Order Code RL31139

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Updated July 30, 2008

Mark P. SullivanSpecialist in Latin American Affairs

Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 30 JUL 2008 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2008

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Congressional Research Service,Library of Congress,101 IndependenceAve, SE,Washington,DC,20540-7500

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

25

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Summary

Restrictions on travel to Cuba have been a key and often contentious componentin U.S. efforts to isolate the communist government of Fidel Castro for much of thepast 40 years. Over time, there have been numerous changes to the restrictions, andfor five years, from 1977 until 1982, there were no restrictions on travel to Cuba.Under the Bush Administration, enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel hasincreased, and restrictions on travel and on private remittances to Cuba have beentightened. In March 2003, the Administration eliminated travel for people-to-peopleeducational exchanges unrelated to academic coursework. In June 2004, theAdministration further restricted family and educational travel, eliminated thecategory of fully-hosted travel, and restricted remittances so that they could only besent to the remitter’s immediate family. In 2005, the Administration furtherrestricted religious travel to Cuba by changing licensing guidelines for such travel.

In the second session of the 110th Congress, the House AppropriationsCommittee reported its version of the FY2009 Financial Services and GeneralGovernment Appropriations bill on June 25, 2008, with provisions that would easerestrictions on family travel. It would allow for such travel once a year (instead of thecurrent restriction of once every three years) to visit aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews,and first cousins in addition to immediate family. The Senate AppropriationsCommittee version of the bill, S. 3260, reported July 14, 2008, has differentprovisions that would ease restrictions on family travel and travel related to the saleof agricultural and medical goods. The Senate Appropriations Committee reportedits version of the FY2009 agriculture appropriations bill, S. 3289, on July 21, 2008,with a provision that also would ease travel restrictions for the sale of agriculturaland medical goods.

Several other initiatives would ease Cuba travel restrictions. H.R. 654 (Rangel),S. 721 (Enzi), and Section 254 of S. 554 (Dorgan) would prohibit the President fromregulating or prohibiting travel to Cuba or any of the transactions incident to travel.Two bills that would lift overall economic sanctions — H.R. 217 (Serrano) and H.R.624 (Rangel) — would also lift travel restrictions. H.R. 177 (Lee) would easerestrictions on educational travel to Cuba. H.R. 757 (Delahunt) would lift restrictionson family travel and the provision of remittances for family members in Cuba. H.R.1026 (Moran, Jerry), which would facilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products toCuba, includes a provision that would provide for general license authority for travel-related transactions for people involved in agricultural sales and marketing activitiesor in the transportation of such sales. H.R. 2819 (Rangel) and S. 1673 (Baucus),which would ease restrictions on U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba,would also lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. The Senate Committee on Finance helda hearing on S. 1673 on December 11, 2007.

This report will be updated to reflect major developments. For additionalinformation on Cuba, see CRS Report RL33819, Cuba: Issues for the 110th

Congress, and CRS Report RS22742, Cuba’s Political Succession: From Fidel toRaúl Castro.

Contents

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background to Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Current Permissible Travel to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Current Restrictions on Remittances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Reaction to the June 2004 Tightening of Travel and Remittance Restrictions . . 11

Estimates of U.S. Travelers to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

OFAC Review of Travel and Carrier Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Enforcement of Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Civil Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18GAO Report on Enforcement of Cuba Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Arguments for Lifting Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Arguments for Maintaining Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Legislative Initiatives in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Legislative Initiatives in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22First Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Second Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Additional Initiatives in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Legislative Initiatives in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25First Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Second Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Additional Initiatives in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28First Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Second Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Additional Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Legislative Initiatives in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Most Recent Developments

On July 21, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version ofthe FY2009 Agriculture Appropriations bill, S. 3289 (S.Rept. 110-426), with aprovision that would ease restrictions on travel to Cuba for the sale of agriculturaland medical goods. It would allow for a general license for such travel instead of aspecific license that requires permission from the Treasury Department. The measurehad been approved by the Committee on July 17, 2008.

On July 14, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version ofthe FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, S. 3260(S.Rept. 110-417), which includes provisions easing restrictions on family travel andon travel to Cuba relating to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods.With regard to family travel, the bill would provide that no funds may be used toadminister, implement, or enforce the Administration’s June 2004 tightening ofrestrictions related to travel to visit relatives in Cuba. With regard to travel foragricultural or medical sales, the bill would allow for a general license for such travelinstead of a specific license that requires permission from the Treasury Department.

On June 30, 2008, a group of south Florida travel agencies specializing in travelto Cuba filed suit in U.S. federal court in Miami challenging a recent Florida statelaw related to Cuba travel. That law requires travel agencies that sell trips tocountries on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism (currentlyCuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea, which could be removed this summer)to pay annual fees up to $2,500 and to post up to a $250,000 bond required for theagencies to operate in Florida.

On June 25, 2008, the House Appropriations Committee approved its versionof the FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill thatincludes provisions easing restrictions on family travel and U.S. agricultural exportsto Cuba. The bill would liberalize family travel to Cuba by allowing for such travelonce a year (instead of the current restriction of once every three years) and byallowing such travel to visit aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and first cousins. TheHouse Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Governmenthad approved the measure on June 17.

On March 5, 2008, Cuban Americans living in Vermont filed a complaint inU.S. federal court in Burlington, Vermont, that U.S. restrictions on family travel toCuba violate their civil rights. Affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union of

CRS-2

Florida, Massachusetts, and Vermont filed a brief in support of the complaint on May16, 2008.

On December 17, 2007, the joint explanatory statement on H.R. 2764, theFY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, dropped provisions that would have easedrestrictions on travel to Cuba for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medicalgoods that had been included in the Senate Appropriations Committee-reportedversions of the FY2008 Financial Services and General Government appropriationsbill, H.R. 2829, and the FY2008 agriculture appropriations bill, S. 1859.

On December 11, 2007, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on theissue of “Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba” and arelated bill, S. 1673 (Baucus), that contains a provision that would lift restrictions ontravel to Cuba.

On November 30, 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issueda report on U.S. enforcement of the Cuba embargo. The report recommended: 1) thatthe Secretary of Homeland Security direct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tore-evaluate whether the level of resources dedicated to inspecting passengers fromCuba at the Miami International Airport effectively balances its responsibility forenforcing the Cuba embargo with its responsibilities for keeping terrorists, criminals,and inadmissible aliens out of the country; and 2) that the Treasury Department directthe Office of Foreign Assets Control to reassess the allocation of resources forinvestigating and penalizing violations of the Cuba embargo with respect to the 20other sanctions programs it administers. (See the full report available at[http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-80].)

On July 24, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee report its version of theFY2008 Agriculture appropriations bill, S. 1859 (S.Rept. 110-134), which includesa provision, in Section 741, that would authorize travel to Cuba under a generallicense for the sale and marketing of U.S. agricultural and medical goods.

On July 19, 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a report,requested by the Senate Committee on Finance, which maintained that lifting travelrestrictions would result in travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba rising to between 550,000and 1 million. See the full report available at [http://www.usitc.gov/publications/abstract_3932.htm]

On July 13, 2007, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version ofthe FY2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R.2829 (S.Rept. 110-129), which contains a provision in Section 620 that would allowfor travel to Cuba under a general license for the marketing and sale of agriculturaland medical goods. Another provision in Section 619 of the bill would clarify thedefinition of “payment of cash in advance” in order to ease restrictions on U.S.agricultural exports to Cuba.

On February 22, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami filed criminalcharges against two individuals for conspiracy to violate Cuba travel regulations.One of the defendants was also charged with making false statements to obtain alicense for religious travel to Cuba.

CRS-3

On February 2, 2007, a federal judge upheld a Florida law prohibiting statecolleges from using public or private resources for travel to Cuba or other countrieslisted by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The American CivilLiberties Union had filed the court challenge on behalf of Florida InternationalUniversity faculty members.

On October 10, 2006, the U.S. government established an inter-agency CubanSanctions Enforcement Task Force, chaired by the U.S. Attorney for the SouthernDistrict of Florida, with support from the FBI, and the Treasury, Homeland Security,and Commerce Departments. The primary goals of the task force are theinvestigation of Cuba embargo violations and enforcement through federal criminalprosecutions.

On June 22, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version ofthe FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 5384 (S.Rept. 109-266), whichcontained a provision (Section 755) liberalizing travel to Cuba related to the sale ofagricultural and medical goods. Final action on the measure was not taken before theend of the 109th Congress.

On June 14, 2006, the House rejected two amendments to the FY2007Transportation/Treasury appropriation bill, H.R. 5576, that would have eased Cubatravel restrictions: H.Amdt 1050 (Rangel) would have eased overall Cuba embargorestrictions, and H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee) would have eased educational travelrestrictions.

On June 13, 2006, a group of some 450 scholars known as the EmergencyCoalition to Defend Educational Travel (ECDET) filed suit in U.S. federal court inWashington against the Treasury Department, maintaining that the Cuba travelrestrictions violate academic freedom.

On May 30, 2006, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed into law a bill thatprohibits state colleges from using public or private money or resources on any aspectof organizing or supporting travel to a country designated by the Department of Stateas a state sponsor of terrorism, which currently consists of Cuba, Iran, North Korea,Sudan, and Syria.

Background to Travel Restrictions

Since the United States imposed a comprehensive trade embargo against Cubain the early 1960s, there have been numerous policy changes to restrictions on travelto Cuba. The embargo regulations do not ban travel itself, but place restrictions onany financial transactions related to travel to Cuba, which effectively result in a travelban. Accordingly, from 1963 until 1977, travel to Cuba was effectively banned underthe Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) issued by the Treasury Department’sOffice of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to implement the embargo. In 1977, theCarter Administration made changes to the regulations that essentially lifted thetravel ban. In 1982, the Reagan Administration made other changes to the CACRthat once again restricted travel to Cuba, but allowed for travel-related transactions

CRS-4

by certain categories of travelers. Under the Clinton Administration, there wereseveral changes to the Treasury Department regulations, with some at first tighteningthe restrictions, and others later loosening the restrictions.

