Order Code RL31139
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances
Updated July 7, 2005
Mark P. Sullivan
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress


Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances
Summary
Restrictions on travel to Cuba have been a key and often contentious component
in U.S. efforts to isolate the communist government of Fidel Castro for much of the
past 40 years. Over time, there have been numerous changes to the restrictions, and
for five years, from 1977 until 1982, there were no restrictions on travel to Cuba.
Under the Bush Administration, enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel 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 and eliminated the
category of fully-hosted travel. At the same time, remittances were further restricted
so that they could only be sent to the remitter’s immediate family.
In the 109th Congress, there has been significant legislative attention to the issue
of Cuba travel. On June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments to H.R.
3058, the FY2006 Transportation appropriations bill, that would have eased Cuba
travel restrictions: H.Amdt. 420 (Davis) on family travel; H.Amdt. 422 (Lee) on
educational travel; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overall embargo. During June
29, 2005, consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior Appropriations bill, the
Senate rejected a motion to suspend the rules with respect to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan),
which would have allowed family travel under a general license for humanitarian
reasons; the amendment was then ruled out of order.
A number of other legislative initiatives have been introduced in the 109th
Congress that would ease restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Two bills
— S. 894 (Enzi) and H.R. 1814 (Flake) — would specifically lift overall restrictions
on travel to Cuba. H.R. 2617 (Davis) would prohibit any additional restrictions on
per diem allowances, family visits to Cuba, remittances, and accompanied baggage
beyond those that were in effect on June 15, 2004. H.R. 3064 (Lee) would prohibit
the use of funds available to the Department of the Treasury to implement regulations
from June 2004 that tightened restrictions on travel to Cuba for educational activities.
Two additional bills — H.R. 208 (Serrano) and H.R. 579 (Paul) — would lift the
overall embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions
on travel and remittances to Cuba. Finally, two identical bills dealing with easing
restrictions on exporting agricultural commodities to Cuba — H.R. 719 (Moran of
Kansas) and S. 328 (Craig) — include provisions for a general license for travel
transactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed to
the current requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions. Pending
amendments — S.Amdt. 281 (Baucus) and S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) — to S. 600 would
add the language of S. 328, with a provision on travel transactions for the marketing
and sale of agricultural products.
This report will be updated to reflect major developments. For additional
information, see CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the 109th Congress.


Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background to Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Current Permissible Travel to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Current Restrictions on Remittances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Reaction to the Tightening of Travel and Remittance Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Estimates of U.S. Travelers to Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
OFAC Review of Travel and Carrier Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Enforcement of Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Arguments for Lifting Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Arguments for Maintaining Cuba Travel Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
First Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Second Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Additional Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Legislative Action and Initiatives in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
First Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Second Session Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Additional Initiatives in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Legislative Initiatives in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25


Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on
Travel and Remittances
Most Recent Developments
On June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments easing Cuba sanctions
to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act. The amendments failed during House floor consideration:
H.Amdt. 420 (Davis) on family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422 (Lee) on
educational travel, by a vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overall
embargo, by a vote of 169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel,
H.Amdt. 421 (Flake), was withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel by
members of the U.S. military, H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order for
constituting legislation in an appropriations bill. The introduction of H.Amdt. 419
was prompted by the case of a U.S. military member who served in Iraq, Sgt. Carlos
Lazo, who is prohibited from visiting his two sons in Cuba because he last visited
there in 2003.
On June 29, 2005, during Senate consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate rejected
(60-35; a two-thirds majority vote was required) a motion to suspend the rules with
respect to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which would have allowed travel to Cuba under
a general license for the purpose of visiting a member of the person’s immediate
family for humanitarian reasons. The amendment was then ruled out of order.
On June 15, 2005, the House rejected (210-216) H.Amdt. 270 (Flake) to H.R.
2862, the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. The amendment would have prohibited the use of funds to
implement, administer, or enforce June 2004 tightened restrictions on sending gift
parcels to Cuba. H.Amdt. 269 (McDermott), which would have prohibited the use
of funds in the bill to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba, was offered but
subsequently withdrawn.
During April 6, 2005, Senate floor consideration of S. 600, the FY2006 and
FY2007 Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 281
(Baucus) and a second-degree amendment, S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) that would facilitate
the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba. The language of the amendments
consists of the provisions of S. 328 (Craig), the Agricultural Export Facilitation Act
of 2005, which includes a provision for a general license for travel transactions
related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed to the current
requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions.


CRS-2
In April 2005, OFAC began cracking down on certain religious organizations
promoting licensed travel to Cuba and warned them not to abuse their license by
taking individuals not affiliated with the religious organizations. OFAC’s actions
were prompted by reports that groups practicing the Afro-Cuban religion Santería
had been taking large groups to Cuba in order to skirt U.S. travel restrictions.
On November 20, 2004, both the House and the Senate agreed to the conference
report (H.Rept. 108-792) to the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 4818),
which included nine regular appropriations bills. The measure dropped provisions
easing Cuba sanctions that had been included in the Agriculture, Commerce, Justice,
and State, and Transportation/Treasury appropriations bills. (See Legislative Action
and Initiatives in the 108th Congress, Second Session Action
below.)
Background to Travel Restrictions
Since the United States imposed a comprehensive trade embargo against Cuba
in the early 1960s, there have been numerous policy changes to restrictions on travel
to Cuba. The embargo regulations do not ban travel itself, but place restrictions on
any financial transactions related to travel to Cuba, which effectively result in a travel
ban. Accordingly, from 1963 until 1977, travel to Cuba was effectively banned under
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) issued by the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to implement the embargo. In 1977, the
Carter Administration made changes to the regulations that essentially lifted the
travel ban. In 1982, the Reagan Administration made other changes to the CACR that
once again restricted travel to Cuba, but allowed for travel-related transactions by
certain categories of travelers. Under the Clinton Administration, there were several
changes to the Treasury Department regulations, with some at first tightening the
restrictions, and others later loosening the restrictions.
Under the Bush Administration, the travel regulations have been further
tightened, with additional restrictions on family visits, educational travel, and travel
for those involved in amateur and semi-professional international sports federation
competitions. In addition, the categories of fully-hosted travel and people to people
educational exchanges unrelated to academic coursework have been eliminated as
permissible travel to Cuba. The regulations that remain in place today are less
restrictive than those in place from 1963 to 1977, but more restrictive than those in
place from 1977-1982 when the travel ban was essentially lifted.
Chronology of Cuba Travel Restrictions
1960 — In the first trade restrictions on Cuba after the rise to power of Fidel
Castro, President Eisenhower placed most U.S. exports to Cuba under validated
license controls, except for nonsubsidized food, medicines, and medical supplies.
The action did not include restrictions on travel.
1962/1963 — In February 1962, President Kennedy imposed a trade embargo
on Cuba because of the Castro regime’s ties to the Soviet Union. Pursuant to the
President’s directive, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets


