Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel
May 11, 2021June 28, 2022
and Remittances
Mark P. Sullivan
Restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba have constituted a key and often contentious Restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba have constituted a key and often contentious
Specialist in Latin Specialist in Latin
component in U.S. efforts to isolate Cuba’s communist government since the early 1960s. component in U.S. efforts to isolate Cuba’s communist government since the early 1960s. SuchOver American Affairs the years, there have been divergent views in Congress, and at times congressional action, regarding such restrictions. The
American Affairs
restrictions are largely part of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), the overall restrictions are largely part of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), the overall

embargo regulations administered by the Department of the embargo regulations administered by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC), as well as certain parts of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), Control (OFAC), as well as certain parts of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR),

administered by the Department of Commerceadministered by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security. . Various Administrations have eased and Various Administrations have eased and
tightened these restrictions over the years tightened these restrictions over the years through amendments as U.S. policy toward Cuba has changed. as U.S. policy toward Cuba has changed.
The Obama Administration The Obama Administration significantly eased restrictions on travel and remittanceseased restrictions on travel and remittances significantly. In 2009, the Administration lifted all . In 2009, the Administration lifted all
restrictions on familyrestrictions on family travel and remittancestravel and remittances. In 2011, In 2011, the Administrationit eased restrictions on other types of travel, including eased restrictions on other types of travel, including
travel related to religious, educational, and people-to-people people-to-people exchangeseducational travel, and allowed any U.S. person to send remittances to , and allowed any U.S. person to send remittances to
individuals in Cuba. As part of President Obama’s Cuba policy shift announced in December 2014, which moved the U.S.
approach away from a sanctions-based policy toward one of engagement, the Administration took actions thatindividuals in Cuba. In 2015 and 2016, the Administration eased eased
restrictions on nonfamily travel and remittancesrestrictions on nonfamily travel and remittances. In 2015 and 2016, OFAC amended the embargo regulations five times t o
implement the new policy. It authorized travel by general license for all 12 categories of travel set forth in the CACR,
eliminated traveler per diem limits, increased the amount of nonfamily remittances, and permitted other types of remittances.
OFAC subsequently removed dollar limits for donative remittances to Cuban nationals; authorized people -to-people
educational travel for individuals; and removed value limits for the importation of Cuban products, including alcohol and
tobacco products, by U.S. travelers as accompanied baggage for personal use, with the Treasury Department amending the CACR five times. The Department of Commerce . The Department of Commerce also amended the amended the
EAR, issuing license exceptions authorizing temporary sojourn passenger vessels to CubaEAR, issuing license exceptions authorizing temporary sojourn passenger vessels to Cuba, and; cruise ship travel to Cuba cruise ship travel to Cuba
from the United States began in 2016. The Administration also negotiated a bilateral arrangement to permit regularly began in 2016. The Administration also negotiated a bilateral arrangement to permit regularly
scheduled air flights to Cuba that began in 2016. scheduled air flights to Cuba that began in 2016.
In contrast, theThe Trump Administration Trump Administration significantly increased restrictions on travel and remittancesincreased restrictions on travel and remittances significantly. In 2017, OFAC amended
the CACR to prohibit. In 2017, Treasury prohibited direct transactions with entities on a direct transactions with entities on a list (maintained by the State Department, referred to as theState Department “Cuba “Cuba
restricted list”restricted list”) of restricted Cuban entities that were identified as affiliated with the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services; such entities affiliated with the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services; such entities
include certain Cuban hotels, tourist agencies, marinas, and stores. In 2019, the Administration prohibited people-to-people include certain Cuban hotels, tourist agencies, marinas, and stores. In 2019, the Administration prohibited people-to-people
educational traveleducational travel. In 2019, the Administration, terminated cruise ship travel terminated cruise ship travel to Cuba and, prohibited air travel to Cuban cities prohibited air travel to Cuban cities
other than Havana. In 2019, OFAC capped family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per quarter; prohibited
remittances to close family members of certain Cuban government officials and members of the Cuban Communist Party;
and eliminated the authorization forother than Havana, limited the amount and frequency of family remittances, and eliminated donative remittances to Cuban nationals. In 2020, donative remittances to Cuban nationals. In 2020, the State Department issued a list of
over 400 accommodations for lodging in Cuba, and the Treasury Department amended the CACR to prohibitTreasury prohibited U.S. travelers U.S. travelers
from staying at those properties. In 2020, the Treasury Department amended the CACR to prohibitfrom staying at more than 400 accommodations on another list maintained by the State Department and prohibited the processing of the processing of
remittances through remittances through any entities on the “Cuba restricted entities on the “Cuba restricted list,” whichlist,” an action that resulted in Western Union ceasing its operations
in Cuba in November 2020; the company had been the major financial services company used for transmitting remittances to
Cuba since 2016.
The Biden Administration thus far has not taken any action regarding U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba,
although the Administration maintains it is committed to reviewing policy decisions made in the prior Administration.
Legislative Initiatives
In the 117th Congress, one bill has been introduced to date that would lift restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. S.
249 (Wyden), the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2021, would lift economic sanctions on Cuba, including on travel and
remittances, and would call for negotiations with the government of Cuba for the purpose of settling property claims and
securing the protection of internationally recognized human rights.
This report examines developments in U.S. policy restricting travel and remittances to Cuba, particularly changes under the
Obama and Trump Administrations, as well as current permissible travel to Cuba and policy on remittances. An Appendix
provides resulted in Western Union ceasing its services to Cuba. In May 2022, the Biden Administration announced a change of policy toward Cuba that included reversing some restrictions on travel and remittances imposed by the Trump Administration. The Administration reauthorized scheduled and charter flights to Cuban locations beyond Havana, reinstated an authorization for people-to-people educational travel for groups, and reauthorized travel, pursuant to a general license, for attending or organizing professional meetings or conferences in Cuba. With regard to remittances, the Administration eliminated the dollar and frequency limits for family remittances and restored the category of donative remittances. Legislative Initiatives In the 117th Congress, two introduced bills would lift economic sanctions on Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances: S. 249, the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2021, introduced in February 2021, and H.R. 3625, the United States-Cuba Relations Normalization Act, introduced in May 2021. The Biden Administration’s policy changes regarding travel and remittances drew mixed reaction in Congress, with some Members criticizing the action as supporting the Cuban regime, some viewing it as a tepid step forward, and others welcoming it as a way to undo U.S. policies that harm the Cuban people. An Appendix provides a history of legislative action related to the restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba from 1999 through 2020. a history of legislative action related to the restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba from 1999 through 2020.
For further information on Cuba from CRS,Also see CRS In Focus IF10045, see CRS In Focus IF10045, Cuba: U.S. Policy Overview, CRS Insight IN11937, Biden Administration’s Cuba Policy Changes, and CRS Report , and CRS Report
R45657,R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress and Through the Trump Administration. .
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page link to page 4 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 1413 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page link to page 16 link to page 1917 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 4017 link to page 24 link to page 42 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Obama Administration Policy ......................................................................................................... 3
Easing of Restrictions in 2009 .................................................................................................. 3
Easing of Restrictions in 2011 ................................................................................................... 3
Developments in 2012 and 2013 ............................................................................................... 5
Easing of Restrictions in 2015 and 2016 ................................................................................... 6
Trump Administration Policy .......................................................................................................... 8
Tightening of Travel Restrictions .............................................................................................. 8
Tightening of Restrictions on Remittances ............................................................................. 10 Biden Administration Policy ......................................................................................................... 12 Partial Easing of Travel Restrictions ....................................................................................... 12 Partial Easing of Restrictions on Remittances ........................................................................ 13 11
Current Permissible Travel to Cuba ..................................................................................... 13......... 14
Current Policy on Remittances ...................................................................................................... 18 16
Legislative Initiatives in the 117th Congress ........................................................................... 18

Appendixes
....... 19 Tables Table 1. Travel to Cuba from the United States, 2018-2021 ......................................................... 14 Appendixes Appendix. Legislative Action from the 106th to the 116th Congress, 1999-2020 ........................... 21 19

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 39 37

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Introduction
Since the United States imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Cuba in the early Since the United States imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Cuba in the early
1960s, there have been numerous policy changes to restrictions on travel and remittances to 1960s, there have been numerous policy changes to restrictions on travel and remittances to
Cuba.1 In 1963, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Cuba.1 In 1963, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
issued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), prohibitingissued the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), prohibiting most financial transactions most financial transactions
unless otherwise authorized; the CACR (found at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) have been amended many unless otherwise authorized; the CACR (found at 31 C.F.R. Part 515) have been amended many
times over years to reflect changes in policy toward Cuba, including restrictions on travel and times over years to reflect changes in policy toward Cuba, including restrictions on travel and
remittances. The CACR also require that remittances. The CACR also require that al all exports to Cuba be licensed by the Department of exports to Cuba be licensed by the Department of
Commerce, Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, under the provisions of the Export Administration
Act, as amended. Thewhere the Bureau of Industry and Security administers the Export Administration Bureau of Industry and Security administers the Export Administration
RegulationRegulations (EAR, found at 15 C.F.R. Sections 730-774) (EAR, found at 15 C.F.R. Sections 730-774), which includes; the EAR also include provisions regulating the provisions regulating the
temporary sojourns of aircraft and vessels to Cuba. temporary sojourns of aircraft and vessels to Cuba.
The CACR do not ban travel itself but place restrictions on any financial transactions related to The CACR do not ban travel itself but place restrictions on any financial transactions related to
travel to Cuba. Accordingly, from 1963 to 1977, travel to Cuba was effectively banned under the travel to Cuba. Accordingly, from 1963 to 1977, travel to Cuba was effectively banned under the
CACR because of such restrictions. In 1977, the Carter Administration made changes to the CACR because of such restrictions. In 1977, the Carter Administration made changes to the
regulations that regulations that essential yessentially lifted the restrictions on travel-related transactions. In 1982, the lifted the restrictions on travel-related transactions. In 1982, the
Reagan Administration made changes to the CACR that once again restricted travel to Cuba but Reagan Administration made changes to the CACR that once again restricted travel to Cuba but
al owedallowed for travel-related transactions by certain categories of travelers. In June 1984, the for travel-related transactions by certain categories of travelers. In June 1984, the
Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Regan v. Wald, rejected a , rejected a chal engechallenge to the to the
regulations limitingregulations limiting travel to Cuba and asserted the executive branch’s right to impose travel travel to Cuba and asserted the executive branch’s right to impose travel
restrictions for national security reasons. restrictions for national security reasons.
Under the Clinton Administration, there were several changes to the CACR, with some at first Under the Clinton Administration, there were several changes to the CACR, with some at first
tightening the restrictions and others later loosening the restrictions. In October 2000, Congress tightening the restrictions and others later loosening the restrictions. In October 2000, Congress
prohibited travel to Cuba solely for tourist activities when it enacted the Trade Sanctions Reform prohibited travel to Cuba solely for tourist activities when it enacted the Trade Sanctions Reform
and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA; P.L. 106-387, Title IX). A provision in the law, and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA; P.L. 106-387, Title IX). A provision in the law,
Section 910(b), prohibits travel-related transaction for tourist activities, defined as any activity Section 910(b), prohibits travel-related transaction for tourist activities, defined as any activity
not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of travel in the CACR. The provision not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of travel in the CACR. The provision essential y
essentially circumscribes the executive branch’s authority to issue licenses for activities beyond the broad circumscribes the executive branch’s authority to issue licenses for activities beyond the broad
categories of travel categories of travel al owedallowed and would have to be amended, superseded by new legislation, or and would have to be amended, superseded by new legislation, or
repealed to expand categories of travel to Cuba or lift travel restrictions altogether. repealed to expand categories of travel to Cuba or lift travel restrictions altogether.
The George W. Bush Administration tightened the travel regulations significantly, with additional The George W. Bush Administration tightened the travel regulations significantly, with additional
restrictions on family visits, educational travel, and travel for those involved in amateur and restrictions on family visits, educational travel, and travel for those involved in amateur and
semiprofessional international sports federation competitions. In addition, the categories of fully semiprofessional international sports federation competitions. In addition, the categories of fully
hosted travel and people-to-people educational exchanges were eliminated as permissible travel hosted travel and people-to-people educational exchanges were eliminated as permissible travel
to Cuba. The Bush Administration also cracked down on those traveling to Cuba to Cuba. The Bush Administration also cracked down on those traveling to Cuba il egal y, illegally, further further
restricted religious travel by changing licensing guidelines for such travel, and suspended the restricted religious travel by changing licensing guidelines for such travel, and suspended the
licenses of several travel service providers in Florida for license violations. licenses of several travel service providers in Florida for license violations.
The Obama Administration significantly eased restrictions on travel and remittances. Congress The Obama Administration significantly eased restrictions on travel and remittances. Congress
initial y initially took legislativetook legislative action in March 2009 to ease restrictions on family travel and on travel action in March 2009 to ease restrictions on family travel and on travel
related to U.S. agricultural and medical sales to Cuba (P.L. 111-8, §§620 and 621 of Division D). related to U.S. agricultural and medical sales to Cuba (P.L. 111-8, §§620 and 621 of Division D).

In April 2009, the Obama Administration went further and lifted all restrictions on family travel 1 President John F. Kennedy proclaimed an embargo on trade between1 President John F. Kennedy proclaimed an embargo on trade between the United States and Cubathe United States and Cuba in Februaryin February 1962, 1962,
citing Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which authorizes the President “to establish and maintain a citing Section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which authorizes the President “to establish and maintain a
total embargo upon all total embargo upon all t radetrade between the United States and Cuba.” between the United States and Cuba.” (27 (27 Federal Register 1085, February 7, 1962.) 1085, February 7, 1962.) T heThe
authority for the embargo was later expanded in March 1962 to include the authority for the embargo was later expanded in March 1962 to include the T radingTrading with the Enemy Act (27 with the Enemy Act (27 Federal
Register 2765-2766, March 24, 1962). 2765-2766, March 24, 1962).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

---

link to page 6 link to page 11 link to page 6 link to page 11 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

In April 2009, the Obama Administration went further and lifted al restrictions on family travel
and family remittances. In 2011, the Obama Administration further eased travel related to and family remittances. In 2011, the Obama Administration further eased travel related to
religious, journalistic, and educational activities, including people-to-people travel exchanges; religious, journalistic, and educational activities, including people-to-people travel exchanges;
al owedallowed U.S. international airports to become eligible for licensed charter flights to and from U.S. international airports to become eligible for licensed charter flights to and from
Cuba; and issued new general licenses to send remittances to any Cuban national (with certain Cuba; and issued new general licenses to send remittances to any Cuban national (with certain
limitations) and to religious organizations in Cuba.2 As part of President Obama’s policy shift of limitations) and to religious organizations in Cuba.2 As part of President Obama’s policy shift of
engagement with Cuba announced in December 2014, the Administration took further actions to engagement with Cuba announced in December 2014, the Administration took further actions to
ease restrictions on travel and remittances in 2015 and 2016. These actions included authorizing ease restrictions on travel and remittances in 2015 and 2016. These actions included authorizing
travel by general license for travel by general license for al all 12 categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR; eliminating 12 categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR; eliminating
traveler per diem limits;traveler per diem limits; authorizing people-to-people educational travel for individuals; authorizing people-to-people educational travel for individuals;
removing dollar limits on removing dollar limits on nonfamily or donative remittances; and providing a general license for donative remittances; and providing a general license for
remittances for humanitarian projects, support to the Cuban people, and the development of remittances for humanitarian projects, support to the Cuban people, and the development of
private businesses. Both cruise ship travel and regularly scheduled flights to Cuba began in 2016. private businesses. Both cruise ship travel and regularly scheduled flights to Cuba began in 2016.
(For details, see (For details, see “Obama Administration Policy,” ” below.)below.)
The Trump Administration took significant actions to restrict travel and remittances to Cuba. In The Trump Administration took significant actions to restrict travel and remittances to Cuba. In
2017, the State Department issued a list of restricted Cuban entities (referred to as the “Cuba 2017, the State Department issued a list of restricted Cuban entities (referred to as the “Cuba
restricted list”) affiliated with the Cuban military, restricted list”) affiliated with the Cuban military, intel igenceintelligence, or security services with , or security services with w hichwhich
direct financial transaction would disproportionately benefit such services at the expense of the direct financial transaction would disproportionately benefit such services at the expense of the
Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba. The Treasury Department amended the CACR in Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba. The Treasury Department amended the CACR in
2017 to prohibit those traveling under most categories of permissible travel from engaging in 2017 to prohibit those traveling under most categories of permissible travel from engaging in
direct financial transactions with these entities; such entities include certain hotels, tourist direct financial transactions with these entities; such entities include certain hotels, tourist
agencies, marinas, and stores. In 2019, the Administration eliminatedagencies, marinas, and stores. In 2019, the Administration eliminated people-to-people people-to-people
educational travel, ended cruise ship travel to Cuba, and restricted air travel. In 2020, the State educational travel, ended cruise ship travel to Cuba, and restricted air travel. In 2020, the State
Department issued a list of over 400 accommodations for lodging in Cuba, and the Treasury Department issued a list of over 400 accommodations for lodging in Cuba, and the Treasury
Department prohibited U.S. travelers from staying at those properties.Department prohibited U.S. travelers from staying at those properties.
The Trump Administration The Trump Administration also restricted remittances in several waysrestricted remittances in several ways in 2019: prohibiting. In 2019, the Administration prohibited remittances remittances
to close family members of prohibited Cuban government officials and Cuban communist party to close family members of prohibited Cuban government officials and Cuban communist party
officials; officials; cappingcapped family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per quarter; and family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per quarter; and
eliminating eliminated the category of donative remittances the category of donative remittances (sometimes referred to as nonfamily remittances) to Cuban nationals. In to Cuban nationals. In October 2020, the 2020, the
Treasury Department amended the CACR to prohibit, effective November 26, 2020, the Treasury Department amended the CACR to prohibit, effective November 26, 2020, the
processing of remittances through any entities on the “Cuba restricted list,” an action that led processing of remittances through any entities on the “Cuba restricted list,” an action that led
Western Union to close its operations in Cuba. (For details, see Western Union to close its operations in Cuba. (For details, see “Trump Administration Policy,” ”
below.)
Thus far, the Biden Administration has not taken any actions regarding U.S. restrictions on travel
or remittances to Cuba. During the U.S. election campaign, then-candidate Biden said he would
reverse Trump Administration policies that harmed the Cuban people without advancing
democracy and human rights.3 The White House press secretary said on March 9, 2021, that
although a Cuba policy shift was not among the President’s top priorities, the Administration was
“committed to making human rights a core pil ar” of policy and “committed to carefully
reviewing policy decisions made in the prior administration.”4

2 A general license provides the authority to engage in a transaction without the need to apply to the T reasury
Department for permission. In contrast, a specific license is a written document issued by the T reasurybelow.) The Biden Administration announced a change of policy toward Cuba in May 2022 that included expanding authorized travel to Cuba and easing some restrictions on remittances. The expansion of travel included reauthorizing scheduled and charter flights to Cuban locations beyond Havana; reinstating the CACR authorization for people-to-people educational travel for groups under a general license (but not individual or self-directed people-to-people travel); and reauthorizing in the CACR travel, pursuant to a general license, for attending or organizing professional meetings or conferences in Cuba. With regard to remittances, the Administration eliminated the dollar and frequency limits for family remittances in the CACR and restored the category of donative remittances, which had been eliminated in 2019. U.S. officials maintained that the Administration would not remove Cuban entities from the “Cuba restricted list,” which as noted above, had led Western Union to terminate its services in Cuba in late 2020. 2 A general license provides the authority to engage in a transaction without the need to apply to the Treasury Department for permission. In contrast, a specific license is a written document issued by the Treasury Department to a person or entity authorizing a particular transaction in response to a written license application. Department to a
person or entity authorizing a particular transaction in response to a written license application.
3 Americas Quarterly, “Joe Bide Answers 10 Questions on Latin America,” March 2, 2020 (updated October 29, 2020),
at https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/updated-2020-candidates-answer-10-questions-on-latin-america/.
4 U.S. Department of State, “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Deputy Director of the Na tional Economic
Council Bharat Ramamurti,” March 9, 2021.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2 2

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Obama Administration Policy
Easing of Restrictions in 2009
The tightening of family travel restrictions in 2004 became an issue during the 2008 presidential The tightening of family travel restrictions in 2004 became an issue during the 2008 presidential
campaign, with candidate Barack Obama pledging to lift restrictions for family travel and campaign, with candidate Barack Obama pledging to lift restrictions for family travel and
remittances to Cuba. With the election of Obama, the 111th Congress moved to ease family travel remittances to Cuba. With the election of Obama, the 111th Congress moved to ease family travel
restrictions in March 2009 by approving two provisions that eased sanctions on travel to Cuba in restrictions in March 2009 by approving two provisions that eased sanctions on travel to Cuba in
FY2009 omnibus appropriations legislation (P.L. 111-8). Unlike the Bush Administration, the FY2009 omnibus appropriations legislation (P.L. 111-8). Unlike the Bush Administration, the
Obama Administration did not threaten to veto such legislation easing Cuba sanctions. This Obama Administration did not threaten to veto such legislation easing Cuba sanctions. This
marked the first congressional action easing Cuba sanctions in almost a decade. marked the first congressional action easing Cuba sanctions in almost a decade.
In the first provision, as implemented by the Treasury Department, family travel was again In the first provision, as implemented by the Treasury Department, family travel was again
al owedallowed once every 12 months under a general license to visit a close relative for an unlimited once every 12 months under a general license to visit a close relative for an unlimited
length of stay, and the limit for daily expenditure length of stay, and the limit for daily expenditure al owedallowed by family travelers became the same as by family travelers became the same as
for other authorized travelers to Cuba (the State Department maximum per diem rate for Havana). for other authorized travelers to Cuba (the State Department maximum per diem rate for Havana).
The definition of “close relative” was expanded to mean any individualThe definition of “close relative” was expanded to mean any individual related to the traveler by related to the traveler by
blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person. blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three generations removed from that person.
The second provision in the omnibus measure required a general license for travel related to the The second provision in the omnibus measure required a general license for travel related to the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. The Treasury Department’s Office marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. The Treasury Department’s Office
of Foreign Assets Control ultimately issued regulations implementing this omnibus provision on of Foreign Assets Control ultimately issued regulations implementing this omnibus provision on
September 3, 2009. The regulations required a written report at least 14 days before departure September 3, 2009. The regulations required a written report at least 14 days before departure
identifying both the traveler and the producer or distributor and describing the purpose and scope identifying both the traveler and the producer or distributor and describing the purpose and scope
of such travel. Another written report was required within 14 days of return from Cuba describing of such travel. Another written report was required within 14 days of return from Cuba describing
the activities conducted, the persons met, and the expenses incurred. The regulations also required the activities conducted, the persons met, and the expenses incurred. The regulations also required
that such travelers under this provision be regularly employed by a producer or distributor of the that such travelers under this provision be regularly employed by a producer or distributor of the
agricultural commodities or medical products or an entity duly appointed to represent such a agricultural commodities or medical products or an entity duly appointed to represent such a
producer or distributor. producer or distributor.
Going even further, the Obama Administration announced several significant measures to ease Going even further, the Obama Administration announced several significant measures to ease
U.S. sanctions on Cuba in April 2009. U.S. sanctions on Cuba in April 2009. Fulfil ing Fulfilling a campaign pledge, President Obama announced a campaign pledge, President Obama announced
that that al all restrictions on family travel and on remittances to family members in Cuba would be restrictions on family travel and on remittances to family members in Cuba would be
lifted. This significantly superseded the action taken by Congress in March that had lifted. This significantly superseded the action taken by Congress in March that had essential y
essentially reverted family travel restrictions to as they had been before they were tightened in 2004. Under reverted family travel restrictions to as they had been before they were tightened in 2004. Under
the new policy announced by the Administration in April, there were no limitations on the the new policy announced by the Administration in April, there were no limitations on the
frequency or duration of family visits (which would frequency or duration of family visits (which would stil still be covered under a general license), and be covered under a general license), and
the 44-pound limitation on accompanied baggage was removed. Family travelers were the 44-pound limitation on accompanied baggage was removed. Family travelers were al owedallowed to to
spend the same as spend the same as al owedallowed for other travelers, up to the State Department’s maximum per diem for other travelers, up to the State Department’s maximum per diem
rate for Havana. With regard to family remittances, the previous limitation of no more than $300 rate for Havana. With regard to family remittances, the previous limitation of no more than $300
per quarter was removed with no restriction on the amount or frequency of the remittances. per quarter was removed with no restriction on the amount or frequency of the remittances.
Authorized travelers were again authorized to carry up to $3,000 in remittances.Authorized travelers were again authorized to carry up to $3,000 in remittances.53 Regulations for Regulations for
the above policy changes were issued by the Treasury and Commerce Departments on September the above policy changes were issued by the Treasury and Commerce Departments on September
3, 2009. 3, 2009.
Easing of Restrictions in 2011
On January 14, 2011, the Obama Administration announced a series of policy changes further On January 14, 2011, the Obama Administration announced a series of policy changes further
easing restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba that had been rumored in the second half of easing restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba that had been rumored in the second half of

5 3 White House, “Fact Sheet: Reaching Out to the Cuban People,” April 13, 2009. White House, “Fact Sheet: Reaching Out to the Cuban People,” April 13, 2009.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
3 3