Under the Bush Administration, the travel regulations have been tightenedsignificantly, with additional restrictions on family visits, educational travel, andtravel for those involved in amateur and semi-professional international sportsfederation competitions. In addition, the categories of fully-hosted travel and peopleto people educational exchanges unrelated to academic coursework have beeneliminated as permissible travel to Cuba. The Bush Administration has also crackeddown on those traveling to Cuba illegally, has further restricted religious travel bychanging licensing guidelines for such travel, and has suspended the licenses ofseveral travel service providers in Florida for license violations. The regulations thatremain in place today are less restrictive than those in place from 1963 to 1977, butmore restrictive than those in place from 1977-1982 when the travel ban wasessentially lifted.

Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions

1960 — In the first trade restrictions on Cuba after the rise to power of FidelCastro, President Eisenhower placed most U.S. exports to Cuba under validatedlicense controls, except for nonsubsidized food, medicines, and medical supplies.The action did not include restrictions on travel.

1962/1963 — In February 1962, President Kennedy imposed a trade embargoon Cuba because of the Castro regime’s ties to the Soviet Union. Pursuant to thePresident’s directive, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign AssetsControl (OFAC) issued the Cuban Import Regulations. On July 9, 1963, OFACissued a more comprehensive set of prohibitions, the Cuban Assets ControlRegulations, which effectively banned travel by prohibiting any transactions withCuba.

1977 — In March, the Carter Administration announced the lifting ofrestrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba that had been in place since the early 1960s. TheCarter Administration lifted the travel ban by issuing a general license for travel-related transactions for those visiting Cuba. Direct flights were also allowed.

1982 — In April, the Reagan Administration reimposed restrictions on travelto Cuba, although it allowed for certain categories of travel, including travel by U.S.government officials, employees of news or film making organizations, personsengaging in professional research, or persons visiting their close relatives. It did notallow for ordinary tourist or business travel that had been allowed since the CarterAdministration’s 1977 action.

1984 — On June 28, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Reganv. Wald, rejected a challenge to the ban on travel to Cuba and asserted the executivebranch’s right to impose travel restrictions for national security reasons.

CRS-5

1993 — The Clinton Administration, in June 1993, slightly amended restrictionson U.S. travel to Cuba. Two additional categories of travel were allowed: travel toCuba “for clearly defined educational or religious activities”; and travel “foractivities of recognized human rights organizations.” In both categories, travelerswere required to apply for a specific license from OFAC.

1994 — In August, President Clinton announced several measures against theCuban government in response to an escalation in the number of Cubans fleeing tothe United States. Among these measures, the Administration tightened travelrestrictions by prohibiting family visits under a general license, and allowing specificlicenses for family visits only “when extreme hardship is demonstrated in casesinvolving extreme humanitarian need” such as terminal illness or severe medicalemergency. Such visits required a specific license from OFAC. In addition,professional researchers were required to apply for a specific license, whereas since1982 they had been able to travel freely under a general license. (Federal Register,August 30, 1994, pp. 44884-44886.)

1995 — In October, President Clinton announced measures to ease some U.S.restrictions on travel and other activities with Cuba, with the overall objective ofpromoting democracy and the free flow of ideas. The new measures includedauthorizing general licenses for transactions relating to travel to Cuba for CubanAmericans making yearly visits to close relatives in “circumstances that demonstrateextreme humanitarian need.” This reversed the August 1994 action that requiredspecific licenses. However, those traveling for this purpose more than once in a 12-month period would need to apply to OFAC for a specific license. In addition, thenew measures allowed for specific licenses for free-lance journalists traveling toCuba. (Federal Register, October 20, 1995, pp. 54194-54198.)

1996 — On February 26, following the shootdown of two U.S. civilian planestwo days earlier by Cuban fighter jets, President Clinton took several measuresagainst Cuba, including the indefinite suspension of charter flights between Cuba andthe United States. Qualified licensed travelers could go to Cuba, provided theirflights were routed through third countries.

1998 — On March 20, following Pope John Paul II’s January trip to Cuba,President Clinton announced several changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba, includingthe resumption of licensing for direct charter flights to Cuba. On July 2, OFACissued licenses to nine air charter companies to provide direct passenger flights fromMiami International Airport to Havana’s Jose Marti Airport.

1999 — On January 5, President Clinton announced several measures to supportthe Cuban people that were intended to augment changes implemented in March1998. Among the measures introduced was the expansion of direct passenger charterflights from additional U.S. cities other than Miami. In August, the State Departmentannounced that direct flights to Cuba would be allowed from New York and LosAngeles. In addition, President Clinton also announced in January 1999 thatmeasures would be taken to increase people-to-people exchanges. As a result, onMay 13, 1999, OFAC issued a number of changes to the Cuba embargo regulationsthat effectively loosened restrictions on certain categories of travelers to Cuba.Travel for professional research became possible under a general license, and travel

CRS-6

for a wide range of educational, religious, sports competition, and other activitiesbecame possible with specific licenses authorized by OFAC on a case-by-case basis.In addition, those traveling to Cuba to visit a close family member under either ageneral or specific license only needed to “demonstrate humanitarian need,” asopposed to “extreme humanitarian need” that had been required since 1995.(Federal Register, May 13, 1999, pp. 25808-25820.)

2000 — In October, Congress approved and the President signed the TradeSanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of P.L. 106-387),which included a provision that prohibited travel-related transactions for “touristactivities,” which as set forth in Section 910(b)(2) of the act are defined as anyactivity not authorized or referenced in the existing travel regulations (31 CFR515.560, paragraphs (1) through (12)). The congressional action appeared tocircumscribe the authority of the OFAC to issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-case basis that do not fit neatly withing the categories of travel already allowed by theregulations.

2001 — On July 12, 2001, OFAC published regulations pursuant to theprovisions of the Trade Sanctions and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX ofP.L. 106-387) that prohibited travel-related transactions for “tourist activities.”(Federal Register, July 12, 2001, pp. 36683-36688.) On July 13, 2001, PresidentBush announced that he had asked the Treasury Department to enhance and expandthe capabilities of OFAC to prevent, among other things, “unlicensed and excessivetravel.”

2003 — On January 29, 2003, OFAC published proposed enforcementguidelines (as an appendix to 31 CFR Part 501) for all its economic sanctionsprograms and additional guidelines (as an appendix to 31 CFR Part 515) for the Cubasanctions program. The general guidelines provide a procedural framework forOFAC’s enforcement of economic sanctions, while the Cuba specific guidelinesconsists of penalties for different embargo violations. (Federal Register, January 29,2003, pp. 4422-4429.)

On March 24, 2003, OFAC announced that the Cuba travel regulations werebeing amended to ease travel to Cuba for those visiting close relatives. (FederalRegister, March 24, 2003, pp. 14141-14148.) Travel is now permitted to visitrelatives to within three degrees of relationship of the traveler and is not restricted totravel in circumstances of humanitarian need. The new regulations also increased theamount a traveler may carry, up to $3,000 (compared to $300 previously), althoughthe limit of $300 per quarter destined for each household remains. Finally, theregulations were tightened for certain types of educational travel. People-to-peopleeducational exchanges unrelated to academic coursework are no longer allowed.Some groups have lauded the restriction of these educational exchanges because theybelieve they have become an opportunity for unrestricted travel; others criticize theAdministration’s decision to restrict the second largest category of travel to Cuba inwhich ordinary people have been able to travel and exchange with their counterpartson the island.

On October 10, 2003, President Bush instructed the Department of HomelandSecurity, as part of a broader initiative on Cuba, to increase inspections of travelers

CRS-7

and shipments to and from Cuba in order to more strictly enforce the trade and travelembargo.

2004 — On February 26, 2004, President Bush ordered the Department ofHomeland Security to expand its policing of the waters between Florida and Cubawith the objective of stopping pleasure boating traffic. (Federal Register, March 1,2004, pp. 9315 - 9517.)

On June 16, 2004, OFAC published changes to the CACR implementing thePresident’s directives to implement certain recommendations of the Commission forAssistance to a Free Cuba. The new regulations tightened travel restrictions inseveral ways. Fully-hosted travel was eliminated as a legal category of permissibletravel. Family visits were restricted to one trip every three years under a specificlicense to visit only immediate family (grandparents, grandchildren, parents, siblings,spouses, and children) for a period not to exceed 14 days. The daily amount ofmoney that family visitors can spend while in Cuba was reduced from the StateDepartment per diem rate (currently $179) to $50. Specific licenses for visiting non-Cuban nationals in Cuba (such as a student) are now limited to when the familymember visited is in “exigent circumstances.” The general license for amateur orsemi-professional athletic teams to travel to Cuba to engage in sports competitionswas eliminated; such travel now requires a specific license. (Federal Register, June16, 2004, pp. 33768-33774)

Specific licenses for educational activities were further restricted in severalways: the institutional licenses are restricted to undergraduate and graduateinstitutions, while the category of educational exchanges sponsored by secondaryschools was eliminated; the duration of institutional licenses was shortened from twoto one year; three types of licensed educational activities — structural educationprograms in Cuba offered as part of a course at the licensed institution, formalcourses of study offered at a Cuban academic institution; and teaching at a Cubanacademic institution — are required to be no shorter than 10 weeks.

