ȱ
ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
Š›”ȱǯȱž••’ŸŠ—ȱ
™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱŠ’—ȱ–Ž›’ŒŠ—ȱŠ’›œȱ
Ž‹›žŠ›¢ȱŘśǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
   ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ
ŚŖŗşřȱ
ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
ž––Š›¢ȱ
Cuba, which remains a hard-line communist state with a poor record on human rights,
commemorated the 50th anniversary of its revolution on January 1, 2009. Cuba’s political
succession from the long-ruling Fidel Castro to his brother Raúl in 2006 was characterized by a
remarkable degree of stability. Fidel stepped down from power temporarily in July 2006 because
of health reasons, and Raúl assumed provisional control of the government until February 2008,
when he officially became President. After Raúl Castro officially assumed the presidency, his
government announced a series of economic changes that included lifting restrictions on the sale
of some electronic consumer products and cell phones. A major reform effort has also focused on
the agriculture sector in an effort to boost food production. While additional economic changes
under Raúl Castro are likely, there was disappointment that further reforms were not forthcoming
in the second half of 2008. The economy was hard hit by a series of hurricanes and storms from
August to November 2008 that caused some $10 billion in damages, and the current global
financial crisis is causing further strains on the economy. Few observers expect that there will be
any change to the government’s tight control over the political system, which is backed up by a
strong security apparatus.
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted largely of isolating the communist
nation through economic sanctions. The Bush Administration tightened sanctions significantly in
2004 through increased restrictions on travel to Cuba, especially family travel. A second U.S.
policy component over the years has consisted of support measures for the Cuban people,
including private humanitarian donations, U.S.-sponsored radio and television broadcasting to
Cuba (Radio and TV Marti), and support for human rights and democracy on the island. The Bush
Administration significantly increased support for Cuba democracy funding in recent years.
As in past years, the main issue for U.S. policy toward Cuba in the 111th Congress will likely be
how best to support political and economic change in Cuba. In light of Fidel Castro’s departure as
head of government, many observers have called for a re-examination of U.S. policy toward
Cuba. In this new context, two broad policy approaches have been advanced: a status-quo or a
stay the course approach that would maintain the U.S. dual-track policy of isolating the Cuban
government while providing support to the Cuban people; and an approach aimed at changing
attitudes within the Cuban government and Cuban society through increased contact and
engagement. President Barack Obama vowed during the electoral campaign to change U.S. policy
by allowing unlimited family travel and remittances to Cuba, although he also pledged to
maintain the embargo as a source of leverage to bring about change in Cuba.
Over the past several years, various legislative initiatives have been introduced to ease U.S.
economic sanctions on Cuba, but none of these have been enacted. In the 111th Congress, H.R.
1105, the FY2009 omnibus appropriations bill has three provisions that would ease U.S. sanctions
on family travel, travel for the marketing of agricultural and medical goods, and payment terms
for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. Other initiatives that would ease sanctions include H.R. 188
(overall embargo), H.R. 874/S. 428 (travel), and H.R. 332 (educational travel).
This report tracks developments in U.S. policy toward Cuba and legislative initiatives in the 111th
Congress. Also see CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances,
and CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues.

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
˜—Ž—œȱ
Recent Developments...................................................................................................................... 1
Political Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 4
Background to the Succession .................................................................................................. 6
Human Rights............................................................................................................................ 7
Overview............................................................................................................................. 7
Varela Project .................................................................................................................... 10
Economic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 10
Economic Changes Under Raúl .............................................................................................. 12
Cuba’s Foreign Policy ................................................................................................................... 13
U.S. Policy Toward Cuba .............................................................................................................. 14
Policy Overview...................................................................................................................... 14
Debate on the Direction of U.S. Policy................................................................................... 15
Clinton Administration’s Easing of Sanctions ........................................................................ 16
Bush Administration Policy .................................................................................................... 17
Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba ...................................................................... 17
U.S. Reaction to Cuba’s Political Succession ................................................................... 19
Obama Administration Policy ................................................................................................. 21
Issues in U.S.-Cuban Relations ..................................................................................................... 21
Aftermath of 2008 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms ............................................................... 21
Legislative Initiatives........................................................................................................ 23
Restrictions on Travel and Remittances .................................................................................. 23
Legislative Initiatives........................................................................................................ 25
Agricultural Exports and Sanctions......................................................................................... 26
Legislative Initiatives........................................................................................................ 28
Trademark Sanction ................................................................................................................ 29
Offshore Oil Sector Development........................................................................................... 30
Drug Interdiction Cooperation ................................................................................................ 31
Legislative Initiatives........................................................................................................ 32
Cuba and Terrorism................................................................................................................. 33
Cuba as the Victim of Terrorism ....................................................................................... 34
U.S. Funding to Support Democracy and Human Rights ....................................................... 35
Oversight of U.S. Democracy Assistance to Cuba............................................................ 37
Radio and TV Marti ................................................................................................................ 38
Controversies .................................................................................................................... 39
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 41
Migration Issues ...................................................................................................................... 42
1994 and 1995 Migration Accords.................................................................................... 42
Coast Guard Interdictions ................................................................................................. 42
Migration Talks ................................................................................................................. 43
Guantanamo Naval Base ......................................................................................................... 44
Legislative Initiatives in the 111th Congress.................................................................................. 45
Legislation in the 110th Congress .................................................................................................. 47
Approved Measures ................................................................................................................ 47
Additional Considered Measures with Cuba Provisions......................................................... 48
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
For Additional Reading ................................................................................................................. 50
Active CRS Reports ................................................................................................................ 50
Archived CRS Reports............................................................................................................ 51

’ž›Žœȱ
Figure 1. Map of Cuba .................................................................................................................... 3

˜—ŠŒœȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 52

˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
ŽŒŽ—ȱŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—œȱ
On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, was introduced with
three provisions that would ease U.S. sanctions on Cuba for family travel, travel related to the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical exports, and payment terms for U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba. (See “Legislative Initiatives in the 111th Congress” below.)
On February 2, 2009, the independent Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National
Reconciliation (CCDHRN) documented at least 205 political prisoners in Cuba, down from 234
in January 2008. The Commission maintains that the government has resorted to short-term
arbitrary detentions to target suspected dissidents, with more than 1,500 such detentions in 2008.
(See “Human Rights” below.)
On January 22, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report citing
concerns with Radio and TV Martí’s adherence to relevant laws and standards, and maintaining
that its audience is small despite its broadcasts to Cuba through multiple methods. (U.S. GAO,
“Broadcasting to Cuba, Action Are Needed to Improve Strategy and Operations, GAO-09-127.
January 22, 2009, available at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-127)
On January 22, 2009, Fidel Castro stated that he had reduced the number of his published essays
(“Reflections of the Commander”) so as not to interfere with the authority of party or government
officials, and insisted that they should not feel bound by his occasional essays or even his state of
health or death. Castro also maintained that he does not expect to be in such a position to meditate
and write about events when Obama’s first term has ended. (“Text of Fidel Castro’s Online
Essay,” Associated Press Newswires, January 22, 2009)
On January 15, 2009, during her Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing for
Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton reiterated President-elect Obama’s pledge to lift
restrictions on family travel and remittances as well as his position that it is not time to lift the
embargo since it provides an important source of leverage for further change in Cuba. Clinton
also responded to written questions for the record that the new Administration expected to
undertake a review of U.S. policy toward Cuba. (See “Obama Administration Policy” below.)
On January 15, 2009, Cuba released Varela Project activist Reynaldo Labrada Peña from prison
following the completion of his six-year sentence. Peña was one of the “group of 75” political
prisoners who have been incarcerated since 2003. With Peña’s release, 54 of the “group of 75”
remain in prison. Overall, there are more than 200 political prisoners in Cuba. (See “Human
Rights” below.)
On January 1, 2009, Cuba celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution.
On December 17, 2008, Cuban President Raúl Castro offered to exchange some imprisoned
Cuban political dissidents for five Cubans imprisoned in the United States since 2001 for
espionage. The State Department rejected the offer, insisting that the jailed dissidents in Cuba
should be released immediately without any conditions.
On December 10, 2008, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2009
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, H.R. 7323, with several
provisions that would have eased restrictions on the sale of U.S. agricultural exports and family
travel to Cuba. No final action was taken on the measure.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
On November 26, 2008, Cuban President Raúl Castro stated in an interview that he would be
willing to meet with President-elect Barack Obama, and suggested the U.S. Naval Base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a location.
On November 24, 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a second report
examining USAID’s Cuba democracy program. While GAO lauded the efforts taken by USAID
to improve oversight and address problems with the program, it also maintained that USAID
needed to hire more staff to implement monitoring activities, and that it needed to periodically
assess the program’s efforts regarding grantees’ adherence to internal controls, procurement
practices, and compliance with laws and regulations. (U.S. GAO, Foreign Assistance: Continued
Efforts Needed to Strengthen USAID’s Oversight of U.S. Democracy Assistance for Cuba
, GAO-
09-165, November 2008.)
On November 8, 2008, Hurricane Paloma struck Cuba devastating the town of Santa Cruz del
Sur. Raúl Castro stated that overall damages from the series of hurricanes and tropical storm since
August amounted to some $10 billion.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řȱ


ȱ
Figure 1. Map of Cuba

Source: Adapted by CRS from Magellan Geographix

Ȭřȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
˜•’’ŒŠ•ȱ˜—’’˜—œȱ
Raúl Castro officially became Cuba’s President on February 24, 2008. On that day, Cuba’s
legislature selected him as President of the 31-member Council of State, a position that officially
made him Cuba’s head of government and state. Most observers expected this since he already
had been heading the Cuban government on a provisional basis since July 2006 when his brother
Fidel Castro, Cuba’s long-ruling communist leader, stepped down as President because of poor
health.1
For many years, Raúl, as First Vice President of the Council of State and the Council of
Ministers, had been the officially designated successor and was slated to become chief of state
with Fidel’s departure. Raúl also had served as Minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces
(FAR) since the beginning of the Cuban Revolution. When Fidel stepped down from power in
late July 2006 because of poor health, he signed a proclamation that ceded political power to Raúl
on a provisional basis, including the positions of First Secretary of the Cuban Communist Party
(PCC), Commander in Chief of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR), and President of the
Council of State. Despite the change in government in February 2008, Fidel still holds the official
title of First Secretary of the PCC.
While it was not a surprise to observers for Raúl to succeed his brother Fidel as head of
government, the selection of José Ramón Machado Ventura as the Council of State’s First Vice
President was a surprise. A physician by training, Machado is 77 years old, and is part of the older
generation of so-called históricos of the 1959 Cuban revolution. He has been described as a hard-
line communist party ideologue, and reportedly has been a close friend and confident of Raul for
many years.2 Machado’s position is significant because it makes him the official successor to
Raúl, according to the Cuban Constitution. Many observers had expected that Carlos Lage, one of
five other Vice Presidents on the Council of State, would have been chosen as First Vice
President. He was responsible for Cuba’s economic reforms in the 1990s, and at 56 years of age,
represents a younger generation of Cuban leaders. While not rising to First Vice President, Lage
nevertheless retained his position as a Vice President on the Council of State, and will continue to
serve as the Council’s Secretary.
Several key military officers and confidants of Raúl also became members of the Council,
increasing the role of the military in the government. General Julio Casas Regueiro, 72 years of
age, who already was on the Council, became one of its five vice presidents. Most significantly,
Casas, who had been first vice minister in the FAR, was selected by Raúl as the country’s new
Minister of the FAR, officially replacing Raúl in that position. Casas also is chairman of GAESA
(Grupo de Administracion Empresarial, S.A.), the Cuban military’s holding company for its
extensive business operations. Two other military appointments to the Council were Gen. Alvaro
López Miera, the army’s chief of staff, and Gen. Leopoldo Cintra Frías, who commanded the
Western army, one of Cuba’s three military regions.3

1 For more on Cuba’s political succession, see CRS Report RS22742, Cuba's Political Succession: From Fidel to Raul
Castro
, by Mark P. Sullivan.
2 Daniel Dombey, Richard Lapper, and Andrew Ward, “A Family Business, Cuban-Americans Look Beyond the
Havana Handover,” Financial Times, February 27, 2008.
3 Pablo Bachelet, “New Cuban Leader Adds Military Loyalists to Team,” Miami Herald, February 25, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Since Fidel stepped down from power in 2006, Cuba’s political succession from Fidel to Raúl
Castro has been characterized by a remarkable degree of stability. Although initially there were
not any significant economic changes under Raúl, there were signs that changes could be coming.
In a July 2007 speech, Raúl maintained that structural changes were needed in the Cuban
economy in order to increase efficiency and production. In his first speech as President in
February 2008, Raúl promised to make the government smaller and more efficient, to review the
potential revaluation of the Cuban peso, and to eliminate excessive bans and regulations that curb
productivity.4 Since March 2008, the government has implemented a number of economic
changes that from the outside might not seem significant, but are noteworthy policy changes for a
government that has heretofore followed a centralized communist economic model. (See
“Economic Changes Under Raúl” below.)
While additional economic changes under Raúl Castro are likely, few expect there will be any
change to the government’s tight control over the political system, which is backed up by a strong
security apparatus. Some observers point to the reduced number of political prisoners, from 283
at the end of 2006 to around 219 in mid-2008, as evidence of a lessening of repression, but
dissidents maintain that the overall situation has not improved. Some observers contend that if the
new government of Raúl Castro becomes more confident of ensuring social stability and does not
feel threatened, it could move to soften its hard repression, but for now the government is
continuing its harsh treatment of the opposition. The selection of José Ramón Machado as First
Vice President also appears to be a clear indication that the Cuban government has no intention of
easing tight control over the political system.
In early 2009, there were numerous press reports about a setback in Fidel Castro’s health, but by
late January 2009 new reports and photos of Castro with visiting Argentine President Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner dispelled rumors that he was on his deathbed. Fidel did note in one of his
published essays (“Reflections of the Commander”) on January 22, 2009, that he had reduced the
number of essays so as not to interfere with the authority of party or government officials, and
insisted that they should not feel bound by his occasional writings or even his state of health or
death. Castro also maintained that does not expect to be in such a position to meditate or write
about events when Obama’s first term has ended.5
In late April 2008, Raúl announced that the PCC’s sixth congress would be held at the end of
2009 (the last was held in 1997). Some analysts believe that additional policy changes will
become evident, with a more invigorated role for the party. Some observers speculate that Fidel
Castro could officially be replaced as the head of the party at that time, and it is likely that some
of the PCC’s 25-member Political Bureau (Politburo) will also be replaced.
Some analysts maintain that once Fidel is gone, hardliners in Cuba’s political system will have a
more difficult time holding back the advance of needed economic reforms.6 Some maintain that
Raúl will be liberated to move more quickly to usher in needed economic reforms, although few
observers believe that the Cuban leader will take any actions that could threaten the stability of
the communist government. Some observers also do not expect Raúl Castro to serve another term