CRS-3
Control (OFAC) issued the Cuban Import Regulations. On July 9, 1963, OFAC
issued a more comprehensive set of prohibitions, the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations, which effectively banned travel by prohibiting any transactions with
Cuba.
1977 — In March, the Carter Administration announced the lifting of
restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba that had been in place since the early 1960s. The
Carter Administration lifted the travel ban by issuing a general license for travel-
related transactions for those visiting Cuba. Direct flights were also allowed.
1982 — In April, the Reagan Administration reimposed restrictions on travel
to Cuba, although it allowed for certain categories of travel, including travel by U.S.
government officials, employees of news or film making organizations, persons
engaging in professional research, or persons visiting their close relatives. It did not
allow for ordinary tourist or business travel that had been allowed since the Carter
Administration’s 1977 action.
1984 — On June 28, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in the case of Regan
v. Wald, rejected a challenge to the ban on travel to Cuba and asserted the executive
branch’s right to impose travel restrictions for national security reasons.
1993 — The Clinton Administration, in June 1993, slightly amended restrictions
on U.S. travel to Cuba. Two additional categories of travel were allowed: travel to
Cuba “for clearly defined educational or religious activities”; and travel “for
activities of recognized human rights organizations.” In both categories, travelers
were required to apply for a specific license from OFAC.
1994 — In August, President Clinton announced several measures against the
Cuban government in response to an escalation in the number of Cubans fleeing to
the United States. Among these measures, the Administration tightened travel
restrictions by prohibiting family visits under a general license, and allowing specific
licenses for family visits only “when extreme hardship is demonstrated in cases
involving extreme humanitarian need” such as terminal illness or severe medical
emergency. Such visits required a specific license from OFAC. In addition,
professional researchers were required to apply for a specific license, whereas since
1982 they had been able to travel freely under a general license. (Federal Register,
August 30, 1994, pp. 44884-44886.)
1995 — In October, President Clinton announced measures to ease some U.S.
restrictions on travel and other activities with Cuba, with the overall objective of
promoting democracy and the free flow of ideas. The new measures included
authorizing general licenses for transactions relating to travel to Cuba for Cuban
Americans making yearly visits to close relatives in “circumstances that demonstrate
extreme humanitarian need.” This reversed the August 1994 action that required
specific licenses. However, those traveling for this purpose more than once in a 12-
month period would need to apply to OFAC for a specific license. In addition, the
new measures allowed for specific licenses for free-lance journalists traveling to
Cuba. (Federal Register, October 20, 1995, pp. 54194-54198.)


CRS-4
1996 — On February 26, following the shootdown of two U.S. civilian planes
two days earlier by Cuban fighter jets, President Clinton took several measures
against Cuba, including the indefinite suspension of charter flights between Cuba and
the United States. Qualified licensed travelers could go to Cuba, provided their
flights were routed through third countries.
1998 — On March 20, following Pope John Paul II’s January trip to Cuba,
President Clinton announced several changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba, including
the resumption of licensing for direct charter flights to Cuba. On July 2, OFAC
issued licenses to nine air charter companies to provide direct passenger flights from
Miami International Airport to Havana’s Jose Marti Airport.
1999 — On January 5, President Clinton announced several measures to support
the Cuban people that were intended to augment changes implemented in March
1998. Among the measures introduced was the expansion of direct passenger charter
flights from additional U.S. cities other than Miami. In August, the State Department
announced that direct flights to Cuba would be allowed from New York and Los
Angeles. In addition, President Clinton also announced in January 1999 that
measures would be taken to increase people-to-people exchanges. As a result, on
May 13, 1999, OFAC issued a number of changes to the Cuba embargo regulations
that effectively loosened restrictions on certain categories of travelers to Cuba.
Travel for professional research became possible under a general license, and travel
for a wide range of educational, religious, sports competition, and other activities
became possible with specific licenses authorized by OFAC on a case-by-case basis.
In addition, those traveling to Cuba to visit a close family member under either a
general or specific license only needed to “demonstrate humanitarian need,” as
opposed to “extreme humanitarian need” that had been required since 1995.
(Federal Register, May 13, 1999, pp. 25808-25820.)
2000 — In October, Congress approved and the President signed the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of P.L. 106-387),
which included a provision that prohibited travel-related transactions for “tourist
activities,” which as set forth in Section 910(b)(2) of the act are defined as any
activity not authorized or referenced in the existing travel regulations (31 CFR
515.560, paragraphs (1) through (12)). The congressional action appeared to
circumscribe the authority of the OFAC to issue specific travel licenses on a case-by-
case basis that do not fit neatly withing the categories of travel already allowed by the
regulations.
2001 — On July 12, 2001, OFAC published regulations pursuant to the
provisions of the Trade Sanctions and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of
P.L. 106-387) that prohibited travel-related transactions for “tourist activities.”
(Federal Register, July 12, 2001, pp. 36683-36688.) On July 13, 2001, President
Bush announced that he had asked the Treasury Department to enhance and expand
the capabilities of OFAC to prevent, among other things, “unlicensed and excessive
travel.”
2003 — On January 29, 2003, OFAC published proposed enforcement
guidelines (as an appendix to 31 CFR Part 501) for all its economic sanctions
programs and additional guidelines (as an appendix to 31 CFR Part 515) for the Cuba


CRS-5
sanctions program. The general guidelines provide a procedural framework for
OFAC’s enforcement of economic sanctions, while the Cuba specific guidelines
consists of penalties for different embargo violations. (Federal Register, January 29,
2003, pp. 4422-4429.)
On March 24, 2003, OFAC announced that the Cuba travel regulations were
being amended to ease travel to Cuba for those visiting close relatives. (Federal
Register
, March 24, 2003, pp. 14141-14148.) Travel is now permitted to visit
relatives to within three degrees of relationship of the traveler and is not restricted to
travel in circumstances of humanitarian need. The new regulations also increased the
amount a traveler may carry, up to $3,000 (compared to $300 previously), although
the limit of $300 per quarter destined for each household remains. Finally, the
regulations were tightened for certain types of educational travel. People-to-people
educational exchanges unrelated to academic coursework are no longer allowed.
Some groups have lauded the restriction of these educational exchanges because they
believe they have become an opportunity for unrestricted travel; others criticize the
Administration’s decision to restrict the second largest category of travel to Cuba in
which ordinary people have been able to travel and exchange with their counterparts
on the island.
On October 10, 2003, President Bush instructed the Department of Homeland
Security, as part of a broader initiative on Cuba, to increase inspections of travelers
and shipments to and from Cuba in order to more strictly enforce the trade and travel
embargo.
2004 — 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. (Federal Register, March 1,
2004, pp. 9315 - 9517.)
On June 16, 2004, OFAC published changes to the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations implementing the President’s directives to implement certain
recommendations of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (Federal
Register
, June 16, 2004, pp. 33768-33774). Among the changes to Cuba sanctions,
the new regulations further tightened travel restrictions in a variety of ways. Fully-
hosted travel was eliminated as a legal category of permissible travel. Family visits
were restricted to one trip every three years under a specific license to visit only
immediate family (grandparents, grandchildren, parents, siblings, spouses, and
children) for a period not to exceed 14 days. The daily amount of money that family
visitors can spend while in Cuba was reduced from the State Department per diem
rate, currently $167, to $50. Specific licenses for visiting non-Cuban nationals in
Cuba (such as a student) are now limited to when the family member visited is in
“exigent circumstances.” The general license for amateur or semi-professional
athletic teams to travel to Cuba to engage in sports competitions was eliminated; such
travel now requires a specific license.
Specific licenses for educational activities are further restricted in several ways:
the institutional licenses are restricted to undergraduate and graduate institutions,
while the category of educational exchanges sponsored by secondary schools has
been eliminated; the duration of institutional licenses has been shortened from two


CRS-6
to one year; three types of licensed educational activities — structural education
programs in Cuba offered as part of a course at the licensed institution, formal
courses of study offered at a Cuban academic institution; and teaching at a Cuban
academic institution — are required to be no shorter than 10 weeks.
The new regulations also further restrict sending cash remittances to Cuba.
Quarterly remittances of $300 may still be sent, but it is now restricted to 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. This reversed OFAC’s March 2003 changes to the
regulations that had increased the amount that authorized travelers could carry to
$3000.
Most of the June 16, 2004, changes to the CACR were to go into effect on June
30, 2004, with the exception of certain educational activities that may proceed as
long as all transactions are completed by August 15, 2004. However, on June 25,
2004, OFAC delayed implementation of the tightened restrictions on family visits
and fully-hosted travel until August 1, 2004, for those travelers 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. The new regulations placed new limits
on gift parcels sent to Cuba and personal baggage of travelers going to Cuba. Gift
parcels may no longer contain items such as seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items,
veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making
equipment. Baggage is now limited to 44 pounds.(Federal Register, pp. 34565-
34567)
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)
Current Permissible Travel to Cuba
The travel regulations can be found at 31CFR 515.560, which references other
sections of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations for travel-related transaction
licensing criteria. (For an overview of the Treasury Department regulations on travel
to Cuba, see OFAC’s website [http://www.treas.gov/ofac/]). At present, certain
categories of travelers may travel to Cuba under a general license, which means that
there is no need to obtain special permission from OFAC. In addition, a wide variety
of travelers engaging in family visits, and educational, religious, humanitarian, and
other activities may be eligible for specific licenses. Applications for specific
licenses are reviewed and granted by OFAC on a case by case basis. Some specific
licenses may authorize multiple trips to Cuba over an extended period of time.