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

2010. The changes were designed to make it easier to engage in educational, religious, and other 2010. The changes were designed to make it easier to engage in educational, religious, and other
types of people-to-people travel and types of people-to-people travel and al ow al allow all Americans to send remittances to Cuba. The Americans to send remittances to Cuba. The
changes were similar to policy that was in place from 1999 under the Clinton Administration changes were similar to policy that was in place from 1999 under the Clinton Administration
through mid-2004 under the Bush Administration. President Obama directed the Secretaries of through mid-2004 under the Bush Administration. President Obama directed the Secretaries of
State, State, the Treasury, and Homeland Security to amend regulations and policies “in order to continue Treasury, and Homeland Security to amend regulations and policies “in order to continue
efforts to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their efforts to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their
country’s future.”country’s future.”64 The Administration maintained that the policy changes would increase people- The Administration maintained that the policy changes would increase people-
to-people contact, help strengthen Cuban civil society, and make Cuban people less dependent on to-people contact, help strengthen Cuban civil society, and make Cuban people less dependent on
the Cuban state.the Cuban state.75 The changes occurred at the same time that the Cuban government began laying The changes occurred at the same time that the Cuban government began laying
off thousands of state workers and increasing private enterprise through an expansion of the off thousands of state workers and increasing private enterprise through an expansion of the
authorized categories for self-employment.authorized categories for self-employment.
The measures (1) increased purposeful travel to Cuba related to religious, educational, and The measures (1) increased purposeful travel to Cuba related to religious, educational, and
journalistic activities (general licenses were authorized for certain types of educational and journalistic activities (general licenses were authorized for certain types of educational and
religious travel; people-to-people travel exchanges were authorized via a specific license); (2) religious travel; people-to-people travel exchanges were authorized via a specific license); (2)
al owedallowed any U.S. person to send remittances (up to $500 per quarter) to nonfamily members in any U.S. person to send remittances (up to $500 per quarter) to nonfamily members in
Cuba and made it easier for religious institutions to send remittances for religious activities Cuba and made it easier for religious institutions to send remittances for religious activities
(general licenses are now authorized for both); and (3) (general licenses are now authorized for both); and (3) al owed al allowed all U.S. international airports to U.S. international airports to
apply to provide services to licensed charter flights to and from Cuba. In most respects, these new apply to provide services to licensed charter flights to and from Cuba. In most respects, these new
measures appeared to be similar to policies that were undertaken by the Clinton Administration in measures appeared to be similar to policies that were undertaken by the Clinton Administration in
1999 but subsequently curtailed by the Bush Administration1999 but subsequently curtailed by the Bush Administration in 2003 and 2004. in 2003 and 2004.
An exception was the expansion of airports to service licensed flights to and from Cuba. The An exception was the expansion of airports to service licensed flights to and from Cuba. The
Clinton Administration had expanded airports eligibleClinton Administration had expanded airports eligible to service licensed charter flights beyond to service licensed charter flights beyond
that of Miami International Airport to international airports in Los Angeles and New York (JFK) that of Miami International Airport to international airports in Los Angeles and New York (JFK)
in 1999, but the January 2011 policy change in 1999, but the January 2011 policy change al owed al allowed all U.S. international airports to apply to U.S. international airports to apply to
provide services for chartered flights to and from Cuba under certain conditions. provide services for chartered flights to and from Cuba under certain conditions.
By early July 2011, OFAC confirmed that it had approved the first licenses for U.S. people-to- By early July 2011, OFAC confirmed that it had approved the first licenses for U.S. people-to-
people organizations to bring U.S. visitors to Cuba, and the first such trips began in August 2011.people organizations to bring U.S. visitors to Cuba, and the first such trips began in August 2011.86
On July 25, 2011, however, prior to the tripsOn July 25, 2011, however, prior to the trips’ beginning, OFAC issued an advisory maintaining beginning, OFAC issued an advisory maintaining
that misstatements in the media had suggested that U.S. policy that misstatements in the media had suggested that U.S. policy al owed for virtual yallowed for virtually unrestricted unrestricted
group travel to Cuba, and reaffirmed that travel conducted by people-to-people travel groups group travel to Cuba, and reaffirmed that travel conducted by people-to-people travel groups
licensed for travel to Cuba must “certify that licensed for travel to Cuba must “certify that al participants wil all participants will have a full-time schedule of have a full-time schedule of
educational exchange activities that educational exchange activities that wil will result in meaningful interaction between the travelers result in meaningful interaction between the travelers
and individualsand individuals in Cuba.” The advisory stated that authorized activities by people-to-people in Cuba.” The advisory stated that authorized activities by people-to-people
groups are not “tourist activities,” and pointed out that the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export groups are not “tourist activities,” and pointed out that the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 prohibits OFAC from licensing transactions for tourist activities.Enhancement Act of 2000 prohibits OFAC from licensing transactions for tourist activities.9
7 In the first session of the 112th Congress, there were several attempts aimed at rolling back the In the first session of the 112th Congress, there were several attempts aimed at rolling back the
Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on travel and remittances, including a Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on travel and remittances, including a
provision originating in the House Appropriation Committee’s version of the FY2012 Financial provision originating in the House Appropriation Committee’s version of the FY2012 Financial
Services and General Government appropriations measure, H.R. 2434. The White House had Services and General Government appropriations measure, H.R. 2434. The White House had

6 4 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Reaching Out to the Cuban White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Reaching Out to the Cuban People,” January 14, 2011, at People,” January 14, 2011, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/14/reaching-out-cuban-people. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/14/reaching-out-cuban-people.
7 5 Mary Beth Sheridan, Mary Beth Sheridan, “Obama Loosens “Obama Loosens T ravelTravel Restrictions to Cuba,” Restrictions to Cuba,” Washington Post, January 15, 2011. , January 15, 2011.
86 Peter Orsi, “U.S. Licensing Peter Orsi, “U.S. Licensing T ravelTravel Operators to Start Up Legal Cuba Operators to Start Up Legal Cuba T rips, T reasury Trips, Treasury Department Says,” Associated Department Says,” Associated
Press, JulyPress, July 1, 2011; Mimi Whitefield, “1, 2011; Mimi Whitefield, “ People-to-People Tours to Cuba People-to-People Tours to Cuba T ake Off T hursday,” Miam iTake Off Thursday,” Miami Herald, August , August
10, 2011; and Jeff Franks, “10, 2011; and Jeff Franks, “ Purposeful CubaPurposeful Cuba T rips Trips Resume,” Resume,” Chicago Tribune, August, August 18, 2011. Also see18, 2011. Also see the the
followingfollowing online resource: online resource: Organizations Sponsoring People-to-People Travel to Cuba, Latin America Working Group , Latin America Working Group
Education Fund,Education Fund, at http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/people2people.pdf. at http://www.lawg.org/storage/documents/people2people.pdf.
9 7 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, OFAC, “Cuba , OFAC, “Cuba T ravelTravel Advisory,” July 25, 2011. Advisory,” July 25, 2011.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
4 4

---

link to page link to page 2224 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

threatened to veto the threatened to veto the bil bill if it contained the provision and stood firm when congressional leaders if it contained the provision and stood firm when congressional leaders
were considering including the provision in a “megabus” FY2012 appropriations were considering including the provision in a “megabus” FY2012 appropriations bil , bill, H.R. 2055. H.R. 2055.
UltimatelyUltimately congressional leaders agreed not to include the provision in the appropriations congressional leaders agreed not to include the provision in the appropriations
measure (P.L. 112-74). (measure (P.L. 112-74). (SeeSee Appendix, , belowbelow.) .)
Developments in 2012 and 2013
In 2012, some Members of Congress expressed concerns about people-to-people travel that In 2012, some Members of Congress expressed concerns about people-to-people travel that
appeared to be focusing on tourist activities rather than on purposeful travel. In response, the appeared to be focusing on tourist activities rather than on purposeful travel. In response, the
Treasury Department issued an announcement in March 2012 warning about misleading Treasury Department issued an announcement in March 2012 warning about misleading
advertising regarding some people-to-people trips that could lead to OFAC investigating the advertising regarding some people-to-people trips that could lead to OFAC investigating the
organization conducting the trips. The announcement maintained that licenses could be revoked organization conducting the trips. The announcement maintained that licenses could be revoked
and that organizations may be issued a civil penalty up to $65,000 per violation.and that organizations may be issued a civil penalty up to $65,000 per violation.108 OFAC OFAC
followed up this announcement in May 2012 by revising its people-to-people license guidelines. followed up this announcement in May 2012 by revising its people-to-people license guidelines.
The revised guidelinesThe revised guidelines reflected similar language to the March announcement and also required reflected similar language to the March announcement and also required
an organization applying for a people-to-people license to describe how the travel “would an organization applying for a people-to-people license to describe how the travel “would
enhance contact with the Cuban people, and/or support civil society in Cuba, and/or promote the enhance contact with the Cuban people, and/or support civil society in Cuba, and/or promote the
Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities.”Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities.”119
In June 7, 2012, congressional testimony, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Western In June 7, 2012, congressional testimony, then-Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson set forth a clear-cut description of U.S. policy toward Cuba Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson set forth a clear-cut description of U.S. policy toward Cuba
in which she expressed strong U.S. support for democracy and human rights activists in Cuba and in which she expressed strong U.S. support for democracy and human rights activists in Cuba and
defended the Obama’s Administration policy on travel and remittances. The Assistant Secretary defended the Obama’s Administration policy on travel and remittances. The Assistant Secretary
asserted that “the Obama Administration’s priority is to empower Cubans to freely determine asserted that “the Obama Administration’s priority is to empower Cubans to freely determine
their own future.” She maintained that “the most effective tool we have for doing that is building their own future.” She maintained that “the most effective tool we have for doing that is building
connections between the Cuban and American people, in order to give Cubans the support and connections between the Cuban and American people, in order to give Cubans the support and
tools they need to move forward independent of their government.” The Assistant Secretary tools they need to move forward independent of their government.” The Assistant Secretary
maintained that “the Administration’s travel, remittance and people-to-people policies are helping maintained that “the Administration’s travel, remittance and people-to-people policies are helping
Cubans by providing alternative sources of information, taking advantage of emerging Cubans by providing alternative sources of information, taking advantage of emerging
opportunities for self-employment and private property, and strengthening civil society.”opportunities for self-employment and private property, and strengthening civil society.”1210
In September 2012, various press reports cited a slowdown in the Treasury Department’s In September 2012, various press reports cited a slowdown in the Treasury Department’s
approval or reapproval of licenses for people-to-people travel since the agency had issued new approval or reapproval of licenses for people-to-people travel since the agency had issued new
guidelines in May (described above). Companies conducting such programs complained that the guidelines in May (described above). Companies conducting such programs complained that the
delay in the licenses was forcing them to cancel trips and even to lay off staff.delay in the licenses was forcing them to cancel trips and even to lay off staff.1311 By early October By early October
2012, however, companies conducting the people-to-people travel maintained that they were once 2012, however, companies conducting the people-to-people travel maintained that they were once
again receiving license approvals. again receiving license approvals.
In April In April 2013, some Members of Congress strongly criticized singers Beyoncé Knowles-Carter 2013, some Members of Congress strongly criticized singers Beyoncé Knowles-Carter
and her husband Shawn Carter, better known as Jay-Z, for traveling to Cuba. Members were and her husband Shawn Carter, better known as Jay-Z, for traveling to Cuba. Members were
concerned that the trip, as described in the press, was primarily for tourism, which would be concerned that the trip, as described in the press, was primarily for tourism, which would be

10 U.S. 8 U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, OFAC, “Advertising Educational Exchange , OFAC, “Advertising Educational Exchange T ravelTravel to Cuba for People-to-People to Cuba for People-to-People
Contact,” March 9, 2012, at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/cuba_ppl_notice.aspx. Contact,” March 9, 2012, at http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/cuba_ppl_notice.aspx.
119 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, OFAC, “Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in , OFAC, “Comprehensive Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in T ravel Travel--
Related Related T ransactionsTransactions Involving Cuba,” Revised Involving Cuba,” Revised May 10, 2012. May 10, 2012.
12 T estimony10 Testimony of Roberta S. Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Senate Foreign of Roberta S. Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and GlobalRelations Committee, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Global Narcotics, at a hearing entitled Narcotics, at a hearing entitled
““T heThe Path to Freedom: Countering Repression and Strengthening Civil Society,” June 7, 2012. Path to Freedom: Countering Repression and Strengthening Civil Society,” June 7, 2012.
1311 Damien Cave, “Licensing Rules Damien Cave, “Licensing Rules Slow T ours Slow Tours to Cuba,” to Cuba,” New York Times, September 16, 2012; Paul Haven, “U.S. , September 16, 2012; Paul Haven, “U.S.
T ravelTravel Outfits Say Rules Outfits Say Rules for Legalfor Legal T ravel Travel to Cuba Getting to Cuba Getting T ighterTighter,” Associated Press, September 13, 2012. ,” Associated Press, September 13, 2012.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
5 5

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

contrary to U.S. law and regulations. The Treasury Department stated that the two singers were contrary to U.S. law and regulations. The Treasury Department stated that the two singers were
participating in an authorized people-to-people exchange trip organized by a group licensed by participating in an authorized people-to-people exchange trip organized by a group licensed by
OFAC to conduct such tripsOFAC to conduct such trips (pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)(2) of the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations). (In August 2014, the Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General issued . (In August 2014, the Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General issued
a report concluding that no U.S. sanctions were violated and that OFAC’s decision not to pursue a a report concluding that no U.S. sanctions were violated and that OFAC’s decision not to pursue a
formal investigation was reasonable.)formal investigation was reasonable.)1412
Easing of Restrictions in 2015 and 2016
Just after the adjournment of the 113th Congress in December 2014, President Obama announced Just after the adjournment of the 113th Congress in December 2014, President Obama announced
a major shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, moving away from a sanctions-based policy toward one a major shift in U.S. policy toward Cuba, moving away from a sanctions-based policy toward one
of engagement and a normalization of relations. The policy shift included changes in U.S. of engagement and a normalization of relations. The policy shift included changes in U.S.
restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, which were implemented by the Treasury restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, which were implemented by the Treasury
Department’s OFAC as amendments to the CACR that went into effect on January 16, 2015.Department’s OFAC as amendments to the CACR that went into effect on January 16, 2015.1513
Changes to the Travel Restrictions. With regard to travel, the changes included authorization With regard to travel, the changes included authorization
for general licenses for the 12 existing categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR related for general licenses for the 12 existing categories of travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR related
to the following activities: (1) family visits; (2) official business of the U.S. government, foreign to the following activities: (1) family visits; (2) official business of the U.S. government, foreign
governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; (3) journalistic activity; (4) governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; (3) journalistic activity; (4)
professional research and professional meetings; (5) educational activities; (6) religious activities; professional research and professional meetings; (5) educational activities; (6) religious activities;
(7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions; (8) (7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions; (8)
support for the Cuban people; (9) humanitarian projects; (10) activities of private foundations or support for the Cuban people; (9) humanitarian projects; (10) activities of private foundations or
research or educational institutes; (11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or research or educational institutes; (11) exportation, importation, or transmission of information or
information materials; and (12) certain export transactions that may be considered for information materials; and (12) certain export transactions that may be considered for
authorization under existing regulations and guidelines. authorization under existing regulations and guidelines.
Before the policy change, travelers under several of these categories had to apply for a specific Before the policy change, travelers under several of these categories had to apply for a specific
license from the Treasury Department before traveling. Under the new regulations, both travel license from the Treasury Department before traveling. Under the new regulations, both travel
agents and airlinesagents and airlines were able to provide services for travel to Cuba without the need to obtain a were able to provide services for travel to Cuba without the need to obtain a
specific license. Under the January 2015 changes to the CACR, travelers also were authorized to specific license. Under the January 2015 changes to the CACR, travelers also were authorized to
bring back up to $400 worth of goods from Cuba as accompanied baggage for personal use, with bring back up to $400 worth of goods from Cuba as accompanied baggage for personal use, with
no more than $100 worth of tobacco products and alcohol combined (as noted below, these value no more than $100 worth of tobacco products and alcohol combined (as noted below, these value
limits were subsequently removed altogether in October 2016). limits were subsequently removed altogether in October 2016).
OFAC issued four additional rounds of regulatory changes to the CACR in September 2015 and OFAC issued four additional rounds of regulatory changes to the CACR in September 2015 and
January, March, and October 2016 that further eased the travel restrictions. Among the changes January, March, and October 2016 that further eased the travel restrictions. Among the changes
arewere the following: the following:
  September 2015. OFAC amended the regulations to OFAC amended the regulations to al owallow close relatives to visit close relatives to visit
or accompany authorized travelers to Cuba for additional activities. The January or accompany authorized travelers to Cuba for additional activities. The January
2015 changes had permitted close relatives to visit a person located in Cuba on 2015 changes had permitted close relatives to visit a person located in Cuba on
official government business or there for certain educational activities. The official government business or there for certain educational activities. The
September 2015 changes authorized close relatives to visit or accompany September 2015 changes authorized close relatives to visit or accompany
authorized travelers for additional educational activities, journalistic activity, authorized travelers for additional educational activities, journalistic activity,
professional research, religious activities, activities related to humanitarian professional research, religious activities, activities related to humanitarian
projects, and activities of private foundations or certain research or educational projects, and activities of private foundations or certain research or educational

14 U.S. 12 U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, Office of Inspector General, “, Office of Inspector General, “ T erroristTerrorist Financing/Money Laundering: Review of Financing/Money Laundering: Review of
T ravelTravel to Cuba by Shawn to Cuba by Shawn Carter and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter,” Memorandum Report OIG-CA-14-014, August 20, Carter and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter,” Memorandum Report OIG-CA-14-014, August 20,
2014. 2014.
15 13 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Regulatory Amendments to the Cuba , “Treasury and Commerce Announce Regulatory Amendments to the Cuba
Sanctions,” January 15, 2016. Sanctions,” January 15, 2016.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
6 6

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

institutes. The changes also institutes. The changes also al owed al allowed all authorized travelers to open and maintain authorized travelers to open and maintain
bank accounts in Cuba to access funds for authorized transactions. Transportation bank accounts in Cuba to access funds for authorized transactions. Transportation
by vessel of authorized travelers between the United States and Cuba was also by vessel of authorized travelers between the United States and Cuba was also
authorized by general license, and certain related lodging aboard vessels used for authorized by general license, and certain related lodging aboard vessels used for
such travel was authorized (related to ferry and cruise ship travel). At the same such travel was authorized (related to ferry and cruise ship travel). At the same
time, the Commerce Department amended the EAR, issuing license exceptions time, the Commerce Department amended the EAR, issuing license exceptions
authorizing temporary sojourns for cargo and passenger vessels to Cuba.authorizing temporary sojourns for cargo and passenger vessels to Cuba.1614
  January 2016. OFAC amended the CACR to authorize travel-related OFAC amended the CACR to authorize travel-related
transactions related to professional media or artistic productions of information transactions related to professional media or artistic productions of information
or informational materials for exportation, importation, or transmission. These or informational materials for exportation, importation, or transmission. These
activities included the filming or production of media programs, the recording of activities included the filming or production of media programs, the recording of
music, and the creation of artworks in Cuba. OFAC also amended the regulations music, and the creation of artworks in Cuba. OFAC also amended the regulations
to to al owallow travel for the organization of professional meetings and public travel for the organization of professional meetings and public
performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and
exhibitions. Previously, the general license was only for attending or participating exhibitions. Previously, the general license was only for attending or participating
in such events. OFAC also removed requirements that U.S. profits from public in such events. OFAC also removed requirements that U.S. profits from public
performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and
exhibitions be donated to an independent nongovernmental organization (NGO) exhibitions be donated to an independent nongovernmental organization (NGO)
in Cuba or a U.S.-based charity. Travel for humanitarian projects was also in Cuba or a U.S.-based charity. Travel for humanitarian projects was also
expanded to include disaster preparedness and response.expanded to include disaster preparedness and response.1715
  March 2016. OFAC amended the CACR to OFAC amended the CACR to al owallow individuals to travel to Cuba individuals to travel to Cuba
for individual for individual people-to-people educational travel. Previously, such educational people-to-people educational travel. Previously, such educational
travel required trips to take place under the auspices of an organization that travel required trips to take place under the auspices of an organization that
conducted such travel and required travelers to be accompanied by a conducted such travel and required travelers to be accompanied by a
representative of the sponsoring organization. According to the Treasury representative of the sponsoring organization. According to the Treasury
Department, the change is intended to make such travel to Cuba more accessible Department, the change is intended to make such travel to Cuba more accessible
and less expensive for U.S. citizens and and less expensive for U.S. citizens and wil will increase opportunities for direct increase opportunities for direct
engagement between Cubans and Americans.engagement between Cubans and Americans.1816
  October 2016. OFAC amended the CACR, removing the value limit for Cuban OFAC amended the CACR, removing the value limit for Cuban
products that U.S. travelers to Cuba (as products that U.S. travelers to Cuba (as wel well as U.S. travelers to third countries) as U.S. travelers to third countries)
can import into the United States as accompanied luggage for personal use. can import into the United States as accompanied luggage for personal use.
Normal limits on duty and tax exemption apply.Normal limits on duty and tax exemption apply.1917
As part of the change in bilateral As part of the change in bilateral relations, U.S. and Cuban officials signed a bilateral relations, U.S. and Cuban officials signed a bilateral
arrangement in February 2016 to permit regularly scheduled air flights to Cuba, and by August arrangement in February 2016 to permit regularly scheduled air flights to Cuba, and by August
2016 the first flights began. Cruise ship service to Cuba from the United States also began in May 2016 the first flights began. Cruise ship service to Cuba from the United States also began in May
2016.2016.2018
Changes to the Regulations on Remittances. With the Obama Administration’s change in Cuba With the Obama Administration’s change in Cuba
policy, OFAC significantly eased restrictions on remittances to Cuba. In January 2015, OFAC policy, OFAC significantly eased restrictions on remittances to Cuba. In January 2015, OFAC

16 U.S. 14 U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions , “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions
Regulations,” September 18, 2015. Regulations,” September 18, 2015.
1715 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions , “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to the Cuba Sanctions
Regulations,” January 26, 2016.Regulations,” January 26, 2016.
18 16 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Significant Amendments to the Cuba , “Treasury and Commerce Announce Significant Amendments to the Cuba
Sanctions Regulations Ahead of President Obama’sSanctions Regulations Ahead of President Obama’s Historic T rip Historic Trip to Cuba,” March 15, 2016. to Cuba,” March 15, 2016.
19 17 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to Cuba, “Treasury and Commerce Announce Further Amendments to Cuba Sanctions Sanctions
Regulations,” October 14, 2016. Regulations,” October 14, 2016.
2018 For more details, see “ For more details, see “U.S. T ravel to Cuba” in CRS Report R41617, Cuba: Issues for the 112thRestrictions on Travel and Remittances” in CRS Report R43926, Cuba: Issues and Actions in the 114th Congress, by Mark , by Mark
P. Sullivan.P. Sullivan.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
7 7

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

increased the amount of money that could be sent by any U.S. person to nonfamily members in increased the amount of money that could be sent by any U.S. person to nonfamily members in
Cuba (referred to as remittances to a Cuban national) to $2,000 per quarter (up from the previous Cuba (referred to as remittances to a Cuban national) to $2,000 per quarter (up from the previous
limit of $500 per quarter). Authorized travelers were permitted to carry up to $10,000 in limit of $500 per quarter). Authorized travelers were permitted to carry up to $10,000 in
remittances to Cuba, up from the previous limit of $3,000. In September 2015, however, OFAC remittances to Cuba, up from the previous limit of $3,000. In September 2015, however, OFAC
amended the regulations that lifted the dollar limits altogether on nonfamily remittances (amended the regulations that lifted the dollar limits altogether on nonfamily remittances (now
referring to them as “donative remittances to Cuban nationals”) and on amounts that licensed referring to them as “donative remittances to Cuban nationals”) and on amounts that licensed
travelers may carry to Cuba. travelers may carry to Cuba.
In addition, the CACR were amended in January 2015 to authorize by general license remittances In addition, the CACR were amended in January 2015 to authorize by general license remittances
to individualsto individuals and independent NGOs in Cuba without limit for humanitarian projects; activities and independent NGOs in Cuba without limit for humanitarian projects; activities
of recognized human rights organizations, independent organizations designed to promote a rapid of recognized human rights organizations, independent organizations designed to promote a rapid
peaceful transition to democracy, and individuals and NGOs that promote independent activity to peaceful transition to democracy, and individuals and NGOs that promote independent activity to
strengthen civil society; and the development of private businesses, including strengthen civil society; and the development of private businesses, including smal small farms. farms.
Under the Obama Administration, OFAC also amended the CACR in October 2016 to more Under the Obama Administration, OFAC also amended the CACR in October 2016 to more
narrowly define the terms “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” and “prohibited narrowly define the terms “prohibited officials of the Government of Cuba” and “prohibited
members of the Cuban Communist Party.” The definition of these terms was significant because members of the Cuban Communist Party.” The definition of these terms was significant because
of the prohibition in the CACR against providing remittances to these individuals. of the prohibition in the CACR against providing remittances to these individuals.
Prior to the October 2016 change (and since 2004), prohibited government officials included Prior to the October 2016 change (and since 2004), prohibited government officials included al
all ministers and vice ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; ministers and vice ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers;
members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial
assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees of the Defense for the Revolution; director assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees of the Defense for the Revolution; director
generals and subdirector generals of generals and subdirector generals of al all ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry
of the Interior and Ministry of Defense; secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of of the Interior and Ministry of Defense; secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of
Labor of Cuba and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban Labor of Cuba and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban
state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and state-run media organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and
members and employees of the Supreme Court. With the October 2016 change, prohibited members and employees of the Supreme Court. With the October 2016 change, prohibited
government officials were defined as including members of the Council of Ministers and flag government officials were defined as including members of the Council of Ministers and flag
officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces. officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.
Similarly, prior to the October 2016 CACR change (and since 2004), the definition of members of Similarly, prior to the October 2016 CACR change (and since 2004), the definition of members of
the Cuban Communist Party included members of the Politburo, the Central Committee, the Cuban Communist Party included members of the Politburo, the Central Committee,
department heads and employees of the Central Committee, and secretaries and first secretaries of department heads and employees of the Central Committee, and secretaries and first secretaries of
the provincial central committees. With the October 2016 change, the definition of the term was the provincial central committees. With the October 2016 change, the definition of the term was
narrowed to include members of the Politburo.narrowed to include members of the Politburo.
Trump Administration Policy
In contrast to the Obama Administration’s actions, the Trump Administration tightened In contrast to the Obama Administration’s actions, the Trump Administration tightened
restrictions on travel to and from Cuba and on the transfer of private remittances to Cuba. restrictions on travel to and from Cuba and on the transfer of private remittances to Cuba.
Tightening of Travel Restrictions
The Trump Administration made several significant changes to the CACR’s travel provisions. The Trump Administration made several significant changes to the CACR’s travel provisions.
  Restricting Financial Transactions with Certain Cuban Entities: Cuba
Restricted List. In November 2017, OFAC added a new section (31 C.F.R. In November 2017, OFAC added a new section (31 C.F.R.
515.209) to the CACR setting forth restrictions, with some exceptions, on direct 515.209) to the CACR setting forth restrictions, with some exceptions, on direct
financial transactions with any person that the Secretary of State has identified as financial transactions with any person that the Secretary of State has identified as
an entity or subentity under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the an entity or subentity under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the
Cuban military, Cuban military, intel igenceintelligence, or security services or personnel, and with which , or security services or personnel, and with which
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
8 8