4 “Cuba: Full Text of Raúl Castro’s National Assembly Address,” Cubavisión, Havana (as translated by Open Source
Center) February 24, 2008.
5 "Text of Fidel Castro's Online Essay," Associated Press Newswires, January 22, 2009.
6 Frances Robles, “Raúl Castro May Usher in More Economic Reforms,” Miami Herald, January 15, 2009.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
as President, and believe that the government will pass to a younger generation after the next
National Assembly election and selection of a new President in early 2013.
ŠŒ”›˜ž—ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱžŒŒŽœœ’˜—ȱ
Until Fidel stepped down in 2006, he had ruled the island nation since the 1959 Cuban
Revolution, which ousted the corrupt government of Fulgencio Batista. In April 1961, Castro
stated 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 PCC as the leading force in state and society, with power centered in a
Political Bureau headed by Fidel Castro. 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 Raúl Castro as the party’s first and second secretaries.
Cuba’s Constitution also outlines national, provincial, and local governmental structures.
Legislative authority is vested in a National Assembly of People’s Power that meets twice
annually for brief periods. When the Assembly is not in session, a Council of State, elected by the
Assembly, acts on its behalf. According to Cuba’s Constitution, the President of the Council of
State is the country’s head of state and government. Executive power in Cuba is vested in a
Council of Ministers, also headed by the country’s head of state and government, i.e. the
President of the Council of State. From the promulgation of the 1976 Constitution until February
24, 2008, Fidel served as served as head of state and government through his position as President
of the Council of State.
Although National Assembly members were directly elected for the first time in February 1993,
only a single slate of candidates was offered. 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 contrast, municipal elections at the local level are competitive, with from two to
eight candidates. To be elected, the candidate must receive more than half of the votes cast. As a
result, runoff elections between the two top candidates are common.
National Assembly elections were held on January 20, 2008 (along with elections for 1,201
delegates to 14 provincial assemblies), and Fidel Castro was once again among the candidates
elected to the now 614-member legislative body. As in the past, voters were only offered a single
slate of candidates.
On February 24, 2008, the new Assembly was scheduled to select from among its ranks the
members of the Council of State and its President. Many observers speculated that because of his
poor health, Fidel would choose not be re-elected as President of the Council of State, which
would officially confirm his departure from heading the Cuban government. Statements from
Castro himself in December 2007 hinted at his potential retirement. That proved true on February
19, 2008, when Fidel announced that he would not accept the position as President of the Council
of State, essentially confirming his departure as titular head of the Cuban government.
Before Fidel stepped down from power in July 2006 for health reasons, observers discerned
several potential scenarios for Cuba’s future after Fidel. These fit into three broad categories: the
continuation of a communist government; a military government; or some type of democratic
government, whether it be a democratic transition or fully democratic government. According to
most observers, the most likely scenario, at least in the short term, was the continuation of the
regime under the leadership of Raúl. This was likely for a variety of reasons, but especially
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Ŝȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
because of Raúl’s designation by Fidel as successor in the party and his position as leader of the
FAR. The FAR has been in control of the government’s security apparatus since 1989 and has
played an increasing role in Cuba’s economy through the ownership of numerous business
enterprises. The scenario of a military-led government was viewed by some observers as a
possibility only if a successor communist government failed because of divisiveness among
leaders or political instability. For many observers, the least likely scenario upon Fidel’s death or
departure was a democratic transition government. With a strong totalitarian security apparatus,
the Castro government successfully impeded the development of independent civil society, with
only a small and tightly regulated private sector, no independent labor movement, and no unified
political opposition.7
ž–Š—ȱ’‘œȱ
ŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ
Cuba has a poor record on human rights, with the government sharply restricting freedoms 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 January 1998 visit of Pope John Paul II, government attacks against human
rights activists and other dissidents have continued since that time. The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights maintains in its 2007 annual human rights report that the Cuban
government’s “restrictions on political rights, freedom of expression, and dissemination of ideas
have created, over a period of decades, a situation of permanent and systematic violations of the
fundamental rights of Cuban citizens.”8
According to the State Department’s human rights report for 2007, issued in March 2008, the
Cuban government continued to commit numerous serious abuses during the year. Among the
human rights problems cited in the State Department report were arbitrary arrest and detention of
human rights advocates and members of independent professional organizations; harassment,
beatings, and threats against political opponents by government-recruited mobs, police, and state
security officials; beatings and abuse of detainees and prisoners (which led to the death of two
prisoners in 2007); denial of fair trial; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, including
denial of medical care; and interference with privacy, including pervasive monitoring of private
communications. As noted in the report, the government tightly controlled Internet access, with
citizens only accessing it through government-approved institutions or through a few Internet
facilities offered by foreign diplomatic offices. The government reviewed and censored e-mail,
and forbade attachments. (See the full State Department human rights report on Cuba, available at
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100635.htm.)
In March 2003, the government conducted a severe crackdown and imprisoned 75 democracy
activists, including independent journalists and librarians and leaders of independent labor unions

7 For further discussion of potential Cuban political scenarios in the aftermath of Fidel Castro’s stepping down from
power in 2006 because of poor health, see CRS Report RL33622, Cuba's Future Political Scenarios and U.S. Policy
Approaches
, by Mark P. Sullivan.
8 Organization of American States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, “Annual Report of the IACHR
2007,” December 29, 2007, “Chapter IV, Cuba” available at http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2007eng/Chap.4b.htm.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŝȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
and opposition parties. At present, 54 of the “group of 75” political prisoners remain incarcerated.
On January 15, 2009, one of the detainees, Reynaldo Labrada Pena who had worked with the
Varela Project, was released from prison after completing his sentence. In February 2008, Cuba
released four political prisoners—union activist Pedro Pablo Alvarez Ramos, human rights
activist Omar Pernet Hernández, and journalists Jose Gabriel Ramón Castillo and Alejandro
González Raga—but sent them into forced exile to Spain. Prior to that, Hector Palacios was
released for health reasons in December 2006.
For 2008, the independent Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation
(CCDHRN) documented at least 205 political prisoners, down from 234 in January 2008. The
number also reflected the continued decline from previous years when the Commission estimated
at least 283 prisoners at the beginning of 2007 and 333 at the beginning of 2006. The
Commission maintains, however, that the government has resorted to short-term arbitrary
detentions to target suspected dissidents, with more than 1,500 such detentions in 2008.9
Despite the reduction in the number of prisoners, human rights activists maintain that the overall
situation has not improved. Cuban human rights activist Elizardo Sánchez, the head of the
CCDHRN, asserts that the government is still repressing dissidents, with threats, police searches
of people’s homes, interrogations, and short detentions. Sánchez asserts that the police state is
still in force in Cuba, reflected in almost every aspect of national life.10
In late February 2008, Cuba signed two U.N. human rights treaties: the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights. Some considered this a positive step, but others stressed that it remains to be seen whether
the Cuban government will take action to guarantee civil and political freedoms.11 One significant
step taken by the government in late March 2008 was the lifting of a ban on Cubans staying at
tourist hotels. Although few Cubans will be able to afford the cost of staying in such hotels, the
move is symbolically significant and ends the practices of what critics had dubbed “tourism
apartheid.” On the other hand, prior to the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 2008, up to a dozen Cuban human rights activists
reportedly were detained in order to prevent them from attending planned events.12
In April 2003, a human rights group known as the Ladies in White (Damas de Blanco) was
formed by the wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunts of the members of the “group of 75”
dissidents arrested a month earlier in Cuba’s human rights crackdown.13 The group conducts
peaceful protests calling for the unconditional release of political prisoners. Dressed in white, its
members attend Mass each Sunday at St. Rita’s church in Havana and then walk silently through
the streets to a nearby park. On April 21, 2008, ten members of the Ladies in White were
physically removed from a park near the Plaza of the Revolution in Havana when they demanded
the release of their husbands and the other members of the “group of 75” still imprisoned.

9 Comision Cubana de Derechos Humanos y Reconciliacion Nacional, “Cuba en el año 2009: la situacíon de derechos
civiles, políticos y económicos,” February 2, 2009.
10 Anita Snow, “Cuban Rights Group: Political Prisoners Down, But Brief Detentions of Activists Up,” Associated
Press Newswires
, February 2, 2009; “Cuba Has Fewer Political Prisoners, Report Says,” Reuters News, February 2,
2009; and Isabel Sanchez, “Cuba’s Raúl Castro Marks 100 Days in Power,” Agence France-Presse, June 2, 2008.
11 James C. McKinley, Jr, “Cuban Signs Rights Pacts That It Long Had Fought,” New York Times, March 1, 2008.
12 Frances Robles, "Cuban Police Are Detaining Activists Prior to Human Rights Day," Miami Herald, December 11,
2008.
13 The website of the Damas de Blanco is available at http://www.damasdeblanco.com/.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Şȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ

Although Cuban authorities continue to stifle dissent and repress freedoms, pro-democracy and
human rights activists continue to call attention to Cuba’s poor human rights record, and many
have been recognized by the international community for their efforts. In October 2005, The
Ladies in White group noted above received the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought from the
European Parliament.
In December 2006, independent Cuban journalist Guillermo Fariñas Hernández received the 2006
Cyber Dissident award from the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. Fariñas went on a seven-
month hunger strike in 2006, demanding broader Internet access for Cubans.
In November 2007, President Bush awarded Cuban dissident Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet with the
Presidential Medal of Freedom. Biscet, who has spent most of the last eight years in jail, was
sentenced in 2003 to 25 years in prison. Legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress in
March 2008—H.R. 5627 (Diaz-Balart, Lincoln) and S. 2777 (Martinez)—to award the
congressional gold medal to Biscet, although no action was taken on the measures.
Since late 2007, Cuban Internet blogger Yoaní Sánchez has received considerable international
attention for her website, Generación Y, that includes commentary critical of the Cuban
government. In May 2008, Sánchez was awarded Spain’s Ortega y Gasset award for digital
journalism, but the Cuban government did not provide her with an exit permit to accept the
award. (Sánchez’s website is available at http://www.desdecuba.com/generaciony/).
In late 2008, two international press rights groups gave awards to two Cuban independent
journalists who have been imprisoned since 2003. In November 2008, the New York-based
Committee for the Protection of Journalists selected Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez as a recipient of its
international press freedom award, while in early December 2008, Reporters Without Borders
awarded Ricardo González Alfonso its journalist of the year award. While in prison, Gutiérrez
wrote a memoir that he managed to smuggle out of prison one page at a time. Before his
imprisonment, González had started an association to improve independent journalism. As of
December 2008, 23 journalists were imprisoned in Cuba.14
On December 17, 2008, Cuban President Raúl Castro offered to exchange some imprisoned
Cuban political dissidents for five Cubans imprisoned in the United States since 2001 for
espionage. The five Cubans are serving sentences ranging from 15 years to life. Cuba’s National
Assembly had dubbed the so-called Cuban Five as “Heroes of the Republic,” and the Cuban
government has called for their return to Cuba. In response to Raúl Castro’s offer, the State
Department rejected the offer, insisting that the jailed dissidents in Cuba should be released
immediately without any conditions.15

14 Frances Robles, "Jailed Cuban Journalist Wins Prize," Miami Herald, December 5, 2008; and “Cuba’s Repression,”
Miami Herald, November 24, 2008.
15 Marco Sibaja, "Raul Castro Offers To Free Dissidents in Exchange for Alleged Cuban Spies Jailed in U.S.,"
Associated Press Newswires, December 18, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
şȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Š›Ž•Šȱ›˜“ŽŒȱ
Named for the 19th century priest, Felix Varela, who advocated independence from Spain and the
abolition of slavery, the Varela Project has collected thousands of signatures supporting a national
plebiscite for political reform in accordance with a provision of the Cuban Constitution. The
referendum, if granted, 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 Payá, who heads the Christian Liberation
Movement.16
In May 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.”17 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 2003 human
rights crackdown, which included the arrest of 21 Project activists. In October 2003, Oswaldo
Payá delivered more than 14,000 signatures to Cuba’s National Assembly, again requesting a
referendum on democratic reforms. More recently, in October 2008, Varela Project activists
launched a third campaign to collect signatures.
Œ˜—˜–’Œȱ˜—’’˜—œȱ
After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Russian financial assistance to Cuba practically
ended, and as a result, Cuba experienced severe economic deterioration from 1989-1993, with
estimates of economic decline ranging from 35-50%. Since then, however, there has been
considerable improvement. From 1994-2000, as Cuba moved forward with some limited market-
oriented economic reforms, economic growth averaged 3.7% annually.
Economic growth was strong in the 2005-2007 period, registering an impressive 11.2% in 2005
(despite widespread damage caused by Hurricanes Dennis and Wilma), 12.1% in 2006, and 7.3%
in 2007.18 The economy benefitted from the growth of the tourism, nickel, and oil sectors, and
support from Venezuela and China in terms of investment commitments and credit lines. Cuba
benefits from a preferential oil agreement with Venezuela, which provides Cuba with more than
90,000 barrels of oil a day. Some observers maintain that Venezuela’s oil subsidies amounted to
more than $3 billion a year in 2006.19 Venezuela also helped Cuba upgrade an oil refinery in
Cienfuegos, which was inaugurated in 2007.
In 2008, economic growth slowed to an estimated 4.3%. This was prompted by several problems,
including the declining price of nickel, which accounts for a major share of Cuba’s exports, the

16 For further information, see the website of Oswaldo Payá, at http://www.oswaldopaya.org/es/.
17 “Text of Jimmy Carter’s Speech, Broadcast Live to Cuban People,” Associated Press, May 15, 2002.
18 "Cuba Country Report," Economist Intelligence Unit, February 2009.
19 Frances Robles, “Venezuelan Oil Subsidies to Cuba Balloon,” Miami Herald, August 2, 2007.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŖȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
rising cost of food imports, and the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike,
particularly in the agricultural sectors. The current global financial crisis is likely to have an
effect on the Cuban economy because of lower world prices for nickel and a reduction in tourism
from Canada and Europe. Cuba’s reliance on Venezuela for oil could also be threatened as
Venezuela faces a difficult domestic fiscal situation due to the rapid decline in the price of oil.
The forecast for 2009 is for a slower economic growth rate of 3.9%.20
Over the years, Cuba has expressed pride for the nation’s accomplishments in health and
education. According to the U.N. Development Program’s 2007/2008 Human Development
Report,
life expectancy in Cuba in 2005 was 77.7 years, adult literacy was estimated at almost
100%, and the infant mortality rate was 6 per 1,000 live births, the lowest rate in Latin America.
For 2006 and 2007, Cuba has boasted an infant mortality rate of 5.3.21
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. Beginning in 1993, Cubans were
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. Also in 1993,
the government divided large state farms into smaller, more autonomous, agricultural
cooperatives (Basic Units of Cooperative Production, UBPCs). It opened agricultural markets in
1994, where farmers could sell part of their produce on the open market, and it also permitted
artisan markets for the sale of handicrafts. In 1995, the government allowed private food catering,
including home restaurants (paladares), in effect legalizing activities that were already taking
place), and approved a new foreign investment law that allows fully owned investments by
foreigners in all sectors of the economy with the exception of defense, health, and education. In
1996, it authorized the establishment of free trade zones with tariff reductions typical of such
zones. In 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.
After Cuba began to recover from its economic decline, the government began to backtrack on
some of its reform efforts. Regulations and new taxes made it extremely difficult for many of the
nation’s self-employed. Some home restaurants were forced to close because of the new
regulations. In 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 viewed the measure
as an effort to turn back the clock on economic reform measures.22 Also in 2004, Fidel Castro
announced that U.S. dollars no longer would be used in entities that at the time accepted dollars
(such as stores, restaurants, and hotels). Instead, dollars had to be exchanged for “convertible
pesos,” with a 10% surcharge for the exchange. Dollar bank accounts are still allowed, but
Cubans are not able to deposit new dollars into the accounts. Beginning in April 2005, convertible
pesos were no longer on par with the U.S. dollar, but instead were linked to a basket of foreign
currencies. This reduces the value of dollar remittances sent to Cuba and provides more hard
currency to the Cuban government.23

20 "Cuba Country Report," Economist Intelligence Unit, February 2009.
21 “Infant Mortality, 5.3 in 2007!” Granma Internacional, January 4, 2008.
22 Larry Luxner, “New Decree Limits Dollar Transactions as Cuba Tightens Controls Once Again,” CubaNews, April
2004.
23 Larry Luxner, “Cuba’s ‘Convertible Peso’ No Longer Linked to U.S. Dollar,” CubaNews, April 2005, p. 3.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŗȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Œ˜—˜–’Œȱ‘Š—Žœȱ—Ž›ȱŠø•ȱ
When Raúl Castro assumed provisional power in July 2006, there was some expectation that the
government would be more open to economic policy changes, and a debate about potential
economic reforms re-emerged in Cuba. On July 26, 2007, in a speech commemorating Cuba’s
revolutionary anniversary, Raúl Castro acknowledged that Cuban salaries were insufficient to
satisfy needs, and maintained that structural changes were necessary in order to increase
efficiency and production. He also maintained that the government was considering increasing
foreign investment in the country. Some observers maintain that the speech was a forecast for
economic reforms under Raúl, while others stress that only small marginal changes occurred in
Raúl’s first year in power.24
In the aftermath of Raúl’s July 2007 speech, Cuban public expectations for economic reform
increased. Thousands of officially sanctioned meetings were held in workplaces and local PCC
branches around the country where Cubans were encouraged to air their views and discuss the
future direction of the country. Complaints focused on low salaries and housing and
transportation problems, and some participants advocated legalization of more private
businesses.25 Raised expectations for economic change in Cuba increased the chance that the
government actually would adopt some policy changes. Doing nothing would run the risk of
increased public frustration and a potential for social unrest. Increased public frustration was
evident in a clandestine video, widely circulated on the Internet in early February 2008, of a
meeting between Ricardo Alarcón, the head of Cuba’s legislature, and university students in
which a student was questioning why Cuban wages are so low and why Cubans are prohibited
from visiting tourist hotels (a policy subsequently changed in late March 2008) or traveling
abroad. The video demonstrated the disillusionment of many Cuban youth with the poor
economic situation and repressive environment in Cuba.
Since Raúl Castro officially assumed the presidency in 2008, his government has announced a
series of economic changes. In his first speech as President in February 2008, Raúl promised to
make the government smaller and more efficient, to review the potential revaluation of the Cuban
peso, and to eliminate excessive bans and regulations that curb productivity.26 In mid-March, the
government announced that restrictions on the sales of consumer products such as computers,
microwaves, and DVD and video players would be lifted. In late March, it announced that it
would lift restrictions on the use of cell phones. This officially occurred in mid-April.
One of Cuba’s major reform efforts under Raúl Castro in 2008 was focused on the agriculture
sector, a vital issue because Cuba reportedly imports some 80% of its food needs and is paying an
increasing amount for such imports due to rising food prices. In an effort to boost food
production, the government began giving farmers more discretion over how to use their land and
what supplies to buy. Decision-making on agriculture reportedly has shifted from the national
government to the local municipal level, with government bureaucracy cut significantly.27

