Order Code RL31139
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Legislative
Initiatives in the 107th Congress
October 29, 2001
Mark P. Sullivan
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Legislative
Initiatives in the 107th Congress
Summary
Restrictions on travel to Cuba have been a key component in U.S. efforts to
isolate the communist government of Fidel Castro for much of the past 40 years. Over
time, there have been numerous changes to the restrictions and for 5 years, from 1977
until 1982, there were no restrictions on travel to Cuba. This report surveys changes
to the travel restrictions dating back to the 1960s, summarizes major arguments for
and against lifting such restrictions, and tracks legislative initiatives in the 107th
Congress to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba.
Major arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban are it hinders efforts to
influence conditions in Cuba and may be aiding Castro by helping restrict the flow of
information; it abridges the rights of ordinary Americans; and Americans can travel
to other countries with communist or authoritarian governments. Major arguments
in opposition to lifting the Cuba travel ban are American tourist travel would support
Castro’s rule by providing his government with millions of dollars in tourist receipts;
there are legal provisions allowing travel to Cuba for humanitarian purposes that are
used by thousands of Americans each year; and the President should be free to restrict
travel for foreign policy reasons.
The 106th Congress tightened Cuba travel restrictions in the FY2001 agricultural
appropriations bill (P.L. 106-387, Title IX) by circumscribing the discretion of the
Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to issue specific travel
licenses on a case-by-case basis that do not neatly fit into categories set forth in the
Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR). In the first session of the 107th Congress,
the House voted, in H.R. 2590, the FY2002 Treasury Department appropriation bill,
to prohibit Treasury Department funds from being used to administer or enforce the
CACR with respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. The Senate version of
the bill, however, did not include the Cuba provision, and the House-Senate
conference report on the bill (H.Rept. 107-253) did not include the provision.
Numerous other initiatives have been introduced to ease, or eliminate altogether,
restrictions on travel to Cuba. Whether such initiatives will move forward in the
second session of the 107th Congress is uncertain given the change in congressional
priorities after the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York.
This report will be updated to reflect legislative or other major developments.
For additional information on Cuba, including a listing and discussion of legislative
initiatives in the 107th Congress, see CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for
Congress. For a comparison of countries for which the U.S. Government also
maintains travel restrictions – Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea – see CRS Report
RS21003, Travel Restrictions: U.S. Government Limits on American Citizens’ Travel
Abroad, by Susan Epstein and Dianne Rennack.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Restrictions on Travel to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Estimate of U.S. Travelers to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
OFAC Review of Travel and Carrier Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
OFAC Penalties for Individuals Traveling to Cuba Illegally . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Arguments for Lifting Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Arguments for Maintaining Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and
Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress
Background
Since the United States imposed a comprehensive trade embargo against Cuba
in the early 1960s, there have been numerous policy changes to restrictions on travel
to Cuba. The embargo regulations do not ban travel itself, but place restrictions on
any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba, which effectively result in a travel
ban. Accordingly, from 1963 until 1977, travel to Cuba was effectively banned under
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) issued by the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to implement the embargo. In 1977, the
Carter Administration made changes to the regulations that essentially lifted the travel
ban. In 1982, the Reagan Administration made other changes to the CACR that once
again restricted travel to Cuba, but allowed for travel-related transactions by certain
categories of travelers. Under the Clinton Administration, there were several changes
to the Treasury Department regulations, with some at first tightening the restrictions,
and others later loosening the restrictions. The regulations that remain in place today
are less restrictive than those in place from 1963 to 1977, but more restrictive than
those in place from 1977-1982 when the travel ban was essentially lifted.
Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions
1960 — In the first trade restrictions on Cuba after the rise to power of Fidel
Castro, President Eisenhower placed most U.S. exports to Cuba under validated
license controls, except for nonsubsidized food, medicines, and medical supplies. The
action did not include restrictions on travel.