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or
personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.2119 The The
State Department issued a list of restricted Cuban entities and subentities in State Department issued a list of restricted Cuban entities and subentities in
November 2017, commonly referred to as the “Cuba restricted list,” which was November 2017, commonly referred to as the “Cuba restricted list,” which was
updated several times, most recently in January 2021. The list currently includes updated several times, most recently in January 2021. The list currently includes
231 Cuban entities, including 111 hotels, 2 tourist agencies, 5 marinas, and 10 231 Cuban entities, including 111 hotels, 2 tourist agencies, 5 marinas, and 10
stores in Old Havana.stores in Old Havana.2220 Most categories of permissible travel (discussed below) Most categories of permissible travel (discussed below) authorized by general license, ,
with the exception of travel for official government business, journalistic with the exception of travel for official government business, journalistic
activities, humanitarian projects, and export transactions, have provisions activities, humanitarian projects, and export transactions, have provisions
prohibiting direct financial transactions with entities on the State Department’s prohibiting direct financial transactions with entities on the State Department’s
restricted list. restricted list.
  People-to-People Educational Travel. OFAC amended the CACR in November OFAC amended the CACR in November
2017 to eliminate 2017 to eliminate people-to-people educational travel for individuals but people-to-people educational travel for individuals but stil
al owedstill allowed such travel in groups. such travel in groups.2321 In June 2019, In June 2019, however, OFAC further amended the CACR OFAC further amended the CACR
to remove the authorization altogether for people-to-people educational travelto remove the authorization altogether for people-to-people educational travel (31
C.F.R. 515.565(b)).24.22
  Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List. Effective September 24, 2020, OFAC Effective September 24, 2020, OFAC
amended the CACR, adding a new section (31 C.F.R. 515.210) that prohibits any amended the CACR, adding a new section (31 C.F.R. 515.210) that prohibits any
person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from lodging, paying for lodging, or making person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from lodging, paying for lodging, or making
any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge at any property in Cuba any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge at any property in Cuba
that the Secretary of State has identified as a property owned or controlled by the that the Secretary of State has identified as a property owned or controlled by the
Cuban government, a prohibited Cuban government official, a prohibited Cuban government, a prohibited Cuban government official, a prohibited
member of the Communist Party, or a close relative of either.member of the Communist Party, or a close relative of either.2523 Several days later, Several days later,
the State Department issued a “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations list” that the State Department issued a “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations list” that
included over 400 hotels (included over 400 hotels (al all Cuban hotels), as Cuban hotels), as wel well as privately owned as privately owned
residences for rent (residences for rent (casas particulares) if they are controlled by a prohibited ) if they are controlled by a prohibited
government official or Communist Party member or close relative of either.government official or Communist Party member or close relative of either.26
24 Most categories of permissible travel authorized by general license, with the exception of travel for official government business, have provisions that prohibit lodging, paying for lodging, or making any reservation for or on behalf of a third party to lodge at any property on the “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List.”   Removal of General License Authorizations for Professional Meetings andor
Conferences and Public Performances, Clinics, Workshops, Competitions,
and Exhibitions. Effective September 24, 2020, OFAC amended the CACR to Effective September 24, 2020, OFAC amended the CACR to
eliminateeliminate general licenses for attending or organizing professional meetings or general licenses for attending or organizing professional meetings or
conferences in Cuba and for participating in public performances, clinics, conferences in Cuba and for participating in public performances, clinics,
workshops, certain athletic or nonathletic competitions, and exhibitions.27 (A
general license remains, however, for amateur and semi-professional
international sports federation competitions.) Specific licenses may be issued on

21 19 82 82 Federal Register 51998-5200, November 9, 2017. 51998-5200, November 9, 2017.
2220 U.S. U.S. Department of State, “List of Restricted Entities and Department of State, “List of Restricted Entities and Subent itiesSubentities Associated with Cuba Associated with Cuba Effective January 8, Effective January 8,
2021,” at https://www.state.gov/cuba-restricted-list/list-of-restricted-entities-and-subentities-associated-with-cuba-2021,” at https://www.state.gov/cuba-restricted-list/list-of-restricted-entities-and-subentities-associated-with-cuba-
effective-january-8-2021/. effective-january-8-2021/.
2321 82 82 Federal Register 51998-5200, November 9, 2017. 51998-5200, November 9, 2017.
2422 84 84 Federal Register 25992-25993, June 5, 2019. 25992-25993, June 5, 2019.
2523 85 85 Federal Register 60068-60072, September 24, 2020. 60068-60072, September 24, 2020.
2624 U.S. U.S. Department of State, “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List Initial Publication,” September 28, 2020, at Department of State, “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List Initial Publication,” September 28, 2020, at
https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/cuba-prohibited-accommodations-list/cuba-prohibited-accommodations-list-https://www.state.gov/cuba-sanctions/cuba-prohibited-accommodations-list/cuba-prohibited-accommodations-list-
initial-publication/. initial-publication/.
27 85 Federal Register 60068-60072, September 24, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

a case-by-case basis for transactions related to the above activities, although the
amended CACR does not refer to organizing professional meetings.
Travel Advisory. Another Trump Administration policy affecting U.S. travel to Cuba that was in
place for a year was the State Department’s travel advisory for visiting the country. In September
2017, the State Department issued a Cuba travel warning for U.S. citizens as part of the U.S.
response to the unexplained injuries of U.S. diplomatic personnel in Cuba and their families.28
The warning advised U.S. citizens to avoid travel to Cuba because of the risk of being subject to
injury, since some of the incidents occurred at hotels frequented by U.S. citizens. In January
2018, the State Department revamped its
travel advisory system to include four
Statistics on U.S. Travel to Cuba
advisory levels: Level 1, exercise normal
According to Cuban government statistics, the number
precautions; Level 2, exercise increased
of Americans traveling to Cuba increased from 92,325
caution; Level 3, reconsider travel; and Level
in 2014 to 637,907 in 2018. These figures are in
4, do not travel. At the time, the advisory for
addition to thousands of Cuban Americans who visit
Cuba was set at Level 3, recommending that
family in Cuba each year. In 2018, 600,306 Cubans
travelers should reconsider travel to Cuba. In
living outside the country visited Cuba, the majority
from the United States. This brought the total number
August 2018, however, the State Department
of U.S. travelers to Cuba in 2018 to over 1.2 mil ion.
eased its travel advisory for Cuba to Level 2,
Overal , the Cuban government reports that there
exercise increased caution, with a spokesman
were 4.7 mil ion international visitors to Cuba in 2018.a
maintaining that the agency “undertook a
The number of Americans traveling to Cuba began to
thorough review of the risks to private U.S.
fal significantly beginning in 2019, as the Trump
citizens in Cuba and decided a Level 2 travel
Administration eliminated people-to-people travel,
prohibited cruise ship travel to Cuba, and restricted
advisory was appropriate.”29 Travel agencies
flights to Cuba. In 2019, the number of U.S. visitors
and organizations sponsoring travel to Cuba
traveling to Cuba declined by almost 22% to 498,067
lauded the State Department’s easing of the
travelers, although the Cubans visiting from abroad
travel advisory in August 2018.
increased by almost 4% to 623,972 travelers. In the first
two months of 2020, before the imposition of travel
With the onset of the Coronavirus Disease
restrictions because of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S.
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the State
travel to Cuba declined by 64%, and travel by Cubans
Department issued a global health travel
living abroad declined by almost 4% compared with the
same period in 2019.b
advisory for al international travel on March
Notes:
31, 2020, which set the travel advisory for al
a. República de Cuba, Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas e
countries, including Cuba, to Level 4, do not
Información (ONEI), Anuario Estadístico de Cuba 2018,
travel. On August 6, 2020, the State
Capítulo 15: Turismo, Edición 2019.
Department replaced its global health travel
b. ONEI, Turismo, Llegadas de visitants internacionales,
advisory for COVID-19 with country-specific
December 2019 and February 2020.
country travel advisories and issued a Level 4
advisory for Cuba.30 According to the State Department travel advisory, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention issued a Level 3 Travel Health Notice for Cuba, indicating that COVID-

28 According to the State Department, symptoms included “ear complaints, hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue,
cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping.” See U.S. Department of State, Remarks by Secretary of State Rex W.
T illerson, “Actions T aken in Response to Attacks on U.S. Government Personnel in Cuba,” September 29, 2017. For
more background on the issue, see “ U.S. Response to Health Injuries of U.S. Personnel in Havana,” in CRS Report
R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress and Through the Trum p Adm inistration .
29 Courtney McBride, “U.S. Eases Security Warning for T ravel to Cuba; T rump Administration’s T ougher Policy
Remains in Place, But Assessment of Dangers Reduced,” Wall Street Journal Online, August 23, 2018.
30 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, “Cuba T ravel Advisory,” August 6, 2020, at
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/cuba-travel-advisory.html.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

19 risk is high and recommending that travelers avoid al nonessential international travel to
Cuba.31
Congressional Research Service 9 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances workshops, certain athletic or nonathletic competitions, and exhibitions.25 (A general license remained, however, for amateur and semiprofessional international sports federation competitions.) Although specific licenses could be issued on a case-by-case basis for transactions related to the above activities, the amended CACR did not refer to organizing professional meetings.  Prohibition of Cruise Ships and Flight Limitations. The Trump Administration The Trump Administration took actions to took actions to
reduce transportation reduce transportation frombetween the United States the United States toand Cuba. In June 2019, the Department of Commerce Cuba. In June 2019, the Department of Commerce
(whose Bureau of Industry and Security regulates temporary sojourns to Cuba of both vessels and (whose Bureau of Industry and Security regulates temporary sojourns to Cuba of both vessels and
aircraft) amended the EAR to aircraft) amended the EAR to general ygenerally prohibit passenger and recreational vessels, including prohibit passenger and recreational vessels, including
cruise ships, sailboats, yachts, fishing boats, and other similar vessels, from sailing to Cuba.cruise ships, sailboats, yachts, fishing boats, and other similar vessels, from sailing to Cuba.3226 The The
prohibition on cruise ships, in particular, had a significant effect on fledging private business that prohibition on cruise ships, in particular, had a significant effect on fledging private business that
had sprung up catering to cruise ship passengers.had sprung up catering to cruise ship passengers.33
27 The AdministrationThe Administration also took multiple actions to restrict air travel to Cuba. In June 2019, the also took multiple actions to restrict air travel to Cuba. In June 2019, the
Department of Commerce prohibited private and corporate aircraft ineligible for a license Department of Commerce prohibited private and corporate aircraft ineligible for a license
exception to fly to Cuba.exception to fly to Cuba.3428 In December 2019, the Department of Transportation, at the request of In December 2019, the Department of Transportation, at the request of
the Department of State, suspended commercial flights by U.S. carriers between the United States the Department of State, suspended commercial flights by U.S. carriers between the United States
and Cuban cities other than Havana; this prohibition was extended to public charter flights (to and Cuban cities other than Havana; this prohibition was extended to public charter flights (to
cities other than Havana) in January 2020, which were subsequently capped to 3,600 round-trip cities other than Havana) in January 2020, which were subsequently capped to 3,600 round-trip
flights for the year beginning June 1, 2020.flights for the year beginning June 1, 2020.3529 In August 2020, the Department of Transportation, In August 2020, the Department of Transportation,
at the request of the Department of State, suspended private charter flights to Cuba, effective at the request of the Department of State, suspended private charter flights to Cuba, effective
October 13, 2020, to October 13, 2020, to al all Cuban cities, including Havana.Cuban cities, including Havana.3630
Tightening of Restrictions on Remittances
The Trump Administration tightened restrictions on remittances to Cuba through amendments to The Trump Administration tightened restrictions on remittances to Cuba through amendments to
the CACR. the CACR.
In November 2017, OFAC changed the definition of Cuban government officials to what it had In November 2017, OFAC changed the definition of Cuban government officials to what it had
been before the Obama been before the Obama Administration changed it in October 2016. The change was significant, because the changed it in October 2016. The change was significant, because the
CACR prohibits sending remittances to such government officials. Instead of being limited to
“members of the Council of Ministers and flag officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces,” the
definition of prohibited Cuban government officials was expanded to include al ministers and
vice ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; members and
employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial assembly;
local sector chiefs of the Committees of the Defense for the Revolution; director generals and
subdirector generals of al ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior

31 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “COVID-19 in Cuba,” August 6, 2020, at https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/
notices/warning/coronavirus-cuba.
32 U.S. CACR prohibits sending remittances to such government officials. Instead of being 25 85 Federal Register 60068-60072, September 24, 2020. 26 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Restricting the Department of Commerce, “Restricting the T emporaryTemporary Sojourn of Aircraft and Vessels Sojourn of Aircraft and Vessels to Cuba,” 84 to Cuba,” 84 Federal
Register 25986-25989, June 5, 2019. 25986-25989, June 5, 2019.
3327 Mimi Whitefield, “U.S. Cruise Mimi Whitefield, “U.S. Cruise Ships Ships Brought a Boom to Cuba.Brought a Boom to Cuba. Now, SomeNow, Some Small Businesses Small Businesses Are Struggling,” Are Struggling,”
Miam iMiami Herald, December 20, 2019. , December 20, 2019.
3428 Ibid. Ibid.
35 29 U.S. U.S. Department of Department of T ransportationTransportation, “Notice (Suspending U.S.-Cuba, “Notice (Suspending U.S.-Cuba Scheduled Services Scheduled Services via Non-Havana Points,” via Non-Havana Points,”
October 25, 2019, Dockets DOTOctober 25, 2019, Dockets DOT -OST-OST -2016-0021, DOT-2016-0021, DOT -OST-OST -2016-0226, DOT-2016-0226, DOT -OST-OST -1998-20; U.S. Department of -1998-20; U.S. Department of
T ransportation, and “ Transportation, and “Final Order, U.S.-Havana Public Charter Authorizations, Docket DOTFinal Order, U.S.-Havana Public Charter Authorizations, Docket DOT -OST-OST -2020-0011, May 28, -2020-0011, May 28,
2020; U.S. Department of State, “United States Restricts Scheduled2020; U.S. Department of State, “United States Restricts Scheduled Air ServiceAir Service to Cuba,”to Cuba,” media note, October 25, media note, October 25,
2019; and U.S.2019; and U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “ United States Further Restricts Air United States Further Restricts Air T ravelTravel
to Cuba,”to Cuba,” press statement, January 10, 2020. press statement, January 10, 2020.
3630 U.S. U.S. Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “Suspension of Private Charter Flights between the Department of State, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, “Suspension of Private Charter Flights between the
United States and Cuba,”United States and Cuba,” press statement, August 13, 2020; and U.S.press statement, August 13, 2020; and U.S. Department of Department of T ransportation, “ Transportation, “Order, Order,
SuspensionSuspension of U.S.-Cubaof U.S.-Cuba Charter Authorizations, Docket DOTCharter Authorizations, Docket DOT -OST-OST -2020-0129,” August 13, 2020.-2020-0129,” August 13, 2020.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1110 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances limited to “members of the Council of Ministers and flag officers of the Revolutionary Armed Forces,” the definition of prohibited Cuban government officials was expanded to include all ministers and vice ministers; members of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers; members and employees of the National Assembly of People’s Power; members of any provincial assembly; local sector chiefs of the Committees of the Defense for the Revolution; director generals and subdirector generals of all ministries and state agencies; employees of the Ministry of the Interior

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

and Ministry of Defense; secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba and Ministry of Defense; secretaries and first secretaries of the Confederation of Labor of Cuba
and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media and its component unions; chief editors, editors, and deputy editors of Cuban state-run media
organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and members and organizations and programs, including newspapers, television, and radio; and members and
employees of the Supreme Court.employees of the Supreme Court.3731 (31 C.F.R. 515.337) (31 C.F.R. 515.337)
In September 2019, OFAC made several amendments to the CACR further restricting remittances In September 2019, OFAC made several amendments to the CACR further restricting remittances
to Cuba.to Cuba.
 OFAC capped family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per  OFAC capped family remittances to any one Cuban national to $1,000 per
quarter; such family remittances had not been capped since 2009. quarter; such family remittances had not been capped since 2009.
 In a new provision, OFAC prohibited sending remittances to close family  In a new provision, OFAC prohibited sending remittances to close family
members of prohibited officials of the Cuban government or close family members of prohibited officials of the Cuban government or close family
members of prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party.members of prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party.
 OFAC eliminated  OFAC eliminated the category of donative remittances that had been established the category of donative remittances that had been established
in 2015 but authorized remittances to support the operation of economic activity in 2015 but authorized remittances to support the operation of economic activity
in the non-state sector by self-employed individuals.in the non-state sector by self-employed individuals.3832
In June and September 2020, respectively, the State Department In June and September 2020, respectively, the State Department respectively added to its “Cuba added to its “Cuba
restricted list” two Cuban financial services companies—restricted list” two Cuban financial services companies—FINCIMEXFinanciera Cimex (FINCIMEX) and American International and American International
Services (AIS)—involved in facilitating the processing of foreign remittances to Cuba.Services (AIS)—involved in facilitating the processing of foreign remittances to Cuba.3933 When When
FINCIMEX was added to the list in June, concerns were raised that remittances sent to Cuba via FINCIMEX was added to the list in June, concerns were raised that remittances sent to Cuba via
Western Union could be jeopardized, although Western Union at the time indicated that its Western Union could be jeopardized, although Western Union at the time indicated that its
remittance services would continue.remittance services would continue.4034 Notably, President Trump’s 2017 national security Notably, President Trump’s 2017 national security
presidential memorandum on Cuba had said that forthcoming regulatory changes related to the presidential memorandum on Cuba had said that forthcoming regulatory changes related to the
Administration’s policy shift on Cuba would not prohibit transactions related “to sending, Administration’s policy shift on Cuba would not prohibit transactions related “to sending,
processing, or receiving authorized remittances.”processing, or receiving authorized remittances.”41
35 On October 27, 2020, however, OFAC amended the CACR to prohibit, effective November 26, On October 27, 2020, however, OFAC amended the CACR to prohibit, effective November 26,
2020, the processing of remittances through any entities on the “Cuba restricted list,” which 2020, the processing of remittances through any entities on the “Cuba restricted list,” which
included AIS and FINCIMEX.included AIS and FINCIMEX.4236 The new regulations resulted in Western Union ceasing its The new regulations resulted in Western Union ceasing its
operations in Cuba on November 22, operations in Cuba on November 22, until a solution can be found to keep its services open.43
Western Union, with more than 400 offices in Cuba, had been the major financial services
company used for transmitting remittances to Cuba; it had partnered with FINCIMEX since 2016.