24 Manuel Roig-Franzia, “Cuba’s Call for Economic Detente,” Washington Post, July 27, 2007.
25 Frances Robles, “Cubans Urged to Vent Views,” Miami Herald, October 2, 2007.
26 “Cuba: Full Text of Raúl Castro’s National Assembly Address,” Cubavisión, Havana (as translated by Open Source
Center) February 24, 2008.
27 Marc Frank, “Raúl Castro Overhauls Cuba’s Farm Bureaucracy,” Reuters News, May 1, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŘȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
In April 2008, the government announced that it would begin revamping the state’s wage system
by removing the limit that a state worker can earn. This is an effort to boost productivity and to
deal with one of Cuba’s major economic problems: how to raise wages to a level where basic
human needs can be satisfied. The problem of low wages in Cuba is closely related to another
major economic problem: how to unify the two official currencies circulating in the country—the
Cuban convertible peso (CUC) and the Cuban peso, which traded at about 24 to 1 CUC in 2008.
Most people are paid in Cuban pesos, and the minimum monthly wage in Cuba is about 225 pesos
(about $9 U.S. dollars28), but for increasing amounts of consumer goods, convertible pesos are
used. Cubans with access to foreign remittances or who work in jobs that give them access to
convertible pesos are far better off than those Cubans who do not have such access.
Looking ahead, several factors could restrain the magnitude of economic policy change in Cuba.
A number of observers believe that as long as Fidel Castro is around, it will be difficult for the
government to move forward with any major initiatives that are viewed as deviating from Fidel’s
orthodox policies. Other observers point to the significant oil subsidies and investment that Cuba
now receives from Venezuela that have helped spur Cuba’s high economic growth levels over the
past several years and maintain that such support lessens the government’s impetus for economic
reforms. Another factor that bodes against rapid economic policy reform is the fear that it could
spur momentum for political change. Given that one of the highest priorities for Cuba’s
government has been maintaining social and political stability, any economic policy changes are
likely to be smaller changes introduced over time that do not threaten the state’s control.
There was some expectation that Raúl Castro would announce additional economic reforms in his
July 26, 2008 speech on Cuba’s revolutionary anniversary, but there were no such
announcements. Instead, Castro acknowledged the “large number of problems that still need to be
resolved, the majority of which directly affect the population.”29 Nevertheless, in an address
earlier in the month to the National Assembly, Raúl pointed to the goal of increasing salaries
based on job performance. According to Castro: “Socialism means social justice and equality, but
equality of rights and opportunities, not salaries. Equality does not mean egalitarianism.”30
ž‹ŠȂœȱ˜›Ž’—ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
During the Cold War, Cuba had extensive relations with and support from the Soviet Union, with
billions in annual subsidies to sustain the Cuban economy that helped fund an activist foreign
policy and support for guerrilla movements and revolutionary governments abroad in Latin
America and Africa. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, an end to the Cold War, and the
loss of Soviet financial support, Cuba was forced to abandon its revolutionary exploits abroad. As
its economy reeled from the loss of Soviet support, Cuba was forced to open up its economy and
economic relations with countries worldwide, and developed significant economic linkages with
Canada, Spain, other European countries, and China. In recent years, Venezuela -- under populist
President Hugo Chávez -- has become a significant source of support for subsidized oil imports
and investment. Relations with Russia have also intensified recently, with the visit of Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev to Havana in November, the visit of several Russian warships to

28 U.S. Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2007, Cuba,” March 11, 2008.
29 “Cuba: Raúl Castro’s 26 July Rebellion Day Speech,” Havana Cubavisión (Open Source Center), July 26, 2006.
30 “Cuba: Text of Raúl Castro’s 11 July National Assembly Speech,” Havana Cubavisión (Open Source Center), July
11, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗřȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Cuba in December 2008, and Raúl Castro’s visit to Moscow in late January 2009. Chinese
President Hu Jintao also visited Cuba in November signing a dozen agreements.
In Latin America, Cuba has diplomatic relations with all nations with the exception of El
Salvador, and has increasingly become more engaged in Latin America beyond the already close
relations with Venezuela. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva visited Cuba twice in
2008, and Cuba seems especially interested in expanding relations with Brazil. Cuba became a
full member of the 23 member Rio Group of Latin American and Caribbean nations in November
2008; some observers see the group, which excludes the United States, as an alternative to the
Organization of American States (OAS). (Cuba’s participation in the OAS has been suspended
since 1962.) Raúl Castro made his first foreign trip as President in December 2008, when he
traveled to Venezuela, and then to Bahia, Brazil, where he attended the Latin American and
Caribbean Integration and Development Summit, a regional initiative of President Lula.31
Cuba is an active participant in international forums, including the United Nations and the
controversial United Nations Human Rights Council. Cuba hosted the 14th summit of the Non-
aligned Movement (NAM) in 2006, and holds the Secretary Generalship of the NAM until its
next summit in 2009. It is a member of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, (ALBA), a
Venezuelan-led integration and cooperation scheme founded as an alternative to U.S. efforts to
negotiate a region-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
ǯǯȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ˜ Š›ȱž‹Šȱ
˜•’Œ¢ȱŸŽ›Ÿ’Ž ȱ
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 operated by the Cuban American
group, Brothers to the Rescue, which resulted 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, including an embargo on trade and financial
transactions. The Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR), first issued by the Treasury
Department in July 1963, lay out a comprehensive set of economic sanctions against Cuba,
including a prohibition on most financial transactions with Cuba and a freeze of Cuban

31 “Cuba: Bringing Cuba in from the cold,” Latin American Regional Report, Caribbean & Central America, December
2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŚȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
government assets in the United States. The CACR have been amended many times over the
years to reflect changes in policy, and remain in force today.
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), the latter often referred to as the Helms/Burton legislation. The CDA prohibits U.S.
subsidiaries from engaging in trade with Cuba and prohibits entry into the United States for any
sea-borne vessel to load or unload freight if it has been involved in trade with Cuba within the
previous 180 days. The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, 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. Most significantly, the law codified the Cuban embargo, including all
restrictions under the CACR. This provision is especially noteworthy because of its long-lasting
effect on U.S. policy options toward Cuba. The executive branch is circumscribed in lifting or
substantially loosening the economic embargo without congressional concurrence until certain
democratic conditions are met, although the CACR includes licensing authority that provides the
executive branch with some administrative flexibility (e.g. travel-related restrictions in the CACR
have been eased and tightened on numerous occasions). Another significant sanction in the law 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.
In addition to sanctions, another component of U.S. policy, a so-called second track, consists of
support measures for the Cuban people. 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. This led to the United States becoming Cuba’s
largest supplier of food and agricultural products since 2002.
Ž‹ŠŽȱ˜—ȱ‘Žȱ’›ŽŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱǯǯȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
Over the years, although U.S. policymakers have agreed on the overall objectives 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 those objectives. Some have advocated a
policy of keeping maximum pressure on the Cuban government until reforms are enacted, while
continuing 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. Legislative initiatives
introduced over the past decade have reflected these three policy approaches.
Dating back to 2000, there have been significant efforts in Congress to ease U.S. sanctions, with,
one or both houses at times approving amendments to appropriations measures that would have
eased U.S. sanctions on Cuba. Ultimately, these provisions were stripped out of final enacted
measures, in part because of presidential veto threats.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗśȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
In light of Fidel Castro’s departure as head of government, many observers have called for a re-
examination of U.S. policy toward Cuba. In this new context, there are two broad policy
approaches to contend with political change in Cuba: a status-quo approach that would maintain
the U.S. dual-track policy of isolating the Cuban government while providing support to the
Cuban people; and an approach aimed at influencing the attitudes of the Cuban government and
Cuban society through increased contact and engagement.
In general, those who advocate easing U.S. sanctions on Cuba make several policy arguments.
They assert that if the United States moderated its policy toward Cuba—through increased travel,
trade, and diplomatic dialogue—then the seeds of reform would be planted, 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 the demise of Cuba’s communist government does not appear imminent, even without
Fidel Castro at the helm, the United States should espouse a more pragmatic 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 for U.S. businesses because of the
unilateral nature 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, including China and Vietnam,
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 the steps that Cuba needs to take in order for the
United States to normalize relations. They argue that softening U.S. policy at this time without
concrete Cuban reforms would boost the Castro government, politically and economically, and
facilitate 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,
and that sustained sanctions can work. Opponents of loosening U.S. sanctions further argue that
Cuba’s failed economic policies, not the U.S. embargo, are the causes of Cuba’s difficult living
conditions.
•’—˜—ȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—ȂœȱŠœ’—ȱ˜ȱŠ—Œ’˜—œȱ
The Clinton Administration made several changes to U.S. policy in the aftermath of Pope John
Paul II’s 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 by
U.S. nationals and residents 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
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŜȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
professional researchers and those involved in a wide range of educational, religious, and sports
activities.
žœ‘ȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
The Bush Administration essentially 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 emphasized stronger enforcement of
economic sanctions and further tightened restrictions on travel, remittances, and humanitarian gift
parcels to Cuba. There was considerable reaction to the Administration’s June 2004 tightening of
restrictions for family visits and other categories of travel, and to the Administration’s February
2005 tightening of restrictions on payment terms for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.
Nevertheless, the Bush Administration did not completely eliminate the easing of sanctions that
occurred under the Clinton Administration. For example, Americans may travel to Cuba to
participate in educational activities, but these now need to be part of a structured academic
program. Direct flights to Cuba also still run from Miami and New York, although flights from
Los Angeles were curtailed for economic reasons in the aftermath of the tightening of travel
restrictions in 2004 that reduced the number of Americans visiting Cuba.
˜––’œœ’˜—ȱ˜›ȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱ˜ȱŠȱ›ŽŽȱž‹Šȱ
In October 2003, President Bush called for the establishment of an interagency Commission for
Assistance to a Free Cuba, a Cabinet-level commission chaired by then -Secretary of State Colin
Powell. The Commission, which had its first meeting in December 2003, was tasked with the
objectives of 1) identifying additional means to help the Cuban people bring about an expeditious
end to Cuba’s dictatorship and 2) considering the requirements for U.S. assistance to a post-
dictatorship Cuba.32
In May 2004, President Bush endorsed the recommendations of the Commission’s first report,
which made recommendations for immediate measures to “hasten the end of Cuba’s dictatorship”
as well as longer-term recommendations to help plan for Cuba’s transition from communism to
democracy in various areas. The President directed that up to $59 million be committed to
implement key recommendations of the Commission, including support for democracy-building
activities and for airborne broadcasts of Radio and TV Marti to Cuba. The report’s most
significant recommendations included a number of measures to tighten economic sanctions on
family visits and other categories of travel and on private humanitarian assistance in the form of
remittances and gift parcels. Subsequent regulations issued by the Treasury and Commerce
Departments in June 2004 implemented these new sanctions. (The full Commission report is on
the State Department website at http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rt/cuba/commission/2004/.) In
February 2005, the Administration continued to tighten U.S. economic sanctions against Cuba by
further restricting the process of how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for their cash sales,
a move opposed by many U.S. agricultural exporters ( For more, see “Agricultural Exports and
Sanctions” below.)
In July 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appointed Caleb McCarry as the State
Department’s new Cuba Transition Coordinator to direct U.S. government “actions in support of a

32 U.S. Department of State, “Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba,” White House Fact Sheet, December 8, 2003.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŝȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
free Cuba.” Secretary Rice reconvened the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba in
December 2005 to identify additional measures to help Cubans hasten the transition to democracy
and to develop a plan to help the Cuban people move toward free and fair elections.
In July 2006, the Commission issued its second report, making recommendations to hasten
political change in Cuba toward a democratic transition. (The full report is available at
http://www.cafc.gov/rpt/.)
In the report, the Commission called for the United States to provide $80 million over two years
for the following: to support Cuban civil society ($31 million); to fund education programs and
exchanges, including university training in Cuba provided by third countries and scholarships for
economically disadvantaged students from Cuba at U.S. and third country universities ($10
million); to fund additional efforts to break the Cuban government’s information blockade and
expand access to independent information, including through the Internet ($24 million); and to
support international efforts at strengthening civil society and transition planning ($15 million).
According to the Cuba Transition Coordinator, this assistance would be additional funding
beyond what the Administration is already currently budgeting for these programs.33 Thereafter,
the Commission recommended funding of not less than $20 million annually for Cuba democracy
programs “until the dictatorship ceases to exist.” This would roughly double the amount currently
spent on Cuba democracy programs.
The report also set forth detailed plans of how the U.S. government, along with the international
community and the Cuban community abroad, could provide assistance to a Cuban transition
government to help it respond to critical humanitarian and social needs, to conduct free and fair
elections, and to move toward a market-based economy. The report also outlined a series of
preparatory steps in the areas of government organization, electoral preparation, and anticipating
humanitarian and social needs that the U.S. government could take now, before Cuba’s transition
begins, so that it would be well prepared in the event that assistance was requested by the new
Cuban government.
The Commission’s second report received a mixed response from Cuba’s dissident community.
Although some dissidents, like former political prisoner Vladimiro Roca, maintain that they
would welcome any U.S. assistance that helps support the Cuban dissident movement, others
expressed concerns about the report. Dissident economist and former political prisoner Oscar
Espinosa Chepe stressed that Cubans have to be the ones to solve their own problems. According
to Chepe, “We are thankful for the solidarity we have received from North America, Europe, and
elsewhere, but we request that they do not meddle in our country.”34 Miriam Leiva, a founding
member of the Ladies in White, a human rights organization, expressed concern that the report
could serve as a rationale for the government to imprison dissidents.35 Leiva also faulted the
Commission’s report for presuming what a Cuban transition must be before U.S. recognition or
assistance can be provided. According to Leiva, “Only we Cubans, of our own volition ... can
decide issues of such singular importance. Cubans on the island have sufficient intellectual ability
to tackle a difficult, peaceful transition and reconcile with other Cubans here and abroad.”36

33 U.S. Department of State, Second Report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, Briefing, July 10, 2006.
34 Nicholas Kralev, “Bush OKs Initiative to Support Opposition,” Washington Times, July 11, 2006.
35 Frances Robles and Pablo Bachelet, “Plan for Change in Cuba Gets OK,” Miami Herald, July 11, 2006.
36 Miriam Leiva, “We Cubans Must Decide,” Miami Herald, July 15, 2006.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗŞȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
ǯǯȱŽŠŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱž‹ŠȂœȱ˜•’’ŒŠ•ȱžŒŒŽœœ’˜—ȱ
In response to Fidel Castro’s announcement that he was temporarily ceding power to his brother
Raúl, President Bush issued a statement on August 3, 2006, that “the United States is absolutely
committed to supporting the Cuban people’s aspiration for democracy and freedom.” The
President urged “the Cuban people to work for democratic change” and pledged U.S. support to
the Cuban people in their effort to build a transitional government in Cuba. U.S. officials, a the
time, indicated that there were no plans for the United States to “reach out” to the new leader.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated U.S. support for the Cuban people in an August 4,
2006, statement broadcast on Radio and TV Marti. According to Secretary Rice, “All Cubans who
desire peaceful democratic change can count on the support of the United States.”37
Although there was some U.S. concern that political change in Cuba could prompt a migration
crisis, there was no unusual traffic after Castro ceded provisional power to his brother. The U.S.
Coast Guard had plans to respond to such a migration crisis, with support from the Navy if
needed. In her August 4, 2006, message to the Cuban people, Secretary of State Rice encouraged
“the Cuban people to work at home for positive change.” Department of Homeland Security
officials also announced several measures to discourage Cubans from risking their lives on the
open seas. U.S. officials also discouraged those in the Cuban American community wanting to
travel by boat to Cuba to speed political change in Cuba. (For more, see “Migration Issues”
below.)
Žœ™˜—œŽȱ˜ȱŠø•ȂœȱŸŽ›ž›Žœȱ
Raúl Castro asserted in an August 18, 2006, published interview that Cuba has “always been
disposed to normalize relations on an equal plane,” but at the same time he expressed strong
opposition to current U.S. policy toward Cuba, which he described as “arrogant and
interventionist.”38 In response, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
Thomas Shannon reiterated a U.S. offer to Cuba, first articulated by President Bush in May 2002,
that the Administration was willing to work with Congress to lift U.S. economic sanctions if Cuba
were to begin a political opening and a transition to democracy. According to Shannon, the Bush
Administration remained prepared to work with Congress for ways to lift the embargo if Cuba
was prepared to free political prisoners, respect human rights, permit the creation of independent
organizations, and create a mechanism and pathway toward free and fair elections.39
In a December 2, 2006 speech, Raúl reiterated an offer to negotiate with the United States. He
said that “we are willing to resolve at the negotiating table the longstanding dispute between the
United States and Cuba, of course, provided they accept, as we have previously said, our
condition as a country that will not tolerate any blemishes on its independence, and as long as
said resolution is based on the principles of equality, reciprocity, non-interference, and mutual
respect.”40

