Order Code RL31740
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cuba: Issues for the
108th Congress
Updated July 9, 2004
Mark P. Sullivan
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress
Summary
Cuba under Fidel Castro remains a hard-line communist state, with a poor
record on human rights that has deteriorated significantly since 2003. With the cutoff
of assistance from the former Soviet Union, Cuba experienced severe economic
deterioration from 1989 to 1993. While there has been some improvement since
1994 as Cuba has implemented limited reforms, the economy remains in poor shape.
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted largely of isolating
the island nation through comprehensive economic sanctions. The Bush
Administration has further tightened restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba.
Another component of U.S. policy consists of support measures for the Cuban
people, including private humanitarian donations and U.S.-sponsored radio and
television broadcasting to Cuba, Radio and TV Marti. While there appears to be
broad agreement on the overall objective of U.S. policy toward Cuba — to help bring
democracy and respect for human rights to the island, there are several schools of
thought on how to achieve that objective. Some advocate maximum pressure on the
Cuban government until reforms are enacted, others argue for lifting some U.S.
sanctions that they believe are hurting the Cuban people, and still others call for a
swift normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations by lifting the U.S. embargo. There has
been considerable reaction to the Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of
restrictions for family visits and other categories of travel.
Congress is continuing its high level of interest in Cuba with a variety of
legislative initiatives regarding sanctions and human rights. Demonstrating concern
about the poor human rights situation, the 108th Congress has approved four
resolutions: S.Res. 97, H.Res. 179, S.Res. 62, and S.Res. 328. With regard to
sanctions, the House-passed version of the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and State
appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, includes a provision prohibiting funds to implement,
administer, or enforce recent restrictions on baggage for authorized travelers and gift
parcels. In previous action, both the House- and Senate-approved versions of the
FY2004 Treasury appropriations bill, 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 dropped in the
conference report to the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 108-199
(H.R. 2673, H.Rept. 108-401). The White House had threatened to veto any
legislation that weakened economic sanctions against Cuba.
Numerous other legislative initiatives have been introduced that would ease
sanctions on Cuba: H.R. 187, H.R. 188, H.R. 1698, H.R. 2071, H.R. 3422, H.R.
4678, S. 403, S. 950, and S. 2449/H.R. 4457. Two initiatives, H.R. 3470 and H.R.
3670, would tighten sanctions. H.R. 2494/S. 2002 would repeal a provision in law
that prohibits accepting or renewing the registration of a trademark and prohibits
courts from considering or enforcing the trademark claims if the trademark was used
in connection with confiscated assets in Cuba. In contrast, H.R. 4225/S. 2373 would
apply a narrow fix to the existing provision of U.S. law regarding Cuban trademarks
so that it conforms with a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Political Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
U.S. Policy Toward Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bush Administration Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Issues in U.S.-Cuban Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Overall Direction of U.S. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Helms/Burton Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Section 211 Trademark Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Food and Medical Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Travel and Remittance Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Drug Interdiction Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Cuba and Terrorism
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Cuban Spies in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Guantanamo Naval Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Radio and TV Marti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
U.S. Funding to Support Democracy and Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Migration Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Legislation and Resolutions in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Legislative Initiatives in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Human Rights and Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Modification of Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Cuba Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Anti-Drug Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

---

Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On July 8, 2004, the U.S. Coast Guard published regulations requiring U.S.
vessels less than 100 meters to have a Coast Guard permit to enter Cuban territorial
waters. (Federal Register, pp. 41367-41374)
On July 7, 2004, the House approved, by vote of 221-194, a Flake amendment
(H.Amdt. 647) to the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, H.R.
4754, that would prohibit funds to implement the Department of Commerce’s new
restrictions on gift parcels to Cuba and the amount of personal baggage allowed for
travelers to Cuba. The House subsequently approved the bill on July 8, 2004.
On June 25, 2004, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control
(OFAC) delayed the implementation of tightened travel restrictions for family visits
and fully-hosted travel until August 1, 2004, for those travelers already in Cuba on
June 29, 2004. The action was taken to give those already in Cuba time to return to
the United States.
On June 22, 2004, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) published regulations related to the recommendations of the
Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (Federal Register, pp. 34565-34567).
The new regulations placed new limits on gift parcels and personal baggage going
to Cuba. Items such as seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items, veterinary medicines
and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment may no
longer be included in gift parcels.
On June 16, 2004, OFAC published interim regulations implementing the
President’s directives related to the recommendations of the Commission for
Assistance to a Free Cuba (Federal Register, pp. 33768-33774). This included
tightening travel restrictions in several ways, such as further restricting educational
travel and family visits (and the amount that family visitors may spend while in
Cuba) and eliminating the category of fully-hosted travel. The new regulations also
further restricted the sending of remittances to Cuba by limiting the remittances to
the remitter’s immediate family. Although most of the tightened restrictions were to
go into effect on June 30, 2004, implementation of the regulations for family visits
and fully hosted travel have been delayed until August 1 for those travelers already
in Cuba on June 29 (see June 25 entry above). Educational activities already planned
may proceed as long as they are completed by August 15, 2004. OFAC noted that
it welcomes interested parties to comment on the regulations no later than August 16,
2004, and that it will consider such comments in the development of final
regulations.

---

CRS-2
On May 6, 2004, President Bush endorsed the recommendations of the inter-
agency Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba that had been established by the
President in October 2003. The recommendations included a number of measures
to tighten economic sanctions, such as further restricting family visits, cash
remittances, and gift parcels. (The full Commission report is available at
[http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/cuba/commission/2004/]. Also see “Commission for
Assistance to a Free Cuba,” below.)
On April 15, 2004, by a vote of 22-21, with 10 abstentions, the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) approved a resolution that deplored Cuba’s
2003 human rights crackdown and again urged Cuba to cooperate with the personal
representative of the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights. (See UNCHR
Resolutions below.)
On April 8, 2004, the Senate approved S.Res. 328, amended, by unanimous
consent. It calls on Cuba to immediately release individuals imprisoned for political
purposes. It also calls upon the 60th session of the UNCHR to condemn Cuba for its
human rights abuses and to demand that inspectors from the International Committee
of the Red Cross be allowed to visit and inspect Cuban prisons.
On March 30, 2004, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security John Bolton testified before the House International Relations
Committee that “Cuba remains a terrorist and BW [biological weapons] threat to the
United States.” Bolton cautioned, however, that “existing intelligence reporting is
problematic, and the Intelligence Community’s ability to determine the scope, nature,
and effectiveness of any Cuban BW program has been hampered by reporting from
sources of questionable access, reliability, and motivation.” (See Cuba and
Biological Weapons? below.)
On February 26, 2004, President Bush ordered the Department of Homeland
Security to expand its policing of the waters between Florida and Cuba with the
objective of stopping pleasure boating traffic.
On January 21, 2004, the State Department again condemned Cuba’s
imprisonment of journalists, librarians, and human rights defenders. It criticized the
poor conditions and lack of adequate medical treatment for Oscar Espinosa Chepe
and Marta Beatriz Roque and the poor health of Leonardo Bruzon Avila due to
repeated hunger strikes. (See Health and Conditions of Political Prisoners below.)
On January 16, 2004, President Bush suspended for another six months the right
of individuals to file lawsuits against those persons benefitting from confiscated U.S.
property in Cuba under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
(P.L. 104-114). (See Helms/Burton Legislation below.)
The State Department cancelled the semiannual round of U.S.-Cuba migration
talks scheduled for January 8, 2004, because Cuba reportedly has refused to discuss
several issues. Cuban officials maintained that the U.S. decision was irresponsible
and that it was prepared to discuss all of the issues raised by the United States. (See
Migration Issues below).

---

CRS-3
On November 25, 2003, the conference report (H.Rept. 108-401) to H.R. 2673,
the Consolidated Appropriation Act for FY2004, was filed in the House. The
omnibus measure, which includes funding for Transportation-Treasury in Division
F, dropped all provisions easing sanctions that had been included in the House and
Senate versions of H.R. 2989. Division A of the omnibus, funding agriculture
appropriations, dropped a provision from the Senate-approved version of H.R. 2673
that would have eased travel restrictions for agricultural sales. Division D, funding
foreign operations appropriations, did not include assistance for counter-narcotics
cooperation with Cuba that had been included in the Senate version of H.R. 2800.
Division B, Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations, provides funding for Radio
and TV Marti. The House agreed to the conference November 25, 2003, and the
Senate agreed to it January 22, 2004. The President signed the measure on January
23, 2004, as P.L. 108-199. (For more details, see Legislative Initiatives in the 108th
Congress below.)
On November 6, 2003, the Senate approved its version of the FY2004
agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 2673, with a provision that would allow travel
to Cuba under a general license (without applying to the Treasury Department) for
travel related to commercial sales of agricultural and medical goods. The House
version had no such provision.
On October 23, 2003, during Senate floor consideration of the FY2004
Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, H.R. 2989, the Senate approved by voice
vote S.Amdt. 1900 (Dorgan) that would prevent funds from being used to administer
or enforce restrictions on Cuba travel or travel-related transactions. The provision
is nearly identical to one in the House version of the bill. A motion to table the
Dorgan amendment was defeated by a vote of 59-36.
On October 10, 2003, President Bush announced three Cuba initiatives: (1) the
Department of Homeland Security would more strictly enforce the trade and travel
embargo; (2) the United States would increase the number of new Cuban immigrants
each year, improve the method of identifying refugees, redouble efforts to process
Cubans seeking to leave Cuba, and initiative a public information campaign to better
inform Cubans of the routes to safe and legal migration to the United States; and (3)
a new “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba” would be established to help plan
for Cuba’s transition from communism to democracy. (See Bush Administration
Policy below.)
On September 9, 2003, the House approved three amendments to the FY2004
Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, H.R. 2989, that would prevent funds
from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel and remittances, and
from being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-people educational
exchanges. (See Travel Restrictions below.)

---

CRS-4
Political Conditions
Although Cuba has undertaken some limited economic reforms in recent years,
politically the country remains a hard-line communist state. Fidel Castro, who
turned 77 on August 13, 2003, has ruled since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, which
ousted the corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista from power. Castro soon laid the
foundations for an authoritarian regime by consolidating power and forcing
moderates out of the government. In April 1961, Castro admitted that the Cuban
Revolution was socialist, and in December 1961, he proclaimed himself to be a
Marxist-Leninist. From 1959 until 1976, Castro ruled by decree.
A Constitution was enacted in 1976 setting forth the Communist Party as the
leading force in the state and in society (with power centered in a Politburo headed
by Fidel Castro). The Constitution also outlined national, provincial, and local
governmental structures. Executive power is vested in a Council of Ministers,
headed by Fidel Castro as President. Legislative authority is vested in a National
Assembly of People’s Power, currently with 609 members, that meets twice annually
for brief periods. While Assembly members were directly elected for the first time
in February 1993, only a single slate of candidates was offered. In October 1997, the
Cuban Communist Party held its 5th Congress (the prior one was held in 1991) in
which the party reaffirmed its commitment to a single party state and reelected Fidel
and Raul Castro as the party’s first and second secretaries. Direct elections for the
National Assembly were again held in January 1998 and January 2003, but voters
again were not offered a choice of candidates.
In response to the challenge posed by the Varela Project, a human rights
initiative that called for changes to the Constitution (see below), the Cuban
government orchestrated a national referendum in late June 2002, signed by 8.1
million people, that declared that Cuba’s socialist system could not be changed.
Subsequently the National Assembly on June 26, 2002, approved amendments to the
Constitution stating that “socialism and the revolutionary political and social system
in the Constitution.....are irrevocable; and Cuba will never again return to
capitalism.”1
Outlook
Observers are divided over the future of the Castro government. Although most
believe that the demise of the Communist government is inevitable, there is
considerable disagreement over when or how this may occur. Some point to Castro’s
age and predict that the regime will collapse when Castro is not at the helm. Other
observers maintain that Fidel Castro may remain in power for years, and that Cuba
has a plan for the succession of his brother Raul. They point to Cuba’s strong
security apparatus and the extraordinary system of controls that prevents dissidents
from gaining popular support. Moreover, observers maintain that Cuba’s elite has
no interest in Castro’s overthrow, and that Castro still enjoys some support, in part
1 “Special Session of the National Assembly, A Transcendent Yes,” Granma International,
June 30, 2002, p. 1.

---

CRS-5
because of the social benefits of the Cuban revolution, but also because Cubans see
no alternative to Castro.
Even if Castro is overthrown or resigns, the important question remaining is the
possibility or viability of a stable democratic Cuba after Castro. Analysts point out
that the Castro government has successfully impeded the development of
independent civil society, with no private sector, no independent labor movement,
and no unified political opposition. For this reason, they contend that building a
democratic Cuba will be a formidable task, one that could meet stiff resistance.
Human Rights
Cuba has a poor record on human rights, with the government sharply restricting
basic rights, including freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and
other basic rights. It has cracked down on dissent, arrested human rights activists and
independent journalists, and staged demonstrations against critics. Although some
anticipated a relaxation of the government’s oppressive tactics in the aftermath of the
Pope’s January 1998 visit, government attacks against human rights activists and
other dissidents have continued since that time.
In March 2003, the government began a massive crackdown that resulted in the
imprisonment of 75 independent journalists and democracy activists, many receiving
long prison terms. On April 11, 2003, the government executed three men who had
hijacked a ferry in an attempt to reach the United States. The executions, conducted
after a swift and secret trial, were condemned around the world. (See Crackdown in
2003 below). While the Cuban government has released 10 prisoners for health
reasons since April 2004, it has also convicted 13 other dissidents, many who have
already been imprisoned for more than a year. Human rights groups in Cuba estimate
that there are between 300-400 political prisoners.
The State Department’s human rights report on Cuba states that the Cuban
“authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain,
imprison, and defame human rights advocates and members of independent
professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyers,
often with the goal of coercing them into leaving the country.” The report asserts
that “the Interior Ministry Department of State Security investigated and actively
suppressed political opposition and dissent” and “maintained a pervasive system of
surveillance through undercover agents, informers, rapid response brigades (RRBs),
and neighborhood-based Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDRs).”
Security forces and prison officials reportedly beat and abused prisoners and other
detainees, and prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening. The State
Department and international human rights groups have expressed special concern
about the health of the political prisoners. The Cuban government has reportedly
restricted medical care to some prisoners as a method of control.
The following reports provide information on the human rights situation in
Cuba:

---

CRS-6
! The State Department’s 2003 human rights report on Cuba, issued
February 25, 2004, is available on the State Department’s website at
[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27893.htm].
! Amnesty International issued a March 2004 report on the status of
the 75 dissidents imprisoned in March 2003. “Cuba, One Year Too
Many: Prisoners of Conscience from the March 2003 Crackdown,”
available at [http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR2500
52004?open&of=ENG-CUB].
! Amnesty International issued a detailed report in June 2003, which
termed the crackdown the most severe since the years following the
Cuban revolution. “Cuba: “Essential Measures”? Human Rights
Crackdown in the Name of Security,” June 3, 2003; available at
[http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250172003]).
! Florida State University’s Center for the Advancement of Human
Rights began publishing information on the dissidents on the
Internet, including the Cuban government’s sentencing documents.
(See the website at [http://www.ruleoflawandcuba.fsu.edu/].)
! Human Rights Watch regularly publishes information on the human
rights situation in Cuba. (See the website at [http://www.hrw.org/
doc?t=americas&c=cuba].)
Crackdown in 2003. As noted above, the human rights situation in Cuba
deteriorated significantly in 2003. Human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez, head of
the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, has called
the crackdown “the most intense wave of repression in the history of Cuba.”2 In July
2003, Sanchez’s group report asserted that Cuba held 336 political prisoners,
including the 75 arrested in the March 2003 crackdown.
In the first two months of 2003, dozens of supporters of Oswaldo Paya’s Varela
Project were “harassed, jailed, threatened, and expelled from jobs and universities”3
(see discussion of the “Varela Project” below). On February 18, 2003, two members
of the Oswaldo Paya’s Christian Liberation Movement, Jesus Mustafa Felipe and
Robert Montero, were sentenced to 18 months in prison on charges of contempt and
resisting arrest.
On March 18, 2003, a day after the opening of the 2003 session of the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, the Cuban government began a massive
crackdown on independent journalists and librarians, leaders of independent labor
unions and opposition parties, and other democracy activists, including those
supporting the Varela Project. Some 75 activists were arrested, subjected to
2 Nancy San Martin, “Cuba: Dissidents Were Eroding Socialist System,” Miami Herald,
April 10, 2003.
3 Elaine De Valle, “Cuba Increases Pressure on Pro-Paya Dissidents,” Miami Herald,
February 20, 2003, p. F1.