37 U.S. Department of the T reasury2020.37 With more than 400 offices in Cuba, Western Union, 31 U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury, Commerce, and State Implement Changes to the Cuba, “Treasury, Commerce, and State Implement Changes to the Cuba Sanctions Sanctions
Rules,”Rules,” fact sheet, November 8, 2017; and 82 fact sheet, November 8, 2017; and 82 Federal Register 51998-5200, November 9, 2017. 51998-5200, November 9, 2017.
38 32 U.S. U.S. Department of the Department of the T reasuryTreasury, “Treasury Issues Changes, “Treasury Issues Changes to Strengthen Cuba Sanctions Rules,”to Strengthen Cuba Sanctions Rules,” fact sheet, fact sheet,
September 6, 2019; and 84 September 6, 2019; and 84 Federal Register 47121-47123, September 9, 2019. 47121-47123, September 9, 2019.
3933 U.S. U.S. Department of State, “List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with CubaDepartment of State, “List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated with Cuba Effective September 29, Effective September 29,
2020.” 2020.”
4034 Nora Gámez Nora Gámez T orres Torres, “Remittances to Cuba Could, “Remittances to Cuba Could Be in Peril after New Announcement by the Be in Peril after New Announcement by the T rumpTrump
Administration,” Administration,” Miami Herald, June 3, 2020. , June 3, 2020.
4135 82 82 Federal Register 488875-48878, October 20, 2017. 488875-48878, October 20, 2017.
4236 85 85 Federal Register 67988-67989, October 27, 2020. 67988-67989, October 27, 2020.
4337 Western Union, “Cuba: A Letter to Our Customers,” November 13, 2020, at https://www.westernunion.com/blog/ Western Union, “Cuba: A Letter to Our Customers,” November 13, 2020, at https://www.westernunion.com/blog/en/a-a-
letter-to-our-cuba-customersletter-to-our-cuba-customers /. Also see Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic/. Also see Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Cuba,of Cuba, “ “Measures Imposed by the U.S. Measures Imposed by the U.S.
Government Against FINCIMEX Harm the CubanGovernment Against FINCIMEX Harm the Cuban People,” October 27, 2020; and Kirk Semple,People,” October 27, 2020; and Kirk Semple, “Cuba Says U.S. Congressional Research Service 11 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances which had partnered with FINCIMEX since 2016, had been the major financial services company used for transmitting remittances to Cuba. Biden Administration Policy In its initial months in office in 2021, the Biden Administration announced it was conducting a review of policy toward Cuba, would make human rights a core pillar of policy, and would examine policy decisions made in the prior Administration.38 In the aftermath of the Cuban government’s response to countrywide protests on July 11, 2021, which included more than 1,000 detentions and hundreds of convictions, the Biden Administration imposed several rounds of economic sanctions and visa restrictions targeting officials implicated in the government’s repression. On May 16, 2022, the Administration announced several forthcoming changes to U.S. policy toward Cuba, with the overarching goal of increasing support for the Cuban people, who are facing “an unprecedented humanitarian crisis.” 39 These changes included expanding authorized travel to Cuba and easing some restrictions on remittances.40 Partial Easing of Travel Restrictions The Biden Administration’s May 2022 announcement to expand authorized travel included three components.  Reauthorized Scheduled and Charter Flights to Cuban Cities Other than Havana. The Administration announced it would reauthorize scheduled and charter flights to Cuban locations beyond Havana, which had been suspended by the Trump Administration in 2019 and 2020. In a May 31, 2022, letter to Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of State Antony Blinken requested that the Department of Transportation terminate all civil aviation restrictions on flights between the United States and Cuba that had been implemented at the State Department’s request in 2019 and 2020. As described above, these restrictions included suspending scheduled and charter flights to cities other than Havana and limiting the number of authorized flights. The Transportation Department followed through with an order on June 1, 2022, and revoked the restrictions imposed in 2019 and 2020.41  Educational Travel: Reinstatement of Group People-to-People Travel. The Biden Administration announced it would reinstate group, but not individual, people-to-people educational travel, which the Trump Administration had eliminated in 2019. Treasury’s OFAC amended the CACR (31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)) effective June 9, 2022, to permit such travel under certain conditions, including that the educational exchanges involve activities to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society, or promote the Cuban people’s Restriction Imperils Its Economy,” New York Times,” October 29, 2020. 38 U.S. Department of State, “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Bharat Ramamurti,” March 9, 2021. Also see CRS In Focus IF10045, Cuba: U.S. Policy Overview, by Mark P. Sullivan. 39 U.S. Department of State, “Biden Administration Measures to Support the Cuban People,” Fact Sheet, May 16, 2022. 40 Other policy changes included facilitating family reunification and increasing support for Cuba’s private sector. See CRS Insight IN11937, Biden Administration’s Cuba Policy Changes, by Mark P. Sullivan. 41 U.S. Department of Transportation, Order 2022-6-1, June 1, 2022. Congressional Research Service 12 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances independence from Cuban authorities.42 OFAC also amended the CACR to remove certain restrictions on authorized academic activities, including removal of the 10-week requirement for certain educational activities (31 C.F.R. 515.565(a)).  Reinstatement of a General License for Professional Meetings or Conferences. OFAC amended the CACR (31 C.F.R. 515.564(a)(2)), effective June 9, 2022, to reinstate a general license authorizing attendance at, or organization of, professional meetings or conferences in Cuba.43 OFAC also provided for a specific license, issued on a case-by-case basis, for attending or organizing conferences that do not qualify under terms of the general license. The Trump Administration had removed the general license for attending or organizing any meetings or conferences in September 2020 and had eliminated a provision permitting a specific license for organizing professional meetings or conferences. Partial Easing of Restrictions on Remittances The Biden Administration’s May 2022 announced policy changes included partially easing restrictions on remittances. OFAC subsequently amended the CACR, at 31 C.F.R. 515.570, effective June 9, 2022, making two significant changes.44 First, OFAC removed the Trump Administration’s $1,000 quarterly limit (imposed in 2019) on family remittances to Cuban nationals who are close relatives. Second, it restored the category of donative remittances, adding a general license for such remittances to Cuban nationals who are not prohibited officials of the Cuban government or prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party. U.S. officials maintain that donative remittances will be crucial in supporting the Afro-Cuban community on the island and that “only one of six Afro-Cubans receives family remittances.”45 When the Biden Administration announced its changed policy, U.S. officials maintained that remittances processed through FINCIMEX would remain prohibited, as the Administration does not plan to remove entities from the “Cuba restricted list.” FINCIMEX, a financial investment and remittance company incorporated in Panama, is owned by a Cuban military-controlled umbrella enterprise (Grupo de Administración Empresarial S.A., or GAESA), according to the Treasury Department.46 Western Union had partnered with FINCIMEX beginning in 2016 and was the major U.S. financial services company used for transmitting remittances to Cuba; the company ceased its operations in November 2020 when FINCIMEX was added to the “Cuba restricted list.” State Department officials maintain that processing remittances through a Cuban civilian entity would be acceptable.47 42 87 Federal Register 35088-35091, June 9, 2022. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 White House, “Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on New Cuba Policy,” May 16, 2022. 46 U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Treasury Identifies Cuban State-Owned Businesses for Sanctions Evasion,” December 21, 2020. 47 White House, “Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on New Cuba Policy,” May 16, 2022. Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 17 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Current Permissible Travel to Cuba According to Cuban government statistics, the number of travelers from the United States to Cuba reached almost 1.2 million in 2018 but fell slightly to 1.1 million in 2019. Travel declined significantly in 2020 and 2021, to around 188,000 and 36,000 travelers, respectively, largely due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related travel restrictions but also because of U.S. travel restrictions imposed in 2019 and 2020 (see Table 1). In the first three months of 2022, as pandemic-related travel restrictions eased, travel to Cuba from the United States began to pick up, with over 69,000 travelers, almost double the number for all of 2021.48 Table 1. Travel to Cuba from the United States, 2018-2021 2018 2019 2020 2021 U.S. Visitors 638,365 498,538 58,147 7,039 Cubans Living Abroad Embarking from the United 521,134 552,895 129,865 29,451 States Total 1,159,499 1,051,433 188,012 36,490 Sources: República de Cuba, Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas e Información (ONEI), Anuario Estadístico de Cuba 2020, Capítulo 15: Turismo (Edición 2021); and ONEI, Turismo Internacional Indicadores Seleccionados, Enero- Diciembre 2019 (Edición Marzo 2020), Enero-Diciembre 2020 (Edición May 2021), and Enero-Diciembre 2021 (Edición Marzo 2022). At present, travel-related transactions for“Cuba Says U.S.
Restriction Imperils Its Economy,” New York Times,” October 29, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Current Permissible Travel to Cuba
At present, 12 categories of travel set forth in the CACR are authorized under a general license, 12 categories of travel set forth in the CACR are authorized under a general license,
meaning there is no need to obtain special permission from meaning there is no need to obtain special permission from OFAC; although for two of these
categories,OFAC, although certain types of travel ( certain types of travel (professional meetings/conferences and public performances, public performances,
clinics, workshops, and certain athletic competitions) require a specific license (issued by OFAC clinics, workshops, and certain athletic competitions) require a specific license (issued by OFAC
on a case-by-case basis). The travel regulations can be found at 31 C.F.R. 515.560, which on a case-by-case basis). The travel regulations can be found at 31 C.F.R. 515.560, which
references other sections of the CACR for travel-related transaction licensing criteria. In addition, references other sections of the CACR for travel-related transaction licensing criteria. In addition,
for each of the 12 categories of travel set forth in the CACR, specific licenses may be issued by for each of the 12 categories of travel set forth in the CACR, specific licenses may be issued by
OFAC for persons engaging in activities related to the specific category that do not qualify for the OFAC for persons engaging in activities related to the specific category that do not qualify for the
general license set forth for each category. As noted, applications for specific licenses are general license set forth for each category. As noted, applications for specific licenses are
reviewed and granted by OFAC on a case-by-case basis. Applicants for specific licenses have to reviewed and granted by OFAC on a case-by-case basis. Applicants for specific licenses have to
wait for OFAC to issue the license prior to engaging in travel-related transactions. Those wait for OFAC to issue the license prior to engaging in travel-related transactions. Those
individuals individuals traveling to Cuba under either a general or specific license are responsible for keeping traveling to Cuba under either a general or specific license are responsible for keeping
records of their Cuba-related transactions for at least five years. records of their Cuba-related transactions for at least five years.
OFAC maintains on its website a document of frequently asked questions on the Cuba sanctions OFAC maintains on its website a document of frequently asked questions on the Cuba sanctions
program that provides information on the travel restrictions, including the various categories of program that provides information on the travel restrictions, including the various categories of
travel. This document, along with the travel regulations themselves, provides guidance for travel. This document, along with the travel regulations themselves, provides guidance for
potential travelers to Cuba.potential travelers to Cuba.4449
As noted previously, most categories of permissible travel As noted previously, most categories of permissible travel set forth in the CACR and discussed below—with the exception discussed below—with the exception
of travel for official government business, journalistic activities, humanitarian projects, and of travel for official government business, journalistic activities, humanitarian projects, and
export transactions—have provisions prohibiting direct financial export transactions—have provisions prohibiting direct financial 48 República de Cuba, Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas e Información, Turismo Internacional, Indicadores Seleccionados, Enero-Marzo 2022 (Edición Mayo 2022). 49 U.S. Department of the Treasury, OFAC, “Frequently Asked Questions on Changes to the Cuba Sanctions Program,” updated as of June 8, 2022, at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/topic/1541. Congressional Research Service 14 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances transactions with entities on the transactions with entities on the
State Department’s “Cuba restricted list” last updated in State Department’s “Cuba restricted list” last updated in September 2020January 2021. In addition, most . In addition, most
categories of travelcategories of travel set forth in the CACR, with the exception of travel for official government business, have provisions , with the exception of travel for official government business, have provisions
prohibiting any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from lodging at Cuban hotels and other prohibiting any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction from lodging at Cuban hotels and other
properties on the State Department’s “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List” issued in properties on the State Department’s “Cuba Prohibited Accommodations List” issued in
September 2020. September 2020.
As set forth in the CACR, the The 12 categories of U.S. travel to Cuba 12 categories of U.S. travel to Cuba set forth in the CACR are the following:are the following:50
  Family Visits. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and
persons traveling with them who share a common persons traveling with them who share a common dwel ingdwelling as a family visiting a as a family visiting a
close relative who is a national of Cuba or a person ordinarily resident in Cuba, close relative who is a national of Cuba or a person ordinarily resident in Cuba,
or visiting a close relative in Cuba or accompanying a close relative traveling to or visiting a close relative in Cuba or accompanying a close relative traveling to
Cuba pursuant to authorizations for such travel as official government business, Cuba pursuant to authorizations for such travel as official government business,
journalistic activity, professional research, certain educational activities, religious journalistic activity, professional research, certain educational activities, religious
activities, humanitarian projects, or activities of private foundations or research activities, humanitarian projects, or activities of private foundations or research
or educational institutes (31 C.F.R. 515.561(a)). A close relative is defined as any or educational institutes (31 C.F.R. 515.561(a)). A close relative is defined as any
individualindividual related to the traveler by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more related to the traveler by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more
than three generations removed from the traveler or from a common ancestor than three generations removed from the traveler or from a common ancestor
with the traveler (31 C.F.R. 515.339). with the traveler (31 C.F.R. 515.339).
  Official Government Business. Employees, contractors, or grantees of the U.S. Employees, contractors, or grantees of the U.S.
government, any foreign government, or any intergovernmental organization of government, any foreign government, or any intergovernmental organization of
which the United States is a member or holds observer status, who are on official which the United States is a member or holds observer status, who are on official
business (31 C.F.R. 515.562). business (31 C.F.R. 515.562).

44 U.S. Department of the T reasury, OFAC, “ Frequently Asked Questions on Changes to the Cuba Sanctions Program
as of October 26, 2020,” at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/topic/1541.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

  Journalistic Activities. A person involved in journalistic activities and is at least A person involved in journalistic activities and is at least
one of the following: one of the following: regularly employed as a journalist by a news reporting regularly employed as a journalist by a news reporting
organization; regularly employed as supporting broadcast or technical personnel; organization; regularly employed as supporting broadcast or technical personnel;
a freelance journalist with a record of previous journalistic experience working a freelance journalist with a record of previous journalistic experience working
on a freelance journalistic project; or broadcast or technical personnel with a on a freelance journalistic project; or broadcast or technical personnel with a
record of previous broadcast or technical experience who are supporting a record of previous broadcast or technical experience who are supporting a
freelance journalist working on a freelance project (31 C.F.R. 515.563). freelance journalist working on a freelance project (31 C.F.R. 515.563).
 Professional Research and Professional Meetings. Professional research, Professional research,
provided provided that the purpose of the research directly relates to the traveler’s that the purpose of the research directly relates to the traveler’s
profession, professional background, or area of expertise, including area of profession, professional background, or area of expertise, including area of
graduate-level graduate-level full-time studyfull-time study; the traveler does not engage in recreational travel,
tourist travel, travel in pursuit of a hobby, or research for personal satisfaction
only; and the traveler’s schedule does not include free time or recreation in ; and the traveler’s schedule does not include free time or recreation in
excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule of professional research (31 excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule of professional research (31
C.F.R. 515.564(a)C.F.R. 515.564(a)(1)). Attendance at a professional meeting or conference, provided the purpose directly relates to the traveler’s profession, professional background, or area of expertise, including area of graduate-level full-time study. Organization of a professional meeting or conference on behalf of an entity, provided the traveler’s profession is related to the organization of professional meetings or conferences or the traveler is an employee or contractor of an entity that is organizing the meeting or conference. For both attendance at and organization of such meetings or conferences, the traveler’s schedule of activities is not to include free time or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full-time schedule of attendance at, 50 The descriptions of the 12 travel categories are drawn from, but not a substitute for, the actual CACR provisions available at 31 C.F.R Part 515. Unless indicated, the descriptions are for travel authorized pursuant to a general license. For each travel category, the CACR provides for specific licenses to be issued on a case-by-case basis for travel that does not qualify for the general license. Congressional Research Service 15 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances or organization of, such meetings or conferences (31 C.F.R. 515.564(a)(2)). Specific licenses may be issued related to professional research in Cuba or professional meetings in Cuba that do not qualify for a general license under the general license authorizations described above. (31 C.F.R. 515.564(e)).  Educational Activities. U.S. academic institutions and their faculty, staff, and students involved in the following activities).

Specific licenses may be issued for professional meetings or conferences not
otherwise authorized pursuant to other travel-related authorizations (31 C.F.R.
515.564(e)). Prior to OFAC changes to the CACR in September 2020, a general
license had authorized professional meetings and conferences, either to attend or
organize, provided that the purpose was not the promotion of tourism in Cuba.
 Educational Activities. Accredited U.S. undergraduate or graduate degree-
granting academic institutions, their students, and full-time permanent employees
are authorized to engage in transactions directly incident to (1) participation in a
structured educational program in Cuba as part of a course offered at a U.S.
institution, provided the program includes a full term and not fewer than 10
weeks of study in Cuba; (2) noncommercial academic research in Cuba
specifical y related to Cuba for the purpose of obtaining a graduate degree; (3)
participation in a formal course of study at a Cuban academic institution,
provided the formal course of study in Cuba wil be accepted for credit toward
the student’s graduate or undergraduate degree and provided that the course of
study is no shorter than 10 weeks in duration; (4) teaching at a Cuban academic
institution, provided that the individual is regularly employed in a teaching
capacity by a U.S. institution, and provided that the teaching activities are related
to an academic program at the Cuban institution and provided that the duration of
the teaching wil be no shorter than 10 weeks; (5) sponsorship of a Cuban scholar
to teach or engage in other scholarly activity at the sponsoring U.S. academic
institution; and (6) the organization of, and preparation for, the activities
described above by a full-time permanent employee of the U.S. institution (31
C.F.R. 515.565(a)(1)).

To the extent not authorized above, U.S. academic institutions and their faculty,
staff, and students are authorized to engage in transactions directly incident to the
following activities, provided these authorizations take place under the auspices
of an organization that is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and that al such travelers be
accompanied by an employee, paid consultant, or other representative of the
sponsoring organization: (1) participation in a structured educational program in : (1) participation in a structured educational program in
Cuba as part of a course offered Cuba as part of a course offered for credit byat a U.S. graduate or undergraduate a U.S. graduate or undergraduate
degree-granting academic institution that is sponsoring the program; (2)
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

degree-making institution; (2) noncommercial academic research in Cuba noncommercial academic research in Cuba specifical yspecifically related to Cuba related to Cuba and for for
the purpose of obtaining an undergraduate or graduate degree; (3) participation in the purpose of obtaining an undergraduate or graduate degree; (3) participation in
a formal course of study at a Cuban academic institutiona formal course of study at a Cuban academic institution that wil , provided the formal course of study in Cuba will be accepted for be accepted for
credit toward the student’s graduate or undergraduate degree; (4) teaching at a credit toward the student’s graduate or undergraduate degree; (4) teaching at a
Cuban academic institution related to an academic programCuban academic institution related to an academic program at the Cuban
institution, provided, provided that the individual the individual is regularly employedis regularly employed in a teaching capacity by a U.S. or other non- by a U.S. or other non-
Cuban academic institution; (5) sponsorship of a Cuban scholar to teach or Cuban academic institution; (5) sponsorship of a Cuban scholar to teach or
engage in other scholarly activity at the sponsoring U.S. academic institution; (6) engage in other scholarly activity at the sponsoring U.S. academic institution; (6)
educational exchanges sponsored by Cuban or U.S. secondary schools involving educational exchanges sponsored by Cuban or U.S. secondary schools involving
student participation in a formal course of study or in a structured educational student participation in a formal course of study or in a structured educational
program offered by a secondary school or other academic institution and led by a program offered by a secondary school or other academic institution and led by a
teacher or other secondary school officialteacher or other secondary school official (including participation by a reasonable number of adult chaperones); (7) sponsorship or ; (7) sponsorship or cosponsorshipco-sponsorship of of
noncommercial academic seminars, conferences, symposia, and workshops noncommercial academic seminars, conferences, symposia, and workshops
related to Cuba or global issues involving Cuba and attendance at such events by related to Cuba or global issues involving Cuba and attendance at such events by
faculty, staff, and students of a participating U.S. academic institution; (8) faculty, staff, and students of a participating U.S. academic institution; (8)
establishment of academic exchanges and joint noncommercial academic establishment of academic exchanges and joint noncommercial academic
research projects with universities or academic institutions in Cuba; (9) provision research projects with universities or academic institutions in Cuba; (9) provision
of standardized testing services to Cuban nationals; (10) provision of internet-of standardized testing services to Cuban nationals; (10) provision of internet-
based coursesbased courses to Cuban nationals, provided that the course content is at the undergraduate level or , provided that the course content is at the undergraduate level or
below; (11) the organization of, and preparation for, below; (11) the organization of, and preparation for, the ten activities described above, activities described above,
by an employee, paid consultant, agent, or other representative of theby employees or contractors of the sponsoring organization subject to U.S. jurisdiction U.S.
sponsoring organization; and (12) the facilitation by a U.S. organization, or by a ; and (12) the facilitation by a U.S. organization, or by a
staff member of that organization, of licensed educational activities in Cuba on staff member of that organization, of licensed educational activities in Cuba on
behalf of U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools with certain provisions behalf of U.S. academic institutions or secondary schools with certain provisions
for the U.S. organization (31 C.F.R. 515.565(afor the U.S. organization (31 C.F.R. 515.565(a)(2)).
 Religious Activities. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including religious
)).  People-to-People Travel. Travel directly incident to educational exchanges not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program. Travel-related transactions pursuant to this authorization must be for the purpose of engaging, while in Cuba, in a full-time schedule of activities intended to enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities. The exchanges are to take place under the auspices of an organization that sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact, and an employee, paid consultant, or agent of the organization is to accompany each group traveling to Cuba to ensure each traveler has a full-time schedule of educational exchange activities. The predominant portion of the activities is not to be with a prohibited official of the Cuban government (as defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.337) or a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party (defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.338). Congressional Research Service 16 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances  Religious Activities. Religious organizations located in the United States and organizations located in the United States and members and staff of such members and staff of such
organizations engaged in a full-time program of religious activities (31 C.F.R. organizations engaged in a full-time program of religious activities (31 C.F.R.
515.566). 515.566).
  Public Performances, Clinics, Workshops, Athletic and Other Competitions,
and Exhibitions. Participation in amateur and semiprofessional international Participation in amateur and semiprofessional international
sports federation competitions, provided that the athletic competition is held sports federation competitions, provided that the athletic competition is held
under the auspices of the international sports federation for the relevant sport; the under the auspices of the international sports federation for the relevant sport; the
U.S. participants are selected by the U.S. federation for the relevant sport; and U.S. participants are selected by the U.S. federation for the relevant sport; and
the competition is open for attendance, and in relevant situations, participationthe competition is open for attendance, and in relevant situations, participation by
, by the Cuban public. (31 C.F.R. 515.567(a)). the Cuban public. (31 C.F.R. 515.567(a)).

Specific licenses may be issued Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis for participation in, or organization of, public for participation in, or organization of, public
performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or nonathletic competitions, or performances, clinics, workshops, other athletic or nonathletic competitions, or
exhibitions in Cuba, exhibitions in Cuba, provided thatand conditional on the event the event isbeing open for attendance, and in open for attendance, and in
relevant situations, participation, by the Cuban public (31 C.F.R. 515.567 (b)). relevant situations, participation, by the Cuban public (31 C.F.R. 515.567 (b)).
(Prior to OFAC changes to the CACR in September 2020, these activities were (Prior to OFAC changes to the CACR in September 2020, these activities were
covered by a general license.) covered by a general license.)
  Support for the Cuban People. Those traveling for activities in support of the Those traveling for activities in support of the
Cuban people, provided that the activities Cuban people, provided that the activities are of recognized human rights are of recognized human rights
organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful organizations; independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful
transition to democracy; or individuals and nongovernmental organizations that transition to democracy; or individuals and nongovernmental organizations that
promote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cubapromote independent activity intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba (31
C.F.R. 515.574).
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances
. Each traveler is to engage in a full-time schedule of activities that enhance contact with the Cuban people, support civil society in Cuba, or promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuba authorities; the activities are also to result in meaningful interaction with individuals in Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.574).
  Humanitarian Projects. Those involved in the following humanitarian projects Those involved in the following humanitarian projects
in Cuba that are designed to directly benefit the Cuban people: in Cuba that are designed to directly benefit the Cuban people: medical and medical and
health-related projects; construction projects intended to benefit legitimately health-related projects; construction projects intended to benefit legitimately
independent civil society groups; disaster preparedness, relief, and response; independent civil society groups; disaster preparedness, relief, and response;
historical preservation; environmental projects; projects involving formal or historical preservation; environmental projects; projects involving formal or
nonformalnon-formal educational training, within Cuba or off-island, on entrepreneurship educational training, within Cuba or off-island, on entrepreneurship
and business, civil education, journalism, advocacy and organizing, adult literacy, and business, civil education, journalism, advocacy and organizing, adult literacy,
or vocational or vocational skil sskills; community-based grassroots projects; projects suitable to the ; community-based grassroots projects; projects suitable to the
development of small-scale private enterprise; projects that are related to development of small-scale private enterprise; projects that are related to
agricultural and rural development that promote independent activity; agricultural and rural development that promote independent activity;
microfinancing projects; and projects to meet basic human needs (31 C.F.R. microfinancing projects; and projects to meet basic human needs (31 C.F.R.
515.575). 515.575).
  Activities of Private Foundations or Research or Educational Institutes.
Those involved in activities by private foundations or research or education Those involved in activities by private foundations or research or education
institutes with an established interest in international relations to collect institutes with an established interest in international relations to collect
information related to Cuba for noncommercial purposes (31 C.F.R. 515.576). information related to Cuba for noncommercial purposes (31 C.F.R. 515.576).
  Exportation, Importation, or Transmission of Information or Informational
Materials. Those involved in the exportation, importation, or transmission of Those involved in the exportation, importation, or transmission of
informational materials, informational materials, as defined defined (in 31 C.F.R. 515.332in 31 C.F.R. 515.332) as publications, films, as publications, films,
posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes,
compact disks, CD-ROMs, artworks, news wire feeds, and other informational compact disks, CD-ROMs, artworks, news wire feeds, and other informational
and informational articles. Those involved in professional media or artistic and informational articles. Those involved in professional media or artistic
Congressional Research Service 17 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances productions of information or informational materials for exportation, productions of information or informational materials for exportation,
importation, or transmission, including the filming or production of media importation, or transmission, including the filming or production of media
programs (such as movies and television programs), the recording of music, and programs (such as movies and television programs), the recording of music, and
the creation of artworks in Cuba, provided that the traveler is regularly employed the creation of artworks in Cuba, provided that the traveler is regularly employed
in or has demonstrated professional experience in a field relevant to such in or has demonstrated professional experience in a field relevant to such
professional media or artistic productions (31 C.F.R. 515.545). professional media or artistic productions (31 C.F.R. 515.545).
  Export Transactions. Those involved in activities directly incident to the Those involved in activities directly incident to the
conduct of market research, commercial marketing, sales or contract negotiation, conduct of market research, commercial marketing, sales or contract negotiation,
accompanied delivery, accompanied delivery, instal ationinstallation, leasing, servicing, or repair in Cuba of items , leasing, servicing, or repair in Cuba of items
consistent with the export or re-export licensing policy of the Department of consistent with the export or re-export licensing policy of the Department of
Commerce (31 C.F.R. 515.533 and 31 C.F.R. 515.559).Commerce (31 C.F.R. 515.533 and 31 C.F.R. 515.559).
Current Policy on Remittances
U.S. restrictions on remittances to Cuba U.S. restrictions on remittances to Cuba have been regulated by the CACR and, just like
are defined under the CACR. Similar to restrictions on restrictions on travel, restrictions on remittances travel, have changed over time. Cash have changed over time, with the Obama Administration significantly easing restrictions, the Trump Administration imposing new restrictions, particularly in late 2020, and the Biden Administration partially reversing the Trump-era restrictions. Cash remittances to Cuba reportedly increased remittances to Cuba reportedly increased
from almost $1.7 from almost $1.7 bil ionbillion in 2009 to $3.7 in 2009 to $3.7 bil ion in 2019, but they were expected to decline to $2.9
bil ion in 2020 because of COVID-19 restrictions that closed Cuban airports for months.45 (In
billion in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a Miami-based consulting group.51 In 2019, some 45% of remittances to Cuba reportedly were carried by individuals; the remainder 2019, some 45% of remittances to Cuba reportedly were carried by individuals; the remainder
went through went through remittance remittance-forwarding companies, with the largest being Western Union.forwarding companies, with the largest being Western Union.46)
Moreover, as52 As noted above, Western Union ceased its operations in Cuba noted above, Western Union ceased its operations in Cuba onin November 2020 because of new OFAC regulations prohibiting the processing of remittances through any entities on the “Cuba restricted list.” The termination of Western Union’s services to Cuba, other restrictions on remittances and travel imposed during the Trump Administration, and the imposition of COVID-19-related travel restrictions led to a drop in remittances sent to Cuba in 2020 and 2021. A Canadian-based remittance-forwarding company estimates that cash remittances to Cuba fell to $3 billion in 2020 and $1.9 billion in 2021.53 The extent to which the Biden Administration’s easing of some restrictions on remittances and travel (including flights to cities other than Havana) may lead to an increase in cash remittances to Cuba is uncertain. November 22, 2020,

45 “COVID-19 puede hacer decliner las remesas a Cuba entre un 30 y 40% en 2020,” T he Havana Consulting Group
and T ech, March 20, 2020; and “El envío de remesas a Cuba cayó el 54.14% en 2020 pro la covid-19,” Agencia EFE,
November 24, 2020.
46 Emilio Morales, “COVID-19 Crushes the ‘Mule’ Business,” Havana Consulting Group and T ech, May 28, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

because of new OFAC regulations prohibiting the processing of remittances through any entities
on the “Cuba restricted list.”47
  Family Remittances. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who
are 18 years of age or older are authorized to send remittances to close relatives are 18 years of age or older are authorized to send remittances to close relatives
in Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.570(a)). in Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.570(a)). The remitter’s total family remittances to any
one Cuban national may not exceed $1,000 in any consecutive three-month
period. As with the travel-related transactions, aA close relative is defined as any close relative is defined as any
individual individual related to the remitter by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more related to the remitter by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more
than three generations removed from the remitter or from a common ancestor than three generations removed from the remitter or from a common ancestor
with the remitter (31 C.F.R. 515.339). The recipient of the remittances cannot be with the remitter (31 C.F.R. 515.339). The recipient of the remittances cannot be
a a prohibited official of the Cuban government (defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.337), a prohibited official of the Cuban government (defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.337), a
prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party (defined in 31 C.F.R. prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party (defined in 31 C.F.R.
515.338), or a close relative of a prohibited official of the Cuban government or 515.338), or a close relative of a prohibited official of the Cuban government or
of a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist party. 51 Emilio Morales, The Havana Consulting Group and Tech, “Remittances, An Investment Route for Cubans,” September 27, 2019, and “COVID-19 Hits the Remittance Market Hard in Latin America,” March 31, 2020. 52 Emilio Morales, “COVID-19 Crushes the ‘Mule’ Business,” Havana Consulting Group and Tech, May 28, 2020. 53 RevoluGROUP Canada Inc. “RevoluSEND Remittances Adds Cuba and Morocco Topping 116 Countries,” news release, February 18, 2022. Congressional Research Service 18 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances of a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist party. (Restrictions on the amount or frequency of family remittances were eliminated on June 9, 2022.)  Donative Remittances. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are authorized to send donative remittances to Cuban nationals, provided the recipient is not a prohibited official of the Cuban government (defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.337), a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist Party (defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.338), or a close relative (as defined in 31 C.F.R. 515.539) of a prohibited official of the Cuban government or of a prohibited member of the Cuban Communist party (31 C.F.R. 515.570(b)). (This category of remittances was established in 2015, eliminated in 2019, and reestablished on June 9, 2022.)
  Remittances to Religious Organizations. Persons subject to the jurisdiction of Persons subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States are authorized to send remittances to religious organizations in the United States are authorized to send remittances to religious organizations in
Cuba in support of religious activities (31 C.F.R. 515.570(c)). Cuba in support of religious activities (31 C.F.R. 515.570(c)).
  Remittances to U.S. Students in Cuba. Remittances are authorized to send to Remittances are authorized to send to
close relatives in Cuba who are students involved in licensed educational close relatives in Cuba who are students involved in licensed educational
activities (31 C.F.R. 515.570(d)).activities (31 C.F.R. 515.570(d)).
  Emigration-Related Remittances. Two one-time $1,000 emigration-related Two one-time $1,000 emigration-related
remittances are authorized (31 C.F.R. 515.570(e)). remittances are authorized (31 C.F.R. 515.570(e)).
  Remittances to Certain Individuals and Independent Nongovernmental
Organizations in Cuba. Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may send Persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction may send
remittances to certain individuals and independent nongovernmental entities in remittances to certain individuals and independent nongovernmental entities in
Cuba, including prodemocracy groups and civil society groups, and to members Cuba, including prodemocracy groups and civil society groups, and to members
of such organizationsof such organizations, to support humanitarian projects designed to directly to support humanitarian projects designed to directly
benefit the Cuban people; activities of recognized human rights organizations, benefit the Cuban people; activities of recognized human rights organizations,
independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to independent organizations designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to
democracy, and individuals and NGOs that promote independent activity democracy, and individuals and NGOs that promote independent activity
intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba; and the development of private intended to strengthen civil society in Cuba; and the development of private
businesses and economic activity in the non-state sector by self-employed businesses and economic activity in the non-state sector by self-employed
individualsindividuals (31 C.F.R. 515.570(g)). (31 C.F.R. 515.570(g)). Self-employed individuals means an owner of means an owner of
a a smal small private business or a sole proprietorship, including restaurants private business or a sole proprietorship, including restaurants
((paladares), taxis, and bed-and-breakfasts (), taxis, and bed-and-breakfasts (casas particulares); an independent ); an independent
contractor or consultant; a contractor or consultant; a smal small farmer who owns his or her own land; or a farmer who owns his or her own land; or a smal
small usufruct farmer who cultivates state-owned land to usufruct farmer who cultivates state-owned land to sel sell products on the open products on the open
market (31 C.F.R. 515.340). market (31 C.F.R. 515.340).
  Carrying of Remittances to Cuba. Authorized travelers to Cuba may carry Authorized travelers to Cuba may carry
authorized remittances to Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(4)). Emigration-related authorized remittances to Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(4)). Emigration-related
remittances may not be carried to Cuba unless a U.S. immigration visa has been remittances may not be carried to Cuba unless a U.S. immigration visa has been
issued for the recipient and the licensed traveler can produce certain information issued for the recipient and the licensed traveler can produce certain information
regarding the recipient. regarding the recipient.