37 U.S. Department of State, “Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Message to the People of Cuba,” August 4, 2006.
38 “No Enemy Can Defeat Us,” interview of Raúl Castro by Laszar Barredo Medina, Diario Granma, August 18, 2006.
39 U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Policy Toward Cuba,” Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary for Western
Hemisphere Affairs, August 23, 2006.
40 “English Transcript of Raul Castro’s Speech,” Miami Herald, December 2, 2006.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŗşȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
On July 26, 2007, in a speech on Cuba’s revolutionary anniversary (commemorating the 1953
attack on the Moncada military barracks), Raúl Castro reiterated for the third time an offer to
engage in dialogue with the United States, and strongly criticized U.S. trade and economic
sanctions on Cuba. A U.S. State Department spokesman responded that “the only real dialogue
that’s needed is with the Cuban people.”41
In the second half of 2007, President Bush and other U.S. officials continued to call for a
transition to democracy in Cuba. In a September 25, 2007 speech before the U.N. General
Assembly, President Bush stated that “the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end,” and
called on the United Nations to insist on free speech, free assembly, and free elections as Cuba
“enters a period of transition.”42 U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez stated in a speech on
September 17 that “unless the regime changes, our policy will not,” but indicated that the United
States is “prepared to respond to genuine democratic change in Cuba.”43
On October 24, 2007, President Bush made a policy speech on Cuba that reflected a continuation
of the sanctions-based approach toward Cuba. According to the President: “As long as the
[Cuban] regime maintains its monopoly over the political and economic life of the Cuban people,
the United States will keep the embargo in place.” In his speech, President Bush also sent a
message to Cuban military, police, and government officials that “when Cubans rise up to
demand their liberty,” they have a choice to embrace the Cuban people’s desire for change or
“defend a disgraced and dying order by using force.” The President conveyed to these officials
that “there is a place for you in a free Cuba.”44
Žœ™˜—œŽȱ˜ȱŠø•Ȃœȱ’Œ’Š•ȱŽ•ŽŒ’˜—ȱŠœȱ›Žœ’Ž—ȱ
In the aftermath of Fidel Castro’s February 19, 2008 announcement that he was officially
stepping down as head of state, President Bush maintained that he viewed “this as a period of
transition and it should be the beginning of a democratic transition in Cuba.” State Department
officials made clear that U.S. policy would not change. On February 24, 2008, the day that Raúl
Castro officially became Cuba’s head of state, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice issued a
statement urging “the Cuban government to begin a process of peaceful, democratic change by
releasing all political prisoners, respecting human rights, and creating a clear pathway towards
free and fair elections.”
In remarks on Cuba policy in early March 2008, President Bush maintained that in order to
improve U.S.-Cuban relations, “what needs to change is not the United States; what needs to
change is Cuba.” The President asserted that Cuba “must release all political prisoners ... have
respect for human rights in word and deed, and pave the way for free and fair elections.”45 He
reiterated these words again in a speech to the Council of the Americas on May 7, 2008.46 On

41 Frances Robles, “Raúl Again Offers ‘Olive Branch’ to U.S.,” Miami Herald, July 27, 2007; “U.S. Government
Rejects Dialogue with Cuba,” EFE, July 27, 2007.
42 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “President Bush Addresses the United Nations General Assembly,”
September 25, 2007.
43 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez Remarks at the Heritage Foundation,”
September 17, 2007.
44 White House, “President Bush Discusses Cuba Policy,” October 24, 2007.
45 White House, “President Bush Delivers Remarks on Cuba,” March 7, 2008.
46 “Text of Bush Speech to Council of the Americas,” Miami Herald, May 9, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŖȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
May 21, 2008, President Bush called for the Cuban government to take steps to improve life for
the Cuban people, including opening up access to the Internet. He also announced that the United
States would change regulations to allow Americans to send mobile phones to family members in
Cuba.47
‹Š–Šȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ
During the electoral campaign, President Obama had pledged to lift restrictions on family travel
to Cuba as well as restrictions on Cuban Americans sending remittances to Cuba. At the same
time, he also pledged to maintain the embargo as a source of leverage to bring about change in
Cuba. However, Obama also asserted that if the Cuban government takes significant steps toward
democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, then the United States would take
steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo. He also maintained that, after careful
preparation, his Administration would pursue direct diplomacy with Cuba without preconditions,
but only when there is an opportunity to advance U.S. interests and advance the cause of freedom
for the Cuban people.48
During her Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing for Secretary of State on
January 15, 2009, Senator Hillary Clinton reiterated President Obama’s pledge to lift restrictions
on family travel and remittances. She indicated that the Administration did not yet have a timeline
on the change, but maintained that the Administration would consult closely with Congress as it
proceeds. Clinton also reiterated Obama’s position that it is not time to lift the embargo since it
provides an important source of leverage for further change in Cuba.
Perhaps most significantly, in response to written questions for the record regarding U.S.
agricultural sales to Cuba, Cuba’s retention on the State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism
list since 1982, and potential cooperation with Cuba on energy security and environmentally
sustainable resource management, Clinton maintained that the new Administration anticipated a
review of U.S. policy. She indicated that she looked forward to working with Members of
Congress as the Administration moves forward in the consideration of appropriate steps to
advance U.S. interests and values in the context of U.S. relations with Cuba. With regard to a
question regarding a potential anti-drug agreement with Cuba, Clinton maintained the importance
of anti-drug cooperation with Cuba where such cooperation is effective in stopping trafficking.
œœžŽœȱ’—ȱǯǯȬž‹Š—ȱŽ•Š’˜—œȱ
Ž›–Š‘ȱ˜ȱŘŖŖŞȱ ž››’ŒŠ—ŽœȱŠ—ȱ›˜™’ŒŠ•ȱ˜›–œȱ
From mid-August through early November 2008, three hurricanes and two tropical storms caused
widespread damage throughout Cuba. Tropical Storm Fay passed through central Cuba on August
18, causing severe flooding. On August 31, Hurricane Gustav struck the tobacco-growing
province of Piñar del Río in western Cuba and the Isle of Youth. Tropical Storm Hanna, which did

47 White House, “President Bush Discusses Cuba, Marks Day of Solidarity,” May 21, 2008.
48 “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas,” May 23, 2008, and “Renewing
U.S. Leadership in the Americas,” Factsheet, June 6, 2008, BarackObama.com
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŗȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
not strike Cuba directly, caused flooding in eastern Cuba in early September. Hurricane Ike made
landfall in eastern Cuba on September 7 as a Category Four hurricane and severely affected both
the eastern and western parts of the island, but especially the provinces of Holguin, Camaguey,
and Las Tunas in the eastern part of the island. The two hurricanes caused most of the damage.
Overall, just 7 people were killed, but the hurricanes severely affected the housing sector (with
almost 500,000 homes damaged and over 63,000 destroyed), the power grid, and the agricultural
sector. 49 On November 8, 2008, Hurricane Paloma struck Cuba, devastating the town of Santa
Cruz del Sur. Initially damages from the storms in August and September were estimated to
amount to $5 billion, but Raúl Castro noted in the aftermath of Hurricane Paloma that overall
damages from the storms since August amounted to some $10 billion.50
The U.S. Chief of Mission at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, Jonathan Farrar, issued a
disaster declaration for Cuba on September 3, 2008, and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) approved the release of $100,000 in emergency relief funds to non-
governmental organizations in Cuba in response to Hurricane Gustav.51 On September 12, in
response to Hurricane Ike, the U.S. government provided another $100,000 in cash assistance to
relief organizations on the ground in Cuba. The State Department maintains that the United States
offered to send a humanitarian assessment team to Cuba to determine additional assistance needs,
but that the Cuban government rejected the offer. U.S. officials subsequently offered a $5 million
aid package for disaster relief for Cuba on September 13 that was also rejected by the Cuban
government. USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore reportedly maintained that $2 million in plastic
sheeting, hygiene kits, and other relief items would have been provided directly to the Cuban
government, but that about $3 million in cash would still be provided through NGOs.52 The State
Department made a new offer to Cuba on September 19 to supply some $6.3 million in
corrugated zinc roofs, nails, tools, lumber, sheeting, and light shelter kits that would help some
48,000 people, but the Cuban government did not accept the offer.53
In addition, according to the State Department, the U.S. government increased authorizations for
U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide larger amounts of assistance to
Cuba in the aftermath of the hurricanes, including expedited authorization over 90 days for up to
$10 million per NGO.54
In response to the U.S. offer to send a disaster assessment team, the Cuban government
maintained that it already had a sufficient number of well-trained experts in Cuba, and noted that
other countries worldwide were sending humanitarian aid without inspecting the affected areas.
Instead, Cuba asked the United States to allow U.S. companies 1) to sell needed relief supplies to
Cuba for the repair of housing and electrical networks; and 2) to grant private commercial credit

49 U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), “Situation Report 17 – Caribbean Hurricane
Season,” September 22, 2008.
50 ""Paloma Brings 2008 Hurricane Season to a Close; Damages Exceed $10 Billion,"," CubaNews, December 2008.
51 USAID, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA), “Latin America and the Caribbean – Hurricane Season 2008, Fact Sheet #3, FY2008,” September
10, 2008.
52 Frances Robles, “Cuba Rejects U.S. Supplies, Asks for Suspension of Trade Embargo,” Miami Herald, September
16, 2008.
53 Frances Robles, “U.S. Offers $6.3M in Construction Materials to Cuba,” Miami Herald, September 22, 2008; Joshua
Partlow, “Hurricanes Shift Debate on Embargo Against Cuba,” Washington Post, September 24, 2008.
54 U.S. Department of State, “Humanitarian Assistance to the Cuban People Following Hurricanes Gustav and Ike,”
September 15, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŘȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
to Cuba in order to buy food in the United States.55 In response to the U.S. offer to send $2
million in supplies to the Cuban government, the Cuban Interests Section in Washington rejected
the request and called for the United States to allow U.S. companies to sell relief supplies to
Cuba, if not on a permanent basis, then at least for the next six months.56
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ —’’Š’ŸŽœȱ
In the aftermath of the hurricanes, a number of observers, including some Members of Congress,
called for the temporary relaxation of restrictions on family travel and remittances (limited to
$300 per quarter) as well as on the provision of gift parcels57 to Cuba, but the Administration did
not take any of these actions. Some observers also called for temporary changes to the U.S.
embargo regulations to allow for unrestricted U.S. cash sales to Cuba of food and medicines, farm
machinery or equipment, and relief supplies, including building materials and electrical supplies.
On September 5, 2008, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard Berman
asked President Bush to suspend for 90 days restrictions on family visits, remittances, and gift
parcels.
Several legislative initiatives were introduced in the 110th Congress that would have temporarily
eased U.S. embargo restrictions in several areas. On September 15, 2008, Senator Dodd offered
S.Amdt. 5581 to the Department of Defense authorization bill (S. 3001) that would have, for a
180-day period: allowed unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on remittances by removing
the limit and allowing any American to send remittances to Cuba; expanded the list of allowable
items that may be included in gift parcels; and allowed for unrestricted U.S. cash sales of food,
medicines, and relief supplies to Cuba. The amendment was not considered, and therefore not
part of the final bill.
In the House, two legislative initiatives were introduced. On September 16, 2008, Representative
Flake introduced H.R. 6913, which would have prohibited any funds from going to the
Department of Commerce to implement, administer, or enforce tightened restrictions on the
contents of gift parcels to Cuba that were introduced in June 2004. On September 18, 2008,
Representative Delahunt introduced H.R. 6962, the Humanitarian Relief to Cuba Act, which
would have, for a 180-day period: allowed unrestricted family travel; eased restrictions on
remittances by removing the limit and allowing any American to send remittances to Cuba; and
expanded the list of allowable items that may be included in gift parcels.
Žœ›’Œ’˜—œȱ˜—ȱ›ŠŸŽ•ȱŠ—ȱŽ–’Š—ŒŽœȱ
Restrictions on travel to Cuba have been a key and often contentious component of 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

55 Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Cuba Asks Washington to Lift Commercial Restrictions,” September 11, 2008;
and “Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” September 6, 2008.
56 Karen DeYoung, “U.S. Urges Cuba to Accept Aid; Storm Relief Would Be Sent Directly to Havana Government,”
Washington Post, September 16, 2008.
57 In June 2004, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published changes to the Export
Administration Regulations that placed new limits on gift parcels sent to Cuba. This included prohibiting the inclusion
of previously-allowed items such as seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items, veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing
equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment. (Federal Register, June 22, 2004, pp. 34565-34567).
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řřȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
were no restrictions on travel. Restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba are part of the
CACR, the overall embargo regulations administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Major arguments made for lifting the Cuba travel ban are that 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 potentially 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.
Under the former Bush Administration, enforcement of U.S. restrictions on Cuba travel increased,
and restrictions on travel and on private remittances to Cuba were tightened. In March 2003, the
Administration eliminated travel for people-to-people educational exchanges unrelated to
academic course work. In June 2004, the Administration significantly restricted travel, especially
family travel, and the provision of private humanitarian assistance to Cuba in the form of
remittances and gift parcels. 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 their organizations. OFAC’s actions 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.58 In 2006, the Administration suspended the
licenses of several travel service providers, including one of the largest such providers in Florida,
La Estrella de Cuba. Several religious organizations also had their licenses suspended, and church
groups and several Members of Congress expressed concern about more restrictive licenses for
religious travel.59
Among the June 2004 restrictions that remain in place are the following:
• Family visits were restricted to one trip every three years under a specific license
and are restricted to immediate family members, with no exceptions. 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 were further restricted. Quarterly remittances of $300 may still
be sent, but are 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.