---

CRS-7
summary trials and prosecutions that began on April 3, 2003, and sentenced to prison
terms ranging from 6 to 28 years. Foreign journalists and diplomats were excluded
from the trials. Among the activists were 27 independent journalists, including Raul
Rivero and Oscar Espinosa Chepe, sentenced to 20 years, and Omar Rodríguez
Saludes, sentenced to 27 years. Other sentenced democracy activists included
economist Marta Beatriz Roque (who had been imprisoned from July 1997 until May
2000), who received 20 years, Hector Palacios, a leader of the Varela Project, who
received 25 years, and Luis Enrique Ferrer García of the Christian Liberation
Movement, who received 28 years. Another prominent political prisoner, Oscar Elías
Biscet, (who had been arrested in December 2002 after three years in prison) was also
tried in April 2003 and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
In a further deterioration of Cuba’s human rights situation, on April 11, 2003,
the Cuban government executed three men who had hijacked a ferry in Havana on
April 2 in an attempt to reach the United States. The men were executed by firing
squads after summary trials that were held behind close doors; four other ferry
hijackers received life sentence while another received 30 years in prison. The ferry
hijacking was preceded by the hijacking of two small planes to the United States.
International human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, and a number of foreign countries, including Mexico, the European
Union, the Vatican, and the 15-nation Caribbean Community, condemned the
crackdown and the executions. Because of the human rights crackdown, the EU
postponed consideration of Cuba’s application for inclusion in the Cotonou
Agreement, which provides preferential trade terms and development assistance to
former European colonies; as a result, Cuba withdrew its application for the
agreement because it did not want to be forced to comply with “unacceptable
conditions.”4
Both U.N. and OAS Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression expressed
grave concern on the sentencing of the dissidents.5 On May 19, 2003, almost half of
OAS members approved a statement expressing “their deep concern about the sharp
deterioration of the human rights situation in Cuba in March and April 2003.” Other
OAS members, however, felt that the OAS was not the body to discuss the issue
since Cuba has been excluded from participating since 1962. (Also see UNHCR
Resolutions below.)
The United States — both the Administration and Congress (see “Legislative
Initiatives” below) — strongly condemned the Cuban government’s actions. In
response to the summary trials of the dissidents, the State Department issued a
statement characterizing the actions as “the most despicable act of political
repression in the Americas in a decade” and called “on the international community
4 Nancy San Martin, “Cuba Withdraws from European Pact,” Miami Herald, May 20, 2003.
5 Organization of American States. “U.N. and OAS Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of
Expression Gravely Concerned About Situation in Cuba,” Press Release, May 3, 2003.

---

CRS-8
... in condemning this repression and in demanding the release of these Cuban
prisoners of conscience.”6
Rationale for the 2003 Crackdown. Analysts see a variety of potential
reasons for Cuba’s severe crackdown on democracy activists. The Cuban
government asserts that the crackdown was justified because the defendants were
supported by the U.S. government and that U.S. diplomats in Cuba, most notably the
head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, James Cason, often met with the
dissidents. Some analysts believe that the crackdown was a clear message by the
Cuban government that it will not tolerate the U.S. government’s active and open
support for the opposition movement. Other analysts emphasize that the crackdown
was an effort by Castro to strengthen the regime’s political control in light of a
faltering economy and dim economic prospects ahead. According to this view, an
increasingly assertive opposition movement could become a national security threat
to the Castro regime in the tough economic times ahead. Along these lines, some
analysts see the crackdown as a way for the regime to clear away any potential
opposition in order to ensure that the eventual succession of Raul Castro to power
will be smooth.
Some observers maintain that the Cuban government’s willingness to jeopardize
the possibility of easing U.S. trade and travel restrictions as an indication that it
currently views the dissident movement as a serious security threat. Others, however,
believe that the Cuban government judged that there would not be any movement to
ease the embargo under the Bush Administration and felt that it had little to lose in
cracking down on the opposition movement.
Finally, a view often heard when Castro takes harsh action that jeopardizes an
improvement in relations with the United States is that Castro actually is opposed to
any further opening to the United States because it could threaten his regime’s
control. According to this view, the crackdown against the opposition puts the skids
on any potential easing of U.S. policy.
Health and Conditions of Political Prisoners. The State Department has
repeatedly expressed concern about the health of the political prisoners and about
poor prison conditions.
On June 2, 2003, the State Department expressed concern about the health of
several of those political prisoners sentenced in April, noting that many were being
held in inhumane conditions, with very poor sanitation, contaminated water, and
nearly inedible food. It called on the Cuban government to cease treating the
prisoners inhumanely and called for the government to allow appropriate
humanitarian organizations to monitor the treatment of the prisoners. The State
Department expressed special concern about the treatment of Oscar Espinosa Chepe,
who suffers from liver disease, edema, gastrointestinal bleeding, and other medical
6 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “U.S.
Condemns Initiation of Trials Against Activists in Cuba,” April 3, 2003.

---

CRS-9
problems.7 Both Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists
have expressed concern about his health.
On August 1, 2003, the State Department issued a fact sheet highlighting the
gross human rights abuses suffered by imprisoned Cuban dissidents, including many
with serious health problems, such as Mr. Espinosa Chepe and Marta Beatriz Roque.
On August 11, 2003, the State Department again expressed concern about the failing
health and poor treatment of political prisoners in Cuba, including Oscar Espinosa
Chepe and Raul Rivero.
In January 2004, the State Department again condemned Cuba’s imprisonment
of journalists, librarians, and human rights defenders. It criticized the poor conditions
and lack of adequate medical treatment for Oscar Espinosa Chepe and Marta Beatriz
Roque and the poor health of Leonardo Bruzon Avila due to repeated hunger strikes.8
Since April 2004, the Cuban government has released 10 political prisoners,
including 6 of the 75 dissidents imprisoned in March 2003, because of poor health
conditions. Observers maintain that the Cuban government is not being
compassionate in releasing the prisoners, but rather it wants to ensure that the
prisoners do not die in prison.9
Varela Project. A human rights initiative within Cuba that has received
attention since 2002 is the Varela Project (named for the 19th century priest, Felix
Varela, who advocated independence from Spain and the abolition of slavery) in
which thousands of signatures have been collected supporting a national plebiscite.
The referendum would call for respect for human rights, an amnesty for political
prisoners, private enterprise, and changes to the country’s electoral law that would
result in free and fair elections. The initiative is organized by Oswaldo Paya, who
heads the Christian Liberation Movement, and it is supported by other notable Cuban
human rights activists.
On May 10, 2002, organizers of the Varela Project submitted 11,020 signatures
to the National Assembly calling for a national referendum This was more than the
10,000 required under Article 88 of the Cuban Constitution. Former President
Jimmy Carter noted the significance of the Varela Project in his May 14, 2002
address in Havana that was broadcast in Cuba. Carter noted that “when Cubans
exercise this freedom to change laws peacefully by a direct vote, the world will see
that Cubans, and not foreigners, will decide the future of this country.”10
7 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “Health
of Imprisoned Cuban Dissidents Concerns U.S.,” June 2, 2003.
8 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “U.S.
Condemns Cuba’s Imprisonment of Human Rights Advocates,” January 22, 2004.
9 Nancy San Martin, “Cuba is Freeing Sick Dissidents ‘To Avoid a Mishap’ Experts Say,”
Miami Herald, June 26, 2004.
10 “Text of Jimmy Carter’s Speech, Broadcast Live to Cuban People,” Associated Press,
May 15, 2002.

---

CRS-10
In response to the Varela Project, the Cuban government orchestrated its own
referendum in late June 2002 that ultimately led to the National Assembly amending
the Constitution to declare Cuba’s socialist system irrevocable.
The Varela Project has persevered despite the March 2003 human rights
crackdown, which included the arrests of 42 active supporters of the human rights
initiative. On October 3, 2003, Oswaldo Paya delivered more than 14,000 signatures
to Cuba’s National Assembly, again requesting a referendum on democratic reforms.
Trafficking in Persons. In September 2003, President Bush, pursuant to the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386, Division A), determined
that Cuba did not comply with minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking
in persons or make significant efforts to bring itself into compliance. While the
determination triggers sanctions on U.S. aid and other support, Cuba already is
subject to comprehensive U.S. economic sanctions and an embargo on trade and
financial transactions. According to the State Department’s June 2004 Trafficking
in Persons Report (available at [http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2004/]), “Cuba
is a country of internal trafficking for sexual exploitation and forced labor. Child
sexual victims are generally teenage girls aged 14 to 17 who are abused in
prostitution. The Cuban government does not condone underage prostitution but
does not publicly address the problem, which largely takes place in the context of
tourism that earns hard currency for the state.” Cuban officials categorized the
allegations as absurd and an insult to the country’s national dignity.
UNCHR Resolutions. From 1991 until 1997, the U.N. Commission on
Human Rights (UNCHR) called on the Cuban government to cooperate with a
Special Representative (later upgraded to Special Rapporteur) designated by the
Secretary General to investigate the human rights situation in Cuba. But Cuba
refused to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, and the UNCHR annually
approved resolutions condemning Cuba’s human rights record. In 1998, however,
the UNCHR rejected — by a vote of 16 to 19, with 18 abstentions — the annual
resolution sponsored by the United States that would have condemned Cuba’s rights
record and would have extended the work of the Special Rapporteur for another year.
U.S. officials and human rights activists expressed deep disappointment with the
vote. Observers maintained that the vote did not signify any improvement in human
rights in Cuba, but rather was an expression of disagreement with the United States
over its policy toward Cuba.
From 1999-2004, the UNCHR again approved annual resolutions criticizing
Cuba for its human rights record:
! In 1999, the UNCHR resolution was approved by a vote of 21-20,
with 12 abstentions.
! In 2000, the resolution, sponsored by the Czech Republic and
Poland, was approved by a vote of 21-18, with 14 abstentions.
! On April 18, 2001, the resolution, sponsored by the Czech Republic
and co-sponsored by 16 other nations, including the United States,
was approved by a vote of 22-20, with 10 abstentions. A U.S.

---

CRS-11
Congressional delegation traveled to Geneva to encourage adoption
of the resolution. Mexico abstained but, in a shift under the new Fox
administration, publicly stated its concern about human rights in
Cuba.
! On April 19, 2002, the UNCHR approved a resolution, by a vote of
23 to 21, with 9 abstentions, calling on Cuba to improve its human
rights record “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the principles and standards of the rule of law”
and calling for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to
send a personal representative to Cuba. Uruguay sponsored the
resolution, which was supported by six other Latin American
nations: Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru.
Brazil and Ecuador abstained, while Venezuela was the only Latin
American country besides Cuba to vote against the resolution.
Compared to previous years, the 2002 resolution was milder in that
it recognized Cuba’s efforts to fulfill the “social rights” of its people
“despite an adverse international environment,” while at the same
time calling on Cuba “to achieve similar progress in respect of
human, civil, and political rights.”
! During its 2003 meeting, the UNCHR approved a resolution on
April 17, 2003, by a vote of 24-20, with 9 abstentions, sponsored by
Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, and Uruguay urging Cuba to receive
the personal representative of the U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights. Cuba has said that it would not accept the visit of
the UNCHR representative. Efforts to secure a more strongly
worded resolution expressing “deep concern” about the March 2003
crackdown failed, with 31 nations voting against the amendment.
! On April 15, 2004, by a vote of 22-21, with 10 abstentions, the
UNCHR approved a resolution sponsored by Honduras that deplored
the crackdown in 2003 and again urged Cuba to cooperate with the
personal representative of the U.N. High Commission for Human
Rights. The resolution was co-sponsored by El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Peru, Australia, and the Czech Republic.
Legislative Initiatives. Over the years, Congress has gone on record on
numerous occasions condemning the human rights situation in Cuba. In the first
session of the108th Congress, both houses approved resolutions condemning the
Cuban government in the aftermath of the March 2003 crackdown on independent
journalists and other democratic activists. The Senate approved S.Res. 97 (Nelson)
on April 7, 2003, which condemned the recent arrests and other intimidation tactics
against democracy activists and called on the Cuban government to immediately
release those imprisoned during the crackdown. The House approved H.Res. 179
(Diaz-Balart, Lincoln) on April 8, which condemned the crackdown, called for the
release of all political prisoners, and called for the United States to work to ensure
a strong resolution in the UNCHR this year against the Cuban crackdown. On June
27, 2003, the Senate approved S.Res. 62 (Ensign), calling on OAS and U.N. human

---

CRS-12
rights bodies, the European Union, and human rights organizations around the world
to call attention to the human rights situation in Cuba.
In the second session, the Senate approved S.Res. 328 (Nelson) on April 8,
2004, expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the continued human rights
violations committed by Fidel Castro and the Cuban government. The resolution
called on Cuba to immediately release individuals imprisoned for political purposes
and called upon the 60th session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to
condemn Cuba for its human rights abuses and demand that inspectors from the
International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed to visit and inspect Cuban
prisons.
Three hearings have been held in the 108th Congress on the human rights
situation in Cuba. Soon after Cuba’s human rights crackdown, the House
International Relations Committee held a hearing on “Castro’s Brutal Crackdown on
Dissidents” on April 16, 2003. On October 16, 2003, the House Government Reform
Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness held a hearing on
“Castro’s Cuba: What is the Proper United States Response to Ongoing Human
Rights Violations in Our Hemisphere?” On June 16, 2004, the House Subcommittee
on Human Rights and Wellness held a hearing on continued human rights abuses in
Cuba.
Numerous other resolutions have been introduced in the 108th Congress on
Cuba’s poor human rights situation: H.Con.Res. 16 (Andrews), H.Res. 164 (Flake),
and H.Con.Res. 125 (Deutsch). H.R. 1201 (Ros-Lehtinen) would posthumously
revoke the naturalization of an individual reported to be responsible for human rights
violations in Cuba. H.Res. 208 (Foley) would, among other provisions, condemn the
member states of the United Nations Economic and Social Council for renewing
Cuba’s membership on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. S.Res.
146 (Reid) would express the sense of the Senate regarding the establishment of an
international tribunal to prosecute crime against humanity committed by Fidel Castro
and other Cuban political and military leaders. H.Res. 563 (Ros-Lehtinen) would
express the sense of the House regarding the one-year anniversary of Cuba’s human
rights crackdown and call for the 60th session of the UNCHR to approve a resolution
holding Cuba accountable for its gross violation of human rights and civil liberties.
In addition to resolutions on the human rights situation, Congress funds
democracy and human rights projects for Cuba in annual Foreign Operations and
Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations measures. For more details, see U.S.
Funding to Support Democracy and Human Rights, below.

---

CRS-13
Economic Conditions11
With the cutoff of assistance from the former Soviet Union, Cuba experienced
severe economic deterioration from 1989-1993, although there has been
improvement since 1994. Estimates of economic decline in the 1989-93 period range
from 35-50%. From 1994-2000, however, economic growth averaged 3.7% annually,
with a low of 0.4% in 1994 and a high of 7.8% in 1996.
Growth rates since 2001 have slowed, averaging almost 2.4% (3% in 2001,
1.5% in 2002, and an estimated 2.6% in 2003), although the forecast for 2004 is for
3.6%.12 Growth in 2001 and 2002 slowed in the aftermath of the effects of Hurricane
Michelle and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. The
terrorist attacks severely affected Cuba’s tourist industry, with reports of some hotels
closing and restaurants being empty. Hurricane Michelle damaged some 45,000
homes and severely hurt the agricultural sector. Low world prices for sugar and
nickel and Venezuela’s April-September 2002 suspension of oil shipments to Cuba
because of Cuba’s slow payment also contributed to the economic slowdown.13
Socialist Cuba has expressed pride for the nation’s accomplishments in health
and education. The World Bank estimates that in 2000, the adult literacy rate was
97%, life expectancy was 76 years, and the under-5 years of age mortality rate was
9 per 1,000, the lowest rate in Latin America and comparable to the rate of the United
States. Nevertheless, the country’s economic decline has reduced living standards
considerably and resulted in shortages in medicines and medical supplies.
When Cuba’s economic slide began in 1989, the government showed little
willingness to adopt any significant market-oriented economic reforms, but in 1993,
faced with unprecedented economic decline, Cuba began to change policy direction.
Since 1993, Cubans have been allowed to own and use U.S. dollars and to shop at
dollar-only shops previously limited to tourists and diplomats. Self-employment was
authorized in more than 100 occupations in 1993, most in the service sector, and by
1996 that figure had grown to more than 150 occupations. Other Cuban economic
reforms included breaking up large state farms into smaller, more autonomous,
agricultural cooperatives (Basic Units of Cooperative Production, UBPCs) in 1993;
11 For an overview of the Cuban economy, see CRS Report RL30837, Cuba: An Economic
Primer, by Ian F. Fergusson.
12 “Cuba Country Report,” Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Country Reports, April 2004.
13 Venezuela provided Cuba with 53,000 barrels of oil per day under a five-year bilateral
agreement signed in October 2000, with favorable financing terms for Cuba. This provided
Cuba with about one-third of its oil needs. In the aftermath of the failed ouster of President
Hugo Chavez in April 2002, Venezuela suspended oil shipments to Cuba, but these
shipments were resumed in September 2002 after Cuba and Venezuela agreed to a
restructuring of Cuba’s $142 million debt owed to Venezuela for its oil purchases. See Jose
de Cordoba, “Cuba’s Weak Economy May be Battered Again,” Wall Street Journal, June
6, 2002; “Venezuela Shuts Off the Oil Spigot,” CubaNews, June 2002, p. 12; “Venezuela:
Halt in Oil to Cuba May Ease Pressure on Chavez,” Strategic Forecasting, May 30, 2002,
available at [http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/static_index.neo]; and “Latin America
Roundup,” Miami Herald, September 9, 2002.