47 85 Federal Register 67988-67989, October 27, 2020.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

link to page 22 Legislative Initiatives in the 117th Congress There have been divergent views in Congress over the years regarding U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. As noted, Congress approved legislation in 2000, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA; P.L. 106-387, Title IX), with a provision prohibiting travel to Cuba for tourist activities. In 2009, Congress enacted an omnibus appropriations measure (P.L. 111-8, Division D, Sections 620 and 621) with two provisions easing restrictions on family travel to Cuba and on travel for the marketing and sale of Congressional Research Service 19 link to page 24 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. Numerous other legislative initiatives, including provisions in appropriations measures, have been introduced over the years to further ease or lift restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, while other initiatives were introduced to tighten Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 117th Congress
To date in the 117th Congress, one bil has been introduced that would lift restrictions on travel restrictions on travel
and remittances. S. 249 (Wyden), the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2021,and remittances; none of these measures were enacted. (See the Appendix for background on legislative action and initiatives from the 106th through the 116th Congress, 1999-2020.) In the 117th Congress, two bills have been introduced that would lift economic would lift economic
sanctions on Cuba, including sanctions on Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances: S. 249 (Wyden), the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2021, introduced in February 2021; and H.R. 3625 (Rush), the United States-Cuba Relations Normalization Act, introduced in May 2021on travel and remittances, and cal for negotiations with the
government of Cuba for the purposed of settling property claims and securing the protection of
international y recognized human rights. In March 2021, 79 Members of Congress wrote a letter . In March 2021, 79 Members of Congress wrote a letter
to President Biden urging him to reverse restrictions on remittances and travel to President Biden urging him to reverse restrictions on remittances and travel imposed during the Trump Administration.54 In the aftermath of the Biden Administration’s Cuba policy changes announced in May 2022, reaction among Members of Congress was mixed. Some Members who support maximum sanctions pressure criticized the changes as “providing concessions to the brutal Cuban dictatorship.”55 Some Members specifically opposed authorizing group travel to Cuba, characterizing it as “akin to tourism,” or saying they “remain[ed] unconvinced”56 that it would weaken Cuba’s oppressive policies. Among those advocating for engagement, some characterized the changes as “a timid but very welcome step,”57 some maintained the policy shift was “a significant step” in returning toward engagement and reversing policies that harm the Cuban people,58 and some emphasized support for the Administration’s “measures to support the Cuban people.”59 54imposed during the
Trump Administration.48
For background on legislative action and initiatives from the 106th through the 116th Congress
(1999-2020), see Appendix.


48 Letter from Representative Bobby L. Rush Letter from Representative Bobby L. Rush and 78 other Members of Congress to President Joe Biden,and 78 other Members of Congress to President Joe Biden, March 2, March 2,
2021, at https://rush.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rush-cohen-lee-moore-75-democratic-colleagues-urge-2021, at https://rush.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rush-cohen-lee-moore-75-democratic-colleagues-urge-
presidentpresident -biden-biden-to; and Sarah; and Sarah Marsh, “Marsh, “ Exclusive: U.S. HouseExclusive: U.S. House Democrats Urge Biden to Revert to Obama-Era Cuba Democrats Urge Biden to Revert to Obama-Era Cuba
Détente,” Reuters News,Détente,” Reuters News, March 3, 2021.
Congressional Research Service
18 March 3, 2021. 55 Senator Marco Rubio, “Rubio, Colleagues Slam Biden Admin’s Appeasement to Cuban Dictatorship,” press release, May 16, 2022. 56 Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “Wasserman Schultz Statement on President Biden’s Cuba Policy Announcement,” press release, May 17, 2022. 57 Senator Patrick Leahy, “Statement on U.S. Policy Toward Cuba,” press release, May 17, 2022. 58 House Foreign Affairs Committee, “Chair Meeks Issues Statement Regarding Administration Reversal of Certain Trump-Era Cuba Policies,” press release, May 17, 2022. 59 Senator Amy Klobuchar, “Klobuchar Statement on New Biden Administration Measures to Expand U.S.-Cuba Relations, May 17, 2022. Congressional Research Service 20

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Appendix. Legislative Action from the 106th to the
116th Congress, 1999-2020
Legislative Initiatives in the 106th Congress, 1999-2000
The only actionAction completed by the 106th Congress relating to Cuba travel involved a tightening of completed by the 106th Congress relating to Cuba travel involved a tightening of
travel restrictions. The final version of the FY2001 agriculture appropriations measure (P.L. 106-travel restrictions. The final version of the FY2001 agriculture appropriations measure (P.L. 106-
387, Title IX, Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000) included a 387, Title IX, Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000) included a
provision that restricts travel to Cuba to those categories of nontourist travel already provision that restricts travel to Cuba to those categories of nontourist travel already al owedallowed by by
the Treasury Department regulations. Section 910 of the law provides that neither general nor the Treasury Department regulations. Section 910 of the law provides that neither general nor
specific licenses for travel to Cuba can be provided for activities that do not fit into the 12 specific licenses for travel to Cuba can be provided for activities that do not fit into the 12
categories expressly authorized in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Section 515.560 (a) of categories expressly authorized in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Section 515.560 (a) of
Title 31, C.F.R., paragraphs (1) through (12)). Title 31, C.F.R., paragraphs (1) through (12)).
As noted in the law, the Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize travel-related transactions 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,” which are defined as any activity that is “for travel to, from, or within Cuba for tourist activities,” which are defined as any activity that is
not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of the regulations. The provision prevents the not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of the regulations. The provision prevents the
Administration from loosening the travel restrictions to Administration from loosening the travel restrictions to al owallow tourist travel. This, in effect, tourist travel. This, in effect,
strengthens restrictions on travel to Cuba and somewhat circumscribes the authority of OFAC to strengthens restrictions on travel to Cuba and somewhat circumscribes the authority of OFAC to
issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-case basis. Regulations implementing the provision of issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-case basis. Regulations implementing the provision of
the law were issued by OFAC on July 12, 2001. the law were issued by OFAC on July 12, 2001.
In other legislative In other legislative action, the Senate considered the issue of travel to Cuba in June 30, 1999, action, the Senate considered the issue of travel to Cuba in June 30, 1999,
floor action on the FY2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations floor action on the FY2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bil , bill, S. 1234. An amendment was S. 1234. An amendment was
introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd that would have terminated regulations or prohibitions introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd that would have terminated regulations or prohibitions
on travel to Cuba and on transactions related to such travel in most instances.on travel to Cuba and on transactions related to such travel in most instances.4960 The Senate The Senate
defeated the amendment by tabling it in a 55-43 vote on June 30, 1999. On November 10, 1999, defeated the amendment by tabling it in a 55-43 vote on June 30, 1999. On November 10, 1999,
Senator Dodd introduced identical language as S. 1919, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of Senator Dodd introduced identical language as S. 1919, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of
2000, but2000; no action was taken on the no action was taken on the bil bill. .
The House took up the issue of travel to Cuba when it considered H.R. 4871, the Treasury The House took up the issue of travel to Cuba when it considered H.R. 4871, the Treasury
Department appropriations Department appropriations bil bill, on July 20, 2000. A Sanford amendment was approved (232-186) , on July 20, 2000. A Sanford amendment was approved (232-186)
to prohibit funds in the to prohibit funds in the bil bill from being used to administer or enforce the Cuban Assets Control from being used to administer or enforce the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. Subsequently, the language of Regulations with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. Subsequently, the language of
the amendment was dropped from a new version of the FY2001 Treasury Department the amendment was dropped from a new version of the FY2001 Treasury Department
appropriations appropriations bil , bill, H.R. 4985, introduced on July 26. H.R. 4985 was appended to the conference H.R. 4985, introduced on July 26. H.R. 4985 was appended to the conference
report on the legislativereport on the legislative branch appropriations branch appropriations bil bill—H.R. 4516, H.Rept. 106-796—in an attempt —H.R. 4516, H.Rept. 106-796—in an attempt
to bypass Senate debate on its version of the Treasury appropriations to bypass Senate debate on its version of the Treasury appropriations bil bill, S. 2900. The Senate , S. 2900. The Senate
initial y initially rejected this conference report on September 20, 2000, by a vote of 28-69, but later rejected this conference report on September 20, 2000, by a vote of 28-69, but later
agreed to the report, 58-37, on October 12. The House had agreed to the conference report earlier, agreed to the report, 58-37, on October 12. The House had agreed to the conference report earlier,
on September 14, 2000, by a vote of 212-209. on September 14, 2000, by a vote of 212-209.

49 T he 60 The Dodd amendment allowed Dodd amendment allowed for travel restrictions to be imposed if the United States is at warfor travel restrictions to be imposed if the United States is at war with Cuba,with Cuba, if armed if armed
hostilities are in progress, or when threats to physical safety or public health exist. Under current law,hostilities are in progress, or when threats to physical safety or public health exist. Under current law, the Secretary of the Secretary of
State has the same authority to restrict travel (22 U.S.C. 211a). State has the same authority to restrict travel (22 U.S.C. 211a).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1921

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress, 2001-200250200261
In the 107th Congress, although various measures were introduced that would have eliminated or In the 107th Congress, although various measures were introduced that would have eliminated or
eased restrictions on travel to Cuba and the House voted in both the first and second sessions to eased restrictions on travel to Cuba and the House voted in both the first and second sessions to
prohibit spending to administer the travel regulations, no legislativeprohibit spending to administer the travel regulations, no legislative action was completed by the action was completed by the
end of the second session. end of the second session.
First Session Action
During July 25, 2001, floor action on H.R. 2590, the FY2002 Treasury Department During July 25, 2001, floor action on H.R. 2590, the FY2002 Treasury Department
appropriations appropriations bil bill, the House approved an amendment that would prohibit spending for , the House approved an amendment that would prohibit spending for
administering Treasury Department regulations restricting travel to Cuba. H.Amdt. 241, offered administering Treasury Department regulations restricting travel to Cuba. H.Amdt. 241, offered
by Representative Flake (which amended H.Amdt. 240 offered by Representative Smithby Representative Flake (which amended H.Amdt. 240 offered by Representative Smith (NJ)), would ), would
prohibit funding to administer the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (administered by OFAC) prohibit funding to administer the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (administered by OFAC)
with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. The amendment was approved by a vote of with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. The amendment was approved by a vote of
240 to 186, compared to a vote of 232-186 for a similar amendment in last year’s Treasury 240 to 186, compared to a vote of 232-186 for a similar amendment in last year’s Treasury
Department appropriations Department appropriations bil bill. .
The Senate version of H.R. 2590, approved September 19, 2001, did not include any provision The Senate version of H.R. 2590, approved September 19, 2001, did not include any provision
regarding U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba, and the House provision was not included in the regarding U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba, and the House provision was not included in the
House-Senate conference on the House-Senate conference on the bil bill (H.Rept. 107-253). During Senate floor debate, Senator (H.Rept. 107-253). During Senate floor debate, Senator
Byron Dorgan noted that he had intended to offer an amendment on the issue, but that he decided Byron Dorgan noted that he had intended to offer an amendment on the issue, but that he decided
not to because he did not want to slow passage of the not to because he did not want to slow passage of the bil bill. He indicated that he would support the . He indicated that he would support the
House provision during conference, but ultimately the House-Senate conference report on the House provision during conference, but ultimately the House-Senate conference report on the bil
bill did not include the Cuba provision. In light of changed congressional priorities in the aftermath of did not include the Cuba provision. In light of changed congressional priorities in the aftermath of
the September 11 attacks on New York and Washingtonthe September 11 attacks on New York and Washington DC, conference negotiators reportedly did not , conference negotiators reportedly did not
want to slow passage of the want to slow passage of the bil bill with any controversial provisions. The with any controversial provisions. The George W. Bush Administration had Bush Administration had
threatened to veto the Treasury threatened to veto the Treasury bil bill if it included the Cuba travel provision. if it included the Cuba travel provision.
Second Session Action
The Cuba travel issue received further consideration in the second session of the 107th Congress. The Cuba travel issue received further consideration in the second session of the 107th Congress.
A bipartisan House Cuba working group of 40 Representatives vowed as one of its goals to work A bipartisan House Cuba working group of 40 Representatives vowed as one of its goals to work
for a lifting of travel restrictions. On February 11, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s for a lifting of travel restrictions. On February 11, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s
Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government held a hearing on the issue, featuring Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government held a hearing on the issue, featuring
Administration and outside witnesses. Administration and outside witnesses.
The travel issue was part of debate during consideration of the FY2003 Treasury Department The travel issue was part of debate during consideration of the FY2003 Treasury Department
appropriations appropriations bil bill (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State Colin (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State Colin Powel Powell and Secretary of the and Secretary of the
Treasury Paul O’Treasury Paul O’Neil Neill said they would recommend that the President veto legislation that said they would recommend that the President veto legislation that
includes a loosening of restrictions on travel to Cuba (or a weakening of restrictions on private includes a loosening of restrictions on travel to Cuba (or a weakening of restrictions on private
financing for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba).financing for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba).5162 The White House also stated that President The White House also stated that President
Bush would veto such legislation.Bush would veto such legislation.5263
In July 23, 2002, floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cuba sanctions In July 23, 2002, floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cuba sanctions
amendments, including one on the easing of travel restrictions offered by Representative Jeff amendments, including one on the easing of travel restrictions offered by Representative Jeff

50 61 For a complete listing and discussion For a complete listing and discussion of all Cubaof all Cuba bills bills in the 107th Congress, see CRSin the 107th Congress, see CRS Report RL30806, Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues
for the 107th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan, by Mark P. Sullivan and Maureen and Maureen T aft Taft-Morales. -Morales.
5162 U.S. U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “Bush Administration Opposes Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “Bush Administration Opposes
Legislative Efforts to Amend CubaLegislative Efforts to Amend Cuba Policy,” July 16, 2002. Policy,” July 16, 2002.
5263 White House, press briefing White House, press briefing by Ari Fleischer, July 24, 2002. by Ari Fleischer, July 24, 2002.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2022

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Flake (the two other amendments would have eased restrictions on remittances and U.S. Flake (the two other amendments would have eased restrictions on remittances and U.S.
agricultural sales). The House approved the Flake travel amendment (H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of agricultural sales). The House approved the Flake travel amendment (H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of
262-167, which provided that no funds could be used to administer or enforce the Treasury 262-167, which provided that no funds could be used to administer or enforce the Treasury
Department regulations with respect to travel to Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent Department regulations with respect to travel to Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent
the issuance of general or specific licenses for travel to Cuba. Some observers raised the question the issuance of general or specific licenses for travel to Cuba. Some observers raised the question
of whether the effect of this amendment would be limited since the underlying embargo of whether the effect of this amendment would be limited since the underlying embargo
regulations restricting travel would remain unchanged; enforcement action against violations of regulations restricting travel would remain unchanged; enforcement action against violations of
the relevant embargo regulations could the relevant embargo regulations could potential ypotentially take place in future years when the Treasury take place in future years when the Treasury
Department appropriations measure did not include the funding limitations on enforcing the travel Department appropriations measure did not include the funding limitations on enforcing the travel
restrictions.restrictions.5364
During consideration of H.R. 5120, the House also rejected two Cuba amendments. A Rangel During consideration of H.R. 5120, the House also rejected two Cuba amendments. A Rangel
amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226, would have prevented any funds in the amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226, would have prevented any funds in the
bil bill from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the from being used to implement, administer, or enforce the overal overall economic embargo of Cuba, economic embargo of Cuba,
which includes travel. A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551), rejected by a vote of 182-247, would which includes travel. A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551), rejected by a vote of 182-247, would
have provided that any limitationhave provided that any limitation on the use of funds to administer or enforce regulations on the use of funds to administer or enforce regulations
restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related transactions would only apply after the President restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related transactions would only apply after the President
certified to Congress that certain conditions were met regarding biological weapons and certified to Congress that certain conditions were met regarding biological weapons and
terrorism.terrorism.5465 The rule for the The rule for the bil bill’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept. 107-585), had provided that ’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept. 107-585), had provided that
the Goss amendment would not be subject to amendment. the Goss amendment would not be subject to amendment.
The House subsequently passed H.R. 5120 on July 24, 2002, by a vote of 308-121, with the three 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. Cuba amendments, including the Flake Cuba travel amendment.
The Senate version of the Treasury Department appropriations measure, S. 2740, as reported by 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 the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2002 (S.Rept. 107-212), included a
provision, in Section 516, that was similar, although not identical, to the Flake amendment provision, in Section 516, that was similar, although not identical, to the Flake amendment
described above. It provided that no funds may be used to enforce the Treasury Department described above. It provided that no funds may be used to enforce the Treasury Department
regulations with respect to any travel or travel-related transactions and would not prevent OFAC regulations with respect to any travel or travel-related transactions and would not prevent OFAC
from issuing general and specific licenses for travel to Cuba. In addition, Section 124 of the from issuing general and specific licenses for travel to Cuba. In addition, Section 124 of the
Senate Senate bil bill stipulated that no Treasury Department funds for “Departmental Offices, Salaries, and stipulated that no Treasury Department funds for “Departmental Offices, Salaries, and
Expenses” may be used by OFAC until OFAC has certain procedures in place to expedite license Expenses” may be used by OFAC until OFAC has certain procedures in place to expedite license
applications for travel to Cuba. applications for travel to Cuba.
Congress did not complete action on the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations measure Congress did not complete action on the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations measure
before the end of the 107th Congress, so action was deferred until the 108th Congress. before the end of the 107th Congress, so action was deferred until the 108th Congress.
Additional Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress
Several other initiatives were introduced in the 107th Congress that would have eased U.S. Several other initiatives were introduced in the 107th Congress that would have eased U.S.
restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures. restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
 H.R. 5022 (Flake), introduced June 26, 2002, would have lifted  H.R. 5022 (Flake), introduced June 26, 2002, would have lifted al all restrictions on restrictions on
travel to Cuba. travel to Cuba.
 Several broad  Several broad bil sbills would have lifted would have lifted al all sanctions on trade, financial sanctions on trade, financial
transactions, and travel to Cuba: H.R. 174 (Serrano), the Cuban Reconciliation transactions, and travel to Cuba: H.R. 174 (Serrano), the Cuban Reconciliation
Act, introduced January 3, 2001, and identical Act, introduced January 3, 2001, and identical bil sbills S. 400 (Baucus) and H.R. 798 S. 400 (Baucus) and H.R. 798

53 64 “House Approves Limits on “House Approves Limits on T reasuryTreasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade, July, July 26, 2002. 26, 2002.
5465 For further information on the issues of biological For further information on the issues of biological weapons and terrorism as they relate to Cuba, seeweapons and terrorism as they relate to Cuba, see CRS CRS Report Report
RL30806, RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress, by, by Mark P. SullivanMark P. Sullivan and Maureen and Maureen T aft Taft-Morales. -Morales.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2123

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

(Rangel), the Free Trade with Cuba Act, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001, (Rangel), the Free Trade with Cuba Act, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001,
respectively. respectively.
 S. 1017 (Dodd) and H.R. 2138 (Serrano), the Bridges to the Cuban People Act of  S. 1017 (Dodd) and H.R. 2138 (Serrano), the Bridges to the Cuban People Act of
2001, introduced June 12, 2001, would, among other provisions, have removed 2001, introduced June 12, 2001, would, among other provisions, have removed
al all restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. nationals or lawful permanent resident restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. nationals or lawful permanent resident
aliens. aliens.
 Several  Several bil sbills would, among other provisions, have repealed the travel restrictions would, among other provisions, have repealed the travel restrictions
imposed in the 106th Congress by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export imposed in the 106th Congress by the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX, Section 910). These include Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX, Section 910). These include
identical identical bil s bills S. 402 (Baucus) and H.R. 797 (Rangel), the Cuban Humanitarian S. 402 (Baucus) and H.R. 797 (Rangel), the Cuban Humanitarian
Trade Act of 2001, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001; S. 171 (Dorgan), Trade Act of 2001, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001; S. 171 (Dorgan),
introduced January 24, 2001; and S. 239 (Hagel), the Cuba Food and Medicine introduced January 24, 2001; and S. 239 (Hagel), the Cuba Food and Medicine
Access Act of 2001, introduced February 1, 2001. Access Act of 2001, introduced February 1, 2001.
Legislative Initiatives in the 108th Congress, 2003-200455200466
In the 108th Congress, several FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations In the 108th Congress, several FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations bil sbills had provisions that would had provisions that would
have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways, but ultimately these provisions were not have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways, but ultimately these provisions were not
included in final appropriations measures. The George W. Bush Administration had threatened to included in final appropriations measures. The George W. Bush Administration had threatened to
veto legislationveto legislation if it contained provisions weakening Cuba sanctions. In addition, several if it contained provisions weakening Cuba sanctions. In addition, several bil sbills in in
the 108th Congress were introduced that the 108th Congress were introduced that specifical yspecifically would have lifted or eased restrictions on would have lifted or eased restrictions on
travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures. travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
First Session Action
Since action on FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations was not completed before the end of Since action on FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations was not completed before the end of
the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress faced early action on it and other unfinished FY2003 the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress faced early action on it and other unfinished FY2003
appropriations measures. The final version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure, appropriations measures. The final version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure,
H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which included Treasury Department appropriations, did not include H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which included Treasury Department appropriations, did not include
provisions affecting restrictions on travel to Cuba. The White House had threatened to veto the provisions affecting restrictions on travel to Cuba. The White House had threatened to veto the
measure if it contained provisions weakening the embargo. While the Senate version did not measure if it contained provisions weakening the embargo. While the Senate version did not
include the Senate Appropriations Committee provision from the 107th Congress that would have include the Senate Appropriations Committee provision from the 107th Congress that would have
eased travel restrictions by prohibiting any funding for enforcing the Cuba travel regulations, it eased travel restrictions by prohibiting any funding for enforcing the Cuba travel regulations, it
did include a provision (contained in Division J, Section 124) that would have expedited action did include a provision (contained in Division J, Section 124) that would have expedited action
on travel applications for travel by OFAC within 90 days of receipt. Ultimately, however, the on travel applications for travel by OFAC within 90 days of receipt. Ultimately, however, the
Senate provision was dropped in the conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) on the omnibus measure. Senate provision was dropped in the conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) on the omnibus measure.
Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2004 Transportation-Treasury appropriations Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2004 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bil ,
bill, H.R. 2989, had nearly identical provisions that would have prevented funds from being used to H.R. 2989, had nearly identical provisions that would have prevented funds from being used to
administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions. But the provisions were administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions. But the provisions were
dropped in the conference report to the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199 dropped in the conference report to the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199
(H.R. 2673, H.Rept. 108-401, filed November 25, 2003), which incorporated seven regular (H.R. 2673, H.Rept. 108-401, filed November 25, 2003), which incorporated seven regular
appropriations acts, including Transportation-Treasury appropriations. The conference also appropriations acts, including Transportation-Treasury appropriations. The conference also
dropped two Cuba provisions from the House version of H.R. 2989 that would have eased dropped two Cuba provisions from the House version of H.R. 2989 that would have eased
restrictions on remittances and on people-to-people educational exchanges. The White House restrictions on remittances and on people-to-people educational exchanges. The White House
again threatened to veto any legislationagain threatened to veto any legislation that would weaken economic sanctions against Cuba. that would weaken economic sanctions against Cuba.