58 Oscar Corral, “Is Santería Used as Ploy to Skirt Travel Rules?,” Miami Herald, February 27, 2005.
59 Oscar Corral, “Feds Lay Down the Law on Cuba to Travel Agents,” Miami Herald, April 29, 2006; Pablo Bachelet,
“New Rules Impede Religious Travel,” Miami Herald, March 16, 2006.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŚȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
• Gift parcels were limited to immediate family members and were 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, or
soap-making equipment.
• The authorized per diem allowed for a family visit was reduced from the State
Department per diem rate (currently $179 per day for Havana) 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, by a person not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, was prohibited as
a permissible category of travel.
• Travel for educational activities was further restricted, including the elimination
of educational exchanges sponsored by secondary schools.
There was mixed reaction to the tightening of Cuba travel and remittance restrictions. Supporters
maintain that the increased restrictions deny the Cuban government dollars that help maintain its
repressive control. Opponents argue that the tightened sanctions are anti-family and only result in
more suffering for the Cuban people. There were also concerns that the new restrictions were
drafted without considering the full consequences of their implementation. For example, the
elimination of fully-hosted travel raised concerns about the status of 70 U.S. students receiving
full scholarships at the Latin American School of Medicine in Havana. 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 and engage in
travel-related transactions.
On July 19, 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a report, requested by the
Senate Committee on Finance, maintaining that lifting travel restrictions would result in travel by
U.S. citizens to Cuba rising to between 550,000 and 1 million from an estimate of 171,000 in
2005.
As noted above, during the electoral campaign, President Obama pledged to lift restrictions on
family travel to Cuba as well as restrictions on Cuban Americans sending remittances to Cuba.
Senator Hillary Clinton reiterated President Obama’s pledge during her confirmation hearing for
Secretary of State on January 15, 2009, but indicated that the Administration did not yet have a
timeline on the change.
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ —’’Š’ŸŽœȱ
From 2000-2004, one or both houses of Congress approved amendments to appropriations bills
that would have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba in various ways, but these provisions
ultimately were stripped out of final enacted measures. The Bush Administration regularly
threatened to veto legislation if it contained provisions weakening Cuba sanctions.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řśȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
In the 110th Congress, several House and Senate appropriations bills had provisions that would
have eased restrictions on travel to Cuba in various ways (H.R. 2829, S. 1859, H.R. 7323, S.
3260, and , S. 3289), but none of these provisions were included in final enacted measures. A
number of other legislative initiatives were introduced in the 110th Congress that would have
eased Cuba travel restrictions in various ways, including bills that would have temporarily eased
restrictions on travel and remittances in the aftermath of the 2008 storms, but no action was taken
on these measures.
In the 111th Congress, several measures have been introduced that would ease or eliminate
restrictions on travel to Cuba. H.R. 332 (Lee) would ease restrictions on educational travel to
Cuba. H.R. 188 (Serrano), would lift overall economic sanctions on Cuba, including restrictions
on travel and remittances. Identical bills, H.R. 874 (Delahunt) and S. 428 (Dorgan), would
prohibit the President from regulating or prohibiting, directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba
by U.S. citizens or legal residents, or any of the transactions incident to such travel
The FY2009 omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105, has three provisions that would ease Cuba
sanctions, including two related to travel. Section 620 of Division D would amend the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to issue regulations for travel to, from, or within Cuba under a general license for the marketing
and sale of agricultural and medical goods. This means that there would be no requirement to
obtain special permission from the Treasury Department’s OFAC. Such travel currently requires a
specific license from OFAC, issued on a case by case basis.
Section 621 of Division D would prohibit funds from being used to administer, implement, or
enforce family travel restrictions that were imposed by the Bush Administration in June 2004. As
noted above, those 2004 restrictions, currently in force, allow family travel only to visit
immediate family (grandparents, grandchildren, parents, siblings, spouses, and children) once
every three years for a period not to exceed 14 days. Under the 2004 restrictions, a specific
license is required from OFAC for such travel; the authorized amount that family travelers can
spend while in Cuba is limited to $50 a day; and the amount of remittances that such travelers
may carry to Cuba is limited to $300. Prior to the 2004 tightening of the restrictions, family visits
could occur once a year under a general license, there was no limit on the duration of the trip, and
family travelers could spend up to the State Department per diem rate (currently $179 a day).
Travel more than once a year also was allowed, but under a specific license from OFAC.
Previously, travel also had been allowed to visit relatives to within three degrees of relationship to
the traveler (e.g. great-grandparents and second cousins).
(For additional information, see CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and
Remittances
.)
›’Œž•ž›Š•ȱ¡™˜›œȱŠ—ȱŠ—Œ’˜—œȱ
U.S. commercial agricultural exports to Cuba have been allowed for several years, but with
numerous restrictions and licensing requirements. The 106th Congress passed the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 or TSRA (P.L. 106-387, Title IX) that allows for
one-year export licenses for selling agricultural commodities to Cuba, although no U.S.
government assistance, foreign assistance, export assistance, credits, or credit guarantees are
available to finance such exports. TSRA also 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. TSRA reiterates the existing ban on importing goods from Cuba but authorizes
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŜȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
travel to Cuba, under a specific license, to conduct business related to the newly allowed
agricultural sales.
Since 2002, the United States has been Cuba’s largest supplier of food and agricultural products.60
Cuba has purchased almost $2.7 billion in agricultural products from the United States since late
2001. Overall U.S exports to Cuba rose from about $7 million in 2001 to $404 million in 2004.
U.S. exports to Cuba declined in 2005 and 2006 to $369 million and $340 million, respectively,
but increased to $447 million in 2007. In 2008, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba rose to $718, far
higher than in previous years, in part because of the rise in food prices and because of Cuba’s
increased food needs in the aftermath of several hurricanes and tropical storms that severely
damaged Cuba’s agricultural sector.61
In February 2005, OFAC amended the Cuba embargo regulations to clarify that TSRA’s term of
“payment of cash in advance” means that the payment is received by the seller or the seller’s
agent prior to the shipment of the goods from the port at which they are loaded. U.S. agricultural
exporters and some Members of Congress strongly objected that the action constitutes a new
sanction that violates the intent of TSRA and could jeopardize millions of dollars in U.S.
agricultural sales to Cuba. OFAC Director Robert Werner maintained that the clarification
“conforms to the common understanding of the term in international trade.”62 On July 29, 2005,
OFAC clarified that, for “payment of cash in advance” for the commercial sale of U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba, vessels can leave U.S. ports as soon as a foreign bank confirms
receipt of payment from Cuba. OFAC’s action was aimed at ensuring that the goods would not be
vulnerable to seizure for unrelated claims while still at the U.S. port. Supporters of overturning
OFAC’s February 22, 2005 amendment, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, were
pleased by the clarification but indicated that they would still work to overturn the February
rule.63
Some groups favor further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba. They argue that the
restrictions harm the health and nutrition of the Cuban population. U.S. agribusiness companies
that support the removal of restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba believe that U.S. farmers
are missing out on a market of over $700 million annually so close to the United States. Some
exporters want to change U.S. restrictions so that they can sell agriculture and farm equipment to
Cuba.64 Agricultural exporters who support the lifting of the prohibition on financing contend that
allowing such financing would help smaller U.S. companies expand purchases to Cuba more
rapidly.65
On July 19, 2007, the U.S. International Trade Commission issued a report, requested by the
Senate Committee on Finance, maintaining that the U.S. share of Cuba’s agricultural, fish, and

60 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Global Analysis, “Cuba’s Food &
Agriculture Situation Report,” March 2008.
61 World Trade Atlas, which uses Department of Commerce Statistics.
62 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before the House Committee on
Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
63 Christopher S. Rugaber, “Treasury Clarifies Cuba Farm Export Rule, and Baucus Relents on Nominees,”
International Trade Reporter, August 4, 2005.
64 “Ag Groups Split Over Trade With Cuba,” Congress Daily AM, National Journal, February 11, 2003.
65 “Farm Equipment Exports Likely to Face Tough Opposition from White House, Congress,” Cuba Trader, Vol. III,
No. 7, February 17, 2003.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řŝȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
forest imports would rise from one-third to between one-half and two-thirds if trade restrictions
were lifted. (See the full report available at http://www.usitc.gov/ext_relations/news_release/
2007/er0719ee1.htm.)
Opponents of further easing restrictions on agricultural exports to Cuba maintain that U.S. policy
does not deny such sales to Cuba, as evidenced by the large amount of sales since 2001.
Moreover, according to the State Department, since the Cuban Democracy Act was enacted in
1992, the United States has licensed billions of dollars in private humanitarian donations.
Opponents 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. Some agricultural producers that export to Cuba support
continuation of the prohibition on financing for agricultural exports to Cuba because it ensures
that they will be paid.
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ —’’Š’ŸŽœȱ
In the 110th Congress, several House and Senate appropriations bills included provisions that
would have eased restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba (H.R. 2829, S. 1859, H.R.
7323, S. 3260, and , S. 3289) but none of these provisions were included in final enacted
measures. These included provisions that would have 1) prevented the Treasury Department from
implementing the Administration’s February 2005 tightening of policy that required the payment
of cash in advance prior to the shipment of U.S. agricultural goods to Cuba and 2) authorized
general licenses for travel to Cuba for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods.
In other action during the 110th Congress, the House, on July 27, 2007, rejected (by a vote of 182-
245) H.Amdt. 707 (Rangel) to H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, also
known as the 2007 farm bill. The amendment would have eased restrictions on the commercial
sale of agricultural products to Cuba by clarifying the meaning of “payment of cash in advance”
for the sale of such products; authorizing direct transfers between U.S. and Cuban financial
institutions for such sales; and authorizing the issuance of U.S. visas for Cubans to conduct
activities, including phytosanitary inspections, related to such sales. A number of other legislative
initiatives were introduced in the 110th Congress that would have eased restrictions on U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba in various ways, but no action was taken on these measures.
In the 111th Congress, several measures have been introduced that would ease or lift restrictions
on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. H.R. 188 (Serrano), would lift overall economic sanctions
on Cuba, including restrictions on agricultural exports. Identical bills, H.R. 874 (Delahunt) and S.
428 (Dorgan), would prohibit the President from regulating or prohibiting travel to or from Cuba
by U.S. citizens or legal residents, including travel for the marketing or sale of agricultural goods.
The FY2009 omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105, has three provisions that would ease Cuba
sanctions, including two related to U.S. agricultural exports. Section 620 of Division D would
amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 to require the Secretary
of the Treasury to issue regulations for travel to, from, or within Cuba under a general license for
the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods. This means that there would be no
requirement to obtain special permission from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control. Such travel currently requires a specific license from OFAC, issued on a case by
case basis. Section 622 of Division D would prohibit funds in the Act from being used to
administer, implement, or enforce language added to the Cuban embargo regulations on February
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŘŞȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
25, 2005 requiring that U.S. agricultural exporters to Cuba must be paid in cash for their goods
before the goods leave U.S. ports. Prior to the February 2005 change, the prior practice was for
U.S. agricultural exporters to be paid in cash for their goods (as required under the Trade
Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 200), but before the actual delivery of the
goods to Cuba.
›ŠŽ–Š›”ȱŠ—Œ’˜—ŜŜȱ
For over a decade, the United States has imposed a sanction that denies protection for trademarks
connected with businesses confiscated from their owners by the Cuban government. 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. The measure was enacted because of 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, whose company in Cuba was expropriated in the 1960s, maintains
that it holds the right to the Havana Club name. 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.
The European Union initiated World Trade Organization dispute settlement proceedings in June
2000, maintaining that the U.S. law violates the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property (TRIPS). In January 2002, the WTO ultimately found that the trademark
sanction violated WTO provisions on national treatment and most-favored-nation obligations in
the TRIPS Agreement.
On March 28, 2002, the United States agreed that it would come into compliance with the WTO
ruling through legislative action by January 3, 2003.67 That deadline was extended several times
since no legislative action had been taken to bring Section 211 into compliance with the WTO
ruling. On July 1, 2005, however, in an EU-U.S. bilateral agreement, the EU agreed that it would
not request authorization to retaliate at that time, but reserved the right to do so at a future date,
and the United States agreed not to block a future EU request.68 On August 3, 2006, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office announced that Cuba’s Havana Club trademark registration was
“cancelled/expired,” a week after OFAC had denied a Cuban government company the license
that it needed to renew the registration of the trademark.69
Two different approaches have been advocated to bring Section 211 into compliance with the
WTO ruling. Some want a narrow fix in which Section 211 would be amended so that it also
applies to U.S. companies instead of being limited to foreign companies. Advocates of this

66 For additional information, see CRS Report RS21764, Restricting Trademark Rights of Cubans: WTO Decision and
Congressional Response
, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.
67 “U.S., EU Agree on Deadline for Complying with Section 211 WTO Finding,” Inside U.S. Trade, April 12, 2002.
68 “Japan, EU Suspend WTO Retaliation Against U.S. in Two Cases,” Inside U.S. Trade, July 15, 2005.
69 “PTO Cancels Cuban ‘Havana Club’ Mark; Bacardi Set to Sell Rum Under Same Mark,” International Trade Daily,
August 10, 2006.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Řşȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
approach argue that it would affirm that the United States “will not give effect to a claim or right
to U.S. property if that claim is based on a foreign compensation.”70 Others want Section 211
repealed altogether. They argue that the law endangers over 5,000 trademarks of over 500 U.S.
companies registered in Cuba.71 They maintain that Cuba could retaliate against U.S. companies
under the Inter-American Convention for Trademark and Commercial Protection.
Several legislative initiatives were introduced during the 110th Congress reflecting these two
approaches to bring Section 211 into compliance with the WTO ruling, but no action was taken
on these measures. Several of these could be re-introduced in the 111th Congress. The July 2005
EU-U.S. bilateral agreement, in which the EU agreed not to retaliate against the United States,
but reserved the right to do so at a later date, reduced pressure on Congress to take action to
comply with the WTO ruling.
œ‘˜›Žȱ’•ȱŽŒ˜›ȱŽŸŽ•˜™–Ž—ȱ
The issue of Cuba’s development of its deepwater offshore oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico has
been a concern among some Members of Congress. According to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, industry analysts maintain that there could be at least 1.6 billion barrels of crude
oil reserves in Cuba’s offshore sector; the U.S. Geological Survey estimated a mean of 4.6 billion
barrels of undiscovered oil.72 In October 2008, an official of Cuba’s state oil company,
Cubapetroleo (Cupet), maintained there may be more than 20 billion barrels of oil in Cuba’s
deepwaters, but energy analysts expressed skepticism for such a claim.73
To date, Cuba has signed agreements for seven concessions involving eight foreign oil companies
for the exploration of offshore oil and gas. Repsol (Spain), Norsk-Hydro (Norway), and ONGC
(India) are partners in a joint project, while Sherritt International (Canada), ONGC (India),
PdVSA (Venezuela), Petronas (Malaysia), PetroVietnam, and Petrobras (Brazil) also have
additional concessions. In February 2008, Petrobras signed a wide-ranging agreement for
potential exploration and production cooperation with Cuba’s state oil company, Cupet. This
ultimately led to an oil exploration agreement between Petrobras and Cupet signed in late October
2008. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern about oil development so close to the
United States and about potential environmental damage to the Florida coast. The Repsol project
has plans to drill a second well (the first was drilled in 2004) in mid-2009, and some press reports
maintain that if that goes well, Cuban oil could be flowing to the market by 2013.74

70 Brian Lehman, testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, hearing on “An Examination of Section 211
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998,” July 13, 2004.
71 “USA-Engage Joins Cuba Fight,” Cuba Trader, April 1, 2002.
72 U.S. Energy Information Administration , “Country Analysis Briefs: Caribbean,” September 2007; U.S. Geological
Survey, “Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the North Cuban Basin, Cuba, 2004,” Fact Sheet
2005-3009, February 2005.
73 Jeff Franks, "Cuba Oil Claims Raise Eyebrows in Energy World," October 24, 2008; and Larry Luxner, “Cuba May
have 20 Billion Barrels of Oil But Cash Crunch Threatens Investment,” CubaNews, November 2008.
74 Jorge Piñon, “Cuba’s Energy Future,” Canadian Foundation for the Americas, FocalPoint, April 2007, Vol. 6, No. 3;
“PetroVietnam Gets Go-Ahead to Explore Seven Cuban Oil Fields,” Dow Jones International News, November 20,
2007; and Larry Luxner, “Cuba May have 20 Billion Barrels of Oil But Cash Crunch Threatens Investment,”
CubaNews, November 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŖȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Although there have been some claims that China is drilling in Cuba’s offshore deepwater oil
sector, to date its involvement in Cuba’s oil sector has been focused on exploring onshore/close
coastal oil extraction in Piñar del Rio province through its state-run China Petroleum and
Chemical Corporation (Sinopec).75 China does not have a concession in Cuba’s offshore oil sector
in the deepwaters of the Gulf of Mexico.76
In the 110th Congress, several legislative initiatives (H.R. 1679, S. 876, and S. 2503) would have
imposed sanctions related to Cuba’s offshore oil development on its northern coast, while several
other initiatives (S. 1268, S. 2953, H.R. 3182, H.R. 3435, and H.R. 6735) would have allowed
U.S. companies to work with Cuba for the offshore exploration and extraction of oil. No action
was taken on any of these initiatives.
›žȱ —Ž›’Œ’˜—ȱ˜˜™Ž›Š’˜—ȱ
Because of Cuba’s geographic location, the country’s waters and airspace have been used by
illicit narcotics traffickers to transport 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 33 countries
and less formal arrangements with 16 others, according to the Department of State. For several
years, Cuba’s Operation Hatchet has focused on maritime and air interdiction and the recovery of
narcotics washed up on Cuban shores. Narcotics smuggling through Cuban territory decreased in
2006, according to both U.S. and Cuban officials.77 According to the Department of State, Cuba
aggressively pursues an internal enforcement and investigation program against its incipient drug
market with an effective nationwide drug prevention and awareness campaign, Operation Popular
Shield.
Over the years, there have been varying levels of U.S.-Cuban cooperation on anti-drug efforts. 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.
The State Department, in its March 2008 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report,
reported that narcotics cooperation, including operations in coordination with the Coast Guard

75 Domingo Amuchastegui, “Cuban Again Invites U.S. Oil Giants to Invest in Oil Sector,” CubaNews, May 2007.
76 Lesley Clark and Erika Bolstad, “China-Cuba Rumors Fuel Renewed Offshore Drilling Debate, Rumors of China
Drilling in Cuban Waters Are Rallying Support for Drilling off Florida’s Coast, But Experts Say They’re Untrue,”
Miami Herald, June 12, 2008.
77 Frances Robles, “Drug-Trafficking at 11-Year Low, Cuba Says,” Miami Herald, March 3, 2007; U.S. Department of
State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, March 2007, p. 188.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŗȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
DIS, increased in 2007. These included cooperation in the interception of a drug-laden aircraft
destined for the Bahamas in February and a joint U.S.-Cuba container inspection at the port of
Havana in June. The report also noted that Cuban authorities have provided the DIS more
exposure to Cuban counternarcotics efforts, including investigative criminal information,
debriefings on drug trafficking cases, visits to the Cuban national canine training center and anti-
doping laboratory in Havana, and access to meet with the Chiefs of Cuba’s INTERPOL and
Customs office.
Cuba maintains that it wants to cooperate with the United States to combat drug trafficking, and
on various occasions has called for a bilateral anti-drug cooperation agreement with the United
States.78 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, then Drug
Enforcement Administration head Asa Hutchison expressed appreciation for Cuba’s actions, but
indicated that cooperation would continue on a case-by-case basis, not through a bilateral
agreement.79 In February 2007, Cuba extradited drug trafficker Luis Hernando Gómez
Bustamante to Colombia, an action that drew praise from U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Anne Patterson.80 Gómez Bustamante was
subsequently extradited to the United States in July 2007 to face drug trafficking charges.
In April 2008, John Walters, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy,
lauded U.S. anti-drug cooperation with Cuba as a good example of how cooperation has been
achieved despite overall political differences between the two countries.81
In early January 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon
maintained in an interview with Spain’s El País newspaper that a drug trafficking accord with
Cuba would be logical, although he could not anticipate what the next Administration would do.82
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ —’’Š’ŸŽœȱ
Over the past several years, House and Senate versions of Foreign Operations appropriations bills
have contained contrasting provisions related to funding for cooperation with Cuba on
counternarcotics efforts. House bills have generally prohibited funds for such efforts, while
Senate versions would have funded such efforts. Ultimately, none of these provisions were
included in enacted measures.