1962/1963 — In February 1962, President Kennedy imposed a trade embargo
on Cuba because of the Castro regime’s ties to the Soviet Union. Pursuant to the
President’s directive, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) issued the Cuban Import Regulations. On July 9, 1963, OFAC issued
a more comprehensive set of prohibitions, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations,
which effectively banned travel by prohibiting any transactions with Cuba.
1977 — In March, the Carter Administration announced the lifting of restrictions
on U.S. travel to Cuba that had been in place since the early 1960s. The Carter
Administration lifted the travel ban by issuing a general license for travel-related
transactions for those visiting Cuba. Direct flights were also allowed.
1982 — In April, the Reagan Administration reimposed restrictions on travel
to Cuba, although it allowed for certain categories of travel, including travel by U.S.
government officials, employees of news or film making organizations, persons
CRS-2
engaging in professional research, or persons visiting their close relatives. It did not
allow for ordinary tourist or business travel that had been allowed since the Carter
Administration’s 1977 action.
1984 — On June 28, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Regan
v. Wald, rejected a challenge to the ban on travel to Cuba and asserted the executive
branch’s right to impose travel restrictions for national security reasons.
1993 —The Clinton Administration, in June 1993, slightly amended restrictions
on U.S. travel to Cuba. Two additional categories of travel were allowed: travel to
Cuba “for clearly defined educational or religious activities”; and travel “for activities
of recognized human rights organizations.” In both categories, travelers were required
to apply for a specific license from OFAC.
1994 — In August, President Clinton announced several measures against the
Cuban government in response to an escalation in the number of Cubans fleeing to the
United States. Among these measures, the Administration tightened travel
restrictions by prohibiting family visits under a general license, and allowing specific
licenses for family visits only “when extreme hardship is demonstrated in cases
involving extreme humanitarian need”1 such as terminal illness or severe medical
emergency. Such visits required a specific license from OFAC. In addition,
professional researchers were required to apply for a specific license, whereas since
1982 they had been able to travel freely under a general license.
1995 — In October, President Clinton announced measures to ease some U.S.
restrictions on travel and other activities with Cuba, with the overall objective of
promoting democracy and the free flow of ideas. The new measures included
authorizing general licenses for transactions relating to travel to Cuba for Cuban
Americans making yearly visits to close relatives in “circumstances that demonstrate
extreme humanitarian need.”2 This reversed the August 1994 action that required
specific licenses. However, those traveling for this purpose more than once in a 12-
month period would need to apply to OFAC for a specific license. In addition, the
new measures allowed for specific licenses for free-lance journalists traveling to Cuba.
1996 — On February 26, following the shootdown of two U.S. civilian planes
two days earlier by Cuban fighter jets, President Clinton took several measures against
Cuba, including the indefinite suspension of charter flights between Cuba and the
United States. Qualified licensed travelers could go to Cuba, provided their flights
were routed through third countries.
1998 — On March 20, following Pope John Paul II’s January trip to Cuba,
President Clinton announced several changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba, including
the resumption of licensing for direct charter flights to Cuba. On July 2, OFAC issued
licenses to nine air charter companies to provide direct passenger flights from Miami
International Airport to Havana’s Jose Marti Airport.
1Federal Register. August 30, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 167), pp. 44884-44886.
2Federal Register, October 20, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 203), pp. 54194-54198.
CRS-3
1999 — On January 5, President Clinton announced several measures to support
the Cuban people that were intended to augment changes implemented in March
1998. Among the measures introduced was the expansion of direct passenger charter
flights from additional U.S. cities other than Miami. In August, the State Department
announced that direct flights to Cuba would be allowed from New York and Los
Angeles. In addition, President Clinton also announced in January 1999 that
measures would be taken to increase people-to-people exchanges. As a result, on
May 13, 1999, OFAC issued a number of changes to the Cuba embargo regulations
that effectively loosened restrictions on certain categories of travelers to Cuba.3
Travel for professional research became possible under a general license, and travel
for a wide range of educational, religious, sports competition, and other activities
became possible with specific licenses authorized by OFAC on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, those traveling to Cuba to visit a close family member under either a
general or specific license only needed to “demonstrate humanitarian need,” as
opposed to “extreme humanitarian need” that had been required since 1995.
