Order Code RL31139
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and
Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress
Updated July 22, 2002
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 and often contentious 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.
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 Cuban embargo 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. In the second session, the travel
issue will be part of the debate during consideration of the FY2003 Treasury
Department appropriation measure (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Cuba travel
amendments to H.R. 5120 have been filed in the House, and S. 2740 (as reported out
of committee) includes a provision that no funds may be used to enforce the Cuba
travel restrictions. Numerous other initiatives have been introduced to ease, or
eliminate altogether, restrictions on travel to Cuba.
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
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Restrictions on Travel to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Arguments for Maintaining Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
First Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Second Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Additional Legislative Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and
Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress
Most Recent Developments
During the week of July 22, 2002, the House is scheduled to consider the
FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations bill, H.R. 5120. Several amendments
(Goss, Flake, and Rangel) have been filed relating to Cuba travel restrictions.
On July 17, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version
of the FY2003 Treasury Department Appropriations bill, S. 2740, S.Rept. 107-212,
which includes a provision that no funds may be used to enforce the Cuba travel
restrictions.
For more details, see “Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 107th Congress,”
below.
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.

---

CRS-2
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
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
1Federal Register. August 30, 1994 (Volume 59, Number 167), pp. 44884-44886.

---

CRS-3
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.
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.
2Federal Register, October 20, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 203), pp. 54194-54198.
3Federal Register. May 13, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 92), pp. 25808-25820.

---

CRS-4

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.” On
July 13, 2001, President Bush announced that he had asked the Treasury Department
to enhance and expand the capabilities of OFAC to prevent, among other things,
“unlicensed and excessive travel.”
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.
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 Director Richard Newcomb estimated in February
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-5
2002 congressional testimony that 150,000-200,000 American traveled to Cuba in
2001, with about one-third of that number without permission from OFAC.6 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 2000, a
Chicago Tribune article estimated that more than 176,000 Americans visited Cuba,
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
OFAC Review of Travel and Carrier Service Providers
OFAC is responsible for regulating the activities of more than 180 licensed
travel and carrier service providers (travel agencies, tour operators, and airline
companies) around the country, some two-thirds of which are concentrated in
Miami.10 The licensed service providers must 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. Individuals traveling to Cuba
under the authorization of OFAC must maintain records of all travel transactions for
5 years [pursuant to 31 CFR Parts 501.60l and 501.602].
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.11 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
6 “Hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Treasury and General
Government,” Federal News Service, February 11, 2002.
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.
10 OFAC also regulates the activities of companies that forward remittances to Cuban
according to the restrictions set forth in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. See: U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, “Authorized Providers of Air,
Travel, and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba,” March 25, 2002.
1131 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
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, licensed travel agencies 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 licensed 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.
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.12
In 2001, there was a large increase in the number of Americans receiving
enforcement letters 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.13 In 2000, OFAC issued 188 enforcement
letters, while in 2001, the number rose to 766.14 The surge in letters, according to
12White House, “Statement by President Bush on Cuba: Toward a Democratic Cuba,” July
13, 2001.
13OFAC 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.
14 David Phinney, “Law on Travel to Cuba Criticized,” Miami Herald, February 12, 2002,
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
Treasury, was because the Department was clearing up a backlog of cases.15
According to OFAC Director Richard Newcomb, “in many instances, individuals
request an informal settlement before OFAC issues a pre-penalty notice.” Newcomb
notes that typical penalties range from $5,000 to $7,000 but that the majority of cases
are settled in amounts ranging from $2,000-$5,000.16 Under the Trading with the
Enemy Act, the Secretary of the Treasury may impose civil fines up to $55,000 for
violation of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.
Many individuals who have received pre-penalty notices from OFAC have
requested administrative hearings, as provided for by law (Trading with the Enemy
Act), but to date no such hearings have been held. According to OFAC Director
Richard Newcomb, the Treasury Secretary has approved a proposal for funding two
administrative law judges to clear the backlog of pending cases.17 Several non-profit
legal organizations, such as the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights,
are representing clients who have received letters of inquiry or pre-penalty notices
from OFAC for traveling to Cuba.
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
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
14(...continued)
p. 20A.
15Rafael Lorente, “Senator Demands End to Cuba Travel Ban; Hundreds Fined Under
Crackdown,” Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale), August 18, 2001, p. 6A.
16 “Hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Treasury and
General Government,” Federal News Service, February 11, 2002.
17 Ibid.

---

CRS-8
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.”18
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.”19
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.
Finally, some supporters of lifting the travel restrictions argue that the U.S.
economy would benefit from increased demand for air and cruise travel, which
reportedly would expand U.S. economic output. According to a recent report
prepared for the Center for International Policy, a policy group that advocates lifting
the embargo, U.S. economic output would expand by $1.18 - $1.61 billion, with the
creation of between 16,888 and 23,020 jobs if travel restrictions were lifted.20
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
18Defense Intelligence Agency. Report on Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security. May 6,
1998.
19 Congressional Record, July 25, 2001, p. H4599.
20 The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Lifting Restrictions on Travel to Cuba, The Brattle
Group, Washington D.C. Prepared by Dorothy Robyn, James D. Reitzes, and Bryan Church.
July 15, 2002.