The new regulations also further restricted sending cash remittances to Cuba.Quarterly remittances of $300 may still be sent, but are now restricted to membersof the remitter’s immediate family and may not be remitted to certain governmentofficials and certain members of the Cuban Communist Party. The regulations werealso changed to reduce the amount of remittances that authorized travelers may carryto Cuba, from $3000 to $300. This reversed OFAC’s March 2003 changes to theregulations that had increased the amount that authorized travelers could carry to$3000.

On June 22, 2004, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry andSecurity (BIS) published regulations related to the recommendations of theCommission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The new regulations placed new limitson gift parcels sent to Cuba and personal baggage of travelers going to Cuba. Giftparcels may no longer contain items such as seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items,veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-makingequipment. Baggage is now limited to 44 pounds. (Federal Register, pp. 34565-34567)

CRS-8

On July 8, 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard published regulations requiring U.S.vessels less than 100 meters to have a Coast Guard permit to enter Cuban territorialwaters. (Federal Register, pp. 41367-41374)

2005 — On March 31, 2005, OFAC made changes to its guidelines for licenseapplications related to religious travel. Specific licenses issued under CFR515.566(b) for religious organizations now only authorize up to 25 individuals totravel to Cuba no more than once per calendar quarter. The specific licenses underthis section will not be valid for more than one year. (OFAC, ComprehensiveGuidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-related TransactionsInvolving Cuba, Revised September 2004, p. 40, the relevant paragraph was updatedMarch 31, 2005).

Current Permissible Travel to Cuba

The travel regulations can be found at 31CFR 515.560, which references othersections of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations for travel-related transactionlicensing criteria. (For an overview of the Treasury Department regulations on travelto Cuba, see OFAC’s website [http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/]). Atpresent, certain categories of travelers may travel to Cuba under a general license,which means that there is no need to obtain special permission from OFAC. Inaddition, a wide variety of travelers engaging in family visits, and educational,religious, humanitarian, and other activities may be eligible for specific licenses.Applications for specific licenses are reviewed and granted by OFAC on a case bycase basis. Some specific licenses may authorize multiple trips to Cuba over anextended period of time.

The general license categories include the following:

! Officials of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certainintergovernmental organizations traveling on official business (31CFR 515.562);

! Persons regularly employed as journalists by a news reportingorganization or by persons regularly employed as supportingbroadcast or technical personnel (31 CFR 515.563); and

! Full-time professionals conducting professional research in theirareas (provided that the research is of a noncommercial, academicnature, that the research comprises a full work schedule in Cuba, andthat the research has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination)or attending professional meetings or conferences in Cuba organizedby an international professional organization, institution, orassociation that regularly sponsors meetings or conferences in othercountries (31 CFR 515.564).

The specific license categories include the following:

CRS-9

1 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, “ComprehensiveGuidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-Related Transactions InvolvingCuba,” September 2004 (although the guidelines note that these limits on religious travelwere added on March 31, 2005).

! Persons visiting a member of their immediate family (spouse, child,grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling) who is a national of Cubafor a period not to exceed 14 days and once in a three-year period(31 CFR 515.561);

! Persons visiting an immediate family member who is not a nationalof Cuba and is in exigent circumstances, provided the person beingvisited is in Cuba pursuant to OFAC authorization, the exigency hasbeen reported to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and the licensewould support the mission of the U.S. Interests Section (31 CFR515.561);

! Free-lance journalists (31 CFR 515.563);

! Professional researchers undertaking research or attendingprofessional meetings who do not qualify for a general license (31CFR 515.564);

! Specific institutional licenses (up to one year) for students and full-time employees of undergraduate or graduate degree-grantingacademic institutions to participate in educational activities. Theseactivities include participation in a structured educational programin Cuba as part of a course offered at the licensed institution (notless than 10 weeks); noncommercial academic research in Cubaspecifically related to Cuba for the purpose of obtaining a graduatedegree; participation in a formal course of study at a Cubaninstitution (not less than 10 weeks) provided it will be accepted forcredit toward the student’s undergraduate or graduate degree at thelicensed U.S. institution; teaching at a Cuban academic institution(not less than 10 weeks); and sponsorship of a Cuban scholar toteach or engage in other scholarly activity at the licensed institution.(CFR 515.565);

! U.S. religious organizations, for its members undertaking religiousactivities in Cuba (31 CFR 515.566); [Note: According to OFAC,specific licenses under 515.566(a), which does not limit the numberof travelers or the frequency of trips, are for smaller religiousorganizations, such as individual churches and congregational units;larger religious organizations, such as national associations ofchurches, may now obtain a license under 515.566(b), which,according to revised March 2005 licensing guidelines “will onlyauthorize up to twenty-five (25) individuals to travel to Cuba per tripand will permit no more than one trip per calendar quarter.”1]

CRS-10

! Amateur or semi-professional athletes participating in competitions,provided that the competition is held under the auspices of theinternational sports federation for the relevant sport, that U.S.participants are selected by the U.S. federation for the relevant sport,and that the competition is open for attendance, and in relevantsituations, for the Cuban public. Those involved in publicperformances, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions,provided that the event is open for attendance, and in relevantsituations, participation by the Cuban public, and that all profits aredonated to an independent nongovernmental organization in Cubaor a U.S.-based charity (31 CFR 515.567);

! Those traveling for activities in support of the Cuban people, suchas activities of recognized human rights organizations, activitiesdesigned to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy, andactivities intended to strengthen civil society (31 CFR 515.574);

! Those involved in humanitarian projects in Cuba, such as medicaland health-related projects, construction projects, intended to benefitlegitimately independent civil society groups, environmentalprojects, projects involving non-formal educational training, withinCuba or off island, on topics including civil education, journalism,advocacy and organizing, adult literacy and vocational skills,community-based grass roots projects, projects suitable to thedevelopment of small-scale enterprise, projects related toagricultural and rural development that promote independentactivity, and projects involving the donation of goods to meet basichuman needs (31 CFR 515.575);

! Those involved in activities of private foundations or research oreducation institutes that have an established interest in internationalrelations to collect information related to Cuba for noncommercialpurposes (31 CFR 515.576);

! Those involved in the importation, exportation, or transmission ofinformational materials (31CFR 515.545); and

! Those involved in activities related to marketing, sales negotiation,accompanied delivery, or servicing of exports to Cuba authorized bythe Department of Commerce or such activities allowed by U.S.-owned or controlled foreign firms (31CFR 515.533 and 31 CFR515.559).

Current Restrictions on Remittances

U.S. cash remittances to Cuba account for an estimated $400-$800 million peryear, according to the 2004 report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba,although the report also noted that some estimates were as high as $1 billion

CRS-11

2 Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President, May 2004. p. 34.3 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic Sanctions: Agencies Face CompetingPriorities in Enforcing the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, GAO-08-80, November 30, 2007, p. 34.4 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, List of AuthorizedProviders of Air, Travel, and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba, May 5, 2008.5 President George W. Bush, “Remarks After Meeting with the Commission for Assistancefor a Free Cuba,” U.S. Department of State, May 6, 2004.

annually.2 According to a November 2007 GAO report, no reliable data exist forcash remitted directly or indirectly from the United States to Cuba although itmaintained that data from several sources showed that worldwide remittances toCuba amounted to between $900 million and $1 billion.3

Restrictions on such remittances are regulated by the Cuban Assets ControlRegulations (CACR) and have changed over time. Pursuant to OFAC’s June 16,2004, amendments to the CACR, a total of $300 per quarter may be sent to nationalsof Cuba who are members of the remitter’s immediate family (spouse, child,grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling) (CFR 515.570). Remittances to certainofficials of the Cuban government and certain members of the Cuban CommunistParty are not allowed. Up to $300 in remittances may be carried by an authorizedtraveler to Cuba (CFR 515.560(c)(4)).

Prior to OFAC’s June 16, 2004, changes to the CACR, remittances were notrestricted to members of the remitter’s immediate family but could be sent to anyhousehold in Cuba, provided the household did not include a senior-level Cubangovernment official or senior-level Communist Party official. Authorized travelersalso could carry up to $3,000 in cash remittances.

An additional tightening of remittance policy is that the general OFAC licenseauthorizing banks to send individual remittances to Cuba is eliminated. Banks nowneed to be specifically licensed by OFAC in order to become a remittance-forwardingservice provider. OFAC is responsible for regulating 103 licensed remittance-forwarding service providers.4

Reaction to the June 2004 Tightening of Travel and Remittance Restrictions

There was mixed reaction to the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tighteningof Cuba travel and remittance restrictions, including within the Cuban Americancommunity. The President maintained that such restrictions would “prevent theregime from exploiting hard currency of tourists and remittances to Cubans to propup their repressive regime.”5 Supporters of the tightened restrictions argued that botheducational and family travel to Cuba had become fronts for tourist travel.Tightening up on such travel, they argued, would deny the regime with dollars thathelp maintain its repressive control. (According to the Commission for Assistancefor a Free Cuba, some 125,000 family visits to Cuba in 2003 resulted in about $96

CRS-12

6 Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President, May 2004. p. 37.7 Miriam Leiva, “Whose Country Is It, Anyway?” May 24, 2004, Salon.com; and “Why Dealwith North Korea and Not Cuba,” Miami Herald, March 1, 2008.8 David Adams, “Dissidents Say It’s Time to Open Talks,” St Petersburg Times, December18, 2006.

million in hard currency for the government.6) Another argument made by somesupporters of the tightened restrictions is that the limiting of family travel to onceevery three years helps ensure that such travel is limited to family emergencies.Along these lines, some argue that limiting family travel makes travelers moresensitive to political repression on the island and highlight that Cuban Americans arepolitical refugees, not economic immigrants. Some supporters of the additionalremittance restrictions argue that the Bush Administration demonstrated acontinuation of the compassionate policy of supporting the Cuban people by notcutting the level of remittances allowed, $300 per quarter. They emphasize that theAdministration only took action to ensure that the remittances would be restricted toimmediate family members and not benefit certain members of the Cubangovernment and Cuban Communist Party.