CRS-7
The general license categories include the following:
! Officials of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain
intergovernmental organizations traveling on official business (31
CFR 515.562);
! Persons regularly employed as journalists by a news reporting
organization or by persons regularly employed as supporting
broadcast or technical personnel (31 CFR 515.563); and
! Full-time professionals conducting professional research in their
areas (provided that the research is of a noncommercial, academic
nature, that the research comprises a full work schedule in Cuba, and
that the research has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination)
or attending professional meetings or conferences in Cuba organized
by an international professional organization, institution, or
association that regularly sponsors meetings or conferences in other
countries (31 CFR 515.564).
The specific license categories include the following:
! Persons visiting a member of their immediate family (spouse, child,
grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling) who is a national of Cuba
for a period not to exceed 14 days and once in a three-year period
(31 CFR 515.561);
! Persons visiting an immediate family member who is not a national
of Cuba and is in exigent circumstances, provided the person being
visited is in Cuba pursuant to OFAC authorization, the exigency has
been reported to the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and the license
would support the mission of the U.S. Interests Section (31 CFR
515.561);
! Free-lance journalists (31 CFR 515.563);
! Professional researchers undertaking research or attending
professional meetings who do not qualify for a general license (31
CFR 515.564);
! Specific institutional licenses (up to one year) for students and full-
time employees of undergraduate or graduate degree-granting
academic institutions to participate in educational activities. These
activities include participation in a structured educational program
in Cuba as part of a course offered at the licensed institution (not
less than 10 weeks); noncommercial academic research in Cuba
specifically related to Cuba for the purpose of obtaining a graduate
degree; participation in a formal course of study at a Cuban
institution (not less than 10 weeks) provided it will be accepted for
credit toward the student’s undergraduate or graduate degree at the
licensed U.S. institution; teaching at a Cuban academic institution


CRS-8
(not less than 10 weeks); and sponsorship of a Cuban scholar to
teach or engage in other scholarly activity at the licensed institution.
(CFR 515.565);
! U.S. religious organizations, for its members undertaking religious
activities in Cuba (31 CFR 515.566); [Note: according to OFAC’ s
licensing guidelines, a license for a religious organization “will only
authorize up to twenty-five (25) individuals to travel to Cuba per trip
and will permit no more than one trip per calendar quarter.”1]
! Amateur or semi-professional athletes participating in competitions,
provided that the competition is held under the auspices of the
international sports federation for the relevant sport, that U.S.
participants are selected by the U.S. federation for the relevant sport,
and that the competition is open for attendance, and in relevant
situations, for the Cuban public. Those involved in public
performances, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions,
provided that the event is open for attendance, and in relevant
situations, participation by the Cuban public, and that all profits are
donated to an independent nongovernmental organization in Cuba
or a U.S.-based charity (31 CFR 515.567);
! Those traveling for activities in support of the Cuban people, such
as activities of recognized human rights organizations, activities
designed to promote a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy, and
activities intended to strengthen civil society (31 CFR 515.574);
! Those involved in humanitarian projects in Cuba, such as medical
and health-related projects, construction projects, intended to benefit
legitimately independent civil society groups, environmental
projects, projects involving non-formal educational training, within
Cuba or off island, on topics including civil education, journalism,
advocacy and organizing, adult literacy and vocational skills,
community-based grass roots projects, projects suitable to the
development of small-scale enterprise, projects related to
agricultural and rural development that promote independent
activity, and projects involving the donation of goods to meet basic
human needs (31 CFR 515.576);
! Those involved in activities of private foundations or research or
education institutes that have an established interest in international
relations to collect information related to Cuba for noncommercial
purposes (31 CFR 515.576);
1 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, “ Comprehensive
Guidelines for License Applications to Engage in Travel-Related Transactions Involving
Cuba,” September 2004 (although the guidelines note that these limits on religious travel
were added on March 31, 2005).


CRS-9
! Those involved in the importation, exportation, or transmission of
informational materials (31CFR 515.545); and
! Those involved in activities related to marketing, sales negotiation,
accompanied delivery, or servicing of exports to Cuba authorized by
the Department of Commerce or such activities allowed by U.S.-
owned or controlled foreign firms (31CFR 515.533 and 31 CFR
515.559).
Current Restrictions on Remittances
U.S. cash remittances to Cuba account for an estimated $400-$800 million per
year, according to the report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba,
although the report also noted that some estimates were as high as $1 billion
annually.2 Restrictions on such remittances are regulated by the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations (CACR) and have changed over time. Pursuant to OFAC’s June
16, 2004, amendments to the CACR (which go into effect on June 30), a total of
$300 per quarter may be sent to nationals of Cuba who are members of the remitter’s
immediate family (spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling) (CFR
515.570). Remittances to certain officials of the Cuban government and certain
members of the Cuban Communist Party are not allowed. Up to $300 in remittances
may be carried by an authorized traveler to Cuba (CFR 515.560(c)(4)).
An additional tightening of remittance policy is that the general OFAC license
authorizing banks to send individual remittances to Cuba is eliminated. Banks now
need to be specifically licensed by OFAC in order to become a remittance-forwarding
service provider. As of early May 2004, OFAC was responsible for regulating about
130 licensed remittance-forwarding service providers; this number will increase as
banks apply for licenses to conduct such services.3
Prior to OFAC’s June 16, 2004, changes to the CACR, remittances were not
restricted to members of the remitter’s immediate family but could be sent to any
household in Cuba, provided the household did not include a senior-level Cuban
government official or senior-level Communist Party official. Authorized travelers
also could carry up to $3,000 in cash remittances.
2 Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President, May 2004. p. 34.
3 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, “Authorized Providers
of Air, Travel, and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba,” May 5, 2004.


CRS-10
Reaction to the Tightening of Travel
and Remittance Restrictions
There was mixed reaction to the Bush Administration’s tightening of Cuba
travel and remittance restrictions in May 2004, including within the Cuban American
community. The President maintains that such restrictions “will prevent the regime
from exploiting hard currency of tourists and remittances to Cubans to prop up their
repressive regime.”4 Supporters of the tightened restrictions argue that both
educational and family travel to Cuba had become fronts for tourist travel.
Tightening up on such travel, they argue, will deny the regime with dollars that help
maintain its repressive control. According to the Commission for Assistance for a
Free Cuba, some 125,000 family visits to Cuba in 2003 resulted in about $96 million
in hard currency for the government.5 Another argument made by some supporters
of the tightened restrictions is that the limiting of family travel to once every three
years will help ensure that such travel is limited to family emergencies. Along these
lines, some argue that limiting family travel will make travelers more sensitive to
political repression on the island and highlight that Cuban Americans are political
refugees, not economic immigrants. Some supporters of the new remittance
restrictions argue that the Bush Administration demonstrated a continuation of the
compassionate policy of supporting the Cuban people by not cutting the level of
remittances allowed, $300 per quarter; they emphasize that the Administration only
took action to ensure that the remittances would be restricted to immediate family
members and not benefit certain members of the Cuban government and Cuban
Communist Party.
Opponents of the tightened travel and remittance restrictions make a number of
policy arguments. They maintain the restrictions are anti-family and threaten the
basic principle of family reunification. Some in the Cuban American community
argue that the policy of restricting family visits is inhumane and will only result in
more suffering for Cuban families. They especially oppose the new restrictions that
do not allow travel to visit cousins, aunts, uncles, and more-distant relatives.
Another argument opposing restrictions on travel and private remittances is that the
steps will have no effect on reducing repression in Cuba or weakening the
government’s instruments of repression. Opponents of the tightened restrictions
maintain that the new restrictions are opposed by several prominent Cuban
dissidents, including Oswaldo Paya of the Varela Project and Elizardo Sanchez of the
Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation. Miriam Leiva,
vice president of an independent journalists group and the wife of formerly
imprisoned dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe, maintains that the new policy will
punish dissidents and their families; she compared the U.S. restrictions to the
situation faced by Cubans, who cannot travel without permission from the Cuban
government.6 Other opponents of the new restrictions argue that they could devastate
4 President George W. Bush, “Remarks After Meeting with the Commission for Assistance
for a Free Cuba,” U.S. Department of State, May 6, 2004.
5 Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President, May 2004. p. 37.
6 Miriam Leiva, “Whose Country Is It, Anyway?” May 24, 2004, Salon.com.