---

CRS-9
whom were Cuban Americans visiting family members.21 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
1973.22
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
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.
21 Laurie Goering, “Cuba Readies for Fall of U.S. Ban on Visits; Relaxed Embargo Would
Jolt Tourism,” Chicago Tribune, August 14, p. 4.
22 Elaine de Valle and Luisa Yanez, “Is Cuba Hinting at Spy Deal?” Miami Herald, July 9,
2001, p. 1B.

---

CRS-10
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.23 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 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,
23The 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-11
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.
Legislative Action and Initiatives
in the 107th Congress24
First Session. 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
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.
Second Session. Further legislative consideration of the Cuba travel issue
is expected in the second session of the 107th Congress. A bipartisan House Cuba
working group of 40 Representatives has vowed as one of its goals to work for a
lifting of travel restrictions. On February 11, 2002, the Senate Appropriations
Committee’s Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government held a hearing on
the issue, featuring Administration and outside witnesses.
The travel issue will be part of the debate during consideration of the FY2003
Treasury Department appropriations bill (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State
Colin Powell and Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill have 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 financing for U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba).
24 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 107th Congress, see CRS
Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress.

---

CRS-12
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), includes a provision, in Section 516, that is similar, although not
identical, to the Flake amendment described below. It provides that no funds may be
used to enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to any travel or
travel-related transactions, but would not prevent OFAC from issuing general and
specific licenses for travel to Cuba. In addition, Section 124 of the Senate bill
stipulates that no Treasury Department funds for “Departmental Offices, Salaries, and
Expenses” may be used by OFAC, until OFAC has certain procedures in place
regarding license applications for travel to Cuba.
In the House, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5120, H.Res. 488,
provides that an amendment offered by Representative Porter Goss on Cuba travel
that was printed in the Rules Committee report (H.Rept. 107-585) is not subject to
amendment. The Goss amendment would provide that any limitation on the use of
funds to administer or enforce regulations restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related
transactions would only apply after the President certified to Congress that three
conditions regarding biological weapons and terrorism were met.
The Goss amendment is significant because it would add the conditions to other
amendments that limit funding for the enforcement of the Cuba travel regulations.
For instance, Representative Jeff Flake has filed an amendment to H.R. 5120 that
would provide that no funds could be used to administer or enforce the Treasury
Department regulations with respect to travel to Cuba, but the amendment would not
prevent the issuance of general or specific licenses for travel to Cuba that is currently
allowed. Representative Charles Rangel has also filed an amendment that would
prevent any funds in the bill from being used to implement, administer, or enforce
the overall economic embargo of Cuba, including travel restrictions.

The three conditions in the Goss amendment are “that the Cuban government:
(1) does not possess and is not developing a biological weapons program that
threatens the homeland security of the United States; (2) is not providing to terrorist
states or terrorist organizations technology that could be used to produce, develop,
or deliver biological weapons; and (3) is not providing support or sanctuary to
international terrorists.”
The issue of Cuba and biological weapons received increased attention in early
May 2002 when Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
John Bolton stated that “the United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited
offensive biological warfare research-and-development effort” and “has provided
dual-use technology to other rogue states.” When questioned on the issue, Secretary
of State Powell said that the United States believes that Cuba has the capacity and the
capability to conduct research on biological weapons but emphasized that the
Administration had not claimed that Cuba had such weapons.25 The Senate Foreign
Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and
Narcotics Affairs held a hearing on the issue on June 5, 2002.
25 David Gonzalez, “Carter and Powell Cast Doubt on Bioarms in Cuba,” New York Times,
May 14, 2002, p. 3.

---

CRS-13
With regard to Cuba supporting international terrorists, the State Department’s
most recent annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report, issue in May 2002, states
that Cuba has provided safehaven to at least 20 Basque ETA terrorists from Spain
and has provided “some degree of safehaven and support” to members of two
Colombian insurgent groups. In contrast, some observers argue that the Basques in
Cuba, many there for years because of an agreement with the former government of
Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, are not involved in terrorist activities, and that Cuba is not
linked to terrorist activities in Colombia.26 (For further background on the issues of
Cuba and biological weapons and terrorism, see CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues
for the 107th Congress.)
Additional Legislative Initiatives. Several other initiatives introduced in
the 107th Congress would ease U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba.
! H.R. 5022 (Flake), introduced June 26, 2002, would lift all 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.
26 Smith, Wayne, “CIP Challenges State Department’s List of Terrorist States,” Center for
International Policy, May 24, 2002.

---