2000 — In October, Congress approved and the President signed the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of P.L. 106-387),
which included a provision that prohibited travel-related transactions for “tourist
activities,” which as set forth in Section 910(b)(2) of the Act are defined as any
activity not authorized or referenced in the existing travel regulations (31 CFR
515.560, paragraphs (1) through (12)). The congressional action appeared to
circumscribe the authority of the OFAC to issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-
case basis that do not fit neatly withing the categories of travel already allowed by the
regulations.
2001 — On July 12, 2001, OFAC published regulations4 pursuant to the
provisions of the Trade Sanctions and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of
P.L. 106-387) that prohibited travel-related transactions for “tourist activities.”
Current Restrictions on Travel to Cuba
At present, certain categories of travelers may travel to Cuba under a general
license, which means that there is no need to obtain special permission from OFAC.5
These include U.S. government officials traveling on official business, persons
regularly employed as journalists or technical personnel employed by a news reporting
organization, persons with close relatives in Cuba in circumstances of humanitarian
need such as visiting a sick or dying relative (once every 12 months), full-time
professionals for research or for attending professional meetings, and amateur or
semi-professional athletes participating in international competitions.
3Federal Register. May 13, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 92), pp. 25808-25820.
4Federal Register. July 12, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 134), pp. 36683-36688.
5 The travel regulations can be found at 31CFR 515.560, which references other sections of
the CACR for general and specific travel-related transaction licensing criteria. For an
overview of the Treasury Department regulations on travel to Cuba, see OFAC’s website
[http://www.treas.gov/ofac/].
CRS-4
In addition, a wide variety of travelers engaging in educational, religious,
humanitarian, and other activities may be eligible for specific licenses. They include:
free-lance journalists; certain types of professional researchers who do not qualify for
a general license; those visiting close relatives in circumstances of humanitarian need
more than once in a 12-month period; those involved in the exportation, importation
or transmission of informational materials; and those involved in a public
performance, clinic, workshop, athletic or other competition, or exhibition in Cuba.
Applications for specific licenses are reviewed and granted by OFAC on a case by
case basis. The specific licenses may authorize multiple trips to Cuba over an
extended period of time.
Estimate of U.S. Travelers to Cuba
There appears to be no precise data on the number of individuals traveling to
Cuba, including both legal and illegal travelers (meaning those traveling without
authorization from OFAC). State Department officials maintain that the agency does
not collect statistics on Americans traveling to Cuba, while the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains that there are so many general licenses (for
which individuals do not have to apply) that it is not possible to arrive at an accurate
number of U.S. travelers to Cuba. Nevertheless, while the U.S. government does not
collect overall statistics on U.S. travelers to Cuba, OFAC does have statistics on those
traveling to Cuba from the United States on direct flights. There were estimated to
be 82,000 U.S.-Cuba boardings in 1999.6
While the U.S. government does not collect comprehensive statistics on
Americans traveling to Cuba, press articles regularly include estimates of such travel,
with current estimates of all categories of travelers ranging from 176,000 to 200,000
in 2000. This includes legal travelers leaving directly from the United States on
charter flights, and both legal and illegal travelers going indirectly through third
countries. For example, a Chicago Tribune article estimated that more than 176,000
Americans visited Cuba in 2000, with 124,000 consisting of Cuban Americans on
visits to their families for humanitarian reasons, 30,000 on a variety of U.S.-approved
exchanges and research trips, and the remainder, some 22,000, traveling without
authorization from OFAC.7 The Cuban government estimates that 200,000
Americans traveled to Cuba in 2000, with 120,000 consisting of Cuban Americans
visiting their families.8 Other estimates of Americans traveling to Cuba without
OFAC authorization are between 40,000 and 50,000.9
6U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. Realities of Market Cuba. Internet:
[http://www.cubatrade.org].
7Laurie Goering, “Cuba Readies for Fall of U.S. ban on Visits; Relaxed Embargo Would Jolt
Tourism,” Chicago Tribune, August 14, 2001, p. 4.
