in Cuba an Undeserved Bailout, pointing out that 

with the Soviet Union and certainly now Venezuela less able to 

prop them up, now potentially U.S. funds will do that. Secondly, 

President Obama’s Betrayal of Cuban Democrats, and the fact that 

we should have listened to Berta Soler, the Ladies in White, who 

will be testifying here tomorrow at a hearing I am chairing. She, 

along with Antunez and Ms. Fonseca, two of those are going back, 

two of those individuals. Talk about bravery, speaking to the Senate, now speaking to the House, and they are going back. And yet 

the Post, which is hardly a conservative bastion, talks about a betrayal of Cuban democrats. And in another editorial it said with no 

consequences in site, Cuba continues to crack down on free speech. 

I would ask you, if you would, now an assessment, since it has 

been in effect, the negotiations and the publicity or visibility of 

them, are there any second thoughts? And I say that, 2012, Ileana 

Ros-Lehtinen and I had a hearing, and we heard from Dr. Biscet, 

who spent 11 years in prison. And the same type of scenario is 

playing out for even some of the 53 that were freed. Five have been 

rearrested. He was in and out of prison constantly. It is part of the 

harassment and the modus operandi, and we understand, and 

maybe you can verify it, that some 100 to 200 additional prisoners 

over the last 6 weeks have been arrested. 

Is that true or is that is not? Some comments have been made 

that the ICRC may get to go to Cuba. That is not the issue. They 

need to go to the prisons, and the last time Armando Valladares 

was able to negotiate that, when he walked point in the 1990s, and 

I was with him in Geneva at the Human Rights Commission, 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 the 

prisons. Meeting with Fidel Castro or anybody under him just 

doesn’t cut it. I would like to go again. I have tried repeatedly. 

Madam Secretary, maybe you can help facilitate that. I want to go 

to the prisons and lead a delegation to the prisons. I have been to 

prisons in the Soviet Union. I have been to prisons in East bloc 

countries, as well as in Asia. Cuba is the one that won’t let me or 

others into the prisons. Please help us with that. If you could answer those questions. 

Let me ask you, in the negotiations there are many convicted felons, including Joanne Chesimard who gunned down Werner 

34

Foerster in my State in cold blood, shot in the back of the head 

gangland style having escaped from prison, convicted, a fugitive 

felon, and yet she got asylum there. Was that part of the negotiations, the discussions, or was it not? 

Finally, just let me ask with regards to, with the time I have, 

please answer those, and I will come back. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Okay. Let me say that the whole point of this 

new policy is not that we are telescoping to the Cuban Government 

that they don’t have to change or that we expect them to change 

right away. Certainly we want those practices to change. We simply are not naive about how quickly they may change, and so our 

efforts are to empower the Cuban people to take their lives into 

their own hands. I had not heard that 100 to 200 people had been 

arrested. There were certainly as many as 50 or more arrested 

around the time of Tania Bruguera, 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 

have been arrested, just as there are still political prisoners in 

Cuba who should be released. I want to be clear about that, and 

the fact that a downturn in detentions is not good enough——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The game they play, Madam Secretary, is that they arrest, rearrest and let out. Like when Antunez 

goes back. Seventeen years in prison. He has been tortured. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Right. I completely agree. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Biscet testified here by way of 

phone, and he said don’t lift the embargo because you have got to 

get real substantive concessions. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Agreed, and I saw Oscar Biscet when I was on 

the island, and I have the utmost respect and 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 Chesimard. 

I am a daughter of New Jersey. I grew up with this case and other 

fugitive cases. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. What is their response? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We have not gotten a positive response on Joanne 

Chesimard. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. What did they say? 

Ms. JACOBSON. They have said that they are not interested in 

discussing her return. Now, 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, and we are 

frustrated that 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 and 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. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Just one last thing. We all know the 

Castro brothers have pushed this as a major diplomatic win for 

them. I would have hoped, and I think we all would have hoped, 

that human rights concessions would have been first before being 

recognized diplomatically. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Greg Meeks of New York. 

35

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is 

good being with you. Let me first go on record as saying that I 

wholeheartedly agree with the President’s change in direction. I 

think that it is clear that over 50 years, nothing has changed with 

the policy that we had, and time says that you don’t do the same 

thing over and over again and you get the same result. So I wholeheartedly agree and think that the time is finally there for a 

change in policy. I should also say that I do feel the passion of, for 

example, my good friend, the ranking member of the Western 

Hemisphere in listening to his opening statement, because clearly 

the passion that he has is for the people of Cuba. And in listening 

to his opening statement, you know, some of the questions he had, 

I hope that there is that kind of dialogue that goes forth because 

this should be about trying to make sure there is not only a better 

day and a better change in our policy, but also a better day for the 

Cuban people. 

So in that regard, and I have been down all of, been to Cuba several times and all other places in Latin America and the Caribbean, et cetera, and I have found that one of the major obstacles 

that we have had in the region is Cuba and our Cuban policy. It 

has caused a kind of friction, et cetera. They have all said to me 

that we needed to change. In fact, when I look at it, I think about 

multilateral relations as opposed to unilateral relations. We were 

the only country in the world, the only country in the world, all our 

major allies, everybody that had sanctions against Cuba, unlike, for 

example, this administration has been successful in putting together huge sanctions. When we work together, I think we are 

more successful. I think that is part of what has taken place, even 

Iran now with the P–5+1, even in Russia with the Russian sanctions. It is when we work closely with everyone. And I would like 

that to happen right here in our own hemisphere, but we need to 

work more closely with our allies. 

Our closest and biggest allies, when I talked to them in Latin 

America, I asked what is the one thing that we should do in Latin 

America that would make it better for all of us that share this 

hemisphere? They said 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 and can we put additional pressure; or will they work with us to change and make 

human rights an issue high on their agenda so that we can make 

a difference in the lives of the people that are living on the island? 

Ms. JACOBSON. 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 is, well, you can start raising the issue 

of human rights and democracy in Cuba much higher on your 

agenda. And we believe that this is going to be a very important 

turning point in countries’ engagement, especially countries which 

have a history of working on these issues in the region that have 

been afraid to work with us too closely because of not wanting to 

appear aligned with our previous policy. 

That has been evident in working on the summit where we were 

able to work strongly now with countries to highlight the democratic governance and citizens participation themes in the summit 

36

and accelerate planning on the civil society dialogue. It has been 

very evident even when I was in Cuba 2 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 dissidents and 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 had ever before. That is what we are hoping for. 

Mr. MEEKS. Let me ask because I see I am running out of time, 

so I am going to ask two questions real, real quick. One, given that, 

and I know that there has been talk, has there been any real reactions directly from the Cuban civil society after the announcement? 

So I would like to know if there has been that, as well as, you 

know, when I was down there, one of the problems that I had was 

getting on the Internet. The Internet now will be open; and what, 

if any, impact would having an open Internet have on the civil society? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yeah. I mean, I think that would be huge. On 

Cuban civil society, I think the thing that struck me in both a 

small meeting with Cuban dissidents and then a much larger one, 

including many members, 12 members of the 57 who were released 

41⁄2 years ago are not able to travel. They are not permitted by the 

Cuban Government to travel, so I was able to see many of them. 

That has to change. They need to be able to travel. 

But what I was struck by, I also met with El Critico, Angel 

Yunier, one of the younger members of this group. I was struck by 

the diversity of youth. Some support these measures and the 

change in policy, and some are obviously very strongly opposed, 

and I think that has to be respected, and we want to hear from and 

continue to support all of them. 

The second thing is on the Internet, I think that is really crucial, 

and I don’t know whether the Cuban Government will allow that 

opening. They have said they will. They have 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 reason they can’t do it. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Secretary Jacobson. 

This is a difficult task for you to be here. I think one of the main 

concerns that we have here is that instead of changing the Castro 

regime into a more democratic regime, the President is acting as 

if he has the right to rule by dictate and over his presidency is 

changing our country to be more like Castro than having Castro 

change to be more like a free and open society. Ruling by dictate 

and 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 isn’t the first case of this however, but dealing 

with a regime that is odorous—is ‘‘odorous’’ a word? Odorous, is 

that the word I want? There it is. Onerous and odorous. I think it 

37

is both. There you go. But we have a regime that stinks one way 

or the other and is oppressive one way or the other that we are 

dealing 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 changed, and there are no concessions 

from the Cuban Government? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I don’t think there were concessions from the U.S. 

Government in going into——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have changed 50 years of American policy. Isn’t that a concession enough? All right. Thank you. Let me 

ask you this; with the changes that 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 will be, for example, independent 

unions, say we are going to have more economic activity? Was 

there any type of concession—well, the word ‘‘concessions.’’ Is there 

an agreement that they are going to permit independent unions in 

Cuba? 