55 66 For a complete listing and discussion For a complete listing and discussion of all Cubaof all Cuba bills bills in the 108th Congress, see CRSin the 108th Congress, see CRS Report RL31740, Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues
for the 108th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. , by Mark P. Sullivan.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2224

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

The House provisions had been approved during September 9, 2003, House floor consideration of The House provisions had been approved during September 9, 2003, House floor consideration of
the H.R. 2989: H.Amdt. 375 (Flake), approved by a vote of 227-188, would have prevented funds the H.R. 2989: H.Amdt. 375 (Flake), approved by a vote of 227-188, would have prevented funds
from enforcing travel restrictions (§745 of the House version); H.Amdt. 377 (Delahunt), from enforcing travel restrictions (§745 of the House version); H.Amdt. 377 (Delahunt),
approved by a vote of 222-196, would have prevented funds from enforcing restrictions on approved by a vote of 222-196, would have prevented funds from enforcing restrictions on
remittances (§746); and H.Amdt. 382 (Davisremittances (§746); and H.Amdt. 382 (Davis (FL)), approved by a vote of 246-173, would have ), approved by a vote of 246-173, would have
prohibited funds from being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-people educational prohibited funds from being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-people educational
exchanges (§749). exchanges (§749).
During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 2989 on October 23, 2003, the Senate approved by During Senate floor consideration of H.R. 2989 on October 23, 2003, the Senate approved by
voice vote S.Amdt. 1900 (Dorgan), nearly identical to the Flake amendment noted above that voice vote S.Amdt. 1900 (Dorgan), nearly identical to the Flake amendment noted above that
would have prevented funds from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel or would have prevented funds from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel or
travel-related transactions (§643 of the Senate version). A motion to table the Dorgan amendment travel-related transactions (§643 of the Senate version). A motion to table the Dorgan amendment
was defeated by a vote of 59-36. The Senate approved the was defeated by a vote of 59-36. The Senate approved the bil bill by a vote of 91-3. The only by a vote of 91-3. The only
difference between the Senate and House language was that the Dorgan amendment, as amended difference between the Senate and House language was that the Dorgan amendment, as amended
by S.Amdt. 1901 (Craig), provided that the section would take effect one day after enactment of by S.Amdt. 1901 (Craig), provided that the section would take effect one day after enactment of
the the bil bill. .
In other action, the conference on the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199 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 the FY2004 agriculture (H.R. 2673), also dropped a provision in the Senate version of the FY2004 agriculture
appropriations appropriations bil bill that would have that would have al owedallowed travel to Cuba under a general license for travel travel to Cuba under a general license for travel
related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. On July 17, 2003, the Senate Appropriations related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. On July 17, 2003, the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved its version of the FY2004 agriculture appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2004 agriculture appropriations bil , bill, S. 1427, that S. 1427, that
included a provision (§760) included a provision (§760) al owingallowing travel to Cuba under a general license (which does not travel to Cuba under a general license (which does not
require applying to the Treasury Department) for travel related to the commercial sale of require applying to the Treasury Department) for travel related to the commercial sale of
agricultural and medical goods. The Senate included this provision when it approved H.R. 2673 agricultural and medical goods. The Senate included this provision when it approved H.R. 2673
on November 6, 2003. The House-passed version of the on November 6, 2003. The House-passed version of the bil bill, H.R. 2673, had no such provision. In , H.R. 2673, had no such provision. In
early June 2003, the Treasury Department rejected an application for a specific license to travel to early June 2003, the Treasury Department rejected an application for a specific license to travel to
Cuba for organizers of a second U.S. food and agribusiness fair in Havana.Cuba for organizers of a second U.S. food and agribusiness fair in Havana.5667 The first such trade The first such trade
fair, held in September 2002, featured some 288 exhibitors from more than 30 states and resulted fair, held in September 2002, featured some 288 exhibitors from more than 30 states and resulted
in mil ions in millions in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.5768
Second Session Action
Several FY2005 appropriations measures had provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions, Several FY2005 appropriations measures had provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions,
but these were dropped in the FY2005 omnibus appropriations measure (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-but these were dropped in the FY2005 omnibus appropriations measure (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-
792). 792).
The House-passed version of the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations The House-passed version of the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bil bill, H.R. , H.R.
4754, approved July 8, 2004 (397-18), included a provision (§801) that would have prohibited 4754, approved July 8, 2004 (397-18), included a provision (§801) that would have prohibited
funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce recent amendments to the Cuba funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce recent amendments to the Cuba
embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on gift parcels and baggage taken by individuals embargo regulations that tightened restrictions on gift parcels and baggage taken by individuals
for travel to Cuba. The provision was added by a Flake amendment, H.Amdt. 647, approved by a for travel to Cuba. The provision was added by a Flake amendment, H.Amdt. 647, approved by a
vote of 221-194 on July 7, 2004. The Senate version of the vote of 221-194 on July 7, 2004. The Senate version of the bil bill, S. 2809, as reported out of , S. 2809, as reported out of
committee, did not include such a provision. committee, did not include such a provision.
Both the House-approved version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations Both the House-approved version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations bil bill, ,
H.R. 5025, and the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the H.R. 5025, and the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bil , bill, S. 2806, had provisions S. 2806, had provisions
that would have eased Cuba sanctions in various ways. In its statement of policy on H.R. 5025, that would have eased Cuba sanctions in various ways. In its statement of policy on H.R. 5025,

56 Nancy San 67 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Pulls Plug on CubaMartin, “U.S. Pulls Plug on Cuba Expo,” Expo,” Miami Herald, June, June 18, 2003. 18, 2003.
5768 Nancy San Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Official Dampens Martin, “U.S. Official Dampens T radeTrade-Show Enthusiasm with -Show Enthusiasm with T alksTalks of Cuban of Cuban Credit,” Credit,” Miami Herald, ,
September 29, 2002. September 29, 2002.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2325

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

the Administration indicated that the President would veto the measure if it contained provisions the Administration indicated that the President would veto the measure if it contained provisions
weakening Cuba sanctions. weakening Cuba sanctions.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5025 had three provisions that would have eased Cuba The House-passed version of H.R. 5025 had three provisions that would have eased Cuba
sanctions. During floor consideration on September 21, 2004, by a vote of 225-174, the House sanctions. During floor consideration on September 21, 2004, by a vote of 225-174, the House
approved a Davis (of Florida) amendment (H.Amdt. 769), which provided that no funds could be approved a Davis (of Florida) amendment (H.Amdt. 769), which provided that no funds could be
used to administer, implement, or enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of used to administer, implement, or enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of
restrictions on visiting relatives in Cuba. On September 22, 2004, the House approved two restrictions on visiting relatives in Cuba. On September 22, 2004, the House approved two
additional Cuba amendments by voice vote, a Waters amendment (H.Amdt. 770) that would have additional Cuba amendments by voice vote, a Waters amendment (H.Amdt. 770) that would have
prohibited funds from being used to implement any sanction imposed on private commercial sales prohibited funds from being used to implement any sanction imposed on private commercial sales
of agricultural commodities or medicine or medical supplies to Cuba and a Lee amendment of agricultural commodities or medicine or medical supplies to Cuba and a Lee amendment
(H.Amdt. 771) that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement, administer, or (H.Amdt. 771) that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement, administer, or
enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on travel for educational enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on travel for educational
activities. The House also rejected a Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 772) on September 22, 2004, activities. The House also rejected a Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 772) on September 22, 2004,
by a vote of 225-188 that would have more broadly prohibited funds from being used to by a vote of 225-188 that would have more broadly prohibited funds from being used to
implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba. During September 15, 2004, implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba. During September 15, 2004,
House floor consideration of H.R. 5025, Representative Jeff Flake announced his intention not to House floor consideration of H.R. 5025, Representative Jeff Flake announced his intention not to
offer an amendment, as he had for the past three years, which would have prohibited funds from offer an amendment, as he had for the past three years, which would have prohibited funds from
being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions. being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions.
The Senate version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations The Senate version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations bil bill, S. 2806, as , S. 2806, as
reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-342) on September 15, 2004, reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-342) on September 15, 2004,
had a provision (§222) that would have prohibited funds from administering or enforcing had a provision (§222) that would have prohibited funds from administering or enforcing
restrictions on Cuba travel or travel-related transactions. That provision, which was proposed by restrictions on Cuba travel or travel-related transactions. That provision, which was proposed by
Senator Byron Dorgan, was unanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation, Senator Byron Dorgan, was unanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury, and General Government on September 9, 2004. Treasury, and General Government on September 9, 2004.
The Senate version of the FY2005 Agriculture Appropriation The Senate version of the FY2005 Agriculture Appropriation bil , bill, S. 2803, as reported by the S. 2803, as reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-340), had a provision (§776) that would have Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-340), had a provision (§776) that would have
directed the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations directed the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate regulations al owingallowing for travel to Cuba under for travel to Cuba under
a “general license” when it was related to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical a “general license” when it was related to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical
products. The House-passed version of the products. The House-passed version of the bil bill, H.R. 4766, had no such provision. In its statement , H.R. 4766, had no such provision. In its statement
of policy on the of policy on the bil bill, the Administration stated that the President would veto the measure if it , the Administration stated that the President would veto the measure if it
contained a provision weakening Cuba sanctions. contained a provision weakening Cuba sanctions.
Additional Initiatives in the 108th Congress
Among other initiatives introduced in the 108th Congress, but not acted upon, two Among other initiatives introduced in the 108th Congress, but not acted upon, two bil sbills would would
specifical yspecifically have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba: S. 950 (Enzi), introduced April 30, 2003, 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, and H.R. 2071 (Flake), introduced May 13, 2003. H.R. 3422 (Serrano), introduced October 30,
2003, would, among other provisions, have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. Three broad 2003, would, among other provisions, have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. Three broad
legislativelegislative initiatives initiatives were introduced that would have lifted were introduced that would have lifted al all Cuba embargo restrictions, Cuba embargo restrictions,
including those on travel:including those on travel: H.R. 188 (Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403 (Baucus), H.R. 188 (Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403 (Baucus),
introduced February 13, 2003, and H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003. Another initiative, introduced February 13, 2003, and H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003. Another initiative,
S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R. 4457 (Otter), introduced respectively on May 19 and 20, 2004, would S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R. 4457 (Otter), introduced respectively on May 19 and 20, 2004, would
have required yearly congressional approval for the renewal of trade and travel restrictions with have required yearly congressional approval for the renewal of trade and travel restrictions with
respect to Cuba. respect to Cuba. Final yFinally, H.R. 4678 (Davis of Florida), introduced June 24, 2004, in the aftermath , H.R. 4678 (Davis of Florida), introduced June 24, 2004, in the aftermath
of the President’s tightening of Cuba sanctions, would have barred certain additional restrictions of the President’s tightening of Cuba sanctions, would have barred certain additional restrictions
on travel and remittances to Cuba. on travel and remittances to Cuba.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
2426

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 109th Congress, 2005-2006200669
In the 109th Congress, several amendments to FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations In the 109th Congress, several amendments to FY2006 and FY2007 appropriations bil sbills that that
would have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways and restrictions on sending gift parcels would have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways and restrictions on sending gift parcels
to Cuba were defeated. Several to Cuba were defeated. Several bil sbills were introduced that would have lifted or eased restrictions were introduced that would have lifted or eased restrictions
on travel and the provision of remittances to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures. on travel and the provision of remittances to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
First Session Action
On June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments easing Cuba sanctions to H.R. 3058, the On June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments easing Cuba sanctions to H.R. 3058, the
FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendments failed during House Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendments failed during House
floor consideration: H.Amdt. 420 (Davisfloor consideration: H.Amdt. 420 (Davis (FL)) on family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422 ) on family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422
(Lee) on educational travel, by a vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the (Lee) on educational travel, by a vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overal
overall embargo, by a vote of 169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel, H.Amdt. 421 embargo, by a vote of 169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel, H.Amdt. 421
(Flake), was withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel by members of the U.S. military, (Flake), was withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel by members of the U.S. military,
H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order for constituting legislation in an appropriations H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order for constituting legislation in an appropriations bil bill. .
The introduction of H.Amdt. 419 was prompted by the case of a U.S. military member who The introduction of H.Amdt. 419 was prompted by the case of a U.S. military member who
served in Iraq, Sergeant Carlos Lazo, who was prohibited from visiting his two sons in Cuba served in Iraq, Sergeant Carlos Lazo, who was prohibited from visiting his two sons in Cuba
because he last visited there in 2003. because he last visited there in 2003.
During June 29, 2005, Senate consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior, Environment, and 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 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate rejected (60-35; a two-thirds majority vote was
required) a motion to suspend the rules with respect to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which would required) a motion to suspend the rules with respect to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which would
have have al owedallowed travel to Cuba under a general license for the purpose of visiting a member of the travel to Cuba under a general license for the purpose of visiting a member of the
person’s immediate family for humanitarian reasons. The amendment was then ruled out of order. person’s immediate family for humanitarian reasons. The amendment was then ruled out of order.
Its introduction had also been prompted by the case of Sergeant Carlos Lazo, who wanted to visit Its introduction had also been prompted by the case of Sergeant Carlos Lazo, who wanted to visit
his sons in Cuba, one of whom was gravely sick. his sons in 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 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 Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendment Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendment
would have prohibited the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce June 2004 tightened would have prohibited the use of funds to implement, administer, or enforce June 2004 tightened
restrictions on sending gift parcels to Cuba. H.Amdt. 269 (McDermott), which would have restrictions on sending gift parcels to Cuba. H.Amdt. 269 (McDermott), which would have
prohibited the use of funds in the prohibited the use of funds in the bil bill to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba, was offered to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba, was offered
but subsequently withdrawn. but subsequently withdrawn.
During April 6, 2005, Senate floor consideration of the FY2006 and FY2007 Foreign Affairs During April 6, 2005, Senate floor consideration of the FY2006 and FY2007 Foreign Affairs
Authorization Act, S. 600, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 281 (Baucus) and a second-degree Authorization Act, S. 600, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 281 (Baucus) and a second-degree
amendment, S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) that would have facilitated the sale of U.S. agricultural products amendment, S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) that would have facilitated the sale of U.S. agricultural products
to Cuba. The language of the amendments consisted of the provisions of S. 328 (Craig), the to Cuba. The language of the amendments consisted of the provisions of S. 328 (Craig), the
Agricultural Export Facilitation Act of 2005, which included a provision for a general license for Agricultural Export Facilitation Act of 2005, which included a provision for a general license for
travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed to the travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed to the
then requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions. Neither action on the then requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions. Neither action on the
amendments nor on S. 600 was completed.
amendments nor on S. 600 was completed. 69 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 109th Congress, see CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the 109th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 27 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Second Session Action
On June 14, 2006, the House rejected two amendments to the FY2007 Transportation/Treasury On June 14, 2006, the House rejected two amendments to the FY2007 Transportation/Treasury
appropriation appropriation bil , bill, H.R. 5576, which would have eased Cuba travel restrictions. H.Amdt. 1050 H.R. 5576, which would have eased Cuba travel restrictions. H.Amdt. 1050
(Rangel), rejected by a vote of 183-245, would have prohibited funds from being used to (Rangel), rejected by a vote of 183-245, would have prohibited funds from being used to
implement the implement the overal overall economic embargo of Cuba. H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), rejected by a vote of economic embargo of Cuba. H.Amdt. 1051 (Lee), rejected by a vote of
187-236, would have prohibited funds from being used to implement the Administration’s June 187-236, would have prohibited funds from being used to implement the Administration’s June
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

2004 tightening of restrictions on educational travel to Cuba. An additional Cuba amendment, 2004 tightening of restrictions on educational travel to Cuba. An additional Cuba amendment,
H.Amdt. 1032 (Flake), would have prohibited the use of funds to amend regulations relating to H.Amdt. 1032 (Flake), would have prohibited the use of funds to amend regulations relating to
travel for religious activities in Cuba; it was withdrawn from consideration. travel for religious activities in Cuba; it was withdrawn from consideration.
In other action, on June 22, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the In other action, on June 22, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the
FY2007 Agriculture appropriations FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bil , bill, H.R. 5384 (S.Rept. 109-266), which contained a H.R. 5384 (S.Rept. 109-266), which contained a
provision (§755) liberalizingprovision (§755) liberalizing travel to Cuba related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. travel to Cuba related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods.
The provision would have provided for such travel under a general license, instead of under a The provision would have provided for such travel under a general license, instead of under a
specific license as then required, issued on a case-by-case basis by the Treasury Department. specific license as then required, 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. Final action on the appropriations measure was not completed by the end of the 109th Congress.
Similar Senate provisions in FY2004 and FY2005 agricultural appropriations Similar Senate provisions in FY2004 and FY2005 agricultural appropriations bil sbills were stripped were stripped
out of the final enacted measures. out of the final enacted measures.
Additional Initiatives in the 109th Congress
A number of other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 109th Congress that would have A number of other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 109th Congress that would have
eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Two eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Two bil sbills—S. 894 (Enzi) and H.R. 1814 —S. 894 (Enzi) and H.R. 1814
(Flake)—would have (Flake)—would have specifical y lifted overal specifically lifted overall restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 2617 (Davisrestrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 2617 (Davis)
(FL)) would have prohibited any additionalwould have prohibited any additional restrictions on per diem restrictions on per diem al owancesallowances, family visits to Cuba, , family visits to Cuba,
remittances, and accompanied baggage beyond those that were in effect on June 15, 2004. H.R. remittances, and accompanied 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 the Treasury to 3064 (Lee) would have prohibited the use of funds available to the Department of the Treasury to
implement regulations from June 2004 that tightened restrictions on travel to Cuba for implement regulations from June 2004 that tightened restrictions on travel to Cuba for
educational activities. H.Con.Res. 206 (Serrano), introduced in the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis educational activities. H.Con.Res. 206 (Serrano), introduced in the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis
that struck Cuba in July 2005 (causing 16 deaths and significant damage), would have expressed that struck Cuba in July 2005 (causing 16 deaths and significant damage), would have expressed
the sense of Congress that the President should temporarily suspend restrictions on remittances, the sense of Congress that the President should temporarily suspend restrictions on remittances,
gift parcels, and family travel to Cuba to gift parcels, and family travel to Cuba to al owallow Cuban Americans to assist their relatives. Cuban Americans to assist their relatives.
Two Two bil sbills—H.R. 208 (Serrano) and H.R. 579 (Paul)—would have lifted the —H.R. 208 (Serrano) and H.R. 579 (Paul)—would have lifted the overal overall embargo on embargo on
trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances to trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances to
Cuba.
Final y, two identical bil sCuba. Two identical bills dealing with easing restrictions on exporting agricultural commodities dealing with easing restrictions on exporting agricultural commodities
to Cuba—H.R. 719 (Moran of Kansas) and S. 328 (Craig)—included provisions that would have to Cuba—H.R. 719 (Moran of Kansas) and S. 328 (Craig)—included provisions that would have
provided for a general license for travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of provided for a general license for travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of
agricultural products, as opposed to the then requirement of a specific license for such travel agricultural products, as opposed to the then requirement of a specific license for such travel
transactions.transactions. Congressional Research Service 28 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances
Legislative Initiatives in the 110th Congress, 2007-2008200870
In the 110th Congress, several House and Senate committee versions of appropriations In the 110th Congress, several House and Senate committee versions of appropriations bil sbills had had
provisions that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba in various ways, but none of these provisions that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba in various ways, but none of these
provisions were included in final enacted legislation. Numerous other provisions were included in final enacted legislation. Numerous other bil sbills were introduced that were introduced that
would have eased restrictions on travel and remittance in various wayswould have eased restrictions on travel and remittance in various ways, but; no action was taken no action was taken
on these measures. on these measures.
First Session Action
In the first session of the 110th Congress, two Senate Appropriations Committee-reported versions In the first session of the 110th Congress, two Senate Appropriations Committee-reported versions
of appropriations of appropriations bil sbills had provisions that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba for the had provisions that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba for the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods, but ultimately these provisions were not marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods, but ultimately these provisions were not
included in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). The Senate version of included in the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161). The Senate version of
the FY2008 Financial Services and General Government appropriations the FY2008 Financial Services and General Government appropriations bil bill, reported July 19, , reported July 19,
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

2007, H.R. 2829, had a provision in Section 620 that would eased such travel restrictions, while 2007, H.R. 2829, had a provision in Section 620 that would eased such travel restrictions, while
the Senate version of the FY2008 Agriculture appropriations the Senate version of the FY2008 Agriculture appropriations bil , bill, S. 1859, reported July 24, 2007, S. 1859, reported July 24, 2007,
had such a provision in Section 741. had such a provision in Section 741.
Second Session Action
In the second session, several versions of House and Senate appropriations In the second session, several versions of House and Senate appropriations bil sbills had provisions had provisions
easing Cuba travel restrictions and other Cuba sanctionseasing Cuba travel restrictions and other Cuba sanctions, but; none of these were included in the none of these were included in the
FY2009 continuing resolution. The House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2009 continuing resolution. The House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil bill for FY2009 on June 25, 2008, for FY2009 on June 25, 2008,
which contained provisions in Title VI that would have eased restrictions on the sale of U.S. which contained provisions in Title VI that would have eased restrictions on the sale of U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba and on family travel to Cuba. The committee ultimately introduced agricultural exports to Cuba and on family travel to Cuba. The committee ultimately introduced
and reported the and reported the bil , bill, H.R. 7323, on December 10, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-920). With regard to family H.R. 7323, on December 10, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-920). With regard to family
travel, Section 622 would have travel, Section 622 would have al owedallowed for such travel once a year (instead of the then restriction for such travel once a year (instead of the then restriction
of once every three years), while Section 623 would have expanded such travel by a person to of once every three years), while Section 623 would have expanded such travel by a person to
visit an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin (instead of the then restriction limiting such visit an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin (instead of the then restriction limiting such
travel to visit a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling). travel to visit a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling).
On July 14, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 On July 14, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil , bill, S. 3260 (S.Rept. 110-417), S. 3260 (S.Rept. 110-417),
which included provisions easing restrictions on family travel and on travel to Cuba relating to which included provisions easing restrictions on family travel and on travel to Cuba relating to
the commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods. With regard to family travel, Section 620 the commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods. With regard to family travel, Section 620
would have provided that no funds could be used to administer, implement, or enforce the would have provided that no funds could be used to administer, implement, or enforce the
Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions related to travel to visit relatives in Cuba. Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions related to travel to visit relatives in Cuba.
With regard to travel for agricultural or medical sales, Section 619 would have With regard to travel for agricultural or medical sales, Section 619 would have al owedallowed for a for a
general license for such travel instead of a specific license that requires permission from the general license for such travel instead of a specific license that requires permission from the
Treasury Department. Treasury Department.
On July 21, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009 On July 21, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009
Agriculture Appropriations Agriculture Appropriations bil , bill, S. 3289 (S.Rept. 110-426), with a provision in Section 737 that S. 3289 (S.Rept. 110-426), with a provision in Section 737 that
would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba for the sale of agricultural and would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba for the sale of agricultural and medic almedical goods. goods.
The provision would have The provision would have al owedallowed for a general license for such travel instead of a specific for a general license for such travel instead of a specific
70 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 110th Congress, see CRS Report RL33819, Cuba: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 29 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances license that requires permission from the Treasury Department. The measure had been approved license that requires permission from the Treasury Department. The measure had been approved
by the committee on July 17, 2008. by the committee on July 17, 2008.
Additional Initiatives in the 110th Congress
A number of other initiatives introduced in the 110th Congress would have eased Cuba travel A number of other initiatives introduced in the 110th Congress would have eased Cuba travel
restrictions. H.R. 654 (Rangel), S. 721 (Enzi), and Section 254 of S. 554 (Dorgan) would prohibit 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 Cuba or any of the transactions incident to the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to Cuba or any of the transactions incident to
travel. Two travel. Two bil sbills that would lift that would lift overal overall economic sanctions—H.R. 217 (Serrano) and H.R. 624 economic sanctions—H.R. 217 (Serrano) and H.R. 624
(Rangel)—would also lift travel restrictions. H.R. 177 (Lee) would ease restrictions on (Rangel)—would also lift travel restrictions. H.R. 177 (Lee) would ease restrictions on
educational travel to Cuba. H.R. 757 (Delahunt) would lift restrictions on family travel and the educational travel to Cuba. H.R. 757 (Delahunt) would lift restrictions on family travel and the
provision of remittances for family members in Cuba. H.R. 1026 (Moran, Jerry), which would provision of remittances for family members in Cuba. H.R. 1026 (Moran, Jerry), which would
facilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, includes a provision that would provide facilitate the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba, includes a provision that would provide
for general license authority for travel-related transactions for people involved in agricultural for general license authority for travel-related transactions for people involved in agricultural
sales and marketing activities or in the transportation of such sales. H.R. 2819 (Rangel) and S. sales and marketing activities or 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, 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 held a hearing on would also lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. The Senate Committee on Finance held a hearing on
S. 1673 on December 11, 2007. S. 1673 on December 11, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives Legislative Initiatives in the Aftermath of 2008 Hurricanes
In the aftermath of the Hurricanes Gustav and Ike that struck CubaIn the aftermath of the Hurricanes Gustav and Ike that struck Cuba, respectively, in late August and early in late August and early
September 2008, several legislative initiativesSeptember 2008, several legislative initiatives were introduced that would have temporarily eased were introduced that would have temporarily eased
U.S. embargo restrictions in several areas, including restrictions on family travel, remittances, the U.S. embargo restrictions in several areas, including restrictions on family travel, remittances, the
provision of gift parcels, and the sale of relief supplies to Cuba. On September 15, 2008, Senator provision of gift parcels, and the sale of relief supplies to Cuba. On September 15, 2008, Senator
Dodd offered S.Amdt. 5581 to the Department of Defense authorization Dodd offered S.Amdt. 5581 to the Department of Defense authorization bil bill (S. 3001) that would (S. 3001) that would
have, for a 180-day period, have, for a 180-day period, al owedallowed unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on remittances unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on remittances
by removing the limit and by removing the limit and al owingallowing any American to send remittances to Cuba; expanded the list any American to send remittances to Cuba; expanded the list
of al owableof allowable items that may be included in gift parcels; and items that may be included in gift parcels; and al owedallowed for unrestricted U.S. cash for unrestricted U.S. cash
sales of food, medicines, and relief supplies to Cuba. The amendment was not considered and sales of food, medicines, and relief supplies to Cuba. The amendment was not considered and
therefore not part of the final therefore not part of the final bil bill. .
In the House, two legislative initiatives In the House, two legislative initiatives were introduced in the aftermath of the hurricanes that were introduced in the aftermath of the hurricanes that
would have temporarily eased restrictions in various ways. On September 16, 2008, would have temporarily eased restrictions in various ways. On September 16, 2008,
Representative Flake introduced H.R. 6913, which would have prohibited any funds from going Representative Flake introduced H.R. 6913, which would have prohibited any funds from going
to the Department of Commerce to implement, administer, or enforce tightened restrictions on the to the Department of Commerce to implement, administer, or enforce tightened restrictions on the
contents of gift parcels to Cuba that were introduced in June 2004. On September 18, 2008, contents of gift parcels to Cuba that were introduced in June 2004. On September 18, 2008,
Representative Delahunt introduced H.R. 6962, the Humanitarian Relief to Cuba Act, which Representative Delahunt introduced H.R. 6962, the Humanitarian Relief to Cuba Act, which
would have, for a 180-day period, would have, for a 180-day period, al owedallowed unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on
remittances by removing the limit and remittances by removing the limit and al owingallowing any American to send remittances to Cuba; and any American to send remittances to Cuba; and
expanded the list of expanded the list of al owableallowable items that may be included in gift parcels. items that may be included in gift parcels.
Legislative Initiatives in the 111th Congress, 2009-2010201071
The 111th Congress took action in March 2009 to ease restrictions on family travel and travel for The 111th Congress took action in March 2009 to ease restrictions on family travel and travel for
the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods. The eased family travel restrictions the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods. The eased family travel restrictions
were superseded by the Obama Administration’s April 2009 action to were superseded by the Obama Administration’s April 2009 action to al owallow unlimited family unlimited family
travel and remittances. At the same time, the Administration also eased restrictions for travel for travel and remittances. At the same time, the Administration also eased restrictions for travel for
71 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 111th Congress, see CRS Report R40193, Cuba: Issues for the 111th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 30 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances telecommunications-related sales and for attendance at professional meetings related to telecommunications-related sales and for attendance at professional meetings related to
commercial telecommunications. Numerous other commercial telecommunications. Numerous other bil sbills introduced in the 111th Congress would introduced in the 111th Congress would
have lifted or eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, but these restrictions were not have lifted or eased restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba, but these restrictions were not
considered. One House initiative,considered. One House initiative, H.R. 4645 (Peterson), would have lifted H.R. 4645 (Peterson), would have lifted al all restrictions on restrictions on
travel to Cuba and also would have eased restrictions on the payment mechanisms for U.S. travel to Cuba and also would have eased restrictions on the payment mechanisms for U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba. The House Agriculture Committee approved the measureagricultural exports to Cuba. The House Agriculture Committee approved the measure, but; no no
further action was taken on the further action was taken on the bil bill. .
First Session Action
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(P.L. 111-8), with two provisions easing restrictions on travel to Cuba.(P.L. 111-8), with two provisions easing restrictions on travel to Cuba.5872 The provisions were The provisions were
identical to provisions that had been included in the Senate Appropriations Committee version of identical to provisions that had been included in the Senate Appropriations Committee version of
the FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations the FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bil bill in the 110th in the 110th
Congress, S. 3260. Congress, S. 3260.
In the enacted In the enacted bil bill, Section 620 of Division D, Financial Services and General Government , Section 620 of Division D, Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2009, amended the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of Appropriations Act, 2009, amended the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000 (TSRA) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations for travel to, from, or 2000 (TSRA) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations for travel to, from, or
within Cuba under a general license for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods, within Cuba under a general license for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods,