8“U.S. Is Fining More Visitors,” Newsday (New York), August 19, 2001, p. E11.
9Frank Bruni, “Bush Administration Showing Willingness to Enforce Law on Visiting Cuba,”
New York Times, August 5, 2001, Section 5, p. 9.
CRS-5
OFAC Review of Travel and Carrier Service Providers
Individuals traveling to Cuba under the authorization of OFAC must maintain
records of all travel transactions for five years [pursuant to 31 CFR Parts 501.60l and
501.602]. Travel and carrier service providers (such as travel agents, tour operators,
and airline companies) must also keep records for each transaction, including
transactions between service providers. The record keeping must include details
about individual travelers and their circumstances sufficient to allow identification and
verification that the transactions comply with the Cuban Assets Control Regulations
(CACR) implemented by OFAC.
The CACR spells out the requirements for travel service providers (TSP) and
carrier service providers (CSP) to put procedures in place to establish that each
customer is in full compliance with the regulations.10 The regulations require such
providers to demonstrate that they require each customer to attest, in a signed
statement, to his or her qualification for authorized travel. The statement must provide
facts supporting the customer’s belief that he or she qualifies for travel to Cuba
according to the categories of travel set forth in the CACR.
As part of the compliance process, travel agents must provide details about
travelers to the air carriers prior to the air carriers accepting a reservation or selling
a seat on a flight. This information consists of the passenger’s full name, mother’s
maiden name, address, date of birth, passport number and country of issuance, airport
of departure from the United States, and whether travel is under a general or specific
license. The air carrier in turn must provide detailed information to OFAC in
Washington by electronic mail 48 to 72 hours prior to departure of the flight. This
consists of 1) the information provided by the travel service provider (TSP) on each
authorized traveler; 2)U.S. departure and return dates; and 3) the name of the TSP
who arranged for the travel. Generally what happens is that travelers fill out a travel
affidavit with the TSP providing the information, including what type of license they
are traveling under, and the TSP then provides information to the carrier service
provider before a reservation is actually made.
Passengers on direct flights to Cuba need to fill out an OFAC Outbound
Declaration Card (entitled Travel to Cuba). Carrier Service Providers are required
to ensure that every passenger receives one of the cards as part of the check-in
procedure at the ticket counter assigned to the charter. CSPs must collect the
completed and signed cards before the passenger boards the plane, and must make the
completed cards available to the U.S. Customs Service inspector at the departure gate
for review. If no inspector is present or if the inspector returns the cards to the CSP,
then the cards must be forwarded to the OFAC-Miami office.
1031 CFR 515.572. In addition, OFAC has a circular outlining responsibilities of travel and
carrier service providers for Cuba travel. See: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of
Foreign Assets Control, Circular 2000, Travel, Carrier and Remittance Forwarding Service
Provider Program, July 2000.
CRS-6
OFAC Penalties for Individuals Traveling to Cuba Illegally
President Bush announced in a July 13, 2001 statement that he had asked the
Treasury Department to enhance and expand the enforcement capabilities of the
Office of Foreign Assets Control. The President noted the importance of upholding
and enforcing the law in order to prevent, among other things, “unlicensed and
excessive travel” and to ensure that humanitarian and cultural exchanges actually
reach pro-democracy activists in Cuba.11
In 2001, there has been a large increase in the number of Americans receiving
penalties from OFAC for violating the Cuba travel restrictions. The prosecution of
embargo violators entails a range of measures from initial letters of inquiry to actual
penalties being imposed.12 According to recent press coverage, OFAC issued 188
letters of inquiry in 2000, 74 letters from January 3, 2001 through May 3, 2001, and
443 letters from May 4, 2001 through July 30, 2001.13 The surge in letters, according
to Treasury, was because the Department temporarily assigned more workers in Fall
2000 to speed up the process. The average civil penalty for violating the travel ban
is about $7,500, while the maximum civil penalty is $55,000.