Ms. JACOBSON. There were no agreements ahead of time on that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So we are going to open up economic 

trade. There are no unions, then we have also heard that maybe 

the money that is going into the pockets—supposedly into the pockets of the working people—is actually going to be transferred directly to the government; or that money might go directly to the 

government and then be handed out to the working people. Is that 

right? We agreed to that? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We believe that on balance, the Cuban people will 

benefit more from this than the government will. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is not the question, whether you think 

it and whether we think it. Do you think the Cuban people want, 

that people who are going to be working for these companies that 

now we have permitted to go into Cuba, that the Cuban people 

want their government to take their pay and just give them back 

a pittance? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am sure they don’t. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Fine. Whose side are we on? On the 

side of the people who are taking the money from the central government. Are there going to be opposition parties, new opposition 

parties? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We are going to continue to support those who 

want to have their voices heard peacefully——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There have been no concessions on their part, 

so we have changed five decades of U.S. policy, and they still won’t 

have any independent unions or opposition parties. I can’t imagine 

that they are going to have opposition newspapers, and the rallies—listen, this is a regime. The Castro brothers came in, and 

once they were in power, they murdered the patriots who overthrew the Batista regime. They personally did. The fellow that 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 

38

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 that they have given safe 

haven to. Now, how we can change five decades of policy by dictate 

from our President here? And then to hear there were no concessions on their side is disillusioning on our part and upsetting. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

And now we go to Mr. Sires of New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. Mr. Smith or Mr. Borman, can you tell 

me what percentage of the Cuban businesses are owned privately? 

Mr. BORMAN. I can’t tell you a precise percentage, but certainly 

there are over 200 categories of private sector economic activity 

that are authorized by the Cuban Government, so we recognize 

that it is——

Mr. SIRES. Authorized by the Cuban Government? 

Mr. BORMAN. That they are legal, and there are private businesses. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Smith, you? 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t have any additional details. 

Mr. SIRES. I can tell you. About 15 percent. Eighty-five percent 

of the businesses in Cuba are owned by the military. The hotels are 

owned by the military. The bed and breakfasts are run by the families of the military. The umbrella agency that approves all the business is the son-in-law of one of the Castros. So when you say to 

me that the Cuban people, which is what I am interested in, are 

going to benefit by doing business with the Cuban people, you are 

not reaching very many people. You know, the private sector runs 

the hot dog stand, maybe. But we are talking about the big businesses which employs people are run by the generals. And if you 

want to put a big business in Cuba, you want to build a McDonald’s and you need 100 employees, you have to go to the government, and you need 100 employees, you have to go to the government, and they give you the rate, and they give you the employees. 

And those employees are people who are part of the government 

system. So the people that are fighting for liberty and are fighting 

for democracy on the island are basically left out. These are the 

things you have to negotiate away from the Cuban Government. 

So 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 that they run. 

Mr. BORMAN. So just to be clear, the changes that we have made 

in our regulations are designed exactly to get items to the 15 percent. That is the way the regulations are structured so those items 

that can now be exported without individual licenses have to go to 

the true private sector. 

Mr. SIRES. In terms of millions of dollars, Mr. Smith, this whole 

change, what do you think is going to benefit the Cuban Government, how many millions? 

Mr. SMITH. We don’t have a figure on any millions that would 

benefit the Cuban Government. I think the changes have been focused on private entrepreneurs, the small-scale business, private 

business that we are talking about. Again, I would repeat that 

39

most of the transactions between the United States and Cuba remain prohibited under these changes. We have just carved out a 

few areas that, as Mr. Borman talks about, are focused on the private entrepreneurs. 

Mr. SIRES. I mean, if we go in to sell wheat to Cuba, are we 

going to buy sugar from Cuba? There is no real crop of sugar in 

Cuba anymore. Cuba used to be the leading world supplier of 

sugar. Cuba does business with the rest of the world. This whole 

idea that you have to grow this in some sort of 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 license at a drop. 

Ms. JACOBSON. It is true, Mr. Sires, but if I could, I met with 

seven or eight of these entrepreneurs, people really trying to run 

their own businesses, restaurateurs, a barber, women making soap, 

women doing decoration on clothes, and you can see people beginning to separate their own economic future from the government 

and having trouble because they can’t get the supplies. The state 

doesn’t want to provide them the supplies. That is who we are trying to help. 

Mr. SIRES. But yet the elite in Cuba have all the supplies, and 

this is what I am trying to break. This is what runs the island, the 

generals, the people you see them driving in the cars. You see them 

living in the houses that were repossessed from people who worked 

hard in the business before the Castro takeover. I just don’t see 

where we have any more leverage to get some of these changes to 

help the Cuban people. 

I was just talking to my colleague. My aunt came from Cuba a 

couple years ago. I don’t have a birth certificate. I asked her, when 

you go to Cuba, can you please get me a birth certificate. I don’t 

know what my mother did with it. When she went to the municipal 

building what they said to her, we can’t give you a birth certificate 

because we have him classified as a terrorist. I left at the age of 

11, so I am a terrorist. And I don’t want to share the story of what 

happened to my cousin who has a son who was educated in Russia 

to become an engineer. It is too tragic to even share that story with 

you because my feelings are that these people are just dictators. 

They are brutal dictators. People forget that Raul Castro, Che 

Guevara sent out the firing squads in Cuba that killed thousands 

of people, and I see people wearing a Che Guevara shirt. I am 

sorry. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Mr. Chabot, of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 

calling this very important hearing to discuss the administration’s 

new Cuba policy. I believe that President Obama’s announcement 

to unilaterally change U.S. policy toward Cuba sets a dangerous 

precedent. In fact, it furthers an ongoing pattern of his utter disregard for Congress, but that is the way this administration operates. It gives a backhand to the elected representatives of the 

American people, and 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 their face, they are just not credible. You also 

40

said that the Obama administration was under no illusion about 

the nature of the Cuban Government. Well, I would submit that 

the administration is just about as naive about the nature of the 

Cuban Government, apparently as it was about ISIS when the 

President famously described them as the JV, or junior varsity. 

Tell that to the families of those who have been brutally massacred 

by those barbarians. 

This Cuban policy, this new policy, is, in my view, tragically 

flawed. And the way it was brought about with such utter disregard—which you are hearing on both sides of the aisle—utter 

disregard for the elected Representatives of the American people, 

is disgraceful, and it is just as flawed. 

Now, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the 

gentlelady from Florida, who as we all know was born in Cuba, and 

feels just as passionately about this as anybody in this place. 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chabot. And following up on your thought about the victims of brutality, wherever 

those victims are, I wanted to give Ms. Jacobson the opportunity, 

Assistant Secretary Jacobson, to answer the Alejandre family questions. How can Marlene Alejandre explain to her daughters why 

their grandfather who was killed by the Castro regime, his life 

meant nothing, and the person who was in jail as a co-conspirator 

for 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? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Let me start out by saying 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. That is something that 

should not have happened. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. When she was told by you and others that 

a trade would not take place, a trade by any other name—this was 

a swap, was it not? You talk about——

Ms. JACOBSON. Madam Chair, I just want to say an exchange of 

intelligence agents between two countries is something that this 

government and previous administrations have done many times. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. But had the State Department not met with 

the family, and didn’t the State Department time and time and 

time again tell her that Gerardo Hernandez would not be set free 

by this administration? Yes or no? 

Ms. JACOBSON. To the best of my knowledge——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Did Secretary Kerry state right here to us 

that such a swap would not take place. 

Ms. JACOBSON. That a swap for Alan Gross would not take place 

we affirmed and we did not do. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. You just call it something else and say we 

were always telling the truth. 

Ms. JACOBSON. We don’t believe that is what took place. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Was the family under the impression, because you gave it to them, that that exchange would not take place, 

that Gerardo Hernandez would serve the complete sentence? Did 

you give that impression at any time or anyone in the State Department? 

41

Ms. JACOBSON. Certainly I regret if the family felt additional 

pain because of an impression that we had left. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. An impression, so that is all that they had 

to have. They had a false impression, that all this time while you 

were meeting with them, while you were meeting with them, you 

were already cooking up this swap, whatever you call it, that 

Gerardo Hernandez, for all intents and purposes, what happened 

is he was set free. He was pardoned by President Obama. He was 

returned to Cuba. He was given a hero’s welcome, but that was 

just the impression that they got. It was a false impression because 

you were never going to do that. While you met with them. Don’t 

you at least feel a little bit bad that you were lying to them? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, in the first place, no one who met with the 

family ever lied to the family about what our understanding—

Gerardo Hernandez was in jail on a lifetime——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. My time is over. I am going to enjoy listening 

to the families when they hear that testimony coming from you. It 

is just pathetic. Thank you. Now Ms. Bass of California. Thank 

you, Mr. Chabot. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me just say 

before I begin, that this is, I find it particularly difficult to talk 

about Cuba because I want to acknowledge the experiences and the 

family situations of my colleagues, Mr. Sires, and also Ms. RosLehtinen. But, you know, to talk about it and understand and acknowledge what your families went through, you know, I understand. I do, though, support what has happened in changing our 

relation with the island. And one of the things that I have 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 that 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? 