CRS-11
the business operations of U.S.-based air charter companies and travel-service
providers, many located in Florida.
There were also concerns that the new restrictions were drafted without
considering the full consequences of their implementation. For example, a problem
raised by the new travel restrictions related to the rapidity of their implementation.
The new travel regulations were published by OFAC on June 16, 2004, and were
supposed to go into effect on June 30, which left air charter companies little time to
contact hundreds of Cuban Americans so that they may return from Cuba before the
deadline. As a result of complaints, OFAC delayed implementation of the tightened
restrictions for family visits and fully-hosted travel until August 1, 2004, for those
travelers already in Cuba on June 29, in order to give people time to leave Cuba.
The elimination of the category of fully-hosted travel raised concerns about the
status some 70 U.S. students receiving full scholarships at the Latin American School
of Medicine in Havana. The school has more than 3,000 students from 23 countries
and consists of a six-month pre-med program and a six-year medical school
program. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who were instrumental in
the establishment of the scholarship program for U.S. students, expressed concern
that the students may be forced to abandon their medical education because of the
new OFAC regulations. As a result of these concerns, OFAC ultimately licensed the
medical students in August 2004 to continue their studies for a period of two years
and engage in travel-related transactions.
In 2005, attention focused on the case of a U.S. military member who served in
Iraq, Sgt. Carlos Lazo, who is prohibited by the travel restrictions from visiting his
two sons in Cuba since he had visited them in 2003.7 There were two specific
legislative attempts to deal with the issue: on June 30, 2005, H.Amdt. 419 (Flake) to
H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation appropriations bill, was ruled out of order for
constituting legislation in an appropriations bill; on June 29, during Senate
consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior appropriations bill, the Senate
rejected a motion to suspend the rules with respect to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which
would have allowed travel to Cuba under a general license for the purpose of visiting
a member of the person’s immediate family for humanitarian reasons.
Estimates of U.S. Travelers to Cuba
There appears to be no precise data on the number of individuals traveling to
Cuba, including both legal and illegal travelers (meaning those traveling without
authorization from OFAC). State Department officials maintain that the agency does
not collect statistics on American travel to Cuba, while the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control maintains that there are so many general licenses
(for which individuals do not have to apply) that it is not possible to arrive at an
accurate number of U.S. travelers to Cuba.
7 Jim Abrams, “Veteran of Iraq War Denied Trip Home to Cuba,” Associated Press, June
29, 2005.


CRS-12
Nevertheless, the inter-agency Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba
estimated in May 2004 that some 160,000-200,000 legal and illegal travelers visited
Cuba from the United States annually over the past decade, and that this figure
totaled approximately 160,000 in 2003 because of increased U.S. enforcement
efforts. The largest category of legal travel has consisted of Cuban Americans
visiting their families. In 2003, family travelers reportedly amounted to about
125,000 out of a total of 160,000 Americans visiting Cuba.8
With travel restrictions further tightened in 2004, especially the new limits on
family travel, the number of Americans traveling to Cuba declined in 2004. Travel
service providers maintain that the elimination of the people-to-people trips and
significant restrictions on family travel significantly reduced the number of
Americans visiting Cuba. Cuban officials predicted that the new travel restrictions
would cut travel by Cuban Americans by as much as 40%.9 In the second half of
2004, U.S. charter flights to Cuba took 50,558 passengers to Cuba, which represented
a 57% decline in the same period in 2003.10
OFAC Review of Travel and
Carrier Service Providers
OFAC is responsible for regulating the activities of more than 200 licensed
travel and carrier service providers (travel agencies, tour operators, and airline
companies) around the country, some two-thirds of which are concentrated in
Miami.11 The licensed service providers must keep records for each transaction,
including transactions between service providers. The record keeping must include
details about individual travelers and their circumstances sufficient to allow
identification and verification that the transactions comply with the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations (CACR) implemented by OFAC. Individuals traveling to Cuba
under the authorization of OFAC must maintain records of all travel transactions for
five years [pursuant to 31 CFR Parts 501.60l and 501.602].
The CACR spells out the requirements for travel service providers (TSP) and
carrier service providers (CSP) to put procedures in place to establish that each
customer is in full compliance with the regulations.12 The regulations require such
8 Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Report to the President, May 2004. pp. 28 and
36.
9 “Relatives Trip to Cuba Expected to Fall Sharply,” Miami Herald, June 5, 2004.
10 “Cuba: Country Report,” Economist Intelligence Unit, February 2005, p. 27.
11 OFAC also regulates the activities of companies that forward remittances to Cuban
according to the restrictions set forth in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. See U.S.
Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Authorized Providers of Air,
Travel, and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba
, May 5, 2004.
12 31 CFR 515.572. In addition, OFAC has a circular outlining responsibilities of travel and
carrier service providers for Cuba travel. See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of
(continued...)


CRS-13
providers to demonstrate that they require each customer to attest, in a signed
statement, to his or her qualification for authorized travel. The statement must
provide facts supporting the customer’s belief that he or she qualifies for travel to
Cuba according to the categories of travel set forth in the CACR.
As part of the compliance process, licensed travel agencies must provide details
about travelers to the air carriers prior to the air carriers accepting a reservation or
selling a seat on a flight. This information consists of the passenger’s full name,
mother’s maiden name, address, date of birth, passport number and country of
issuance, airport of departure from the United States, and whether travel is under a
general or specific license. The licensed air carrier in turn must provide detailed
information to OFAC in Washington by electronic mail 48 to 72 hours prior to
departure of the flight. This consists of 1) the information provided by the travel
service provider (TSP) on each authorized traveler; 2)U.S. departure and return dates;
and 3) the name of the TSP who arranged for the travel. Generally what happens is
that travelers fill out a travel affidavit with the TSP providing the information,
including what type of license they are traveling under, and the TSP then provides
information to the carrier service provider before a reservation is actually made.
Passengers on direct flights to Cuba need to fill out an OFAC Outbound
Declaration Card (entitled Travel to Cuba). Carrier Service Providers are required
to ensure that every passenger receives one of the cards as part of the check-in
procedure at the ticket counter assigned to the charter. CSPs must collect the
completed and signed cards before the passenger boards the plane, and must make
the completed cards available to the U.S. Customs Service inspector at the departure
gate for review. If no inspector is present or if the inspector returns the cards to the
CSP, then the cards must be forwarded to the OFAC-Miami office.
Enforcement of Cuba Travel Restrictions
Enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel has increased under the Bush
Administration. President Bush announced in a July 13, 2001 statement that he had
asked the Treasury Department to enhance and expand the enforcement capabilities
of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. The President noted the importance of
upholding and enforcing the law in order to prevent, among other things, “unlicensed
and excessive travel” and to ensure that humanitarian and cultural exchanges actually
reach pro-democracy activists in Cuba.13
There was a large increase in the number of Americans receiving enforcement
letters from OFAC for violating the Cuba travel restrictions in 2001. The
prosecution of embargo violators entails a range of measures from initial letters of
inquiry to actual penalties being imposed. OFAC issued 188 pre-penalty notices in
12 (...continued)
Foreign Assets Control, Circular 2001, Travel, Carrier and Remittance Forwarding Service
Provider Program
, September 2001.
13 White House, “Statement by President Bush on Cuba: Toward a Democratic Cuba,” July
13, 2001.