Opponents of the tightened travel and remittance restrictions make a number ofpolicy arguments. They maintain the restrictions are anti-family and threaten thebasic principle of family reunification. Some in the Cuban American communityargue that the policy of restricting family visits is inhumane and will only result inmore suffering for Cuban families. They especially oppose the additional restrictionsthat do not allow travel to visit cousins, aunts, uncles, and more-distant relatives.Another argument opposing restrictions on travel and private remittances is that thesteps will have no effect on reducing repression in Cuba or weakening thegovernment’s instruments of repression. Opponents of the tightened restrictionsmaintain that the new restrictions are opposed by several prominent Cubandissidents, including Oswaldo Paya of the Varela Project and Elizardo Sanchez of theCuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation. Miriam Leiva,one of the founders of the Ladies in White human rights group maintains that thepolicy punishes dissidents and their families; she compared the U.S. restrictions tothe situation faced by Cubans, who cannot travel without permission from the Cubangovernment.7 Former political prisoner Oscar Espinosa Chepe, released from prisonin December 2004, called the U.S. policy “absurd,” maintaining that “what we needis to create space for dialogue.”8

There were also concerns that the new restrictions were drafted withoutconsidering the full consequences of their implementation. For example, theelimination of the category of fully-hosted travel raised concerns about the statussome 70 U.S. students receiving full scholarships at the Latin American School ofMedicine in Havana. The school has more than 3,000 students from 23 countries andconsists of a six-month pre-med program and a six-year medical school program.Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who were instrumental in theestablishment of the scholarship program for U.S. students, expressed concern thatthe students may be forced to abandon their medical education because of the newOFAC regulations. As a result of these concerns, OFAC ultimately licensed the

CRS-13

9 Oscar Corral, “Scholars, Artists Rip Embargo,” Miami Herald, April 26, 2006.10 “Cuba’s Campus Attrition,” CQ Weekly, July 24, 2006; also see ECDET’s websiteavailable at [http://www.ecdet.org/]11 Laura Morales, “Protesters Call for Family-Friendly Cuban Travel,” Miami Herald,August 27, 2006.12 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2008, January 2008.13 Human Rights Watch, Families Torn Apart, The High Cost of U.S. and Cuban TravelRestrictions, October 2005.14 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic Sanctions: Agencies Face CompetingPriorities in Enforcing the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, GAO-08-80, November 30, 2007, p. 31.

medical students in August 2004 to continue their studies and engage in travel-relatedtransactions.

In the aftermath of the Administration’s tightening of travel restrictions, therehas been increasing opposition to the policy and several groups have been establishedopposing the Administration’s actions. A group know as ENCASA, the EmergencyNetwork of Cuban American Scholars and Artists for Change in Cuba Policy,launched a media campaign in 2006 opposing the travel restrictions.9 In June 2006,another group of some 450 scholars known as the Emergency Coalition to DefendEducational Travel (ECDET) filed suit in U.S. federal court in Washington againstthe Treasury Department, maintaining that travel restrictions violate academicfreedom.10

With regard to family travel, a group in Miami, the Association of ChristianWomen in Defense of the Cuban Family, has organized several protests against thetightened family travel restrictions.11 In March 2008, Cuban Americans living inVermont filed a complaint in U.S. federal court in Burlington, Vermont, that U.S.restrictions on family travel to Cuba violate their civil rights. Affiliates of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Massachusetts, and Vermontsubsequently filed a brief in support of the complaint. Human Rights Watchmaintains that the U.S. travel policies inflict harm on Cuban families and underminethe freedom of movement of hundreds of thousands of Cuban Americans.12 In a 2005report, Human Rights Watch cited numerous cases of family hardships after thetightened family travel restrictions went into effect, including the inability to visitchildren, sick or dying parents, or to attend funerals.13

Estimates of U.S. Travelers to Cuba

Estimates of U.S. citizens traveling to Cuba vary considerably as reported byU.S. and Cuban government sources. According to a November 2007 GAO report,U.S. and Cuban government data on U.S. travel to Cuba are incomplete and coverdifferent populations, and as a result there are no reliable estimates of total U.S.travel to Cuba.14 Nevertheless, travel service providers maintain that the eliminationof the people-to-people trips in 2003 and significant restrictions on family travel in2004 have significantly reduced the number of Americans visiting Cuba.

CRS-14

15 Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President, May 2004. pp. 28 and36.16 U.S. International Trade Commission, U.S. Agricultural Sales to Cuba: Certain EconomicEffects of U.S. Restrictions, USITC Publication 3932, July 2007. See the text of the reportat [http://www.usitc.gov/publications/abstract_3932.htm] 17 Vanessa Arrington, “Number of Americans Traveling to Cuba Drops Amid Tougher U.S.Stance, Cuban Government Says,” Associated Press, September 28, 2005; Gary Marx,“Tougher U.S. Policy Curtails Aid to Cubans,” Chicago Tribune, October 10. 2005; VanessaArrington, “Cuban Official: Embargo Losses Are More than $4 Billion,” Associated Press,October 3, 2006; and information provided to CRS by the Cuba Interests Section,Washington, DC, October 4, 2007.18 OFAC also regulates the activities of companies that forward remittances to Cubanaccording to the restrictions set forth in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. Mostcompanies that forward remittances are also travel service providers. See U.S. Departmentof the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, List of Authorized Providers of Air,Travel, and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba, May 5, 2008.

In terms of U.S. figures, the inter-agency Commission for Assistance to a FreeCuba estimated in May 2004 that some 160,000-200,000 legal and illegal travelersvisited Cuba from the United States annually over the past decade. According to theCommission, the largest category of legal travel consisted of Cuban Americansvisiting their families, amounting to 125,000 out of a total of 160,000 Americansvisiting Cuba in 2003.15 In July 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission(ITC) issued a report examining the effect of U.S. restrictions on travel (as well asrestrictions on U.S. agricultural sales). As a baseline, the ITC report estimated thatabout 171,000 American traveled to Cuba in 2005 (a figure considerably higher thanCuban government estimates cited below). The ITC concluded that lifting travelrestrictions would result in travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba rising to between 550,000and 1 million.16

Cuban officials maintain that overall U.S. travel to Cuba has droppedconsiderably over the past four years because of the tightening of U.S. travelrestrictions, from 200,859 Americans in 2003, to 108,172 in 2004, 101,000 in 2005and 96,000 in 2006. This reflects a decline of over 52% in U.S. travelers to Cubafrom 2003 to 2006. Looking at the number of Cuban Americans traveling to Cuba,the Cuban government estimates that 115,050 visited Cuba in 2003, 57,145 in 2004,62,000 in 2005, and 59,000 in 2006.17

OFAC Review of Travel and Carrier Service Providers

OFAC is responsible for regulating the activities of 193 licensed travel andcarrier service providers (travel agencies, tour operators, and airline companies)around the country, almost two-thirds of which are concentrated in Florida.18 Thelicensed service providers must keep records for each transaction, includingtransactions between service providers. The record keeping must include detailsabout individual travelers and their circumstances sufficient to allow identificationand verification that the transactions comply with the Cuban Assets Control

CRS-15

19 31 CFR 515.572. In addition, OFAC has a circular outlining responsibilities of travel andcarrier service providers for Cuba travel. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office ofForeign Assets Control, Circular 2006, Travel, Carrier and Remittance Forwarding ServiceProvider Program, March 2006.20 Oscar Corral, “Cuba Travel Curtailed Further,” Miami Herald, January 27, 2006.

Regulations (CACR) implemented by OFAC. Individuals traveling to Cuba underthe authorization of OFAC must maintain records of all travel transactions for fiveyears [pursuant to 31 CFR Parts 501.60l and 501.602].

The CACR spells out the requirements for travel service providers (TSP) andcarrier service providers (CSP) to put procedures in place to establish that eachcustomer is in full compliance with the regulations.19 The regulations require suchproviders to demonstrate that they require each customer to attest, in a signedstatement, to his or her qualification for authorized travel. The statement mustprovide facts supporting the customer’s belief that he or she qualifies for travel toCuba according to the categories of travel set forth in the CACR.

As part of the compliance process, licensed travel agencies must provide detailsabout travelers to the air carriers prior to the air carriers accepting a reservation orselling a seat on a flight. This information consists of the passenger’s full name,mother’s maiden name, address, date of birth, passport number and country ofissuance, airport of departure from the United States, and whether travel is under ageneral or specific license. The licensed air carrier in turn must provide detailedinformation to OFAC in Washington by electronic mail 48 to 72 hours prior todeparture of the flight. This consists of (1) the information provided by the travelservice provider (TSP) on each authorized traveler; (2) U.S. departure and returndates; and (3) the name of the TSP who arranged for the travel. Generally whathappens is that travelers fill out a travel affidavit with the TSP providing theinformation, including what type of license they are traveling under, and the TSPthen provides information to the carrier service provider before a reservation isactually made.

Passengers on direct flights to Cuba need to fill out an OFAC OutboundDeclaration Card (entitled Travel to Cuba). Carrier Service Providers are requiredto ensure that every passenger receives one of the cards as part of the check-inprocedure at the ticket counter assigned to the charter. CSPs must collect thecompleted and signed cards before the passenger boards the plane, and must makethe completed cards available to the U.S. Customs Service inspector at the departuregate for review. If no inspector is present or if the inspector returns the cards to theCSP, then the cards must be forwarded to the OFAC-Miami office.