Ms. JACOBSON. 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. It changes the entire 

debate. President Santos of Colombia called it historic. Dilma 

Rousseff said it changes the entire debate, President Rousseff of 

Brazil. 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, 

and we know that this is a concern in other countries in the hemisphere. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. You know, about the trip that I mentioned that 

I recently took. It was the Congressional Diabetes Caucus went 

specifically because in Cuba they have developed a drug that is 

42

called Heberprot-P, and 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 a clinical trial, but because of our policy it is not 

approved to be marketed in the U.S., which means that a company 

is not going to invest in a clinical trial if they can’t market it. So 

I am wondering if the changes that have been made in the law 

would allow for this. And basically what the Cubans are reporting, 

but we obviously have to test it and see if it is correct, they have 

been able to reduce the need for amputations by 70 percent, and 

we have tens of thousands of people in the United States who are 

diabetics who wind up losing their limbs, their feet, because of diabetes. Are you aware of what I am talking about? 

Mr. SMITH. Madam, 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 OFAC for a specific license. We have a long 

history of evaluating those license applications. We receive them. 

We refer them to other agencies in the United States Government, 

including the State Department and often the Food and Drug Administration. And we evaluate whether any additional U.S. activity 

with respect to those drugs makes sense. And then we can grant 

what is called a specific license to authorize it. 

Ms. BASS. The other pressure that I feel coming from California 

is from the agricultural industries, and I am wondering if the policy changes would lead to our ability to export. There is a number 

of companies in California that are interested in exporting agricultural goods as well as livestock. 

Mr. SMITH. So what we have heard over time is that, even 

though there are certain categories of transactions and goods that 

have been authorized, including agricultural products, we have 

heard from exporters and many Members of Congress that our previous financing rules didn’t help the situation and didn’t help them 

to be competitive with their counterparts in other countries. So 

what we did is, we made a change to provisions in a statute that 

deals with the term ‘‘cash in advance,’’ and basically we have 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. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Ms. Bass. And we will 

go to Judge Poe of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Let me start with the presumption that Cuba is a violator of human rights. I think we all know that, especially the folks 

in Cuba. The policy of the President, I think, I don’t want to go into 

the issue of whether, with or without Congress’ approval, the President made some decisions. I want to cut to the one issue that I 

have a question about. What is the purpose of the current U.S. policy toward Cuba? That we basically have no contact with them. We 

don’t trade with them generally. This policy that we have been 

talking about that has been implemented for 50-something years, 

what is the purpose? What is the goal of that policy? Is that clear? 

Ms. JACOBSON. You mean the previous policy? 

43

Mr. POE. Well, the previous policy until it was changed by this 

President, tweaked a little bit. 

Ms. JACOBSON. The goal of the previous policy was that via isolation of Cuba and keeping our distance from that government, we 

would hope to bring about change in the regime and simultaneously we would hope to empower the Cuban people to be able to 

make that change. 

Mr. POE. Change the regime? Change their communism? Change 

what? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Certainly change their behavior toward their own 

citizens. 

Mr. POE. So our goal is that Cuba internally changes the treatment of Cuban citizens? I am not trying to catch you on semantics. 

I am just trying to see what our goal is. Our goal is to do this so 

that the Cuban people are treated like they should be? 

Ms. JACOBSON. In terms of international human rights standards 

and that sort of thing, yes. 

Mr. POE. And would you say that has not worked? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I would. 

Mr. POE. Fifty years doing something and if it doesn’t change, 

that policy or that goal has not been achieved because the Cubans 

are treated, I think, just as bad as they ever have been. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. Let me ask you this: Is the policy, is our goal ever to 

do what—our relationship with Cuba, whatever that may be in the 

future. Is that for America’s benefit or for Cuba’s benefit? As we 

look at changes toward Cuba, is this because we want to help 

American businesses, for example, or Americans to be able to travel; is that the goal that we are moving toward, or are we looking 

to a goal of what is still best for the Cubans? 

Ms. JACOBSON. 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. 

Mr. POE. So it is both? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yes. I would say the first priority is to do what 

is in our national interest, which includes our core values of democracy and universal human rights. 

Mr. POE. Would our policy have anything to do with helping 

trade from the United States? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Certainly. 

Mr. POE. Let me give you an example. I am from Texas. I represent a lot of, not as many as I used to, but a lot of rice farmers. 

When I got elected to Congress, I thought rice came in a box. I 

have learned a lot about rice farming. There is long grain; there 

is short grain; there is two seasons, all that stuff. Historically, 

Texas rice farmers traded internationally with Iran, Iraq, and 

Cuba. Bummer. You can see that that hasn’t worked out so well. 

They want to trade long grain rice to Cuba. The Cubans want to 

buy long grain rice. They want that as opposed to California short 

grain rice. Well, they do. Set aside all the other issues. Would that 

not be in the best interests of the United States and American exporters that we would facilitate trade with Cuba? 

Ms. JACOBSON. You are going to get me into some trouble because I am not sure I can set aside all the other issues, but if I 

44

really could in a vacuum, it would be in our interests. I am not 

sure we always do those things in a vacuum, though. 

Mr. POE. Oh, I understand that. There is a lot of other issues to 

be involved. What I am saying is having this barrier, to me, of 

trade hurts Americans. I don’t know about the Cubans. They get 

their rice from Vietnam. Oh, I am out of time. I have some other 

questions that I would like to submit for the record to be answered. 

Mr. ROS-LEHTINEN. Without objection. 

Mr. POE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Judge Poe. And we will go to Mr. 

Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the 

witnesses. I too want to begin by acknowledging the experiences 

and passionate leadership on Cuba-American relations by Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Sires, and thank you for being so 

open with your experiences at this committee. I think it adds to our 

understanding of these really complicated issues. 

I think all members of this committee are equally and deeply 

committed to help the Cuban people achieve freedom and democracy, and I think the difference of opinion is what is the best strategy for bringing that about, and I really thank the witnesses for 

being here today, and I expect that you will continue to keep Congress informed throughout these discussions with the Cuban Government. And I am hopeful, and I think most Americans are hopeful that the President’s efforts to engage in real and substantive 

negotiations with the Cuban Government will ultimately advance 

the national security interests of the United States and benefit the 

Cuban people. But I think like most Americans, I remain very 

deeply concerned about the long record of human rights abuses and 

the denial of basic freedoms that have been caused at the hands 

of the Cuban dictatorship. And while our current policy has failed 

to bring about lasting change in Cuba, as we update our policy, I 

think we have to be sure that we are doing it in a measured, comprehensive, and thoughtful way that is aligned with the current reality. My hope is that the President’s efforts here are met with 

honest engagement by the Cuban Government toward a more open, 

free, and tolerant society for the Cuban people. 

So my questions really are, I have really three questions, and I 

invite you to respond to them. The first is, there has been a lot of 

talk about what the neighbors and our allies in the region have for 

a long time identified as a problem, the Cuba-U.S. policy. So what 

is really the kind of best way that we can engage some of these 

partners in the region who now can point to a change in policy to 

really use them in a way to help bring about the kind of liberties 

and democracy in Cuba that we all want? What’s the strategy for 

effectively engaging others in the region to be partners in this work 

now that the policy has begun to change? The second is, how can 

we as a Congress best advance this issue of human rights which 

continues to be a very, very serious issue in a variety of different 

ways? How do we play a role enforcing real progress and helping 

establish progress on the human rights issue? 

And, finally, to build on Mr. Sires’ question, how do we ensure 

that this economic engagement that is intended here, which is, of 

course, intended to support the Cuban people, does not instead forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\020415\93157 SHIRL
45

tify the government at a particularly critical time? How do we protect against an unintended consequence where we think we are 

helping entrepreneurs in the private sector strengthen, but at the 

same time are, in fact, helping the government at a moment when 

others are beginning to retract some of their support? I invite you 

to respond to those questions, please. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you. A couple of things. On engaging our 

allies, there is a couple of thoughts I have about that. One is that 

all of the countries in the region, as well as our European allies 

and others, have Embassies on the island. Many of them were hesitant, if not outright refused to engage with many of the democracy 

activists for years. I am very optimistic if not having seen concrete 

results already that they have lost that fear with our change of policy. I think that is hugely important. Their rhetoric outside the 

country is important in dialogues, but engaging with these activists 

and supporting them on the island I think is just as important. 

These people are often accused of being our tools. I think that others need to embrace them openly and talk to them, work with 

them, engage with them, hear from them, and we are saying that 

to them. 

The other thing is in terms of Congress, I hope as many as possible will have real congressional delegations that will go to the island and see as many in Cuban civil society, and that includes in 

the arts, in the democracy area, as well as entrepreneurs and hear 

from the ones I heard from, how they are trying to keep those 

funds from going to the 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, because I think the psychology of those entrepreneurs is a breaking away from the state 

that is worth that price. The Cuban Government went through the 

period of decline of the Soviet Union where it dropped GDP by 30 

percent, and they survived, so I think this is important that we 

support those efforts. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I yield back. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And we turn to Mr. Salmon of Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. Ms. Jacobson, when specifically—I am 

looking for a date—did you find out about the White House-Cuba 

negotiations and the content of the President’s announcement? 