CRS-14
2000, while the number rose to 697 in 2001; the level dropped to 447 in 2002 and to
350 in 2003, reportedly because of the public attention to increased enforcement in
recent years.14 According to OFAC, typical penalties range from $3,000 to $7,500
but the majority of cases are settled for less15 Under the Trading with the Enemy Act,
the Secretary of the Treasury may impose civil fines up to $55,000 for violation of
the Cuban Assets Control Regulations.
Beginning in April 2003, OFAC began making available a regular listing of civil
penalties enforcement information for its sanctions programs, including violations
of the Cuba travel regulations.16 According to a Treasury Department spokesmen,
the information was being made available to make the process more transparent to
the public. Since April 2003, enforcement actions for the Cuba travel regulations
include penalties against such companies as Metso Minerals, Zim American Israeli
Shipping Company, Playboy Enterprises, Omega World Travel, Mr. Travel,
Havanatur & Travel Service, American Airlines, Cuba Paquetes, MRP Group Inc.,
Air Jamaica, Trek Tours (Rhode Island), Premiere Travel of Ohio, Hialeah Gardens
Immigration Agency, Only Believe Ministries (Ohio), the Salvation Army (Texas
Division), Beau Rivage Resorts Inc. (Mississippi), E & J Gallo Winery (California),
the Four Oaks Foundation (New York), and Pioneer Valley Travel (Massachusetts).
A number of other companies have received penalties for violating other aspects of
the Cuba embargo regulations. In addition, the listing shows that numerous
individuals have had penalties assessed or reached informal settlements for alleged
violations of the travel regulations. According to OFAC, to date in 2005 almost 500
individuals either have been assessed a penalty or reached an informal settlement for
violations of travel restrictions.
Many individuals who have received pre-penalty notices from OFAC have
requested administrative hearings, as provided for by law (Trading with the Enemy
Act). Several non-profit legal organizations, such as the New York-based Center for
Constitutional Rights, are representing clients who have received letters of inquiry
or pre-penalty notices from OFAC for traveling to Cuba. In late 2003, OFAC
contracted with other federal agencies for three administrative law judges to conduct
hearings on alleged violations of Cuba sanctions, most involving violations of travel
restrictions.
On October 10, 2003, President Bush instructed the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to enforce the trade and travel embargo more strictly. As a result,
inspections of passengers traveling to and from Cuba have been stepped up.
According to Asa Hutchinson, DHS Under Secretary for Border and Transportation
Security, in the first two months of increased inspections, some 600 violations were
detected, almost half involving passengers from Cuba carrying an excess of tobacco
and alcohol; 171 people were denied permission to travel to Cuba because they did
14 Tom Carter, “U.S. Clamping Down on Americans’ Visits to Havana,” Washington Times,
January 25, 2004.
15 “Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward
Cuba,”Federal News Service, October 2, 2003.
16 See OFAC’s website for information on civil enforcement actions: [http://www.treas.gov/
offices/enforcement/ofac/civpen/penalties/index.html].


CRS-15
not have the proper OFAC license, and 44 people arriving in the United States did
not have the proper licenses.17 In early February 2004, Secretary of the Treasury John
Snow maintained that OFAC had opened 264 cases for investigation of alleged travel
to Cuba since the President’s October announcement.18
In 2004, the Bush Administration moved to tighten enforcement of Cuba travel
restriction in several ways. In February and March 2004, the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control identified company 11companies in Cuba,
Argentina, the Bahamas, Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, and England (10 travel
companies and one gift forwarder), blocked their assets under U.S. jurisdiction, and
prohibited any transactions with these companies.19 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.20 In early May 2004, the President endorsed the recommendations of
Commission for Assistance to Free Cuba. These included increased inspections of
travelers and shipments to Cuba and an increase in both maritime surface patrols and
air sorties in the region by law enforcement agencies in order to locate and prosecute
pleasure boaters who travel to Cuba illegally.
In April 2005, OFAC cracked down on certain religious organizations
promoting licensed travel to Cuba and warned them not to abuse their license by
taking individuals not affiliated with the religious organizations. Press reports
indicate that OFAC also limited the number of people who can travel under the
auspices of these groups to 25 every three months.21 OFAC’s action were prompted
by reports that groups practicing the Afro-Cuban religion Santería had been taking
large groups to Cuba as a means of skirting U.S. travel restrictions.22
17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security. “Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson Touts Cuban
Enforcement Success,” Press Release, December 10, 2003.
18 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File,
“Treasury Secretary Cites Importance of U.S. Embargo on Cuba,” February 9, 2004.
19 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File,
“Treasury Dept. Identifies 10 Entities for Cuban Embargo Violations,” February 9, 2004,
and “U.S. Continues Crackdown on Illegal Travel to Cuba,” March 18, 2004.
20 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.
21 Oscar Corral, “Groups Warned to Obey Travel Limits,” Miami Herald, April 8, 2005
22 Oscar Corral, “Is Santería Used as Ploy to Skirt Travel Rules?,” Miami Herald, February
27, 2005


CRS-16
Arguments for Lifting Cuba Travel Restrictions
Those who argue in favor of lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba contend that
the travel ban hinders U.S. efforts to influence political and economic conditions in
Cuba. Supporters of a change in Cuba travel policy argue that U.S. support for
democracy in Latin America, a region that is now more democratic than at any time
in history, has been augmented by person-to-person contact and exchanges. The
exception to democracy in the region is Cuba, where the United States continues to
maintain a policy of isolation. They argue that the best way to realize change in Cuba
is to lift restrictions, allowing a flood of U.S. citizens to travel and engage in
conversations with average Cubans. They point to the influence of person-to-person
contact in Russia and Eastern European nations which they argue ultimately helped
lead to the fall of communism in the Soviet bloc. They maintain that restricting
travel by ordinary Americans prevents interaction and information exchanges with
ordinary Cubans, exchanges that can help break down the Cuban government’s tight
control and manipulation of news; that the current travel ban actually supports the
Cuban government in its efforts to restrict information provided to the Cuban people;
and that it in effect supports Castro’s totalitarian control over Cuba.
A second argument made by those who want to lift travel restrictions is that the
ban abridges the rights of ordinary Americans to travel. They argue that the U.S.
government should not be requiring Cuban Americans to apply for a license to travel
more than once a year to visit sick or dying family members. They contend that such
restrictions on the right to travel subvert the first amendment right of free speech.
Those in favor of lifting the travel ban also argue that U.S. citizens can travel
to other communist or authoritarian governments around the world, such as the
People’s Republic of China, Vietnam, Burma, and Iran. They point out that
Americans could travel to the Soviet Union before its breakup. Supporters of
changing travel policy toward Cuba argue that their proposals would still allow the
President to prohibit such travel in times of war or armed hostilities, or if there were
imminent danger to the health or safety of Americans. They argue that these
conditions do not exist with regard to Cuba, and point to a May 1998 Defense
Intelligence Agency report that concluded that “Cuba does not pose a significant
military threat to the U.S. or to other countries in the region.”23
Those arguing for lifting travel restrictions also point to human rights activists
in Cuba who themselves argue for the lifting of such sanctions. According to the
prominent Cuban human rights activist Elizardo Sanchez: “The more Americans on
the streets of Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open society in Cuba.”24
Supporters of lifting the travel ban maintain that such a move would not lift the
underlying U.S. embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba. They point
23 Defense Intelligence Agency. Report on Cuban Threat to U.S. National Security. May 6,
1998.
24 Congressional Record, July 25, 2001, p. H4599.