Some advocates of travel sanctions on Cuba believe that under the Clinton
Administration, the Treasury was not encouraged to enforce the law with regard to
the Cuba travel regulations, but that this has changed under the Bush
Administration.14 A Treasury Department official maintains that President Bush’s
directive of July 13 to expand the enforcement capabilities of OFAC could result in
additional measures enforcing restrictions on travel to Cuba.15 One such measure
could include more judges to hear cases; the Treasury Department has reportedly
asked to borrow some judges from the Environmental Protection Agency.16 Some
observers in Congress believe that the Administration could amend the travel
regulations to impose tighter restrictions on certain categories of travelers, such as
professional researchers who now can travel to Cuba under a general license.
Arguments for Lifting Cuba Travel Restrictions
Those who argue in favor of lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba contend that
the travel ban hinders U.S. efforts to influence political and economic conditions in
11White House, “Statement by President Bush on Cuba: Toward a Democratic Cuba,” July
13, 2001.
12OFAC also publishes information for those charged with penalties for violating the Cuba
embargo. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Civil
Penalties: Rights and Procedure – Cuba Program, March 4, 1999.
13Rafael Lorente, “Senator Demands End to Cuba Travel Ban; Hundreds Fined Under
Crackdown,” Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), August 18, 2001, p. 6A.
14“U.S. Is Fining More Visitors,” Newsday (New York), August 19, 2001, p. E11.
15Rafael Lorente, “Senator Demands End to Cuba Travel Ban; Hundreds Fined Under
Crackdown,” Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), August 18, 2001, p. 6A.
16Ibid.
CRS-7
Cuba. Supporters of a change in Cuba travel policy argue that U.S. support for
democracy in Latin America, a region that is now more democratic than at any time
in history, has been augmented by person-to-person contact and exchanges. The
exception to democracy in the region is Cuba, where the United States continues to
maintain a policy of isolation. They argue that the best way to realize change in Cuba
is to lift restrictions, allowing a flood of U.S. citizens to travel and engage in
conversations with average Cubans. They point to the influence of person-to-person
contact in Russia and Eastern European nations which they argue ultimately helped
lead to the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc. They maintain that restricting travel
by ordinary Americans prevents interaction and information exchanges with ordinary
Cubans, exchanges that can help break down the Cuban government’s tight control
and manipulation of news; that the current travel ban actually supports the Cuban
government in its efforts to restrict information provided to the Cuban people; and
that it in effect supports Castro’s totalitarian control over Cuba.
A second argument made by those who want to lift travel restrictions is that the
ban abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel. They argue that the U.S.
government should not be requiring Cuban Americans to apply for a license to travel
more than once a year to visit sick or dying family members. They contend that such
restrictions on the right to travel subvert the first amendment right of free speech.
Those in favor of lifting the travel ban also argue that U.S. citizens can travel to
other communist or authoritarian governments around the world, such as the People’s
Republic of China, Vietnam, Burma, and Iran. They point out that Americans could
travel to the Soviet Union before its breakup. Supporters of changing travel policy
toward Cuba argue that their proposals would still allow the President to prohibit
such travel in times of war or armed hostilities, or if there were imminent danger to
the health or safety of Americans. They argue that these conditions do not exist with
regard to Cuba, and point to a May 1998 Defense Intelligence Agency report that
concluded that “Cuba does not pose a significant military threat to the U.S. or to
other countries in the region.”17
Those arguing for lifting travel restrictions also point to human rights activists
in Cuba who themselves argue for the lifting of such sanctions. According to the
prominent Cuban human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez: “The more Americans on
the streets of Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open society in Cuba.”18
Finally, supporters of lifting the travel ban maintain that such a move would not
lift the underlying U.S. embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba. They
point to the 1977-82 period when the travel ban was essentially lifted, but the overall
embargo remained in place.
17Defense Intelligence Agency. Report on Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security. May 6,
1998.