Ms. JACOBSON. What I can tell you, Representative Salmon, is 

that I was aware from throughout that the Embassy of the White 

House was undertaking efforts to secure the release of Alan Gross 

because we were working on the Gross case with the family. 

Mr. SALMON. I understand that, but when did you find out specifically about the negotiations that have been going on for the past 

year? What date did you find out about those? 

Ms. JACOBSON. It was about 6 weeks or 2 months before the announcement that I knew more of the content of those discussions. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. And when did you find out about the announcement itself? 

Ms. JACOBSON. When the actual date of the announcement was 

decided, I knew about it. 

Mr. SALMON. You found out simultaneously with the announcement being made? 

46

Ms. JACOBSON. No, no, no, no, no. As that was being decided, I 

knew about that. In other words, I knew about the decision to announce the new policy about 6 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. 

Mr. SALMON. Okay. Can you tell me what resources, what U.S. 

resources were used to ensure that Gerardo Hernandez, convicted 

of killing four U.S. citizens and a member of the Cuban 5, could 

artificially inseminate his wife? What resources were used for that? 

Ms. JACOBSON. What I can tell you on that is that we have always, the State Department, from my perspective, have always facilitated the visits of his wife to the prison in California when he 

was incarcerated. 

Mr. SALMON. Right. 

Ms. JACOBSON. So those were the resources that we expended in 

terms of her visit. 

Mr. SALMON. I understand that he was able to artificially inseminate his wife, and that was facilitated by the U.S. Government. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Beyond our efforts to facilitate her visits, the rest 

was done by the Department of Justice, and I would have to defer 

to the Department of Justice. 

Mr. SALMON. I would like to know that. I think it is incredulous 

that it would be a U.S. priority to make sure Hernandez fathered 

a child while he was in incarceration, so I will wait for an answer 

on that. 

Last question, these secret negotiations went on for over a year 

and reportedly consisted of seven meetings, so when you went to 

Havana last month for talks, the Cubans made it very, very clear 

they would not allow our diplomats to speak to dissidents, and normalization was not possible without the return of our Naval base 

in Guantanamo Bay, as well as other nonstarters that we have 

talked about today. So what did we really accomplish, other than 

maybe getting a T-shirt that I have had meetings for over a year 

and all I got was this lousy T-shirt? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, I guess I would start out by saying we got 

an intelligence asset out of Cuba who was languishing in jail there, 

and we got Alan 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 start. Normalization is going 

to take years, and we made it very clear that it includes things like 

property claims, which has to be part of this discussion, judgments 

against the Cuban Government, which have been adjudicated in 

U.S. courts which has to be part of this. So that is a much longer 

process, and we haven’t acceded to any of the things——

Mr. SALMON. No, and I don’t expect that we will acquiesce to any 

of——

Ms. JACOBSON. It is the start of the process. 

Mr. SALMON. I understand, but what was your response when 

they said we are not going to do anything on normalization until 

you do these things? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, but what they meant by normalization is 

the end of that year’s long process, not restoration of diplomatic relations, which is the first part. So I am presuming that they mean 

47

they won’t have full normalization until all those things are done, 

but they will have a restoration of diplomatic relations. 

Mr. SALMON. Thanks. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Connolly of 

Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. Ms. Jacobson, I believe in politics and in diplomacy in a very simple adage, don’t give it away for 

nothing. I am very troubled by the abrupt change in U.S. policy to 

Cuba at precisely a moment where we actually have leverage. For 

50 years, one could argue the Castro brothers have loved U.S. policy because it has helped keep them in power. Fair enough. But 

that was then. This is now. Things have changed. They are hurting. The economy is hurting. Their oil supplier is hurting. And as 

they look out to the future, it is very difficult to see a viable Cuban 

economy without major change, including a change in the relationship with us. 

Now, I take your point about diplomatic exchange, and I put that 

aside, but the liberalization in trade and tourism and investment, 

and, indeed, the President has called 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 is the reciprocity? Why wouldn’t the United States use its good offices and 

its leverage with respect to human rights, with respect to press 

freedoms, with respect to religious freedoms, with respect to political dissidents. In our briefings from State Department personnel, 

the answer we got when we asked that question was we are not 

doing that. To me, I must admit, that is shocking and I think a disappointment to many that we wouldn’t use the leverage we finally 

had to some good point. And I wonder if you would address that, 

because I think we have squandered leverage. 

Ms. JACOBSON. First I want to start out by saying that what liberalization there has been in regulations, and my colleagues would 

certainly specify on all this, is very specific, and I think Mr. Smith 

has repeatedly noted that most transactions still remain prohibited. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If I may, fair enough, but the promise of the 

President, he said explicitly, we are going to start the process of 

dismantling the embargo. So Cubans see promise, not just here and 

now, but a pathway toward the dismantlement of a policy we have 

had in place for a half a century. 

Ms. JACOBSON. And the President said he would like to see the 

debate over that. There is no doubt. But the Cubans keep demanding this in part because it is still there, so they know that this is 

not a big liberalization yet. 

In addition, I think the most important thing that we have made 

clear to them is we are not letting up on human rights. If you were 

to try and be transactional about this with the Cuban Government, 

the problem with that is that they won’t trade for anything, and 

we will end up still not helping the Cuban people. The goal of these 

policies is not to do something that relies on the Cuban Government agreeing to give us something for a human rights concession. 

We want to try and go directly to the Cuban people. Now, it is true, 

they may not let the telecommunications companies work for more 

Internet access, but what has been news all over Cuba and every 

48

Cuban knows, is that we are restarting our relations, and the bogeyman of the U.S. being their problem is no longer credible. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Again, my time is limited. I appreciate that, and 

I wouldn’t deny that there are lots of people who see lots of hope 

in what has now been started. But my question is really more specific. What is the reciprocity? What did we get out of this other 

than the aspirations that things will get better with this change because they weren’t getting better under the old regime? I can’t 

think of a single thing—the release of Mr. Gross, of course—but in 

terms of a policy shift, a concession, I can’t think of a single one 

you have announced. 

Ms. JACOBSON. I believe that we also will get some things that 

matter in opening our Embassy and hopefully the ability to travel 

throughout the country and see more people and support more people. We can’t really move outside Havana right now. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is what you hope to negotiate. 

Ms. JACOBSON. But that is necessary for opening an Embassy. 

That is part of this. I also think that, you know, we will have all 

of these dialogues that they want to have for cooperation, that will 

be part of those discussions as well. It is to come. I agree. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Chairman, I know my time is up, but I 

want to underline, I always think it is a mistake in foreign policy 

to give it away for nothing. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly, and now we turn 

to Mr. Duncan, the chairman of our Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

You know, if trade and lifting the sanctions is seen as a cure-all 

of foreign policy for the Obama administration with regard to oppressive regimes like Cuba, then why did the administration impose more sanctions on Venezuela the very same week as the policy 

shift in Cuba? Is this an indication that we may see similar normalized relations with North Korea, Venezuela or other oppressive 

regimes? 

Ms. JACOBSON. The sanctions that were imposed on Venezuela 

this past week were, in fact, additional visa sanctions. We——

Mr. DUNCAN. In December, the same week as the President 

started normalizing relations with Cuba he imposed some sanctions 

on Venezuela. 

Ms. JACOBSON. If you are talking about the signing of the legislation that was passed by Congress, that includes both visa sanctions 

and assets freezes. It is not a trade sanction bill. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Are we going to see any more normalizations? Are 

there going to be other surprises? We didn’t see Cuba coming. 

What are we going to do with Venezuela, North Korea or any of 

the others? Are you anticipating any of that? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I can’t speak outside my region, but I don’t expect 

you to see any surprises on Venezuela. We have been consulting on 

that, and I expect to continue, nor any surprises on Cuba. We will 

continue to consult on that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think you were surprised over the Cuba talks and 

you weren’t brought in or read into it until late in the discussions, 

but let’s move on because many of the people that I speak with 

about this policy shift on Cuba, some even here in Congress, talk 

49

about, and point to, the freedom now afforded Americans to travel 

to Cuba. 

So what I ask is, is the same freedom of travel a two-way street? 

Is the same freedom of travel afforded to the Cuban people to travel to the United States? In this policy shift, all American travelers 

really stay, unless it is family travel, they stay at hotels owned by 

the Cuban military. Only state-owned enterprises can accept credit 

cards. Article 18 of the Cuban constitution requires all foreign commerce to be controlled by the state. So how does increasing commerce with Castro’s monopolies help the Cuban people? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Let me start out by saying on travel by Cubans, 

we are looking at that really carefully. Since the 2013 decision by 

the Cuban Government to allow more people to travel, it has gotten 

better. You have been able to have some dissidents here to speak 

in front of this House who have never been able to before, but it 

is, by far, not good enough. There are still people who can’t travel, 

and they should be able to. They should all be able to travel freely. 

Let me say that on the trade portion, I will go back to what I 

said. We understand that there will be some benefits to the Cuban 

Government. We really do believe, again, because of people that we 

have talked to who are entrepreneurs, because of activists, because 

of artists, because of some of the small agricultural folks working, 

that they will benefit more than the government will if we are able 

to implement these regulations and get them the equipment they 

need that the government won’t provide them. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. They will benefit from maybe some economic 

transaction. I will give you that. We will see. 