CRS-17
to the 1977-82 period when the travel ban was essentially lifted, but the overall
embargo remained in place.
Finally, some supporters of lifting the travel restrictions argue that the U.S.
economy would benefit from increased demand for air and cruise travel, which
reportedly would expand U.S. economic output. According to a report prepared for
the Center for International Policy, a policy group that advocates lifting the embargo,
U.S. economic output would expand by $1.18 - $1.61 billion, with the creation of
between 16,888 and 23,020 jobs if travel restrictions were lifted.25
Arguments for Maintaining
Cuba Travel Restrictions
Those favoring the continuation of current restrictions on travel to Cuba point
out that there are already significant provisions in U.S. law permitting Americans to
travel there for legitimate reasons that support the Cuban people and not the Cuban
government. They point out that thousands of Americans travel to Cuba legally
under the various provisions of the Cuban embargo regulations, many of whom are
Cuban Americans visiting family members. Other categories of travel allowed
include students, journalists, researchers, artists, musicians, and athletes.
A second argument made for maintaining current restrictions on travel to Cuba
is that lifting the travel ban entirely will open the floodgates to American tourist
travel that will support Castro’s rule by providing his government with millions in
tourist receipts. Advocates of restricting travel oppose any loosening that could
prolong the Castro regime by propping it up with increased income. In contrast to
those supporting tourist travel, they believe that continued travel restrictions will help
influence Cuba’s policy. They argue that since the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the loss of Soviet subsidies to Cuba, the travel and embargo regulations have
contributed to Castro’s decision to cut the military’s size and budget by half since
1989 and to introduce limited economic reforms. Lifting travel restrictions, they
argue, would eliminate the U.S. leverage on Cuba to enact further reforms.
Those favoring the maintenance of current travel restrictions argue that the
reality of the human rights situation dispels the notion that American tourists would
be engaging in exchanges with ordinary Cubans. They maintain that the thousands
of European, Canadian, and other tourists who travel to Cuba each year largely stay
in tourist hotels that are off limits to most Cubans and thus have no discernable effect
on the human rights situation in Cuba.
Some opposed to lifting travel restrictions argue that there should be tourist
travel as long as Cuba provides refuge to violent criminals who have escaped U.S.
justice. Reportedly more than 70 fugitives from U.S. justice are hiding out in Cuba,
25 The Impact on the U.S. Economy of Lifting Restrictions on Travel to Cuba, The Brattle
Group, Washington, D.C. Prepared by Dorothy Robyn, James D. Reitzes, and Bryan
Church. July 15, 2002.


CRS-18
including convicted murderer Joanne Chesimard, who killed a New Jersey state
trooper in 1973.
Finally, many opponents of legislation to lift the Cuba travel restrictions argue
that the authority to impose such restrictions is an important foreign policy tool for
the President. They point out that the President has the authority to restrict travel
when it is in the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and
has utilized that policy tool when needed. They point to current Treasury Department
regulations restricting travel to Libya and Iraq, as well as past instances of regulations
restricting travel to Vietnam and North Korea. With regard to Cuba, they point to the
1984 Supreme Court decision in the case of Regan v. Wald that upheld restrictions
on travel to Cuba imposed by the Reagan Administration.
Legislative Action and Initiatives
in the 106th Congress
The only action completed by the 106th Congress relating to Cuba travel
involved a tightening of travel restrictions. The final version of the FY2001
agriculture appropriations measure (P.L. 106-387, Title IX, Trade Sanctions Reform
and Export Enhancement Act of 2000) included a provision that restricts travel to
Cuba to those categories of non-tourist travel already allowed by the Treasury
Department regulations. Section 910 of the law provides that neither general nor
specific licenses for travel to Cuba can be provided for activities that do not fit into
the 12 categories expressly authorized in the Cuban Assets Control Regulations,
Section 515.560 (a) of Title 31, CFR, paragraphs (1) through (12).
As noted in the law, the Secretary of the Treasury may not authorize travel-
related transactions “for travel to, from, or within Cuba for “tourist activities,” which
are defined as any activity that is not expressly authorized in the 12 categories of the
regulations. The provision prevents the Administration from loosening the travel
restrictions to allow tourist travel. This, in effect, strengthens restrictions on travel
to Cuba and somewhat circumscribes the authority of OFAC to issue specific travel
licenses on a case-by-case basis under Section 515.560 (b) of Title 31, CFR. OFAC
in the past has utilized that section to provide specific licenses for activities that do
not fit neatly within the categories of travel set forth in 515.560 (a), including such
travel for medical evacuations of Americans legally in Cuba and for U.S. contractors
servicing the needs of the U.S. Interests Section. (Regulations implementing the
provision of the law were issued by OFAC on July 12, 2001.)
In other legislative action, the Senate considered the issue of travel to Cuba in
June 30, 1999 floor action on the FY2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill,
S. 1234. An amendment was introduced by Senator Christopher Dodd that would
have terminated regulations or prohibitions on travel to Cuba and on transactions
related to such travel in most instances.26 The Senate defeated the amendment by
26 The Dodd amendment allowed for travel restrictions to be imposed if the United States
(continued...)


CRS-19
tabling it in a 55-43 vote on June 30, 1999. On November 10, 1999, Senator Dodd
introduced identical language as S. 1919, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2000,
but no action was taken on the bill.
The House took up the issue of travel to Cuba when it considered H.R. 4871,
the Treasury Department appropriations bill, on July 20, 2000. A Sanford
amendment was approved (232-186) to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to
administer or enforce the Cuban Assets Control Regulations with respect to any
travel or travel-related transaction. Subsequently, the language of the amendment
was dropped from a new version of the FY2001 Treasury Department appropriations
bill, H.R. 4985, introduced on July 26. H.R. 4985 was appended to the conference
report on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill — H.R. 4516, H.Rept. 106-796
— in an attempt to bypass Senate debate on its version of the Treasury
appropriations bill, S. 2900. The Senate initially rejected this conference report on
September 20, 2000, by a vote of 28-69, but later agreed to the report, 58 -37, on
October 12. The House had agreed to the conference report earlier, on September 14,
2000, by a vote of 212 - 209.
Legislative Action and Initiatives
in the 107th Congress27
In the 107th Congress, while there were various measures introduced that would
have eliminated or eased restrictions on travel to Cuba, and while the House voted
in both the first and second sessions to prohibit spending to administer the travel
regulations, no legislative action was completed by the end of the second session.
First Session Action. During July 25, 2001 floor action on H.R. 2590, the
FY2002 Treasury Department appropriations bill, the House approved an amendment
that would prohibit spending for administering Treasury Department regulations
restricting travel to Cuba. H.Amdt. 241, offered by Representative Flake (which
amended H.Amdt. 240 offered by Representative Smith), would prohibit funding to
administer the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (administered by OFAC) with
respect to any travel or travel-related transaction. The amendment was approved by
a vote of 240 to 186, compared to a vote of 232-186 for a similar amendment in last
year’s Treasury Department appropriations bill.
The Senate version of H.R. 2590, approved September 19, 2001, did not include
any provision regarding U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba, and the provision was not
included in the House-Senate conference on the bill (H.Rept. 107-253). During
Senate floor debate, Senator Byron Dorgan noted that he had intended to offer an
26 (...continued)
is at war with Cuba, if armed hostilities are in progress, or when threats to physical safety
or public health exist. Under current law, the Secretary of State has the same authority to
restrict travel (22 USC 211a).
27 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 107th Congress, see CRS
Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress.