18 Congressional Record, July 25, 2001, p. H4599.
CRS-8
Arguments for Maintaining Cuba Travel
Restrictions
Those favoring the continuation of current restrictions on travel to Cuba point
out that there are already significant provisions in U.S. law permitting Americans to
travel there for legitimate reasons that support the Cuban people and not the Cuban
government. They point out that in 2000 some 154,000 Americans traveled to Cuba
legally under the various provisions of the Cuban embargo regulations, many of whom
were Cuban Americans visiting family members.19 Other categories of travel allowed
include students, journalists, researchers, artists, musicians, and athletes. Supporters
of restrictions point out that the Clinton Administration had already loosened travel
restrictions significantly as part of an effort to increase people-to-people contact.
A second argument made for maintaining current restrictions on travel to Cuba
is that lifting the travel ban entirely will open the floodgates to American tourist travel
that will support Castro’s rule by providing his government with millions in tourist
receipts. Advocates of restricting travel oppose any loosening that could prolong the
Castro regime by propping it up with increased income. In contrast to those
supporting tourist travel, they believe that continued travel restrictions will help
influence Cuba’s policy. They argue that since the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the loss of Soviet subsidies to Cuba, the travel and embargo regulations have
contributed to Castro’s decision to cut the military’s size and budget by half since
1989 and to introduce limited economic reforms. Lifting travel restrictions, they
argue, would eliminate the U.S. leverage on Cuba to enact further reforms.
Those favoring the maintenance of current travel restrictions argue that the
reality of the human rights situation dispels the notion that American tourists would
be engaging in exchanges with ordinary Cubans. They maintain that the thousands
of European, Canadian, and other tourists who travel to Cuba each year largely stay
in tourist hotels that are off limits to most Cubans and thus have no discernable effect
on the human rights situation in Cuba.
Some opposed to lifting travel restrictions argue that there should be tourist
travel as long as Cuba provides refuge to violent criminals who have escaped U.S.
justice. Reportedly more than 75 federal fugitives are hiding out in Cuba, including
convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard, who killed a New Jersey state trooper in
1973.20
Finally, many opponents of legislation to lift the Cuba travel restrictions argue
that the authority to impose such restrictions is an important foreign policy tool for
the President. They point out that the President has the authority to restrict travel
when it is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and
has utilized that policy tool when needed. They point to current Treasury Department
19 Laurie Goering, “Cuba Readies for Fall of U.S. Ban on Visits; Relaxed Embargo Would
Jolt Tourism,” Chicago Tribune, August 14, p. 4.
20 Elaine de Valle and Luisa Yanez, “Is Cuba Hinting at Spy Deal?” Miami Herald, July 9,
2001, p. 1B.
CRS-9
regulations restricting travel to Libya and Iraq, as well as past instances of regulations
restricting travel to Vietnam and North Korea. With regard to Cuba, they point to the
1984 Supreme Court decision in the case of Regan v. Wald that upheld restrictions
on travel to Cuba imposed by the Reagan Administration.
Legislative Action and Initiatives
in the 106th Congress
The only action 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. 106-387, Title IX, Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000) included a provision that restricts travel to Cuba to those
categories of non-tourist travel already allowed by 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 categories
expressly authorized in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, Section 515.560 (a)
of Title 31, CFR, paragraphs (1) through (12). As noted in the law, the Secretary of
the Treasury may not authorize travel-related transactions “for travel to, from, or
within Cuba for “tourist activities” which are defined as any activity that is not
expressly authorized in the 12 categories of the regulations. The provision prevents
the Administration from loosening the travel restrictions to allow tourist travel. This,
in effect, strengthens restrictions on travel to Cuba and somewhat circumscribes the
authority of OFAC to issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-case basis under
Section 515.560 (b) of Title 31, CFR. OFAC in the past has utilized that section to
provide specific licenses for activities that do not fit neatly within the categories of
travel set forth in 515.560 (a), including such travel for medical evacuations of
Americans legally in Cuba and for U.S. contractors servicing the needs of the U.S.
Interests Section. (Regulations implementing the provision of the law were issued by
OFAC on July 12, 2001.)
In other legislative action, the Senate considered the issue of travel to Cuba in
June 30, 1999 floor action on the FY2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, S.