---

CRS-14
opening agricultural markets in September 1994 where farmers could sell part of
their produce on the open market; opening artisan markets in October 1994 for the
sale of handicrafts; allowing private food catering, including home restaurants
(paladares) in June 1995 (in effect legalizing activities that were already taking
place); approving a new foreign investment law in September 1995 that allows fully
owned investments by foreigners in all sectors of the economy with the exception of
defense, health, and education; and authorizing the establishment of free trade zones
with tariff reductions typical of such zones in June 1996. In May 1997, the
government enacted legislation to reform the banking system and established a new
Central Bank (BCC) to operate as an autonomous and independent entity.
Despite these measures, the quality of life for many Cubans remains difficult,
characterized by low wages, high prices for many basic goods, shortages of
medicines, and power outages. Moreover, some analysts fear that the government
has begun to backtrack on its reform efforts. Regulations and new taxes have made
it extremely difficult for many of the nation’s self-employed (at one point estimated
at more than 200,000, but now estimated at 160,000 or lower, out of a total labor
force of some 4.5 million). Some home restaurants have been forced to close
because of the regulations. Some foreign investors in Cuba have also begun to
complain that the government has backed out of deals or forced them out of business.
In April 2004, the Cuban government limited the use of dollars by state companies
for any services or products not considered part of their core business; some analysts
view the measure as an effort to turn back the clock on economic reform measures.14
U.S. Policy Toward Cuba
In the early 1960s, U.S.-Cuban relations deteriorated sharply when Fidel Castro
began to build a repressive communist dictatorship and moved his country toward
close relations with the Soviet Union. The often tense and hostile nature of the U.S.-
Cuban relationship is illustrated by such events and actions as: U.S. covert operations
to overthrow the Castro government culminating in the ill-fated April 1961 Bay of
Pigs invasion; the October 1962 missile crisis in which the United States confronted
the Soviet Union over its attempt to place offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba; Cuban
support for guerrilla insurgencies and military support for revolutionary governments
in Africa and the Western Hemisphere; the 1980 exodus of around 125,000 Cubans
to the United States in the so-called Mariel boatlift; the 1994 exodus of more than
30,000 Cubans who were interdicted and housed at U.S. facilities in Guantanamo and
Panama; and the February 1996 shootdown by Cuban fighter jets of two U.S. civilian
planes, resulting in the death of four U.S. crew members.
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted largely of isolating
the island nation through comprehensive economic sanctions. These sanctions were
made stronger with the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992 (P.L.102-484, Title
XVII) and with the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-114), often referred to as the Helms/Burton legislation. The CDA prohibits U.S.
14 Larry Luxner, “New Decree Limits Dollar Transactions as Cuba Tightens Controls Once
Again,” CubaNews, April 2004.

---

CRS-15
subsidiaries from engaging in trade with Cuba and prohibits entry into the United
States for any vessel to load or unload freight if it has engaged in trade with Cuba
within the last 180 days. The Helms/Burton legislation — enacted in the aftermath
of Cuba’s shooting down of two U.S. civilian planes in February 1996 — combines
a variety of measures to increase pressure on Cuba and provides for a plan to assist
Cuba once it begins the transition to democracy. Among the law’s sanctions is a
provision in Title III that holds any person or government that traffics in U.S.
property confiscated by the Cuban government liable for monetary damages in U.S.
federal court. Acting under provisions of the law, however, both President Clinton
and President Bush have suspended the implementation of Title III at six-month
intervals.
Another component of U.S. policy consists of support measures for the Cuban
people, a so-called second track of U.S. policy. This includes U.S. private
humanitarian donations, medical exports to Cuba under the terms of the Cuban
Democracy Act of 1992, U.S. government support for democracy-building efforts,
and U.S.- sponsored radio and television broadcasting to Cuba. In addition, the 106th
Congress approved the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX) that allows for agricultural exports to Cuba, albeit with
restrictions on financing such exports.
The Clinton Administration made several changes to U.S. policy in the
aftermath of the Pope’s January 1998 visit to Cuba, which were intended to bolster
U.S. support for the Cuban people. These included the resumption of direct flights
to Cuba (which had been curtailed after the February 1996 shootdown of two U.S.
civilian planes), the resumption of cash remittances for the support of close relatives
in Cuba (which had been curtailed in August 1994 in response to the migration crisis
with Cuba), and the streamlining of procedures for the commercial sale of medicines
and medical supplies and equipment to Cuba. In January 1999, President Clinton
announced several additional measures to support the Cuban people. These included
a broadening of cash remittances to Cuba, so that all U.S. residents (not just those
with close relatives in Cuba) could send remittances to Cuba; an expansion of direct
passenger charter flights to Cuba from additional U.S. cities other than Miami (direct
flights later in the year began from Los Angeles and New York); and an expansion
of people-to-people contact by loosening restrictions on travel to Cuba for certain
categories of travelers, such as professional researchers and those involved in a wide
range of educational, religious, and sports competition.
Bush Administration Policy
The Bush Administration essentially has continued the two-track U.S. policy of
isolating Cuba through economic sanctions while supporting the Cuban people
through a variety of measures. However, within this policy framework, the
Administration has emphasized stronger enforcement of economic sanctions and has
moved to further tighten restrictions on travel, remittances, and humanitarian gift
parcels to Cuba. There has been considerable reaction to the Administration’s June
2004 tightening of restrictions for family visits and other categories of travel.
President Bush made his first major statement on his Administration’s policy
toward Cuba on May 18, 2001. He affirmed that his Administration would “oppose

---

CRS-16
any attempt to weaken sanctions against Cuba’s government ... until this regime frees
its political prisoners, holds democratic, free elections, and allows for free speech.”
He added that he would “actively support those working to bring about democratic
change in Cuba.”15 In July 2001, President Bush 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 “unlicensed and excessive travel,” enforce limits on remittances, and
ensure that humanitarian and cultural exchanges actually reach pro-democracy
activists in Cuba.
On May 20, 2002, President Bush announced a new initiative on Cuba that
included four measures designed to reach out to the Cuban people: 1) facilitating
humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people by U.S. religious and other non-
governmental organizations (NGOs); 2) providing direct assistance to the Cuban
people through NGOs; 3) calling for the resumption of direct mail service to and
from Cuba16; and 4) establishing scholarships in the United States for Cuban students
and professionals involved in building civil institutions and for family members of
political prisoners. While the President said that he would work with Congress to
ease sanctions if Cuba made efforts to conduct free and fair legislative elections (in
January 2003) and adopt meaningful market-based reforms, he also maintained that
full normalization of relations would only occur when Cuba has a fully democratic
government, the rule of law is respected, and human rights are fully protected. The
President’s initiative did not include an explicit tightening of restrictions on travel
to Cuba that some observers had expected. The President, did state, however, that the
United States would “continue to enforce economic sanctions on Cuba, and the ban
on travel to Cuba, until Cuba’s government proves that it is committed to real
reform.”17
On October 10, 2003, the President announced three initiatives “to hasten the
arrival of a new, free, democratic Cuba.” First, the President instructed the
Department of Homeland Security to increase inspections of travelers and shipments
to and from Cuba in order to more strictly enforce the trade and travel embargo.
Second, the President announced that the United States would increase the number
of new Cuban immigrants each year, improve the method of identifying refugees,
redouble efforts to process Cubans seeking to leave Cuba, initiative a public
15 The White House, “Remarks by the President in Recognition of Cuba Independence Day”,
May 18, 2001.
16 Direct mail service was suspended in 1962. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 directed
the U.S. Postal service to take actions to provide direct mail service. In January 1999,
President Clinton called for the resumption of direct mail service. In the past, Cuba has
responded to U.S. overtures about direct mail service by maintaining that the two countries
would need to enter into a civil-aviation agreement. Cuba in the past has also expressed
concern about potential terrorism that could occur with direct mail service and would want
to discuss with the United States measures to prevent such activity before the resumption
of direct mail. See Philip Brenner, “Washington Loosens the Knot Just a Little,” NACLA
Report on the Americas, March 1, 1999.
17 “President Bush Announced Initiative for a New Cuba,” Remarks by the President on
Cuba Policy Review, White House, May 20, 2002.

---

CRS-17
information campaign to better inform Cubans of the routes to safe and legal
migration to the United States. Third, the President announced the establishment of
a “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba,” that would help plan for Cuba’s
transition from communism to democracy and help identify ways to help bring it
about (see discussion below).
Tightened Sanctions in 2004. I n 2004, the Bush Administration has taken
several measures to tighten U.S. sanctions against Cuba. In February, as part of the
Administration’s efforts to strengthen travel restrictions, the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control identified ten foreign companies (nine travel
companies and one gift forwarder provider), blocked their assets under U.S.
jurisdiction, and prohibited any transactions with these companies.18 President Bush
also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to expand its policing of the
waters between Florida and Cuba with the objective of stopping pleasure boating
traffic.19 In March 2004, the State Department announced that it would deny visas
to those Cubans who participated in the “show trials” of dissidents in March 2003;
the actions will reportedly cover some 300 Cubans.20
On May 6, 2004, President Bush endorsed the recommendations of a report
issued by the inter-agency Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, chaired by
Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Commission made recommendations for
immediate measures to “hasten the end of Cuba’s dictatorship” as well longer-term
recommendations to help plan for Cuba’s transition from communism to democracy
in various areas. In total, the President directed that up to $59 million be committed
to implement key recommendations of the Commission, apparently including
reprogrammed FY2004 funding and new FY2005 funding. This total includes up to
$36 million for democracy-building activities “to empower Cuban civil society;” up
to $18 million for regular airborne broadcasts to Cuba and the purchase of a
dedicated airborne platform for the transmission of Radio and TV Marti broadcasts
into Cuba in order “to break the information blockade;” and $5 million in public
diplomacy efforts by U.S. Embassies worldwide to disseminate information about
Cuba abroad in order to “illuminate the reality of Castro’s Cuba.” (The full
Commission report is on the State Department website at [http://www.state. gov/p/
wha/rt/cuba/commission/2004/].)
The report’s most significant recommendations included a number of measures
to tighten economic sanctions. The Treasury Department issued regulations on June
16, 2004, implementing the tightened restrictions on travel and remittances, most of
18 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File,
“Treasury Dept. Identifies 10 Entities for Cuban Embargo Violations,” February 9, 2004.
19 Presidential Proclamation 7757 of February 26, 2004, Federal Register, March 1, 2004,
p. 9515; Carol Rosenberg, “New Rule Restricts American Boaters from Sailing to Island,”
Miami Herald, February 27, 2004.
20 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “U.S. to
Deny Visas to Cubans Who Took Part in Dissident Trials,” March 18, 2004; Nancy San
Martin, “U.S. Bans Anti-Dissidents: The United States Will Deny Entry to 300 Cubans
Identified by the States as Cuban Regime Authorities Who Are Involved in Acts of
Repression,” Miami Herald, March 20, 2004.

---

CRS-18
which went into effect on June 30, 2004 (the regulations were delayed until August
1 for those on family visits and fully hosted travelers already in Cuba). The
Commerce Department issued regulations on June 22, 2004, regarding gift parcels
and weight limits on luggage allowed for family visits; these restrictions went into
effect June 30, 2004.
Among the new restrictions:
! Family visits are restricted to one trip every three years under a
specific license and are be restricted to immediate family members.
Under previous regulations, family visits could occur once a year
under a general license, with travel more than once a year allowed
but under a specific license. Previously travel had been allowed to
visit relatives to within three degrees of relationship to the traveler.
! Cash remittances, estimates of which range from $400 million to
$800 million, are further restricted. Quarterly remittances of $300
may still be sent, but it is now restricted for members of the
remitter’s immediate family and may not be remitted to certain
government officials and certain members of the Cuban Communist
Party. The regulations were also changed to reduce the amount of
remittances that authorized travelers may carry to Cuba, from $3000
to $300.
! Gift parcels are limited to immediate family members and are denied
to certain Cuban officials and certain members of the Cuban
Communist Party. The contents of gift parcels may no longer
include seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items, veterinary medicines
and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making
equipment.
! The authorized per diem allowed for a family visit is reduced from
the State Department per diem rate, currently $167 per day, to $50
per day.
! With the exception of informational materials, licensed travelers
may not purchase or otherwise acquire merchandise and bring it
back into the United States. Previous regulations allowed visitors to
Cuba to import $100 worth of goods as accompanied baggage.
! Fully-hosted travel is no longer allowed as a permissible category of
travel.
! Travel for educational activities is further restricted, including the
elimination of educational exchanges sponsored by secondary
schools.
There has been mixed reaction to the tightening of Cuba travel and remittance
restrictions. Supporters maintain that the increased restrictions will deny the Cuban
government dollars that help maintain its repressive control. Opponents argue that

---

CRS-19
the tightened sanctions are anti-family and will only result in more suffering for the
Cuban people. There have also been concerns that the new restrictions were drafted
without considering the full consequences of their implementation. For example, the
elimination of fully-hosted travel has raised concerns about the status of some U.S.
70 students receiving full scholarships at the Latin American School of Medicine in
Havana. The regulation reportedly will be revised to allow the students to continue
to attend the medical school.21 (For further information, see CRS Report RL31139,
Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances, by Mark P. Sullivan.)
21 DeWayne Wickman, “Powell Prescribes Cuba Travel Waiver for U.S. Medical Students,”
USA Today, July 7, 2004.

---

CRS-20
Issues in U.S.-Cuban Relations
Overall Direction of U.S. Policy
Over the years, although U.S. policymakers have agreed on the overall objective
of U.S. policy toward Cuba — to help bring democracy and respect for human rights
to the island — there have been several schools of thought about how to achieve that
objective. Some advocate a policy of keeping maximum pressure on the Cuban
government until reforms are enacted, while continuing current U.S. efforts to
support the Cuban people. Others argue for an approach, sometimes referred to as
constructive engagement, that would lift some U.S. sanctions that they believe are
hurting the Cuban people, and move toward engaging Cuba in dialogue. Still others
call for a swift normalization of U.S.-Cuban relations by lifting the U.S. embargo.
In general, those advocating a loosening of the sanctions-based policy toward
Cuba make several policy arguments. They assert that if the United States moderated
its policy toward Cuba — through increased travel, trade and diplomatic dialogue,
that the seeds of reform would be planted in Cuba, which would stimulate and
strengthen forces for peaceful change on the island. They stress the importance to the
United States of avoiding violent change in Cuba, with the prospect of a mass exodus
to the United States and the potential of involving the United States in a civil war
scenario. They argue that since Castro’s demise does not appear imminent, the
United States should espouse a more realistic approach in trying to induce change in
Cuba. Supporters of changing policy also point to broad international support for
lifting the U.S. embargo, to the missed opportunities to U.S. businesses because of
the embargo, and to the increased suffering of the Cuban people because of the
embargo. Proponents of change also argue that the United States should be
consistent in its policies with the world’s few remaining Communist governments,
and also maintain that moderating policy will help advance human rights.
On the other side, opponents of changing U.S. policy maintain that the current
two-track policy of isolating Cuba, but reaching out to the Cuban people through
measures of support, is the best means for realizing political change in Cuba. They
point out that the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 sets forth a
road map for the steps Cuba needs to take in order for the United States to normalize
relations, including lifting the embargo. They argue that softening U.S. policy at this
time without concrete Cuban reforms would boost the Castro regime politically and
economically, enabling the survival of the Communist regime. Opponents of
softening U.S. policy argue that the United States should stay the course in its
commitment to democracy and human rights in Cuba; that sustained sanctions can
work; and that the sanctions against Cuba have only come to full impact with the loss
of large subsidies from the former Soviet bloc. Opponents of loosening U.S.
sanctions further argue that Cuba’s failed economic policies, not the U.S. embargo,
are the causes of the economy’s rapid decline.
Helms/Burton Legislation
Major Provisions and Implementation. The Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act (P.L. 104-114) was enacted into law on March 12, 1996.