78 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;
“Cuba Offers to Sign Anti-Drug Pact,” Miami Herald, April 8, 2006.
79 Anthony Boadle, “U.S. Thanks Cuba, But Declines Anti-Drug Accord,” Reuters, March 19, 2002.
80 U.S. Department of State, Release of the 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Anne W. Patterson,
Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, On-The-Record Briefing, March
1, 2007.
81 “White House Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Waters Holds News Briefing on Emerging
Transatlantic Drug Threats at the Foreign Press Center,” Newsmakers Transcripts, CQ.com, April 28, 2008.
82 José Manuel Calvo, “Thomas Shannon Secretario de Estado adjunto para Latinoamérica: “Sería un acuerdo contra el
narcotráfico entre Cuba y EE UU,” El País, January 11, 2009.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŘȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Most recently, in the second session of the 110th Congress, the Senate Appropriations Committee
version of the FY2009 State, Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, S. 3288, contained a provision (section 779) that would have provided for $1
million for preliminary work by the Department of State, or other entity designated by the
Secretary of State, to establish cooperation with appropriate Cuban agencies on counternarcotics
matters. The money would not be available, however, if the Secretary certified that Cuba 1) does
not have in place 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) there is credible evidence of
involvement of the government of Cuba in drug trafficking during the preceding 10 years. No
action was taken on the measure, and no such provision was included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329 ) that provided foreign operations funding until
March 6, 2009. Moreover, in the 111th Congress, no such provision was included in the FY2009
omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105 (Obey).
ž‹ŠȱŠ—ȱŽ››˜›’œ–Şřȱ
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 support for terrorist groups in Latin
America. Cuba had a long 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 due to 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
Country Reports on Terrorism 2007 report (issued April 30, 2008), Cuba has “remained opposed
to U.S. counterterrorism policy, and actively and publicly condemned many associated U.S.
policies and actions.” The report also noted that Cuba maintains close relationships with other
state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran and Syria, and has provided safe haven for members of
several Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs): the Basque Homeland and Freedom (ETA) and
two Colombian insurgent groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the
National Liberation Army (ELN). Colombia has publicly acknowledged that it wants Cuban
mediation with the ELN.
The 2007 report also maintained that Cuba continued to permit U.S. fugitives from justice to live
legally in Cuba. Most of the fugitives entered Cuba in the 1970s, and are accused of hijacking or
committing violent actions in the United States. The State Department report noted that Cuba
stated in 2006 that it would no longer provide safe haven to new fugitives who may enter Cuba.
In 2006, Cuba returned a U.S. fugitive who had sequestered his son and flew a stolen plane to
Cuba in September. In April 2007, Cuba returned another U.S. fugitive, Joseph Adjmi, who was
convicted of mail fraud in the 1960s, but disappeared before beginning his 10-year sentence. On
June 13, 2008, Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it deported another U.S.
citizen, Leonard Auerbach, wanted in the United States for sexual exploitation of a minor and for
child pornography, who had entered Cuba from Mexico in April.84 More recently, press reports

83 For further information, see CRS Report RL32251, Cuba and the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, by Mark P.
Sullivan.
84 Patricia Grogg, “Cuba: Government Deports U.S. Citizen Charged with Child Abuse,” Inter Press Service, June 16,
2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řřȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
maintain that a number of fugitives from Florida accused of bilking the U.S. government of
millions through Medicare fraud have fled to Cuba.85
Critics of retaining Cuba on the terrorism list maintain that it is a holdover from 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. 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.
ž‹ŠȱŠœȱ‘Žȱ’Œ’–ȱ˜ȱŽ››˜›’œ–ȱ
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 also allegedly involved in the 1976 Cuban
airline bombing noted above.86 The four stood trial in March 2004 and were sentenced on
weapons charges in the case to prison terms ranging from seven to eight years. In late August
2004, Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso pardoned the four men before the end of her
presidential term. Three of the men are U.S. citizens and traveled to Florida, where they received
strong support from some in the Cuban American community, while Posada reportedly traveled to
another country.
On April 13, 2005, Posada’s lawyer said that his client, reportedly in the United States after
entering the country illegally, would seek asylum in the United States because he has a “well-
founded fear of persecution” for his opposition to Fidel Castro.87 Posada, a Venezuelan citizen,
had been imprisoned in Venezuela for the bombing of the Cuban airliner in 1976, but reportedly
was allowed to “escape” from prison in 1985 after his supporters paid a bribe to the prison
warden.88 He had been acquitted for the bombing but remained in prison pending a prosecutorial
appeal.89 Posada also reportedly admitted, but later denied, involvement in the string of bombings
in Havana in 1997, one of which killed an Italian tourist.90 Posada subsequently withdrew his
application for asylum on May 17, 2005. Later that day, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) arrested Posada, and subsequently charged him with illegally entering the
United States. A Department of Homeland Security press release indicated that ICE does not

85 Jay Weaver, "Fugitives Flee South Florida with Medicare Millions," Miami Herald, January 2, 2009.
86 Frances Robles, “An Old Foe of Castro Looks Back on His Fight,” Miami Herald, September 4, 2003.
87 Alfonso Chardy and Nancy San Martin, “Lawyer Expects Posada to Show Soon,” Miami Herald, April 14, 2005.
88 Ann Louise Bardach, “Our Man’s in Miami. Patriot or Terrorist?,” Washington Post, April 17, 2005.
89 Although Posada was acquitted by a military court, a higher court ordered a new civilian trial. Reportedly a first set
of prosecutors recommended against charging Posada, but a second set of prosecutors took the case to trial, and Posada
escaped during that time in 1985. See Oscar Corral, “Debate Focuses on Escape,” Miami Herald, June 19, 2005.
90 Oscar Corral and Alfonso Chardy, “Victim’s Kin Oppose Posada Bid for Asylum,” Miami Herald, May 7, 2005.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŚȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
generally deport people to Cuba or countries believed to be acting on Cuba’s behalf.91 Venezuela
requested Posada’s extradition and pledged that it would not hand Posada over to Cuba. On
September 26, 2005, however, a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada likely faced torture in
Venezuela and could not be deported in keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention
Against Torture.92
ICE reviewed the case and determined on March 22, 2006, that Posada would not be freed from a
federal immigration facility in El Paso, Texas.93 In November 2006, however, a U.S. federal
judge, who was considering Posada’s plea that he be released, ordered the government to supply
evidence, by February 1, 2007, justifying his continued detention. On January 11, 2007, a federal
grand jury in Texas indicted Posada on seven counts for lying about how he entered the United
States illegally in March 2005, whereupon he was transferred from immigration detention in El
Paso to a county prison in New Mexico near the Texas border. The Cuban government responded
by maintaining that Posada needs to be charged with terrorism, not just lying about how he
entered the United States. Another grand jury in New Jersey is reportedly examining Posada’s
alleged role in the 1997 bombings in Cuba.94 Press articles in early May 2007 reported that the
FBI has been gathering evidence in the 1997 bombing and that FBI agents have visited Havana as
part of their investigation.95
Posada was released from jail in New Mexico on April 19, 2007, and allowed to return to Miami
under house arrest to await an upcoming trial on immigration fraud charges, but on May 9, 2007 a
federal judge in Texas dismissed the charges. The judge maintained that the U.S. government
mistranslated testimony from Posada and manipulated evidence.96 On June 5, 2007, Justice
Department prosecutors filed a notice of appeal with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans and on November 6, 2007, federal prosecutors filed a brief requesting that the court
reverse the lower court’s decision.97 On June 4, 2008, the appeals court heard arguments from
both sides in the case; a ruling reportedly could take several months.98 Both Cuba and Venezuela
strongly denounced Posada’s release, contending that he is a terrorist. In late June 2008, Panama’s
Supreme Court ruled that Posada’s 2004 pardon was unconstitutional, and in July 2008, a
Panamanian court initiated a request for Posada’s extradition to the Panamanian government.
ǯǯȱž—’—ȱ˜ȱž™™˜›ȱŽ–˜Œ›ŠŒ¢ȱŠ—ȱ ž–Š—ȱ’‘œȱ
Since 1996, the United States has provided assistance—primarily through the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), but also through the State Department and the National

91 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Public Affairs, Statement, May 17, 2005.
92 Alicia Caldwell, “Judge Says Cuban Militant Can’t Be Deported to Venezuela,” Associated Press, September 28,
2005.
93 Oscar Corral, “Cuban Exile Militant Luis Posada Denied Release,” Miami Herald, March 22, 2006.
94 Alfonso Chardy and Jay Weaver, “Posada a Target of New Federal Probes,” Miami Herald, November 12, 2006, and
“Grand Jury Indicts Cuban Exile Militant Luis Posada Carriles,” Miami Herald, January 12, 2007.
95 Alfonso Chardy, Oscar Corral, and Jay Weaver, “FBI, Cuba Cooperating on Posada,” Miami Herald, May 3, 2007;
“U.S., Cuba Unite to Investigate Former CIA Op,” National Public Radio, Morning Edition, May 4, 2007.
96 Carol J. Williams, “Pressure Grows to Prosecute Cuban Exile,” Los Angeles Times, May 10, 2007.
97 The federal prosecutors’ brief is available at http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/11/06/20/Posada_5CA_07-
50737_electronic_copy.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf.
98 Michael Kunzelman, “Appeals Court Hears Cuban Militant’s Immigration Case,” Associated Press, June 4, 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řśȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Endowment for Democracy (NED)—to increase the flow of information on democracy, human
rights, and free enterprise to Cuba.
USAID’s Cuba program has supported a variety of U.S.-based non-governmental organizations
with the goals of promoting a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy, helping develop civil
society, and building solidarity with Cuba’s human rights activists.99 These efforts are largely
funded through Economic Support Funds (ESF) in the annual foreign operations appropriations
bill. From FY2001-FY2007, the United States provided a total of almost $71 million in funding
for Cuba democracy efforts.
For FY2008, Congress fully funded the Administration’s request for $45.7 million in ESF for
democracy assistance for Cuba in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008 (P.L. 110-
161); an estimated $45.33 million, however, will be provided because of an overall 0.81%
rescission. The amount was more than five times the amount requested in FY2007 ($9 million).
According to the State Department’s FY2008 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), the
increase in assistance was in order to fulfill the recommendations of the July 2006 report of the
Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba to provide support for Cuban civil society, expand
international awareness, break the regime’s information blockade, and continue support for a
democratic transition. That report, as described above, recommended $80 million over two years
for a variety of measures to hasten Cuba’s transition to democracy, and not less than $20 million
annually thereafter for Cuba democracy programs.
Both the House- and Senate-passed versions of the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 2764, fully funded the Administration’s request for
$45.7 million in ESF for Cuba democracy programs. The House committee-reported version of
the bill would have provided just $9 million in ESF for such programs, but during June 21, 2007,
floor consideration, the House approved H.Amdt. 351 (Diaz-Balart) by a vote of 254-170 that
increased funding for ESF by $36.7 million in order to fully fund the Administration’s request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee report to the bill would have provided $15 million in ESF
for Cuba democracy programs. However, during September 6, 2007, floor consideration, the
Senate approved S.Amdt. 2694 (Martinez) by voice vote that increased funding for Cuba
democracy programs by $30.7 million to fully fund the Administration’s request.
For FY2009, the Administration requested $20 million in ESF to continue to implement the
program recommendations of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. The money would
assist human rights activists, independent journalists, Afro-Cubans, and women, youth, and
student activists. The report to the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the FY2009 State
Department, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, S, 3288 (S.Rept. 110-
425), recommended fully funding the Administration’s request for Cuba, but also called for the
State Department and USAID to conduct regular evaluations to ensure the cost effectiveness of
the programs. No final action on the appropriations measure was taken in the 110th Congress, but
overall foreign operations funding was continued under a short-term continuing resolution (P.L.
110-329) until March 6, 2009.
Until FY2008, NED’s democratization assistance for Cuba had been funded largely through the
annual Commerce, Justice, and State (CJS) appropriations measure, but is now funded through
the State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations measure. NED

99See USAID’s Cuba program website: http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/cuba/.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŜȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
funding for Cuba has steadily increased over the past several years: $765,000 in FY2001;
$841,000 in FY2002; $1.14 million in FY2003; and $1.15 million in FY2004. For FY2005, NED
funded 17 Cuba projects with $2.4 million. For FY2006, NED funded 13 projects with almost
$1.5 million, including $0.4 million from State Department ESF. For FY2007, NED funded 12
projects with almost $1.5 million, which included almost $1.4 million funded by the State
Department.
ŸŽ›œ’‘ȱ˜ȱǯǯȱŽ–˜Œ›ŠŒ¢ȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱ˜ȱž‹Šȱ
In November 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report examining U.S.
democracy assistance for Cuba from 1996-2005, and concluded that the U.S. program had
significant problems and needed better management and oversight. According to GAO, internal
controls, for both the awarding of Cuba program grants and oversight of grantees, “do not provide
adequate assurance that the funds are being used properly and that grantees are in compliance
with applicable law and regulations.”100 Investigative news reports on the program maintained
that high shipping costs and lax oversight have diminished its effectiveness.101 Representative
William Delahunt, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, had requested the GAO study along
with Representative Jeff Flake.
In March 2008, a White House aide to President Bush, Felipe Sixto, resigned because of alleged
misuse of funds when he worked for the Center for a Free Cuba, which has been a major recipient
of U.S. democracy funding.102 On December 19, 2008, Sixto pled guilty to stealing nearly
$600,000, and is expected to be sentenced in March 2009.103 Another group, Grupo de Apoyo a la
Democracia (Group in Support of Democracy), is also under investigation by USAID for misuse
of funds. Historically these two groups have been the two largest recipients of U.S. democracy
funding for Cuba.104
GAO issued a second report examining USAID’s Cuba democracy program on November 24,
2008.105 The report lauded the steps that USAID had taken since 2006 to address problems with
its Cuba program and improve oversight of the assistance. These included awarding all grants
competitively since 2006, hiring more staff for the program office since January 2008; and
contracting for financial services in April 2008 to enhance oversight of grantees. The GAO report
also noted that USAID had worked to strengthen program oversight through pre-award and
follow-up reviews, improving grantee internal controls and implementation plans, and providing
guidance and monitoring about permitted types of assistance and cost sharing.