58 A third Cuba provision in the law prohibited funding to administer, implement, or enforce certain requirements for
U.S. agricultural exporters using the “payment of cash in advance” payment mechanism for selling their goo ds to Cuba.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

meaning that there would be no requirement to obtain special permission from OFAC. Such travel meaning that there would be no requirement to obtain special permission from OFAC. Such travel
had required a specific license from OFAC, issued on a case-by-case basis. OFAC issued had required a specific license from OFAC, issued on a case-by-case basis. OFAC issued
regulations implementing this provision on September 3, 2009. regulations implementing this provision on September 3, 2009.
Section 621 of Division D prohibited funds from being used to administer, implement, or enforce Section 621 of Division D prohibited funds from being used to administer, implement, or enforce
family travel restrictions that were imposed by the Bush Administration in June 2004. OFAC family travel restrictions that were imposed by the Bush Administration in June 2004. OFAC
implemented this provision by reinstating a general license for family travel as it existed prior to implemented this provision by reinstating a general license for family travel as it existed prior to
the Bush Administration’s tightening of restrictions in June 2004. As implemented by the the Bush Administration’s tightening of restrictions in June 2004. As implemented by the
Treasury Department, travel was Treasury Department, travel was al owedallowed once every 12 months to visit a close relative for an once every 12 months to visit a close relative for an
unlimited length of stay, and the limit for daily expenditure unlimited length of stay, and the limit for daily expenditure al owedallowed by family travelers became by family travelers became
the same as for other authorized travelers to Cuba (the State Department maximum per diem rate the same as for other authorized travelers to Cuba (the State Department maximum per diem rate
for Havana). The new general license also expanded the definition of “close relative” to mean any for Havana). The new general license also expanded the definition of “close relative” to mean any
individualindividual related to the traveler by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three related to the traveler by blood, marriage, or adoption who is no more than three
generations removed from that person. This provision was superseded by the Obama generations removed from that person. This provision was superseded by the Obama
Administration’s further liberalization of family travel to Cuba announced in AprilAdministration’s further liberalization of family travel to Cuba announced in April 2009. 2009.
The joint explanatory statement to P.L. 111-8 also required the Department of the Treasury to The joint explanatory statement to P.L. 111-8 also required the Department of the Treasury to
prepare a report within 90 days on the steps that it is taking to assess OFAC’s prepare a report within 90 days on the steps that it is taking to assess OFAC’s al ocation of
allocation of resources for investigating and penalizing violations of the Cuba embargo with respect to the resources for investigating and penalizing violations of the Cuba embargo with respect to the
numerous other sanctions programs it administers. As part of the report, the Treasury Department numerous other sanctions programs it administers. As part of the report, the Treasury Department
was directed to provide detailed information on OFAC’s Cuba-related licensing on its was directed to provide detailed information on OFAC’s Cuba-related licensing on its
enforcement of the Cuba embargo. enforcement of the Cuba embargo.
On November 19, 2009, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on U.S. On November 19, 2009, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing on U.S.
restrictions on travel to Cuba entitledrestrictions on travel to Cuba entitled “Is It Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?” that featured “Is It Time to Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba?” that featured
former U.S. government officials and other private witnesses. former U.S. government officials and other private witnesses.
72 A third Cuba provision in the law prohibited funding to administer, implement, or enforce certain requirements for U.S. agricultural exporters using the “payment of cash in advance” payment mechanism for selling their goods to Cuba. Congressional Research Service 31 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Second Session Action In the second session, Second Session Action
In the second session, the only legislative action related to Cuba travel restrictions occurred in the legislative action related to Cuba travel restrictions occurred in the
House Committee on Agriculture, and no subsequent action was taken. On March 11, 2010, the House Committee on Agriculture, and no subsequent action was taken. On March 11, 2010, the
committee held a hearing to review U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. At the hearing, there was committee held a hearing to review U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. At the hearing, there was
discussion of recently introduced H.R. 4645 (Peterson), a measure that would remove restrictions discussion of recently introduced H.R. 4645 (Peterson), a measure that would remove restrictions
on travel to Cuba and also remove some restrictions regarding payments for U.S. agricultural on travel to Cuba and also remove some restrictions regarding payments for U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba. On June 30, 2010, the committee reported out H.R. 4645 by a vote of 25-20 exports to Cuba. On June 30, 2010, the committee reported out H.R. 4645 by a vote of 25-20
(H.Rept. 111-653). The (H.Rept. 111-653). The bil bill would have lifted would have lifted al all restrictions on travel to Cuba. It also included restrictions on travel to Cuba. It also included
two provisions easing restrictions on the payment mechanisms for U.S. agricultural exports to two provisions easing restrictions on the payment mechanisms for U.S. agricultural exports to
Cuba. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs was scheduled to hold a markup of the Cuba. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs was scheduled to hold a markup of the bil bill on on
September 29, 2010, but postponed its consideration, and in the aftermath of the 2011 U.S. September 29, 2010, but postponed its consideration, and in the aftermath of the 2011 U.S.
legislativelegislative elections, no further action was taken. An identical companion elections, no further action was taken. An identical companion bil bill in the Senate, S. in the Senate, S.
3112 (Klobuchar), was introduced March 15, 2010, and referred to the Committee on Foreign 3112 (Klobuchar), was introduced March 15, 2010, and referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations. Relations.
On April On April 29, 2010, the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade, held a 29, 2010, the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Trade, held a
hearing on U.S.-Cuba policy that examined whether relaxing current Cuba travel and trade hearing on U.S.-Cuba policy that examined whether relaxing current Cuba travel and trade
restrictions would advance U.S. economic objectives, as restrictions would advance U.S. economic objectives, as wel well as U.S. political and human rights as U.S. political and human rights
goals in Cuba. goals in Cuba.
Additional Initiatives in the 111th Congress
Several other legislative initiatives Several other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 111th Congress that would have eased were introduced in the 111th Congress that would have eased
restrictions on travel to Cubarestrictions on travel to Cuba, but; no action was taken on these measures. H.R. 874 (Delahunt)/S. no action was taken on these measures. H.R. 874 (Delahunt)/S.
428 (Dorgan) and H.R. 1528 (Rangel) would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 428 (Dorgan) and H.R. 1528 (Rangel) would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

188 188 (Serrano), H.R. 1530 (Rangel), and H.R. 2272 (Rush) would have lifted the (Serrano), H.R. 1530 (Rangel), and H.R. 2272 (Rush) would have lifted the overal overall embargo embargo
on trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including travel restrictions. H.R. 1531 (Rangel)/S. on trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including travel restrictions. H.R. 1531 (Rangel)/S.
1089 (Baucus) would have facilitated the export of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba and also 1089 (Baucus) would have facilitated the export of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba and also
would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 332 (Lee) would have eased would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 332 (Lee) would have eased
restrictions on educational travel by providing that no funds made available to the Department of restrictions on educational travel by providing that no funds made available to the Department of
the Treasury may be used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require specific the Treasury may be used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require specific
licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba. S. 774 licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba. S. 774
(Dorgan), H.R. 1918 (Flake), and S. 1517 (Murkowski) would have amended the Trade Sanctions (Dorgan), H.R. 1918 (Flake), and S. 1517 (Murkowski) would have amended the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Economic Enhancement Act of 2000 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to Reform and Economic Enhancement Act of 2000 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to
authorize travel to Cuba under a general license in connection to hydrocarbon exploration and authorize travel to Cuba under a general license in connection to hydrocarbon exploration and
extraction activities. In contrast, H.Con.Res. 132 (Tiahrt) would have extraction activities. In contrast, H.Con.Res. 132 (Tiahrt) would have cal edcalled for the for the fulfil ment of
fulfillment of certain democratic conditions before the United States increases trade and tourism to Cuba. certain democratic conditions before the United States increases trade and tourism to Cuba.
Legislative Initiatives in the 112th Congress, 2011-2012201273
There were several attempts in the first session of the 112th Congress aimed at rolling back the There were several attempts in the first session of the 112th Congress aimed at rolling back the
Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on travel and remittancesObama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on travel and remittances, but; none of these none of these
were approved. Several legislative initiatives were also introduced that would have further eased were approved. Several legislative initiatives were also introduced that would have further eased
or lifted such restrictions altogetheror lifted such restrictions altogether, but; no action was taken on these measures. 73 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 112th Congress, see CRS Report R41617, Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 32 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances no action was taken on these measures.
FAA Reauthorization
During consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization During consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bil , bill, S. 223, in S. 223, in
February 2011, an amendment was submitted, but never considered, S.Amdt. 61 (Rubio), that February 2011, an amendment was submitted, but never considered, S.Amdt. 61 (Rubio), that
would have prohibited an expansion of flights to locations in countries that are designated state would have prohibited an expansion of flights to locations in countries that are designated state
sponsors of terrorism (which, at the time, included Cuba). sponsors of terrorism (which, at the time, included Cuba).
FY2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2012 Financial Services and The House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2012 Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations General Government Appropriations bil , bill, H.R. 2434, on July 7, 2011, with a provision in Section H.R. 2434, on July 7, 2011, with a provision in Section
901 that would have rolled back the Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on family 901 that would have rolled back the Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on family
travel and on remittances travel and on remittances overal overall. (The Senate Appropriations Committee version of the measure, . (The Senate Appropriations Committee version of the measure,
S. 1573, did not contain a similar provision.) The House provision had been offered as an S. 1573, did not contain a similar provision.) The House provision had been offered as an
amendment by Representative Mario Diaz-Balartamendment by Representative Mario Diaz-Balart that was agreed to by voice vote during the that was agreed to by voice vote during the
committee’s June 24, 2011, markup of the measure. The provision would have repealed committee’s June 24, 2011, markup of the measure. The provision would have repealed
amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations made since January 19, 2009, regarding amendments to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations made since January 19, 2009, regarding
family travel (31 C.F.R. 515.561), carrying remittances (31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(4)(i)), and sending family travel (31 C.F.R. 515.561), carrying remittances (31 C.F.R. 515.560(c)(4)(i)), and sending
remittances to Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.570). According to the provision, such regulations would be remittances to Cuba (31 C.F.R. 515.570). According to the provision, such regulations would be
restored and carried out as in effect on January 19, 2009, notwithstanding any guidelines, restored and carried out as in effect on January 19, 2009, notwithstanding any guidelines,
opinions, letters, presidential directives, or agency practices relating to such regulations that are opinions, letters, presidential directives, or agency practices relating to such regulations that are
issued or carried out after such date. issued or carried out after such date.
If the provision were to be enacted, family travel would have been limited If the provision were to be enacted, family travel would have been limited to once every three to once every three
years for a period of up to 14 days and would have required a specific license from the Treasury years for a period of up to 14 days and would have required a specific license from the Treasury
Department; licensed travelers would have been Department; licensed travelers would have been al owedallowed to carry to carry just $300 in remittances $300 in remittances
compared to the $3,000 currently compared to the $3,000 currently al owedallowed; family remittances would have been limited to $300 ; family remittances would have been limited to $300
per quarter; nonfamily remittances restored by the Obama Administration, up to $500 per quarter, per quarter; nonfamily remittances restored by the Obama Administration, up to $500 per quarter,
would not have been would not have been al owedallowed; and the general license for remittances to religious organizations ; and the general license for remittances to religious organizations
would have been eliminated, with such remittances permitted via specific license. would have been eliminated, with such remittances permitted via specific license.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

The White House’s Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2434, issued July 13, 2011, stated The White House’s Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2434, issued July 13, 2011, stated
that the Administration opposed Section 901 because it would reverse the President’s policy on that the Administration opposed Section 901 because it would reverse the President’s policy on
family travel and remittances, and that the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto if family travel and remittances, and that the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto if
the the bil bill contained the provision. According to the statement, Section 901 “would undo the contained the provision. According to the statement, Section 901 “would undo the
President’s efforts to increase contact between divided Cuban families, undermine the President’s efforts to increase contact between divided Cuban families, undermine the
enhancement of the Cuban people’s economic independence and support for private sector enhancement of the Cuban people’s economic independence and support for private sector
activity in Cuba that come from increased remittances from family members, and therefore isolate activity in Cuba that come from increased remittances from family members, and therefore isolate
the Cuban people and make them more dependent on Cuban authorities.”the Cuban people and make them more dependent on Cuban authorities.”5974
A second Cuba amendment agreed to by voice vote during the markup of H.R. 2434 was offered A second Cuba amendment agreed to by voice vote during the markup of H.R. 2434 was offered
by Representative Jeff Flake. The amendment made changes to the committee report to the by Representative Jeff Flake. The amendment made changes to the committee report to the bil
bill (H.Rept. 112-136) and would have required a report from OFAC on the current number of (H.Rept. 112-136) and would have required a report from OFAC on the current number of
pending applications seeking specific licenses related to educational exchanges not involving pending applications seeking specific licenses related to educational exchanges not involving
academic study pursuant to a degree program under the auspices of an organization that sponsors academic study pursuant to a degree program under the auspices of an organization that sponsors
and organizes such programs to promote people-to-people contact. The report also would have and organizes such programs to promote people-to-people contact. The report also would have
required information on the number of these licenses that OFAC has approved to date, its plan for required information on the number of these licenses that OFAC has approved to date, its plan for
getting through the current queue of license applications, and its plan for expeditiously reviewing getting through the current queue of license applications, and its plan for expeditiously reviewing
those applications in the future.
those applications in the future. 74 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 2434—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, July 13, 2011. Congressional Research Service 33 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances In November 2011, an attempt to include the Senate version of the Financial Services In November 2011, an attempt to include the Senate version of the Financial Services
appropriations measure, S. 1573, in a “minibus” with two other full-year appropriations measures appropriations measure, S. 1573, in a “minibus” with two other full-year appropriations measures
and a short-term continuing resolution failed in part because of disagreement over a Cuba and a short-term continuing resolution failed in part because of disagreement over a Cuba
provision that would have provision that would have al owedallowed direct transfers from a Cuban financial institution to a U.S. direct transfers from a Cuban financial institution to a U.S.
financial institution to pay for U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba.financial institution to pay for U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba. (For background on
that provision, see CRS Report R41617, Cuba: Issues for the 112th Congress.)
In December 2011, a legislative battle ensued over the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2012, In December 2011, a legislative battle ensued over the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2012,
H.R. 2055, a “megabus” H.R. 2055, a “megabus” bil bill that combined nine full-year appropriations measures, including the that combined nine full-year appropriations measures, including the
Financial Services and General Government Financial Services and General Government bil bill. At issue was the potential inclusion of two Cuba . At issue was the potential inclusion of two Cuba
provisions that had been in the House Appropriations Committee-approved version of the provisions that had been in the House Appropriations Committee-approved version of the
Financial Services Financial Services bil bill, H.R. 2434: one described above that would roll back to January 2009 the , H.R. 2434: one described above that would roll back to January 2009 the
Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on family travel and on remittances; and the Obama Administration’s actions easing restrictions on family travel and on remittances; and the
second a provision that would continue to clarify, for the third fiscal year in a row, the definition second a provision that would continue to clarify, for the third fiscal year in a row, the definition
of “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba so that the of “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba so that the
payment was due upon delivery in Cuba as opposed to being due before the goods left U.S. ports. payment was due upon delivery in Cuba as opposed to being due before the goods left U.S. ports.
(The text of the two Cuba provisions was also included in Division C, Sections 632 and 634, of (The text of the two Cuba provisions was also included in Division C, Sections 632 and 634, of
H.R. 3671, a new “megabus” H.R. 3671, a new “megabus” bil bill introduced by House Republicans on December 14, 2011.) introduced by House Republicans on December 14, 2011.)
Ultimately, Ultimately, congressional leaders agreed to not include the two Cuba provisions in H.R. 2055 congressional leaders agreed to not include the two Cuba provisions in H.R. 2055
(H.Rept. 112-331), and the measure was approved by the House and Senate, respectively, on (H.Rept. 112-331), and the measure was approved by the House and Senate, respectively, on
December 16 and 17, 2011, and signed into law on December 23, 2011 (P.L. 112-74). The White December 16 and 17, 2011, and signed into law on December 23, 2011 (P.L. 112-74). The White
House reportedly had exerted strong pressure not to include the Cuba provision that would have House reportedly had exerted strong pressure not to include the Cuba provision that would have
rolled back the Administration’s easing of restrictions on travel and remittances. Dropping the rolled back the Administration’s easing of restrictions on travel and remittances. Dropping the
second provision on the definition of “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural and second provision on the definition of “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural and
medical products appears to have been a political tradeoff made to compensate for the travel medical products appears to have been a political tradeoff made to compensate for the travel
rollback provision being dropped.

59 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R.
2434—Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, July 13, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

rollback provision being dropped. FY2012 Foreign Relations Authorization Act
In other congressional action, on July 21, 2011, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs marked In other congressional action, on July 21, 2011, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs marked
up H.R. 2583 (H.Rept. 112-223), the FY2012 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, with a up H.R. 2583 (H.Rept. 112-223), the FY2012 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, with a
provision (§1126 of the reported provision (§1126 of the reported bil bill) that would have required the President to fully enforce ) that would have required the President to fully enforce al
all U.S. regulations on travel to Cuba as in effect on January 19, 2009, and impose the corresponding U.S. regulations on travel to Cuba as in effect on January 19, 2009, and impose the corresponding
penalties against individuals determined to be in violationpenalties against individuals determined to be in violation of such regulations. The provision was of such regulations. The provision was
added by an amendment offered by Representative David Rivera, approved 36-6, that had the added by an amendment offered by Representative David Rivera, approved 36-6, that had the
intent of reinstating tighter travel restrictions as they existed under the Bush Administration in intent of reinstating tighter travel restrictions as they existed under the Bush Administration in
January 2009. January 2009.
Amendments to the Cuban Adjustment Act
Two additional measures introduced in August 2011 would have amended the Cuban Adjustment Two additional measures introduced in August 2011 would have amended the Cuban Adjustment
Act of 1966 (CAA, P.L. 89-732) Act of 1966 (CAA, P.L. 89-732) in order to curb travel to Cuba by Cubans who had recently to curb travel to Cuba by Cubans who had recently
immigrated to the United States. Introduced on August 1, 2011, H.R. 2771 (Rivera) would have immigrated to the United States. Introduced on August 1, 2011, H.R. 2771 (Rivera) would have
amended the amended the CAA CAA to increase to five years the period during which a Cuban national must be to increase to five years the period during which a Cuban national must be
physical y physically present in the United States in order to qualify for adjustment of status to that of a present in the United States in order to qualify for adjustment of status to that of a
permanent resident. The legislation also would have provided that an alien would be ineligiblepermanent resident. The legislation also would have provided that an alien would be ineligible for for
adjustment to permanent resident status if the alien returned to Cuba after admission or parole adjustment to permanent resident status if the alien returned to Cuba after admission or parole
into the United States before becoming a U.S. citizen. A subsequent version, H.R. 2831 (Rivera), into the United States before becoming a U.S. citizen. A subsequent version, H.R. 2831 (Rivera),
introduced August 30, 2011, just contained the provision maintaining that an alien from Cuba introduced August 30, 2011, just contained the provision maintaining that an alien from Cuba
would be ineligiblewould be ineligible for adjustment to permanent resident status under the CAA if he or she for adjustment to permanent resident status under the CAA if he or she
returned to Cuba before becoming a U.S. citizen. The House Committee on the Judiciary, returned to Cuba before becoming a U.S. citizen. The House Committee on the Judiciary,
Congressional Research Service 34 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Subcommittee on Immigration on Policy Enforcement, held a hearing on H.R. 2831 on May 31, Subcommittee on Immigration on Policy Enforcement, held a hearing on H.R. 2831 on May 31,
2012. 2012.
Initiatives to Ease Restrictions on Travel and Remittances
In contrast to measures aimed at rolling back the Obama Administration’s polices easing travel In contrast to measures aimed at rolling back the Obama Administration’s polices easing travel
and remittances to Cuba, several measures would have eased or lifted travel restrictions and remittances to Cuba, several measures would have eased or lifted travel restrictions
altogether. H.R. 1886 (Rangel) would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 1888 altogether. H.R. 1886 (Rangel) would have prohibited restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 1888
(Rangel), in addition to removing some restrictions on the export of U.S. agricultural products to (Rangel), in addition to removing some restrictions on the export of U.S. agricultural products to
Cuba, would also have prohibited Cuba travel restrictions. Two initiatives that would have lifted Cuba, would also have prohibited Cuba travel restrictions. Two initiatives that would have lifted
the the overal overall embargo on trade and restrictions on financial transaction with Cuba, H.R. 255 embargo on trade and restrictions on financial transaction with Cuba, H.R. 255
(Serrano) and H.R. 1887 (Rangel), would also have lifted restrictions on travel and remittances to (Serrano) and H.R. 1887 (Rangel), would also have lifted restrictions on travel and remittances to
Cuba. H.R. 380 (Lee) would have provided that no funds made availableCuba. H.R. 380 (Lee) would have provided that no funds made available to the Department of the to the Department of the
Treasury could be used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require specific Treasury could be used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require specific
licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba. licenses for travel-related transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba.
Legislative Initiatives in the 113th Congress, 2013-2014201475
In the 113th Congress, appropriations measures had provisions that would have tightened and In the 113th Congress, appropriations measures had provisions that would have tightened and
eased Cuba travel restrictions, but none of these provisions were included in final action. eased Cuba travel restrictions, but none of these provisions were included in final action.
AdditionalAdditional measures were introduced that would have lifted travel restrictionsmeasures were introduced that would have lifted travel restrictions, but; no action was no action was
taken on these measures. taken on these measures.
First Session
In the first session of the 113th Congress, the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 Financial In the first session of the 113th Congress, the House and Senate versions of the FY2014 Financial
Services and General Government appropriations measure, H.R. 2786 and S. 1371, as reported by Services and General Government appropriations measure, H.R. 2786 and S. 1371, as reported by
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