In January 2006, OFAC suspended a South Florida travel agency, La Estrellade Cuba, from booking travel to Cuba. The agency reportedly was one of the largestlicensed travel agencies, booking some 300 to 500 passengers monthly to Cuba.According to a Treasury Department spokesman, OFAC had plans to conduct 25 on-site audits in 2006 at agencies that do business with Cuba.20 In addition to La Estrellade Cuba, OFAC suspended the service activities of several other companies in 2006,including Baby Envios Travel, Fortuna Travel Services, Cubatur Express, La Perla

CRS-16

21 Wilfredo Cancio Isla, “Aprietan las restricciones para los viajes a Cuba,” El Nuevo Herald(Miami), April 28, 2006, and “Cierran en Miami otra agencia de viajes a Cuba,” El NuevoHerald, June 6, 2006; U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control,List of Authorized Providers of Air, Travel, and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba,November 29, 2006.22 White House, “Statement by President Bush on Cuba: Toward a Democratic Cuba,” July13, 2001.23 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File,“Treasury Dept. Identifies 10 Entities for Cuban Embargo Violations,” February 9, 2004,and “U.S. Continues Crackdown on Illegal Travel to Cuba,” March 18, 2004.24 Presidential Proclamation 7757 of February 26, 2004, Federal Register, March 1, 2004,

(continued...)

del Caribe, Summit Jet Corporation, Adventure Tours & Travel, Art QuestInternational, Super Travel Services, Caribbean Air Service, Discovery Travel, andCuba Familia Envios.21

Enforcement of Cuba Travel Restrictions

Enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel has increased considerablyunder the Bush Administration. The major agencies involved in enforcing the travelrestrictions include the Treasury Department’s OFAC, which in addition to licensingtravelers and licensing and monitoring travel-service providers, also investigatessuspected travel violations and imposes civil fines; the Department of HomelandSecurity’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which inspects passengers to andfrom Cuba and screens passengers on other international flights for compliance withU.S. travel restrictions; and the Department of Justice, which prosecutes criminalviolations of the Cuba embargo.

President Bush announced in July 2001 that he had asked the TreasuryDepartment to enhance and expand the enforcement capabilities of the Office ofForeign Assets Control. The President noted the importance of upholding andenforcing the law in order to prevent, among other things, “unlicensed and excessivetravel” and to ensure that humanitarian and cultural exchanges actually reach pro-democracy activists in Cuba.22 On October 10, 2003, President Bush instructed theDepartment of Homeland Security to enforce the trade and travel embargo morestrictly. As a result, the CBP’s inspections of passengers traveling to and from Cubawere stepped up.

In 2004, the Bush Administration moved to tighten enforcement of Cuba travelrestrictions in several ways. In February and March 2004, OFAC identified 11companies in Cuba, Argentina, the Bahamas, Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, andEngland (10 travel companies and one gift forwarder), blocked their assets underU.S. jurisdiction, and prohibited any transactions with these companies.23 OnFebruary 26, 2004, President Bush ordered the Department of Homeland Security toexpand its policing of the waters between Florida and Cuba with the objective ofstopping pleasure boating traffic.24 In early May 2004, the President endorsed the

CRS-17

24 (...continued)p. 9515; Carol Rosenberg, “New Rule Restricts American Boaters from Sailing to Island,”Miami Herald, February 27, 2004.25 Adelle M. Banks, “Restrictions on Religious Travel to Cuba Questioned,” Religion NewsService, March 7, 2006.26 Oscar Corral, “Religious Groups Feel Cut Off from Cuba,” Miami Herald, February 14,2007.27 Pablo Bachelet, “U.S. Gets Tougher on Groups Defying Cuba Travel Rules,” MiamiHerald, January 12. 2006; Meghan Clyne, “Bush Enforcing Cuba Embargo in New Push,”New York Sun, January 12, 2006.

recommendations of Commission for Assistance to Free Cuba. These includedincreased inspections of travelers and shipments to Cuba and an increase in bothmaritime surface patrols and air sorties in the region by law enforcement agencies inorder to locate and prosecute pleasure boaters who travel to Cuba illegally.

Beginning in 2005, the Bush Administration tightened restrictions on religioustravel to Cuba, not by making changes to the CACR, but by changing the guidelinesfor specific license applications for religious travel. According to OFAC, afterrestrictions on family travel were tightened in June 2004, it noticed an increase in theimproper use of licenses by large religious organizations, which solicitedparticipation in trips to Cuba beyond their own organizations. As a result, OFACimplemented a new policy of more tightly restricting the licenses of larger nationalreligious organizations. Previously these organizations were licensed under Section515.566(a) of the CACR without restriction on the number of travelers or thefrequency of trips. Under the new policy, larger religious organizations are nowrequired to obtain a license under the more restrictive Section 515.566(b) of theCACR, which as of March 31, 2005, limits trips to four per year (one per quarter),each of which are limited to 25 individuals. Smaller religious organizations, such asindividual churches and congregational units, may continue to apply for a specificlicense under Section 515.566(a), which does not limit the number of travelers ortrips under the license.

More than 100 Members of Congress sent a letter to the Treasury Departmentin March 2006 questioning OFAC’s actions that further restricted religious travel toCuba. Church groups such as Church World Service, the National Council onChurches, American Baptist Churches USA, the Alliance for Baptists, and thePresbyterian Church have expressed strong opposition to the new restrictions.25

Visits by members of Catholics and Jewish organizations have also diminishedbecause of the tightened restrictions.26

There were further indications in 2006 of the Administration’s strictenforcement of travel restrictions. Press reports in January indicated that OFAC sentletters to some 200 travelers from two U.S. groups — Pastors for Peace (whichorganizes caravans of aid from the United States to Cuba via Mexico) and theVenceremos Brigade — both of which have long organized trips to Cuba in defianceof U.S. sanctions.27 Moreover, as described above, OFAC suspended the licenses ofseveral companies providing travel and remittances services. In October 2006, the

CRS-18

28 See OFAC’s website for information on civil enforcement actions: [http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/civpen/].29 “Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Challenges for U.S. Policy TowardCuba,” Federal News Service, October 2, 2003.

U.S. government established an inter-agency Cuban Sanctions Enforcement TaskForce, chaired by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, with supportfrom the FBI, and the Treasury, Homeland Security, and Commerce Departments.The primary goals of the task force are the investigation of Cuba embargo violationsand enforcement through federal criminal prosecutions.

Civil Penalties

Beginning in April 2003, OFAC began making available a regular listing of civilpenalties enforcement information for its sanctions programs, including violationsof the Cuba travel regulations.28 According to a Treasury Department spokesmen,the information was being made available to make the process more transparent tothe public. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Secretary of the Treasury mayimpose civil fines up to $55,000 per violation of the Cuban Assets ControlRegulations. According to OFAC, typical individual penalties range from $3,000 to$7,500, but the majority of cases are settled for less.29 Penalties against companiesare generally much larger.

Since April 2003, enforcement actions for the Cuba travel regulations haveincluded penalties against the following companies: Metso Minerals, Zim AmericanIsraeli Shipping Company, Playboy Enterprises, Omega World Travel, Mr. Travel,Havanatur & Travel Service, American Airlines, Cuba Paquetes, MRP Group Inc.,Air Jamaica, Trek Tours (Rhode Island), Premiere Travel of Ohio, Hialeah GardensImmigration Agency, Only Believe Ministries (Ohio), the Salvation Army (TexasDivision), Beau Rivage Resorts Inc. (Mississippi), E & J Gallo Winery (California),the Four Oaks Foundation (New York), Pioneer Valley Travel (Massachusetts), theInternational Bicycle Fund (Washington state), Augsburg College (Minnesota), theU.S./Cuba Labor Exchange (Michigan), Coda International Tours Inc. (Florida),Travelocity.com (Texas), American Express Company (Mexico), Lakes CommunityCredit Union (Michigan), Sonida International (New York), Journey CorporationTravel Management (New York), and RMO Inc. (Colorado). A number of othercompanies have received penalties for violating other aspects of the Cuba embargoregulations.

In addition, the listing shows that numerous individuals have had civil penaltiesassessed or reached informal settlements for alleged violations of various restrictionsunder the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. Since 2004, according to theinformation provided on OFAC’s website, almost 900 individuals either have beenassessed a penalty or reached an informal settlement for violations of the Cubaregulations (not just travel-related restrictions) with more than $1.1 million inpenalties. The number of individuals penalized by OFAC fell considerably in 2006and 2007. A total of 290 individuals were penalized in 2004, 579 in 2005, and just21 in 2006. In 2007, 17 individuals were penalized by OFAC for violating the Cubaembargo regulations, the majority for the purchase of Cuban cigars over the Internet.

CRS-19

30 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Economic Sanctions: Agencies Face CompetingPriorities in Enforcing the U.S. Embargo on Cuba, GAO-08-80, November 30, 2007. Acopy of the report is available at [http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-80]

For 2008, OFAC has reported that 21 individuals have been penalized as of June,again with the majority for the purchase of Cuban cigars.

GAO Report on Enforcement of Cuba Sanctions30

In late November 2007, the GAO issued a report on U.S. enforcement of theCuba embargo. The report called into question whether U.S. efforts to enforce theCuba embargo were having a detrimental effect on CBP’s ability to carry out itsprimary mission of keeping terrorists, criminals and inadmissable aliens out of thecountry, and on OFAC’s ability to administer more than 20 other sanctions programs.As such, the report recommended: 1) that the Secretary of Homeland Security directCBP to re-evaluate its level of resources dedicated to inspecting passengers fromCuba at the Miami International Airport; and 2) that the Treasury Department directthe OFAC to reassess the allocation of resources for investigating and penalizingviolations of the Cuba embargo with respect to its administration of other sanctionsprograms.