---

CRS-21
Title I, Section 102(h), codifies all existing Cuban embargo executive orders and
regulations. No presidential waiver is provided for any of these codified embargo
provisions. This provision is significant because of the long-lasting effect on U.S.
policy options toward Cuba. In effect, the executive branch is circumscribed in any
changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba until certain democratic conditions are met.
Title III, controversial because of the ramifications for U.S. relations with
countries investing in Cuba, allows U.S. nationals to sue for money damages in U.S.
federal court those persons that traffic in property confiscated in Cuba. It extends the
right to sue to Cuban Americans who became U.S. citizens after their properties were
confiscated. The President has authority to delay implementation for six months at
a time if he determines that such a delay would be in the national interest and would
expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba.
Beginning in July 1996, President Clinton used this provision to delay for six
months the right of individuals to file suit against those persons benefitting from
confiscated U.S. property in Cuba. At the time of the first suspension on July 16,
1996, the President announced that he would allow Title III to go into effect, and as
a result liability for trafficking under the title became effective on November 1, 1996.
According to the Clinton Administration, this put foreign companies in Cuba on
notice that they face prospects of future lawsuits and significant liability in the United
States. At the second suspension on January 3, 1997, President Clinton stated that
he would continue to suspend the right to file law suits “as long as America’s friends
and allies continued their stepped-up efforts to promote a transition to democracy in
Cuba.” He continued, at six-month intervals, to suspend the rights to file Title III
lawsuits.
President Bush has continued to suspend implementation of Title III at six-
month intervals, most recently on January 16, 2004. When President Bush first used
his authority to suspend Title III implementation in July 2001, he cited efforts by
European countries and other U.S. allies to push for democratic change in Cuba. In
testimony before the House Government Reform Committee’s Subcommittee on
Human Rights and Wellness on October 16, 2003, Assistant Secretary of State Roger
Noriega justified the continued suspension of Title III implementation by noting
numerous examples of countries condemning Cuba for its human rights crackdown
in 2003.
Title IV of the law denies admission to the United States to aliens involved in
the confiscation of U.S. property in Cuba or in the trafficking of confiscated U.S.
property in Cuba. This includes corporate officers, principals, or shareholders with
a controlling interest in an entity involved in the confiscation of U.S. property or
trafficking of U.S. property. It also includes the spouse, minor child, or agent of
aliens who would be excludable under the provision. This provision is mandatory,
and only waiveable on a case-by-case basis for travel to the United States for
humanitarian medical reasons or for individuals to defend themselves in legal actions
regarding confiscated property.
To date the State Department has banned from the United States a number of
executives and their families from three companies because of their investment in
confiscated U.S. property in Cuba: Grupos Domos, a Mexican telecommunications

---

CRS-22
company; Sherritt International, a Canadian mining company; and BM Group, an
Israeli-owned citrus company. In 1997, Grupos Domos disinvested from U.S.-
claimed property in Cuba, and as a result its executives are again eligible to enter the
United States. Action against executives of STET, an Italian telecommunications
company was averted by a July 1997 agreement in which the company agreed to pay
the U.S.-based ITT Corporation $25 million for the use of ITT-claimed property in
Cuba for ten years. For several years, the State Department has been investigating
a Spanish hotel company, Sol Melia, for allegedly investing in property that was
confiscated from U.S. citizens in Cuba’s Holguin province in 1961. Press reports in
March 2002 indicated that a settlement was likely between Sol Melia and the original
owners of the property, but by the end of the year settlement efforts had failed.22 In
mid-June 2004, Jamaica’s SuperClubs resort chain decided to disinvest from two
Cuban hotels. The State Department had written to the hotel chain in May advising
that its top officials could be denied U.S. entry because the company’s Cuban
investments involved confiscated U.S. property.
Foreign Reaction and the EU’s WTO Challenge. Many U.S. allies —
including Canada, Japan, Mexico, and European Union (EU) nations — strongly
criticized the enactment of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. They
maintain that the law’s provisions allowing foreign persons to be sued in U.S. court
constitute an extraterritorial application of U.S. law that is contrary to international
principles. U.S. officials maintain that the United States, which reserves the right to
protect its security interests, is well within its rights under NAFTA and the World
Trade Organization (WTO).
Until mid-April 1997, the EU had been pursuing a case at the WTO, in which
it was challenging the Helms/Burton legislation as an extraterritorial application of
U.S. law. The beginning of a settlement on the issue occurred on April 11, 1997,
when an EU-U.S. understanding was reached. In the understanding, both sides
agreed to continue efforts to promote democracy in Cuba and to work together to
develop an agreement on agreed disciplines and principles for the strengthening of
investment protection relating to the confiscation of property by Cuba and other
governments. As part of the understanding, the EU agreed that it would suspend its
WTO dispute settlement case. Subsequently in mid-April 1998, the EU agreed to let
its WTO challenge expire.
Talks between the United States and the EU on investment disciplines proved
difficult, with the EU wanting to cover only future investments and the United States
wanting to cover past expropriations, especially in Cuba. Nevertheless, after months
of negotiations, the EU and the United States reached a second understanding on May
18, 1998. The understanding set forth EU disciplines regarding investment in
expropriated properties worldwide, in exchange for the Clinton Administration’s
obtaining a waiver from Congress for the legislation’s Title IV visa restrictions.
Future investment in expropriated property would be barred. For past illegal
expropriations, government support or assistance for transactions related to those
22 “April Likely to Mark Beginning of Epic Battle Over Cuba Policy Between White House,
Congress,” Cuba Trader, March 11, 2002, p. 2-3; “Congress Expected to Make New Push
for Title IV Enforcement after Settlement Fails,” Cuba Trader, December 9, 2002.

---

CRS-23
expropriated properties would be denied. A Registry of Claims would also be
established to warn investors and government agencies providing investment support
that a property has a record of claims. These investment disciplines were to be
applied at the same time that the President’s Title IV waiver authority was exercised.
Reaction was mixed among Members of Congress to the EU-U.S. accord, but
opposition to the agreement by several senior Members has forestalled any
amendment of Title IV in Congress. The Bush Administration initially indicated that
the Administration was looking into the possibilities of legislation to enact a
presidential waiver for the provision, but during the June 2001 U.S.-EU summit,
President Bush noted the difficulty of persuading Congress to amend the law.23 In
July 2003, some press reports indicated that the Administration was considering an
arrangement with the EU in which the EU would take a stronger policy stance toward
Cuba in exchange for the Administration securing waiver authority for Title IV and
permanent waiver authority for Title III of the Helms/Burton legislation.24
Section 211 Trademark Provision 25
A European Union challenge of U.S. law regarding Cuba in the World Trade
Organization involves a dispute between the French spirits company, Pernod Ricard,
and the Bermuda-based Bacardi Ltd. Pernod Ricard entered into a joint venture with
the Cuban government to produce and export Havana Club rum, but Bacardi
maintains that it holds the right to the Havana Club name. A provision in the FY1999
omnibus appropriations measure (Section 211 of Division A, title II, P.L. 105-277,
signed into law October 21, 1998) prevents the United States from accepting payment
for trademark registrations and renewals from Cuban or foreign nationals that were
used in connection with a business or assets in Cuba that were confiscated unless the
original owner of the trademark has consented. The provision prohibits U.S. courts
from recognizing such trademarks without the consent of the original owner.
Although Pernod Ricard cannot market Havana Club in the United States because of
the trade embargo, it wants to protect its future distribution rights should the embargo
be lifted.
After Bacardi began selling rum in the United States under the Havana Club
label, Pernod Ricard’s joint venture unsuccessfully challenged Bacardi in U.S.
federal court. In February 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
New York upheld a lower court’s ruling that the joint venture had no legal right to
use the Havana Club name in the United States, and also that it was barred from
recognizing any assertion of treaty rights with regard to the trade name.
After formal U.S.-EU consultations on the issue were held in 1999 without
resolution, the EU initiated a WTO dispute settlement panel in June 2000,
23 “EU, U.S. Take Sharply Different Tacks on Dispute Resolution,” Inside U.S. Trade, June
22, 2001.
24 “Is the US After a Helms-Burton Solution?” Cuba Trader, July 14, 2003.
25 For additional information, see CRS Report RS21764, Restricting Trademark Rights of
Cubans: WTO Decision and Congressional Response, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.

---

CRS-24
maintaining that the U.S. law violates the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property (TRIPS). An August 6, 2001 ruling by the WTO panel was
described as mixed, with both sides claiming a partial victory. The panel ruled that
WTO rules on intellectual property rights did not cover trade names, but also ruled
that a portion of the law (Section 211(a)(2)) prohibiting U.S. courts from recognizing
such Cuban trademarks based on common law rights or registration is in violation of
the TRIPS because it denies access to U.S. courts by trademark holders.
In early October 2001, the EU formally notified the WTO that it was appealing
the ruling. The WTO appeals panel issued its ruling on January 2, 2002, and again
the ruling was described as mixed. According to the United States Trade
Representative (USTR), the appellate panel upheld the “U.S. position that WTO
intellectual property rights rules leave WTO members free to protect trademarks by
establishing their own trademark ownership criteria” and overturned the earlier ruling
that Section 211 was in violation of TRIPs because it denied access to U.S. courts by
trademark holders.26 However, the appellate panel also found that Section 211
violated WTO provisions on national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment,
which could require the United States to amend Section 211 so that it does not violate
WTO rules. Although there is access to courts to enforce trademark rights, Section
211 restricted access in a discriminatory manner (against Cuban nationals and foreign
successors-in-interest.)
On March 28, 2002, the United States agreed that it would come into
compliance with the WTO ruling through legislative action by Congress by January
3, 2003.27 That deadline has been extended several times, however, since no
legislative action has been taken to bring Section 211 into compliance with the WTO
ruling. The current deadline is December 31, 2004.
Reportedly, United State Trade Representative officials have advocated a
narrow fix in which Section 211 would be amended so that it applies to U.S.
companies instead of being limited to foreign companies. The EU reportedly wants
the law amended to state that it would not apply in cases in which the trademark had
been abandoned by its original owner. Pernod Ricard maintains that the trademark
had been abandoned by the original owner years ago. It reportedly wants the law
repealed altogether, while Bacardi favors the narrow solution advocated by USTR
officials.28 Those supporting a repeal of Section 211 argue that the law endangers
over 5,000 trademarks of over 500 U.S. companies registered in Cuba.29
In the 108th Congress, identical bills, H.R. 2494 (Rangel), introduced June 17,
2003, and S. 2002 (Baucus), introduced December 9, 2003, would, among other
26 United States Trade Representative, “WTO Issues Report Upholding Key Aspects of U.S.
Law in Trademark Dispute,” Press Release, January 2, 2002.
27 “U.S., EU Agree on Deadline for Complying with Section 211 WTO Finding,” Inside
U.S. Trade, April 12, 2002.
28 “EU Presses for U.S. WTO Compliance, as Baucus Sees Links to Commission,” Inside
U.S. Trade, November 22, 2002.
29 “USA-Engage Joins Cuba Fight,” Cuba Trader, April 1, 2002.

---

CRS-25
provisions, repeal the Section 211 trademark provision from law. In addition, four
other legislative initiatives that would lift the overall trade embargo on Cuba also
include provisions that would repeal the Section 211 trademark provision: H.R. 188
(Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003; S. 403 (Baucus), introduced February 13,
2003; H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003; and H.R. 3422 (Serrano).
Press reports in October 2003 asserted that there were efforts in Congress to
advance the narrow fix that would ensure that Section 211 applies to U.S. companies
as well as foreign firms.30 Plans to add the narrow fix advocated by Bacardi to the
conference report to the Department of Defense authorization measure, H.R. 1588,
were reportedly scuttled when it became apparent that there would be some
opposition.31 In the second session, identical bills have been introduced – H.R. 4225
(Smith of Texas), introduced April 28, 2004, and S. 2373 (Domenici), introduced
April 29, 2004 – that would modify Section 211 so that it applies to all parties
regardless of nationality.
Food and Medical Exports
Under U.S. sanctions, commercial medical and food exports to Cuba are
allowed but with numerous restrictions and licensing requirements. The 106th
Congress passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-387, Title IX) that allows for one-year export licenses for shipping food
and medicine to Cuba, although no U.S. government assistance, foreign assistance,
export assistance, credits, or credit guarantees are available to finance such exports.
The law, furthermore, denies exporters access to U.S. private commercial financing
or credit; all transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing
from third countries. The law reiterates the existing ban on importing goods from
Cuba but authorizes travel to Cuba, under a specific license, to conduct business
related to the newly allowed food and medicine sales. Regulations implementing the
new provisions were published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2001.
Some in the business community argued that the changes in policy did not
amount to much because they still do not allow financing for the sales. Nevertheless,
U.S. agribusiness companies continued to explore the Cuban market for potential
future sales. The Cuban government told a group of U.S. farmers who traveled there
in November 2000, after passage of the new law, that although it was interested in
U.S. agricultural exports, it refused to buy any under the financing restrictions
imposed by that new law.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Michelle that struck in early November 2001,
Cuba changed its policy of not buying agricultural products from the United States
because of its disapproval of U.S. financing restrictions. While the U.S. government
offered humanitarian assistance to Cuba in the aftermath of the hurricane, Cuba
30 “House, Senate Conferees Consider Changes to Section 211 Trademark Law,” Inside U.S.
Trade, October 3, 2003; “Section 211 Fix Revealed in Draft Proposal,” Cuba Trader,
October 6, 2003; “Delay Pours It On for Bacardi,” Roll Call, October 1, 2003.
31 “Language Amending Section 211 Dropped from DOD Authorization,” Inside U.S. Trade,
November 14, 2003.

---

CRS-26
declined, saying that instead it wanted to purchase food supplies from the United
States. As a result, Cuba negotiated with several U.S. agricultural companies to
import products such as wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and chicken. The first
shipments of goods arrived in mid-December 2001. This marked the first time that
Cuba purchased food supplies directly from the United States since the approval of
such sales in the 106th Congress. In March 2002, the Cuban government agreed to
purchase additional agricultural products from the United States. In late September
2002, a U.S. Food & Agribusiness Exhibition was held in Havana featuring 288
exhibitors marketing 1,000 products from more than 30 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.32 In early June 2003, the Treasury Department’s Office
of Foreign Assets Control rejected an application to travel to Cuba for organizers of
a potential second U.S. trade exhibition in Cuba.33 Several Members of Congress
criticized the denial of the license and called for the Administration to reverse
OFAC’s decision.34
Since late 2001, Cuba has purchased more than $500 million in food and
agricultural products from the United States. Overall U.S. exports to Cuba amounted
to $7.1 million in 2001, $145.6 million in 2002, and $259 million in 2003, the
majority in agricultural products. For the first four months of 2004, U.S. exports
amounted to about $176 million, the majority in agricultural products.35
Opponents of further easing restrictions on food and medical exports to Cuba
maintain that U.S. policy does not deny such sales to Cuba, as evidenced by the
recent sales in the aftermath of Hurricane Michelle. Moreover, according to the State
Department, since the Cuban Democracy Act was enacted in 1992, the United States
has licensed more than $4.3 billion in private humanitarian donations. Opponents of
easing U.S. sanctions further argue that easing pressure on the Cuban government
would in effect be lending support and extending the duration of the Castro regime.
They maintain that the United States should remain steadfast in its opposition to any
easing of pressure on Cuba that could prolong the Castro regime and its repressive
policies.
Supporters of easing restrictions on food and medical exports to Cuba argue that
the restrictions harm the health and nutrition of the Cuban population. They argue
that although the U.S. government may have licensed more than $4.3 billion in
humanitarian donations to Cuba since 1992, much smaller amounts have actually
been sent to Cuba. Some supporters of easing sanctions believe the embargo plays
into Castro’s hands by allowing him to use U.S. policy as a scapegoat for his failed
economic policies and as a rationale for political repression. U.S. agribusiness
companies that support the removal of trade restrictions on agricultural exports to
32 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Official Dampens Trade-Show Enthusiasm with Talks of Cuban
Credit,” Miami Herald, September 29, 2002, p. F1.
33 Nancy San Marti, “U.S. Pulls Plug on Cuba Expo,” Miami Herald, June 18, 2003.
34 “Senators Ask for Reversal of Denial of Cuba License Applications,” International Trade
Reporter, July 24, 2003.
35 World Trade Atlas. Department of Commerce Statistics.

---

CRS-27
Cuba believe that U.S. farmers are missing out on a market of some $700 million so
close to the United States.
Some agricultural producers exporting to Cuba support continuation of the
prohibition on financing for agricultural exports to Cuba because it ensures that they
will be paid. Instead, some exporters want to change U.S. restrictions in order to sell
agriculture and farm equipment to Cuba.36 Other agricultural exporters, however,
support the lifting of the prohibition on financing. They contend that allowing such
financing would help smaller U.S. companies expand purchases to Cuba more
rapidly.37
Legislative Initiatives. In the 107th Congress, numerous initiatives focused
in whole or in part on easing restrictions on food and medical exports to Cuba. The
House-passed version of the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations bill, H.R.
5120, included a provision stating that no funds in the bill could be used to
implement any sanction on private commercial sales of agricultural commodities or
medicines to Cuba. Some observers suggested that the practical effect of this
amendment would be to prevent the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) from ensuring that sales to Cuba do not include private financing.38
The Senate version of the bill, S. 2740, as reported out of committee, did not include
a similar provision. Final action on the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations
measure was not completed before the end of the 107th Congress, so the 108th
Congress faced early action on the measure. In the end, the final version of the
FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure, P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2), which included
Treasury Department funding, did not include the House-passed provision from the
107th Congress that would have provided no funds for enforcing restrictions against
private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. The White House had threatened to
veto the omnibus bill if it had provisions weakening the embargo on Cuba.
Several additional initiatives have been introduced in the 108th Congress that
would lift restrictions in whole or in part on food and medical exports to Cuba. H.R.
187 (Serrano), introduced January 7, would allow for the financing of agricultural
sales to Cuba. H.R. 3422 (Serrano), introduced October 30, 2003, would, among
other measures, permit exports of food, medicines, and other humanitarian goods to
Cuba. Three broad bills, H.R. 188 (Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403
(Baucus), introduced February 13, 2003, and H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9,
2003, would lift all Cuba embargo restrictions, including those on food and medical
exports. S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R. 4457 (Otter) would require congressional renewal
of trade and travel restrictions with respect to Cuba, including restrictions on food
and medical exports.
36 “Ag Groups Split Over Trade With Cuba,” Congress Daily AM, National Journal,
February 11, 2003.
37 “Farm Equipment Exports Likely to Face Tough Opposition from White House,
Congress,” Cuba Trader, Vol. III, No. 7, February 17, 2003.
38 “House Approves Limits on Treasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade,
July 26, 2002.