100 U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Democracy Assistance for Cuba Needs Better Management and
Oversight, GAO-07-147, November 2006.
101 Oscar Corral, “Federal Program to Help Democracy in Cuba Falls Short of Mark,” Miami Herald, November 14,
2006, and “Is U.S. Aid Reaching Castro Foes?” Miami Herald, November 15, 2006.
102 Alfonso Chardy and Pablo Bachelet, “Cuban Exile Activist Felt ‘Betrayal’ by Employees,” Miami Herald, April 24,
2008.
103 Jesse J. Holland, "Former Bush Aide Pleads Guilty to Stealing from Anti-Castro Cuban Democracy Advocates,"
Associated Press Newswires, December 19, 2008.
104 Frances Robles, “Hold on Funds for Cuba Democracy Project Lifted,” Miami Herald, July 23, 2008.
105 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Foreign Assistance: Continued Efforts Needed to Strengthen USAID's
Oversight of U.S. Democracy Assistance for Cuba
, GAO-09-165, November 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŝȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
The GAO report also maintained, however, that USAID had not staffed the Cuba program to the
level needed for effective grant oversight. GAO also noted the difficulty of assessing USAID’s
action to improve its Cuba program because most of its actions to improve the program were only
taken recently. Procurement reviews completed in August 2008 by the new financial services
contractor identified internal control, financial management, and procurement weaknesses at three
grantees. GAO recommended that USAID: 1) ensure that its Cuba program office is staffed at the
level that is needed to fully implement planned monitoring activities; and 2) periodically assess
the Cuba program’s overall efforts to address and reduce grantee risks, especially regarding
internal controls, procurement practices, expenditures, and compliance with laws and regulations.
The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) released a report in May 2008 maintaining
that a majority of the assistance for Cuba has been spent in operating expenses by U.S.-based
grantees, transition studies, and U.S.-based activities. Among the recommendations in its report,
the CANF called for USAID grantees to spend a minimum of 75% of government funds in direct
aid to Cuban civil society. It also called for the assistance program to provide direct cash aid to
independent civil society groups, dissidents, and families of political prisoners.106
Š’˜ȱŠ—ȱȱŠ›’ȱ
U.S.-government sponsored radio and television broadcasting to Cuba—Radio and TV Martí—
began in 1985 and 1990 respectively. As spelled out in the Broadcasting Board of Governors
FY2009 Budget Request
, the objectives of Radio and TV Martí 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.
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 Governors (BBG) 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, and operates under the BBG’s International Broadcasting
Bureau (IBB). 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.
Radio Martí broadcasts on short and medium wave (AM) channels for 24 hours six days per
week, and for18 hours one day per week utilizing transmission facilities in Marathon, Florida and
Greenville, North Carolina, according to the BBG.

106 Alfonso Chardy, “Exile Group: Not Enough Money Getting to Cuban Dissidents,” Miami Herald, May 15, 2008;
Cuban American National Foundation, “Findings and Recommendations on the Most Effective Use of USAID-CUBA
Funds Authorized by Section 109(a) of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Helms-Burton) Act of 1996,”
March 2008.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řŞȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
TV Martí broadcasts daily from its facilities in Cudjoe Key Florida, on the Hispasat satellite, and
is available on the Internet 24 hours a day. It is also available on 176 cable stations throughout
Latin America, according to the BBG. Until July 2005, TV Martí had also been broadcast via
blimps from facilities in Cudjoe Key, Florida for four and one-half hours daily, but the aerostats
were destroyed by Hurricane Dennis. From mid-2004 until 2006, TV Martí programming was
transmitted for several hours once a week via an airborne platform known as Commando Solo
operated by the Department of Defense utilizing a C-130 aircraft. In August 2006, OCB began to
use a contracted private aircraft to transmit pre-recorded TV Martí broadcasts six days weekly,
and by late October 2006 the OCB inaugurated an aircraft-broadcasting platform known as Aero
Martí with the capability of transmitting live broadcasts. Aero Martí transmits broadcasts five
hours daily from Monday to Saturday during the evening. According to OCB, since mid-FY2007,
it has had two contracted private aircraft transmitting the broadcasts.
In December 2006, the OCB contracted with two private U.S. commercial stations to transmit
Radio and TV Martí.107 It provided a six-month contract with Radio Mambí (710 AM) in Florida,
at a cost of $182,500, to broadcast one hour of Radio Martí programming five days a week from
midnight to 1:00 am. Radio Mambí is a popular station in south Florida, with a 50,000 watt
capacity, that is well-known for its strong anti-Castro stance. A second six-month OCB contract
with WPMF (Channel 38) in Miami, known as TV Azteca, at a cost of $195,000, provided for
two 30-minute TV Martí newscasts at 6 pm and 11:30 pm weekdays, along with one-minute news
updates hourly over a 12 hour period weekdays. OCB chose the station because it is offered on
DirecTV and because it has only a small audience in Miami. In June 2007, the two contracts were
extended for an additional six months with similar terms. The contract with Radio Mambí
subsequently expired in early 2008, whereas TV Martí continues to be shown on Channel 38.
˜—›˜ŸŽ›œ’Žœȱ
Both Radio and TV Martí have at times been the focus of controversies, including questions
about adherence to broadcast standards. There have been various attempts over the years to cut
funding for the programs, especially for TV Martí, which has not had much of an audience
because of Cuban jamming efforts. In December 2006, press reports alleged significant problems
in the OCB’s operations, with claims of cronyism, patronage, and bias in its coverage.108 In
February 2007, the former director of TV Martí programming pled guilty in U.S. federal court to
receiving more than $100,000 in kickbacks over a three-year period from a vendor receiving
OCB contracts.109
Over the years, there have been various government studies and audits of Radio and TV Martí,
including investigations by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, by a 1994
congressionally established Advisory Panel on Radio and TV Martí, and by the State
Department’s and BBG’s Office Inspector General offices in 1999, 2003, and 2007.110

107 Christina Hoag, “Radio, TV Martí To Be Aired Locally,” Miami Herald, December 19, 2006.
108 Oscar Corral, “Radio, TV Martí Face Another Government Audit,” Miami Herald, December 18, 2006, and
“Problems Dog Broadcaster,” Miami Herald, December 19, 2006.
109 Jay Weaver, “TV Martí Executive Admits Taking Kickbacks,” Miami Herald, February 14, 2007.
110 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,
(continued...)
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
řşȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
The most recent State Department/BBG Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, issued in June
2007, maintained that OCB has significantly improved its operations under its current director,
Pedro Roig, with an organizational realignment that has streamlined operations and has helped
improve the quality of broadcasts. According to the report, “IBB quality reviews show that radio
and television broadcasts have markedly improved over the past two years in production quality
and content,” although the report also called for greater emphasis on internal quality control to
ensure that editorial standards are followed. The report lauded the introduction of new technology
allowing OCB to broadcast television signals live into Cuba using airborne platforms, and
maintained that there are indications that more Cubans are watching TV Martí broadcasts. It
recommended that the BBG’s International Broadcasting Bureau should review and assess the
leases with Radio Mambí and TV Azteca at the end of the lease period to determine whether they
provide additional listeners and viewers and are worth the cost, or whether they could be replaced
with lease options for other stations. Looking ahead, the report maintained that OCB needs a
“long-term strategic plan that anticipates the future needs of the Cuban audience, provides a
template on how to compete with commercial broadcasters, and addresses what to do with OCB
and its broadcasting facilities if and when uncensored broadcasting is allowed inside a democratic
Cuba.”111
One of the most controversial aspects of the OIG report, and one that has often been at the center
of past congressional debate over TV Martí, is the extent to which TV Martí can be viewed in
Cuba. The report maintains that there is anecdotal evidence that the Aero Martí airborne
transmissions have increased viewership. The report refers to a January 2007 survey of Cuban
arrivals—commissioned by Spanish Radio Productions with the cooperation of Miami Dade
College—that found listening rates for Radio and TV Martí within Cuba were significantly higher
than previously reported, especially for TV Martí. Although specific survey figures are not cited
in the OIG report, OCB officials maintain that the survey shows that 17% of recent Cuban
arrivals had watched TV Martí.112 The OIG report also points to a February 2007 survey by the
U.S. Interests Section (USINT) in Havana that reflected increased viewership. According to the
BBG, that survey was completed by 500 Cuban visitors to the USINT (where TV Martí can be
viewed) in January and February 2007, with 10% of the visitors indicating that they could watch
TV Martí via UHF for brief periods.
Other observers contend that TV Martí can hardly be viewed in Cuba because of the
government’s jamming efforts. John Nichols, a Pennsylvania State University communications
professor, visited Cuba in late June 2007 on a fact-finding mission sponsored by the Center for
International Policy (a group that opposes current U.S. policy toward Cuba), and concluded “that

(...continued)
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; 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; U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Office of Inspector General, Review of
the Effectiveness and Implementation of Office of Cuba Broadcasting’s New Program Initiatives
, Report No. IBO-A-
03-01, January 2003, and Report of Inspection, Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Report No. ISP-IB 07-35, June 2007.
111 The State Department originally issued a two-page summary of the report on its website on June 5, 2007, and
pointed out that the full report received only “limited official distribution.” On July 31, 2007, the State Department
issued the entire 43-page report on its website, with certain sections redacted. That version is available at
http://oig.state.gov/lbry/.
112 Pablo Bachelet, “Martí Extending Its Reach, U.S. Says,” Miami Herald, June 20, 2007.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŖȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
the signal from the plane is essentially unusable” and that there was “no evidence of significant
viewership of TV Martí.”113 In interviews with the Associated Press, more than two dozen Cuban
immigrants to Florida contended that while Radio Martí can be heard throughout Cuba, TV Martí
can rarely be seen.114 Prior BBG commissioned phone surveys in Cuba from 2003, 2005, and
November 2006 estimated past week TV Martí viewership between 0.1% and 0.3% of those
surveyed and past month viewership of almost 0.5%. The November 2006 survey, reportedly
designed to show the early effects of the Aero Martí transmissions that began in late October,
showed no statistically significant change from the 2003 and 2005 surveys. In the same surveys,
Radio Martí had listenership of between 1% to 2% in the past week and 4% to 5% in the past
month.
In July 2008, GAO issued a report that criticized the IBB’s and OCB’s practices in awarding the
two contracts to Radio Mambí and TV Azteca as lacking discipline required to ensure
transparency and accountability. According to GAO, the approach for awarding the Radio Mambi
and TV Azteca contracts did not reflect sound business practices.115
In January 2009, GAO issued a report asserting that the best available research suggests that
Radio and TV Martí’s audience is small, and cited telephone surveys since 2003 showing that less
than 2% of respondents reported tuning in to Radio or TV Martí during the past week. The GAO
report also cited concerns with adherence to relevant laws and standards, including the domestic
dissemination of OCB programming, inappropriate advertisements during OCB programming,
and TV Martí’s interference with Cuban broadcasts.116
ž—’—ȱ
From FY1984 through FY2007, about $564 million has been spent for broadcasting to Cuba. In
recent years, funding amounted to $37.5 million in FY2006, $33.9 million in FY2007, and an
estimated $33.4 million in FY2008. For FY2009, the Bush Administration requested $34.4
million for broadcasting to Cuba. Until FY2005, the Administration provided funding information
for Cuba broadcasting with a breakdown of the amounts spent for Radio versus TV Martí. Since
FY2005, however, the Broadcasting Board of Governors has not made such a distinction in its
annual budget request.
For FY2009, the Administration requested $34.4 million for broadcasting to Cuba, slightly more
than provided by Congress in FY2008. The request amount includes funding for the airborne
platform that the Office of Cuba Broadcasting uses to broadcast Radio and TV Martí. The report
to the Senate Appropriations Committee version of the FY2009 State Department, Foreign
Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, S. 3288 (S.Rept. 110-425), recommended
fully funding the Administration’s request for Cuba broadcasting. The 110th Congress did not
finalize FY2009 appropriations, although it did approve the Consolidated Appropriations Act for

113 Vanessa Bauza, “TV Martí Signal Weak in Cuba, Broadcast Specialist Says,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, July 31,
2007.
114 Laura Wides-Muñoz, “Despite Expenditures, TV Martí Still Tough to See in Cuba,” Associated Press, July 30,
2007.
115 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Broadcasting to Cuba, Weaknesses in Contracting Practices Reduced
Visibility into Selected Award Decisions,” GAO-08-764, July 2008.
116 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Broadcasting to Cuba, Actions Are Needed to Improve Strategy and
Operations,” GAO-09-127, January 2009.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śŗȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
FY2009 (P.L. 110-329) that provides funding until March 6, 2009. In the 111th Congress, the
FY2009 omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 1105, would fully fund the request for $34.4 million
for Cuba broadcasting.
’›Š’˜—ȱ œœžŽœȱ
ŗşşŚȱŠ—ȱŗşşśȱ’›Š’˜—ȱŒŒ˜›œȱ
Cuba and the United States reached two migration accords in 1994 and 1995 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. Amid 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.
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 Station, most having been paroled into the United States.
˜Šœȱ žŠ›ȱ —Ž›’Œ’˜—œȱ
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 or eventually the United
States. 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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŘȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
The number of Cubans interdicted at sea by the U.S. Coast Guard has risen in recent years, from
666 in FY2002 to 2,712 in FY2005. In FY2006 and FY2007, Cuban interdictions rose to 2,810
and 2,868, respectively, but interdictions declined to 2,199 in FY2008.117 In recent years,
increasing numbers of Cuban migrants attempting to reach the United States have been
intercepted in Mexico. Mexico and Cuba negotiated a migration accord in October 2008 to curb
the irregular flow of migrants through Mexico.118
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. In late December 2007, a Coast Guard official in Florida called on the local
Cuban American community to denounce the smuggling and stop financing the trips that are
leading to more deaths at sea.119 The Cuban government also 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.
In the aftermath of Fidel Castro’s July 2006, announcement that he was temporarily ceding
political power to his brother, Department of Homeland Security officials announced several
measures to discourage Cubans from risking their lives on the open seas. On August 11, 2006,
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Secretary Michael P. Jackson urged “the Cuban
people to stay on the island” and discouraged “anyone from risking their life in the open seas in
order to travel to the United States.” At the same time, DHS announced additional measures to
discourage Cubans from turning to alien smuggling as a way to enter the United States. The
measures support family reunification by increasing the numbers of Cuban migrants admitted to
the United States each year who have family members in the United States, although the overall
number of Cubans admitted to the United States annually will remain at about 21,000. Cubans
who attempt to enter the United States illegally will be deemed ineligible to enter under this new
family reunification procedure. In another change of policy, Cuban medical personnel currently
conscripted by the Cuban government to work in third countries are now allowed to enter the
United States; their families in Cuba are also allowed to enter the United States.120
’›Š’˜—ȱŠ•”œȱ
Semi-annual U.S.-Cuban talks alternating between Cuba and the United States had been held
regularly on the implementation of the 1994 and 1995 migration accords, but the State
Department cancelled the 20th round of talks scheduled for January 2004, and no migration talks
have been held since. According to the State Department, Cuba has refused to discuss five issues
identified by the United States: (1) Cuba’s issuance of exit permits for all qualified migrants; (2)
Cuba’s cooperation in holding a new registration for an immigrant lottery; (3) the need for a

117 U.S. Coast Guard, Alien Migrant Interdiction, Coast Guard Office of Law Enforcement, “Total Interdictions, Fiscal
Year 1982 to Present,” October 15, 2008.
118 Diego Cevallos, “Migration: More and More Cubans Entering U.S. Through Mexico,” Inter Press Service News
Agency
, June 17, 2008.
119 Laura Morales, “Exiles Urged to Stem Tide of Cubans,” Miami Herald, December 29, 2007.
120 Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Announces Additional Measures to Combat Alien Smuggling of Cubans,”
and “USCIS Will Further Strengthen Measures that Support the Reunification of Families Separated by the Castro
Regime,” Press Releases, August 11, 2006; Pablo Bachelet, “U.S. Program for Defecting Cuban Doctors a Success,”
Miami Herald, March 12, 2007.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śřȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
deeper Cuban port used 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 inadmissible to the
United States.121 In response to the cancellation of the talks, Cuban officials maintained that the
U.S. decision was irresponsible and that Cuba was prepared to discuss all of the issues raised by
the United States.122
žŠ—Š—Š–˜ȱŠŸŠ•ȱŠœŽȱ
The 45-square mile U.S. Naval Station 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 the 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 taken to Guantanamo and then
granted asylum in a third country.
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 some captured Taliban and
Al Qaeda fighters to be imprisoned in Guantanamo. Although the Cuban government has objected
to the U.S. presence at Guantanamo, it did not initially oppose the new mission of housing
detainees. Then Defense Minister Raúl Castro noted that, in the unlikely event that a prisoner
would escape into Cuban territory, Cuba would capture the prisoner and return him to the base.123
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.124 In January 2005, it denounced what it described as “atrocities”
committed at the Guantanamo base.125