Arguments for Lifting Cuba Travel Restrictions

Those who argue in favor of lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba contend thatthe travel ban hinders U.S. efforts to influence political and economic conditions inCuba. Supporters of a change in Cuba travel policy argue that U.S. support fordemocracy in Latin America has been augmented by person-to-person contact andexchanges. The exception to democracy in the region is Cuba, where the UnitedStates continues to maintain a policy of isolation. They argue that the best way torealize change in Cuba is to lift restrictions, allowing a flood of U.S. citizens to traveland engage in conversations with average Cubans. They point to the influence ofperson-to-person contact in Russia and Eastern European nations which they argueultimately helped lead to the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc. They maintainthat restricting travel by ordinary Americans prevents interaction and informationexchanges with ordinary Cubans, exchanges that can help break down the Cubangovernment’s tight control and manipulation of news; that the current travel banactually supports the Cuban government in its efforts to restrict information providedto the Cuban people; and that it in effect supports Castro’s totalitarian control overCuba.

A second argument made by those who want to lift travel restrictions is that theban abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel. They argue that the U.S.government should not be requiring Cuban Americans to apply for a license to travelmore than once a year to visit sick or dying family members. They contend that suchrestrictions on the right to travel subvert the first amendment right of free speech.

CRS-20

31 Defense Intelligence Agency. Report on Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security. May 6,1998.32 Congressional Record, July 25, 2001, p. H4599.33 The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Lifting Restrictions on Travel to Cuba, The BrattleGroup, Washington, D.C. Prepared by Dorothy Robyn, James D. Reitzes, and BryanChurch. July 15, 2002.

Those in favor of lifting the travel ban also argue that U.S. citizens can travelto other communist or authoritarian governments around the world, such as thePeople’s Republic of China, Vietnam, Burma, and Iran. They point out thatAmericans could travel to the Soviet Union before its breakup. Supporters ofchanging travel policy toward Cuba argue that their proposals would still allow thePresident to prohibit such travel in times of war or armed hostilities, or if there wereimminent danger to the health or safety of Americans. They argue that theseconditions do not exist with regard to Cuba, and point to a May 1998 DefenseIntelligence Agency report that concluded that “Cuba does not pose a significantmilitary threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.”31

Those arguing for lifting travel restrictions also point to human rights activistsin Cuba who themselves argue for the lifting of such sanctions. According to theprominent Cuban human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez: “The more Americans onthe streets of Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open society in Cuba.”32

Supporters of lifting the travel ban maintain that such a move would not lift theunderlying U.S. embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba. They pointto the 1977-82 period when the travel ban was essentially lifted, but the overallembargo remained in place.

Finally, some supporters of lifting the travel restrictions argue that the U.S.economy would benefit from increased demand for air and cruise travel, whichreportedly would expand U.S. economic output. According to a report prepared forthe Center for International Policy, a policy group that advocates lifting the embargo,U.S. economic output would expand by $1.18 - $1.61 billion, with the creation ofbetween 16,888 and 23,020 jobs if travel restrictions were lifted.33

Arguments for Maintaining Cuba Travel Restrictions

Those favoring the continuation of current restrictions on travel to Cuba pointout that there are already significant provisions in U.S. law permitting Americans totravel there for legitimate reasons that support the Cuban people and not the Cubangovernment. They point out that thousands of Americans travel to Cuba legallyunder the various provisions of the Cuban embargo regulations, many of whom areCuban Americans visiting family members. Other categories of travel allowedinclude students, journalists, researchers, artists, musicians, and athletes.

CRS-21

A second argument made for maintaining current restrictions on travel to Cubais that lifting the travel ban entirely will open the floodgates to American touristtravel that will support Castro’s rule by providing his government with millions intourist receipts. Advocates of restricting travel oppose any loosening that couldprolong the Castro regime by propping it up with increased income. In contrast tothose supporting tourist travel, they believe that continued travel restrictions will helpinfluence Cuba’s policy. They argue that since the collapse of the Soviet Union andthe loss of Soviet subsidies to Cuba, the travel and embargo regulations havecontributed to Castro’s decision to cut the military’s size and budget by half since1989 and to introduce limited economic reforms. Lifting travel restrictions, theyargue, would eliminate the U.S. leverage on Cuba to enact further reforms.

Those favoring the maintenance of current travel restrictions argue that thereality of the human rights situation dispels the notion that American tourists wouldbe engaging in exchanges with ordinary Cubans. They maintain that the thousandsof European, Canadian, and other tourists who travel to Cuba each year largely stayin tourist hotels that are off limits to most Cubans and thus have no discernable effecton the human rights situation in Cuba.

Some opposed to lifting travel restrictions argue that there should be touristtravel as long as Cuba provides refuge to violent criminals who have escaped U.S.justice. The State Department maintains that more than 70 fugitives from U.S.justice are hiding out in Cuba, including convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard, whokilled a New Jersey state trooper in 1973.

Finally, many opponents of legislation to lift the Cuba travel restrictions arguethat the authority to impose such restrictions is an important foreign policy tool forthe President. They point out that the President has the authority to restrict travelwhen it is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, andhas utilized that policy tool when needed. They point to past instances of restrictingtravel to Libya, Vietnam, and North Korea. With regard to Cuba, they point to the1984 Supreme Court decision in the case of Regan v. Wald that upheld restrictionson travel to Cuba imposed by the Reagan Administration.

Legislative Initiatives in the 110th Congress

In the first session of the 110th Congress, two Senate Appropriations Committeereported- versions of appropriations bills had provisions that would have easedrestrictions on travel to Cuba for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medicalgoods, but ultimately these provisions were not included in the FY2008 ConsolidatedAppropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). The Senate version of the FY2008 FinancialServices and General Government appropriations bill, reported July 19, 2007, H.R.2829, had a provision in Section 620 that would eased such travel restrictions, whilethe Senate version of the FY2008 Agriculture appropriations bill, S. 1859, reportedJuly 24, 2007, had such a provision in Section741.

In the second session, the House Appropriations Committee approved itsversion of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill for

CRS-22

FY2009 on June 25, 2008, which contains provisions in Title VI that would easerestrictions on the sale of U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba and on family travel toCuba. With regard to family travel, Section 622 would allow for such travel once ayear (instead of the current restriction of once every three years), while Section 623would expand such travel by a person to visit an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or firstcousin (instead of the current restriction limiting such travel to visit a spouse, child,grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling).

On July 14, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version ofthe FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, S. 3260(S.Rept. 110-417), which includes provisions easing restrictions on family travel andon travel to Cuba relating to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods.With regard to family travel, Section 620 would provide that no funds may be usedto administer, implement, or enforce the Administration’s June 2004 tightening ofrestrictions related to travel to visit relatives in Cuba. With regard to travel foragricultural or medical sales, Section 619 would allow for a general license for suchtravel instead of a specific license that requires permission from the TreasuryDepartment.

On July 21, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version ofthe FY2009 Agriculture Appropriations bill, S. 3289 (S.Rept. 110-426), with aprovision in Section 737 that would ease restrictions on travel to Cuba for the saleof agricultural and medical goods. The provision would allow for a general licensefor such travel instead of a specific license that requires permission from the TreasuryDepartment. The measure had been approved by the Committee on July 17, 2008.

A number of other initiatives introduced in the 110th Congress would ease Cubatravel restrictions. H.R. 654 (Rangel), S. 721 (Enzi), and Section 254 of S. 554(Dorgan) would prohibit the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to Cubaor any of the transactions incident to travel. Two bills that would lift overalleconomic sanctions — H.R. 217 (Serrano) and H.R. 624 (Rangel) — would also lifttravel restrictions. H.R. 177 (Lee) would ease restrictions on educational travel toCuba. H.R. 757 (Delahunt) would lift restrictions on family travel and the provisionof remittances for family members in Cuba. H.R. 1026 (Moran, Jerry), which wouldfacilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, includes a provision thatwould provide for general license authority for travel-related transactions for peopleinvolved in agricultural sales and marketing activities or in the transportation of suchsales. H.R. 2819 (Rangel) and S. 1673 (Baucus), which would ease restrictions onU.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba, would also lift restrictions on travelto Cuba. The Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing on S. 1673 on December11, 2007.

Legislative Initiatives in the 109th Congress

In the 109th Congress, several amendments to FY2006 and FY2007appropriations bills that would have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various waysand restrictions on sending gift parcels to Cuba were defeated. Several bills were

CRS-23

introduced that would have lifted or eased restrictions on travel and the provision ofremittance to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.

First Session Action

On June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments easing Cuba sanctionsto H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and UrbanDevelopment, Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent AgenciesAppropriations Act. The amendments failed during House floor consideration:H.Amdt. 420 (Davis) on family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422 (Lee) oneducational travel, by a vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overallembargo, by a vote of 169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel,H.Amdt. 421 (Flake), was withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel bymembers of the U.S. military, H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order forconstituting legislation in an appropriations bill. The introduction of H.Amdt. 419was prompted by the case of a U.S. military member who served in Iraq, Sgt. CarlosLazo, who was prohibited from visiting his two sons in Cuba because he last visitedthere in 2003.

During June 29, 2005, Senate consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior,Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate rejected (60-35;a two-thirds majority vote was required) a motion to suspend the rules with respectto S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which would have allowed travel to Cuba under a generallicense for the purpose of visiting a member of the person’s immediate family forhumanitarian reasons. The amendment was then ruled out of order. Its introductionhad also been prompted by the case of Sgt. Carlos Lazo who wants to visit his sonsin Cuba, one of whom was gravely sick.