---

CRS-28
The Senate version of the FY2004 agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 2673,
included a provision that would have allowed travel to Cuba under a general license
(without applying to the Treasury Department) for travel related to commercial sales
of agricultural and medical goods, but the provision was dropped in the conference
on H.R. 2673 (H.Rept. 108-401), which became the FY2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act that included agriculture appropriations in Division A. The
House version of the bill had not included a similar provision. Such travel to Cuba
currently is allowed under the Cuba embargo regulations but under a specific license,
which requires approval by the Treasury Department. As noted above, in June 2003,
the Treasury Department rejected application for the U.S. organizers of a trade
exhibition to travel to Cuba, prompting criticism from some Members of Congress
who called for a reversal of the decision.
Travel and Remittance Restrictions
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
five years, from 1977 until 1982, there were no restrictions on travel. Restrictions
on travel and remittances to Cuba are part of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations
(CACR), the overall embargo regulations administered by the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Under the Bush Administration,
enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel has increased, and restrictions on
travel and on private remittances to Cuba have been tightened. In March 2003, the
Administration eliminated travel for people-to-people educational exchanges
unrelated to academic coursework. In June 2004, the Administration further
restricted family and educational travel, eliminated the category of fully hosted travel,
and restricted remittances to immediate family members. There has been mixed
public reaction to the tightening of travel and remittance restrictions, especially
regarding family travel. (For further details, see CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S.
Restrictions on Travel and Remittances.)
Major arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban are it contributes to the
suffering of Cuban families; 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 that more American travel would support Castro’s rule by providing
his government with millions of dollars in hard currency; that there are legal
provisions allowing travel to Cuba for humanitarian purposes that are used by
thousands of Americans each year; and that the President should be free to restrict
travel for foreign policy reasons.
Legislative Initiatives. In the 107th Congress, numerous initiatives would
have lifted or eased restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was completed on
these measures. In the second session, both the House-passed and Senate
Appropriations Committee versions of the FY2003 Treasury Department
appropriations bill (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740) had provisions that would have eased
restrictions on travel to Cuba. The provisions would have provided that no funds
could be used to administer or enforce the Treasury Department regulations with

---

CRS-29
respect to travel to Cuba. Some observers raised the question 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
the relevant embargo regulations could potentially take place in future years when the
Treasury Department appropriations measure did not include the funding limitations
on enforcing the travel restrictions.39 In addition, Section 124 of the Senate bill
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 applications for travel. Final action on the FY2003 Treasury
Department appropriations measure was not completed before the end of the 107th
Congress. The final version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure,
approved in the 108th Congress, H.J.Res. 2, included Treasury Department funding,
but did not include any provisions easing restrictions on travel to Cuba. The White
House had threatened to veto the omnibus bill if it had provisions weakening the
embargo on Cuba.
Several initiatives have been introduced in the 108th Congress that would ease
or lift restrictions on travel. Both the House- and Senate-approved versions of the
FY2004 Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill, H.R. 2989, had a nearly
identical provision (Section 745 in the House version and Section 643 in the Senate
version) that would have prevented funds from being used to administer or enforce
restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions. But the provision was dropped in
the conference report to the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 2673
(H.Rept. 108-401), which incorporates seven regular appropriations acts, including
Transportation-Treasury appropriations. The White House had again threatened to
veto any legislation that weakened economic sanctions against Cuba. The conference
also dropped two Cuba provisions from the House version of H.R. 2989 on
remittances (Section 746) and on people-to-people educational exchanges (Section
749).
The conference version of H.R. 2673 (H.Rept. 108-401) also dropped a Cuba
provision from the Senate-approved version of the bill (Section 760) that would have
eased restrictions for travel to Cuba related to commercial sales of agricultural and
medical goods. The House version of the bill had no such provision. (For more
details, see Food and Medical Exports above.)
In the second session, the House-passed version of the Commerce, Justice, and
State appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, includes a provision (Section 801) prohibiting
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 for travel to Cuba. The provision was added by a Flake
amendment, H.Amdt. 647, approved by a vote of 221-194.
Also in the 108th Congress, H.R. 4678 (Davis of Florida), introduced June 24,
2004, would bar certain additional restrictions on travel and remittances that the
Administration imposed in June 2004. Two bills would specifically lift all
39 “House Approves Limits on Treasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade,
July 26, 2002.

---

CRS-30
restrictions on travel to Cuba: S. 950 (Enzi), introduced April 30, 2003, and reported
by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations November 11, 2003, and H.R. 2071
(Flake), introduced May 13, 2003. H.R. 3422 (Serrano), introduced October 30,
2003, would, among other measures, lift restrictions on travel to Cuba. Three broad
bills, H.R. 188 (Serrano), introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403 (Baucus), introduced
February 13, 2003, and H.R. 1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003, would lift all
Cuba embargo restrictions, including those on travel. Finally, S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R.
4457 (Otter), introduced respectively on May 19 and 20, 2004, would require
congressional renewal of trade and travel restrictions with respect to Cuba.
Drug Interdiction Cooperation
Because of Cuba’s geographic location, the country’s waters and airspace have
been used by traffickers to transport illicit drugs for ultimate destinations in the
United States. Over the past several years, Cuban officials have expressed concerns
over the use of their waters and airspace for drug transit as well as increased domestic
drug use. The Cuban government has taken a number of measures to deal with the
drug problem, including legislation to stiffen penalties for traffickers, increased
training for counternarcotics personnel, and cooperation with a number of countries
on anti-drug efforts. Cuba has bilateral counternarcotics agreements with 29
countries and less formal arrangements with 12 others, according to the Department
of State. Britain and France have provided counternarcotics training. In November
2001, Cuba hosted a regional counternarcotics conference focusing on strategies to
prevent drug abuse, drug trafficking, and money laundering.
The United States has cooperated with Cuba on anti-drug efforts on a case-by-
case basis dating back to the 1970s. In 1996, Cuban authorities cooperated with the
United States in the seizure of 6.6 tons of cocaine aboard the Miami-bound Limerick,
a Honduran-flag ship. Cuba turned over the cocaine to the United States and
cooperated fully in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of two defendants
in the case in the United States. Cooperation has increased since 1999 when U.S. and
Cuban officials met in Havana to discuss ways of improving anti-drug cooperation.
Cuba accepted an upgrading of the communications link between the Cuban Border
Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard as well as the stationing of a U.S. Coast Guard Drug
Interdiction Specialist (DIS) at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.
The Coast Guard official was posted to the U.S. Interests Section in September
2000, and since that time, coordination has increased somewhat. The State
Department, in its March 2004 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report,
maintains that there has been some Cuban cooperation with the Coast Guard
specialist, but only after U.S. insistence that he either be used effectively or he would
be withdrawn. The report also noted that the Coast Guard official had been subjected
to diplomatically unacceptable harassment.
In addition, the State Department appeared to be more critical of Cuba in the
March 2004 drug strategy report than in previous years. According to the report:
“Cuban authorities have chosen not to provide an effective use of force policy and
adequate resources to counternarcotics authorities to give them more than a limited
ability to interdict go-fast vessels or aircraft.” Nevertheless, the report maintained
that Cuba did provide the U.S. Coast Guard and Drug Enforcement Administration

---

CRS-31
with information on suspect aircraft and go-fast vessels that resulted in U.S. drug
seizures and arrests.
In the past, Cuba has called for a bilateral anti-drug cooperation agreement with
the United States.40 In January 2002, Cuba deported to the United States Jesse
James Bell, a U.S. fugitive wanted on drug charges, and in early March 2002, Cuba
arrested a convicted Colombian drug trafficker, Rafael Bustamante, who escaped
from jail in Alabama in 1992. At the time, while Drug Enforcement Administration
head Asa Hutchison expressed appreciation for Cuba’s actions, he indicated that
cooperation would continue on a case-by-case basis, not through a bilateral
agreement.41 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that if Cuba “were
to demonstrate a willingness to work across the board with us on law enforcement
issues, then we might consider some more formal structure,” but he indicated that
Cuba has not demonstrated that kind of commitment. As an example, Boucher
maintained that “there are still dozens of fugitives from U.S. justice who have been
provided safe haven by the Cuban government.”42
Legislative Initiatives. In the second session of the 107th Congress, both
House and Senate versions of the FY2003 Foreign Operations appropriations bill
(H.R. 5410 and S. 2779) had divergent provisions related to Cuba and
counternarcotics cooperation with the United States. Section 585 of the Senate bill
provided that $3 million in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
assistance should be made available for preliminary work by the Department of State
and other entities to establish cooperation with appropriate agencies of the Cuban
government on counter-narcotics matters. The money would not be available if the
President certified 1) that Cuba does not have in place appropriate procedures to
protect against the loss of innocent life in the air and on the ground in connection
with the interdiction of illegal drugs and 2) that there is evidence of involvement of
the Cuban government in drug trafficking. In contrast, Section 581 of the House bill
provided that none of the funds appropriated for “International Narcotics Control and
Law Enforcement” may be made available for assistance to the Cuban government.
Final action on the Foreign Operations measure was not completed before the end of
the 107th Congress.
In the end, the final version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure in
the 108th Congress, H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which included Foreign Operations
funding, did not include either the House or Senate provisions on anti-drug
cooperation with Cuba. The Senate version of H.J.Res. 2, included a provision
(Division E, Foreign Operations appropriations, Sec. 580) similar to the Senate bill
40 On March 12, 2002, Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Cuban Interests Section
in Washington delivered three diplomatic notes to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana and
the State Department in Washington proposing agreements on drug interdiction, terrorism,
and migration issues. See “Statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Prominent Drug
Trafficker Arrested in our Country,” Information Office, Cuban Interests Section, March 17,
2002.
41 Anthony Boadle, “U.S. Thanks Cuba, But Declines Anti-Drug Accord,” Reuters, March
19, 2002.
42 U.S. Department of State, State Department Regular Briefing, March 19, 2002.

---

CRS-32
in the 107th Congress described above. It would have provided $3 million for
international narcotics control and law enforcement assistance for preliminary work
to establish cooperation with Cuba on counter-narcotics matters.
Similar legislative action took place on FY2004 appropriations. The House-
passed version of the foreign operations appropriations measure, H.R. 2800, would
have provided, in Section 571, that no International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement Funds be made available for assistance to Cuba. The House
Appropriations Committee report to the bill (H.Rept. 108-222) asserted that “full
reporting and transparency by the Cuban Government and United States monitoring
of the use of counternarcotics assistance in Cuba would be difficult if not impossible,
according to the State Department, given Cuban hostility toward the United States
Government.” In contrast, the Senate-passed version of the bill, H.R. 2800 (Section
680), would have provided $5 million in International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement assistance for preliminary work to establish cooperation with Cuba on
counter-narcotics matters. The money would not have been available if Cuba did not
have in place appropriate procedures to protect against the loss of life in connection
with the interdiction of illegal drugs or if there were evidence that the Cuban
government was involved in drug trafficking. In the end, neither the Senate nor the
House provision was included in the conference on H.R. 2673 (H.Rept. 108-401),
the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004, which incorporates seven regular
appropriations acts, including foreign operations in Division D.
Another legislative initiative introduced in the 108th Congress, H.R. 1432
(Rangel), introduced March 25, 2003, would authorize the Secretary of State to enter
into negotiations with representatives of the Cuban government to establish
cooperation between the United States and Cuba on illicit narcotics control efforts.
Cuba and Terrorism 43
Cuba was added to the State Department’s list of states sponsoring international
terrorism in 1982 because of its alleged ties to international terrorism and its support
for terrorist groups in Latin America. Cuba had a history of supporting revolutionary
movements and governments in Latin America and Africa, but in 1992 Fidel Castro
said that his country’s support for insurgents abroad was a thing of the past. Cuba’s
change in policy was in large part because of the breakup of the Soviet Union, which
resulted in the loss of billions of dollars in annual subsidies to Cuba, and led to
substantial Cuban economic decline.
Cuba remains on the State Department’s terrorism list. According to the State
Department’s April 2004, Patterns of Global Terrorism report, while Cuba ratified
all 12 international counterterrorism conventions in 2001, it has remained opposed
to the U.S.-led global coalition against terrorism and “actively condemned many
associated U.S. polices and actions throughout 2003.”
43 For further information , see CRS Report RL32251, Cuba and the State Sponsors of
Terrorism List, by Mark P. Sullivan.

---

CRS-33
The State Department report also noted that Cuba continued to host several
members of Foreign Terrorist Organizations as well as some U.S. fugitives from
justice. The report maintained that Cuba provides safehaven to up to 20 Basque ETA
terrorists from Spain and has provided “some degree of safehaven and support” to
members of two Colombian insurgent groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN). The report
acknowledged, however, that Colombia acquiesced to having the two groups in
Cuba; it also noted that Colombia has publicly said that it wants Cuba’s continued
mediation with the ELN in Cuba. With regard to the ETA members, the report cited
a Cuban declaration in May 2003 that maintained that the ETA presence in Cuba
stemmed from a request from Spain and Panama, and that the issue is a bilateral
matter between Cuba and Spain.
In general, those who support keeping Cuba on the terrorism list argue that there
is ample evidence that Cuba supports terrorism. They point to the government’s
history of supporting terrorist acts and armed insurgencies in Latin America and
Africa. They point to the government’s continued hosting of members of foreign
terrorist organizations and U.S. fugitives from justice. Critics of retaining Cuba on
the terrorism list maintain that it is a holdover of the Cold War. They argue that
domestic political considerations keep Cuba on the terrorism list and maintain that
Cuba’s presence on the list diverts U.S. attention from struggles against serious
terrorist threats.
Although Cuba offered support to the United States in the aftermath of the
World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks in 2001, Fidel Castro also stated that the
attacks were in part a consequence of the United States having applied “terrorist
methods” for years.44 Cuba’s subsequent statements became increasingly hostile,
according to press reports, which quoted Cuba’s mission to the United Nations as
describing the U.S. response to the U.S. attacks as “fascist and terrorist” and that the
United States was using the attack as an excuse to establish “unrestricted tyranny
over all people on Earth.”45 Castro himself said that the U.S. government was run by
“extremists” and “hawks” whose response to the attack could result in an “infinite
killing of innocent people.”46
The Cuban government, however, had a much more muted reaction to the U.S.
decision to send captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from Afghanistan to the U.S.
naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although the Cuban government objects to
the U.S. presence at Guantanamo as a national security threat and opposes the
presence as illegal, it has not opposed the new mission of housing detainees from
Afghanistan.47 The Cuban government has, however, expressed concerns about the
44 Andrew Cawthorne, “Cuba’s Castro Urges U.S. to Keep Calm,” Reuters, September 11,
2001.
45 Kevin Sullivan, “Castro Warns About U.S. Military Plans,” Washington Post, September
23, 2001, p. A38.
46 Ibid.
47 For more information, see CRS Report RL31367, Treatment of “Battlefield Detainees”
in the War on Terrorism, by Jennifer Elsea.

---

CRS-34
treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo. (Also see “Guantanamo Naval Base”
below.)
Cuba has been the target of various terrorist incidents over the years. In 1976,
a Cuban plane was bombed, killing 73 people. In 1997, there were almost a dozen
bombings in the tourist sector in Havana and in the Varadero beach area in which an
Italian businessman was killed and several others were injured. Two Salvadorans
were convicted and sentenced to death for the bombings in March 1999, and three
Guatemalans were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 10-15 years in January
2002. Cuban officials maintain that Cuban exiles funded the bombings. In
November 2000, four anti-Castro activists were arrested in Panama for a plot to kill
Fidel Castro. One of the accused, Luis Posada Carriles, was allegedly involved in the
1976 airplane bombing of a Cuban airliner.48 The four stood trial in March 2004 and
were sentenced in April to prison terms ranging from seven to eight years.
Cuba and Biological Weapons? In 2002, the State Department made
controversial allegations that Cuba, which has an advanced biotechnology sector, has
been involved in developing biological weapons. On May 6, 2002, 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.” Bolton called on Cuba “to cease all BW-applicable cooperation with
rogue states and to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological
Weapons Convention.” Although Bolton’s statement received considerable media
attention, it was similar to a March 19, 2002 statement by Assistant Secretary of State
for Intelligence and Research Carl Ford before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations.
When questioned on the issue, Secretary of State Powell maintained that Under
Secretary Bolton’s statement was not based on new information. Powell asserted that
the United States believes 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. Some observers viewed Powell’s statement as
contradicting that of Under Secretary Bolton.49
In response to Under Secretary Bolton’s statement, the Cuban government
called the allegations a lie and maintained that the Bush Administration was trying
to justify its hard-line policies just when the momentum is increasing in the United
States to ease the embargo. During his trip to Cuba, former President Jimmy Carter
criticized the Bush Administration over the allegations and said that Administration
officials who had briefed him before the trip assured him that Cuba had not shared
anything with other countries that could be used for terrorist purposes.50
48 Frances Robles, “An Old Foe of Castro Looks Back on His Fight,” Miami Herald,
September 4, 2003.
49 David Gonzalez, “Carter and Powell Cast Doubt on Bioarms in Cuba,” New York Times,
May 14, 2002.
50 Kevin Sullivan, “Carter Says He Was Told U.S. Had No Proof Cuba Shared Bioweapons
Data,” Washington Post, May 14, 2002, p. 14.

---

CRS-35
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs held a hearing on the issue on June
5, 2002.51 At the hearing, Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research
Carl Ford distinguished between the term “effort” and “program,” and maintained
that Cuba has a biological weapons effort and not a biological weapons program.
Ford characterized a program as something substantial and multifaceted that includes
test facilities, production facilities, and a unit within the military specifically
designated for such weapons capability. In contrast, he characterized an effort as the
research and development that would be necessary to create biological weapons.
In late June 2003, news reports stated that an employee of the State
Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research maintained that Undersecretary
Bolton’s assertions about Cuba and biological weapons were not supported by
sufficient intelligence.52
U.S. government concerns about Cuba’s capability to produce biological
weapons dates back several years. In 1998, then U.S. Secretary of Defense William
Cohen stated in a transmittal letter (accompanying a report to Congress on Cuba’s
threat to U.S. national security) that he was “concerned about Cuba’s potential to
develop and produce biological agents, given its biotechnology infrastructure...”53
Cuba began building up its biotechnology industry in the 1980s and has spent
millions investing in the sector. The industry was initially geared “to apply
biotechnology and genetic engineering to agriculture in order to increase yields” but
has also produced numerous vaccines, interferon, and other drugs and has exported
many of its biotechnology products.54 In 1999, the British pharmaceutical company
GlaxoSmithKline announced an agreement to test and market a new Cuban
meningitis vaccine that might eventually be used in the United States.55 In May
2003, the Center for Defense Information published a report on a delegation sent to
Cuba that visited nine Cuban biotechnology facilities.56
In March 30, 2004, congressional testimony before the House International
Relations Committee, Under Secretary of State John Bolton asserted that “Cuba
remains a terrorist and BW threat to the United States.” According to Bolton: “The
51 U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs. Cuba’s Pursuit of Biological Weapons:
Fact or Fiction? 107th Congress, June 5, 2002. S.Hrg. 107-736.
52 James Risen and Douglas Jehl, “Expert Said to Tell Legislators He Was Pressed to Distort
Some Evidence,” New York Times, June 25, 2003.
53 United States Information Agency, “Text: Defense Secretary’s Letter to Thurmond on
Cuban Threat,” May 6, 1998.
54 Teo A. Babun, Jr., “A Business Guide to Cuba,” CubaNews, Miami Herald Publishing
Company, 1996, pp. 66-67.
55 Michael Kranish, “Biotechnology; Incubating Biotech Cuba Become Biotech Hotbed,”
Boston Globe, May 15, 2002, p. D1.
56 Glenn Baker, ed. Cuban Biotechnology, A First-Hand Report, Center for Defense
Information, Washington, D.C. May 2003. 50 p.