How about other freedoms for the Cuban people? What was negotiated in this? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Economic 

freedom? Freedom of assembly and protest? And I point to Ms. 

Berta Soler’s testimony yesterday. I think Chris Smith talked 

about it, but she said,

‘‘The truth is the Government of Cuba represses our right to 

freedom of religion and association, and so we go out, participate in religious activities on Sundays and then are detained. 

The government is constantly repressing activists who are trying to gather together to discuss issues that are important to 

them.’’

So the right to peacefully assemble and protest against a repressive government is still there. So I ask this: What did the U.S. barter in exchange for this new policy shift other than Alan Gross’ release that benefits the Cuban people and ultimately gives them 

more freedoms? I mean, that is what I am about. I want this to 

be about the Cuban people. If we are truly going to pursue a policy 

to normalize relations, it ought to be about the Cuban people and 

not the Castro regime, and the Castro regime is the only one that 

I see that benefits from this economically through the businesses 

they own and operate. I don’t see where private property rights are 

really going to—you know, maybe. You mentioned that earlier. I 

think somebody asked that question, but private property rights 

and the claims by American Cubans—Cuban Americans and Cuban 

people in general that own property that was nationalized by the 

Federal Government. 

50

How are we going to address that? I think the private property 

rights is so important and is sort of left out of this discussion, and 

you and I talked about this in my office the other day. I think that 

is critical. So I would like you to you talk about the freedoms for 

the American people—I mean, the Cuban people—in the remaining 

20 seconds that I have. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with you 

that all of those things are what we are seeking as an end. I think 

we all agree that is the goal here. 

Mr. DUNCAN. So tell me how this policy gets us to that goal? 

Ms. JACOBSON. The policy gets us to this goal, number one, by 

having a lot more people able to work with us on it from outside 

Cuba than ever before. We were alone. We were not joined by anyone else. We are more effective with allies. Number two, we believe 

that there were no concessions here. Some of these things are 

things that we are doing that deeply worry the Cuban Government 

because they may not be able to control them, and we don’t believe 

that anything we did on December 17th, as the President and the 

Secretary have said, were concessions to the government. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well my time is up, but the concessions for the 

Cuban people are important, and I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

I will now yield to Mr. Lowenthal of California. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to 

preface my remarks by saying that I have been touched listening 

to both the experiences of those that have been the most affected 

by the repressive regime, and that has been—I join with Congressman Cicilline and Congresswoman Bass in saying that I have been 

touched by the testimony of both Congressman Sires and RosLehtinen, who talk about their families and some of the impacts. 

But having said that, I am very supportive of our re-engagement 

and the restoration of diplomatic relations. I say that not because 

I support many of the repressive issues that take place, but I say 

that as someone who represents one of the largest if not the largest 

Vietnamese American communities in the United States, people 

who escaped also an intolerable situation, who I believe, while certainly very, very against the existing regime in Vietnam, have benefited by having, I think, greater ability to communicate some of 

their concerns, and they have had it by having the U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam come to a community which is not at all supportive of that government and really have a dialogue and be able 

to express some of their concerns. I see that as a very, very positive 

step. 

So my questions are, as we go forward, will there be a strategy 

also to reach out to the Cuban American community in the United 

States who have been suffering a great deal and who have the relatives? So that is my first question. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Absolutely. Absolutely, sir. And we have begun to 

do that knowing that the views in that community are diverse as 

well, and seeing that activists within Cuba, among the four points 

they could agree on, was that the Cuban Diaspora has to be taken 

into consideration. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I think that is so important, and I really—if 

anyone else wants—I really think that is very important, and I also 

51

would like to know what people have—what we see as—as we 

move forward there is more trade and more tourism, how are we 

going to deal with—when many of those tourists go back to Cuba 

and speak out against their government that is in Cuba, have we 

talked some of those issues? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We certainly considered that in terms of Cubans 

coming to the United States, and when that travel policy was liberalized, there was an enormous concern among activists that if they 

left and spoke freely, they either wouldn’t be able to go home, perhaps, or if they went home, they would never be able to travel 

again. 

The fact that some of them have now been able to travel repeatedly, I think, is a good sign, but everyone still is fearful. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. As I am, and so with that I——

Ms. JACOBSON. And we raised that issue. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Does anyone else have any issues or want to respond to any—some of the issues—as the policies begin to change, 

what you see in the future as some of the consequences. Not so 

much the reasons—I am wanting to move forward. Where do we go 

from here? What do you see things that we need to look at as this 

policy has changed now? 

Mr. BORMAN. Well, the two points I would make is, one, we certainly, with the Treasury, are doing a lot of outreach to all segments of the American public so they understand what the current—the new changes are; and then, secondly, we will be watching 

very carefully to see how they actually play out in practice, because 

coming back to the 15 percent of the Cuban population or the 

Cuban economy that is private sector, we are really looking to 

strengthen and grow that with these opportunities. So that is 

something we will certainly be looking at very carefully. 

Mr. SMITH. I would echo those comments. I think the implementation is what we are going to be looking at over the next few 

months, and years, actually, and to see what the effects are and 

what we need to do to make these——

Mr. LOWENTHAL. As a member also, because of my own concerns 

and also because of the concerns of the communities I represent, 

I have joined—I have been a very active member of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. I have adopted prisoners of conscience in Vietnam, actually put pressure on the Vietnamese Government to begin to release some of these prisoners. I would like 

to see some of the same efforts even be increased as we go forward 

with our changed policy in Cuba. 

And thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, and we go to Mr. 

Brooks of Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I believe that America’s policies should be consistent throughout 

the globe as best that we can do so, and by way of example, I would 

like to just make a quick comparison between Cuba and Saudi Arabia, looking at some of this similarities between the countries, some 

of the differences, and also the disparate ways in which each is 

treated by the United States Government. 

On trade, American/Cuban trade is very limited, as we all know. Less than $500 million per year in exports by America to Cuba. 

52

But America/Saudi trade is very robust. Roughly $80 billion per 

year, perhaps higher. 

On travel, travel to Cuba, very limited by the United States Government. Saudi Arabia, quite the opposite. 

On Embassies and diplomatic interaction, in Saudi Arabia we 

have an Embassy and very significant diplomatic interaction. In 

Cuba, we have no Embassy and little to no diplomatic interaction. 

I could go on and on, but I think it is fair to say that the United 

States treats Cuba substantially differently than Saudi Arabia. 

As I have listened to the witnesses and member comments concerning Cuba and why Cuba must be treated differently, I can’t 

help but emphasize some of the similarities and differences that 

have been pointed out. 

On the issue of freedom of religion, as bad as Cuba may be, and 

we have heard some comments as to how bad it is, the question 

is, is Saudi Arabia worse? One member commented that some religious observance requires Cuba Government consent. Yet in Saudi 

Arabia, open worship by Christians is a criminal offense, as is missionary work. If a Muslim dares question whether Islam is a true 

religion, he is severely punished. Raef Badawi being a recent example, facing 1,000 lashes and 6 to 10 years in prison, assuming, of 

course, that the lashing does not kill him. 

On the issue of dictatorial governments, one would again be 

hard-pressed to determine which family government, that of Cuba’s 

or the Saudi’s is more dictatorial. I think you could have a very robust debate concerning that issue. 

On the issue of terrorism, bearing in mind that 15 of the 19 9/11 

terrorists were Saudis, and also bearing in mind that so much terrorism funding originates in Saudi Arabia, in fairness, much of it 

opposed by the Riyadh regime, but, nonetheless, still a lot of money 

for terrorism comes from the country of Saudi Arabia, one could 

have a lively debate again concerning which country poses a greater threat to world peace. 

Given so many similarities, and also some differences, but with 

Saudi Arabia being treated so much better by the United States of 

America, what factors, in your mind, justify treating Cuba so much 

worse than Saudi Arabia that supports the 50-year policy that the 

United States has had with respect to Cuba? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think that our own 

view has been pretty clearly laid out by the President on the 17th, 

and the Secretary certainly made a number of comments that we 

believe that Cuba, not on its merits necessarily in terms of its behavior, but on the effectiveness of policy argument, the efficiency 

and what is in our national interest, merits a change in that policy, 

and so it was announced in December. 

I can’t necessarily make that comparison between Saudi Arabia 

and Cuba, but I will say that we believe very strongly that the values and the ideals of the United States 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 via diplomatic relations and having Embassies. Those aren’t concessions 

or gifts. We do them effectively when we have a presence, and that 

is why we want to have that presence in Cuba. 

53

Mr. BROOKS. I am running short of time. Let me ask this final 

question. 

Americais always faced with a very difficult choice. On the one 

hand, we can be open, hoping that our relations with this country 

will slowly but surely cause them to accept freedoms that we cherish in America, or we can be very restrictive, as we have been with 

Cuba, North Korea, and some other nations, in hopes that the punishment will be sufficient. 