On June 15, 2005, the House rejected (210-216) H.Amdt. 270 (Flake) to H.R.2862, the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act. The amendment would have prohibited the use of funds toimplement, administer, or enforce June 2004 tightened restrictions on sending giftparcels to Cuba. H.Amdt. 269 (McDermott), which would have prohibited the useof funds in the bill to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba, was offered butsubsequently withdrawn.

During April 6, 2005, Senate floor consideration of the FY2006 and FY2007Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, S. 600, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 281(Baucus) and a second-degree amendment, S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) that would havefacilitated the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba. The language of theamendments consisted of the provisions of S. 328 (Craig), the Agricultural ExportFacilitation Act of 2005, which included a provision for a general license for traveltransactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed tothe current requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions. Neitheraction on the amendments nor on S. 600 was completed.

CRS-24

Second Session Action

On June 14, 2006, the House rejected two amendments to the FY2007Transportation/Treasury appropriation bill, H.R. 5576, that would have eased Cubatravel restrictions. H.Amdt. 1050 (Rangel), rejected by a vote of 183-245, wouldhave prohibited funds from being used to implement the overall economic embargoof Cuba. H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), rejected by a vote of 187-236, would have prohibitedfunds from being used to implement the Administration’s June 2004 tightening ofrestrictions on educational travel to Cuba. An additional Cuba amendment, H.Amdt.1032 (Flake), would have prohibited the use of funds to amend regulations relatingto travel for religious activities in Cuba; it was withdrawn from consideration.

In other action, on June 22, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committeereported its version of the FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 5384(S.Rept. 109-266), which contained a provision (Section 755) liberalizing travel toCuba related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. The provision would haveprovided for such travel under a general license, instead of under a specific licenseas currently allowed, issued on a case-by-case basis by the Treasury Department.Final action on the appropriations measure was not completed by the end of the 109th

Congress. Similar Senate provisions in FY2004 and FY2005 agriculturalappropriations bills were stripped out of the final enacted measures.

Additional Initiatives in the 109th Congress

A number of other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 109th Congressthat would have eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Two bills —S. 894 (Enzi) and H.R. 1814 (Flake) — would have specifically lifted overallrestrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 2617 (Davis) would have prohibited anyadditional restrictions on per diem allowances, family visits to Cuba, remittances, andaccompanied baggage beyond those that were in effect on June 15, 2004. H.R. 3064(Lee) would have prohibited the use of funds available to the Department of theTreasury to implement regulations from June 2004 that tightened restrictions ontravel to Cuba for educational activities. H.Con.Res. 206 (Serrano), introduced in theaftermath of Hurricane Dennis that struck Cuba in July 2005 (causing 16 deaths andsignificant damage), would have expressed the sense of Congress that the Presidentshould temporarily suspend restrictions on remittances, gift parcels, and family travelto Cuba to allow Cuban-Americans to assist their relatives.

Two bills — H.R. 208 (Serrano) and H.R. 579 (Paul) — would have lifted theoverall embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictionson travel and remittances to Cuba.

Finally, two identical bills dealing with easing restrictions on exportingagricultural commodities to Cuba — H.R. 719 (Moran of Kansas) and S. 328 (Craig) — included provisions that would have provided for a general license for traveltransactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed tothe current requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions.

CRS-25

34 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 108th Congress, see CRSReport RL31740, Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan.

Legislative Initiatives in the 108th Congress34

In the 108th Congress, several FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations bills hadprovisions that would have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways, butultimately these provisions were not included in final appropriations measures. TheAdministration had threatened to veto legislation if it contained provisionsweakening Cuba sanctions. In addition, several bills in the 108th Congress wereintroduced that specifically would have lifted or eased restrictions on travel to Cuba,but no action was taken on these measures.

First Session Action

Since action on FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations was not completedbefore the end of the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress faced early action on it andother unfinished FY2003 appropriations measures. The final version of the FY2003omnibus appropriations measure, H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which included TreasuryDepartment appropriations, did not include provisions affecting restrictions on travelto Cuba. The White House had threatened to veto the measure if it containedprovisions weakening the embargo. While the Senate version did not include theSenate Appropriations Committee provision from the 107th Congress that would haveeased travel restrictions by prohibiting any funding for enforcing the Cuba travelregulations, it did include a provision (contained in Division J, Section 124) thatwould have expedited action on travel applications for travel by OFAC within 90days of receipt. Ultimately, however, the Senate provision was dropped in theconference report (H.Rept. 108-10) on the omnibus measure.

Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2004 Transportation-Treasuryappropriations bill, H.R. 2989, had nearly identical provisions that would haveprevented funds from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel ortravel-related transactions. But the provisions were dropped in the conference reportto the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673, H.Rept.108-401, filed November 25, 2003), which incorporated seven regular appropriationsacts, including Transportation-Treasury appropriations. The conference also droppedtwo Cuba provisions from the House version of H.R. 2989 that would have easedrestrictions on remittances and on people-to-people educational exchanges. TheWhite House again threatened to veto any legislation that would weaken economicsanctions against Cuba.

The House provisions had been approved during September 9, 2003, Housefloor consideration of the H.R. 2989: H.Amdt. 375 (Flake), approved by a vote of227-188, would have prevented funds from enforcing travel restrictions (Section 745of the House version); H.Amdt. 377 (Delahunt), approved by a vote of 222-196,would have prevented funds from enforcing restrictions on remittances (Section 746);and H.Amdt. 382 (Davis), approved by a vote of 246-173, would have prohibitedfunds from being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-peopleeducational exchanges (Section 749).

CRS-26

35 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Pulls Plug on Cuba Expo,” Miami Herald, June 18, 2003.36 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Official Dampens Trade-Show Enthusiasm with Talks of CubanCredit,” Miami Herald, September 29, 2002.

During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 2989 on October 23, 2003, the Senateapproved by voice vote S.Amdt. 1900 (Dorgan), nearly identical to the Flakeamendment noted above that would have prevented funds from being used toadminister or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions (Section 643of the Senate version). A motion to table the Dorgan amendment was defeated by avote of 59-36. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 91-3. The only differencebetween the Senate and House language was that the Dorgan amendment, asamended by S.Amdt. 1901 (Craig), provided that the section would take effect oneday after enactment of the bill.

In other action, the conference on the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act,P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673), also dropped a provision in the Senate version of theFY2004 agriculture appropriations bill that would have allowed travel to Cuba undera general license for travel related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. OnJuly 17, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of theFY2004 agriculture appropriations bill, S. 1427, that included a provision (Section760) allowing travel to Cuba under a general license (which does not requireapplying to the Treasury Department) for travel related to the commercial sale ofagricultural and medical goods. The Senate included this provision when it approvedH.R. 2673 on November 6, 2003. The House-passed version of the bill, H.R. 2673,had no such provision. At present, such travel to Cuba is allowed with OFAC’sapproval of a specific license. In early June 2003, the Treasury Department rejectedan application to travel to Cuba for organizers of a second U.S. food and agribusinessfair in Havana.35 The first such trade fair, held in September 2002, featured some288 exhibitors from more than 30 states and resulted in millions in U.S. agriculturalsales to Cuba.36

Second Session Action

Several FY2005 appropriations measures had provisions that would have easedCuba sanctions, but these were dropped in the FY2005 omnibus appropriationsmeasure (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-792).

The House-passed version of the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and Stateappropriations bill, H.R. 4754, approved July 8, 2004 (397-18), included a provision(Section 801) that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement,administer, or enforce recent amendments to the Cuba embargo regulations thattightened restrictions on gift parcels and baggage taken by individuals for travel toCuba. The provision was added by a Flake amendment, H.Amdt. 647, approved bya vote of 221-194 on July 7, 2004. The Senate version of the bill, S. 2809, asreported out of committee, did not include such a provision.

Both the House-approved version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasuryappropriations bill, H.R. 5025, and the Senate Appropriations Committee version ofthe bill, S. 2806, had provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions in various

CRS-27

ways. In its statement of policy on H.R. 5025, the Administration indicated that thePresident would veto the measure if it contained provisions weakening Cubasanctions.

The House-passed version of H.R. 5025 had three provisions that would haveeased Cuba sanctions. During floor consideration on September 21, 2004, by a voteof 225-174, the House approved a Davis (of Florida) amendment (H.Amdt. 769),which provided that no funds could be used to administer, implement, or enforce theBush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on visiting relatives inCuba. On September 22, 2004, the House approved two additional Cubaamendments by voice vote, a Waters amendment (H.Amdt. 770) that would haveprohibited funds from being used to implement any sanction imposed on privatecommercial sales of agricultural commodities or medicine or medical supplies toCuba and a Lee amendment (H.Amdt. 771) that would have prohibited funds frombeing used to implement, administer, or enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004tightening of restrictions on travel for educational activities. The House also rejecteda Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 772) on September 22, 2004, by a vote of 225-188that would have more broadly prohibited funds from being used to implement,administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba. During September 15, 2004House floor consideration of H.R. 5025, Representative Jeff Flake announced hisintention not to offer an amendment, as he had for the past three years, that wouldhave prohibited funds from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travelor travel-related transactions.

The Senate version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations bill,S. 2806, as reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-342)on September 15, 2004, had a provision (Section 222) that would have prohibitedfunds from administering or enforcing restrictions on Cuba travel or travel-relatedtransactions. That provision, which was proposed by Senator Byron Dorgan, wasunanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, andGeneral Government on September 9, 2004.

The Senate version of the FY2005 Agriculture Appropriation bill, S. 2803, asreported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-340), had a provision(Section 776) that would have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgateregulations allowing for travel to Cuba under a “general license” when it was relatedto the commercial sale of agricultural and medical products. The House-passedversion of the bill, H.R. 4766, had no such provision. In its statement of policy onthe bill, the Administration stated that the President would veto the measure if itcontained a provision weakening Cuba sanctions.