---

CRS-36
Bush Administration has said repeatedly that we are concerned that Cuba is
developing a limited biological weapons effort, and called on Fidel Castro to cease
his BW aspirations and support of terrorism.” Bolton went on to caveat, however,
that “existing intelligence reporting is problematic, and the Intelligence Community’s
ability to determine the scope, nature, and effectiveness of any Cuban BW program
has been hampered by reporting from sources of questionable access, reliability, and
motivation.”57
Cuban Spies in the United States
Over the past several years, the FBI has arrested and convicted several Cuban
intelligence agents in the United States. In June 2001, five members of the so-called
“Wasp Network” were convicted on espionage charges by a U.S. Federal Court in
Miami. Sentences handed down in December 2001 ranged from 15 years to life in
prison. The group tried to penetrate U.S. military bases and exile groups. The Cuban
government has vowed to work for the return of the five spies who have been dubbed
“Heroes of the Republic” by Cuba’s National Assembly. In addition to the five, a
married couple was sentenced in January 2002 to prison terms of seven years and 3½
years for their participation in the spy network.
In addition, two U.S. government officials have been implicated in spying for
Cuba. In February 2000, an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) official
from Miami, Mariano Faget, was arrested and ultimately convicted in May 2000 for
passing classified information to a friend with ties to Cuba. He was sentenced to five
years in prison in June 2001. The case led to the State Department’s expulsion of a
Cuban diplomat working in Washington D.C.
On September 21, 2001, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst Ana
Montes was arrested on charges of spying for the Cuban government. Montes
reportedly supplied Cuba with classified information about U.S. military exercises
and other sensitive operations.58 On March 19, 2002, Montes pled guilty to spying
for the Cuban government for 16 years, during which she divulged the names of four
U.S. government intelligence agents working in Cuba and information about a
“special access program” related to U.S. national defense. On October 16, 2002,
Montes was sentenced to 25 years in prison in exchange for her cooperation with
prosecutors as part of a plea bargain.
In response to the espionage case, in early November 2002 the U.S. Department
of State ordered the expulsion of four Cuban diplomats in the United States, two
from the Cuban Interests Section in Washington D.C. and two from Cuba’s U.N.
Mission in New York. Cuba strongly asserted that the diplomats were not involved
in intelligence activities. On May 13, 2003, the Bush Administration ordered the
57 House International Relations Committee, “The Bush Administration and
Nonproliferation: A New Strategy Emerges,” Hearing, March 30, 2004. Federal News
Service.
58 Bill Miller and Walter Pincus, “Defense Analyst Accused of Spying for Cuba, Woman
Passed Classified Information on Military Exercises, FBI Says,” Washington Post,
September 22, 2001, p. A1.

---

CRS-37
expulsion of 14 more Cuban diplomats from the United States, seven from Cuba’s
U.N. Mission and seven from the Cuban Interests Section in Washington for
espionage. Cuba call the action an “irrational act of vengeance and claimed that the
United States was trying to provoke a confrontation that could result in the closure
of the diplomatic offices in each country.59 In December 2003, the State Department
expelled a third secretary of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington.
Guantanamo Naval Base 60
The 45-square mile U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been a
U.S. base since 1903, and under a 1934 treaty that remains in force, the U.S. presence
can only be terminated by mutual agreement or by abandonment by the United States.
When Fidel Castro assumed power in the 1959 Cuban revolution, the new
government gave assurances that it would respect all its treaty commitments,
including the 1934 treaty covering the Guantanamo base. Subsequently, however,
as U.S.-Cuban relations deteriorated, the Cuban government opposed the presence
as illegal.
The mission of the base has changed over time. During the Cold War, the base
was viewed as a good location for controlling Caribbean sea lanes, as a deterrent to
the Soviet presence in the Caribbean, and as a location for supporting potential
military operations in the region. In 1994-1995, the base was used to house
thousands of Cubans and Haitians fleeing their homeland, but by 1996 the last of
refugees had departed, with most Cubans paroled into the United States, pursuant to
a May 1995 U.S.-Cuban migration accord. Since the 1995 accord, the U.S. Coast
Guard has interdicted thousands of Cubans at sea and returned them to Cuba, while
a much smaller number, those deemed at risk for persecution, have been take to
Guantanamo and then granted asylum in a third country. In the aftermath of
increased violence in Haiti in February 2004, the base reportedly was being
considered as a contingency option to house Haitian migrants in the event of a mass
exodus from Haiti.61
Another mission for the Guantanamo base emerged with the U.S.-led global
campaign against terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks in the United States. With the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2001, the United
States decided to send captured Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters to be imprisoned in
Guantanamo. Although the Cuban government objects to the U.S. presence at
Guantanamo, it has not opposed the new mission of housing detainees. Defense
Minister Raul Castro noted that, in the unlikely event that a prisoner would escape
59 Nancy San Martin and Tim Johnson, “U.S. Seeks to Create a Crisis, Cuba Says
Expulsions Cited as Vengeance,” Miami Herald, May 15, 2003.
60 Background information on Guantanamo is drawn from out of print CRS Report 94-701,
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba: Background and Current Issues, by Ronald O’Rourke
and Mark P. Sullivan, September 2, 1994.
61 Jerry Seper, “U.S. Prepares for Haitian Refugees; Guantanamo Could Hold 20,000,”
Washington Times, February 24, 2004.

---

CRS-38
into Cuban territory, Cuba would capture the prisoner and return him to the base.62
The Cuban government, however, has expressed concerns about the treatment of
prisoners at the U.S. base and has said it will keep pressing the international
community to investigate the treatment of terrorist suspects. At present, some 600
detainees are being held at Guantanamo. A June 28, 2004 Supreme Court ruling
determined that U.S. courts do have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges on behalf
of the Guantanamo detainees, while the Department of Defense announced on July
7, 2004, that the detainees would be provided a review process to challenge their
status as enemy combatants. (For information on terrorist suspects held at
Guantanamo, see CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Terrorism, “Treatment of
‘Battlefield Detainees’ under the Geneva Conventions,” by Jennifer Elsea, at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter208.html]).
Radio and TV Marti
U.S.-government sponsored radio and television broadcasting to Cuba — Radio
and TV Marti — began in 1985 and 1990 respectively. As spelled out in the
Broadcasting Board of Governors FY2005 Budget Request, the objectives of Radio
and TV Marti are 1) to support the right of the Cuban people to seek, receive, and
impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers; 2) to be
effective in furthering the open communication of information and ideas through use
of radio and television broadcasting to Cuba; 3) to serve as a consistently reliable and
authoritative source of accurate, objective, and comprehensive news; and 4) to
provide news, commentary, and other information about events in Cuba and
elsewhere to promote the cause of freedom in Cuba.
TV Marti broadcasts for four and one-half hours daily from facilities in Cudjoe
Key, Florida; on May 20, 2002, the broadcast schedule was changed from the early
hours of 3:30 a.m. - 8:00 a.m. to the evening hours of 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m. In
addition, TV Marti began broadcasting on the Hispasat satellite 24 hours a day in
September 2003. According to the Broadcasting Board of Governors Fiscal Year
2005 Budget Request, the Office of Cuba broadcasting (OCB) proposes to close
down the existing aerostat transmission system in Cudjoe Key, Florida, in September
2004.
Radio Marti broadcasts 24 hours a day on short and medium wave (AM)
channels. Surveys of Cubans have shown a Radio Marti listenership of 9% in 2000
and 5% in 2001.63 There has been testing of various methods to overcome Cuban
jamming efforts.
Until October 1999, U.S.-government funded international broadcasting
programs had been a primary function of the United States Information Agency
(USIA). When USIA was abolished and its functions were merged into the
Department of State at the beginning of FY2000, the Broadcasting Board of
62 “Cuba Would Hand Over Escapees, Raul Castro Says,” Miami Herald, January 20, 2002.
63 Brian Conniff, Acting Director, International Broadcasting Bureau, Broadcasting Board
of Governors, Testimony before the House International Relations Committee,
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, June 6, 2002.

---

CRS-39
Governors became an independent agency that included such entities as the Voice
of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia,
and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), which manages Radio and TV Marti.
OCB is headquartered in Miami, Florida. Legislation in the 104th Congress (P.L.
104-134) required the relocation of OCB from Washington D.C. to south Florida.
The move began in 1996 and was completed in 1998.
Both Radio and TV Marti have at times been the focus of controversies,
including adherence to broadcast standards. There have been various attempts over
the years to cut funding for the programs, especially for TV Marti, which has not had
an audience because of Cuban jamming efforts. Various studies and audits of these
programs have been conducted, including investigations by the U.S. General
Accounting Office, by a 1994 congressionally established Advisory Panel on Radio
and TV Marti, and by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General.64 (For
background on Cuba broadcasting through 1994, see CRS Report 94-636, Radio and
Television Broadcasting to Cuba: Background and Issues through 1994.)
From FY1984 through FY2004, Congress has appropriated about $460 million
for broadcasting to Cuba, with about $281 million for Radio Marti (since FY1984)
and $179 million for TV Marti (since FY1989).
Debate on TV Marti. In the various congressional debates on TV Marti over
the years, opponents of continued funding of the program maintain that virtually the
only people who see TV Marti in Cuba are those Cubans who visit the consular
section of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, which has a waiting room in which
TV Marti may be viewed. These critics argue that almost $180 million has been
spent by the United States for TV Marti, while the Cuban government only needs to
spend a few thousand dollars to jam the broadcasts effectively. They argue that TV
Marti is a waste of taxpayers’ money because it does not contribute to the promotion
of freedom and democracy in Cuba, unlike Radio Marti, which some Cubans listen
to as a source of information. Opponents also argue that the conversion of TV Marti
from VHF to UHF transmission has not succeeded in overcoming Cuba’s jamming
efforts.
In contrast, supporters of continued TV Marti funding point to a congressionally
mandated Advisory Panel in 1994, which stated that “the Cuban people have an
ardent desire and a genuine need to receive the programming produced by TV
64 See the following reports and audits: U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Broadcasts
to Cuba, TV Marti Surveys are Flawed, GAO/NSIAD-90-252, August 1990; U.S. GAO, TV
Marti, Costs and Compliance with Broadcast Standards and International Agreements,
GAO/NSIAD-92-199, May 1992; U.S. GAO, Letter to Hon. Howard L. Berman and Hon.
John F. Kerry regarding Radio Marti broadcast standards, GAO/NSIAD-93-126R, February
17, 1993; Advisory Panel on Radio and TV Marti, Report of the Advisory Panel on Radio
and TV Marti, Three Volumes, March 1994; U.S. GAO, Radio Marti, Program Review
Processes Need Strengthening, GAO/NSIAD-94-265, September 1994; U.S. GAO, U.S.
Information Agency, Issues Related to Reinvention Planning in the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting, GAO/NSIAD-96-110, May 1996; and U.S. Department of State, Office of the
Inspector General, Review of Polices and Procedures for Ensuring that Radio Marti
Broadcasts Adhere to Applicable Requirements, 99-IB-010, June 1999.

---

CRS-40
Marti.”65 Supporters argue that eliminating TV Marti would send a message to the
Cuban people that the United States is not committed to the cause of freedom in
Cuba. They believe that eliminating TV Marti would be giving in to the dictatorial
Castro government, which suppresses the free flow of information in Cuba. These
proponents contend that it is impossible for the Cuban government to completely jam
TV Marti, and maintain that significant numbers of Cubans have attempted to tune
in to the programming. Still others point to the potential use of TV Marti in the event
of a crisis or upheaval in Cuba’s future, and argue that in such a scenario, it would
be important to have TV Marti available as a news source.
Airborne Broadcasts. In early May 2004, the Commission for Assistance
for a Free Cuba called for the immediate deployment of the EC-130E/J Commando
Solo airborne platform for weekly airborne radio and television broadcasts to Cuba
in order to overcome Cuban jamming. It also called for funds “to acquire and refit
a dedicated airborne platform for full-time transmission of Radio and TV Marti into
Cuba.” In support of these recommendations, President Bush directed that up to $18
million be committed “for regular airborne broadcasts to Cuba and the purchase of
a dedicated airborne platform for the transmission of Radio and Television Marti into
Cuba.” The weekly EC-130E/J Commando Solo flights have not yet begun. The
longer term proposal for a dedicated airborne platform would not be a military
aircraft but an aircraft acquired and operated by the Broadcasting Board of
Governors’ Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB). Assistant Secretary of State for
Western Hemisphere Affairs Noriega indicated that some of the funding may come
from existing resources already provided for Cuba broadcasting, while there may be
additional resources provided.66
At present, there are six EC-130E/J Commando Solo aircraft flown by the Air
Force Special Operations Wing at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The aircraft are
specialized assets that have been used to conduct information operations,
psychological operations, and civil affairs broadcasts worldwide including Grenada
in 1983, Operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991, Kosovo in 1999, Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.67 In May 2003, the aircraft
was used in a test to broadcast Radio and TV Marti to Cuba in an effort to overcome
Cuban jamming of the U.S.-government broadcasts. While the production cost of the
military aircraft range from $70 million for the EC-130E to $90 million for the EC-
130J,68 the cost of acquiring and refitting an aircraft to be operated by the Office of
Cuba Broadcasting would be much less and would probably be covered by the
amount of funding called for by the President.
65 Advisory Panel on Radio Marti and TV Marti, Report of the Advisory Panel on Radio
Marti and TV Marti, Executive Summary, March 1994.
66 U.S. Department of State, Report to the President by the Commission for Assistance to
a Free Cuba, Roger F. Noriega, Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Press
Conference, May 6, 2004.
67 U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet, “EC-130E/J COMMANDO SOLO,” April 2003.
68 Ibid.

---

CRS-41
FY2003 Funding. In September 2002, both houses approved the conference
report (H.Rept. 107-671) to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2003
(H.R. 1646) that authorized $25.923 million for Cuba broadcasting for FY2003. The
President signed the measure into law on September 30, 2002 as P.L. 107-228.
The Bush Administration requested $25.362 million for broadcasting to Cuba
for FY2003, with about $15 million for Radio Marti and $10 million for TV Marti.
In the 107th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported out its version
of the FY2003 Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations
bill, S. 2778 (S.Rept. 107-218) on July 24, 2002, which would have provided
$24.996 million for Cuba broadcasting. Final action on the measure was not
completed before the end of the 107th Congress. In the 108th Congress, the final
version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill, H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which
includes Commerce, Justice and State appropriations in Division B, provides $24.996
million for Radio and TV Marti broadcasting to Cuba.
FY2004 Funding. For FY2004, the Administration requested $26.901 million
for Cuba broadcasting, with $16.355 million for Radio Marti and $10.546 million for
TV Marti. The House-approved version of the FY2004 Commerce, Justice, and State
Department appropriations bill, H.R. 2799, would fund the Administration’s request
for Cuba broadcasting under the International Broadcasting Operations Account, but
without a specific earmark. The House Appropriations Committee report to the bill
(H.Rept. 108-221) recommended full funding of the Administration’s Cuba
broadcasting request. The Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bill, S.
1585, would provide $28.201 million for Cuba broadcasting, $1.2 million more than
the Administration’s request. According to the committee report to the bill, S.Rept.
108-144, the additional funding is to be used to enhance efforts to defeat Cuban
government jamming. The Committee directed the Broadcasting Board of Governors
and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting “to use all available means to overcome the
jamming of Radio and TV Marti, including broadcasting via the Internet and
satellite.” In the end, funding for Commerce, Justice, and State Department
appropriations was included in the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R.
2673, (H.Rept. 108-401), which consisted of seven regular appropriations bills. The
conferees funded Cuba broadcasting under International Broadcasting Operations
Account, but without a specific earmark, and stated in the report that they expected
the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide $1.2 million to pursue alternative
means of transmission, including Internet transmission, of Cuba broadcasting.
FY2005. The Administration has requested $27.6 million for Cuba
broadcasting, with $17.4 million for Radio Marti and $10.3 million for TV Marti.
The Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) is proposing to close down the existing
aerostat transmission system for TV Marti in Cudjoe Key, Florida in September
2004, while the broadcast will continue to be carried on the Hispasat satellite. The
OCB is reportedly continuing to explore ways of mitigating the jamming of TV
Marti.
The House-passed version of the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations
measure, H.R. 4754, would fund Cuba broadcasting under the International
Broadcasting Operations account, but without a specific earmark. The report to the

---

CRS-42
bill (H.Rept. 108-576) recommends full funding of the Administration’s $27.6
million request.
In terms of authorization legislation, the House-passed version of the State
Department authorization bill for FY2004 and FY2005, H.R. 1950 (Hyde), would
authorize (Section 121) $26.901 million for Cuba broadcasting for FY2004 and
$27.439 million for FY2005. Section 502 of the bill would amend the Radio
Broadcasting to Cuba Act to use additional AM frequencies and the FM and
Shortwave bands to improve Radio Marti signal delivery to Cuba. Section 503 of the
bill would require a report on efforts to counter jamming of Radio and TV Marti
broadcasts. The Senate version of the bill for FY2005 S. 2144 (Section 111), would
authorize appropriations for radio and television broadcasting to Cuba within the
International Broadcasting Operations account but without a specific earmark.
U.S. Funding to Support Democracy and Human Rights
Over the past several years, the U.S. Agency for International Development has
provided assistance to increase the flow of information on democracy, human rights,
and free enterprise to Cuba. USAID’s Cuba program supports a variety of U.S.-
based non-governmental organizations to promote rapid, peaceful transition to
democracy, help develop civil society, and build solidarity with Cuba’s human rights
activists.69
These efforts are funded through the annual foreign operations appropriations
bill. In FY2001, $4.989 million was provided for various Cuba projects; $5 million
was provided in FY2002; $6 million was provided in FY2003; and almost $7 million
will be provided in FY2004. For FY2005, the Administration has requested $9
million to back public diplomacy to promote democratization, respect for human
rights, and the development of a free market economy in Cuba.
For FY2004, the Administration requested $7 million in Economic Support
Funds for information dissemination to foster democratic progress and the
development of a civil society in Cuba. The House-passed version of the FY2004
foreign operations appropriations bill, H.R. 2800, had no specific earmark for
democracy funding for Cuba, but the House Appropriations Committee report to the
bill, H.Rept. 108-122, noted that the committee fully supported the Administration’s
$7 million request. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2800 (Section 699G), would
have provided not more than $5 million in Transition Initiatives funds for
“individuals and independent nongovernmental organizations to support democracy-
building effort for Cuba,” essentially opening up another spigot of funding for Cuba
democracy projects. In the end, the conference on H.R. 2800 was included in
Division D of P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673, H.Rept. 108-401), the FY2004 omnibus
appropriations measure. The conferees did not earmark assistance for Cuba
democracy programs, but the conference report recommended full funding of the
Administration’s $7 million in Economic Support Funds for democracy programs
supported by USAID.
69 See USAID’s Cuba program website: [http://www.usaid.gov/regions/lac/cu/].