CRS-20
amendment on the issue, but that he decided not to because he did not want to slow
passage of the bill. He indicated that he would support the House provision during
conference, but ultimately, however, the House-Senate conference report on the bill
did not include the Cuba provision. In light of the changed congressional priorities
in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington,
conference negotiators reportedly did not want to slow passage of the bill with any
controversial provisions. The Bush Administration had threatened to veto the
Treasury bill if it included the Cuba travel provision.
Second Session Action. The Cuba travel issue received further
consideration in the second session of the 107th Congress. A bipartisan House Cuba
working group of 40 Representatives vowed as one of its goals to work for a lifting
of travel restrictions. On February 11, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s
Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government held a hearing on the issue,
featuring Administration and outside witnesses.
The travel issue was part of debate during consideration of the FY2003 Treasury
Department appropriations bill (H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State Colin
Powell and Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill said they would recommend that
the President veto legislation that includes a loosening of restrictions on travel to
Cuba (or a weakening of restrictions on private financing for U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba).28 The White House also stated that President Bush would veto
such legislation.29
In July 23, 2002 floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cuba
sanctions amendments, including one on the easing of travel restrictions offered by
Representative Jeff Flake. The House approved the Flake travel amendment
(H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of 262-167, that would provide that no funds could be used
to administer or enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to travel
to Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent the issuance of general or specific
licenses for travel to Cuba. Some observers raised the question 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.30
During consideration of H.R. 5120, the House also rejected two Cuba
amendments. A Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226,
would have prevented any funds in the bill from being used to implement,
administer, or enforce the overall economic embargo of Cuba, which includes travel.
A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551), rejected by a vote of 182-247, would have
28 U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, Washington File, “Bush
Administration Opposes Legislative Efforts to Amend Cuba Policy,” July 16, 2002.
29 White House, Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, July 24, 2002.
30 “House Approves Limits on Treasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade,
July 26, 2002.


CRS-21
provided that any limitation on the use of funds to administer or enforce regulations
restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related transactions would only apply after the
President certified to Congress that certain conditions were met regarding biological
weapons and terrorism.31 The rule for the bill’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept.
107-585), had provided that the Goss amendment would not be subject to
amendment.
The House subsequently passed H.R. 5120 on July 24, 2002, by a vote of 308-
121, with the three Cuba amendments, including the Flake Cuba travel amendment.
The Senate version of the Treasury Department appropriations measure, S.
2740, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2002
(S.Rept. 107-212), included a provision, in Section 516, that was similar, although
not identical, to the Flake amendment described above. It provided that no funds may
be used to enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to any travel or
travel-related transactions, but would not prevent OFAC from issuing general and
specific licenses for travel to Cuba. 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 to Cuba.
Congress did not complete action on the FY2003 Treasury Department
appropriations measure before the end of the 107th Congress, so action was deferred
until the 108th Congress.
Additional Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress. Several other
initiatives were introduced in the 107th Congress that would have eased U.S.
restrictions on travel to Cuba, but no action was taken on these measures.
! H.R. 5022 (Flake), introduced June 26, 2002, would have lifted all
restrictions on travel to Cuba.
! Several broad bills would have lifted all sanctions on trade, financial
transactions, and travel to Cuba: H.R. 174 (Serrano), the Cuban
Reconciliation Act, introduced January 3, 2001, and identical bills
S. 400 (Baucus) and H.R. 798 (Rangel), the Free Trade with Cuba
Act, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001, respectively.
! S. 1017 (Dodd) and H.R. 2138 (Serrano), the Bridges to the Cuban
People Act of 2001, introduced June 12, 2001, would, among other
provisions, have removed all restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S.
nationals or lawful permanent resident aliens.
! Several bills would, among other provisions, have repealed the
travel restrictions imposed in the 106th Congress by the Trade
31 For further information on the issues of biological weapons and terrorism as they relate
to Cuba, see CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for the 107th Congress, by Mark P.
Sullivan.


CRS-22
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
387, Title IX, Section 910). These include identical bills S. 402
(Baucus) and H.R. 797 (Rangel), the Cuban Humanitarian Trade Act
of 2001, introduced February 27 and 28, 2001; S. 171 (Dorgan),
introduced January 24, 2001; and S. 239 (Hagel), the Cuba Food and
Medicine Access Act of 2001, introduced February 1, 2001.
Legislative Action and Initiatives
in the 108th Congress32
In the 108th Congress, several FY2004 and FY2005 appropriations bills had
provisions that would have eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways, but
ultimately these provisions were not included in final appropriations measures. The
Administration had threatened to veto legislation if it contained provisions
weakening Cuba sanctions. In addition, several bills in the 108th Congress were
introduced that specifically would have lifted or eased restrictions on travel to Cuba,
but no action was taken on these measures.
First Session Action. Since action on FY2003 Treasury Department
appropriations was not completed before the end of the 107th Congress, the 108th
Congress faced early action on it and other unfinished FY2003 appropriations
measures. The final version of the FY2003 omnibus appropriations measure,
H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7), which included Treasury Department appropriations, did not
include provisions affecting restrictions on travel to Cuba. The White House had
threatened to veto the measure if it contained provisions weakening the embargo.
While the Senate version did not include the Senate Appropriations Committee
provision from the 107th Congress that would have eased travel restrictions by
prohibiting any funding for enforcing the Cuba travel regulations, it did include a
provision (contained in Division J, Section 124) that would have expedited action on
travel applications for travel by OFAC within 90 days of receipt. Ultimately,
however, the Senate provision was dropped in the conference report (H.Rept. 108-10)
on the omnibus measure.
Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2004 Transportation-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, filed November 25, 2003), which incorporated seven regular appropriations
acts, including Transportation-Treasury appropriations. The conference also dropped
two Cuba provisions from the House version of H.R. 2989 that would have eased
restrictions on remittances and on people-to-people educational exchanges. The
White House again threatened to veto any legislation that would weaken economic
sanctions against Cuba.
32 For a complete listing and discussion of all Cuba bills in the 108th Congress, see CRS
Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress.


CRS-23
The House provisions had been approved during September 9, 2003, House
floor consideration of the H.R. 2989: H.Amdt. 375 (Flake), approved by a vote of
227-188, would have prevented funds from enforcing travel restrictions (Section 745
of the House version); H.Amdt. 377 (Delahunt), approved by a vote of 222-196,
would have prevented funds from enforcing restrictions on remittances (Section 746);
and H.Amdt. 382 (Davis), approved by a vote of 246-173, would have prohibited
funds from being used to eliminate the travel category of people-to-people
educational exchanges (Section 749).
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 have prevented funds from being used to
administer or enforce restrictions on travel or travel-related transactions (Section 643
of the Senate version). A motion to table the Dorgan amendment was defeated by a
vote of 59-36. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 91-3. The only difference
between the Senate and House language was that the Dorgan amendment, as
amended by S.Amdt. 1901 (Craig), provided that the section would take effect one
day after enactment of the bill.
In other action, the conference on the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
P.L. 108-199 (H.R. 2673), also dropped a provision in the Senate version of the
FY2004 agriculture appropriations bill that would have allowed travel to Cuba under
a general license for travel related to the sale of agricultural and medical goods. On
July 17, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the
FY2004 agriculture appropriations bill, S. 1427, that included a provision (Section
760) allowing travel to Cuba under a general license (which does not require
applying to the Treasury Department) for travel related to the commercial sale of
agricultural and medical goods. The Senate included this provision when it approved
H.R. 2673 on November 6, 2003. The House-passed version of the bill, H.R. 2673,
had no such provision. At present, such travel to Cuba is allowed with OFAC’s
approval of a specific license. In early June 2003, the Treasury Department rejected
an application to travel to Cuba for organizers of a second U.S. food and agribusiness
fair in Havana.33 The first such trade fair, held in September 2002, featured some
288 exhibitors from more than 30 states and resulted in millions in U.S. agricultural
sales to Cuba.34
Second Session Action. Several FY2005 appropriations measures had
provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions, but these were dropped in the
FY2005 omnibus appropriations measure (H.R. 4818, H.Rept. 108-792).
The House-passed version of the FY2005 Commerce, Justice, and State
appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, approved July 8, 2004 (397-18), included a provision
(Section 801) that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement,
administer, or enforce recent amendments to the Cuba embargo regulations that
tightened restrictions on gift parcels and baggage taken by individuals for travel to
33 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Pulls Plug on Cuba Expo,” Miami Herald, June 18, 2003.
34 Nancy San Martin, “U.S. Official Dampens Trade-Show Enthusiasm with Talks of Cuban
Credit,” Miami Herald, September 29, 2002.