Additional Initiatives in the 108th Congress

Among other initiatives introduced in the 108th Congress, but not acted upon,two bills would specifically have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba: S. 950 (Enzi),introduced April 30, 2003, and H.R. 2071 (Flake), introduced May 13, 2003. H.R.3422 (Serrano), introduced October 30, 2003, would, among other provisions, havelifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. Three broad legislative initiatives wereintroduced that would have lifted all Cuba embargo restrictions, including those ontravel: H.R. 188 (Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403 (Baucus), introduced

CRS-28

37 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 107th Congress, see CRSReport RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan and MaureenTaft-Morales.

February 13, 2003, and H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003. Anotherinitiative, S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R. 4457 (Otter), introduced respectively on May 19and 20, 2004, would have required yearly congressional approval for the renewal oftrade and travel restrictions with respect to Cuba. Finally, H.R. 4678 (Davis ofFlorida), introduced June 24, 2004, in the aftermath of the President’s tightening ofCuba sanctions, would have barred certain additional restrictions on travel andremittances to Cuba.

Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress37

In the 107th Congress, although various measures were introduced that wouldhave eliminated or eased restrictions on travel to Cuba and the House voted in boththe first and second sessions to prohibit spending to administer the travel regulations,no legislative action was completed by the end of the second session.

First Session Action

During July 25, 2001 floor action on H.R. 2590, the FY2002 TreasuryDepartment appropriations bill, the House approved an amendment that wouldprohibit spending for administering Treasury Department regulations restrictingtravel to Cuba. H.Amdt. 241, offered by Representative Flake (which amendedH.Amdt. 240 offered by Representative Smith), would prohibit funding to administerthe Cuban Assets Control Regulations (administered by OFAC) with respect to anytravel or travel-related transaction. The amendment was approved by a vote of 240to 186, compared to a vote of 232-186 for a similar amendment in last year’sTreasury Department appropriations bill.

The Senate version of H.R. 2590, approved September 19, 2001, did not includeany provision regarding U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba, and the provision was notincluded in the House-Senate conference on the bill (H.Rept. 107-253). DuringSenate floor debate, Senator Byron Dorgan noted that he had intended to offer anamendment on the issue, but that he decided not to because he did not want to slowpassage of the bill. He indicated that he would support the House provision duringconference, but ultimately, however, the House-Senate conference report on the billdid not include the Cuba provision. In light of the changed congressional prioritiesin the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington,conference negotiators reportedly did not want to slow passage of the bill with anycontroversial provisions. The Bush Administration had threatened to veto theTreasury bill if it included the Cuba travel provision.

Second Session Action

The Cuba travel issue received further consideration in the second session of the107th Congress. A bipartisan House Cuba working group of 40 Representatives

CRS-29

38 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “BushAdministration Opposes Legislative Efforts to Amend Cuba Policy,” July 16, 2002.39 White House, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, July 24, 2002.40 “House Approves Limits on Treasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade,July 26, 2002.41 For further information on the issues of biological weapons and terrorism as they relateto Cuba, see CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress, by Mark P.Sullivan.

vowed as one of its goals to work for a lifting of travel restrictions. On February 11,2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Treasury andGeneral Government held a hearing on the issue, featuring Administration andoutside witnesses.

The travel issue was part of debate during consideration of the FY2003 TreasuryDepartment appropriations bill (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State ColinPowell and Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill said they would recommend thatthe President veto legislation that includes a loosening of restrictions on travel toCuba (or a weakening of restrictions on private financing for U.S. agriculturalexports to Cuba).38 The White House also stated that President Bush would vetosuch legislation.39

In July 23, 2002 floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cubasanctions amendments, including one on the easing of travel restrictions offered byRepresentative Jeff Flake. The House approved the Flake travel amendment(H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of 262-167, that would provide that no funds could be usedto administer or enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to travelto Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent the issuance of general or specificlicenses for travel to Cuba. Some observers raised the question of whether the effectof this amendment would be limited since the underlying embargo regulationsrestricting travel would remain unchanged; enforcement action against violations ofthe relevant embargo regulations could potentially take place in future years when theTreasury Department appropriations measure did not include the funding limitationson enforcing the travel restrictions.40

During consideration of H.R. 5120, the House also rejected two Cubaamendments. A Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226,would have prevented any funds in the bill from being used to implement,administer, or enforce the overall economic embargo of Cuba, which includes travel.A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551), rejected by a vote of 182-247, would haveprovided that any limitation on the use of funds to administer or enforce regulationsrestricting travel to Cuba or travel-related transactions would only apply after thePresident certified to Congress that certain conditions were met regarding biologicalweapons and terrorism.41 The rule for the bill’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept.107-585), had provided that the Goss amendment would not be subject toamendment.

CRS-30

The House subsequently passed H.R. 5120 on July 24, 2002, by a vote of 308-121, with the three Cuba amendments, including the Flake Cuba travel amendment.

The Senate version of the Treasury Department appropriations measure, S.2740, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2002(S.Rept. 107-212), included a provision, in Section 516, that was similar, althoughnot identical, to the Flake amendment described above. It provided that no funds maybe used to enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to any travel ortravel-related transactions, but would not prevent OFAC from issuing general andspecific licenses for travel to Cuba. In addition, Section 124 of the Senate billstipulated that no Treasury Department funds for “Departmental Offices, Salaries,and Expenses” may be used by OFAC, until OFAC has certain procedures in placeto expedite license applications for travel to Cuba.

Congress did not complete action on the FY2003 Treasury Departmentappropriations measure before the end of the 107th Congress, so action was deferreduntil the 108th Congress.

Additional Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress

Several other initiatives were introduced in the 107th Congress that would haveeased U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.

! H.R. 5022 (Flake), introduced June 26, 2002, would have lifted allrestrictions on travel to Cuba.

! Several broad bills would have lifted all sanctions on trade, financialtransactions, and travel to Cuba: H.R. 174 (Serrano), the CubanReconciliation Act, introduced January 3, 2001, and identical billsS. 400 (Baucus) and H.R. 798 (Rangel), the Free Trade with CubaAct, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001, respectively.

! S. 1017 (Dodd) and H.R. 2138 (Serrano), the Bridges to the CubanPeople Act of 2001, introduced June 12, 2001, would, among otherprovisions, have removed all restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S.nationals or lawful permanent resident aliens.

! Several bills would, among other provisions, have repealed thetravel restrictions imposed in the 106th Congress by the TradeSanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX, Section 910). These include identical bills S. 402(Baucus) and H.R. 797 (Rangel), the Cuban Humanitarian Trade Actof 2001, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001; S. 171 (Dorgan),introduced January 24, 2001; and S. 239 (Hagel), the Cuba Food andMedicine Access Act of 2001, introduced February 1, 2001.

CRS-31

42 The Dodd amendment allowed for travel restrictions to be imposed if the United Statesis at war with Cuba, if armed hostilities are in progress, or when threats to physical safetyor public health exist. Under current law, the Secretary of State has the same authority torestrict travel (22 USC 211a).

Legislative Initiatives in the 106th Congress

The only action completed by the 106th Congress relating to Cuba travelinvolved a tightening of travel restrictions. The final version of the FY2001agriculture appropriations measure (P.L. 106-387, Title IX, Trade Sanctions Reformand Export Enhancement Act of 2000) included a provision that restricts travel toCuba to those categories of non-tourist travel already allowed by the TreasuryDepartment regulations. Section 910 of the law provides that neither general norspecific licenses for travel to Cuba can be provided for activities that do not fit intothe 12 categories expressly authorized in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations,Section 515.560 (a) of Title 31, CFR, paragraphs (1) through (12).

As noted in the law, the Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize travel-related transactions “for travel to, from, or within Cuba for “tourist activities,” whichare defined as any activity that is not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of theregulations. The provision prevents the Administration from loosening the travelrestrictions to allow tourist travel. This, in effect, strengthens restrictions on travelto Cuba and somewhat circumscribes the authority of OFAC to issue specific travellicenses on a case-by-case basis under Section 515.560 (b) of Title 31, CFR. OFACin the past has utilized that section to provide specific licenses for activities that donot fit neatly within the categories of travel set forth in 515.560 (a), including suchtravel for medical evacuations of Americans legally in Cuba and for U.S. contractorsservicing the needs of the U.S. Interests Section. (Regulations implementing theprovision of the law were issued by OFAC on July 12, 2001.)

In other legislative action, the Senate considered the issue of travel to Cuba inJune 30, 1999 floor action on the FY2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill,S. 1234. An amendment was introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd that wouldhave terminated regulations or prohibitions on travel to Cuba and on transactionsrelated to such travel in most instances.42 The Senate defeated the amendment bytabling it in a 55-43 vote on June 30, 1999. On November 10, 1999, Senator Doddintroduced identical language as S. 1919, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2000,but no action was taken on the bill.

The House took up the issue of travel to Cuba when it considered H.R. 4871,the Treasury Department appropriations bill, on July 20, 2000. A Sanfordamendment was approved (232-186) to prohibit funds in the bill from being used toadminister or enforce the Cuban Assets Control Regulations with respect to anytravel or travel-related transaction. Subsequently, the language of the amendmentwas dropped from a new version of the FY2001 Treasury Department appropriationsbill, H.R. 4985, introduced on July 26. H.R. 4985 was appended to the conferencereport on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill — H.R. 4516, H.Rept. 106-796 — in an attempt to bypass Senate debate on its version of the Treasuryappropriations bill, S. 2900. The Senate initially rejected this conference report on

CRS-32

September 20, 2000, by a vote of 28-69, but later agreed to the report, 58-37, onOctober 12. The House had agreed to the conference report earlier, on September 14,2000, by a vote of 212-209.