---

CRS-43
In terms of authorization legislation, the House-passed version of the Foreign
Relations authorization bill for FY2004 and FY2005, H.R. 1950, would, in Section
1807, authorize $15 million for each of FY2004 and FY2005 to support democracy-
building efforts for Cuba. The current Senate version of the authorization measure,
S. 2144, the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005, has no such
provision.70 In addition, another legislative initiative introduced in the 108th
Congress, S. 1089 (Ensign), would authorize $15 million to support democracy
building in Cuba and $30 million to the President to establish a fund to provide
assistance to a transition government in Cuba.
In early May 2004, the President endorsed the recommendation of the
Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba and directed that up to $29 million be
made available for democracy-building activities for Cuba to augment the $7 million
in FY2004 funding already being provided by USAID. It is unclear how the
additional assistance relates to the FY2005 budget request of $9 million for USAID
projects to promote democratization. In addition, the President directed that $5
million for public diplomacy initiatives be provided to “illuminate the reality of
Castro’s Cuba.”
In addition to funding through foreign operations appropriations, the United
States provides democratization assistance for Cuba through the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is funded through the annual Commerce,
Justice, and State (CJS) appropriations measure. Cuba funding through NED has
steadily increased over the past several years. NED-funded democracy projects for
Cuba amounted to $765,000 in FY2001; $841,000 in FY2002; and $1.143 million
in FY2003.
Migration Issues71
1994 and 1995 Agreements. In 1994 and 1995, Cuba and the United States
reached two migration accords designed to stem the mass exodus of Cubans
attempting to reach the United States by boat. On the minds of U.S. policymakers
was the 1980 Mariel boatlift in which 125,000 Cubans fled to the United States with
the approval of Cuban officials. In response to Castro’s threat to unleash another
Mariel, U.S. officials reiterated U.S. resolve not to allow another exodus. Amidst
escalating numbers of fleeing Cubans, on August 19, 1994, President Clinton
abruptly changed U.S. migration policy, under which Cubans attempting to flee their
homeland were allowed into the United States, and announced that the U.S. Coast
Guard and Navy would take Cubans rescued at sea to the U.S. naval base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Despite the change in policy, Cubans continued fleeing in
large numbers.
70 For more information on these bills, see CRS Report RL31986, Foreign Relations
Authorization, FY2004 and FY2005: State Department and Foreign Assistance, coordinated
by Susan Epstein.
71 For more, see CRS Report RS20468, Cuban Migration Policy and Issues, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.

---

CRS-44
As a result, in early September 1994, Cuba and the United States began talks
that culminated in a September 9, 1994 bilateral agreement to stem the flow of
Cubans fleeing to the United States by boat. In the agreement, the United States and
Cuba agreed to facilitate safe, legal, and orderly Cuban migration to the United
States, consistent with a 1984 migration agreement. The United States agreed to
ensure that total legal Cuban migration to the United States would be a minimum of
20,000 each year, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. In a change of
policy, the United States agreed to discontinue the practice of granting parole to all
Cuban migrants who reach the United States, while Cuba agreed to take measures to
prevent unsafe departures from Cuba.
In May 1995, the United States reached another accord with Cuba under which
the United States would parole the more than 30,000 Cubans housed at Guantanamo
into the United States, but would intercept future Cuban migrants attempting to enter
the United States by sea and would return them to Cuba. The two countries would
cooperate jointly in the effort. Both countries also pledged to ensure that no action
would be taken against those migrants returned to Cuba as a consequence of their
attempt to immigrate illegally. On January 31, 1996, the Department of Defense
announced that the last of some 32,000 Cubans intercepted at sea and housed at
Guantanamo had left the U.S. Naval Base, most having been paroled into the United
States.
Elian Gonzalez Case.72 From late November 1999 through June 2000,
national attention became focused on Cuban migration policy as a result of the Elian
Gonzalez case, the five-year old boy found clinging to an inner tube off the coast of
Fort Lauderdale. The boy’s mother drowned in the incident, while his father who
resided in Cuba, called for his return. Although the boy’s relatives in Miami wanted
him to stay in the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ruled
that the boy’s father had the sole legal authority to speak on his son’s behalf. After
numerous legal appeals by the Miami relatives were exhausted, the boy returned to
Cuba with his father in June 2000. In Cuba, Fidel Castro orchestrated numerous
mass demonstrations and a media blitz on the issue until the boy’s return. The case
generated an outpouring of emotion among the Cuban population as well as in south
Florida.
Wet Foot/Dry Foot Policy. Since the 1995 migration accord, the U.S. Coast
Guard has interdicted thousands of Cubans at sea and returned them to their country,
while those deemed at risk for persecution have been transferred to Guantanamo and
then found asylum in a third country. Those Cubans who reach shore are allowed to
apply for permanent resident status in one year, pursuant to the Cuban Adjustment
Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-732). This so-called “wet foot/dry foot” policy has been
criticized by some as encouraging Cubans to risk their lives in order to make it to the
United States and as encouraging alien smuggling. Others maintain that U.S. policy
should welcome those migrants fleeing Communist Cuba whether or not they are
able to make it to land.
72 For more information, see CRS Report RS20450, The Case of Elian Gonzalez: Legal
Basics, by Larry M. Eig.

---

CRS-45
U.S. prosecution against migrant smugglers in Florida has increased in recent
years with numerous convictions. There have been several violent incidents in which
Cuban migrants have brandished weapons or in which Coast Guard officials have
used force to prevent Cubans from reaching shore. On July 10, a U.S. federal court
in Florida convicted a Cuban national for hijacking a plane to Key West on April 1,
2003. Another six Cubans were convicted in Key West in December 2003 for
hijacking a Cubana Airlines plane to Florida in March 2003.
The Cuban government has taken forceful action against individuals engaging
in alien smuggling. Prison sentences of up to three years may be imposed against
those engaging in alien smuggling, and for incidents involving death or violence, a
life sentence may be imposed. On April 11, 2003, the Cuban government executed
three men who had hijacked a ferry in Havana on April 2 in an attempt to reach the
United States. The ferry hijacking had been preceded by the hijacking of two small
planes to the United States. The summary execution prompted worldwide
condemnation of the Cuban government. The Cuban government maintained that it
took the action to prevent additional hijackings.
The U.S. Interest Section in Havana has officers that visit the homes of returned
migrants to assess the Cuban government’s treatment of those repatriated. The
Department of State (pursuant to P.L. 105-277, Section 2245) makes a semi-annual
report to Congress on the methods employed by the Cuban government to enforce the
the 1994 migration agreement and on the Cuban government’s treatment of those
returned. In the most recent report to Congress, submitted in October 2003, the State
Department maintained that “a majority of those returnees did not suffer retribution
from the Cuban authorities as a result of their attempt to depart illegally” but noted
that “there continue to be clear and credible instances of harassment and punishment
of returnees.”73 Moreover, the report maintained that the Cuban government
continued to restrict the movement and access of U.S. diplomats within Cuba for the
purpose of visiting repatriated Cubans.
On July 21, 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard repatriated 15 Cubans who had been
interdicted on a Cuban government vessel that had been stolen on July 15 (12 of the
Cubans were involved in stealing the boat and overpowered the three others who
were guarding the government vessel.) The United States returned the Cubans after
assurances from the Cuban government that no one would face execution and no one
would serve more than 10 years in prison. The Cuban government lauded the return
of the migrants for being in line with the 1995 migration agreement. The repatriation
of the migrants prompted widespread criticism of the Administration in Florida and
among some Members of Congress. Some critics called for an investigation into the
U.S.-Cuban negotiations that led to the return of the migrants and some have called
for the Administration to change the policy of repatriating those Cubans interdicted
at sea. Supporters of the policy maintained that implementation of the migration
accords is important for preventing another mass exodus of Cubans fleeing to the
United States.
73 U.S. Department of State. “Cuban Emigration Policies, Report Submitted by the
Department of State Pursuant to Section 2245 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277)” October 2003.

---

CRS-46
On October 10, 2003, the President announced that the United States would
increase the number of new Cuban immigrants each year, improve the method of
identifying refugees, redouble efforts to process Cubans seeking to leave Cuba, and
initiative a public information campaign in Florida and Cuba to better inform Cubans
of the routes to safe and legal migration to the United States. The President’s
announcement was in part a response to the criticism of the Administration’s
migration policy in the aftermath of the July 2003 repatriation of several Cubans
involved in stealing a Cuban government vessel.
Migration Talks. Semi-annual U.S.-Cuban talks (held alternatively between
Cuba and the United States) have been held regularly on the implementation of the
1994 and 1995 migration accords; the last talks took place in June 2003 in New York
City and were the 19th round. The State Department cancelled the 20th round of talks
scheduled for January 8, 2004. According to the State Department, Cuba has refused
to discuss five issues identified by the United States: (1) Cuba’s issuance of exit
permits to all qualified migrants; (2) Cuba’s cooperation in holding a new registration
for an immigrant lottery; (3) the need for a deeper Cuban port utilized by the U.S.
Coast Guard for the repatriation of Cubans interdicted at sea; (4) Cuba’s
responsibility to permit U.S. diplomats to travel to monitor returned migrants; and
(5) Cuba’s obligation to accept the return of Cuban nationals determined to be
excludable from the United States. 74 In response to the cancellation of the talks,
Cuban officials maintained that the U.S. decision was irresponsible and that it was
prepared to discuss all of the issues raised by the United States.75 The last time talks
were suspended was in 2000 by the Cuban government when Elian Gonzalez was in
the United States. The cancellation of the talks has increased concern among those
in Cuba seeking visas to migrate legally.
Excludables. Under a 1984 U.S.-Cuban migration accord, Cuba agreed to
take back 2,746 so-called excludables, criminal alines and mentally ill people, who
had arrived in the 1980 Mariel boatlift. To date, Cuba has taken back over 1,600 of
those on the 1984 list. Another issue in U.S.-Cuban relations is the return of Cubans
in the United States not on the 1984 list who are no longer eligible to remain in the
United States because of criminal offenses. Over 900 Cubans reportedly fall into this
category, and Cuba will not accept their return. (The Supreme Court announced in
January 2004 that it wold rule on whether the federal government can indefinitely
imprison Cubans and other immigrants who have finished their prison sentences but
whose home countries will not accept their return.)76 The United States has proposed
a technical working group from both governments to explore options that would
allow for the return of some of these excludables.77
74 U.S. Department of State. State Department Regular Briefing, Richard Boucher. January
7, 2004.
75 “Migration Talks Cancelled,” Miami Herald, January 8, 2004.
76 Charles Lane, “High Court to Consider Detention Case; Justices to Decide if U.S. Can
Indefinitely Imprison Criminal Illegal Immigrants,” Washington Post, January 17, 2004.
77 U.S. Department of State. “Cuban Emigration Policies, Report Submitted by the
Department of State Pursuant to Section 2245 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277)” October 2003.

---

CRS-47
Legislation and Resolutions
in the 107th Congress
P.L. 107-77 (H.R. 2500/S. 1215)
State Department and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY2002. The measure
fully funded the Administration’s request of $24.872 million for broadcasting to
Cuba for FY2002. H.R. 2500 reported by the House Committee on Appropriations
(H.Rept. 107-139) July 13, 2001. House passed (408-19), amended, July 18, 2001.
S. 1215 reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations July 20, 2001 (S.Rept.
107-42). On September 10, 2001, the Senate substituted the language of S. 1215 as
its version of H.R. 2500, and on September 13, 2001 the Senate passed (97-3) the
bill, amended. Conference report (H.Rept. 107-278) filed November 9, 2001. House
approved conference (411-15) on November 14, 2001, and the Senate approved it
(98-1) on November 15, 2001. Signed into law November 28, 2001.
P.L. 107-115 (H.R. 2506)
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002. Introduced and reported by the
House Committee on Appropriations July 17, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-142). House passed
(381-46) July 24, 2001. The House committee report to the bill notes that the
Appropriations Committee fully supports the Administration’s budget request of at
least $5 million aimed at promoting democracy in Cuba. Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported its version September 2, 2001 (S.Rept. 107-58). Senate
passed (96-2) October 24, 2001. The Senate version would have provided $1.5
million for the Department of State and other agencies to establish cooperation with
Cuba on counter-narcotics matters. Conference report (H.Rept. 107-345) filed
December 19, 2001, without the Senate provision on counter-narcotics cooperation
with Cuba. However, the conference report called for a report by the Secretary of
State within six months on 1) the extent, if any of the direct involvement of the
government of Cuba in illegal drug trafficking; 2) the likelihood that U.S.
international narcotics assistance to the government of Cuba would decrease the flow
of drugs transiting through Cuba, and 3) the degree to which the government of Cuba
is exchanging with U.S. agencies drug-related law enforcement information. The
conference report also encouraged the Administration to transmit to Congress, not
later than nine months, any legislation necessary to decrease the flow of drugs to or
from Cuba. House agreed (357-66) to the conference December 19; Senate agreed
(unanimous consent) December 20. Signed into law January 10, 2002.
P.L. 107-228 (H.R. 1646)
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2002 and FY2003. Conference report
(H.Rept. 107-671) filed September 23, 2002; Section 121 of the conference report
version of the bill authorized $25.923 million for FY2003 for Cuba broadcasting.
House agreed to conference report by voice vote September 25, 2002; Senate agreed
by unanimous consent September 26, 2002. Signed into law September 30, 2002.
H.Res. 91 (Smith, Christopher)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the human
rights situation in Cuba. House passed (347-44, 22 present) April 3, 2001.

---

CRS-48
S.Res. 272 (Nelson)
Expresses support for the Varela Project. Introduced May 20, 2002. Senate
Foreign Relations Committee reported May 29, 2002. Senate approved (87-0) June
10, 2002.
Legislative Initiatives
in the 108th Congress
FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act
P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673)
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004. Originally introduced as the
FY2004 agriculture appropriations measure, which the House passed July 14, 2003,
and the Senate passed November 6, 2003. On November 25, 2003, a conference
report was filed, H.Rept. 108-401, which incorporated seven regular appropriations
acts for the year. Conference report agreed to (242-176) in House November 25,
2003; agreed to (65-28) in Senate January 22, 2004. Signed into law January 23,
2004.
Division A, covering agriculture appropriations, dropped the Cuba provision
that had been included in the Senate-approved version of H.R. 2673 (Section 760)
that would have allowed travel to Cuba under a general license (without applying to
the Treasury Department) for travel related to commercial sales of agricultural and
medical goods.
Division B, covering Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations, funds Radio
and TV broadcasting to Cuba under the International Broadcasting Operations
Account, but without a specific earmark. The conferees state that they expect the
Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide $1.2 million to pursue alternative means
of transmission, including Internet transmission, of Cuba broadcasting. The
Administration requested $26.901 million for Cuba broadcasting, with $16.355
million for Radio Marti and $10.546 million for TV Marti. Also see H.R. 2799/S.
1585 below.
Division D, covering foreign operations appropriations, did not include
assistance for counter-narcotics cooperation with Cuba that had been in the Senate-
approved version of H.R. 2800 (Section 680), nor did it include the provision in the
House version of bill (Section 571) that would have prohibited such assistance.
Division D also would fund democracy programs for Cuba. While the conferees did
not earmark assistance for Cuba democracy programs in the bill, the conference
report recommended full funding of the Administration’s $7 million in Economic
Support Funds for democracy programs supported by USAID. The House-passed
version of H.R. 2800 had no earmark (although the House report, H.Rept. 108-122,
recommended full funding of the Administration’s $7 million request), while the
Senate-passed version of H.R. 2800 (Section 699G) would have provided not more
than $5 billion in Transition Initiatives funds for democracy-building efforts for
Cuba. Also see H.R. 2800/S. 1426 below.