What do you think long term is best for Cuba? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think we are most effective when we have allies 

with us, and we were alone vis-a`-vis Cuba. So I believe the openness with allies to the Cuban people, not the Cuba Government, 

will be effective. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Deutch of Florida is recognized. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Engel for working so quickly to ensure that this committee was 

able to hear from the administration on the policy shift. 

I represent South Florida where the administration’s announcement has a tremendous impact, and let me first say that in the immediate term, I have serious concerns about the Castro regime’s 

continuing human rights abuses, as many of my colleagues have 

brought up today, and I hope that we expect and demand more of 

them. 

Coinciding with the administration’s announcement, one of the 

major South Florida’s newspapers, The Sun Sentinel, published an 

in-depth feature called Plundering America, which exposed the way 

in which underground criminal networks have exploited U.S. policy 

toward Cuba. 

Madam Chairman, the United States opened 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 

have come here have made incredible contributions to this country 

and become a deep part of the fabric of our society. What great examples we have here on this panel with our colleagues and my 

friends, Chairman Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen and Representative 

Sires, but policies that were 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 a small minority for criminal gain. Individuals engaged in organized criminal 

activity have turned our 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 are transporting large sums of cash 

back to the island and evading arrest as the Cuban regime will not 

extradite these fugitives. 

As The Sun Sentinel notes, they have turned our open-door policy into a revolving door, enabling, and I quote, ‘‘Crooks from the 

island to rob American businesses and taxpayers of more than $2 

billion over two decades.’’

As the administration rebalances its relationship with Cuba, I 

hope we are not ignoring the years of criminal activity that the 

Castros have turned a blind eye to, at best. We need to know what 

extent—to what extent the regime or people connected to the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\020415\93157 SHIRL
54

gime have been or will continue to be involved in these illegal 

crime rings. 

Assistant Secretary Jacobson, I would like to know if your initial 

round of talks with the Cubans included any discussion of extradition of fugitives from Cuba; and if not, when and how will this 

issue be raised? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Congressman, and it certainly did include the discussion of fugitives. It did not specifically include the 

question of extradition. As you know, we have a very old extradition treaty that has not been used in many years. I have no idea 

whether we will get back eventually to actually using it. But it certainly included the question of fugitives and the desire to have 

much more in-depth conversation about law enforcement and fugitive issues in the future. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Can you just elaborate a bit on the extradition you 

referred to, the situation that we have now, but in the talks——

Ms. JACOBSON. Right. Let me——

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. How did the talks focus on that? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I just want to be clear that the morning of the 

talks that I had were on the diplomatic restoration. The afternoon 

of the talks were on a whole series of subjects on which we are 

going to have experts, who are not me, have much more substantive conversations about what we want, right, and that is one 

of the subjects. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And when—what will be the context of those discussions and when will they take place? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Right. We are going to try and set those up as 

quickly as possible. Part of that conversation already began in the 

migration talks, because we take with us our lawyers and the Department of Justice, and we talk about fugitives in the context of 

the migration talks. So we have actually begun that one, but we 

will have a separate conversation on law enforcement and fugitives, 

basically, as we can set these up in the time schedule. 

The Cubans are a little bit overwhelmed by our new wanting to 

have dialogues on lots of different subjects. They have accepted the 

idea of having that, and we will get them set up as soon as we can 

with our Justice Department colleagues. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, understanding that much of this falls under law enforcement agencies’ purview, has your office looked at where the 

money coming from these Cuban criminal networks—where all of 

that money, which usually comes back to Cuba in cash goes, or the 

role of Cuban Government in sponsoring or even training these individuals or what is being done to impede their activities? 

Mr. SMITH. OFAC does work with our law enforcement colleagues on a variety of issues that relate to sanctions. 

With respect to any particular issues with regard to money flows 

or anything that might impact the U.S. law or U.S. sanctions, I 

couldn’t talk about anything that we would actually be looking at. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Can you speak to the specific situation that was described at great length in these newspaper reports? 

Mr. SMITH. I think most of what you described at great length 

from the newspaper reports and the details from the newspaper reports, I would refer to the Department of Justice. I think that they 

55

would have the primary equities there and the primary statutes 

that would be involved. 

What we would do at OFAC is, we enforce the sanctions laws, 

and very little, from what I have seen, would impact our regulations that we would enforce. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. DeSantis of Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Jacobson, you said in response to Chairman Royce’s 

question what we did not make concessions to the Cuban Government, but yet later in your answers you have conceded that the increased economic activity will have some benefit to the Cuban Government. So that is a concession. Is it not? 

Ms. JACOBSON. It is a benefit they may receive. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Especially given their two main patrons, Venezuela and Russia, they are reeling with a change in world oil 

prices, and I think the Castro government very much wants any 

type of patronage they can get, and I think as Mr. Sires pointed 

out, you know, money that goes into that country is going to be 

controlled by the government, and if you are going to argue differently, why is it that we are really the only country that has 

these restrictions. So you have open relations, Switzerland, Australia, whoever. How come with all those ties, the Cuban people 

have not benefited, because you said in your testimony in response 

to a question of Mr. Poe that the Cuban people are not better off 

after 50 years of our policy. 

My question is if the other policies of all the other countries in 

the world are so good, why haven’t the Cuban people benefited 

from those policies? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Congressman, I think part of the problem in 

terms of actual sort of economic policy in Cuba is that they have 

not modernized their system, opened their system, made a foreign 

investment law that adequately attracts investment to have those 

other countries be part of it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And they said that they are not going to change. 

Raul Castro said they are not changing. He said this is a victory 

for the Cuban revolution, and we are not going to change. So I 

don’t see where you get that the people of Cuba are somehow going 

to benefit more than the regime. I think the regime will benefit 

from this, but until there is a change, I think the benefits are going 

to be bottled up at the top. 

Ms. JACOBSON. But remittances also go directly to Cuban people. 

We raised the remittance amounts, in addition. One of the reasons 

that they haven’t rushed to us to implement the telecommunications provisions or the Internet provisions, you know, they have 

been very, very wary of all of this is because they know full well 

that they probably won’t be able to control it, and that the benefits 

may well reach the Cuban people. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And so they are probably not likely to do—let me 

ask you this: When you took your trip, were you given access to 

any of the places where political prisoners are being held, view 

that? 

56

Ms. JACOBSON. I was not. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. Is there any discussion—has the administration trying to get property returned that was confiscated both of 

American citizens when Castro took power, including Cuban Americans who were exiled? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We made clear in the conversations that the issue 

of expropriated properties has to be part of normalization. 

Mr. DESANTIS. What was their response? 

Ms. JACOBSON. They agreed that that has to be part of the conversation and responded that they had issues they wanted to raise 

with us about losses under the embargo. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And one of the issues, I know they wanted is 

GTMO. Can you categorically state that on January 20th, 2017, at 

12 o’clock p.m., a date that a lot of my constituents are looking forward to, that GTMO will still be under U.S. control, the Naval 

base? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am certain that Guantanamo will still be a U.S. 

base, but I can’t tell you a hypothetical about what may be part 

of these normalization talks. But it is not on the table for us right 

now, and I don’t envision that, but I am not a high enough ranking 

person to know, and it is—I am not from the Department of Defense. Et cetera, to know whether it could be in the future, and—

but I can’t——

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I am just talking about over the next 2 

years as this administration is in power, but I understand it is not 

going to be——

Ms. JACOBSON. I can’t envision that. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. The Federal 

statutes, in order to be removed from that list, there are certain 

criteria. One of them is that the government has to provide assurances that they will not support international terrorism. 

Has the Cuban Government provided those assurances, and if so, 

are they credible? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Cuba has repeatedly rejected international terrorism, and we are in the process right now as we review this of 

also looking at their statements and evaluating whether they have 

or whether they will give such assurances. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I am concerned, because if they say they are 

not going to change, they have been a state sponsor of terrorism. 

To me, that is a declaration to the contrary. 

My final question is: Does the administration believe that the 

President has the authority to unilaterally lift the embargo? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Clearly not or he wouldn’t have welcomed and encouraged the debate in Congress. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, but we have been down this road before, because he said he couldn’t do things a number of times, and then 

turns around and does them. So I just think it is important to get 

this on the record. The statute is very clear about what would have 

to happen in order to have any type of waiver of these restrictions, 

and there is no evidence that any of those criteria have been met 

up to this point. Is that accurate? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am sorry. A waiver of—to have lifting of what 

kind of restrictions? Of the embargo? 

57

Mr. DESANTIS. Any type of provisions that can be waived requires there are certain provisions that are listed that must occur 

in order for the President to act. 

Ms. JACOBSON. To act to lift the embargo, the President was 

clear in the State of the Union that he wants that to be debated 

in Congress. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. DeSantis. 

Mr. Castro of Texas. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairwoman, and like many of my colleagues, I have been moved by the testimony of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 

and also my colleague Albio Sires, who are Cuban American, and 

many Cuban Americans, particularly of a more senior generation 

lost their family members, lost property, lost their livelihoods in 

their country, and for many years I think much of our foreign policy toward Cuba was in great deference to that fact, and when you 

hear the stories that is very understandable. 