CRS-24
Cuba. The provision was added by a Flake amendment, H.Amdt. 647, approved by
a vote of 221-194 on July 7, 2004. The Senate version of the bill, S. 2809, as
reported out of committee, did not include such a provision.
Both the House-approved version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury
appropriations bill, H.R. 5025, and the Senate Appropriations Committee version of
the bill, S. 2806, had provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions in various
ways. In its statement of policy on H.R. 5025, the Administration indicated that the
President would veto the measure if it contained provisions weakening Cuba
sanctions.
The House-passed version of H.R. 5025 had three provisions that would have
eased Cuba sanctions. During floor consideration on September 21, 2004, by a vote
of 225-174, the House approved a Davis (of Florida) amendment (H.Amdt. 769),
which provided that no funds could be used to administer, implement, or enforce the
Bush Administration’s June 2004 tightening of restrictions on visiting relatives in
Cuba. On September 22, 2004, the House approved two additional Cuba
amendments by voice vote, a Waters amendment (H.Amdt. 770) that would have
prohibited funds from being used to implement any sanction imposed on private
commercial sales of agricultural commodities or medicine or medical supplies to
Cuba and a Lee amendment (H.Amdt. 771) that would have prohibited funds from
being used to implement, administer, or enforce the Bush Administration’s June 2004
tightening of restrictions on travel for educational activities. The House also rejected
a Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 772) on September 22, 2004, by a vote of 225-188
that would have more broadly prohibited funds from being used to implement,
administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba. During September 15, 2004
House floor consideration of H.R. 5025, Representative Jeff Flake announced his
intention not to offer an amendment, as he had for the past three years, that would
have prohibited funds from being used to administer or enforce restrictions on travel
or travel-related transactions.
The Senate version of the FY2005 Transportation/Treasury appropriations bill,
S. 2806, as reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-342)
on September 15, 2004, had a provision (Section 222) that would have prohibited
funds from administering or enforcing restrictions on Cuba travel or travel-related
transactions. That provision, which was proposed by Senator Byron Dorgan, was
unanimously approved by the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and
General Government on September 9, 2004.
The Senate version of the FY2005 Agriculture Appropriation bill, S. 2803, as
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 108-340), had a provision
(Section 776) that would have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate
regulations allowing for travel to Cuba under a “general license” when it was related
to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical products. The House-passed
version of the bill, H.R. 4766, had no such provision. In its statement of policy on
the bill, the Administration stated that the President would veto the measure if it
contained a provision weakening Cuba sanctions.
Additional Initiatives in the 108th Congress. Among other initiatives
introduced in the 108th Congress, but not acted upon, two bills would specifically


CRS-25
have lifted restrictions on travel to Cuba: S. 950 (Enzi), introduced April 30, 2003,
and H.R. 2071 (Flake), introduced May 13, 2003. H.R. 3422 (Serrano), introduced
October 30, 2003, would, among other provisions, have lifted restrictions on travel
to Cuba. Three broad legislative initiatives were introduced that would have lifted
all Cuba embargo restrictions, including those on travel: H.R. 188 (Serrano),
introduced January 7, 2003, S. 403 (Baucus), introduced February 13, 2003, and H.R.
1698 (Paul), introduced April 9, 2003. Another initiative, S. 2449 (Baucus)/H.R.
4457 (Otter), introduced respectively on May 19 and 20, 2004, would have required
yearly congressional approval for the renewal of trade and travel restrictions with
respect to Cuba. Finally, H.R. 4678 (Davis of Florida), introduced June 24, 2004, in
the aftermath of the President’s tightening of Cuba sanctions, would have barred
certain additional restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba.
Legislative Initiatives in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, on June 30, 2005, the House rejected three amendments
easing Cuba sanctions to H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing
and Urban Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act. The amendments failed during House floor consideration:
H.Amdt. 420 (Davis) on family travel, by a vote of 208-211; H.Amdt. 422 (Lee) on
educational travel, by a vote of 187-233; and H.Amdt. 424 (Rangel) on the overall
embargo, by a vote of 169-250. An additional amendment on religious travel,
H.Amdt. 421 (Flake), was withdrawn, and an amendment on family travel by
members of the U.S. military, H.Amdt. 419 (Flake), was ruled out of order for
constituting legislation in an appropriations bill. The introduction of H.Amdt. 419
was prompted by the case of a U.S. military member who served in Iraq, Sgt. Carlos
Lazo, who is prohibited from visiting his two sons in Cuba because he last visited
there in 2003.
During June 29, 2005, Senate consideration of H.R. 2361, the FY2006 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, the Senate rejected (60-35;
a two-thirds majority vote was required) a motion to suspend the rules with respect
to S.Amdt. 1059 (Dorgan), which would have allowed travel to Cuba under a general
license for the purpose of visiting a member of the person’s immediate family for
humanitarian reasons. The amendment was then ruled out of order. Its introduction
had also been prompted by the case of Sgt. Carlos Lazo who wants to visit his sons
in Cuba, one of whom is reportedly sick.
On June 15, 2005, the House rejected (210-216) H.Amdt. 270 (Flake) to H.R.
2862, the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. The amendment would have prohibited the use of funds to
implement, administer, or enforce June 2004 tightened restrictions on sending gift
parcels to Cuba. H.Amdt. 269 (McDermott), which would have prohibited the use
of funds in the bill to prosecute any individual for travel to Cuba, was offered but
subsequently withdrawn.
During April 6, 2005 Senate floor consideration of the FY2006 and FY2007
Foreign Affairs Authorization Act, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 281 (Baucus) and


CRS-26
a second-degree amendment, S.Amdt. 282 (Craig) that would facilitate the sale of
U.S. agricultural products to Cuba. The language of the amendments consists of the
provisions of S. 328 (Craig), the Agricultural Export Facilitation Act of 2005, which
includes a provision for a general license for travel transactions related to the
marketing and sale of agricultural products, as opposed to the current requirement of
a specific license for such travel transactions.
A number of other legislative initiatives have been introduced in the 109th
Congress that would ease restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Two bills
— S. 894 (Enzi) and H.R. 1814 (Flake) — would specifically lift overall restrictions
on travel to Cuba. H.R. 2617 (Davis) would prohibit any additional restrictions on
per diem allowances, family visits to Cuba, remittances, and accompanied baggage
beyond those that were in effect on June 15, 2004. H.R. 3064 (Lee) would prohibit
the use of funds available to the Department of the Treasury to implement regulations
from June 2004 that tightened restrictions on travel to Cuba for educational activities.
Two additional bills — H.R. 208 (Serrano) and H.R. 579 (Paul) — would lift the
overall embargo on trade and financial transactions with Cuba, including restrictions
on travel and remittances to Cuba. Finally, two identical bills dealing with easing
restrictions on exporting agricultural commodities to Cuba — H.R. 719 (Moran of
Kansas) and S. 328 (Craig) — include provisions that provide for a general license
for travel transactions related to the marketing and sale of agricultural products, as
opposed to the current requirement of a specific license for such travel transactions.