the Appropriations Committees in July 2013, had different provisions regarding U.S. policy the Appropriations Committees in July 2013, had different provisions regarding U.S. policy
regarding travel to Cuba. The House version would have tightened restrictions on travel by regarding travel to Cuba. The House version would have tightened restrictions on travel by
prohibiting funding for any additional authorization of people-to-people exchanges during the prohibiting funding for any additional authorization of people-to-people exchanges during the
fiscal year, while the Senate version would have eased restrictions on travel by authorizing a new fiscal year, while the Senate version would have eased restrictions on travel by authorizing a new
general license for professional travel related to disaster prevention, emergency preparedness, and general license for professional travel related to disaster prevention, emergency preparedness, and
natural resource protection. Ultimately, however, neither of these provisions was included in the natural resource protection. Ultimately, however, neither of these provisions was included in the
FY2014 omnibus appropriations measure, H.R. 3547 (P.L. 113-76), signed into law January 17, FY2014 omnibus appropriations measure, H.R. 3547 (P.L. 113-76), signed into law January 17,
2014. 2014.
As reported out of the House Appropriations Committee on July 23, 2013, H.R. 2786 (H.Rept. As reported out of the House Appropriations Committee on July 23, 2013, H.R. 2786 (H.Rept.
113-172) had a provision in Section 124 that would have prohibited FY2014 funding used “to 113-172) had a provision in Section 124 that would have prohibited FY2014 funding used “to
approve, license, facilitate, authorize, or otherwise approve, license, facilitate, authorize, or otherwise al owallow” travel-related or other transactions ” travel-related or other transactions
related to nonacademic educational exchanges (i.e., people-to-people travel) to Cuba set forth in related to nonacademic educational exchanges (i.e., people-to-people travel) to Cuba set forth in
31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)(2) of the CACR. The committee report to the House 31 C.F.R. 515.565(b)(2) of the CACR. The committee report to the House bil bill contended that this contended that this
category of travel violates the prohibition on travel related to tourist activities set forth in the category of travel violates the prohibition on travel related to tourist activities set forth in the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX). The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX). The
report also maintained that the stated purpose of people-to-people travel—to promote the Cuban report also maintained that the stated purpose of people-to-people travel—to promote the Cuban
people’s independence from Cuban authorities—“cannot be accomplished through itineraries that people’s independence from Cuban authorities—“cannot be accomplished through itineraries that
mainly feature interactions with representatives of a dictatorship that actively oppresses the mainly feature interactions with representatives of a dictatorship that actively oppresses the
Cuban people, nor can it be accomplished through itineraries that do not require meetings with Cuban people, nor can it be accomplished through itineraries that do not require meetings with
pro-democracy activists or independent members of Cuban civil society.” pro-democracy activists or independent members of Cuban civil society.”
75 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 113th Congress, see CRS Report R43024, Cuba: U.S. Policy and Issues for the 113th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 35 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances The House bill The House bil had a second Cuba provision in Section 125 that would have required a Treasury had a second Cuba provision in Section 125 that would have required a Treasury
Department report within 90 days of the Department report within 90 days of the bil bill’s enactment with information for each fiscal year ’s enactment with information for each fiscal year
since FY2007 on the number of travelers visiting close relatives in Cuba, the average duration of since FY2007 on the number of travelers visiting close relatives in Cuba, the average duration of
these trips, the average amount of U.S. dollars spent per family traveler (including amount of these trips, the average amount of U.S. dollars spent per family traveler (including amount of
remittances carried to Cuba), the number of return trips per year, and the total sum of U.S. dollars remittances carried to Cuba), the number of return trips per year, and the total sum of U.S. dollars
spent collectively by familyspent collectively by family travelers for each fiscal year. travelers for each fiscal year.
As reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 25, 2013, S. 1371 (S.Rept. 113- As reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 25, 2013, S. 1371 (S.Rept. 113-
80) had a provision in Section 628 that would have provided for a new general license for travel-80) had a provision in Section 628 that would have provided for a new general license for travel-
related transactions for full-time professional research; attendance at professional meetings if the related transactions for full-time professional research; attendance at professional meetings if the
sponsoring organization was a U.S. organization; and the organization and management of sponsoring organization was a U.S. organization; and the organization and management of
professional meetings professional meetings andor conferences in Cuba if the sponsoring organization was a U.S. conferences in Cuba if the sponsoring organization was a U.S.
professional organization—if the travel was related to disaster prevention; emergency professional organization—if the travel was related to disaster prevention; emergency
preparedness; and natural resource protection, including for fisheries, coral reefs, and migratory preparedness; and natural resource protection, including for fisheries, coral reefs, and migratory
species. This provision would have expanded the general licenses availablespecies. This provision would have expanded the general licenses available for professional for professional
research and meetings in Cuba that research and meetings in Cuba that al owallow full-time professionals to conduct professional research full-time professionals to conduct professional research
in their areas (with certain conditions), attend professional meetings or conferences in Cuba in their areas (with certain conditions), attend professional meetings or conferences in Cuba
organized by an international professional organization, and attend professional meetings for organized by an international professional organization, and attend professional meetings for
commercial telecommunications transactions (31 C.F.R. 515.564). commercial telecommunications transactions (31 C.F.R. 515.564).
Second Session
In the second session of the 113th Congress, the House-passed version of the FY2015 Financial In the second session of the 113th Congress, the House-passed version of the FY2015 Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 5016 (H.Rept. 113-508), had a Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 5016 (H.Rept. 113-508), had a
provision that would have prohibited the use of any funds in the act to approve, license, facilitate, provision that would have prohibited the use of any funds in the act to approve, license, facilitate,
authorize, or otherwise authorize, or otherwise al owallow people-to-people travel. The measure also had a provision that people-to-people travel. The measure also had a provision that
would have required the Administration to prepare a report with specific information on family would have required the Administration to prepare a report with specific information on family
travel to Cuba since FY2007. A draft Senate travel to Cuba since FY2007. A draft Senate bil bill (not introduced, but released by the Senate (not introduced, but released by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations in July 2014) did not include any provisions on Cuba sanctions. Committee on Appropriations in July 2014) did not include any provisions on Cuba sanctions.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

H.R. 5016 was approved by the House July 16, 2014, by a vote of 228 to 195. Section 126 of the H.R. 5016 was approved by the House July 16, 2014, by a vote of 228 to 195. Section 126 of the
bil bill would have prevented any funds in the act from being used “to approve, license, facilitate, would have prevented any funds in the act from being used “to approve, license, facilitate,
authorize or otherwise authorize or otherwise al owallow” people-to-people travel. Section 127 would have required a joint ” people-to-people travel. Section 127 would have required a joint
report from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland Security with report from the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Homeland Security with
information for each fiscal year since FY2007 on the number of travelers visiting close relatives information for each fiscal year since FY2007 on the number of travelers visiting close relatives
in Cuba; the average duration of these trips; the average amount of U.S. dollars spent per family in Cuba; the average duration of these trips; the average amount of U.S. dollars spent per family
traveler (including amount of remittances carried to Cuba); the number of return trips per year; traveler (including amount of remittances carried to Cuba); the number of return trips per year;
and the total sum of U.S. dollars spent collectively by family travelers for each fiscal year. As and the total sum of U.S. dollars spent collectively by family travelers for each fiscal year. As
noted above, similar provisions had appeared in the House Appropriations Committee-reported noted above, similar provisions had appeared in the House Appropriations Committee-reported
FY2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 2786, but FY2014 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 2786, but
ultimately were not included in the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76).ultimately were not included in the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76).
The House Committee on Appropriations report to H.R. 5016 (H.Rept. 113-508) contended that The House Committee on Appropriations report to H.R. 5016 (H.Rept. 113-508) contended that
the people-to-people category of travel “contravenes the explicit prohibition against tourist the people-to-people category of travel “contravenes the explicit prohibition against tourist
activities as provided in section 910(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement activities as provided in section 910(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act of 2000 (TSRA),” (22 U.S.C. 7209(b)). The report also maintained that the stated purpose of Act of 2000 (TSRA),” (22 U.S.C. 7209(b)). The report also maintained that the stated purpose of
people-to-people travel—to promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities—people-to-people travel—to promote the Cuban people’s independence from Cuban authorities—
“cannot be accomplished through itineraries that mainly feature interactions with representatives “cannot be accomplished through itineraries that mainly feature interactions with representatives
of a dictatorship that actively oppresses the Cuban people, nor can it be accomplished through of a dictatorship that actively oppresses the Cuban people, nor can it be accomplished through
itineraries that do not require meetings with pro-democracy activists or independent members of itineraries that do not require meetings with pro-democracy activists or independent members of
Cuban civil society.” Cuban civil society.”
Ultimately Congressional Research Service 36 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Ultimately Congress did not complete action on H.R. 5016, and the FY2015 omnibus Congress did not complete action on H.R. 5016, and the FY2015 omnibus
appropriations measure approved in December 2014 (P.L. 113-235) did not include the Cuba-appropriations measure approved in December 2014 (P.L. 113-235) did not include the Cuba-
related travel provisions in H.R. 5016. related travel provisions in H.R. 5016.
Additional Legislation Introduced in the 113th Congress
In addition to the appropriations measured discussed above, several other initiatives were In addition to the appropriations measured discussed above, several other initiatives were
introduced in the 113th Congress that would lifted introduced in the 113th Congress that would lifted al all travel restrictions, but no action was taken travel restrictions, but no action was taken
on these measures: H.R. 871 (Rangel) would have lifted travel restrictions; H.R. 873 (Rangel) on these measures: H.R. 871 (Rangel) would have lifted travel restrictions; H.R. 873 (Rangel)
would have lifted travel restrictions and restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports; and H.R. 214 would have lifted travel restrictions and restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports; and H.R. 214
(Serrano), H.R. 872 (Rangel), and H.R. 1917 (Rush) would have lifted the (Serrano), H.R. 872 (Rangel), and H.R. 1917 (Rush) would have lifted the overal overall embargo, embargo,
including travel restrictions. including travel restrictions.
Legislative Initiatives in the 114th Congress, 2015-2016201676
Several legislativeSeveral legislative initiatives introduced in the 114th Congress would have lifted remaining initiatives introduced in the 114th Congress would have lifted remaining
restrictions on travel and remittancesrestrictions on travel and remittances, but; no action was taken on these measures. Three no action was taken on these measures. Three bil s
bills would have lifted the would have lifted the overal overall embargo, including restrictions on travel and remittances: H.R. 274 embargo, including restrictions on travel and remittances: H.R. 274
(Rush), H.R. 403 (Rangel), and H.R. 735 (Serrano). One (Rush), H.R. 403 (Rangel), and H.R. 735 (Serrano). One bil bill, H.R. 635 (Rangel), would have , H.R. 635 (Rangel), would have
facilitated the export of U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba and lifted travel facilitated the export of U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba and lifted travel
restrictions. Three restrictions. Three bil sbills would have focused solely on prohibiting restrictions on travel to Cuba: would have focused solely on prohibiting restrictions on travel to Cuba:
H.R. 634 (Rangel), H.R. 664 (Sanford), and S. 299 (Flake). S. 2990 (Collins) would have H.R. 634 (Rangel), H.R. 664 (Sanford), and S. 299 (Flake). S. 2990 (Collins) would have
permitted the provision of services to foreign air carriers en route to or from Cuba. (OFAC issued permitted the provision of services to foreign air carriers en route to or from Cuba. (OFAC issued
a license in July 2016 to Bangor International Airport to provide services to such flights.) a license in July 2016 to Bangor International Airport to provide services to such flights.)
In contrast, other initiatives would have slowed down easing of travel restrictions or restricted In contrast, other initiatives would have slowed down easing of travel restrictions or restricted
regular scheduled air travel with Cuba. No action was taken on these measures. Two regular scheduled air travel with Cuba. No action was taken on these measures. Two bil sbills, S. 1388 , S. 1388
(Vitter) and H.R. 2466 (Rooney), would have required the President to submit a plan for resolving (Vitter) and H.R. 2466 (Rooney), would have required the President to submit a plan for resolving
al all outstanding claims relating to property confiscated by the government of Cuba before taking outstanding claims relating to property confiscated by the government of Cuba before taking
action to ease restrictions on travel to or trade with Cuba. Two similar action to ease restrictions on travel to or trade with Cuba. Two similar bil sbills, H.R. 5728 (Katko) , H.R. 5728 (Katko)
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

and S. 3289 (Rubio), would have prohibited scheduled passenger air transportation between the and S. 3289 (Rubio), would have prohibited scheduled passenger air transportation between the
United States and Cuba until a study was completed regarding Cuba’s airport security and until United States and Cuba until a study was completed regarding Cuba’s airport security and until
agreements had been reached with Cuba agreements had been reached with Cuba al owingallowing the U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service to the U.S. Federal Air Marshal Service to
conduct missions on regularly scheduled flights and providing Transportation Security conduct missions on regularly scheduled flights and providing Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) inspectors access to Administration (TSA) inspectors access to al all areas of last-point-of-departure airports in Cuba for areas of last-point-of-departure airports in Cuba for
security assessments. (As noted above, Cuba and the United States reached an agreement in late security assessments. (As noted above, Cuba and the United States reached an agreement in late
September 2016 that September 2016 that wil al owwill allow Federal Air Marshals on board regularly scheduled flights to and Federal Air Marshals on board regularly scheduled flights to and
from Cuba.) from Cuba.)
Efforts to ease and tighten travel restrictions played out in the FY2016 appropriations process, but Efforts to ease and tighten travel restrictions played out in the FY2016 appropriations process, but
ultimately no such provisions were included in the FY2016 omnibus appropriations measure (P.L. ultimately no such provisions were included in the FY2016 omnibus appropriations measure (P.L.
114-113). The Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of the FY2016 Financial 114-113). The Senate Appropriations Committee-approved version of the FY2016 Financial
Services appropriation Services appropriation bil , bill, S. 1910, had a provision that would have lifted restrictions on travel S. 1910, had a provision that would have lifted restrictions on travel
to Cuba. In contrast, House-passed H.R. 2577, the FY2016 House Transportation, Housing, and to Cuba. In contrast, House-passed H.R. 2577, the FY2016 House Transportation, Housing, and
Urban Development appropriations Urban Development appropriations bil bill, had two Cuba provisions that would have affected the , had two Cuba provisions that would have affected the
Administration’s efforts to increase travel to and from Cuba by impeding the establishment of Administration’s efforts to increase travel to and from Cuba by impeding the establishment of
regularly scheduled air service and passenger ferry service. In addition, the House Appropriations regularly scheduled air service and passenger ferry service. In addition, the House Appropriations
76 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 114th Congress, see CRS Report R43926, Cuba: Issues and Actions in the 114th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 37 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Committee-approved FY2016 Financial Services appropriations Committee-approved FY2016 Financial Services appropriations bil bill, H.R. 2995, had a broader , H.R. 2995, had a broader
provision that would have prevented people-to-people educational travel. provision that would have prevented people-to-people educational travel.
In the FY2017 appropriations process, the House and Senate versions of the Financial Services In the FY2017 appropriations process, the House and Senate versions of the Financial Services
appropriations measure had contrasting provisions on travel, but the 114th Congress did not appropriations measure had contrasting provisions on travel, but the 114th Congress did not
complete action on FY2017 appropriations. In the House Financial Services appropriations complete action on FY2017 appropriations. In the House Financial Services appropriations bil bill, ,
H.R. 5485 (H.Rept. 114-624), as approved by the House on July 7, 2016, Section 132 would have H.R. 5485 (H.Rept. 114-624), as approved by the House on July 7, 2016, Section 132 would have
prohibited funding that licenses, facilitates, or otherwise prohibited funding that licenses, facilitates, or otherwise al owsallows people-to-people travel. The people-to-people travel. The
measure would have had a significant impact on the expansion of U.S. travel to Cuba that has measure would have had a significant impact on the expansion of U.S. travel to Cuba that has
occurred in recent years, including the recently begun cruise ship travel to Cuba. Another occurred in recent years, including the recently begun cruise ship travel to Cuba. Another
provision in the House provision in the House bil , bill, Section 134, would have prohibited funding to approve, license, Section 134, would have prohibited funding to approve, license,
facilitate, authorize, or otherwise facilitate, authorize, or otherwise al owallow any financial transaction with an entity controlled, in any financial transaction with an entity controlled, in
whole or in part, by the Cuban military or whole or in part, by the Cuban military or intel igence intelligence service or any officer or immediate family service or any officer or immediate family
member thereof. This provision could have had a significant effect on U.S. travel to Cuba because member thereof. This provision could have had a significant effect on U.S. travel to Cuba because
the Cuban military has an important role in hotel and other travel services in the country. the Cuban military has an important role in hotel and other travel services in the country.
In the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2017 Financial Services In the Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the FY2017 Financial Services
appropriations measure, S. 3067 (S.Rept. 114-280), Section 635 would have prohibited funding in appropriations measure, S. 3067 (S.Rept. 114-280), Section 635 would have prohibited funding in
the act or in any act to implement any law, regulation, or policy that restricts travel to Cuba. The the act or in any act to implement any law, regulation, or policy that restricts travel to Cuba. The
provision would have effectively lifted provision would have effectively lifted al all restrictions on travel to Cuba. Another provision in the restrictions on travel to Cuba. Another provision in the
Senate Senate bil , bill, Section 637, would have prohibited funds in the act or in any act from being used to Section 637, would have prohibited funds in the act or in any act from being used to
implement any law, regulation, or policy that prohibits the provision of technical services implement any law, regulation, or policy that prohibits the provision of technical services
otherwise permitted under an international air transportation agreement in the United States for an otherwise permitted under an international air transportation agreement in the United States for an
aircraft of a foreign carrier that is en route to or from Cuba based on the restrictions set forth in aircraft of a foreign carrier that is en route to or from Cuba based on the restrictions set forth in
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. (As noted above, OFAC issued a license in July 2016 to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. (As noted above, OFAC issued a license in July 2016 to
Bangor International Airport to provide services to such flights.) Bangor International Airport to provide services to such flights.)
Congress Congress did not approveapproved a full-year FY2017 appropriations measure a full-year FY2017 appropriations measure untilin May 2017, when it May 2017, when it
enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31)enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31), which. The act did not include any of did not include any of
the contrasting provisions that had been in the House and Senate versions of the Financial the contrasting provisions that had been in the House and Senate versions of the Financial
Services appropriations measure discussed above. Services appropriations measure discussed above.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances

Legislative Initiatives in the 115th Congress (2017-2018)77
In the 115th Congress, six In the 115th Congress, six bil sbills would have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 351 would have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 351
(Sanford), the Freedom to Travel Act of 2017, would have focused solely on travel by lifting (Sanford), the Freedom to Travel Act of 2017, would have focused solely on travel by lifting
current restrictions on travel and prohibiting the President from regulating, directly or indirectly, current restrictions on travel and prohibiting the President from regulating, directly or indirectly,
travel to Cuba or any transaction incident to such travel. S. 1287 (Flake), the Freedom for travel to Cuba or any transaction incident to such travel. S. 1287 (Flake), the Freedom for
Americans to Travel Act of 2017, would have prohibited the President from restricting travel to Americans to Travel Act of 2017, would have prohibited the President from restricting travel to
Cuba or any transactions incident to travel to Cuba. H.R. 572 (Serrano), the Promoting American Cuba or any transactions incident to travel to Cuba. H.R. 572 (Serrano), the Promoting American
Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2017, would have eased certain restrictions on Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2017, would have eased certain restrictions on
agricultural and medical exports to Cuba and would have lifted restrictions on travel and agricultural and medical exports to Cuba and would have lifted restrictions on travel and
prohibited restrictions on travel if such travel would be lawful in the United States. Three prohibited restrictions on travel if such travel would be lawful in the United States. Three bil sbills
would have lifted the embargo on Cuba by removing provisions of law restricting trade and other would have lifted the embargo on Cuba by removing provisions of law restricting trade and other
financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions on travel, and would have prohibited financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions on travel, and would have prohibited
restrictions on travel if such travel would be lawful in the United States: H.R. 574 (Serrano), the restrictions on travel if such travel would be lawful in the United States: H.R. 574 (Serrano), the
Cuba Reconciliation Act; H.R. 2966 (Rush), the United States-Cuba Normalization Act of 2017; Cuba Reconciliation Act; H.R. 2966 (Rush), the United States-Cuba Normalization Act of 2017;
77 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 115th Congress, see CRS Report R44822, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 115th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 38 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances and S. 1699 (Wyden), the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2017. (Both H.R. 2966 and S. 1699 and S. 1699 (Wyden), the United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2017. (Both H.R. 2966 and S. 1699
also would have prohibited restrictions on U.S. remittances to Cuba.) also would have prohibited restrictions on U.S. remittances to Cuba.)
The 115th Congress also took legislative action related to concerns about Cuba’s airport security. The 115th Congress also took legislative action related to concerns about Cuba’s airport security.
Congress completed action on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, signed into law October 6, Congress completed action on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, signed into law October 6,
2018, as P.L. 115-254 (H.R. 302), which included a provision in Section 1957 requiring the TSA 2018, as P.L. 115-254 (H.R. 302), which included a provision in Section 1957 requiring the TSA
to provide Congress a briefing on certain aspects of security measures at airports in Cuba that to provide Congress a briefing on certain aspects of security measures at airports in Cuba that
have air service to the United States. (The language of the provision is similar, although not have air service to the United States. (The language of the provision is similar, although not
identical, to a provision in H.R. 3328 [Katko], the Cuban Airport Security Act of 2017, approved identical, to a provision in H.R. 3328 [Katko], the Cuban Airport Security Act of 2017, approved
by the House in October 2017.)by the House in October 2017.)6078 P.L. 115-254 also required the TSA Administrator to (1) direct P.L. 115-254 also required the TSA Administrator to (1) direct
al all public charters to provide updated flight data to more reliably track the public charter public charters to provide updated flight data to more reliably track the public charter
operations of air carriers between the United States and Cuba and (2) develop and implement a operations of air carriers between the United States and Cuba and (2) develop and implement a
mechanism that corroborates and validates flight schedule data to more reliably track the public mechanism that corroborates and validates flight schedule data to more reliably track the public
charter operations of air carriers between the United States and Cuba.charter operations of air carriers between the United States and Cuba.6179
Legislative Initiatives in the 116th Congress, 2019-2020202080
In the 116th Congress, three In the 116th Congress, three bil sbills were introduced that would have lifted restrictions on travel to were introduced that would have lifted restrictions on travel to
Cuba. Identical Cuba. Identical bil s bills H.R. 3960 (McGovern) and S. 2303 (Leahy), the Freedom for Americans to H.R. 3960 (McGovern) and S. 2303 (Leahy), the Freedom for Americans to
Travel to Cuba Act of 2019, would have prohibited most restrictions on travel to or from Cuba by Travel to Cuba Act of 2019, would have prohibited most restrictions on travel to or from Cuba by
U.S. citizens and legal residents or any transactions incident to such travel. H.R. 2404 (Rush), the U.S. citizens and legal residents or any transactions incident to such travel. H.R. 2404 (Rush), the
United States-Cuba Relations Normalization Act, would have lifted most economic sanctions on United States-Cuba Relations Normalization Act, would have lifted most economic sanctions on
Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances. Cuba, including restrictions on travel and remittances.


60 H.R. 3328 also would have prohibited a U.S. air carrier from employing a Cuban national in Cuba unless the carrier
had publicly disclosed Author Information Mark P. Sullivan Specialist in Latin American Affairs 78 H.R. 3328 also would have prohibited a U.S. air carrier from employing a Cuban national in Cuba unless the carrier had publicly disclosed the full text of the formal agreement between the air carrier and the the full text of the formal agreement between the air carrier and the Em presaEmpresa Cubana de
Aeropuertos y Servicios Aeronauticos or any other entity associated with the Cuban government. or any other entity associated with the Cuban government. T heThe bill would bill would also, also,
to the extent practicable, have to the extent practicable, have prohibit edprohibited U.S. air carriers from hiring Cuban U.S. air carriers from hiring Cuban nationals if they had been recruited, hired, nationals if they had been recruited, hired,
or trained by entities that are owned, operated, or controlled in whole or in part by Cuba’sor trained by entities that are owned, operated, or controlled in whole or in part by Cuba’s Council Council of State, Council of of State, Council of
Ministers, Communist Party, Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or Ministry of Ministers, Communist Party, Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or Ministry of
the Interior. An identical bill, S.the Interior. An identical bill, S. 2023 (Rubio), was2023 (Rubio), was introduced in the Senate in October 2017. introduced in the Senate in October 2017.
61 T his 79 This requirement relating to public air charters to and from Cuba requirement relating to public air charters to and from Cuba stems from a recommendation made by the stems from a recommendation made by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a JulyGovernment Accountability Office (GAO) in a July 2018 report examining 2018 report examining T SATSA’s assessments of Cuban’s assessments of Cuban aviation aviation
security. Seesecurity. See GAO,GAO, Aviation Security, Actions Needed to Better Identify and Track U.S.-Bound Public Charter
Operations from Cuba, GAO-18-526, July 2018. 80 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 116th Congress, see CRS Report R45657, Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 116th Congress and Through the Trump Administration, by Mark P. Sullivan. Congressional Research Service 39 Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances Cuba, GAO-18-526, July 2018.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances


Author Information

Mark P. Sullivan

Specialist in Latin American Affairs



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n otnot be relied upon for purposes other be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
RL31139 RL31139 · VERSION 9192 · UPDATED
3740

---