1234. An amendment was 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.21 The Senate 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 2000, but no
action was taken on the bill.
The House took up the issue of travel to Cuba when it considered H.R. 4871,
the Treasury Department appropriations bill, on July 20, 2000. A Sanford amendment
was approved (232-186) to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to administer or
21The Dodd amendment allowed for travel restrictions to be imposed if the United States is at
war with Cuba, if armed hostilities are in progress, or when threats to physical safety or
public health exist. Under current law, the Secretary of State has the same authority to
restrict travel (22 USC 211a).
CRS-10
enforce the Cuban Assets Control 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 appropriations bill, H.R. 4985,
introduced on July 26. H.R. 4985 was appended to the conference report on the
Legislative Branch appropriations bill – H.R. 4516, H.Rept. 106-796 – in an attempt
to bypass Senate debate on its version of the Treasury appropriations bill, S. 2900.
The Senate initially 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, on September 14, 2000, by a vote of 212 -
209.
Two other House initiatives were introduced that would have lifted restrictions
on U.S. travel to Cuba: H.R. 259 (Serrano), introduced January 6, 1999, centered on
removing restrictions on travel, travel transactions, and educational, cultural, and
scientific exchanges; H.R. 4471 (Sanford), introduced May 16, 2000, would have
prohibited the President from regulating or prohibiting, directly or indirectly, travel
to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens or legal residents except when the United States is
at war with Cuba, armed hostilities between the two countries are in progress, or
there is imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of U.S. travelers.
Three broader bills in the 106th Congress that would have lifted the trade embargo on
Cuba — H.R. 229 (Rangel), introduced January 6, 1999; H.R. 1181 (Paul),
introduced March 18, 1999; and S. 2617 (Baucus), introduced May 24, 2000 — also
included provisions that would have removed restrictions or regulations on travel to
and from Cuba as well as on any travel-related transactions.
Legislative Action and Initiatives
in the 107th Congress22
During July 25, 2001 floor action on H.R. 2590, the FY2002 Treasury
Department appropriations bill, the House approved an amendment that would
prohibit spending for administering Treasury Department regulations restricting travel
to Cuba. H. Amdt. 241, offered by Representative Flake (which amended H. Amdt
240 offered by Representative Smith), would 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 240 to 186,
compared to a vote of 232-186 for a similar amendment in last year’s Treasury
Department appropriations bill.
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 provision was not
included in the House-Senate conference on the bill (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 not to because he did not want to slow
passage of the bill. He indicated that he would support the House provision during
22 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 107th Congress, see CRS
Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for Congress.
CRS-11
conference, but ultimately, however, the House-Senate conference report on the bill
did not include the Cuba provision. In light of the changed congressional priorities
in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington,
conference negotiators reportedly did not want to slow passage of the bill with any
controversial provisions. The Bush Administration had threatened to veto the
Treasury bill if it included the Cuba travel provision.
In addition to action on H.R. 2590, several other initiatives introduced in the
107th Congress would ease U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba. Several broad bills
would lift all sanctions on trade, financial transactions, and travel to Cuba: H.R. 174
(Serrano), the Cuban Reconciliation Act, introduced January 3, 2001, and identical
bills S. 400 (Baucus) and H.R. 798 (Rangel), the Free Trade with Cuba Act,
introduced February 27 and 28, 2001, respectively.
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, remove all
restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. nationals or lawful permanent resident aliens.
Several bills would, among other provisions, repeal the travel restrictions
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:
identical bills S. 402 (Baucus) and H.R. 797 (Rangel), the Cuban Humanitarian 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 Access Act of
2001, introduced February 1, 2001.
Whether such initiatives will move forward in the second session of the 107th
Congress is uncertain given the change in congressional priorities after the September
11 attacks on Washington and New York. Moreover, Fidel Castro’s remarks that the
attacks were in part a consequence of the United States having applied “terrorist
methods” for years could diminish support for lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba.23
23 Andrew Cawthorne, “Cuba’s Castro Urges U.S. to Keep Calm,” Reuters, September 11,
2001.