I do think with the President’s change in normalization in diplomatic relations toward Cuba that the power of American culture 

and the power of our technology and our democracy will ultimately 

win out, and I think that in many ways, this was a start of a new 

revolution in Cuba, and as the Castro brothers are in the winter 

of their reign, I see this as positioning the United States for when 

they are gone. 

And so with that in mind, let me ask you, how does it position 

our country vis-a`-vis Cuba once these folks are no longer in power? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Congressman. I think, you know, this 

really is the question. One of the things that is critical is the next 

generation of activists, of leaders, we want to keep faith with them. 

I thought one of the most important things in this policy is how 

we work with the current human rights activists and democracy 

leaders, the new entrepreneurs and artists and expand civil society. 

How do we encourage them when Tania Bruguera wanted to have 

performance art in Revolutionary Square and asked Cubans to 

speak openly, 300 artists wrote in support of her effort. Many of 

them had never made a political statement before. So it is the idea 

of expanding people’s engagement in civil society, which is novel, 

and is important in preparing for what comes next in Cuba. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. And I know in places like China, for example, 

they can’t access social media sites, but they have access to the 

Internet. Many in Cuba have no access even to the Internet. Is that 

right? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. CASTRO. And also—and I don’t know. I got here a little bit 

late, because like many of my colleagues, I have two committee 

meetings at the same time, but let me ask you, what becomes of 

the wet foot/dry foot policy? 

Ms. JACOBSON. At this point, Congressman, we have no plans to 

change that law, and it would—the law, obviously, is in on the 

books. That would be have to be changed by Congress. We have no 

plans to request such a change. 

Mr. CASTRO. Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back, Chairwoman. 

58

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Castro. 

Mr. Emmer of Minnesota. 

Mr. EMMER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the 

panel. 

It is interesting, I hear often in the past few weeks that if something hasn’t been working for 50 years, you should look at changing it, but nobody seems to go directly to the issue, except some of 

the comments I have heard today about how nothing has changed 

within the country, and I am interested in a couple of things, because much of it has been covered already, but the President broke 

with policy by appointing a couple of White House aids to conduct 

these secret negotiations. I am interested, and I think it is probably 

Ms. Jacobson, because you seem to have at some point been 

brought in and made aware of what was going on, what happened 

that caused that moment in time where the President decided to 

appoint these two to negotiate secretly with the Cubans, and why? 

Why did he break from policy? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I can’t—I can’t answer that question on behalf of 

the President. 

What I can tell you is that one of the two people engaged in 

those discussions is a foreign service officer on loan to the White 

House, a foreign service officer who is one of our foremost experts 

on Cuba, having served there and on the Cuba issue at the State 

Department. 

Mr. EMMER. But you don’t know what suddenly sparked now is 

the time that this has to happen? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think there has long been a concern within the 

administration that the policy was not effective in empowering the 

Cuban people. 

Mr. EMMER. So let me ask you this, then, Ms. Jacobson, because 

many of the questions are—I mean, I heard from Representative 

Connolly and others, what did we get? 

If I understand your testimony today, these secret negotiations 

included, for instance, discussions about the brutalization of families. In other words, how you are going to compensate these families for their personal loss during the Castro takeover and since, 

and there has been a promise that that will be part of the negotiations before actual—there will be a proposal to ‘‘dismantle the embargo.’’

Ms. JACOBSON. What has to be part of full normalization of relations, that is, making the relationship with Cuba look like every 

other normal one, and that is the full range of things, not just diplomatic relations, is a process and a resolution of this longstanding 

issue of claims, which the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

has, and judgements, yeah. 

Mr. EMMER. Got it. All right. So—and I just want it on the record 

so I understand, because you have separated between diplomacy 

and complete normalization, which would be lifting the embargo 

and things that the President says he cannot do as the Executive, 

only Congress. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Right. 

Mr. EMMER. When we talk about the diplomacy, opening an Embassy, hopefully getting to travel across the island, which right now 

59

has not been assured, that is diplomacy, and these few things that 

the administration can do without Congressional approval. 

The next step, my understanding from your testimony today is, 

there has been a promise that there will be, as part of any agreement moving forward, any final agreement, an understanding as to 

how these families will be compensated, not only for their personal 

loss, but for their property losses. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACOBSON. There will be a process with the Cuban Government to come to resolution of those issues. 

Mr. EMMER. So you may not require that they be reimbursed or 

compensated for loss of——

Ms. JACOBSON. I don’t—I think in all of these kinds of cases, and 

I will ask my colleagues if they have any comment, but it may be 

Department of Justice that would be placed to answer this, in all 

of these kinds of things, it has to be agreed between—mutually between two countries to resolve those——

Mr. EMMER. I understand, but you led us to believe, at least you 

led me to believe, that when these discussions were taking place, 

these are issues that were, in fact, raised and have been discussed, 

and it would lead me to believe, listening to questions here today, 

that there are things that are going to be required if Congress is 

ultimately going to approve a full normalization. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Right, and that means a satisfactory resolution, 

which means we have to be satisfied, but the Cuban Government 

will have to be satisfied, too, for an agreement. 

Mr. EMMER. And that would include this harboring of murderers 

and thieves and criminals by the Castro regime? 

Ms. JACOBSON. The question of fugitives—if you mean the question of fugitives or——

Mr. EMMER. I added it to—you put all of these together today, 

and I see my time is running out. 

My point is that you made it sound as though these are all going 

to be necessary requirements to a final agreement if it is actually 

going to be fully normalized, and I believe my time is expired, 

Madam Chair. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you. 

Mr. Clawson of Florida. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Thank you for coming today. 

I would like to ask a question or two about this deal’s impacts 

on religious freedom in Cuba. I represent South Florida, Southwest 

Florida, and of the, you know, 94 percent of the Jewish folks left 

after the revolution, some of them came to my district. So this is 

a question I am sure that is on a lot of their minds of those that 

remain that are family members. But there is also other religious 

folks that have been persecuted in Cuba. Christians. We don’t talk 

about Mormons much, but there are two Mormon branches, I understand, in Cuba, and other religious minorities as well. So I am 

wondering about the impact of this deal on tolerance for religion 

in general, and will missionaries and other folks from different 

sects be allowed to go now and help their brothers and sisters on 

the island? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, I think—I think it is really important, Congressman. The regulations—and I could let my colleagues—this 

really expands the ability of religious groups to go, because what 

60

we have done is make the religious missions part of this, the religious opportunities general license, and so we are hoping that 

there are a lot more religious groups that are able to go and see 

counterparts in Cuba and have that interaction. 

In terms of the tolerance for religious freedom in Cuba, I certainly hope that there will be an impact certainly by having their 

brethren come and work with them and support them. 

I visit the Jewish community every time I go to Cuba, and I visited this time with the church, and there was recently, you know, 

obviously the announcement of a new church to be built, a new 

Catholic church to be built in Cuba, but it is a very important part 

of what we are hoping to stimulate as part of civil society. 

Mr. SMITH. I could just add to that, that in the past, many Americans had to come to OFAC 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 that we made was to authorize that in our regulations, which means that people may now go to Cuba for religious 

activities or for religious purposes without coming to this government agency to seek approval first. 

Mr. BORMAN. And there are two pieces on our side. One is that 

for those trips that are now generally authorized for religious purposes, the things that the travelers want to bring with them also 

can be done under a general authorization rather than coming and 

waiting for a specific authorization from us. 

And another piece of our license exception allows building materials to be exported for private sector use, including building of 

churches, for example, again, without individual licenses under this 

general authorization. 

Mr. CLAWSON. I hope that we will have measurables here. I am 

always worried about bait and switch and using some other aspect 

of the law to really get around things that are uncomfortable, and 

I personally just think it is hard to have a meaningful life for a 

lot of folks if they don’t have a meaningful religious experience. So 

I am hoping that the administration will follow up here to where 

we actually see meaningful, opening and meaningful religious 

awakening on the island for so many that want it. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CLAWSON. I have no more to say. I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Clawson. 

Mr. Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and, gentlemen, I 

apologize. You all haven’t seemed to be getting a lot of the questions, and so let me just ask you all a couple of quick questions. 

Are you all going to be okay while I question her? 

Mr. BORMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Jacobson, let me start out by saying I have really appreciated your professionalism and your demeanor and your attitude. 

You have done a good job, and I appreciate that. 

Are the State and Treasury regulations now fully in compliance 

with the intent of Congress, Ms. Jacobson, when it passed the 

Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enforcement Act of 2000? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Yes, sir, we believe they are. 

61

Mr. WEBER. You believe that they are? 

Going forward, and I understand you said the President wants—

he doesn’t want the dialogue that is happening in Congress, and 

I appreciated Joaquin Castro, my colleague over here from Texas’ 

comments earlier about moving forward past the current regime. 

That was an interesting take, but going forward, will the ag trade, 

and I have rice farmers in Texas in my district and other producers 

as well, and five ports. So they are very interested in the trade part 

of this. Will the trade of ag products be able to be conducted without a lot of input, and some would say interference, from the administration? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think that is a great question, and we know 

that there is an enormous amount of interest in that. I actually 

may defer to my colleague on some of this. 