121 U.S. Department of State. State Department Regular Briefing, Richard Boucher. January 7, 2004.
122 “Migration Talks Cancelled,” Miami Herald, January 8, 2004.
123 “Cuba Would Hand Over Escapees, Raúl Castro Says,” Miami Herald, January 20, 2002.
124 For information on terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo, see CRS Report RL31367, Treatment of “Battlefield
Detainees” in the War on Terrorism
, by Jennifer K. Elsea; and CRS Report RS22173, Detainees at Guantanamo Bay,
by Jennifer K. Elsea.
125 Ana Radelat, “Cuba Turns Up Rhetoric on Guantanamo as UN Condemns Human Rights Abuses,” CubaNews,
April 2005.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŚȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
President Obama issued Executive Order 13492 on January 22, 2009 that requires the closure of
the Guantanamo detention facility (not the base itself) as soon as practicable, but no later than one
year. Some Members of Congress also have called for the closure of the detention facility and
have introduced legislation in the 111th Congress: H.R. 374 (Harman) and S. 147 (Feinstein).
Other measures have been introduced to prohibit the transfer of the enemy combatants detained at
Guantanamo from being transferred to military prisons in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, H.R. 148
(Jenkins); Charleston, South Carolina, H.R. 565 (Brown, Henry); Naval Consolidated Brig,
Miramar, California or Camp Pendleton Base Brig, Camp Pendleton, California, H.R.
633(Hunter); Oklahoma, H.R. 701(Fallin), Florence Federal Correctional Complex, Colorado,
H.R. 794 (Lamborn); Georgia, H.R. 817(Gingrey); North Carolina, H.R. 829, (Myrick); Arizona;
H.R. 951 (Franks); and Florida, H.R. 1073(Rooney). Another initiative, S. 108 (Vitter) would
prohibit the admission of an alien who was detained as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo
unless the President determines that such admission is consistent with the national security of the
United States. (For additional information, see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo
Detention Center: Legal Issues
, by Michael John Garcia et al.)
With regard to the future of the Guantanamo base overall, a provision in the Cuban Liberty and
Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-114, Section 210) states that once a democratically
elected Cuban government is in place, U.S. policy is to be prepared to enter into negotiations
either to return the base to Cuba or to renegotiate the present agreement under mutually agreeable
terms.
Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ —’’Š’ŸŽœȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
H.R. 187 (Serrano). Waives certain prohibitions with respect to nationals of Cuba coming to the
United States to play organized professional baseball. Introduced January 6, 2009; referred to
Committees on Foreign Affairs and Judiciary.
H.R. 188 (Serrano). Lifts the trade embargo on Cuba. Introduced January 6, 2009; referred to
Committees on Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Financial
Services, Oversight and Government Reform, and Agriculture.
H.R. 332 (Lee). Provides that no funds made available to the Department of the Treasury may be
used to implement, administer, or enforce regulations to require specific licenses for travel-related
transactions directly related to educational activities in Cuba.
H.R. 375 (Ros-Lehtinen). Section 209 of the bill sets forth restrictions on nuclear cooperation
with countries assisting the nuclear program of Venezuela or Cuba or transferring advanced
conventional weapons to Venezuela or Cuba. Introduced January 9, 2009; referred to Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 874 (Delahunt)/ S. 428 (Dorgan). Identical bills would prohibit the President from
regulating or prohibiting, directly or indirectly, travel to or from Cuba by U.S. citizens or legal
residents, or any of the transactions incident to such travel. H.R. 874 was introduced February 4,
2009, and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. S. 428 was introduced February
12, 2009, and referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.
H.R. 1105 (Obey). Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. Introduced February 23, 2009. Division
D, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2009, has three provisions
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śśȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
that would ease U.S. sanctions on Cuba. These three provisions, explained below, were identical
to provisions in the S. 3260, the Senate version of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2009, in the 110th Congress. In addition, the Joint Explanatory
Statement to the bill requires the Department of the Treasury to prepare a report within 90 days
on the steps that it is taking to assess the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s allocation of
resources for investigating and penalizing violations of the Cuba embargo with respect to the
numerous other sanctions programs it administers. As part of the report, the Treasury Department
is directed to provide detailed information on OFAC’s Cuba-related licensing on its enforcement
of the Cuba embargo.
Section 620 of Division D would amend the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
Act of 2000 to require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations for travel to, from, or
within Cuba under a general license for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods,
meaning that there would be no requirement to obtain special permission from OFAC. Such travel
currently requires a specific license from OFAC, issued on a case by case basis.
Section 621 of Division D would prohibit funds from being used to administer, implement, or
enforce family travel restrictions that were imposed by the Bush Administration in June 2004.
Those 2004 restrictions, currently in force, allow family travel only to visit immediate family
(grandparents, grandchildren, parents, siblings, spouses, and children) once every three years for
a period not to exceed 14 days. Under the 2004 restrictions, a specific license is required from
OFAC for such travel; the authorized amount that family travelers can spend while in Cuba is
limited to $50 a day; and the amount of remittances that such travelers may carry to Cuba is
limited to $300. Prior to the 2004 tightening of the restrictions, family visits could occur once a
year under a general license, there was no limit on the duration of the trip, and family travelers
could spend up to the State Department per diem rate (currently $179 a day for Havana). Travel
more than once a year also was allowed, but under a specific license from OFAC. Previously,
travel also had been allowed to visit relatives to within three degrees of relationship to the traveler
(e.g. great-grandparents and second cousins).
Section 622 of Division D would prohibit funds in the Act from being used to administer,
implement, or enforce language added to the Cuban embargo regulations on February 25, 2005
requiring that U.S. agricultural exporters to Cuba must be paid in cash for their goods before the
goods leave U.S. ports. Prior to the February 2005 change, the prior practice was for U.S.
agricultural exporters to be paid in cash for their goods (as required under the Trade Sanctions
and Export Enhancement Act), but before the actual delivery of the goods to Cuba.
Division H (Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act,
2009) has two provisions related to Cuba. Section 7005 prohibits foreign assistance to the
government of Cuba. Section 7015(f) provides that no funds appropriated for foreign assistance
shall be obligated or expended for Cuba except as provided through the regular notification
procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŜȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
Ž’œ•Š’˜—ȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
™™›˜ŸŽȱŽŠœž›Žœȱ
P.L. 110-161 (H.R. 2764). FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. H.R. 2764 was originally
introduced and reported by the House Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 110-197) on June
18, 2007 as the FY2008 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The
House passed (241-178) the measure on June 22, 2007. The Senate Appropriations Committee
reported the bill on July 10, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-128), and the Senate passed (81-12) it on
September 6, 2007. On December 17, 2007, H.R. 2764 subsequently became the vehicle for the
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included 11 FY2008 appropriations measures.
President Bush signed the measure into law on December 26, 2007.
As signed into law, Division J of the Consolidated Appropriations Act covers State Department,
Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies appropriations. The law has the following Cuba
provisions:
• Similar to previous years, Section 607 of Division J prohibits direct funding for
Cuba. This provision had been included in both the House and Senate versions of
the bill.
• Section 620 of Division J adds Cuba to the list of countries requiring a special
notification to the Appropriations Committees for funds obligated or expended
under the act. This provision had been included in the Senate version of the bill.
• Section 691(b) of Division J provides that Cubans who supported an anti-Castro
guerrilla group in the 1960s known as the Alzados are eligible for U.S. refugee
status. The Senate version of the bill had included this provision.
• As set forth in the joint explanatory statement, the measure provides $45.7
million in ESF for Cuba democracy programs as requested by the Administration.
Both the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 2764 fully funded the
Administration’s request for $45.7 million in ESF for Cuba democracy programs.
The House committee-reported bill would have provided $9 million in ESF for
such programs, but during June 21, 2007, floor consideration, the House
approved H.Amdt. 351 (Diaz-Balart) by a vote of 254-170 that increased ESF by
$36.7 million in order to fully fund the Administration’s request. The Senate
Appropriations Committee report to the bill would have provided $15 million in
ESF for Cuba democracy programs, but during September 6, 2007, floor
consideration, the Senate approved S.Amdt. 2694 (Martinez) by voice vote that
increased funding for Cuba democracy programs by $30.7 million to fully fund
the Administration’s request.
• As set forth in the joint explanatory statement, the measure provides $33.681
million for Radio and TV Marti broadcasting to Cuba, $5.019 million below the
Administration’s request of $38.7 million and identical to the amount provided
for FY2007. Both the House and Senate committee reports to the bill had
recommended $33.681 million for Cuba broadcasting. S.Amdt. 2695 (Martinez),
which was withdrawn from consideration on September 6, 2007, would have
increased funding by $5.019 million to fully fund the Administration’s request.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śŝȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
• The measure does not include contrasting provisions related to counternarcotics
assistance for Cuba that were included in the House and Senate versions of the
bill. Section 673 of the House bill would have specifically prohibited
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) assistance to the
Cuban government. Section 696 of the Senate bill would have provided $1
million in INCLE assistance for preliminary work by the Department of State, or
such other entity as the Secretary of State may designate, to establish cooperation
with the Cuban government on counternarcotics matters.
The final enacted measure does not include provisions easing Cuba sanctions that had been
included in the House and Senate-committee versions of the FY2008 Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act or the Senate-committee reported version of the FY2008
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
P.L. 110-96 (S. 1612). International Emergency Economic Powers Enhancement Act. Introduced
and reported by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on June 13, 2007
(S.Rept. 110-82). Senate approved, amended, by unanimous consent on June 26, 2007. House
approved by voice vote October 2, 2007. As approved, the bill amends the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to increase the potential civil penalty imposed on any
person who commits an unlawful act under the act to not exceed the greater of $250,000 (from
$50,000) or an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction. The bill also increases a
criminal penalty to not more than $1 million and/or 20 years imprisonment.
S.Res. 573 (Martinez). Celebrates Cuba Solidarity Day, recognizes the injustices faced by the
Cuban people, and stands in solidarity with the Cuban people as they continue to work towards
democratic changes in their homeland. Introduced and passed by the Senate on May 21, 2008, by
unanimous consent.
’’˜—Š•ȱ˜—œ’Ž›ŽȱŽŠœž›Žœȱ ’‘ȱž‹Šȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱȱ
The following measures that received consideration contained various provisions on Cuba that
would have eased U.S. sanctions, but none of these provisions made it into final enacted
measures. For a complete listing of additional legislative initiatives on Cuba in the 110th
Congress, see CRS Report RL33819, Cuba: Issues for the 110th Congress.
H.R. 2419 (Peterson). Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007. Introduced May 22, 2007;
House passed July 27, 2007. Senate passed December 14, 2007. During House floor
consideration on July 27, 2007, the House rejected (182-245) H.Amdt. 707 Rangel, that would
have clarified the meaning of “payment of cash in advance” for the sale of agricultural
commodities to Cuba; authorized direct transfer between U.S. and Cuban financial institutions for
a product authorized for sale under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of
2000; and would have authorized the issuance of U.S. visas for Cubans to conduct activities,
including phytosanitary inspections, related to the export of U.S. agricultural goods to Cuba.
In the Senate, S.Amdt. 3660 (Baucus), which would have eased restrictions on U.S. agricultural
sales to Cuba, was proposed on December 11, 2007, but subsequently withdrawn the same day.
Several amendments regarding Cuba were submitted, but never proposed: S.Amdt. 3668
(Baucus), would have eased restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba; S.Amdt. 3796
(Nelson, Bill), would have required a certification of certain human rights conditions in Cuba
before restrictions on U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba would be eased; S.Amdt. 3792 (Martinez),
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
ŚŞȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
would have expressed the sense of the Senate regarding the human rights situation in Cuba; and
S.Amdt. 3793 (Martinez), would have prevented the easing of restrictions on U.S. agricultural
exports to Cuba as long as the country is identified by the Secretary of State as a “state sponsor of
terror.”
H.R. 2829 (Serrano). FY2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.
Introduced and reported by House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 110-207) June 22, 2007.
Reported by Senate Appropriations Committee July 13, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-129). House passed
(240-179) June 28, 2007. As approved by the House, Section 903 would have prevented Treasury
Department funds from being used to implement a February 2005 regulation that requires the
payment of cash in advance prior to the shipment of U.S. agricultural goods to Cuba. The House
adopted the provision during June 28, 2007 floor consideration when it approved H.Amdt. 467
(Moran, Kansas) by voice vote. The Senate Appropriations Committee version had a similar
provision in Section 619, as well as another provision in Section 620 that would have allowed for
travel to Cuba under a general license for the marketing and sale of agricultural and medical
goods. The Cuba provisions of both the House and Senate versions of the bill were not included
in the final enacted version of the measure, which was included as Division D of the FY2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764).
H.R. 3161 (DeLauro)/ S. 1859 (Kohl). FY2008 Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. H.R. 3161 introduced and
reported by House Appropriations Committee July 24, 2007; House passed August 2, 2007. S.
1859 introduced and reported by Senate Appropriations Committee July 24, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-
134). Section 741 of the Senate bill would authorize travel to Cuba under a general license for the
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba. The Cuba provision in the Senate
version was not included in the final enacted version of the measure, which was included as
Division A of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161, H.R. 2764).
H.R. 7323 (Serrano). FY2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill.
Introduced and reported by the House Appropriations Committee on December 10, 2008 (H.Rept.
110-920). The committee had approved a draft version of the bill on June 25, 2008. The bill has
several provisions that would have eased Cuba sanctions. Section 621 would have prohibited
funds in the Act from being used to administer, implement, or enforce new language in the Cuban
embargo regulations added on February 25, 2005 (31CFR Part 515.533) that requires that U.S.
agricultural exports to Cuba must be paid for before they leave U.S. ports. Section 622 would
have allowed for family travel once a year (instead of the current restriction of once every three
years). Section 623 would have expanded family travel to visit an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or
first cousin (instead of the current restriction limiting such travel to visit a spouse, child,
grandchild, parent, grandparent, or sibling.) The report to the bill would require the Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to provide detailed information on
OFAC’s Cuba-related licensing and enforcement actions. None of these provisions were included
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329) that provided funding until
March 6, 2009.
S. 3001(Levin). Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009. S.Amdt. 5581
(Dodd)
, submitted on September 15, 2008, would, for a 180-day period: allow unrestricted family
travel; ease restrictions on remittances by removing the limit and allowing any American to send
remittances to Cuba; expand the list of allowable items that may be included in gift parcels; and
allow for unrestricted U.S. cash sales of food, medicines, and relief supplies to Cuba. The
amendment was not considered and therefore not included in the final bill.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
Śşȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
S. 3260 (Durbin). Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2009.
Introduced and reported by Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 110-417) on July 14,
2008. Includes provisions easing restrictions on payment terms for the sale of agricultural goods
to Cuba (section 618), travel relating to the commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods
(section 619), and family travel (section 620). None of these provisions were included in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329) that provided funding until March 6,
2009.
S. 3288 (Leahy). Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
Act, 2009. Introduced and reported by Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 110-425) July
18, 2008. Includes several Cuba provisions: section 706 continues a prohibition on assistance to
Cuba, unless the President determines that it is in the national interest of the United States;
section 719 continues the provision from FY2008 that requires that any assistance for Cuba go
through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations; section 779
provides for $1 million for preliminary work by the Department of State, or other entity
designated by the Secretary of State, to establish cooperation with appropriate Cuban agencies on
counternarcotics matters, although the money would not be available if the Secretary certifies that
Cuba 1) does not have in place 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) there is credible
evidence of involvement of the government of Cuba in drug trafficking during the preceding 10
years. The Senate Appropriations Committee report to the bill recommended full funding for the
Administration’s requests of $34.392 million for Cuba broadcasting and $20 million in ESF for
Cuba democracy programs, and called for the State Department and USAID to conduct regular
evaluations to ensure the cost effectiveness of the programs.
S. 3289 (Kohl). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008. Introduced and reported by Senate Appropriations
Committee (S.Rept. 110-426) July 21, 2008. Includes a provision (section 737) that would ease
restrictions on travel to Cuba for the sale of agricultural and medical goods. This provision was
not included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329) that provided
funding until March 6, 2009.
˜›ȱ’’˜—Š•ȱŽŠ’—ȱ
Œ’ŸŽȱȱŽ™˜›œȱ
CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael John
Garcia et al.
CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances, by Mark P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RS22742, Cuba’s Political Succession: From Fidel to Raul Castro, by Mark P.
Sullivan.
CRS Report RL34523, Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2009
Appropriations
, coordinated by Garrett Hatch.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŖȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ
CRS Report RS22094, Lawsuits Against State Supporters of Terrorism: An Overview, by Jennifer
K. Elsea.
CRS Report RL31258, Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism, by Jennifer K.
Elsea.
CRS Report RL32014, WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases, by
Jeanne J. Grimmett.
›Œ‘’ŸŽȱȱŽ™˜›œȱ
CRS Report RS20450, The Case of Elian Gonzalez: Legal Basics, by Larry M. Eig.
CRS Report RL33622, Cuba’s Future Political Scenarios and U.S. Policy Approaches, by Mark
P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RL32251, Cuba and the State Sponsors of Terrorism List, by Mark P. Sullivan
CRS Report RL33819, Cuba: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RL32730, Cuba: Issues for the 109th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan.
CRS Report RL31740, Cuba: Issues for the 108th Congress, by Mark P. Sullivan.
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 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 Report RL33499, Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions:
Status and Implementation
, by Remy Jurenas.
CRS Report RS22094, Lawsuits Against State Supporters of Terrorism: An Overview, by Jennifer
K. Elsea.
CRS Report RL32826, The Medical Device Approval Process and Related Legislative Issues, by
Erin D. Williams.
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.
˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŗȱ

ž‹ŠDZȱ œœžŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱŗŗŗ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ
ȱ

ž‘˜›ȱ˜—ŠŒȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱ

Mark P. Sullivan

Specialist in Latin American Affairs
msullivan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7689




˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ
śŘȱ