---

CRS-49
Division F, covering Transportation-Treasury appropriations, dropped all
provisions easing Cuba sanctions that had been included in the House- and Senate-
approved versions of H.R. 2989. Both the House and Senate versions of H.R. 2989
had a nearly identical provision (Section 745 in the House version and Section 643
in the Senate verison) that would have prevented funds from being used to administer
or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions. In addition, the House
version of H.R. 2989 had provisions that would have prevented funds from being
used to administer or enforce restrictions on remittances (Section 746) and from
being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-people educational exchanges
(Section 749). Also see H.R. 2989/S. 1589 below.
Human Rights and Democracy
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2)
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. President signed into law
February 20, 2003. While the measure does not earmark funding for human rights
and democracy projects for Cuba, it does fund FY2003 Foreign Operations
appropriations; the Administration’s FY2003 foreign aid request had included $6
million for such projects ($5.750 was ultimately allocated by the Administration).
Also see “Cuba Broadcasting” below for the law’s provisions regarding Radio and
TV Marti.
H.Con.Res. 16 (Andrews)
To call for the immediate release of all political prisoners in Cuba, including Dr.
Oscar Elias Biscet. Introduced January 28, 2003; referred to Committee on
International Relations.
H.Con.Res. 125 (Deutsch)
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the arrests of Cuban democracy
activists by the Cuban government. Introduced March 27, 2003; referred to
Committee on International Relations.
H.R. 1201 (Ros-Lehtinen)
Cuban Victims of Torture Act. To posthumously revoke the naturalization of
Eriberto Mederos. Introduced March 11, 2003; referred to Committee on the
Judiciary.
H.R. 1950 (Hyde)
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2004 and FY2005. Introduced May 5,
2003. Reported by Committee on International Relations May 16, 2003 (H.Rept.
108-105). House (382-42) passed July 16, 2003. As approved, Section 1807 would
authorize $15 million for each of FY2004 and FY2005 to support democracy-
building efforts for Cuba. (For additional provisions, see “Cuba Broadcasting”
below.)
H.R. 2800 (Kolbe)/ S. 1426 (McConnell)
FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations. H.R. 2800 introduced and reported
by House Committee on Appropriations July 21, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-222). House
passed (370-50) July 24, 2003. S. 1426 introduced and reported by Senate
Committee on Appropriations July 17, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-106). Senate passed H.R.

---

CRS-50
2800 October 30, 2003, by voice vote. The bill funds the Administration’s request
for human rights and democracy projects for Cuba. The House version does not
earmark funding for such projects, although the House Appropriations Committee
report to the bill notes that the committee fully supports the Administration’s $7
million request in Economic Support Funds. The Senate-passed version, in Section
699G, provides not more than $5 million in Transition Initiatives funding to support
democracy-building efforts for Cuba. (Also see “Anti-Drug Cooperation” below for
additional provisions.) For further action, see P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673),
Consolidated Appropriations Sct for FY2004, above.
H.Res. 164 (Flake)
Expressing the sense of the House regarding the human rights situation in Cuba,
and for other purposes. Introduced March 26, 2003; referred to the Committee on
International Relations Committee.
H.Res. 179 (Diaz-Balart, Lincoln)
Expresses the sense of the House regarding the systematic human rights
violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime, calls for the immediate release
of all political prisoners, and supports respect for basic human rights and free
elections in Cuba. Introduced April 7, 2003. House passed (414-0, 11 present) April
8, 2003.
H.Res. 208 (Foley)
Condemns the Cuban government’s brutal crackdown; calls on the UNCHR to
recognize the resolution passed by the House condemning Cuba for its human rights
atrocities and condemns the member states of the United Nations Economic and
Social Council for renewing Cuba’s membership on the UNCHR. Introduced April
30, 2003; referred to House Committee on International Relations.
H.Res. 563 (Ros-Lehtinen)
Expressing the sense of the House regarding the one-year anniversary of the
human rights crackdown in Cuba. Introduced March 16, 2004; referred to the
Committee on International Relations.
S. 97 (Nelson)
Expresses the sense of the Senate regarding the arrests of Cuban democracy
activists by the Cuban government. Introduced March 25, 2003; Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations discharged by unanimous consent. Senate amended and agreed
to the resolution April 7, 2003, by unanimous consent.
S. 1089 (Ensign)
Cuba Transition Act of 2003. To encourage multilateral cooperation and
authorize a program of assistance to facilitate a peaceful transition in Cuba. Requires
the Secretary of State to designate a coordinator, with the rank of ambassador, for
Cuba’s transition. Authorizes the Secretary of State to designate up to $5 million of
monies provided to the Organization of American States for human rights activities,
election support, and scholarships for Cuban students. Authorizes $15 million in
foreign operations funding to support democracy-building efforts for Cuba.
Authorizes $30 million for the President to establish a fund to provide assistance to

---

CRS-51
a transition government in Cuba. Introduced May 20, 2003; referred to Committee
on Foreign Relations.
S.Res. 62 (Ensign)
Calling upon the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the U.N.
High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union, and human rights
activists throughout the world to take certain actions in regard to the human rights
situation in Cuba. Introduced February 24, 2003; referred to Committee on Foreign
Relations. Senate agreed to by unanimous consent on June 27, 2003.
S.Res. 146 (Reid)
Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the establishment of an
international tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by Fidel
Castro and other Cuban political leaders. Introduced May 20, 2003; referred to
Committee on Foreign Relations.
S.Res. 328 (Nelson)
Expresses the sense of the Senate regarding the continued human rights
violations committed by Fidel Castro and the Cuban government, calls on Cuba to
immediately release individuals imprisoned for political purposes, and calls upon the
60th session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to condemn Cuba for its
human rights abuses and demand that inspectors from the International Committee
of the Red Cross be allowed to visit and inspect Cuban prisons. Introduced April 1,
2004; Senate passed, amended, April 8, 2004, by unanimous consent.
Modification of Sanctions
H.R. 187 (Serrano)
To amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000
to allow for the financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. Introduced January 7, 2003;
referred to Committee on Financial Services and in addition to the Committees on
International Relations and Agriculture.
H.R. 188 (Serrano)
Cuba Reconciliation Act. To lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other
purposes. Introduced January 7, 2003; referred to Committee on International
Relations and to Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, the
Judiciary, Financial Services, Government Reform, and Agriculture.
H.R. 1698 (Paul)
To lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and for other purposes. Introduced April 9,
2003; referred to Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, Financial
Services, Government Reform, and Agriculture.
H.R. 2071 (Flake)
Export Freedom to Cuba Act of 2003. To allow travel between the United States
and Cuba. Introduced May 13, 2003; referred to the Committee on International
Relations.

---

CRS-52
H.R. 2494 (Rangel)/ S. 2002 (Baucus)
United States-Cuba Trademark Protection Act of 2003. To improve and promote
international intellectual property obligations relating to the Republic of Cuba, and
for other purposes. Section 3 (d) would repeal a provision in the FY1999 omnibus
appropriations measure (Section 211 of Division A, title II, P.L. 105-277) that
prohibits transactions or payments with respect to trademark registrations and
renewals from foreign nationals that were used in connection with a business or
assets in Cuba that were confiscated. H.R. 2494 introduced June 17, 2003; referred
to the Committee on International Relations and to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 2002 introduced December 9, 2003; referred to Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 2989 (Istook)/S. 1589 (Shelby)
Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
FY2004. H.R. 2989 reported by House Committee on Appropriations July 30, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-243). House approved September 9, 2003 (381-39) after approving
three Cuba sanctions amendments: H.Amdt. 375 (Flake) (227-188) would prevent
funds from enforcing travel restrictions(Section 745); H.Amdt. 377 (Delahunt) (222-
196) would prevent funds from enforcing restrictions on remittances (Section 746);
and H.Amdt. 382 (Davis) (246-173) would prohibit funds from being used to
eliminate the travel category of people-to-people educational exchanges (Section
749). S. 1589, reported September 8, 2003 (S.Rept. 198-146), had no such Cuba
provisions, but 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 would prevent funds from being used to
administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions (Section
643). The only difference between the Flake and Dorgan amendments is that the
Dorgan amendment, as amended by S.Amdt. 1901 (Craig), provides that the section
will take effect one day after enactment of the bill. A motion to table the Dorgan
amendment was defeated by a vote of 59-36. Senate approved H.R. 2989 October 23,
2003 (91-3). For further action, see P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673), Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2004, above.
H.R. 3422 (Serrano)
To provide the people of Cuba with access to food, medicines and other
humanitarian goods and from the United States, to ease restrictions on travel to Cuba,
to provide scholarships for certain Cuban nationals, to repeal the prohibition on
transactions or payments with respect to certain U.S. intellectual property, to provide
for expedited security checks for certain visiting Cubans, and to remove restrictions
in order to allow Cuban nationals to come to the United States to play organized
professional sports. Introduced October 30, 2003; referred to Committee on
International Relations, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Financial
Services, Government Reform, the Judiciary, and Ways and Means.
H.R. 3470 (Rothman)
To amend the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of
1996 to require that, in order to determine that a democratically elected government
in Cuba exists, the government extradite to the United States convicted felon Joanne
Chesimard and all other individuals who are living in Cuba in order to escape
prosecution or confinement from criminal offenses committed in the United States.
Introduced November 6, 2003; referred to Committee on International Relations.

---

CRS-53
H.R. 3670 (Deutsch)
Anti-Communist Cooperation Act of 2003. To amend the Internal Revenue
Code to impose a 100% tax on amounts received from trading with Cuba if the
trading is conditioned on lobbying Congress to lift trade or travel restrictions.
Introduced December 8, 2003; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 4225 (Smith of Texas)/S. 2373 (Domenici)
To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain
rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. H.R. 4225
introduced April 28, 2004; referred to House Committee on the Judiciary. S. 2373
introduced April 29, 2004; referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 4678 (Davis)
To bar certain additional restrictions on travel and remittances related to per-
diem allowances, family visits, remittances, and accompanied baggage. Introduced
June 24, 2004; referred to House Committee on International Relations.
H.R. 4754 (Wolf)
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, FY2005. House Committee on Appropriations reported
(H.Rept. 108-576) July 1, 2004. House approved (398-18) July 8, 2004. As
approved, the bill included a provision (Section 801) prohibiting funds from being
used to implement, administer, or enforce recent amendments to Cuba embargo
regulations that tightened restrictions on gift parcels and baggage taken by
individuals for travel to Cuba. The provision was added to the bill on July 7, 2004,
when the House approved, by vote of 221-194, a Flake amendment (H.Amdt. 647)
(Also see the bill’s additional provisions on “Cuba Broadcasting” below.)
S. 403 (Baucus)
United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2003. To lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and
for other purposes. Introduced February 13, 2003; referred to the Committee on
Finance.
S. 950 (Enzi)
Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2003. To allow travel between the United
States and Cuba. Introduced April 30, 2003; referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations. Senate Foreign Relations ordered reported November 11, 2003.
S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R. 4457 (Otter)
Cuba Sanctions Reform Act of 2004. To require congressional renewal of trade
and travel restrictions with respect to Cuba. S. 2449 introduced May 19, 2004;
referred to Senate Committee on Finance. H.R. 4457 introduced May 20, 2004;
referred to House Committee on International Relations and to Committees on Rules,
Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, and Agriculture.
Cuba Broadcasting
P.L. 108-7 (H.J.Res. 2)
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. President signed into law
February 20, 2003. The final version provides $24.996 million for Radio and TV

---

CRS-54
Marti broadcasting to Cuba (Division B, Commerce, Justice, and State
appropriations). Also see “Human Rights” above regarding the law’s funding of
human rights and democracy projects.
H.R. 1950 (Hyde)
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2004 and FY2005. Introduced May 5,
2003. Reported by Committee on International Relations May 16, 2003 (H.Rept.
108-105). House passed (382-42) July 16, 2003. As approved, Section 121 would
authorize $26.901 million for Cuba broadcasting for FY2004 and $27.439 million for
FY2005. Section 502 bill would amend the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act to use
additional AM frequencies and the FM and Shortwave bands to improve Radio Marti
signal delivery to Cuba. Section 503 of the bill would require a report on efforts to
counter jamming of Radio and TV Marti broadcasts. (For additional provisions, see
“Human Rights and Democracy” above.)
H.R. 2799 (Wolf)/ S. 1585 (Judd)
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, FY2004. Introduced and reported by the House Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 108-221). House passed (400-21) July 23, 2003. The House-
passed bill would fund the Administration’s request for Cuba broadcasting under the
International Broadcasting Operations Account, but without a specific earmark. The
House Appropriations Committee report to the bill recommends full funding of the
Administration’s Cuba broadcasting request, $26.901 million. S. 1585 reported by
the Senate Committee on Appropriations September 5, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-144). The
Senate version would provide $28.201 million for Cuba broadcasting, $1.2 million
more than the Administration’s request. According to the committee report, the
additional funding is to be used to enhance efforts to defeat Cuban government
jamming. For further action, see P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673), Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2004, above.
H.R. 4754 (Wolf)
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, FY2005. House Committee on Appropriations reported
(H.Rept. 108-576) July 1, 2004. House approved (398-18) July 8, 2004. The bill
would fund the Administration’s request for Cuba broadcasting under the
International Broadcasting Operations account, but without a specific earmark. The
report to the bill recommends full funding of the Administration’s $27.6 million
request. (See the bill’s additional provisions modifying U.S. sanctions above.)
S. 925 (Lugar)
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2004 and FY2005. Section 111 would
authorize appropriations for radio and television broadcasting to Cuba within the
International Broadcasting Operations account but without a specific earmark.
Introduced and reported by Committee on Foreign Relations April 24, 2003 (S.Rept.
108-39). For further action, see S. 2144.
S. 2144 (Lugar)
Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2005. Section 111 would
authorize funding for Cuba broadcasting, but without a specific earmark, under the

---

CRS-55
International Broadcasting Operations account. Introduced February 27, 2004; Senate
Foreign Relations Committee reported March 18, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-248).
Anti-Drug Cooperation
H.R. 1432 (Rangel)
To authorize the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with
representatives of the Cuban government to establish cooperation between the United
States and Cuba on illicit narcotics control efforts. Introduced March 25, 2003;
referred to the Committee on International Relations.
H.R. 2800 (Kolbe)/ S. 1426 (McConnell)
FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations. H.R. 2800 introduced and reported
by House Committee on Appropriations July 21, 2003 (H.Rept. 108-222). House
passed (370-50) July 24, 2003. The House version would, in Section 571, provide
that no International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Funds be made
available for assistance to Cuba. S. 1426 introduced and reported by Senate
Committee on Appropriations July 17, 2003 (S.Rept. 108-106). Senate approved
H.R. 2800, amended, October 30, 2003 by voice vote. The Senate version would
provide $5 million in International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
assistance for preliminary work to establish cooperation with Cuba on counter-
narcotics matters. The money would not be available if Cuba does not have in place
appropriate procedures to protect against the loss of life in connection with the
interdiction of illegal drugs or if there is evidence that the Cuban government is
involved in drug trafficking. For further action, see P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673),
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004, above.
Migration
H.R. 189 (Serrano)
Baseball Diplomacy Act. Waives certain prohibitions with respect to nationals
of Cuba coming to the United States to play organized professional baseball.
Introduced January 7, 2003; referred to the Committee on International Relations and
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 3422 (Serrano)
Among the bill’s provisions, the measure would provide for expedited security
checks for certain visiting Cubans and remove restrictions in order to allow Cuban
nationals to come to the United States to play organized professional sports.
Introduced October 30, 2003; referred to Committee on International Relations, and
in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Financial Services, Government
Reform, the Judiciary, and Ways and Means. (Also see “Modification of Sanctions”
above for the bill’s additional provisions.)

---

CRS-56
For Additional Reading
CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Trade, “Cuba Sanctions,” by Mark P. Sullivan.
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebtra108.html]
CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Trade, “Economic Sanctions and Agricultural
Exports,” by Remy Jurenas. [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebtra13.html]
CRS Report RL31302, Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President, and General Government, by Sharon S.
Gressle.
CRS Report RL31808, Appropriations for FY2004: Transportation, Treasury, Post
Office, Executive Office of the President, General Government, and Related
Agencies, coordinated by David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli.
CRS Report RS20450, The Case of Elian Gonzalez: Legal Basics, by Larry M. Eig.
CRS Report RL32251, Cuba and the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, by Mark P.
Sullivan.
CRS Report RL30837, Cuba: An Economic Primer, by Ian F. Fergusson.
CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan and
Maureen Taft-Morales.
CRS Report RL30628, Cuba: Issues and Legislation in the 106th Congress, by Mark
P. Sullivan and Maureen Taft-Morales.
CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances, by Mark
P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RL30386, Cuba-U.S. Relations: Chronology of Key Events 1959 -1999,
by Mark P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RS20468, Cuban Migration Policy and Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
CRS Issue Brief IB10061, Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from U.S.
Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation, by Remy Jurenas.
CRS Report 94-636, Radio and Television Broadcasting to Cuba: Background and
Issues Through 1994, by Susan B. Epstein and Mark P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RS21764, Restricting Trademark Rights of Cubans: WTO Decision and
Congressional Response, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.
CRS Report RL31258, Suits Against Terrorist States, by David M. Ackerman.

---

CRS-57
CRS Report RS21003, Travel Restrictions: U.S. Government Limits on American
Citizens’ Travel Abroad, by Susan B. Epstein and Dianne E. Rennack.

---