Mr. WEBER. They will feel good about that. 

Ms. JACOBSON. They will, and it will give me a chance to have 

a little bit of water. So——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Yes, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, we made changes in the current set of regulations that changed the financing terms to what the ag exporters 

had requested. And so, it should be easier for them to be able to 

send——

Mr. WEBER. Without a lot of red tape? 

Mr. SMITH. Without coming in to OFAC for any requirements. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Good. Mr. Borman, any input? 

Mr. BORMAN. Well, one thing that we were not able to address 

in our changes were—is the TSRA requirement that there be a license that is no more restrictive than a licensed exception. So that 

piece stays in place, but that is a—currently a 12-day process. 

Mr. WEBER. 12-day process? Okay. 

Mr. BORMAN. For somebody who wants to make an ag export, 

comes in and waits—submits an application to us and gets an answer yes or no in 12 days. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, then other than changing the cash-inhand rule, what other changes in OFAC, do you know, are in the 

offing? Anybody? 

Mr. SMITH. When you say other than——

Mr. WEBER. That would actually give us potentially new opportunities for ag products in particular. 

Mr. SMITH. So the other thing that we did was we allowed U.S. 

banks to establish correspondent accounts at Cuban banks. And 

what helped with that and with the ag trade is, right now if you 

want—an American exporter has to get payment from a Cuban exporter, and then it has to go through a third country and then 

come to the United States. Now under this rule, they won’t. They 

can pay directly and the payment can be faster and easier and 

make ag exporters more competitive. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. BORMAN. And then—sorry. I am going to take another shot, 

but I think also the travel general licenses now make it easier for 

people who want to investigate business opportunities in the ag 

sector to go to Cuba without coming in and waiting for an OFAC 

license. 

62

Mr. SMITH. In many of the cases before, exporters would have to 

come into OFAC to seek what is called a specific license to travel 

down there. Now, they don’t have to for a variety of activities that 

they would use associated with trade, like the marketing and the 

export, the delivery, all of that can be done without coming into us 

to seek that license. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, that is an improvement, and then, Ms. 

Jacobson, I am going to come back to you. Joaquin asked about the 

dry foot/wet policy. Tell me what that is. 

Ms. JACOBSON. It is—the Cuban Adjustment Act allows that 

Cuban citizens who arrive on U.S. soil are permitted to adjust their 

status here and remain, whereas those who may be interdicted by 

the Coast Guard are—if they have no protection concerns, may be 

returned. 

Mr. WEBER. That is what I figured. Well, that is my questions, 

and I thank you all for your testimony. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Weber. 

We were going to go to a second round of questions for the three 

of us left in case you wanted to ask another question. 

The chair recognizes herself. 

The Foreign Claims Commission has found that there are almost 

6,000 U.S. claims that are judged to be qualified for compensation 

by the Castro dictatorship. The adjudicated value of those claims, 

by adding a 6 percent simple interest, according to this commission, makes the total principal value of American claims to over $8 

billion today. I don’t think the State Department will enforce 

Helms-Burton by investigating, trafficking, and confiscated U.S. 

property, nor enable U.S. property owners to secure compensation 

for the unauthorized use of property subject to a claim. 

Do you think that you will or won’t, and I also worry that the 

administration will use our influence to go even further. We will—

will we try to help Cuba get membership into the World Bank? Into 

the IMF? Into the IDB? Other multilateral development banks? 

And will we prevent any assistance, any financing, or any other 

benefit from these institutions until U.S. property claims have been 

resolved to the satisfaction of American owners? 

And, lastly, if you could tell us what are the three conditions according to U.S. law under Helms-Burton for the embargo to be lifted, 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—or justify the embargo being lifted? 

So first on the claims on what we are going to do, if we are going 

to help Cuba get into these organizations, and then the three conditions under Helms-Burton? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Let she start out by saying I have been cognizant 

of the importance of resolution of the claims issues and the judgements from the very beginning of this process. It is very important 

that those be resolved. The State Department as well as other government agencies, the Justice Department under which the Autonomous Foreign Claims Settlement Commission acted to adjudicate 

and assign values to those claims. We believe very strongly that 

that has to be part of future conversations over the next years, 

however long normalization may take. Those are extremely difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\020415\93157 SHIRL
63

ficult, obviously, to have with any foreign government as those 

commissions’ dealings have proven, but we intend to pursue that 

certainly as part of our discussion. I raised that in the very first 

conversation knowing that we weren’t going to talk about it that 

day deeply, but it must be part of full normalization. 

Second, on the international financial institutions, there is obviously very specific language in the law about this. We feel that we 

are not in a position right now where Cuba is, you know, eligible 

for membership, certainly, and there are lots of——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. You say right now. Do you foresee that Cuba 

will be moving in that direction? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think, Madam Chairman, we all hope for the 

day when there would be logical membership, because it will be a 

free and open Cuba with an open economic system that would be 

a logical member, but I don’t know exactly at what point. We also 

hope that at some point in the future, they may ask for help to 

open their system. They are not right now. So——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. But just as we said that we weren’t going to 

swap spies and we did, even though you—a rose by any other 

name, but you call it something else, will we be advocating for 

Cuba’s inclusion in these international organizations that would 

allow it to give it credit to continue to oppose the people? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We are not advocating for their membership, but 

we also want to make sure that at some point in time, it may be 

useful to have organizations like the IMF, not give them help, but 

help them open their economy, which is what they do. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Because we are keeping them—these institutions are keeping them from opening the economy. 

Ms. JACOBSON. No, no, no, but they don’t necessarily have——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Let’s go to the three conditions under HelmsBurton. What are the three conditions that would allow the lifting 

of the embargo, and what of those three have been met by the Castro regime? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am sorry. I don’t have them in front over me. 

The three conditions in the legislation? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Well, I hope that when you are negotiation 

with the Castro regime you keep in mind U.S. law. U.S. law is the 

LIBERTAD Act of 1996. The President is calling for the lifting of 

the embargo. Please go and check that out, because that is U.S. 

law, and we are hoping that you will abide by that. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Absolutely. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And with that, Mr. Clawson has a follow-up 

question. 

Mr. CLAWSON. I believe that good leadership requires all stakeholders to be taken into account. Companies go off track when they 

only think about shareholders, and in government, I think it is 

even more important that we keep all stakeholders take them into 

account and that they are consulted. This felt like a sad decision 

to me because it seemed to bypass a normal conversation with all 

stakeholders with respect to Cuba, stakeholders that live in our 

country, family members and others that got surprised, as you did 

as stakeholders that work on the front line, and I kind of want to 

be on the record on that, because I think when we bypass stakeholders, we make unfair decisions that are narrow in their bandVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Apr 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\020415\93157 SHIRL
64

width, and this doesn’t feel—this decision doesn’t feel fair because 

of the process or lack of process that we went through to get here 

surprising people that have stakes in the game of Cuba. So I wanted to be on the record on that. 

I also think makes your job on the front lines a lot more difficult, 

and I can’t imagine surprising folks that work for me, bypassing 

them and cutting a deal with somebody that—without them knowing it. It feels like that undercuts your authority in the future, and 

maybe you see that different, but I just don’t know how that is not 

the case. 

So I want to say thank you for hanging in there. I think your 

jobs just got tougher, not easier, and I want to express my appreciation for you all and the service you do our country, and even in 

times made more difficult like now by leadership, and then along 

those lines I want to say thanks for hanging in there today. It is 

not easy coming up here, and, you know, you get it from both sides 

in our case. So you seem to have done it with humor and hung in 

there and kept your, you know, your sense of humor here, and for 

that, most of all, I express my appreciation to you all for making 

time for us. Thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Gentleman yields back, and I request unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter from South Florida 

State and Local Elected Officials to President Obama to express 

their profound disappointment over the December 17th announcement, an Agreement for Democracy in Cuba, which is a 10-point 

roadmap from the people of Cuba toward a real transition to democracy, op eds from the former staff director of this committee, 

Dr. Yleem Poblete, and questions for the record from Congressman 

Mario Diaz-Balart. And with that, our committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

66

f


93157n.eps
67


93157m-1.eps
68

f


93157m-2.eps
69

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


93157d-1.eps
70

f


93157d-2.eps
71


93157e-1.eps
72

f


93157e-2.eps
73

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


93157f-1.eps
74

f


93157f-2.eps
75

f


93157g.eps
76

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


93157h-1.eps
77

f


93157h-2.eps
78

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


93157i-1.eps
79


93157i-2.eps
80

f


93157i-3.eps
81

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


93157j-1.eps
82

f


93157j-2.eps
83

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


93157k-1.eps
84


93157k-2.eps
85

f


93157k-3.eps
86

f


93157l.eps
87

f


93157o.eps
88

f


93157p.eps
89

f


93157q.eps
90


93157r-1.eps
91


93157r-2.eps
92

f


93157r-3.eps
93


93157s-1.eps
94

Æ


93157s-2.eps